331–340 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your proposed rule that would close the loophole? I don't think it's actually possible.
"Any kind of business or financial transfer or ownership of assets or beneficiary interest in the Cayman Islands (Etc) is a criminal offence"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wtf does this even mean. companies will always care about profitability for their owners. that's the whole point of starting and having a business
How is this the whole point of starting a business? Elon Musk is often quoted as using Tesla as a mean to promote electric transportation. Corporate structures that may never pay dividends to the owners such as gGmbH (gemeinnützige GmbH) exist and get used in practice. There’s a ton of reasons to start a business, shaving off the absolute maximum in profits is just one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please define the specific tax loophole. The "loophole" as far as I can tell is that a company can choose not to repatriate their earnings, which is completely legal.
You were saying "make it de facto illegal to operate a multinational" and that is not on the table and has never been anywhere close to it. Are you walking that back, and want to talk about loopholes now?
I do want to talk about loopholes. How do we close the "repatriation loophole"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wtf does this even mean. companies will always care about profitability for their owners. that's the whole point of starting and having a business
How is this the whole point of starting a business? Elon Musk is often quoted as using Tesla as a mean to promote electric transportation. Corporate structures that may never pay dividends to the owners such as gGmbH (gemeinnützige GmbH) exist and get used in practice. There’s a ton of reasons to start a business, shaving off the absolute maximum in profits is just one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>if you tax the company they increase the cost of the phone Raising your prices in response to not making as much profit as you desired is not often a winning move in business.
And a tax on the phone does this, so they either lower the cost and eat it, or suffer the same fall in demand as when the price of the phone increases to protect their margins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Are you arguing that a 100% tax on Apple profits wouldn’t impact their competitiveness? Pretty much. It would render their stock worthless, but there's nothing about a 100% tax on realized profits from preventing a business from operating exactly as before. >How would they build new factories, develop new products or hire more workers With relative ease. Corporation tax is paid only on realized profits. Reinvesting…
> With relative ease. Yeah, but why would they? Why would any employee or manager have an incentive to do extra work to do so? Where do they get the money from, and more importantly, why would they reinvest the money if there is absolutely no gain to doing so, instead of paying it out to executives and shareholders and just cashing out? > Corporation tax is paid only on realized profits. I’m not sure you know what th…
Coz they get paid.
>why would they reinvest the money if there is absolutely no gain to doing so, instead of paying it out to executives
It's true that with a higher profit tax you'd may see execs paying themselves higher and higher salaries and shareholders would be less inclined to prevent it.
>I’m not sure you know what this means. A new factory is an asset, taxes are definitely paid on it if Apple buys a new factory with retained earnings. Are you claiming that a corporation can gain new long term assets without paying any tax unless investors put more money into the business or banks loan them money?
>I'm sorry if I sound shocked, but I actually file corporation taxes for a small business.
So do I. Actually, the year before last I personally paid more in corporation tax than Facebook did (they paid £4,000).
I'm pretty sure they were taking neither investment nor loans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It has to come from somewhere. It can come from owners, workers, or consumers. Owners. It comes from owners. >If it comes from owners, it increases the corporation's cost of capital There is currently an almost absurd overabundance of capital relative to aggregate demand.
It is collected from owners. Tax collection and tax incidence are separate issues. In economics parlance, where tax "comes from" or "falls on" refers to tax incidence, not tax collection.
The tax incidence falls on owners - probably at least until profit taxes reach ~80% or capital became magically very scarce for some reason that clearly doesn't apply to the present day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean you pay what the government says you owe, just like Apple does... Or are you saying that you don't claim any deductions and pay the maximum allowable by the system?
I don't have the power to entice politicians to enact loopholes which I can then take advantage of. A ambassador might take advantage of his diplomatic immunity to commit a crime with impunity. One could say, "what's wrong with that? he was acting within the law." Or one could say, "That ambassador is a vile person and is taking advantage of the system."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems unsupported by the article, in 2015 Ireland changed its laws, Apple consulted a law firm on advice on how to proceed and sought assurances from the govts involved that it's understanding of the law was correct. Where is this agreement you speak of?
This is a little off topic but the question will help me parse your posts better. Is there any situation you can imagine where Apple, or any corporation, could have done anything wrong when it comes to how it pays taxes?
I would say that when the sovereign is in agreement the payment of taxes that it can't be construed as evasion, however, I'm not super well versed on how much of a sovereign Ireland really is given it's membership in the EU. Perhaps the EU is the real sovereign in this case and Apple has erred in consulting with the Irish government who lacks authority to set tax policy in its territory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you're saying is their corporate tax law wasn't enough of a concern to them to actually read it?
Come on fleitz, are you genuinely suggesting it is the responsibility of every citizen to have read through their tax code? If you are, are you going to tell us with a straight face that you've read the US'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201... It's about 3,500 pages long, written in esoteric accountant speak. Considering that in the USA "…
It would seem to me that with compulsory education everyone was afforded an opportunity to learn to read and write, if they choose ignorance I would not say it's an unfair burden. I managed to learn to read and write before my compulsory education began. Using this rare and mysterious ability I incurred about a dollar fifty in late fees at the library and became very well educated. I do find most people to be quite ignorant, but I must respect their choice to remain ignorant while surrounded by knowledge.
It's certainly an unfair burden if they were never afforded an opportunity to learn, however, in the United States I think you'd have to agree that if you don't know how to read and write it's a matter of personal choice rather than lack of opportunity.
I don't personally know the tax code as well as I'd like as it's not my area of expertise but I do consult with those much more well versed in it.