the Irish revenue doesn't do deals. they issue opinions to clarify, a tax situation for individual companies. but we never do deals. they have to apply the tax law, which is passed by parliament, and they have to do so without fear or favor across all companies. so I know there's general tendency to think that apple isn't paying enough tax, but our point is that if they owe tax, they do not owe it to the Irish authorities. they may owe it elsewhere, but not to the Irish authorities
Do you have any real information to suggest there's a deal?
Citation needed. Please cite the law you're referring to -- the one that automatically lowers your taxes when someone else pays more.
People keep saying stuff like this. But they can never back it up because it's not really true. When someone besides you pays more, the money tends to find a home in some government client's pocket.
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.
I don't know. Maybe you could describe the last nuclear war you remember. I don't remember one. Perhaps telling stories about wars we imagine isn't a good political decision-making methodology.
If allies start solving their own problems, that will be fewer problems for us to (fail to) deal with.
But also, when was the last time the US saw a tangible benefit from US foreign policy? The Korean War? Maybe something with Israel...?
Personally, I think killing terrorists in Iraq saved us from having to fight the same terrorists here in the US, but there's no way to prove it, and the popular consensus is that the Iraq war didn't benefit us at all -- so we decided to abandon allies in the region to be murdered by ISIS. (That's the lesson every ally and every supporter of US foreign policy should learn: the US can't be counted on because the American people will wear down and give up on you when you need them.)
Especially when it's a war between space aliens and comic book super villains. Those wars are harsh. But why are we making up stories? Is it storytime in America?
If "our allies around the world" had any sense, they'd ally with a country that would follow through on its commitments rather than the US. If Trump puts them off us, he's doing them a favor.
I don't like or support Trump. I'm refuting the notion that Hillary is better on foreign policy. We have a tested failure/lack of success versus an untested wildcard. It's not an objectively clear choice for one or the other on foreign policy.
"Evidence" of "alternate history timelines"? No. There's no such thing. Anyone can make up whatever fictional stories and "what if" scenarios they want though. I like stories with vampires myself.
If Trump does it, he'll face opposition from the press and the rest of the government and we will all know what he did. If Hillary does it, the press and the bureaucrats will help her cover up anything or everything and you might never find out about it at all.
It's just not credible to postulate that Trump might "at worst" start a war when you're supporting someone who has already failed at foreign policy in multiple ways. Trump might do worse -- because foreign policy can be difficult -- but he also might do better or the same. If Hillary had done a great job, then yeah, why take a chance and possibly ruin a good thing? But she hasn't.
Slashdot Mirror
The real point is to pressure Apple into giving money to some advocacy groups.
quote:
Do you have any real information to suggest there's a deal?
Citation needed. Please cite the law you're referring to -- the one that automatically lowers your taxes when someone else pays more.
People keep saying stuff like this. But they can never back it up because it's not really true. When someone besides you pays more, the money tends to find a home in some government client's pocket.
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.
Right after space aliens invade and teach dogs to talk.
I don't know. Maybe you could describe the last nuclear war you remember. I don't remember one. Perhaps telling stories about wars we imagine isn't a good political decision-making methodology.
If allies start solving their own problems, that will be fewer problems for us to (fail to) deal with.
But also, when was the last time the US saw a tangible benefit from US foreign policy? The Korean War? Maybe something with Israel...?
Personally, I think killing terrorists in Iraq saved us from having to fight the same terrorists here in the US, but there's no way to prove it, and the popular consensus is that the Iraq war didn't benefit us at all -- so we decided to abandon allies in the region to be murdered by ISIS. (That's the lesson every ally and every supporter of US foreign policy should learn: the US can't be counted on because the American people will wear down and give up on you when you need them.)
The Obama administration investigated the Obama administration and decided those IRS actions were cool. Don't be paranoid.
Especially when it's a war between space aliens and comic book super villains. Those wars are harsh. But why are we making up stories? Is it storytime in America?
If "our allies around the world" had any sense, they'd ally with a country that would follow through on its commitments rather than the US. If Trump puts them off us, he's doing them a favor.
I don't like or support Trump. I'm refuting the notion that Hillary is better on foreign policy. We have a tested failure/lack of success versus an untested wildcard. It's not an objectively clear choice for one or the other on foreign policy.
Give it to Customs Enforcement when they demand access to your data. Or include it in the box when your records are subpoenaed.
"Evidence" of "alternate history timelines"? No. There's no such thing. Anyone can make up whatever fictional stories and "what if" scenarios they want though. I like stories with vampires myself.
... our foreign policy has been failing ... [for a long time] ... Hillary is ... the mainstream political establishment for the last 30 years.
Hmm. Change is scary.
If Trump does it, he'll face opposition from the press and the rest of the government and we will all know what he did. If Hillary does it, the press and the bureaucrats will help her cover up anything or everything and you might never find out about it at all.
Jawnn might tell you to shut up. They were never convicted of doing that.
It's just not credible to postulate that Trump might "at worst" start a war when you're supporting someone who has already failed at foreign policy in multiple ways. Trump might do worse -- because foreign policy can be difficult -- but he also might do better or the same. If Hillary had done a great job, then yeah, why take a chance and possibly ruin a good thing? But she hasn't.
Can it just be Washington DC in the bus? Then we can decide whether we want it to continue going or veer off the edge.
Trump ... will incite international incidents due to things he says. At worst, he'll start a war because some foreign leader called him names.
As opposed to starting a war in Libya and creating a power vacuum for ISIS to move in?
Did some catastrophe destroy the UK since the Brexit vote? What are we supposed to "be careful" to avoid? Globalist complaining?
No, but if you say fire is evil while using fire to fight fire, why shouldn't everyone laugh at you?
Your governing philosophy relies on pretending the USA is a bus? Mine doesn't.
How many of the 9/11 hijackers were prosecuted and convicted?
So you want us to choose the lesser of 4 evils then?
The Clintons are so honest they always manage to stay an inch away from a jail cell.