Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Apple is so hip, they've been making up Irish-American corporations that reside in both countries yet pay taxes in neither. That's like...whoa, man. My mind just got blown by your bodacious use of tax loopholes   ( talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Apple Inc., United States, u.s. income tax, share buyback, income taxes  
•       •       •

7704 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 May 2013 at 10:05 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



379 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-21 08:49:26 AM  
Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple
 
2013-05-21 08:53:08 AM  
This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11
 
2013-05-21 09:33:41 AM  
I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.
 
2013-05-21 09:44:47 AM  
So I'm fuzzy on this. Do we hate loopholes that allow corporations to dodge taxes or not?

Exxon and Halliburton might not like it if the answer is "yes we hate them, close those loopholes."
 
2013-05-21 10:07:01 AM  
Fix the damn loopholes!

Also, there is significant humor in the fact that Apple is one of the biggest tax payers as well as one of the biggest tax avoiders. That's just fantastic.
 
2013-05-21 10:07:54 AM  
This is why I only use Samsung devices.  Their shell corporations are far superior and lower-priced than Apple shell corporations.

My preference of shell corporations is a unique statement of my personal brand identity and I have included these preferences as a part of my personality.
 
2013-05-21 10:08:09 AM  

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


This.

Pocket Ninja: I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.


Brilliant.
 
2013-05-21 10:10:25 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.


Hi-larious.
 
2013-05-21 10:11:28 AM  
you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.
 
2013-05-21 10:12:41 AM  

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11



Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.
 
2013-05-21 10:13:20 AM  

unlikely: So I'm fuzzy on this. Do we hate loopholes that allow corporations to dodge taxes or not? Exxon and Halliburton might not like it if the answer is "yes we hate them, close those loopholes."


Quoted for truth.
 
2013-05-21 10:14:11 AM  

Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.


Bullshiat. GTFO, you watercarrying shill.
 
2013-05-21 10:14:21 AM  
Cook should just strip and drop a hot crackling shiat on the table while looking the lead of the panel in the eye and say "If you don't like it, change the law", then wipe with 100 dollar bills.
 
2013-05-21 10:15:14 AM  

Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...


Warren Buffet disagrees
 
2013-05-21 10:15:35 AM  

Pappy091: Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


So you agree it will help. Soak 'em
 
2013-05-21 10:16:57 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.


Never disappoints.
 
2013-05-21 10:17:20 AM  

Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.


I'm pretty sure I could imagine the percentage. The gross might be a bit trickier, but I could probably manage.
 
2013-05-21 10:18:14 AM  

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Oh look everyone! Pappy is here tell us how bad the rich have it. Oh please, Pappy... do it some more! Stand up for those poor, oppressed, sad, rich folks who so desperately need you to defend them. They're counting on you!
 
2013-05-21 10:18:34 AM  
Just in - Apple is a corporation doing what all other corporations do to reduce their tax burden. Interviews with Google, HP, IBM, and other tech giants show that they do the same thing and some even got called to testify on it last year.

/This is Apples turn in the barrel
 
2013-05-21 10:18:58 AM  

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


This just in, rich people ON PAPER seemingly pay far more in taxes but have an army of accountants to find all the loopholes to bring that number way down.
 
2013-05-21 10:19:44 AM  
The big companies don't mind corporate taxes at all, because they can buy themselves ways around paying.

It's the smaller outfits that can't buy legislators around the world who take it in the shorts.

The game is hopelessly rigged from the start, and any attempt to patch things is only going to result in more loopholes - so the only way to win is to kick over the board. Want to have the world's businesses beating a path to our door, with the Apples of the world pouring resources into employees instead of politicians? Put this on the table:

1) No US taxes, but also 1a) no US subsidies
2) A slight just-in-case upward bump for top individual income tax rates, subject to downward revision if tax revenue numbers look good enough
3) Now, about those regulations  you were biatching about because of the cost. Looks like a lot of that cost got taken care of since you don't have to pay all those extra tax accountants, tax lawyers and tax lobbyists any more.
 
2013-05-21 10:20:38 AM  

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Gross, yes, percent?  Not even close skippy.

Even my own accountant told me that for my income bracket, being single, and dependent-less, I may as well just bend over the desk.
I unfortunately lack the means to setup corporations/trusts/offshores to hide my income.
 
2013-05-21 10:20:38 AM  
Two words: unitary taxation.
 
2013-05-21 10:21:14 AM  
Misplaced Anger

Don't blame Apple's pencil whippers.

Blame Congress for Title 26 USC. Apple is using loopholes and accounting Congress made part of the Tax Code at Title 26.

Be angry at Congress.
 
2013-05-21 10:22:50 AM  

Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees


Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.
 
2013-05-21 10:22:57 AM  
"This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft."

This is the way that congress makes taxes laws that favor themselves. Corporations (and many individuals) take advantage of legal means created by them to pay less on the income they earn. If they did not they would not be doing "due diligence" for the share holders, which is what capitalism is all about. You can also take advantage of the same laws by creating the same environment for your self, and then using the same laws to benefit your self (and your share holders).

If it's unfair, then it's been unfairly created. So we should look to the congress who created these "Loop holes" (which there not, the are written in the bills passed) to see where they benefit from passing these kinds of laws. A corporation is categorized as "A person" and a person would be a fool to give away more money then legally required.

So just follow the money, and see you get's it, then see how the lobbiests got the bill passed, then you will find your "Loop hole" for all it's worth.
 
2013-05-21 10:23:06 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Cook should just strip and drop a hot crackling shiat on the table while looking the lead of the panel in the eye and say "If you don't like it, change the law", then wipe with 100 dollar bills.


I'm afraid to GIS that... but I want to.
 
2013-05-21 10:23:14 AM  
congressional hearing live now on c-span
 
GBB
2013-05-21 10:24:08 AM  

pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.


This is what I was thinking.  I think the only way to actually get this done is to offer to Rebuplicans a lower corporate tax rate, but also attach legislation that eliminates many loopholes.  If they turn it down, then they look petty for not accepting what they've been asking for.
 
2013-05-21 10:25:03 AM  

Pappy091: While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.


This information has very little relationship to the actual rate that you pay. Also, if your primary earnings are from wages, then you are not the kind of wealthy that people tend to complain about.
 
2013-05-21 10:25:28 AM  
I was paying taxes in the US, but then like, I created a fictitious offshore shell corporation that totally reduced my tax liability.  'Cause taxes are like, a bummer.

wired.comView Full Size


Introducing iDontPayMyTaxes®
 
2013-05-21 10:27:03 AM  
Gulper Eel:

1) No US taxes, but also 1a) no US subsidies

I think the current system of low-to-no taxes and generous subsidies is much preferred.

That doesn't even get into the subsidies and tax breaks that local governments give away.  The reason your plan will never happen is not because of some ideological intransigence on the part of politicians.  I think you'll agree that politicians have no ideology when no one's looking.

It's because nobody with skin in the game (corporations) wants it your way.  The most powerful people are most benefiting from the current system and the current system keeps the same people in power.

Nothing is going to change and I don't really care for it to.  My investments are set up for this system.
 
2013-05-21 10:27:52 AM  
Let this be a lesson to you, kids: slave labor and tax evasion will make you very very rich.

/bwahahahaha
 
GBB
2013-05-21 10:28:53 AM  
You know what I would love to see?  I would love to see a major corporation track their expenses for trying to dodge taxes, combine it with their current tax liability, and take that the US Govt and say, "THIS is what we are willing to pay", and be done with it.
 
2013-05-21 10:28:58 AM  

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Not percentage wise.  And this isn't about rich people, it is about the biggest corporations in America that pay little to no tax yet they make billions of dollars.

Compare that to a small local store and the taxes they pay.

Go see what Delta or GE paid in taxes last year.
 
2013-05-21 10:30:04 AM  
Show of hands, plz.
Stockholders should not take precedence over citizens.
Was there a shift from for the "Good of the American People" to "Whatever the Stockholder Needs" or was it always that way?
 
2013-05-21 10:30:41 AM  

cman: Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple Apple did nothing against the law.


ftfy
 
2013-05-21 10:30:46 AM  
The more I parse it, the more I think Pappy091 is trolling everyone. The tone of that post reminds me of the "top-shelf pussy" frat troll.
 
2013-05-21 10:31:31 AM  

pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.


  In terms of corporate tax, what is needed is a combination of lowering the nominal tax rate and closing a lot of the loopholes.  Our nominal rate is 35%, so conservatives tend to latch onto that number saying that corporations pay way too much tax here. But the reality is that our effective corporate tax rate, due to various subsidies, tax breaks and loop holes, is somewhere in the range of 12-16%, and many corporations pay no taxes at all.
   The biggest loopholes are the ones like Apple is exploiting to offshore the money to what is essentially a shell company, and similar ways to create giant write-offs.

 I'd be in favor of congress lowing the statutory rate to something in the high teens or low 20s, close the loopholes, and then add some tax breaks that will increase job creation.  For example, a lot of companies complain they can't find employees with the skills they need (because they're usually looking for something stupid like 5 years experience with software only they use).   Offer companies reasonable tax breaks/incentives to train new employees with the skills they need (with the incentive based on the amount of training required), as long as they keep that employee for at least 12 months after training is complete.
 
2013-05-21 10:32:09 AM  

ggecko: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

Not percentage wise.  And this isn't about rich people, it is about the biggest corporations in America that pay little to no tax yet they make billions of dollars.

Compare that to a small local store and the taxes they pay.

Go see what Delta or GE paid in taxes last year.


I understand, but people need to blame the system, not the business. No one is going to voluntarily pay more taxes just because.

My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.
 
2013-05-21 10:32:39 AM  

Pappy091: I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.


You do know you're not supposed to get money back for filing 941s, right?
 
2013-05-21 10:32:41 AM  
Subby's notion of 'hip' has not progressed since the early '70s, I see.
 
2013-05-21 10:33:23 AM  

Quiefenburger: cman: Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple Apple did nothing against the law.
ftfy


Its still very telling what you left in place...
 
2013-05-21 10:33:43 AM  
Loopholes are just ways of sticking it to the man.  They were just sticking it to the man.  Do you love the man, or something?
 
2013-05-21 10:34:06 AM  

Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.


They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.
 
2013-05-21 10:34:15 AM  

Rapmaster2000: I think the current system of low-to-no taxes and generous subsidies is much preferred.


Oh, I know that. I just want to see which businesses want to be capitalists and which ones want to be spongers.

I know that leftists don't want it because it's the opposite of their sticking-it-to-The-Man fever dreams, wingnuts don't want it because it might mean an upward bump in income taxes, and neither party wants to part with the ability to sell favors.

But just proposing it will draw the rats out.
 
2013-05-21 10:35:42 AM  
Tax evasion (aka avoidance) now standard with about any large entity.

pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?


Enforcement comes first - even if it means that you end up with an agency that makes the current efforts (and Nixon's) look nice.  Then tax decreases.


there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.

How about just auditing the shiat out of any use of creative accounting?  Scale up the questioning to a level such that Apple couldn't provide the proper paperwork; if they can, continue to do so until they fail.  Same thing with everyone else - not just one entity or political leaning.

As for the use of other jurisdictions, consider the possibility of extraordinary rendition as an absolute last resort.  Not pleasant, but necessary if all other efforts fail.

/Not really concerned about the income
//More concerned about the arrogance of tax evaders/avoiders
///If the IRS really wants you, they *can* get you.
 
2013-05-21 10:36:07 AM  
Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it? I am not a fan of capital gains taxes (or any taxes as a libertarian), but if we are going to have them we should enact them in a way that is most efficient (taxing the corporate entity increases inefficiency because it alters their market behavior and allows it to make tax decisions for investors) and hardest to avoid (large corporate entities will always have the scale to manage operations based on tax law, individuals rarely will.
 
2013-05-21 10:37:08 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?


Corporations are people too, my friend.
 
2013-05-21 10:38:18 AM  

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


10/10
Well done!
 
2013-05-21 10:38:46 AM  
As global capital becomes ever more powerful, giant corporations are holding governments and citizens up for ransom - eliciting subsidies and tax breaks from countries concerned about their nation's "competitiveness" - while sheltering their profits in the lowest-tax jurisdictions they can find. Major advanced countries - and their citizens - need a comprehensive tax agreement that won't allow global corporations to get away with this.

Google, Amazon, Starbucks, every other major corporation, and every big Wall Street bank, are sheltering as much of their U.S. profits abroad as they can, while telling Washington that lower corporate taxes are necessary in order to keep the U.S. "competitive."

Baloney. The fact is, global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible - and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.

Link
 
2013-05-21 10:38:47 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?


Corporations are people, so this doesn't make sense.
 
2013-05-21 10:38:49 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?


And how would you do that, tax the value of people's investment portfolios?
 
2013-05-21 10:39:05 AM  

theorellior: Pappy091: I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.

You do know you're not supposed to get money back for filing 941s, right?


And....?

Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.
 
2013-05-21 10:41:57 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Cook should just strip and drop a hot crackling shiat on the table while looking the lead of the panel in the eye and say "If you don't like it, change the law", then wipe with 100 dollar bills.


And here I am giggling over imagining a hot crackling shiat on a table. The new special at Lenny's.
 
