Slashdot Mirror
'Paying Taxes Is a Lot Better Than Phony Corporate Courage, Apple' (theintercept.com)
theodp writes: Every fall," writes The Intercept's Sam Biddle, "internet and its resident tech mumblers congregate for The Apple Event, a quasi-pagan streaming-video rite in which Tim Cook boasts of just how much money his company is making (a lot) and just how much good it's introducing to the world (this typically involves a new iPhone). This is merely annoying most years; but in 2016, when Apple is loudly, publicly denying its tax obligations around the world, it's just gross." Biddle finds Apple's use of the word 'courage' to describe the corporate ethos that pushed the company to remove the headphone plug from the newest iPhone while offering a new pair of $160 jack-free earbuds particularly irksome: "Removing a headphone jack or adding 20 headphone jacks does not require courage; engineers are very smart, but their job does not typically require much bravery. Courage is more often found in, say, running into a burning school to rescue the students and class rodent. Or, maybe, you could call courageous the act of paying the many billions you owe around the world into the system that ensures those students have all of the resources they need in order to learn and grow. Just a hint: Collaborative spreadsheet software doesn't count [introducing new real-time collaboration features, Cook called iWork a "very important tool in education"].
I have only apathy-to-mild-antipathy for Apple, but think it's pretty abusive of these governments to attempt to charge them retroactively for taxes that they were dodging fair and square, and pretty dangerous and short-sighted for the general populace to so gleefully support these sort of violations of ex post facto.
It's important to understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax avoidance is taking all the deductions, programs, etc. you are entitled to under tax law. We would never expect an individual to not take a tax deduction or child credit etc. because they have "courage". That's just bad personal finances. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is illegally trying to avoid paying taxes you owe. For example, lying on your tax forms.
I have no problem with Apple doing legal tax avoidance, and all their investors (including a lot of your personal retirement plans, etc) would agree. Anything else would not be patriotism, it would just be bad finance practice. If they're doing something illegal, that's another issue. But let's not slam a corporation that is legally following tax law. Instead, let's slam legislators and encourage legislation to close tax loopholes and simplify the tax code.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
Get over it. If you don't want to buy it don't fucking buy it but do we really need to hear every fucktards opinion on the situation ad nauseam? What the fuck has Slashdot become?
this one seemed to be the best answer, http://www.theverge.com/2016/9...
mfwright@batnet.com
People who brag about their generosity are typically both A: not actually that generous, and B: doing it for personal gain
...neither did you sign a contract to receive the services which are paid for by those tax dollars...but you use them anyway.
Does Mr. Biddle pay more taxes than the absolute minimum he believes he is legally mandated to?
If not, he should just STFU, climb down off his moral high horse, and stew in his rank hypocrisy.
Didn't you get the memo? Only little people pay taxes.
mfwright@batnet.com
The whole "tax headquarters" thing is obsolete. The taxes a corporation pays shouldn't depend on their headquarters location. That just invites tricks.
Perhaps "profits" are just too hard to track internationally and revenues should guide taxes instead.
Table-ized A.I.
Apple isn't exactly solving world hunger or curing cancer (some might say their phones are contributing to cancer). They are a tech corporation with thousands of employees and make enormous sums of money. They are run and managed like any other Fortune 100 company where revenue and profits are king and who have a large tax department to minimize their tax liability to last cent. There is nothing 'courageous' about the company. They make products consumers like and make big bucks for their shareholders. They are the definition of Corporate America.
The moral thing to do is pay your fair share of taxes.
But instead Apple feels entitled to pay as little as possible (wether the tricks they used are illegal or not remains to be seen, I guess).
AC comments get piped to
I don't use those services and I still have to pay taxes. The IRS is illegal under the US constitution.
Since you don't use the police ... what's your address?
The EU has turned into a parasitic leech that wants to fund irresponsible socialist programs with outside money, because they've spent the last three decades trying to eat their own tail. The Irish tax system has been in place for literally decades, it's a joke that the EU is trying to retroactively change tax laws of a sovereign nation state for a quick pay day. The EU is quickly going to find itself a land no one wants to touch because of the arrogant plutocrats who will magically decide you owe back taxes anytime their irresponsible financial management lands them in a pinch.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
God? What in the world are you talking about? You're some sort of weird God-libertarian-fundamentalist?
Basically, governments provide services. These services have to be paid for. This is the price of living in society. "God" has nothing to do with it.
If you don't like it, sorry. A planet with six billion people requires some significant amount of structure. That's the way it is. If you want to move to a place where you don't have to live with other people, you're going to have to find a different planet.
Listen ass-hole, Apple et. al. are the ones that created the fucking law in the first place and oppose any changes to the law.
And if Apple is so happy to make money in Ireland, then why do they want a tax holiday to bring the earning back to America!
So fuck off and die.
Tim Cook is that you...
right? After all, this Swedish-flavoured Dutch shell corporation is set up to pay as little as possible with the full complicity of the government.
Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do. When corporations get hit with taxes, they raise their prices.
Sam Biddle is crook and a bully. Please, ignore him when he tries to insert himself somewhere.
Theodp's rants are really going off the deep end. He needs to adjust his medication.
7.5 billion, actually
Sounds like a protection racket to me.
Well, I'm guessing that's great, but unhelpful, considering Apple neither makes nor assembles the batteries for their hardware in the US. Now, when it comes to the carpeting, wood, plastics, clothes and electrical wiring/hardware in their headquarters and other such offices, I'm guessing there's a different story.
Really? You didn't go to school? You don't walk on sidewalks and drive on roads? You weren't protected by the nations military? You don't shower? The amount of infrastructure required for everyone to live the most basic elements of their lives is virtually endless.
People like you piss me off to no end, because you MUST be actively choosing to be willfully blind to everything that those tax dollars do for you.
It's like we're living that one scene from Monty Python, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
I have only apathy-to-mild-antipathy for Apple, but think it's pretty abusive of these governments to attempt to charge them retroactively for taxes that they were dodging fair and square....
They were lying. I'm not sure that this counts as "dodging taxes fair and square." They were telling one government that their intellectual property was insanely valuable; that's why their offshore subsidiary that didn't make any product could bookkeep tons of profit on that product they didn't make. And they were telling another government that the same intellectual property had little value at all, that's why their offshore subsidiary didn't have to pay licensing fees to the main corporation (which would have been income to Apple.)
When you lie, and get caught at it, you're subject to sanctions. You're not allowed to pretend all your income was earned in a country that does not, actually, produce any product. That's fraud.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
that was my intent, you nimrod filter.
I don't use those services and I still have to pay taxes. The IRS is illegal under the US constitution.
Since you don't use the police ... what's your address?
Police wont do shit to stop you getting robbed. Best you can hope for is they turn up not too long after and give you a crime reference number so you can claim on your insurance if you have any. In America they might turn up quicker on the off chance they get to shoot someone.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
How does Apple create the law?
And why is Ireland perfectly fine with what Apple paid in taxes?
Apple wants a tax holiday to avoid double taxation. Just like all multinational corporations do.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Yah Sam, I'm sure all that money is going straight to education.....
So the constitution doesn't say that Congress can't enact tax legislation? You sure about that?
If you're sure, you might want to go read the 15th amendment. It's pretty fucking clear. In fact, I'll copy it here for you to show how full of shit you are.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Or, maybe, you could call courageous the act of paying the many billions you owe around the world into the system that ensures those students have all of the resources they need in order to learn and grow.
No that's just called being responsible to society. I don't approve of misusing the word courage for removing earbuds any more than approve of it's misuse for trying to shame a company for not paying taxes. It's just the "running into a burning building" and stuff like it, and corporations can't run into burning buildings, so don't expect them to be courageous.
Income tax was initially ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But that's why the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed, explicitly authorizing Congress to pass an income tax:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm 6'4" tall and I pay taxes!
Let's say Tim's name were 'Jack' instead. There might be some satisfaction in removing the "Head" of Apple, named "Jack".
So if you can create a society that is nearly forced to use certain government "benefits" then you can justify taxing people/entities for an arbitrary collection of "services"?
Your system is broken. Charge for what people use and don't charge them for what they don't use - it's that easy. Don't pretend that there's some tangential benefit that they are receiving and therefor you get to extort arbitrary amounts from them.
Fix your broken system and stop lying to justify theft.
I don't use those services and I still have to pay taxes. The IRS is illegal under the US constitution.
You use the military, whether you want it or not. In the US that represents somewhere around 30-50% of your federal tax burden. You also use the police, whether you want to or not, that represents a good hunk of your local tax burden. You probably use the roads. You rely on the stability the government gives you. Even if you have no kids or you home school, or you private school, the education cost is keeping other people's kids from showing up at your house and robbing you blind.
Basically unless you live on an island in the middle of the pacific, you are relying on taxes whether you agreed to it or not. Feel free to blast yourself to the moon or somewhere else, but your agreement in this is not required, nor will you find an abundance of sympathy amongst your peers.
*16th
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The most powerful among us force the rest to pay "taxes", which is really nothing more than thievery. I didn't sign any contract, or make any agreement to pay taxes. Yet I can be thrown in jail if I do not give my money. Under which God is this right?
How about under the Christian god? Jesus was pretty clear on the subject: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
But the other people you rely on to live do use these services. The people supporting this website drive to work on public roadwork. The people that work to feed THOSE people drink municipal drinking water, and assume that the shit they flush down their toilets goes to municipal treatment centers.
This is called "living in society", it is the invisible hand of the government that gives you the environment you take for granted.
I don't think you signed any papers to your parents to be born either. Why don't you kill them?
Your argument is that because Government does some services, that it should be doing more and more and more and more .. regardless of the effectiveness of those services?
1) We had schools, roads, sidewalks, military, showers ... all before we were taxed at rates approaching 50%
2) We don't need to pay taxes in the range of 25% - 50% (and more!) so that the government can tell us how we are supposed to live (beyond Schools, roads, military ...)
People like you piss me off, because for you, it is "all or nothing" (I am surprised you didn't bring up Somalia) binary choice, with NO actual thought. Those "tax dollars" we are paying are increasingly going to service debt (19 Trillion dollars), and tied up in "entitltement" programs that have done little to actually help anyone. We've spent the last 50 years on the Great Society and are either worse off, or not any better than we were 50 years ago, and yet, there are millions more enslaved to "Government Services" (and democratic party politics).
Indeed, what has "government" ever done for us, beside take our hard earned money and give it to bureaucrats to skim 50% off the top for "administration", who then use their power and influence against the people they are supposed to serve.
I reject your simplistic view, as incomplete.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You are dumb. The only reason there isn't someone beating you over the head right now and stealing your laptop is because there is a non-negligible chance that they might actually get caught by the police. Your local police need to take a day off. You will find out how much your "life matters".
It is funny how many Americans think that taxes are theft, yet they do not mind being completely gouged by the insurance industry.
Didn't you get the memo? Only little people pay taxes.
I think a lot of people didn't get the memo. From 1980 to 2013, the share of total income tax revenue paid by the top 5% of earners increased from 37% to 59%, while the share paid by the bottom 50% decreased from 7% to under 3%. More details here.
Everyone cheering on the "tax em" brigade, should be asked whether or not they personally pay more taxes than they legally need to.
Saying that life isn't better now compared to 50 years ago for the majority of people is laughable.
These people who keep harping on the 'courage' thing are aware that in context Schiller clearly meant 'courage of our convictions', right?
Nothing to do with physical bravery or making fake claims that this is an important moral issue.
I think they've outgrown that last part by a LONG shot, but can argue that later.
What I don't want..is the govt using taxation as a means to try to change private personal and business behaviors. I don't see THAT anywhere in the constitution.
If we would get the govt back to taxing only and I mean ONLY for needed services, like defense, infrastructure (roads, hwys, etc),, border security and more local things like schools, etc....we'd get back to having reasonable taxes that I don't think most would have problem with paying a reasonable amount. And that amount would drop if we'd quit having the feds and states suck up money to try to do everything under the sun and every speciality cause. The system just grows lately to feed itself and that's not right.
