I'm with Tim Cook. Simplify the tax code and reduce the rates. When you reduce taxes on something, you get more of that something. When you raise rates, you get less.
Within limits, that's true. But when you keep doing it you get no tax revenue at all.
Liberals keep groaning about trickle down as if they don't understand it.
No groaning at all. We understand it all too well. And we understand that it does not work. The (recent) start of trickle-down was in the early 80's, and the difference in economic performance between the 1% and the 99% since then is inescapable.
Businesses are really good at making money, hiring, paying taxes, and moving our country forward. I like having continuously improving goods and services at ever decreasing prices. The govt., by contrast, does not function nearly as well as a business. They do not have to watch their pennies and bottom lines. Thus, we get what we can all readily observe - waste and inefficiency and huge debt.
The "moving our country forward" is clearly optional. Have you been totally blind to the jobs that have been offshore during the past twenty years?? That "the Government does not function as well as a business" is a common chant but one that is only sometimes true. Sometimes, but not always. I have personally seen plenty of instances where businesses were much less effective at doing work. It not just Government - it's how Government is run. Do not confuse the two.
The treasury pulls in about 3x more revenue from individual taxes than corporate taxes. Whatever they can do to keep the golden goose healthy, I'm all for. But I'd rather have something like a flat tax that is fair and simple.
A flat tax for individuals would be simple but not fair. If you dispute this then you're just not paying attention. You seriously mean that Jane Citizen and Donald Trump should pay the same rate ??? Even Warren Buffet called out that one last year (his secretary's rate was higher than his own).
Let's unleash business so they go out and make great products and services. God only knows how much productivity and $$$ is lost in tax avoidance maneuvers and schemes.
Great businesses already make great products and services. Mediocre ones complain about the shackles of the tax code. Others have done well under the same set of rules. Why is it that you can't make it work?? Hint: it's not "the Government".
And if you think that Government does not have a role to play then check Wikipedia for "Love canal" and Cuyahoga River". My guess is that you were born after these events, but their impact will still be felt after we're both gone. Think harder about what you want to leave behind.
You know that he is talking about percentage rate, not absolute figures.
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
Percentage dude.
Uh huh. And? Your point is what?
The absolute figures are meaningless here - Apple is a massive company, they are expected to pay more taxes as a result.
NO. The absolute figures are LITERALLY the only thing you’re talking about. Apple is a massive company. They pay “more taxes” as a result. More money IS “more taxes” (you’ll want to fix that term).
It's the percentage rate that is at issue.
Whose issue? Yours? Why do you matter?
6.5% is ludicrously low, compared to the corporation tax rate that Apple would pay on profits made in the US.
It’s a good thing Apple didn’t make that money in the US, then, isn’t it?
My offer would have been "Corporation Tax rate minus Tax Rate already paid on that money".
Yeah, isn’t that how it works already? And yet companies STILL don’t want to pay extortionate amounts. How about that.
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
All you had to do was take a short moment to think about it before saying he should be ashamed.
I did. He didn’t. That’s why he should be ashamed.
When corporates are raking in billions and only paying 0 to 5% in taxes on the earned income vs the 10 to 20% that the majority of working Americans pay, that is a joke.
It’s a joke that you think it’s unfair, yeah. And rather than tear apart every word here (making mention of the number of working Americans, making mention of the double/triple standard held by some in “regarding corporations as people”, “demanding they pay more than people”, etc.), I’ll mention, again, that they’re already paying more than you.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Taking a wider view of the situation, all Americans would ultimately be better served by scrapping the tax code and replacing it with the FairTax and shut down the IRS, an organization that has grown far beyond its purpose.
I’d think the end-game would be to get spending to such a level that we could also get rid of the income tax, but I’m fairly reactionary in that regard.
Originally Posted by xixo
So, forget the rule of law, forget democracy, if you make enough money and have your pet legislator pass a law, you can completely forego your fair share of taxes.
See Dick Applebaum’s post for why you have absolutely no right whatsoever do impose your brain’s delusions of “fair share”.
I'm not laughing.
I am. At you.
Originally Posted by Crowley
How could something so intellectually dishonest and selfish…
You’ve lived on Airstrip One for too long. Words don’t seem to have their true meanings to you anymore.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
This is why I strongly advocate for term limits for the "selfless public servants" in both Congress and the Senate.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Since we have a term limit for the Executive -- term limits for the Senate and House would appear to make sense.
With radical life extension technologies right around the corner, I wonder if there oughtn’t also be term limits imposed on the Supreme Court. After all, when the average lifespan becomes 120, those “for life” agreements look a little fuzzier.
Not to say an increasingly stable court would be bad, but an increasingly stupid one would.
Originally Posted by plovell
What's the "bleeding out" part? This is money that has never been here.
No, that’s money that will have not ever been here. If the company doesn’t leave, the money keeps existing.
