221–230 of 512 posts
Paid $0 in taxes always seems a bit disingenuous to me, since they pay labor and equipment costs that are all indirectly taxed. These companies may not pay taxes in the ways we would like them to, or naively expect them to, but the government still ends up with a lot of money in their coffers on account of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that simple. Companies lobby to keep, even coerce, laws that benefit them and allow these sorts of things to happen. What is the common person, or collection of persons, supposed to do when they are against that kind of force? I believe one way is to actually be involved in politics and get into the seats that govern and make the laws. But it's easier said than done.
The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more.
Doubtful. Then they are incentivized to secure a lucrative position after their term. Guess who can provide lucrative jobs for some consideration?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more.
> The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more. When you think there are simple answers to big problems it's generally because you don't actually understand the problem. How would you outlaw lobbyists? Setting aside the fact that it would be unconstitutional, do you think it should be illegal for you to air your grievances to elec…
Funny. Most complex problems have simple solutions. It takes lot more effort to do it, but the simple solutions tend to stick around the longest. This is based on 10 years of work exp in top tech companies :-)
The only place when simple solutions don't work is when people have other vested interests.
Rather than being outraged at the headline, what are the actual details? Why were they able to pay no taxes? Was it due to carried losses or something like that? Anyone mad at a company for not pay taxes is misdirecting their anger. Companies follow the law. If you don't like the law elect different politicians. Don't get mad at companies that follow the law.
If I spend a few million to get some lawyers to work out a legal loophole that means I can murder someone and get away with it that wouldn't make it OK to actually do it. The same applies to tax avoidance. It might be legal but it's still wrong .
You seem like you are privy to some inside information. What legal loophole did Netflix got their high-priced lawyers to exploit?
>I can murder someone and get away with it that wouldn't make it OK to actually do it.
Because murder is the same as following the tax code to the letter.
>The same applies to tax avoidance. It might be legal but it's still wrong.
Again, what are we talking about here? Why did Netflix owe no taxes this year. I would think that would be the first step before determining the morality their actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I spend a few million to get some lawyers to work out a legal loophole that means I can murder someone and get away with it that wouldn't make it OK to actually do it. The same applies to tax avoidance. It might be legal but it's still wrong .
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/the-morality-of-tax-avoidance Let me ask you a question; have you ever deducted anything from your taxes? If so, you are “guilty” of tax avoidance. Every person claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit is engaged in tax avoidance. Anyone that ever deducted anything is a tax avoider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$3.7 billion a year is a lot. There aren't that many politicians to bribe.
>There aren't that many politicians to bribe. I think this is really the crux of the issue. If a CEO met with a politician and said "I've talked to all my CEO buddies and if you do XYZ we're all going to make substantial contributions to your campaign and PACs" that's clear-cut bribery and honest services fraud. But if the same CEO hires a lobbyist to say the exact same thing to a politician suddenly it's "free speec…
This is not what happens during lobbying. If you have any concrete evidence of this sort of exchange happening, please report it, since it's a blatant violation of federal law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more. When you think there are simple answers to big problems it's generally because you don't actually understand the problem. How would you outlaw lobbyists? Setting aside the fact that it would be unconstitutional, do you think it should be illegal for you to air your grievances to elec…
Aside from the fact that many countries have ways of limiting lobbyist influence through law, a simple but dramatic way would be to say: 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. 1. Anyone who wishes to "lobby" congressional candidates or congresspersons must register their financial interests 2. Make it illegal to directly accept money for lobbying services…
So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? Lobbying for them means designating a representative. How is that any different from what corporations are doing? They just happen to have deeper pockets.
Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects.
It's not nearly as simple as you're portraying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more. When you think there are simple answers to big problems it's generally because you don't actually understand the problem. How would you outlaw lobbyists? Setting aside the fact that it would be unconstitutional, do you think it should be illegal for you to air your grievances to elec…
Aside from the fact that many countries have ways of limiting lobbyist influence through law, a simple but dramatic way would be to say: 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. 1. Anyone who wishes to "lobby" congressional candidates or congresspersons must register their financial interests 2. Make it illegal to directly accept money for lobbying services…
A "corporation" isn't a thing that exists in the world. They don't have mouths, and can't speak, so it makes no sense to outlaw their ability to use the mouth that they don't have.
There are people in the world. As well as groups of people.
A corporation is merely the pural of person. Each person in that corporation, whether employee, or owner, should have the same speech rights as any other individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more.
> The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more. When you think there are simple answers to big problems it's generally because you don't actually understand the problem. How would you outlaw lobbyists? Setting aside the fact that it would be unconstitutional, do you think it should be illegal for you to air your grievances to elec…
Or it's pretty obvious and some people are intentionally dense. For example, why are people still being imprisoned for possessing a harmless plant like marijuana?
Colorado showed some "complex issues best left to the adults" are a societal level fabrication rooted in ignorance and fear.
People who claim an idea is too complex to comprehend almost never comprehend the idea.
> How would you outlaw lobbyists?
"Regulation"
> What about a small business that is being unfairly impacted by regulations
What about them? Are they going to buy some high powered lobbyists with their small town budget?? That's the whole point. Lobbying unfairly distorts regulation.
Rather than being outraged at the headline, what are the actual details? Why were they able to pay no taxes? Was it due to carried losses or something like that? Anyone mad at a company for not pay taxes is misdirecting their anger. Companies follow the law. If you don't like the law elect different politicians. Don't get mad at companies that follow the law.
It's not that simple. Companies lobby to keep, even coerce, laws that benefit them and allow these sorts of things to happen. What is the common person, or collection of persons, supposed to do when they are against that kind of force? I believe one way is to actually be involved in politics and get into the seats that govern and make the laws. But it's easier said than done.
This is true. But politicians are playing the exact same game. Back when I was a tax lawyer, I asked my boss why the R&D credit was temporary but always renewed. Why not just make it permanent? He said it was because then the companies had to keep donating to the politicians in order to maintain the status quo. If they'd made it permanent, there would be very little chance of repeal, and therefore much less need to stay cozy with the politicians. It's a 2-sided game.