The intention of the U.S. Corporation tax rules is that all foreign profits that are not used for foreign reinvestment will be "brought back" to the U.S. and subject to tax. That they don't have to be brought back/declared is the loophole.
The US has the third highest corporate tax rate in the world, the only reason that all of our big companies don't move offshore is that the loopholes drop the rate down to barely acceptable.
If you close the loopholes without lowering the rate, you are going to see a mass exodus of multinationals.
The US has the third highest corporate tax rate in the world, the only reason that all of our big companies don't move offshore is that the loopholes drop the rate down to barely acceptable.
If you close the loopholes without lowering the rate, you are going to see a mass exodus of multinationals.
So lower the rate as well? I never said anything about not lowering the rate. Or don't, and risk letting the multinationals go, I've never been particularly fond of them, and I'm never convinced by the "mass exodus" claim. They're still hanging around after decades of threatening to leave.
As I understand it, the rates are tolerated because of all sorts of loopholes that mean few big companies pay anything like the baseline rate, and more taxes fall on SMEs. So sure, lower the rate while closing the corporate entitlements.
Then your definition of loophole is very different from mine.
It is a very simple and straight forward rule: You don't pay taxes on foreign profits that you don't bring back into the country. That is as plain as day. Simple. Easy. English. Loophole it is not. Loopholes usually take pages and pages and pages of text to explain.
There is no implied complexity in a loophole, it is merely where the implementation of the law falls short of enforcing the intent of the law, and offers an escape to those who would not follow the intent of the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
And who are you to judge? How do you know or anyone else know if Apple won't eventually use those foreign profits to invest in foreign assets? You don't. No one does.
Don't be silly. Apple are not going to spend >$100b in foreign investment any time soon or in the far off future Apple are more than capable of meeting their foreign investment needs from cash flow and a comparatively small retained investment sum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
That you brought up tax shelters in foreign countries just proves that you had no idea that those shelters do not benefit Apple at all regarding paying US taxes. Those foreign tax shelters only benefit Apple by lowering Apple's tax burden in FOREIGN countries not the USA. I'm glad I could educate you on this matter since even our great leaders in the Senate had no idea this was the case.
I'm pretty sure I didn't bring up tax shelters, or claim that they aid in Apple not paying US domestic taxes. No sure where you've got that idea from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
So you want to pay foriegn governements more taxes? Good luck with that. I dont think anyone would agree with you that Apple needs to pay foreign governments more taxes than requried by law.
Naughty. I certainly didn't say I wanted Apple to pay "foreign" (I am a foreigner to you) governments more than required by law. I said that it was not my desire that Apple pay less tax on overseas earnings. That's a very different statement. I'm in favour of good multinational behaviour in every area that they operate, which includes responsible and honest accounting and tax policy.
Btw, "anyone" will include foreigners. Of which I am one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Bottom line is Apple follow all the rules and all the laws. PERIOD. Don't blame Apple for the tax rules. They didn't make them. But if you are so concerned about governments getting short changed from taxes you can feel free to send some extra money next time you file your taxes.
Very naughty. I'm concerned about poisonous corporate welfare, multinational exploitation and tax justice, not the piddling difference it'd make if I donated my entire salary to the tax coffers. That's a wormy argument you're making that has no bearing on the criticism of Apple.
Following all the rules and all the laws doesn't automatically make you something to be liked or admired. There are plenty of people who have never done an illegal thing in their life who are still assholes. Apple are making a lot of money in a lot of countries and hoarding it away. If they were paying it to the US tax authority, that would at least be contributing to the system, even if it was in an unbalanced way. But they aren't even doing that or a large portion of their profit, and it's because of creative financial engineering, which is tax avoidance.
As I understand it, the rates are tolerated because of all sorts of loopholes that mean few big companies pay anything like the baseline rate, and more taxes fall on SMEs. So sure, lower the rate while closing the corporate entitlements.
It is actually way more evil than that.