No groaning at all. We understand it all too well. And we understand that it does not work. The (recent) start of trickle-down was in the early 80's, and the difference in economic performance between the 1% and the 99% since then is inescapable.
The "moving our country forward" is clearly optional. Have you been totally blind to the jobs that have been offshore during the past twenty years?? That "the Government does not function as well as a business" is a common chant but one that is only sometimes true. Sometimes, but not always. I have personally seen plenty of instances where businesses were much less effective at doing work. It not just Government - it's how Government is run. Do not confuse the two.
A flat tax for individuals would be simple but not fair. If you dispute this then you're just not paying attention. You seriously mean that Jane Citizen and Donald Trump should pay the same rate ??? Even Warren Buffet called out that one last year (his secretary's rate was higher than his own).
Great businesses already make great products and services. Mediocre ones complain about the shackles of the tax code. Others have done well under the same set of rules. Why is it that you can't make it work?? Hint: it's not "the Government".
And if you think that Government does not have a role to play then check Wikipedia for "Love canal" and Cuyahoga River". My guess is that you were born after these events, but their impact will still be felt after we're both gone. Think harder about what you want to leave behind.
My preference is no government and no taxes, however this is a more realistic and achievable way forward:
Marvin, as I mentioned in post #118, (directly above yours), “Responsibility” would have been a better choice than “duty”.
You're still implying that something being legal means the government wants you to do it. Smoking is legal but that doesn't suggest that everyone in the world should start smoking. Welfare is available but they similarly would rather people don't claim it if they don't need it.
They certainly don't overtax people who can't afford it. And it's not governments that believe they are entitled to the money, it's other people. It's people who are too old or too sick to work, who are fighting in wars, who are unemployed, who are employed in public services, those are the beneficiaries of the money, not the core government employees.
Governments are realising that their welfare is creating dependence and some are putting in measures to counter it, the UK has capped the welfare payout no matter the size of family people have:
"Marie, 33, from Selly Oak, has made an appointment with the Jobcentre in a bid to find part-time work to boost her income.
She told the Birmingham Mail: "This benefits cap is getting out of control. I have an appointment with the Jobcentre next week and it will be for my first-ever job.""
First job at 33 years old after having 8 kids. This is the woman who planned to purposely have more kids to get more welfare:
Whether you're claiming welfare unnecessarily or trying to cut taxes, it's all about greed and taking more for yourself than you need. People at the bottom say the people at the top don't deserve their earnings relative to the work they've done; people at the top say the people at the bottom don't deserve welfare for their lack of work and both want to take as much for themselves. Government is about balancing the sides out so that people who have more than they need help people with less than they need and that people who don't contribute any work start contributing something.
until the taxman shows me he’s handling the revenues collected in a fair and responsible fashion, it is my responsibility to pay the smallest amount possible by using every legal tax break the government gives to me.
There's a freedom of information act that allows you to get this information:
To not do so robs my family and gives my hard earned dollars to a body of individuals who, by and large, spend my money a lot more foolishly than they do their own.
If spending was left up to individuals, they'd spend money on their own interests. Do you really think you'd invest in infrastructure that you don't directly benefit from? If a bridge didn't exist because you didn't use it and you started a business somewhere that prospective employees needed to cross this bridge to get to, you still wouldn't fund it because you don't personally use the bridge. Governments have access to a far broader picture of the economic sustainability of the countries they govern because that's what they are employed to do so that every individual doesn't have to waste time dealing with every issue about transportation, education, law enforcement, emergency services, the elderly, the homeless, immigration, civil rights. You pay a fraction of your income to let other people deal with issues that affect everyone in some way or another so that it allows you to live more comfortably.
No matter how much people argue about taxation, the existence of a government is essential so all we're talking about is the size of the government spending. Governments don't decide this arbitrarily, it's based on social problems. Here's the US breakdown:
The biggest ones are clear, 75% is split roughly evenly between pensions, health care and military. Healthcare costs go up with age and so one solution is sending older people to fight in the war. Hit 70 and ship 'em off to Iraq instead of Florida. There's a chart here that shows quite a high increase in costs vs age but was based on data from older studies:
The comments at the bottom are interesting though, one by someone with the username Lonely Libertarian:
"I once asked my doctor why I was having a blood test every two months – his response was “because your insurance will pay for it”. I think you overstate “patients wanting/demanding care” and under appreciate how much of our costs are driven by big pharmacy and insurance companies working the system to their mutual benefit."
It's private companies that milk the government spending. It's done in the military, it's done in healthcare. Public spending gets the blame but it's the private takers that are to blame yet they get applauded by some because anything private represents the free market.
There was a private company came up with a cancer drug that wanted £90k per patient:
How do you stop private companies milking public funds? You can't force the free market to lower their prices but they deserve to be blamed for purposely holding people with a social need to ransom. Big corporations are the cause of huge public spending because they're the ones taking the money for service contracts. People talk about costs in ACA, it was a private for-profit Canadian company that got the contract:
That's not the largest expense but the insurance companies are all private too so how is it the buyer that's to blame when they have no choice but to pay private monopolies what they ask for? The monopolies and high prices came about through patents and private buyouts forming larger and fewer companies.
