Slashdot Mirror
Amazon, Google and Apple Won't Need To Pay Tax, Despite Goverment Threats
girlmad writes "Despite moves by government to get Google, Amazon and Apple to admit they make sales in the UK and US, and therefore should pay tax on these earnings, this article argues these are empty threats and that any taxes paid will get returned to the tech giants in government grants and subsidies. Tough luck to the small firms out there."
why class warfare is alive and well and why everyone hates the government so fucking much?
And for those of you who think this is partisan-minded, the "other" guys (hah! what a joke) would have done exactly the same.
sales tax wherever they sell stuff, and income tax in some other country
on BBC parliament. Some suited slimeball operating in full corporate bullshit mode, explaining to a panel of MP's why a UK company buying UK advertising from a UK sales team and paying the bill in sterling to a UK bank account somehow doesn't count as a sale in the UK, all the while his fat tax auidtor lackey smiled and nodded along.
I don't really have a problem with Google knowing more about me than my own mother when I am awash with the blissful fantasy that they are progressive company, run by and for engineers who's general dealings with government are along the lines are "the future is here, deal with it granddad." When I see them acting just like every other multinational, and needing to be reminded several times by the committee chair that their corporate moto is "don't be evil" I suddenly realize that we may have taken our eyes off the ball far too long when it comes to google, and the era of large scale exploitation and manipulation by multinational mega-corps has only just begun.
We need millions of taxpayers, especially small businesses to not only refuse to pay their taxes but dare the government to arrest them for tax evasion until we have a fair and easy to enforce tax code. When I say dare, I mean in the sense of forcing the government to literally go to war or back down and fix the system.
Oh Slashdot, you used to actually have some substantive posts. Now... This. What kind of "news" writer wrote that article?
Don'tcha know.
Rick B.
The west as a whole has declined into Fascism. You can only expect fascist policy to take hold.
Oh wait, I forgot rule number whatever. "Whenever a rich and important company or person says they're for a tax that should cover them, SURPRISE it ends up covering everybody except them." (OOhh, I'll call it the Buffett Rule.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Megacorps hiring legions of lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to limit/eliminate their tax liabilities. And politicians sucking up to the money bags whilst feigning outrage for the little guy. I'm shocked....just shocked, I say.
Because the Fed intentional manipulates the market to maintain unemployment? Because the working portion of a person's life is bookended by nonworking portions? Because we don't want to take the people who can't work out behind the barn and shoot them? Aside from those reasons, a lot of government spending, the majority of it, goes to people who are working. The government employs quite a few people, most of whose jobs we'd all agree need to be done.
Lol this guy.
The people at Apple and Google worked hard to earn that money, why should it be stolen from them to pay for giveaways to non-workers
Because while taxation may be tantamount to theft and it may be inherently evil and it may be desirable to minimise it as much as possible, we haven't yet found a more effective way to fund government services, and at least some of the services governments provide are valuable, including to those people at Apple and Google.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Apple and Google enjoy the general public services just like the rest of us. This includes public roads, utilities, postal services. They exist and thrive in a society that is only possible through the strength of an organized nation-state such as the United States of America or Great Britain. This doesn't include any of the subsidies that I'm sure they manage to get or the fact that as a couple of the largest companies in existence, they have the ability to successfully lobby lawmakers.
While most could agree that tax revenue could probably be better spent these days, the fundamental concept of taxes is not stealing. Taxes are the price of civilization.
Ahh ha ha! Why do you guys make me read this shit? They know we're just going to tax the crap out of them to pay for hooker and cocaine parties for Washington lobbyists! Why LIE to them? !#%!WA
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Google, Apple and Amazon are not doing anything wrong. They are in business to make money for their stockholders of which many I bet are UK citizens. In some jurisdictions they are legally REQUIRED to operate their enterprises to the best legal advantage of their stockholders.
Those UK citizens pay taxes on the dividends and capital gains they realize from owning stock in these companies. Not only that but these companies provide extremely useful services to UK citizens thereby enriching their lives.
They ALSO employ many people who ALSO pay taxes on their wages, and by being employers relieve the state from having to pay for the upkeep of these people who would otherwise be on the dole.
