Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Perhaps education was the first thing that came to mind, but you literally could not have picked a worse point to use. When the states are setting up lotteries to pour "more money" into education and then the very next budget cycle, reducing tax dollars going to education because it has been replaced by the lottery... that is proof positive that you CANNOT trust the government with another significant revenue stream if it could be used more efficiently anywhere else.

And understand this... I'm not saying corporations shouldn't pay somewhat more on the whole. I am just saying that 50% is ludicrous. The government will give us no value-add on that money.

So you're complaining the government is lowering taxes?
 
So you're complaining the government is lowering taxes?
I think what he means:

When they did make the lottery with the intent of this money going to education to have more money for the education sector but at the same time cutting tax dollars going to the education because its just replacing tax dollars for lottery dollars, but not the "more dollars for education"

And not complaining about lowering taxes, this wasnt even in the post.
 
So you're complaining the government is lowering taxes?

Come on. Read the passage. "... reducing tax dollars going to education..." does NOT mean they reduced taxes to anyone. That's laughable. It means they reallocated it to a different program.

What they do is setup the lottery to "fund education more" then a budget cycle or two later, they reduce the education pool coming from regular taxes and use that money on other pet projects. Dozens of states have done it this way.

On a national level, look at what social security was sold to us as in the 40's, and look at what it is now. It's a fragile shell of what it was intended to be. Your hard earned tax money at work.

The federal government should not be doing anything except providing national security, national infrastructure enhancements, national transportation guidelines, and national law enforcement. The rest should be handled at the state or local level. They need less money, not more.
 
On a national level, look at what social security was sold to us as in the 40's, and look at what it is now. It's a fragile shell of what it was intended to be. Your hard earned tax money at work.

That's not a problem with taxes, or the program itself. Social Security was a massive success up until the government started using it as a rainy day fund back in the 80's.

It's also where a big chunk of our debt resides. Every dollar taken from SS is another dollar added to the ever growing pool.
 
I haven't read much in regards to what other people's opinions are on this thread, but I do think corporations should pay their fair-share of taxes like the rest of us. I understand the whole idea about shareholder earnings becoming doubled taxed, but perhaps a fixing needs to be in order.

Perhaps the government should change some of the tax rules a little. Citizens should only be required to pay income tax on their paychecks. Income from dividends, interest, etc, should not be taxed. With this, there would be more of a reason to save money for the long term while keeping shareholders happier because they aren't getting taxed on their risky investments. Our government should either severely loosen the tax percentage, or make our country socialist. We do not have an advantage being somewhere in the middle, which is where we are right now.

Even if corporations did pay their fair-share in taxes, it would be spent irresponsibly. Our government spends money building colleges and gas stations for those in countries we are at war with instead of attending to the problems here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHNXX and Rocketman
Even if corporations did pay their fair-share in taxes, it would be spent irresponsibly. Our government spends money building colleges and gas stations for those in countries we are at war with instead of attending to the problems here.

Then it's our job to vote the proper people in. As a representative republic, our government is only as good as we allow it to be, and always the government we deserve.
 
Then it's our job to vote the proper people in. As a representative republic, our government is only as good as we allow it to be, and always the government we deserve.

The problem is it is easy to spend money that isn't yours, and it is easy to spend money you have available to you, but can't afford to spend. Why do you think American banks promote credit cards so heavily? To get people into debt, to collect a high interest rate, and to collect a higher interchange fee from the merchant.

The banks love credit cards, and our government plays with our tax dollars like it's on a credit card (one without rewards).

The government will never be fixed because America makes political duties a career rather than a way to just be involved in what the people want. Being a politician shouldn't be a full time job, and the wages for it should be barely above poverty level. Unfortunately politicians can vote themselves higher wages, so it's a never ending cycle which will never be broken. Additionally, one person cannot impeach any political official, and it doesn't seem like the people care enough to impeach everyone who should be impeached. The impeachment rules are also too limited, as you basically have to commit a felony or do some kind of bribery to risk your career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocketman and SHNXX
My point is that if you or anyone else doesn't like how Apple is taking advantage of "incredibly obscure and complicated tax loopholes" then direct your anger at Congress because they're the ones who created those loopholes. Call on them to get their act together and close them.

Yes, they should. At the same time, Congress did not knowingly create anything, nor did they overlook known loopholes.

