Referring to differences between communism and socialism and taking a shot at Sarah Palin is the best you can do?
Again...name one free country with a socialist or communist economy that is a tremendous economic success please.
Well, I thought it'd be a good start - to save you further embarrassment, if nothing else.
However, taking you seriously for a moment: depending on what you mean by "tremendous economic success", you could look at any number of European countries. In direct answer to you question (I'm sure it was a question, not a challenge), start with Germany.
How about we give an incentive for the behavior we want, e.g. for every 1,000 net new jobs a company creates and keeps in the U.S. we let the company bring back $100m in profits tax free. Gov't gets what they want, jobs, companies get what they want, tax free profits.
Better idea. Give them a 100% tax deduction on any manufacturing plant they build in the US. Let them write it all off. The problem with your suggestion there are too many variables to work around. If they build a new plant that will create the jobs.
How about Apple bring some manufacturing back to the US!
Again...name one free country with a socialist or communist economy that is a tremendous economic success please.
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China [not free, but tremendous economic success], Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
All have socialized medicine and universal (or near universal) health care.
Well, if don't think you are paying your fair share, pay in more to the government. Don't take your mortgage deduction. The IRS want mind. However, that is your choice and you shouldn't dictate what others should pay.
There in lies much of the problem with this debate. I'm as entitled to my opinion that this is unfair (just as you are entitled to your opinion that you think the current system is fair), but all too many people react like you and just assume people who don't want taxes to lowered time and time again jump behind the bandwagon of calling people communists (I know you have not done this, but it's come up a lot on this forum), or just dismissing people who think differently to you.
I'm going to pay what I legally have to and not anymore. It's for society as a whole to decide what is fair and unfair. At the moment I personally believe the system is unfair, but consider myself fortunate that I benefit from that, but it still doesn't change the fact that I don't think it's fair.
Yes, they have $76 billion or so in cash but not all that cash is here. I wonder if there's a way to find out what percentage of that is abroad.
Who decides what a fair share is? You?
Let's face it, a fair share would be where everyone shares equally. But right now the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all taxes. That tells me the bottom 50% (the ones who always bitch about others not paying their fair share) are the ones not paying THEIR fair share.
And if you extrapolate further, you will see that the top 1% pays 39% of all taxes. That sounds like they are already paying their fair share... and they are probably paying your share already too.
The bottom 50% control about 1.5% of the total US wealth and have an average HH income of $22,500. With the current tax code and a kid or two you won't pay any taxes. The top 10% control 85% of the wealth and pay less than the so called fair share on a percentage basis. Those of us not in the top 10% or bottom 50% are the ones getting screwed.
There in lies much of the problem with this debate. I'm as entitled to my opinion that this is unfair (just as you are entitled to your opinion that you think the current system is fair), but all too many people react like you and just assume people who don't want taxes to lowered time and time again jump behind the bandwagon of calling people communists (I know you have not done this, but it's come up a lot on this forum), or just dismissing people who think differently to you.
I'm going to pay what I legally have to and not anymore. It's for society as a whole to decide what is fair and unfair. At the moment I personally believe the system is unfair, but consider myself fortunate that I benefit from that, but it still doesn't change the fact that I don't think it's fair.
You sound like a nice, reasonable person but we just disagree on this question of what is fair.
It reminds me of what former Sen. Russell Long (D) LA once said " ? don't tax you and don't tax me. Tax the man behind the tree." It seems most people don't care how much tax a person has to pay as long as it is not them who is paying the tax. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
Now I know you are going to argue Germany has a capitalistic economy and said position would have merit. However, if you asked any Republican or Tea Party person, the vast majority would say Germany is a socialist country -- because they don't know what the word "socialist" means. So instead of using labels most people don't understand, how about we just say let's be more like Germany - strong economy, second leading exporter behind China AND universal health care, workers treated fairly, not the great income disparity we have in this country.
And for ALL the people who are complaining about ALL the people who pay NO taxes (Income tax) there is an easy solution. Better income distribution that actually gives the middle class a growth in wages that they haven't seen in the last 30 years so that they now make enough to pay INCOME tax.
Germany is a successful country but even in your post you had to agree that it is largely a capitalist economy and arguments to that effect "have merit". I appreciate that you offered an apparently reasoned opinion but if all you can name is one successful country that is largely capitalist but with a fair number of socialist programs it's hardly much of a defense of socialism.