The solution is at the source of the problem, which is the social need and the private profit-driven companies - reduce the takers at both ends.
You’ve lived on Airstrip One for too long. Words don’t seem to have their true meanings to you anymore.
Great smack down. Do you have any intention of contributing anything to these these threads, or are you solely here to pedantically derail and be rude to people with will-intentioned opinions that inconveniently differ from yours?
Give it a rest you tiresome bully. No one takes you seriously.
Intellectually dishonest? Really? Seems to me that something is either dishonest or it isn't ... must be a lawyer. I do, however, admit that "responsibility" might be a better fit than "duty". My bad. .... and why is it selfish to obey the tax laws to save the maximum amount "legally? allowed? I imagine that you, as well as others who are complaining here, don't refuse tax credits so you could pay more taxes ..... or would you consider that to beintellectuallydishonestas well?
As a white male aged 32 in permanent employment with no disabilities or dependents I don't qualify for a whole lot of tax credits, but if I did I'd only claim them where I felt I had a legitimate claim. Using convoluted mechanisms to base international operations in low/no tax jurisdictions and putting off repatriating the cash until you get some hokey tax holiday declared pushes legitimacy to a pretty loose definition. I don't call it legitimate at all, it's abusive, and not the actions of a socially responsibly company.
That's why I call it intellectually dishonest, it's purposely viewing tax as something you have a right to avoid rather than something you have an obligation to pay. It's the membership cost of being part of society. Apple and others aren't paying their dues.
Good riddance, let them leave for good. What we need to do is make it illegal to park your money overseas to begin with.
huh? this is money made by an overseas subsidiary selling products produced overseas to overseas customers. how on earth could you prevent them from keeping it overseas? its overseas money.
Yeah, it's not like these multi nationals all of a sudden realised, fark, we have to pay taxes on that money. They pay their lawyers to know the entire context under which they operate. If they choose to bring the money into the country then their profit model should accommodate the associated costs. Why are we thinking of doing these guys a big favour simply because they have lots of money. It's doing nothing useful sitting around in foreign bank account, except making more money to not repatriate.
Apple for instance, pay a lot of tax in America simply by virtue of being one of the biggest company. It's nothing to bleat about - it's expected.
And the whole money repatriated is invested to provide jobs is basically a load of unproven horse shit.
problem with your theory that big companies naturally pay more -- they don't. Google GE, they not only had zero tax liability a few years ago, but they had negative -- the govt owed them. oops.
Is she crazy?! I would expect that from a Republican, but not from a progressive Democrat. Why should Apple pay less in taxes than I? Unbelievable! And, Apple should be ashamed of themselves.
As others have said, they may pay their "required" tax, but they sure don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. Shame on Apple, and shame on Senator Boxer.
man, the ignorance.
apple pays their share on money they generate in the us. money produced overseas by selling overseas goods to overseas customers is not US income. that's why its not taxable. if they choose to transfer that money here they'll only do so if the govt doesn't try to take a bunch of it. thus the 6%, not 35%. it's not income tax.
Marvin, I say: "it is my responsibility to pay the smallest amount possible by using every legal tax break the government gives to me
You say: "You're still implying that something being legal means the government wants you to do it". I don't know if I can be any more clear than that. ..... The words "myresponsibility" I thought would have done it for you.
Originally Posted by Marvin
"They certainly don't overtax people who can't afford it. And it's not governments that believe they are entitled to the money, it's other people. It's people who are too old or too sick to work, who are fighting in wars, who are unemployed, who are employed in public services, those are the beneficiaries of the money, not the core government employees." ... I never said "the core government employees" were the problem. After all, they just work for the government, carrying out the governments wishes, for the most part.
Originally Posted by Marvin
"Healthcare costs go up with age and so one solution is sending older people to fight in the war. Hit 70 and ship 'em off to Iraq instead of Florida." This, I hope is sarcasm, kinda like your comment ..."Healthcare costs are the biggest cause of bankruptcies". I've got a flash for you, Marvin....stupidity and bad management are the "biggest cause of bankruptcies".
And on that note I'll have to say, ta ta .... time for my nap. I'm getting sloppy, blood sugar needs looking after ... Cheers.
Is she crazy?! I would expect that from a Republican, but not from a progressive Democrat. Why should Apple pay less in taxes than I? Unbelievable! And, Apple should be ashamed of themselves.
As others have said, they may pay their "required" tax, but they sure don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. Shame on Apple, and shame on Senator Boxer.
What is a "fair share"? A flat tax is considered inherently regressive. Nonprofits and religious groups (even political groups who call themselves a religion to escape paying taxes) don't pay taxes at all. Neither does the government (groups that duplicate corporate efforts, but don't pay an equivalent corporate tax). The money a corporation brings in is paid out to employees and shareholders, who each pay taxes at identical rates to you.
