Apple CEO Calls For Global Corporate Tax System Overhaul (venturebeat.com) 130
Everyone knows that the global corporate tax system needs to be overhauled, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said on Monday, backing changes to global rules that are currently under consideration. From a report: The growth of internet giants such as Apple has pushed international tax rules to the limit, prompting the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to pursue global reforms over where multinational firms should be taxed. The reforms being examined center around the booking of profits by multinational firms in low-tax countries such as Ireland where they have bases -- and where Cook was speaking on Monday -- rather than where most of their customers are.
"I think logically everybody knows it needs to be rehauled, I would certainly be the last person to say that the current system or the past system was the perfect system. I'm hopeful and optimistic that they (the OECD) will find something," Cook said. "It's very complex to know how to tax a multinational... We desperately want it to be fair," the Apple CEO added after receiving an inaugural award from the Irish state agency responsible for attracting foreign companies recognizing the contribution of multinationals in the country.
"I think logically everybody knows it needs to be rehauled, I would certainly be the last person to say that the current system or the past system was the perfect system. I'm hopeful and optimistic that they (the OECD) will find something," Cook said. "It's very complex to know how to tax a multinational... We desperately want it to be fair," the Apple CEO added after receiving an inaugural award from the Irish state agency responsible for attracting foreign companies recognizing the contribution of multinationals in the country.
Just make it honest (Score:3)
"The reforms being examined center around the booking of profits by multinational firms in low-tax countries such as Ireland where they have bases -- and where Cook was speaking on Monday -- rather than where most of their customers are."
Look, corporations don't pay taxes, because taxes are a cost of doing business. Disparity in taxes can influence pricing, and accounting rules/abuse can further influence pricing, but bottom line is, consumers pay. Letting corporations play legal games and choose where to pay taxes is an accounting abuse.
Keep it simple and honest. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be fine removing corporate taxes, as long as people who have 51% of their income as capital gains are taxed as regular income. Move the tax burden to the ones who benefit from the laws, economy, etc.
Re: Just make it honest (Score:2)
We all benefit from laws, economics, etc... Well, unless we don't, but your proposal does that to some of us, so it's the same coin.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, corporations don't pay taxes, because taxes are a cost of doing business. Disparity in taxes can influence pricing, and accounting rules/abuse can further influence pricing, but bottom line is, consumers pay.
Good point. I think it's helpful to trace taxes back to the individuals because it's only individual humans who have to give up something they want because they must pay a tax.
However, it isn't always consumers that wind up paying. A corporation might respond to a tax by raising prices (thus the incidence falls on consumers). They might also reduce profits (incidence on investors and owners), reduce or hold flat wages and benefits (employees), or maybe even reduce cost of inputs (suppliers). How it all play
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just make it honest (Score:2)
Re: Just make it honest (Score:2)
One thing to consider is the opportunity cost of visiting corporations like Apple holding such large cash reserves. I'm betting it's worth it... But not all corporations are in that position.
Re: (Score:2)
"The reforms being examined center around the booking of profits by multinational firms in low-tax countries such as Ireland where they have bases -- and where Cook was speaking on Monday -- rather than where most of their customers are."
Look, corporations don't pay taxes, because taxes are a cost of doing business. Disparity in taxes can influence pricing, and accounting rules/abuse can further influence pricing, but bottom line is, consumers pay. Letting corporations play legal games and choose where to pay taxes is an accounting abuse.
Keep it simple and honest. Oh, wait...
Better idea: don't tax corporations. I don't say this because I'm interested in protecting corporations, I say it because I'm interested in protecting individual consumers and employees, which are who ultimately bears the cost of corporate taxation. Granted that individual taxpayers are going to bear the cost if the corporate tax rates were zero, but as you say, this would keep it simple and honest... and would better enable legislative bodies to allocate the tax burden progressively. When you tax busin
Re: (Score:2)
All taxes should be paid at the point of income. Want to declare an offshore cost, than that cost must be substantiated, what were it's costs and what were it's profits and those profits should be taxes at the point of income. At any stage should a cost not be properly substantiated it should be excluded as a tax deductions and treated as income and taxed, really quite simple.
Any country that refuses to comply with appropriate tax records to substantiate any costs (and the profit margins in that cost), sho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just make it honest (Score:2)
Do, where's the point of income for Apple Music?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to use the dodges, if you don't, stakeholders can fire you for not making maximum revenue.
