'Paying Taxes Is a Lot Better Than Phony Corporate Courage, Apple' (theintercept.com) 579
theodp writes: Every fall," writes The Intercept's Sam Biddle, "internet and its resident tech mumblers congregate for The Apple Event, a quasi-pagan streaming-video rite in which Tim Cook boasts of just how much money his company is making (a lot) and just how much good it's introducing to the world (this typically involves a new iPhone). This is merely annoying most years; but in 2016, when Apple is loudly, publicly denying its tax obligations around the world, it's just gross." Biddle finds Apple's use of the word 'courage' to describe the corporate ethos that pushed the company to remove the headphone plug from the newest iPhone while offering a new pair of $160 jack-free earbuds particularly irksome: "Removing a headphone jack or adding 20 headphone jacks does not require courage; engineers are very smart, but their job does not typically require much bravery. Courage is more often found in, say, running into a burning school to rescue the students and class rodent. Or, maybe, you could call courageous the act of paying the many billions you owe around the world into the system that ensures those students have all of the resources they need in order to learn and grow. Just a hint: Collaborative spreadsheet software doesn't count [introducing new real-time collaboration features, Cook called iWork a "very important tool in education"].
Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At least in the case in Ireland, the EU is saying that Ireland could not have legally slashed Apple's tax bill to the extant that it did.
Now, whether Apple knew that this was illegal is the matter.
If they did, then, yes, they are complicit in tax evasion, and the penalties should apply. If they didn't know, i.e., they were acting in good faith, then no, Apple should not be on the hook retroactively.
Now... going forward, it will be hard for Apple to claim that they shouldn't pay the "proper" amount of taxes
Re:Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score:5, Interesting)
The laws have already been changed going forward. These types of tax evasions in Ireland, at least, are closed to new companies and existing agreements will expire in 2020.
This is actually a case of anti-competition. The EU is asserting that only Apple received the type of tax ruling that allowed it to hide profits behind a mysterious "head office" that wasn't taxed in Ireland.
It may be true that no other company had done this. But I don't know whether that can qualify as anti-competitiveness since they'd have to show other companies being denied such a blessing.
Re:Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, whether Apple knew that this was illegal is the matter.
If they did, then, yes, they are complicit in tax evasion, and the penalties should apply. If they didn't know, i.e., they were acting in good faith, then no, Apple should not be on the hook retroactively.
I find it highly unlikely that a company as litigious as Apple with such a well stocked "lawyer inventory" did not know that Ireland was breaking EU laws. They probably assumed that they were untouchable- at worst EU would ask Ireland to stop the tax cuts and force Apple to pay taxes going forwards (but not retroactively).
Regardless of whether or not they knew the law though, ignorance of the law is not a legal defence in any EU country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm tired of even listening to this kind of bullshit anymore. We need taxes to help schools, police, fire departments (and in civilized countries health care) and etc function. They may have LEGALLY avoided taxes, but it wasn't fair or square. It was crooked and fuck them. Apple should pay. Rich assholes who dodge taxes should pay. End of story.
Re:Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm tired of even listening to this kind of bullshit anymore. We need taxes to help schools, police, fire departments (and in civilized countries health care) and etc function. They may have LEGALLY avoided taxes, but it wasn't fair or square. It was crooked and fuck them. Apple should pay. Rich assholes who dodge taxes should pay. End of story.
The end of the "Rule of Law" story, I guess you mean? Shame. It had its problems, but on average I was a fan. The sequel, "Despotic and Arbitrary Kleptocracy", sounds like it's going to suck.
Lying is not "fair and square" (Score:5, Informative)
I have only apathy-to-mild-antipathy for Apple, but think it's pretty abusive of these governments to attempt to charge them retroactively for taxes that they were dodging fair and square....
They were lying. I'm not sure that this counts as "dodging taxes fair and square." They were telling one government that their intellectual property was insanely valuable; that's why their offshore subsidiary that didn't make any product could bookkeep tons of profit on that product they didn't make. And they were telling another government that the same intellectual property had little value at all, that's why their offshore subsidiary didn't have to pay licensing fees to the main corporation (which would have been income to Apple.)
When you lie, and get caught at it, you're subject to sanctions. You're not allowed to pretend all your income was earned in a country that does not, actually, produce any product. That's fraud.