The high rates are in place on purpose, and so high that a company that pays the full rate can't compete. Senators and congressmen then give tax breaks to their friends and tilt the playing board in their favor. The whole system is designed to extract campaign contributions from companies, and to only allow companies to exist with a stamp of approval from some powerful politician.
It's not the responsibility of taxpayers or government to babysit the kids of others.
1) My I ask what other benefits of living in a society (community) are not the responsibility of taxpayers or government in your opinion and point of view?
2) If the government granted you the opportunity to pay ZERO taxes, with the caveat that you may no longer make use of any public resources that are paid and funded by those taxes... would you take that deal? This is a "take it or leave it" deal. No fudge. No picking and choosing.
^^^ Think hard about that choice and it's consequences.
That's why I would suggest online schools only for high school children.
Also they would go to a brick and mortar school twice a week.
My plan is to have half the amount of high schools since half the student body will be going to school on Mon/Tue and the other half Wed/Thur.
This would cut down on education expense by almost 50%.
Even if you just get rid of 25% of the high schools that would be a massive tax saver.
That is a reasonable suggestion (though unlikely to happen for another generation). My only question is why it took you about 20 posts to get from your earlier sensationalist comment (all schooling should be done online) to something reasonable.
I was going to say the exact same thing. Sog35 does this all of the time.
HOWEVER... it does often lead to some rather interesting debates and opinions from others.
Completely agree. Sick to death of being forced via taxation to support deadbeats.
So you're the arbiter and final judge of "deadbeats" now are ya?
My I ask your criteria for determining a "deadbeat"?
You've met and interviewed every single one these people... PEOPLE(!)... to faithfully label them as such and undeserving of any government assistance of any kind?
See my previous post to you: so what's it gonna be?
You sick and tired enough to go all-in with a Zero-Tax choice?
Note: step one foot off of your property... and you may be arrested for public trespassing by taxpaying members of society. Also, they can't help you if some of the more aggressive taxpayers decide they want your property and everything on it, so are you prepared to protect it yourself? Whatja gonna do... call Ghostbusters?
New and improved tax reform to make sure our profitable corporations pay less in taxes than people do.
That doesn't actually matter - all the profits of a corporation flow through to other people and get taxed there (as wages, dividends) or result in more payments to suppliers or lower prices for consumers.
Corporate tax changes don't result in much revenue changes, they just push taxes into a different pile. The important thing is that they provide a level playing field for all companies (which our system does not).
1) My I ask what other benefits of living in a society (community) are not the responsibility of taxpayers or government in your opinion and point of view?
2) If the government granted you the opportunity to pay ZERO taxes, with the caveat that you may no longer make use of any public resources that are paid and funded by those taxes... would you take that deal? This is a "take it or leave it" deal. No fudge. No picking and choosing.
^^^ Think hard about that choice and it's consequences.
I reject the premise of your question. I'm not an anarchist. I believe in constitutional government. Having said that (and I've made this point before), Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, but not for those millions of things it is involved in which are not allowed by the Constitution.
In short, "that government is best which governs least." (Thoreau)
I can choose on my own to never pay taxes. The problem is, I'd be thrown in prison for doing so.
Finally, do you seriously believe that it is the function of government to raise your children? I sure as hell don't.
I reject the premise of your question. I'm not an anarchist. I believe in constitutional government. Having said that (and I've made this point before), Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, but not for those millions of things it is involved in which are not allowed by the Constitution.
That document that you take so serious and literally, also concedes that it is a living document and can (should be?) a current reflection of the democracy for which it's written. To be edited, added upon, corrected and/or abridged via Congressional and judicious methods to not only protect the people... but to also protect the constitution itself from spurious misuse and disregard. Essentially becoming a dead legacy that can be ignored.
^^^ That's paraphrased, but it is my critical understanding of the underlying intent. That's why it's high time that the Constitution itself is upgraded to reflect an entirely different world and populace than the framers wrote it for, or could in their wildest dreams even imagine. They were clever enough to see that eventuality, that's why it's not "written in stone" like the 10 commandments.
In short, "that government is best which governs least." (Thoreau)
I full agree 110%.
