Steve Wozniak Says Apple Should Pay 50% Tax Rate

[Renzatic]

Besides, even with a 50% tax rate, I agree with you that Apple passing the tax burden onto the consumers, which they already do by not paying a 50% tax rate, at the point of sale will significantly slow sales of Apple products.

Right. I don't agree with a flat 50% tax rate. It's just too much. Though there does come a point where, if a corporation were to try to pass its tax burdens onto the consumer in order to bolster their profit margins, they'd end up spiting their own sales.

Apple can get away with raising the price of the iPhone by so much before people quit buying it. By that point, they would've made more money if they just paid their taxes, and carried on as usual.

 

[iPadPublisher]

A 50% tax rate in my opinion is almost as stupid as a nearly 0% tax rate. It's always dodge or cripple. When will we ever get this right?

 

[mrex]

A 50% tax rate in my opinion is almost as stupid as a nearly 0% tax rate. It's always dodge or cripple. When will we ever get this right?

when countries (which can) stop printing more and more money... and people and companies have to accept their responsibility and start living with what they only have.

 

[MH01]

I love Woz, but there is one little flaw with his idea. What would a dysfunctional government do with all this corporate money? If it can't handle the money of the people right, it won't do any better with the Apple treasure.

Is there a not a fundamental flaw in your argument? Think it through.

 

[thermodynamic]

Brilliant! This is the spirit of what Apple was founded on, the spirit of two Steves.

Unfortunately to date Apple has gone down the unsavoury route of shifting profits to different countries to reduce their tax. A convoluted mix of highly unethical funds movements. That's not the Apple I wish to be associated with.

Apple is a global company. Various countries around the world tax citizens and companies taxation amounts between 15% to 45% (plus or minus a few %). Apple taxes its developers 30% on sales to include apps in the App Store. Apple, with its incredible financial success, is primed to pay at the very least 30% tax for all sales it makes in the country which it has made the sale. Wozniak's 50% is even more progressive. I like it very much. It is fair and it is right. Thank you, Steve.

Interesting use of "tax" as "fee", since companies charge fees and governments charge taxes. Steve brings up some good points, but so has President Obama over the years and companies haven't always been willing to put the US up from the bottom of "____ in developed countries" lists, like sick time, paid parental leave, vacation time, poverty (!!!), health care costs (!!!!), college costs (!!!!, never mind corruption, poor quality, inflated grades -- which students and government have been screwed over by, and is also the big reason why companies say the college educated are inadequate, including Cook himself), and numerous other things... it's kinda sad when "developing" or "3rd world" countries are higher than at "developed" country is when it comes to human rights. Yes, I know the argument of profit, I also know people never think outside the box because they can't see it. Like how I have trouble seeing inside the box at times...

LOL, TV shows in 1980 where a person leased another's infrastructure complained about 10% fee being too high. Yet the complaints back then weren't as loud as today's truly dragging 30%.

If Apple is a global company, not merely an American one, why does it need take corporate welfare from taxpayers?
If Apple is a global company, not merely an American one, why does it use lobbyists to write the tax laws it chooses to hide money to be taxed from?
If Apple is a global company, not merely an American one, why does it slam Americans as being incapable rather than doing a one-up and training Americans to show government how wrong it is (instead of "investing" overseas, which is another word describing "building them up, at our expense"? The latter half is key. Yes, Apple has opened a mfg plant in the US, which is something I need to remember more often. Maybe taxpaying workers whose money helped to build it will see prosperity return after decades of stagnant returns. But why would Apple not train Americans instead of being all huffypuffy and derisive? American tax money more or less would pay for it, as it has for the added profit they enjoy as well.

Whether Cook and his board members (including long-time member (2003), known Environmental Activist, Democratic Party member Al Gore) actually do what the Steve suggests - it's in their hands.
[doublepost=1461414076][/doublepost]

Good for Woz, though I would say that 40% is a reasonable rate.

