Apple Should Pay More Tax, Says Co-Founder Wozniak (bbc.com) 240
mrspoonsi quotes a report from BCC: All companies, including Apple, should pay a 50% tax rate, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak has told the BBC. He said he doesn't like the idea that Apple does not pay tax at the same rate he does personally. "I don't like the idea that Apple might be unfair -- not paying taxes the way I do as a person. I do a lot of work, I do a lot of travel and I pay over 50% of anything I make in taxes and I believe that's part of life and you should do it." When asked if Apple should pay that amount, he replied: "Every company in the world should." He said he was never interested in money, unlike his former partner Steve Jobs. "Steve Jobs started Apple Computers for money, that was his big thing and that was extremely important and critical and good." Three years ago the company admitted two of its Irish subsidiaries pay a rate of 2%. It has built up offshore cash reserves of around $200 billion -- beyond the reach of U.S. tax officials. In a CBS '60 Minutes' episode, Apple CEO Steve Cook dismissed as "total political crap" the notion that the tech giant was avoiding taxes. And on a semi-related note, presidential candidate Donald Trump said in January he'd like to make Apple "start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of other countries." He said he would impose a 35% business tax on American business manufacturing outside of the U.S if elected president.
Apple should pay their FAIR tax (Score:2, Insightful)
Selective taxes are why we are in the hole we are in. If Waz want's to donate, there is an easy way for him to do just that.
Always easy to give away other people's money...
Re: (Score:2)
if by fair you mean legally obligated, then I am sure they do, just like i fairly maybe mentioned in the panama papers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your summary does not come close to what Woz said. What he said was that Company and Personal taxes should be the same rate or favor personal tax, which I vehemently disagree with. I have yet to read a good economic argument as to why a company should pay the same rate, or a higher rate than people. People are subject to the Socrates's story of the Artisan, a company is not.
Apple is paying what the current system says is required. I agree that it's not a fair system, because their percentage is much l
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's literally the first hit in a Google search for "socrates artisan".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well companies are smart enough to use their power to get lower taxes and also to push the line, a very fuzzy line, between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax cheating and to hire good enough lawyers that they can drag out legal battles for close to forever which discourages government from going after them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it will have to be the Cliff notes version. The story is out of Plato's "The Republic" and pretty early in the defining of a Republic. I'd recommend you buy and read the linguistic translation of the book instead of the various philosophical interpretations of fragments.
The story of the Artisan is Socrates proposing that the Republic must protect against an artisan making huge sum of money for a single project. Not only does that act dissuade further work from the person, but even worse, the pe
Re: (Score:2)
My take on this whole thing: I don't see that the rate at which companies are taxed and the rate at wh
Re: (Score:2)
In a way having a lower corporate tax rate may promote some form of tax dodging. If the corporation pays less taxes what can easily happen is wealthy individuals will move their property goods including cars, houses, etc to the company in order to evade personal taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is already common. Do it wrong and you are open for audit, but as long as any incorporated business has a legitimate business purpose (rather than tax efficiency) the IRS is pretty flexible.
My Buddha-- did I just say that last part?!
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason some people pay more/less taxes than others... the tax rates are different depending on income & deductions.
Spoiler: Each filer has options as to how to organize their finances in a way to maximize or minimize their tax liability based on applicable law.
Re: (Score:3)
US law says corporations are people. Why should they be taxed lesser than living people?
Corporations: Are people that a) can live forever, b) can't be sent to jail and c) often has far, far more freedom (aka money)
Why it would be such a shame for them to also have the same tax rate as real people...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the profit (the income actually taxed) is generally either reinvested into the company or paid out to share holders who would end up paying taxes on it again. In other words , that $100 dividend check would have 10% or whatever before it is issued to you. You get $90 and in turn pay another 10% or whatever. So you get to keep $81 where if you were piad that $100 as part of your salary, you keep $90.
Now that is overly simplified but is the rationale because it is double taxed. Now you might thi
Re: (Score:2)
Please read the parent post then reread mine. I already addressed that.
