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  
•       •       •

7694 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 May 2013 at 10:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



380 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-21 02:35:12 PM  

gingerjet: ZeroPly: 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.

No they are not.  Businesses exist to make money for their shareholders.  Not to make you feel good and cuddly.  Noble concepts like "ethics" and "honor" have nothing to do it.


I thought they existed to turn us all into Soylent Green.
 
2013-05-21 02:35:27 PM  

JohnnyC: 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!


He sounds like the perfect worker...

llwproductions.files.wordpress.com

dailyreckoning.com
www.oftwominds.com
 
2013-05-21 02:36:35 PM  

Phinn: Some of us don't want to be charlatans.


Well then you're stuck with the other difficulty, which is convincing everyone that you're not one.  I don't think it's breaking news that 90% of advice on the internet is either bullshiat or outright duplicitous.
 
2013-05-21 02:40:26 PM  

InmanRoshi: JohnnyC: 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!

He sounds like the perfect worker...

[llwproductions.files.wordpress.com image 720x405]

[dailyreckoning.com image 470x447]
[www.oftwominds.com image 545x223]


Are you surprised?  Most people are farking idiots, incapable of even the most basic modern work tasks.

Heck, if anything, the -1% change tells me some of the morons are at least trying to claw their way out.  Or maybe they're getting killed.  Either way it's a good thing.
 
2013-05-21 02:40:54 PM  

Pappy091: Source4leko: 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 ...

I simplified it as much as I can.
I don't know, or want to know, enough about you to become your life coach. From what you said it sounds like you are doing much better than most people your age. There are a lot of people that would consider you one of the "haves". Keep doing what you are doing.
Are you asking how to become super rich by your mid twenties?  Invent Facebook or something.


I know the difference between hitting a triple and being born on third base.  I have friends ask me for advice because 'I know what I'm doing' and my answer to them is that if they are asking me, they are in trouble.  I see nothing but stagnant wages around me, outside of the financial fields, and not much hope for the middle class down the road as more jobs are outsourced.  Right now I work in a SETM field, (High precision manufacturing, on the floor which is why I am responding slowly).  I don't want to be super rich ever, I want to someday be able to provide for a family, and possibly even retire.  I just want to know what I should do to be able to expect to do that?  Go back and get a finance degree?  Mechanical engineering?  Serious question.  Or is starting a business really my only plan?
 
2013-05-21 02:44:40 PM  

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.


As a progressive/liberal (Obama's not a liberal btw, he's actually right of center), who voted for Obama (all politicians are corporate whores, it's just which corporate whore do you think is less slimy than the next guy), I'm "upset" about this.  I'm not mad or angry at Apple or any other corporations (such as oil companies).  They are businesses, and businesses are there to make as much money as possible.  It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.

Did I just blow your mind?  Of course not, you'll still go back to your "liberals are all like this" world view.  Because you're a farking moron.
 
2013-05-21 02:51:36 PM  

Source4leko: I know the difference between hitting a triple and being born on third base.  I have friends ask me for advice because 'I know what I'm doing' and my answer to them is that if they are asking me, they are in trouble.  I see nothing but stagnant wages around me, outside of the financial fields, and not much hope for the middle class down the road as more jobs are outsourced.  Right now I work in a SETM field, (High precision manufacturing, on the floor which is why I am responding slowly).  I don't want to be super rich ever, I want to someday be able to provide for a family, and possibly even retire.  I just want to know what I should do to be able to expect to do that?  Go back and get a finance degree?  Mechanical engineering?  Serious question.  Or is starting a business really my only plan?


I don't know enough about what you do for a living to really give you solid advice. If everything you said earlier is true then you are most likely on the right path. As long as you have chosen a career that you can grow in and that you are happy with. Also, keep in mind that the economy is cyclical. Maybe your field seems stagnant now, but it could look a lot different once the economy turns around and is booming again. If a career in finance or engineering interests you then I would say go for it. Just be careful not to get swamped with student loans.

Obviously inheriting a paid of house is a big bonus, but even without that you are making good financial decisions. Keep saving/Investing and living within your means and you will probably see a drastic turn in your "quality of life" in your mid-30's. I always look at your 20's as the "grind" years. It's not supposed to be easy. As you get older you start to reap the benefits of what you've sown. People that blew off responsibilities are going to be going through what you are going through in their 30's and 40's.
 
2013-05-21 02:56:46 PM  

Pappy091: 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.


