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.
Ireland May End Apple Tax Residency Loophole
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How cute. No, really. Very clever of you. You "won!"
( Is this really what passes for "intelligent" discourse these days? )
Of course it's our money still, we pay into the system and thus are part of the system and as for electing representatives that seems to be working well in America at the moment with your government shutting down.
We don't give up all our rights to have a say because we have elected people, they are supposed to represent what their constituents need & want well that is the case in the UK well i mean that should be the case but the truth is most of them are just lining their own pockets.
It really all depends how your taxes are spent on whether you consider they are reasonable
I have to also have laugh at "civilised soceity" have you actually seen the state of our so called civilised society ?
what exactly is so civilised about it ?
For a start, the fact that rape, torture, murder, and (actual) theft are at the lowest rate they have ever been in human history while life expectancy is higher than ever.
Your point being? That without taxes there would be no police or courts or prisons and murderers would just keep going until someone else murdered them in return?
No, it isn't our money anymore. We don't have any right to tell them how to spend it beyond electing people who represent us. Your method is probably right in the UK, or it might be, but the idea of a Representative government is that we elect people who then make the decisions.
Not that we elect people who sometimes make choices.
don't necessarily disagree
I don't necessarily disagree; however, I don't think you should look at it in terms of straight expenditures. I'd think your argument would make more sense in terms of spending vs GDP or revenue or another metric that considers spending vs intake/production (don't have that comparison). The spending side is more about choice in my opinion (like you mention). Whether good or bad - that's what the gvt has chosen to spend. If the gvt chooses to spend a lot and does not have a large enough base of revenue to keep overall taxes fairly low, it turns into an expensive place to operate. It seems pretty natural that companies would want to look to operate elsewhere...
I don't necessarily disagree; however, I don't think you should look at it in terms of straight expenditures. I'd think your argument would make more sense in terms of spending vs GDP or revenue or another metric that considers spending vs intake/production (don't have that comparison). The spending side is more about choice in my opinion (like you mention). Whether good or bad - that's what the gvt has chosen to spend. If the gvt chooses to spend a lot and does not have a large enough base of revenue to keep overall taxes fairly low, it turns into an expensive place to operate. It seems pretty natural that companies would want to look to operate elsewhere...
Anytime a tax loophole is closed its a good thing. People may think it doesnt effect them but it does. If a company or rich guy stashes money off shore or uses whatever convenient loopholes are built into the system, someone ELSE has to cover that tax loss.
Of course lowering taxes on EVERYONE and every company would be best but too many people have their hand out at some level and dont want their sacred cow killed. Everything from defense, to welfare, to Govt employee unions cost a TON of money. Try cutting any of it. That group comes out in full force spewing about how *they* are a good deal for the taxpayers. Yeah, right.
But, since Govt spending will never go down the only other way to recoup revenue is to actually collect the taxes from those that owe it. For far too long, Companies(NOT just Apple) have milked the living ***** out of tax shelters, loopholes, and fancy accounting tricks. That means us sitting-duck worker bees that own homes get to ante up MORE of our money via exhorbitant property taxes and whatever other fees they come up with. Thats the way of things. Anyone on a regular W2 payroll has NO way to shelter or hide income like big dawgs do. That drives me crazy.
Anyways, lets keep closing loopholes everywhere they exist.
Of course lowering taxes on EVERYONE and every company would be best but too many people have their hand out at some level and dont want their sacred cow killed. Everything from defense, to welfare, to Govt employee unions cost a TON of money. Try cutting any of it. That group comes out in full force spewing about how *they* are a good deal for the taxpayers. Yeah, right.
But, since Govt spending will never go down the only other way to recoup revenue is to actually collect the taxes from those that owe it. For far too long, Companies(NOT just Apple) have milked the living ***** out of tax shelters, loopholes, and fancy accounting tricks. That means us sitting-duck worker bees that own homes get to ante up MORE of our money via exhorbitant property taxes and whatever other fees they come up with. Thats the way of things. Anyone on a regular W2 payroll has NO way to shelter or hide income like big dawgs do. That drives me crazy.
Anyways, lets keep closing loopholes everywhere they exist.