US companies are told to pay taxes far in excess of other countries. Apple pays an effective tax rate of 26%, while Samsung only pays <5%. Google was recently paying 11%. "Fair share" is sort of a meaningless phrase.
Rand Paul needs to do the math. Once the US senate gives companies a temporary tax break, who is ever going to repatriate money at the normal rate ever again? They'll just argue that another tax break is due.
You do realize that this has happened before, right? Companies already avoid bringing home foreign earnings for domestic investment because a) the tax rate is stupidly high and b) the fact that it's happened before indicates that it will at some point in the future.
Most countries don't tax foreign earnings as the US does.
As a white male aged 32 in permanent employment with no disabilities or dependents I don't qualify for a whole lot of tax credits, but if I did I'd only claim them where I felt I had a legitimate claim. Using convoluted mechanisms to base international operations in low/no tax jurisdictions and putting off repatriating the cash until you get some hokey tax holiday declared pushes legitimacy to a pretty loose definition. I don't call it legitimate at all, it's abusive, and not the actions of a socially responsibly company.
That's why I call it intellectually dishonest, it's purposely viewing tax as something you have a right to avoid rather than something you have an obligation to pay. It's the membership cost of being part of society. Apple and others aren't paying their dues.
According to current US tax laws, Apple pay the required amount of all taxes. If the government can't / won't change the laws to satisfy your version of "paying their dues", who are you to decide what they should pay? Being jealous of someone else's money stockpile is not a reason to assume their guilty of something .. that's just "intellectually wrong". And God knows, we have enough of that going around.
You know that he is talking about percentage rate, not absolute figures.
The absolute figures are meaningless here - Apple is a massive company, they are expected to pay more taxes as a result.
It's the percentage rate that is at issue. 6.5% is ludicrously low, compared to the corporation tax rate that Apple would pay on profits made in the US.
My offer would have been "Corporation Tax rate minus Tax Rate already paid on that money". I.e., if Apple earned £1B profit in country X, and paid 10% to country X on that profit before putting it in the tax haven, then they shouldn't be double taxed on that profit, but the difference in tax rates should still be paid.
Apple already pays taxes on foreign income. Most products in Europe and other countries involve VAT, which hits every component over and over again until the finished product. Saying that Apple owes some specific percentage of foreign earnings to the US in addition to the taxes it's already paid overseas is the issue. The laws currently allow companies to indefinitely defer payment of those taxes on foreign earnings, ensuring that companies won't ever voluntarily invest foreign earnings in the U.S. Both are simply bad policy that is not working.
Arbitrarily demanding some outrageous tax that is many times what a company would pay if it were not in the U.S. is a sure fire way to make sure that in the future, companies simply partner with foreign entities so that their foreign earnings are not benefitting the US in any way. That would be even stupider than the status quo.
"To qualify as “offshore” for tax purposes, U.S. corporate money must be controlled by a foreign subsidiary, but it does not have to be invested abroad. In fact, for many corporations, these foreign profits already sit in Manhattan, in accounts in American banks. For example, as of last May, Apple had $102 billion in “permanently invested overseas” income not subject to the U.S. corporate tax. On Apple’s books, this untaxed profit is “offshore” because it is controlled by two Irish subsidiaries—even though these subsidiaries park their funds in bank accounts in New York. This $102 billion that has yet to be subject to U.S. taxation is already in the United States, not trapped in Ireland. Apple cannot use this money directly for American real estate acquisitions, dividends, share buybacks, or funding for operations in Cupertino, but the money is being loaned out in the American economy by American banks, funding American mortgages and small-business loans just like any other American deposit."
If you look at where Apple's cash is invested--and yes, it's not in a mattress in China--it's mostly in US govt treasuries (funding the operations of American government) and in corporate securities (keeping the stock market up and supporting the economy).
Strange, I'm "people" and I receive absolutely no benefit from the ACA. In fact, I'm materially harmed by it.
Even if you had health insurance already and your premiums went up (and they were already going up), you still benefit from the ACA in that:
a) tens of millions of Americans can now afford healthcare and get preventative coverage for them and their children, meaning that rather than paying to subsidize ER visits for children with severe health issues, you're helping to subsidize far cheaper prevention instead. And the ER will not be as much of an insane crisis ward with hour long lines next time you have an accident and actually need emergency care.
b) tens of millions of Americans won't be falling into financial ruin and bankruptcies that are bad for the economy that you benefit from.
c) people who want to be self employed entrepreneurs can actually get affordable health insurance, and choose to leave their corporate job to contribute to the vitality of the economy in new ways.
Having universal health care coverage is just as much of a benefit to you as universal education. Do you do want to live in an uneducated country where everyone who isn't wealthy or employed in an upper middle class job by a corporation is under constant threat of going bankrupt and taking down the local economy just because some uptight conservatives think that only privileged people should have any access to basic health care?