Your right but hoarding money would actually be better than what really happens.

What really happens is closer to "rent-seeking".

And before someone says "those rents are invested back into the economy" you only need to watch what the wealthy do with capital gains. They mostly invest the gains from capital gains back into another thing that will make additional capital gains.

The rich learned a long time ago that money sitting is money wasted.
 
2013-05-21 02:58:05 PM  
coromandal.files.wordpress.com

Later that day, at the sweatshop factory...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-21 02:59:47 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


Yup.
I guess this is a story because some people think Apple is different or less evil.
They think the same thing about Google for some reason too.

The country dodged a bullet by not electing Romney, but we've already been shot a few dozen times.
 
2013-05-21 03:00:10 PM  

Flargan: rent-seeking

Flargan: Pappy091: 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.

Your right but hoarding money would actually be better than what really happens.

What really happens is closer to "rent-seeking".

And before someone says "those rents are invested back into the economy" you only need to watch what the wealthy do with capital gains. They mostly invest the gains from capital gains back into another thing that will make additional capital gains.

The rich learned a long time ago that money sitting is money wasted.


That's ridiculous. By that logic you are "rent-seeking" when you invest in your 401k or Roth IRA.
 
2013-05-21 03:04:03 PM  

YixilTesiphon: 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


call it derp if you like.  but then go read any article on modern economics or the US economy written in the last 20 years and you'll see I am 100% correct.  We are a consumption based economy and any lessening in consumer spending is considered a negative for the economy
 
2013-05-21 03:11:07 PM  

Flargan: Pappy091: 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.

Your right but hoarding money would actually be better than what really happens.

What really happens is closer to "rent-seeking".

And before someone says "those rents are invested back into the economy" you only need to watch what the wealthy do with capital gains. They mostly invest the gains from capital gains back into another thing that will make additional capital gains.

The rich learned a long time ago that money sitting is money wasted.


I hope they don't let it sit, and so should you.  When money is successfully reinvested in the production of desired goods and services, then everyone benefits.  The producer makes a profit, the consumer gets the best deal on Product X available and improves his quality of life.  Even competitors can benefit, by observing the market leader and learning better ways of doing things. This is how civilization happens.

Rent-seeking is using something other than these market processes to make a profit.  It refers to actions when there is something other than the win-win transaction in a voluntary trade, such as obtaining the use of governmental force to exclude competitors, fix prices, mandate production methods, or some other creative way to violate people's human rights.    When that happens, the crony and the government wins, and everyone else loses.
 
2013-05-21 03:11:46 PM  

gingerjet: ZeroPly: 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.

No they are not.  Businesses exist to make money for their shareholders.  Not to make you feel good and cuddly.  Noble concepts like "ethics" and "honor" have nothing to do it.


No. That's something that mega-corporations want people to accept as axiomatic, and is a remnant of long deprecated "free market solves all" thinking that some idiots still believe in. To wit, if corporations just focus on making money, then public relations pressures will lead to conservative unicorns-and-rainbow magic, and voila, the corporation is an asset to the community.

In case you haven't noticed, that line of thinking hasn't exactly worked out. That idiocy has led to corporate welfare, legions of unpaid interns replacing salaried workers, older IT staff let go to make room for cheap young college graduates, patent trolling, running sweatshops in China to produce shiny mass-market crap, and buying legislators like I buy dental floss. All because "profits are all we deal in".

F*ck that. It's time to start putting some feet to the fire. If you're a corporation and you can't operate ethically, then set up shop somewhere besides the US. We really don't need any more companies that can't see beyond the next quarterly statement. No more "but it was legal" BS like Apple is trying to shovel.
 
2013-05-21 03:15:42 PM  

Pappy091: That's ridiculous. By that logic you are "rent-seeking" when you invest in your 401k or Roth IRA.


Your 401k is just a bundle of equity claims on a company.

What do you think dividends are?
Heck converting cash flows to a dividend is converting a cash asset into an interest payment.
Shoot even the accounts I work with acknowledge that much.
Most of them simply say that profit is for paying interest.

Yea we all engage in "rent-seeking" its frankly the right term for it. (Historically speaking its the correct word even though we banished it from our economic lexicon when it was decided that all forms of capital formation was useful when in reality some are just extractive/harmful.)
 
2013-05-21 03:16:19 PM  

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.


