Steve Wozniak Says Apple Should Pay 50% Tax Rate

[Plutonius]

Typical: The people / companies that pay a lot think they pay too much.The people who don't pay a lot (or any) think that others should pay more.

We really need a flat graduated tax without deductions that everyone needs to pay (i.e. nobody gets any money back). Everyone needs to feel the pain when paying taxes.

 

[mytdave]

The corporate tax rate should be zero. Corporations themselves do not pay ANY taxes; the taxes are actually paid by the customers (through higher prices) and employees (through lower wages). And, since the shareholders pay taxes on the dividends, that money is double-taxed.

What we ought to do is reduce corporate taxes to zero, and increase dividend / capital gains taxes to the same rate as earned income. Earned, passive, and portfolio income should all be taxed at the same rate.

This is a good point, worth looking into. I'd do a bit more analysis before committing though. I'd also want to make sure that the tax rate for all those items was the same flat rate, somewhere between 10-15%. The flat rate tax idea is solid, we just have to make sure we're applying that flat rate to the appropriate items, to insure it captures actual "income" (increase) and avoid double-taxation.

 

[Renzatic]

2. Flat tax won't screw small biz or middle class, it will help, and is equitable. The key is that small biz and big biz alike currently pay 39%. A low rate generates economic activity, which means revenues increases. More revenue at a lower rate still means the same or more money in taxes. A flat rate for everyone somewhere between 10-15% should be more than adequate.

Not necessarily, because as it's been stated before, 15% for someone who only makes $35,000 a year represents a good chunk of their spending power, while being an easily affordable burden for a large corporation. For small businesses, that 15% could be a new set of equipment, a couple new employees, or more incentives for those already there. There always needs to be an adjustment to account for all the different caveats that exist among all the different tax brackets.

3. A flat tax doesn't put *more* burden on lower income folks, but it does place an *equal* burden. Let's use your same example at a 10% rate. If someone makes $10k, their tax is $1k. Could $1k help pay a lot of bills? Sure, but just because I make a small income, why should I be exempt from contributing? Why do I have so many bills? Am I living beyond my means?

It does, simply because low income folk have a much narrower subsistence margin than those who earn more. While there is something to be said about spending within your means, if the vast majority of your money is going towards rent, bills, groceries, and other basic necessities without any access to tax writeoffs for temporary relief, you have someone who is socially static. They're not growing the economy, and they have no means to climb the social ladder, since the majority of their funds are going towards treading water. You can offset this by offering up more social safety nets, or subsidizing education and healthcare to put their tax dollars to use for their own benefits. But you can't have an either/or situation, where someone pays taxes without the benefits that come along with them.

If someone makes $10B, their tax is $1B. That's $1B dollars!! How may employees could be hired with that money? Or maybe they own an airplane - I bet maintenance and hanger fees on that is pretty damn expensive. That $1B 'loss' then kind of hurts. Or what if that person, and others like them, spent (some of) that $1B on gizmos from the local electronics store where the $10k employee works? Well, economics for that store improve, and they then can (and frequently do) afford to give a raise to the $10k employee and make her a $12k employee.

That $1B loss isn't so quite so bad when you still have $9B left after taxes. Anyone who makes that much is not disadvantaged in any way whatsoever. It won't make the difference between having a private jet or not, hiring more people, or giving more incentives for their current roster of employees because...

$10,000,000,000 isn't that much different than $9,000,000,000. No one making that much money will be operating down to the very wire. They could lose half of that (which I don't advocate) without suffering any real setbacks.

 

[Undecided]

Back in the 50's, it was as high as 90% in some cases.

Corporate taxes have been getting lower and lower over the years, and are now sitting at the lowest they've been since the 30's, and not even half our large corporations pay the full amount on that, thanks to tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies.

...yet somehow the idea that the federal government is choking the lifeblood out of our economy with overly high taxes has become a deeply argued point as of late.

That's a complete misrepresentation of the tax code back then. First of all, the tax brackets were not the same - only a handful of people actually paid any taxes at 90%. Secondly, back then there were no distinctions between earned income and passive or portfolio income. The result was that hardly anyone was actually subject to the 90% tax rate. The entire tax scheme was different. So it's pretty outrageous for you to suggest that we should be thankful that we don't have the 90% tax rate. I would rather have the entire tax scheme from back then instead of what we have today.
[doublepost=1461350579][/doublepost]

The problem with a flat tax for individuals is that it places more burden on those who make the least.
Using your example. the family that makes $10,000 per year now has to live on $8,500. At that level of income, $1,500 makes a big difference. For the family making $10,000,000,000 per year, I'm pretty sure they'll get by just fine taking home $9,850,000,000.