I have NO problem with an individual or a company taking advantage of the current tax laws out there to try to save THEIR own money. I do it as much a possible.
And for all those bitching about it out there do a couple things:
1. Get the govt out of the business of trying to mold behavior.
2. Get back to basics for services, this will lower the tax bill to everyone and make a more reasonable amount to pay.
3. If you don't like the current tax laws and "loopholes" and deductions, change the laws, don't blame those trying to use them. Hey, if we simplified the tax code, went with something MUCH more fair and easy to navigate (i.e. you made X...after expenses you owe Y%), then we'd not have the problems and no one would feel someone is getting away with something.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yours is the first retort trotted out by the statists, yet you never explain how one is to opt out of government.
We can see by what happened at Ruby Ridge that you cannot opt out... that eventually, the government will come to collect their tribute once they're made aware of your insubordination.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Your argument is that because Government does some services, that it should be doing more and more and more and more .. regardless of the effectiveness of those services?
No. His/her argument is not that. Decent straw-man, though. See more on that below.
1) We had schools, roads, sidewalks, military, showers ... all before we were taxed at rates approaching 50%
Your point being?
2) We don't need to pay taxes in the range of 25% - 50% (and more!) so that the government can tell us how we are supposed to live (beyond Schools, roads, military ...)
We don't? Do you have any citation for taxes below 25% being enough to pay for all the things we share and take (rightfully) for granted in our lives? No?
People like you piss me off
Hm. Given that all you are doing is throwing faeces at the straw-man you raised yourself, why don't you do yourself and everybody else a service and just fuck off?
I reject your simplistic view, as incomplete.
I reject you, personally, as a troll and a fucking twit.
How does Apple create the law?
By hiring and maintaining a rather massive lobbying presence, just like any other tax-dodging mega-corp.
And why is Ireland perfectly fine with what Apple paid in taxes?
Because Ireland knows that getting something is better than getting nothing. They're likely also lobbying to keep these bullshit tax loopholes open, for the benefits they obviously receive by doing nothing more than providing a local address.
Apple wants a tax holiday to avoid double taxation. Just like all multinational corporations do.
Based on history, mega-corps will continue to get one thing; any damn thing they want.
You don't use roads?
You don't use schools? (Ok. You got me there, your clearly uneducated)
You don't use police?
Fireman?
Etc etc etc
Income tax was initially ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But that's why the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed, explicitly authorizing Congress to pass an income tax:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, it was a "temporary wartime measure". The same way it was promised that the Social Security number would *never* be used for any sort of identification purposes.
Why do people still want to believe these lying scum when they make another promise that a power will not be misused? The only hope of having that happen is strict rules, extreme transparency, effective oversight, and a hair-trigger willingness to prosecute anyone in any position of power who breaks the rules. All of that is hard to arrange and even harder to retain, so it's better not to give the government extra powers in the first place, however convenient the idea may seem at the time.
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed" R. A. Heinlein.
Here we go with this again. Mr. binary man over here has watched way too many purge movies.
Actually, the laws governing tax authority and cross boarder trade in Europe have existed for a very long time. These laws far pre-date Apple. Apple did not buy favorable laws in this regard. You can take your anti-business smugness and go buy some clues.
But 90% of the people in the top 5% are also getting a raw deal and are shafted. It is the top 0.5% that is reaping all the benefits of the growth. Their share of the income went up by a factor of 10, and their portion of taxes remained the same. That tax burden is borne by the people in the 99.5% to 90% bracket. Below 90% level they have neither the income, nor the tax burden.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Ya! Let's start charging the welfare users for using welfare! So the get $1,500 for doing nothing, I say we charge them $3,000 for that benefit.
You don't use gas, water, electric, telephone, or internet connections? Those were all built and regulated with taxes.
Work for a company, ever? That company was built from a civilization that benefited from government and the taxes it uses for those purposes.
Live in a house you didn't build from lumber you cut yourself with an axe you made yourself from a rock and a stick? You benefited from government and taxes other people paid into it in numerous ways.
Ever walk on a road you didn't clear yourself? Taxes. Government.
You're a trolling idiot, or gloriously naive. Governments are hugely wasteful and corrupt, but it's better than anarchy.
I can't decide if you or the GP is correct. He uses more profanity so I think he is right and you are wrong. Such compelling arguments!
Once they get a total, Apple will dispute it legally and probably end up paying 10% of it as a settlement, then claim how morally responsible they are. Hail Apple.
You are dumb. The only reason there isn't someone beating you over the head right now and stealing your laptop is because there is a non-negligible chance that they might actually get caught by the police. Your local police need to take a day off. You will find out how much your "life matters".
Isn't it amazing that so many people think that we don't need the police?
There is no such thing as "the spirit of the law." That's a weasel phrase used by people that don't like the outcome. The reason the law is written down is so that there is no ambiguity.
There may be hundreds of people voting for a given law, and each one has his or her reason for voting on that law. Do you mean to say that when adjudicating a case you need to take the personal opinion of every lawmaker into account? That would be the true "spirit of the law."
If you do that, then what's the point of the law in the first place?
With all tax credits and deductions nobody in the U.S individuals+families, small businesses, or corporate pays anywhere 50%+ in taxes combined by both Federal and State income tax. Please, don't include Sales Tax, gas tax, toll tax, etc...
Didn't you get the memo? Only little people pay taxes.
I think a lot of people didn't get the memo. From 1980 to 2013, the share of total income tax revenue paid by the top 5% of earners increased from 37% to 59%, while the share paid by the bottom 50% decreased from 7% to under 3%. More details here.
Good!
Eat the rich.
What I do isn't courage. It's just a job that needs to be done. I have trust in my equipment, my training, and the other firefighters around me - it's going to be fine. Even if it's not, I can't think of a more meaningful way to die than directly trying to save people.
You don't use public roads? Or public sidewalks? For travel, I highly doubt you opt to rough it and use established infrastructure. And no, it's not illegal under the US constitution, there's actually an article explicitly granting congress the power to tax.
I believe the way to opt out of government is to go somewhere where there is no government. Enjoy!
It is unwise to ascribe motive
How much of the current government's spending do you think are on those "unreasonable" things? I see strawman argument against things like the FCC (what business is of the government to regulate the airwaves?), FDA (safe food? Privatize that!), EPA (clean air?! pfff) and other such "things that aren't in the constitution".
Usually with the argument that said things, if abolished, would lower taxes. But have you actually looked at the FY2015 federal budget? If you got rid of everything except Defense and disability (FICA/Medicare is its own tax, so I guess you can argue for getting rid of those), you'd still basically have the same budget. Those "not in the constitution" things are in the noise margin in terms of spending.
Now, I could be persuaded to re-think FICA/Medicare.
Police wont do shit to stop you getting robbed. Best you can hope for is they turn up not too long after and give you a crime reference number so you can claim on your insurance if you have any. In America they might turn up quicker on the off chance they get to shoot someone.
I suggest you spend some time in a country that doesn't have a strong police presence and then re-think that statement. In a lot of countries around the world, if you have any significant possessions, you have to live inside of a cage to keep from getting robbed. In America that is the exception rather than the rule.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
hear hear! Im all for that. hell apple can pull its products and services out of all countries but the US. That will teach them. i for one would be happy to be rid of apple.. PS ios and mac devices are all ready pretty worthless
I see what you did there =)
If taxes were confined to the issues you raise, perhaps there would not be so much blow back. Unfortunately, our tax dollars go to a lot more than "infrastructure".
We dole out billions to other countries that disappear into unknown holes. Have billions of dollars allocated to the black book off record crap. We have government officials living like rock stars on our dime and then there is all the fraud and abuse and bridges to no where.
So in your fairy tail life, all taxes are good and you should pay more. In reality, its a giant slush fund that gets abused frequently and I with many others are tired of paying for your fantasy. Now get the f--- off my lawn commie.
How can an agreement with a country be illegal? Answer, it can't be. The EU just decided after the fact, that they thought it wasn't right and are making it illegal... remember Apple has been doing this for a long time, out in the open. If it were not legal why did it take so long for the EU to figure this out?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
LOL. There's been exactly one "temporary" amendment. Anyone who believes amending the Constitution is temporary gets what they deserve.
As for promises, take a look at all of the representatives that say "oh no! I had nooo idea my law would be used that way!" when their laws start having "unforseen" consequences.
Please don't lump us 1-5% people with those 1%ers. I know it's convenient when talking about fair taxation.
Once you reach a few million in net worth, it's like there's some magical barrier you just broke through where your effective tax rate actually goes down. Dramatically.
So if a business gives away a "free sample" are you then obligated to pay for some additional service due to some ethereal contract that wasn't signed?
It's time to point out the broken logic of government, services and taxes. Just because that's the way it's been done doesn't mean that it's appropriate.
Right on man. I will never use a government funded technology, like that silly little communication standard that was built because to allow communications to move cross country from the rare event of a nuclear attack on major cities. Such crazy system using a bunch of packets that could be routed in different ways then come back together to form the full set of data.
But that is just crazy talk. As a long time slashdot user, we have no use of such network system.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You're right. If you don't want to benefit from a stable country and infrastructures, just move to an island in the Pacific. That's in fact the contract and it's about living together (yes, with others, less educated, less wealthy, who clean your street and wash your car).
Your parents choose that for you when you were born. If you want to continue living in the US, you have to pay to stay in this country. This cost is decided by everyone in the country i.e. through democratic elections (even if how democratic they are can be debated, but the US isn't the worst country for that.). You may choose to move to another country where country costs are lower but live is much less attractive (like in east africa). I'm sure they'll like to see someone rich there -- though you may get attacked by a random guy or find yourself in the middle of a war.
All countries in the world do that (except those which artificially live from natural non-infinite resources), and the US is actually in a pretty good situation. Get your head out of your a.. and start figuring out how the world works.
All that said, the taxes arrive as an arbitrary measure that you may feel you have little power to fight against them. Talk to people in Europe where the EU committee deciding EU-wide rules are very indirectly elected. Democracy and decisions could be much better explained and transparency is key if you want to avoid everybody having the feeling of being "robbed".
So you think the system is broken, fight for transparency. But stop pushing that stupid argument of "I'm not using it, I don't want to pay for it !" even if social stability seems to be beyond your understanding.
You also use the police, whether you want to or not, that represents a good hunk of your local tax burden
And even if you don't use the police specifically, you use the legal framework that is enforced by the police and courts. Those property rights that libertarians seem to believe are the source of all freedoms aren't worth squat if a stronger and better armed person decides that you shouldn't have them anymore.
You probably also rely on the FDA and EPA to ensure that the food and water that you eat and drink are not full of toxins (admittedly, in some parts of the USA, this works better than others).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So, If I understand you correct you say that you DO believe we need to pay taxes. You are "only" concerned with the level of taxes we should pay.
Good, that makes the argument less extreme and much more delicate as we need to discuss how much taxes we should pay, but that is not what the thread is about as far as I could see.
So, if I understand you correctly, your "counterargument" comes out as agreement with the parent poster and a try to derail the discussion to details about how much taxes we should pay. A nice discussion to have, but not the actual topic for the thread.
Had you said that you rejected _both_ simplistic views as incomplete I would find your position insightful (eg. that taxes, no matter what, is the right thing or that taxes, no matter, what is wrong and that we need to leave the polarised positions that very few would agree with).
Ok, you've justified maybe 10-20% of government spending at all levels with that. Now how are you going to justify the rest? Particularly the corruption and graft going to the rich, well connected, and powerful?
You're expected to just stop using those social services at great cost to yourself, and THEN we can have a discussion about reducing taxes maybe someday.
You are, in fact, a liar.
Did you go to public school? And/or a state university?
Do you drive on *public* roads?
Do you have safe tap water? Sewer?
No, not paying taxes means *YOU* are a thief, stealing from the rest of us who pay for what we get.
