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.
I never said any laws had been broken or that governments are not partially to blame for imperfect laws. That's shifting the argument, as is accusing someone of jealousy without full understanding what they are saying.
stupidity and bad management are the "biggest cause of bankruptcies".
I assume you're talking about company bankruptcy not personal bankruptcy. People getting sick isn't down to stupidity and bad management. There was a couple who visited the US and their baby was born prematurely:
Look at the bill they were given for a few weeks of basic care - $200,000. That's an obscene amount of money to pay for that level of care. They are just profiteering from people's misfortune.
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.
Companies are treated like people so they get taxed like people. Employees and shareholders get income from a company and are taxed. When a company keeps income at the end of the year then that gets taxed as though the company is a person earning income and it's taxed around the same rate as a person. When a company avoids paying income tax, it's just like a millionaire avoiding income tax.
It can't be a flat tax because if you only make $10k a year then a 35% tax rate is burdensome to your quality of life. A 35% rate on a 100k income isn't. It definitely isn't on $140b.
Even a 75-90% isn't burdensome to millionaires/billionaires and these rates have existed in the past but they are high and it takes away an incentive to work hard because if you end up with roughly the same income after-tax by earning $1m as earning $100k, why bother?
What isn't progressive is having the super-rich paying single digit tax values. We can see the results in diverging income:
The money creation resulting from the financial collapse has helped this divergence:
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.
VAT doesn't hit components repeatedly in the sense that it compounds, business to business purchases e.g from suppliers get VAT deducted before the sales tax is returned to the tax authority. That's why it's called value-added tax as it taxes the difference between the costs and the ex-VAT price.
If a manufacturer buys £10 of goods from a supplier and they charge VAT at 20%, the price would be £12. If Apple sells that for £20 and adds on 20% VAT, they sell it for £24 but Apple doesn't return £4 in VAT to the tax authority, they pay the difference between the VAT they paid to the supplier (£2) and the VAT they took from the customer (£4) = £2. The supplier returns the £2 they took from Apple to the tax authority. The value Apple added to the supplies was £10 so they pay 20% VAT on that. It's not them that pays VAT either, it's the customer. The customer pays the VAT on supplies (£2) and VAT on their product (£2) at the point of sale. Apple just passes it along from the customer to the government.
You seem to have difficulty comprehending when a statement is one of opinion and one of fact. Let me make some adjustments to clarify...
"I'd only claim them where I felt I had a legitimate claim" - legitimacy under the law is a contributor, but not of the utmost relevance to a feeling.
"I don't call it legitimate at all, it's abusive" - opinion, not a statement of technical detail.
And yet again, you're being hostile and taking arguments to a pedantic level rather than arguing on any actual merit. That's almost entirely pointless and gets us nowhere interesting or of of any practical use. While I may be whining (your opinion), you're by far the more irritating noise in this thread. So quit it.
Regarding the final select quote you chose, what definition of what word are you referring too? "dues"? That's largely a question of perspective and meditation on how companies arrange themselves and should be allowed to arrange themselves in an international arena. Your simplistic, antagonistic answers are, again, of no interest or worth. And for the record, since you have no idea who I include in "others", then by definition your response is fundamentally flawed. If you're going to be a dick then at least be a consistent dick.
But actually, I'd far prefer it if you could you try contributing to debates rather than just trying to close them down by being snippy. Otherwise, it seems like your ideal forum would be one where no one posted anything at all.
P.S. Again with the claim that I'm making stuff up? What have I made up? I sometimes have difficulty understanding whether your arguments are malicious, or just incompetent.
Maybe 35% is stupidly high, but why 6.5%? That's not even trying to haggle. Why not start off at 20%? 15%?
When you reduce certain companies' taxation requirements, you give them an unfair advantage over their competition, whilst depriving the country of needed taxation income. Of course every major multinational is using tax havens and not repatriating money, so something needs to be done about it - killing the tax havens seems to be a good first step.
Many of them actually keep quite a bit of it in US banks, even if it's "held" by a foreign subsidiary. Keeping their cash in dollars ensures a stable basis when it comes to earnings reports. The 35% figure is also inaccurate. You might want to look up foreign tax credits. That alone (excluding other adjustments) means that is 35% minus whatever was paid in tax to a foreign government, assuming they filed for refunds of overpayment where applicable. Credits are different from writeoffs in that it's adjusted by that amount, rather than just an adjustment of the basis.