Apple is wilfully breaking the Ten Commandments in stealing from everyone around the world. It is deliberately evading tax in order to pay as little as possible. Why should I not be able to set up a company in Ireland and pay a fraction of the tax I currently pay? Because it is ethically wrong to do so.

Tim Cook is a hypocrite whose morality is perverse.
[doublepost=1461321807][/doublepost]

Good.

Let's blow those Islamic terrorists to kingdom come.

If corporations like apple paid their share locally individual tax rates would go down for everyone

40%, certainly better than the 50% stated or 90% from 1950 (so, speaking of the 1950s, as some claim, the GOP does not want to return America to the 1950s... maybe the 1850s with slavery, but that's another issue altogether). Back to the 40% rate: Many in the middle class pay almost that much (combined, state and federal) and what they take in is nowhere near what Apple has rigged to bring in.

And as was posted, individual tax rates would go down in return if the corporate tax rate was nudged up a tad - since the tax cuts for companies* invariably caused tax rates on other citizens to go up. Thank Reagan and Bush Sr for those increases and cooing us with "trickle down economics", a concept that has clearly failed the people and that people in 1980 called "voodoo economics", including George H W Bush!

As for Bible references, we can all cherrypick any number of issues - too easy to do. Religion was often formed around ethics (an all-inclusive term), rebranded them as "morals", and sometimes spun for political gain on the part of those translating or writing it. Allowing women treatment better than what Deuteronomy taught isn't going to create a realm of eternal brimstone... Sodom and Gomorrah had far more to do with greed and deception than what two blokes did in a bedroom. Don't read into Ezekiel 23:20 too much, either. Most of the Ten Commandments are repeated in most religions. Even various Pagan ones (though that doesn't stop Pagans from being any less phony than the Christians that use Christ's name as a shield while engaging in phony acts that Christ would have been appalled by, like governor Rick Scott... or maybe his lot think "Loaves and fishes" meant "Croissants and Lobster", good grief...)


* corporations are people, too, even with trickle down it is failing corporations and will in the long-term, and for the next bailouts maybe the working class can have more of those since all that will clearly trickle up. It's been proven elsewhere, such as in Iceland.

 

[Sill]

Economics is not a science. It has failed miserably, time and time again, to make real predictions. You're just espousing a particular ideology.

Economics as preached by Keynes has been proven wrong constantly, but not the actual study of economics. You are correct in saying its not a science. Not purely, anyway. Properly done its more statistics and empirical observation combined with philosophy.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world, living in normal, developed countries with healthy social welfare programs and high tax rates should give you a hint, but nope.

There isn't enough space on this server, I think, to refute your statement. The facts don't back it up, to say the least. Some things you're ignoring are the incredibly low savings rates in your vaunted social medicine paradises, and the high level of government interference in popular life. Again, not enough room on the server or time in my day for this.

Are you one of those conservatives who lives in an American bubble and is completely unaware of the whole, wide world out there?

Nice try there, but I'm not a conservative. I also have a fairly significant amount of experience with other cultures ranging from Mexican to Persian.

Most countries have better education outcomes than the U.S., and most of those have more government involvement, not less.

So, by extension your solution is to match other nations' government involvement? You're ignoring family involvement, tradition and other cultural factors - things that are sadly fading or nonexistent in American society - instead just focusing on the one thing you believe would change things.
What was that old axiom about correlation not equaling causation...

Oh dear lord. Logic is your friend.

I agree. Lets give it a try here and see if it works for you.

Private schools = rich students from good families...families that are motivated to help out at the school, make donations, and get involved. Kids without social, economic, and family problems. They need less help to succeed, and even if your statistic is true (I have no idea), it wouldn't be surprising.

Odd... you ignore family factors in your statement above, but here its just fine to bring it up. Agenda based thinking is agenda based.