That's not correct. All you have to do is also have a standard deduction. So, to use your example, have a $30,000 deduction. Then, that family making $10,000 pays no tax. The deduction makes the flat rate graduated.

 

[Renzatic]

That's a complete misrepresentation of the tax code back then. First of all, the tax brackets were not the same - only a handful of people actually paid any taxes at 90%. Secondly, back then there were no distinctions between earned income and passive or portfolio income. The result was that hardly anyone was actually subject to the 90% tax rate. The entire tax scheme was different. So it's pretty outrageous for you to suggest that we should be thankful that we don't have the 90% tax rate. I would rather have the entire tax scheme from back then instead of what we have today.

No, I was arguing that the top end was considerably higher than than it is now, even if the vast majority of people never paid it. That said, corporations still paid more than they do now.

And yes, I would kill to have our old tax brackets back. There were no glaring loopholes to take advantage of, money flowed through the economy, and it boomed. It's true that some people couldn't get quite so obscenely rich as they can now, but there also wasn't as huge of a division between the middle and upper classes, either.

 

[Urban Joe]

What? You mean like in the 20's?

Exactly. Precisely. But I would go further back than that. Our country has been in decline for a very, very long time. Study up and think for yourself. Amazing at how differently the world will look.

 

[centauratlas]

"Corporations" are just groups of people. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. People who buy products, employees or shareholders will be the ones paying for this extra 50% tax through higher prices, lower wages or lower investment returns. Slower innovation, slower growth.

This is a stealth ways of taking more money from you while making it seem like it is some "corporation" paying it.

I would have expected Woz to see through the charade that the power-hungry elite politicians use to dupe people into giving them more power (money). But alas many people believe the false narrative and the politics of division needed to sustain the politicians.

 

[Renzatic]

Exactly. Precisely. But I would go further back than that. Our country has been in decline for a very, very long time. Study up and think for yourself. Amazing at how differently the world will look.

The 20's, or the Roaring 20's as they were called, was a time of massive economic boom and prosperity, that had been proceeded by fairly slow, but always steady growth in the economy from the civil war on.

Don't know where you're getting this idea that we were on a steady downfall that lead to the Great Depression. That came on rather suddenly over the course of 6 months.

 

[unobtainium]

And right there is the problem with taxation, it's takes away an individual/entity's hard EARNED increase and redistributes it to someone else - whether person or program, that some bureaucrat thinks is important. Who are they to decide? What about the rights of the one who earned it?

Let me dissect your examples, with an eye toward historical solutions (some from a long time ago):

Education: No. Was handled privately and by small towns/organizations. Ed in US was good, now in shambles.
Healthcare: No. One word: Obamacare - biggest pile of stinkin' **** in the history of the country.
Enviro. protection: Yes. Unfortunately however, the power has been grossly abused. Scale it back.
Assist seniors/ill: No. It's the responsibility of individual families, community, charity. Shame on us.
Law enforcement: Yes. But with less govt. overreach, & more prosperity there would be less law breaking.
Tax incentives: No. No subsidies/breaks for anyone/anything. You succeed or fail based on merit. Low tax for all.
Student loans: No. Government has destroyed student loans, created the mess. End it all.
Roads/infrastructure: Yes. And current govt. is grossly neglecting this responsibility.
Clean energy: No. Would naturally evolve in a truly free competitive private market. See enviro. above.
Mass transit: Yes/No. Other than in large cities, it is a dismal failure. Failing in some cities too. (DC)
Science R&D: No. Private matter/investment. Govt. taxation/redistribution did not invent the light bulb.
Culture/Arts: No. Private matter/business. If you're good, you'll make money, if you suck you wont.
Museums: Maybe. Private/public partnerships would probably be best.
National Parks: Yes. Unfortunately the power has again been abused and used to confiscate private lands.
Let me add one you missed: Defense: Yes. One of the only govt. responsibilities actually in the Constitution.

We could go on and on and on with examples. The nuts and bolts of the thing is that all these things you cite (roads, schools, research, etc.) were originally created by private interests/individuals, not governments. And these individuals almost always did a better job of it. When it comes to tax, Apple pays what it is legally obligated to pay. The "fairness" argument is a fallacy. What is "fair?" The real solution is to get government out of as many things as humanly possible, so we can have a low equitable tax rate that's exactly the same for absolutely everyone.

Ending govt. meddling, and a flat rate of 10-15% would increase economic activity, create immense prosperity for everyone, and generate more tax revenue than governments would know what to do with - which excesses of course should be placed in emergency funds and returned to the tax payer in the form of even lower tax rates.