2013-05-21 10:42:47 AM  
The very rich people and large corporations utilize loopholes in our tax code, just like Apple does FTA.
No need to increase taxes or lower them if you are some backwards GOP moron. Just close the farking loopholes so the ultra rich and corporations can pay a proportionate amount like the rest of the working class...
 
2013-05-21 10:43:31 AM  

jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

Corporations are people too, my friend.


Do you have something meaningful to add to the conversation? Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?
 
2013-05-21 10:45:07 AM  

Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees


Yes. Point to a single outlier to cancel our the average effective tax rate of each quintile calculated by the IRS. Makes sense. Cold today so no global warming and all that.
 
2013-05-21 10:47:03 AM  

GoldSpider: You're the jerk... jerk: What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

And how would you do that, tax the value of people's investment portfolios?


Same way it is done today, capital gains.
 
2013-05-21 10:47:17 AM  

theorellior: The more I parse it, the more I think Pappy091 is trolling everyone. The tone of that post reminds me of the "top-shelf pussy" frat troll.



He thinks because he owns Jefferson County Investments, LLC he qualifies as "rich".  He doesn't realize that the rich we're talking about are orders of magnitude wealthier than him.

Another one of the 5% thinking they're part of the .005%
 
2013-05-21 10:47:22 AM  
Don't hate the player; hate the game.
 
2013-05-21 10:47:36 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

Corporations are people too, my friend.

Do you have something meaningful to add to the conversation? Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?


Romney's quip may be glib, but its not really inaccurate.  They are (legal) "people" in most senses of the word, with most of the same rights & responsibilities.  I can't see any reason why they should get an exemption on taxation unless they're willing to also give up the other benefits of "personhood" -- i.e., free speech rights, the ability to absorb legal liability rather than passing it on to their owners, etc...  Why should a fictitious entity be treated as a person for the purpose of granting legal rights & benefits, but not for the purpose of tax liability?
 
2013-05-21 10:47:53 AM  

jshine: Quiefenburger: cman: Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple Apple did nothing against the law.
ftfy

Its still very telling what you left in place...


Don't knock it til you try it
 
2013-05-21 10:49:00 AM  

MyRandomName: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Yes. Point to a single outlier to cancel our the average effective tax rate of each quintile calculated by the IRS. Makes sense. Cold today so no global warming and all that.


Fine then, cup.
Rmoney, Donald Trump, every celebrity member of the church of Scientology, Bill Gates...should I keep going?
 
2013-05-21 10:54:14 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?


Because the shareholders are already taxed on any dividends they receive, and a corporation is under no obligation to pay them dividends in the first place. If a corporation make $1B, and the shareholders receive $0 of that $1B, why would we tax the share holders?

What, exactly, are the share holders paying taxes on, if not the income they receive from their shares?
 
2013-05-21 10:55:09 AM  

jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

Corporations are people too, my friend.

Do you have something meaningful to add to the conversation? Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?

Romney's quip may be glib, but its not really inaccurate.  They are (legal) "people" in most senses of the word, with most of the same rights & responsibilities.  I can't see any reason why they should get an exemption on taxation unless they're willing to also give up the other benefits of "personhood" -- i.e., free speech rights, the ability to absorb legal liability rather than passing it on to their owners, etc...  Why should a fictitious entity be treated as a person for the purpose of granting legal rights & benefits, but not for the purpose of tax liability?


The legal rights of the owners are imputed onto the corporation, they don't exist without them. Instead of treating them as a separate entity for tax purposes, just continue the logic and treat the corporation as a pure investment vehicle. Otherwise, as I indicated the corporation is making inefficient decisions on how to utilize capital and making tax decisions for the investors.

There is also a common misconception about how they absorb legal liability, in essentially all cases there would be no liability for the owners at all without the corporate entity. It does not absorb the liability, it creates and limits the liability. I know this is not always the case (IANAL but I did graduate from law school) but it is the most common use of it today.
 
2013-05-21 10:55:34 AM  

you have pee hands: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.


BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.
 
2013-05-21 10:58:27 AM  
Apple may not want to pay their fair share of taxes, but at least they still employee slave labor in China.

Hey, when does the new iPhone come out?
 
2013-05-21 10:58:57 AM  

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?

Because the shareholders are already taxed on any dividends they receive, and a corporation is under no obligation to pay them dividends in the first place. If a corporation make $1B, and the shareholders receive $0 of that $1B, why would we tax the share holders?

What, exactly, are the share holders paying taxes on, if not the income they receive from their shares?


Ask yourself a question, if a corporation is profiting $1B and not paying a dividend (or the equivalent such as share buy backs) what are they doing with it?

Capital Gains taxes are paid on the increase in share price from time of purchase.
 
2013-05-21 10:59:12 AM  

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.

BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.


Or how bout close the loopholes that lets Apple and all the other mega-corporations sit on the mountain of gold they have? Why pass on yet another tax to the working class?

/Apple sucks
 
2013-05-21 11:00:19 AM  

scanman61: theorellior: The more I parse it, the more I think Pappy091 is trolling everyone. The tone of that post reminds me of the "top-shelf pussy" frat troll.


He thinks because he owns Jefferson County Investments, LLC he qualifies as "rich".  He doesn't realize that the rich we're talking about are orders of magnitude wealthier than him.

Another one of the 5% thinking they're part of the .005%


Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.
 
2013-05-21 11:02:15 AM  
Apple be some gangster ass mofo's. Ya'll don't know it...but them fools is from the street son! They know how to get they rob on.
 
2013-05-21 11:02:48 AM  

Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.


Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.
 
2013-05-21 11:02:49 AM  
Make them pay every penny in back taxes + interest + penalties. Then fine them again for the sheer audacity to do this to the American people. Levy 100% import tax on all apple products manufactured outside the United States, that should be a good start.
 
2013-05-21 11:04:23 AM  

Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.


Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!
 
2013-05-21 11:05:27 AM  

you have pee hands: Your response has nothing to do with my post. It also doesn't make any sense.


Basically the definition of his posts.
 
2013-05-21 11:05:41 AM  
A corporation will spend 100 million dollars to avoid paying 99 million in taxes.
 
2013-05-21 11:05:47 AM  

theorellior: Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.

Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!


Hopefully, and then you will be free to hate me. I will be too rich to care, lol.
 
2013-05-21 11:06:32 AM  
Or err, I got that backwards (or have I?)
 
2013-05-21 11:06:40 AM  

someradicaldude: Make them pay every penny in back taxes + interest + penalties. Then fine them again for the sheer audacity to do this to the American people. Levy 100% import tax on all apple products manufactured outside the United States, that should be a good start.


static.giantbomb.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-21 11:06:58 AM  

DeathCipris: Rmoney, Donald Trump, every celebrity member of the church of Scientology, Bill Gates...should I keep going?


John Forbes Kerry, all of Hollywood, etc.

Here's a way to "solve" the under-taxation "problem" -- let's slap a 95% tax on all entertainment profits, at every level of the production and distribution chain, across all industries (sports, music, movies, etc.).  They're non-essential products and services, like cigarettes and liquor.  Entertainment is, by definition, a luxury.

Sure, the luxury tax invariably kills luxury industries, and Hollywood is a huge donor to Democrats, but that isn't a good reason to let them get away with not paying their Fair Share.

And what's with all the Slave Labor working for free on movies?  The highest-paid worker should get no more than, say, five times what the lowest-paid worker gets.  So, the interns should be fairly compensated compared to Matt Damon and George Clooney.

"We" should "ask" them to pay "more."

"We" have to "do something."

Who's with me on this Tax the Crap Out of Hollywood Campaign?
 
2013-05-21 11:07:22 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: Ask yourself a question, if a corporation is profiting $1B and not paying a dividend (or the equivalent such as share buy backs) what are they doing with it?


Well, in the case of Apple, they sat on it- for  years. They often use it for acquisitions- my employer has been buying up a lot of smaller companies lately, Apple's done the same. They may re-invest it into the company. Regardless, a company is not beholden to pay dividends, nor is there any guarantee that a successful company's share price will increase (Apple's profitability has remained incredibly high, their share price has tanked over the past year), and only a fool would believe that share price is an accurate representation of the value of a company,  anyway.

The key point is that there's no relationship between a company's income and the income of its share holders. As a result, it makes a great deal of sense to tax the company as an entity separate from its share holders.

You're the jerk... jerk: Capital Gains taxes are paid on the increase in share price from time of purchase.

Only

when those gains are realized. If you're a buy-and-hold investor, like pretty much anybody with a 401(K), IRA, or any sort of mutual funds-  most shareholders- you aren't going to be paying very much capital gains tax on the increase of your net worth.
 
2013-05-21 11:08:09 AM  
Rich 

you have pee hands: Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.



The problem here is that Apple doesn't HAVE to stay in the US. They do so because it suits them, but it's not absolutely necessary. Their attitude (shared among many corps) is that, "Well if you're going to tax us that much we'll just leave and you get a pittance."

I don't think it's right, but they do have a point. Squeeze the golden goose too hard and you get squat.

As a libertarian, I'm not sure what the best course of action here is. It's not like we can (or should) seize their companies and demand our national cut.
 
2013-05-21 11:08:51 AM  

GORDON: Apple may not want to pay their fair share of taxes, but at least they still employee slave labor in China.

Hey, when does the new iPhone come out?


iPhone is coming out...now
 
2013-05-21 11:08:56 AM  

pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.


In and of itself no, it would not encourage companies to stop using clever accountants and loopholes to avoid taxes for a simple reason: if they're saving less money they're still saving money.

Think about it... Let's say Company X is using tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying $150 million in taxes. Let's say they pay $1 million in costs for the lawyers and accountants on the payroll to handle that for them, so they are profiting $149 million from the scheme. So say we slash the tax rate precipitously so that Company X now only owes $75 million. They're now still making $74 million on the deal. So they keep doing it because there's still $75 million in it for them. They'd be nuts to stop doing it, they have absolutely no reason to change their behavior, just because the rate was lowered. If anything they have the incentive to try to cheat the system even harder, to get back to as close to the $149 million from before as they can get.

It would be nice to just have a set corporate tax rate and no loopholes, no adjustments. But that will never happen because the folks running those companies basically write their own laws through the legislators that we elect and that they pay. They WANT deductions, loopholes and other complexity in the tax code - as much complexity as possible - because they can hide behind that complexity.

Honestly, the best solution is probably to end corporate income tax completely - and just tax the disproportionately wealthy directly instead. We and the rich all did just fine with a 90+% top marginal tax rate in the past... Now the effective tax rate for the wealthiest Americans is actually lower then the average Americans' rate. Drop the corporate rate completely, add a small financial transaction tax to quick stock sales (well, or all of them really) to help keep machine trading to a dull roar, push the top marginal tax rate back up to something like 75%, and an estate tax again for inheritances over (oh let's just pick a number) $600,000. We should probably do something about the capital gains rate as well...

The folks who were rich 100 years ago, are largely the same folks (their descendents that is) who are rich today. Money has power, and kind of it's own gravity. When you have money already you attract more of it more easily, in proportion, and are able to take advantage of our economy in ways that the poor simply cannot. There's nothing wrong with more taxes for those folks who benefit from our economic
system more. In fact, it would be (and currently is) wrong to do anything else.They are not seperate issues. The very reason why the system is as screwed up as it i
 
2013-05-21 11:09:20 AM  

Pappy091: theorellior: Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.

Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!

Hopefully, and then you will be free to hate me. I will be too rich to care, lol.


I know I shouldn't feed the fire here, but Pappy091's comments remind me of that episode of Futurama where Fry is advocating all these concessions for the rich, but actually isn't rich. Then he says "I might be someday, then people like me better watch out!"
 
2013-05-21 11:10:50 AM  

Rapmaster2000: This is why I only use Samsung devices.  Their shell corporations are far superior and lower-priced than Apple shell corporations.

My preference of shell corporations is a unique statement of my personal brand identity and I have included these preferences as a part of my personality.


I only use a small, local shell corporation.  You probably haven't heard of it.
 
2013-05-21 11:11:43 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: As global capital becomes ever more powerful, giant corporations are holding governments and citizens up for ransom - eliciting subsidies and tax breaks from countries concerned about their nation's "competitiveness" - while sheltering their profits in the lowest-tax jurisdictions they can find. Major advanced countries - and their citizens - need a comprehensive tax agreement that won't allow global corporations to get away with this.

Google, Amazon, Starbucks, every other major corporation, and every big Wall Street bank, are sheltering as much of their U.S. profits abroad as they can, while telling Washington that lower corporate taxes are necessary in order to keep the U.S. "competitive."

Baloney. The fact is, global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible - and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.


The more reason to start treating tax evasion/avoidance much like a variant of terrorism.  Leave no place to hide, no reward for creative accounting, no way to play nations against each other.

Unlike most of the world, the US has the assets to effectively moot jurisdiction - if it so pleases.  Perhaps it is time to use them.
 
2013-05-21 11:12:23 AM  

Phinn: DeathCipris: Rmoney, Donald Trump, every celebrity member of the church of Scientology, Bill Gates...should I keep going?

John Forbes Kerry, all of Hollywood, etc.

Here's a way to "solve" the under-taxation "problem" -- let's slap a 95% tax on all entertainment profits, at every level of the production and distribution chain, across all industries (sports, music, movies, etc.).  They're non-essential products and services, like cigarettes and liquor.  Entertainment is, by definition, a luxury.