Germany is a successful country but even in your post you had to agree that it is largely a capitalist economy and arguments to that effect "have merit". I appreciate that you offered an apparently reasoned opinion but if all you can name is one successful country that is largely capitalist but with a fair number of socialist programs it's hardly much of a defense of socialism.
America has its socialist elements, and not inconsiderable. Does that make America not a capitalist economy? Nearly half of the healthcare dollars in the US go through the federal and state governments. That sounds like socialized medicine to me, just very inefficient socialized medicine, compared to our European peers.
The tax holiday's not the problem; it's corporate offshore profits, and how they're taxed. A self-employed private U.S. citizen working abroad is subject to double taxation. Income tax must, of course, be paid in the country where the income was earned. Plus, the IRS demands that all income, earned worldwide, be taxed in the U.S. as well. There is a U.S. foreign-earned income tax exclusion for some of it (currently about $90,000), but all the rest is taxed, and there's no credit given for any taxes paid to another government. (BTW: there's no such double taxation in the EU. Tax is only paid to the country where it was earned.)
While U.S. ex-pats hate it (who wouldn't?), they understand that that's the price for keeping U.S. citizenship. Of course, they also have no choice.
So the question for me is really why a U.S. corporation should be treated differently in this regard than a private U.S. citizen. Why isn't at least some of their foreign-earned income taxed in the U.S. regularly? If you taxed it all, many such corporations might simply move abroad, lock, stock, and barrel, and the U.S. would get nothing at all. But being in the U.S. is, in itself, a good thing for many companies, probably good enough that, like private ex-pats, they'd be willing to pay something for it. What we really need is a fundamental re-think and re-vamp of our entire tax structure, but especially the corporate tax structure.
Depends upon your type of operation and corporate structure, I can tell you that for our operation in UK (and other regions), we pay taxes to both UK and US. The monies left over (what little there is) would be taxed if we brought it back to the US, the rate would differ spending on what was down with the monies. Demanding that all funds be repatriated shows that someone has no clue on what it takes to run a foreign operation. If you starve it of cash it will fail, if you constantly send funds back and forth you'll get dinged by transfer fees and audits because you are sending back and forth. We try to keep things separate until year end and then even things out. Foreign funds stay that way unless we need them to pay our double taxation penalty in the US, what is left is essentially operating capital for the foreign division. We also do work in China, that currency isn't an officially traded currency by the US. Any profits we make are in local currency but since we can't exchange it (can't bring it out) we pay taxes on Chinese operations using other funds as there is only 1 place you can spend Chinese currency and yes we pay taxes there and in the US.
You sound like a nice, reasonable person but we just disagree on this question of what is fair.
It reminds me of what former Sen. Russell Long (D) LA once said " … don't tax you and don't tax me. Tax the man behind the tree." It seems most people don't care how much tax a person has to pay as long as it is not them who is paying the tax. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
Sure, and I'm fine with that disagreement and to be clear, I don't want to pay more tax, and I'm not going to pay more than I absolutely have to (as I said, my household income is about $250k, and I do object to the idea of me paying more than someone else who earns the same amount as me), but at the same time, I do think that I probably should be made to pay more.
One of the things I have a problem with is that who gets a say in what is fair and is not fair I don't think is really representative of the country as a whole. Maybe I'm wrong, but Republicans control over half of the House, and none of them seem to believe rich people should pay anymore tax, but do more than 50% of the public really believe that the rich shouldn't pay a bit more?
It just doesn't seem likely to me that the 90% who earn <$80,000 and who have frankly been stiffed during the downturn aren't in favor of the top 10% who earn over that paying a little more.
I'll cheerfully admit that I may be wrong, but I do feel that we're never able to have a sensible discussion about this because it all too quickly comes down to either:
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China [not free, but tremendous economic success], Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
All have socialized medicine and universal (or near universal) health care.
Greece? You actually included Greece in this list? They're an economic basket case because of the rampant government spending. They're rioting in the streets because of the disastrous effect socialism has had on their economy.
I don't see the great economic success in any of those countries save for a few exceptions. There is Japan but they are struggling with their "lost decade" due to their socialist programs. China isn't a free country and life there is hardly prosperous for the ordinary citizen. Russia and Saudi Arabia aren't free countries either (Russia is a thugocracy and Saudi Arabia is a theocracy) but both are sustained not by socialism but by huge oil reserves.
