US govt's reaction to a US company having to pay tax is another country...

[occupied]

All companies want the best deal to operate, but no more 'free rides'. Apple's tax rate equated to $500 in taxes for every million dollars. That's ridiculous!

What the fuck!!!!! You and I agreeing? And you and all the independents and democrats on here agreeing? You better be careful, owebo and rayray are gonna be pissed and may take away your republican label.

There's actually much more we could be agreeing on. The left-right divide is a distraction.

I hear people say this from time to time. There was a time when I even believed it. Lately though with the right going all out for their fringe I am not so sure. Those people have such a distorted view of America that I do not think there is much common ground.

 

[Onyx]

Yep. In the mean time, in the real world, we have an opportunity to make things better or sit on the sidelines pouting until our ideal is adopted wholesale.

Politics do not make things better. They make things worst. They only fix the problems they created in the first place.

Then what point are you trying to make? You seem to be arguing against the premise of the thread.

I was arguing against the premise that there is such a thing as fair taxation.

 

[dblack]

Yep. In the mean time, in the real world, we have an opportunity to make things better or sit on the sidelines pouting until our ideal is adopted wholesale.

Politics do not make things better. They make things worst. They only fix the problems they created in the first place.

Then what point are you trying to make? You seem to be arguing against the premise of the thread.

I was arguing against the premise that there is such a thing as fair taxation.

Are you arguing for, or against, efforts to prevent discriminatory taxation???

 

[Onyx]

Here's how this works. You made a claim, I asked for proof, you can't provide it. That's ok cause your.position is indefensible.

I made a refutation. Not a claim.

It is perfectly legitimate to deny a claim based on the lack of contrary evidence.

Provide any tax policy that you think is fair, and I will school you on why it is not. Or at least just describe what fair taxation looks like, and I will school you on why that would not be fair too.

Let me share something with you; death and taxes, you are not going to cheat either one.

Except the organized societies that did not have taxation, and the 1-2 billion modern humans that end up avoiding having to pay taxes because all tax codes are ambitious and hard to enforce.

And I can tell you how to avoid paying federal income tax though. Reduce your income to the point where the republicans give away of the EITC has you getting more money back then you paid in. Feel better now?

I feel like you are a hypocrite.

You just said you cannot cheat taxes. Now you are cheating taxes.

 

[occupied]

Yep. In the mean time, in the real world, we have an opportunity to make things better or sit on the sidelines pouting until our ideal is adopted wholesale.

Politics do not make things better. They make things worst. They only fix the problems they created in the first place.

Then what point are you trying to make? You seem to be arguing against the premise of the thread.

I was arguing against the premise that there is such a thing as fair taxation.

Are you arguing for, or against, efforts to prevent discriminatory taxation???

You cannot get a clear opinion out of this one, all he knows is what he does not like.

 

[Onyx]

Are you arguing for, or against, efforts to prevent discriminatory taxation???

For efforts to prevent discriminatory taxation.

There is no such thing as fair taxation.

Taxation, in the sense that it is forced, must be opposed.

 

[Onyx]

You cannot get a clear opinion out of this one, all he knows is what he does not like.

As should be the case with everyone.

If something is disliked, then chances are there is an actual reason for that dislike.

Do you not know what you do not like?

 

[dblack]

Are you arguing for, or against, efforts to prevent discriminatory taxation???

For efforts to prevent discriminatory taxation.

There is no such thing as fair taxation.

Taxation, in the sense that it is forced, must be opposed.

So you're just quibbling over the use of the word "fair" in the OP? Yet you agree with it's overall intent?

 

[Onyx]

So you're just quibbling over the use of the word "fair" in the OP? Yet you agree with it's overall intent?

The OP did not make a coherent argument.

The last paragraph asked the question, "What should we do about this?"

And yes, that was a very important contention against his assertion that taxation should be made fair. If one is arguing that taxation should be made fair, then it is important to point out that all taxation is inherently unfair.

 

[occupied]

You cannot get a clear opinion out of this one, all he knows is what he does not like.

As should be the case with everyone.

If something is disliked, then chances are there is an actual reason for that dislike.

Do you not know what you do not like?

Certainly, but in a political discussion one should offer a specific reason why something is bad and offer clear alternatives.

 

[Onyx]

Certainly, but in a political discussion one should offer a specific reason why something is bad and offer clear alternatives.

Providing counter arguments and rebuttals is essential towards a debate.

Any relevant intellectual participation is valid in a discussion.

 

[dblack]

So you're just quibbling over the use of the word "fair" in the OP? Yet you agree with it's overall intent?

The OP did not make a coherent argument.

The last paragraph asked the question, "What should we do about this?"

And yes, that was a very important contention against his assertion that taxation should be made fair. If one is arguing that taxation should be made fair, then it is important to point out that all taxation is inherently unfair.

You keep equivocating on the word 'fair', as though it's a black and white, all-or-nothing, proposition. We can have more fair, or less fair, more equal, or less equal, better or worse. Do you have a preference?

 

[Onyx]

You keep equivocating on the word 'fair', as though it's a black and white, all-or-nothing, proposition. We can have more fair, or less fair, more equal, or less equal, better or worse. Do you have a preference?

I disagree.

By definition, if something is discriminatory, then it is not fair.

Society has a tendency to make all words measurable nowadays, which is a grave mistake for society.

 

[dblack]

You keep equivocating on the word 'fair', as though it's a black and white, all-or-nothing, proposition. We can have more fair, or less fair, more equal, or less equal, better or worse. Do you have a preference?