Not only that but there are other taxes on value added transactions that result from the economic activities involved. Consumption based taxes are generally viewed to have the least negative impact on economic growth of any taxes.
Then of course there is the whole question of the macroeconomics of the situation. It is generally held that taxes on businesses are inefficient in terms of encouraging economic growth. Such policies are not productive overall to the economy. This is why business taxes in Europe are generally relatively low. It is conscious sound policy decision based on scientific analysis of the economic facts.
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/themes/02_taxation.pdf
In other words this is a completely RUBBISH article in every way possible.
Just wanted to point out that as of right now the headline says "Goverment", an obvious typo that any dim-witted person should have caught.
The laziness and sloppiness of the content is typical slashdot.
So it would seem that taxes, like laws, are for little people. Whereas writing the specs for the laws and the taxes, well that's for the corporations (which are people!) and for the special 1% big people. Well, no one said life was going to be fair, did they? :>)
Small firms have it so rough and they deserve our pity, even though they have lobbyist groups like Confederation of British Industry who will make sure that small firms don't have to make up for the loss in tax revenue.
Fuck the people who lose out on services and have to pay higher taxes to make up for the lack of revenue, though. Those people clearly don't deserve pity because they aren't a business or corporation. Only businesses deserve our pity.
I've been following this whole shitfest in the UK quite closely for the past few months, and one amusing thing has consistently struck me - the government are trying to be the goody-goody party in all of this, claiming that the companies involved are being evil and ethically corrupt when it comes to "fair share" taxation, while at the very same time flat out refusing to acknowledge that those companies are not doing anything illegal under the current tax regime.
The government also has ruled out changing the tax law to prevent the current behaviours,because then they lose the trivially easy PR they get from "taking the companies to task" infront of Parliament and the media.
It's time to admit that the current tax law doesn't work once you are above PAYE (that's the government standard taxation for employees - normal people in the UK do not have to do any filings because it's all done by the HMRC for them and tax is taken out of their pay checks each month).
Setting up a company in the UK costs about $40. Doing annual returns for that company costs about $350. By working for that company for no wage, and taking out directors dividends, you save serious amounts of money through not having to pay income tax as the Corporate tax rates are significantly smaller than the income tax rates. This scheme is so heavily and widely used, even MPs in all parties got shamed earlier this year when they were named using it - but it's still completely legal.
No one should be expected to voluntarily pay more tax than they legally are required to, and no one should be shamed for not paying more tax than they are legally required to - if you want someone to pay more tax than they are legally required to, then legally require them to pay more tax! Don't beat around the bush, change the fucking law.
Good for Apple and Google. The government didn't earn the money they want to take. The people at Apple and Google worked hard to earn that money, why should it be stolen from them to pay for giveaways to non-workers?
For example, the government pays for police that will arrest people going to an Apple Store with guns and taking whatever they want.
Tim Cook seems to claim the opposite:
So is he a bare-faced liar, or is the article summary bollocks? Sources please.
Your employer who neglected you owes a million dollars tax
And their rival's still perfecting ways of cooling server racks
You better stop; look around
Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes...
Democracy and Capitalism do NOT mix.
Yup. You save for your retirement and pay for your kids. It's not the government's responsibility.
Covered by insurance too; not a government function.
Really? We all agree? My guess is that there are plenty of reductions possible, starting with the military, the DEA, and the DHS.
Oh, take of your tinfoil hat. The Fed is a bunch of bumbling idiots; they couldn't "maintain unemployment" if they tried.
They pay for those directly through property taxes, and indirectly through payroll taxes, proportional to what they use. Corporate income tax is not used for any of that. And they mostly use private shipping companies for their products.
Just because some taxes are reasonable and necessary doesn't mean that any/all of them are.
The people at Apple and Google worked hard to earn that money, why should it be stolen from them to pay for giveaways to non-workers?
I think it should be stolen from them because I'm what these days is called a fanatical pinko (formerly known as an Eisenhower Republican).
Time to end corporate citizenship - a federal judge has already ruled that corporations are not citizens, therefor do not have the same protections under the law as citizens do.
Join move to amend, end their citizenship, end spending money as a form of speech, end our government sellout.