Ah yes, the "bad old days" were really the "good old days" right? Back when an education and health care were reserved for the privileged.

Oh wait, you believe that anyone who works could afford those things in the "bad old days"?

lol.

Study history and then get back to me. That is not how the world works. Money earns money. It trickles up to the top. Power and wealth have to be redistributed if you want a decent society. If not, move somewhere like Brazil or Russia (or actually, the US in the 1800s) and let me know how you like it. Then, go live in a developed western country with a bit of sanity (Denmark, Norway, Germany, any old place will do). Let me know if you like that better. Then try to figure out why.

 

[mytdave]

Not necessarily, because as it's been stated before, 15% for someone who only makes $35,000 a year represents a good chunk of their spending power, while being an easily affordable burden for a large corporation. For small businesses, that 15% could be a new set of equipment, a couple new employees, or more incentives for those already there. There always needs to be an adjustment to account for all the different caveats that exist among all the different tax brackets.



It does, simply because low income folk have a much narrower subsistence margin than those who earn more. While there is something to be said about spending within your means, if the vast majority of your money is going towards rent, bills, groceries, and other basic necessities without any access to tax writeoffs for temporary relief, you have someone who is socially static. They're not growing the economy, and they have no means to climb the social ladder, since the majority of their funds are going towards treading water. You can offset this by offering up more social safety nets, or subsidizing education and healthcare to put their tax dollars to use for their own benefits. But you can't have an either/or situation, where someone pays taxes without the benefits that come along with them.



That $1B loss isn't so quite so bad when you still have $9B left after taxes. Anyone who makes that much is not disadvantaged in any way whatsoever. It won't make the difference between having a private jet or not, hiring more people, or giving more incentives for their current roster of employees because...

$10,000,000,000 isn't that much different than $9,000,000,000. No one making that much money will be operating down to the very wire. They could lose half of that (which I don't advocate) without suffering any real setbacks.

I understand your feelings on the issue and what you're trying to say, but I still can't quite go with you on some of these things.

For example you say 15% hurts the individual with a $35k income, but is easily affordable for a large corp. How do you know? At this very moment Sears/Kmart is planning to close 78 or more stores. Do you think that 15% would be easy for them? They're broke, and they currently face tax rates of 39%. A rate of 15% would be a heck of a lot better... Just because you're big doesn't mean you have more money than the little guy. Not every biz is like Apple - in fact, once upon a time they almost went bankrupt.

You can't solve the problem of people climbing the socioeconomic ladder by throwing money at the problem. Our social welfare programs are currently the largest in history with the most dismal results in history. Personal commitment and ambition solves this problem. I could write a whole novel about this issue, so for here, I'll leave it at that.

You're assuming that the $10B income person still has $9B just sitting around. Most of the time that is just not the case. While there are more than a few high profile Hollywood elites as examples of reckless and irresponsible living, the vast majority of millionaires, and I'd say many billionaires too, don't have cash stuffed in mattresses. All that money is invested in the market (securities, stocks, bonds, whatever) or in businesses they've created, doing real work that improves the national (and global) economy.

We've got to stop looking at low wage earners a victims, and start encouraging everyone to become millionaires, particularly in the US, backed by a Constitution that (used to) guarantee everyone equal opportunity. It is possible for everyone to be wealthy, there are no shackles on a truly free society. Govt. and excessive taxation and regulation are what hold back opportunity. Get govt. out of the way, and get a flat tax down to no more than 15% (I believe in time it could be effective as low as 7%) and you'd see an explosion of human achievement unlike the world has ever known.

 

[unobtainium]

The 20's, or the Roaring 20's as they were called, was a time of massive economic boom and prosperity, that had been proceeded by fairly slow, but always steady growth in the economy from the civil war on.

Don't know where you're getting this idea that we were on a steady downfall that lead to the Great Depression. That came on rather suddenly over the course of 6 months.

The 1920s was a bubble, a massive economic boom for the elite. The vast majority of Americans lived in what we would define as poverty today. The Depression was even worse for the poor. Nothing improved for the American working class until the New Deal came along, followed by the war, trade unions, and the development of the Middle Class. For a verrrry brief moment in time, the working class actually gained significant ground. Around the 70s or 80s that started to fall apart. Now to remain "middle class", families take on massive debt, have both spouses work excessive hours, and have vey little security in their retirement. The Middle Class had a very brief moment in this country. Other places have done a better job of maintaining it.

 

[Renzatic]

The Middle Class had a very brief moment in this country. Other places have done a better job of maintaining it.

