Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

darkplanets

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2009
853
1
Since this is already in PRSI, I might as well get a little political with some questions regarding taxation -- I'm interested in people's views. As a disclaimer I'm a moderate that dislikes both parties, apologies for the bias.

1) Why do people feel the need to "tax the rich"? How are they any different from any other citizen, who has the same legal right? Why should those who are more successful be penalized for such? We're all supposed to be equal before the law, and I view the tax code as part of the law. I understand the sentiment against tax evasion -- there I agree completely -- but once the tax code is revised to close up those loopholes used by the wealthy, why should a "rich" person be taxed more?

2) Going off of 1), why are corporations (like Apple) viewed as people under US tax code? You're essentially taking one revenue source and taxing it twice; once for the company profit, and again for employee salary. Why not remove corporate tax, but close tax loopholes? This would allow the companies to spend the money as they see fit. Best case scenario is that the company invests to create more jobs or pay it's employees more -- if this is the case, tax revenue would still be collected from this disbursement. Worst case is self-catering in the form of bonuses... which would again be taxed equally before the law if loopholes are closed. Why is there such a push against companies (or rather "evil corporations")?

3) Why does the US constantly define class? Shouldn't we all be classless and equals? Using salary to define wealth is tenuous at best without proper adjustment for inflation, local tax rates, cost of living, and other capital. A place like San Fran is far more expensive than say Indianapolis.

4) Why is there an obsession with taxation, but no unified call for controlled spending? Increasing revenue only fixes one end, and that eventually hits a wall (ala Hollande's 75% income tax on "the rich"). While I agree that raising appropriate revenue is important, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Most of Europe got their act together, but US congress is acting like a bunch of children and refuse to play within the parameters of the system.

Also, before anyone wants to play parties and use the blame game -- everyone's at fault. See here. Obama's congress has been no better than Bush's (in fact, worse) -- the last four years has accrued as much debt as Bush's eight. Also, Clinton seems to be the only semi-responsible tenure in recent history.
 
Last edited:

hipnetic

macrumors 65816
Oct 5, 2010
1,266
562
"Tax" is just newspeak for theft. When the government steals your money, it's called a tax. When an individual steals your money, it's appropriately called theft.
 

imageWIS

macrumors 65816
Mar 17, 2009
1,281
822
NYC
At our current spending rate that will last us about a 1/2 day.

We don't have a revenue problem.

It's a dual problem, both revenue has to be increased AND spending has to be cut.

----------

"Tax" is just newspeak for theft. When the government steals your money, it's called a tax. When an individual steals your money, it's appropriately called theft.

Nonsense. Tax is the cost you pay for civilization.
 

quagmire

macrumors 604
Apr 19, 2004
6,862
2,280
"Tax" is just newspeak for theft. When the government steals your money, it's called a tax. When an individual steals your money, it's appropriately called theft.

So how do you think the government should operate on? Fairy dust? Your tax money goes into paying for the Defense Budget, goes into paying for the airports, roads, bridges, rails, etc that you enjoy every day, among other functions.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,434
12,250
UK
1) Why do people feel the need to "tax the rich"?

Because the rich have a much higher level of disposable income than the poor.

Additionally overall they usually pay tax at about the same rate as everyone else.

2) Going off of 1), why are corporations (like Apple) viewed as people under US tax code? You're essentially taking one revenue source and taxing it twice; once for the company profit, and again for employee salary.

Profits can't be used to pay wages...

3) Why does the US constantly define class? Shouldn't we all be classless and equals?

Because that isn't how the world really works. The class system exists at least to some degree.

----------

Obama's congress has been no better than Bush's (in fact, worse) -- the last four years has accrued as much debt as Bush's eight.

You are aware of the global financial crisis? And that that effectively necessitates high (temporary) deficits?
 
Last edited:

MacDav

macrumors 65816
Mar 24, 2004
1,031
0
Agreed. I can't believe they didn't do some big cuts during the Fiscal Cliff negotiations. One of the few things I hate about Obama is how he's spineless like that. But I still support him over Romney.

At this point what does Romney have to do with it?
 

MOFS

macrumors 65816
Feb 27, 2003
1,241
235
Durham, UK
Since this is already in PRSI, I might as well get a little political with some questions regarding taxation -- I'm interested in people's views. As a disclaimer I'm a moderate that dislikes both parties, apologies for the bias.

