Tim O'Reilly's Reflections on Apple's Tax Avoidance Tactics(plus.google.com)
plus.google.com
Tim O'Reilly's Reflections on Apple's Tax Avoidance Tactics
https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/JpobfLAreyo
8 comments
When that actor is that largest player on the stage, and the article (and Tim's commentary on it) make clear that many others are simply playing the same game, then your criticism falls doubly flat.
The biggest and most profitable companies are avoiding huge portions of their tax obligations. It's a systemic problem. Both points are made by the NY Times piece and Tim O'Reilly's commentary on it. It's hardly a distraction.
And yes, the underlying dynamics of the problem are manifold. Both statute and regulation should change.
The biggest and most profitable companies are avoiding huge portions of their tax obligations. It's a systemic problem. Both points are made by the NY Times piece and Tim O'Reilly's commentary on it. It's hardly a distraction.
And yes, the underlying dynamics of the problem are manifold. Both statute and regulation should change.
Unless you alleging fraud, then it's patently incorrect to say that Apple is avoiding its obligations. Apple is merely demonstrating what their obligations under the law are, and people aren't liking what they see. That's fine; let's change the tax code.
Given that 1) the law involved is tremendously complex, that 2) enforcement and compliance actions by the IRS are hugely underfunded and undermanned, and 3) that corporate and monied America has an undue direct influence on the legislative process, including tax legislation, then I'd say that de facto fraud if not de jure fraud is an open question.
This makes me wonder, again, whether I have read a different article. If you want to attack the NYT piece, maybe you should comment on that thread, but this is the discussion about Tim O'Reilly's post containing reflections on the general theme, not apple as an actor in particular. That makes your comment seems misplayed here.
No, I read Mr. O'Reilly's piece and am responding to it. You seem to be saying that, because I reject the premises and false arguments that he makes in his introduction, therefore I didn't read it? Feel free to respond to my substantive point rather than just distracting from the actual conversation.
Tims post has two parts. The first part is him explaining why he has wrote it (Hey, I've read the NYT piece as well!) and then what he has to say (Hey, let me elaborate on the theme of taxation).
The NYT piece is not a premise in his argument, it's simply the reason why he writes about taxation.
The NYT piece is not a premise in his argument, it's simply the reason why he writes about taxation.
As I stated, I read the article and am familiar in fact with the bold "hey, I said I'd give you my personal opinion" transition that he makes midway through.
He has no actionable thesis, just a vague "we should look out for each other" message that makes it easy to read into it whatever you want to see. Yes, we should look out for each other. We compel this via taxation. If we aren't compelling corporations to do what we actually want given the rules we have set up, let us change the rules.
In other words, the actual problem that he is talking about, whether he chooses to address it or not, is that systemically we have a taxation problem. That's the only interesting thing to discuss here.
He has no actionable thesis, just a vague "we should look out for each other" message that makes it easy to read into it whatever you want to see. Yes, we should look out for each other. We compel this via taxation. If we aren't compelling corporations to do what we actually want given the rules we have set up, let us change the rules.
In other words, the actual problem that he is talking about, whether he chooses to address it or not, is that systemically we have a taxation problem. That's the only interesting thing to discuss here.
Now I'm profoundly confused - That is precisely what he is doing: Arguing that we should establish that tone of conversation in order to get some change going.
The real problem is that it is somewhat presentable to pay as little taxes as you can. Tim is trying to spark a conversation where that changes.
Before you can change tax law, you have to get people engaged in caring about tax law. Because for the last decades, big corporations have invested a lot of money in having people either not care, or care in a direction that directly hurts them.
The real problem is that it is somewhat presentable to pay as little taxes as you can. Tim is trying to spark a conversation where that changes.
Before you can change tax law, you have to get people engaged in caring about tax law. Because for the last decades, big corporations have invested a lot of money in having people either not care, or care in a direction that directly hurts them.