Precisely.
If Apple were to move an office from low tax Ireland to the USA where it would pay higher taxes then this is poor corporate management. This is not only bad business but potentially a crime, and I admit that this could be difficult to enforce in this example.
Lobbying to have corporate taxes simplified for international corporations is just good business. Looking to lower the cost of doing business is something any good CEO should do. If this comes from the CEO of one of the largest corporations
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just make it honest (Score:2)
And one of the metrics measuring 'well-run' is profitability...
Re: (Score:2)
so disingenuous (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, Apple, you know that famously charitable, generous corporate giant?
Look Tim, if you GENUINELY feel the current international corporate tax structures are not 'allowing' your to 'pay your fair share'...then go right ahead and tell your accountants NOT to use the corporate tax dodges you've been availing yourself of for decades to the tune of HUNDREDS of billions of dollars.
Simple as that.
I mean, it seems a little odd that we're supposed to take at face value that you have 'Come to Jesus' about Apple's corporate tax responsibility ...and then promptly turned around and hid your revenues in a nakedly-obvious tax shelter of Jersey (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/world/apple-taxes-jersey.html).
AFAIK you didn't even bother to build a sham corporate office in Jersey?
False Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
go right ahead and tell your accountants NOT to use the corporate tax dodges you've been availing yourself
Then Apple would be at a severe disadvantage compared to other companies.
What he is saying is, he wouldn't mind paying more but make it fair. Right now Apple and other companies are all using the same techniques to adjust how much tax they are paying, so it's fair to the point that you can afford to figure out how to use the system as all the larger companies do.
Why do you have a problem with Apple wanting a fair system?
Re: (Score:2)
Then Apple would be at a severe disadvantage compared to other companies.
You do know that a company pays taxes on profits, not revenue? Those profits are what's left after expenses like R n' D, administration, manufacturing, marketing, facilities, write-offs on assets, acquisitions, various business and finance expenses, etc. The only "disadvantage" caused by actually paying taxes is in the amount of money left over to be paid out as dividends is going to be lower. Higher dividends means higher stock prices, satisfied stockholders and better stock option payouts for upper manage
Re:False Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, of course Tim Cook wouldn't mind paying his fair share....
That's why he's in court against the EU which has stated he needs to pay his fair share? The government has literally told them that this is their fair share they have to pay. It's not putting Apple at a "severe disadvantage compared to other companies", it's them literally being told to pay their fair share. Which Apple is fighting against...
If Apple really did care about paying their fair share, they would drop the lawsuit against the EU and pay up, the literally court stated fair amount.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the EU is operating in bad faith. If they had any interest in good-faith legitimacy, they'd close the loopholes that make tax avoidance possible in the first place; not invent new laws and court actions specifically and only to attack US tech companies such as Apple, Google, Amazon, and the like.
But they won't do that. And neither will the US. Those loopholes are there are on purpose. They were bought and paid for by the likes of EADS/Airbus, Royal Dutch Shell, Total SA, and Dassault; and he
Re:False Choice (Score:4, Insightful)
He's fighting it because the EU way leads to madness. I'm normally against Apple, but I'm with them on this one. The problem is the EU is proposing individual countries assess tax on the entirety of a company's global revenue. Ostensibly a country's tax is supposed to be a percentage of how much money the company made in that country. But tricks like licensing technology from an offshore division allow companies to decrease the amount of money made in a particular country. So a tax based on in-country profits can fail by not charging the company enough tax.
But if you do it the EU way, there's no way to guarantee each country isn't collecting more than their fair share. If enough countries did it this way, a company's tax bill could conceivably exceed 100% of a company's revenue. A few percent here, a few percent there, multiplied by ~100 countries the company operates in and it all adds up, potentially to more than 100%. So the EU's proposed method can fail by charging the company too much tax.
There's two ways to fix the problem fairly that I've figured out.
The net result of both cases is identical, even though you're taxing different entities. In both cases the corporation ends up giving away $100 million, the government gets $20 million of it, shareholders get $80 million. Because we're talking about the same financial transaction, and it doesn't matter which side of the transaction you tax.