While most could agree that tax revenue could probably be better spent these days, the fundamental concept of taxes is not stealing. Taxes are the price of civilization.
Taxes aren't stealing. Taxing person A to pay for giveaways to person B is stealing.
Civilization is roads and fire protection and water treatment and courts, not monthly checks and giveaways to non-workers.
The article doesn't say, but it appears that when it says "tax" it is referring to *income* tax. For some reason, a lot of people forget that corporations, unlike people, pay income tax on NET rather than gross. In other words, the corporation pays all of its expenses, then pays income tax on what is left over. Those expenses include your salary, your benefits, new capital projects, and so on. Meanwhile, the real tax burden of the organization is much higher when you add in all the other taxes they are paying: sales tax, property tax, tariffs, and so on. The story that these corporations aren't paying very much in "taxes" is a gross distortion. They just aren't paying very much in income taxes, which is by design.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
This article is about google and amazon in the UK. In an attempt at link baiting, there is a single line about apple in the US in the article so they would write Apple in the headline for clicks.
And slashdot fell for it - and so did I.
While most could agree that tax revenue could probably be better spent these days, the fundamental concept of taxes is not stealing. Taxes are the price of civilization.
Taxes aren't stealing. Taxing person A to pay for giveaways to person B is stealing.
Civilization is roads and fire protection and water treatment and courts, not monthly checks and giveaways to non-workers.
Don't forget the government subsidies that pays people to have kids. As a single person, I don't mind paying for infrastructure, including schools, through taxes but when you take my money and give it as deductions to people who have decided to have children then it is the same thing as a giveaway.
Good! Every business should learn from these companies and do the same. Hopefully it will eventually end the legalized theft/extortion which statists call "taxes".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326897/Google-tax-avoidance-row-Internet-giant-accused-scandalous-tax-avoidance-scheme-whistleblower.html
+1. Every business should learn from these companies and do the same to hopefully end some day the legalized extortion statists call "taxes".
*Shrug*
So, now Google and Apple are the new robber-baron bogeyman scapegoats for the politicians. They don't deserve compensation for dubious honor of such a noble self-sacrifice in service to humanity? :-)
Just read a scaremongering article about the creepier aspects of Google-enabled, well, everything. For the record, it's not Google that's creepy to me, or, I think, to anyone else. It's the tech itself, or what the fact that it scares people tells us about ourselves individually, and collectively, on conscious and unconscious levels. It's going to take us a long time to adjust to it, but the cows are out the gate now, and there's no getting them back now, except at a cost too horrible to contemplate. Some say at a cost too past due to avoid, but that's another story that Mr. Heinlein covered elsewhere. Or, some say, Revelations. Or others, some other apocalyptic, prophetic, Wellsian vision. Morlocks and Eloi. Or the Runts of 61-Cygni C, maybe.
You really have to give Google credit for at least trying to keep things on a positive note, in fact. And it's not just Google, or Apple. This one, or that one. Lot of old-school usual suspects are getting to fly in under the radar while the high-profile tech companies get the heat.
What about, oh, say, IAC, or all the other click-tracking and media companies, eh? The ones that put all those crap toolbars and BHOs on Windoze boxes and Firefox, Chrome, etc. You know, all that spyware, adware, and Trojan installing malware that would be called a criminal botnet if you or I suckered anyone into installing them. All you techs who spend your days cleaning up this dreck know what I'm talking about. MyWebSearch, Ask.com (Oracle, what the hell were you thinking???) etc, etc, etc. But, it's publicly traded, so it can't be a crime, right? By definition. And therein lies the problem, the key to everything. Maybe I'll take that up at another time, or another place. Just saying that the problem really aint whether Google (or Apple, or whatever) is good or evil. Save that for the rubes, please.
The people at Apple and Google worked hard to earn that money, why should it be stolen from them to pay for giveaways to non-workers
Because while taxation may be tantamount to theft and it may be inherently evil and it may be desirable to minimise it as much as possible, we haven't yet found a more effective way to fund government services ...
Yes we have, long ago. We did it ourselves; often poorly or with spotty coverage, I agree, but certainly not at the price gov't charges for it. I'm not even speaking of the monetary price here either. Unfortunately, our parents and grandparents got lazy and drank the big gov't Koolaid, and we've been enslaved to it ever since, going in deeper with each succeeding generation.