Sure, the luxury tax invariably kills luxury industries, and Hollywood is a huge donor to Democrats, but that isn't a good reason to let them get away with not paying their Fair Share.

And what's with all the Slave Labor working for free on movies?  The highest-paid worker should get no more than, say, five times what the lowest-paid worker gets.  So, the interns should be fairly compensated compared to Matt Damon and George Clooney.

"We" should "ask" them to pay "more."

"We" have to "do something."

Who's with me on this Tax the Crap Out of Hollywood Campaign?


Your reductio ad absurdum argument advocating communism with a sprinkling of teatard nonsense will get you no where.

I live with my mom
 
2013-05-21 11:12:25 AM  
But Apple isn't a corporation!  It's an environmentally conscious, culturally benevolent, liberal-minded collective of satisfied independent product effectors.
 
2013-05-21 11:14:00 AM  

mongbiohazard: They WANT deductions, loopholes and other complexity in the tax code - as much complexity as possible - because they can hide behind that complexity.


That's not entirely false, but there's something else going on here.  Taxation is a complex problem. Simple tax systems- like say, the so-called "Fair Tax"- are deeply unfair and highly regressive. Complex tax systems  also end up being deeply unfair, because complexity creates confusion. It's simple to say, "Taxation should be fair," but it's much  much harder to identify what "fair" is.
 
2013-05-21 11:14:08 AM  

Phinn: Who's with me on this Tax the Crap Out of Hollywood Campaign?


Your grandfather did marketing for Phillip Morris, didn't he? Did he come up with the "T-Zone" campaign? That was a pretty good one.
 
2013-05-21 11:14:20 AM  

duenor: As a libertarian, I'm not sure what the best course of action here is. It's not like we can (or should) seize their companies and demand our national cut.


This is the Hipster Leftist's worst nightmare, when the Hipster side of their smartphone-and-student-loan-fueled lifestyles competes with their Leftist insane-hatred of all things related to profit.

On the one hand, there the idea that someone, somewhere might be profiting without the gubment getting a cut ...  Bbbbbut tax-killing Apple might interfere with the next generation of iPad ....   What is a Hipster Leftist to do?
 
2013-05-21 11:14:52 AM  

you have pee hands: Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.

Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.


People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?
 
2013-05-21 11:18:19 AM  

DeathCipris: Your reductio ad absurdum argument advocating communism with a sprinkling of teatard nonsense will get you no where.

I live with my mom


You're an enemy of the Hollywood Intern, I can tell you that much.

Hater.
 
2013-05-21 11:19:25 AM  

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.

Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.

People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?


Ah, I see, some nutjob that is determined to make everything political. Go peddle your insanity over in the politics tab, Thunderpipes. But I guess they made fun of you and that's why you are over here now.
 
2013-05-21 11:20:14 AM  

Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.


Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?
 
2013-05-21 11:20:27 AM  

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.

Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.

People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?


Libbiest lib lib evar here.


Android/PC user.

Neener
 
2013-05-21 11:21:12 AM  
Buy drugs = fund death, corruption and violence in Latin America.

but

Buy Apple products = fund unicorns who fart sprinkles and shiat rainbows.

Wait, WUT? It's really ...

Buy Apple products = fund morally reprehesible tax avoiders who hate America


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-21 11:21:38 AM  

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: Ask yourself a question, if a corporation is profiting $1B and not paying a dividend (or the equivalent such as share buy backs) what are they doing with it?

Well, in the case of Apple, they sat on it- for  years. They often use it for acquisitions- my employer has been buying up a lot of smaller companies lately, Apple's done the same. They may re-invest it into the company. Regardless, a company is not beholden to pay dividends, nor is there any guarantee that a successful company's share price will increase (Apple's profitability has remained incredibly high, their share price has tanked over the past year), and only a fool would believe that share price is an accurate representation of the value of a company,  anyway.

The key point is that there's no relationship between a company's income and the income of its share holders. As a result, it makes a great deal of sense to tax the company as an entity separate from its share holders.

You're the jerk... jerk: Capital Gains taxes are paid on the increase in share price from time of purchase.

Only when those gains are realized. If you're a buy-and-hold investor, like pretty much anybody with a 401(K), IRA, or any sort of mutual funds-  most shareholders- you aren't going to be paying very much capital gains tax on the increase of your net worth.


If you do not think a share price accurately reflects the expected future value of a company (based on the consensus of the investing public), than there is no discussion to be had. The fact you would think people who hold that view to be foolish, makes me wonder how much you have studied economics and/or corporate finance.

All investors who are pricing Apple will note the cash on the balance sheet and consider that part of the investment. (Hence the incredibly high P/E despite reduced growth projections). Your comment about Apple being profitable but declining in stock price implies you do not see them failing to hit margin goals (which the higher price included in their assumption) or downward revisions to growth plans (previous stock prices had included these higher projections)

Some investors are buy and hold investors, you would have to adjust capital gains rates to account for this when shrinking the revenue gap.
 
2013-05-21 11:24:20 AM  

Pappy091: I understand, but people need to blame the system, not the business. No one is going to voluntarily pay more taxes just because.

My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.


Actually, as a whole, they are indeed the problem. The poor don't lobby for the laws the rich need to avoid paying taxes - the rich do. Both political parties which run our country are, to greater or lesser extent, worked by our wealthy class like puppets. The disproportionate power they - in ever increasing amounts - continue to wield through the elected officials they bankroll is exactly the problem.

Money has it's own peculiar form of gravity - piles of money attract other piles of money. The descendents of the rich tend to stay rich, and the descendents of the poor tend to stay poor. Having more resources means you have a greater ability to guard those resources then others do, and use them to aquire even more. The rich can take advantage of our economic and political system in many ways that the poor simply cannot, and thereby reinforce the kind of permenant castes we were trying to avoid in this country. That's why many of the founding fathers were concerned about the corrosive effects of dynastic wealth.

That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.
 
2013-05-21 11:26:14 AM  
I'm pretty sure Apple isn't the only company screwing over the countries they operate from
 
2013-05-21 11:28:42 AM  

hugram: Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.

Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?


I am saying that if any of the people that complain about this were to find themselves in the "1%", then they are going to use the exact same "loopholes" they are complaining about today. I don't have a problem eliminating most loopholes. I think that an overall simpler tax code is a very good thing. What I have a problem with is everyone hating rich people and big companies. You used to be looked up to for being successful in this country. Now it something to almost be ashamed of.
 
2013-05-21 11:29:06 AM  

Phinn: On the one hand, there the idea that someone, somewhere might be profiting without the gubment getting a cut ... Bbbbbut tax-killing Apple might interfere with the next generation of iPad .... What is a Hipster Leftist to do?


You're trying too hard. Subtlety, my son... you gotta lead the fish before you start jerking the bait.
 
2013-05-21 11:30:13 AM  

Thunderpipes: People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?


You're never really a great troll but come on.  This is really lazy.  Put some effort into it.  This is Fark, not your local newspaper message board.
 
2013-05-21 11:35:10 AM  

t3knomanser: mongbiohazard: They WANT deductions, loopholes and other complexity in the tax code - as much complexity as possible - because they can hide behind that complexity.

That's not entirely false, but there's something else going on here.  Taxation is a complex problem. Simple tax systems- like say, the so-called "Fair Tax"- are deeply unfair and highly regressive. Complex tax systems  also end up being deeply unfair, because complexity creates confusion. It's simple to say, "Taxation should be fair," but it's much  much harder to identify what "fair" is.


I absolutely agree that a Flat/Fair tax would be awful, is regressive and is exactly what new age robber barons want.

However a simple tax system does not necessarily equal a flat tax. For instance a simpler tax system could just include different asset brackets, but just no (or fewer) deductions. There are many ways we could reduce complexity in the tax code without scrapping an ostensibly progressive (it's really pretty regressive right now as things stand) tax system entirely. I'd be happy if we lowered some of the rates but did away with ALL deductions. Instead of screwing with deductions and exemptions (which are disporportionately utilized by the wealthy) to hide the real rates, just put the rates where we want them to be and drop the facade.

But that's not likely to happen because it's part of the dance politicians play to keep getting votes from the public while also continuing to get their bribes lobbying/campaign money from the business community. Have rates supposedly high enough to appease to the proles, but include a bunch of opaque ways the wealthy can avoid actually paying any of it to appease the wealthy who bankroll them.
 
2013-05-21 11:35:18 AM  

mongbiohazard: Pappy091: I understand, but people need to blame the system, not the business. No one is going to voluntarily pay more taxes just because.

My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

Actually, as a whole, they are indeed the problem. The poor don't lobby for the laws the rich need to avoid paying taxes - the rich do. Both political parties which run our country are, to greater or lesser extent, worked by our wealthy class like puppets. The disproportionate power they - in ever increasing amounts - continue to wield through the elected officials they bankroll is exactly the problem.

Money has it's own peculiar form of gravity - piles of money attract other piles of money. The descendents of the rich tend to stay rich, and the descendents of the poor tend to stay poor. Having more resources means you have a greater ability to guard those resources then others do, and use them to aquire even more. The rich can take advantage of our economic and political system in many ways that the poor simply cannot, and thereby reinforce the kind of permenant castes we were trying to avoid in this country. That's why many of the founding fathers were concerned about the corrosive effects of dynastic wealth.

That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemica ...


I agree that lobbyist are a huge problem. Campaign finance reform and TERM LIMITS are our only hope of solving that problem.

Most of your points revolve around the common misconception that there is a finite amount of wealth in the country that is being hoarded to a greater and greater extent by the wealthy. These people aren't burying gold in their back yards. They are invested in the economy. Their wealth is measure by and large by their assets, not cash.

One way to solve the "advantage" that they descendants of wealthy parents have is to teach all of our children better fiscal responsibility as they grow. I have been a proponent for years for have mandatory financial classes taught to all children every year starting at a very young age. It is actually very easy to retire a multi-millionaire in this country. All you need to do is have a plan in place. The sooner the better. Very few people realize this.
 
2013-05-21 11:38:28 AM  

Pappy091: hugram: Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.

Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?

I am saying that if any of the people that complain about this were to find themselves in the "1%", then they are going to use the exact same "loopholes" they are complaining about today. I don't have a problem eliminating most loopholes. I think that an overall simpler tax code is a very good thing. What I have a problem with is everyone hating rich people and big companies. You used to be looked up to for being successful in this country. Now it something to almost be ashamed of.


I don't hate rich people at all. I'm all for you to make as much as possible, assuming you are not hurting others to get your wealth.

What most people in here don't like is the level of greediness some of them possess, such as lobbying for tax breaks. That's just pure greed. Help pay back to the system that got you rich. Go try and get rich in Somalia or some other country that has no solid tax structures.

If I was super wealthy, I would not spend hundred of thousands of dollars lobbying to pay for less in taxes, but that's just me. After all, how many homes, cars, private jets, yachts, etc. do you really need?
 
2013-05-21 11:39:17 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: The fact you would think people who hold that view to be foolish, makes me wonder how much you have studied economics and/or corporate finance.


I've studied enough to know that markets are not rational, not even in aggregate. Models of market pricing are just that- models. The stock market is a stochastic system, and while over time, a stock price may average out to represent something close to a company's actual value, most of the variation in stock price is little more than noise.

You're the jerk... jerk: Your comment about Apple being profitable but declining in stock price implies you do not see them failing to hit margin goals (which the higher price included in their assumption) or downward revisions to growth plans (previous stock prices had included these higher projections)


I'm quite aware that Apple isn't hitting the targets that investors are setting for them. All that really tells us is that the targets investors want have nothing to do with what a company will actually try to do. Apple's high stock prices were never driven by healthy fundamentals- they were driven by faddishness. Note the fact that everybody's wondering when Apple will release the next product that's as disruptive as the iPhone.
 
2013-05-21 11:39:52 AM  

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


I think you meant to say Corporations ARE rich people...my friend.
 
2013-05-21 11:39:55 AM  
Tim Cook testifying now
 
2013-05-21 11:40:16 AM  

farker99: Just in - Apple is a corporation doing what all other corporations do to reduce their tax burden. Interviews with Google, HP, IBM, and other tech giants show that they do the same thing and some even got called to testify on it last year.

/This is Apples turn in the barrel


Well, apparently everyone defers their taxes, but only Apple has the gall to claim its overseas corporations don't need to pay taxes in any country.
 
2013-05-21 11:40:54 AM  

mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.


Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.
 
2013-05-21 11:42:37 AM  

hugram: Pappy091: hugram: Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.

Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?

I am saying that if any of the people that complain about this were to find themselves in the "1%", then they are going to use the exact same "loopholes" they are complaining about today. I don't have a problem eliminating most loopholes. I think that an overall simpler tax code is a very good thing. What I have a problem with is everyone hating rich people and big companies. You used to be looked up to for being successful in this country. Now it something to almost be ashamed of.

I don't hate rich people at all. I'm all for you to make as much as possible, assuming you are not hurting others to get your wealth.

What most people in here don't like is the level of greediness some of them possess, such as lobbying for tax breaks. That's just pure greed. Help pay back to the system that got you rich. Go try and get rich in Somalia or some other country that has no solid tax structures.