You don't like it, find leave the country, whatever country you're in, and go claim an island and be Free! (tm) You aren't a human being, since humans evolved as *social* animals, not lone hunters.
You're an idiot, too.
mark
Move to somalia.
They have no government, and you don't have to pay taxes.
Do you want to get shot? This is how you get shot.
I'm NOT an Apple fanboi, I have more Microsoft products than I do Apple products...
I don't know why everybody if so fixated on the new $160 bluetooth headphones, implying that they are the ONLY replacement for the current headphones. Apple is supplying corded lightning headphones as well as an 1/8" adapter with the iPhone 7 so there is NO NEED whatsoever to rush out and buy a pair of overpriced bluetooth headphones because Apple is removing the headphone jack.
Of course the issue with taxes needs to be addressed but why is Apple being singled out, they're NOT the only company playing shell games with revenue and tax code loopholes to reduce their tax burden as low as they can. Fix the system and companies won't be able to exploit the loopholes in the system.
Let's see:
Government nationalized electricity, now electricity rates are substantially lower than the US.
Government subsidized post-secondary education, now tuition is about $3k/year
Government maintains roads and highways, and so there is no poll
Government owns public transit, and it works very well. In the UK, they privatized trains. Why not visit #southernrail on twitter to see how well that is working out.
Government provides health care. I need not risk debt because of it.
Government provides a military.
Government provides regulatory structures where private industry refuses to do so, acting as a balance between business and societal interests.
Government provides retirement savings plans and various other safety nets you can land on so you can get back up on your feet.
None of the above is perfect, but these are all services necessary to the functioning of a country, administered by people whose power comes from voting. This is a better system than privatizing everything in sight.
No one is arguing that we don't need these services. Only that a coercive seizure of resources from the masses to fund them is morally wrong and making them "free" to the public is an inefficient system of distributing these services.
I love people like you. You want to live somewhere that you don't need to pay taxes to support a society? Move to Somalia and fill your boots. Enjoy a "country" that doesn't have a functioning legal system, civil defense system, or law enforcement system. A few weeks there and it'll become really obvious what those "stolen" taxes pay for and why you want it.
It's called the social contract and was effectively signed when our forefathers fought off the yoke of tyranny and replaced it with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
We regularly recommit to this contract when we vote to choose our elected officials. If they aren't properly representing your views, then you need to increase your level of participation in this system.
Maybe if your parents had whined less and paid their property taxes you would have been better educated in how your government works.
You didn't say "yes" per se, but you came to our house and accepted those drinks so we deserve to take what we're owed. Don't forget, we did Campus Cleanup last week, and defended you from those REALLY bad guys who wouldn't even have used protection! You're being a real ungrateful bitch.
There really is no way to do that.
Leftists like to bring up Somalia. There is a government in Somalia: a crappy one, in a string of crappy provisional governments. With warlord governments layered on top of this crappy government. There really isn't a place without a government. That being said, I'm not an anarchist. I'm libertarian, so I see the value in public infrastructure.
But leftists don't even understand what they're advocating. They believe that anyone who doesn't think government should inject itself into every part of their lives (except the bedroom, amirite?) is some straw man who doesn't want to pay taxes for roads or police.
I want roads. I don't want bridges to nowhere, or federal highway funding paid for by direct income taxes that is used to politically pressure states and local governments.
I want police and courts. I don't want APVs, select fire M16s, no-knock warrants, and civil forfeiture.
I want public access to education. I don't want public schools run by $250K administrators and directed by federal requirements.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
This is not Apple's problem. This is a problem with the Governmental taxation systems around the world. Apple is doing EXACTLY what they should be doing.
Apple is accountable to their shareholders, and only to their shareholders. It's their responsibility to maximize shareholder value, and paying the least tax that they legally can is at the top of that list. If they paid $0.01 more than they had to, they'd be remiss.
The issue is with the taxation systems that make what they're doing COMPLETELY LEGAL. Apple is a business, not a charity. Fix the system, and Apple will gladly play along and do what they're legally obligated to do. Reduce US corporate taxes and they'll re-patriate their offshore incomes. Don't blame them for doing what they're supposed to do.
Domestic law-enforcement is a tiny fraction of tax expenditures. So tiny, bringing it up is a misnomer. Even public schools cost more ($620 billion ) than police in the US (under $200 billion) — and parents still need to add hundreds of dollars on top of it. Which about matches the 640 billion spent collectively on Medicare.
But schools aren't the highest expenditure either — welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion every year (that's just the Federal government spending, BTW), for example, which is 10 times the spending on police by both Federal and local governments.
Military, the usual lighting rod of Leftists, is expensive too, but those expenditures (along with law enforcement) are explicitly in the government's care according to the Constitution. Nothing else is...
To even bring up "police" in any tax-discussion is dishonest. One can always tell a Statist by it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So because someone didn't bring up a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, they're in support of said topic? Nice logic....
So when having a discussion about taxes, we should only include some taxes, but not others?
Do you have any citation for taxes below 25% being enough to pay for all the things we share and take (rightfully) for granted in our lives?
http://crypticphilosopher.com/...
Claiming ignorance of history isn't usually a way to win arguments.
I didn't throw out a stawman in ignorance. If you're going to complain about strawman, why not complain about the original strawman? I only used a strawman (not really, it was a question)
In case you wondered, here it is in a nutshell ....
You didn't go to school? Strawman. Schools existed long before Fed Income Tax,
You don't walk on sidewalks and drive on roads? Strawman, roads existed, sidewalks existed long before Fed Income Tax
You weren't protected by the nations military? Strawman. Military existed, long before the Fed Income Tax
You don't shower? Strawman. Showers existed long before Federal Income Tax.
The IMPLICATION (clear) is that we couldn't do ANY of these things without being taxed to death (and beyond), when clearly (some/all) these things existed before there was even a "Federal Government".
And the Federal Income Tax is the ONLY tax levied directly on individuals at the federal level. Combined tax rates (Fed, State, Local, taxes, fees, etc) approaching 50% of income (middle class) is slavery / servitude / feudal, and part of the reason I say "Taxes are regressive, all of them". The rich can avoid them, the poor don't pay them, and the middle class is perpetually stuck paying "their fair share" of them. Cutting Government isn't just appropriate, it is our responsibility. And as long as people like you keep justifying INCREASING taxes for more Government to service increasing debt and increasing liability to the tax payers (i.e. Middle Class) our livelihoods aren't ours.
I personally object to the tacit (implied) notion that our income isn't ours, that it is government's and that we are "allowed" to keep some of it to live off. Our income is ours, 100% of it. Period. Implied contracts are non-binding, and I object to others deciding how much of MY income is mine. ;)
Lastly, Using Ignorance (not knowing those things existed before taxes approached 50%) to win an argument isn't something I would recommend.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Hey smartmouth, I used those entitlement services. If it weren't for Federal and State grants I wouldn't be an engineer today. Which is why I duly pay my taxes and are grateful for the services they pay for.
The tax system is far from perfect, but thievery it is not.
That said, the real jackasses are companies and rich people evading their taxes via all the loop holes.
Nothing is temporary unless the sunset date is written into the language of the law itself, which the Congress does all the time. Of course, this only means that Congress needs to pass another law to amend the date.
Anyone saying otherwise is either naive, an idiot, or both.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If you assume that Apple is "denying [their] tax obligations" and not paying "billions [they] owe", then it is not courageous. If you understand that those conclusions are not forgone, then standing up to powerful, coercive and dangerous organization is.
Nobody is making the argument that life isn't better than 50 years ago. Thinking that life wouldn't improve without government is where the logic is broken. Thinking that we should continue broken practices because "that's the way we have always done it" is an impediment to progress.
"Tradition is the way of the mindless and the enslaved, but to use tradition to reach greater heights is the way of the genius." -- Bruce Lee
Better to make useful products that people love than pay for yet more bombs to be used by nitwits who don't understand the concept of courage. Bravo Apple. Shame on the jackasses trying to pick Apple's pocket.
A lot of stabs and a nice salad?
I don't care about Apple too much, but seriously,"tax on profit" is one of the most ridiculous taxes ever to be designed, possibly the one most unnatural. Commies love it for some reason, but in practice, it's horrible.
Companies end up taking foolish loans and making foolish investments, just to avoid this tax. The popular belief in my country is, that a company, to be successful, must be in debts for at least 50% of it's value.
Of course this is as retarded as it gets. Barely any of those companies will last for over 20 years. People end up losing their jobs and paying company's unreturned loans with tax money. The only sector to really profit off this tax are banks.
And what is this behaviour you speak of?
Because all that comes to mind is fairness and equal opportunity.
I don't know about where you live, but where I live water (both drinking and waste) are not funded by tax dollars. They are provided by the city, but they are self sustaining and do not rely on taxes. Hence the $70 water bill I pay in the winter when there's no grass to water and my monthly usage is about 2000 gallons a month. You don't want to know what summer water bills climb to.
They're more likely to shoot you, the victim, or your dog.
I'm not normally a grammar pedant, but the irony is just too delicious.
If you're going to call someone clearly uneducated, please use the proper form of "you're" - as in the contraction of the words "you are".
In case you're looking to become a bit less clearly uneducated yourself, you referred to his possession called a 'clearly uneducated' in your post.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
How does Apple create the law?
By hiring and maintaining a rather massive lobbying presence, just like any other tax-dodging mega-corp.
[Citation Needed]
My town doesn't have a police department and the nearest cop is a good 30 minute drive away, yet no one in my town is robbing or harming anyone. I doubt most people even lock their doors. Yeah, most probably own multiple firearms, but it's not necessary because everyone is naturally friendly and helpful to each other. The reality is very few people have any propensity towards violence or harming others, and our own humanity does a lot more to keep us safe than any police force. Police would be useless unless most people were docile and compliant - look, every time a couple dozen pissed off people get together they label it a riot and lose total control of the situation and have to call in the National Guard.
Honestly, is fear of the law the only thing that keeps you from raping, murdering, and pillaging? Or do you just think everyone else is one step away from devolving into violent savages?
Most police today are there just to enforce the drug war anyway. Actual violent crime clearing rates are at an all time low because drug busts are easier and more glamorous.
Oh, and living in a town without police is amazing, I would never willfully pay for such useless crap again. Not only are my taxes lower, I'm also not harassed when driving around town. I really see no value to public police and would gladly opt-out. I have insurance to protect me from loses and I carry a pistol if I'm traveling to high crime areas (which have police, even though they're totally useless at preventing crime)
You don't use roads?
Yeah, we should definitely bill someone for the fire department showing up after their house burns down. Or maybe bill their neighbors for preventing the fire from spreading? Oh, I know - let's bill the whole city just a little bit spread out to prevent all fires from spreading, and we can even make it an annual thing. In fact, for convenience, let's link it to property values, or perhaps earned wages.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Fuck the police. Let's set his house on fire and watch it burn as he refuses to avail himself of a tax-funded fire department.
social contract
Either show me the contract and my signature or grow up. Social contracts are for little snowflakes who curl up in a ball and suck their thumb at the thought of independence.
This should be really simple. Everyone and every corporation should pay every dime of taxes they owe. Now, Congress has written and Presidents have signed off on a hideously complex tax code. Since that is what they wanted, is it really any surprise that people and corporations hire accountants to make sense of it and to minimize the amount of taxes they pay? All this talk about the spirit of the law and so on is utter nonsense. If someone doesn't like the amount of taxes Apple is paying, show where they are violating the law and the Government can go after them. Until then, everyone can whine all they want, but the root of the problem and the solution lies with the United States Congress, which last I check had an approval rating of 14%, so don't hold your breath for tax reform.
I suspect if we continue this argument we will have profoundly different views on what constitutes "morally wrong" and I will continue to support the "coercive seizure of resources" over any and system you might propose.
yet you were born into a country that collects taxes. Don't like it? There are plenty of hellholes you can move to that don't collect taxes.
What I don't want..is the govt using taxation as a means to try to change private personal and business behaviors. I don't see THAT anywhere in the constitution.