Irish blessings (Score:5, Interesting)
So, they got Ireland's tax authority's "blessing" to not pay taxes to other countries. Isn't that nice. Getting a third party's consent doesn't give you the right to not pay taxes in the place where income is earned.
If I get Ireland's blessing to tell me "you don't have to pay US taxes", that does not affect my IRS income tax bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Only, he is't dumb. It's *NOT* about the taxes in *IRELAND*, but taxes *WORLDWIDE*. And incidently, yes also about taxes in *THE US*
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If Apple paid their taxes the IRS wouldn't have to shake me down for cash.
Re:Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple paid their taxes the IRS wouldn't have to shake me down for cash.
The IRS does not need to shake you down now, but it does because we are accustomed to re-electing the politicians who 'bring home the bacon', and all that bacon costs a lot of money.
Re:Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score:4, Insightful)
College education, used to be free, or very near to free in California. But due to government's largesse toward corporations, it has increased many times over, much more so than the rate of inflation. This is one example of how allowing corporations to not pay taxes results in others paying more. There is no specific law that states it must be this way, it is just the way things have to be, someone has to pay in the end. If corporations don't pay, the poor and working class will. What does that do to California? It makes the American dream of betterment through education a cruel and largely unattainable goal (unless you are well-off, in which case, not a problem).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I have only apathy-to-mild-antipathy for Apple, but think it's pretty abusive of these governments to attempt to charge them retroactively for taxes that they were dodging fair and square, and pretty dangerous and short-sighted for the general populace to so gleefully support these sort of violations of ex post facto.
I have only snickering-to-mild-laughter for the term "dodging fair and square". Perhaps it's even more dangerous to try and color tax evasion as some kind of good loophole to continue to allow mega-corps to shove billions through.
As far as the opinions of the pitchfork-weilding general populace? Let's be realistic as to their frustrations against Apple or any other tax-dodging mega-corp. The irritation becomes rather obvious when Joe Taxpayer shells out 20%+ of their income to taxes while watching billio
Re:Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score:5, Insightful)
These large corporations have use the power to influence governements and the tax rules they operate under. As such I find it disingenuous for a corporation to argue that they follow all applicable laws and pay all legally required taxes while simultaneously tearing open numerous new loopholes to use to further dodge taxes, and fighting like hell to keep the old ones open.
As a society we all need to pay our fair share. I don't mind paying my taxes, as long as everyone else is roughly paying their fair share too (low earning folks who pay 0% are indeed paying their fair share). My taxes are too low (12% federal net income tax last year, 7% state), and I'd be happy paying more. I am not happy when a wickedly rich company like Apple pays far less, or when hedge funders and CEO's use loopholes they bribed into law to pay a far lower percentage than me despite making far more.
Those making $1M or more a year really should be taxed at a 70+% incremental rate. Frankly we have shown that leaving too much idle cash in the hands of the rich allows them to overly influence our democracy (I cringe using that word for what we actually have). Nobody should have as much influence on a democratic system as a Koch brother does.
This is not retroactive. (Score:5, Informative)
I have only apathy-to-mild-antipathy for Apple, but think it's pretty abusive of these governments to attempt to charge them retroactively for taxes that they were dodging fair and square, and pretty dangerous and short-sighted for the general populace to so gleefully support these sort of violations of ex post facto.
Erm, they aren't charged retroactively. Retroactively implies that the law was changed and payments were backdated.
Apple is being asked to pay the amount of tax they were supposed to pay in the first place.
I think you need to spend a little time with the dictionary and learn what retroactive means.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair and square you say? -under which article or tax dodging does that fall in the taxation guide?
Tax benefits are there to stimulate growth, help the poor, encourage small businesses and all sorts of other forms. It's not there for a supremely rich company to rape the system.
It takes years to investigate and prove this stuff. It's only right they pay what they DODGED with interest.
IF you let it slide then everyone will be ENCOURAGED to steal -I mean "dodge" because getting away with it for 10 years
Re: (Score:3)
This is not a new topic. For a bite sized intro, try starting with a look at how transfer pricing [wikipedia.org] has been increasingly regulated over the years.