If I was super wealthy, I would not spend hundred of thousands of dollars lobbying to pay for less in taxes, but that's just me. After all, how many homes, cars, private jets, yachts, etc. do you really need?


I can understand that, but what percentage of wealthy people do that?

Isn't that the same as a wealthy person hating all poor people because some poor people steal?

And I'm not talking about your viewpoint specifically, just the general public over the past several years.
 
2013-05-21 11:44:16 AM  

Pappy091: hugram: Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.

Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?

I am saying that if any of the people that complain about this were to find themselves in the "1%", then they are going to use the exact same "loopholes" they are complaining about today. I don't have a problem eliminating most loopholes. I think that an overall simpler tax code is a very good thing. What I have a problem with is everyone hating rich people and big companies. You used to be looked up to for being successful in this country. Now it something to almost be ashamed of.


No, no I wouldn't.

I have something called ethics.  It's the very reason I currently pay my full tax liability.
 
2013-05-21 11:45:37 AM  

mongbiohazard: However a simple tax system does not necessarily equal a flat tax


I agree, I pulled that one out as an example of extreme simplicity.

mongbiohazard: I'd be happy if we lowered some of the rates but did away with ALL deductions.


It sounds simple, but those deductions grew for  reasons. It's in the interests of the state to encourage people to have children, for example. Simply lowering the tax rate so that people have more disposable income doesn't mean that they'll have children. Giving them deductions for having children, on the other hand, allows the state to essentially invest a portion of its income into a future generation of workers and citizens. Similarly, local governments have a vested interest in getting people to purchase property in their borders. The state has a vested interest in supporting local governments, and hence things like mortgage interest deductions appear (it's also a sop to the banks and the real estate industry).

And so on. The state has good reasons to give up some of its tax income to encourage certain behaviors. Encouraging charitable giving. Encouraging investment in green energy. The state can plan for the long term, and doesn't need immediate returns on its investments. If you view tax deductions  as an investment made by the state, it quickly becomes clear why they get some complex so quickly.

Could it be simplified? Certainly. Could it ever be simple? Never.
 
2013-05-21 11:45:49 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.

Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.


Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.
 
2013-05-21 11:46:38 AM  
"Excuse me, sir, but I've just decided that a large sum of money that you have in your possession now suddenly belongs to the government, because some poor people in an internet forum want it that way."

"Oh, well, let me get my checkbook.  Should I make that out to 'kiss my arse' or 'there's always bum fights'"?
 
2013-05-21 11:49:27 AM  

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: The fact you would think people who hold that view to be foolish, makes me wonder how much you have studied economics and/or corporate finance.

I've studied enough to know that markets are not rational, not even in aggregate. Models of market pricing are just that- models. The stock market is a stochastic system, and while over time, a stock price may average out to represent something close to a company's actual value, most of the variation in stock price is little more than noise.

You're the jerk... jerk: Your comment about Apple being profitable but declining in stock price implies you do not see them failing to hit margin goals (which the higher price included in their assumption) or downward revisions to growth plans (previous stock prices had included these higher projections)

I'm quite aware that Apple isn't hitting the targets that investors are setting for them. All that really tells us is that the targets investors want have nothing to do with what a company will actually try to do. Apple's high stock prices were never driven by healthy fundamentals- they were driven by faddishness. Note the fact that everybody's wondering when Apple will release the next product that's as disruptive as the iPhone.


You say this, but it is clearly wrong. AAPL's free cash flow grew over 600% since 2008, the P/E excluding cash is now under 6. The high prices are and continue to be warranted by the fundamentals. If anything the market under predicted growth in 2008 and slightly over predicted in 2011/2.

Also, please outline how you think a rational market would behave and how that is different than today. At any given time the stock price of a company represents the expected future value of the free cash flow of that company. Is it 100% correct? Obviously not. Does it generally correspond to the actual results? Yes.
 
2013-05-21 11:49:55 AM  

Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.
 
2013-05-21 11:51:50 AM  
Yo dawg, we heard you like loopholes, so we exploited a loophole inside a loophole just for you!
 
2013-05-21 11:54:09 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: You say this, but it is clearly wrong. AAPL's free cash flow grew over 600% since 2008, the P/E excluding cash is now under 6.


Compare that to its stock price, however. Its stock price was clearly out of control, nearly to the point of being a bubble, and is just now coming back down to about where it probably should be. The same thing happened with Google's stock price a few years back.
 
2013-05-21 11:56:38 AM  
The debate with Pappy091 is missing the point.  The tax planning opportunities available to multinational corporations have no relationship to the taxes paid by individuals, no matter how wealthy.

On the "loophole" issue, the folks at the IRS do their best to make international tax rules that are fair to both the government and the taxpayer but the reality is that there will never be broad multinational consensus on tax rules and so an army of very smart and highly-compensated professionals are always going to figure out ways to take advantage of the disparate rules in multiple jurisdictions.  It's not as simple as saying "oh, here's a big loophole, let's just close that up."  The rules are generally the way they are the way they are for perfectly legitimate reasons.  It's just that the folks the folks in Ireland (and the British Virgin Islands and so on) have different ideas of what is fair and appropriate.
 
2013-05-21 11:57:42 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.


I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering. Saying that they only have money to spend on necessities is just laughable in my opinion. Unless we have gotten to a point in our country where 52" flat screens and 2200 sq ft houses are "necessary".
 
2013-05-21 12:01:44 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.

  In terms of corporate tax, what is needed is a combination of lowering the nominal tax rate and closing a lot of the loopholes.  Our nominal rate is 35%, so conservatives tend to latch onto that number saying that corporations pay way too much tax here. But the reality is that our effective corporate tax rate, due to various subsidies, tax breaks and loop holes, is somewhere in the range of 12-16%, and many corporations pay no taxes at all.
   The biggest loopholes are the ones like Apple is exploiting to offshore the money to what is essentially a shell company, and similar ways to create giant write-offs.

 I'd be in favor of congress lowing the statutory rate to something in the high teens or low 20s, close the loopholes, and then add some tax breaks that will increase job creation.  For example, a lot of companies complain they can't find employees with the skills they need (because they're usually looking for something stupid like 5 years experience with software only they use).   Offer companies reasonable tax breaks/incentives to train new employees with the skills they need (with the incentive based on the amount of training required), as long as they keep that employee for at least 12 months after training is complete.


Our effective tax rate has historically hovered around 18%.  Tax increases, flat tax rate, loopholes, or no loopholes, it has always been about 18%.  Once everyone accepts that simple historical fact, everything else from any side is just theater.
 
2013-05-21 12:01:48 PM  

farker99: Just in - Apple is a corporation doing what all other corporations do to reduce their tax burden. Interviews with Google, HP, IBM, and other tech giants show that they do the same thing and some even got called to testify on it last year.

/This is Apples turn in the barrel


Will you still feel this way when it's Exxon or Halliburton?
 
2013-05-21 12:01:51 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending



Stop now, before you hurt yourself.

See, all production is for the purpose of consumption.  That's sort of the point in engaging in productive activity.  Also, some production chains are longer than others, but they all point to the same place.  Chew on that before you strain your intellect.

Dusk-You-n-Me: While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows.



Especially in Hollywood, amiright?

Dusk-You-n-Me: The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities.



Except beer, cigarettes, smartphones, movies, cable TV and Disney World vacations. See, I told you to stop before ...

Dusk-You-n-Me: aggregate demand is suffering



Crap.  Never mind.
 
2013-05-21 12:08:08 PM  

Pappy091: I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering.


It isn't false. It's a fact that wages are at historic lows. It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year. It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty. It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty. You can ignore it, as most of our politicians and media does, or you can accept it and decide whether this is how you think the richest most powerful nation in the world should operate.
 
2013-05-21 12:09:12 PM  
And this makes them different then every big corporation how?
 
2013-05-21 12:09:29 PM  

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: You say this, but it is clearly wrong. AAPL's free cash flow grew over 600% since 2008, the P/E excluding cash is now under 6.

Compare that to its stock price, however. Its stock price was clearly out of control, nearly to the point of being a bubble, and is just now coming back down to about where it probably should be. The same thing happened with Google's stock price a few years back.


I don't see the trend you are talking about:
1. P/E excluding cash already adjusts for stock price. It was higher before when growth was expected (and obtained) it is much lower now that growth prospects have waned
2. The FCF seems to grow much faster than price indicating the market did a very good job of predicting growth and the eventual leveling off (ycharts)
 
2013-05-21 12:11:13 PM  

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Oh please, oh wise one.  Tell us plebs what we must do to save our country!?!?!?
 
2013-05-21 12:11:46 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering.

It isn't false. It's a fact that wages are at historic lows. It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year. It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty. It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty. You can ignore it, as most of our politicians and media does, or you can accept it and decide whether this is how you think the richest most powerful nation in the world should operate.


I think that most of the world laughs their asses of at America's definition of poverty. I'm not saying that the lower class should be content, but our definition of classes is way out of whack with the rest of the world. Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.

This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.
 
2013-05-21 12:12:32 PM  

JohnnyC: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

Oh look everyone! Pappy is here tell us how bad the rich have it. Oh please, Pappy... do it some more! Stand up for those poor, oppressed, sad, rich folks who so desperately need you to defend them. They're counting on you!


LOL Johnny C
 
2013-05-21 12:13:04 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It isn't false. It's a fact that wages are at historic lows. It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year. It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty. It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty. You can ignore it, as most of our politicians and media does, or you can accept it and decide whether this is how you think the richest most powerful nation in the world should operate.


You're not describing the middle class.

Also, earlier governmental action is the root cause of every problem you describe.
 
2013-05-21 12:18:50 PM  

Pappy091: Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.


Hey what a coincidence, 40% of Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage. Things are totally better.

Pappy091: Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class


Sure it is. That's what taxes are, a redistribution of wealth. Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.
 
2013-05-21 12:19:09 PM  
Appel literally has so much cash (not profits, not operating capital, actually excess CASH) that it is becoming a signficant problem for them on how and where to store it.  They've created a hedge fund for it, Braebrun, that is the single largest hedge fund in the world now.  Despite all this, they STILL feel the need to go to exteme lengths to chisel the last cent they can out of thier tax obligations and essentially refuse to say "thank you" to all those countries who legal, physical and poltical infrastructures make their operations possible and profitable.   Sickening really, but what do expect from a sompany built in the personal image of a confirmed sociopath?
 
2013-05-21 12:21:03 PM  
Dusk-You-n-Me:

It's a fact that wages are at historic lows.False statement.Quick Census Bureau check of historical wages by individual and household proves this to be false


It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year.False Statement.  Again, Census Bureau check of Average Income for Americans shows this to be false for 2012.

It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty.  Very vague statement with so many ways to define govt. assistance and poverty line discussion and Monte Carlo simulations of unknown situations to arise from cutting off govt. assistance that this is not a fact, but just conjecture.

It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty.This is highly argumentative.  Whereas, I know where you got this data point, it is questionable based on the methodology they are employing to determine poverty line.  But, I'll grant you some legitimacy to this point given that you apparently haven't delved into the problems with bright line arguements on determination of poverty lines.
 
2013-05-21 12:21:15 PM  

Source4leko: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

Oh please, oh wise one.  Tell us plebs what we must do to save our country!?!?!?


Your choice, pitchforks and torches or move.
Panama is lookin' good.
 
2013-05-21 12:21:24 PM  

unlikely: So I'm fuzzy on this. Do we hate loopholes that allow corporations to dodge taxes or not?



Well, see that's the tricky part. We hate the loopholes and want the stop corporate exploitation of them right up to the point where we have a vested interest (ie. we makes some monies) from that loophole exploitation. And those are the people who have Congress' ear. But chances are you and I will never be in the position to enjoy that privilege, SO in short, no. We hate and yell and scream but ultimately we are serfs, not all that different than those toiling for barons and dukes and kings in Europe a thousand years ago. We have better shoes. And we have television and cell phones to tell us that we're actually something more than serfs, but the vast majority of us will work full-time, grateful for a handful of Federal Holidays and 2 weeks vacation each year. We'll work and work and work and keep working until we're unable to work anymore (just like our feudal ancestors). Then we'll hope there's enough squirreled away to live out our days indoors with heat and food. And family, we'll hope they'll help. And we have Social Security which will keep us just below poverty and most likely festering in squalor with minimal care until we eventually die. It takes the place of the convent that might have given us a fetid bed and bowl of gruel once upon a time, but the quality's about the same. Dull tedium, aching, and shiatting ourselves. Comfortable, or at least not in agony, as we reminisce about that one time we did something wonderful.

With the exception of some technologies and a some comforts here and there, it's pretty much no different than it was back then. We delude ourselves with our "American Dream" and we watch wealthy people cavort and fark each other and say profoundly stupid things on the television. It makes us feel like we're part of their circle, that we share some of this fancy living, the parties and socializing. We can't really tell the difference because we feel like we're at the party with them in High Def, and imagine what it must be like as we drink our cheap imitations of what they're drinking. We know they sleep at night, and we sleep at night so we figure that's pretty much the same. And we have an uncle who says stupid, outrageous, uninformed things so we tell ourselves, "hey, I've made it!"