Once you realize this, the solution to taxing multi-national corporations becomes obvious. Instead of trying to figure out how much money a company made in a country (which can be difficult due to all sorts of accounting tricks) and tax that, just tax it while they're making it. Get rid of corporate taxes, and replace it with sales taxes. Your instinct may be to argue that that's a terrible regressive tax (although sales taxes are flat - another argument). But remember, this is the same transaction between the company and the buyer we're talking about. All we're doing is shifting the taxation from the company side of that transaction to the buyer's side. And since you're taxing the sale - before the company has control over the money - it can't dodge the tax. And since all the buyers you're authorized to tax are by definition in your country, there's no way for any country to collect more than its fair share of taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope EU does not lead to madness. Apple negotiated a special tax rate with the Irish government that only applied to it. The EU eventually got around to investigating that and determined that this was not compliant with state aid rules that have existed since Ireland joined the EU back in 1974. As such the special tax deal that Apple negotiated was illegal, should never have applied and Apple must pay the taxes that it illegally dodged starting at the point when the EU launched the investigation.
It's the mu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At best Cook is posturing to get a seat at the table when new rules are drafted up. Otherwise it’s likely someone will make a really idiotic plan that isn’t any better and takes even more lawyers and accountants to figure out how to end around.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: so disingenuous (Score:2)
I think they can force Apple to pay them. The shareholders control the board of directors so at any time they could direct the company to liquidate assets and provide the proceeds as dividends (or use as part of a stock buy-back). If the share holders all decide to scuttle the company like that, then there's nothing the CEO or other employees of the company can do.
Re: (Score:3)
Its all BS anyway. Corporations don't pay taxes. They bundle them into the cost of doing business. Raise taxes and all that happens is suddenly you pay more for goods and services. It's all a big fucking lie. Idiot socialists see the big bank accounts of these companies and think by taxing them suddenly all their Utopian bullshit will suddenly be possible.
Remove corporate taxes all together and watch the economy explode with new entries into the field that previously couldn't afford to compete.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As you say the costs ultimately get passed on to consumers no matter what, but if it were that simple it wouldn’t really matter where you pegged the ra
Re: (Score:2)
No, what's driven "growth" during Trumps alleged presidency is the eye popping deficits. Pumping nearly $1 Trillion dollars of deficit spending into the economy will do that. Remove that and watch economic growth shrivel. And sooner or later those chickens are coming home to roost.
Re: (Score:2)
You're both right. The eye-popping deficits paid for those tax cuts. The tax cuts for the wealthy were bad. The tax cuts for corporations were at least ostensibly good.
However, in practice, it isn't that simple, because lowering taxes on multinational corporations does encourage growth, but it doesn't necessarily encourage growth in the United States. There are probably ways to do so, such as a tax rate reduction for companies in which the total percentage of employees or direct or indirect contractors
You don't pay taxes on investments (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, if corporate taxes just get passed on to the consumer...how is it that corporate taxes somehow make it unaffordable to compete or exist? If those costs are paid by the consumer then any company doing anything worthwhile is having their tax bill paid.
Corporate taxes are paid on profits which means a business can't really be taxed so onerously it can't operate. That includes money spent reinvesting in the business to expand. In terms of competing in the market, taxes are the least of any company's probl
Re: (Score:2)
Foolish. Corporations forcaste sales and profits. Its why they report to the SEC what their expected profits will be every quarter. They know exactly what they will be paying so they pass that cost on to the consumers.
Its unaffordable to the small business because they dont have armies of tax lawyers and lobbyists to get the best deal. Knock the rate to 0 and they all compete on the same grounds, or did you think Tim Cook was saying these things out of the goodness of his heart? He knows just like all the o
Re: (Score:2)
Small businesses don't report earnings to the SEC and the SEC has nothing to do with taxes. That's the IRS. Small businesses also only pay taxes on profits so like large multinationals they only pay taxes on the money left after all their expenses. Taxes can't somehow make them insolvent.
It's also downright stupid to suggest taxes on profits are the X factor keeping small businesses from competing with large ones. Joe's Smartphone Shack will never be able to compete with Apple or Samsung in selling their ow
Re: (Score:2)
Christ, you're a babbling fucking idiot aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
You and the presumably four idiots who wasted mod points on this have no idea how the world works.
If Cook gives in, he loses a competitive advantage while facing being thrown out by the board. Who then put in place someone who goes back to following guidance to minimize taxes.