The very best way for a government's tax policy to use carrot-and-stick methods for controlling behavior is with an income tax. Unlike excise taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, etc., an income tax requires filing a return for each individual or entity, so very specific rules can be selectively applied.
That's why it required a Constitutional amendment to institute an income tax. Taxing income is not a new concept - it predates the Founding Fathers. It was practiced in the Roman republic and during the Third Crusade, just to name two examples. I believe the Founders left it out of the original Constitution on purpose because they understood how easily abused it is. The steady encroachment of government power was one of their primary fears.
Get the hint dipshit. You can't opt out. Citizenship is compulsory. This includes the responsibilities and privileges therein.
Still, somehow, deranged antisocial assholes convince themselves otherwise and make a public mess when the rest of the country gets tired of their shit.
Here's another hint: Your beliefs, your world view, your attitude - The people around you merely tolerate you. Realistically, they probably avoid you because you're unpleasant to be around. They humor you in the hopes that you'll shut up about whatever cringy alt-right meme you're regurgitating this week.
Do not mistake toleration with validation.
You don't use gas, water, electric, telephone, or internet connections?
People get energy bills and telecom bills with taxes applied to them. They pay for what they use.
Work for a company, ever? That company was built from a civilization that benefited from government and the taxes it uses for those purposes.
Are you arguing for the absolute minimum taxes needed to keep civilization from collapsing? Or are you arguing for more than that?
Live in a house you didn't build from lumber you cut yourself with an axe you made yourself from a rock and a stick? You benefited from government and taxes other people paid into it in numerous ways.
The builder paid and passed it on to the cost of the home buyer. It's already paid. There's no need for the government to double dip and keep charging people over and over and over for something that happened historically.
Ever walk on a road you didn't clear yourself? Taxes. Government.
Fuel taxes pay for roads. People pay for what they use.
So far, you seem to be arguing that taxes -- especially income taxes and other taxes not directly tied to use of a service -- are much, much too high.
People who object to taxes don't hate roads. The main objection is to generous government giveaways to non-workers and generous government salaries and benefits to a privileged few government workers.
Governments are hugely wasteful and corrupt, but it's better than anarchy.
Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people governments killed in the 20th century. How many people did anarchy kill in the last 100 years? We need a balance, not fearmongering about impossible extremes.
When I heard "Courage.", i just took it to be media-translated from "Balls." ("cause you know we can get away with it.")
Please don't lump us 1-5% people with those 1%ers. I know it's convenient when talking about fair taxation.
So, most of the top 5% is made up of "little people" now? That's the only way the comment about paying taxes being only for the little people makes sense.
and using that line of reasoning, churches should pay taxes.
When will the government ministers in Ireland who set up this massive tax giveaway to Apple be jailed or fired?
That's the question we should be asking.
Remember: if Apple gets a sweetheart deal, your taxes and all the taxes on their competitors, go up.
There is no magic funding fairy building your roads, seaports, and other things.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This would cause a shareholder revolt due to lost revenue from sales and from shutting down the operations. Corporations cannot willingly reduce revenue just to make a point unless a sufficient portion of their shareholders agree that the corporation should do so.
They'd likely get sued by quite a few groups.
*16th
Thanks, I was wondering what:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
had to do with taxation.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
"Leftists" actually seem to understand what you don't: that the decision to spend tax dollars on a certain thing at a certain level is made by political process. So you either participate or you don't, but the process remains the same.
The list of complaints is barely above child-level. Of course your tax dollars go to things that you deem unacceptable. See above.
The argumentation you use actually seems very confused. You want to know where to "opt out of government" first, and then claim that really all you're upset about is that the political process came to a decision you don't like. Well you can't have both, no matter how many leftists you blame.
You don't mind governments, so long as they only spend money on things that you and you alone think are worth spending money on. So the only form of government that you'll be happy with is one in which you are the supreme authoritarian ruler. You'll forgive the rest of us for not signing up.
Pretty much all zealots are annoying--but I find libertarians to be especially so. They're stupid, they don't know that they're stupid, and they are certain that everyone else is stupid.
While I agree that Apple (and others) should be made to pay its fucking taxes, everybody just pays the taxes he can't avoid to pay. Apple is in no way special here. It's not Apple that failed here. It's regulations and international loop holes that were not fixed and still aren't fixed.
Military... are explicitly in the government's care according to the Constitution. Nothing else is...
*cough* Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 begs to differ:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States..."
Common defense includes more than just the military and law enforcement.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
A libertarian that wants public education? That's pretty funny. That's a social good, not an individual good.
Oh year, I don't want to pay for the roads you drive on at the point of a gun.
Nobody is making the argument that life isn't better than 50 years ago.
Looks at GP.
We've spent the last 50 years on the Great Society and are either worse off, or not any better than we were 50 years ago...
Seems like someone made that argument.
So Cook stated it was a courageous move to remove the jack in the iPhone 7. Oh really, Cook. Courageous just like decision to prematurely omit an opitcal drive before many mac users in the outer suburbs and out state had decent internet band width?
Cook your ethics and morals are completely bankrupt when:
You get on your soap box and preach to the U.S. about gay discrimination while doing business in countries which persecute and execute gays.
You say you are following the law concerning taxes but in reality you are using a loophole which enables Apple to dodge its tax responsibilities.
You allow totally skewed standards with what movies are allowed in to be shown in Apple trailers. A documentary about Vidal? Sure. A fact based movie by Dinesh D'Souza or Peter Schweizer? Not a chance. Nothing like a dose of good old censorship and indoctrination, Tim Cook.
Cook you are a douche of the highest order.
You don't shower?
Given that this is Slashdot, that may very well be the case.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I think you underestimate just how many people are quite happy to pay for the services they receive and have a democratic voice in determining. Sounds more like you just want to always get your way. Very mature attitude.
So, they got Ireland's tax authority's "blessing" to not pay taxes to other countries. Isn't that nice. Getting a third party's consent doesn't give you the right to not pay taxes in the place where income is earned.
If I get Ireland's blessing to tell me "you don't have to pay US taxes", that does not affect my IRS income tax bill.
Which is exactly why I said "explicitly". As in "military and law enforcement are explicitly in the government's care", while trying to justify spending my money on some bum's food and healthcare requires turning the "general Welfare" clause into a blank check.
Nope, it does not. Stick to the "general Welfare" part — it worked fine for millions of Statists before you.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Even Obama wants to do that. In fact, so do both parties.
You can foam at the mouth about how unfair the real world is all you want, imposing increasingly higher taxes on corporations or individuals will cause them to adopt "tax avoidance strategies". If you make the taxes high enough, they'll simply stop operating/working altogether. It's as unavoidable as gravity.
I would say the opposite is true. We force the most powerful people to pay taxes because, in a democracy, we agree that we decide on these matters by one person-one vote.
If we left it to the most powerful, then it would be us paying taxes to the rich as it used to be in the old feudal system.
Yours is the first retort trotted out by the statists, yet you never explain how one is to opt out of government.
And your first resort is name calling, that demonstrates you don't have a point to articulate.
You opt out of a government by leaving it's borders. There are still a few places that have no government and plenty more that have no effective government. Of course these places tend to be violent, corrupt or both and have poor services and living standards. Hell, there are plenty of small islands that no-one would ever bother you on if you went and lived there even though they are technically governed.
However you don't want to live like that, you want all the benefits that governments provide without having to do or pay anything. You would like anarchy but still want to be protected from your neighbours. Sorry, but reality does not work that way.
Whilst our western democracies and republics are not perfect, they're a hell of a lot better than all the other forms of government we have tried and they give us a huge say in what government does. There are many, many countries were people are not given this freedom.
So kindly take your name calling and libertarian bullshit and shove it up your arse.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Stop fucking telling me what you think I should think. I feel like I'm watching Fox News.
Why not use "Sales Tax (7.25% / CA), Gas Tax (compound taxes), Toll Tax , etc"
OF Those, I would not oppose "toll" tax, as that is completely avoidable for 100% of the people. The rest are "taxes" after the taxes (income) we have already paid.
I am taxed at around 25% federal tax, nearly 10% state tax, that is 35 % of my income gone, before I get home. After that, I pay property, sales, and all sorts of other Taxes and fees. And, I am not even in the top tax bracket.
What I never hear from liberal/socialists is them admit that government ever fails at anything. In fact, that is the first "go to" option for every solution they offer.
I've made this point at least a dozen times this year, the current neo-communist logic goes like this:
"We have to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it"
Nobody ever stops and asks "why do we need to do anything?"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
quote:
Do you have any real information to suggest there's a deal?
"'Paying Taxes Is a Lot Better Than Phony Corporate Courage, Apple' "
People who equate paying higher than legally required taxes with being "patriotic" or "moral" are lying.
It's the same as passing oppressive legislation "for the children". It's almost always a lie.
“But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916).
I have only apathy-to-mild-antipathy for Apple, but think it's pretty abusive of these governments to attempt to charge them retroactively for taxes that they were dodging fair and square, and pretty dangerous and short-sighted for the general populace to so gleefully support these sort of violations of ex post facto.
Erm, they aren't charged retroactively. Retroactively implies that the law was changed and payments were backdated.
Apple is being asked to pay the amount of tax they were supposed to pay in the first place.
I think you need to spend a little time with the dictionary and learn what retroactive means.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
http://www.citizen.org/documen...
And on several occasions it's been shown that bills submitted by representatives were essentially (sometimes literally) word-for-word copies of legislation drafted by lobbying groups.
http://www.npr.org/sections/it...
It's cliche' that if you're rich you buy yourself a politician. If you're rich and smart, you buy yourself a lobbyist - lobbyists can't be kicked out with an election.
=Smidge=
If the powerful do not have to pay taxes, then yes this is totally unfair.
If everyone pays taxes, then you might want to read up on the social contract. That you and I don't have to kill each other over a dispute means we are members of a civilization. We give up the ability to take certain actions in exchange for some peace.
Things go awry when people forget that they've given up something (an absolute and bloody form of freedom, a law of the jungle) and forget that we also should demand something in return (peaceful civilization, a community that supports one another, a safe place for children).
Absolute safety of course would probably mean we give up every bit of individuality, and I'm not suggesting we swing from one extreme in favor of a different and equally horrible extreme. I'm suggesting we find some reasonable middle ground where future generations can find an education, where the previous generation doesn't have to live on cat food and free ketchup packets, and where people without jobs don't lay in the gutter waiting to die. (if you've ever found someone dead in the streets, it sucks, I would not recommend it as a life experience)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
All the things you described are examples of local services which most people I know are willing to pay for via taxes, but keep in mind, those things existed long before the outrageous taxes we have now. What most people object to are federal income taxes, but the simple slogan taxes = theft doesn't fully articulate the core issue. Yes, we should have a military and other things proscribed by the constitution, but again, prior to 1913, those things were all funded without income tax. We could have a vastly smaller federal government and not see any real decrease in essential services. And that smaller government would be less corrupt because with less funding/spending there would be a lot less pork to bribe folks over.
"People like you piss me off to no end, because you MUST be actively "
And people like you piss everyone else off because you pay no federal income tax, you get so many benefits you're a net drain on the system, and you demand services because "it's your human right".
Guess what just because you breathe and take up space, there's nothing that's "owed" to you.
Your "rights" end when you require other people to pay for your "rights".
That's why you're a free man and can decide if being part of civilization suits you. Remember, you can always go live in a mountain, somewhere far away...
Apple is loudly, publicly denying its tax obligations around the world
That's a goddamned lie. Apple pays what they're legally required to pay. They have no duty to pay whatever amount SJWs or 4th Reich bureaucrats pull out of their asses.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If I had points I would have modded this up.
Let all be reminded that Sam Biddle was the literary genius behind Gawker. This is like having a retired East German bureaucrat opine on Volkswagen's emission problem.
Apple had its own exploding battery issues not long ago.
We dole out billions to American multinationals in the form of abatements and subsidies. Start there.