I can choose on my own to never pay taxes. The problem is, I'd be thrown in prison for doing so.
That's shaking off answering my question and deciding on my immoral deal with the devil with class /s :no:
Finally, do you seriously believe that it is the function of government to raise your children? I sure as hell don't.
Communities across the globe for 1000's of years have sent their children to the wisest amoung their culture to be schooled and yes, "raised" to be productive members of their community. This while the women "were-a-gathering", cooking and deciding on community disputes; and the men "were-a-hunting" or warmongering so that they all could survive the elements and other encroaching cultures upon their hunting grounds. These "schools" were comprised of wise-men, religious scholars, shamans, etc.... AKA "teachers"... and were paid with all manner of gifts (including giving as slaves or sacrificial "lambs" one of their children)... and the understanding by the community that they were a vital part of their continuing survival and all of their futures.
IMHO... there has never been a stronger case for community efforts to do all they can to support education in any way they can. Community efforts include the government which is democratically elected to represent your community. That's the fact that you're choosing to ignore in your love of the literal reading of the Constitution by the way.
I'll throw another moral dilemma your way: Non-amendable Constitution... or representative Democracy? Take your pick. You again can not pick and choose the parts that agree with you. This is an all-in card game.
Note: there are those that would say you can't have one without the other. So beware your choice.
OH... and to answer your question: YES. I do believe it is the job and responsibility of the government to provide for all of it's constituents the equal opportunity to be educated and to further the individual's possibility of being a productive member of society. If they don't do it... who will?
You've already counted yourself out... and I do wonder how many others like you would do the same. You do realize that your group's decisions have dire consequences, that those young, strong and eager to learn are the very people that will be trying to protect your beloved Constitution when you're too old, weak, senile and feeble to do it yourselves, right? Why do you want to handicap them so bad? Are you a masochist at heart... or just plain greedy at the moment?
Before you decide to label me as is so often the case in discussions as these... to effectively shove me in one of your personal "Drawers of Hated Ideologies"... I will proudly stand firm with the label of [B]Liberal Socialist[/B] stamped upon my forehead and my words.
I work daily (rather hard) at being a productive member of the community I find myself in. I often find myself in the role of picking someone up, motivating them... kicking them in the ass if need be... to do the same. There is nothing that gives me more joy than to see someone "learn" to be productive and gain the respect of the community and themselves.
Egoists, people that think they can do it alone or extricate themselves from society are in my eyes to be pitied.
Come on! Join the fun! Get yourself some free pats on the back, Thank You's, and whatever congratulations come your way for doing a great job... and being a productive member of society. Funny enough: it's a dangerous place for egos... can you handle it?
Comments
Is anyone forcing you to read it?
Perhaps there are others whore interested.
Thanks for setting me straight as well...carry on as you were.
The intention of the U.S. Corporation tax rules is that all foreign profits that are not used for foreign reinvestment will be "brought back" to the U.S. and subject to tax. That they don't have to be brought back/declared is the loophole.
The US has the third highest corporate tax rate in the world, the only reason that all of our big companies don't move offshore is that the loopholes drop the rate down to barely acceptable.
If you close the loopholes without lowering the rate, you are going to see a mass exodus of multinationals.
The US has the third highest corporate tax rate in the world, the only reason that all of our big companies don't move offshore is that the loopholes drop the rate down to barely acceptable.
If you close the loopholes without lowering the rate, you are going to see a mass exodus of multinationals.
So lower the rate as well? I never said anything about not lowering the rate. Or don't, and risk letting the multinationals go, I've never been particularly fond of them, and I'm never convinced by the "mass exodus" claim. They're still hanging around after decades of threatening to leave.
As I understand it, the rates are tolerated because of all sorts of loopholes that mean few big companies pay anything like the baseline rate, and more taxes fall on SMEs. So sure, lower the rate while closing the corporate entitlements.
Then your definition of loophole is very different from mine.
It is a very simple and straight forward rule: You don't pay taxes on foreign profits that you don't bring back into the country. That is as plain as day. Simple. Easy. English. Loophole it is not. Loopholes usually take pages and pages and pages of text to explain.
A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.
There is no implied complexity in a loophole, it is merely where the implementation of the law falls short of enforcing the intent of the law, and offers an escape to those who would not follow the intent of the law.
And who are you to judge? How do you know or anyone else know if Apple won't eventually use those foreign profits to invest in foreign assets? You don't. No one does.
Don't be silly. Apple are not going to spend >$100b in foreign investment any time soon or in the far off future Apple are more than capable of meeting their foreign investment needs from cash flow and a comparatively small retained investment sum.
Quote:
That you brought up tax shelters in foreign countries just proves that you had no idea that those shelters do not benefit Apple at all regarding paying US taxes. Those foreign tax shelters only benefit Apple by lowering Apple's tax burden in FOREIGN countries not the USA. I'm glad I could educate you on this matter since even our great leaders in the Senate had no idea this was the case.
I'm pretty sure I didn't bring up tax shelters, or claim that they aid in Apple not paying US domestic taxes. No sure where you've got that idea from.
So you want to pay foriegn governements more taxes? Good luck with that. I dont think anyone would agree with you that Apple needs to pay foreign governments more taxes than requried by law.
Naughty. I certainly didn't say I wanted Apple to pay "foreign" (I am a foreigner to you) governments more than required by law. I said that it was not my desire that Apple pay less tax on overseas earnings. That's a very different statement. I'm in favour of good multinational behaviour in every area that they operate, which includes responsible and honest accounting and tax policy.
Btw, "anyone" will include foreigners. Of which I am one.
Bottom line is Apple follow all the rules and all the laws. PERIOD. Don't blame Apple for the tax rules. They didn't make them. But if you are so concerned about governments getting short changed from taxes you can feel free to send some extra money next time you file your taxes.
Very naughty. I'm concerned about poisonous corporate welfare, multinational exploitation and tax justice, not the piddling difference it'd make if I donated my entire salary to the tax coffers. That's a wormy argument you're making that has no bearing on the criticism of Apple.
Following all the rules and all the laws doesn't automatically make you something to be liked or admired. There are plenty of people who have never done an illegal thing in their life who are still assholes. Apple are making a lot of money in a lot of countries and hoarding it away. If they were paying it to the US tax authority, that would at least be contributing to the system, even if it was in an unbalanced way. But they aren't even doing that or a large portion of their profit, and it's because of creative financial engineering, which is tax avoidance.
As I understand it, the rates are tolerated because of all sorts of loopholes that mean few big companies pay anything like the baseline rate, and more taxes fall on SMEs. So sure, lower the rate while closing the corporate entitlements.
It is actually way more evil than that.
The high rates are in place on purpose, and so high that a company that pays the full rate can't compete. Senators and congressmen then give tax breaks to their friends and tilt the playing board in their favor. The whole system is designed to extract campaign contributions from companies, and to only allow companies to exist with a stamp of approval from some powerful politician.
New and improved tax reform to make sure our profitable corporations pay less in taxes than people do.
1) My I ask what other benefits of living in a society (community) are not the responsibility of taxpayers or government in your opinion and point of view?
2) If the government granted you the opportunity to pay ZERO taxes, with the caveat that you may no longer make use of any public resources that are paid and funded by those taxes... would you take that deal? This is a "take it or leave it" deal. No fudge. No picking and choosing.
^^^ Think hard about that choice and it's consequences.
I was going to say the exact same thing. Sog35 does this all of the time.
HOWEVER... it does often lead to some rather interesting debates and opinions from others.
So you're the arbiter and final judge of "deadbeats" now are ya?
My I ask your criteria for determining a "deadbeat"?
You've met and interviewed every single one these people... PEOPLE(!)... to faithfully label them as such and undeserving of any government assistance of any kind?
See my previous post to you: so what's it gonna be?
You sick and tired enough to go all-in with a Zero-Tax choice?
Note: step one foot off of your property... and you may be arrested for public trespassing by taxpaying members of society. Also, they can't help you if some of the more aggressive taxpayers decide they want your property and everything on it, so are you prepared to protect it yourself? Whatja gonna do... call Ghostbusters?
New and improved tax reform to make sure our profitable corporations pay less in taxes than people do.
That doesn't actually matter - all the profits of a corporation flow through to other people and get taxed there (as wages, dividends) or result in more payments to suppliers or lower prices for consumers.
Corporate tax changes don't result in much revenue changes, they just push taxes into a different pile. The important thing is that they provide a level playing field for all companies (which our system does not).
I reject the premise of your question. I'm not an anarchist. I believe in constitutional government. Having said that (and I've made this point before), Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, but not for those millions of things it is involved in which are not allowed by the Constitution.
In short, "that government is best which governs least." (Thoreau)
I can choose on my own to never pay taxes. The problem is, I'd be thrown in prison for doing so.
Finally, do you seriously believe that it is the function of government to raise your children? I sure as hell don't.
That document that you take so serious and literally, also concedes that it is a living document and can (should be?) a current reflection of the democracy for which it's written. To be edited, added upon, corrected and/or abridged via Congressional and judicious methods to not only protect the people... but to also protect the constitution itself from spurious misuse and disregard. Essentially becoming a dead legacy that can be ignored.
^^^ That's paraphrased, but it is my critical understanding of the underlying intent. That's why it's high time that the Constitution itself is upgraded to reflect an entirely different world and populace than the framers wrote it for, or could in their wildest dreams even imagine. They were clever enough to see that eventuality, that's why it's not "written in stone" like the 10 commandments.
I full agree 110%.
That's shaking off answering my question and deciding on my immoral deal with the devil with class /s :no:
Communities across the globe for 1000's of years have sent their children to the wisest amoung their culture to be schooled and yes, "raised" to be productive members of their community. This while the women "were-a-gathering", cooking and deciding on community disputes; and the men "were-a-hunting" or warmongering so that they all could survive the elements and other encroaching cultures upon their hunting grounds. These "schools" were comprised of wise-men, religious scholars, shamans, etc.... AKA "teachers"... and were paid with all manner of gifts (including giving as slaves or sacrificial "lambs" one of their children)... and the understanding by the community that they were a vital part of their continuing survival and all of their futures.
IMHO... there has never been a stronger case for community efforts to do all they can to support education in any way they can. Community efforts include the government which is democratically elected to represent your community. That's the fact that you're choosing to ignore in your love of the literal reading of the Constitution by the way.
I'll throw another moral dilemma your way: Non-amendable Constitution... or representative Democracy? Take your pick. You again can not pick and choose the parts that agree with you. This is an all-in card game.
Note: there are those that would say you can't have one without the other. So beware your choice.
OH... and to answer your question: YES. I do believe it is the job and responsibility of the government to provide for all of it's constituents the equal opportunity to be educated and to further the individual's possibility of being a productive member of society. If they don't do it... who will?
You've already counted yourself out... and I do wonder how many others like you would do the same. You do realize that your group's decisions have dire consequences, that those young, strong and eager to learn are the very people that will be trying to protect your beloved Constitution when you're too old, weak, senile and feeble to do it yourselves, right? Why do you want to handicap them so bad? Are you a masochist at heart... or just plain greedy at the moment?
Before you decide to label me as is so often the case in discussions as these... to effectively shove me in one of your personal "Drawers of Hated Ideologies"... I will proudly stand firm with the label of [B]Liberal Socialist[/B] stamped upon my forehead and my words.
I work daily (rather hard) at being a productive member of the community I find myself in. I often find myself in the role of picking someone up, motivating them... kicking them in the ass if need be... to do the same. There is nothing that gives me more joy than to see someone "learn" to be productive and gain the respect of the community and themselves.
Egoists, people that think they can do it alone or extricate themselves from society are in my eyes to be pitied.
Come on! Join the fun! Get yourself some free pats on the back, Thank You's, and whatever congratulations come your way for doing a great job... and being a productive member of society. Funny enough: it's a dangerous place for egos... can you handle it?