Not true; every deduction, including the individual standard deduction, mortgage interest deduction, dependent, education, business expense, can all be considered individual "loopholes". Close them all and you are left with either a flat tax or sales tax (with no exceptions).Anytime a tax loophole is closed its a good thing.......Anyone on a regular W2 payroll has NO way to shelter or hide income like big dawgs do. That drives me crazy.
Anyways, lets keep closing loopholes everywhere they exist.
Spelled out deductions are not the same as loopholes.
The law intends for deductions to be taken.
By definition, loopholes are mistakes that allow circumventing the intent of the law.
We should be careful here if for no other reason than, in politics, language gets misused, abused and sloppy (often intentionally) and people often refer to legitimate deductions as "loopholes" as a way to propagandize. What's worse is that it is often implied that some particularly evil industry (e.g., the oil industry) benefits from some special tax or subsidy treatment that are in fact available to all.
So, in short, "loophole" doesn't always mean what you say and if it's coming out of a politician's mouth, it's best to be skeptical.
Further, strictly speaking, a loophole might not be a mistake but rather simply an ambiguity. There's a difference. Finally, some of them are deliberately created. This is why, ultimately, the fairest thing would be a single (low) flat tax with no deductions on everyone. The best solution would probably to eliminate income and property taxes and simply go with a end-sale consumption/sales tax. No deductions. No "loopholes." One rate for everyone probably on everything.
Last edited:
Nope, by definition loophole is what the other guy takes, if you take it it is a legitimate deduction.
Ha!
I understand what you mean, but that doesn't fit the context in this case.
Intentional deductions are not the same thing as unintentional loopholes that are investigated.
I read part of it. It's not as clear as you suggest in that the author still goes for overly broad analogies. I find that disingenuous as they pick references likely to elicit an emotional reaction where their readers are unlikely to be experts or have any direct experience (early English nobles as if somehow the concept originated there). Perhaps I'll comment once I read through the paper in its entirety, but so far much of it is just abstract illustration rather than insight. I realize the onus is on me to point that out in real detail. Perhaps I will later.
That poses some of its own problems, but the idea comes up fairly often. Some people model it with a deduction for food, clothing, etc., but it's unlikely that they could balance such a tax if exemptions existed. There's also the issue of services. I'm not sure whether you knew this, but services are in some cases subject to sales tax in certain states. In California there's a tangibility clause that enforces sales tax if any tangible property changes hands with delivery of professional services for quite a few business codes. The most frequent counter - argument to the sales tax model is that people with less money spend a greater percentage on basic survival. There's also the issue of such a drastic economic transition. I don't think there's any truly simple solution here.
It's okay. Governments will just print more money to cover what they can't with taxes, inflation will rise, and I'll be happy because prices will increase, wages will go up to match, and the value of my debts will remain at their original values so I can pay them off quicker.
Although people's wages don't necessarily go up to match anymore which is what causes a lot of people to be living in poverty.
I am not in poverty but personally have seen the effects of recession as went from getting good pay rises of 6-8% every year to our company having a blanket 1.5% no matter how hard you work or how good you are at your job.
I'd be fine with a consumption or flat tax. Bring it on. Get rid of the IRS and complicated tax laws. It seems most people like the idea. Except for, rich guys and companies that is. The nice thing about a consumption tax is that you get everyone since it's collected when they spend it. That means even drug dealers, shady businessmen, and whomever else has hidden income still has to pay. There'd be issues for sure but it could work.
No, they just need to swallow lower margins, problem solved.
Whats wrong with envy and greed anyway?
There is some truth here - when you read the profit sheets from som eof these places you wonder how much is enough? Its like, cant they make ends meet on 12 billion in profit or do they really need $14 billion? That $2 billion could be paid to employees through fair wages, better workingt conditions and bonuses or whatever. And remember we are talking actual profit, NOT sales. This is like "in the pocket" money.
But, nope.... 6 people split it all and then hide the rest to avoid taxes. Fantastic system, I tell ya.
Here's a breakdown by company:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ing-cash-offshore-to-reduce-taxes-study-says/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ing-cash-offshore-to-reduce-taxes-study-says/