"engineers are very smart, but their job does not typically require much bravery"
Try saying that to Boisjoly, Snowden, or the GE Three.
so..... you fire the politicians who ACTUALLY write the laws and sign them in. stop blaming 3rd parties because your government sucks
... But that is just crazy talk. As a long time slashdot user, we have no use of such network system.
Agreed. I propose we use a system of tubes instead.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Social contracts are for little snowflakes
I'm pretty sure John Locke could take you in a fight.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I believe in taxes. I also believe that taxes should be avoidable by everyone, not the privileged rich and the poor. This means, that they are more or less "voluntary". Taxes are regressive, by their very nature.
I am a libertarian, so I am open to all sorts of "taxes" on "sin" (things harmful to society) like drugs and alcohol. In fact, those taxes should be high enough to cover the negative (societal) costs. Or Gas taxes that are used to pay for roads (and transportation) etc. I'll even support Property taxes, provided they go to supporting local infrastructure and government services like Police and Fire (that help Everyone).
I do not want the discussion about "how much" to pay, because that basically assumes that the taxes we pay, are the right of government. They aren't. Taxes collected by threat of government guns (and prisons) is by its nature a hostile act, of the government against the citizenry.
My greater point is that taxes, all of them are regressive, even when they are supposedly "progressive" in structure. (like graduated income taxes). We shouldn't retard valid economic activity by taxing it. At some point, it becomes less beneficial to work, and more beneficial to not work, simply because the benefits of not working is more than working. Emotional arguments about Grandma eating dog food is pandering for confiscatory taxes, and nothing less.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Because the problem is not the government of its services. The problem is the lying scum.
So, what are we going to do about that?
Because, the way I see it if it bothers us so much the we should stop whining about it and take an active roll in cleaning our government.
Throwing the baby with the bathwater is not an option.
Hey dipshit, at least find a citation that does NOT make a counterpoint to your claim.
Stanton also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment "authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform" and that therefore the income tax was "not within the authority of that Amendment." The Court also rejected this argument and upheld the constitutionality of the income tax under the 1913 Revenue Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Uneditable typos are the worst.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Bitch, the link was right there, or are your big, dumb sausage fingers incapable of clicking on it?
>>The reality is very few people have any propensity towards violence or harming others, and our own humanity does a lot more to keep us safe than any police force.
The economy of the region may determine how good people are -- mix in very long term government welfare dependance or medium to long term no-money, a population predictably turns rotten -- add in some of those characters having mental illnesses and you'll be get a likelihood of seeing violence -- if you're lucky enough to live in a very rural area, then you may have safer results with that population (even if poor) due to reduced anonymity
This is very true, where I am staying now, everything is walled off/behind a gate. America is a very different scene when it comes to trust of neighbors
...neither did you sign a contract to receive the services which are paid for by those tax dollars...but you use them anyway.
"Insightful"? Please. You need a valid contract (including meeting of the minds, non-duress, etc.—no, the "social contract" is not a real contract and does not count) to claim someone else's property as payment for services rendered. You do not need a contract to accept what someone else gives you, unsolicited and without any voluntary agreement to pay on your part. Such gifts incur no obligation to reciprocate. If you want someone to pay up for services rendered you need to enter into a contract before providing the service—at least an implied contract where the other party is free to decline without penalty.
There is also the small matter of the State using force to prevent anyone else from providing the same services on equal terms, either through direct monopolies or tax subsidies. Yes, there are things like private toll roads, but in general it is impossible to compete with someone who subsidizes their own service with taxes. Any customers you might manage to attract are forced to pay for the public service in addition to your private offering, automatically making your private service twice as expensive. The fact that some private operators manage to make it work anyway it a resounding testament to government inefficiency.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
... where the iPhone touched You.
Property rights aren't guaranteed by the laws of physics, but by social convention. Your taxes pay for the system which, in part, enforces that social convention. If you would rather not pay, your rights to own property, physical or intellectual, should disappear too. If Apple wants is IP to be treated as real, it should adhere to tax regulations.
John_Chalisque
Would you like a lolly pop, as well?
Really? I live in an island in Canada with thousands of people. There's no police, there's no crime.
Because you don't seem to understand the very basics of law.
Understand this: there is always ambiguity. Many people hate ambiguity, and for good reason. But it is impossible to be completely rid of it, because spoken and written language has ambiguity as one of its founding principles. It is impossible to draft laws such that all ambiguity is eliminated. God himself could not do it.
So, the "spirit of the law" doctrine is critical in any enterprise where interpretations of the lay vary (which is, for the most, every enterprise that involves lots of money).
Lobbyists who buy politicians is the politicians fault.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
There are different kinds of courage. Not all are of the "risking your life" variety. I'd say that risking your job on a decision requires courage. No, you're probably not going to die, but those who made the decision (including Tim Cook) could lose their jobs if Apple loses enough money over the decision.
Opt out of what? Not having a government?
There's no such thing, short of going off on your own into the forest with nothing more than a belt knife.
Government is a as necessary for human existence as the air we breath. The question is, what kind of government will it be, and how well will it be run? The only thing that can decide that is the combined effort of the people.... which, unfortunately, is also why most governments are crap. We need government, but the overwhelming majority of people suck as governing.
I live on the other side of the planet, and yet (unlike almost every other country) I still am required to pay US taxes. If I call the police do you think they will come?
I'm not trying to. Quality of governence is a different issue entirely. My point was in reference to the parent, that claimed that they don't use these services and therefor he shouldn't pay taxes, and that the IRS is illegal.
Apple is now the new holder of the title "evil empire" that Microsoft relinquished...
Somehow I thought Google would beat them to the punch, but hey, what do I know...
Post of the month.
And you suck a ton of cocks so that's why you'll pay taxes. Faggots don't have what it takes to stand up for themselves. Faggot.
All that said, the taxes arrive as an arbitrary measure against which you may feel you have little power to fight.
So much nicer this way.
I'd hate to be in line behind you at 7-11.
Yawn. This is the same argument climate deniers use. "It was cold today in my neighborhood so how could there possibly be global warming?" Just because you don't have a crime problem where you live, that absolutely does not mean that there are no crime issues anywhere. And you just pointed out that you are NOT even paying taxes to staff a large police force. So what are you complaining about??? Isn't that the ideal situation? Paying only for what you use? That is unless you want your services for free, which would put you into the same basket of Republicans/libertarians who want something for nothing.
Police wont do shit to stop you getting robbed. Best you can hope for is they turn up not too long after and give you a crime reference number so you can claim on your insurance if you have any. In America they might turn up quicker on the off chance they get to shoot someone.
I suggest you spend some time in a country that doesn't have a strong police presence and then re-think that statement. In a lot of countries around the world, if you have any significant possessions, you have to live inside of a cage to keep from getting robbed. In America that is the exception rather than the rule.
Yep. And I have a rock that repels tigers. I know it works because I've yet to see a tiger in the neighborhood.
I'll be nice and explain it to you. If you were correct in your assertion, then we would see lower crime in inner city areas that have a far stronger police presence than, say, my affluent little city.
Police officers don't stop crime. They come in afterward and try to clean up the mess, and arrest the perpetrators so that they are unable to easily offend again. While that might stop crime in the future, it doesn't help a guy who is in the process of being robbed.
Do you have ESP?
Saying that life isn't better now compared to 50 years ago for the majority of people is laughable.
To the extent that it's better, it has nothing to do with government. If anything, it's in spite of government. We've poured a trillion dollars into eliminating poverty in the last 50 years and the poverty rate hasn't budged.
Do you have ESP?
And public education did him no good either.
This is the norm in most right wing dictator countries. Private police forces that only defend the government and corporations from the people.
If you don't like it, sorry...If you want to move to a place where you don't have to live with other people, you're going to have to find a different planet.
Really? There's no potential middle ground between what we have today and start colonizing Proxima Centuri (using all private funds)?
A shitty government is what you get with corruption. Good trip! Leave your money at home and earn your true dues.
Captcha: cuckoo
Go to Mexico or other such places. Live with death threats and see if you like it so much.
True anarchy is short-lived because most sane people can't stand it.
The 16th Amendment has been ruled, multiple times, to have been properly ratified, thus the IRS is legal under the US Constitution.
Learn to love Alaska
Just move. Then you've fixed the problem. Two in fact. If you move, your neighbors don't have to deal with you anymore as well.
Under which God is this right?
The quote, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is from the Biblical God, telling people to pay taxes. Which God do you subscribe to? Chances are your Holy Book has something similar.
Learn to love Alaska
I am taxed at around 25% federal tax, nearly 10% state tax, that is 35 % of my income gone, before I get home. After that, I pay property, sales, and all sorts of other Taxes and fees. And, I am not even in the top tax bracket.
Then you need to make more. I'm in the top bracket, and pay less than 20% tax, summing all state, local and federal taxes (excluding those not levied on me, so I exclude 1/2 of payroll taxes, and other "indirect") tax. US federal income tax is 10% on the 10%, if you properly structure your income and expenses. It also helps that Alaska is a low-tax state. But that's something else under your control. Seems you shop for a poor quality of life, so you can complain about it.
Learn to love Alaska
yet you never explain how one is to opt out of government.
Easy. Move.
Or do you want all the benefits of living in the USA, without any of the costs or responsibilities? That's a separate discussion.
Learn to love Alaska
I want roads. I don't want bridges to nowhere,
Alaska gets the least amount of money per area of any state. The bridge to nowhere was linking the largest airport in the area to the largest population center in the area. That both are small by NYC standards doesn't mean they are insignificant to the largest state in the Union. If that's an issue, then you should probably work to expel Alaska from the USA. They pay more than they get back, anyway (depending on how you count the oil).
I want public access to education. I don't want public schools run by $250K administrators and directed by federal requirements.
That's a first. A complaint about public education that didn't mention unions. You do realize that the vast majority of federal rules are driven by Republicans on a crusade to destroy public education? My solution is simple and easy, and neither side likes it, so it must be good. Fund all schools, public or private, based on enrollment. The conservatives call this a "voucher" system. This is voluntary for the schools. Any school that accepts a "voucher" must accept all students who apply, and is banned from expelling any student unless the act for the expulsion is a crime and the child was convicted.
Those few restrictions will leave the education system almost exactly as it is now, and still establish vouchers. Then you an have your "competition" without using "vouchers" as tax breaks for the rich. I went to a mix of public and private schools when I was growing up. All unrestricted vouchers would be is welfare for the rich.
Learn to love Alaska
I like to use Guatemala as an example. It's a relatively peaceful culture with a government that does basically nothing. And it sucks. If you have anything, you need to live in a bunker. MacDonalds is guarded by men with AKs. The water is not potable. The entire country is trashed. The sewage barely works. It's a libertarian paradice.
How does Apple create the law?
By hiring and maintaining a rather massive lobbying presence, just like any other tax-dodging mega-corp.
[Citation Needed]
I'll take "What is Aleppo?" for $500 Alex.
This is a ridiculous argument. We don't need police because the Constitution affords us the right to protect ourselves with our own firearms. Furthermore the police represent a very small amount of the federal budget, and mostly fund themselves by writing tickets and seizing assets (civil asset forfeiture exceeds burglaries in the US). Most of our tax goes to paying off the Fed's massive debt and funding our outrageously bloated military. The services we actually use, like roads, are funded through state/sales tax or their own special taxes (like gas tax). Even public schooling (a useful service) is terribly underfunded and they have to look for funds elsewhere. We don't even have public Healthcare (forcing people to buy insurance or pay a penalty is NOT public healthcare). OP is correct, the government does very little for us while taking a significant portion of our income (income tax, state tax, county tax, city tax, sales tax, and the various other taxes (gas tax and sin tax for example)).
>>dependant on welfare
So we pay the government to stifle a problem they created with the money we already paid them?
This is bullshit, firstly you can deduct any foreign income tax off before you have to pay the US, and secondly and more importantly if you don't want to pay that us tax go to the embassy and turn in your passport, you can do that. If you don't think you're getting a good deal with the US passport feel free to stop playing those taxes.