Your initial post is the distraction. It doesn't address the main point of the article at all, it should have been posted in the NYT thread.
This heart of this post begins at "But to my promised personal reflections"
This heart of this post begins at "But to my promised personal reflections"
I'd love to hear about a PERSON who routinely went out of their way to overpay for a service. When was the last time you arrived at a store, saw a shirt, and said, "I'd like to pay you an extra $10 for this shirt because I believe in what you're doing."
Never.
For that matter, when was the last time you called up the IRS and said, "Dammit America, you're doing such a good job, I'm sending an extra $5,000."
Never. In fact, the most you or I have ever given extra is the $3 election fund.
Let's stop joking around, people. Companies, like people, are going to find ways to pay as little as possible, so long as it's legal. Let's stop blaming Apple and blame ourselves: reform the tax code to be simple, fair, and progressive.
Never.
For that matter, when was the last time you called up the IRS and said, "Dammit America, you're doing such a good job, I'm sending an extra $5,000."
Never. In fact, the most you or I have ever given extra is the $3 election fund.
Let's stop joking around, people. Companies, like people, are going to find ways to pay as little as possible, so long as it's legal. Let's stop blaming Apple and blame ourselves: reform the tax code to be simple, fair, and progressive.
Ever heard of tipping?
Also, I am willing to pay more than required for products that I am particularly keen on, which is why I'm such a fan of Kickstarter
Also, I am willing to pay more than required for products that I am particularly keen on, which is why I'm such a fan of Kickstarter
I'd love to hear about a PERSON who routinely funnels their income tax through a different country so that they pay less tax, despite not really living or doing much business there, nor stamping Designed In Different Country on everything they make.
You can't legally do that. That's an important difference. But you can do other things to reduce your tax burden, and people do hire tax professionals to do that. H&R Block even has a "Maximum Refund Guarantee".
I've overpaid for goods and services that I thought were exceptionally good.
Just off the top of my head - I frequently pay more than is asked on Bandcamp and Humble Bundle. I once paid $20 for an mp3 of a song to its artist, even though it was readily available on youtube.
HP under its founder's leadership did this by ignoring deductions.
Actually, I've done both. I purposely overpay a local restaurant that seems to be struggling and told them they should charge more. This isn't tipping a waiter, I get takeout and tip the store itself. And I've paid extra federal income taxes for several years by purposefully failing to take some deductions I'm entitled to and could easily substantiate.
This year I purposefully overpaid my business privilege tax to the township as well, and paid a special zoning fee for having a home office that I know my neighbors (who also have home offices) don't bother reporting and paying. I also donate money exclusively to organizations that are not registered charities even though donating the same money to a charity would net me cash back in taxes.
90% of people may rarely go out of their way to pay more than they have to, but it's not unheard of.
This year I purposefully overpaid my business privilege tax to the township as well, and paid a special zoning fee for having a home office that I know my neighbors (who also have home offices) don't bother reporting and paying. I also donate money exclusively to organizations that are not registered charities even though donating the same money to a charity would net me cash back in taxes.
90% of people may rarely go out of their way to pay more than they have to, but it's not unheard of.
A classic substitution, substituting an argument that government should exist for an argument that a government should get a given bit of money. It's not the same question, and following that substitution to its logical conclusion leads to the government needing 100% of the money. (And I do mean logical conclusion, not extreme conclusion. This is a fallacious argument.)
Those libertarians he references are strawmen.
Those libertarians he references are strawmen.
I disagree. From what I understand, he is not talking about government needing the money, but society needing the money (in his example, which is, after all, the central reason for his post, he talks about him taking in money for a group of people to organize an event for everybody).
This maps well to his addressing those "strawmen" libertarians. Most libertarian rhetoric builds on the fact that people have been made suspicious of government and are suggested to think of government as "the other". Likewise, you seem to try to force his argument on its head - Nobody argues whether government should exist and you suggesting it makes me wonder how closely you've read the post.
