Don't blame Apple blame the tax code (CNN)

[Justin]

I love when WoW playing Aspies try to pretend they understand corporate
finance!
Since I have it on good authority that disobeying the law is "immoral"
obeying the law is therefore "moral." Since Apple is obeying the law,
there are not doing anything wrong.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/opinion/marshall-apple-taxes/index.html?
hpt=hp_t4

"How flawed is it? Let us count the ways. First, it subjects U.S.-based
corporations to a top marginal rate of 35%, among the highest in the
world. Designed at a time when U.S. companies competed mainly with each
other, the code now hobbles them in global competition."

"Second, the code is riddled with special tax deductions, credits and
exemptions, which make it both fiendishly complicated and economically
inefficient. As economist Robert Shapiro noted in a recent Progressive
Policy Institute study, these provisions entail significant administrative
and compliance costs and, more damagingly from the standpoint of economic
growth, undercut markets' ability to allocate capital to its most
productive uses. They also make the code highly inequitable as some
companies get breaks while others don't with little rhyme or reason other
than how effective their lobbyists are."

[Snit]

On 5/23/13 2:09 PM, in article
pan.2013.05...@fartsfartsandmorefarts.edu, "Justin"

Apple plays the game less than many - but the problem *is* the tax code.
You, I, and pretty much everyone else uses the tax laws to our advantage to
avoid paying more than we have to.


--
"Maybe it wouldn't be quite as good, but we would all be okay."
- Richard Stallman, speaking about if his ideas were followed

[Flint]

On 5/23/2013 5:09 PM, Justin wrote:
> I love when WoW playing Aspies try to pretend they understand corporate
> finance!
> Since I have it on good authority that disobeying the law is "immoral"
> obeying the law is therefore "moral." Since Apple is obeying the law,
> there are not doing anything wrong.

Here, I beg to differ. Disobeying the law is not necessarily always
*immoral*, only "illegal". Believe it or not, morality and legality
often do part ways...

While I generally don't question Apple's legality in its marketplace
maneuverings, I *do* question its 'morality' at times, however.
Having said that, the same can be said of any huge corporation such as
HP, Microsoft, in all fairness. But until we find a way to put
corporations in "jail", little will change. Until then, I really
don't want corporations dictating my morality to me, nor do I relish
the thought of corporations getting so big so as to monopolize markets
and being devoid of any sense of communal ethics/morality, either.

I see both sides of the corporate interests vs societal interests
conundrum. But then the biggest corporation of them all is what
concerns me most... specifically, the U.S. government. I refuse to
let it frame the discussion as to just what is 'fair' and just what
constitutes 'moral' or 'immoral' with regard to tax-avoidance. The
concept of minimizing one's tax obligation is entirely legal AND moral
and should not be cast as "tax avoidance". The very term of "tax
avoidance" carries a connotation that is simply undeserved in most
cases. Are there illegal tax avoidance schemes? Most certainly - but
the overall tone set by the current U.S. administration stinks of dead
rotting badgers. Obunghole's attack of Romney's Cayman Island
account(s) is particularly disingenuous and unfairly dismisses the
concept of >asset protection<, which is also entirely legal AND moral...

>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/opinion/marshall-apple-taxes/index.html?
> hpt=hp_t4
>
> "How flawed is it? Let us count the ways. First, it subjects U.S.-based
> corporations to a top marginal rate of 35%, among the highest in the
> world. Designed at a time when U.S. companies competed mainly with each
> other, the code now hobbles them in global competition."
>
> "Second, the code is riddled with special tax deductions, credits and
> exemptions, which make it both fiendishly complicated and economically
> inefficient.

Agreed, the tax code is in dire need of an overhaul. However, I have
to caution against broad brush painting of all tax deductions,
credits, and exemptions as well. This is little more than throwing
the baby out with the bathwater, which is equally dumb and (dare I say
it?) - *immoral*. The last thing I want to see is the government
empowered to play the 'class envy' card under a phony guise of
'equitability' and 'fair share' arguments. Success has to remain a
more fundamental societal incentive over the aforementioned nebulous
terms.

> As economist Robert Shapiro noted in a recent Progressive
> Policy Institute study, these provisions entail significant administrative
> and compliance costs and, more damagingly from the standpoint of economic
> growth, undercut markets' ability to allocate capital to its most
> productive uses. They also make the code highly inequitable as some
> companies get breaks while others don't with little rhyme or reason other
> than how effective their lobbyists are."
>

--
MFB

[Flint]

On 5/23/2013 5:50 PM, Snit wrote:

> Apple plays the game less than many - but the problem *is* the tax code.
> You, I, and pretty much everyone else uses the tax laws to our advantage to
> avoid paying more than we have to.
>

As it SHOULD be. Until government learns to spend wisely, we need to
"starve the beast" and FORCE it into its proper economic role first
before allowing/empowering it to define what is 'fair' and 'moral' for
the rest of us.

