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.
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
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?
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.
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
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/...
The moral thing to do is pay your fair share of taxes.
What exactly is my "fair share" of taxes?
Perhaps you don't understand how it works, but the tax code is far more specific than that, such a system where everyone pays whatever they think their "fair share" is wouldn't work.
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
And this is the reason why the whole Brexit thing was such a fiasco. It seems like its strongest supporters don't even bother to be marginally informed about any of the issue. But hey as your er anti establishment um tory minister told you, we're in a post factual age.
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
Ireland explicity agreed that they would not do this with their tax system. Are you saying that Ireland should just renage on the deal and quit the EU, or that the the rest EU should keep giving Irelend access to the club while they keep on breaking the rules?
Ireland can always invoke Article 50 if they don't like the rules they agreed to.
You seem to be one of those idiots who subscribes to the idea that sovereignty="do what ever the fuck you want with zero consequences". Well guess what, bucko, there's no such thing. If you act like a dick, no one will want to deal with you.
for a quick pay day
Christ Alive. You do know "the EU" isn't collecting the taxes right?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
Saying that life isn't better now compared to 50 years ago for the majority of people is laughable.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
Or perhaps we should eliminate the fiction that companies pay taxes in the first place and just tax the people directly, thereby cutting out the middlemen. Any tax dollar a company pays to a government taxing authority is one that at some point in time will come from the price paid by a person for an end product. Everything else is just accounting games.
It is delusional to think that if every government extracted all the money they want from corporations, personal free cash flow would improve aggregated over a large enough sample of people. Every company would simply raise their prices and cut labor costs more to keep their desired profit margin and you'd end up spending your "tax savings" on every purchase you make. Maybe you don't buy Apple equipment - but you'd pay the higher prices on groceries, clothes, and other things.
Make America great? Eliminate corporate taxation completely! That would have the benefit of cutting out a big chunk of legal, accounting, and legislative burden in one fell swoop. Increase the income tax rates on the people to compensate. As Heinlen said TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. While we're at it, eliminate sales taxes, lodging taxes and all the other B.S. taxes we pay in bits and drabs and increase property taxes to compensate. Reduce the variety of all these garbage taxes to just two (income and property) and pay them once per year and you'd see a lot better accountability from the people passing legislation.
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.
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)
If a country enters into a binding diplomatic agreement with other countries to regulate X, they can't then change the rules on X for their own benefit. Basically the agreed to align their sovereign law with the diplomatic arrangement.
In terms of figuring it out, how simple do you think this agreement is on paper? Six lines in the middle of an A10 sheet with room for big signatures?
I would imagine that the EU tax regulations extend for volumes and that almost no one person understands them fully. I'd wager that most of the regulations are in extremely abstract terms and are not highly specific, allowing Apple to define their business to fit where they want it to fit in the tax code, rather than the tax code defining their taxing obligations.
It takes an actual tax court ruling to actually decide if what Apple is trying to do meets the letter of the law.
And at the end of the day, there's politics that rules it all. The EU isn't going to allow member countries to act as tax havens, especially with the volatility of north/south economies among member states. They're going to demand maximum compliance with tax revenue.
The global demands for revenue will keep Apple from finding another tax haven it can use unless it chooses to align politically with a regime powerful enough to shield it from the US and the EU, but then it runs the risk of other kinds of coercion which might cost as much or more.
"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.
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.
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.
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.