You are already paying for destitute people. The question is if you want to pay for Bush-style ER visits or Obama-style preventative care. The former is unsustainable, impractical, economically stupid, unAmerican and unChristian. The latter is now American law and conservatives are not going to be able to restore feudalism no matter how much they promise it to their Base.
So, forget the rule of law, forget democracy, if you make enough money and have your pet legislator pass a law, you can completely forego your fair share of taxes.
Does anyone here have any doubt what would happen if you were to visit your pet legislator and say "I made a lot of money working overseas (for example) in Afghanistan as a military contractor last year, but I only want to pay 6.5% tax on it when I bring it back to the USA"?
This country's infrastructure is falling apart because the right and left are squabbling while rome burns and corporations laugh all the way to the bank.
I'm not laughing.
Samsung pays >5% taxes in South Korea, but that country isn't experiencing America's crumbling infrastructure, educational crisis or healthcare problems.
Really, the U.S. could go out and grab 50% of Apple's cash holdings, and then start another war and burn another $4 trillion dollars on it. That $0.1 trillion taken from Apple wouldn't do a damn thing to help anyone in the U.S. apart from the military industrial oil complex. And those people don't pay taxes.
So your sense that what's wrong with America is that Apple is currently following the tax law (and that taxes on a few successful companies should be changed to drastically tax their success into failure in a way that doesn't accomplish anything at all) is just fundamentally flawed.
My preference is no government and no taxes, however this is a more realistic and achievable way forward:
www.FairTax.org
The last group that aimed for "zero government" were Marxist Communists, and that didn't work out well.
Turns out we need a government to stop bad people from dumping toxic waste into our rivers and grinding up employees into Soylent Green. Remember the 1800s? That's the US without an EPA and labor regulations. It was ugly and mean and nearly destroyed itself.
Comments
I'm with Tim Cook. Simplify the tax code and reduce the rates. When you reduce taxes on something, you get more of that something. When you raise rates, you get less.
Within limits, that's true. But when you keep doing it you get no tax revenue at all.
Liberals keep groaning about trickle down as if they don't understand it.
No groaning at all. We understand it all too well. And we understand that it does not work. The (recent) start of trickle-down was in the early 80's, and the difference in economic performance between the 1% and the 99% since then is inescapable.
Businesses are really good at making money, hiring, paying taxes, and moving our country forward. I like having continuously improving goods and services at ever decreasing prices. The govt., by contrast, does not function nearly as well as a business. They do not have to watch their pennies and bottom lines. Thus, we get what we can all readily observe - waste and inefficiency and huge debt.
The "moving our country forward" is clearly optional. Have you been totally blind to the jobs that have been offshore during the past twenty years?? That "the Government does not function as well as a business" is a common chant but one that is only sometimes true. Sometimes, but not always. I have personally seen plenty of instances where businesses were much less effective at doing work. It not just Government - it's how Government is run. Do not confuse the two.
The treasury pulls in about 3x more revenue from individual taxes than corporate taxes. Whatever they can do to keep the golden goose healthy, I'm all for. But I'd rather have something like a flat tax that is fair and simple.
A flat tax for individuals would be simple but not fair. If you dispute this then you're just not paying attention. You seriously mean that Jane Citizen and Donald Trump should pay the same rate ??? Even Warren Buffet called out that one last year (his secretary's rate was higher than his own).
Let's unleash business so they go out and make great products and services. God only knows how much productivity and $$$ is lost in tax avoidance maneuvers and schemes.
Great businesses already make great products and services. Mediocre ones complain about the shackles of the tax code. Others have done well under the same set of rules. Why is it that you can't make it work?? Hint: it's not "the Government".
And if you think that Government does not have a role to play then check Wikipedia for "Love canal" and Cuyahoga River". My guess is that you were born after these events, but their impact will still be felt after we're both gone. Think harder about what you want to leave behind.
Uh huh. And? Your point is what?
NO. The absolute figures are LITERALLY the only thing you’re talking about. Apple is a massive company. They pay “more taxes” as a result. More money IS “more taxes” (you’ll want to fix that term).
It's the percentage rate that is at issue.
Whose issue? Yours? Why do you matter?
It’s a good thing Apple didn’t make that money in the US, then, isn’t it?
Yeah, isn’t that how it works already? And yet companies STILL don’t want to pay extortionate amounts. How about that.
I did. He didn’t. That’s why he should be ashamed.
It’s a joke that you think it’s unfair, yeah. And rather than tear apart every word here (making mention of the number of working Americans, making mention of the double/triple standard held by some in “regarding corporations as people”, “demanding they pay more than people”, etc.), I’ll mention, again, that they’re already paying more than you.
I’d think the end-game would be to get spending to such a level that we could also get rid of the income tax, but I’m fairly reactionary in that regard.
See Dick Applebaum’s post for why you have absolutely no right whatsoever do impose your brain’s delusions of “fair share”.