Perhaps our great grand-kids will fix it.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
You've got the wrong burr up your butt.
The money we give to large corporations though 'incentives', policies, military support, unneeded contracts and a host of other subsidies makes all of those 'welfare queens' that you're so worried about less important than a rounding error.
Let the little stuff slide. Deal with important things first.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
which is, most countries tax profits made within their borders. That is, if Google made money in France, then they must pay taxes in France. So, demanding that these companies pay taxes twice, on the same overseas profits, is not reasonable. Which, IIRC, was the point of why the tax exception was written that way.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
In fiscal year 2012, Apple paid $6 billion in federal corporate income taxes, which is 1 out of every 40 dollars in corporate income taxes collected by the U.S. government, said Steve Dowling, a company spokesman.
“That makes Apple one of the top corporate income tax payers in the country, if not the largest,” he said.
From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
Yup. You save for your retirement and pay for your kids. It's not the government's responsibility.
The government regulates the banks so that you can save for retirement without getting screwed out of all of your money, and backs the currency that allows you to get away with paying for whatever your kids need without having to barter.
Covered by insurance too; not a government function.
Insurance that's regulated by the government so that you don't get screwed by having your coverage suddenly pulled out from underneath you every time you get admitted to hospital or enter the welfare office.
Really? We all agree? My guess is that there are plenty of reductions possible, starting with the military, the DEA, and the DHS.
Spending reductions are possible across the board. Government waste isn't a new thing, but it also doesn't mean that the people receiving the money are sitting around wiping their asses with your tax dollars. Anyway, you already seem to agree that most of the jobs in the government need to be done, since you're only asking for reductions and not for outright closing departments.
Oh, take of your tinfoil hat. The Fed is a bunch of bumbling idiots; they couldn't "maintain unemployment" if they tried.
There would be 0% unemployment without the Fed. Everybody would just be owners or slaves. You don't need to be happy with the job they're doing, which is the whole point of being able to vote the bums out, but don't pretend that you can make it without government intervention to protect the majority of your quality of life.
Taxes are the price of civilization.
That is a lie and you should be ashamed to believe it. It's the same lie rulers and tyrants have been spewing for millennia.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
The summary places the subject partly within the context of the recent sales tax debate in the US. The article doesn't talk about this, nor does it make any mention of grants and subsidies from the US. Even if it did, this would be missing the point. The taxes would not simply be "empty threats", whatever that means here. Even if the companies receive benefits from the government, they have cause to fear paying sales tax because of the way it would change consumer behavior.
The government's sole purpose of this action is to put into place more mechanisms to extract new taxes. The standard way all elected governments of the world get away with sticking it to the people with more unfair laws is to play the long game and start really small.
The gov knows that once the basic mechanism is in place, it is irreversible, consequently they initally make it sound harmless and agree to anything to get it in place (even initially giving up any benefit, such as that all the collected taxes all get returned to the big companies) because the gov know they can gradually tweak the new mechanism's parameters later when the spotlight isn't on them. This is government tactics 101, people.
This is just false. Giveaways to non-workers are a lot more than half the budget:
http://www.concordcoalition.org/publications/2011/0906/op-ed-government-‘-people’-gets-more-expensive
For some reason, a lot of people forget that corporations, unlike people, pay income tax on NET rather than gross
But corporations are people. Why can't I pay income taxes on my net rather than gross?
Have gnu, will travel.
... eliminate all corporate taxes? Will that draw international corporations to come here. It probably would ... until ... they realize that we are taxing the people so hard that the cost of employing them here is too high. So they would just set up headquarters here, and hire the actual production people (workers) wherever they are the cheapest. So what do we gain? I say just drive them out.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If we're going to debate this, we need to be careful to distinguish between the scope of government and the efficiency of government.
Personally, I'd be the first to agree that many western governments have far too broad a scope today and the public sector has become unsustainably large. That's a real economic problem, and sooner or later someone's going to have to deal with it.