--
MFB

[Justin]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:48:18 -0400, Flint wrote:

> On 5/23/2013 5:09 PM, Justin wrote:
>> I love when WoW playing Aspies try to pretend they understand corporate
>> finance!
>> Since I have it on good authority that disobeying the law is "immoral"
>> obeying the law is therefore "moral." Since Apple is obeying the law,
>> there are not doing anything wrong.
>
> Here, I beg to differ. Disobeying the law is not necessarily always
> *immoral*, only "illegal". Believe it or not, morality and legality
> often do part ways...

Not according to the fishies you normally associate with on here. See my
Breaking the law bait, I mean thread.

>
> While I generally don't question Apple's legality in its marketplace
> maneuverings, I *do* question its 'morality' at times, however.

You are not qualified to question a corporation's morality. As with all
other corporations their responsibilities are to their customers and
shareholders, NOT the US Federal government. Until you have a working
knowledge of corporate finance and operations everything you say is
bullshit.

> Having said that, the same can be said of any huge corporation such as
> HP, Microsoft, in all fairness. But until we find a way to put
> corporations in "jail", little will change. Until then, I really don't
> want corporations dictating my morality to me, nor do I relish the
> thought of corporations getting so big so as to monopolize markets and
> being devoid of any sense of communal ethics/morality, either.

Sort of like collegiate textbook publishers.

>
> I see both sides of the corporate interests vs societal interests
> conundrum. But then the biggest corporation of them all is what
> concerns me most... specifically, the U.S. government. I refuse to let
> it frame the discussion as to just what is 'fair' and just what
> constitutes 'moral' or 'immoral' with regard to tax-avoidance. The
> concept of minimizing one's tax obligation is entirely legal AND moral
> and should not be cast as "tax avoidance". The very term of "tax
> avoidance" carries a connotation that is simply undeserved in most
> cases. Are there illegal tax avoidance schemes? Most certainly - but
> the overall tone set by the current U.S. administration stinks of dead
> rotting badgers. Obunghole's attack of Romney's Cayman Island
> account(s) is particularly disingenuous and unfairly dismisses the
> concept of >asset protection<, which is also entirely legal AND moral...

El Presidente Negro's attack of Romney's Cayman accounts was more of a way
to show voters he wasn't "just one of the guys" as many politicians try to
portray themselves. You can't be "just one of the guys" when you have
money stashed around the globe. Also the Caymans are a known respite for
various nefarious holdings. Did you know that most Cayman institutions
will submit falsified IRS documents? Upon request (for a fee) you can
request the institution to issue a 1099 with whatever amount you want.
For example, if you have an account with $3 mil, the 1099 they submit can
say $1 mil as per your request.
I took as many international banking courses as I could when I was getting
my masters. Three 400 level courses that weren't required. Just thinking
about transferring from BoA to ICB to Ubi Banca to Investec to Rosbank to
Resona gets my ballsack juices flowing more than anything.
My professor actually showed us how it works with an actual transaction -
on my Macbook pro. For some reason the university laptop wouldn't allow
the Java shit to run. With one app, he was able to transfer funds from
one institution to another, and set the dates & times for each transfer.
He's the one who suggested I got for a PhD.

[Snit]

On 5/24/13 5:51 AM, in article knnngd$eh1$2...@dont-email.me, "Flint"

But they are not starved... they just go into debt and tax the middle class.


--
"[So and so] has targeted me, as psychopaths do." - Mark S. Bilk

Bilk thinks psychopaths target him... he has a bizarre sense of being
special and thinks people are out to get him. Very sad. I am sincere in my
offer to assist him in finding help in his area.

[Flint]

Incorrect. Prince Harry Reid specifically implied that the reason
Romney had money in the Cayman's was specifically to *avoid* paying
taxes on it. As it turns out, Romney was one of he targets of the
IRS, most likely at the behest of the higher ups of this
administration we later find.

Also the Caymans are a known respite for
> various nefarious holdings.

And are known for being repositories far more legitimate money. So
what? "Cayman accounts" are not necessarily synonymous with criminal
activity.

Did you know that most Cayman institutions
> will submit falsified IRS documents? Upon request (for a fee) you can
> request the institution to issue a 1099 with whatever amount you want.