Let me point out your major flaw by discussing something that isn't talked about much in this country. Out of all the metrics used to rate schools, the easiest one to measure and one that has the farthest reaching effects is literacy. If you look at the literacy numbers of black students, the results are appalling. Black children in public schools as a whole test far below what children of Hispanic immigrant parents show.

Yet one hundred years ago black literacy approached 80 to 90 percent in most areas of the country. What happened? According to revisionist educators such as John Taylor Gatto, blacks experienced drops in a couple notable times. The first being the push towards public education following WWI, and the even bigger push following WWII. They finished the 1950s with a drop down to the 60-70 percent range. But the worst ever was the result of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", where the literacy rate of the tested black population dropped into the 30s.

So, despite being poor and qualifying for only the lowest paying jobs back in the early 20th century, black literacy exceeded today's white literacy by a considerable amount, yet today after spending countless hundreds of millions on their education, the government tests show that these childrens' scores stay in the basement. What is happening?

If you read Gatto, as well as Charlotte Iserbyt (I have, as well as corresponding with them), you see that one-size-fits-all education in disciplinarian environments that serve to stifle children and not challenge them also destroys them. Children have different interests, aptitudes and talents, and these things manifest early on and deserve challenges that develop them further. Public schools don't do that, instead pigeon-holing those kids and making them "study to the test".

But thats no more than the decoration on what really happened. If you read Larry Elder, you'll get a great expose on how the Great Society - signed by LBJ but only fully implemented under Nixon - ruined black families by enticing them with welfare money. Black families were paid to be out of work, and black women were paid to have children out of wedlock. Now look at what has happened. Two parent black families are extremely rare, black crime - especially black on black - is extremely high, and literacy and the job qualification that is a direct result of that is at an all time low.

As the saying goes "If you subsidize something, you'll get more of it".

So is the answer yet another government program to "help those people"? Would things be better if the government had just a little more power, or a lot more money to spend on them?

BZZZZT. Wrong. Health care is unaffordable in this country because drug companies are allowed to charge insane amounts for drugs that are much cheaper elsewhere. A middle class family is forced to spend hundreds or thousands per month on (crappy) health insurance because there is no public system. Almost every developed, enlightened country in the world has figured this out, except the US.

I find it truly banal when people use the word "enlightened" when they're trying to push a model of government intervention. If it was truly "enlightened", they wouldn't need to pass a law to force people to do it, it would come along naturally. Mandatory charity is not charity at all - its theft.

So are you saying that the reason what passes for "health care" in this country is so expensive is that drug companies aren't regulated enough, and that insurance is expensive but public health care isn't?
[doublepost=1461417490][/doublepost]

If Apple is a global company, not merely an American one, why does it need take corporate welfare from taxpayers?
If Apple is a global company, not merely an American one, why does it use lobbyists to write the tax laws it chooses to hide money to be taxed from?

Why is it that a reduction in tax costs is looked at as welfare for companies, but a deduction for individuals? Keeping the money you make is not welfare, taking money for doing nothing is. Perhaps you're confusing corporate tax cuts with government handouts, e.g. Solyndra, Tesla, etc, and bailouts e.g. Goldman Sachs, GM, etc.

The amount of cash Apple had on hand at the time of Steve's death was built up without the help of lobbyists. As I've stated in other threads, Apple's lobbying budget in many years was so small it was practically non-existent, actually closer to a rounding error on the cafeteria budget than the tens of millions that companies like Google and Microsoft spend on buying legislators and other government functionaries. It was only after Cook got to the helm that lobbying picked up substantially, along with hires according to (OOOH TRIGGER WARNING!!!!!) diversity instead of merit, and revolving door hires with government agencies.

If Apple is a global company, not merely an American one, why does it slam Americans as being incapable rather than doing a one-up and training Americans to show government how wrong it is (instead of "investing" overseas, which is another word describing "building them up, at our expense"? The latter half is key. Yes, Apple has opened a mfg plant in the US, which is something I need to remember more often. Maybe taxpaying workers whose money helped to build it will see prosperity return after decades of stagnant returns. But why would Apple not train Americans instead of being all huffypuffy and derisive? American tax money more or less would pay for it, as it has for the added profit they enjoy as well.

