Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!

[RichA]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/apple-back-taxes-ireland/?iid=EL

I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from Apple?

[nospam]

In article <cf030932-7022-4fb7...@googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/apple-back-taxes-ireland/?iid=EL
>
> I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from Apple?

the only dickhead is you.

that link is six months old and it's yet another one of your moronic
anti-apple trolls.

not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing taxes
is *expected* and *encouraged*.

numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.

even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
possible.

unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.

[sid]

nospam wrote:

> In article <cf030932-7022-4fb7...@googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/apple-back-taxes-ireland/?iid=EL
>>
>> I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from Apple?
>
> the only dickhead is you.

Who is the bigger dickhead? The one that posts the troll in the first place
or the one that follows up to the troll with another post exclaiming how
fair and just his object of adulation is?

> that link is six months old and it's yet another one of your moronic
> anti-apple trolls.
>
> not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing taxes
> is *expected* and *encouraged*.

Only by the morally bankrupt and greedy.

> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.

It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.

> even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
> possible.

Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's that.
Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend on
tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.

> unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
> laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
> that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
> the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.

If they actually gave two shits for anything other than the amount of money
they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same rate as
all the other honest companies in the countries in which they extract
exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.

--
sid

[nospam]

In article <2555840.m...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid

<sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:

> >> http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/apple-back-taxes-ireland/?iid=EL
> >>
> >> I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from Apple?
> >
> > the only dickhead is you.
>
> Who is the bigger dickhead? The one that posts the troll in the first place
> or the one that follows up to the troll with another post exclaiming how
> fair and just his object of adulation is?

now that you joined the thread, the biggest dickhead would be you, and
by a mile.

> > that link is six months old and it's yet another one of your moronic
> > anti-apple trolls.
> >
> > not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing taxes
> > is *expected* and *encouraged*.
>
> Only by the morally bankrupt and greedy.

nonsense.

> > numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
> > google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
>
> It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.

what two wrongs?

the tax laws are what they are and companies abiding by them is not
wrong. that's how it works.

if you think what the various companies are doing is illegal, then go
contact the relevant authorities. good luck on that one nd be prepared
to be laughed at.

something that you are also ignoring is that apple *wants* to change
the tax laws, resulting in them paying *more* tax. do you hear the
other companies saying that? nope. once again, apple gets bashed for
trying to fix the problems.

> > even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
> > possible.
>
> Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's that.

nonsense. nobody can be that stupid.

the irs does *not* tell a taxpayer how much to pay unless they're
delinquent, in which case they have far bigger problems, or if they're
stupid enough to request the irs to give them an amount to pay.

not only do taxpayers take deductions to which they are entitled, but
many of them hire an accountant who understands tax law and knows what
deductions are possible. most people don't because tax law is highly
convoluted and needs to be simplified.

> Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend on
> tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.

of course it's comparable and there's nothing scammy about it. the only
difference is the amount paid.

> > unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
> > laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
> > that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
> > the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
>
> If they actually gave two shits for anything other than the amount of money
> they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same rate as
> all the other honest companies in the countries in which they extract
> exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.

more bullshit.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:40:23 +0000, sid <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:

>nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <cf030932-7022-4fb7...@googlegroups.com>,
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/apple-back-taxes-ireland/?iid=EL
>>>
>>> I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from Apple?
>>
>> the only dickhead is you.
>
>Who is the bigger dickhead? The one that posts the troll in the first place
>or the one that follows up to the troll with another post exclaiming how
>fair and just his object of adulation is?
>
>> that link is six months old and it's yet another one of your moronic
>> anti-apple trolls.
>>
>> not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing taxes
>> is *expected* and *encouraged*.
>
>Only by the morally bankrupt and greedy.
>
>> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
>> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
>
>It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
>

This is typical nospam. Say anything that he thinks is "bashing"
Apple, and he immediately wants to know why you haven't also bashed
anyone from Google to Nabisco to your local children's day care
center.

>> even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
>> possible.
>
>Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's that.
>Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend on
>tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
>
>> unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
>> laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
>> that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
>> the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.

That sounds like it is written by someone in the market for a bridge.

Yeah, right, Apple is working diligently to figure out ways to pay
more in taxes. They have a whole department of accountants and
shareholder representatives devoted to ways to reduce their bottom
line.

>If they actually gave two shits for anything other than the amount of money
>they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same rate as
>all the other honest companies in the countries in which they extract
>exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.

I think Apple is as honest as any other large corporation. All they're
doing is paying the taxes that the tax laws require them to pay. To
think they'd like to pay more, though, is the thinking of a demented
fool.

This is not a "bash" of Apple. nospam will argue that it is, though,
because he argues with every post.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[nospam]

In article <i1c23bhaq57q4mm5t...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
> >> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
> >
> >It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
> >
> This is typical nospam. Say anything that he thinks is "bashing"
> Apple, and he immediately wants to know why you haven't also bashed
> anyone from Google to Nabisco to your local children's day care
> center.

why single out apple when plenty of other companies do the same thing?

the answer is because it's the usual apple bashing, with you at the
forefront.

if someone posted that tax laws need to be changed, this would be a
very different discussion. instead, it's apple is a scammer while all
of the other companies get a free pass for doing the *same thing*.

> >> even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
> >> possible.
> >
> >Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's that.
> >Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend on
> >tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
> >
> >> unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
> >> laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
> >> that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
> >> the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
>
> That sounds like it is written by someone in the market for a bridge.
> Yeah, right, Apple is working diligently to figure out ways to pay
> more in taxes. They have a whole department of accountants and
> shareholder representatives devoted to ways to reduce their bottom
> line.

you're ignorant.

apple has repeatedly said they want to change the existing tax laws so
that they can repatriate their assets, something which will result in
paying more tax than they currently are paying.

do you hear marissa saying she wants to change the tax laws? nope.

> >If they actually gave two shits for anything other than the amount of money
> >they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same rate as
> >all the other honest companies in the countries in which they extract
> >exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.
>
> I think Apple is as honest as any other large corporation. All they're
> doing is paying the taxes that the tax laws require them to pay.

exactly, which is completely legal and expected of any corporation,
large or small.

> To
> think they'd like to pay more, though, is the thinking of a demented
> fool.

call tim cook and tell him that he's a demented fool.

apple's main phone number 408-996-1010, ask for tim cook's office. i'm
sure they'll put you right through.

> This is not a "bash" of Apple.

of course it's a bash of apple.

any time anyone singles out apple for doing what other companies do is
apple bashing.

the problem is the tax code, not what apple is doing.

> nospam will argue that it is, though,
> because he argues with every post.

you have that backwards.

bashing is all *you* do and *you* are the one who argues with every
post, even though in this case, you are agreeing with what apple is
doing.

that's fucked up.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:57:00 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <i1c23bhaq57q4mm5t...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
>> >> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
>> >
>> >It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
>> >
>> This is typical nospam. Say anything that he thinks is "bashing"
>> Apple, and he immediately wants to know why you haven't also bashed
>> anyone from Google to Nabisco to your local children's day care
>> center.
>
>why single out apple when plenty of other companies do the same thing?
>

Because normal people don't write that way unless they are presenting
a white paper on some subject where a wide view of a situation is
called for.

Just pick up a newspaper or read your news online. Why didn't the
writer of this article not mention other companies who either don't
pay taxes or pay very little?

The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
companies.

>the answer is because it's the usual apple bashing, with you at the
>forefront.

First of all, I don't bash Apple. But, why are you a hypocrite and
mentioning me when you don't mention others?

>> >tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
>> >
>> >> unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
>> >> laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
>> >> that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
>> >> the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
>>
>> That sounds like it is written by someone in the market for a bridge.
>> Yeah, right, Apple is working diligently to figure out ways to pay
>> more in taxes. They have a whole department of accountants and
>> shareholder representatives devoted to ways to reduce their bottom
>> line.
>
>you're ignorant.

That's your usual ploy. It doesn't, in any way, refute the claim.

>apple has repeatedly said they want to change the existing tax laws so
>that they can repatriate their assets, something which will result in
>paying more tax than they currently are paying.

Lip service.

>do you hear marissa saying she wants to change the tax laws? nope.

Ms Mayer is just being honest with you.

>> To
>> think they'd like to pay more, though, is the thinking of a demented
>> fool.
>
>call tim cook and tell him that he's a demented fool.

I don't need to contact Tim. There's a demented fool who will read
this post and argue with it.

[sid]

nospam wrote:

> In article <2555840.m...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid
> <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
>
>> >> http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/apple-back-taxes-ireland/?iid=EL
>> >>
>> >> I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from
>> >> Apple?
>> >
>> > the only dickhead is you.
>>
>> Who is the bigger dickhead? The one that posts the troll in the first
>> place or the one that follows up to the troll with another post
>> exclaiming how fair and just his object of adulation is?
>
> now that you joined the thread, the biggest dickhead would be you, and
> by a mile.

Ooooh, touchy!

>> > that link is six months old and it's yet another one of your moronic
>> > anti-apple trolls.
>> >
>> > not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing taxes
>> > is *expected* and *encouraged*.
>>
>> Only by the morally bankrupt and greedy.
>
> nonsense.

It's not nonsense at all, it just depends which side of the fence you're on.

>
>> > numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
>> > google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
>>
>> It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
>
> what two wrongs?

Don't pretend to be dimmer than you already are.

> the tax laws are what they are and companies abiding by them is not
> wrong. that's how it works.

Well duh.

> if you think what the various companies are doing is illegal, then go
> contact the relevant authorities. good luck on that one nd be prepared
> to be laughed at.

Why are you making things up?

> something that you are also ignoring is that apple *wants* to change
> the tax laws, resulting in them paying *more* tax. do you hear the
> other companies saying that? nope. once again, apple gets bashed for
> trying to fix the problems.

I haven't ignored anything, Apples lip service means jack shit.

>> > even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
>> > possible.
>>
>> Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's that.
>
> nonsense. nobody can be that stupid.

Do you get told what rate of tax you have to pay on whatever it is you tell
the taxman you have earned?

> the irs does *not* tell a taxpayer how much to pay unless they're
> delinquent, in which case they have far bigger problems, or if they're
> stupid enough to request the irs to give them an amount to pay.
>
> not only do taxpayers take deductions to which they are entitled, but
> many of them hire an accountant who understands tax law and knows what
> deductions are possible. most people don't because tax law is highly
> convoluted and needs to be simplified.
>
>> Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend
>> on tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
>
> of course it's comparable and there's nothing scammy about it. the only
> difference is the amount paid.

Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay net
to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?

>
>> > unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
>> > laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
>> > that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
>> > the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
>>
>> If they actually gave two shits for anything other than the amount of
>> money they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same
>> rate as all the other honest companies in the countries in which they
>> extract exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.
>
> more bullshit.

No, I'm afraid it's not.

--
sid

[sid]

Tony Cooper wrote:

>>> unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
>>> laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
>>> that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
>>> the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
>
> That sounds like it is written by someone in the market for a bridge.
>
> Yeah, right, Apple is working diligently to figure out ways to pay
> more in taxes. They have a whole department of accountants and
> shareholder representatives devoted to ways to reduce their bottom
> line.
>
>>If they actually gave two shits for anything other than the amount of
>>money they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same
>>rate as all the other honest companies in the countries in which they
>>extract exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.
>
> I think Apple is as honest as any other large corporation. All they're
> doing is paying the taxes that the tax laws require them to pay.

That is true, they are all as bad as each other, as are successive
governments, on both sides of the pond, that have encouraged, aided and
abetted this type of behaviour.

> To think they'd like to pay more, though, is the thinking of a demented
> fool.

No, really, Tim a really nice bloke and he only wants to do what's right.

--
sid

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:51:42 +0000, sid <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:

>nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <2555840.m...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid
>> <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
>>

> --- snip ---

>> the irs does *not* tell a taxpayer how much to pay unless they're
>> delinquent, in which case they have far bigger problems, or if they're
>> stupid enough to request the irs to give them an amount to pay.
>>
>> not only do taxpayers take deductions to which they are entitled, but
>> many of them hire an accountant who understands tax law and knows what
>> deductions are possible. most people don't because tax law is highly
>> convoluted and needs to be simplified.
>>
>>> Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend
>>> on tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
>>
>> of course it's comparable and there's nothing scammy about it. the only
>> difference is the amount paid.
>
>Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
>Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay net
>to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?

I disagree. A company is free to organise it's business in any way it
likes, subject only to the laws which govern it's behaviour. Judge
learned hand once said

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Learned_Hand

"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low
as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will
best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to
increase one's taxes."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:57:00 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> To
>> think they'd like to pay more, though, is the thinking of a demented
>> fool.
>
>call tim cook and tell him that he's a demented fool.

Better still, tell Apple's shareholders.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

There is nothing to stop Apple paying more. It doesn't require a
change in any country's tax codes. All Apple has to is front up to the
appropriate treasury and give them a cheque. It will be welcomed with
open bank accounts.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[RichA]

Yeah, Warren Buffett claimed the same thing. Thing is, he could have volunteered any time to pay more taxes, but he didn't, and neither did Apple.

[nospam]

In article <f1g23bhqa0tcdoefi...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
> >> >> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
> >> >
> >> >It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
> >> >
> >> This is typical nospam. Say anything that he thinks is "bashing"
> >> Apple, and he immediately wants to know why you haven't also bashed
> >> anyone from Google to Nabisco to your local children's day care
> >> center.
> >
> >why single out apple when plenty of other companies do the same thing?
> >
> Because normal people don't write that way unless they are presenting
> a white paper on some subject where a wide view of a situation is
> called for.
>
> Just pick up a newspaper or read your news online. Why didn't the
> writer of this article not mention other companies who either don't
> pay taxes or pay very little?

because mentioning apple gets the clicks.

> The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
> companies.

the linked article did not mention ge.

try again.

> >the answer is because it's the usual apple bashing, with you at the
> >forefront.
>
> First of all, I don't bash Apple.

the hell you don't. the moment apple is in the topic you go into attack
mode.

> But, why are you a hypocrite and
> mentioning me when you don't mention others?

i do mention others, but right now i'm responding to your posts.

> >> >tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
> >> >
> >> >> unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
> >> >> laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
> >> >> that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
> >> >> the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
> >>
> >> That sounds like it is written by someone in the market for a bridge.
> >> Yeah, right, Apple is working diligently to figure out ways to pay
> >> more in taxes. They have a whole department of accountants and
> >> shareholder representatives devoted to ways to reduce their bottom
> >> line.
> >
> >you're ignorant.
>
> That's your usual ploy. It doesn't, in any way, refute the claim.

saying you're ignorant is not intended to refute anything. it's simply
a statement of fact.

> >apple has repeatedly said they want to change the existing tax laws so
> >that they can repatriate their assets, something which will result in
> >paying more tax than they currently are paying.
>
> Lip service.

so much for you bullshit claim of not bashing apple.

> >do you hear marissa saying she wants to change the tax laws? nope.
>
> Ms Mayer is just being honest with you.

tim is being honest too.

what you refuse to acknowledge is that apple's playbook is very
different than normal corporate playbooks and any time that's pointed
out to you, you go into attack mode.

> >> To
> >> think they'd like to pay more, though, is the thinking of a demented
> >> fool.
> >
> >call tim cook and tell him that he's a demented fool.
>
> I don't need to contact Tim. There's a demented fool who will read
> this post and argue with it.

of course you don't, because you don't want facts. you just want to
argue.

[nospam]

In article <2874655.p...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid

<sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:

>
> No, really, Tim a really nice bloke and he only wants to do what's right.

the only correct thing you've said all year.

[nospam]

In article <2944632.S...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid

<sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:

> >> >>
> >> >> http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/apple-back-taxes-ireland/?iid=EL
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from
> >> >> Apple?
> >> >
> >> > the only dickhead is you.
> >>
> >> Who is the bigger dickhead? The one that posts the troll in the first
> >> place or the one that follows up to the troll with another post
> >> exclaiming how fair and just his object of adulation is?
> >
> > now that you joined the thread, the biggest dickhead would be you, and
> > by a mile.
>
> Ooooh, touchy!

truth hurts.

> >> > that link is six months old and it's yet another one of your moronic
> >> > anti-apple trolls.
> >> >
> >> > not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing taxes
> >> > is *expected* and *encouraged*.
> >>
> >> Only by the morally bankrupt and greedy.
> >
> > nonsense.
>
> It's not nonsense at all, it just depends which side of the fence you're on.

no it doesn't.

do you take tax deductions or do you pay the most you could possibly
pay? if it's the former, you're morally bankrupt and greedy.

> >> > numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
> >> > google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
> >>
> >> It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
> >
> > what two wrongs?
>
> Don't pretend to be dimmer than you already are.

it ain't me who is dim.

> > the tax laws are what they are and companies abiding by them is not
> > wrong. that's how it works.
>
> Well duh.

at least you agree that apple and the others are not doing anything
wrong.

that pretty much throws your entire rant out the window and makes you
look like a total dickhead.

> > if you think what the various companies are doing is illegal, then go
> > contact the relevant authorities. good luck on that one nd be prepared
> > to be laughed at.
>
> Why are you making things up?

i'm not making anything up.

as i said, if you think *any* of these companies are engaging in tax
fraud or any other illegal activity, get off your duff and contact the
appropriate authorities.

but you won't.

> > something that you are also ignoring is that apple *wants* to change
> > the tax laws, resulting in them paying *more* tax. do you hear the
> > other companies saying that? nope. once again, apple gets bashed for
> > trying to fix the problems.
>
> I haven't ignored anything, Apples lip service means jack shit.

you're ignoring everything that shows you to be wrong.

> >> > even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
> >> > possible.
> >>
> >> Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's that.
> >
> > nonsense. nobody can be that stupid.
>
> Do you get told what rate of tax you have to pay on whatever it is you tell
> the taxman you have earned?

they tell the rate, but not the *amount*.

if you request a total from the irs, they won't include the various
deductions, so the total will be higher than what it should be. only a
moron would go that route.

> > the irs does *not* tell a taxpayer how much to pay unless they're
> > delinquent, in which case they have far bigger problems, or if they're
> > stupid enough to request the irs to give them an amount to pay.
> >
> > not only do taxpayers take deductions to which they are entitled, but
> > many of them hire an accountant who understands tax law and knows what
> > deductions are possible. most people don't because tax law is highly
> > convoluted and needs to be simplified.
> >
> >> Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend
> >> on tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
> >
> > of course it's comparable and there's nothing scammy about it. the only
> > difference is the amount paid.
>
> Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
> Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay net
> to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?

apple does not pay net zero tax. you're wrong yet again. in fact, they
are among the companies who pay the *most* taxes of any usa
corporation, if not the most.

instead of spouting like you normally do, you might consider finding
out the facts first.

by the way, google did what you accuse apple of doing:
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-10/google-revenues-shelt
ered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion>
Google Inc. avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in
2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell
company, almost double the total from three years before, filings
show.

apple has long had a presence in ireland, including having a factory
there.

> >> > unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
> >> > laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
> >> > that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
> >> > the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
> >>
> >> If they actually gave two shits for anything other than the amount of
> >> money they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same
> >> rate as all the other honest companies in the countries in which they
> >> extract exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.
> >
> > more bullshit.
>
> No, I'm afraid it's not.

it is.

you're wrong once again.

[nospam]

In article <f3m23bl21c3v558f9...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >>> Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend
> >>> on tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
> >>
> >> of course it's comparable and there's nothing scammy about it. the only
> >> difference is the amount paid.
> >
> >Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
> >Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay net
> >to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?
>
> I disagree. A company is free to organise it's business in any way it
> likes, subject only to the laws which govern it's behaviour. Judge
> learned hand once said
>
> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Learned_Hand
>
> "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low
> as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will
> best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to
> increase one's taxes."

yep.

he also said (and from same link):

Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.
Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes
any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced
exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of
morals is mere cant.

[nospam]

In article <dim23bpvpg1bgj56q...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> To
> >> think they'd like to pay more, though, is the thinking of a demented
> >> fool.
> >
> >call tim cook and tell him that he's a demented fool.
>
> Better still, tell Apple's shareholders.

that would be even more entertaining.

apple shareholders do not think he is a fool and anyone trying to make
that claim would be laughed at.

[nospam]

In article <8427ae5f-87b0-4a16...@googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
> > laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
> > that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
> > the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
>
> Yeah, Warren Buffett claimed the same thing. Thing is, he could have
> volunteered any time to pay more taxes, but he didn't, and neither did Apple.

why would anyone voluntarily pay more taxes than they actually owe?

do you pay extra? didn't think so.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:35:02 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <f1g23bhqa0tcdoefi...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
>> >> >> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
>> >> >
>> >> This is typical nospam. Say anything that he thinks is "bashing"
>> >> Apple, and he immediately wants to know why you haven't also bashed
>> >> anyone from Google to Nabisco to your local children's day care
>> >> center.
>> >
>> >why single out apple when plenty of other companies do the same thing?
>> >
>> Because normal people don't write that way unless they are presenting
>> a white paper on some subject where a wide view of a situation is
>> called for.
>>
>> Just pick up a newspaper or read your news online. Why didn't the
>> writer of this article not mention other companies who either don't
>> pay taxes or pay very little?
>
>because mentioning apple gets the clicks.
>
>> The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
>> companies.
>
>the linked article did not mention ge.
>
>try again.

My error...I copied, but failed to paste, this;

http://theweek.com/articles/486055/why-doesnt-general-electric-pay-taxes

>> >the answer is because it's the usual apple bashing, with you at the
>> >forefront.
>>
>> First of all, I don't bash Apple.
>
>the hell you don't. the moment apple is in the topic you go into attack
>mode.
>
>> But, why are you a hypocrite and
>> mentioning me when you don't mention others?
>
>i do mention others, but right now i'm responding to your posts.

No, no, no...that's not your mantra. You think that any discussion of
anything Apple that could be considered to be negative must mention
some other company in a negative way.

You must be fair and apply this to all your posts.

>
>> >apple has repeatedly said they want to change the existing tax laws so
>> >that they can repatriate their assets, something which will result in
>> >paying more tax than they currently are paying.
>>
>> Lip service.
>
>so much for you bullshit claim of not bashing apple.

It recognizes that *if* Apple would like to pay more taxes, they
can...and that they haven't.

>
>> >do you hear marissa saying she wants to change the tax laws? nope.
>>
>> Ms Mayer is just being honest with you.
>
>tim is being honest too.

Not that it's on this topic, but this is another one of your
nospamisms: using Tim's first name and Marissa's first name as if you
are an insider. You ain't fooling anyone.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:42:09 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

They might not laugh so much if he says he want's to divert more of
Apple's cash flow to the government.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:42:10 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Ask Tim Cook

>do you pay extra? didn't think so.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:42:06 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>apple does not pay net zero tax. you're wrong yet again. in fact, they
>are among the companies who pay the *most* taxes of any usa
>corporation, if not the most.
>

That's a meaningless statement. Paying the "most" taxes means the
company made the most money. What is being questioned is the tax
*rate* they're paying on all income, and that includes income
sheltered in Ireland.

From the _New York Times_:

"According to the Senate report, Apple paid $5.3 billion to the
Treasury Department in the fiscal years 2009 to 2011. Its worldwide
pretax book income over that period was about $65 billion. Thus,
Apple’s “true U.S. tax rate,” according to my own calculation, was 8.2
percent.

The statutory rate for companies is 35 percent.

Even Tim Cook explains that "Apple paid less on a global basis because
its profits generated abroad were taxed at a lower rate than in the
United States".

This, by the way, is not an Apple bash. The law allows them to do it
this way, and they are doing what is best for Apple.

It is a bash of nospam for attempting to mislead with "most".

[nospam]

In article <bl133btraheoginlq...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
> >> >> >> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> This is typical nospam. Say anything that he thinks is "bashing"
> >> >> Apple, and he immediately wants to know why you haven't also bashed
> >> >> anyone from Google to Nabisco to your local children's day care
> >> >> center.
> >> >
> >> >why single out apple when plenty of other companies do the same thing?
> >> >
> >> Because normal people don't write that way unless they are presenting
> >> a white paper on some subject where a wide view of a situation is
> >> called for.
> >>
> >> Just pick up a newspaper or read your news online. Why didn't the
> >> writer of this article not mention other companies who either don't
> >> pay taxes or pay very little?
> >
> >because mentioning apple gets the clicks.
> >
> >> The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
> >> companies.
> >
> >the linked article did not mention ge.
> >
> >try again.
>
> My error...I copied, but failed to paste, this;
>
> http://theweek.com/articles/486055/why-doesnt-general-electric-pay-taxes

yet nobody mentions that.

apple's tax liability is not zero.

> >> But, why are you a hypocrite and
> >> mentioning me when you don't mention others?
> >
> >i do mention others, but right now i'm responding to your posts.
>
> No, no, no...that's not your mantra. You think that any discussion of
> anything Apple that could be considered to be negative must mention
> some other company in a negative way.

completely wrong. i criticize apple when appropriate.

it's just that in this newsgroup, you and others derail any thread
about apple into a nospam-bash, even when you agree with the topic.

> You must be fair and apply this to all your posts.

good thing that i do.

> >> >apple has repeatedly said they want to change the existing tax laws so
> >> >that they can repatriate their assets, something which will result in
> >> >paying more tax than they currently are paying.
> >>
> >> Lip service.
> >
> >so much for you bullshit claim of not bashing apple.
>
> It recognizes that *if* Apple would like to pay more taxes, they
> can...and that they haven't.

they pay what they owe.

they also want to change the tax code so that they can repatriate the
assets at a reasonable and fair tax rate.

> >> >do you hear marissa saying she wants to change the tax laws? nope.
> >>
> >> Ms Mayer is just being honest with you.
> >
> >tim is being honest too.
>
> Not that it's on this topic, but this is another one of your
> nospamisms: using Tim's first name and Marissa's first name as if you
> are an insider. You ain't fooling anyone.

i'll use their first name if i want. deal with it.

[nospam]

In article <l0333bl98lr1ukc6j...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> think they'd like to pay more, though, is the thinking of a demented
> >> >> fool.
> >> >
> >> >call tim cook and tell him that he's a demented fool.
> >>
> >> Better still, tell Apple's shareholders.
> >
> >that would be even more entertaining.
> >
> >apple shareholders do not think he is a fool and anyone trying to make
> >that claim would be laughed at.
>
> They might not laugh so much if he says he want's to divert more of
> Apple's cash flow to the government.

some might, but others will be happy they're repatriating their assets.

you can't please everyone.

[nospam]

In article <85333bhg9vfuhj6e9...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> > unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
> >> > laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
> >> > that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
> >> > the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
> >>
> >> Yeah, Warren Buffett claimed the same thing. Thing is, he could have
> >> volunteered any time to pay more taxes, but he didn't, and neither did
> >> Apple.
> >
> >why would anyone voluntarily pay more taxes than they actually owe?
> >
> Ask Tim Cook

why tim? he's not paying more than he owes, nor does apple.

[nospam]

In article <15333bd6quvu4b91i...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This, by the way, is not an Apple bash. The law allows them to do it
> this way, and they are doing what is best for Apple.

yep.

> It is a bash of nospam for attempting to mislead with "most".

there is no misleading.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 23:29:17 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <bl133btraheoginlq...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
>> >> >> >> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> This is typical nospam. Say anything that he thinks is "bashing"
>> >> >> Apple, and he immediately wants to know why you haven't also bashed
>> >> >> anyone from Google to Nabisco to your local children's day care
>> >> >> center.
>> >> >
>> >> >why single out apple when plenty of other companies do the same thing?
>> >> >
>> >> Because normal people don't write that way unless they are presenting
>> >> a white paper on some subject where a wide view of a situation is
>> >> called for.
>> >>
>> >> Just pick up a newspaper or read your news online. Why didn't the
>> >> writer of this article not mention other companies who either don't
>> >> pay taxes or pay very little?
>> >
>> >because mentioning apple gets the clicks.
>> >
>> >> The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
>> >> companies.
>> >
>> >the linked article did not mention ge.
>> >
>> >try again.
>>
>> My error...I copied, but failed to paste, this;
>>
>> http://theweek.com/articles/486055/why-doesnt-general-electric-pay-taxes
>
>yet nobody mentions that.

What do you mean "nobody"? Don't you read a newspaper, watch
television news, or read news online?

It's not mentioned here because this is a photography newsgroup in
case you haven't noticed. Apple is mentioned frequently because
photographers use Apple products in connection with photography.

Nobody - here - mentions J.C. Penny, either. It is in the list of
companies that pay no taxes. Of course, the CEO is Ron Johnson (or,
as you call him, Ron), the former Apple retail chief.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 23:29:21 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

You tried, but you were caught. Good job of snipping what you tried.

[nospam]

In article <an533b1rdtfcq4rtk...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> This, by the way, is not an Apple bash. The law allows them to do it
> >> this way, and they are doing what is best for Apple.
> >
> >yep.
> >
> >> It is a bash of nospam for attempting to mislead with "most".
> >
> >there is no misleading.
>
> You tried, but you were caught. Good job of snipping what you tried.

i was not caught at anything. what i wrote was correct.

as usual, *you* tried to twist it into something that it isn't and
failed.

[nospam]

In article <81533b591qopgl709...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
> >> >> companies.
> >> >
> >> >the linked article did not mention ge.
> >> >
> >> >try again.
> >>
> >> My error...I copied, but failed to paste, this;
> >>
> >> http://theweek.com/articles/486055/why-doesnt-general-electric-pay-taxes
> >
> >yet nobody mentions that.
>
> What do you mean "nobody"? Don't you read a newspaper, watch
> television news, or read news online?

i stay current. what you clearly don't understand is that mentioning
apple gets the clicks. mentioning ge doesn't. that's why you'll hear
about apple and factories in china but never dell or sony, which use
the very same factories.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:23:30 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I just trying to work with what *you* write.

Does "nobody" mention GE and tax avoidance or not? Or, is it just
here in a photography group where GE isn't mentioned?

Is it your contention (and I'm trying to keep a straight face when
writing this) that the only reason GE is not mentioned in this
newsgroup is that nobody would click through to a link about GE?
Or, is it because nobody *here* gives fuck-all attention to GE as a
photography-related company?

I fully understand why Apple is mentioned. Most of us here use some
product made by Apple in our photography pursuits whether it be a Mac,
an iPhone, or an iPad. There are a GE digital cameras. Maybe you
have one. Probably this one:
http://www.fleetfarm.com/detail/GE-12.4-MP-Digital-Camera/0000000058919?utm_source=googleps&utm_medium=shopping%2Bsearch&utm_campaign=google%2Bproduct%20search&gslfah&gclid=Cj0KEQjw5MGxBRDiuZm2icXX2-sBEiQA619bq1SENXkxaDMc6pv-GkNT7B4w3VRL3AUpE7vRZH6tJHAaAhIf8P8HAQ

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:23:28 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <an533b1rdtfcq4rtk...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> This, by the way, is not an Apple bash. The law allows them to do it
>> >> this way, and they are doing what is best for Apple.
>> >
>> >yep.
>> >
>> >> It is a bash of nospam for attempting to mislead with "most".
>> >
>> >there is no misleading.
>>
>> You tried, but you were caught. Good job of snipping what you tried.
>
>i was not caught at anything. what i wrote was correct.

I didn't say it was not correct. I said it was misleading.

>as usual, *you* tried to twist it into something that it isn't and
>failed.

Nope. Just working with what *you* wrote.

[RJH]

On 28/10/2015 23:28, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:51:42 +0000, sid <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
>
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <2555840.m...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid
>>> <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
>>>
>> --- snip ---
>
>>> the irs does *not* tell a taxpayer how much to pay unless they're
>>> delinquent, in which case they have far bigger problems, or if they're
>>> stupid enough to request the irs to give them an amount to pay.
>>>
>>> not only do taxpayers take deductions to which they are entitled, but
>>> many of them hire an accountant who understands tax law and knows what
>>> deductions are possible. most people don't because tax law is highly
>>> convoluted and needs to be simplified.
>>>
>>>> Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend
>>>> on tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
>>>
>>> of course it's comparable and there's nothing scammy about it. the only
>>> difference is the amount paid.
>>
>> Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
>> Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay net
>> to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?
>
> I disagree. A company is free to organise it's business in any way it
> likes, subject only to the laws which govern it's behaviour.

Yes, of course it is. But most would agree that a US company *should*
pay taxes in the US. Except, of course, those likely to profit from an
offshore tax arrangement. And a few others, whose reasoning defeats me.


--
Cheers, Rob

[Eric Stevens]

I'm afraid that's ignorance, at least when the bulk of the business
and the profits occur in other parts of the world which have tax laws
of their own.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 23:29:18 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Now that's a really *weird* way of looking at it.

>
>you can't please everyone.

Certainly not nospam.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <tn933bhf8k6ttngpi...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> This, by the way, is not an Apple bash. The law allows them to do it
> >> >> this way, and they are doing what is best for Apple.
> >> >
> >> >yep.
> >> >
> >> >> It is a bash of nospam for attempting to mislead with "most".
> >> >
> >> >there is no misleading.
> >>
> >> You tried, but you were caught. Good job of snipping what you tried.
> >
> >i was not caught at anything. what i wrote was correct.
>
> I didn't say it was not correct. I said it was misleading.

there's nothing misleading about what i wrote and tim cook said the
very same thing, so go pester him. i gave you his phone number already.

> >as usual, *you* tried to twist it into something that it isn't and
> >failed.
>
> Nope. Just working with what *you* wrote.

nope. you're trying to bash me at every turn.

[nospam]

In article <s1933blv6nuodrpv6...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
> >> >> >> companies.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >the linked article did not mention ge.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >try again.
> >> >>
> >> >> My error...I copied, but failed to paste, this;
> >> >>
> >> >> http://theweek.com/articles/486055/why-doesnt-general-electric-pay-taxes
> >> >
> >> >yet nobody mentions that.
> >>
> >> What do you mean "nobody"? Don't you read a newspaper, watch
> >> television news, or read news online?
> >
> >i stay current. what you clearly don't understand is that mentioning
> >apple gets the clicks. mentioning ge doesn't. that's why you'll hear
> >about apple and factories in china but never dell or sony, which use
> >the very same factories.
>
> I just trying to work with what *you* write.

no you're not. you're trying to find a way to bash. you are incapable
of having a normal discussion.

> Does "nobody" mention GE and tax avoidance or not? Or, is it just
> here in a photography group where GE isn't mentioned?

if you want to discuss tax avoidance, then ge is on topic.

however, the the topic is not tax avoidance, it's apple-bashing.

> Is it your contention (and I'm trying to keep a straight face when
> writing this) that the only reason GE is not mentioned in this
> newsgroup is that nobody would click through to a link about GE?
> Or, is it because nobody *here* gives fuck-all attention to GE as a
> photography-related company?

ge doesn't get the clicks. there is no linkbait with ge.

> I fully understand why Apple is mentioned. Most of us here use some
> product made by Apple in our photography pursuits whether it be a Mac,
> an iPhone, or an iPad.

that's not why apple gets mentioned and you know it.

> There are a GE digital cameras.

crappy ones.

> Maybe you
> have one.

more of your bashing and it is of course, completely wrong.

> Probably this one:
>
> http://www.fleetfarm.com/detail/GE-12.4-MP-Digital-Camera/0000000058919?utm_so
> urce=googleps&utm_medium=shopping%2Bsearch&utm_campaign=google%2Bproduct%20sea
> rch&gslfah&gclid=Cj0KEQjw5MGxBRDiuZm2icXX2-sBEiQA619bq1SENXkxaDMc6pv-GkNT7B4w3VRL3AUpE7vRZH6tJHAaAhIf8P8HAQ

learn to trim urls. anything including and beyond the ?utm is tracking
information and not needed.

all that's needed is this:
<http://www.fleetfarm.com/detail/GE-12.4-MP-Digital-Camera/0000000058919>

and it's junk.

[PeterN]

On 10/28/2015 3:40 PM, sid wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>

>> In article <cf030932-7022-4fb7...@googlegroups.com>,

>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/apple-back-taxes-ireland/?iid=EL
>>>
>>> I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from Apple?
>>
>> the only dickhead is you.
>
> Who is the bigger dickhead? The one that posts the troll in the first place
> or the one that follows up to the troll with another post exclaiming how
> fair and just his object of adulation is?
>

>> that link is six months old and it's yet another one of your moronic
>> anti-apple trolls.
>>
>> not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing taxes
>> is *expected* and *encouraged*.
>
> Only by the morally bankrupt and greedy.
>

>> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
>> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
>
> It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
>

>> even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
>> possible.
>
> Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's that.

> Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend on
> tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.
>

>> unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
>> laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
>> that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
>> the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
>

> If they actually gave two shits for anything other than the amount of money
> they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same rate as
> all the other honest companies in the countries in which they extract
> exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.
>

Tax laws are a judicially approved method implementing economic policy.
think retirement plans, think international trade, etc. It's easy to
criticize with a bumper sticker political slogan It's much harder to
implement in real life. There are many loopholes that perhaps shouldn't
be there, but that doesn't negate the whole system.

--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:00:03 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <s1933blv6nuodrpv6...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >> The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
>> >> >> >> companies.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >the linked article did not mention ge.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >try again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My error...I copied, but failed to paste, this;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://theweek.com/articles/486055/why-doesnt-general-electric-pay-taxes
>> >> >
>> >> >yet nobody mentions that.
>> >>
>> >> What do you mean "nobody"? Don't you read a newspaper, watch
>> >> television news, or read news online?
>> >
>> >i stay current. what you clearly don't understand is that mentioning
>> >apple gets the clicks. mentioning ge doesn't. that's why you'll hear
>> >about apple and factories in china but never dell or sony, which use
>> >the very same factories.
>>
>> I just trying to work with what *you* write.
>
>no you're not. you're trying to find a way to bash. you are incapable
>of having a normal discussion.

A normal discussion with you is refuting your latest argument.

>> Does "nobody" mention GE and tax avoidance or not? Or, is it just
>> here in a photography group where GE isn't mentioned?
>
>if you want to discuss tax avoidance, then ge is on topic.
>
>however, the the topic is not tax avoidance, it's apple-bashing.
>

Typical nospam misdirection. The subject has been Apple's tax
avoidance. Even those who "bash" Apple - and I don't - have to have
something to bash them about, so the topic has to include that.

You mention "clicks" as if that means something. It doesn't. When a
reader of this group clicks on a link it doesn't result in any benefit
to the person who posted that link. Either you don't understand this,
or you deliberately post comments that you know are ridiculous
assertions.

[PAS]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:281020152242108248%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Well, a person like Warren Buffet who has made a point of saying that
his tax rate is too low, lower than his secretary's (who makes a
six-figure income), should shut up and put up if he thinks he should pay
more. It's his choice. The US government has aken in record income
year after year. For those who complain that our taxes aren't high
enough, let them pay more - there is a provision when they file their
returns to do so. I have a few friends who say we should pay more taxes
to our government. But they take every possible deduction they can to
minimize their tax burden, they just want to see others pay more.

[PAS]

"PeterN" <pete...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:n0t93...@news4.newsguy.com...

Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:21:58 -0400, "PAS" <nto...@optonline.net>
wrote:

People who say their corporation should pay more in taxes - like
Buffet and (allegedly) Cook - would be doing their shareholders a
disservice if they did so.

However, if they were truly serious about it, they could use their
personal wealth to hire lobbyists to promote change in the tax laws.

Fat chance, though. It's just lip-service.

[sid]

nospam wrote:

> In article <2874655.p...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid
> <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> No, really, Tim a really nice bloke and he only wants to do what's right.
>
> the only correct thing you've said all year.

You never snip context to alter meaning, do you? On the other hand I guess
you could have got completely the wrong end of the stick, again.

--
sid

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:00:03 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <s1933blv6nuodrpv6...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >> The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
>> >> >> >> companies.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >the linked article did not mention ge.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >try again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My error...I copied, but failed to paste, this;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://theweek.com/articles/486055/why-doesnt-general-electric-pay-taxes
>> >> >
>> >> >yet nobody mentions that.
>> >>
>> >> What do you mean "nobody"? Don't you read a newspaper, watch
>> >> television news, or read news online?
>> >
>> >i stay current. what you clearly don't understand is that mentioning
>> >apple gets the clicks. mentioning ge doesn't. that's why you'll hear
>> >about apple and factories in china but never dell or sony, which use
>> >the very same factories.
>>
>> I just trying to work with what *you* write.
>
>no you're not. you're trying to find a way to bash. you are incapable
>of having a normal discussion.
>
>> Does "nobody" mention GE and tax avoidance or not? Or, is it just
>> here in a photography group where GE isn't mentioned?
>
>if you want to discuss tax avoidance, then ge is on topic.
>
>however, the the topic is not tax avoidance, it's apple-bashing.

Nope. it's Apple's tax avoidance. More to the point it's the
extraordinary statement made by Tim Cook.

>
>> Is it your contention (and I'm trying to keep a straight face when
>> writing this) that the only reason GE is not mentioned in this
>> newsgroup is that nobody would click through to a link about GE?
>> Or, is it because nobody *here* gives fuck-all attention to GE as a
>> photography-related company?
>
>ge doesn't get the clicks. there is no linkbait with ge.
>
>> I fully understand why Apple is mentioned. Most of us here use some
>> product made by Apple in our photography pursuits whether it be a Mac,
>> an iPhone, or an iPad.
>
>that's not why apple gets mentioned and you know it.
>
>> There are a GE digital cameras.
>
>crappy ones.
>
>> Maybe you
>> have one.
>
>more of your bashing and it is of course, completely wrong.
>
>> Probably this one:
>>
>> http://www.fleetfarm.com/detail/GE-12.4-MP-Digital-Camera/0000000058919?utm_so
>> urce=googleps&utm_medium=shopping%2Bsearch&utm_campaign=google%2Bproduct%20sea
>> rch&gslfah&gclid=Cj0KEQjw5MGxBRDiuZm2icXX2-sBEiQA619bq1SENXkxaDMc6pv-GkNT7B4w3VRL3AUpE7vRZH6tJHAaAhIf8P8HAQ
>
>learn to trim urls. anything including and beyond the ?utm is tracking
>information and not needed.
>
>all that's needed is this:
><http://www.fleetfarm.com/detail/GE-12.4-MP-Digital-Camera/0000000058919>
>
>and it's junk.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[sid]

nospam wrote:


>> >> > the only dickhead is you.
>> >>
>> >> Who is the bigger dickhead? The one that posts the troll in the first
>> >> place or the one that follows up to the troll with another post
>> >> exclaiming how fair and just his object of adulation is?
>> >

>> > now that you joined the thread, the biggest dickhead would be you, and
>> > by a mile.
>>
>> Ooooh, touchy!
>
> truth hurts.

It's unusual for you to admit to feeling vulnerable, well done!

>> >> > not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing
>> >> > taxes is *expected* and *encouraged*.
>> >>
>> >> Only by the morally bankrupt and greedy.
>> >

>> > nonsense.
>>
>> It's not nonsense at all, it just depends which side of the fence you're
>> on.
>
> no it doesn't.

Yes it does and no amount of you denying it will make opposing business
attitudes to your narrow minded one go away. Deal with it.

> do you take tax deductions or do you pay the most you could possibly
> pay? if it's the former, you're morally bankrupt and greedy.

I haven't registered my business in a foreign tax haven, no, if that's what
your asking.

>> >> > numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
>> >> > google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
>> >>
>> >> It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
>> >

>> > what two wrongs?
>>
>> Don't pretend to be dimmer than you already are.
>
> it ain't me who is dim.
>
>> > the tax laws are what they are and companies abiding by them is not
>> > wrong. that's how it works.
>>
>> Well duh.
>
> at least you agree that apple and the others are not doing anything
> wrong.

I challenge you to show where I said they were doing anything illegal, oh
that's right, I didn't. This is another example of you making something up
and basing your argument and your insults on that.

> that pretty much throws your entire rant out the window and makes you
> look like a total dickhead.

Except I haven't said any such thing in the first place, dickhead!

>> > if you think what the various companies are doing is illegal, then go
>> > contact the relevant authorities. good luck on that one nd be prepared
>> > to be laughed at.
>>
>> Why are you making things up?
>
> i'm not making anything up.

Yes you are.

> as i said, if you think *any* of these companies are engaging in tax
> fraud or any other illegal activity, get off your duff and contact the
> appropriate authorities.
>
> but you won't.

That's because I haven't said that I do, dickhead!

>> > something that you are also ignoring is that apple *wants* to change
>> > the tax laws, resulting in them paying *more* tax. do you hear the
>> > other companies saying that? nope. once again, apple gets bashed for
>> > trying to fix the problems.
>>
>> I haven't ignored anything, Apples lip service means jack shit.
>
> you're ignoring everything that shows you to be wrong.

Wrong about what?

>> >> > even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
>> >> > possible.
>> >>
>> >> Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's
>> >> that.
>> >

>> > nonsense. nobody can be that stupid.
>>
>> Do you get told what rate of tax you have to pay on whatever it is you
>> tell the taxman you have earned?
>
> they tell the rate, but not the *amount*.

Well that's the point you buffoon, if the tax havens government only says
pay 2% then that's what you do. But *you* can't do that can you?

> if you request a total from the irs, they won't include the various
> deductions, so the total will be higher than what it should be. only a
> moron would go that route.

Only a moron would have got this far in an unnecessary explanation after
misunderstanding the point of the post he was replying to.

>> Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
>> Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay
>> net to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?
>

> apple does not pay net zero tax. you're wrong yet again. in fact, they
> are among the companies who pay the *most* taxes of any usa
> corporation, if not the most.

That should be "next to zero." I'm not in USA, they don't pay their fair
share here either. And you didn't even answer the question.

> by the way, google did what you accuse apple of doing:
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-10/google-revenues-shelt
> ered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion>
> Google Inc. avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in
> 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell
> company, almost double the total from three years before, filings
> show.

Why does how Google behave have anything to do with what Apple do. It's that
two wrong things thing again isn't it?

> apple has long had a presence in ireland, including having a factory
> there.

Well that's fine then isn't it.

--
sid

[PeterN]

The notion of a flat tax in inherently unfair to lower income people.
For references look the publication, Statistics Of Income.

<https://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-SOI-Bulletins>

Then tell us how much of a flat tax can be paid, after lower income
people pay for their absolute necessities. You and I have differed for
years on political, economic and religious matters. I leave the reading
and interpretation to your good faith interpretation. If you want to
carry this further, I will be in your neighborhood in a few weeks. We
can talk then.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 10/29/2015 4:35 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 23:29:18 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> you can't please everyone.
>
> Certainly not nospam.
>

You certainly can please nospam. swallow his bait.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

Except, the baited hook was set by RichA, and nospam has already bitten.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:24:46 -0400, "PAS" <nto...@optonline.net>
wrote:

>Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
>tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
>50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
>still get tax credits.

'Flat Tax' is not the same as 'Flat Tax Rate'.

I suspect you mean the latter.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <uua43b50pdklg0v8u...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

there is no allegedly. tim said that.

> However, if they were truly serious about it, they could use their
> personal wealth to hire lobbyists to promote change in the tax laws.

until a day ago, you didn't even know that was their position.

> Fat chance, though. It's just lip-service.

for apple, it's not just lip service.

you are once again, talking out your ass.

[nospam]

In article <10487400....@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid

<sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:

> > if you request a total from the irs, they won't include the various
> > deductions, so the total will be higher than what it should be. only a
> > moron would go that route.
>
> Only a moron would have got this far in an unnecessary explanation after
> misunderstanding the point of the post he was replying to.

i did not misunderstand anything.

> >> Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
> >> Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay
> >> net to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?
> >
> > apple does not pay net zero tax. you're wrong yet again. in fact, they
> > are among the companies who pay the *most* taxes of any usa
> > corporation, if not the most.
>
> That should be "next to zero." I'm not in USA, they don't pay their fair
> share here either. And you didn't even answer the question.

it's not next to zero and i did.

> > by the way, google did what you accuse apple of doing:
> > <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-10/google-revenues-shelt
> > ered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion>
> > Google Inc. avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in
> > 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell
> > company, almost double the total from three years before, filings
> > show.
>
> Why does how Google behave have anything to do with what Apple do. It's that
> two wrong things thing again isn't it?

because you're singling out apple and giving a free pass to everyone
else.

> > apple has long had a presence in ireland, including having a factory
> > there.
>
> Well that's fine then isn't it.

it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
purpose of offshoring money.

[nospam]

In article <n0ucd...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<pete...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>
> >> Tax laws are a judicially approved method implementing economic
> >> policy. think retirement plans, think international trade, etc. It's
> >> easy to criticize with a bumper sticker political slogan It's much
> >> harder to implement in real life. There are many loopholes that
> >> perhaps shouldn't be there, but that doesn't negate the whole system.
> >
> > Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
> > tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
> > 50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
> > still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
> > patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.
>
> The notion of a flat tax in inherently unfair to lower income people.

a flat tax is as fair as it gets. the more you make the more you pay.

it's also simple. a tax return can be done in a minute or two, versus
needing to hire an accountant or tax preparer, which poor people can't
afford either.

[nospam]

In article <u3153b9j85dvg36h1...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> Does "nobody" mention GE and tax avoidance or not? Or, is it just
> >> here in a photography group where GE isn't mentioned?
> >
> >if you want to discuss tax avoidance, then ge is on topic.
> >
> >however, the the topic is not tax avoidance, it's apple-bashing.
>
> Nope. it's Apple's tax avoidance. More to the point it's the
> extraordinary statement made by Tim Cook.

what extraordinary statement?

[nospam]

In article <n0t9u3$7s4$1...@dont-email.me>, PAS <nto...@optonline.net>

wrote:

> >> > unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the
> >> > tax
> >> > laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the
> >> > money.
> >> > that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just
> >> > not
> >> > the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
> >>
> >> Yeah, Warren Buffett claimed the same thing. Thing is, he could have
> >> volunteered any time to pay more taxes, but he didn't, and neither
> >> did Apple.
> >
> > why would anyone voluntarily pay more taxes than they actually owe?
>
> Well, a person like Warren Buffet who has made a point of saying that
> his tax rate is too low, lower than his secretary's (who makes a
> six-figure income), should shut up and put up if he thinks he should pay
> more. It's his choice. The US government has aken in record income
> year after year. For those who complain that our taxes aren't high
> enough, let them pay more - there is a provision when they file their
> returns to do so. I have a few friends who say we should pay more taxes
> to our government. But they take every possible deduction they can to
> minimize their tax burden, they just want to see others pay more.

you make my point.

nobody pays more than they have to, whether it's you, your friends,
warren, apple, microsoft or google.

the tax laws need to change, but that will never happen because there
are way too many people who have a vested interest in keeping things
the same.

[nospam]

In article <n0ta3b$8i7$1...@dont-email.me>, PAS <nto...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> > Tax laws are a judicially approved method implementing economic
> > policy. think retirement plans, think international trade, etc. It's
> > easy to criticize with a bumper sticker political slogan It's much
> > harder to implement in real life. There are many loopholes that
> > perhaps shouldn't be there, but that doesn't negate the whole system.
>
> Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
> tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
> 50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
> still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
> patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.

agreed.

however, that will never happen because way too many people have a
vested interest in keeping tax laws complicated, including tax
preparers, accountants and lawyers.

[nospam]

In article <ffa43bdmik7vl91ad...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Does "nobody" mention GE and tax avoidance or not? Or, is it just
> >> here in a photography group where GE isn't mentioned?
> >
> >if you want to discuss tax avoidance, then ge is on topic.
> >
> >however, the the topic is not tax avoidance, it's apple-bashing.
> >
> Typical nospam misdirection. The subject has been Apple's tax
> avoidance. Even those who "bash" Apple - and I don't - have to have
> something to bash them about, so the topic has to include that.

they're not avoiding anything. they pay what they owe.

> You mention "clicks" as if that means something. It doesn't.

it does. you don't get to dismiss things because it refutes what you've
said.

> When a
> reader of this group clicks on a link it doesn't result in any benefit
> to the person who posted that link. Either you don't understand this,
> or you deliberately post comments that you know are ridiculous
> assertions.

whoosh.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:51:26 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Has Apple done anything to increase the rate of tax they pay?

If not, it remains lip-service.

Definition of lip-service: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or
allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:51:29 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <ffa43bdmik7vl91ad...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Does "nobody" mention GE and tax avoidance or not? Or, is it just
>> >> here in a photography group where GE isn't mentioned?
>> >
>> >if you want to discuss tax avoidance, then ge is on topic.
>> >
>> >however, the the topic is not tax avoidance, it's apple-bashing.
>> >
>> Typical nospam misdirection. The subject has been Apple's tax
>> avoidance. Even those who "bash" Apple - and I don't - have to have
>> something to bash them about, so the topic has to include that.
>
>they're not avoiding anything. they pay what they owe.
>
>> You mention "clicks" as if that means something. It doesn't.
>
>it does.

Typical nospam smoke screen. Say "it does" but provides no
explanation of what "it does".

Clicks mean nothing to the person in this group who posts a link. If
I post a link, and 10 readers click on that link, there is no benefit
to me at all.

The only time clicks benefit the person is when it is a person who is
paid by the click, and that is not the case here.

Posting a link to a news story does not result in a benefit to the
poster .

Try - just once - to argue something with some substance to your
argument.

>> When a
>> reader of this group clicks on a link it doesn't result in any benefit
>> to the person who posted that link. Either you don't understand this,
>> or you deliberately post comments that you know are ridiculous
>> assertions.
>
>whoosh.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:51:29 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Like Apple at 8%.

You're arguing in circles.

[nospam]

In article <e2r53bhcpdjfigil0...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

it takes quite a bit more than apple asking to change the tax code for
the tax code to change.

meanwhile, you don't see any other companies pushing for changes, do
you? nope.

[nospam]

In article <j9r53blcjco2ifolo...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Clicks mean nothing to the person in this group who posts a link. If
> I post a link, and 10 readers click on that link, there is no benefit
> to me at all.

you clearly don't understand what linkbait is, and as usual, playing
word games to twist things into what i did not say.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:51:28 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <n0ucd...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
><pete...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> Tax laws are a judicially approved method implementing economic
>> >> policy. think retirement plans, think international trade, etc. It's
>> >> easy to criticize with a bumper sticker political slogan It's much
>> >> harder to implement in real life. There are many loopholes that
>> >> perhaps shouldn't be there, but that doesn't negate the whole system.
>> >
>> > Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
>> > tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
>> > 50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
>> > still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
>> > patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.
>>
>> The notion of a flat tax in inherently unfair to lower income people.
>
>a flat tax is as fair as it gets. the more you make the more you pay.

One more thing that you evidently don't understand. A flat tax rate
is the most regressive tax plan possible without other conditions.

Most of the income earned by the lower income group goes to the basics
of food, clothing and shelter. Add a flat rate tax to their outgo,
and they live in poverty. The higher income people spend far less of
their income percentage-wise on the basics of food, clothing, and
shelter. That leaves them with a great deal of disposable income.
That's the regressive and unfair aspect of a flat tax rate.

Other conditions can be included, but you haven't stated that this
would be necessary.

Stick to what you know. This is quite obviously a subject you don't
know.

[nospam]

In article <lnr53bhpb83popfl1...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> Tax laws are a judicially approved method implementing economic
> >> >> policy. think retirement plans, think international trade, etc. It's
> >> >> easy to criticize with a bumper sticker political slogan It's much
> >> >> harder to implement in real life. There are many loopholes that
> >> >> perhaps shouldn't be there, but that doesn't negate the whole system.
> >> >
> >> > Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
> >> > tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
> >> > 50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
> >> > still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
> >> > patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.
> >>
> >> The notion of a flat tax in inherently unfair to lower income people.
> >
> >a flat tax is as fair as it gets. the more you make the more you pay.
>
> One more thing that you evidently don't understand. A flat tax rate
> is the most regressive tax plan possible without other conditions.

nonsense. it's much better than what exists now.

and why don't you go bash the other peter, who was the first person to
bring it up. you won't because all you do is bash me.

> Most of the income earned by the lower income group goes to the basics
> of food, clothing and shelter. Add a flat rate tax to their outgo,
> and they live in poverty.

so have an exemption for the lowest income group. big deal. that
doesn't invalidate the concept.

> The higher income people spend far less of
> their income percentage-wise on the basics of food, clothing, and
> shelter. That leaves them with a great deal of disposable income.

higher income people have more money than lower income. that should not
be a surprise to anyone.

higher income people will also spend more on food, clothing and shelter
than lower income people, often quite a bit more, and likely end up
with less disposable income.

learning how to budget is important regardless of income level.

> That's the regressive and unfair aspect of a flat tax rate.

nope. it's quite the opposite. the more you make the more tax you pay.

> Other conditions can be included, but you haven't stated that this
> would be necessary.

you're once again assuming things.

i don't have to spell out the full details in every single post.

> Stick to what you know. This is quite obviously a subject you don't
> know.

why don't you do the same.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:17:19 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <e2r53bhcpdjfigil0...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Fat chance, though. It's just lip-service.
>> >
>> >for apple, it's not just lip service.
>>
>> Has Apple done anything to increase the rate of tax they pay?
>>
>> If not, it remains lip-service.
>>
>> Definition of lip-service: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or
>> allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds
>
>it takes quite a bit more than apple asking to change the tax code for
>the tax code to change.

Right. And Mr Cook understands that. He can claim he advocates it,
but he knows that it makes him sound like a good guy to his acolytes,
but it doesn't mean jack-shit in the real world. It's lip-service.

>
>meanwhile, you don't see any other companies pushing for changes, do
>you? nope.

The result of making a PR announcement and the result of doing nothing
have the same result: nothing.

How many lobbyists has he funded to get changes made?

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:17:18 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

You are not fooling anyone by snipping to twist and playing
revisionist.

You did not say anything about "linkbait" until this post. You said
"because mentioning apple gets the clicks." You are trying to revise
what you said and introduce a different term.

"Linkbait" is entirely different.

I'm not playing word games. I'm responding to the word *you* used.

[nospam]

In article <2eu53bdik1oifd7ff...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Definition of lip-service: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or
> >> allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds
> >
> >it takes quite a bit more than apple asking to change the tax code for
> >the tax code to change.
>
> Right. And Mr Cook understands that. He can claim he advocates it,
> but he knows that it makes him sound like a good guy to his acolytes,
> but it doesn't mean jack-shit in the real world. It's lip-service.

you're all talk. you can pretend it's nothing more than an empty claim,
but as usual, you have zero evidence to back that up. you're just
spewing nonsense.

> >meanwhile, you don't see any other companies pushing for changes, do
> >you? nope.
>
> The result of making a PR announcement and the result of doing nothing
> have the same result: nothing.

it's not a pr announcement. he actually gave a proposal, which is much
more than you've done.

he wants the tax code completely overhauled because it's a convoluted
mess. it's 7500+ pages long and nobody, not even you, understands all
of it.

> How many lobbyists has he funded to get changes made?

you tell me. you claim to know everything.

hint: it's >0.

and since you brought it up, lobbying is yet another thing that needs
to end. it's one of the main reasons, if not the biggest reason, that
the system is as corrupt as it is.

[nospam]

In article <fbu53b9qu74e2lkej...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Clicks mean nothing to the person in this group who posts a link. If
> >> I post a link, and 10 readers click on that link, there is no benefit
> >> to me at all.
> >
> >you clearly don't understand what linkbait is, and as usual, playing
> >word games to twist things into what i did not say.
>
> You are not fooling anyone by snipping to twist and playing
> revisionist.

good thing that's not what i'm doing, you lying sack of shit.

and you're not fooling anyone by pretending you know everything either.

> You did not say anything about "linkbait" until this post. You said
> "because mentioning apple gets the clicks." You are trying to revise
> what you said and introduce a different term.

that's what linkbait is. it gets the clicks.

you once again demonstrate your ignorance and intent on arguing at
every turn.

> "Linkbait" is entirely different.

nope.

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/link_bait>
2 (Internet marketing) Provocative headlines designed specifically
to persuade people to click or share by using loaded terminology
(e.g. incredible, secret, shocking, unbelievable), posing provocative
questions, or tying themselves in to hot topics.

Synonyms[edit]
€ clickbait

> I'm not playing word games.

yes you most certainly are, as you always do.

> I'm responding to the word *you* used.

in other words, you're playing word games.

usually you don't contradict yourself in the same line (split up for
the response), but this time you did.

this may come to you as a big surprise, but there can be more than one
word for something.

you really are an ignorant argumentative fuckhead.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:47:02 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <2eu53bdik1oifd7ff...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Definition of lip-service: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or
>> >> allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds
>> >
>> >it takes quite a bit more than apple asking to change the tax code for
>> >the tax code to change.
>>
>> Right. And Mr Cook understands that. He can claim he advocates it,
>> but he knows that it makes him sound like a good guy to his acolytes,
>> but it doesn't mean jack-shit in the real world. It's lip-service.
>
>you're all talk. you can pretend it's nothing more than an empty claim,
>but as usual, you have zero evidence to back that up. you're just
>spewing nonsense.
>

What evidence do you have that it's more than lip-service?

>> >meanwhile, you don't see any other companies pushing for changes, do
>> >you? nope.
>>
>> The result of making a PR announcement and the result of doing nothing
>> have the same result: nothing.
>
>it's not a pr announcement. he actually gave a proposal, which is much
>more than you've done.

Of course it's more than I've done, and it's certainly more than
you've done. Neither of us has a income of over $50 bn that we
represent. What they'd get from us wouldn't buy donuts for Orin
Hatch's Senate Finance Committee meetings.

As for a "proposal", Carson, Huckabee, and Paul have "proposals". None
of them hold water.

>he wants the tax code completely overhauled because it's a convoluted
>mess. it's 7500+ pages long and nobody, not even you, understands all
>of it.

Of course he does. Apple's overhead costs to prepare their taxes runs
in the millions. A simpler tax code would increase Apple's bottom
line. That could more than offset paying "a little more" in taxes.

Do you think Apple's using TurboTax?

>> How many lobbyists has he funded to get changes made?
>
>you tell me. you claim to know everything.
>
>hint: it's >0.

Then he isn't doing anything to change things.

>and since you brought it up, lobbying is yet another thing that needs
>to end. it's one of the main reasons, if not the biggest reason, that
>the system is as corrupt as it is.

Yes, but if you want change in the tax code that's the route you have
to go. If you are a realist, you work the system.

Cook has been pro-active in supporting LGBT rights and opposing the
so-called "Religious Freedom" laws (which are just another form of
bigotry), and I give him full credit for this. Also, he's pissed off
Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum and anyone who does that gets my
personal support.

While he did appear before a Congressional committee and testify that
he is in favor of tax reform, and stated that maybe Apple would pay "a
little bit more", he's working from what he states as avoidance of
$13.8 bn in taxes. The right kind of reform would reduce Apple's
expenses and result in no net change to Apple's bottom line.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:47:04 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Do you know how silly that makes you sound?

>
>usually you don't contradict yourself in the same line (split up for
>the response), but this time you did.
>
>this may come to you as a big surprise, but there can be more than one
>word for something.
>

Sure, I know that. But the word "apple" does not also have the
meaning of "orange". "Click" does not have the meaning of "linkbait".

If you aren't smart enough to know the right word, don't post.

>you really are an ignorant argumentative fuckhead.

You are laughable. A "click" is anyone who opens a link in this
newsgroup. All "clicks" are not linkbait. If you mean "linkbait",
say "linkbait".

But you don't. You say "clicks" and then later modify your statement
and say you mean "linkbait".

Saying "clicks", and then saying later you meant "linkbait" is the
very definition of playing word games.

If you had used "linkbait" in your original statement that started
this line of argument (and it takes two to do that, you know) I
wouldn't have responded.

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:51:27 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Apple uses lotsa shell companies including:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/300791-senate-report-accuses-apple-of-using-shell-companies-to-dodge-taxes
or http://tinyurl.com/myab32h
... and this one will interest no spam http://tinyurl.com/myab32h
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:51:26 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

About wanting to pay more tax.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:47:02 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <2eu53bdik1oifd7ff...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Definition of lip-service: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or
>> >> allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds
>> >
>> >it takes quite a bit more than apple asking to change the tax code for
>> >the tax code to change.
>>
>> Right. And Mr Cook understands that. He can claim he advocates it,
>> but he knows that it makes him sound like a good guy to his acolytes,
>> but it doesn't mean jack-shit in the real world. It's lip-service.
>
>you're all talk. you can pretend it's nothing more than an empty claim,
>but as usual, you have zero evidence to back that up. you're just
>spewing nonsense.
>
>> >meanwhile, you don't see any other companies pushing for changes, do
>> >you? nope.
>>
>> The result of making a PR announcement and the result of doing nothing
>> have the same result: nothing.
>
>it's not a pr announcement. he actually gave a proposal, which is much
>more than you've done.
>
>he wants the tax code completely overhauled because it's a convoluted
>mess. it's 7500+ pages long and nobody, not even you, understands all
>of it.

That makes sense but it's not the same thing as saying that he wants
Apple to pay more tax.

>> How many lobbyists has he funded to get changes made?
>
>you tell me. you claim to know everything.
>
>hint: it's >0.
>
>and since you brought it up, lobbying is yet another thing that needs
>to end. it's one of the main reasons, if not the biggest reason, that
>the system is as corrupt as it is.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PAS]

"PeterN" <pete...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:n0ucd...@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 10/29/2015 10:24 AM, PAS wrote:
>> "PeterN" <pete...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:n0t93...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>> On 10/28/2015 3:40 PM, sid wrote:
>>>> nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <cf030932-7022-4fb7...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/technology/apple-back-taxes-ireland/?iid=EL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from
>>>>>> Apple?
>>>>>
>>>>> the only dickhead is you.
>>>>
>>>> Who is the bigger dickhead? The one that posts the troll in the
>>>> first
>>>> place
>>>> or the one that follows up to the troll with another post
>>>> exclaiming how
>>>> fair and just his object of adulation is?
>>>>
>>>>> that link is six months old and it's yet another one of your
>>>>> moronic
>>>>> anti-apple trolls.
>>>>>
>>>>> not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing
>>>>> taxes
>>>>> is *expected* and *encouraged*.
>>>>
>>>> Only by the morally bankrupt and greedy.
>>>>
>>>>> numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
>>>>> google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.
>>>>
>>>> It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.
>>>>
>>>>> even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's
>>>> that.
>>>> Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to
>>>> spend on
>>>> tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.

>>>>
>>>>> unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the
>>>>> tax
>>>>> laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the
>>>>> money.
>>>>> that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are,
>>>>> just not
>>>>> the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.
>>>>

>>>> If they actually gave two shits for anything other than the amount
>>>> of
>>>> money
>>>> they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same
>>>> rate as
>>>> all the other honest companies in the countries in which they
>>>> extract
>>>> exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.

>>>>
>>>
>>> Tax laws are a judicially approved method implementing economic
>>> policy. think retirement plans, think international trade, etc. It's
>>> easy to criticize with a bumper sticker political slogan It's much
>>> harder to implement in real life. There are many loopholes that
>>> perhaps shouldn't be there, but that doesn't negate the whole
>>> system.
>>
>> Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
>> tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the
>> bottom
>> 50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of
>> them
>> still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
>> patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.
>
> The notion of a flat tax in inherently unfair to lower income people.

> For references look the publication, Statistics Of Income.
>
> <https://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-SOI-Bulletins>
>
> Then tell us how much of a flat tax can be paid, after lower income
> people pay for their absolute necessities. You and I have differed for
> years on political, economic and religious matters. I leave the
> reading and interpretation to your good faith interpretation. If you
> want to carry this further, I will be in your neighborhood in a few
> weeks. We can talk then.

I don't think it's unfair to expect every citizen to pay income taxes.
What is unfair is that some who don't pay any tax still receive tax
credits. How can that be justified?

[nospam]

In article <cj763bd4s37odhd2c...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >he wants the tax code completely overhauled because it's a convoluted
> >mess. it's 7500+ pages long and nobody, not even you, understands all
> >of it.
>
> That makes sense but it's not the same thing as saying that he wants
> Apple to pay more tax.

it is the same thing, because overhauling the tax code will likely
result in them paying more tax.

[nospam]

In article <md763blmb9rpg9ghh...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> Does "nobody" mention GE and tax avoidance or not? Or, is it just
> >> >> here in a photography group where GE isn't mentioned?
> >> >
> >> >if you want to discuss tax avoidance, then ge is on topic.
> >> >
> >> >however, the the topic is not tax avoidance, it's apple-bashing.
> >>
> >> Nope. it's Apple's tax avoidance. More to the point it's the
> >> extraordinary statement made by Tim Cook.
> >
> >what extraordinary statement?
>
> About wanting to pay more tax.

he wants tax reform so that it's fair, which may result in more tax.

[nospam]

In article <80763b9o8faqstbdm...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> > apple has long had a presence in ireland, including having a factory
> >> > there.
> >>
> >> Well that's fine then isn't it.
> >
> >it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
> >purpose of offshoring money.
>
> Apple uses lotsa shell companies including:
>
> http://thehill.com/policy/technology/300791-senate-report-accuses-apple-of-usi
> ng-shell-companies-to-dodge-taxes
> or http://tinyurl.com/myab32h
> ... and this one will interest no spam http://tinyurl.com/myab32h

all that says is that they're accused of using a shell company.

apple used to have a factory in ireland. that's not a shell company.

however, apple does use shell companies to maintain secrecy on future
product development, but that's a very, very different matter. people
notice when apple buys stuff. people don't notice when sam's research
llc buys stuff. only after the fact do people figure out that sam's llc
was really apple.

[nospam]

In article <7d163b9hjed0jiprb...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> Definition of lip-service: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or
> >> >> allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds
> >> >
> >> >it takes quite a bit more than apple asking to change the tax code for
> >> >the tax code to change.
> >>
> >> Right. And Mr Cook understands that. He can claim he advocates it,
> >> but he knows that it makes him sound like a good guy to his acolytes,
> >> but it doesn't mean jack-shit in the real world. It's lip-service.
> >
> >you're all talk. you can pretend it's nothing more than an empty claim,
> >but as usual, you have zero evidence to back that up. you're just
> >spewing nonsense.
> >
> What evidence do you have that it's more than lip-service?

because i know how apple works and you do not.

they do things differently, something you refuse to understand.

> >> >meanwhile, you don't see any other companies pushing for changes, do
> >> >you? nope.
> >>
> >> The result of making a PR announcement and the result of doing nothing
> >> have the same result: nothing.
> >
> >it's not a pr announcement. he actually gave a proposal, which is much
> >more than you've done.
>
> Of course it's more than I've done, and it's certainly more than
> you've done. Neither of us has a income of over $50 bn that we
> represent. What they'd get from us wouldn't buy donuts for Orin
> Hatch's Senate Finance Committee meetings.
>
> As for a "proposal", Carson, Huckabee, and Paul have "proposals". None
> of them hold water.

bad comparison.

tim cook is not a corrupt politician trying to win an election. he
doesn't need to lie, something politicians do any time they make a
sound or otherwise communicate with the world.

> >he wants the tax code completely overhauled because it's a convoluted
> >mess. it's 7500+ pages long and nobody, not even you, understands all
> >of it.
>
> Of course he does. Apple's overhead costs to prepare their taxes runs
> in the millions. A simpler tax code would increase Apple's bottom
> line. That could more than offset paying "a little more" in taxes.
>
> Do you think Apple's using TurboTax?

it might reduce their accounting costs but it will probably result in
paying more taxes. you're making a lot of assumptions.

> >> How many lobbyists has he funded to get changes made?
> >
> >you tell me. you claim to know everything.
> >
> >hint: it's >0.
>
> Then he isn't doing anything to change things.

wrong, but he's facing an uphill battle.

> >and since you brought it up, lobbying is yet another thing that needs
> >to end. it's one of the main reasons, if not the biggest reason, that
> >the system is as corrupt as it is.
>
> Yes, but if you want change in the tax code that's the route you have
> to go. If you are a realist, you work the system.

for now they have to play the game, however, apple in general does not
lobby as much as other companies because the entire practice reeks of
corruption.

> Cook has been pro-active in supporting LGBT rights and opposing the
> so-called "Religious Freedom" laws (which are just another form of
> bigotry), and I give him full credit for this. Also, he's pissed off
> Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum and anyone who does that gets my
> personal support.

carly is an incompetent idiot who fucked up hp big time, so much so
that steve jobs even took advantage of her stupidity.

> While he did appear before a Congressional committee and testify that
> he is in favor of tax reform, and stated that maybe Apple would pay "a
> little bit more", he's working from what he states as avoidance of
> $13.8 bn in taxes. The right kind of reform would reduce Apple's
> expenses and result in no net change to Apple's bottom line.

you don't get apple. you likely never will.

[nospam]

In article <tq363bd3qbmj883mb...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

i'm not the one arguing over word usage. that makes you the silly one

> >usually you don't contradict yourself in the same line (split up for
> >the response), but this time you did.
> >
> >this may come to you as a big surprise, but there can be more than one
> >word for something.
> >
> Sure, I know that. But the word "apple" does not also have the
> meaning of "orange". "Click" does not have the meaning of "linkbait".

linkbait generates clicks. that's how it works.

> If you aren't smart enough to know the right word, don't post.

i know the right words.

you do not, so by your own advice you should not post.

this isn't the first time you don't understand the terminology but
continue to argue pretending that you do.

you're wrong. it's that simple.

> >you really are an ignorant argumentative fuckhead.
>
> You are laughable. A "click" is anyone who opens a link in this
> newsgroup. All "clicks" are not linkbait. If you mean "linkbait",
> say "linkbait".
>
> But you don't. You say "clicks" and then later modify your statement
> and say you mean "linkbait".
>
> Saying "clicks", and then saying later you meant "linkbait" is the
> very definition of playing word games.
>
> If you had used "linkbait" in your original statement that started
> this line of argument (and it takes two to do that, you know) I
> wouldn't have responded.

bullshit. if i said linkbait rather than gets the clicks, you'd have
found something else to argue about. it's all you do.

you're trying to weasel out of not understanding things, as you
normally do. you ain't fooling anyone.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:06:20 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

It is *not* the same thing. It's completely unknown until how the tax
code would be revised. The "same thing" can only be said if it is
known what changes would be made that would result in companies like
Apple paying more taxes.

You have said, in another post, "he wants tax reform so that it's
fair, which may result in more tax". The inclusion of "may" indicates
that even you don't think it's the same thing.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:06:23 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <7d163b9hjed0jiprb...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Definition of lip-service: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or
>> >> >> allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds
>> >> >
>> >> >it takes quite a bit more than apple asking to change the tax code for
>> >> >the tax code to change.
>> >>
>> >> Right. And Mr Cook understands that. He can claim he advocates it,
>> >> but he knows that it makes him sound like a good guy to his acolytes,
>> >> but it doesn't mean jack-shit in the real world. It's lip-service.
>> >
>> >you're all talk. you can pretend it's nothing more than an empty claim,
>> >but as usual, you have zero evidence to back that up. you're just
>> >spewing nonsense.
>> >
>> What evidence do you have that it's more than lip-service?
>
>because i know how apple works and you do not.

So you say. A hand-wave at knowing more is not even close to
"evidence".

>
>they do things differently, something you refuse to understand.
>
>> >> >meanwhile, you don't see any other companies pushing for changes, do
>> >> >you? nope.
>> >>
>> >> The result of making a PR announcement and the result of doing nothing
>> >> have the same result: nothing.
>> >
>> >it's not a pr announcement. he actually gave a proposal, which is much
>> >more than you've done.
>>
>> Of course it's more than I've done, and it's certainly more than
>> you've done. Neither of us has a income of over $50 bn that we
>> represent. What they'd get from us wouldn't buy donuts for Orin
>> Hatch's Senate Finance Committee meetings.
>>
>> As for a "proposal", Carson, Huckabee, and Paul have "proposals". None
>> of them hold water.
>
>bad comparison.
>
>tim cook is not a corrupt politician trying to win an election. he
>doesn't need to lie, something politicians do any time they make a
>sound or otherwise communicate with the world.

Tim Cook has a fiduciary responsibility, and a personal incentive, to
keep Apple's stock value up. That's no different from wanting to be
elected to office.

>> >he wants the tax code completely overhauled because it's a convoluted
>> >mess. it's 7500+ pages long and nobody, not even you, understands all
>> >of it.
>>
>> Of course he does. Apple's overhead costs to prepare their taxes runs
>> in the millions. A simpler tax code would increase Apple's bottom
>> line. That could more than offset paying "a little more" in taxes.
>>
>> Do you think Apple's using TurboTax?
>
>it might reduce their accounting costs but it will probably result in
>paying more taxes. you're making a lot of assumptions.

As are you.

Statements like that don't advance your assumptions. It's just mud
slinging.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:06:25 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I am not arguing word usage. I'm pointing out that you chose the
wrong word to describe what you now claim is your point. If you had
chosen the word that you now claim you meant, there would not have
been any disagreement.

>
>> >usually you don't contradict yourself in the same line (split up for
>> >the response), but this time you did.
>> >
>> >this may come to you as a big surprise, but there can be more than one
>> >word for something.
>> >
>> Sure, I know that. But the word "apple" does not also have the
>> meaning of "orange". "Click" does not have the meaning of "linkbait".
>
>linkbait generates clicks. that's how it works.
>
>> If you aren't smart enough to know the right word, don't post.
>
>i know the right words.

Then use them.

>you do not, so by your own advice you should not post.

On the contrary. Where have you shown I've chosen an incorrect word
and then later tried revisionism to make it seem you didn't choose the
wrong word.

>this isn't the first time you don't understand the terminology but
>continue to argue pretending that you do.
>
>you're wrong. it's that simple.
>
>> >you really are an ignorant argumentative fuckhead.
>>
>> You are laughable. A "click" is anyone who opens a link in this
>> newsgroup. All "clicks" are not linkbait. If you mean "linkbait",
>> say "linkbait".
>>
>> But you don't. You say "clicks" and then later modify your statement
>> and say you mean "linkbait".
>>
>> Saying "clicks", and then saying later you meant "linkbait" is the
>> very definition of playing word games.
>>
>> If you had used "linkbait" in your original statement that started
>> this line of argument (and it takes two to do that, you know) I
>> wouldn't have responded.
>
>bullshit. if i said linkbait rather than gets the clicks, you'd have
>found something else to argue about. it's all you do.
>
>you're trying to weasel out of not understanding things, as you
>normally do. you ain't fooling anyone.

"Weaseling" is just a slang term for revisionism. That's your game.

Why not, for a change, just be honest and say "i meant 'linkbait', not
just 'clicks'. Sorry to have erred."?

[nospam]

In article <6o973b1ou1r7c96ti...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> I'm responding to the word *you* used.
> >> >
> >> >in other words, you're playing word games.
> >>
> >> Do you know how silly that makes you sound?
> >
> >i'm not the one arguing over word usage. that makes you the silly one
>
> I am not arguing word usage. I'm pointing out that you chose the
> wrong word to describe what you now claim is your point. If you had
> chosen the word that you now claim you meant, there would not have
> been any disagreement.

i didn't choose the wrong word. you don't understand what's being said
and you're trying to blame me for your own stupidity.

> >> If you had used "linkbait" in your original statement that started
> >> this line of argument (and it takes two to do that, you know) I
> >> wouldn't have responded.
> >
> >bullshit. if i said linkbait rather than gets the clicks, you'd have
> >found something else to argue about. it's all you do.
> >
> >you're trying to weasel out of not understanding things, as you
> >normally do. you ain't fooling anyone.
>
> "Weaseling" is just a slang term for revisionism. That's your game.
>
> Why not, for a change, just be honest and say "i meant 'linkbait', not
> just 'clicks'. Sorry to have erred."?

linkbait generates clicks.

why don't *you* say that *you* erred in not understanding the topic.

[nospam]

In article <le973bd12u7h4imaf...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

mud slinging is all you do, and now you blame me for that? that's
fucked up.

any time i make a post, you nitpick and twist what i say solely to bash
me, regardless of what it is.

[sid]

nospam wrote:

> In article <10487400....@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid
> <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
>
>> > if you request a total from the irs, they won't include the various
>> > deductions, so the total will be higher than what it should be. only a
>> > moron would go that route.
>>
>> Only a moron would have got this far in an unnecessary explanation after
>> misunderstanding the point of the post he was replying to.
>
> i did not misunderstand anything.

Yes you did. It has nothing to do with total amounts of money paid to the
tax man and all to do with the percentage of your profits that you pay to
the tax man.

>> >> Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
>> >> Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and
>> >> pay net to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?
>> >
>> > apple does not pay net zero tax. you're wrong yet again. in fact, they
>> > are among the companies who pay the *most* taxes of any usa
>> > corporation, if not the most.
>>
>> That should be "next to zero." I'm not in USA, they don't pay their fair
>> share here either. And you didn't even answer the question.
>
> it's not next to zero and i did.

2% is next to zero when you compare it to the 35% they should be paying in
the US. You'll have to remind me of your answer to the question as you
appear to have written it in invisible ink.

>> > by the way, google did what you accuse apple of doing:
>> > <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-10/google-revenues-shelt
>> > ered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion>
>> > Google Inc. avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in
>> > 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell
>> > company, almost double the total from three years before, filings
>> > show.
>>
>> Why does how Google behave have anything to do with what Apple do. It's
>> that two wrong things thing again isn't it?
>
> because you're singling out apple and giving a free pass to everyone
> else.

I didn't bring Apple to this discussion at all, it was you, idiot.

>> > apple has long had a presence in ireland, including having a factory
>> > there.
>>
>> Well that's fine then isn't it.
>
> it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
> purpose of offshoring money.

Yes, of course it is.

--
sid

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:35:37 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

If that's your position, then the posting of a link to a photograph is
"linkbait" because it generates a click.

Just admit that you made a mistake and used "clicks" instead of
"linkbait". It won't hurt.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:35:37 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Poor baby.

[nospam]

In article <1695381.X...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid

<sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:

> >> >> Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
> >> >> Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and
> >> >> pay net to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?
> >> >
> >> > apple does not pay net zero tax. you're wrong yet again. in fact, they
> >> > are among the companies who pay the *most* taxes of any usa
> >> > corporation, if not the most.
> >>
> >> That should be "next to zero." I'm not in USA, they don't pay their fair
> >> share here either. And you didn't even answer the question.
> >
> > it's not next to zero and i did.
>
> 2% is next to zero when you compare it to the 35% they should be paying in
> the US. You'll have to remind me of your answer to the question as you
> appear to have written it in invisible ink.

they don't pay 2% tax.

> >> > by the way, google did what you accuse apple of doing:
> >> > <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-10/google-revenues-shelt
> >> > ered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion>
> >> > Google Inc. avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in
> >> > 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell
> >> > company, almost double the total from three years before, filings
> >> > show.
> >>
> >> Why does how Google behave have anything to do with what Apple do. It's
> >> that two wrong things thing again isn't it?
> >
> > because you're singling out apple and giving a free pass to everyone
> > else.
>
> I didn't bring Apple to this discussion at all, it was you, idiot.

nope. the thread started with apple, by rich the troll.

yet another thing you get wrong.