I don't agree with you on... well, pretty much everything.  But, seriously, ^^^^ THIS ^^^^
 
2013-05-21 03:18:32 PM  

Phinn: When money is successfully reinvested in the production of desired goods and services, then everyone benefits.


Yea but that isn't happening just check Capex and compare it the occurence of share buy backs.
 
2013-05-21 03:19:26 PM  

Magorn: 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.

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


I am a little late to the thread, but finally read it all and have a question for Pappy091 and Phinn and everyone else calling for better education and teaching kids more about finances:

how is the "better education" going to be paid for and who is going to pay for the "better education" to be provided?  How would education be reformed to provide this?

and for Source4leko, I think you are asking how to be a "haves" immediately, to which there is no easy solution.  Phinn is close with the start the business idea, it goes along with the saying "you will never be rich working for someone else" but it also runs contradictory to the idea that everyone can own a business which leads to no workers.

The advice they are giving about becoming a multimillionaire in 3-4 decades is vaild, but it basically means live poor for 3-4 decades.  And i think they are doing the math on some very healthy (and possibly unrealistic) rates of growth 10-15%.  It is a hard balance of having fun in life while you are able to or saving in the hopes you can live long enough to enjoy the money you saved.

I am 34, have 88k in my 401k, and contribute 16% of my 70k salary a year into it and I am projected to barely crack 1 million in 30 years at 5%.  (2 million if I can get a steady 8%.)

accounting for inflation (2.5% ) 1 million would be equivalent to 533k in today's money. so I will still not be a millionaire in the same sense of buying power when I retire at 65.

http://www.mycalculators.com/ca/savecalcm.html
 
2013-05-21 03:22:33 PM  
It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined.  Think about that for just one second.

Allow me to propose a fair, scaling tax rate for all transactions. (first party only please, no double dipping).  2% of gross transactions which happen on US soil.  For the purposes of this law only, the internet shall be considered to be located at the shipping address the customer gives, and taxes will be assessed based on that.

Now, there are also no deductions, no "breaks" and no "incentives".  You pay 2%, if you fail to pay 2% by more than .5%, you spend 1 year in jail.  This MUST include the Board of directors or CEO of any company failing to pay correct taxes.

I could enforce this law with a small computer system and 200 people MAX.  It would provide MORE income to the government, with less overhead (by thousands and thousands of percent), and after a handful of lawsuits where a CEO spent time in a prison cell, we would be hot to trot.

(I've posted this before, because I've been saying this for years... just like Ron Paul )
 
2013-05-21 03:26:04 PM  

Magorn: YixilTesiphon: 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

call it derp if you like.  but then go read any article on modern economics or the US economy written in the last 20 years and you'll see I am 100% correct.  We are a consumption based economy and any lessening in consumer spending is considered a negative for the economy


All economies are consumption-based economies.  The whole point of production is consumption.  They are both seamless parts of the same economic system.  Every part of a system is connected to every other part.  You can't look at one part in isolation and hope to say anything meaningful about the system.  Only systemic thinking can explain it.  Everyone is, at times, a consumer and a producer.  Saying one is more important than the other is not just wrong, it's gibberish.

Consumption and production contract (i.e., an economy declines) when consumer preferences become discoordinated from the existing production supply and its capital structure.  Producers are making the wrong things, in the wrong quantities, in the wrong ways.

The over-building of single-family houses is a prime example.  That disaster occurred for the same reasons that economic decline in general occurs, in slightly different ways and on different scales every day -- artificial, government-sponsored manipulation of the money supply.

Money is half of every transaction in America (except for a tiny amount of barter).  When you distort money, and fark with it, you fark with everything.  Government decreed that money for single-family houses would be artificially easy to get.  They did this to buy votes.  But it made house-buying loan-money under-priced, which is another way of saying that it made single-family houses over-priced.  This was experienced by the ordinary consumer as outrageous inflation in the single-housing market.

College prices are doing the same thing, for the same reasons.  But this dis-coordination between production and consumption occurs daily, in a less-differentiated way, with all money and all goods, all the time, because of the Federal Reserve.  All because of the manipulation of money and its concomitant manipulation of prices.
 
2013-05-21 03:26:55 PM  

Hyjamon: Magorn: 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.