What we don't see is while we're waiting for that 2 weeks this summer where we'll spend half of it cleaning out the attic and maybe 5 days at the beach with a day of travel at each end, the 1% is taking weeks at the beach frequently, and it's a private beach in the South of France, or somewhere in Central America with guards to keep the drug cartels and begger children away.  But we don't see that so we go ahead and identify them and it pacifies us. And we'll spend the next 8 months paying off the debt from that vacation. And unable to buy new eyeglasses as a result, but that's OK, 'cause these are still working. The 1% paid cash for their trip and didn't even notice the expense.

And we'll toil at our dumb jobs until we're 65, 68, 70, maybe more, and we might actually enjoy it now and then, just as our feudal serf ancestors might have enjoyed tending a particular garden (that also belonged to someone else), and there you have it. And then we'll grow decrepit and die, and the billionaires who've socked away their wealth and connived with their accountants and lobbyists to protect and keep their wealth will not notice our passing, except to tell some flunky to find another, younger serf to take our former place at the mill-wheel.
 
2013-05-21 12:22:23 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size


Not a good reason to do it, but a good reason to fix the problem rather than going around blaming one business after another.

Perhaps, I don't know, we could close the loopholes? Could we? Probably not, that would negate "Trickle Down".
 
2013-05-21 12:23:42 PM  

Pappy091: I agree that lobbyist are a huge problem. Campaign finance reform and TERM LIMITS are our only hope of solving that problem.

Most of your points revolve around the common misconception that there is a finite amount of wealth in the country that is being hoarded to a greater and greater extent by the wealthy. These people aren't burying gold in their back yards. They are invested in the economy. Their wealth is measure by and large by their assets, not cash.



False. I said no such thing, nor do I believe it. But look at what's happened to corporate profits and worker productivity during this period of severe upwards wealth redistribution. Wealth HAS been created and it is all going straight to the top of the income pyramid. As the pool of the nation's wealth has grown ever larger no one is seeing it except for a small, already afluent, segment of our society.

And the wealthy don't sit on wealth by burying it in the backyard - that's something you're more likely to see the poor do (hide it in mattresses and such). The wealthy hide it in offshore accounts, tax havens, bank accounts, hedge funds, expensive durable goods, jewels, bearer bonds, expensive foreign villas, etc. etc...

One way to solve the "advantage" that they descendants of wealthy parents have is to teach all of our children better fiscal responsibility as they grow. I have been a proponent for years for have mandatory financial classes taught to all children every year starting at a very young age. It is actually very easy to retire a multi-millionaire in this country. All you need to do is have a plan in place. The sooner the better. Very few people realize this.

False. Fiscal responsibility is a basic skill we should indeed teach our youth, but it will absolutely not solve our problems whatsoever.

For one thing, I suspect that you're relying on a misconception that wealthy children are more fiscally responsible then poor children. Not only do I seriously doubt that they are, I'd suggest they're more likely to be personally irresposible, as they have employees who are paid to manage their finances for them.

But MUCH more importantly than that, the wealthy take disproportionate advantage of our economic system then the poor do in a vast myriad of ways. Someone poor may have an idea for a product or business but be unable to easily capitalize on it - if at all. The children of the wealthy (and wealthy themselves) tend to have the capital backing they need without much effort. The children of the poor have a harder time affording higher education - if they can manage to afford it at all - while the wealthy send their kids to whatever school they would like, which also tend to be schools where the wealthy children congregate thus ensuring them more lucrative networking then is available to poor children. Poor families pay more of their income to taxes, wealthy families don't become insolvent when the primary wage earner becomes sick or is laid off, wealthy families don't have the same stresses that poor families do trying to survive each day - which has a developmental cost for the children. The poor families are more likely to go to jail or suffer financial penalties which harm them to a far greater degree then wealthy families for the same criminal infractions. Small costs or fines may make the food or rent budget hard to meet, whereas a wealthy family doesn't have that problem. Etc. etc. etc....... You could go on all day long like that.

There are a million ways the wealthy are advantaged just by being wealthy. So in addition to the head start they got by starting out wealthy (the starting conditions) the accumulated million different advantages they continue to enjoy throughout their lives while competing ensure that they STAY wealthy for generations. This is why there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a progressive tax system. You tax the wealthy at a higher rate because they disproportionately benefit from society - and then use that money to continue running the society writ large and helping level the playing field for those at the bottom (increased education spending, maintaining the infrastructure the poor rely on proportionally more, etc.). I'd argue it's immoral to have anything BUT a progressive tax system. Unfortunately, because of the disproportionate power the wealthy wield over our government the tax system we currently have is actually fairly regressive right now.
 
2013-05-21 12:24:25 PM  
So, when do we arrest Apple? Or Microsoft? Or Hewlett-Packard?

After all, these corporations are people in so many areas of the law - why aren't they people here, too?

Dusk-You-n-Me: Sure it is. That's what taxes are, a redistribution of wealth. Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.


Well stated. The "fark you, got mine" message pushed so hard by some folks goes against the public good, and such folks see corporate tax shelters as just good business sense. The rich get to pass the costs onto others, while they stay rich. Sure, it's anti-societal, but that's business for you.
 
2013-05-21 12:24:30 PM  

duenor: Rich  you have pee hands: Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.


The problem here is that Apple doesn't HAVE to stay in the US. They do so because it suits them, but it's not absolutely necessary. Their attitude (shared among many corps) is that, "Well if you're going to tax us that much we'll just leave and you get a pittance."

I don't think it's right, but they do have a point. Squeeze the golden goose too hard and you get squat.

As a libertarian, I'm not sure what the best course of action here is. It's not like we can (or should) seize their companies and demand our national cut.


Can't seize them, but it's not as if the US can't make it a living nightmare to try this form of creative accounting for all involved.  Unlike most countries and prior eras, the US can go anywhere it pleases.
 
2013-05-21 12:25:07 PM  

snocone: Was there a shift from for the "Good of the American People" to "Whatever the Stockholder Needs" or was it always that way?


The shift from "Stakeholder" capitalism to "Shareholder" capitalism in the US, can be traced back to a couple of journal articles in the late 70's, early 80's. It was promoted heavily by Jack Welch and other high profile executives, and ended up being adopted by the majority of American and British firms.

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/29/failure_of_shareholder_capitalism/

As the Salon article above points out, Shareholder capitalism has not been good for most folks, and has even failed in it's primary purpose of increasing share prices.

It has, however, helped make CEO's obscenely wealthy, and will therefore remain the default mode for all companies until there are widespread shareholder revolts against their boards.
 
2013-05-21 12:25:15 PM  

mekki: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

This just in, rich people ON PAPER seemingly pay far more in taxes but have an army of accountants to find all the loopholes to bring that number way down.


Newsflash .. There are people who use the Title CPA that can tell you how to pay less too. Lets not get persnickety because you haven't looked into reducing your tax liabilities using one or do you people really have nothing better to do all day than biatch about the way the country is run yet still manage to do nothing about it? Seriously. Inquiring minds would like to know.
 
2013-05-21 12:25:37 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.

Hey what a coincidence, 40% of Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage. Things are totally better.

Pappy091: Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class

Sure it is. That's what taxes are, a redistribution of wealth. Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.


I MIGHT be able to see some reason in that argument if I thought that for one second our government was good stewards of our money.
 
2013-05-21 12:25:59 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.


No we don't.  Those that have been successful have done so in spite of governmental interference and harm.

People who make a real profit (in a free market, not in a rigged, crony-infested industry, which is just about all of them, nowadays) help themselves, and help society in the process.  They make a profit because they are providing the valuable goods and services desired by consumers, and doing so better and cheaper than others.

I don't care what you mind paying for, or not.  You only seem to care about what I'm paying for, in order to benefit you.

You're the selfish one.  You're the one who's only concerned about Me the Person.
 
2013-05-21 12:27:39 PM  

GBB: i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes? there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.


quotesworthrepeating.comView Full Size


This is the blank curve? Anyone?

Anyone?
 
2013-05-21 12:28:02 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.


Rephrase.

/B+
 
2013-05-21 12:28:41 PM  

van1ty: A corporation will spend 100 million dollars to avoid paying 99 million in taxes.


And then they'll claim that $100M as a deductible business expense the following year.
 
2013-05-21 12:29:02 PM  

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.

I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering. Saying that they only have money to spend on necessities is just laughable in my opinion. Unless we have gotten to a point in our country where 52" flat screens and 2200 sq ft houses are "necessary".


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-03/opinions/35491334_1_mi dd le-class-median-household-income-income-gains

FTA: "Wage levels in the middle and below have barely budged since the 1970s because of a barrage of shifts in our economy and economic institutions - from globalization and technological advances to the decline of unions and new corporate practices that emphasize value for shareholders. Most of the increase that did happen in middle-class incomes was not because of rising wages but because households added a second earner. "
 
2013-05-21 12:29:19 PM  

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.

Hey what a coincidence, 40% of Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage. Things are totally better.

Pappy091: Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class

Sure it is. That's what taxes are, a redistribution of wealth. Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.

I MIGHT be able to see some reason in that argument if I thought that for one second our government was good stewards of our money.

 Yes, they're terrible stewards, which is why we no longer have an army and were conquered by commies, and we aren't a superpower, and we don't enjoy a high standard of living....
 
2013-05-21 12:30:58 PM  

Pappy091: I MIGHT be able to see some reason in that argument if I thought that for one second our government was good stewards of our money.


Well since you've already stated:

Also, earlier governmental action is the root cause of every problem you describe.

and

Those that have been successful have done so in spite of governmental interference and harm.

It's pretty clear what you think of our government. I do not agree government is the cause of all of our problems (nor the solution to all of our problems). Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together (B. Frank). If you don't have any confidence in the government the answer isn't to write it off completely. The government isn't going away. The answer is to make it better.
 
2013-05-21 12:31:41 PM  

Pappy091: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.


So, you don't understand how paying taxes work, and you somehow know how much your employees  get refunded?

Now you sound like a liar as well as a fool.
 
2013-05-21 12:31:48 PM  

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering.

It isn't false. It's a fact that wages are at historic lows. It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year. It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty. It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty. You can ignore it, as most of our politicians and media does, or you can accept it and decide whether this is how you think the richest most powerful nation in the world should operate.

I think that most of the world laughs their asses of at America's definition of poverty. I'm not saying that the lower class should be content, but our definition of classes is way out of whack with the rest of the world. Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.

This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.


Cool, so we should be holding our standard of living to what the world thinks is appropriate?  Since a poor person in Bangladesh things a poor person in New York is rich that means the person in New York is really just a complainer.  I mean, 98% of poor households in the U.S have a refrigerator, poor my ass, right?
 
2013-05-21 12:33:57 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: snocone: Was there a shift from for the "Good of the American People" to "Whatever the Stockholder Needs" or was it always that way?

The shift from "Stakeholder" capitalism to "Shareholder" capitalism in the US, can be traced back to a couple of journal articles in the late 70's, early 80's. It was promoted heavily by Jack Welch and other high profile executives, and ended up being adopted by the majority of American and British firms.

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/29/failure_of_shareholder_capitalism/

As the Salon article above points out, Shareholder capitalism has not been good for most folks, and has even failed in it's primary purpose of increasing share prices.

It has, however, helped make CEO's obscenely wealthy, and will therefore remain the default mode for all companies until there are widespread shareholder revolts against their boards.


Would be a neat trick to "encourage" BODs to leash up their CEOs. I just don't understand how they abrogate that responsibility and give away all that nice money. This group should have some smarts.
But since I know how you create, feed and keep a BOD, good luck.
 
2013-05-21 12:34:03 PM  

Pappy091: This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.



We already HAVE wealth redistribution, and have had it since the late 70's...

For the average American wages have risen around 24% since 1979.... but at the same time cost of living has risen over 60%. That means the average American is poorer then their parents and grandparents were. The proportion of those living below the poverty line has also risen.

Meanwhile the very wealthy have increased their wealth during that same time period by over 280%. The wealth IS being redistributed upwards - and sharply. Corporate profits have also risen sharply during this period while worker productivity rises as well. No one in the middle and bottom is seeing any of those gains. They are entirely being consumed by the already wealthy - AND MORE.

This is not a recipe for long-term national success. Demand is important to any economic system, and we have almost entirely neglected demand in favor of "supply side" type economics for decades now. That was dumb. WIthout anyone who can afford products, who are they going to be sold to? This is why our economic recovery has been so anemic. That will only continue to worsen as these trends continue, and the end result will eventually be a society of permenant, fixed classes/castes - with the lower castes in a form of indentured servitude.
 
2013-05-21 12:34:09 PM  

van1ty: A corporation will spend 100 million dollars to avoid paying 99 million in taxes.


Not really.  A couple million bucks will get you some pretty good tax planning.
 
2013-05-21 12:34:14 PM  
For these threads about the evils of the rich people is why I have this...

imageshack.usView Full Size


Am I just not being open minded about the superfluous rich?
I mean, I like Warren Buffet because he has some form of conscious. Eh?
How much of G.E. does he own?
 
2013-05-21 12:36:32 PM  

pute kisses like a man: i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?


Don't make me Laff.
 
2013-05-21 12:37:21 PM  

Magnus: It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year.False Statement. Again, Census Bureau check of Average Income for Americans shows this to be false for 2012.