Re: (Score:3)
Classic americanism
The part where we enforce the laws selectively, to avoid placing blame on the government which enabled it? Ireland is another issue entirely, but our own government did absolutely shit about the loopholes Apple and a whole heap of other companies are using to legally avoid paying taxes.
I hope what's not classic americanism is finding the rich guy and shaking him down for money by unequally and unfairly creating a tax just for him to pay, in effigy. That doesn't sound very american at al
Tax avoidance vs. Tax evasion (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with Apple doing legal tax avoidance, and all their investors (including a lot of your personal retirement plans, etc) would agree. Anything else would not be patriotism, it would just be bad finance practice. If they're doing something illegal, that's another issue. But let's not slam a corporation that is legally following tax law. Instead, let's slam legislators and encourage legislation to close tax loopholes and simplify the tax code.
Morality vs Entitlement (Score:2, Insightful)
The moral thing to do is pay your fair share of taxes.
But instead Apple feels entitled to pay as little as possible (wether the tricks they used are illegal or not remains to be seen, I guess).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently you didn't get the hint of my post - Apple is deliberately skirting the spirit of the 'tax rules' in order to avoid/evade paying taxes (the difference is wether what tricks they used were illegal or not - see what I did there?)
To go around and claiming "courage" for things they do while purposely keeping their hordes of cash for themselves/investors just makes them look like the jerks they are.
But of course, all the fanbois come to Cook's rescue, so why then should he bother justifying himself, i
"Spirit of the Law" is BS (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "the spirit of the law." That's a weasel phrase used by people that don't like the outcome. The reason the law is written down is so that there is no ambiguity.
There may be hundreds of people voting for a given law, and each one has his or her reason for voting on that law. Do you mean to say that when adjudicating a case you need to take the personal opinion of every lawmaker into account? That would be the true "spirit of the law."
If you do that, then what's the point of the law in the first place?
Re: (Score:3)
That's a weasel phrase used by people that don't like the outcome.
Kinda like "It's total political crap"?
Re:"Spirit of the Law" is BS (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of cases where "spirit of the law" comes into play. That's why we have courts and justices interpreting laws. But tax law, in general, is pretty open-and-close. However, in this case, there is some interpretation to be had. Including whether or not Apple's tax advantage was available to any other company.
Re:Morality vs Entitlement (Score:4, Informative)
The moral thing to do is pay your fair share of taxes.
What exactly is my "fair share" of taxes?
Perhaps you don't understand how it works, but the tax code is far more specific than that, such a system where everyone pays whatever they think their "fair share" is wouldn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
How much (in %) do you pay. How much does Apple/Corporate America?
Therein lies the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
I pay as LITTLE as I can legally get away with....I expect that Apple does the same.
Again, as another earlier post mentioned, Tax Avoidance is trying to pay as little as possible within the confines of the law. I have no problem with that.
If YOU want to pay more than you legally are required to do, then fine, go have fun with that.
There is no "morality" when it comes to tax payments. You almost act like my money
Re: (Score:3)
How much (in %) do you pay. How much does Apple/Corporate America?
You might be surprised what I pay...
My wife and I make in the comfortable 6 figures and I probably pay far less in terms of percentage than you do... Or at least the average person does, because we're both self-employed and thus have much better tax options than most people do...
Therein lies the answer.
No, it really doesn't, because 47% of people in the US pay ZERO percent... Or really close to it...
"FAIR SHARE" might be the same percentage, but then you're asking for a flat tax. Which I'm actually fine with... But it has to b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet most people are unknowingly `courageous` because they don't have a tax team behind them.
Re: Tax avoidance vs. Tax evasion (Score:5, Informative)
And make the fines non-tax-deductable, so as to keep the US from losing out on their fair share of the tax Apple should have paid the US as well.
You should not get a tax deduction for breaking the law. The little people don't.
The agreement is legal (Score:2, Insightful)
How can an agreement with a country be illegal? Answer, it can't be. The EU just decided after the fact, that they thought it wasn't right and are making it illegal... remember Apple has been doing this for a long time, out in the open. If it were not legal why did it take so long for the EU to figure this out?
Re:The agreement is legal (Score:5, Informative)
If a country enters into a binding diplomatic agreement with other countries to regulate X, they can't then change the rules on X for their own benefit. Basically the agreed to align their sovereign law with the diplomatic arrangement.