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

I am a little late to the thread, but finally read it all and have a question for Pappy091 and Phinn and everyone else calling for better education and teaching kids more about finances:

how is the "better education" going to be paid for and who is going to pay for the "better education" to be provided?  How would education be reformed to provide this?

and for Source4leko, I think you are asking how to be a "haves" immediately, to which there is no easy solution.  Phinn is close with the start the business idea, it goes along with the saying "you will never be rich working for someone else" but it also runs contradictory to the idea that everyone can own a business which leads to no workers.

The advice they are giving about becoming a multimillionaire in 3-4 decades is vaild, but it basically means live poor for 3-4 decades.  And i think they are doing the math on some very healthy (and possibly unrealistic) rates of growth 10-15%.  It is a hard balance of having fun in life while you are able to or saving in the hopes you can live long enough to enjoy the money you saved.

I am 34, have 88k in my 401k, and contribute 16% of my 70k salary a year into it and I am projected to barely crack 1 million in 30 years at 5%.  (2 million if I can get a steady 8%.)

accounting for inflation (2.5% ) 1 million would be equivalent to 533k in today's money. so I will still not be a millionaire in the same sense of buying power when I retire at 65.

http://www.mycalculators.com/ca/savecalcm.html


I think that is we spent our money wisely we could do twice as much for half the price. We need to invest in our teachers. I would like to see teachers making $100k+. Whenever a teacher leaves there should be enough applicants for the vacant position that the school can select the cream of the crop. Being a teacher should have the same societal prestige as being a doctor.

My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".
 
2013-05-21 03:29:39 PM  

Phinn: Rent-seeking is using something other than these market processes to make a profit.


It had a much broader definition in the past, then it was re-defined, and now mostly banished.
Historically the fastest way to amass land was lending with interest to your neighbors (which is more or less where the term originated) and no one called it a win-win.

And I am not going to claim that I don't invest in a 401k or buy shares etc... (I do and frequently)
But I am not going to pretend that this mostly re-deploys money back into the economy when it so clearly does not.
God if that was true the boom-bust cycle would still result in net growth but that is not the case.
You could even make the arguement that we are actually paying for the bust of 2001 not the bust of 2008.
 
2013-05-21 03:30:03 PM  

Kahabut: It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined.  Think about that for just one second.

Allow me to propose a fair, scaling tax rate for all transactions. (first party only please, no double dipping).  2% of gross transactions which happen on US soil.  For the purposes of this law only, the internet shall be considered to be located at the shipping address the customer gives, and taxes will be assessed based on that.

Now, there are also no deductions, no "breaks" and no "incentives".  You pay 2%, if you fail to pay 2% by more than .5%, you spend 1 year in jail.  This MUST include the Board of directors or CEO of any company failing to pay correct taxes.

I could enforce this law with a small computer system and 200 people MAX.  It would provide MORE income to the government, with less overhead (by thousands and thousands of percent), and after a handful of lawsuits where a CEO spent time in a prison cell, we would be hot to trot.

(I've posted this before, because I've been saying this for years... just like Ron Paul )


So, if my company gets $100K in revenue, I pay 2% tax on that, and even though my employee costs are, say, $95K (which is a deduction for the company), does that mean that the employee pays less income tax, since that money was previously taxed?
 
2013-05-21 03:31:06 PM  

Kahabut: It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined.  Think about that for just one second.

Allow me to propose a fair, scaling tax rate for all transactions. (first party only please, no double dipping).  2% of gross transactions which happen on US soil.  For the purposes of this law only, the internet shall be considered to be located at the shipping address the customer gives, and taxes will be assessed based on that.

Now, there are also no deductions, no "breaks" and no "incentives".  You pay 2%, if you fail to pay 2% by more than .5%, you spend 1 year in jail.  This MUST include the Board of directors or CEO of any company failing to pay correct taxes.

I could enforce this law with a small computer system and 200 people MAX.  It would provide MORE income to the government, with less overhead (by thousands and thousands of percent), and after a handful of lawsuits where a CEO spent time in a prison cell, we would be hot to trot.

(I've posted this before, because I've been saying this for years... just like Ron Paul )


The problem with this is that it shifts too much of the burden onto the lower and middle classes.
 
2013-05-21 03:35:41 PM  

Pappy091: Hyjamon: Magorn: Pappy091: Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091:

I think that is we spent our money wisely we could do twice as much for half the price. We need to invest in our teachers. I would like to see teachers making $100k+. Whenever a teacher leaves there should be enough applicants for the vacant position that the school can select the cream of the crop. Being a teacher should have the same societal prestige as being a doctor.

My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".