Evidence? The fact is the Caymans institutions generally roll over
pretty quickly in compliance with IRS RFIs on account holders. People
who keep spouting this nonsensical idea that the Cayman's are a
'hiding place' for ill-gotten gains are simply perpetuating pop myth.
The real value these days in Cayman accounts is asset protection,
not tax avoidance. IOW, wealthy people like to keep money in the
Caymans so as to avoid ambulance chasing attorneys signing up clients
to pursue frivolous civil suits.

But then most folks who've never had any appreciable monetary assets
would know nothing of such matters, now would they? :)

> For example, if you have an account with $3 mil, the 1099 they submit can
> say $1 mil as per your request.
> I took as many international banking courses as I could when I was getting
> my masters. Three 400 level courses that weren't required. Just thinking
> about transferring from BoA to ICB to Ubi Banca to Investec to Rosbank to
> Resona gets my ballsack juices flowing more than anything.
> My professor actually showed us how it works with an actual transaction -
> on my Macbook pro. For some reason the university laptop wouldn't allow
> the Java shit to run. With one app, he was able to transfer funds from
> one institution to another, and set the dates & times for each transfer.
> He's the one who suggested I got for a PhD.
>

--
MFB

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 24.05.2013 14:48, Flint wrote:
> I really don't want corporations dictating my morality to me

..as Apple does?
--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)

[Flint]

On 5/27/2013 7:11 AM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 24.05.2013 14:48, Flint wrote:
>> I really don't want corporations dictating my morality to me
>
> ..as Apple does?

Like Apple? I don't see Apple as being that bad(yet). They may
dictate a limitation in my choices as a consumer, but how do they
dictate my morality? At least Apple isn't as bad as, say, GE who
successfully imposed its own ethic on me when they stopped making
incandescent bulbs in favor of CFL bulbs, and did so by getting into
bed with the U.S. of A.corporation's green agenda spreading the toxic
mercury filled things, all while pretending to be more 'green', paying
virtually zero taxes, and positioning themleves to be the primary
suppliers of them - all in one fell swoop.

--
MFB

[Phil Da Lick!]

On 24/05/2013 16:11, Snit wrote:
> On 5/24/13 5:51 AM, in article knnngd$eh1$2...@dont-email.me, "Flint"
> <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/23/2013 5:50 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Apple plays the game less than many - but the problem *is* the tax code.
>>> You, I, and pretty much everyone else uses the tax laws to our advantage to
>>> avoid paying more than we have to.
>>>
>>
>> As it SHOULD be. Until government learns to spend wisely, we need to
>> "starve the beast" and FORCE it into its proper economic role first
>> before allowing/empowering it to define what is 'fair' and 'moral' for
>> the rest of us.
>
> But they are not starved... they just go into debt and tax the middle class.
>
>

Squeeze the middle class you mean. Harder and harder. Tax 'em til they
bleed!

[Snit]

On 5/28/13 12:52 AM, in article
B6-dne7JwvqT_znM...@brightview.co.uk, "Phil Da Lick!"

Pretty much.


--
"I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds

[GreyCloud]

Don't people find it rather odd, that in 2008, the governments spend now
like there is no tomorrow? Maybe they know something that they aren't
telling people about. Their behaviour is not normal. Take a political
campaigner that you know personally that has good intentions, and gets
elected, and then when taking office they do a 180 on you. What is it
that they were told? Makes me a bit suspicious.

[Justin]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:52:17 -0400, Flint wrote:

> Incorrect. Prince Harry Reid specifically implied that the reason

In other words, since its legal, its OK.
Since Romney didn't do anything wrong, neither did Apple.

[Snit]

On 5/28/13 4:00 PM, in article
pan.2013.05...@fartsfartsandmorefarts.edu, "Justin"

<justinthe...@hatespam.edu> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:52:17 -0400, Flint wrote:
>
>> Incorrect. Prince Harry Reid specifically implied that the reason
>
> In other words, since its legal, its OK.

You seem to be struggling with this concept: what is wrong is the law...
companies *and* individuals do what they can to avoid paying taxes. Do you
voluntarily pay more taxes than the law requires? Do you feel guilty not
doing so?

Now, of course, the wealthy have an undue influence on the tax laws (and
laws in general) so they get all sorts of ways to avoid paying taxes. *THAT*
is what is broken.

With Apple, they reportedly pay about 2.5% of all US corporate taxes, more
than any other company. To target them for their wrong-doing in playing the
tax avoidance game is absurd... it would make more sense to target those who
play the game even more than Apple and, *even more than that* target the
laws themselves.

This is really not that hard of a concept.