But on the efficiency question, the evidence is not nearly so clear. It's easy to find spectacular examples of government inefficiency and horrendous waste, but it's also easy to find spectacular success stories where nationalised, government-run infrastructure dramatically outperforms private, commercial provision of the equivalent services in other places. And some functions really have to be reserved to some form of government at a basic level, unless you want to start outsourcing things like making laws and starting wars to private industry.
For this discussion, the key point to me is that as long as there is any area that government is responsible for operating, there needs to be some way to pay for it. It would be fascinating to see what would happen if we had some radically different mechanism for doing that instead of what we have today, but until we've discovered a way to try something else without undermining the basic fabric of our societies, taxation is the least worst option we've found so far. The amount of taxation that is justified is a quantitative question and relates to both the efficiency and the scope of government, and the division of that tax burden among taxpayers is again something to be debated, but the principle that people/businesses should make a contribution in return for valuable government services (whatever those might be) is a reasonable one.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
...claiming that the companies involved are being evil and ethically corrupt when it comes to "fair share" taxation, while at the very same time flat out refusing to acknowledge that those companies are not doing anything illegal under the current tax regime.
Completely true and the government certainly shoulders some of the blame but they are also stuck in a very hard place. They could certainly change the tax law but the problem is how? They are up against multi-national corporations who will do anything they can to avoid paying tax and have armies of lawyers and a global reach to do just that. It is hard to see how any tax law can actually stop these companies and billionaires without being so strict, severe or complex that it will hurt smaller companies.
I agree nobody should be expected to pay more tax voluntarily than the law allows but, at the same time, calling an individual or a house a company simply to avoid income tax or stamp duty is going completely against the spirit of the law. Yes government can pass laws to block each new loop hole but you'll end up with tax laws that fill a library and the cost of filing your taxes will soar. This, ultimately, is the problem with laws: there is always some way to circumvent them if you try hard enough. Fixing the law is not the issue here we need to fix the attitude of the companies and billionaires who have benefitted greatly from society and now need to contribute to it at at least the same rate as the rest of us.
For example, the government pays for police that will arrest people going to an Apple Store with guns and taking whatever they want.
I think Apple can afford to hire their own security, don't you?
On the other hand, if the gov't does it, they can break into private citizens' establishments to steal back iBaubles that some Apple flunkie left in a bar.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Does anyone who seriously uses the cliche that "taxes are theft" deserve to be treated as anything other than a troll? I'm all for open debate with anyone serious, including those who would all but abandon (in the US) the federal government. However, even anarchists may admit that some taxes are necessary. "Taxes are theft" is just a childish rant and should be treated as such.
In the US, Apple pays for police protection through their real estate taxes (and other local and state taxes), not corporate income tax. They also have their own private security. I suspect Cupertino, Mountain View, and Palo Alto would come out ahead even if they didn't get any direct revenue from Apple and Google.
In the UK, since money just disappears into a big bucket, it's of course much easier to play political bait-and-switch with taxes.
I like your idea. People need to pay for their own kids. Also, any interest or capital gains paid to an investor while the investor has no earned income should be 100% taxed. There's no reason that the labor of the children that I paid to raise should benefit someone who opted not to spend any money on children. That guy can fund his retirement with straight savings; it's not fair for me to subsidize him.
Just wanted to point out too that a 0% unemployment rate is very bad for economies. It leaves no room for growth. The sweet spot is between 3-4% with about 2% of people actively seeking work.
Don't forget the ruling party is formed by people who not everyone has voted for. As someone who didn't vote for them, I don't mind their having seats in parliament and participating in lawmaking, but I didn't vote for the Prime Minister and I should be allowed to ignore any and all of his decisions.
Statements like that really make very little sense. "Unemployment" isn't even a well-defined number, it's based on some arbitrary time limits and criteria.
They should pay billions in taxes to avoid hiring a few security guards?
I am buying apps like no other as part of my business. In normal business you work with buying and selling and VAT is no problem. Apple however does not send bills with VAT, Apple states they are not done negotiating with the government. I had to read this two or three times.. what on eath do you have to negotiate on VAT. It is really clear: all business have to pay. Now the Added in Value Added Taxes i have to pay is higher than it should be, there goes part of my profits, thank you Apple!
So every corporation will have to hire their own full-time security, and set up their own court system, and run their own prison cells (or pay to house people who committed a crime against them)?