Warren Buffett points out his tax imbalance all the time. People tell him to just pay more. That's just one person, and he loses his best talking point.
Please try to understand these things *sigh*
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this. This is a "don't hate the player, hate the game" type of scenario. Public companies have their success measured by external standards: they're compared to their competitors to see how well they're doing. If a rising tide floats all boats, they don't get any credit if their gains match everyone else's. If a sinking tide drops all boats, they don't take a hit if their losses match everyone else's. As such, laws that are uniformly applied are—all things being equal—viewed by these com
So lower the tax rate to get more taxes then. (Score:2, Interesting)
It boggles the mind that governments can't see the obvious. If you have a lower tax rate than other nations then this will bring in more international corporations to open operations in your nation.
This correlates to other cases of taxing too much to drive out wealth. People with a lot of money tend to leave nations with high taxes. They aren't bound to any nation, especially world popular entertainers that can produce music, movies, TV shows, or whatever most anywhere in the world. The product might en
Re:So lower the tax rate to get more taxes then. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't that hard to figure out.
Problem is: people have figured it out. Countries ARE lowering their taxes to lure more business into putting some kind of presence there.
What you get is essentially a race to the bottom: the one with the lowest taxes wins... nothing. Since there is no taxation left.
If you take the example of Apple: they had received a tax rate of 0,05% in Ireland only to subsequently lower it to 0,005%. And then subsequently posted all sales in the whole of the EU onto the books of that distribution center. Which means that all sales for the total EU market were effectively exempted from taxes in exchange for a some distribution centre in Ireland (I don't know how many people worked there exactly).
It is to this practice that the EU put an end in 2016 and which Apple is now fighting in court (so much for "...desperately want it to be fair.").
So, in order to defend themselves countries are creating elaborate tax laws that will protect themselves from this kind of scenario's with very complex regulations as a consequence (I imagine that the US has also some rules in place that limits how much tax you can evade by putting distribution centers in low tax countries or states...).
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint here is that with existing laws it was possible for Ir
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint here is that with existing laws it was possible for Ireland to get disproportionately more taxes with very little utilization of infrastructure or anything that would cost the government money. So while Apple and many others were taking advantage of the lower rates, it was really Ireland (and Irish taxpayers) getting a sweetheart deal.
No and yes. No the complaint was that Ireland was using a sophisticated system of tax rulings to selectively apply lower taxes in exchange for a presence in their country, robbing other EU countries of any incomes link [techcrunch.com].
FTA: "If you’ve been following European tax reforms, you know that France, Germany, Spain and Italy were discussing a reform to tax big tech companies based on actual revenue in each European country. This way, tech companies wouldn’t be able to report profit in just one country w
Re: (Score:1)
What you get is essentially a race to the bottom: the one with the lowest taxes wins... nothing. Since there is no taxation left.
Let's say Somalia had zero corporate taxes, would corporations move their operations there? Not likely, it's a nation that's been torn by war for a long time an what government and infrastructure that exists it is quite fragile.
It's not going to be a race to zero because there will still be income from things like property taxes, municipal services, the benefits of a safe and stable community, and so many other things that are paid by taxes. Also, as pointed out in a sibling post, there's income from taxe
Re: (Score:2)
In cases like Ireland and other low tax nations, is that businesses aren't really moving significant operations there, just shifting paper work around. While you get to collect some that that lower tax rate, you don't get the other benefits of having businesses operate there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so fast... (Score:1)
The problem is that the EU nations want to tax global corporations even if they don't do any business in Europe, and they want to tax them even more if they do.
The EU demands taxes on the income derived from iPhones no matter where those iPhones are sold, simply because Apple does business in the EU.
What does Ireland get out of it? (Score:2)
So Apple parks these profits in tax havens like Ireland.
Beyond the nominal office presence in these places, does Ireland economically benefit?
I'm wondering if this practice is a side benefit to Irish banks and their lending/investing ability. Are they able to leverage billions in Apple deposits as lending capital?
Overall, I think this basically has no solution. The corporations will continue to pit national governments against each other, even if its from some transitory benefit, like a short-term boost t
Re: (Score:2)
"So Apple parks these profits in tax havens like Ireland.
Beyond the nominal office presence in these places, does Ireland economically benefit?"