In terms of figuring it out, how simple do you think this agreement is on paper? Six lines in the middle of an A10 sheet with room for big signatures?
I would imagine that the EU tax regulations extend for volumes and that almost no one person understands them fully. I'd wager that most of the regulations are in extremely abstract terms and are not highly specific, allowing Apple to define their business to fit where they want it to fit in the tax code, rather than the tax code defining their taxing obligations.
It takes an actual tax court ruling to actually decide if what Apple is trying to do meets the letter of the law.
And at the end of the day, there's politics that rules it all. The EU isn't going to allow member countries to act as tax havens, especially with the volatility of north/south economies among member states. They're going to demand maximum compliance with tax revenue.
The global demands for revenue will keep Apple from finding another tax haven it can use unless it chooses to align politically with a regime powerful enough to shield it from the US and the EU, but then it runs the risk of other kinds of coercion which might cost as much or more.
False says Irish Finance Minister (Score:3)
quote [cnbc.com]:
Do you have any real
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the way this happens is similar to what in the US is called a "Private Letter Ruling"
Basically a business or individual wants to know if a particular tax or other business strategy, basically a loophole, is legal. So they hire a specialty law firm and pay them to document the plan and then send it to the IRS or another regulator. What they get back is an opinion by that regulator that what they are doing is legal or not. Its not binding in court though but it might protect you from penalties or cr
Re: (Score:3)
Quote #1 is sourced - it's credited to the Wall Street Journal staff right at the top, on the same line as the date: 9:39 AM EST AUG 30, 2016
Quote #2 is about the illegal deal between Apple and Ireland. The EU has determined the deal is illegal. If Apple disagrees, they can take the EU to court. Until they do successfully overturn it, the ruling stands.
Quote #3 is STILL not behind a paywall. Maybe they just don't like you ...
Re: (Score:3)
Things are rarely black and white. It's why these lawyers get paid so much.
Re:Tax avoidance vs. Tax evasion (Score:5, Interesting)
Taxes seldom make common understandable sense, even at the US 1040 form level. I've done the long form, by hand, for my 3 person, two income family with $4k in stock ownership. Even with such a basic, boiler-plate kind of setup there were many places where there was ambiguity (at least to me, a non-tax expert).
At the level of multinational corporations it's all totally ambiguous. You basically have only the complex letter of the law and past rulings to go on and with a company like Apple who designs a complex product in one country, builds it in some others, and sells it globally, they have a wide latitude to define the nature of where and what they do for tax purposes and the only way their unique setup will get evaluated is by the ultimate arbiters of the tax law, which in this case sounds like the EU.
Apple thought they could construct a tax shelter scheme and Ireland was a willing participant, probably with backroom deals that Apple would guarantee a certain portion of the tax-exempt capital on deposit in Irish banks as a long-term deposit, enabling Irish banking to basically get a capital infusion.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. In the US, if you had a private letter ruling like this where the IRS blessed your tax avoidance scheme and a court later disagreed, you still owe the taxes and internet. You would probably be spared the penalties since you followed IRS guidance in good faith. The law firm you hired to work with the IRS, might owe you some kind of refund or indemnity from their insurer.
lots of arguments why no audio jack (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is circumventing the headphone jack tax?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, by revenue, wireless headphones are now outselling wired ones.
So maybe it's just the future is already here.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the reason I said by revenue. But that's a metric that a LOT of people care about.
People who boast are usually not praiseworthy (Score:5, Insightful)
HQ Redo (Score:2)
The whole "tax headquarters" thing is obsolete. The taxes a corporation pays shouldn't depend on their headquarters location. That just invites tricks.
Perhaps "profits" are just too hard to track internationally and revenues should guide taxes instead.
Re:HQ Redo (Score:4, Interesting)
Or perhaps we should eliminate the fiction that companies pay taxes in the first place and just tax the people directly, thereby cutting out the middlemen. Any tax dollar a company pays to a government taxing authority is one that at some point in time will come from the price paid by a person for an end product. Everything else is just accounting games.
It is delusional to think that if every government extracted all the money they want from corporations, personal free cash flow would improve aggregated over a large enough sample of people. Every company would simply raise their prices and cut labor costs more to keep their desired profit margin and you'd end up spending your "tax savings" on every purchase you make. Maybe you don't buy Apple equipment - but you'd pay the higher prices on groceries, clothes, and other things.