1) Why do people feel the need to "tax the rich"? How are they any different from any other citizen, who has the same legal right? Why should those who are more successful be penalized for such? We're all supposed to be equal before the law, and I view the tax code as part of the law. I understand the sentiment against tax evasion -- there I agree completely -- but once the tax code is revised to close up those loopholes used by the wealthy, why should a "rich" person be taxed more?

2) Going off of 1), why are corporations (like Apple) viewed as people under US tax code? You're essentially taking one revenue source and taxing it twice; once for the company profit, and again for employee salary. Why not remove corporate tax, but close tax loopholes? This would allow the companies to spend the money as they see fit. Best case scenario is that the company invests to create more jobs or pay it's employees more -- if this is the case, tax revenue would still be collected from this disbursement. Worst case is self-catering in the form of bonuses... which would again be taxed equally before the law if loopholes are closed. Why is there such a push against companies (or rather "evil corporations")?

3) Why does the US constantly define class? Shouldn't we all be classless and equals? Using salary to define wealth is tenuous at best without proper adjustment for inflation, local tax rates, cost of living, and other capital. A place like San Fran is far more expensive than say Indianapolis.

4) Why is there an obsession with taxation, but no unified call for controlled spending? Increasing revenue only fixes one end, and that eventually hits a wall (ala Hollande's 75% income tax on "the rich"). While I agree that raising appropriate revenue is important, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Most of Europe got their act together, but US congress is acting like a bunch of children and refuse to play within the parameters of the system.

Also, before anyone wants to play parties and use the blame game -- everyone's at fault. See here. Obama's congress has been no better than Bush's (in fact, worse) -- the last four years has accrued as much debt as Bush's eight. Also, Clinton seems to be the only semi-responsible tenure in recent history.

Surely by taxing everyone the same amount you would exacerbate the gulf between socioeconomic groups. Basically everyone would be taxed the same so either the state would be short changed while the lower earners would have some leeway, or the state would be ok and the lower earners would be borderline. In both scenarios, the percentage of take home pay going to the state would be dramatically greater in the lower earning versus the higher earners, exacerbating the gap between the extremes.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,107
129
McKinney, TX
Surely by taxing everyone the same amount you would exacerbate the gulf between socioeconomic groups. Basically everyone would be taxed the same so either the state would be short changed while the lower earners would have some leeway, or the state would be ok and the lower earners would be borderline. In both scenarios, the percentage of take home pay going to the state would be dramatically greater in the lower earning versus the higher earners, exacerbating the gap between the extremes.

I must live in alternate reality where 10% of $25,000 is NOT equivalent to 10% of $250,000 - regardless, technically those at $250,000 are taxed a much higher percentage than those at $25,000....it's the loopholes and deductions that muddy the waters.
 

MacDav

macrumors 65816
Mar 24, 2004
1,031
0
I have the same idea. It's a very smart plan compared to the mess of a system they have now, and it also taxes illegals as someone said.

Yeah, well almost anybody off the street could come up with a better plan than what's currently in effect. The people who supposedly represent us don't care what we think. There is no "common sense" in Washington. There are at least 10 good ideas for tax reform and nobody wants to deal with the subject. Just kick the can down the road again.
 
Last edited:

Swift

macrumors 68000
Feb 18, 2003
1,825
964
Los Angeles
1/40th of ALL corporate taxes collected? Seems like a lot.
Then again they are in the big leagues.... :)

Based on the percentage of the economy Apple has been for a few years, I think that's underpaying.

No, well, if the right wants no corporate tax, there's a 90% personal income tax on the upper crust, as they always (logically) called it. We had some very prosperous years in the '50s and into the '60s, while paying off a debt that makes us look like, uh, *****-cats.

The idea that we don't have a revenue problem is wrong. The problem is called the Tea Party Republican. He wants all the money for his privatizing cronies. Here, has a few billion to privatize prisons. Here's a few billion for television preachers.

Nothing wrong with the progressive model. Hint: if you're in a deflationary trap, you don't solve it by giving capitalists more capital that they don't earn. You give it to the people who spend. Our capitalists have gotten fat and exceedingly stupid (I'm looking at you, Sheldon Adelson). Sure, have worldwide companies. And pay your taxes to the US government if you're Americans. Are you?
 