"The Government" is the subgroup of society who have been elected by the rest of society to invest part of societies resources to the advantage to everybody. The basic math being that society will be better off having spent the money in that way than had it kept the money. Whether or not you agree that that is happening, that is the basic plan.
Tims post simply says: If we want to be a society, that comes at a cost and somebody has to pick up the tab at the end of the night and the system to make that happen is called taxation.
Claiming that this in itself "fallacious argument" because you actually know what his argument is seems ambitious, but I simply have no idea where you take that from. Let's argue the reverse: Since you don't seem to disagree that a government in itself is a good concept, who do you think should pay the price for it?
This maps well to his addressing those "strawmen" libertarians. Most libertarian rhetoric builds on the fact that people have been made suspicious of government and are suggested to think of government as "the other". Likewise, you seem to try to force his argument on its head - Nobody argues whether government should exist and you suggesting it makes me wonder how closely you've read the post.
"The Government" is the subgroup of society who have been elected by the rest of society to invest part of societies resources to the advantage to everybody. The basic math being that society will be better off having spent the money in that way than had it kept the money. Whether or not you agree that that is happening, that is the basic plan.
Tims post simply says: If we want to be a society, that comes at a cost and somebody has to pick up the tab at the end of the night and the system to make that happen is called taxation.
Claiming that this in itself "fallacious argument" because you actually know what his argument is seems ambitious, but I simply have no idea where you take that from. Let's argue the reverse: Since you don't seem to disagree that a government in itself is a good concept, who do you think should pay the price for it?
"If we want to be a society, that comes at a cost and somebody has to pick up the tab at the end of the night and the system to make that happen is called taxation."
Your own summary simply repeats the fallacy. That someone must pick up the tab does not imply that the tab must be larger than it is today, or that the tab must be paid for by this particular chunk of money. It does not follow. It is not a logical argument.
It isn't even about libertarianism. It doesn't even rise to the level of an argument against libertarianism, because it isn't well-formed enough to even be called a proper argument. "We need a thing" and "We need more of a thing" are two completely different arguments, and you shouldn't allow one argument to be substituted for another without noticing.
Your own summary simply repeats the fallacy. That someone must pick up the tab does not imply that the tab must be larger than it is today, or that the tab must be paid for by this particular chunk of money. It does not follow. It is not a logical argument.
It isn't even about libertarianism. It doesn't even rise to the level of an argument against libertarianism, because it isn't well-formed enough to even be called a proper argument. "We need a thing" and "We need more of a thing" are two completely different arguments, and you shouldn't allow one argument to be substituted for another without noticing.
Well, that's another thing that nobody is arguing. Maybe that really is where you misunderstand Tim's position: He does not say we need more taxation, he says that there are actors in the game that do not pay their fair share.
You're doing your own argument a disservice by trying to modify the position of your opponent. That's not how discussions work.
The position that Tim (and I) argue is simple: There is X amount of money that it costs to run society. While, yes, we constantly have to figure out what that amount is, there is no question that it should be paid by everybody in that society. And that the stronger players (who both benefit most from a well funded society and who have the most to give) should be decent enough to step in appropriately.
You're doing your own argument a disservice by trying to modify the position of your opponent. That's not how discussions work.
The position that Tim (and I) argue is simple: There is X amount of money that it costs to run society. While, yes, we constantly have to figure out what that amount is, there is no question that it should be paid by everybody in that society. And that the stronger players (who both benefit most from a well funded society and who have the most to give) should be decent enough to step in appropriately.
Were you 'decent enough' to pay more in taxes than you owed this year? Of course not. Why should anyone else feel compelled to do so?
Phew, I'm not sure whether I even have to respond to that non sequitur.
Obviously I'm not a big corporation and obviously we're talking about tax loopholes here, not paying extra taxes on top of what you owe.
Obviously I'm not a big corporation and obviously we're talking about tax loopholes here, not paying extra taxes on top of what you owe.
What is a loophole, if not something that reduces the amount of tax you owe?
Concretely, how do you propose Apple calculate how much tax they owe if "the amount the law requires" is not the correct amount?
Concretely, how do you propose Apple calculate how much tax they owe if "the amount the law requires" is not the correct amount?
I'm sure it was the intent of the framers of tax law that large corporations should funnel a third of their income to a different country as part of "the amount the law requires".
Apple is a company, not a mind reader. How are they to know where to funnel the money except where the law tells them?
I think you'll find the law does not say "US corporations should funnel their money to Ireland". Apple (and other corps) hire people to find edge conditions in law that they can exploit - they are not the doe-eyed innocents 'complying with the law' that you're painting them as.
They are dodging tax laws using technical loopholes, not complying with the spirit of the tax laws. Stop being an apologist.
They are dodging tax laws using technical loopholes, not complying with the spirit of the tax laws. Stop being an apologist.
How hard would it be to write a law that says "don't funnel your money to Ireland"?
If you think it's that simple, try writing to your representative with your solution to the problem.
But ultimately the issue is you painting them as innocents in this, 'they're not mind-readers', when the main article suggests that they were actually aggressive pioneers in finding ways to dodge the spirit of tax laws.
But ultimately the issue is you painting them as innocents in this, 'they're not mind-readers', when the main article suggests that they were actually aggressive pioneers in finding ways to dodge the spirit of tax laws.
Precisely. I really don't get how anybody can try to force a red herring on this about "let's nitpick down to the nickel whether or not taxes are cool as they are" when we're talking about corporations who literally employ people to figure out ways of being taxed in a completely different country.
The corporate and personal tax rate in other countries such as Germany and Belgium are higher than the US.
I heard Germans and Belgians are "more decent" than Americans. ;)
Who's more "decent"?
The company that pays taxes, pays dividends to shareholders (pension/retirement funds, universities, charities,etc.), created 500,000 jobs in the US (which in turn pays income tax), spends billions in R&D, donates to charities, etc.
or
The big government with massive deficit that overspends on useless government programs, wars, etc..?
I heard Germans and Belgians are "more decent" than Americans. ;)
Who's more "decent"?
The company that pays taxes, pays dividends to shareholders (pension/retirement funds, universities, charities,etc.), created 500,000 jobs in the US (which in turn pays income tax), spends billions in R&D, donates to charities, etc.
or
The big government with massive deficit that overspends on useless government programs, wars, etc..?
Yes, I like to think we are quite decent over here in Germany ;-)
But I don't think getting into a pissing match about who is or isn't decent and extending this so far that the conversation breaks ("And squirrels! Are they decent!?") does any good.
If there is a corporation that has most of its business in your country but plays tricks to be taxed in another, that's a problem, plain and simple. Whether or not they have other good qualities adds nothing to the discussion.
Also - I thought the trickle-down "but they create jobs!" argument was thoroughly debunked by now?
But I don't think getting into a pissing match about who is or isn't decent and extending this so far that the conversation breaks ("And squirrels! Are they decent!?") does any good.
If there is a corporation that has most of its business in your country but plays tricks to be taxed in another, that's a problem, plain and simple. Whether or not they have other good qualities adds nothing to the discussion.
Also - I thought the trickle-down "but they create jobs!" argument was thoroughly debunked by now?
s/trix/perfectly legal tax laws
Everybody's favorite ad company is also doing the same thing btw.
Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes
Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho...
Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes
Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho...
If only most of the taxes the government takes actually went to benefit society. At least then there could be a sympathetic argument made for where $6 trillion goes each year.
That's $30,000 per adult, per year, in taxes (local+state+federal). The equation: government == society, is false. Some governments are effective and efficient, some are not; some work for the people, some work against the people, and in varying degrees.
We take as much money out of the economy through all forms of taxation as nations such as Germany, but we don't have the results to show for it that they do. They have better roads, better healthcare, better infrastructure overall, and better education.
