Sidebar Sidebar
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

KohPhiPhi said:
Inheritance tax should exactly 0% , since the govt already taxed that money when it was originally generated. WTF is up with taxing the same revenue twice?!
Click to expand...

The point of this is to safe guard the inheritance. You some times have to bend with the wind, by giving up a little you save a lot.

If the gulf between the have's and the have not's grows too wide, they just might TAKE it all.

Of course if you really do have a fortune to leave, you are free to try something else.
 
iKrivetko said:
At least they have argumentation.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to reply to this with any civility as it shows a disgusting level of nativeity.

----------
Happybunny said:
The point of this is to safe guard the inheritance. You some times have to bend with the wind, by giving up a little you save a lot.

If the gulf between the have's and the have not's grows too wide, they just might TAKE it all.

Of course if you really do have a fortune to leave, you are free to try something else.
Click to expand...

Yup. Remember there are a LOT more poor than rich.
 
kis said:
in Switzerland... the state taxes us for living in our own houses. I'm not kidding - they calculate how much rent we'd have to pay for the home we own and live in and add that full amount to our income. On average, people have their taxable income increased by around 15'000 to 20'000 dollars per year because they own a freaking house and live in it. Of course, property tax etc. is added to that afterwards.
Click to expand...

That's totally f*cked up.

Yet another example as of why people try to avoid tax, legally or not. The way govts are skinning people/companies from their hard-earned money is simply medieval.
 
Eraserhead said:
According to who?



What, unprecedented global prosperity?
Click to expand...


According to thousands of years of practice. Just because some recent thieving git believes otherwise, doesn't make it right.

I think we have differing opinions on what "prosperity" means. One day, the piper will have to be paid.
 
OLDCODGER said:
According to thousands of years of practice.
Click to expand...

So it's a tradition. Well, so was slavery.

OLDCODGER said:
I think we have differing opinions on what "prosperity" means. One day, the piper will have to be paid.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's credible to say that human civilisation isn't richer than ever before.

----------
KohPhiPhi said:
Don't be naive. The point is not to safe guard anything. The point is, quite simply, taxation. There's no ultimate goal behind it but funding themselves.
Click to expand...

So if the rich have all the money and the poor have none what do you expect to happen? Do you seriously think there won't be a repeat of what happened in China in 1949 and Russia in 1917 where the rich were completely wiped out?

Especially in today's interconnected world were the use of force to crush populations is so frowned upon.

----------
OLDCODGER said:
Or, put the unions under proscription. That thieving beast should never have been spawned!
Click to expand...

So you think unions should be banned? Why don't we ban corporations too?
 
Happybunny said:
Only in France and in the old UK pre 1980's.:eek:

In the rest of Europe it is pretty peaceful on the employment front.
Click to expand...

They still have that attitude, but lack the power, these days. I do expect the German unions to get all uppity sometime soon.

----------
KohPhiPhi said:
Don't be naive. The point is not to safe guard anything. The point is, quite simply, taxation. There's no ultimate goal behind it but to collect more money.
Click to expand...

From govt viewpoint, yes. But HappyBunny was referring to the payers - give up a bit, to save the rest.
 
iKrivetko said:
Perhaps I wouldn't be stupid enough to stay there as a jew?
Click to expand...

Are you saying the German Jew's stupidity was the primary cause of the holocaust, instead if the Nazi's intolerant and genocidal policies?

Dude, what the hell?

----------
Gasu E. said:
I understand your point, and it has some validity. However, the main problem in this case isn't that Ireland has "competitive" (low) tax rates; but that there are inconsistencies in international tax laws that allow companies to move money around between countries in arcane ways to take advantage of inconsistencies and anomalies. Attracting manufacturing and research facilities via low tax rates in order to stimulate employment is one thing; but a tax loophole that is a pure financial dodge doesn't create local jobs, although it may slightly increase Irish tax revenues at the expense of some other jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think the government is purely to blame for any "loopholes" multinationals are exploiting. Overall, the current system must be optimally effluence for Ireland, or else I believe change would have already occurred.
 
Eraserhead said:
So it's a tradition. Well, so was slavery.



I don't think it's credible to say that human civilisation isn't richer than ever before.

----------



So if the rich have all the money and the poor have none what do you expect to happen? Do you seriously think there won't be a repeat of what happened in China in 1949 and Russia in 1917 where the rich were completely wiped out?

Especially in today's interconnected world were the use of force to crush populations is so frowned upon.

----------



So you think unions should be banned? Why don't we ban corporations too?
Click to expand...

Slavery still is. Your point? Civilizations were built upon continuity.

Civilization is in much greater debt than ever before. There are two columns in a financial summary.
 
KohPhiPhi said:
Don't be naive. The point is not to safe guard anything. The point is, quite simply, taxation. There's no ultimate goal behind it but to collect more money.
Click to expand...

The major difference is that my family have been in this position since the early 1700's.

It's always best to go with the flow, making deals where one can, and downright evasion when one cannot. But always remember you are always in the minority.

But to make pointless stands, on matters of pure principals, you would soon lose all your wealth.
 
Eraserhead said:
So if the rich have all the money and the poor have none what do you expect to happen? Do you seriously think there won't be a repeat of what happened in China in 1949 and Russia in 1917 where the rich were completely wiped out?
Click to expand...

If wealth equality is the premise, then why stopping at the Inheritance Tax? why not going full communism and charge a 90% Revenue/Corporate Tax? That way, we can ALL go equally broke and live equally in poverty like in... well, like in pretty much every communist country in the world.

Look, we live in a capitalist society and thus we have to abide to capitalist rules. Taxes are meant to serve mainly the purpose of funding and managing the estate affairs, not as a wealth distribution social tool. Taxes should be used, for example, to give the poor an education so they can work and merit their way up - not as an endless welfare black hole.
 
OLDCODGER said:
I have an attitude over my money. They have an attitude over my money, also. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? The rich use society to enable them to make their money in the first place. One isn't entitled to anything in this world.

----------
KohPhiPhi said:
If wealth equality is the premise, then why stopping at the Inheritance Tax? why not going full communism and charge a 90% Revenue/Corporate Tax? That way, we can ALL go equally broke and live equally in poverty like in... well, like in pretty much every communist country in the world.
Click to expand...

Because there's a middle ground.

You're arguing with Happybunny that the rich deserve more when he clearly comes from a family who have been rich for longer than the United States has been in existence.
 
Eraserhead said:
Being a tradition doesn't make it good.



Which is why the rich have been allowed to keep a lot of their money, but it doesn't justify them keeping absolutely all of it, as if that is attempted they will find they have no money at all.
Click to expand...

Allowed? ALLOWED!? How very generous of you!
 
OLDCODGER said:
Allowed? ALLOWED!? How very generous of you!
Click to expand...

Yeah, allowed. Don't forget there are a LOT more poor than rich, and you can't really use force to protect your possessions.

----------
KohPhiPhi said:
Oh my goodness, so I'm allowed to keep the money I've worked my ass off for? Now thank YOU for such generosity!

Geez...
Click to expand...

That's the reality I'm afraid. Really the poor have all the power as there are more of them than there are rich.
 
Eraserhead said:
What's the difference? The rich use society to enable them to make their money in the first place. One isn't entitled to anything in this world.
Click to expand...


So, you agree with me that unions are bad? They are not entitled to my money, either.

As for this "society" meme, makers use labour and customers to enrich themselves. Neither one is compelled to oblige.
 
tevion5 said:
I agree, but I think the government is purely to blame for any "loopholes" multinationals are exploiting. Overall, the current system must be optimally effluence for Ireland, or else I believe change would have already occurred.
Click to expand...

You mean these people.:eek:
Unknown_zpsf3ae3022.jpg


I wonder who voted for these people.:p

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.
 
OLDCODGER said:
Where is the "injustice" in cause and consequence? They have no right to other people's money.
Click to expand...

Other people's money was earned because there will always be unemployed people relying on state largesse. If there were full employment, what would happen to the mobility of labour and the ability of businesses to grow and prosper?

In short, it is not all 'your' money. It never was.
 
OLDCODGER said:
So, you agree with me that unions are bad? They are not entitled to my money, either.

As for this "society" meme, makers use labour and customers to enrich themselves. Neither one is compelled to oblige.
Click to expand...

I probably largely agree with Happybunny on unions. But I see no more issue with them getting uppity than any rich person doing the same. We are all people.
 
Eraserhead said:
Yeah, allowed. Don't forget there are a LOT more poor than rich, and you can't really use force to protect your possessions.

----------



That's the reality I'm afraid. Really the poor have all the power as there are more of them than there are rich.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a threat. Not to worry, we have the power to buy the resistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back