Re: (Score:3)
What Woz is trying to say is that taxes should be more progressive; a lot of rich people agree with him on this. Probably the first step would be to go to flatter and lower tax rates, but eliminate ANY deductions (even for mortgage interest). For personal income, any income up to the poverty line should be tax free, you only get taxed on the amount your income exceeds the poverty level by. Both conservatives and liberals are right about some things, but conservatives seem to have a better grasp of basic economics, hence flat tax proposals come from the conservative side. "Fair" is a pretty arbitrary standard; what is fair or not tends to get decided by those in a position to finance elections.
Flat taxes are not "more progressive". Removing loopholes (especially corporate ones) would help, but I'd bet millions (ie, how much the FIRE economy [1] lobbyists will spend) that the mortgage interest will never go away.
[1] Finance, Insurance, Real Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Alberta (think Canada's Texas, traditionally very conservative) tried the flat tax thing and went way in the hole, about $10 billion for a Province with only a couple of million people.
Conservatives seem to have a terrible grasp of basic economics as while they'll cut spending, they'll cut income even faster and have no concept of a rainy day fund and also over simplify like Alberta's 10% flat tax along with the believe that oil would never drop much below a hundred dollars a barrel.
The center seems to actu
Re: (Score:3)
eliminate ANY deductions (even for mortgage interest)
Eliminating deductions for mortgage interest would likely be regressive. People with more money will set up a company to own their house and then have mortgage interest (and any maintenance) be a tax-deductable loss, just like any other business expense. If you want to make things fairer, then you should ensure that individuals get all of the same tax advantages as companies.
Re: (Score:2)
In comparison to the costs of a mortgage, the cost of spinning up a LLC are negligible. Anyone can do this already...
Re: (Score:2)
In dollars, you're correct. In percentage, you're probably wrong.
Re: Apple should pay their FAIR tax (Score:3)
This. Dollars matter to the tax collector, but remaining available income is what matters to the tax payer.
Paying 20% tax of $40k has much more impact when you only had $10k left after basic costs of living, than paying 50% of $40M.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is but one symptom (Score:5, Insightful)
And stop picking on Apple. Though I'm no fanboy, Apple is just one symptom of the problem. Punishing Apple isn't going to fix the 10,000 other companies that do what they do. Reform the system in general, not prune/pluck at 1-2 examples.
I would bet that in closed doors, CEOs of many companies would tell Congress to fix the damn system and make us pay more tax, if everyone were forced to follow the same rules. Stop the leakage and loopholes that are benefitting only those who are rich enough to afford the lawyers and accountants who are smart at shifting money around...
Re: (Score:2)
People look at Apple because they were the first to develop the Irish tax dodging scam, and the "Dutch sandwich" to go with it. So if you can figure out how to make Apple pay more tax, you have figured out how to make most companies using similar loopholes pay more tax too. That's why there is a focus on them, they were the first and by being successful have also become the one of worst offenders (Google has overtaken them in some areas now).
The EU has the right idea. Tax companies based on global revenue r
Something is wrong here... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Woz is paying 50% in taxes, he's doing his finances wrong
It depends on how he's calculating the 50% claim. There's state and local income taxes. Local property taxes. State and local sales taxes. All that could easily add up to 50%, especially if his primary residence is in a high tax locality like California or New York.
Also, he may be aware of how corporate income taxes are baked into the prices of all good and services; that pushes pretty much everyone's income to well over 50% going towards taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
End consumers foot the bill for all taxes at all prior layers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Woz is just honest enough to do his taxes at face value rather than run around and find every loophole that he can.
The headline should more accurately read, "Man Who Makes Lots of Money and 'Was Never Interested In Money' Says Giving More Money To Government Is Not a Big Deal."
I love Woz, both as a technologist and an interesting (if sometimes slightly loopy) thinker. But for the rest of us who don't make more money than we know what to do with, yes we are going to try to minimize the amount we have to hand over to the government. I have money but not nearly so much that I would ever forgo taking my entitled tax exempti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason he has to pay 50% in the first place is that too many people - particularly the rich - do precisely the kind of dodgy tax-avoiding shit you are advocating.