I like your thoughts on this but I think someone (local, state or federal) would have to deal with a tax increase to see teachers reach an average (mean or median) of 100k.  50 million on a football stadium sounds like a lot, but what does it translate to when spread out over all the teachers (and admin?) in the district and it can be spun as something that brings in revenue.  I live in the south and see this all the time, it is sad parents would rather have a state championship sports program (or just a nice stadium regardless of the success of the team) and school SAT average of 650 instead of a regular football team and a SAT average of 1000+
 
2013-05-21 03:41:01 PM  

Pappy091: The problem with this is that it shifts too much of the burden onto the lower and middle classes.


There would be no burden, overall, if the government weren't spending money faster than the printers could possibly print it -- agriculture subsidies, energy subsidies, a global military empire, and now a government-run medical-services industry that will eat every dollar thrown in its direction.

Here's the bedrock truth -- It's impossible for a government to manage an economy, or improve it through regulation or taxation or spending patterns.  I don't know how emphatic I can be about the word "impossible," but it's a matter of combinatorial complexity that demonstrates that centralized, forcible economic control is completely, not even remotely, in the realm of a whisper of possible.
 
2013-05-21 03:43:27 PM  

Hyjamon: Pappy091: Hyjamon: Magorn: Pappy091: Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091:

I think that is we spent our money wisely we could do twice as much for half the price. We need to invest in our teachers. I would like to see teachers making $100k+. Whenever a teacher leaves there should be enough applicants for the vacant position that the school can select the cream of the crop. Being a teacher should have the same societal prestige as being a doctor.

My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".

I like your thoughts on this but I think someone (local, state or federal) would have to deal with a tax increase to see teachers reach an average (mean or median) of 100k.  50 million on a football stadium sounds like a lot, but what does it translate to when spread out over all the teachers (and admin?) in the district and it can be spun as something that brings in revenue.  I live in the south and see this all the time, it is sad parents would rather have a state championship sports program (or just a nice stadium regardless of the success of the team) and school SAT average of 650 instead of a regular football team and a SAT average of 1000+


I use that stadium as one small example of a much larger problem. It goes well beyond sports. Education spending is out of control and to make matter worse it's not being spent on things that actual benefit kids. We are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world each year.
 
2013-05-21 03:44:18 PM  

Phinn: Pappy091: The problem with this is that it shifts too much of the burden onto the lower and middle classes.

There would be no burden, overall, if the government weren't spending money faster than the printers could possibly print it -- agriculture subsidies, energy subsidies, a global military empire, and now a government-run medical-services industry that will eat every dollar thrown in its direction.

Here's the bedrock truth -- It's impossible for a government to manage an economy, or improve it through regulation or taxation or spending patterns.  I don't know how emphatic I can be about the word "impossible," but it's a matter of combinatorial complexity that demonstrates that centralized, forcible economic control is completely, not even remotely, in the realm of a whisper of possible.


Agreed.
 
2013-05-21 03:47:23 PM  

DeathCipris: 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


You're better off actually setting a tax rate that corprations will pay.  At 35% corporate tax and the most mobile society in history, is it any surprise that companies move overseas?  Sure, we'll never get to cayman levels of banking tax but there's probably a lot of companies that would come back if they only paid in the area of 5-10%.  The 10% that you get is better than the 35% that you dont.
 
2013-05-21 03:47:48 PM  

Magorn: We are a consumption based economy and any lessening in consumer spending is considered a negative for the economy


Guess that depends on who you read.

Some state that S = I (Savings = Investment)
Others state S = I + (S - I)

Another way I have seen it framed is the 3 sector balance (public, private, trade account) and tracking where the economic surplus is.
 
2013-05-21 03:51:51 PM  
With all this money Apple is saving on taxes. And that almost $1billion in cash they have, I have to ask, WHERE IS MY $99 iPad and $300 MacBook Pro???????????
 
2013-05-21 03:59:48 PM  
The world of Rollerball is closer than you think.
 
2013-05-21 04:00:04 PM  
HA HA!

pixel.nymag.com
 
2013-05-21 04:00:32 PM  

Pappy091: We are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world each year.


If you haven't already you should watch some of the lectures of John Taylor Gatto.
He goes into great detail on how we couldn't catch up with anyone doing what we have been doing.
And for him it isn't a money problem but a problem of the form/structure of our educational system.
 