Make America great? Eliminate corporate taxation completely! That would have the benefit of cutting out a big chunk of legal, accounting, and legislative burden in one fell swoop. Increase the income tax rates on the people to compensate. As Heinlen said TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. While we're at it, eliminate sales taxes, lodging taxes and all the other B.S. taxes we pay in bits and drabs and increase property taxes to compensate. Reduce the variety of all these garbage taxes to just two (income and property) and pay them once per year and you'd see a lot better accountability from the people passing legislation.
Or, maybe... (Score:2)
Or, maybe, you could call courageous the act of paying the many billions you owe around the world into the system that ensures those students have all of the resources they need in order to learn and grow.
No that's just called being responsible to society. I don't approve of misusing the word courage for removing earbuds any more than approve of it's misuse for trying to shame a company for not paying taxes. It's just the "running into a burning building" and stuff like it, and corporations can't run into burning buildings, so don't expect them to be courageous.
If only Tim had a different name (Score:2)
Courage=Barter system (Score:2)
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't use those services and I still have to pay taxes. The IRS is illegal under the US constitution.
Since you don't use the police ... what's your address?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't use those services and I still have to pay taxes. The IRS is illegal under the US constitution.
Since you don't use the police ... what's your address?
Police wont do shit to stop you getting robbed. Best you can hope for is they turn up not too long after and give you a crime reference number so you can claim on your insurance if you have any. In America they might turn up quicker on the off chance they get to shoot someone.
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Police wont do shit to stop you getting robbed. Best you can hope for is they turn up not too long after and give you a crime reference number so you can claim on your insurance if you have any. In America they might turn up quicker on the off chance they get to shoot someone.
I suggest you spend some time in a country that doesn't have a strong police presence and then re-think that statement. In a lot of countries around the world, if you have any significant possessions, you have to live inside of a cage to keep from getting robbed. In America that is the exception rather than the rule.
Re: Taxes = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
My town doesn't have a police department and the nearest cop is a good 30 minute drive away, yet no one in my town is robbing or harming anyone. I doubt most people even lock their doors. Yeah, most probably own multiple firearms, but it's not necessary because everyone is naturally friendly and helpful to each other. The reality is very few people have any propensity towards violence or harming others, and our own humanity does a lot more to keep us safe than any police force. Police would be useless unless most people were docile and compliant - look, every time a couple dozen pissed off people get together they label it a riot and lose total control of the situation and have to call in the National Guard.
Honestly, is fear of the law the only thing that keeps you from raping, murdering, and pillaging? Or do you just think everyone else is one step away from devolving into violent savages?
Most police today are there just to enforce the drug war anyway. Actual violent crime clearing rates are at an all time low because drug busts are easier and more glamorous.
Oh, and living in a town without police is amazing, I would never willfully pay for such useless crap again. Not only are my taxes lower, I'm also not harassed when driving around town. I really see no value to public police and would gladly opt-out. I have insurance to protect me from loses and I carry a pistol if I'm traveling to high crime areas (which have police, even though they're totally useless at preventing crime)
Re: Taxes = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? You didn't go to school? You don't walk on sidewalks and drive on roads? You weren't protected by the nations military? You don't shower? The amount of infrastructure required for everyone to live the most basic elements of their lives is virtually endless.
People like you piss me off to no end, because you MUST be actively choosing to be willfully blind to everything that those tax dollars do for you.
It's like we're living that one scene from Monty Python, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your argument is that because Government does some services, that it should be doing more and more and more and more .. regardless of the effectiveness of those services?
1) We had schools, roads, sidewalks, military, showers ... all before we were taxed at rates approaching 50%
2) We don't need to pay taxes in the range of 25% - 50% (and more!) so that the government can tell us how we are supposed to live (beyond Schools, roads, military ...)
People like you piss me off, because for you, it is "all or nothin
Re: Taxes = theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying that life isn't better now compared to 50 years ago for the majority of people is laughable.
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they've outgrown that last part by a LONG shot, but can argue that later.
What I don't want..is the govt using taxation as a means to try to change private personal and business behaviors. I don't see THAT anywhere in the constitution.
