You guys would like the US laws, now. It's actually much higher than that (>$5m), plus there are some exclusions.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Targeted by EU Probe into Irish Tax Policies as U.S. Considers Tax Holiday for Cash Repatriation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You guys would like the US laws, now. It's actually much higher than that (>$5m), plus there are some exclusions.
Quite a few left, you don't have to give up you passport by the way. You don't need that many to leave to make the tax policy counterproductive. The biggest wheeze with the French tax law was the 75% was declared illegal, so they made it 66% payable by the company not the individual and it does apply to footballers/football clubs !!
That does not always work, double crosses, and you have no redress.
If it was true far more Jews would have been able to leave Nazi Germany.
Riots and War situations are a special case.
This is the time when you really do hope that your Private Bankers have done their jobs well.
The EU is here to stay. As I said I am delighted it's starting to do something about this issue. Apple has legally dodged $50 billion. It will be interesting to see whether they can resist the activist shareholders who want bigger dividends, at that point Apple has to pay the 35% US taxes due.
The UK's major manufacturing companies that are still British owned are in a minority.
Rolls Royce owned by BMW says it all really.
That does not always work, double crosses, and you have no redress.
If it was true far more Jews would have been able to leave Nazi Germany.
Riots and War situations are a special case.
This is the time when you really do hope that your Private Bankers have done their jobs well.
Agreed. We do what we can.
----------
The UK's major manufacturing companies that are still British owned are in a minority.
Rolls Royce owned by BMW says it all really.
Does it ever!
But I was speaking in general terms, of companies that have ceded control to the hired help.
That's a twisted way of putting it. If you know a storm is coming your way, you can only blame yourself if you get caught in it. That does not mean that the storm isn't the primary source of destruction. What it means is that being informed and not acting accordingly is the victim's fault.
It's not how it really is, it's more like stopping a problem, before it becomes a problem.
The Netherlands is a country that runs on the consensus and compromise, we have 22 political parties, 14 which sit in this parliament, 2 who form the government.
Fights and war are to be avoided because they stop us making money.
If only things were so obvious and straightforward. Unfortunately, most of those who died in the Holocaust did what just about anyone would do in that situation: they tried to rationalize it until it was too late to do anything about it. First thinking "it won't happen to me", then "it won't get any worse than this". Once they were stripped of their personal belongings and placed in the ghettos, they were all but trapped.
Jews back then were used to being discriminated against, but I doubt even a single one could envision the depths of hate that discrimination would ultimately descend to. You can't blame them for failing to imagine the unimaginable.
That is so true, even as they were being deported from Amsterdam, many of them were saying that it would be better once they got to their final destination.
Peoples capacity to delude themselves is mind boggling.
I am told for US example Think Cubs fans
It's not just loopholes in an individual country's taxation laws, but loopholes between different nations' taxation. For instance one nation might tax companies which are resident in that country, another might tax companies which are registered/incorporated there, and another again might tax companies based on where the revenue was generated.
There's a lot of scope for mobile entities like multinationals to exploit the gaps between national tax codes, plus it takes less time for them to adjust and evolve than a country does to change its tax law.
I'd have thought Ireland's low corporate tax rate would be enough to entice investment, without creating/tolerating loopholes which reduce the tax-take even further.
IMO, there's a lot of fear here among some that many companies are here because of the business-friendly low-tax regime, and many of those are businesses which are mobile and not very tied down here. Hence the reluctance to tamper with the existing laws. IMO, the IDA (development agency) should be more focused on home-grown start-ups, rather than drawing in multinationals who are easily drawn in but can be just as quick to leave.
The problem is agreeing on what constitutes "well run". My opinion is inclined toward what George Washington et al constructed, to wit very minimal with an imperative to respect and preserve rights/liberties/freedoms/property of individuals; that's rather the opposite of what I assume you prefer a la taxation far exceeding 5% of incomes, lots of "illegal unless permitted" regulations, little worry about national debt on par with GDP, and a "for the good of all" imperative. The former isn't "Somalia".
Isn't this the truth? On another forum I used to visit, one of the most prolific far-right posters claimed he was a multi-millionaire multi-business owner who lived in a "house where his bedroom is bigger than your house", hid all his profits and paid himself through some sort of tax-free loan system, and knew pretty much everything.
I guess he forgot that his personal Facebook page, which is completely public, was listed in his profile. The truth was he was scraping by, selling products on amazon out of his garage, in an old, crappy-looking house in a low-value area, and seems to have no friends. I take with a huge grain of salt what some of these highly-opinionated know-it-alls on the internet have to say.
You mean these people.
Image
I wonder who voted for these people.
I think that the EU is going to make a difference to the tax deal, like it or not.
The Celtic Tiger is all out of roar.
Ahh well those people can all rot in hell as far as I care. I just assume Kenny's current clan isn't as totally incompetent.
Perhaps, it might be interesting to see what will happen if France and Germany start to act on their threats, although I'll be surprised if anything actually transpires as result.
----------
I see the point you are trying to make and I agree that people should be informed. However, lack of knowledge does not grant free reign to politicians to abuse their citizens, in any scenario.