On the contrary, Apple's accountants created a brand new and elaborate method of avoiding taxes that no one had imagined before, and which was CLEARLY NOT INTENDED BY CONGRESS.

I'm a PhD student in engineering and I'm planning to either be a professor or work at a national lab. I really believe in the important of basic research, higher education and the overall important of infrastructure. So I'm totally willing to agree with the idea that corporations owe something to society since corporations wouldn't be what they are without good schools/universities, roads and other infrastructure.

That's good, because...

However the difference is that I would rather be upset at the real culprits than corporations who are doing nothing but fulfilling their fiduciary duty to shareholders.

Corporations HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO AVOID TAXES. In fact, they have no legal duty to maximize profits, either. These are two common but bogus myths that get repeated all the time to excuse investor greed.

Yes, corporations are supposed to be run for the best interest their investors. But this can mean anything from concentrating on employee happiness, to being environmentally correct, to being good citizens, to yes, maximizing profits... but none of that is legally required. It's up to the corporate leadership to decide what is best.

As for the legality of what Apple does, this NY Times article notes that:

'NO taxpayer is obliged to pay the government a penny more than the law requires, the Supreme Court said in 1935. But the court also said no corporation was permitted to use “elaborate and devious” means — known nowadays as “gimmicks” — for the express purpose of evading taxes.'

You're intelligent, and I'm short on time, so I'm going to leave you some links to read:

Corporations Don’t Have to Maximize Profits -NY Times

The fig leaf of shareholder value covering corporate tax avoidance, removed

Delaware corporate law: directors have no obligation to minimise taxes
 
  • Like
Reactions: jnpy!$4g3cwk
You and another above made the comment about low income people. Sorry, but that doesn't matter to me, make more money. When I was poor I joined the military, used them for school and am now working on an MBA and getting paid to do it. There are options for everyone to make more money unless they are handicap in some way that prevents it. I think that, like other countries, two years of military service should be mandatory and then you get an education for free. Anyways I get the point on why a flat tax isn't the perfect scenario.

I happen to agree that there should be mandatory service, either in the military or the Peace Corps. America would be a much better country if its citizens were more worldly and had more skin in the game when their government contemplates going to war.

As far as making more money. I have had my share of needing to change my life to make more money-moving states, going back to school to completely change careers after a layoff, etc. BUT, my circumstances were made easier because I'm white (don't deny that that helps A LOT), have a high IQ, a college education, no kids to support and a family who supported me when I needed it. Millions of people in poverty don't have that stuff. The schools they grew up with were poorly funded and barely educated them, they don't have people in their life to guide them to be more successful, industry left their area and they don't have the funds to pick up and move somewhere else. Single mothers who can't afford childcare but still manage to work multiple minimum wage jobs. People who got caught with a little cannabis and ended up with a job-killing felony on their record. Don't be so flippant about people "just need to make more money" when you haven't walked in other people's shoes or apparently haven't looked around at how other people have to live.
[doublepost=1461616470][/doublepost]
Woz is a great person and I agree with him 100% that corporations should be paying a much higher tax rate considering how much of the public infrastructure they benefit from.

To those who are for corporations paying lower taxes, how exactly does a corporation paying a lower tax rate benefit you personally?

There should be a lower tax on repatriated money so that it is comparable to the rate companies in other countries pay. We live in a GLOBAL economy now. The lower tax on repatriated money benefits the US citizen because then US companies pay taxes HERE and that repatriated money can get put into OUR economy.
 
that's wishful thinking... what really and honestly would happen... Politicians will be paid more, more money for wars, ridiculous spending on items to fit there political life style. The schools, hospital that really need the money will never receive it because the wealthier ones that are already have enough usually get even more. Keep in mind the country did have a surplus 10 or more years ago and that was thrown away to the point the country owes more.

it would be smarter if corporations like Apple and Google were aloud to take there tax money and give it directly to schools, legal charities, hospitals, etc. bypass the gov't and put the money directly in the hands of organizations that need them. But even then, you still have to oversee the money cause too many people are just out to line there own pockets give out pay increases.
wishful thinking.

That money goes from companies to the politicians. Where do you think they get the billions in fundraisers and in superpacs? That way the money is 100% wasted. Greedy people are just greedy. Apple execs are no exception.

Panamapapers is good thing. Every country is making it harder to hide money. Legally or not.