The idea of Apple training people is intriguing and I think you are on to something, seriously. I would further suggest that they establish their own K-12 curriculum and grab selected people at an early age who test out with extreme aptitude and pay for their entire education. Perhaps if this could be done without government interference we'd see a massive increase in the number of people who are able to think critically and adapt to their situation instead of raising awareness for "someone to do something".

40%, certainly better than the 50% stated or 90% from 1950 (so, speaking of the 1950s, as some claim, the GOP does not want to return America to the 1950s... maybe the 1850s with slavery, but that's another issue altogether).

The GOP - and the Democrats - agree. Why would anyone want to return to an era when only a minuscule percentage of the population was controlled by private parties when we live in an era where an enormous swath of the population is controlled by the state? The previous system was so inefficient at peddling influence and deriving favors.

Back to the 40% rate: Many in the middle class pay almost that much (combined, state and federal) and what they take in is nowhere near what Apple has rigged to bring in.

What Warren Buffett ignores in his tirades about how unfair the system is that assigns a lower tax rate to him than to his secretary, is that his tax payment is much higher. Five percent of $500 million is a far higher amount than thirty eight percent of $500,000. Also interesting is that Buffett and those of his ilk never mention how unfair it is that his secretary has such a significant tax rate in the first place. Its much more of a burden to her - and all the rest of us making tens of thousands instead of tens of millions.

And as was posted, individual tax rates would go down in return if the corporate tax rate was nudged up a tad - since the tax cuts for companies* invariably caused tax rates on other citizens to go up. Thank Reagan and Bush Sr for those increases and cooing us with "trickle down economics", a concept that has clearly failed the people and that people in 1980 called "voodoo economics", including George H W Bush!

Government can do one of three things for the budget: increase taxes, create more money, or cut expenses. The third option is never on the table, for some reason. Our government considers its budget a blank check, basically. Guess at the amount, multiply it by an arbitrary factor, and fill in the blanks. Figure out how to pay it later. "It'll come from taxes on the improved economy!!!" There's a fallacy for you.

If you really want an eye-opener on the "trickle down" fallacy - along with its treatment in the press - maybe you should go to one of its architects, David Stockman. The guy is brilliant and very outspoken about what went wrong then and whats going wrong now. He's an easy person to contact and correspond with, and maybe he can help you understand it. Here's a hint: it wasn't the reduction in corporate taxes.

 

[Eraserhead]

Invest in what returns proceeds so poverty is solved.
[doublepost=1461368538][/doublepost]He did do the US Festival.

How exactly does big business investing in the stock market help poverty in any way?
[doublepost=1461421083][/doublepost]

Economics as preached by Keynes has been proven wrong constantly, but not the actual study of economics. You are correct in saying its not a science. Not purely, anyway. Properly done its more statistics and empirical observation combined with philosophy.



There isn't enough space on this server, I think, to refute your statement. The facts don't back it up, to say the least. Some things you're ignoring are the incredibly low savings rates in your vaunted social medicine paradises, and the high level of government interference in popular life. Again, not enough room on the server or time in my day for this.




Nice try there, but I'm not a conservative. I also have a fairly significant amount of experience with other cultures ranging from Mexican to Persian.



So, by extension your solution is to match other nations' government involvement? You're ignoring family involvement, tradition and other cultural factors - things that are sadly fading or nonexistent in American society - instead just focusing on the one thing you believe would change things.
What was that old axiom about correlation not equaling causation...




I agree. Lets give it a try here and see if it works for you.



Odd... you ignore family factors in your statement above, but here its just fine to bring it up. Agenda based thinking is agenda based.