Where did I advocate "dodgy tax-avoiding shit" in my comment?
Earned income is taxed at the highest rate. Portfolio (stocks) and passive (real estate) are taxed at a lower tax rate. There's nothing dodgy about converting earned income into portfolio and/or passive income by investing in stocks and real estate. If your portfolio or passive income exceeds your earned income that you can stop working for earned income, your tax rate is significantly lower. Smart people use the tax laws to their advantage to bui
Re: (Score:2)
The Woz is an honest person.
I'm a honest person. But I use the tax laws to my advantage by converting earned income into portfolio and passive income to lower my tax rate and build wealth.
Your response is akin to something an apple lawyer would say.
Your response is something that a wage slave would say. There's nothing wrong with paying more in taxes and staying poor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a US citizen who lives abroad. It depends how much you make, there's a foreign exemption of about $100,000 (as of now, it increases every year). If your foreign earned income was less than that amount, you don't pay anything to the IRS, but you still have to file every year.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
and this is a perfectly legitimate practice. Business is run for profit, tax shell game is to maximize profit. if the shell game is ended and prices rise, the market (consumer) will decide what is fair price/profit for a product and if they are willing to pay it.
if apple(whatever else) continues to be profitable despite being taxed, then that defines them as a successful business that has a great product... just like it should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, actually no, this is the theory, the fact is that the companies charge what the market will bear, and then pay taxes, this is why so many companies migrate to locations with tax shelters or tax deferments etc.
Re:Businesses don't really pay taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
All they do is pass along the cost of the taxes they're paying to the consumer. In the end, all taxes are paid by individuals, whether directly or hidden in the cost of the products and services they buy.
Not so. Here is what Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett [nytimes.com] (senior policy roles under Reagan and GHW Bush, and served on the staffs of Reps. Jack Kemp and Ron Paul) has to say about corporate income taxes, and who pays them, ultimately:
For many years, economists assumed that the corporate tax is paid almost entirely by shareholders. This is unquestionably true when a corporate income tax is first introduced. But over time, corporations adjust their affairs so as to minimize the tax, causing the burden to be shifted. For example, companies may try to raise prices to compensate for the corporate income tax, thus shifting some of the burden onto consumers.
Most economists don’t believe that much, if any, of the corporate tax is shifted onto consumers this way, because corporations face competition from noncorporate businesses, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships, and from businesses based in countries with higher or lower corporate taxes. Competition sets prices for goods and services without regard to the corporate tax rate.
Now it is true individuals eventually pay the tax, but it is not consumers, it is owners of capital - the investors, or perhaps management if their compensation packages are pinched.
Do you actually think that Apple wouldn't simply raise their prices so that their profit margin stayed the same? In what world?
Do you believe that Apple is not already charging what they think the market will bear? In what world? Even Apple products cannot become arbitrarily expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
You can debate what portion of corporate taxes are paid by customers, what part by shareholders, what part by employees and what part by suppliers, but you cannot argue that it all doesn't get shared out, nor that it doesn't ultimately fall on individuals.
The fact that it's so hard to figure out exactly where the corporate tax burden lands is precisely the reason that corporate taxes are evil. Taxes are necessary, but it's important that taxpayers have visibility into how much tax they're paying, so they
The big squeeze. (Score:2)
Do you actually think that Apple wouldn't simply raise their prices so that their profit margin stayed the same? In what world?
This world.
You can live with lower profits. But to survive you must have sales. That sets a limit to how high you can raise prices.
No company should pay more taxes than required. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, that is the problem - 34,000 pages of tax code specifically lead to all the issues. We need a tax code that has no social engineering and no exemptions.
If the government wants to encourage development of Solar Cells, they should grant money to that industry as a separate bill - all by itself.
The Tax system should not be polluted with all the 34,000 pages of BS.