If taxes only paid for government services like police and courts, taxes would be very low. But well over half of government budgets are for giveaways to non-workers.
The entire country *could* take Amazon, Google, and Apple by the nuts and make them *beg* to pay taxes, but we just don't have that kind of resolve as a citizenry. I think things are moving in the right direction with new mobile apps like Buycott, but seriously....can't people give up their sense of convenience for just a little bit so that we can work to correct some *major* problems with the current political/social structure?
...to the real cyberpunk world. Megacorporations don't rule the world, they let that dirty work be handled by governments. Instead, the have found a way to corrupt our politics in such a way that we are actually subsidising megacorporations and small companies and taxpayers are footing the bill.
I just hope that the time when history looks upon this period and asks whether we were all insane isn't too far off.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Don't forget the oldest, most common promotional campaign, enacted by the poor and destitute ranging back to the founding of civilization: The Five-Finger Discount.
As usual, the EU will find some way to squeeze Microsoft through frivolous anti-trust charges in order to pay the tax deficit from Google, Amazon, Apple and other tax dodgers. Unlike those companies Microsoft actually pays it's taxes.
any taxes paid will get returned to the tech giants in government grants and subsidies
This is nothing a worldwide boycott won't take care of.
They pay for those directly through property taxes, and indirectly through payroll taxes, proportional to what they use.
The point is that they don't. They find ways to avoid it, so we have to pay for it instead.
I used to play D&D with this guy who had pretty much memorized the rule book. The DM would say "lose 3 HP" and he would find some obscure interaction of multiple rules none of us had even considered that meant he only lost 1. Google is that guy, and the DM just needs to tell them to pay the hell up in the spirit of the rules.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
All this talk of sales, and talk that government could "enforce tax as a percentage of earnings on all companies".
Corporation tax is paid on PROFITS, not sales / earnings. And as for the large amounts made by some of these sales - e.g. Google's supposed £3.2 billion sales. Well, this year they agreed a £1 billion property deal for new headquarters in London - that might impact on profits somewhat...
HMRC has done some questionable things with relation to some companies, and yes, we need to ensure that all companies are paying tax fairly, and playing by the same rules. But there is a shocking amount of "me too" reporting over this issue, that glosses over the facts, presents information in a way that confuses rather than illuminates the issue, and often just gets the sums plain wrong.
I am so sick of that dead brainwashed party-line/meme.
"Taxes are the price of civilization".
As if the truth of it suddenly justifies cessation of structured discourse or further questioning of taxes. "Well, we need these for civilization, so stop whining about rampant misappropriation".
That your society is only possible through taxes does not mean your society should continue to exist. No, I'm not some anarchist -- it just means your current structure and existence doesn't justify your means.
There's millions who don't need hospitals, roads, postal services, although they may surely want them. And even if we do need them, we don't necessarily need everything that feeds into them. Sorry, that little paper cup hospital pills come in -- not actually worth $5. And not a dime of tax money should go to it.
The concept of taxes aren't theft. The implementation is.
Let's be clear -- ultimately, you're saying "pay up, or we will utilize force of law to collect. If law doesn't work, we will utilize arms and the military".
Because that's what happens everywhere you don't buy out the government.
And you're going to chime in "I'm not saying that, you said that as a collective member of society. If you don't like it go some place else or change it" (FUCK YOU if you believe that).
As if the tyranny of the majority hasn't gotten more people killed in history than anything else. Power comes with responsibility. If you can't resist imposing your will on others, then don't be surprised when the peasants dash you onto the rocks below your castle, and in their rage also throw your children down too...
The ONLY argument you have to the contrary is that taxes are consentual and therefor not theft. In which case you have confused the concept of mandate of the governed with consent of the governed.
And congrats, you've replaced 'theft' with 'imposition of tyranny', in which the government exercises total and absolute control over law and has no logical limitation on their powers. But hey, at least it's legal and not theft then, right?
Here's the deal:
Taxes are necessary for modern civilization. They are not sufficient. If you do not provide civilization, there is no need for taxes.
Unfortunately, we're both going to scottsman-around with civilization -- because frankly, I don't think the government should be providing postal services. And roads? I'd rather see them privatized for the most part -- with the notable exception of the highway system.