Let me point out your major flaw by discussing something that isn't talked about much in this country. Out of all the metrics used to rate schools, the easiest one to measure and one that has the farthest reaching effects is literacy. If you look at the literacy numbers of black students, the results are appalling. Black children in public schools as a whole test far below what children of Hispanic immigrant parents show.

Yet one hundred years ago black literacy approached 80 to 90 percent in most areas of the country. What happened? According to revisionist educators such as John Taylor Gatto, blacks experienced drops in a couple notable times. The first being the push towards public education following WWI, and the even bigger push following WWII. They finished the 1950s with a drop down to the 60-70 percent range. But the worst ever was the result of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", where the tested black population dropped into the 1930s.

So, despite being poor and qualifying for only the lowest paying jobs back in the early 20th century, black literacy exceeded today's white literacy by a considerable amount, yet today after spending countless hundreds of millions on their education, the government tests show that these childrens' scores stay in the basement. What is happening?

If you read Gatto, as well as Charlotte Iserbyt (I have, as well as corresponding with them), you see that one-size-fits-all education in disciplinarian environments that serve to stifle children and not challenge them also destroys them. Children have different interests, aptitudes and talents, and these things manifest early on and deserve challenges that develop them further. Public schools don't do that, instead pigeon-holing those kids and making them "study to the test".

But thats no more than the decoration on what really happened. If you read Larry Elder, you'll get a great expose on how the Great Society - signed by LBJ but only fully implemented under Nixon - ruined black families by enticing them with welfare money. Black families were paid to be out of work, and black women were paid to have children out of wedlock. Now look at what has happened. Two parent black families are extremely rare, black crime - especially black on black - is extremely high, and literacy and the job qualification that is a direct result of that is at an all time low.

As the saying goes "If you subsidize something, you'll get more of it".

So is the answer yet another government program to "help those people"? Would things be better if the government had just a little more power, or a lot more money to spend on them?



I find it truly banal when people use the word "enlightened" when they're trying to push a model of government intervention. If it was truly "enlightened", they wouldn't need to pass a law to force people to do it, it would come along naturally. Mandatory charity is not charity at all - its theft.

So are you saying that the reason what passes for "health care" in this country is so expensive is that drug companies aren't regulated enough, and that insurance is expensive but public health care isn't?
[doublepost=1461417490][/doublepost]

Why is it that a reduction in tax costs is looked at as welfare for companies, but a deduction for individuals? Keeping the money you make is not welfare, taking money for doing nothing is. Perhaps you're confusing corporate tax cuts with government handouts, e.g. Solyndra, Tesla, etc, and bailouts e.g. Goldman Sachs, GM, etc.

The amount of cash Apple had on hand at the time of Steve's death was built up without the help of lobbyists. As I've stated in other threads, Apple's lobbying budget in many years was so small it was practically non-existent, actually closer to a rounding error on the cafeteria budget than the tens of millions that companies like Google and Microsoft spend on buying legislators and other government functionaries. It was only after Cook got to the helm that lobbying picked up substantially, along with hires according to (OOOH TRIGGER WARNING!!!!!) diversity instead of merit, and revolving door hires with government agencies.



The idea of Apple training people is intriguing and I think you are on to something, seriously. I would further suggest that they establish their own K-12 curriculum and grab selected people at an early age who test out with extreme aptitude and pay for their entire education. Perhaps if this could be done without government interference we'd see a massive increase in the number of people who are able to think critically and adapt to their situation instead of raising awareness for "someone to do something".




The GOP - and the Democrats - agree. Why would anyone want to return to an era when only a minuscule percentage of the population was controlled by private parties when we live in an era where an enormous swath of the population is controlled by the state? The previous system was so inefficient at peddling influence and deriving favors.





What Warren Buffett ignores in his tirades about how unfair the system is that assigns a lower tax rate to him than to his secretary, is that his tax payment is much higher. Five percent of $500 million is a far higher amount than thirty eight percent of $500,000. Also interesting is that Buffett and those of his ilk never mention how unfair it is that his secretary has such a significant tax rate in the first place. Its much more of a burden to her - and all the rest of us making tens of thousands instead of tens of millions.