Actually your taxes are probably lower if you look into it. You may be hitting the 25% tax bracket, but that is only on income over a certain amount. Go back and look at your total income and the total taxes you paid. While I am in the 28% tax bracket I paid 22.5% in federal taxes (before deductions) then got a large refund so I paid even lower due to installing solar on my house. If I still had a mortgage and was paying interest on it I'd pay even less.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Opposed to the ones who curl up and cry when that independence leaves them at the mercy of others. When roving gangs take all of your stuff, when companies ditch all of their waste into the water to go down stream, when snake oil salesmen sell you "medicine" that ends up making you sicker and the medical services cannot come and pick you up because there are no roads. Ahh yes your utopia dream of being FREE.
Grow up, you're sounding like a millennial. "Everyone should pay for the things I USE, but I refuse to pay for anything I don't directly use!"
Oh, he wasn't planning to rob you...
Uhh my small business sure as fucking hell pays about 47 percent. Just because it's hidden in a thousand different gotchas doesn't mean that I'm not paying it.
Nope.
There are plenty of places in where the existence of law enforcement will not stop perpetrators. Perhaps you might have even heard of one of these places, it's been in the news lately.
The places that would be a problem in terms of civil order during a police strike are already barely contained as it is. Other places are either much more civilized and/or really well armed.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Let gay men use the shower with your daughter, or lose all federal funding."
Fuck off.
... because it's 2016, not 1934.
Same with the black people who don't like police. Go back to Africa... Right? Am I doing this right?
The government has been trying to "butt in" and "fix things" for a long time. When something doesn't work, the answer is not to double down on the stupid.
Systems generally scale poorly. Politics plague any organization of a non-trivial size. Civil servants aren't encouraged to be efficient or effective. Smaller, localized solutions are more likely to be better.
Even the EU still runs itself as a collection of smaller states.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Income tax was initially ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But that's why the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed, explicitly authorizing Congress to pass an income tax:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, it was a "temporary wartime measure". The same way it was promised that the Social Security number would *never* be used for any sort of identification purposes.
Why do people still want to believe these lying scum when they make another promise that a power will not be misused? The only hope of having that happen is strict rules, extreme transparency, effective oversight, and a hair-trigger willingness to prosecute anyone in any position of power who breaks the rules. All of that is hard to arrange and even harder to retain, so it's better not to give the government extra powers in the first place, however convenient the idea may seem at the time.
I'm old enough that my original SS Card had the phrase "For Social Security and Income Tax Purposes Only - Not for Identification" on the bottom in big red letters.
You use the military, whether you want it or not. In the US that represents somewhere around 30-50% of your federal tax burden.
From PolitiFact:
Once you include the 60 percent of the budget that is mandatory spending, the military share plunges from 57 percent to 16 percent, and the categories that include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collectively account for a majority of federal spending.
Yeah, it's rich to leave out stuff like road tolls. That is like the ultimate regressive tax. Liberals should be crying bloody murder about them.
There is a tollway named after George Bush.
I like to call it the "no new taxes tollway".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Governments are hugely wasteful and corrupt, but it's better than anarchy.
Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people governments killed in the 20th century. How many people did anarchy kill in the last 100 years? We need a balance, not fearmongering about impossible extremes.
Exactly. More people were killed by their governments in the 20th century than all the wars and disease combined. It could be fair to say that direct government action and policy was the #1 cause of death in the 20th century (google "democide"). If I had to choose between anarchy or governments like Mao, Pol Pot or Stalin, I'd choose anarchy every time. But the balance part is key, we don't need either extreme.
"Courage (also called bravery, bravado or valour) is the choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty or intimidation. .... [M]oral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, discouragement, or personal loss."
So Apple knows their decision to try to kill the headphone jack will cause agony, pain, danger, uncertainty, intimidation, and that they will have popular opposition, shame, scandal, discouragement, and (hopefully) (corporate) loss.
Is that really what they meant to say? Do they really think doing things like this is the right thing to do?
> Government provides health care. I need not risk debt because of it.
No, you just have to worry about dying or being crippled due to shortages and rationing. There's even a secondary market in diagnostic services for people that don't want to gamble with their lives and have the money to pay.
It's not quite so idyllic once you scratch the surface.
Socialists on both sides of the pond love to encourage hysterics about this subject and gloss over the problems of being at the mercy of civil servants.
People on both sides of the pond also don't appreciate how much more affluent Americans (of all classes) are.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
In a lot of countries around the world, if you have any significant possessions, you have to live inside of a cage to keep from getting robbed.
This is a result of having a shitty culture, isn't it?
The cops in America don't literally, like superman, step in front of thieves just as they're breaking into a house and literally stop them.
The reason shitholes like Brazil and Africa have such insane problems with crime and violence is because the people there either allow it ("meh, not my problem... this time..."), can't prevent it themselves (i.e. because they have no second amendment), or are themselves thieves/murderers who are in turn robbed/killed.
Leeches. The only reason they can set up shop in a country that can afford their stupid phones is because a lot of people (other people) ARE paying the taxes to keep civilisation running. I would say this might be a tipping point but the angry mob needs their electronic dummies.
You didn't go to school?
I was mostly home schooled. The few years I spent in public school were 1) yes, paid for 2) socially horrible 3) a waste of time.
And now that I don't go to public school why should I have to pay for it?
You don't walk on sidewalks and drive on roads?
I do. And I pay for them.
And it doesn't cost trillions of dollars to keep up the roads (not that the city is even repairing potholes these days!)
You weren't protected by the nations military?
I am protected by the military. I don't want them invading foreign countries. Also, we don't have to spend almost a trillion dollars on our military to be protected (Mexico and Canada aren't threats and neither are Russia or China).
You don't shower?
You know what? I do shower. And my taxes don't pay for it. The city charges for this separately. It's totally possible to buy a house and supply your own water and handle your own sewage: ask people who live in the countryside how they manage.
Is it more convenient to use the City's water and sewage? Yes. But the point is that I should not be forced to.
The amount of infrastructure required for everyone to live the most basic elements of their lives is virtually endless.
1. It's not virtually endless.
2. "most basic elements" doesn't include anything more than a mud hut, some water, and a bowl of rice. You sound like an entitled rich kid talking about luxuries as though they were the bare essentials; as though living without an HD TV and fibre optic internet were "roughing it".
People like you piss me off to no end, because you MUST be actively choosing to be willfully blind to everything that those tax dollars do for you.
People like you piss me off to no end, because you MUST be actively choosing to be willfully blind to the realities of life and to what luxury is. You don't even consider anyone else's position for instant all you want is virtue signalling and more free stuff for you paid for by someone else without their consent.
It's like we're living that one scene from Monty Python, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
It's like we're living in $DISTOPIAN_FUTURE were some self-righteous know-it-all insists that everyone else has to do things their way and won't listen to anyone who comes up with a way for everyone to be happy and free-- why? Because it would require the self-righteous know-it-all to actually do some work and stop lording it over everyone and talking about how everyone else doesn't know how good they've got it that they merely have to pay 35% of their income in taxes.
More like 40%. But OK, if you want to play this game:
How do you feel about stepping over corpses in the street? Or even if you can drive everywhere, how do you feel about your fellow citizens, the people you have to do business with every day, having to step over corpses in the street? About another 25% goes to prevent that. Of course that's excessive, we could abolish Medicare and Medicaid and the VA and housing programs and just support a team of waste disposal specialists who pick up the corpses and incinerate them, that would be quite a lot cheaper. But it might have other consequences, who knows.
Then there's "social security, unemployment and labor", that's the biggest single tranche of the whole budget. Of course we could do without those things, we did just fine up until 1933, give or take. But I'll just say - right or wrong, there was a reason why they were introduced, and it wasn't a commie plot.
..because the scathing replies and the fact they're now the laughingstock of the entire world show they had to have real "courage" to do this. What was that saying that equated courage with stupidity? Somehow, it seems to apply here in spades.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
The 16th amendment was adopted in 1913. Which was not a particularly big year in military terms.
And the amendment was voted, passed, and ratified by 42 states, without ever having a 'sunset' clause or other conditionality added to it.
Say what you like about it: the people who were there at the time and who had to make the decision, they thought it was a good idea. Now, if you want to propose a new amendment reversing the 16th - go right ahead. The process is clear. There's no particular qualification needed to propose a constitutional amendment - you don't have to be a politician, or a lawyer, or even a citizen. You can start today.
Have fun.
Your post just confirmed my initial impression that Alaskans are self-righteous redneck douchebags who think they're better than everybody else and have no idea what they're talking about.
Who modded this up? You don't know OP, maybe (s)he doesn't use government services. And I'm not talking about things like roads which are paid for with voluntary taxes, which I've noticed the statists always bring up. It's income tax people have a problem with, because you can't opt out and you can't control what's done with the money.
Do you use roads? What about sidewalks?
I agree -- but people like GP would argue that those services could be provided by the free market. I think a better argument against libertarianism (as one who has been tempted by it, for point 68 seconds), is just that it doesn't work in theory. Start with the prisoner's dilemma (with heterogeneous agents). The optimal outcome requires two parties to agree not to backstab each other, and this outcome can only be enforced externally. Which means, government. Unfortunately, this problem is not simply theoretical, and it applies to such a huge variety of real-world issues (pollution, anti-competitive behaviors, subsidizing healthcare, etc), that you basically need a government to step in, quite frequently, and lay down rules. One may argue that a government that only enforces contracts and laws could work, where the two prisoners would enter into contract not to backstab each other. But then you run into problems where, in some cases, the entire population "should" enter into a contract to do XYZ. And then that's basically the same thing as electing a regulatory body...
Paying taxes to fund public schools is not courage.
Paying taxes despite the fact that public schools suck, paying for textbooks and private tutors to homeschool your child, forming new private schools and coops, realizing that there is no such thing as 'viewpoint free/independent' education and going the extra effort to pass down your cultural values and ideals to your children, paying double to send your kids to private colleges that actually teach rather than just weed out anyone that can't hack it....that's the start of courage.
Lobbying groups. You said *Apple*. I'm not disagreeing with your general assertion that politicians are influenced a lot by money. I'm looking for some concrete citation of your very specific assertion "Apple created laws".
Yeah, explain to me how we are better off with the increased "entitlement" programs over the last 50 years. Give me a "what we had before" vs "what we had after" in terms of Unemployment, Welfare, food stamps, and especially "poverty". Tell me, exactly, how "progressive" anything has made us better off.
IMHO, the whole "redistribution of wealth" hasn't helped "poor" people at all, and in fact, I would suggest to you that the idea that government has a role in the success economically of everyone, is flawed, and the artificial barriers used by government keeps a lot people from being successful, and even pushes them towards failure, creating a sick dependency of people who need increasing government care, and a government all too willing to keep increasing the care it provides.
And, before you accuse me, I am a heartless bastard, who wants Somalia /rolleyes
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The widening gap in wealth has been about the top 0.5% vs everyone for a while now. Like I said, about ~5 million in net worth (liquid) seems to be where the cut-off is. After that, your effective tax rate takes a steep dive and it's a lot easier to make way more money than if you were simply someone who earns a high salary.
What I don't want..is the govt using taxation as a means to try to change private personal and business behaviors. I don't see THAT anywhere in the constitution.
Followed immediately by not wanting the government to over regulate.
Followed immediately by wondering why the government doesn't actually do anything.
Taxation is one form of regulation the government has to drive policy. You elect for the taxation based on the people you vote for and the policy that you're trying to drive. Don't like your tax dollars going a certain direction? Vote accordingly. Don't have any options? Well then change the system in some other way. Governments using taxation to drive behaviours is an example of democracy at work.
People get energy bills and telecom bills with taxes applied to them. They pay for what they use.
Oh my god that's a dumb statement. If people ever figured out what the real cost of services would be the very first thing they would do is go cry to the government for regulation because it's too expensive.
Are you arguing for the absolute minimum taxes needed to keep civilization from collapsing?