> >> > apple has long had a presence in ireland, including having a factory
> >> > there.
> >>
> >> Well that's fine then isn't it.
> >
> > it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
> > purpose of offshoring money.
>
> Yes, of course it is.

it is, yes.

[nospam]

In article <ehd73bd46mk96k2k0...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> If you had used "linkbait" in your original statement that started
> >> >> this line of argument (and it takes two to do that, you know) I
> >> >> wouldn't have responded.
> >> >
> >> >bullshit. if i said linkbait rather than gets the clicks, you'd have
> >> >found something else to argue about. it's all you do.
> >> >
> >> >you're trying to weasel out of not understanding things, as you
> >> >normally do. you ain't fooling anyone.
> >>
> >> "Weaseling" is just a slang term for revisionism. That's your game.
> >>
> >> Why not, for a change, just be honest and say "i meant 'linkbait', not
> >> just 'clicks'. Sorry to have erred."?
> >
> >linkbait generates clicks.
>
> If that's your position, then the posting of a link to a photograph is
> "linkbait" because it generates a click.

you clearly don't understand what linkbait is and you're digging
yourself a deeper hole.

> Just admit that you made a mistake and used "clicks" instead of
> "linkbait". It won't hurt.

i'm not the one who made a mistake.

you did, and you *still* refuse to acknowledge it, even after several
explanations.

[PeterN]

On 10/29/2015 11:51 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <10487400....@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid
> <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
>
>>> if you request a total from the irs, they won't include the various
>>> deductions, so the total will be higher than what it should be. only a
>>> moron would go that route.
>>
>> Only a moron would have got this far in an unnecessary explanation after
>> misunderstanding the point of the post he was replying to.
>
> i did not misunderstand anything.
>

>>>> Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
>>>> Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay
>>>> net to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?
>>>
>>> apple does not pay net zero tax. you're wrong yet again. in fact, they
>>> are among the companies who pay the *most* taxes of any usa
>>> corporation, if not the most.
>>
>> That should be "next to zero." I'm not in USA, they don't pay their fair
>> share here either. And you didn't even answer the question.
>
> it's not next to zero and i did.
>

>>> by the way, google did what you accuse apple of doing:
>>> <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-10/google-revenues-shelt
>>> ered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion>
>>> Google Inc. avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in
>>> 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell
>>> company, almost double the total from three years before, filings
>>> show.
>>
>> Why does how Google behave have anything to do with what Apple do. It's that
>> two wrong things thing again isn't it?
>
> because you're singling out apple and giving a free pass to everyone
> else.
>

>>> apple has long had a presence in ireland, including having a factory
>>> there.
>>
>> Well that's fine then isn't it.
>
> it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
> purpose of offshoring money.
>

doing that without a valid business purpose is also known as fraudulent
tax evasion. You obviously don't understand the difference between tax
avoidance and tax evasion. Hint: one is legal.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 10/29/2015 11:51 PM, nospam wrote:

> In article <n0ucd...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN

> <pete...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Tax laws are a judicially approved method implementing economic
>>>> policy. think retirement plans, think international trade, etc. It's
>>>> easy to criticize with a bumper sticker political slogan It's much
>>>> harder to implement in real life. There are many loopholes that
>>>> perhaps shouldn't be there, but that doesn't negate the whole system.
>>>
>>> Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
>>> tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
>>> 50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
>>> still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
>>> patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.
>>
>> The notion of a flat tax in inherently unfair to lower income people.
>

> a flat tax is as fair as it gets. the more you make the more you pay.
>
> it's also simple. a tax return can be done in a minute or two, versus
> needing to hire an accountant or tax preparer, which poor people can't
> afford either.
>

Wallow in your ignorance.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 10/30/2015 12:29 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:51:28 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>

> wrote:
>
>> In article <n0ucd...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
>> <pete...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tax laws are a judicially approved method implementing economic
>>>>> policy. think retirement plans, think international trade, etc. It's
>>>>> easy to criticize with a bumper sticker political slogan It's much
>>>>> harder to implement in real life. There are many loopholes that
>>>>> perhaps shouldn't be there, but that doesn't negate the whole system.
>>>>
>>>> Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
>>>> tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
>>>> 50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
>>>> still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
>>>> patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.
>>>
>>> The notion of a flat tax in inherently unfair to lower income people.
>>
>> a flat tax is as fair as it gets. the more you make the more you pay.
>
>

> One more thing that you evidently don't understand. A flat tax rate
> is the most regressive tax plan possible without other conditions.
>
> Most of the income earned by the lower income group goes to the basics
> of food, clothing and shelter. Add a flat rate tax to their outgo,
> and they live in poverty. The higher income people spend far less of
> their income percentage-wise on the basics of food, clothing, and
> shelter. That leaves them with a great deal of disposable income.
> That's the regressive and unfair aspect of a flat tax rate.
>
> Other conditions can be included, but you haven't stated that this
> would be necessary.
>
> Stick to what you know. This is quite obviously a subject you don't
> know.
>
And he obviously didn't read the link that would back up our statement.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

I will not discuss this further online. It's too far OT.
I have a friend who makes you look like a left wing liberal. We plan to
go to th Aquarium after my eyes and legs get better.

--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:21:59 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <1695381.X...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid
><sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
>> >> >> Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and
>> >> >> pay net to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?
>> >> >
>> >> > apple does not pay net zero tax. you're wrong yet again. in fact, they
>> >> > are among the companies who pay the *most* taxes of any usa
>> >> > corporation, if not the most.
>> >>
>> >> That should be "next to zero." I'm not in USA, they don't pay their fair
>> >> share here either. And you didn't even answer the question.
>> >
>> > it's not next to zero and i did.
>>
>> 2% is next to zero when you compare it to the 35% they should be paying in
>> the US. You'll have to remind me of your answer to the question as you
>> appear to have written it in invisible ink.
>
>they don't pay 2% tax.

The 2% tax rate is their foreign tax rate. Their domestic tax rate is
somewhere between 18 to 25 to 44 percent depending on what period and
what calculation is used, but those figures were reported in 2013.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/24/apples-tax-rate-is-now-18-or-25-or-44-your-choice-really/


The NYT say 9.8% in a story written in 2012 in _The Washington Post_.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apples-tax-rate-98-percent/2012/04/30/gIQArip0rT_story.html

All figures have to be for a past period.

The company's *total* rate would be based on both domestic and foreign
tax rate figures, but the US only benefits from the domestic rate.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:22:00 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <ehd73bd46mk96k2k0...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> If you had used "linkbait" in your original statement that started
>> >> >> this line of argument (and it takes two to do that, you know) I
>> >> >> wouldn't have responded.
>> >> >
>> >> >bullshit. if i said linkbait rather than gets the clicks, you'd have
>> >> >found something else to argue about. it's all you do.
>> >> >
>> >> >you're trying to weasel out of not understanding things, as you
>> >> >normally do. you ain't fooling anyone.
>> >>
>> >> "Weaseling" is just a slang term for revisionism. That's your game.
>> >>
>> >> Why not, for a change, just be honest and say "i meant 'linkbait', not
>> >> just 'clicks'. Sorry to have erred."?
>> >
>> >linkbait generates clicks.
>>
>> If that's your position, then the posting of a link to a photograph is
>> "linkbait" because it generates a click.
>
>you clearly don't understand what linkbait is and you're digging
>yourself a deeper hole.

Of course I understand what "linkbait" is. If you had used that term
I would have known exactly what you meant. But you didn't.

You made a mistake.

Now you're adding to your mistake in covering it up and implying that
only linkbait generates clicks.

>
>> Just admit that you made a mistake and used "clicks" instead of
>> "linkbait". It won't hurt.
>
>i'm not the one who made a mistake.
>
>you did, and you *still* refuse to acknowledge it, even after several
>explanations.

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:06:22 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <80763b9o8faqstbdm...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> > apple has long had a presence in ireland, including having a factory
>> >> > there.
>> >>
>> >> Well that's fine then isn't it.
>> >
>> >it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
>> >purpose of offshoring money.
>>
>> Apple uses lotsa shell companies including:
>>
>> http://thehill.com/policy/technology/300791-senate-report-accuses-apple-of-usi
>> ng-shell-companies-to-dodge-taxes
>> or http://tinyurl.com/myab32h
>> ... and this one will interest no spam http://tinyurl.com/myab32h
>
>all that says is that they're accused of using a shell company.

"accused"? What's wrong with owning a shell company? It's not
illegal.

>
>apple used to have a factory in ireland. that's not a shell company.

See
http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2013/05/21/apples-irish-tax-strategy-explained/
or http://tinyurl.com/kvyuhp4

>
>however, apple does use shell companies to maintain secrecy on future
>product development, but that's a very, very different matter. people
>notice when apple buys stuff. people don't notice when sam's research
>llc buys stuff. only after the fact do people figure out that sam's llc
>was really apple.

Sam's LLC is not a shell company either.

But there probably are shell companies between Apple and Sam's.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

But why should they be paying tax in the US? They didn't make their
products in the US. They didn't make their profits in the US. They
haven't moved their profits to the US. As for the 2%, Ireland is free
to set whatever tax rate they like.

>
>>> > by the way, google did what you accuse apple of doing:
>>> > <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-10/google-revenues-shelt
>>> > ered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion>
>>> > Google Inc. avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in
>>> > 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell
>>> > company, almost double the total from three years before, filings
>>> > show.
>>>
>>> Why does how Google behave have anything to do with what Apple do. It's
>>> that two wrong things thing again isn't it?
>>
>> because you're singling out apple and giving a free pass to everyone
>> else.
>
>I didn't bring Apple to this discussion at all, it was you, idiot.
>
>>> > apple has long had a presence in ireland, including having a factory
>>> > there.
>>>
>>> Well that's fine then isn't it.
>>
>> it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
>> purpose of offshoring money.
>
>Yes, of course it is.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:35:37 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

You should have tried writing in English.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:06:21 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Aah yes. Now I have found it, not some journalists paraphrase of what
Tim Cook said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/05/23/apples-cook-on-taxes-being-an-american-innovator-transcript-of-senate-testimony/2/
or http://tinyurl.com/pyqrcvf

"It is in this spirit that we recommend a dramatic simplification of
the corporate tax code. This reform should be revenue neutral,
eliminate all corporate tax expenditures, lower corporate income
tax rates and implement a reasonable tax on foreign earnings that
allows the free flow of capital back to the U.S. We make this
recommendation with our eyes wide open, realizing this would likely
increase Apple’s U.S. taxes. But we strongly believe such
comprehensive reform would be fair to all taxpayers, would keep
America globally competitive and would promote U.S. economic
growth."

But he also said:

"Our foreign subsidiaries hold 70% of our cash because of the rapid
growth of our international business. We use these earnings to fund
our foreign operations, such as spending billions of dollars to
acquire new equipment to make Apple products, and to finance
construction of Apple retail stores around the world.

Under the current U.S. corporate tax system, it would be very
expensive to repatriate that cash. Unfortunately, the tax code has
not kept up with the digital age. The tax system handicaps American
corporations in relation to our foreign competitors who don’t have
such constraints on the free flow of capital."

In other words, 'we have kept 70% of our profits overseas to avoid the
US taxman'.

I don't blame Apple for doing that, and there is nothing illegal about
doing it, but that is what has upset people who think Apple is a pure
bred US company through and through and don't realise the consequences
of it's activities now being global in extent.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <n10mn...@news7.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<pete...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
> > purpose of offshoring money.
>
> doing that without a valid business purpose is also known as fraudulent
> tax evasion. You obviously don't understand the difference between tax
> avoidance and tax evasion. Hint: one is legal.

if you think that apple or any other company is engaged in fraudulent
tax evasion, by all means file a lawsuit.

people much smarter than you'll ever be do not consider what apple has
not done to be illegal.