That you provide public services, and even presuming that they have a net social benefit does not justify the existence of these services.
"But governments exist to benefit their people, A/C..."
Yeap. But not to provide unlimited benefit. Not to provide all the benefit they possibly freaking could. It'd benefit me a lot if we invaded Mexico, set up slave camps and sold off all their natural resources to China. Not the role of government. It'd benefit me if they mandated three free plane tickets a month... not the role of government.
Civilization is something people choose to make. Not something you collectively purchase.
It comes with a need for the society it creates to voluntarily limit it's power and use of force. It comes with social responsibilities -- the extent of which will likely be hotly debated. But mostly -- it comes with a need to fucking SELF PRESERVE. Because if your civilization loses the mandate of the governed, the consent of the governed, if it riles up the Spartans or the Mongols or the Huns.... bad shit happens to it.
And I want to be clear -- I'm a contractor to the feds paid virtually directly by taxes. We just billed an agency $20k for labor that wasn't done whatsoever. Because it was written into the contract that we could bill if they didn't deliver requisite information by a certain date. They were three weeks late. We had the workers lined up, the contracts, the right of way. They weren't on time. Billed.
If the
You're right that companies always find ways to avoid paying taxes, as do many individual tax payers. The higher you raise taxes, the more non-compliance you get and the more unfair the system gets for people who actually pay there taxes... mostly middle class employees.
This kind of thinking is precisely what is needed to solve these tax problems. Why does the government tax a percentage of profit? Instead, think of it as payments for a service. You have a factory full of computers? Well we the government are protecting that factory with our military, so you should pay a tax based on the value of that factory. You are hiring workers? Well we the government educated them at our schools, so you should pay a per worker tax. Utilizing our public road system means customers can come to your store and buy things? Maybe we'll have some sort of utility sales tax. Also, imagine if those taxes could only be spent on precisely those programs. How quick would we be to go to war if corporations new their military protection taxes were going up?
Unfortunately, the US military isn't just used for protecting our nation, it is used for foreign adventures.
Customers are paying for roads through their payroll tax and gas tax, corporations are paying for it through real estate taxes and sales tax.
The problem is that taxes are justified by people like you as payment for specific services, but then misappropriated for completely different services, like bailouts, fixing the economy, invading Iraq, or whatever.
To you, workers and citizens seem to be mere pawns to be moved around between government and corporations; that view is fascist. The idea that the nation is primarily composed of citizens who can make their own decisions and pay for what they want and need simply doesn't seem to enter your totalitarian mind.
"And some functions really have to be reserved to some form of government at a basic level, unless you want to start outsourcing things like making laws and starting wars to private industry."
Instead of assuming such functions would have to be 'outsourced' why not consider eliminating them? Certainly starting wars is a function we could do without.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
From TFA
Did she take into account the savings Amazon made to private citizens? Did she take into account reductions in global emissions due to shared delivery trucks?
Do not assume the only thing going on is all government-oriented. Certain factions want you to think that way, but don't. Walmart saves the US consumers over $200 billion per year.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The comparison between Apple, Google and Amazon here is completely misleading. Apple stated that it paid $6 Billion in US taxes last year. The taxation on the $100 Billion is a completely different situation that doesn't compare to the situations outlined with Amazon and Google.
I run a small IT company in the UK. What infuriates me is that my start-up is subject to onerous rates of taxation whereas a large foreign competitor is able to avoid a considerable portion of its tax bill. One of the key functions of government is that it needs to be there to ensure that the rules that ensure that capitalism can function are in place and are not being circumvented by any of the participants in the market. Failure to apply these rules across the board means that the market becomes distorted and the system fails to behave in a healthy fashion. This is what happens in developing countries and it is what makes them poor. The UK is getting poorer for many reasons but a key reason is our rising tide of corruption - which this is an example of. Recent articles by professor Niall Ferguson discuss the failure of Western institutions being core to our waning power... this is a clear example of that. The Law must apply to all in equal measure.
Just because some taxes are reasonable and necessary doesn't mean that any/all of them are.