All the rest are either small countries with modest economic success or they are larger economies that are in the news every day because there are riots over proposed austerity measures that their governments now have to consider because they can no longer afford their disastrously expensive social programs.
Germany is the only example, as I and another contributor discussed in other posts in this thread, that you might hold up as a bit of an example but everybody has to concede that Germany is primarily a capitalist country and what prosperity they have stems from their being so.
But let me get this straight...you are in effect proposing that the path to prosperity for the ordinary American is for the United States to become more like...say...Cyprus? Don't make me laugh.
The bottom 50% control about 1.5% of the total US wealth and have an average HH income of $22,500. With the current tax code and a kid or two you won't pay any taxes. The top 10% control 85% of the wealth and pay less than the so called fair share on a percentage basis. Those of us not in the top 10% or bottom 50% are the ones getting screwed.
The top 1% own about the same amount of financial wealth as the poorest 95% of Americans. The bottom 40% own just 0.3% of Americas total wealth and the richest 400 tax filers have the same amount of total wealth as the poorest 60% of Americans.
America has its socialist elements, and not inconsiderable. Does that make America not a capitalist economy? Nearly half of the healthcare dollars in the US go through the federal and state governments. That sounds like socialized medicine to me, just very inefficient socialized medicine, compared to our European peers.
That is a very good point...America has been sliding more and more toward a more socialist model over the last 30 or 40 years. Which proves my point...because we have also been sliding further and further into debt.
I would hardly call European health care systems economically efficient ones though that provide excellent care and should thus serve as a model for ours. Keep in mind that all across Europe there is a growing wave of government spending shortfalls to the point where citizens are rioting in the streets at proposed austerity measures.
"During the 2004 tax holiday — when the corporate tax rate was effectively lowered to 5.25 percent — 843 companies moved $362 billion into the American economy." That's $19 Billion (2004 dollars) directly into the US Treasury. An estimated $83+ Billion into jobs.
Now, if I were designing the current law (proposal), I'd put in Actual Incentives (like other tax laws) that said XX% (I don't know - 30%?) must go directly into Approved Infrastructure Improvements.
Think different. Compel repatriation and tax it at 70% at threat of imprisonment for all senior executives.
Probably said by someone else, but I'll take a crack at this.
All this would do would make Apple a foreign company.
They are keeping their money overseas. The question we should ask is whether we want them to keep their money overseas or bring it home for domestic use.
It cost We the people nothing for Apple to make that profit in those other countries. US didn't regulate them, protect them, provide courts for them, ports for them. Those things were done in the country where the profits were made and taxes were paid on those profits in that country. Why is it we feel entitled to any part of it? What's it going to cost me if they move it to a bank here and spend it here?
Fine Apple! Move the money here and we'll tax you some millions. Then you can raise the price of goods and services here in the US to cover the difference. That'll show you!!!
Wake me up when all Corporate Tax Loopholes are closed.
Let's start with every dollar that's off-shored through a loophole is taxed at 70%. Let's see how much money going forward gets off-shored. I'm betting none of it.
NO? Don't like that idea? Fine.
Corporations should get taxed at the present rate they are coded to be charged: 15%-35%. Republicans all claim it's fixed at 35% though it's not. When GE is being paid a return on their corporate taxes you know the system is beyond fubar'd.
A 5% tax is an insult to the Nation.
China charges 20%-25% import tariffs on US Goods whereas we charge a 5% import tariff on goods imported from China.
Let's cut the deal equally at 12.5%. No Deal?
We can even compromise and cut the deal at off-shoring will cost you 35% just as it would cost you 35% in the States. Don't like that either?
The one way to avoid such taxes at 35% is to put the majority of that capital back into the Corporation for reinvestment of new R&D. Let's start at 75% of those profits. Full transparency of where funds are being invested [Publicly traded after all] and we'll let the remaining 25% receive a 25% tax rate. The 75% obviously would include the cost of expansion, payroll, utilities, etc.
Comments
Referring to differences between communism and socialism and taking a shot at Sarah Palin is the best you can do?
Again...name one free country with a socialist or communist economy that is a tremendous economic success please.
Well, I thought it'd be a good start - to save you further embarrassment, if nothing else.
However, taking you seriously for a moment: depending on what you mean by "tremendous economic success", you could look at any number of European countries. In direct answer to you question (I'm sure it was a question, not a challenge), start with Germany.
How about we give an incentive for the behavior we want, e.g. for every 1,000 net new jobs a company creates and keeps in the U.S. we let the company bring back $100m in profits tax free. Gov't gets what they want, jobs, companies get what they want, tax free profits.
Better idea. Give them a 100% tax deduction on any manufacturing plant they build in the US. Let them write it all off. The problem with your suggestion there are too many variables to work around. If they build a new plant that will create the jobs.
How about Apple bring some manufacturing back to the US!
Again...name one free country with a socialist or communist economy that is a tremendous economic success please.
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China [not free, but tremendous economic success], Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
All have socialized medicine and universal (or near universal) health care.
Well, if don't think you are paying your fair share, pay in more to the government. Don't take your mortgage deduction. The IRS want mind. However, that is your choice and you shouldn't dictate what others should pay.
There in lies much of the problem with this debate. I'm as entitled to my opinion that this is unfair (just as you are entitled to your opinion that you think the current system is fair), but all too many people react like you and just assume people who don't want taxes to lowered time and time again jump behind the bandwagon of calling people communists (I know you have not done this, but it's come up a lot on this forum), or just dismissing people who think differently to you.
I'm going to pay what I legally have to and not anymore. It's for society as a whole to decide what is fair and unfair. At the moment I personally believe the system is unfair, but consider myself fortunate that I benefit from that, but it still doesn't change the fact that I don't think it's fair.
Yes, they have $76 billion or so in cash but not all that cash is here. I wonder if there's a way to find out what percentage of that is abroad.
Who decides what a fair share is? You?
Let's face it, a fair share would be where everyone shares equally. But right now the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all taxes. That tells me the bottom 50% (the ones who always bitch about others not paying their fair share) are the ones not paying THEIR fair share.
And if you extrapolate further, you will see that the top 1% pays 39% of all taxes. That sounds like they are already paying their fair share... and they are probably paying your share already too.
The bottom 50% control about 1.5% of the total US wealth and have an average HH income of $22,500. With the current tax code and a kid or two you won't pay any taxes. The top 10% control 85% of the wealth and pay less than the so called fair share on a percentage basis. Those of us not in the top 10% or bottom 50% are the ones getting screwed.
There in lies much of the problem with this debate. I'm as entitled to my opinion that this is unfair (just as you are entitled to your opinion that you think the current system is fair), but all too many people react like you and just assume people who don't want taxes to lowered time and time again jump behind the bandwagon of calling people communists (I know you have not done this, but it's come up a lot on this forum), or just dismissing people who think differently to you.
I'm going to pay what I legally have to and not anymore. It's for society as a whole to decide what is fair and unfair. At the moment I personally believe the system is unfair, but consider myself fortunate that I benefit from that, but it still doesn't change the fact that I don't think it's fair.
You sound like a nice, reasonable person but we just disagree on this question of what is fair.
It reminds me of what former Sen. Russell Long (D) LA once said " ? don't tax you and don't tax me. Tax the man behind the tree." It seems most people don't care how much tax a person has to pay as long as it is not them who is paying the tax. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
Germany.
Now I know you are going to argue Germany has a capitalistic economy and said position would have merit. However, if you asked any Republican or Tea Party person, the vast majority would say Germany is a socialist country -- because they don't know what the word "socialist" means. So instead of using labels most people don't understand, how about we just say let's be more like Germany - strong economy, second leading exporter behind China AND universal health care, workers treated fairly, not the great income disparity we have in this country.
And for ALL the people who are complaining about ALL the people who pay NO taxes (Income tax) there is an easy solution. Better income distribution that actually gives the middle class a growth in wages that they haven't seen in the last 30 years so that they now make enough to pay INCOME tax.
Germany is a successful country but even in your post you had to agree that it is largely a capitalist economy and arguments to that effect "have merit". I appreciate that you offered an apparently reasoned opinion but if all you can name is one successful country that is largely capitalist but with a fair number of socialist programs it's hardly much of a defense of socialism.
Germany is a successful country but even in your post you had to agree that it is largely a capitalist economy and arguments to that effect "have merit". I appreciate that you offered an apparently reasoned opinion but if all you can name is one successful country that is largely capitalist but with a fair number of socialist programs it's hardly much of a defense of socialism.
America has its socialist elements, and not inconsiderable. Does that make America not a capitalist economy? Nearly half of the healthcare dollars in the US go through the federal and state governments. That sounds like socialized medicine to me, just very inefficient socialized medicine, compared to our European peers.
The tax holiday's not the problem; it's corporate offshore profits, and how they're taxed. A self-employed private U.S. citizen working abroad is subject to double taxation. Income tax must, of course, be paid in the country where the income was earned. Plus, the IRS demands that all income, earned worldwide, be taxed in the U.S. as well. There is a U.S. foreign-earned income tax exclusion for some of it (currently about $90,000), but all the rest is taxed, and there's no credit given for any taxes paid to another government. (BTW: there's no such double taxation in the EU. Tax is only paid to the country where it was earned.)
While U.S. ex-pats hate it (who wouldn't?), they understand that that's the price for keeping U.S. citizenship. Of course, they also have no choice.
So the question for me is really why a U.S. corporation should be treated differently in this regard than a private U.S. citizen. Why isn't at least some of their foreign-earned income taxed in the U.S. regularly? If you taxed it all, many such corporations might simply move abroad, lock, stock, and barrel, and the U.S. would get nothing at all. But being in the U.S. is, in itself, a good thing for many companies, probably good enough that, like private ex-pats, they'd be willing to pay something for it. What we really need is a fundamental re-think and re-vamp of our entire tax structure, but especially the corporate tax structure.
Depends upon your type of operation and corporate structure, I can tell you that for our operation in UK (and other regions), we pay taxes to both UK and US. The monies left over (what little there is) would be taxed if we brought it back to the US, the rate would differ spending on what was down with the monies. Demanding that all funds be repatriated shows that someone has no clue on what it takes to run a foreign operation. If you starve it of cash it will fail, if you constantly send funds back and forth you'll get dinged by transfer fees and audits because you are sending back and forth. We try to keep things separate until year end and then even things out. Foreign funds stay that way unless we need them to pay our double taxation penalty in the US, what is left is essentially operating capital for the foreign division. We also do work in China, that currency isn't an officially traded currency by the US. Any profits we make are in local currency but since we can't exchange it (can't bring it out) we pay taxes on Chinese operations using other funds as there is only 1 place you can spend Chinese currency and yes we pay taxes there and in the US.
You sound like a nice, reasonable person but we just disagree on this question of what is fair.
It reminds me of what former Sen. Russell Long (D) LA once said " … don't tax you and don't tax me. Tax the man behind the tree." It seems most people don't care how much tax a person has to pay as long as it is not them who is paying the tax. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
Sure, and I'm fine with that disagreement and to be clear, I don't want to pay more tax, and I'm not going to pay more than I absolutely have to (as I said, my household income is about $250k, and I do object to the idea of me paying more than someone else who earns the same amount as me), but at the same time, I do think that I probably should be made to pay more.
One of the things I have a problem with is that who gets a say in what is fair and is not fair I don't think is really representative of the country as a whole. Maybe I'm wrong, but Republicans control over half of the House, and none of them seem to believe rich people should pay anymore tax, but do more than 50% of the public really believe that the rich shouldn't pay a bit more?
It just doesn't seem likely to me that the 90% who earn <$80,000 and who have frankly been stiffed during the downturn aren't in favor of the top 10% who earn over that paying a little more.
I'll cheerfully admit that I may be wrong, but I do feel that we're never able to have a sensible discussion about this because it all too quickly comes down to either:
a. You're a communist.
b. You want to destroy Medicare.
And it's much more complex than that.
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China [not free, but tremendous economic success], Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
All have socialized medicine and universal (or near universal) health care.
Greece? You actually included Greece in this list? They're an economic basket case because of the rampant government spending. They're rioting in the streets because of the disastrous effect socialism has had on their economy.
I don't see the great economic success in any of those countries save for a few exceptions. There is Japan but they are struggling with their "lost decade" due to their socialist programs. China isn't a free country and life there is hardly prosperous for the ordinary citizen. Russia and Saudi Arabia aren't free countries either (Russia is a thugocracy and Saudi Arabia is a theocracy) but both are sustained not by socialism but by huge oil reserves.
All the rest are either small countries with modest economic success or they are larger economies that are in the news every day because there are riots over proposed austerity measures that their governments now have to consider because they can no longer afford their disastrously expensive social programs.
Germany is the only example, as I and another contributor discussed in other posts in this thread, that you might hold up as a bit of an example but everybody has to concede that Germany is primarily a capitalist country and what prosperity they have stems from their being so.