Morshu9001

macrumors regular
Dec 16, 2012
214
0
the capital of Assyria
Fair enough, but Romney was an idiot too. :p

I agree. It's sad how incompetent the Republican presidential candidates tend to be.

----------

Yeah, well almost anybody off the street could come up with a better plan than what's currently in effect. The people in who supposedly represent us don't care what we think. There is no "common sense" in Washington. There are at least 10 good ideas for tax reform and nobody wants to deal with the subject. Just kick the can down the road again.

Exactly. Whoever tries to fix it takes big publicity risks.

----------

Without it, those with passionate views on the corporate tax code could create an account and trash the forums with their political views.

Remember the #1 goal of this site.

Do people without accounts go around looking at comments?
 

winterspan

macrumors 65816
Jun 12, 2007
1,008
0

Our country is vastly overtaxed (18% of GDP)
and overspends (25% of GDP) which sucks oxygen out of the free market directly and by diverting investment capital (18%-25%=-7%) to government bonds to finance the debt...

While I believe high corporate taxation is counter-productive and that the USA's tax code needs reform, your comment is very misleading as the USA has nearly the lowest tax-to-GDP ratio among OECD (aka developed) countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
 

AdonisSMU

macrumors 604
Oct 23, 2010
7,288
3,030
[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


The New York Times reports on a congressional investigation into the tax policies of technology giants, including Apple.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is nearly finished with a year-long investigation into the methods that large technology companies use to avoid paying U.S. corporate income tax. Apple, for its part, allocates some 70 percent of its income to overseas affiliates where tax rates are much lower.

It appears that all of Apple's techniques are legal by U.S. law, though some politicians have said that corporations going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying income tax and that they are violating the spirit of tax laws. Apple was one of the first companies to use the accounting scheme called a "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich", where profits are routed through Irish and Dutch subsidiaries before finally landing in the Caribbean. Now, hundreds of companies use those methods.

Apple also has moved revenue to its Braeburn subsidiary in Nevada and International locales where the company pays little to no tax.

Note: Due to the inevitable political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Paid $6 Billion in Federal Income Tax in 2012, 1/40 of All U.S. Corporate Income Tax Collected
Really the mint app logo?
 

Thunderhawks

Suspended
Feb 17, 2009
4,057
2,118
I think it's more astounding that total corporation tax is only $240bn a year. That is a joke for the size of country the US is.

How big are the tax loopholes in the US, is it just a bus or an oil tanker you can get through them?

The tax code has some 70,000 pages I heard some place.

If that is true, it says it all!
 

Diode

macrumors 68020
Apr 15, 2004
2,443
124
Washington DC
Except that according to reputable and serious sources like the Economist this happens less often in the US than any European country, including on some measures the UK.

And we have the class system.

----------



So everyone in the world has servants :confused:.

I'm sure one day robot butlers will be affordable.
 

iphoneclassic

macrumors 6502
Oct 12, 2011
375
7
USA
Why do people feel the need to "tax the rich"? How are they any different from any other citizen, who has the same legal right? Why should those who are more successful be penalized for such? We're all supposed to be equal before the law, and I view the tax code as part of the law. I understand the sentiment against tax evasion -- there I agree completely -- but once the tax code is revised to close up those loopholes used by the wealthy, why should a "rich" person be taxed more?

This is the most illeterate argument. It is not how much you pay, it is the percentage you pay matters.

Let's say you bought one stock for 100k and sold for 110k another bought another stock for 10k and sold for 30k. Which one is more profitable.

Similarly a person making 100k W2 salary is paying minimum 25%. Only major deductions are 401k and mortgage interest deduction.

A person who makes 10 Million pays less than 15%. Can hire one of the four large consulting/auditing firms to find every possible loophole and tax haven around the world.

How is that fair.
 

Rocketman

macrumors 603
1) Why do people feel the need to "tax the rich"? How are they any different from any other citizen, who has the same legal right?

2) Going off of 1), why are corporations (like Apple) viewed as people under US tax code? You're essentially taking one revenue source and taxing it twice; once for the company profit, and again for employee salary.

3) Why does the US constantly define class? Shouldn't we all be classless and equals? Using salary to define wealth is tenuous at best without proper adjustment for inflation, local tax rates, cost of living, and other capital. A place like San Fran is far more expensive than say Indianapolis.