> Since Romney didn't do anything wrong, neither did Apple.

Romney, apparently, broke the law: <http://read.bi/1awbIox>.

Then again, with the tax code being as absurd and convoluted as it is, it
would not surprise me if Apple and MS and Google and others were also
breaking the law as they played the games they play.

But it comes back to the laws. If they were simple it would be hard if not
impossible to play these games. Part of the problem lies with international
tax laws, and we cannot control that, but part of it comes from taxing
different types of income in different ways. That makes no sense. Income is
income. If anything, income you earn should be taxed less than *unearned*
income... so our tax code is exactly backwards (and is this way to benefit
the wealthy). This includes wealthy individuals and corporations.

--
"There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that's one major
reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I don't want to
be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Phil Da Lick!]

Me too. There's a long history of that in the UK. I am fully convinced
that when a new prime minister assumes office he is taken into a room
somewhere and told how the world is really run and what shit he can
shuffle around and what he cannot. Too many U turns, too many broken
promises for me to believe anything else.

I also have a loony theory about why this is the case. Consider the lack
of resources on the planet. Consider the exponential growth of the
population. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out there's gonna be
a crisis in the not too distant future. The poverty will one day soon
expand out of the third world into the west, at which point TPTB will
want some sort of control. They won't want some kind of Arab Spring
getting in their way either, which is why [in my loony theory] they're
pushing ahead with ever more draconian snooping legislation. I believe
that my kids will live to see a day when people will be locked up [or
disappeared] for speaking out against the government.

[Phil Da Lick!]

A few things:

1. companies aren't the only entities avoiding tax. Rich people (celebs
in particular) do it all the time. If they don't offshore to somewhere
like Monaco or Switzerland they create companies to earn the money which
then pay them a wage. This allows them to (a) benefit because
corporation tax is less than income tax on huge bungs and (b) spread the
payment of the wealth out to them over many years again reducing tax.
Why aren't these people being harrassed as well?

2. in all these discussions about companies avoiding corporation tax the
simple fact that these companies are paying huge workforces who then pay
income tax and NI never comes up. Same as the colossal sums of VAT they pay.

3. these politicalists are now actually using language like "moral
requirement". WTF is that? My moral requirement might be different to
somebody else's. And moral requirements can shift all the time. That's
why we have an agreed shared set of morals - the law. Everything these
companies are doing is perfectly legal.

[Snit]

On 5/29/13 5:50 AM, in article
4dednVreJu0XZDjM...@brightview.co.uk, "Phil Da Lick!"

Working to reduce your taxes is not immoral.

The laws that allow the wealthy to do so in such absurd ways are.

--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Phil Da Lick!]

Set by the very people who are now grandstanding about it.

[Snit]

On 5/29/13 7:32 AM, in article
S9ydnYTMKIEPjDvM...@brightview.co.uk, "Phil Da Lick!"

Absolutely. And targeting Apple, who paid about 2.5% of all US corporate
incomes taxes last year. Yeah, they are the big bad guy!

[Phil Da Lick!]

What most of these dipshit politicians are missing is that the more they
squeeze corporation tax the more they squeeze the owners of these big
companies - i.e. private sector pension pots in the most part.

IMO there is an argument to abolish corporation tax altogether. After
all the taxes the corporation has paid (income, national insurance, vat,
rates, etc etc) when the profits do go out to dividend they eventually
get taxed again as an earning for the owner of the share! How many
bloody times we gonna tax the same money? Ed Millipede says we need no
Tea Party movement in the UK? That's exactly what we need! The case for
smaller government is not being made at all in the UK on any significant
political level. The argument is merely about how to spend the vast sums
of money being taxed and whether to tax more.

[-hh]

On May 29, 8:50 am, "Phil Da Lick!"
<phil_the_l...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> 1. companies aren't the only entities avoiding tax. Rich people (celebs
> in particular) do it all the time. If they don't offshore to somewhere
> like Monaco or Switzerland they create companies to earn the money which
> then pay them a wage. This allows them to (a) benefit because
> corporation tax is less than income tax on huge bungs and (b) spread the
> payment of the wealth out to them over many years again reducing tax.

I was just looking at this from the aspect of the $95K/pp-yr foreign
income tax exclusion, plus the ~$30K/pp-yr housing allowance ... in
conjunction with the provision for "double counting" days spent
overseas, a couple can effectively shield roughly a half million
dollars worth of income (2 tax years) in only 20 months (where they
were probably filming overseas).

Plus, what's not yet considered or accounted for in all of this is
that it is quite likely since their spending during that time was
subject to local taxes & VAT, *all* of this "Foreign-Collected" tax
then becomes deductable versus whatever remaining income that they
choose to claim as being earned so as to repatriate it back to the
USA.