I wouldn't say it's quite over with yet, but some people do seem to be clamoring for the death of the middle class over some empty rhetoric. It's kinda amazing watching so many people sell out their own best interests.

I'm pretty much a Rockerfeller Republican. I advocate for New Deal style policies that are back by, and end up strengthening a capitalist economy. By today's standards, this makes me a radical pinko communist in some people's eyes, but...eh. What can you do?

 

[Rocketman]

The current trend in tax policy is to lower the marginal rate for business to about 15%. If it were as economics suggests it should it would be 0% and the only tax paid would be from the beneficiaries of pass-through income in the form of dividends and salaries.

Even personal marginal income tax rates should be reduced not increased to improve overall revenue and employment from increased activity.

The Phillips curve is real and the recent spate of increased marginal rates under Obama/Pelosi/Reid has killed money velocity, thus GDP growth.

 

[Renzatic]

At this very moment Sears/Kmart is planning to close 78 or more stores. Do you think that 15% would be easy for them? They're broke, and they currently face tax rates of 39%. A rate of 15% would be a heck of a lot better... Just because you're big doesn't mean you have more money than the little guy. Not every biz is like Apple - in fact, once upon a time they almost went bankrupt.

From what I remember, Kmart posted no profits in 2014, thus no taxable income, and only had a profit of around $5 million the year before. I think they'd probably qualify for a good little tax break.

 

[Eraserhead]

I understand your feelings on the issue and what you're trying to say, but I still can't quite go with you on some of these things.

For example you say 15% hurts the individual with a $35k income, but is easily affordable for a large corp. How do you know? At this very moment Sears/Kmart is planning to close 78 or more stores. Do you think that 15% would be easy for them? They're broke, and they currently face tax rates of 39%. A rate of 15% would be a heck of a lot better... Just because you're big doesn't mean you have more money than the little guy. Not every biz is like Apple - in fact, once upon a time they almost went bankrupt.

You can't solve the problem of people climbing the socioeconomic ladder by throwing money at the problem. Our social welfare programs are currently the largest in history with the most dismal results in history. Personal commitment and ambition solves this problem. I could write a whole novel about this issue, so for here, I'll leave it at that.

You're assuming that the $10B income person still has $9B just sitting around. Most of the time that is just not the case. While there are more than a few high profile Hollywood elites as examples of reckless and irresponsible living, the vast majority of millionaires, and I'd say many billionaires too, don't have cash stuffed in mattresses. All that money is invested in the market (securities, stocks, bonds, whatever) or in businesses they've created, doing real work that improves the national (and global) economy.

We've got to stop looking at low wage earners a victims, and start encouraging everyone to become millionaires, particularly in the US, backed by a Constitution that (used to) guarantee everyone equal opportunity. It is possible for everyone to be wealthy, there are no shackles on a truly free society. Govt. and excessive taxation and regulation are what hold back opportunity. Get govt. out of the way, and get a flat tax down to no more than 15% (I believe in time it could be effective as low as 7%) and you'd see an explosion of human achievement unlike the world has ever known.

Business only pays tax on profits...
[doublepost=1461354168][/doublepost]

The current trend in tax policy is to lower the marginal rate for business to about 15%. It were as economics suggests it should it would be 0% and the only tax paid would be from the beneficiaries of pass-through income in the form of dividends and salaries.

Even personal marginal income tax rates should be reduced not increased to improve overall revenue from increased activity.

The Phillips curve is real and the recent spate of increased marginal rates under Obama/Pelosi/Reid has killed money velocity, thus GDP growth.

Except that allows businesses to hoard cash without paying tax.

 

[Urban Joe]

Ah yes, the "bad old days" were really the "good old days" right? Back when an education and health care were reserved for the privileged.

Oh wait, you believe that anyone who works could afford those things in the "bad old days"?

lol.

Study history and then get back to me. That is not how the world works. Money earns money. It trickles up to the top. Power and wealth have to be redistributed if you want a decent society. If not, move somewhere like Brazil or Russia (or actually, the US in the 1800s) and let me know how you like it. Then, go live in a developed western country with a bit of sanity (Denmark, Norway, Germany, any old place will do). Let me know if you like that better. Then try to figure out why.

and we can assume you live in one of these socialist eutopias?

 

[mytdave]

Ah yes, the "bad old days" were really the "good old days" right? Back when an education and health care were reserved for the privileged.

Oh wait, you believe that anyone who works could afford those things in the "bad old days"?

lol.