They don't even have 5 million people, if Apple pays 5 billion in taxes, it's a thousand bucks per capita.
If they paid that in Germany it would be 60$ per capita.
So a little goes a long way.
Greedy fool.. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Tax turnover (Score:2)
I have to pay tax in my income, why doesn't Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure you also tell your accountant to skip all those deductions that you are entitled to take so that you can maximize the amount you send to the government. What Apple is doing is legal, and a solution is not so easy to find.
1: I don't give a fuck if it's legal.
2: I also don't take any deductions, FWIW.
3: The solution is very easy but a lot of rich people (especially lawyers and accountants) don't want it to be found.
Damn commies! (Score:2)
FairTax (Score:1)
Switching our insane tax "code" (US) to the FairTax would simplify this issue.
No corporate tax - since they aren't paying any now, that wouldn't be a real change. They also would not pay any hidden tax for employees, since employee income it not taxed.
Federal tax on goods and services - no way they can get out of paying these then for items purchased in the US. Not ideal, but at least it's better than 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Switching our insane tax "code" (US) to the FairTax would simplify this issue.
Better yet, how about European countries ditching the VAT and income taxes while adopting a national retail sales tax.
Well obviously not mine (Score:2)
"Oooh!" says the politician. "Another round of donations from concerned citizens looking to have input on laws that hurt them, to make them hurt less!"
No, not your country, whose politicians are all Mr. Smiths Goes to Washington. I mean the other countries' politicians.
sad that I trust Cook more than Congress on taxes (Score:3)
We all know our gov is in perpetual deficit since the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and neither political party is capable of cutting spending, so raising taxes is the only option. If I were Tim Cook, I'd want to set a reasonable amount and regulations before someone like AOC, who has not run a company and is rewarded for making headlines more than meaningful policy comes up with something that is very destructive. Tim can spend his time "pre-lobbying" and proposing useful solutions now...or spend lots of money doing actual lobbying correcting the bill that gets passed by congress.
It is sad that I trust Tim Cook to write a fair tax policy more than I trust my Congress?
On a parting note, I am not even sure corporate taxes make sense. They are forced by investors and boards to cheat...I'd rather pay more in personal income taxes and tax corporations nothing if they are operating ethically (make the tax proportional to the CEO to worker pay ratio, for example)....then the government is beholden to the people alone, not the corporations. Corporate taxes could be used as leverage to keep corporations behaving ethically....and really they are barriers to creating jobs. If a millionaire's tax rate is cut 20%, almost no jobs are created...if a corporation's tax rate is cut the same total dollar amount, you do see more jobs created.
If so called "conservatives" were serious about conservative principles, such as limiting government size, I'd think they'd pursue such a strategy....let the corporations create jobs, let the people pay taxes...stop trying to cut taxes on wealthy individuals...I think the mess we see today is very much a result of the Citizens United case....and why John McCain had he wisdom to push campaign finance reform. Wealthy donors lobby for individual tax cuts and with each tax cut, they get more money to lobby and ensure they pay no taxes while everyone else suffers. It was bad before Citizens United, but never nearly as bad as it is today.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck would ever trust either of them on taxes?
Internet giant (Score:1)
"We desperately want it to be fair" (Score:2)
"We desperately want it to be fair"
Right, because you are currently being forced to use a low tax country to receive the money, then you have to transfer to a low transfer country and then to a low profit country, just to be fair to all the countries and users where you do sell the goods. And when a government or even court says that you must tpay millions of taxes because you are abusing the loops holes, you are again forced to fight in court for as long as possible or even try to blackmail with future pr
Corporations do not pay taxes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*Especially* Apple's customers, who pay multiples of Apple's taxes just to have the "cool" gadgets.
Fair? To whom? (Score:2)
Every country is looking to collect money from its citizens. Taxes, after all, are one of the two great constants of life. Why would Zambia care what the residents of Namibia are paying in taxes? They only care about what *they* can take in.
Are we now going to say that all countries have to have equal tax rates? Good luck with that!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Livin a lie Timmah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Livin a lie Timmah! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Constructive solution for corporate cancers? (Score:2)
That was not a constructive approach to a solution. Here's mine, and 10 Internet points if you can see how it applies to Apple.