Loosen up the tinfoil. Look at the countries with loose governments. You REALLY don't want to live there.
 
The money in politics is mainly paying for TV hit ads. If FCC mandated a % of airtime for political ads and take the $ out of it, problem solved. Heck, let them sell ads surrounding the most popular messages to cash in. Reverse the rules. This is one area where the President's regulators have unilateral authority right now! Treasury made a rule retroactive to kill a merger, so the precedent exists to change the behaviour for this erection right now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SHNXX
No, no, and no.

The school system is broken because of government involvement. The typical public school system takes ten times the money to graduate a student as the private schools spend. The students in public schools are wronged by the system that has entrapped them, and lack basic skills like critical thought. The hospital system is in crisis because of government involvement. Mountains of regulations and crony capitalism have buried it.

Great outcomes for everyone? Maybe everyone in the government. It seeks to do one thing: perpetuate itself. Just like a virus.
Do you think government involvement is problem itself or only how it's setup in US?

I'm asking as here is 95% of schools are public and the 'worst' school would rank among top tier compared to US private schools. So it's a fact that proper government involvement is actually very good thing.

It's a different story if you as voters have managed to get things in bad shape. It can be a lot better. Just think who to vote. Hint: Two party system is not the best way of democracy.
 
That's not a problem with taxes, or the program itself. Social Security was a massive success up until the government started using it as a rainy day fund back in the 80's.

It's also where a big chunk of our debt resides. Every dollar taken from SS is another dollar added to the ever growing pool.

The poor decision making - that you accurately cite - are the exact reason not to trust the government with more money than is absolutely necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocketman and SHNXX
The poor decision making - that you accurately cite - are the exact reason not to trust the government with more money than is absolutely necessary.

This is why accountability and transparency are such important things to have. Our government was designed and intended to be used as a tool to benefit we the people. Though if we continue to let jackasses on both sides of the aisle get away with jackassery simply because we agree with them on an ideological standpoint, we shouldn't at all be surprised when things don't run nearly so smoothly as they should.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 997440
This is why accountability and transparency are such important things to have. Our government was designed and intended to be used as a tool to benefit we the people. Though if we continue to let jackasses on both sides of the aisle get away with jackassery simply because we agree with them on an ideological standpoint, we shouldn't at all be surprised when things don't run nearly so smoothly as they should.

The two can be true at the same time.

Yes, accountability and transparency are important, and good people in government would be better than incompetent authoritarians.

But, it's also true that government's incentives are inherently misaligned with those of taxpayers' and that centralization of power corrupts absolutely.

Thus it is right to always be vigilant and suspicious of government solutions to all problems, while also wishing for a better functioning, transparent, lean and efficient government.
 
I'm a dyed in the wool Berliner, nothing is ever going to move me from the world capital of atheism, nihilism and stoicism. In the last election the libertarian party here got 1.8% it's worst result ever. I guess that means we are fine with our tax level, it's all about having a government spending the money wisely. And the US government strikes me as particularly wasteful, even for western standards. Ever heard of something called the military-industrial complex? It would swallow every single tax dollar Apple could possibly pay and ask for a refill. Paying more taxes could be a very positive thing, but not where Woz lives. Sorry.

You've hit the nail on its head.
Yes, they should. At the same time, Congress did not knowingly create anything, nor did they overlook known loopholes.

On the contrary, Apple's accountants created a brand new and elaborate method of avoiding taxes that no one had imagined before, and which was CLEARLY NOT INTENDED BY CONGRESS.



That's good, because...



Corporations HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO AVOID TAXES. In fact, they have no legal duty to maximize profits, either. These are two common but bogus myths that get repeated all the time to excuse investor greed.

Yes, corporations are supposed to be run for the best interest their investors. But this can mean anything from concentrating on employee happiness, to being environmentally correct, to being good citizens, to yes, maximizing profits... but none of that is legally required. It's up to the corporate leadership to decide what is best.

As for the legality of what Apple does, this NY Times article notes that:

'NO taxpayer is obliged to pay the government a penny more than the law requires, the Supreme Court said in 1935. But the court also said no corporation was permitted to use “elaborate and devious” means — known nowadays as “gimmicks” — for the express purpose of evading taxes.'