We can debate all you want about progressive vs flat vs whatever, but if it can't be describe on one 8 1/2 x 11 hand written paper, then it is too complex.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't work (Score:2)
You might get away with a flat tax in a few hundred pages, but it's a very, very regressive tax. That means it
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody should be required to pay half or more of their income to a government. If a person/company wants to do that on their own, then that is their choice. But there's no way anyone can convince me that someone else deserves half or more of the fruits of my labor. And in fact, I think the top rate should be close to 25% with no deductions.
And surely Woz is smart enough to know that if tax rates are increased for companies that it will only raise the prices of their goods and services. Companies can't and won't absorb that cost of doing business.
This is not in defense of Apple. I don't care for them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Large, privately-held business owner here. Business taxes aren't a "cost of doing business". They are levied on profits, and are supposed to raise revenue and encourage companies to invest (spend) their money rather than horde it, which is actively harmful to the economy.
As an owner or shareholder, you can extract revenue in various ways, and for most of us it makes sense to extract some through income (which is a business expense, so only income taxes are payable) and some through dividends (which are effe
Great in theory (Score:2)
Hmm, a 50% tax (Score:2)
In either case, I think a 50% tax makes many businesses not viable. Across the US we have huge unemployment issues, and many young people are unemployed. This is a negative situation, and is putting the social safety net at risk. Companies move where the taxes are lowest.
It appears that many small businesses pay much more in taxes than do the large multinationals employing the double irish with a dutch sandwich [investopedia.com]
Furthermore, the US already has wor
Re:Hmm, a 50% tax (Score:4, Interesting)
For your other stuff: "The tax rate" (total tax revenue) in the US is not high [wikipedia.org], it is 59th among countries worldwide and almost at the bottom among first world countries - only South Korea and Australia are lower and neither are much lower. There's a big difference in how that tax burden is distributed though, with the middle class in the US taking most of it. This leads to a perception of high taxes.
It is true that companies which have the ability (large companies) will exploit tax loopholes wherever they can, at the expense of smaller companies and other tax payers (the aforementioned middle class). Numerous efforts have been made to close those loopholes but they, like everything else, do not get past congress. This suggestion of a 50% tax is basically just another one of those - like many of the other such suggestions, it could be crafted in a way which would prevent companies from dodging it but the real challenge would be in getting congress to pass it.
Re: (Score:2)
In either case, I think a 50% tax makes many businesses not viable
In true capitalism, businesses are supposed to fail all the time. There is supposed to be a regular churn of businesses failing and others taking their place. On the surface this seems bad for people working for these companies, but if the economy is healthy it is actually good because there is always another company that needs that employee and the employee probably makes more at the new company because they are ultimately leaner and better thought out.
Besides, if a company will fail from making an ade
Apple taxes (Score:2)
Apple CEO "Steve Cook"? (Score:2)
Typo in editorial addendum. Apple's CEO is *Tim* Cook, as it says right in the URL immediately following.
Measure twice, cut once.
I'm calling BS on Woz (Score:2)
I'm not an accountant but I've been paying taxes now twice as long as I didn't. Federal I ncome tax is a marginal tax system. Anything above certain levels of income is taxed at the next higher rate. Therefore Woz's Max rate may be 28% for example but only on a portion of his income above whatever the cutoff is for that rate. I pay that rate on some of my income but my EFFECTIVE tax rate, that is the total percentage of my income that I pay, is much lower than that. Of course add in sales tax and state inco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I'm pretty confused how Woz '"pay[s] over 50% of anything [he] make in taxes". Who is paying over 50% in the US? Even combining income tax with sales tax and property tax I still can't see how it happens. (and including property tax is hardly fair when the statement was "anything I make")
Is he voluntarily donating 50% of his income to the government and calling that his fair tax? Maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
So he doesn't adjust his state income tax for what he pays federally?
So he doesn't own a house?
I just did my taxes a few weeks ago, I have a pretty good idea of what I actually pay versus a naive adding up of all the percentages.
So essentially... (Score:2)
...purchasers of apple products should pay more tax.