> Why aren't these people being harrassed as well?

Political Donations/Lobbying to create said loopholes.

Which is essentially why all proposals to reduce the rates "for
everyone" are doomed to failure: loopholes only ever get closed by
the very occasional high profile "reform" agendas - - but these same
loopholes silently creep back in due to bribery that's been
whitewashed as "lobbying".

For a contemporary USA example, do you remember how "Congressional
Earmarks" attached to the budget were banned back in 2010?

Well, in the FY14 budget, they've quietly snuck back in. The only
real change is that they no longer list the designated for-profit
corporation recipient **by company name**.


-hh

[Snit]

On 5/29/13 7:43 AM, in article
p5udneEdv921iTvM...@brightview.co.uk, "Phil Da Lick!"

That is insane. When I earn income I am taxed - does not matter if I am
earning it as an employee of someone or as my own business (and I do both).
Then if I hire someone and I pay them, they pay taxes, too. We could say the
money is being taxed "twice"... but what is really being taxed is the
transaction of transfer of money for product (or services). This happens
once for each time it is transferred in this way.

Bizarrely, income that is *unearned* is taxed at a lower rate. You would
think we would want to, if anything, reward people for working and *earning*
income, but instead they are punished for doing so (taxed more for doing
so).

> Ed Millipede says we need no Tea Party movement in the UK? That's exactly what
> we need! The case for smaller government is not being made at all in the UK on
> any significant political level. The argument is merely about how to spend the
> vast sums of money being taxed and whether to tax more.

--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I

[jay birdsong]

"Justin" wrote in message
news:pan.2013.05...@fartsfartsandmorefarts.edu...

Splash ----- GULP!!!

Widdle fishie just couldn't pass up that big, nasty bait.

[Phil Da Lick!]

On 29/05/2013 15:54, Snit wrote:
> On 5/29/13 7:43 AM, in article
> p5udneEdv921iTvM...@brightview.co.uk, "Phil Da Lick!"
> <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Working to reduce your taxes is not immoral.
>>>>>
>>>>> The laws that allow the wealthy to do so in such absurd ways are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Set by the very people who are now grandstanding about it.
>>>>
>>> Absolutely. And targeting Apple, who paid about 2.5% of all US corporate
>>> incomes taxes last year. Yeah, they are the big bad guy!
>>
>> What most of these dipshit politicians are missing is that the more they
>> squeeze corporation tax the more they squeeze the owners of these big
>> companies - i.e. private sector pension pots in the most part.
>>
>> IMO there is an argument to abolish corporation tax altogether. After
>> all the taxes the corporation has paid (income, national insurance, vat,
>> rates, etc etc) when the profits do go out to dividend they eventually
>> get taxed again as an earning for the owner of the share! How many
>> bloody times we gonna tax the same money?
>
> That is insane. When I earn income I am taxed - does not matter if I am

Well, that's what I'm saying. Earnings on dividends get taxed. After the
money that pays those dividends has already been through corporation
tax. So the same wealth has been taxed twice.

[Snit]

On 5/29/13 8:17 AM, in article
6YOdnVBU29CJgTvM...@brightview.co.uk, "Phil Da Lick!"

<phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 29/05/2013 15:54, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/29/13 7:43 AM, in article
>> p5udneEdv921iTvM...@brightview.co.uk, "Phil Da Lick!"
>> <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Working to reduce your taxes is not immoral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The laws that allow the wealthy to do so in such absurd ways are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Set by the very people who are now grandstanding about it.
>>>>>
>>>> Absolutely. And targeting Apple, who paid about 2.5% of all US corporate
>>>> incomes taxes last year. Yeah, they are the big bad guy!
>>>
>>> What most of these dipshit politicians are missing is that the more they
>>> squeeze corporation tax the more they squeeze the owners of these big
>>> companies - i.e. private sector pension pots in the most part.
>>>
>>> IMO there is an argument to abolish corporation tax altogether. After
>>> all the taxes the corporation has paid (income, national insurance, vat,
>>> rates, etc etc) when the profits do go out to dividend they eventually
>>> get taxed again as an earning for the owner of the share! How many
>>> bloody times we gonna tax the same money?
>>
>> That is insane. When I earn income I am taxed - does not matter if I am
>
> Well, that's what I'm saying. Earnings on dividends get taxed. After the
> money that pays those dividends has already been through corporation
> tax. So the same wealth has been taxed twice.

The company gets money. They get taxed.
Then they pay it to stock holders who get the money. They get taxed.