True, but people whom do not pay taxes should still pay a fine (strictly greater than the sum they avoided paying as taxes) or go to prison. If one disagrees with what the taxes are used for, or how much taxes one is asked to pay, one should inform the politicians and/or vote differently. When informing the politicians and possibly ones peers, one should also be prepared to have a fair conversation about how to solve problems arising from such changes.
I say tie grant money (if there should be any is another debate) to taxes. In order to keep the grant money you have to have taxable income in the country. Essentially make them non-refundable tax credits. Also make them only able to be applied to a certain percentage of the total taxes due so that companies have to claim/repatriation large amounts in order to get their write-offs.
Another option: taxes owed are a function of where you do business. If you are registered in the US but claim that your income is from overseas prove it. I say something like 70% is weighted based on where real dollars in the bank account originate (do what you want with US companies getting money from your country but US dollars going to US companies are going to get taxed period) not where you attribute them (doing shinanigans like claiming Cokes recipe is owned by a company in the Bahamas and the US revenue is paying huge royalties doesn't cut it). The other 30% would be where your employees are. That gives a bit of wiggle room for companies that legitimately do hire a lot of their staff overseas to actually assign a portion of their business to where it is actually being operated. Businesses are essentially operations and sales and both should be taken into account when calculating taxes not some shady circular ownership plan that allows them to claim to operate out of a lawyers office even with 10's of thousands of employees in country and negligable customers in the their "operating" country.
I think Apple can afford to hire their own security, don't you?
Extremely myopic.
Government pays for the police, that not only will arrest people going to an Apple Store with guns and taking whatever they want, but also prevent other people from running their own police. This made it possible for Apple (or many successful companies) to come into existence in the first place, otherwise the energies that are now directed towards making nice goods and services would get consumed by everyone fighting among each other.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Govt doesn't need our taxes. Govt can print currency.
Govt is imposing taxes to CONTROL/MANIPULATE the citizens.
https://goo.gl/ep9Qz
Casteism
Isn't that always the way it goes - Activists demand more taxes for the rich, the government makes new taxes that the ultra-rich are exempt from - classic government in action.
If Apple or Google actually were violating tax law, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They are complying with the law, you just don't like what the law says. And do you really want to give even more power to the IRS to screw with your life?
Most people think we have way too much civilization. Nation building half way around the world, subsidizing 100 billion dollar corporations, no one ask me if I wanted that. We can't vote in honest politicians, the major parties only run two candidates, and the corporations have bought of them.
That's why they are not repatriating the profits they earn outside the US. Corporate tax rates are too high -- the government would likely collect more revenue from lower rates, as firms would be less likely to shelter earnings from the taxman.
LOL.
I was reading this article and heading the "You may also like to read" section "First fully 3D Printed Gun..."
I dunno mates, but out here we are getting a very weird image of you USians as gun-crazed anti-tax jihadists.
Just joking.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
the recent hearings in DC are just for public spectacle. elected officials have no intention of bearing down on apple & google & microsoft -- they're just pulling a "look over there" maneuver, in order to distract the population from other matters -- like how 5 years after Obama was elected, we're still paying $79 billion to fund the war effort in Afghanistan. They're all a bunch of lowlife criminals, our "representatives", completely self-serving and generally immune to the effects of the laws which affect the rest of the 99%.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I think one of the most basic items that we can emphasise here is they have free defense. By not paying taxes in the USA, they have the most powerful military protecting their interests without paying for it!! Pay up!!
Breaking News "Canada opens up Investor Immigrant Program" Canada opens its Immigrant Investor Program based on following qualifying criteria: - . Two years management/business experience in the last five years . Net-worth of $1.6 million . One time cost of $180,000 If interested, please contact us immediately, as very few applications will be accepted under this program with a submission deadline. You can email us at info@sunenterprises.ca or visit our website www.sunenterprises.ca
I think Apple can afford to hire their own security, don't you?
Extremely myopic.
No, it's not. It's a feature, but you glossed over this bit:
On the other hand, if the gov't does it, they can break into private citizens' establishments to steal back iBaubles ...
Private security secures private establishments. Gov't supported security (police) have the force of criminal law behind them and so can act far more broadly, including being co-opted by Apple to steal back its property, paid for by taxpayers.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit