Senate investigators: Apple sheltered $44 billion from taxes

head of joaquin said:

Didn't happen with Apple did it? Apple dumped a bunch of cash into a shell subsidiary in Ireland (it wasn't sellng 64% of its phones there, but that's where its cash went), paid a minimum foreign tax rate in Ireland, and paid nothing on the income here. Further, since Apple is stingey with diividends, the US didn't even get to tax that (which by the way are taxed so low that essentially this shell game allows earned corporate income to be transmuted in low rate dividend income).

Tax global income and the shell game will stop.

In contrast, if Apple really can sell more phones in Ireland and wants to pull up stakes and move there, let them. It ain't going to happen.

This is the difference between real ecnomomic activity and the vast amount of transactions that have no economic purpose but to avoid taxes. With many large corporations, most of their energy is spent not in making real goods and services, but in avoiding paying taxes. It's inefficient and the real economy suffers.

Hell even Reagan understood that when he reformed the 1986 tax code to get rid of tax shelters, separating passive and active income.

Click to expand...

They don't need to sell all their phones in Ireland to move there. ireland, like most countries in the world, are not dumb enough to tax income earned by its corporate residents outside of the country.

And again, since the dumb proposal in this thread is that Apple is wrong in doing what it is doing and the US govenrment should change the law to confiscate that wealth reagrdless of whether it is patriated in your jurisdiction, you need to actually think though how this change in the status quo might impact on corporate decision making. Thus far, you are steadfastly refusing to do that.

CJ 2.0 said:

No, I mean people who understand how incentives affect behaviour and behaviour affects outcomes.

And I, neither being rich nor a tax cheat, wouldn't trust the left on an economic issue even if I agreed with the policy objective (which I often do). because even where I 100% agree with leftists on policy, I am not naive enough to believe they have the slightest idea about how to actually achieve that objective. Almost invariably, their economic illiteracy and unwillingness to confront reality as it exists will result in a policy perscription so deluded, so out of touch with reality, that it could only cause harm to all involved while doing nothing (at best) to actually advance the goals that they are trying to advance.

And this thread is a perfect illustration of that.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, so the bottomline is give Apple an incentive to park assets in Ireland and avoid taxes. That's productive.

Tax corporate income globally. Tax divdend income in the top bracket at top ordinary income rates. Create a new top bracket and tax it at 50% or higher. If need be tariff products from corps in tax havens.

This will force the superwealthy to actually produce real goods and services that increase standards of living, rather than simply eek marginal dollars out of accounting tricks.

CJ 2.0 said:

They don't need to sell all their phones in Ireland to move there. ireland, like most countries in the world, are not dumb enough to tax income earned by its corporate residents outside of the country.

And again, since the dumb proposal in this thread is that Apple is wrong in doing what it is doing and the US govenrment should change the law to confiscate that wealth reagrdless of whether it is patriated in your jurisdiction, you need to actually think though how this change in the status quo might impact on corporate decision making. Thus far, you are steadfastly refusing to do that.

Click to expand...

Pssst: Ireland went broke and had to be bailed out. How's that low tax strategy working for ya?

head of joaquin said:

Yes, yes, so the bottomline is give Apple an incentive to park assets in Ireland and avoid taxes. That's productive.

Tax corporate income globally. Tax divdend income in the top bracket at top ordinary income rates. Create a new top bracket and tax it at 50% or higher. If need be tariff products from corps in tax havens.

This will force the superwealthy to actually produce real goods and services that increase standards of living, rather than simply eek marginal dollars out of accounting tricks.

Click to expand...

Lol! They would stay in your country why? You really don't understand what competition means, do you?

head of joaquin said:

Yes, yes, so the bottomline is give Apple an incentive to park assets in Ireland and avoid taxes. That's productive.

Click to expand...

No. The bottom line is to remove the incentive for Apple to leave money rotting in Ireland by eliminating the taxes that would confiscate that wealth being patriated into the US, sicne that law is an extraordinary long reach and terrible policy anyways.

Tax corporate income globally. Tax divdend income in the top bracket at top ordinary income rates. Create a new top bracket and tax it at 50% or higher. If need be tariff products from corps in tax havens.

Click to expand...

ok, so who is doing the taxes? The UN? Does it apply only to US-resident corproations or to all corproations even if they have no connection to the US at all? What about the corproation that owns my local car wash in Canada? Does it have to pay taxes to the US government? What if my local car wash expands into Buffalo? Are its Canadian earnings now subject to massive US corproate taxes even though it is a Canadian corporation owned by a Canadian family?

Have you thought through any of this either as a static or dynamic exercise?

As for dividends, I would encourage you to look at who owns shares in corporations. Who has IRAs in the US? Which unions have pension plans? What do you think they own?