He said less than half, which implies median. You used average, which is the mean. Two different things.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

I am not sure why the table here doesn't list median income, but it can be derived from the other columns.

The median wage is 16.71 while the mean wage is 22.01. The median is only 76% of the mean.
The mean income is $45,790.
76% of that is $34,800.

So he was wrong, but not by much (~3%).
 
2013-05-21 12:37:51 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Well, see that's the tricky part


Since I'll be stealing some of this to kind of troll my dad, I figure I ought to do something nice for you...
 
2013-05-21 12:38:11 PM  
iTaxEvasion


Guess it's time to have them claim that they invented it and so forth, so that they may start suing everyone that also evade taxes?
 
2013-05-21 12:38:57 PM  

mongbiohazard: Pappy091: This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.


We already HAVE wealth redistribution, and have had it since the late 70's...

For the average American wages have risen around 24% since 1979.... but at the same time cost of living has risen over 60%. That means the average American is poorer then their parents and grandparents were. The proportion of those living below the poverty line has also risen.

Meanwhile the very wealthy have increased their wealth during that same time period by over 280%. The wealth IS being redistributed upwards - and sharply. Corporate profits have also risen sharply during this period while worker productivity rises as well. No one in the middle and bottom is seeing any of those gains. They are entirely being consumed by the already wealthy - AND MORE.

This is not a recipe for long-term national success. Demand is important to any economic system, and we have almost entirely neglected demand in favor of "supply side" type economics for decades now. That was dumb. WIthout anyone who can afford products, who are they going to be sold to? This is why our economic recovery has been so anemic. That will only continue to worsen as these trends continue, and the end result will eventually be a society of permenant, fixed classes/castes - with the lower castes in a form of indentured servitude.


Cite source please. Also please clarify, are you saying inflation adjusted wages have gone up 24% and cost of living has grown faster than inflation, to a total of 60% since 1979?
 
2013-05-21 12:40:18 PM  
Step 1) Make tax loopholes so you can get more political donations

Step 2) Get mad at the people who use those loopholes you helped make so you can get more votes

Step 3) The American people are a bunch of suckers

Are we really that surprised that this came from a tax code that has been amended over TEN THOUSAND times since it was revised in the 1980s?
 
2013-05-21 12:40:19 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: So he was wrong, but not by much (~3%).


I was quoting the Times, who were quoting EPI.

Half the jobs in the nation pay less than $34,000 a year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Link

I think most people agree that whichever number you choose, it is far too low.
 
2013-05-21 12:42:00 PM  

unlikely: AngryJailhouseFistfark: Well, see that's the tricky part

Since I'll be stealing some of this to kind of troll my dad, I figure I ought to do something nice for you...


And for that, I thank ye!
 
2013-05-21 12:42:35 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: And we have television and cell phones to tell us that we're actually something more than serfs,


i141.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-21 12:42:56 PM  
iEthics
 
2013-05-21 12:44:17 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: I MIGHT be able to see some reason in that argument if I thought that for one second our government was good stewards of our money.

Well since you've already stated:

Also, earlier governmental action is the root cause of every problem you describe.

and

Those that have been successful have done so in spite of governmental interference and harm.

It's pretty clear what you think of our government. I do not agree government is the cause of all of our problems (nor the solution to all of our problems). Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together (B. Frank). If you don't have any confidence in the government the answer isn't to write it off completely. The government isn't going away. The answer is to make it better.


Those weren't my posts.

I absolutely agree with you last statement.
 
2013-05-21 12:46:00 PM  

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.

I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering. Saying that they only have money to spend on necessities is just laughable in my opinion. Unless we have gotten to a point in our country where 52" flat screens and 2200 sq ft houses are "necessary".


Fact: Average household income  in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974
Fact: In 1974 the average American household had 1 income earner, not two
Fact: in the same time worker productivity has tripled as have corporate profits
Fact: The housing crisis of 2008 was precipitated in part by a recognition that after the tech bubble burst, and tanked the stock market, the increase invalue of real estate owned was the middle class, only source of accumulating wealth.
Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.
Fact: Income inequality is higher tight now that at any other point in US history with a greater percentage of the wealth concentrated in the hands  of the top 10% than at any other time in US History including the Gilded Age
 
2013-05-21 12:46:35 PM  

Elroydb: Step 1) Make tax loopholes so you can get more political donations

Step 2) Get mad at the people who use those loopholes you helped make so you can get more votes

Step 3) The American people are a bunch of suckers

Are we really that surprised that this came from a tax code that has been amended over TEN THOUSAND times since it was revised in the 1980s?


Wouldn't it be nice,,
Maybe a tax code written by taxpayers would work better.
 
2013-05-21 12:46:51 PM  

Pappy091: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.



Wow... they're real Lucky Duckies ain't they?

prolecenter.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-21 12:47:09 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Pappy091: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.

So, you don't understand how paying taxes work, and you somehow know how much your employees  get refunded?

Now you sound like a liar as well as a fool.


I do understand how taxes work. I have a general idea of their tax returns based on conversations with them, not because I know as their employer. It is generally a much talked about subject around the water cooler during tax season. It's not something I ask about, it's just something they talk about. Telling a co-worker how much your tax return was isn't exactly uncommon.
 
2013-05-21 12:47:29 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Magnus: It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year.False Statement. Again, Census Bureau check of Average Income for Americans shows this to be false for 2012.

He said less than half, which implies median. You used average, which is the mean. Two different things.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

I am not sure why the table here doesn't list median income, but it can be derived from the other columns.

The median wage is 16.71 while the mean wage is 22.01. The median is only 76% of the mean.
The mean income is $45,790.
76% of that is $34,800.

So he was wrong, but not by much (~3%).


Yes, two different things.  An implication is not a absolute.  That is an assumption on your part.  He also stated that "half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year".   This is separate from income. Two different things.  I think we can both agree that he claimed facts that were clearly not backed up by facts.
 
2013-05-21 12:48:19 PM  

Pappy091: Those weren't my posts.


My mistake. Got p-names mixed up. My apologies.
 
2013-05-21 12:49:08 PM  

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.

Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.

Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


Wait, what?  The assumption that wealth is finite is invalid?  Explain.
Also it's not so much that the rich person that has $100 that someone else could, it's that the extra $100 in the hands of someone who already has $2,000,000 in their bank account is less likely to spend that incremental $100 than the family who is living paycheck to paycheck on $30,000 /yr...so its win-win: improving quality of life of the less fortunate and also getting money flowing through the economy.

Now in terms of corporate welfare, the same may not necessarily hold true, as different industries have different levels of operating expenses and require varying degrees of cash on hand to remain afloat.  Its much easier to draw a line for income tax and say that there is some reasonable ceiling where a person is rich to the point that it starts to have diminishing returns, simply as they have too much money to even spend...
 
2013-05-21 12:50:01 PM  

mongbiohazard: Pappy091: This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.


We already HAVE wealth redistribution, and have had it since the late 70's...

For the average American wages have risen around 24% since 1979.... but at the same time cost of living has risen over 60%. That means the average American is poorer then their parents and grandparents were. The proportion of those living below the poverty line has also risen.

Meanwhile the very wealthy have increased their wealth during that same time period by over 280%. The wealth IS being redistributed upwards - and sharply. Corporate profits have also risen sharply during this period while worker productivity rises as well. No one in the middle and bottom is seeing any of those gains. They are entirely being consumed by the already wealthy - AND MORE.

This is not a recipe for long-term national success. Demand is important to any economic system, and we have almost entirely neglected demand in favor of "supply side" type economics for decades now. That was dumb. WIthout anyone who can afford products, who are they going to be sold to? This is why our economic recovery has been so anemic. That will only continue to worsen as these trends continue, and the end result will eventually be a society of permenant, fixed classes/castes - with the lower castes in a form of indentured servitude.


I would be willing to bet that our parents and grandparents would completely disagree with this.
 
2013-05-21 12:50:35 PM  

Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.

I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering. Saying that they only have money to spend on necessities is just laughable in my opinion. Unless we have gotten to a point in our country where 52" flat screens and 2200 sq ft houses are "necessary".

Fact: Average household income  in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974
Fact: In 1974 the average American household had 1 income earner, not two
Fact: in the same time worker productivity has tripled as have corporate profits
Fact: The housing crisis of 2008 was precipitated in part by a recognition that after the tech bubble burst, and tanked the stock market, the increase invalue of real estate owned was the middle class, only source of accumulating wealth.
Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.
Fact: Income inequality is higher tight now that at any other point in US history with a greater percentage of the wealth concentrated in the hands  of the top 10% than at any other time in US History including the Gilded Age


The 70's keep rearing it's ugly head.
Seems that the near economic collapse fostered by corporate extortion of the government was a real game changer.
Now days, it is what is for dinner.
 
2013-05-21 12:50:55 PM  

Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.



Yeah, when will the rich ever catch a break in this country?

 
cdn.socialtrade.comView Full Size


doctorhousingbubble.comView Full Size


Gosh, I just don't know where this frustration comes from.   Just jealous, I guess.
 
2013-05-21 12:52:58 PM  

chocolate covered poop: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.

Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.

Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

Wait, what?  The assumption that wealth is finite is invalid?  Explain.
Also it's not so much that the rich person that has $100 that someone else could, it's that the extra $100 in the hands of someone who already has $2,000,000 in their bank account is less likely to spend that incremental $100 than the family who is living paycheck to paycheck on $30,000 /yr...so its win-win: improving quality of life of the less fortunate and also getting money flowing through the economy.

Now in terms of corporate welfare, the same may not necessarily hold true, as different industries have different levels of operatin ...


That $100 isn't sitting in their bank account. It's invested in some form or fashion in the economy. That $100 isn't taken out of the pool.

This is the exact reason that our schools should teach more economic/financial classes.
 
2013-05-21 12:53:22 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together


Clownshoes.

Government is the name we give to the things that are done by force, at the point of a gun.

Government is a perfect map of the things that people choose NOT to do "together" -- the things they do NOT want to do.

And the degree of force that governments use against those who do not submit their instructions is a perfect map of the degree to which they do not want to do it.

Mutual cooperation is "choosing to do things together."  That is what a market transaction is -- both parties respect each other's person and property, and mutually agree to exchange goods and services, on mutually-agreeable terms, and if either person declines to engage in the trade, then the other will not retaliate or exert force.

Commerce is mutual cooperation.  Government is the exact opposite.

I sincerely do not understand how someone could possibly be as confused as you are.
 
2013-05-21 12:54:55 PM  

Phinn: Government is the name we give to the things that are done by force, at the point of a gun.


Oh boy. I don't think we need to converse anymore. Good luck out there on your own.
 
2013-05-21 12:55:23 PM  

Magorn: Average household income in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Average household income 1974 in 2011 US dollars:  $71,163
Average household income 2011 in 2011 US dollars:  $121,084
source:  Census Bureau.
 
2013-05-21 12:56:19 PM  
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

It's completely asinine that the Senate is yelling at Apple for following the law.  If Congress thinks Apple isn't paying enough taxes, they should change the law so they pay more.
 
2013-05-21 12:57:48 PM  

Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.


Well maybe if these people would learn how to manage their money and not go into debt for them they wouldn't be in nearly the condition they are now. You never go into debt for playthings. That's the problem in a nutshell. too many peoples parents didn't teach them the meaning of the words No, Need,and Want.
The level of entitlement im seeing in the early to mid twenty somethings is astounding. Since when did being here actually guarantee you anything.  Case and point... The brides sister calls he constantly wanting money for rent power etc yet always has money to party but she ends up paying her bills.. that is until the last time she called crying and i demanded the wife not send a red cent. Amazingly she went to work the next day.
I would say it was just her but I'm seeing it all over. WTF happened?
 
2013-05-21 12:58:20 PM  
Not percentage wise.  And this isn't about rich people, it is about the biggest corporations in America that pay little to no tax yet they make billions of dollars.

Hey, next time try including some facts in your bullshiat.  In 2012, Apple paid $6 billion in taxes to the US Treasury.  That's about $16.5 million per day, and about 1 dollar out of every 40 paid in US corporate taxes for 2012.  For 2013 they expect to pay $7 billion in the US.

That doesn't count the taxes they pay in other countries on the revenue they get from selling products there, because -- and this may shock you -- American companies that sell stuff in, say, Japan have to pay income tax in Japan.

Yes, there are problems with the US tax system that favor corporations.  Yes, it would be a great idea to simplify corporate tax laws and close a shiat-ton of loopholes.  Get some actual numbers before claiming that one of the largest tax-payers in the country is getting a free ride though.

Challenge:  name three private individuals who pay more in US taxes than Apple.
 
2013-05-21 12:58:27 PM  

Geotpf: Don't hate the player, hate the game.

It's completely asinine that the Senate is yelling at Apple for following the law.  If Congress thinks Apple isn't paying enough taxes, they should change the law so they pay more.


Congress does that to take the focus off of the real crooks, themselves. They are promoting this class warfare so that the heat is turned off of them.

This discussion is proof positive that they are succeeding.
 
2013-05-21 01:00:37 PM  
Reminds me of senior year of high school.