I mean, if you run a business, and your costs go up, don't you have to start charging more? Or are they suggesting apple employees should be paid less?
...and what would be done with all that money? (Score:2)
I don't see any particular good uses of the tax money being collected by the federal US Government.
Having once been a US tax payer I used to look at NASA and the US military and think to myself "yep, that's what you are now funding".
So Apple, Google and all the big earners are forced to pay USG 50% of profit.
Who exactly benefits from that?
I own none of those shares but I'd rather see the shareholders get the lot.
Trump is right on tariffs, don’t blame Apple (Score:2)
Tariffs built this country, and paid for most of this country’s expenses for the first 73 years, without having to institute an income tax.
Apple is hardly the worst offender. In fact, Apple pays more in taxes every year than any other U.S. corporation. Why not question companies like Google or Cisco, who also minimize taxes by keeping IP overseas.
Or why not focus on FedEx, GE, Honeywell, or the many other corporations who get tax credits every year, so rather than paying taxes, actually get money back
Re: (Score:2)
That's what really burns me about this scapegoating of Apple. Say what you will about the money staying overseas - it was at least earned overseas by selling physical products overseas. Google has actually signed large chunks of their intellectual property over to offshore subsidiaries in order to dodge taxation of it. That is straight-up smoke and mirrors.
Re: (Score:2)
cut corporate tax and tax breaks, increase dividen (Score:2)
It is time to cut the tax breaks, cut the not paying taxes when offshore, and at the same time, cut the taxes. By having corporations pay increasing tax up to 20%, we would see more money.
At the same time, we need to change the dividend tax to 30%. IOW, it should be at similar level as what is paid for wages.
Ideally, we would ALSO prohibit all executives from owning publicly traded stock in their industry. By doing that, they can properly manage the comp
No, this is double taxation (Score:2)
Companies should pay income tax, OR their shareholders should, But NOT both, otherwise the shareholders are paying tax TWICE for the same profits (Once when the company makes them, And again when the shareholder is paid their dividends, Or they sell their units to realize the value increased by the company's profit).
Also, it is probably preferable that only the shareholders should pay the tax, Because making the company pay the tax is unfair to Low-income shareholders who would be in a lower in
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea would have merit if corporations could not have cash reserves. They have to in order to function, but it has to be accounted somehow, and they also have to be motivated to reinvest a healthy portion, in which case they won't have to part taxes on it. They can pay those profits out to the share holders and let them pay taxes on their dividends, or they can sit on it and pay taxes accordingly. It is up to them.
Re: (Score:2)
they also have to be motivated to reinvest a healthy portion, in which case they won't have to part taxes on it.
Why? What's wrong with them holding cash which they might require at any moment, that it should be penalized?
It would also be satisfactory if they give shareholders a refundable tax credit against dividends for taxes paid by the company, step up in cost basis for their share of taxes paid not credited by dividends.
Go ahead, pay my day! (Score:2)
And why are we listening to this loser chump? If he wants to give 50% of his money to the government that is fine. It is perfectly legal for you to pay more taxes than required by law. Go ahead, Woz. Pay my day. But wait, no, he isn't wanting to give up his money! He wants to force other people to do it his way! Ah...! How totalitarian of the Woz of Id.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they just go to Congress, and then Congress. Despite what Trump seems to think, the President is not an Absolute Ruler, and forcing American tech companies to manufacture in the US would require a legislative solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have that already, it's called tariffs and countries get very upset when you start to impose large import / export tariffs on them. Upset to the point of refusing to trade with you or using their economic power to force you to change those tariffs. Push the tariffs high enough and you've just created a strong black market for smugglers to take advantage of.
It's a really difficult problem to tackle it seems; every time I think I've found a way to stop these awful corporations from depriving the communitie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming Bam-Bam Trump could get Congress to go along, companies would just pick up shop and leave. At least the big ones would, they are already multnational. The little businesses would be left with the bill because big companies' supply chains run to little companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the story of America is the story of driving away talent out petulance.
