^ But my question was not loaded. It was about the relationship of the word abuse to legality. Either it is directly related or it isn't. I claim that it isn't, though there is overlap, since the law will ideally try to curb abuse.
I didn't make that argument, but I disagree with you. Fairness is the supposed bedrock of our society, so taxation should be based on a fair share principle. Specifics are obviously debateable.
But whichever way you look at, what Apple pays in corporation tax in many countries is not a fair share. 0% or close to 0% is not anything approaching a fair share.
"Fairness" is wholly subjective, which makes it a spurious argument.
If I think it's fair that I pay no taxes because my business employs hundreds of people and generates millions of dollars in economic activity, and you believe you should pay less because you make less money... who is right? What's "fair"? It's your opinion versus mine.
^ But my question was not loaded. It was about the relationship of the word abuse to legality. Either it is directly related or it isn't. I claim that it isn't, though there is overlap, since the law will ideally try to curb abuse.
If it wasn't a loaded question, then it certainly was a false equivalence or a straw man argument.
Yes, I would certainly be prepared to pay as much as the 4.7" iPhone costs.
In my opinion, 4" is a more desirable size.
What is the breakdown of your usage on your phone?
What percent do you use it to talk, text, web, watch video, and apps?
For me 4 inches is too small to go on the web (except for horrible mobile sites) and watch video or apps.
I don't use the browser much because I have an iPad for that. I use fitness apps, video, Apple Insider, finance a lot. Plus the usual email, text, talk etc. 242 third-party apps.
As long as they make one, I, and many others, will be happy, as long as the camera doesn't protrude.
As to the tax, seeing as it is just 4% more, it's going to make no material difference to Apple.
No, the tax is 25% more. Apple is paying zero on this kind of earning. They are paying 21% on there non diverted UK earnings which turns into a mere 11 million pounds. The vast majority of their earnings are diverted. This will make a huge dent (about 19%) if Apple can not figure a way around it.
Then I misunderstood. I thought it was replacing corporation tax, not in addition to it, in which case, yes, it will make a sizeable impact.
If it wasn't a loaded question, then it certainly was a false equivalence or a straw man argument.
It was about the use of the word abuse, and neither of those things. Certainly not a straw man, that doesn't even make any sense. But I don't think there's any suggestion that I was drawing any implicit parallel, it was just another use of the word to illustrate a point. And you still haven't replied to the question.
Yep, just take a look at some of our overseas territories like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. You can get some good "financial advice" in London too I hear.
"Fairness" is wholly subjective, which makes it a spurious argument.
If I think it's fair that I pay no taxes because my business employs hundreds of people and generates millions of dollars in economic activity, and you believe you should pay less because you make less money... who is right? What's "fair"? It's your opinion versus mine.
Since yours makes no sense as a statement of fairness, mine. Everyone pays income tax on the same progressive tax rate, just some people don't earn enough to hit the higher bounds. Fair, and with reasonable justification. Your business concerns are for your own profit, and do not justify any tax reduction, that's absurd.
"Fairness" is wholly subjective, which makes it a spurious argument.
If I think it's fair that I pay no taxes because my business employs hundreds of people and generates millions of dollars in economic activity, and you believe you should pay less because you make less money... who is right? What's "fair"? It's your opinion versus mine.
Consumers create jobs. Of course, everyone that works for you doesn't contribute to the success of your company. You wouldn't have employees if you did not need them. Not only to do the job you are paying them for but also their ideas and expertise.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
Owners of business may well not pay income tax. The reason we have a variety of taxes is to cover the bases. And since they're still not all covered, I certainly don't think less taxation is the answer.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
I think most people agree that the tax system should be less complicated (except tax advisors!) but taxation is an important tool that governments use as part of a mixed economy. Tax can be used to discourage certain behaviours (for example smoking) or to encourage investment in certain industries (for example building new houses).
Corporate taxes should be 0% . Your economy would be much better off and you would have a larger tax base with more jobs and more economic activity as businesses flocked to your state.
Yeah, Ireland won that particular race to the bottom and look at its economy now.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
It's incredibly easy to dodge income tax in the UK. If it were the only tax in the UK, our public services and infrastructure would collapse.
Owners of business may well not pay income tax. The reason we have a variety of taxes is to cover the bases. And since they're still not all covered, I certainly don't think less taxation is the answer.
The reason you (and most places) have a variety of taxes is not to cover all the bases. It is to extract as much blood as possible as politicians like to pander to their special interests by promising them benefits paid for by other peoples' money.
Comments
How often do you beat your wife?
Never have. In fact I'm not even married. What's your point?
If you were trying to be clever, the catch out question is normally said to be "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Never have. In fact I'm not even married. What's your point?
The question you posted that I responded to was strikingly similar to that old reporter's example of what is referred to as a loaded question.