You're intelligent, and I'm short on time, so I'm going to leave you some links to read:

Corporations Don’t Have to Maximize Profits -NY Times

The fig leaf of shareholder value covering corporate tax avoidance, removed

Delaware corporate law: directors have no obligation to minimise taxes
Are you trying to say Apple has done something illegal? If Apple has done something illegal, then Apple should be prosecuted and punished in such a way that no corporation would ever dream of doing something like that ever again.

I would love to see that Supreme Court opinion where the words "elaborate and devious" means were used. When a matter of tax law goes before the Supreme Court, it's that court's job to interpret the laws and the Constitution as they are. I'd love to know what the Court defined as "elaborate and devious" means?

I'm not saying I'm opposed to corporations paying something into the system because the system is a part of getting them to where they are. I am simply questioning the lack outrage directed at Congress because they're the ones who created the problem and they're doing nothing to fix it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHNXX
Who is the middle class and what do they deserve?

cite:

http://gawker.com/your-pay-is-about...source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Who ever said government does anything better than the private sector like Red Cross, a big church, a Gates/Buffet foundation, or whatever? Let the private sector deliver education, medical care, pensions, and border control and let's see if there is any change. Let's put Prudential Insurance in charge of Social Security to start.

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...pay-50-tax-rate.1968991/page-14#post-22841869

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/23/20642-new-regulations-added-in-the-obama-presidency/

Start with the 20% most indigent population and expand it from there.

Here is a chart of the President's projection of the effect of the stimulus plan in 2009, vs doing nothing overlayed with actual results to unemployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameri...File:ARRA_Unemployment_Rate_Graph_2011-05.jpg

It was actually increasing unemployment in practice!

At the time 200 economists put an ad in the New York Times with an alternative to prevent history revisionists from claiming the alternate path didn't exist or it was not supported by economists and other political talking points of the time.

wikipedia American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub.L. 111–5) said:
On January 28, 2009, a full-page advertisement with the names of approximately 200 economists who were against Obama's plan appeared in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. This included Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureates Edward C. Prescott, Vernon L. Smith, and James M. Buchanan. The economists denied the quoted statement by President Obama that there was "no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy". Instead, the signers believed that "to improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."[63]
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/cato_stimulus.pdf

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579387692278347858

article comments said:
What one time stimulus? This has been a 5 year stimulus considering that the $800 billion is now become baseline spending!! So it has been a $5 trillion stimulus and this is all the choomer has to show for it.

Obama's favorite government deficit spending Keynesian "economist" Krugman predicts the results of his policies being tested, on his own book cover!!
 

Attachments

  • 51f0aBSMs1L._SX330.jpg
    51f0aBSMs1L._SX330.jpg
    39.3 KB · Views: 139
  • Screenshot 2016-04-22 05.28.09.png
    Screenshot 2016-04-22 05.28.09.png
    433 KB · Views: 162
Last edited:
The two can be true at the same time.

Yes, accountability and transparency are important, and good people in government would be better than incompetent authoritarians.

See, the problem isn't just about having good people in government, it's also about knowing how to handle a citizenry that covers a vast field of differing ideologies without making any one group too angry. The same problem can also be applied to the government itself, which is far from being a monolithic entity. Rather, it's a machine of a thousand moving parts, where each gear has its own idea of how best to turn the rest.

We all want good people in government, but we first need to agree to what a good person is before we can move on to that next step of putting them in office. What might be a good person wanting to implement sound policy to you might be an intolerable tyrant wanting to expand an overbearing nanny state to me.

So how do you squeeze the most efficiency out of a machine that's pretty inefficient by design? How do we get a bunch of people to agree on something when you have a voter base that covers the entire political spectrum?

But, it's also true that government's incentives are inherently misaligned with those of taxpayers' and that centralization of power corrupts absolutely.

It isn't always so misaligned as it is not always popular. There are such things as an unpopular, but ultimately sound decisions. It's why we're a representative republic, rather than a straight up democracy. We have to allow our politicians some autonomy to be able to do their job.

A modicum of transparency will help us spot some of the more gross abuses of the people we hire to run the country. But at the same time, we need to know the difference between a gross abuse of power, and a bitter pill that has to be swallowed for the good of everyone in the country.

Thus it is right to always be vigilant and suspicious of government solutions to all problems, while also wishing for a better functioning, transparent, lean and efficient government.