If we would get the govt back to taxing only and I mean ONLY for needed services, like defense, infrastructure (roads, hwys, etc),, border security and more local things like schools, etc....we'd get back to having reasonable taxes that I don't think most would have problem with paying a reasonable amount. And that amount would drop if we'd quit having the feds and states suck up money to try to do everything under the sun and every speciality cause. The system just grows lately to feed itself and that's not right.
I have NO problem with an individual or a company taking advantage of the current tax laws out there to try to save THEIR own money. I do it as much a possible.
And for all those bitching about it out there do a couple things:
1. Get the govt out of the business of trying to mold behavior.
2. Get back to basics for services, this will lower the tax bill to everyone and make a more reasonable amount to pay.
3. If you don't like the current tax laws and "loopholes" and deductions, change the laws, don't blame those trying to use them. Hey, if we simplified the tax code, went with something MUCH more fair and easy to navigate (i.e. you made X...after expenses you owe Y%), then we'd not have the problems and no one would feel someone is getting away with something.
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Interesting)
How much of the current government's spending do you think are on those "unreasonable" things? I see strawman argument against things like the FCC (what business is of the government to regulate the airwaves?), FDA (safe food? Privatize that!), EPA (clean air?! pfff) and other such "things that aren't in the constitution".
Usually with the argument that said things, if abolished, would lower taxes. But have you actually looked at the FY2015 federal budget? If you got rid of everything except Defense and disability (FICA/Medicare is its own tax, so I guess you can argue for getting rid of those), you'd still basically have the same budget. Those "not in the constitution" things are in the noise margin in terms of spending.
Now, I could be persuaded to re-think FICA/Medicare.
Re: (Score:3)
What I don't want..is the govt using taxation as a means to try to change private personal and business behaviors. I don't see THAT anywhere in the constitution.
Followed immediately by not wanting the government to over regulate.
Followed immediately by wondering why the government doesn't actually do anything.
Taxation is one form of regulation the government has to drive policy. You elect for the taxation based on the people you vote for and the policy that you're trying to drive. Don't like your tax dollars going a certain direction? Vote accordingly. Don't have any options? Well then change the system in some other way. Governments using taxation to drive behavi
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Yours is the first retort trotted out by the statists, yet you never explain how one is to opt out of government.
We can see by what happened at Ruby Ridge that you cannot opt out... that eventually, the government will come to collect their tribute once they're made aware of your insubordination.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the way to opt out of government is to go somewhere where there is no government. Enjoy!
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Insightful)
There really is no way to do that.
Leftists like to bring up Somalia. There is a government in Somalia: a crappy one, in a string of crappy provisional governments. With warlord governments layered on top of this crappy government. There really isn't a place without a government. That being said, I'm not an anarchist. I'm libertarian, so I see the value in public infrastructure.
But leftists don't even understand what they're advocating. They believe that anyone who doesn't think government should inject itself into every part of their lives (except the bedroom, amirite?) is some straw man who doesn't want to pay taxes for roads or police.
I want roads. I don't want bridges to nowhere, or federal highway funding paid for by direct income taxes that is used to politically pressure states and local governments.
I want police and courts. I don't want APVs, select fire M16s, no-knock warrants, and civil forfeiture.
I want public access to education. I don't want public schools run by $250K administrators and directed by federal requirements.
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
"Leftists" actually seem to understand what you don't: that the decision to spend tax dollars on a certain thing at a certain level is made by political process. So you either participate or you don't, but the process remains the same.
The list of complaints is barely above child-level. Of course your tax dollars go to things that you deem unacceptable. See above.
The argumentation you use actually seems very confused. You want to know where to "opt out of government" first, and then claim that really all you're upset about is that the political process came to a decision you don't like. Well you can't have both, no matter how many leftists you blame.
So you want to be a dictator. (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't mind governments, so long as they only spend money on things that you and you alone think are worth spending money on. So the only form of government that you'll be happy with is one in which you are the supreme authoritarian ruler. You'll forgive the rest of us for not signing up.
Pretty much all zealots are annoying--but I find libertarians to be especially so. They're stupid, they don't know that they're stupid, and they are certain that everyone else is stupid.
Re:So you want to be a dictator. (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't mind governments, so long as they only spend money on things that you and you alone think are worth spending money on. So the only form of government that you'll be happy with is one in which you are the supreme authoritarian ruler. You'll forgive the rest of us for not signing up.
Pretty much all zealots are annoying--but I find libertarians to be especially so. They're stupid, they don't know that they're stupid, and they are certain that everyone else is stupid.
You do know that you're a caricature of what he described right off the bat, right?
The stuff that he mentions is actually the few legitimate uses of government. In the USA, the federal government is legally limited to only a few areas, although it has grotesquely outgrown its original mandate.
Re: (Score:3)
As a leftist, I could say pretty much what you did. We're not different in basic principles. We differ in the details, such as what government should do and how we should pay for it.
And, yes, we like to avoid oppression, but not all oppression comes from government. Governments frequently defend us from oppression by corporations, for example.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If taxes were confined to the issues you raise, perhaps there would not be so much blow back. Unfortunately, our tax dollars go to a lot more than "infrastructure".
We dole out billions to other countries that disappear into unknown holes. Have billions of dollars allocated to the black book off record crap. We have government officials living like rock stars on our dime and then there is all the fraud and abuse and bridges to no where.
So in your fairy tail life, all taxes are good and you should p
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't shower?
Given that this is Slashdot, that may very well be the case.
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Informative)
So the constitution doesn't say that Congress can't enact tax legislation? You sure about that?
If you're sure, you might want to go read the 15th amendment. It's pretty fucking clear. In fact, I'll copy it here for you to show how full of shit you are.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Informative)
*16th
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Informative)
Income tax was initially ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But that's why the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed, explicitly authorizing Congress to pass an income tax:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Yes, it was a "temporary wartime measure". The same way it was promised that the Social Security number would *never* be used for any sort of identification purposes.
Why do people still want to believe these lying scum when they make another promise that a power will not be misused? The only hope of having that happen is strict rules, extreme transparency, effective oversight, and a hair-trigger willingness to prosecute anyone in any position of power who breaks the rules. All of that is hard to arrange and even harder to retain, so it's better not to give the government extra powers in the first place, however convenient the idea may seem at the time.
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't use those services and I still have to pay taxes. The IRS is illegal under the US constitution.
You use the military, whether you want it or not. In the US that represents somewhere around 30-50% of your federal tax burden. You also use the police, whether you want to or not, that represents a good hunk of your local tax burden. You probably use the roads. You rely on the stability the government gives you. Even if you have no kids or you home school, or you private school, the education cost is keeping other people's kids from showing up at your house and robbing you blind.
Basically unless you live on an island in the middle of the pacific, you are relying on taxes whether you agreed to it or not. Feel free to blast yourself to the moon or somewhere else, but your agreement in this is not required, nor will you find an abundance of sympathy amongst your peers.
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't use gas, water, electric, telephone, or internet connections? Those were all built and regulated with taxes.
Work for a company, ever? That company was built from a civilization that benefited from government and the taxes it uses for those purposes.
Live in a house you didn't build from lumber you cut yourself with an axe you made yourself from a rock and a stick? You benefited from government and taxes other people paid into it in numerous ways.
Ever walk on a road you didn't clear yourself? Taxes. Government.
You're a trolling idiot, or gloriously naive. Governments are hugely wasteful and corrupt, but it's better than anarchy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't use gas, water, electric, telephone, or internet connections?
People get energy bills and telecom bills with taxes applied to them. They pay for what they use.
Work for a company, ever? That company was built from a civilization that benefited from government and the taxes it uses for those purposes.
Are you arguing for the absolute minimum taxes needed to keep civilization from collapsing? Or are you arguing for more than that?
Live in a house you didn't build from lumber you cut yourself with an axe you made yourself from a rock and a stick? You benefited from government and taxes other people paid into it in numerous ways.
The builder paid and passed it on to the cost of the home buyer. It's already paid. There's no need for the government to double dip and keep charging people over and over and over for something that happened historically.
Ever walk on a road you didn't clear yourself? Taxes. Government.
Fuel taxes pay for roads. People pay for what they use.
So
Re: (Score:2)
Right on man. I will never use a government funded technology, like that silly little communication standard that was built because to allow communications to move cross country from the rare event of a nuclear attack on major cities. Such crazy system using a bunch of packets that could be routed in different ways then come back together to form the full set of data.