No transaction is being taxed twice.

>> earning it as an employee of someone or as my own business (and I do both).
>> Then if I hire someone and I pay them, they pay taxes, too. We could say the
>> money is being taxed "twice"... but what is really being taxed is the
>> transaction of transfer of money for product (or services). This happens once
>> for each time it is transferred in this way.
>>
>> Bizarrely, income that is *unearned* is taxed at a lower rate. You would
>> think we would want to, if anything, reward people for working and *earning*
>> income, but instead they are punished for doing so (taxed more for doing so).
>>
>>> Ed Millipede says we need no Tea Party movement in the UK? That's exactly
>>> what we need! The case for smaller government is not being made at all in
>>> the UK on any significant political level. The argument is merely about how
>>> to spend the vast sums of money being taxed and whether to tax more.
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
"This doesn't mean our work is over; most GNU/Linux distros today contain
nonfree software, and there are more things that we expect a system to do."
-- Richard Stallman

[chrisv]

Phil Da Lick! wrote:

>On 29/05/2013 15:12, Snit wrote:

*thread plonk*

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2013-05-29, Phil Da Lick! <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/05/2013 00:20, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/28/13 4:00 PM, in article
>> pan.2013.05...@fartsfartsandmorefarts.edu, "Justin"
>> <justinthe...@hatespam.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:52:17 -0400, Flint wrote:
>>>
>>>> Incorrect. Prince Harry Reid specifically implied that the reason
>>>
>>> In other words, since its legal, its OK.

[deletia]

> 2. in all these discussions about companies avoiding corporation tax the
> simple fact that these companies are paying huge workforces who then pay

...as little as possible before out sourcing them to the 3rd world.

[deletia]

We can still call someone anti-social even if they are obeying the letter
of the law. That's not the only standard that applies in most societies.

--

Apple: Power users are not welcome here. |||
/ | \

[Snit]

On 5/29/13 9:51 AM, in article slrnkqccg...@nomad.mishnet, "JEDIDIAH"

Well, you can call anyone any name you want. The herd proves this daily! But
to blame companies for doing what you and I do, working to pay the least tax
we legally can, is a bit silly. What needs to be fixed is the tax code.

With the focus on Apple, that is even more absurd. The pay more in corporate
income tax than any other company in the US ... reportedly about 2.5% of all
US corporate income tax. They are hardly the bad guys here!


--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds

[GreyCloud]

That is happening here already. People getting arrested for speaking
their opinion. Corporations buying out politicians, like Monsanto, so
that they can hold patents on all foods. I also have a loony theory as
well, but I haven't gotten to the bottom of it. Doing a lot of research
into history, going back to the late 1800s trying to find out exactly
what or who started all this mess. The first thing I found seems to tie
into your idea about limited resources, I find eugenics, which is to
limit populations. I think that the extremely rich figure that since
they own the resources they have the right to limit populations.
Planned Parenthood is one of these groups created by the wealthy owners.
Even Dupont, as I have uncovered, said to one of his other wealthy
friend, that he wouldn't even whisper the name of who really controls
the wealth, which was reported to be around 1910 or so.
Then we have Dupont saying that competition is a sin. Too many loose
ends to cover tho, and there are a lot of so-called conspiracy theories
out there to sift through. When Jimmy Carter told Viet Nam veterans
that they had to pay back to the CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System)
what they paid into Social Security in order to collect a CSRS pension,
I knew then that the government didn't want to pay. Essentially they
double taxed the veterans that worked for the government. I see this
trend running ever since Richard Nixon got the U.S. off the gold
standard. The gold standard kept the economy stable and inflation at
bay. Fiat currencies in any country throughout history has always
failed and led to economic disaster and lasted at most around 50 years
or so. There are rumours of a one world government being formed, but
for what purposes? I suppose it is an offshoot of Napoleans idea that
clans group together to form countries and that countries will group
together to form one government eventually. But someone or a group of
people will have to be at the head of this. It could be good or it
could be very bad for people.

[GreyCloud]

I know. Boeing is leaving Washington state because the politicos think
they can up the taxes on the corporation. Boeing told them that they
don't have to do business in that state. The state loses big time, the
people have to move to where the work is at, and in this case I have
heard that it will be scattered in various states and countries. One
country is China.

>
> IMO there is an argument to abolish corporation tax altogether. After
> all the taxes the corporation has paid (income, national insurance, vat,
> rates, etc etc) when the profits do go out to dividend they eventually
> get taxed again as an earning for the owner of the share! How many
> bloody times we gonna tax the same money? Ed Millipede says we need no
> Tea Party movement in the UK? That's exactly what we need! The case for
> smaller government is not being made at all in the UK on any significant
> political level. The argument is merely about how to spend the vast sums
> of money being taxed and whether to tax more.
>

My curiosity is where does the Queen fit in on this?
Does she approve or ... ???