2013-05-21 04:04:57 PM  

Pappy091: I use that stadium as one small example of a much larger problem. It goes well beyond sports. Education spending is out of control and to make matter worse it's not being spent on things that actual benefit kids. We are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world each year.


The reason this happens is because school districts are government operations.  They get their revenue by force.  They have no customers.

Because schools have no customers, every capital-expenditure decision (and every managerial decision, frankly) becomes a complete guess.  A shot in the dark -- a decision that has ZERO effect on the ability of the school to get paid.

By disconnecting expenditure decisions and revenue (i.e., funding via forced taxation instead of voluntary purchase of educational services), the school has no economic information on which to base its executive decisions.  They couldn't make the right decisions even if they wanted to.  If Starbucks spent billions of dollars on things that customers didn't actually want, it would lose that money, which could have been spent on profitable, desired things.   It gets immediate economic feedback on every spending decision it makes.  That information guides its decisions.

Schools do not get economic feedback on their expenditures, which would help them determine when their spending decisions were actually increasing consumer satisfaction.  The consumers continue to pay if they want to or not because they are forced to pay.

Tax-supported schools operate in an informational vacuum.  In that vacuum of economic information, something else creeps in to guide a school's spending decisions -- political information.  All they have is political information, which usually comes in the form of squawking and shrieking at board meetings, and other attempts to cause political embarrassment.

That's why schools tend to decline in quality, and increase in cost, until they reach a point of political embarrassment.
 
2013-05-21 04:08:09 PM  

Phinn: Pappy091: I use that stadium as one small example of a much larger problem. It goes well beyond sports. Education spending is out of control and to make matter worse it's not being spent on things that actual benefit kids. We are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world each year.

The reason this happens is because school districts are government operations.  They get their revenue by force.  They have no customers.

Because schools have no customers, every capital-expenditure decision (and every managerial decision, frankly) becomes a complete guess.  A shot in the dark -- a decision that has ZERO effect on the ability of the school to get paid.

By disconnecting expenditure decisions and revenue (i.e., funding via forced taxation instead of voluntary purchase of educational services), the school has no economic information on which to base its executive decisions.  They couldn't make the right decisions even if they wanted to.  If Starbucks spent billions of dollars on things that customers didn't actually want, it would lose that money, which could have been spent on profitable, desired things.   It gets immediate economic feedback on every spending decision it makes.  That information guides its decisions.

Schools do not get economic feedback on their expenditures, which would help them determine when their spending decisions were actually increasing consumer satisfaction.  The consumers continue to pay if they want to or not because they are forced to pay.

Tax-supported schools operate in an informational vacuum.  In that vacuum of economic information, something else creeps in to guide a school's spending decisions -- political information.  All they have is political information, which usually comes in the form of squawking and shrieking at board meetings, and other attempts to cause political embarrassment.

That's why schools tend to decline in quality, and increase in cost, until they reach a point of political embarrassment.


You just summed up my local school district. It it is one of the most useless, corrupt government entities I have ever seen. The state education agency is threatening to take them over and I pray every day that they end up doing that.
 
2013-05-21 04:16:19 PM  
Sofakinbd: 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.

False.  It is avoiding it for every one of those countries.

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.
That requires a suspension of disbelief to believe such a fantastic tale.


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.
One more reason to consider converting those domiciles to US soil - before any transfers can occur.


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.

Stop trying to evade and perhaps that might happen.  Until then, the IRS would do well to escalate their response to something that the DoD would do - to moot jurisidictional arbitrage.

Shame that the IRS has to go for a political group when it could go for much more.
 
2013-05-21 04:16:24 PM  
I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.
 
2013-05-21 04:17:36 PM  

mongbiohazard: 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 ...


I agree with you, but it's shouted down as envy or class warfare when it's really just people using their money to game the system to stay wealthy and keep others from becoming so.
 
2013-05-21 04:19:43 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.


You think you qualify as rich, that's cute.
 
2013-05-21 04:19:55 PM  

caddisfly: I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.


Also this.
 
2013-05-21 04:20:25 PM  

caddisfly: I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.


Apple pays taxes on anything sold in the USA to the USA.

That income was made overseas. Learn the difference. America is not 'entitled' to that $$$. Key word here..entitled.
 
2013-05-21 04:24:18 PM  

Phinn: 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?


Jump to bigger conclusions? Apple's business practices suck. They sell overpriced shiny boxes.

/screw 'em
 
2013-05-21 04:26:09 PM  

CrazyCracka420: It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.


THIS!

You so crazy, cracka.


The Farkers claiming how easy it is to be wealthy and successful remind me of the Tony Robbins sort who sell you books and seminars on how to be successful, and when you get there it's all smoke and mirrors about attitude and positive thinking and hard work and striving and self-sacrifice, but the reality is they refuse to accept that there's an enormous amount of luck involved.

For example, the kid who inherited the house, all paid off. Luck (and he knows it). I'll wager that Pappy and Phinn were not born in the ghetto, raised by their grandmothers while dad was in jail & mom was on and off the crack/smack/booze/etc, trying to function in a run-down urban school overrun with gangs and noise and crime. Effort, sure, but there's a whole lotta right place, right time. It doesn't matter how hard you work if the opportunity isn't there. Likewise, housing prices, and for fark's sake, the commodification of higher education has driven those costs through the roof. Kids saddled with so much debt. Sure, bold, tough Grandfatherly talk:

Live within your means;
Save regularly;

And don't have children. And find that one place where the cost of living is far lower than what they're paying you and pray they don't find out they can pay you less and you'll stay on. Oh, and if you're from a shiatty, depressed area where there used to be jobs until the factory packed up and moved to China, be ready to say goodbye to your (loser) family and never see them again because you damn sure can't afford to take them with you to your new job and efficiency apartment in Bootstrapville. And while you're at it, go ahead an invest in your company's 401k, because that matching pays off. In however many years it takes you to vest. So be prepared to give their matching funds back or pass on that better opportunity that comes along because you don't want to lose those matching funds. And don't get sick or have any pre-existing medical conditions because your health insurance is tied to your job and every time you leave you'll have coverage gaps and other potential lags. And forget about straight commission gigs, unless you're really a gambler and don't plan on getting sick. Ever.

But be bold. Be your own boss. Put everything into that new business venture where you're providing Nonspecific Service to Nonspecific Market. Student loan payments be damned, they can wait until your gamble pays off.  Or doesn't. And that old car should keep running, because you bought it within your means and the guy said it was reliable. You'd have taken it to a mechanic, but, well, that would have exceeded your budget and by golly, you're not about to be saddled with more debt. Not on your schedule. Not on your program.

I am reminded of that Saturday Night Live HR satire video on sexual harassment.

Be Handsome Be Attractive
 Don't Be Unattractive
 
2013-05-21 04:30:40 PM  

Kahabut: It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined.  Think about that for just one second.

Allow me to propose a fair, scaling tax rate for all transactions. (first party only please, no double dipping).  2% of gross transactions which happen on US soil.  For the purposes of this law only, the internet shall be considered to be located at the shipping address the customer gives, and taxes will be assessed based on that.

Now, there are also no deductions, no "breaks" and no "incentives".  You pay 2%, if you fail to pay 2% by more than .5%, you spend 1 year in jail.  This MUST include the Board of directors or CEO of any company failing to pay correct taxes.

I could enforce this law with a small computer system and 200 people MAX.  It would provide MORE income to the government, with less overhead (by thousands and thousands of percent), and after a handful of lawsuits where a CEO spent time in a prison cell, we would be hot to trot.

(I've posted this before, because I've been saying this for years... just like Ron Paul )


Let's list the most obvious problems with your suggestion:

1. You'll never enforce that with 200 people.  Or 20,000.
2. Your suggested tax rate is way too low to get the same amount of revenue that the current system provides.
3. At an actual realistic rate, poor people will get a huge tax increase and rich people will get a huge tax decrease.
4. The chances of that passing Congress is 0.000000000000%.
 
2013-05-21 04:34:09 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: CrazyCracka420: It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.

THIS!

You so crazy, cracka.


The Farkers claiming how easy it is to be wealthy and successful remind me of the Tony Robbins sort who sell you books and seminars on how to be successful, and when you get there it's all smoke and mirrors about attitude and positive thinking and hard work and striving and self-sacrifice, but the reality is they refuse to accept that there's an enormous amount of luck involved.