But that is just crazy talk. As a long time slashdot user, we have no use of such network system.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. If you don't want to benefit from a stable country and infrastructures, just move to an island in the Pacific. That's in fact the contract and it's about living together (yes, with others, less educated, less wealthy, who clean your street and wash your car).
Your parents choose that for you when you were born. If you want to continue living in the US, you have to pay to stay in this country. This cost is decided by everyone in the country i.e. through democratic elections (even if how democra
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't you get the memo? Only little people pay taxes.
I think a lot of people didn't get the memo. From 1980 to 2013, the share of total income tax revenue paid by the top 5% of earners increased from 37% to 59%, while the share paid by the bottom 50% decreased from 7% to under 3%. More details here [ntu.org].
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Informative)
But 90% of the people in the top 5% are also getting a raw deal and are shafted. It is the top 0.5% that is reaping all the benefits of the growth. Their share of the income went up by a factor of 10, and their portion of taxes remained the same. That tax burden is borne by the people in the 99.5% to 90% bracket. Below 90% level they have neither the income, nor the tax burden.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you get the memo? Only little people pay taxes.
I think a lot of people didn't get the memo. From 1980 to 2013, the share of total income tax revenue paid by the top 5% of earners increased from 37% to 59%, while the share paid by the bottom 50% decreased from 7% to under 3%. More details here [ntu.org].
Good!
Re:Taxes = theft (Score:5, Interesting)
Please don't lump us 1-5% people with those 1%ers. I know it's convenient when talking about fair taxation.
Once you reach a few million in net worth, it's like there's some magical barrier you just broke through where your effective tax rate actually goes down. Dramatically.
Re: (Score:3)
God? What in the world are you talking about? You're some sort of weird God-libertarian-fundamentalist?
Basically, governments provide services. These services have to be paid for. This is the price of living in society. "God" has nothing to do with it.
If you don't like it, sorry. A planet with six billion people requires some significant amount of structure. That's the way it is. If you want to move to a place where you don't have to live with other people, you're going to have to find a different planet.
Re: Taxes = theft (Score:2, Insightful)
It is funny how many Americans think that taxes are theft, yet they do not mind being completely gouged by the insurance industry.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And if Apple is so happy to make money in Ireland, then why do they want a tax holiday to bring the earning back to America!
So fuck off and die.
Re: (Score:2)
How does Apple create the law?
And why is Ireland perfectly fine with what Apple paid in taxes?
Apple wants a tax holiday to avoid double taxation. Just like all multinational corporations do.
Re: (Score:2)
How does Apple create the law?
By hiring and maintaining a rather massive lobbying presence, just like any other tax-dodging mega-corp.
And why is Ireland perfectly fine with what Apple paid in taxes?
Because Ireland knows that getting something is better than getting nothing. They're likely also lobbying to keep these bullshit tax loopholes open, for the benefits they obviously receive by doing nothing more than providing a local address.
Apple wants a tax holiday to avoid double taxation. Just like all multinational corporations do.
Based on history, mega-corps will continue to get one thing; any damn thing they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, and no. Not only did that "one major study" [arstechnica.com] that supposedly proved it have all sorts of problems, but a much longer, human study found the exact opposite to all those years of supposition [qz.com]. Cell phones don't cause any more cancer than your car radio.
Re:This is why Britain left the EU (Score:4, Interesting)
And this is the reason why the whole Brexit thing was such a fiasco. It seems like its strongest supporters don't even bother to be marginally informed about any of the issue. But hey as your er anti establishment um tory minister told you, we're in a post factual age.
The Irish tax system has been in place for literally decades, it's a joke that the EU is trying to retroactively change tax laws of a sovereign nation state
Ireland explicity agreed that they would not do this with their tax system. Are you saying that Ireland should just renage on the deal and quit the EU, or that the the rest EU should keep giving Irelend access to the club while they keep on breaking the rules?
Ireland can always invoke Article 50 if they don't like the rules they agreed to.
You seem to be one of those idiots who subscribes to the idea that sovereignty="do what ever the fuck you want with zero consequences". Well guess what, bucko, there's no such thing. If you act like a dick, no one will want to deal with you.
for a quick pay day
Christ Alive. You do know "the EU" isn't collecting the taxes right?
Re: (Score:2)