Buying into leftist propaganda about wealth doesn't relace your obligation to inquire rationally and learn on your own.

beyond that, you seem to have a bit of a pickle about other people generating and earning money and using it on themselves. Not sure why you are so bitter that you prefer to focus on bringing down those who are successful rather than actually making things better, but would suggest that should not be the problem of those who invested, took risks and succeeded, whether that was in a profession that allowed them to earn a solid income or they took risks sufficient to earn substantial profits by delivering goods people wanted to buy.

This will force the superwealthy to actually produce real goods and services that increase standards of living, rather than simply eek marginal dollars out of accounting tricks.

Click to expand...

no, this will cause the super wealthy to move to jurisdictions that understand investment is a fundamental requirement to a healthy, prosperous economy.

And again, we in Canada are happy to have them.

head of joaquin said:

Pssst: Ireland went broke and had to be bailed out. How's that low tax strategy working for ya?

Click to expand...

Working decently well in Canada, though we have work to go.

Don't suppose you have any idea that corporate tax rates are not the reason Ireland ran into trouble? Assume not, since that would interfere wuith this sort of nonsense talking point that may work in the playground but doesn't do much in real life.

Henrin said:

I advocate people hide money from a government that just takes money from its citizens without any sort of consent from the party being acted on. If the government sees it fit to form its tax system around such an uncivil and violent act that is their problem. I will still advocate people do what is in their power to resist. Furthermore, my statement is factual. People have a right to their property and as such all parties must get their consent if they are to take it. Yes, that means that people have a right to defend their property by hiding it from the thieves.

Click to expand...

People do have their right to property. But anarchy doesn't work, so we must have government on some level, and government isn't free. No such thing as a free lunch. A technologically advanced and educated nation such as our own, which produces quite a bit of modern convenience, doesn't come cheap. If you want to enjoy the benefits of this aggregated advancement, you have to pay for it. No way around it.

Now there is certainly room to argue that the current levels of taxation are too high, or that the various things government is using money on are not things it was authorized to spend money on. But the base is still that taxation is necessary and if everyone avoids it, as you suggest, we will not have a nation much longer. We've already done this, it's a measured system.

jonny5 said:

They don't pay up because they pass the cost down to people, ie. YOU. By taxing them all you do is employ accountants and create inefficiency, which again costs you more.

Click to expand...

So we shouldn't tax corporations at all for our benefit?

jonny5 said:

No, corporations are not people, they are ideas.

Click to expand...

Corporations are property. As such, they have no rights. Individuals have rights, a corporation is just property; and property is almost always taxed.

Ikari said:

People do have their right to property. But anarchy doesn't work, so we must have government on some level, and government isn't free. No such thing as a free lunch. A technologically advanced and educated nation such as our own, which produces quite a bit of modern convenience, doesn't come cheap. If you want to enjoy the benefits of this aggregated advancement, you have to pay for it. No way around it.

Now there is certainly room to argue that the current levels of taxation are too high, or that the various things government is using money on are not things it was authorized to spend money on. But the base is still that taxation is necessary and if everyone avoids it, as you suggest, we will not have a nation much longer. We've already done this, it's a measured system.

Click to expand...

I for one agree with this. Just would respectfully submit that a tax on income earned abroad is bad policy and costs more in economic activity (and related taxes) than it generates. It is also a very unfair and unjust sort of tax from a moral perspective, since there is no real nexus to the US other than the paper residency of the corporation.

Ikari said:

So we shouldn't tax corporations at all for our benefit?

Click to expand...

Certainly where corproations are owned entirely by US residents, all not taxing corproations do is allow a tax deferment on money that is retained by the corporation, since distributions as dividends are taxed. This is probably bad on the whole but would effectively subsidize investments in capital and expansion. It would also, however, play into all different sorts of tax deferment strategies and all savings would be funnelled through corps for tax reasons. While it presumably would increase US savings rates somewhat, which are too low, your weak economy and the need for taxes seem to make it a bad idea. And add into that non-US residents that own shares and may or may not pay US taxes on the dividends (I don't know your rules) and this would seem a nopn-starter.

But that is different than LOWER rates, since the US seems to be among the least competitive corporate tax jurisdiction in the developed world. And again, the extra tax on foreign earnings is just stupid and frankly immoral.

Ikari said:

Corporations are property. As such, they have no rights. Individuals have rights, a corporation is just property; and property is almost always taxed.

Click to expand...

And taxes affect behaviour and distributions of capital.

So tax away. Just be mindful of the implications on individuals and overall economic productivity. You get taxed at 100% and you start taking a lot more vacation time. Stark example, but it's the same principle.

the left needs to think things through better, and more honestly, before suggesting policy on economic matters. Goals you guys got down, and we can even assume for the sake of this discussion they are the right goals (which some of them are). But in respect to policy to achieve those goals, so much of what you guys say is just laughable and makes more symathetic people LESS willing to entertain your policy goals. Which is a shame.