For example, the kid who inherited the house, all paid off. Luck (and he knows it). I'll wager that Pappy and Phinn were not born in the ghetto, raised by their grandmothers while dad was in jail & mom was on and off the crack/smack/booze/etc, trying to function in a run-down urban school overrun with gangs and noise and crime. Effort, sure, but there's a whole lotta right place, right time. It doesn't matter how hard you work if the opportunity isn't there. Likewise, housing prices, and for fark's sake, the commodification of higher education has driven those costs through the roof. Kids saddled with so much debt. Sure, bold, tough Grandfatherly talk:

Live within your means;
Save regularly;

And don't have children. And find that one place where the cost of living is far lower than what they're paying you and pray they don't find out they can pay you less and you'll stay on. Oh, and if you're from a shiatty, depressed area where there used to be jobs until the factory packed up and moved to China, be ready to say goodbye to your (loser) family and never see them again because you damn sure can't afford to take them with you to your new job and efficiency apartment in Bootstrapville. And while you're at it, go ahead an invest in your company's 401k, because that matching pays off. In however many years it takes you to vest. So be prepared to give their matching funds back or pass on that better opportunity that comes along because you don't want to l ...


The great thing about America is that even those kids that are born in a situation like that can succeed if they want to. Sure, it takes hard work, but what doesn't? It's MUCH easier to sit around like you and cry about everyone else have more advantages while you go nowhere. Get off your arse and get to work and you will reap what you sow. What is your alternative? In what system do the kids of those drug addicts have it easy in life?

Guess what? Some people will have advantages that you don't have. Life isn't fair, get over it.
 
2013-05-21 04:34:22 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: CrazyCracka420: It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.

THIS!

You so crazy, cracka.


The Farkers claiming how easy it is to be wealthy and successful remind me of the Tony Robbins sort who sell you books and seminars on how to be successful, and when you get there it's all smoke and mirrors about attitude and positive thinking and hard work and striving and self-sacrifice, but the reality is they refuse to accept that there's an enormous amount of luck involved.

For example, the kid who inherited the house, all paid off. Luck (and he knows it). I'll wager that Pappy and Phinn were not born in the ghetto, raised by their grandmothers while dad was in jail & mom was on and off the crack/smack/booze/etc, trying to function in a run-down urban school overrun with gangs and noise and crime. Effort, sure, but there's a whole lotta right place, right time. It doesn't matter how hard you work if the opportunity isn't there. Likewise, housing prices, and for fark's sake, the commodification of higher education has driven those costs through the roof. Kids saddled with so much debt. Sure, bold, tough Grandfatherly talk:

Live within your means;
Save regularly;

And don't have children. And find that one place where the cost of living is far lower than what they're paying you and pray they don't find out they can pay you less and you'll stay on. Oh, and if you're from a shiatty, depressed area where there used to be jobs until the factory packed up and moved to China, be ready to say goodbye to your (loser) family and never see them again because you damn sure can't afford to take them with you to your new job and efficiency apartment in Bootstrapville. And while you're at it, go ahead an invest in your company's 401k, because that matching pays off. In however many years it takes you to vest. So be prepared to give their matching funds back or pass on that better opportunity that comes along because you don't want to l ...


Preach it.
 
2013-05-21 04:34:22 PM  

JC22: caddisfly: I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.

Apple pays taxes on anything sold in the USA to the USA.

That income was made overseas. Learn the difference. America is not 'entitled' to that $$$. Key word here..entitled.


You need to do more research.  Apple is transferring US assets to the Irish shell so that the income from those assets isn't taxed as it would be absent the straw-man transfer.  It's "made overseas" only because Apple first transfers the assets overseas- to itself by another name.   I pay 40%, Apple pays .06%.  Read this:  http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/21/3-mindbending-ways-apple-dodged-13-8 b -in-taxes/
 
2013-05-21 04:35:28 PM  

Kahabut: It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined. Think about that for just one second.


The IRS isn't a joke when it can manage to do what it's been accused of doing recently.  The only thing they really haven't done is partnered up with other revenue collections agencies of other countries along with their military/intelligence departments.
 
2013-05-21 04:39:05 PM  

Pappy091: My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".


Voters frequently pass bonds for school construction, usually by proposition (so no politicians are directly involved).  These bonds can typically not be used to pay for new textbooks or teacher salaries; they have to pay for bricks and mortar.

So, what happens if a school district doesn't need any new buildings, but is entitled to a portion of said bond money?  You get a brand new $50 million dollar football stadium, frequently at the same time when said school district has trouble paying salaries for teachers.

Blame the voters for passing a bond measure as opposed to a tax increase for the schools to spend how they want to, because, hey, bonds are "free money" and "don't raise taxes" (which is completely false-the bonds have to paid off somehow, with interest).
 
Displayed 50 of 380 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report