Another dumb statement. You don't enjoy a civilisation at the bring of collapse. You're in a first world country and enjoying the many benefits that includes.
\
Fuel taxes pay for roads
I'll use this line at my next stand-up gig. Sure fire way to get a real laugh out of the crowd, especially given the piss poor taxes on American fuel.
The main objection is to generous government giveaways to non-workers and generous government salaries and benefits to a privileged few government workers.
That in itself is a service. Would you prefer the non-workers to be on welfare, or the non-workers to rob your house while you're at work? Or maybe sleep and piss in the street or constantly bother you for handouts when you constantly walk past. And as for the government employee salary, that's such a laughably small amount of government expenditure that it's not even worth discussing.
Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people governments killed in the 20th century.
Why did governments kill those people? Shits and giggles or to preserve a certain way of life?
Go watch the reality TV based in Alaska. That'll confirm your bigotry as well. a large portion of Alaskan population is military and support, given that there's more coastline in Alaska than the rest of the US combined. And we can see Russia from our backyard, and they are ready to invade.
Learn to love Alaska
Of course that's excessive, we could abolish Medicare and Medicaid and the VA and housing programs and just support a team of waste disposal specialists who pick up the corpses and incinerate them, that would be quite a lot cheaper. But it might have other consequences, who knows.
And there we go. We don't need to spend 40% of the federal government's budget, including "off budget" to prevent bodies in the street. Notice the pattern: an enormously expensive solution to a cheap problem.
Then there's "social security, unemployment and labor", that's the biggest single tranche of the whole budget. Of course we could do without those things, we did just fine up until 1933, give or take. But I'll just say - right or wrong, there was a reason why they were introduced, and it wasn't a commie plot.
It's a pyramid scheme bribe to the voters to look the other way. Anyone of voting age alive in 1933 got considerably more out of those programs than they put in (which was a great deal for themselves, but not for posterity). In exchange, they ignored a massive increase in government spending, part which was funded directly by Social Security.
Let us note that federal spending was well under 5% of GDP for most of the life of the US prior to 1933 except for two wars, the Civil War and the First World War. After the FDR era and the end of the Second World War, US government spending never went below 11% and is now above 20% of GDP.
Quality of governence is a different issue entirely.
Of course, that's wrong. First, there wouldn't be so much support for tax reduction, if the government was doing high quality stuff with those taxes since more peoples' interests would be supported by government activity and there would be far less graft to generate negative publicity. Second, there would be far more bang for the buck which means a given level of taxes does more.
My point was in reference to the parent, that claimed that they don't use these services and therefor he shouldn't pay taxes, and that the IRS is illegal.
Well, does that poster have a cushy, cost plus defense contract? Are they getting back several times what they put in for Medicare? Do they have a sinecure in some federal bureaucracy that'll only go away, if they die or commit a brazen felony? If not, then maybe they don't use as much federal government service as you might think.
There is a government in Somalia: a crappy one, in a string of crappy provisional governments.
It's worth noting here that the informal crappy governments of Somalia today are better than when Somalia had an official one with Marxist-Leninist ideology and the usual resulting lethal pathologies.
The police won't, but that emergency evacuation cargo plane they send when an earthquake hits the region, if not american, will be diplomatically negotiated on your behalf by America for your safe passage out of the disaster area.
You're fucking welcome.
The bridge to nowhere was linking the largest airport in the area to the largest population center in the area. That both are small by NYC standards doesn't mean they are insignificant to the largest state in the Union.
In other words, Alaska and the US were going to spend $400 million to connect a town of 8,000 people to an airport. They already had ferries. That was good enough.
But if the area wants a bridge, maybe they ought to pay for it themselves?
That's a first. A complaint about public education that didn't mention unions.
Good thing you mentioned it then. We shouldn't forget that particular bit of widespread corruption.
Fund all schools, public or private, based on enrollment.
Conditional on them teaching the correct political viewpoint, of course.
Lots of those programs are welfare without freedom.
Often the small government types loom at welfare programs and put limitations on them to avoid "abuse" and misuse.
If you just gave welfare without accusing everyone taking it of being worthless bums that can't be trusted to spend it on food or shelter then guess what type of person you create? A person with no money, just food stamps. Guess how much money you can save when all you are given is for stamps? It's food stamp dollars.
That'll get you some new shoes so you can actually not get kicked out of the job interview.
These people are a plague on every discussion of important economic topics, on the whole Internet - they exist to spread denial and FUD, and shut down discussion, dragging it into the most trite black/white "free meerkats vs the state" nonsense.
When you see Libertarians infest a discussion and try to control it - particularly in large numbers, and suspiciously disproportionate voting/modding power - then you can bet your ass that discussion is very politically sensitive to the interests of the wealthy and finance industry.
We know that the main Libertarian backers, the Koch's, have been funding astroturfing in the past - and that the entire finance industry has a major motive for funding astroturfing on these issues - these fúckers are more dangerous/harmful to free discussion than any other group around, because they actively succeed in stifling discussion of extremely important economic issues, while attempting to corrupt and gain influence within the very governments they deride and work hand-in-hand with (Ireland became a corrupt tax haven through its government working in favour of people espousing Libertarian views - Ireland even had a fúcking Cato member as a head financial regulator! - that's the end goal for Libertarians, not eradication of government, but co-optation).
They are the first to fly the banner of 'free speech', and the first to try and suppress free speech through FUD and tactics aimed at controlling/blocking discussion.
The main objection is to generous government giveaways to non-workers
What generous amounts is that? The poor stay poor. We're not giving them enough to get out of poverty. If you think the majority people getting government handouts are happy with their level of wealth then you're grossly misinformed. These handouts aren't generous. They designed to be just enough for a stay at home mom to survive with a couple of kids but without a bread-winner. And that is survive, not live. There's a big difference between a life based on surviving and one based on living.
You use the military, whether you want it or not. In the US that represents somewhere around 30-50% of your federal tax burden.
The U.S. spends 3.3% of GDP on the military (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
Federal spending represents about 18% of GDP (see http://www.usgovernmentspendin... )
So from these figures, military spending represents 3.3 / 18 = 18% of our federal tax burden.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Maine added a work requirement for able-bodied adults with no children to get food stamps and 75% of those recipients dropped out of the program rather than do volunteer work 6 hours per week.
We're not giving them enough to get out of poverty.
The ability to get out of poverty and stay out of poverty tends to require something that can't be given to people. You can't give someone good health and you can't give them the fortitude to go to work and do a job every day.
If people ever figured out what the real cost of services would be the very first thing they would do is go cry to the government for regulation because it's too expensive.
Citation needed.
Are you arguing for the absolute minimum taxes needed to keep civilization from collapsing?
Another dumb statement.You don't enjoy a civilisation at the bring of collapse. You're in a first world country and enjoying the many benefits that includes.
Not a statement. I didn't bring up civilization collapse. I was responding to someone else who did. I was asking what his point was bringing it up.
Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people governments killed in the 20th century.
Why did governments kill those people? Shits and giggles or to preserve a certain way of life?
I don't understand the question. I'm sure you're not trying to justify governments committing genocides. But I have no idea what you are trying to say.
The answer to "why did they...?" is always "because they wanted to, and because they could".
But if the area wants a bridge, maybe they ought to pay for it themselves?
The cost per square mile in Alaska is less than any other state in the USA. Why do you hate the low cost of Alaska? You want to abandon the rural areas, and focus on the conservative havens of the large cities, rather than a fair inclusion of the red states like Alaska. After all, it was Republicans that proposed and voted for the bridge to nowhere. And there were two bridges to nowhere, the Ketchikan one (Gravina Island) and the Knik one. Both proposed and supported by those liberal Republicans, and defeated by those conservative Democrats.
Conditional on them teaching the correct political viewpoint, of course.
I put no such constraints or limitations on there, why would you choose to require a political viewpoint?
Learn to love Alaska
Give it a rest.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So if having a police force in itself is enough to stop people getting robbed then why do people get robbed. All the fucking time. The police are reactionary, not preventative. All they can do is show up after the event and maybe try to figure out who did it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
As long as something gets shot they're happy.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I said nothing because that was the first post I ever made in this thread.
That said, you're a fucking idiot if you don't think Apple is in on it.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...
I suppose now you're going to pout and claim that there's no specific specific evidence that Apple specifically lobbied for specific tax rules specific to their business, or some weasel-worded shit like that... but all that will mean is you just want to stick your head in the sand.
=Smidge=
Tax is mandatory, not voluntary, and as such payment is not an *obligation*.
On a more practical level, all that's happening here is that the EU is clamping down on tax competition within the EU. It's a cartel.
I'll be honest, I don't know the OP...but I can't believe that they do not benefit from any tax-funded services. POlice has been talked about extensively earlier in this thread, but I can think of plenty of other examples...
- Education system (although, given the stupidity of the "no taxes" remark, I suspect any journey through the education system was not entirely successful)
- Fire and rescue services (may not have used them, but I bet that if their house started burning down, they'd be wanting a big tax-funded fire truck to come to the rescue
- Healthcare? Not sure about this one, on the assumption OP is in the USA. As a Brit I've never really understood what, if any, of USA healthcare is government-funded.)
- Public transportation. Has the OP never used some form of public transport which receives some form of government subsidy
- Weather forecast? Again, not sure abut how it works in OP's territory, but here in UK weather forecast data is supplied to media, etc. by a government- (i.e. taxation-) funded agency
There are other examples, but that's all I can be bothered to type right now - I'm meant to be working, earning money with which to pay my fair share of taxes.
Please don't advertise articles by someone who openly advocates bullying nerds on a "News for nerds" websites.
I'm not sure why this is being marked as a Troll given the topic and the obvious political slant of the commenter being responded to (rated 5/Insightful). Goes to show just how partisan even /. is now.
-- I speak only for myself
Who are you quoting?
Have to give a shout out to the Apple-Nauts. A Perfect 10 Derailment of the topic. Well done?
The EU just burns the money anyway, why pay taxes? To furter a small groups personal fortunes?
Why do you hate the low cost of Alaska?
Why do you think spending $400 million just to raise the low cost of Alaska a little is anything other than profoundly stupid?
You want to abandon the rural areas
That's just smart. If you want to live rural, then you live with being far away from stuff and not having someone throw $400 million into your neighborhood for a really dumb reason.
And there were two bridges to nowhere, the Ketchikan one (Gravina Island) and the Knik one. Both proposed and supported by those liberal Republicans, and defeated by those conservative Democrats.
And your point is?
put no such constraints or limitations on there, why would you choose to require a political viewpoint?
Because obviously we shouldn't have teaching of bad belief systems. Only correct systems should be taught. Fortunately, the funding mechanism you describe is close enough to the present one that we can continue to teach correct belief systems.
Surely there's some middle ground as well, though? Yes, we all know we use the resources we pay taxes for. But it's also legitimate to be angry that it's only a small portion that benefits us (INCLUDING the notion that helping others also helps us) and a large portion that goes to pork.
Here's a list of things you can do/places where you can fuck off to:
1) Middle of nowhere in Greenland;
2) Middle of nowhere in Antarctica;
3) Middle of nowhere in the Arctic;
4) Middle of nowhere in *insert place no sane person would like to live in*.
Even if any of those places are technically ruled by a government, you can be rest assured that you'd be too far for anyone to bother "going after you to oppress you".
But you won't do that, right? Because you actually enjoy living in civilization, where you can spout bullshit behind your expensive computer, right?
At least John McAffee is actually consistent with his batshit insane ideology and is willing to go to the middle of nowhere to live his shitty-ass libertarian utopia. Are you?
Unfortunately, there's a major complication.
The Directors of Apple are legally required to "always act in the best interests of the shareholders". This includes, among other things, maximising the profitability and returns of the company. Bear in mind that Apple and other major companies have activist investors like Carl Icahn who are entirely happy to aggressively go after Boards of Directors in attempts to influence them to do their bidding, or make efforts to get them booted off the boards of companies in which they invest.