There should be a progressive profits tax based on market share, not gross profit or market cap. The philosophic objective is to encourage competition, thereby creating more choice, more progress, and more freedom. As a company strangles a market, the tax on profits from that market should rise dramatically until the only "reasonable" response (AKA path to higher retained earnings)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution: Raise the sales tax on goods provided by these companies.
That way the tax gets paid right where the customers are, on a country by country basis.
Very regressive!...sales tax benefits wealthy most (Score:4, Interesting)
Nearly every system has been tried in actual tax systems. Income tax is the only way to do it.
Re: Very regressive!...sales tax benefits wealthy (Score:3)
Nearly every system has been tried in actual tax systems. Income tax is the only way to do it.
Fuck off; the wealthiest-of-the-wealthy don't even need income; they've got assets.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why asset taxes are needed. Property taxes and wealth tax primarily. Economists pretty much agree they are the least disruptive taxes.
You could also argue they are more fair. People who are already rich should pay more taxes. Not people who are becoming rich (income tax). Switching to 100% asset taxes would probably not be great though since it would really discourage saving money.
This was about corporate taxes though which is a bit different. Corporations should not be punished for making investme
Re: Very regressive!...sales tax benefits wealthy (Score:2)
Switching to 100% asset taxes would probably not be great though since it would really discourage saving money.
No, it wouldn't; monkeys want to have shit.
Re: Very regressive!...sales tax benefits wealthy (Score:2)
...since it would really discourage saving money.
I say "assets" and you hear "money." Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
What economists? Property taxes are regressive, too, because the property taxes on residential real estate get paid by the renters who are using the property, rather than by the (presumably wealthier) people who own them, and the property taxes paid on commercial real estate get paid by the people who buy goods and services from the companies that own or rent those
Re: (Score:2)
Property taxes are regressive, too, because the property taxes on residential real estate get paid by the renters who are using the property, rather than by the (presumably wealthier) people who own them, and the property taxes paid on commercial real estate get paid by the people who buy goods and services from the companies that own or rent those buildings.
By that argument, all taxes are regressive, because the wealthy will simply vote themselves a higher income and increase prices the companies they own charge to make up for it. The tax is irrelevant, all are regressive.
You assume property taxes are done more regressively than they are. The real fix is to end rentals. Make property tax 3% of the value per year. The landlords will want out, that'll price them out of the market of profitability. And make a homestead exemption, so a home owner will be abl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My personal favorite federal funding would be to abolish income tax, and switch to a poll tax. The problem is people think of the wrong "poll tax" when that term is used. The Constitution was written with the assumption that if the government cost $10,000 per person to run, then the feds would bill the states $10,000 per resident.
The big plus is that the games Republicans play to understate Cal
Re: (Score:2)
Kids are now employees who get paid whatever is in excess of $50k, so no taxes on that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that many, indeed, but the lower a number you pick, the more likely you are to really screw people in areas with a high cost of living. That's why I picked such a high number. That number was mostly arbitrary, though; anybody actually proposing such a law should do studies and talk with economists to get a more realistic number. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that is really the right solution I think exactly opposite in fact. Tax the companies on a proportional basis where their workers are. Reasoning: if "designed in California by Apple" means anything it is the Californian infrastructure that is being used by their workers. If the tax is only collected as sales tax the whole world gets the revenue but all the costs of Apple existing gets eaten by the locations where they have workers.
Re: (Score:2)
" Reasoning: if "designed in California by Apple" means anything it is the Californian infrastructure that is being used by their workers."
By 'infrastructure' you mean the printer that their programmers in China and India use to print out the shiny prospectus for the board members before they send the specs to the manufacturer in Vietnam?
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes are a necessity for a functioning society; they are not a moral obligation.
Re: (Score:2)
"Taxes are a necessity for a functioning society; they are not a moral obligation."
Indeed, it's a legal one, not a moral one.
Re: (Score:1)
Depends on where you are on the political spectrum.
Right wingers firmly believe that corporate welfare is a good thing while individual welfare is a bad thing. Left wingers believe in the inverse, that corporate welfare is bad while individual welfare is good. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's the middle class that pays for everything.
Not in the US, although it may depend how you define "middle class". In the US, rich people (top income quintile) pay the vast majority of federal taxes when you add up income, corporate, SS, and Medicare. I think that holds true at the state level but I don't recall the numbers.