[GreyCloud]

On 5/29/2013 8:54 AM, Snit wrote:
> On 5/29/13 7:43 AM, in article
> p5udneEdv921iTvM...@brightview.co.uk, "Phil Da Lick!"
> <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Working to reduce your taxes is not immoral.
>>>>>
>>>>> The laws that allow the wealthy to do so in such absurd ways are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Set by the very people who are now grandstanding about it.
>>>>
>>> Absolutely. And targeting Apple, who paid about 2.5% of all US corporate
>>> incomes taxes last year. Yeah, they are the big bad guy!
>>
>> What most of these dipshit politicians are missing is that the more they
>> squeeze corporation tax the more they squeeze the owners of these big
>> companies - i.e. private sector pension pots in the most part.
>>
>> IMO there is an argument to abolish corporation tax altogether. After
>> all the taxes the corporation has paid (income, national insurance, vat,
>> rates, etc etc) when the profits do go out to dividend they eventually
>> get taxed again as an earning for the owner of the share! How many
>> bloody times we gonna tax the same money?
>
> That is insane. When I earn income I am taxed - does not matter if I am
> earning it as an employee of someone or as my own business (and I do both).
> Then if I hire someone and I pay them, they pay taxes, too. We could say the
> money is being taxed "twice"... but what is really being taxed is the
> transaction of transfer of money for product (or services). This happens
> once for each time it is transferred in this way.

Taxes are voluntary, according to this report:

http://www.occupycorporatism.com/the-truth-comes-out-former-irs-director-admits-taxes-are-voluntary/

[GreyCloud]

[Snit]

On 5/29/13 10:45 AM, in article
dK2dnWUpXbYhozvM...@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com>
wrote:

The idea that it is voluntary simply means people "voluntarily" comply...
which is not really true because if you do not and are caught there are
penalties.

>> Bizarrely, income that is *unearned* is taxed at a lower rate. You would
>> think we would want to, if anything, reward people for working and *earning*
>> income, but instead they are punished for doing so (taxed more for doing
>> so).
>>
>>> Ed Millipede says we need no Tea Party movement in the UK? That's exactly
>>> what
>>> we need! The case for smaller government is not being made at all in the UK
>>> on
>>> any significant political level. The argument is merely about how to spend
>>> the
>>> vast sums of money being taxed and whether to tax more.
>>
>>
>>
>

--
> As for Stallman, he is a repulsive person by any standard of decency.
... standard of decency or hygiene.
-- Lusotec

[flatfish+++]

Only a fool pays more taxes than he legally has to.
Key word *legally*.


--
flatfish+++
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[Snit]

On 5/29/13 12:09 PM, in article 1ot9euddd7jb8$.16w30m80...@40tude.net,

"flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> We can still call someone anti-social even if they are obeying the letter
>>> of the law. That's not the only standard that applies in most societies.
>>
>> Well, you can call anyone any name you want. The herd proves this daily! But
>> to blame companies for doing what you and I do, working to pay the least tax
>> we legally can, is a bit silly. What needs to be fixed is the tax code.
>>
>> With the focus on Apple, that is even more absurd. The pay more in corporate
>> income tax than any other company in the US ... reportedly about 2.5% of all
>> US corporate income tax. They are hardly the bad guys here!
>
> Only a fool pays more taxes than he legally has to.
> Key word *legally*.

If Apple is really paying 2.5% of all US corporate income taxes they are
surely paying more than they legally have to - or others are breaking laws
*massively*.


--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds

[flatfish+++]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:22:49 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 5/29/13 12:09 PM, in article 1ot9euddd7jb8$.16w30m80...@40tude.net,
> "flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> We can still call someone anti-social even if they are obeying the letter
>>>> of the law. That's not the only standard that applies in most societies.
>>>
>>> Well, you can call anyone any name you want. The herd proves this daily! But
>>> to blame companies for doing what you and I do, working to pay the least tax
>>> we legally can, is a bit silly. What needs to be fixed is the tax code.
>>>
>>> With the focus on Apple, that is even more absurd. The pay more in corporate
>>> income tax than any other company in the US ... reportedly about 2.5% of all
>>> US corporate income tax. They are hardly the bad guys here!
>>
>> Only a fool pays more taxes than he legally has to.
>> Key word *legally*.
>
> If Apple is really paying 2.5% of all US corporate income taxes they are
> surely paying more than they legally have to - or others are breaking laws
> *massively*.