Government can do one of three things for the budget: increase taxes, create more money, or cut expenses. The third option is never on the table, for some reason. Our government considers its budget a blank check, basically. Guess at the amount, multiply it by an arbitrary factor, and fill in the blanks. Figure out how to pay it later. "It'll come from taxes on the improved economy!!!" There's a fallacy for you.

If you really want an eye-opener on the "trickle down" fallacy - along with its treatment in the press - maybe you should go to one of its architects, David Stockman. The guy is brilliant and very outspoken about what went wrong then and whats going wrong now. He's an easy person to contact and correspond with, and maybe he can help you understand it. Here's a hint: it wasn't the reduction in corporate taxes.

China used Keynes to get out of the 2008 recession and double the value of their economy. Some failure.
[doublepost=1461421168][/doublepost]

For God's Sake Old Boy!!! Not unemployed. Give up his annual Apple Salary!!. Don't make me swim across the Pond.

So how should he earn a living? Work for some other company that does the same tax dodges? Earn a pension invested in companies that do the same tax dodges?

 

[Rocketman]

How exactly are tax payers "poor people"? You do realize that people who are considered "poor" don't actually pay taxes at the federal level with a marginal tax rate.

The most regressive (poor) taxes are sales tax, gasoline taxes, property taxes (including renters), and excise taxes. They are built into the cost of goods and thus are unavoidable, and are a much larger fraction of poor people expenses than rich people. This is a fact that is obvious and is known to all but nowhere enough dwelled on.

There are "sin taxes" on tobacco, liquor, etc that also fall disproportionately on poor people. In this case based on the concepts I have repeated here I think it fair to include all persons up to 4x the "poverty line".

 

[Eraserhead]

The most regressive (poor) taxes are sales tax, gasoline taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes. They are built into the cost of goods and thus are unavoidable, and are a much larger fraction of poor people expenses than rich people. This is a fact that is obvious and is known to all but nowhere enough dwelled on.

There are "sin taxes" on tobacco, liquor, etc that also fall disproportionately on poor people. In this case based on the concepts I have repeated here I think it fair to include all persons up to 4x the "poverty line".

How are property taxes regressive?

 

[Rocketman]

China used Keynes to get out of the 2008 recession and double the value of their economy. Some failure.

They also ended up with a bunch of empty and crumbling buildings, a bunch of make-work products that will never be sold at any price, and hoarding of raw material commodities. The productive sectors is what raised them up, not the centrally planned Keynesian efforts. The velocity of money in the government programs is about 0.8 and the velocity of money in the private free market similar sector is over 3.

By comparison, ours is about 1.4, down from a recent high of 2.2 before the War under Bush and the fiscal spending Keynesian policies under Obama. Rapid drop too. Historically low level too. Really bad stuff.

Keynes also suggested tax cuts as an alternative to central government spending, but that which would have worked far better, went against the philosophy of massive extreme pork barrel spending that Pelosi proposed as the means to the end. Now we have seen the outcome of that experiment. Massive drop in GDP growth, drop in employment participation rate, drop in money velocity, massive new debt. All the exact opposite of what was needed. The political solution not the fiscal one.

 

[vrDrew]

By comparison, ours is about 1.4, down from a recent high of 2.2 before the Keynesian policies under Obama. Rapid drop too. Historically low level too. Really bad stuff.

You obviously do not understand what Keynes economic theories actually say: Which is that the velocity of money is variable and (largely) unpredictable. Spending and investment, by businesses and consumers, changes with conditions.

This is eminently logical, if you think about it. If you are concerned about losing your job - you aren't as likely to got out and buy a new car. A business that is concerned about the economic prospects of its customers is less likely to invest in a new plant. The income of both the business and consumer remains the same - but they are more likely to squirrel away their excess cash in the bank. And having gone through the 2008 financial crisis, is it any surprise that American consumers and businesses are a still a little wary of over-extending themselves?