CSB:
Had an "independent study" that was taught at my primary school, but involved driving across the country to another school that actually taught the class I wanted to take, taught by a completely different teacher.  Neither teacher ever talked to the other one ever.  I cared about the lessons, and did my work (usually at home) but it was 1st period and I was a tired/lazy high schooler.  So I could skip it on an almost daily basis, and both teachers just assumed that I was at the other school that day, and didn't bother reporting my absence.  I would show up to 2nd period as usual, and enjoy an extra 45 minutes of sleep in the morning.

Even won a state-level competition for the class I was driving to, boo ya.
 
2013-05-21 01:00:59 PM  

Magnus: Magorn: Average household income in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Average household income 1974 in 2011 US dollars:  $71,163
Average household income 2011 in 2011 US dollars:  $121,084
source:  Census Bureau.


Now, we should be more specific as to how many income earners are in each household during each period.  Expenses, etc.  I'm not claiming roses and champagne are pouring from all public fountains.  Just that we need to be more specific because even the Census Bureau data can leave some non-realistic impressions.
 
2013-05-21 01:01:34 PM  

Magnus: Yes, two different things. An implication is not a absolute. That is an assumption on your part. He also stated that "half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year". This is separate from income. Two different things. I think we can both agree that he claimed facts that were clearly not backed up by facts.



I am still unclear as to why you replied to his "Apples are red" statement with "Wrong, oranges are orange", and then decided to double down when this was pointed out.
 
2013-05-21 01:01:47 PM  

Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.

Well maybe if these people would learn how to manage their money and not go into debt for them they wouldn't be in nearly the condition they are now. You never go into debt for playthings. That's the problem in a nutshell. too many peoples parents didn't teach them the meaning of the words No, Need,and Want.
The level of entitlement im seeing in the early to mid twenty somethings is astounding. Since when did being here actually guarantee you anything.  Case and point... The brides sister calls he constantly wanting money for rent power etc yet always has money to party but she ends up paying her bills.. that is until the last time she called crying and i demanded the wife not send a red cent. Amazingly she went to work the next day.
I would say it was just her but I'm seeing it all over. WTF happened?


It's a major failing of our country that our youth has no understanding of sound financial management.

One of the biggest reasons that the children of people that are well off are way more likely to be well off themselves is because they are much more likely to be taught how to manage money in a smart, forward thinking way. The farther down the income scale you go the less knowledge there is of basic finance, much less things like retirement investing, etc.
 
2013-05-21 01:03:29 PM  

Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

i53.tinypic.comView Full Size

i52.tinypic.comView Full Size
i54.tinypic.comView Full Size
i51.tinypic.comView Full Size


You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture
 
2013-05-21 01:05:47 PM  

Geotpf: It's completely asinine that the Senate is yelling at Apple for following the law. If Congress thinks Apple isn't paying enough taxes, they should change the law so they pay more.


But if they change the law, they'll piss of all the corporations who pay for their campaign budgets. They only yell and fuss because some spoil-sport went and publicized it and so they have to "harrumph!" and "Wha'phlphplfff!" and point a finger in a non-specific direction and make the scowly-face.
 
2013-05-21 01:06:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Oh boy. I don't think we need to converse anymore. Good luck out there on your own.


No one is on his own.  I'm certainly not.

The difference between you and me is that I cooperate with everyone I interact with.  I give more than I take.  I never rob, steal, or threaten them.  I never do so directly, and I never rely on an agent or proxy to do those things for me.

It takes hundreds of people working in dozens of different places just to make a pencil.  When I buy that pencil, I am cooperating with a complex web of people, none of whom knows everyone else, but we all cooperate, for our mutual benefit, to make and have useful things.

You, on the other hand, take and take and take and take, and you resent the people who organize people into productive enterprises.  You cheerlead from the sidelines as the Men With Guns go around telling everyone what they can make, what they have to charge for it, and how much everyone is supposed to pay for their "services."  This is from you, I'm sure, who has built nothing, created nothing, employed no one, and helped no one.

How many successful, self-sustaining enterprises have you created that employed anyone?  More than 5 people?  Ten?

I wouldn't trust a shiat-stain taker like you to run a Starbucks for one shift.  But you presume to know that the people who help create EVERYTHING you use in your life, from the coffee you drink to the shoes on your feet, must certainly OWE MORE than what they've already paid.  As if you know.  As if you've taken the time to carefully calculate it all.

The creators and producers of all of the desired things in this world owe you fark-all.
 
2013-05-21 01:07:15 PM  

ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture


And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?
 
2013-05-21 01:09:24 PM  

Phinn: You, on the other hand,


Well that was a nice rant from up there on your high horse. But you that you know nothing about me. And this thread isn't about me. So please get off my nuts. Thank you.
 
2013-05-21 01:10:02 PM  
so a  sizable portion of their yearly earnings can be tied directly to tax avoidance?
 
2013-05-21 01:10:36 PM  

Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?


I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers
 
2013-05-21 01:15:59 PM  

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yet another reason for the fair tax.

The tax code should have no more than eight words, not eighty million.
 
2013-05-21 01:19:32 PM  

ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers


That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.
 
2013-05-21 01:23:13 PM  
It is almost like that giant talking vagina, Jobs, is still alive.  If all goes as he planned we will indeed be building phones for the Chinese in 3 years.  Just the kind of Dickensian jerb push we need :)
This is not about greed, but insufferable greed.  "Put lead back into clean drinking water and then charge people for clean water" kinda greed that makes me kinda stabby.
 
2013-05-21 01:24:14 PM  

Pappy091: chocolate covered poop: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.

Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.

Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

Wait, what?  The assumption that wealth is finite is invalid?  Explain.
Also it's not so much that the rich person that has $100 that someone else could, it's that the extra $100 in the hands of someone who already has $2,000,000 in their bank account is less likely to spend that incremental $100 than the family who is living paycheck to paycheck on $30,000 /yr...so its win-win: improving quality of life of the less fortunate and also getting money flowing through the economy.

That $100 isn't sitting in their bank account. It's invested in some form or fashion in the economy. That $100 isn't taken out of the pool.

This is the exact reason that our schools should teach more economic/financial classes.


So there's some physical or economic law that says the $100 HAS to be invested?  That the earned interest isn't just a self fulfilling snowball effect of inflation?  Or that any real value generated from that interest isn't just swapped back and forth between those who are already exorbitantly wealthy (just bankers swapping money and none of it ever actually returns to the bottom of the pyramid).  And these investments might help nominal GDP but I sincerely doubt they have anywhere near the impact on unemployment as most people like to believe.  and I think that comes to the core of the issue, why do we want the economy to be "good"?  is it so that the median human quality of life improves, or just so the aggregate pile of human "wealth" grows?

and part of the education problem is that economics and finance are pseudo-sciences that are cast off at times as actual science - there are no underlying physical phenomena that unify economic observations, yet we treat most economic notions with a level of sacredness one might grant to the laws of thermodynamics.  or at the very least economic systems are so complex and linked to human decisions that trying to come up with any theoretical background is presently impossible. so it's become highly empirical in nature, and as human history proceeds we are collecting more and more data points that could suggest some of our old assumptions might have been flawed, or outright bad ideas.
 
2013-05-21 01:24:23 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: unlikely: So I'm fuzzy on this. Do we hate loopholes that allow corporations to dodge taxes or not?


Well, see that's the tricky part. ...(snip)


That was a thing of beauty, and sadly, truth.
 
2013-05-21 01:27:23 PM  
duenor:

The problem here is that Apple doesn't HAVE to stay in the US. They do so because it suits them, but it's not absolutely necessary. Their attitude (shared among many corps) is that, "Well if you're going to tax us that much we'll just leave and you get a pittance."

Why would it hurt the US? They are only paying on their US gains and they funnel their loses to the US and their gains the tax havens. What gets lost if they move? The US would still tax them on their US earnings. Maybe we'll lost taxes on some of their execs.. but whatever. Let them move to China or Ireland, or the Cayman Islands.

but then again, I'm stupid.
 
2013-05-21 01:28:21 PM  

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Does your dad own a dealership?
 
2013-05-21 01:29:10 PM  

Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.



Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.
 
2013-05-21 01:29:42 PM  

kimmygibblershomework: It is almost like that giant talking vagina, Jobs, is still alive.  If all goes as he planned we will indeed be building phones for the Chinese in 3 years.  Just the kind of Dickensian jerb push we need :)
This is not about greed, but insufferable greed.  "Put lead back into clean drinking water and then charge people for clean water" kinda greed that makes me kinda stabby.


What kind of organizations run the water supplies?
 
2013-05-21 01:30:54 PM  

chocolate covered poop: So there's some physical or economic law that says the $100 HAS to be invested?  That the earned interest isn't just a self fulfilling snowball effect of inflation?  Or that any real value generated from that interest isn't just swapped back and forth between those who are already exorbitantly wealthy (just bankers swapping money and none of it ever actually returns to the bottom of the pyramid).  And these investments might help nominal GDP but I sincerely doubt they have anywhere near the impact on unemployment as most people like to believe.  and I think that comes to the core of the issue, why do we want the economy to be "good"?  is it so that the median human quality of life improves, or just so the aggregate pile of human "wealth" grows?

and part of the education problem is that economics and finance are pseudo-sciences that are cast off at times as actual science - there are no underlying physical phenomena that unify economic observations, yet we treat most economic notions with a level of sacredness one might grant to the laws of thermodynamics.  or at the very least economic systems are so complex and linked to human decisions that trying to come up with any theoretical background is presently impossible. so it's become highly empirical in nature, and as human history proceeds we are collecting more and more data points that could suggest some of our old assumptions might have been flawed, or outright bad ideas.


There is no "law", it's just common sense. The super rich aren't sitting around with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash sitting in their bank accounts. At the very least they will be invested in low rish ventures such as CDs, bonds, etc.

When I say that we should teach our youth about financials/economics, I don't just mean how to invest in the stock market. I am talking about how to save for retirement, the dangers of too much debt, how to buy a house that you can afford, the benefits of living within your means, etc.
 
2013-05-21 01:31:09 PM  

Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?


You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED
 
2013-05-21 01:31:19 PM  

Pappy091: I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Let me guess.  You also believe "The world needs ditch diggers too" and don't see the contradiction of the two statements.

If not, please explain how a society can operate with all chiefs and no indians.
 
2013-05-21 01:32:27 PM  

Magnus: Magorn: Average household income in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Average household income 1974 in 2011 US dollars:  $71,163
Average household income 2011 in 2011 US dollars:  $121,084
source:  Census Bureau.


This is one of the worst misreadings of data I have ever seen. You got those numbers from Table H-17 from your Census Bureau link, but they are not dollar values. Those are the numbers (in thousands) of households in 1974 and 2011, not the median household income for those years.

Did it seriously not tip you off that you were doing something wrong when you pegged the median household income for 2011 at $121,084? Did that number actually sound reasonable to you?
 
2013-05-21 01:32:38 PM  

cman: Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple


southparkstudios.mtvnimages.comView Full Size


He bereeves in ru!
 
2013-05-21 01:33:32 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?

You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED


No, I really want someone to explain this so me.  I am tired of just getting farked, and I know things are never going to change, so I figure why not become the person doing the farking.  I want to know how I do that, no shiat.
 
2013-05-21 01:33:40 PM  

Phinn: Dusk-You-n-Me: Oh boy. I don't think we need to converse anymore. Good luck out there on your own.

No one is on his own.  I'm certainly not.

The difference between you and me is that I cooperate with everyone I interact with.  I give more than I take.  I never rob, steal, or threaten them.  I never do so directly, and I never rely on an agent or proxy to do those things for me.

It takes hundreds of people working in dozens of different places just to make a pencil.  When I buy that pencil, I am cooperating with a complex web of people, none of whom knows everyone else, but we all cooperate, for our mutual benefit, to make and have useful things.

You, on the other hand, take and take and take and take, and you resent the people who organize people into productive enterprises.  You cheerlead from the sidelines as the Men With Guns go around telling everyone what they can make, what they have to charge for it, and how much everyone is supposed to pay for their "services."  This is from you, I'm sure, who has built nothing, created nothing, employed no one, and helped no one.

How many successful, self-sustaining enterprises have you created that employed anyone?  More than 5 people?  Ten?

I wouldn't trust a shiat-stain taker like you to run a Starbucks for one shift.  But you presume to know that the people who help create EVERYTHING you use in your life, from the coffee you drink to the shoes on your feet, must certainly OWE MORE than what they've already paid.  As if you know.  As if you've taken the time to carefully calculate it all.

The creators and producers of all of the desired things in this world owe you fark-all.


This is the epitome of what is wrong with this country, it's literally fark you i got mine.
 
2013-05-21 01:34:07 PM  

Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.


Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.
 
2013-05-21 01:34:47 PM  

Space Station Wagon: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

Does your dad own a dealership?


Huh? No.....why?
 
2013-05-21 01:39:27 PM  
It just shows hypocritcal all the leftists are.  You can find the most left-leaning company and ceo out there, one who demands taxes be increased every chance he gets, and you will find the company jumps through hoops to avoid paying taxes.

they want taxes to be raised - on everyone else, but not themselves.

also, high taxes favor incumbent companies.  the higher tax rates are, the lower the chance a new challenger company can unseat the incumbent company.  there is a selfish purpose for advocating liberalism.
 