A quick search found this page [pgpf.org] which has some pretty charts and graphs. The second one is informative. Remember that it shows percentages and the higher percentage is also of a higher number so the actual dollars are even more skewe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth is not in the middle. Corporations aren't going burglarize my house if they can't feed themselves.
That's right, but the government will.
Here's a problem I have with many politicians talking about welfare, they measure "success" by how many people got government money. How is having people dependent on the government "success"? That's because a person dependent on politicians that hand out money will vote for those same politicians, because if they lose their government check then they might not have enough money to eat.
A successful welfare program in my mind is one that aims to lift people up to where
Re: (Score:3)
I understand the thrust of your idea, that we should tie receipt of welfare to some negative state consequences, so as to provide a disincentive for people to continue to receive welfare. I'm not sure the right to vote is the incentive that should be used. The problem is that many people on welfare are ones for whom the current system doesn't work, so they are the ones whom the ability to vote and possible change the system to work for them is most critical.
At this time, my preferred "disincentive" is to
Re: (Score:1)
I understand the thrust of your idea, that we should tie receipt of welfare to some negative state consequences, so as to provide a disincentive for people to continue to receive welfare. I'm not sure the right to vote is the incentive that should be used. The problem is that many people on welfare are ones for whom the current system doesn't work, so they are the ones whom the ability to vote and possible change the system to work for them is most critical.
I'm not so sure it's the best idea either but if the people can just vote themselves more money and not feel any consequences then this can lead to a death spiral. That is assuming it did not do so already.
Also, a lack of a vote does not remove one's right to speak or remove their ability to make their concerns known to the government. What it does is encourage a politician to gain the vote of someone by finding a means to allow this person to be removed from government care.
At this time, my preferred "disincentive" is to remove the ability to breed from people who are majority dependent on state welfare. That would include mandatory contraceptives, prevention of adoption for people majority dependent on welfare, and the mandatory removal of parental rights for additional children born while on welfare. I realize this has its own problems in the United States, as many groups are discriminated against, such that it is difficult for them to be not partially- or majority-supported by state welfare, but I don't have a better solution, yet.
We don't have to create a disi
Re: (Score:2)
Concur with your concerns about people being able to just vote themselves more money.
I need to think about it more, but I think you may be conflating married people with children, with families that are not majority-dependent on state welfare. Briefly, I also want to prevent married people, who are majority dependent on welfare, from having additional children.
I agree that we need to a better job of explaining and encouraging people to wait (possibly forever) until they are financially-stable enough to hav
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even vaguely resemble the real world. Based on your .sig, it's clear, since if you *need* a gun, you're not free, you're terrified.
Perhaps you should read Tom Paine's Rights of Man. You see government as aristocrats, not that we, the people, own our own government.
Go find an island and live there, Support yourself. I'll pay my taxes for school systems, and roads, and welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea, if you are dependent on the government then you can't vote. This makes you a ward of the state, someone unfit to vote.
That's an interesting idea, but I think it needs to consider that to some degree it possibly incentivizes pushing as many people as possible into that group to disenfranchise them, or that even without such intention you get a very large segment of the population that winds up falling into this category or potentially being stuck there. As it grows large, the total cost increases and there's a natural pressure among those voting to lower costs. I can easily imagine gated communities for these unfortunate so
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting idea, but I think it needs to consider that to some degree it possibly incentivizes pushing as many people as possible into that group to disenfranchise them, or that even without such intention you get a very large segment of the population that winds up falling into this category or potentially being stuck there. As it grows large, the total cost increases and there's a natural pressure among those voting to lower costs. I can easily imagine gated communities for these unfortunate souls that work to keep them all inside.
There's certainly the potential for unintentional consequences but I'm having trouble how the government can force people to be wards of the state, or why the government would want to do so. Giving people money to not vote is going to be self limiting by that pressure you see of those voting wanting to lower government spending.
Something like this would need to be carefully designed to avoid these and other unforeseen pitfalls. If we're going to go this route I'd also suggest having a "resident" category which is someone who's not a ward, but not a citizen either.
We have such a status already. Legal resident aliens cannot vote. Nationals cannot vote. Convicted felons cannot vote. Emancipated minors cannot vote. These people have the rig
Re: Amazon paid $0 in income tax last year (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)