That's $30,000 per adult, per year, in taxes (local+state+federal). The equation: government == society, is false. Some governments are effective and efficient, some are not; some work for the people, some work against the people, and in varying degrees.
We take as much money out of the economy through all forms of taxation as nations such as Germany, but we don't have the results to show for it that they do. They have better roads, better healthcare, better infrastructure overall, and better education.
Oh absolutely. Being a German looking over the pond, I would be seriously pissed off about what happens in government if I was a US citizen.
What I don't like about these discussions, particularly when they are driven by US citizens, is the amount of proud apathy or downright confused resignation that is displayed. Surely a couple of corporations have spent a proper buck to make that happen - Confuse people so thoroughly that they start questioning whether this whole democracy and society-thing is worth it to begin with.
What I don't like about these discussions, particularly when they are driven by US citizens, is the amount of proud apathy or downright confused resignation that is displayed. Surely a couple of corporations have spent a proper buck to make that happen - Confuse people so thoroughly that they start questioning whether this whole democracy and society-thing is worth it to begin with.
How is your country doing with your high tax rates? Do you ever wonder why we are the center of the universe? Do you ever wonder why Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. were all started here in America?
In 1978 Congress for once did the sensible thing and slashed capital gains taxes: This resulted in the supply of venture capital exploding. By the start of 1979 a massive commitment to venture capital funds had taken place, rising from a pathetic $39 million in 1977 to a staggering $570 million at the end of 1978. Tax collections on long-term capital gains, despite the dire predictions of Keynesian big-spending critics of tax cuts, leapt from $8.5 billion in 1978 to $10.6 billion in 1979, $16.5 billion in 1983, and $23.7 billion in 1985. By 1981 venture capital outlays had soared to $1.4 billion, and the total amount of venture capital had risen to $5.8 billion. In 1981 the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains was cut to 20 percent. This resulted in the venture capital pool surging to $11.5 billion. Astonishingly enough—to conventional economists, that is—venture capital outlays rose to $1.8 billion in the midst of the 1982 depression. This was about 400 percent more than had been out-laid during the 1970s slump. In 1983 these outlays rose to nearly $3 billion....In 1982 the U.S. General Accounting Office sampled 72 companies that had been launched with venture capital since the 1978 capital-gains tax cut. The results were startling. Starting with $209 million dollars in funds, these companies had paid $350 million in federal taxes, generated $900 million in export income, and directly created 135,000 jobs.
In 1978 Congress for once did the sensible thing and slashed capital gains taxes: This resulted in the supply of venture capital exploding. By the start of 1979 a massive commitment to venture capital funds had taken place, rising from a pathetic $39 million in 1977 to a staggering $570 million at the end of 1978. Tax collections on long-term capital gains, despite the dire predictions of Keynesian big-spending critics of tax cuts, leapt from $8.5 billion in 1978 to $10.6 billion in 1979, $16.5 billion in 1983, and $23.7 billion in 1985. By 1981 venture capital outlays had soared to $1.4 billion, and the total amount of venture capital had risen to $5.8 billion. In 1981 the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains was cut to 20 percent. This resulted in the venture capital pool surging to $11.5 billion. Astonishingly enough—to conventional economists, that is—venture capital outlays rose to $1.8 billion in the midst of the 1982 depression. This was about 400 percent more than had been out-laid during the 1970s slump. In 1983 these outlays rose to nearly $3 billion....In 1982 the U.S. General Accounting Office sampled 72 companies that had been launched with venture capital since the 1978 capital-gains tax cut. The results were startling. Starting with $209 million dollars in funds, these companies had paid $350 million in federal taxes, generated $900 million in export income, and directly created 135,000 jobs.
As the country with the fourth largest nominal GDP [1], we are doing quite well, thank you, although we have to work a little harder to deal with all that "innovation" that came from the US before and in 2008.
Look, I'm not saying that the US is not wonderful - but there are a couple of areas where it just isn't wonderful at all.
I have no idea why you quote that text related to the Laffer Curve [2] (please learn to cite your sources). After all, it seems that Germany has adopted some of its principles [3] and numbers like that do not happen in a vaccuum as the text seems to suggest. But there is still nobody in this thread arguing for excessive or unreasonable taxation. It is still about companies being asked to pay their fair share.
That being said, I don't believe in money as much as I believe in human progress and quoting numbers like that isn't really helping - the social situation in the US and the impact that your "strong" corporate culture has on the world are areas that speak a much clearer language.
There are perfectly reasonable arguments why the US is the worst place to start a company in (Immigration Policy and Software Patents would be on the top of my list), but at 300m people compared to our 80m at a similar HDI, I just don't think that the two countries are that comparable. You won the war and it took us 40 years to reunite our own country, for crying out loud!
Everybody has their own set of challenges. It would be incredibly arrogant to respond to another person trying to suggest lessons that they have learned simply by parroting their challenges or solutions that simply don't follow the discussion. Then again, you start out by asking me how I like you being the center of the universe. Well - I like to understand myself as a citizen of the world and find little use in pissing matches.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... [2] http://brookesnews.com/072409laffercurve.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Outside_the_United...
Look, I'm not saying that the US is not wonderful - but there are a couple of areas where it just isn't wonderful at all.
I have no idea why you quote that text related to the Laffer Curve [2] (please learn to cite your sources). After all, it seems that Germany has adopted some of its principles [3] and numbers like that do not happen in a vaccuum as the text seems to suggest. But there is still nobody in this thread arguing for excessive or unreasonable taxation. It is still about companies being asked to pay their fair share.
That being said, I don't believe in money as much as I believe in human progress and quoting numbers like that isn't really helping - the social situation in the US and the impact that your "strong" corporate culture has on the world are areas that speak a much clearer language.
There are perfectly reasonable arguments why the US is the worst place to start a company in (Immigration Policy and Software Patents would be on the top of my list), but at 300m people compared to our 80m at a similar HDI, I just don't think that the two countries are that comparable. You won the war and it took us 40 years to reunite our own country, for crying out loud!
Everybody has their own set of challenges. It would be incredibly arrogant to respond to another person trying to suggest lessons that they have learned simply by parroting their challenges or solutions that simply don't follow the discussion. Then again, you start out by asking me how I like you being the center of the universe. Well - I like to understand myself as a citizen of the world and find little use in pissing matches.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... [2] http://brookesnews.com/072409laffercurve.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Outside_the_United...
>I have no idea why you quote that text related to the Laffer Curve.
then our discussion is over.
then our discussion is over.
His family example doesn't really work. If we had all agreed to throw this big party then each person who agreed stated his obligations to the party. If someone had not agreed to the party, they simply would have not payed and not come. This is not how it works with the government. You are forced to come to the party and pay for it to make everyone else happy. It does not matter that it cost you or that it is not what you want to do. You must surrender yourself for societies "greater good."
It is also worth mentioning that happiness is a subjective value. It is pointless to draw a conclusion about what make society happy when only individuals can be happy. If someone goes their own way, they are not leaving happiness on the table, they are seeking it out elsewhere.
It is also worth mentioning that happiness is a subjective value. It is pointless to draw a conclusion about what make society happy when only individuals can be happy. If someone goes their own way, they are not leaving happiness on the table, they are seeking it out elsewhere.
I don't see how Tim's conclusions follow from his premises.
If we are supposed to think of general taxation and the overall amount of government spending as reasonably justified on the grounds that these things were the outcome of a democratic process which "the people" (somewhat indirectly) agreed on, doesn't the same logic suggest that the loopholes are similarly reasonable and justified?
Loopholes aren't a bug in an otherwise perfect system; they are part of the negotiating process that produces laws. If it weren't for the loopholes, legislators wouldn't be able to find support for tax rates as high as they are. The loopholes are there for a reason. The loopholes are part of the exact same "social contract" that produced the taxes.