But as has been stated many times already, your feelings don’t matter here. The law matters. That goes both ways.
What are you talking about? The subject was whether I'd claim tax credits, and my response was that I wouldn't if I didn't feel it was legitimate. Since my feelings are the arbiter of my actions they are very relevant. Maybe you should read that exchange again, you don't seem to have read it properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
First part is, sure. If you meant the second to be…
The second part was a direct run on from the first. Learn to read a sentence in context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, the definition of ‘tax abuse’ in a thread about taxation is not pedantry.
Given that "tax abuse" isn't a formally defined term, I don't really have a clue what you're talking about. "Tax evasion" and "tax avoidance" are reasonably well defined and understood, but I think you may have just made "tax abuse" up, definition man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Aren't
Not responding to ridiculousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Let the record show that that didn’t matter, since you went for the wrong word. No worries.
I don't believe I did, all the words hang together to represent what I meant. That you disagree with my sentiment does not make my words wrong. And again, since I see you trying to sidestep it, you responded with a blanket statement that, since you didn't know what "others" meant, was wildly wrong. There are other companies engaging in tax crimes, so I could have been referring to them.
…my response was that I wouldn’t if I didn’t feel it was legitimate.
And your feelings are meaningless, as the law is the topic. Just as feelings that Apple isn’t paying “enough” are meaningless, as they pay what the law requires.
Not responding to ridiculousness.
I probably should have followed this advice when you were ridiculous enough to claim that Apple isn’t sufficiently paying their taxes. As it stands, you’re the only one who has said anything ridiculous, though.
My feelings are not meaningless when they are an influence on my behaviour, which was the subject of the question. Did you even read the question? Understand what you are talking about please.
I never made the claim that you say I made, so now who's making stuff up.
For the record "paying your dues" isn't the same as "paying the minimum amount of taxes mandated by law". Not by my intent, my opinion, nor by definition of terms.
Had enough of your crap, time for me to go to bed. I won't respond to you in the morning, since you can't see anything that moves the debate on. Just pedantry and pissantry.
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.
Marxists are absolutely not in favor of "no government", nor are Communists.
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.
Sorry, but I don't benefit from having my rates jacked up to pay for maternity care (just one example). It isn't my responsibility to feed or care for others under threat of jail time, garnished wages or the further reduction of my constitutional rights.
It is not the Federal government's job to provide health care services or insurance of any kind. The states have the option to provide for their residents health care programs, provide catastrophic coverage requirements, control insurance markets and myriad other things not allowed the Federal government. That laws were broken, half of the country's wishes were ignored and Harry Reid changed the rules of the game to get this monstrosity passed is testimony to its utter vileness. Any entitlement program the Federal government has created has resulted in the growth of Federal government and further incursion on private markets at the expense of taxpayers. There is no doubt the ACA was really written by insurance companies, not in the interest of the entire country.
As for the Republicans now in charge of the Congress and Senate, the first thing on their plate was to push forward the oil pipeline. It should be clear whose interests they represent. I trust neither party!
Our government has become the "vampire squid" that should scare every American.
Marxists are absolutely not in favor of "no government", nor are Communists.
I would read up on that
Anarchism, communism (and now tea party republicans) all share the delusional fantasy of a world where strong central government does not exist, because everything magically works on its own without it.
"The vision of communism was very similar to that of anarchism: a stateless society in which central government had "withered away," local, ground-up control of all affairs by strictly democratic processes based at the place of work, abolition of the market system (no money, no buying and selling) and its replacement by a system according to which people would voluntarily work for the common good to the extent they were able under the understanding that they could receive whatever they needed for free ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). National boundaries and governments having been eliminated, war would cease."
Sorry, but I don't benefit from having my rates jacked up to pay for maternity care (just one example). It isn't my responsibility to feed or care for others under threat of jail time, garnished wages or the further reduction of my constitutional rights.
It is not the Federal government's job to provide health care services or insurance of any kind. The states have the option to provide for their residents health care programs, provide catastrophic coverage requirements, control insurance markets and myriad other things not allowed the Federal government. That laws were broken, half of the country's wishes were ignored and Harry Reid changed the rules of the game to get this monstrosity passed is testimony to its utter vileness. Any entitlement program the Federal government has created has resulted in the growth of Federal government and further incursion on private markets at the expense of taxpayers. There is no doubt the ACA was really written by insurance companies, not in the interest of the entire country.