Not necessarily.
Each company is a work in progress. What happens this year, tax wise,
may be different than what happened last year.

There is no right or wrong only legal.
And "legal" is also a matter of interpretation as well.

It's just not an exact science when it reaches that level.

[Snit]

On 5/29/13 12:27 PM, in article d62smdojvwsx$.1df3xgn2...@40tude.net,

Very true... and you might have need to bring foreign income back to the
US... in the case of Apple they started paying dividends and bought a number
of companies so that money had to be brought back to the US... and
presumably taxed because of it.

In any case, it is a bizarre target for people to go after if they want to
blame corporations. Apple is clearly paying far more than many, many other
companies. Is *any* corporation paying more than they are?


--

[flatfish+++]

I had this discussion a few years ago with my accountant and he
suggested that to see how the corporations live just pick up a copy
of Turbo Tax Business and see what is available for businesses vs the
single tax payer.

It's an eye opener and really drives home the point that it takes
money to make money.

[Snit]

On 5/29/13 12:36 PM, in article pxnlnd4tczto$.114vaq2qmpblx$.d...@40tude.net,
"flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

I worked for Intuit and used to support TurboTax (all versions) for years.
Started doing the phone leash thing but fairly quickly moved away from that
to second tier support and then, even better, a trainer - where I focused on
OS issues and running the internal website for training (lost some focus on
TurboTax at that point). It was amazing the bizarre deductions and rules...
things involving using elevators vs. escalators, for example. There were
some really weird ones we encountered... wish I could think of some off
hand.



--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I

[Phil Da Lick!]

Nowhere. She has no real power whatsoever. If she (or more likely that
idiot son of hers when he assumes the throne) started meddling in
politics it would cause a constitutional crisis. She is head of state in
name only.

[Phil Da Lick!]

Agreed. And politicians have the power to change the law. If they care
to do so. There's certainly enough mood music in the UK at the moment to
ram any changes through without much opposition. In the meantime though,
the purpose of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders, not
dance to any particular political tune (which may change every few years
anyway).

[JEDIDIAH]

That is precisely the attitude that allows corporations to get away with all
kinds of nonsense. A lot of them have gotten too big to police effectively and
continue to get larger despite a general trend of screwing everyone.

Unless you are actually a shareholder, you have no real interest in corporations
acting in a manner consistent with Ayn Rand or Crassus Maximus.

--

[GreyCloud]

So, how do you think you are going to get corporations to behave then?

[Snit]

On 5/31/13 4:10 PM, in article 2rCdnbHKYs94sDTM...@bresnan.com,

"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:

>>>> We can still call someone anti-social even if they are obeying the
>>>> letter
>>>> of the law. That's not the only standard that applies in most societies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. And politicians have the power to change the law. If they care
>>> to do so. There's certainly enough mood music in the UK at the moment to
>>> ram any changes through without much opposition. In the meantime though,
>>> the purpose of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders, not
>>> dance to any particular political tune (which may change every few years
>>> anyway).
>>>
>>
>> That is precisely the attitude that allows corporations to get away
>> with all
>> kinds of nonsense. A lot of them have gotten too big to police effectively
>> and continue to get larger despite a general trend of screwing everyone.
>>
>> Unless you are actually a shareholder, you have no real interest in
>> corporations
>> acting in a manner consistent with Ayn Rand or Crassus Maximus.
>>

> So, how do you think you are going to get corporations to behave then?

Let me guess: take away choice and freedom. Just a guess... we shall have to
see what he says.


--
"On desktops, Linux has had a hard time cracking the 1 per cent mark,
although some of the web analytics companies now put it at around 1.5 per
cent." -- Linus Torvalds

[Phil Da Lick!]

And what kind of an attitude is it to constantly target these companies
who are OBEYING THE LAW? They didn't write the law so why are we taking
it out on them? It's the politicians [as always] who need "shooting" for
this one.

>> kinds of nonsense. A lot of them have gotten too big to police effectively
>> and continue to get larger despite a general trend of screwing everyone.
>>
>> Unless you are actually a shareholder, you have no real interest in
>> corporations
>> acting in a manner consistent with Ayn Rand or Crassus Maximus.
>>
>> --
> So, how do you think you are going to get corporations to behave then?
>

They ARE behaving! Lol! Trouble is when your tax code is 15,000 pages
long there are more than a few loopholes in there. Simplification on a
massive scale is required across the board. And now is the time to do it
because there will be massive public support [here in the UK at least].