4) Why is there an obsession with taxation, but no unified call for controlled spending? Increasing revenue only fixes one end, and that eventually hits a wall

1. Jealousy. Simple as that. Some people are poor because of experiences beyond their control. Those folks should be helped by us and we need a system for that outside of government. Some people are self destructive and F them but they will whine endlessly. Some folks are moderately successful and some for all practical purposes "hit the lottery", due to position, work, and persistence. That deserves compensation.

2. Legally a corporation is a "legal person" not a "natural person". For purposes of the law. I guess that is not perfect because if they commit a crime of violence they are only fined not dissolved and the persons in the corporation who effectuated it are persued if they can be caught. But for IRS purposes a corporation is effectively the exact same thing as a trust. That's a distinction with a difference.

3. The US does not define class. Be accurate. Politicians, persons, institutions define class for selfish and self-serving reasons contrary to their oath or subjection to the constitution. Lets make a law about that!

4. Other people's money. The oldest story there is. The problem is defined benefit (unfunded), and the solution is defined contribution no matter who (funded). The current problem is the congress spends the "trust funds". Take it off budget and out of their theiving jurisdiction!

Simple, clear, solution oriented. QED.

Rocketman (yes, logic and science comes first in my world)

F the government: http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFE-03-16-09.pdf

All this stuff directly impacts Apple users, Apple itself, and the environment Apple operates under restricting all the cool stuff they could do if allowed. Which they are not.
 

hipnetic

macrumors 65816
Oct 5, 2010
1,266
562
A government has to provide services in return. Tax is a fee.
I'm not interested in their services. But they won't let me opt out, and take my money by force. Hence, it is theft.

Nonsense. Tax is the cost you pay for civilization.
Oh dear. We wouldn't have civilization without government and taxes?

So how do you think the government should operate on? Fairy dust? Your tax money goes into paying for the Defense Budget, goes into paying for the airports, roads, bridges, rails, etc that you enjoy every day, among other functions.
Those things can all be provided by the free market. And they'd be better quality, and less expensive. There was no "Defense Budget" when the early Americans fought back the British.

Oh well...I see that I'm wasting my time in this thread.
 

quagmire

macrumors 604
Apr 19, 2004
6,862
2,280
Those things can all be provided by the free market. And they'd be better quality, and less expensive. There was no "Defense Budget" when the early Americans fought back the British.

Oh well...I see that I'm wasting my time in this thread.

Who in the free market would maintain the nations huge highway system( do you even know why we have highways?) Who would maintain the airports and ATC? The airlines don't want to. Their profits are thin enough. You think Lockheed will build a F-22 because they are patriotic and want to defend the US? The free market doesn't give a crap about the US.

I'm sick and tired of people who claim the free market is the answer to everything. It can't do everything. It can't be left unchecked.
 

axual

macrumors regular
Oct 31, 2007
214
4
Agree

The easy solution is to eliminate the corporate income tax altogether.

I totally agree. Corporations are pieces of paper. People pay taxes. Eliminate corporate and business taxes altogether ... and reduce capital gains taxes too (20% is ridiculous and just gives politicians more dough to spend which is a bad idea).
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
7,005
3,343
I totally agree. Corporations are pieces of paper. People pay taxes. Eliminate corporate and business taxes altogether ... and reduce capital gains taxes too (20% is ridiculous and just gives politicians more dough to spend which is a bad idea).

You understand that they could push a percentage of their assets into trusts under your suggestion. It's not as simple as a headline when you're trying to figure out an appropriate trajectory. This is not starting as a blank slate.


Have some sort of tax credit for lower income families for their necessities.

It doesn't work that well beyond its use as a talking point. In most countries VAT, GST, or whatever they decide to call it is applied primarily at a national level. Typically the stated price will also include this tax rather than it being entirely added at the time you pay. You may see a breakdown on a receipt or invoice, but the stated price is the one you pay. If companies wish to make something look cheaper by pricing a $2000 item at $1999, they have to break that end figure into the appropriate retail price and VAT. In the case of Apple, they tend to be more expensive in the UK, but some of it is that people will compare a price that uses the evasion of sales or use tax as a starting figure when making such a comparison. Some brands I use are actually cheaper there, even with the higher percentage of VAT.

I'm not sure how it would work based solely on consumption. You might end up with a very tiered system there if this was the sole point of reliance. Anything that isn't needed to cover expenses goes on tax free. Do you start taxing all services? Do you tax private schooling? This thread merely paws at the issue.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.