But let me get this straight...you are in effect proposing that the path to prosperity for the ordinary American is for the United States to become more like...say...Cyprus? Don't make me laugh.
The bottom 50% control about 1.5% of the total US wealth and have an average HH income of $22,500. With the current tax code and a kid or two you won't pay any taxes. The top 10% control 85% of the wealth and pay less than the so called fair share on a percentage basis. Those of us not in the top 10% or bottom 50% are the ones getting screwed.
The top 1% own about the same amount of financial wealth as the poorest 95% of Americans. The bottom 40% own just 0.3% of Americas total wealth and the richest 400 tax filers have the same amount of total wealth as the poorest 60% of Americans.
Read it for yourself here- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nancial-wealt/
And here- http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...-more-wealth-/
And here- http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
America has its socialist elements, and not inconsiderable. Does that make America not a capitalist economy? Nearly half of the healthcare dollars in the US go through the federal and state governments. That sounds like socialized medicine to me, just very inefficient socialized medicine, compared to our European peers.
That is a very good point...America has been sliding more and more toward a more socialist model over the last 30 or 40 years. Which proves my point...because we have also been sliding further and further into debt.
I would hardly call European health care systems economically efficient ones though that provide excellent care and should thus serve as a model for ours. Keep in mind that all across Europe there is a growing wave of government spending shortfalls to the point where citizens are rioting in the streets at proposed austerity measures.
Nope; it's the exact same argument made then and now: "It'll stimulate the economy". It didn't.
Habañero -- you're mistaken.
A 2008 study found that 23% of the "repatriated funds went to hiring and training of US employees." (from a link inside the ThinkProgress article you cited: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._us/?page=full)
"During the 2004 tax holiday — when the corporate tax rate was effectively lowered to 5.25 percent — 843 companies moved $362 billion into the American economy." That's $19 Billion (2004 dollars) directly into the US Treasury. An estimated $83+ Billion into jobs.
Now, if I were designing the current law (proposal), I'd put in Actual Incentives (like other tax laws) that said XX% (I don't know - 30%?) must go directly into Approved Infrastructure Improvements.
Think different. Compel repatriation and tax it at 70% at threat of imprisonment for all senior executives.
Probably said by someone else, but I'll take a crack at this.
All this would do would make Apple a foreign company.
They are keeping their money overseas. The question we should ask is whether we want them to keep their money overseas or bring it home for domestic use.
Fine Apple! Move the money here and we'll tax you some millions. Then you can raise the price of goods and services here in the US to cover the difference. That'll show you!!!
Nope; it's the exact same argument made then and now: "It'll stimulate the economy". It didn't.
And as an AAPL stockholder then, I didn't get any dividends then either!
They should pay their taxes.
But be sure to stick it to companies that are "incorporated" in Bermuda, the Caymans, etc. (like much of Google, Stanley Tools, etc. etc.)
Exactly. He earns it. Who cares how much money Steve has? He's spent decades building companies and building jobs for tens of thousands of people.
He deserves every penny. This isn't the "fat cats" era people seem to keep dredging up from the 1900s.
No it isn't . . .
but it's now more like "the fat cats era from the 1900s" than any time in the last 70 years. Do we have to go back to that for people to wake up?
Let's start with every dollar that's off-shored through a loophole is taxed at 70%. Let's see how much money going forward gets off-shored. I'm betting none of it.
NO? Don't like that idea? Fine.
Corporations should get taxed at the present rate they are coded to be charged: 15%-35%. Republicans all claim it's fixed at 35% though it's not. When GE is being paid a return on their corporate taxes you know the system is beyond fubar'd.
A 5% tax is an insult to the Nation.
China charges 20%-25% import tariffs on US Goods whereas we charge a 5% import tariff on goods imported from China.
Let's cut the deal equally at 12.5%. No Deal?
We can even compromise and cut the deal at off-shoring will cost you 35% just as it would cost you 35% in the States. Don't like that either?
The one way to avoid such taxes at 35% is to put the majority of that capital back into the Corporation for reinvestment of new R&D. Let's start at 75% of those profits. Full transparency of where funds are being invested [Publicly traded after all] and we'll let the remaining 25% receive a 25% tax rate. The 75% obviously would include the cost of expansion, payroll, utilities, etc.
Don't like that either?
A Tax Holiday isn't a sound idea to the Nation.