Monetarist theory, conversely, holds that the velocity of money is (or should be) constant. Which is nonsensical on the face of it.

The US economy recovered from the 2008 financial crisis remarkably quickly. But zero thanks for that can be attributed to the Republicans in Congress, who have done everything they can to stymie every effort to rebuild and strengthen our economy. If nothing else, the periodic hissy-fits promulgated by morons like Ted Cruz to shut-down the Federal Government have injected needless doubt and fear into the spending and investment decisions of businesses and consumers.

Even the loathsome Cruz has figured out that the American people recognize the economic catastrophe such tactics unleash. And I guarantee you won't hear him bragging about it on the campaign trail this year. Maybe thats a hint you ought to take.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

They'd fund schools properly. They'd support and fix a hospital system in crisis. There would be great outcomes for everyone if companies paid proper tax.

Or.... you know, give the "under-funded" military some more money to wage some other wars. Pretty sure the money won't go into actually useful stuff, considering how the U.S. government works.

 

[Rocketman]

Keynes economic theories actually say: Which is that the velocity of money is variable and (largely) unpredictable. Spending and investment, by businesses and consumers, changes with conditions.

He died 21 April 1946. These days it is entirely identifiable nearly real time. Furthermore when you hear mainstream media talking consumer spending, in fact, 2/3 of spending is commercial not consumer. Embracing business is the solution to all problems, financial, economic, social, and everything.

From Wikipedia I cite:

Asked why Keynes expressed "moral and philosophical" agreement with Hayek's Road to Serfdom, Hayek explained:[120]

Because he believed that he was fundamentally still a classical English liberal and wasn't quite aware of how far he had moved away from it. His basic ideas were still those of individual freedom. He did not think systematically enough to see the conflicts. He was, in a sense, corrupted by political necessity.

Just Rocketman

 

[Renzatic]

He died 21 April 1946. These days it is entirely identifiable nearly real time. Furthermore when you hear mainstream media talking consumer spending, in fact, 2/3 of spending is commercial not consumer. Embracing business is the solution to all problems, financial, economic, social, and everything.

Sounds like you're a big believer in trickle down economics. Bolster the high end, and eventually improvements will spread across the entire system.

...shame it hasn't quite worked that way yet, huh? Stagnating wages, a shrinking middle class, lower quality jobs, and an ever increasing wealth gap. It's a theory that's only served to make the rich richer, and the once comfortable poor.

 

[Rocketman]

Sounds like you're a big believer in trickle down economics. Bolster the high end, and eventually improvements will spread across the entire system.

...shame it hasn't quite worked that way yet, huh? Stagnating wages, a shrinking middle class, lower quality jobs, and an ever increasing wealth gap. It's a theory that's only served to make the rich richer, and the once comfortable poor.

If it were ever implemented with reduced government involvement, the test would be interesting. Regulatory agencies are controlled by the executive and employ authority designated to the legislature in the constitution. Change that and we will see, but not one second sooner. Heck, let congress approve with line item veto all (all) regulatory changes.
[doublepost=1461434412][/doublepost]Employees need employers. Is that trickle down or not?

 

[nt5672]

It really gets me all of the people that think legally paying the lowest amount of tax is unethical. It's not. When you pay your tax you either follow the law or you don't. There are no ethics involved, the IRS sees to that.

The only unethical thing about taxes are the politicians that create the laws and the administrators that enforce the laws. They think, and I am incline to agree, that people are too ignorant to really realize that it is the politicians that protect the rich. You really think the IRS is going to let any big corporation not pay its legal amount of taxes? Of course they won't, unless someone high up in the administration tells them to ignore the lawbreaking. Now that is unethical, but it happens all the time. Look at the number of civil rights leaders that have outstanding IRS debts year after year.