2013-05-21 01:42:04 PM  

snocone: Show of hands, plz.
Stockholders should not take precedence over citizens.
Was there a shift from for the "Good of the American People" to "Whatever the Stockholder Needs" or was it always that way?


maggiesnotebook.comView Full Size


There you go again...

 
2013-05-21 01:43:21 PM  

Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.


What youth can afford that now? College kids can't even get a decent job, and are burdened with heavy debt right out of the gate.

Until the economy improves, we are screwed. Economy will never improve to what it needs to be with liberals in charge.
 
2013-05-21 01:43:37 PM  

Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.


A lot of young people barely make enough to cover their bills. Expecting them to put aside enough money to make that IRA worthwhile is pretty ridiculous.
 
2013-05-21 01:45:30 PM  
If Apple is following the law, they're just doing what Congress incentivized them to do. Personally I don't look to maximize my tax liability every April.
 
2013-05-21 01:46:39 PM  
Here are a few salient points:
1) Apple pays taxes on all profits is makes in each country in which it makes those profits.  German profits are paid to Germany; Japan profits are paid to Japan; US profits are paid to the US; etc.
2) Apple is simply transferring its ALREADY TAXED foreign profits to Ireland for centralized management. Apple pays taxes to Ireland, at an arguably low tax rate, when it makes these transfers. This violates no laws anywhere and is not immoral.
3) Apple is only required to pay US income tax on these foreign profits if it chooses to transfer these funds back to the US.  Under US law, Apple is not required to transfer its foreign profits back to the US.
4) Lastly, let's remember that Apple pays US taxes, at a 35% tax rate, on all interest earned through investments of it's foreign capital.
Maybe the US government should reduce the tax rate for the return foreign profits to the US.  Remember, these profits have already been appropriately taxed by foreign governments.
 
2013-05-21 01:46:43 PM  

Thunderpipes: Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.

What youth can afford that now? College kids can't even get a decent job, and are burdened with heavy debt right out of the gate.

Until the economy improves, we are screwed. Economy will never improve to what it needs to be with liberals in charge.


cdn.fd.uproxx.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-21 01:47:51 PM  

bingethinker: Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.

A lot of young people barely make enough to cover their bills. Expecting them to put aside enough money to make that IRA worthwhile is pretty ridiculous.


You would be shocked at how little you needed to put away to make it worthwhile. 10% would be ideal, but if the isn't feasible all the time then even a few percent of each paycheck would make a big difference 30-40 years down the road. Everyone can do it. You may need to sacrifice a few beers over the weekend before you get settled in your career/life, but it is worth it. You don't have to get started in your early 20's. Better late than never.
 
2013-05-21 01:48:09 PM  

Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.


Inherited a house no mortage, and I save 10% of my income, with 3% of my pre tax pay in an IRA with employer matching.  Car will be paid off at the end of the summer, student loans equal one days pay a month.  I made the average wage (approx 40k).  I have CC debt that I am paying down from when I was injured and had to take unpaid time off work.  I eat out maybe one day a week, and the other 6 nights a week myself and other mid 20's friends all cook a large dinner for all of us to save money.  I am asking you what I can change to actually become a 'have'.  Not "save for retirement" bullshiat that you think middle income earners and below don't understand, they just cant afford it.  So what should I change to become a 'have'?  Go to busisness school?  Because my 40k is just enough for me to work my way out of minor CC debt, keep current with small car and student loan payments, and put away enough for my property tax (10% of my income, pre tax.)  God help me if I had a kid.  Or if I get hurt again.  And it hurts my brain to think about if I wasn't fortunate enough to inherit someplace to live, how long it would take
 
2013-05-21 01:49:03 PM  
(continued from accidentally hitting add comment)

How long it would take me to save to actually buy a house, hell or a condo.  I just want to know what easy things I can do to become a have, since I've heard it so much.
 
2013-05-21 01:49:56 PM  

Source4leko: Dusk-You-n-Me: Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?

You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED

No, I really want someone to explain this so me.  I am tired of just getting farked, and I know things are never going to change, so I figure why not become the person doing the farking.  I want to know how I do that, no shiat.


1. Earn more than you spend.

2. Invest the difference in cash-generating ways, either through conventional financial instruments (IRAs, funds, etc.), or use it to start or expand a profitable enterprise. Which will help you earn more ...

3. Repeat.

How do you identify a profitable business to start and grow? Learn to give the people what they want. Start by asking yourself that question 90 times a day -- what can I do to deliver something to people that they want?

Give, give, give. Focus on yourself and your production of desired goods and services. Focus on other people's unmet (or undermet) wants.

Learning how to get paid in the process is always much easier than figuring out what people really want but don't have.

Once you've done this a few times, and built profitable businesses that please lots and lots of satisfied customers, you'll soon encounter all the myriad ways that government will get in your way, take from you, and favor its cronies.

Have fun!
 
2013-05-21 01:51:22 PM  

Pappy091: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.


This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. Whether you get a refund, and the amount of that refund, tells nobody anything about the amount, or percentage, of taxes you pay.
 
2013-05-21 01:51:29 PM  
so does this make microsoft the least evil smartphone maker?
 
2013-05-21 01:52:26 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Misplaced Anger

Don't blame Apple's pencil whippers.

Blame Congress for Title 26 USC. Apple is using loopholes and accounting Congress made part of the Tax Code at Title 26.

Be angry at Congress.


I'm already perpetually angry at Congress. It's exhausting!
 
2013-05-21 01:54:33 PM  

Phinn: Source4leko: Dusk-You-n-Me: Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?

You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED

No, I really want someone to explain this so me.  I am tired of just getting farked, and I know things are never going to change, so I figure why not become the person doing the farking.  I want to know how I do that, no shiat.

1. Earn more than you spend.

2. Invest the difference in cash-generating ways, either through conventional financial instruments (IRAs, funds, etc.), or use it to start or expand a profitable enterprise. Which will help you earn more ...

3. Repeat.

How do you identify a profitable business to start and grow? Learn to give the people what they want. Start by asking yourself that question 90 times a day -- what can I do to deliver something to people that they want?

Give, give, give. Focus on yourself and your production of desired goods and services. Focus on other people's unmet (or undermet) wants.

Learning how to get paid in the process is always much easier than figuring out what people really want but don't have.

Once you've done this a few times, and built profitable businesses that please lots and lots of satisfied customers, you'll soon encounter all the myriad ways that government will get in your way, take from you, and favor its cronies.

Have fun!


Oh look, another answer that could be on CNN.com of 'how to save for retirement'.  There was a ton of new information there.  I think you forgot 'buy low, sell high!'   Also, thanks for the chip about how the government will take from me, that makes me realize you aren't an ideologue at all, and that your information is not ideologically motivated in any way.
 
2013-05-21 01:55:46 PM  

Source4leko: Phinn: Source4leko: Dusk-You-n-Me: Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?

You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED

No, I really want someone to explain this so me.  I am tired of just getting farked, and I know things are never going to change, so I figure why not become the person doing the farking.  I want to know how I do that, no shiat.

1. Earn more than you spend.

2. Invest the difference in cash-generating ways, either through conventional financial instruments (IRAs, funds, etc.), or use it to start or expand a profitable enterprise. Which will help you earn more ...

3. Repeat.

How do you identify a profitable business to start and grow? Learn to give the people what they want. Start by asking yourself that question 90 times a day -- what can I do to deliver something to people that they want?

Give, give, give. Focus on yourself and your production of desired goods and services. Focus on other people's unmet (or undermet) wants.

Learning how to get paid in the process is always much easier than figuring out what people really want but don't have.

Once you've done this a few times, and built profitable businesses that please lots and lots of satisfied customers, you'll soon encounter all the myriad ways that government will get in your way, take from you, and favor its cronies.

Have fun!

Oh look, another answer that could be on CNN.com of 'how to save for retirement'.  There was a ton of new information there.  I think you forgot 'buy low, sell high!'   Also, thanks for the chip about how the government will take from me, that makes me realize you aren't an ideologue at all, and that your information is not ideologically motivated in any way.


How many businesses have you started?
 
2013-05-21 01:57:36 PM  

Source4leko: Oh look, another answer that could be on CNN.com of 'how to save for retirement'


Nobody's claiming it's rocket science to be comfortable.
 
2013-05-21 01:58:51 PM  

SlothB77: You can find the most left-leaning company and ceo out there, one who demands taxes be increased every chance he gets, and you will find the company jumps through hoops to avoid paying taxes.


Is Apple really the most left-leaning company? Has Tim Cook really called for higher taxes "every chance he gets"? Or was that a story someone sold to you?
 
2013-05-21 01:59:04 PM  
This thread is an excellent example of why it's not possible to have an intelligent public debate about taxes. In general farkers are pretty smart but on this issue even they are clueless.
 
2013-05-21 02:04:25 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Misplaced Anger

Don't blame Apple's pencil whippers.

Blame Congress for Title 26 USC. Apple is using loopholes and accounting Congress made part of the Tax Code at Title 26.

Be angry at Congress.


About 90% of the people in this thread are getting it wrong. This is NOT a loophole. It is the way the system is supposed to work, but Apple is throwing all ethics and honor to the wind in using it.

Licensing costs are a valid tax deduction. If I create a small factory in the US manufacturing Festina watches, and have to send 45% of my gross to Barcelona in order to use the Festina name, of course that's a completely valid deduction, and I shouldn't have to pay taxes on it. Even if Spain had a corporate tax rate of 0%, that's not an issue for the US authorities to address.

Apple is manufacturing the boss from whole cloth. So they sell an iMac for $2000, and send $1000 to a company in Ireland that doesn't exist, so that they can use their own brand. Technically, it's legal, but anyone would agree that the intent of the law is otherwise. Congress knows this is going to blow up in their faces, so they want to put on a dog and pony show to show people how much they care.

Save your time and don't bother writing to whichever idiot is supposed to be looking out for you in Congress. The answer to this is public shaming. Don't go after Apple. Put pressure on their customers. If you're an IT geek, make it known that only retarded sh*tbags use Apple products. Every chance you get, remind people that all the money from their shiny new iPad went to an imaginary company in Ireland, and that's why their kid doesn't have a freaking job. The Apple brand in IT circles needs to become what Nike has become to serious runners.
 
2013-05-21 02:06:43 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Source4leko: Oh look, another answer that could be on CNN.com of 'how to save for retirement'

Nobody's claiming it's rocket science to be comfortable.


Actually, he's given me a business idea -- a website (app, social media portal?) devoted to providing resources, training and encouragement to 20-somethings to help them start businesses.

Concrete help for the young person who wants to be an entrepreneur and still hold onto his social values.

If I can't think of one, and he can't think of one, then it already sounds like an unmet need.
 
2013-05-21 02:09:06 PM  

Pappy091: Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.

Well maybe if these people would learn how to manage their money and not go into debt for them they wouldn't be in nearly the condition they are now. You never go into debt for playthings. That's the problem in a nutshell. too many peoples parents didn't teach them the meaning of the words No, Need,and Want.
The level of entitlement im seeing in the early to mid twenty somethings is astounding. Since when did being here actually guarantee you anything.  Case and point... The brides sister calls he constantly wanting money for rent power etc yet always has money to party but she ends up paying her bills.. that is until the last time she called crying and i demanded the wife not send a red cent. Amazingly she went to work the next day.
I would say it was just her but I'm seeing it all over. WTF happened?

It's a major failing of our country that our youth has no understanding of sound financial management.

One of the biggest reasons that the children of people that are well off are way more likely to be well off themselves is because they are much more likely to be taught how to manage money in a smart, forward thinking way. The farther down the income scale you go the less knowledge there is of basic finance, much less things like retirement investing, etc.


You know what would happen if the youth of today WERE taught sound financial management, moral rectitude and generally to have a lesser appetite for the consumption of commerical goods?  The Economy fails.  It drops right the fark off a cliff and doesn;t come back.  Seriously,  the American economy is now entirely dependent on consumer spending.   During the worst part of the Great recession in 2009 it was reported that people were saving more, paying off existing debts and showing a general reluctance to take on new ones.   Wall Street's reaction was just short of panic.  Economists the country over from both sides of the political aisle opined about how disatrous a state of affairs this was and called on the government to do something, anything to fix it.

That's the brutal bottom line right now.  Our whole economy is utterly depndant on middle class consumers making wrong choices for themselves that hurt them financially.  If tey stop, the whole house of cards comes crashing down/
 
2013-05-21 02:09:54 PM  

Phinn: Actually, he's given me a business idea -- a website (app, social media portal?) devoted to providing resources, training and encouragement to 20-somethings to help them start businesses.

Concrete help for the young person who wants to be an entrepreneur and still hold onto his social values.

If I can't think of one, and he can't think of one, then it already sounds like an unmet need.


There's literally tons of services *claiming* to meet that need, the trouble is separating yourself from the charlatans.  Or marketing effectively enough that you can get away with being a charlatan yourself.
 
2013-05-21 02:11:05 PM  

Magorn: You know what would happen if the youth of today WERE taught sound financial management, moral rectitude and generally to have a lesser appetite for the consumption of commerical goods?  The Economy fails.  It drops right the fark off a cliff and doesn;t come back.


DERP
 
2013-05-21 02:14:22 PM  
A corporation is finding loopholes to avoid paying taxes?  I'm SHOCKED,  SHOCKED I tell you!

Was 
s23.postimg.org