'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.
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.
Didn't you get the memo? Only little people pay taxes.
mfwright@batnet.com
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
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?"
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 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.
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.
It is funny how many Americans think that taxes are theft, yet they do not mind being completely gouged by the insurance industry.
Saying that life isn't better now compared to 50 years ago for the majority of people is laughable.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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?
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.
So when having a discussion about taxes, we should only include some taxes, but not others?
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)
I don't buy that. If companies had room to raise prices, they would've raised prices already. There isn't some level of profitability where they go "well, that's enough guys".
If taxes were higher, all a company would do is make less money (or close up shop because they're not making enough money to justify the trouble). By definition they were already pricing their product at what the consumers were willing to spend. And they were paying their employees as little as those employees were willing to make.
And since taxes are only on profit and not revenue, no business would lose money with higher taxes. Only make less. Now, whether it's a good strategy to try to tax corporate profits....that's a separate question.
"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.
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.
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.