I am. At you.
You’ve lived on Airstrip One for too long. Words don’t seem to have their true meanings to you anymore.
With radical life extension technologies right around the corner, I wonder if there oughtn’t also be term limits imposed on the Supreme Court. After all, when the average lifespan becomes 120, those “for life” agreements look a little fuzzier.
Not to say an increasingly stable court would be bad, but an increasingly stupid one would.
No, that’s money that will have not ever been here. If the company doesn’t leave, the money keeps existing.
My preference is no government and no taxes, however this is a more realistic and achievable way forward:
www.FairTax.org
You're still implying that something being legal means the government wants you to do it. Smoking is legal but that doesn't suggest that everyone in the world should start smoking. Welfare is available but they similarly would rather people don't claim it if they don't need it.
Governments have never asked for everything but they do sometimes have crazy tax rates:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-taxes-are-lower-today-under-reag/
They certainly don't overtax people who can't afford it. And it's not governments that believe they are entitled to the money, it's other people. It's people who are too old or too sick to work, who are fighting in wars, who are unemployed, who are employed in public services, those are the beneficiaries of the money, not the core government employees.
Governments are realising that their welfare is creating dependence and some are putting in measures to counter it, the UK has capped the welfare payout no matter the size of family people have:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26065080
This is pushing people back into employment. Some aren't happy about it but even this person is getting back to work:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-eight-forced-work-says-5060861
"Marie, 33, from Selly Oak, has made an appointment with the Jobcentre in a bid to find part-time work to boost her income.
She told the Birmingham Mail: "This benefits cap is getting out of control. I have an appointment with the Jobcentre next week and it will be for my first-ever job.""
First job at 33 years old after having 8 kids. This is the woman who planned to purposely have more kids to get more welfare:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728767/Mother-eight-lives-2k-month-benefits-says-use-surrogate-TWO-children.html
Whether you're claiming welfare unnecessarily or trying to cut taxes, it's all about greed and taking more for yourself than you need. People at the bottom say the people at the top don't deserve their earnings relative to the work they've done; people at the top say the people at the bottom don't deserve welfare for their lack of work and both want to take as much for themselves. Government is about balancing the sides out so that people who have more than they need help people with less than they need and that people who don't contribute any work start contributing something.
There's a freedom of information act that allows you to get this information:
https://www.ontario.ca/government/how-make-freedom-information-request
http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2014-Capital-and-Operating-Budget-Dec18.pdf
If spending was left up to individuals, they'd spend money on their own interests. Do you really think you'd invest in infrastructure that you don't directly benefit from? If a bridge didn't exist because you didn't use it and you started a business somewhere that prospective employees needed to cross this bridge to get to, you still wouldn't fund it because you don't personally use the bridge. Governments have access to a far broader picture of the economic sustainability of the countries they govern because that's what they are employed to do so that every individual doesn't have to waste time dealing with every issue about transportation, education, law enforcement, emergency services, the elderly, the homeless, immigration, civil rights. You pay a fraction of your income to let other people deal with issues that affect everyone in some way or another so that it allows you to live more comfortably.
No matter how much people argue about taxation, the existence of a government is essential so all we're talking about is the size of the government spending. Governments don't decide this arbitrarily, it's based on social problems. Here's the US breakdown:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie
The biggest ones are clear, 75% is split roughly evenly between pensions, health care and military. Healthcare costs go up with age and so one solution is sending older people to fight in the war. Hit 70 and ship 'em off to Iraq instead of Florida. There's a chart here that shows quite a high increase in costs vs age but was based on data from older studies:
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/chart-of-the-day-health-care-spending-by-age-and-country/
The comments at the bottom are interesting though, one by someone with the username Lonely Libertarian:
"I once asked my doctor why I was having a blood test every two months – his response was “because your insurance will pay for it”. I think you overstate “patients wanting/demanding care” and under appreciate how much of our costs are driven by big pharmacy and insurance companies working the system to their mutual benefit."
It's private companies that milk the government spending. It's done in the military, it's done in healthcare. Public spending gets the blame but it's the private takers that are to blame yet they get applauded by some because anything private represents the free market.
There was a private company came up with a cancer drug that wanted £90k per patient:
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-28701630
It's not governments setting those prices. Healthcare costs are the biggest cause of bankruptcies:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148#.
"(Private sector) Contractors reap $138bn from Iraq war"
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7f435f04-8c05-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0.html
Here's a fraud that showed how little control there is over military spending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlene_Corley
How do you stop private companies milking public funds? You can't force the free market to lower their prices but they deserve to be blamed for purposely holding people with a social need to ransom. Big corporations are the cause of huge public spending because they're the ones taking the money for service contracts. People talk about costs in ACA, it was a private for-profit Canadian company that got the contract:
http://www.cgi.com/en/CGI-selected-build-US-wide-competitive-health-insurance-exchange
That's not the largest expense but the insurance companies are all private too so how is it the buyer that's to blame when they have no choice but to pay private monopolies what they ask for? The monopolies and high prices came about through patents and private buyouts forming larger and fewer companies.