----------
I totally agree. It would be great to see that happening.
The founding fathers probably ran the most progressive regime on the planet at the time. Freedom of speech, separation of church and state, some democracy, right to a fair trial and the inability of the army to seize property are all constitutionally protected.
With regards to small government, when 90% of the population is farmers they are much less likely to starve and be unable to house themselves. And no one lived long enough to need a pension. So you could get away with smaller government.
There was also far less access to information. Most people couldn't read and there was no such thing as a radio. I've just been listening to radio 1 (pop music) and on their 10pm bulletin I heard 2 international stories out of 9, and that's excluding the World Cup.
----------
Which means a non establishment candidate won. Which is hardly going to benefit the establishment.
The definition of abuse is quite vague when it comes to knowledge. But yes, as long as things aren't based on deliberate violence, I'm a happy camper.
Exactly! Time for the GOP to get back to its roots, or go away.
BTW, your comment above, on govt being more needed today, assumes that it is the only solution to the changing times. I abhor the fact that this philosophy was allowed/encouraged to take root.
Is this one of those "do you work for a poor person" type comments? The rich aren't the only ones who create jobs. Well, at least in the past they weren't. That's the problem. Who opens sandwich shops and other restaurants? Clothing stores? Dry cleaners? Auto-repair places? Metal shops? Hint: it's not rich people. In order to really spread small business (which is the true backbone of the economy), you have to have a middle class with enough wealth to start even a small business. You don't need some billionaire.
But, since so many people, you included, have bought the lie that sending more money to the rich means more businesses, here we are: a ton of money at the top doing nothing, little money in the middle, no money at the bottom...and a choked economy.
If more money and lower taxes at the top means more business and a better economy, why are we where we are now? The money's all at the top, and the taxes are near the lowest they've ever been. So, what gives?
Oh right...it's a lie.
Hmm...good question. Who did it in the US between 1938 and 1980? Did no one invest capital in business in those years? And how robust was the us economy in those years vs. after 1980?
A couple of points, if I may.
First, small business runs on the back of big business (shops, etc always follow major enterprises - not the other way round).
Second, we have had some very damaging outside influences forced upon us since the mid-seventies. The price of oil, greenies, mountains of regulations, to name a few, have all combined to drastically alter the playing field. The push for ever lower tax rates is, in part, because it is the easiest push-back available, against the ever growing monolith that is the govt (of most countries).
There are over 50 metro areas with over 1 million people in them. Nine with over 5 million. There are plenty of people out there to patronize small businesses. You don't need a major industry to come to town to support them. Around here, pretty much any part of town, you can barely get into places at lunch time. Most restaurants are packed at dinner time. Plenty of room for more.
The biggest caveat is that instead of paying decent wages which allow the middle class to build up some savings and build small businesses, those at the top have manipulated things in their favor to where it all goes to them, and convinced a slew of gullible patsies to support them.
And even with nearly the lowest tax rates in the last 100 years, you still whine and cry about it. Even with pretty much the highest share of wealth and income since the Great Depression, it's still not enough? Obviously, the price of oil, the "greenies", and all these stifling regulations isn't damaging the rich too much. If it was damaging, you'd think that their wealth would be more limited.
And while we're at it, why don't you name a few specific regulations, other than "Obamacare", that you think are destroying business and should be removed.
EDIT: I think there should be a tax on every instance of someone uttering "my hard-earned money" or "I work my ass off for my money"
Last edited:
I'm skeptical whether any of his words are genuine, but I can say that the economic model mentioned there has severe drawbacks. When a given state or municipality is dependent on a small number of employers, it can absolutely destroy the local economy if one goes under or faces restructuring.
Oh, I doubt it. I explained why earlier.
Of course. When cities are built around a single large employer, or a couple of small ones, then those employer decides they can save .07% by moving to another state, you end up with entire cities devastated. Gigantic business is not the better way towards pretty much anything, long term.
Just as you should diversify your portfolio and not put everything into one investment, so should you not build your economy around a small number of massive entities. Besides the prospect of devastation upon their closure or relocation, the power those businesses wield to turn everything in their favor at the detriment of everyone else is all too real (as in buying off politicians to rework tax code so that they can legally move all their money around tax-free).
On the one hand, you want to call the people who support this model some sort of moron or idiot. But then you realize that they are actually quite smart. In pretty much the same way that Bernie Madoff was smart.
You are both looking at things through a microscope. just try to image the founding of a community of Mom & pop shops - without the fundamental input of a larger wealth creator. When you cite a large metropolis of small businesses, it does not operate without major influence from the large wealth creators. Even Suburbia exists and thrives because of money earned elsewhere - in large amounts.
Otherwise, where would the money come from, to patronize said shops/businesses? Barter?
As to regulations, can we start with EPA, NRLB, Obamacare, Tort? those alone are stifling enough. And as for the banking restrictions ... !
Otherwise, where would the money come from, to patronize said shops/businesses? Barter?
As to regulations, can we start with EPA, NRLB, Obamacare, Tort? those alone are stifling enough. And as for the banking restrictions ... !