It's by no means certain, but most companies have a charter in which they affirm their corporate manifesto is to look after 1) their shareholders; 2) their clients, and 3) their employees, in that order.
It is highly unlikely that such a charter would contain "4) the Government Agency charged with collecting Corporation Tax)"...
For the Directors, a failure to do *everything* they can to minimise the tax burden of the company they serve could easily result in a massively ugly shareholder lawsuit. I suspect [I certainly don't know, this is just supposition] that this is one of their prime motivators to act this way... Well, that and greed.
Remember, unless you give $$$MORE MONEY FOR CRONIES$$$$ you are a horrible company, Apple!
And you too, ordinary taxpayer! That money doesn't belong to you, pay up and give $$$MORE MONEY FOR CRONIES$$$$
Government nationalized electricity, now electricity rates are substantially lower than the US.
Which country is this again?
Let us note that federal spending was well under 5% of GDP for most of the life of the US prior to 1933 except for two wars, the Civil War and the First World War. After the FDR era and the end of the Second World War, US government spending never went below 11% and is now above 20% of GDP.
Not him, but there's a very simple explanation for that: decline in population growth (in the US)
Prior to 1910, US population growth was above 20% each decade (source). In other words, the non-government sector was expanding faster than government could expand.
As there was more people, supply of demand dictates that lives would be cheaper back then. This not only meant capitalism had a good time acquiring cheap labor and creating that age of prosperity (so again non-government GDP gets to grow faster than government), it also meant government can spend less money on each person, with government "health care" being in the form of maybe a rusty saw to amputate an infected limb (with limited or no anesthetics). High population growth also means growing tax base, so even if you taxed everyone less the government is still getting more revenue.
But soon after growth slowed down, you got the Great Depression and began the downward spiral. Workers become more costly to hire. Life isn't so cheap anymore so people start to cost more to maintain. So even if on paper total GDP continues to rise, government's portion of GDP grows faster.
Now, that is not to say I think government spending as % of GDP will grow until 100%. I do think it'll stabilize at some point. Far too high for you and many other people's tastes, but it will stabilize. Society (both US and developed world, and soon developing nations too) is adjusting from people having like half a dozen kids who are expected to figure out how to fend for themselves fast, to only having a 2.5 kids (if that) and every child is a special snowflake with 20-30 year extended childhoods. Society, its economy, and the way we treat each other will slowly adjust to this new normal. What that normal will be I don't know. Might not be alive to see it. It will be quite a change, but humanity has changed before. This time it's just happening in shorter time frame.
I don't mind being scared.
I do mind paying taxes.
If you could assure me that there weren't abuses and generational "welfare" recipients ....
And I blame government for creating a system of raising the barrier to entry into business so that nobody without "help" can actually start a business. Hell, government shuts down little girl lemonade stands for gawd's sake.
When you're poor, you can't afford the $100 "business license" required to open up a business. Tell me, what that fee actually does, besides tax those that can least afford it and create an artificial barrier to entry into a marketplace?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
And now that I don't go to public school why should I have to pay for it?
I think this one line perfectly sums up both your position, and why your opinion should be ignored. It also adds evidence as to the effectiveness of your supposed home "schooling", and why people typically speak the term with derision. Your inability to think past your own selfish interests, to the greater good, is just breathtaking. I'm guessing that you must be a libertarian.
You pay for public school so that you won't be surrounded by people even more stupid than they are already. If everyone followed that same "I don't use it therefor why should I pay for it?" mentality, then society would fucking collapse and we'd be back in the age of robber-barons where you either are rich and wealthy, or you're scraping mud just to survive.
Only a small portion of society needs school at any given time. That means there wouldn't be enough people to fund public school for everyone.
Same with things like fire services, police, etc. The US medical system is a complete clusterfuck and is looked upon with shock and scorn by ALL wealthy nations, because it's a perfect example of what happens with your "If I'm not using it, why should I pay for it?" mentality. What's the result? People go without treatment because they have to choose between being sick, and becoming financially fucked for the rest of their lives. Now imagine how it would look if all of society ran like the barbaric US medical system?
So yeah, I'm not even going to bother touching the rest of the post because the rest of it is just the kind of talking points that Bill O'Reilly makes during his wet dreams.
If you don't like how taxes are being spent, that's one thing. To say that taxes shouldn't be paid at all, and everything should be based on a user-pays system? That's flat out idiotic and you know it.
Norfolk I want the majority of the services.
I am paying 2 to 3 times for the services that I use.
And for most of the services, the USA Government do a crappy & more expensive job.
None of these services are cheaper. If you think so, I have a tremendous acreage with a gulf/water view in southern Flrida to sell you.
The New York Time. Most news outlets have covered this. Most government funded schools have this in their docs. By now, this is what is called "Common Knowledge".
Please at least try to keep uo
I am sick of these accusations against Apple made by completely ignorant people. Look, we may all agree that Apple isn't paying enough in taxes. That's a worthwhile debate to have. What you cannot say is that Apple is ignoring or breaking any current law. If you want Apple to pay more in taxes, then CHANGE THE LAW ! It really is just that simple. Until that day comes, stop saying Apple isn't paying enough. They are paying exactly and precisely what the LAW requires them to pay. Period. End of Story. Full Stop.
"Heinlein did not see all and know all" - me
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Would you like to point out where GP claimed that? I never have. I think the US government should do more and tax more, but that's specific things and limited additional taxes.
In addition, people in general are better off than they were fifty years ago (I do remember 1966), and there's a large array of things the US government does to our benefit. It maintains parks, funds scientific research, provides a control system to allow airplanes to fly safely, and provides some assurance that our food won't poison us, for example.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're not paying attention. To give one example, most of us think the War on Drugs is a failure, and many of us think the War on Terror has gone horribly wrong.
If a problem was going to be solved well without government intervention, it probably has been already. Most of the remaining big problems are going to require some sort of collective action or some sort of adjustment to the marketplace (very often in accounting for externalities somehow or other).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In countries without strong governments, the rich, well-connected, and powerful generally take what they want without the need to go through corruption and graft.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Now, that is not to say I think government spending as % of GDP will grow until 100%. I do think it'll stabilize at some point. Far too high for you and many other people's tastes, but it will stabilize.
And what is this expensive government doing to justify those costs? Sounds to me like it's just a parasite expanding to consume available resources. Yes, that's far too high for my "tastes", but it's also far too for society to function freely and dynamically too.
Yep. And I have a rock that repels tigers. I know it works because I've yet to see a tiger in the neighborhood.
I'll be nice and explain it to you. If you were correct in your assertion, then we would see lower crime in inner city areas that have a far stronger police presence than, say, my affluent little city.
Police officers don't stop crime. They come in afterward and try to clean up the mess, and arrest the perpetrators so that they are unable to easily offend again. While that might stop crime in the future, it doesn't help a guy who is in the process of being robbed.
Must be a nice rock. Now about those cities with a strong police force, what are the gun control laws like? Probably very strong, that's why you have such a problem. Those "common sense" things that don't work. Never have worked, never will work. This goes back to at least Roman times. They wanted arms control as well. Didn't work for them either.
Amen
I am a liberal and I know a damn sight more about tax policy than some of you posters do. What you are butching about (i.e. the poor quality of services) is due not to the "government" which you apparently despise...but to the PRIVATIZATION of government under Bush, Sr. EXEC ORDER 12803. Read it. That is what you're currently paying for...private companies doing government work at atrocious markups and providing little service.
You realize that all of these things actually come from or could come from private producers?
The gas, the technology to purify water (if not the entire water system--not only to public systems often poison people with no consequences, none of the non-public providers have any such immunity...), telephone (invented and lines first built...privately).
Internet was part-DARPA but the government, in fact, is actively used to block private providers so incumbents can jack prices.
Civilization...comes from voluntary, mutually-beneficial parties working in agreement: not government.
Lumber...private. Axes and axe-heads...private. You probably cannot even sell one to your neighbor across the border without $100,000 in compliance paperwork: 1800s laws against export of cattle irons are continuing to land cattle iron sellers in prison for "violation of export controls."
I live a few miles...from a "broad way" that was cleared, privately, by a farmer to sell his fruits from his orchard in the city. Like...a lot of roads. You do know, that governments weren't, originally, the ones building roads? That when governments got into that game it was in order to move militaries to conquer and enslave other peoples?
YOU are the trolling idiot.
It's an odd assertion that Roman's wanted arms control. I would like to see the evidence on this as I am tired of reading it every time some gun nut asserts that gun control doesn't work.
Please present your evidence when making this assertion.
Beware the wood elf!!!
In many places, the fire department survives by direct payment, and not taxes. You really should educate yourself.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You should stop talking about the "bridge to nowhere". The Gravina Island Bridge brought up in the 2008 election was never a bridge to nowhere. This was a proposed bridge between a city and the local airport which was to replace a ferry service that could only be used part of the year. The thing is, the person who was fighting the hardest for it in local Alaska politics was Palin, then when she started in national politics, she was the most outspoken against it as it could be framed to look like federal government waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Well Heinlein did do a better job writing insightful quotes than you.
What bridges to nowhere would those be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That bridge was never a bridge to nowhere.
Or perhaps you mean one of these bridges?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Please, name one of these that was a waste given the expectations at the time the bridge was started.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Perhaps you didn't know what to type into google? Happens from time to time. Just google "roman empire arms control"
Here is an article.
https://www.quora.com/Were-Rom...
I was surprised too. That historian also had a good set of facts to consider over abortion. However let's not get into that, one controversy at a time.
Never the less we don't need to go that far back, though it certainly shows historical experience. They aren't gun nuts. Just do a lookup of cities and gun control and reference murder/crime stats. Chicago, Washington DC, those are your biggies, and they have the worst problem. Then go down the line to some cities that require gun ownership. For the most part they have no crime.
BTW, if you look further you'll find that gun control is also racist. It's used to hold down minorities a great deal. So if you're for gun control, people might think you're also racist. Fits right in with the Democratic Jim Crowe laws of the south.
If you go to the store and find that the price of milk is $2 for 4 litres and many other stores charge $3.5 for four litres, is it right that the store selling you the $2 / four litres comes after you and demands that you pay up another $1.5 because they charged you so little initially? If a store (Ireland) has a sale on milk (Tech company taxes) and other stores (European Union) don't like that sale, is it fair that they steal you money for themselves (the EU)?
Population growth has continued to the present, mostly these days through immigration of relatively high fertility people.
Who said population growth didn't continue? I said it is slower than before. Car analogy: before you were going at 100 mph, now you're only going 80.
And fertility doesn't mean much if they aren't actually making good use of that fertility.
And one doesn't need government to pay for expensive people.
You misunderstand the issue. The issue isn't about debating what government needs or should pay for. EVERYTHING - has become more expensive. No matter what you think the government should spend on, it has become more expensive to pay for it. Even if you somehow freeze the basket of goods government pays for (which doesn't happen), the cost of that basket has risen over time.
Not really seeing your point.
The point is the growth of government comes more from natural forces than some conscious human effort.
And what is this expensive government doing to justify those costs? Sounds to me like it's just a parasite expanding to consume available resources.
Again, you misunderstand the issue. It doesn't matter what your personal ideology on how government should be run. This is a matter of economics.
Yes, that's far too high for my "tastes", but it's also far too for society to function freely and dynamically too.
That's nice, but it's still going to happen. At least, that's what I'm predicting. The hunters and gatherers couldn't stop most societies transitioning to farming. The Luddites couldn't stop the transition to industrialization. The unions can't stop the move to globalization. Hillary couldn't stop pneumonia (that was a joke, lighten up)
Society and humanity is going to change, even if into a form you/your ideology doesn't like.
You misunderstand the issue. The issue isn't about debating what government needs or should pay for. EVERYTHING - has become more expensive. No matter what you think the government should spend on, it has become more expensive to pay for it. Even if you somehow freeze the basket of goods government pays for (which doesn't happen), the cost of that basket has risen over time.
No, I simply don't believe that's true.