As for the Republicans now in charge of the Congress and Senate, the first thing on their plate was to push forward the oil pipeline. It should be clear whose interests they represent. I trust neither party!
Our government has become the "vampire squid" that should scare every American.
I agree that it's hard to "trust" either party, but I do suggest you at least attempt to balance the what you find to be the egregious overreach of the federal government to help states effectively fund affordable healthcare for millions of people (that costs less than the broken system we had) VS the unofficial wars of the previous administration that broke the economy, risked a draft (that would actually cause a problem for citizens) and terminated all the constitutional rights of the +4,000 soldiers we sacrificed in a misguided, failed attempt to maintain the status quo in our failed energy policy.
The way that the tea party seethes about the ACA as "ObamaCare" as if it were even comparable to the Oil Wars (which they've all forgiven as "water under the bridge") makes it hard take their "pro life" thing seriously. Let's let pregnant Americans and their children die because we can't afford maternity care, but our federal government can spend -- without any oversight --unlimited amounts of money and blood to keep oil flowing.
Because, you know, the US Constitution outlines that the main purpose of the federal government is to seize all resources to keep oil flowing.
Anarchism, communism (and now tea party republicans) all share the delusional fantasy of a world where strong central government does not exist, because everything magically works on its own without it.
"The vision of communism was very similar to that of anarchism: a stateless society in which central government had "withered away," local, ground-up control of all affairs by strictly democratic processes based at the place of work, abolition of the market system (no money, no buying and selling) and its replacement by a system according to which people would voluntarily work for the common good to the extent they were able under the understanding that they could receive whatever they needed for free ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). National boundaries and governments having been eliminated, war would cease."
"The vision of Communism" never worked because like many narrow philosophies, it attempted to control human behavior and failed to appreciate that self-interest is inherent. This is also the failure of socialism, progressivism and anarchism. Enlightened self-interest teaches us to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, however forcing people to do for others is doomed to failure.
I agree that it's hard to "trust" either party, but I do suggest you at least attempt to balance the what you find to be the egregious overreach of the federal government to help states effectively fund affordable healthcare for millions of people (that costs less than the broken system we had) VS the unofficial wars of the previous administration that broke the economy, risked a draft (that would actually cause a problem for citizens) and terminated all the constitutional rights of the +4,000 soldiers we sacrificed in a misguided, failed attempt to maintain the status quo in our failed energy policy.
The way that the tea party seethes about the ACA as "ObamaCare" as if it were even comparable to the Oil Wars (which they've all forgiven as "water under the bridge") makes it hard take their "pro life" thing seriously. Let's let pregnant Americans and their children die because we can't afford maternity care, but our federal government can spend -- without any oversight --unlimited amounts of money and blood to keep oil flowing.
Because, you know, the US Constitution outlines that the main purpose of the federal government is to seize all resources to keep oil flowing.
There is no reason to trust either political party. Parties, like any large organization or business will reflect the self-serving nature of those in the organization. Political parties attach to the biggest and most reliable donors in exchange for laws crafted to serve those narrow interests of the donors. As previously noted, insurance companies wrote the ACA to benefit them by forcing the uninsured young into paying for insurance they largely do not need and by increasing the burden on the middle class. The largest voting bloc by far is still the Boomer generation, therefore I suspect the real reason for the ACA was not to benefit the poor and uninsured, but to further subsidize Boomers and to serve the Democratic base. It's sucking the lifeblood out of the younger generations in order to sustain the aged and dying majority. The tyranny of the majority wins out again. If the ACA is struck down (and by recent "admissions" from slime like Chuck Schumer that Democrats should not have passed the ACA in this economy, it's looking like it most likely will be struck down in the Supreme Court), Republicans will be making the same mistakes as Democrats by repealing and replacing with another Federal system.
Regarding the wars, I have nothing but contempt for those who sent Americans to war to fight and die for oil and to evidently avenge George W's father and for his failure to destroy S. Hussain the first time 'round. I consider it a disgrace and failure of epic proportions for a president to be allowed to wage undeclared wars unopposed by Congress.
"The vision of Communism" never worked because like many narrow philosophies, it attempted to control human behavior and failed to appreciate that self-interest is inherent. This is also the failure of socialism, progressivism and anarchism. Enlightened self-interest teaches us to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, however forcing people to do for others is doomed to failure.
Taxes aren't voluntary, but obviously necessary to maintain basic infrastructure, defense and education within a sophisticated civilization. Not "forcing people" to pay their taxes for others would be "doomed to failure."
Stop signs and DUIs aren't voluntary opt-in programs where self interest keeps people from committing negligent homicides. Not "forcing people" to obey traffic laws for others would be "doomed to failure."
Without threat of fines, companies would dump toxins in our rivers (like they did not so long ago-- andstill do if they think they won't be caught). Not "forcing companies" to obey EPA laws for others would be "doomed to failure."
I could keep going but the thing is no political theory actually works. You have to have political tension keeping balance betweenpeople who want things to change too fast and people who don't want things to ever change at all. And you have to work out deals to keep things balanced as you incrementally move forward in response to learning from past mistakes and being informed by the best science we can manage.
There's no grand political theory that solves all problems. Certainly not American Conservatives, who have demonstrably caused the US massive problems in their attempts to eliminate regulation of financial instrument markets and bankers (who are not at all guided by some magical "enlightened self-interest" any more than the communists were). Bush and the proto-tea party politics financed by the Kochs viciously destroyed the economy before Obama came in to pick up the pieces.
?Tea party conservatives think that if they can gain all the control, that they can create an ideal theocracy where everyone shares their religion and people of their own race maintain political and economic control. It's really little different from conservative Islam with some of the names changed. Both even share the same social goals of teaching creationism, denying climate change, repressing women and pretending that gays don't actually exist.
They also share the communists' fantasy that central government isn't necessary because on a local level, Walmart and Hobby Lobby will exist as a local all-encompassing authority that gives workers just what they need in the form of minimum wage and stop women from using IUDs.
There is no reason to trust either political party. Parties, like any large organization or business will reflect the self-serving nature of those in the organization. Political parties attach to the biggest and most reliable donors in exchange for laws crafted to serve those narrow interests of the donors. As previously noted, insurance companies wrote the ACA to benefit them by forcing the uninsured young into paying for insurance they largely do not need and by increasing the burden on the middle class.
Yes that is how "insurance" works, by definition. You can't insure only people with payment claims!
Yes, insurance companies helped write the ACA. Who should have, aerospace? The core tenants of a pay-you-own-way market-based exchange for health insurance (vs Clinton's universal payer Medicare-like plan) were written by Republicans in the 1990s. Obamacare is a Republican plan. If the Democrats had the power to write ACA on their own, they'd have simply expanded Medicare and made the US the insurance company.
The largest voting bloc by far is still the Boomer generation, therefore I suspect the real reason for the ACA was not to benefit the poor and uninsured, but to further subsidize Boomers and to serve the Democratic base.
The Democratic base is older people? Old people are the most stridently conservative.
Also, Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. Most are already covered by Medicare. They already had coverage. So no.
It's sucking the lifeblood out of the younger generations in order to sustain the aged and dying majority. The tyranny of the majority wins out again.
Uh, the A in ACA is for affordable. If anything is "sucking the lifeblood out of the younger generations" it is the cost of financing an education, not ACA premiums, which are and remain low for young people. Health insurance for young healthy people is not expensive.
If the ACA is struck down (and by recent "admissions" from slime like Chuck Schumer that Democrats should not have passed the ACA in this economy, it's looking like it most likely will be struck down in the Supreme Court), Republicans will be making the same mistakes as Democrats by repealing and replacing with another Federal system.
Chuck Schumer was grousing about political priorities, and has no insight or input into the Supreme Court's decisions.
Regarding the wars, I have nothing but contempt for those who sent Americans to war to fight and die for oil and to evidently avenge George W's father and for his failure to destroy S. Hussain the first time 'round. I consider it a disgrace and failure of epic proportions for a president to be allowed to wage undeclared wars unopposed by Congress.
Comments
Isn't it true? Nobody pays so much tax that it causes them an adverse quality of life.
I assume you're talking about company bankruptcy not personal bankruptcy. People getting sick isn't down to stupidity and bad management. There was a couple who visited the US and their baby was born prematurely:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/02/british-couple-new-york-hospital-bill-early-birth
Look at the bill they were given for a few weeks of basic care - $200,000. That's an obscene amount of money to pay for that level of care. They are just profiteering from people's misfortune.
Companies are treated like people so they get taxed like people. Employees and shareholders get income from a company and are taxed. When a company keeps income at the end of the year then that gets taxed as though the company is a person earning income and it's taxed around the same rate as a person. When a company avoids paying income tax, it's just like a millionaire avoiding income tax.
It can't be a flat tax because if you only make $10k a year then a 35% tax rate is burdensome to your quality of life. A 35% rate on a 100k income isn't. It definitely isn't on $140b.
Even a 75-90% isn't burdensome to millionaires/billionaires and these rates have existed in the past but they are high and it takes away an incentive to work hard because if you end up with roughly the same income after-tax by earning $1m as earning $100k, why bother?
What isn't progressive is having the super-rich paying single digit tax values. We can see the results in diverging income:
The money creation resulting from the financial collapse has helped this divergence:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-24/fed-s-4-trillion-holdings-keep-boosting-growth-beyond-end-of-qe
The reason this is allowed to happen is because the lunatics run the asylum:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/fed-s-revolving-door-spins-faster-as-banks-boost-hiring
VAT doesn't hit components repeatedly in the sense that it compounds, business to business purchases e.g from suppliers get VAT deducted before the sales tax is returned to the tax authority. That's why it's called value-added tax as it taxes the difference between the costs and the ex-VAT price.
If a manufacturer buys £10 of goods from a supplier and they charge VAT at 20%, the price would be £12. If Apple sells that for £20 and adds on 20% VAT, they sell it for £24 but Apple doesn't return £4 in VAT to the tax authority, they pay the difference between the VAT they paid to the supplier (£2) and the VAT they took from the customer (£4) = £2. The supplier returns the £2 they took from Apple to the tax authority. The value Apple added to the supplies was £10 so they pay 20% VAT on that. It's not them that pays VAT either, it's the customer. The customer pays the VAT on supplies (£2) and VAT on their product (£2) at the point of sale. Apple just passes it along from the customer to the government.
Or you could quit whining like an infant and just not make crap up. That’s an option.
By qualifying, you have a legitimate claim to them.
Except it isn’t, under the definition of the word.
Except they are, under the definition of the word.
Are you still confused why I said you have trouble with definitions? Because I’ll keep repeating this until you shut up and comprehend it.
You seem to have difficulty comprehending when a statement is one of opinion and one of fact. Let me make some adjustments to clarify...
"I'd only claim them where I felt I had a legitimate claim" - legitimacy under the law is a contributor, but not of the utmost relevance to a feeling.
"I don't call it legitimate at all, it's abusive" - opinion, not a statement of technical detail.
And yet again, you're being hostile and taking arguments to a pedantic level rather than arguing on any actual merit. That's almost entirely pointless and gets us nowhere interesting or of of any practical use. While I may be whining (your opinion), you're by far the more irritating noise in this thread. So quit it.
Regarding the final select quote you chose, what definition of what word are you referring too? "dues"? That's largely a question of perspective and meditation on how companies arrange themselves and should be allowed to arrange themselves in an international arena. Your simplistic, antagonistic answers are, again, of no interest or worth. And for the record, since you have no idea who I include in "others", then by definition your response is fundamentally flawed. If you're going to be a dick then at least be a consistent dick.
But actually, I'd far prefer it if you could you try contributing to debates rather than just trying to close them down by being snippy. Otherwise, it seems like your ideal forum would be one where no one posted anything at all.
P.S. Again with the claim that I'm making stuff up? What have I made up? I sometimes have difficulty understanding whether your arguments are malicious, or just incompetent.
P.P.S. Stop "harassing" me.
"I'd only claim them where I felt I had a legitimate claim"
But as has been stated many times already, your feelings don’t matter here. The law matters. That goes both ways.
"I don't call it legitimate at all, it's abusive" - opinion, not a statement of technical detail.
First part is, sure. If you meant the second to be…
No, the definition of ‘tax abuse’ in a thread about taxation is not pedantry.
Regarding the final select quote you chose, what definition of what word are you referring too?
Aren’t.
Let the record show that that didn’t matter, since you went for the wrong word. No worries.
edit: edit:
The money creation resulting from the financial collapse has helped this divergence:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-24/fed-s-4-trillion-holdings-keep-boosting-growth-beyond-end-of-qe
The reason this is allowed to happen is because the lunatics run the asylum:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/fed-s-revolving-door-spins-faster-as-banks-boost-hirin
You have some dead links there.
Quote:
6.5% is a lot lot lower that 35%!
Maybe 35% is stupidly high, but why 6.5%? That's not even trying to haggle. Why not start off at 20%? 15%?
When you reduce certain companies' taxation requirements, you give them an unfair advantage over their competition, whilst depriving the country of needed taxation income. Of course every major multinational is using tax havens and not repatriating money, so something needs to be done about it - killing the tax havens seems to be a good first step.
Many of them actually keep quite a bit of it in US banks, even if it's "held" by a foreign subsidiary. Keeping their cash in dollars ensures a stable basis when it comes to earnings reports. The 35% figure is also inaccurate. You might want to look up foreign tax credits. That alone (excluding other adjustments) means that is 35% minus whatever was paid in tax to a foreign government, assuming they filed for refunds of overpayment where applicable. Credits are different from writeoffs in that it's adjusted by that amount, rather than just an adjustment of the basis.
But as has been stated many times already, your feelings don’t matter here. The law matters. That goes both ways.
What are you talking about? The subject was whether I'd claim tax credits, and my response was that I wouldn't if I didn't feel it was legitimate. Since my feelings are the arbiter of my actions they are very relevant. Maybe you should read that exchange again, you don't seem to have read it properly.
First part is, sure. If you meant the second to be…
The second part was a direct run on from the first. Learn to read a sentence in context.
No, the definition of ‘tax abuse’ in a thread about taxation is not pedantry.
Given that "tax abuse" isn't a formally defined term, I don't really have a clue what you're talking about. "Tax evasion" and "tax avoidance" are reasonably well defined and understood, but I think you may have just made "tax abuse" up, definition man.
Aren't
Not responding to ridiculousness.
Let the record show that that didn’t matter, since you went for the wrong word. No worries.
I don't believe I did, all the words hang together to represent what I meant. That you disagree with my sentiment does not make my words wrong. And again, since I see you trying to sidestep it, you responded with a blanket statement that, since you didn't know what "others" meant, was wildly wrong. There are other companies engaging in tax crimes, so I could have been referring to them.
And your feelings are meaningless, as the law is the topic. Just as feelings that Apple isn’t paying “enough” are meaningless, as they pay what the law requires.
Not responding to ridiculousness.
I probably should have followed this advice when you were ridiculous enough to claim that Apple isn’t sufficiently paying their taxes. As it stands, you’re the only one who has said anything ridiculous, though.
^
My feelings are not meaningless when they are an influence on my behaviour, which was the subject of the question. Did you even read the question? Understand what you are talking about please.
I never made the claim that you say I made, so now who's making stuff up.
For the record "paying your dues" isn't the same as "paying the minimum amount of taxes mandated by law". Not by my intent, my opinion, nor by definition of terms.
Had enough of your crap, time for me to go to bed. I won't respond to you in the morning, since you can't see anything that moves the debate on. Just pedantry and pissantry.
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.
Marxists are absolutely not in favor of "no government", nor are Communists.
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.
Sorry, but I don't benefit from having my rates jacked up to pay for maternity care (just one example). It isn't my responsibility to feed or care for others under threat of jail time, garnished wages or the further reduction of my constitutional rights.
It is not the Federal government's job to provide health care services or insurance of any kind. The states have the option to provide for their residents health care programs, provide catastrophic coverage requirements, control insurance markets and myriad other things not allowed the Federal government. That laws were broken, half of the country's wishes were ignored and Harry Reid changed the rules of the game to get this monstrosity passed is testimony to its utter vileness. Any entitlement program the Federal government has created has resulted in the growth of Federal government and further incursion on private markets at the expense of taxpayers. There is no doubt the ACA was really written by insurance companies, not in the interest of the entire country.
As for the Republicans now in charge of the Congress and Senate, the first thing on their plate was to push forward the oil pipeline. It should be clear whose interests they represent. I trust neither party!
Marxists are absolutely not in favor of "no government", nor are Communists.
I would read up on that
Anarchism, communism (and now tea party republicans) all share the delusional fantasy of a world where strong central government does not exist, because everything magically works on its own without it.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/manifesto.html ;
"The vision of communism was very similar to that of anarchism: a stateless society in which central government had "withered away," local, ground-up control of all affairs by strictly democratic processes based at the place of work, abolition of the market system (no money, no buying and selling) and its replacement by a system according to which people would voluntarily work for the common good to the extent they were able under the understanding that they could receive whatever they needed for free ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). National boundaries and governments having been eliminated, war would cease."
Sorry, but I don't benefit from having my rates jacked up to pay for maternity care (just one example). It isn't my responsibility to feed or care for others under threat of jail time, garnished wages or the further reduction of my constitutional rights.
It is not the Federal government's job to provide health care services or insurance of any kind. The states have the option to provide for their residents health care programs, provide catastrophic coverage requirements, control insurance markets and myriad other things not allowed the Federal government. That laws were broken, half of the country's wishes were ignored and Harry Reid changed the rules of the game to get this monstrosity passed is testimony to its utter vileness. Any entitlement program the Federal government has created has resulted in the growth of Federal government and further incursion on private markets at the expense of taxpayers. There is no doubt the ACA was really written by insurance companies, not in the interest of the entire country.
As for the Republicans now in charge of the Congress and Senate, the first thing on their plate was to push forward the oil pipeline. It should be clear whose interests they represent. I trust neither party!
I agree that it's hard to "trust" either party, but I do suggest you at least attempt to balance the what you find to be the egregious overreach of the federal government to help states effectively fund affordable healthcare for millions of people (that costs less than the broken system we had) VS the unofficial wars of the previous administration that broke the economy, risked a draft (that would actually cause a problem for citizens) and terminated all the constitutional rights of the +4,000 soldiers we sacrificed in a misguided, failed attempt to maintain the status quo in our failed energy policy.
The way that the tea party seethes about the ACA as "ObamaCare" as if it were even comparable to the Oil Wars (which they've all forgiven as "water under the bridge") makes it hard take their "pro life" thing seriously. Let's let pregnant Americans and their children die because we can't afford maternity care, but our federal government can spend -- without any oversight --unlimited amounts of money and blood to keep oil flowing.
Because, you know, the US Constitution outlines that the main purpose of the federal government is to seize all resources to keep oil flowing.
I would read up on that
Anarchism, communism (and now tea party republicans) all share the delusional fantasy of a world where strong central government does not exist, because everything magically works on its own without it.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/manifesto.html ;
"The vision of communism was very similar to that of anarchism: a stateless society in which central government had "withered away," local, ground-up control of all affairs by strictly democratic processes based at the place of work, abolition of the market system (no money, no buying and selling) and its replacement by a system according to which people would voluntarily work for the common good to the extent they were able under the understanding that they could receive whatever they needed for free ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). National boundaries and governments having been eliminated, war would cease."
"The vision of Communism" never worked because like many narrow philosophies, it attempted to control human behavior and failed to appreciate that self-interest is inherent. This is also the failure of socialism, progressivism and anarchism. Enlightened self-interest teaches us to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, however forcing people to do for others is doomed to failure.
I agree that it's hard to "trust" either party, but I do suggest you at least attempt to balance the what you find to be the egregious overreach of the federal government to help states effectively fund affordable healthcare for millions of people (that costs less than the broken system we had) VS the unofficial wars of the previous administration that broke the economy, risked a draft (that would actually cause a problem for citizens) and terminated all the constitutional rights of the +4,000 soldiers we sacrificed in a misguided, failed attempt to maintain the status quo in our failed energy policy.
The way that the tea party seethes about the ACA as "ObamaCare" as if it were even comparable to the Oil Wars (which they've all forgiven as "water under the bridge") makes it hard take their "pro life" thing seriously. Let's let pregnant Americans and their children die because we can't afford maternity care, but our federal government can spend -- without any oversight --unlimited amounts of money and blood to keep oil flowing.
Because, you know, the US Constitution outlines that the main purpose of the federal government is to seize all resources to keep oil flowing.
There is no reason to trust either political party. Parties, like any large organization or business will reflect the self-serving nature of those in the organization. Political parties attach to the biggest and most reliable donors in exchange for laws crafted to serve those narrow interests of the donors. As previously noted, insurance companies wrote the ACA to benefit them by forcing the uninsured young into paying for insurance they largely do not need and by increasing the burden on the middle class. The largest voting bloc by far is still the Boomer generation, therefore I suspect the real reason for the ACA was not to benefit the poor and uninsured, but to further subsidize Boomers and to serve the Democratic base. It's sucking the lifeblood out of the younger generations in order to sustain the aged and dying majority. The tyranny of the majority wins out again. If the ACA is struck down (and by recent "admissions" from slime like Chuck Schumer that Democrats should not have passed the ACA in this economy, it's looking like it most likely will be struck down in the Supreme Court), Republicans will be making the same mistakes as Democrats by repealing and replacing with another Federal system.
Regarding the wars, I have nothing but contempt for those who sent Americans to war to fight and die for oil and to evidently avenge George W's father and for his failure to destroy S. Hussain the first time 'round. I consider it a disgrace and failure of epic proportions for a president to be allowed to wage undeclared wars unopposed by Congress.
"The vision of Communism" never worked because like many narrow philosophies, it attempted to control human behavior and failed to appreciate that self-interest is inherent. This is also the failure of socialism, progressivism and anarchism. Enlightened self-interest teaches us to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, however forcing people to do for others is doomed to failure.
Taxes aren't voluntary, but obviously necessary to maintain basic infrastructure, defense and education within a sophisticated civilization. Not "forcing people" to pay their taxes for others would be "doomed to failure."
Stop signs and DUIs aren't voluntary opt-in programs where self interest keeps people from committing negligent homicides. Not "forcing people" to obey traffic laws for others would be "doomed to failure."
Without threat of fines, companies would dump toxins in our rivers (like they did not so long ago-- and still do if they think they won't be caught). Not "forcing companies" to obey EPA laws for others would be "doomed to failure."
I could keep going but the thing is no political theory actually works. You have to have political tension keeping balance between people who want things to change too fast and people who don't want things to ever change at all. And you have to work out deals to keep things balanced as you incrementally move forward in response to learning from past mistakes and being informed by the best science we can manage.
There's no grand political theory that solves all problems. Certainly not American Conservatives, who have demonstrably caused the US massive problems in their attempts to eliminate regulation of financial instrument markets and bankers (who are not at all guided by some magical "enlightened self-interest" any more than the communists were). Bush and the proto-tea party politics financed by the Kochs viciously destroyed the economy before Obama came in to pick up the pieces.
?Tea party conservatives think that if they can gain all the control, that they can create an ideal theocracy where everyone shares their religion and people of their own race maintain political and economic control. It's really little different from conservative Islam with some of the names changed. Both even share the same social goals of teaching creationism, denying climate change, repressing women and pretending that gays don't actually exist.
They also share the communists' fantasy that central government isn't necessary because on a local level, Walmart and Hobby Lobby will exist as a local all-encompassing authority that gives workers just what they need in the form of minimum wage and stop women from using IUDs.
I disagree with all that.
There is no reason to trust either political party. Parties, like any large organization or business will reflect the self-serving nature of those in the organization. Political parties attach to the biggest and most reliable donors in exchange for laws crafted to serve those narrow interests of the donors. As previously noted, insurance companies wrote the ACA to benefit them by forcing the uninsured young into paying for insurance they largely do not need and by increasing the burden on the middle class.
Yes that is how "insurance" works, by definition. You can't insure only people with payment claims!
Yes, insurance companies helped write the ACA. Who should have, aerospace? The core tenants of a pay-you-own-way market-based exchange for health insurance (vs Clinton's universal payer Medicare-like plan) were written by Republicans in the 1990s. Obamacare is a Republican plan. If the Democrats had the power to write ACA on their own, they'd have simply expanded Medicare and made the US the insurance company.
The largest voting bloc by far is still the Boomer generation, therefore I suspect the real reason for the ACA was not to benefit the poor and uninsured, but to further subsidize Boomers and to serve the Democratic base.
The Democratic base is older people? Old people are the most stridently conservative.
Also, Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. Most are already covered by Medicare. They already had coverage. So no.
It's sucking the lifeblood out of the younger generations in order to sustain the aged and dying majority. The tyranny of the majority wins out again.
Uh, the A in ACA is for affordable. If anything is "sucking the lifeblood out of the younger generations" it is the cost of financing an education, not ACA premiums, which are and remain low for young people. Health insurance for young healthy people is not expensive.
If the ACA is struck down (and by recent "admissions" from slime like Chuck Schumer that Democrats should not have passed the ACA in this economy, it's looking like it most likely will be struck down in the Supreme Court), Republicans will be making the same mistakes as Democrats by repealing and replacing with another Federal system.
Chuck Schumer was grousing about political priorities, and has no insight or input into the Supreme Court's decisions.
Regarding the wars, I have nothing but contempt for those who sent Americans to war to fight and die for oil and to evidently avenge George W's father and for his failure to destroy S. Hussain the first time 'round. I consider it a disgrace and failure of epic proportions for a president to be allowed to wage undeclared wars unopposed by Congress.
I agree.
In the US income tax is 'voluntary compliance'.
Yes, and for noncompliance a person can expect fines, arrest and involuntary servitude to the state.
"What's Really Wrong With the Healthcare Industry?"
http://mises.org/library/whats-really-wrong-healthcare-industry