I wouldn't say suspicious, so much as a little bit cynical. Government needs to be viewed with a passionless, dour eye, and an always level head.
 
It's misaligned because government spends other people's money on other people's behalf, which is the least efficient way to spend money.

Spending your money on yourself. Cost efficiency: high. Value: high.

Spending your money on another person (gifts). Cost efficiency: high. Value: low.

Spending another person's money on yourself. Cost efficiency: low. Value: high.

Spending another person's money and giving it to a third person (government). Efficiency: low. Value: low.

This problem cannot be solved in any way, which is why government spending should only cover what is necessary for a civilized society.

Since the problem is human nature, the best you can hope for is to elect morally upstanding representatives with limited power for a limited duration, who will limit government spending and intrusions on liberty--the foundations of classical liberal philosophy.
 
Last edited:
It's misaligned because government spends other people's money on other people's behalf, which is the least efficient way to spend money.

This problem cannot be solved in any way, which is why government spending should only cover what is necessary for a civilized society.

It's worked quite well in the past. I have no problem using taxpayer dollars to subsidize healthcare and education, especially when you consider how prohibitively expensive they are for the average middle class family.

Of course all of this should be done within reason. I think it's a good idea to subsidize some things, but it can be taken too far. You don't want to tax people and corporations 50% of their income to pay for a bunch of social programs.

Since the problem is human nature, the best you can hope for is to elect morally upstanding representatives who will limit government spending and intrusions on liberty--the foundations of classical liberal philosophy.

Minimizing intrusions on liberty is a classical liberal philosophy, but limiting government spending has always been a contentious issue, even among the original classic liberals. As I've said here before, the arguments we're having today are just one prolonged extension of the same argument that first started between Madison and Hamilton, Washington and Jefferson. The welfare clause has been open for interpretation from the moment it was written.
 
It's worked quite well in the past. I have no problem using taxpayer dollars to subsidize healthcare and education, especially when you consider how prohibitively expensive they are for the average middle class family.

Of course all of this should be done within reason. I think it's a good idea to subsidize some things, but it can be taken too far. You don't want to tax people and corporations 50% of their income to pay for a bunch of social programs.



Minimizing intrusions on liberty is a classical liberal philosophy, but limiting government spending has always been a contentious issue, even among the original classic liberals. As I've said here before, the arguments we're having today are just one prolonged extension of the same argument that first started between Madison and Hamilton, Washington and Jefferson. The welfare clause has been open for interpretation from the moment it was written.

Do you understand that when you subsidize something, you increase demand for it?
Do you know what happens to price when you increase demand?
It increases.


So your solution to high housing price and high education price is to subsidize them... Hmm.
 
Do you understand that when you subsidize something, you increase demand for it?
Do you know what happens to price when you increase demand?
It increases.

So your solution to high housing price and high education price is to subsidize them... Hmm.

So to counter this, you keep it overly expensive, and thus in less demand. If it weren't for the fact that our economy is more and more and more demanding a college degree for entry level positions, that might not be too bad an idea.

Though the counter to your argument is that the cost of a college tuition didn't start rising wildly out of control until around the 90's, which, by that point, the government wasn't subsidizing education nearly as much as they were previously, during the GI Bill days.
 
So to counter this, you keep it overly expensive, and thus in less demand. If it weren't for the fact that our economy is more and more and more demanding a college degree for entry level positions, that might not be too bad an idea.

Though the counter to your argument is that the cost of a college tuition didn't start rising wildly out of control until around the 90's, which, by that point, the government wasn't subsidizing education nearly as much as they were previously, during the GI Bill days.

It's economics 101.
Increase demand without letting increase of supply and you get an increase in price.

You say that college tuition in US has not increased?
That is certainly not the data I'm looking at.

Also, by subsidizing higher education with taxpayer money, this has several bad consequences.

1. You increase the number of college graduates. This results in degree inflation. Have you ever seen the number of Phd's awarded in the US? It's completely out of control. And what do you think those people will say when they can't find jobs? They ask for government to help. It's a vicious cycle.

2. You disproportionately hurt people who are intellectually less able. By subsidizing higher education, this results in tax payer money being spent disproportionately on people who are academically more inclined.
This seems like a good thing, except not everyone has same intellectual capacity. Income and IQ/SAT scores are highly correlated and by helping those with higher IQ, it penalizes those with lower IQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocketman
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.