CJ 2.0 said:

Certainly where corproations are owned entirely by US residents, all not taxing corproations do is allow a tax deferment on money that is retained by the corporation, since distributions as dividends are taxed. This is probably bad on the whole but would effectively subsidize investments in capital and expansion. It would also, however, play into all different sorts of tax deferment strategies and all savings would be funnelled through corps for tax reasons. While it presumably would increase US savings rates somewhat, which are too low, your weak economy and the need for taxes seem to make it a bad idea. And add into that non-US residents that own shares and may or may not pay US taxes on the dividends (I don't know your rules) and this would seem a nopn-starter.

But that is different than LOWER rates, since the US seems to be among the least competitive corporate tax jurisdiction in the developed world. And again, the extra tax on foreign earnings is just stupid and frankly immoral.

Click to expand...

Lots of things the government does is immoral. But I just don't see the reason behind giving corporations a pass. We have some of the lowest corporate taxes around and our government is a corporate whore. They should at least have to pay for that access. There are many ways to rework the tax codes to present a fair level of taxation, but corporations will always cry foul because they're out for their bottom line and don't want to pay. Which is fine, less they had used any of the aggregate advantages our society had to offer such as tech or infrastructure. In that case, they again need to pay for it. No such thing as a free lunch. I'm probably the least sympathetic towards corporations when it comes to taxation given the problems faced by the People and the fact that a corporation is property. Not to say that we shouldn't address any true problem should it exist; but that there are far greater issues revolving around taxation that should be meted out first.

Ikari said:

People do have their right to property. But anarchy doesn't work, so we must have government on some level, and government isn't free. No such thing as a free lunch. A technologically advanced and educated nation such as our own, which produces quite a bit of modern convenience, doesn't come cheap. If you want to enjoy the benefits of this aggregated advancement, you have to pay for it. No way around it.

Now there is certainly room to argue that the current levels of taxation are too high, or that the various things government is using money on are not things it was authorized to spend money on. But the base is still that taxation is necessary and if everyone avoids it, as you suggest, we will not have a nation much longer. We've already done this, it's a measured system.

Click to expand...

I'm not advocating anarchy, but I am advocating people protect themselves against theft from any source in their lives. Be that their neighbor or the government. If the government wishes to tax people they need to find a civil and an orderly way to do it that does not involve coercion.

People have the right to their property and that means very clearly the government needs to stop taking money from people without their consent. If they are not smart enough to manage a system without coercion they are unfit and need to fall.

To claim we have a right to property and then to claim the government has the authority to take our money by force is illogical.

CJ 2.0 said:

And taxes affect behaviour and distributions of capital.

So tax away. Just be mindful of the implications on individuals and overall economic productivity. You get taxed at 100% and you start taking a lot more vacation time. Stark example, but it's the same principle.

Click to expand...

Tax at 0% and you're back to the dark ages. Those boundary conditions exist on both sides.

CJ 2.0 said:

the left needs to think things through better, and more honestly, before suggesting policy on economic matters. Goals you guys got down, and we can even assume for the sake of this discussion they are the right goals (which some of them are). But in respect to policy to achieve those goals, so much of what you guys say is just laughable and makes more symathetic people LESS willing to entertain your policy goals. Which is a shame.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not. The rules, regulations, and oversights currently heavily favor the big corporations. So if you want me to be sympathetic towards corporate profit, you'll have to address the issues of our closed off, corporate capitalist system which has choked out free market principles and dynamics. If the system was open, and we had free market, I could agree more. But since the laws and regulations are bent in favor of the corporations, they can pay for that added benefit.

Henrin said:

I'm not advocating anarchy, but I am advocating people protect themselves against theft from any source in their lives. Be that their neighbor or the government. If the government wishes to tax people they need to find a civil and orderly way to do it that does not involve coercion.

People have the right to their property and that means very clearly the government needs to stop taking money from people without their consent. If they are not smart enough to manage a system without coercion they are unfit and need to fall.

Click to expand...

You may not advocate anarchy, but if you advocate aggregated action in avoiding taxes, then you advocate a non-functional government. But don't worry, you won't have anarchy for long; something worse will take the place of what we got now.

Ikari said:

You may not advocate anarchy, but if you advocate aggregated action in avoiding taxes, then you advocate a non-functional government. But don't worry, you won't have anarchy for long; something worse will take the place of what we got now.

Click to expand...