Study history and then get back to me. That is not how the world works. Money earns money. It trickles up to the top. Power and wealth have to be redistributed if you want a decent society. If not, move somewhere like Brazil or Russia (or actually, the US in the 1800s) and let me know how you like it. Then, go live in a developed western country with a bit of sanity (Denmark, Norway, Germany, any old place will do). Let me know if you like that better. Then try to figure out why.

Right back at you. You go live in Brazil or Russia and see how you like it. Power and wealth in a totalitarian state is destructive. But redistribution is a basic tenant of Socialism/Communism which is the totalitarian state. You have your redistribution model upside down. Money and power is never taken from the top, it's taken from the people and redistributed to the elite. Do you not pay attention? Maybe you should study history to learn what really happens.

Europe? It's a total mess, soon to implode. Why do you people keep holding Europe up as some ideal utopia? The only instrument that has successfully changed the course of history is the US Constitution, which finally guaranteed all people equal rights and opportunity, giving rise to truly free markets. Never before in all history has so much wealth been created for so many people. America was good and shared our wealth and ideals with the world, raising the standard of living for billions of people. The US experiment was a success, but progressive/liberal minds have been trying to destroy it for decades. The insane corporate tax rate of 39% is just one symptom of the larger disease.

Unfortunately the last 8 years have seen more regression and destruction of liberty than can you can even imagine, and the fleecing of America is well under way, redistributing our collective wealth back to the political elites. You better get your head screwed on right before it's all gone. Might already be too late.

 

[acctman]

I wouldn't normally entertain this kind of rationale put forward by these comments. The answer is first Apple (et al) must all pay more taxes 30-50% tax. The second is to vote the right people into government that will spend these taxes honestly. If there's any doubt your local political representative is dishonest and has an agenda that doesn't serve the people of the nation, do not vote for them even if they support your regular political party. Find a better constituent that will represent the people of the country best.

That's easier said that done... but 1 changed vote will not stop a dishonest political rep from being elected. I tell this to my friends that try an talk politics with me, "Humans Lie, it you think a politician will be 100% honest then you're a fool". This is off-topic a bit Flint Michigan, lead in the water... How is something like that even aloud to happen? WTF, a bunch of politician that do not give a F@#K about human help because they want to save money. Maybe someone will lose a job, but no politician(s) will ultimately be held responsible or pay for all the long term medical issues that will occur.

Back to the topic of the 30-50% Tim Cook spoke in a interview on this and said Apple would gladly bring the billions they have outside of the U.S. back in but, not at the current tax percentage. They're not doing anything illegal, Apple is a U.S. company that operates globally. I can see 30% but 50% or more thats in sane. Imagine having to work 6mons out of a year just to pay the IRS at a 50% tax bracket.

 

[Morod]

I just wish the "Thumbs Down" button was still available on MacRumors.

Go, Woz! To me, you were the heart and soul of Apple.

 

[applesith]

Right back at you. You go live in Brazil or Russia and see how you like it. Power and wealth in a totalitarian state is destructive. But redistribution is a basic tenant of Socialism/Communism which is the totalitarian state. You have your redistribution model upside down. Money and power is never taken from the top, it's taken from the people and redistributed to the elite. Do you not pay attention? Maybe you should study history to learn what really happens.

Europe? It's a total mess, soon to implode. Why do you people keep holding Europe up as some ideal utopia? The only instrument that has successfully changed the course of history is the US Constitution, which finally guaranteed all people equal rights and opportunity, giving rise to truly free markets. Never before in all history has so much wealth been created for so many people. America was good and shared our wealth and ideals with the world, raising the standard of living for billions of people. The US experiment was a success, but progressive/liberal minds have been trying to destroy it for decades. The insane corporate tax rate of 39% is just one symptom of the larger disease.

Unfortunately the last 8 years have seen more regression and destruction of liberty than can you can even imagine, and the fleecing of America is well under way, redistributing our collective wealth back to the political elites. You better get your head screwed on right before it's all gone. Might already be too late.

Perfectly stated.

 

[Renzatic]

But redistribution is a basic tenant of Socialism/Communism which is the totalitarian state.

Wealth redistribution is the basic tenant of taxes and capitalism as well. It's kinda how they work and all.

 

[jkcerda]

Wealth redistribution is the basic tenant of taxes and capitalism as well. It's kinda how they work and all.

stop using facts

 

[Renzatic]

stop using facts

No! I'll fight you.

 

[Rocketman]

Except that allows businesses to hoard cash without paying tax.

Cool. Investable assets.

 

[Stampyhead]

Anyone who thinks a 50% tax rate is ethical really needs to have their heads examined. I don't care how much money someone makes, the government shouldn't be able to take half of it.