The solution is at the source of the problem, which is the social need and the private profit-driven companies - reduce the takers at both ends.
Give it a rest you tiresome bully. No one takes you seriously.
That's why I call it intellectually dishonest, it's purposely viewing tax as something you have a right to avoid rather than something you have an obligation to pay. It's the membership cost of being part of society. Apple and others aren't paying their dues.
huh? this is money made by an overseas subsidiary selling products produced overseas to overseas customers. how on earth could you prevent them from keeping it overseas? its overseas money.
problem with your theory that big companies naturally pay more -- they don't. Google GE, they not only had zero tax liability a few years ago, but they had negative -- the govt owed them. oops.
man, the ignorance.
apple pays their share on money they generate in the us. money produced overseas by selling overseas goods to overseas customers is not US income. that's why its not taxable. if they choose to transfer that money here they'll only do so if the govt doesn't try to take a bunch of it. thus the 6%, not 35%. it's not income tax.
[quote]They certainly don't overtax people who can't afford it. [/quote]
^^ Is this meant to be satire?
You say: "You're still implying that something being legal means the government wants you to do it". I don't know if I can be any more clear than that. ..... The words "my responsibility" I thought would have done it for you.
Originally Posted by Marvin
"They certainly don't overtax people who can't afford it. And it's not governments that believe they are entitled to the money, it's other people. It's people who are too old or too sick to work, who are fighting in wars, who are unemployed, who are employed in public services, those are the beneficiaries of the money, not the core government employees." ... I never said "the core government employees" were the problem. After all, they just work for the government, carrying out the governments wishes, for the most part.
Originally Posted by Marvin
"Healthcare costs go up with age and so one solution is sending older people to fight in the war. Hit 70 and ship 'em off to Iraq instead of Florida." This, I hope is sarcasm, kinda like your comment ..."Healthcare costs are the biggest cause of bankruptcies". I've got a flash for you, Marvin....stupidity and bad management are the "biggest cause of bankruptcies".
And on that note I'll have to say, ta ta .... time for my nap. I'm getting sloppy, blood sugar needs looking after ... Cheers.
Is she crazy?! I would expect that from a Republican, but not from a progressive Democrat. Why should Apple pay less in taxes than I? Unbelievable! And, Apple should be ashamed of themselves.
As others have said, they may pay their "required" tax, but they sure don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. Shame on Apple, and shame on Senator Boxer.
What is a "fair share"? A flat tax is considered inherently regressive. Nonprofits and religious groups (even political groups who call themselves a religion to escape paying taxes) don't pay taxes at all. Neither does the government (groups that duplicate corporate efforts, but don't pay an equivalent corporate tax). The money a corporation brings in is paid out to employees and shareholders, who each pay taxes at identical rates to you.
US companies are told to pay taxes far in excess of other countries. Apple pays an effective tax rate of 26%, while Samsung only pays <5%. Google was recently paying 11%. "Fair share" is sort of a meaningless phrase.
Rand Paul needs to do the math. Once the US senate gives companies a temporary tax break, who is ever going to repatriate money at the normal rate ever again? They'll just argue that another tax break is due.
You do realize that this has happened before, right? Companies already avoid bringing home foreign earnings for domestic investment because a) the tax rate is stupidly high and b) the fact that it's happened before indicates that it will at some point in the future.
Most countries don't tax foreign earnings as the US does.
As a white male aged 32 in permanent employment with no disabilities or dependents I don't qualify for a whole lot of tax credits, but if I did I'd only claim them where I felt I had a legitimate claim. Using convoluted mechanisms to base international operations in low/no tax jurisdictions and putting off repatriating the cash until you get some hokey tax holiday declared pushes legitimacy to a pretty loose definition. I don't call it legitimate at all, it's abusive, and not the actions of a socially responsibly company.
That's why I call it intellectually dishonest, it's purposely viewing tax as something you have a right to avoid rather than something you have an obligation to pay. It's the membership cost of being part of society. Apple and others aren't paying their dues.
According to current US tax laws, Apple pay the required amount of all taxes. If the government can't / won't change the laws to satisfy your version of "paying their dues", who are you to decide what they should pay? Being jealous of someone else's money stockpile is not a reason to assume their guilty of something .. that's just "intellectually wrong".
And God knows, we have enough of that going around.
You know that he is talking about percentage rate, not absolute figures.
The absolute figures are meaningless here - Apple is a massive company, they are expected to pay more taxes as a result.
It's the percentage rate that is at issue. 6.5% is ludicrously low, compared to the corporation tax rate that Apple would pay on profits made in the US.
