Clearly the point and use of the analogies was too subtle for you.
This is another disconnect between perception and reality. All three of your analogies were a FAIL. You told us that you had many more analogies; I asked you to provide some that were actually workable. You have failed to to that. I doubt if you have a single workable analogy.
Perhaps it is best for you to move on.
Indeed. There's a difference between making a claim and backing it up. If you can't back this one up, it is time to move on.
No you asked what percentage of tax Apple ought to pay, which is not a question I am interested in.
With all due respect, that sounds nonsensical. You don't think Apple is paying enough, and you want them to pay more. But when someone asks how much more, you can't answer. And neither can the NYT.
Now that you ask me what alterations I'd like to see. Well, I'd like to see Apple and everyone else stop circumventing the tax code, but let's be honest, that is never going to happen.
In other words, you just want to be agitated over the issue.
Here's what would cause a change: if there were a Supreme Court decision that altered the earlier precedents.
The only realistic solution is to introduce regulation that closes the loopholes.
No. That's only half the picture.
The realistic solution is to lower the US tax rate AND to eliminate the loopholes. Give the US a competitive tax rate, and the motivation to work so hard to mitigate corporate taxes will be eliminated.
Once new ones are found, those will need to be closed. The game of cat and mouse will continue indefinitely since abiding by the intent of legislation is not the same as abiding by the letter of legislation.
I don't believe you understand: what creates the tension is US's absurdly-high tax rate. Remove that tension, and the very reason for these elaborate measures is eliminated.
I'm not concerned with jurisprudence right now. I'm talking about something else.
But Hand's decisions form the court trump yours -- every single time.
Maybe that point is too subtle for you too.
Hand's words are not subtle at all:
There is nothing sinister in arranging affairs to keep taxes as low as possible. All of the "sinister" spin from you is trumped by Hand's Supreme Court decision.
Again I'm not contesting or arguing against the legality of Apple behavior.
Because you also fail to address Hand's "nothing sinister" claim.
If all his points depend on some fundamental point, and you challenge that foundation, all the subsequent points built upon it go down along with the foundation.
Again, perception fails to match reality. If darkplanet's points are refutable,
then refute them.
One doesn't need to tackle them individually.
If you want to have a rational fact-based discussion, that is
exactly what you must do.
And I have no interest in wishy washy and vague definitions of fairness.
Yet that is
exactly what you are doing: you have some wishy-washy and vague definition of unfairness. Same thing.
Talk to the Hand, baby. Our justice system has spelled it out clearly:
There is nothing sinister in arranging affairs to keep taxes as low as possible.
You use the term to defend your proposed "fair tax".
The correct name for the proposal -- not my proposal -- is FairTax. Did you spend any time looking at it?
But when I ask you for a clear definition of fairness, you provide something that isn't grounded in facts or reasoning.
WRT fairness in determining how much we should be paying in taxes, Justice Hand has made the definitive statement on the topic. There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- sinister in arranging affairs to keep taxes as low as possible.
Is this relevant? Or are you preparing for ad-hominems?
Absolutely not. You seemed to be ignorant of what it means when the Supreme Court sets a precedent.