I disagree.

By definition, if something is discriminatory, then it is not fair.

Society has a tendency to make all words measurable nowadays, which is a grave mistake for society.

Ok. I get it. You're just trying to derail the thread with your own pet philosophical fetish. I do sort of wonder why, but I don't guess it matters.

In the mean time, I hope this issue raises more awareness of how much our tax code is polluted by corporatist state policies. The purpose of taxation is to fund government, not to manipulate behavior.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fair taxation exists. If Apple pay 1% and another company pays 12%, that's not fair.

Mark my words.

There is no fair taxation.

All tax policies are implemented with elements of discrimination in mind. What exactly that discrimination constitutes varies from case to case.

This is like the "there is no freedom" nonsense the statists like to throw at libertarians.

Slice it however you like, but we can choose to make taxation more fair, or less. Are you suggesting we give up and indulge those who want to use taxation as an all-purpose arm twisting tool for government?

It would seem these are the arguments the corporations spend a lot of money trying to get through to people, so they'll parrot them time and again and try and make these ideas mainstream.

 

[Onyx]

Ok. I get it. You're just trying to derail the thread with your own pet philosophical fetish

A false analysis.

If I wanted to propagate my agenda, that statement would of been followed by a speech.

Now stop derailing the thread.

In the mean time, I hope this issue raises more awareness of how much our tax code is polluted by corporatist state policies. The purpose of taxation is to fund government, not to manipulate behavior.

Which is true, although taxation comes about through manipulative behavior.

The two cannot be separated without changing the definition for taxation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You keep equivocating on the word 'fair', as though it's a black and white, all-or-nothing, proposition. We can have more fair, or less fair, more equal, or less equal, better or worse. Do you have a preference?

I disagree.

By definition, if something is discriminatory, then it is not fair.

Society has a tendency to make all words measurable nowadays, which is a grave mistake for society.

That depends on your view of fair.

I'm going to use education as an example of where fair means two different things to two different people.

Having schools that are equal, where all students study the same thing at the same pace is considered fair. i.e. not having Grammar Schools, private schools, elite schools for high performing children, or different types of schools like technical schools.

Another view is that all children learn at their own pace, and are around those who are of the same level, so you have Grammar Schools where the smarter students are, and you have "dunce schools" where the less bright are.

Two views of fair. Which is fair? It's all about opinion. I'd go for the second type myself.

 

[Onyx]

Another view is that all children learn at their own pace, and are around those who are of the same level, so you have Grammar Schools where the smarter students are, and you have "dunce schools" where the less bright are.

Two views of fair. Which is fair? It's all about opinion. I'd go for the second type myself.

That is an intriguing question.

I would say that both are fair, as long as both exist as options and are not forced.

If someone was forced to go through either option, then at very least I would resonate with them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Another view is that all children learn at their own pace, and are around those who are of the same level, so you have Grammar Schools where the smarter students are, and you have "dunce schools" where the less bright are.

Two views of fair. Which is fair? It's all about opinion. I'd go for the second type myself.

That is an intriguing question.

I would say that both are fair, as long as both exist as options and are not forced.

If someone was forced to go through either option, then at very least I would resonate with them.

But you can't have both systems in operation at the same time. Otherwise you have neither.

But the point being that "fair" can be different things to different people. However sometimes there is only unfair, and in the case of Apple, there was no fair about it, and the US govt, both Republican and Democrat, are screaming how fair is so unfair and unfair is fair. The people who supposedly represent the people.

 

[yiostheoy]

Business Live: White House 'concern' over Apple ruling - BBC News

Apple have been told to pay €13bn ($14.5bn) to Ireland, who say they don't want Apple's money, by the EU.

Ireland is a country that suffered quite a lot during the recession and could probably ill afford to lose €13bn. However the Irish govt seems to have been bought by big business.

All that's happened here is the EU says it's illegal to charge one company one tax rate, and another company another tax rate. In other words Apple should have been playing 12% tax in Ireland just like everyone else, instead it managed to get a 1% tax rate.

But this is how the US reacted.

Paul Ryan said it was "awful". "This is precisely the kind of unpredictable and heavy-handed taxation that kills jobs and opportunity,"

Yeah, 12% tax for a company that can EASILY pay this tax, kills jobs, but for other companies in Ireland it's just an every day thing. When most people are paying far more tax than this, why is Apple not paying tax?

John Earnest said it's unfair to the US taxpayer that an American company has to pay taxes in another country.

"We are concerned about a unilateral approach ... that threaten to undermine progress that we have made collaboratively with the Europeans to make the international taxation system fair,"

He talks about a fair system of tax, and that most companies paying 12% and Apple paying 1% appears to him to be fair, whereas Apple paying the same as everyone is, apparently, UNFAIR.



Now the question here is, who runs the governments? It appears they'll roll over for large corporations who can pay the tax and give them an unfair competitive advantage against smaller companies. You get people like Trump and Hillary saying they'd help smaller companies, but it appears that larger companies are always going to do better as they just threaten to leave a country and move somewhere else.

So, what should be done about this? In the US it's a massive problem with states and cities all competing against each other. What the EU has done is basically say this is wrong (and it is wrong) and that states should act fairly with all companies in their country (which is right).

The OECD and EU are striving to implement BEPS rules (Base Erosion Profit Shifting) that prevent what Apple, Microsoft, and other multinational liars are doing.