Re: (Score:2)
And they will pay for the wall they will go up against.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's what countries like Canada and EU members do: they have lower corporate taxes, much higher VAT taxes (=highly regressive), and comparable income taxes on the rich. For
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting point. One can talk fairness but the goal is to have money to pay for services. Let's say we were to tax all of the multi-billion dollar corporations on their earnings both overseas and domestically.
According to http://www.tradingeconomics.co... [tradingeconomics.com] that $1.3T in Q1 of 2016. In 2015, we're looking at roughly $6T in profits (not revenue). And that's publicly traded companies (which have to report profit and revenue).
Now I, personally, find 50% to be a bit ridiculous as a corporate income ta
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, the US already taxes corporate profits more than that. Second, corporate profits right now pay for three major things: retirement benefits, investment in new businesses, and R&D. In what way is the federal government making better use of these profits than that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is why you stop taxing companies, and instead tax the money on its way out of the companies, on its way into the investors' pockets. Set a limit after which all capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. Make it high enough to allow for folks investing for retirement, but low enough to catch folks who are earning nontrivial amounts of money in the form of capital gains that are really glorified earned income (e.g. C*O bonuses).
Also, you'd need to tax all capital gains on U.S. stocks by foreign inve
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of folks put money in various managed funds for retirement. They don't touch the money, but behind the scenes, some fund manager is buying and selling stocks to try to keep the fund in the black. In may cases, those transactions are taxed just like you were buying and selling the stocks yourself, rather than having the taxes deferred until you take the money out. The difference between the capital gains tax rates and full income tax rates can make the difference between having enough money to retir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Time for Mr. Trump to take an 8th Grade civics course. He cannot levy taxes by executive fiat. It's a power directly denied to him by the Constitution. And there's no fucking way he'll be able to get Congress to do it.
Why is anyone even listening to this Dorito-tinted muppet when he says things like this?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know anything about either. Perhaps you could explain some. I could use a laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately most of that .1% is in the US congress...
Re: TRUMP 2016 (Score:2, Insightful)
Family before countrymen. Countrymen before strangers. Tribalism is human and if you think you don't participate in it your kidding yourself, but at least you can feel superior about it, eh?
Re: TRUMP 2016 (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly correct. Once we take care of our own we are happy to help others. With an unemployment rate of anything greater than zero some could argue we still have work to do to in our own backyard before we lend a hand to the neighbors.
Today this called "racism". Which is rediculous. It's nothing like racism, it's simply the right thing to do. Slashdot has never come across as "racist". It does continue to surprise me how the comments tend to lean more conservative. I think this reflects the age, maturity and perhaps wisdom of a well developed population of readers, like myself, who have been here many years now.
Re: (Score:3)
Trust me friend, there are countries that have zero unemployment and you do not want to live in one.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you know all the verses to "Kumbaya".
Back in the real world, if you accept that appearance is a crude proxy for genetic makeup, and people of the same race tend to appear more similar to each other, any gene that caused people to favour people similar to themselves would have a huge survival advantage.
Re: TRUMP 2016 (Score:2)
That's just stupid. People of similar looks aren't similar because they congregated and kept their genes clean. They combined different genes and over generations the successful combinations for that local ended up looking similar.
Homogenized gene pools are detrimental to propagation and survival. Naturally we try to provide as much variance in our system as possible.
We don't gravitate to the bland normal looking everyday people in the village. We seek out and compete for the variance. This is normally not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If a legitimate business meal deduction was on a Republicanâ(TM)s tax return, you can bet that Sanders would be railing against it as just another âoefat catâ ripping off the U.S. Treasury. So why is he deducting almost $9000 worth of business meals himself?
Wow. That's about as textbook a straw man as you could ever hope to see. "We're just going to make up something we think someone else would say and then criticise them for it".
If the worst thing they can find in Bernie's tax return is th
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? A 50% tax rate? That's highway robbery. It's an insane amount of money to pay for a government.
Yeah, fuck civilisation, I wanna be riiiich! I mean never mind that any get rich scheme will in all likelihood require soild infrastructure on which to run.