My offer would have been "Corporation Tax rate minus Tax Rate already paid on that money". I.e., if Apple earned £1B profit in country X, and paid 10% to country X on that profit before putting it in the tax haven, then they shouldn't be double taxed on that profit, but the difference in tax rates should still be paid.
Apple already pays taxes on foreign income. Most products in Europe and other countries involve VAT, which hits every component over and over again until the finished product. Saying that Apple owes some specific percentage of foreign earnings to the US in addition to the taxes it's already paid overseas is the issue. The laws currently allow companies to indefinitely defer payment of those taxes on foreign earnings, ensuring that companies won't ever voluntarily invest foreign earnings in the U.S. Both are simply bad policy that is not working.
Arbitrarily demanding some outrageous tax that is many times what a company would pay if it were not in the U.S. is a sure fire way to make sure that in the future, companies simply partner with foreign entities so that their foreign earnings are not benefitting the US in any way. That would be even stupider than the status quo.
Anyone interested in how "overseas" profits and taxation ACTUALLY works should read this link...
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/2014/01/09/81681/offshore-corporate-profits-the-only-thing-trapped-is-tax-revenue/
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"To qualify as “offshore” for tax purposes, U.S. corporate money must be controlled by a foreign subsidiary, but it does not have to be invested abroad. In fact, for many corporations, these foreign profits already sit in Manhattan, in accounts in American banks. For example, as of last May, Apple had $102 billion in “permanently invested overseas” income not subject to the U.S. corporate tax. On Apple’s books, this untaxed profit is “offshore” because it is controlled by two Irish subsidiaries—even though these subsidiaries park their funds in bank accounts in New York. This $102 billion that has yet to be subject to U.S. taxation is already in the United States, not trapped in Ireland. Apple cannot use this money directly for American real estate acquisitions, dividends, share buybacks, or funding for operations in Cupertino, but the money is being loaned out in the American economy by American banks, funding American mortgages and small-business loans just like any other American deposit."
If you look at where Apple's cash is invested--and yes, it's not in a mattress in China--it's mostly in US govt treasuries (funding the operations of American government) and in corporate securities (keeping the stock market up and supporting the economy).
Strange, I'm "people" and I receive absolutely no benefit from the ACA. In fact, I'm materially harmed by it.
Even if you had health insurance already and your premiums went up (and they were already going up), you still benefit from the ACA in that:
a) tens of millions of Americans can now afford healthcare and get preventative coverage for them and their children, meaning that rather than paying to subsidize ER visits for children with severe health issues, you're helping to subsidize far cheaper prevention instead. And the ER will not be as much of an insane crisis ward with hour long lines next time you have an accident and actually need emergency care.
b) tens of millions of Americans won't be falling into financial ruin and bankruptcies that are bad for the economy that you benefit from.
c) people who want to be self employed entrepreneurs can actually get affordable health insurance, and choose to leave their corporate job to contribute to the vitality of the economy in new ways.
Having universal health care coverage is just as much of a benefit to you as universal education. Do you do want to live in an uneducated country where everyone who isn't wealthy or employed in an upper middle class job by a corporation is under constant threat of going bankrupt and taking down the local economy just because some uptight conservatives think that only privileged people should have any access to basic health care?
You are already paying for destitute people. The question is if you want to pay for Bush-style ER visits or Obama-style preventative care. The former is unsustainable, impractical, economically stupid, unAmerican and unChristian. The latter is now American law and conservatives are not going to be able to restore feudalism no matter how much they promise it to their Base.
I am totally opposed to this.
So, forget the rule of law, forget democracy, if you make enough money and have your pet legislator pass a law, you can completely forego your fair share of taxes.
Does anyone here have any doubt what would happen if you were to visit your pet legislator and say "I made a lot of money working overseas (for example) in Afghanistan as a military contractor last year, but I only want to pay 6.5% tax on it when I bring it back to the USA"?
This country's infrastructure is falling apart because the right and left are squabbling while rome burns and corporations laugh all the way to the bank.
I'm not laughing.
Samsung pays >5% taxes in South Korea, but that country isn't experiencing America's crumbling infrastructure, educational crisis or healthcare problems.
Really, the U.S. could go out and grab 50% of Apple's cash holdings, and then start another war and burn another $4 trillion dollars on it. That $0.1 trillion taken from Apple wouldn't do a damn thing to help anyone in the U.S. apart from the military industrial oil complex. And those people don't pay taxes.
So your sense that what's wrong with America is that Apple is currently following the tax law (and that taxes on a few successful companies should be changed to drastically tax their success into failure in a way that doesn't accomplish anything at all) is just fundamentally flawed.
My preference is no government and no taxes, however this is a more realistic and achievable way forward:
www.FairTax.org
The last group that aimed for "zero government" were Marxist Communists, and that didn't work out well.
Turns out we need a government to stop bad people from dumping toxic waste into our rivers and grinding up employees into Soylent Green. Remember the 1800s? That's the US without an EPA and labor regulations. It was ugly and mean and nearly destroyed itself.