If you do not wish people to desire to avoid taxes then stop making them feel like a victim. It seems pretty simple. :shrug:

Henrin said:

If you do not wish people to desire to avoid taxes then stop making them feel like a victim. It seems pretty simple. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Is it that simple? How do you do so? People will never like paying taxes, paying for things sucks. But you cannot have what we have today without it. There's no such thing as a free lunch, you have to pay.

CJ 2.0 said:

Working decently well in Canada, though we have work to go.

Don't suppose you have any idea that corporate tax rates are not the reason Ireland ran into trouble? Assume not, since that would interfere wuith this sort of nonsense talking point that may work in the playground but doesn't do much in real life.

Click to expand...

Actually Ireland's rock bottom low corporate rates were cited as a major contributor to their collapse, by the very EU/IMF that bailed them out.

Battered Ireland Clings to Its Low Taxes - Businessweek

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bailout-should-cost-ireland-double-corporation-tax-131983.html

You keep not getting your facts right.

Ikari said:

Is it that simple? How do you do so? People will never like paying taxes, paying for things sucks. But you cannot have what we have today without it. There's no such thing as a free lunch, you have to pay.

Click to expand...

You make people not feel like a victim by treating government as anything else in the market. You do not protect property rights or liberty any other way.

Btw, I never asked for all this stuff the government does. Why would I care to pay for all that crap?

head of joaquin said:

Actually Ireland's rock bottom low corporate rates were cited as a major contributor to their collapse, by the very EU/IMF that bailed them out.

Battered Ireland Clings to Its Low Taxes - Businessweek

Bailout

You keep not getting your facts right.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no. The Irishpreferred not to shoot themselves in the foot by eviscerating the one advantage they have in attracting businesses. this is not why their economy collapsed and no one is saying that it is. What you have here are EU folks who don't like competing with ireland on tax rates and so are trying to extract higher taxes as a quid pro quo for a bailout.

Perhaps less distortion and more honest discussion next time?

Henrin said:

You make people not feel like a victim by treating government as anything else in the market. You do not protect property rights or liberty any other way.

Click to expand...

This is a non-answer. First off, government cannot be treated as market force because government is not business....it's government. But this is simple, yes? How do you make people not feel like a victim for paying for the things we all use and the technology we enjoy?

Henrin said:

Btw, I never asked for all this stuff the government does. Why would I care to pay for all that crap?

Click to expand...

If you ain't revolting, you're submitting.

CJ 2.0 said:

Yeah, no. The Irishpreferred not to shoot themselves in the foot by eviscerating the one advantage they have in attracting businesses. this is not why their economy collapsed and no one is saying that it is. What you have here are EU folks who don't like competing with ireland on tax rates and so are trying to extract higher taxes as a quid pro quo for a bailout.

Perhaps less distortion and more honest discussion next time?

Click to expand...

You've changed the subject and hoped nobody would notice.

The IMF/EU -- the very people who bailed them out -- cited their low corporate tax as one of the problems. Go figure. Who should we believe -- the bankrupt, or the guys who loan the bankrupt billions of dollars to save his behind.

head of joaquin said:

You've changed the subject and hoped nobody would notice.

The IMF/EU -- the very people who bailed them out -- cited their low corporate tax as one of the problems. Go figure. Who should we believe -- the bankrupt, or the guys who loan the bankrupt billions of dollars to save his behind.

Click to expand...

They cited it as a contributor to their fiscal imabalance, not to the cause of the crisis in the first place. You are confusing things. Whether Ireland is right or not to prefer a bailout rather than upping their rates and whether the EU/IMF is right to bankroll rather than require Ireland to deal with the issue on their own is an EU policy matter and I see both sides. But to pretend that ireland was in crisis not because of the global financial crisis or their banks but because of their low corporate tax rates is pretty disingenous, even moreso because of the arguments to authority you are tryign to leverage from.

Also, I like that your second article presumes to argue from authority but the best it can do is cite to some kleptocratic socialist European People’s Party reps in the EU parliament.

Fundamentally they and various other European nations don't like the Irish approach because it WORKS in attracting businesses to set up shop in Ireland rather than in their jurisdictions. You can pretend this is them domenstrating a causal relationship between the low tax rates and the crisis all you like, but it's a pretty silly argument and the cites you provide are even sillier as support.


Would also note you diverting from the thread issue, which is that the left doesn't like companies availaing themselves of their legal rights to hold onto money that they rightfully and lawfully earned, and would prefer that the law be changed to further confiscate money from productive contributors to the US economy in respect of economic activity that has nothing to do with the US and which is already taxed by the jurisdiction in which the activity takes place.

TheDemSocialist said:

Why? Because they are avoiding taxes.

Click to expand...

Its a nonsensical tax anyways. Why do we need to collect corporate taxes? We already can tax the people in the corporation at the income level. Its stupid.