^ But my question was not loaded. It was about the relationship of the word abuse to legality. Either it is directly related or it isn't. I claim that it isn't, though there is overlap, since the law will ideally try to curb abuse.
I didn't make that argument, but I disagree with you. Fairness is the supposed bedrock of our society, so taxation should be based on a fair share principle. Specifics are obviously debateable.
But whichever way you look at, what Apple pays in corporation tax in many countries is not a fair share. 0% or close to 0% is not anything approaching a fair share.
"Fairness" is wholly subjective, which makes it a spurious argument.
If I think it's fair that I pay no taxes because my business employs hundreds of people and generates millions of dollars in economic activity, and you believe you should pay less because you make less money... who is right? What's "fair"? It's your opinion versus mine.
^ But my question was not loaded. It was about the relationship of the word abuse to legality. Either it is directly related or it isn't. I claim that it isn't, though there is overlap, since the law will ideally try to curb abuse.
If it wasn't a loaded question, then it certainly was a false equivalence or a straw man argument.
Yes, I would certainly be prepared to pay as much as the 4.7" iPhone costs.
In my opinion, 4" is a more desirable size.
What is the breakdown of your usage on your phone?
What percent do you use it to talk, text, web, watch video, and apps?
For me 4 inches is too small to go on the web (except for horrible mobile sites) and watch video or apps.
I don't use the browser much because I have an iPad for that. I use fitness apps, video, Apple Insider, finance a lot. Plus the usual email, text, talk etc. 242 third-party apps.
As long as they make one, I, and many others, will be happy, as long as the camera doesn't protrude.
As to the tax, seeing as it is just 4% more, it's going to make no material difference to Apple.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that this tax will only be 4% more?
Corporation tax was 21%; this one will be 25%.
As long as they make one, I, and many others, will be happy, as long as the camera doesn't protrude.
As to the tax, seeing as it is just 4% more, it's going to make no material difference to Apple.
No, the tax is 25% more. Apple is paying zero on this kind of earning. They are paying 21% on there non diverted UK earnings which turns into a mere 11 million pounds. The vast majority of their earnings are diverted. This will make a huge dent (about 19%) if Apple can not figure a way around it.
Then I misunderstood. I thought it was replacing corporation tax, not in addition to it, in which case, yes, it will make a sizeable impact.
If it wasn't a loaded question, then it certainly was a false equivalence or a straw man argument.
It was about the use of the word abuse, and neither of those things. Certainly not a straw man, that doesn't even make any sense. But I don't think there's any suggestion that I was drawing any implicit parallel, it was just another use of the word to illustrate a point. And you still haven't replied to the question.
"Fairness" is wholly subjective, which makes it a spurious argument.
If I think it's fair that I pay no taxes because my business employs hundreds of people and generates millions of dollars in economic activity, and you believe you should pay less because you make less money... who is right? What's "fair"? It's your opinion versus mine.
Since yours makes no sense as a statement of fairness, mine. Everyone pays income tax on the same progressive tax rate, just some people don't earn enough to hit the higher bounds. Fair, and with reasonable justification. Your business concerns are for your own profit, and do not justify any tax reduction, that's absurd.
"Fairness" is wholly subjective, which makes it a spurious argument.
If I think it's fair that I pay no taxes because my business employs hundreds of people and generates millions of dollars in economic activity, and you believe you should pay less because you make less money... who is right? What's "fair"? It's your opinion versus mine.
Consumers create jobs. Of course, everyone that works for you doesn't contribute to the success of your company. You wouldn't have employees if you did not need them. Not only to do the job you are paying them for but also their ideas and expertise.
Costs are always passed along. If extra costs make a business non-competitive, then costs must be cut. I take it you don't own a business.
Did you read his post? It made no sense.
We get taxed far too many times here in the UK.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
We get taxed far too many times here in the UK.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
Owners of business may well not pay income tax. The reason we have a variety of taxes is to cover the bases. And since they're still not all covered, I certainly don't think less taxation is the answer.
Corporate taxes should be 0% . Your economy would be much better off and you would have a larger tax base with more jobs and more economic activity as businesses flocked to your state.
Yeah, Ireland won that particular race to the bottom and look at its economy now.
Yeah, Ireland won that particular race to the bottom and look at its economy now.
Ireland's issues were not because it attracted international business through low tax rates.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
It's incredibly easy to dodge income tax in the UK. If it were the only tax in the UK, our public services and infrastructure would collapse.
Owners of business may well not pay income tax. The reason we have a variety of taxes is to cover the bases. And since they're still not all covered, I certainly don't think less taxation is the answer.
The reason you (and most places) have a variety of taxes is not to cover all the bases. It is to extract as much blood as possible as politicians like to pander to their special interests by promising them benefits paid for by other peoples' money.