If we are supposed to think of general taxation and the overall amount of government spending as reasonably justified on the grounds that these things were the outcome of a democratic process which "the people" (somewhat indirectly) agreed on, doesn't the same logic suggest that the loopholes are similarly reasonable and justified?
Loopholes aren't a bug in an otherwise perfect system; they are part of the negotiating process that produces laws. If it weren't for the loopholes, legislators wouldn't be able to find support for tax rates as high as they are. The loopholes are there for a reason. The loopholes are part of the exact same "social contract" that produced the taxes.
No, that would be overly relativistic. There is a huge corporate culture that drives tax law lobbying. This has created a situation where tax law more likely reveals the will of the corporations, not the will of the people.
There is a huge government union culture that drives spending law lobbying. This has created a situation where spending laws more likely reveals the will of unions, not the will of the people.
That may or may not add to the problem, yes, I'm not an expert in that area. If I was forced to guess, though, I would still say that most of the money influx comes from corporations.
You'd be wrong. Plenty of money comes from unions.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
However, the point I'm making is that once we claim the democratic process doesn't justify the taxation side due to lobbying, we also can't claim the democratic process justifies the spending side.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
However, the point I'm making is that once we claim the democratic process doesn't justify the taxation side due to lobbying, we also can't claim the democratic process justifies the spending side.
The whole point of taxes is that we can't rely on voluntary donations to fund public goods. It's pointless to argue that people or corporations should voluntarily pay more taxes than they're legally required to pay.
The whole point of taxes is that we can't rely on voluntary
donations to fund public goods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedile
Note this part from the article in particular:
Because Aediles were not reimbursed for any of their public
expenditures, most individuals who sought the office were
independently wealthy. Since this office was a stepping stone to
higher office and the Senate, it helped to ensure that only
wealthy individuals (mostly landowners) would win election to
high office.
On the other hand, there's a lot of money that is being spent on campaign advertisements. Perhaps it would be a net gain for society if politicians 'advertised' by spending that cash on public goods instead. Perhaps we can learn from the Romans. :-P
> It's pointless to argue that people or corporations should voluntarily pay more taxes than they're legally required to pay.
[[Citation needed]] - don't see what you're talking about in the post - who is arguing that?
[[Citation needed]] - don't see what you're talking about in the post - who is arguing that?
I admittedly have a poor understanding of corporate taxation and offshore avoidance, but this example makes sense to me. Though government is not a family, and it is safe to say all parties will act selfishly. This may further his argument that there should be no tax exceptions or render it irrelevant, I'm not sure.
The family analogy is heart-warming, but scaled up to a societal/country level it can lead to destructive practices like nepotism and tribalism.
The way I usually say it is like this:
Communism works best between two spouses, a little worse with immediate family, a little worse with extended family, a little worse with orthodox religious communities. People can see the trend. As the number of people that get involved goes up the total number of connections goes up n + 1 choose two and the chance that you deeply care for them goes down.
Communism works best between two spouses, a little worse with immediate family, a little worse with extended family, a little worse with orthodox religious communities. People can see the trend. As the number of people that get involved goes up the total number of connections goes up n + 1 choose two and the chance that you deeply care for them goes down.
There is little value for society to spend its time saying, "Apple is bad because it minimizes, within the contours of the law, its tax burden." And, contrary to Mr. O'Reilly's assertions at the beginning of his piece, I don't say this because I think Apple can spend its money better than the US Government can. For this argument, I don't care either way because it's irrelevant; he merely dismissed a strawman.
The question has to do with our tax code. Is it achieving the goals that we created it to achieve? If so, then there is nothing to discuss, so presumably it's not. If it's not achieving its goals, let's look at the entire picture and talk about where its failures are and how we should change it. Attacking any one particular company is merely a distraction that impedes our ability to discuss the things that actually matter.