 

[Urban Joe]

[doublepost=1461374709][/doublepost]
I live in the U.S. but I grew up in Canada, and it makes me sick to hear about lower middle class families here paying $400/mo. for health insurance PER PERSON, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Bleah, you guys have no idea how s***y your system is. Don't even get me started on the corruption of your drug companies -- do you even realize how much more they charge in the US than they do almost anywhere else?

And education...you have some *public* universities charging $40,000 tuition per year. In Germany tuition is in the hundreds...and yet somehow, they're just as good. Where is all that money going?? Where is the return on your "investment"? The answer is, it's going to the 1%, in the form of low taxes. And Americans have been fooled into thinking this is somehow part of what makes America "great".

You have a lot of good points. It's precisely because of political corruption and crony capitalism that here in USA the last thing we need is to redistribute even
More money , power , and control over to the Federal gvt. America was not originally envisioned to be centrally planned and controlled. The constitution was actually put in place to ensure that from not happening. We were supposed to be a collection on independent, individually sovereign states where power was concentrated locally near the will and control of the people. The further we have gotten away the worse our country has gotten as evidenced by the examples you mentioned.
The latest gvt super power grab with the Affordable Care Act is a good example of how incapable our federal gvt is at being able to deliver on the types of universal services you desire. Lastly, the more money colleges have gotten, thanks to teacher unions and the self serving beurocracies that are typical universities, the more the quality has gone down while prices have gone up all while they deliver curriculums that have nearly no practical market value (including a typical BS Computer Science degree)....most of those are at least 20 years behind and yet...they do nothing to improve because it "works for them." ...they are hooked into the federal money flows...They could therefore care less about the value they are providing for their students.

 

[macintoshmac]

I am trying to find where exactly was he imbecile enough to say, according to MacRumors, "In an interview with the BBC published this morning, Wozniak, who left Apple in 1986, said that every company in the world should pay the same rate he pays as an individual."

Unless I am wrong, Woz was not imbecile enough to say and/ or expect that every company in the world should pay the same rate he pays in his country. Bad reporting.

 

[smacrumon]

You've either never worked for the government or with it. Your statement is incredibly naive and utopic. Lest you don't understand me money isn't the reason our health system is in a shambles and our schools suck.

I haven't worked in government but in a recent past life, I have worked in a government school. From my limited observations, I can agree there is some misuse of government funds, or more accurately, some funds spent without a well defined overarching plan. However even after optimizing fund spending, schools (and hospitals and the like) would continue to be well underfunded. Proper company taxes need to be leveraged. Companies do need to pay their fair share. Apple in recent years has only paid the equivalent of 2%-6% tax due to its intricate tax arrangements. In the case where company revenue is so great such that of Apple Inc, 30%-50% is fair. Wozniak is right.

 

[Glideslope]

So how should he earn a living? Work for some other company that does the same tax dodges? Earn a pension invested in companies that do the same tax dodges?

Ah, some anger from that one. Well, at least you've show your true color. Corporate Tax Rates should be no higher than 20%. I'll wager your Anti-Brexit as well.

 

[smacrumon]

Or.... you know, give the "under-funded" military some more money to wage some other wars. Pretty sure the money won't go into actually useful stuff, considering how the U.S. government works.

The US government can be made up of any persons in the US. If the current Democratic and Republican arrangement isn't working (which let's face it, it isn't), vote in new blood, Green party is just one example. Speak out and online, make some noise, make noise about the government spending tax dollars properly and raising company taxes for those companies that can afford it i.e. Apple. Run for office if you feel that's a way of contributing. Get others engaged. The one large problem I think is voting isn't a compulsory requirement for all citizens of the country and it should be. And because it isn't it means people aren't engaged anywhere near enough, so without that nudge to be engaged, it's difficult to change things in the government, in companies and as a country as a whole for the better.

 

[Bigsk8r]

Sorry what exactly is Apple or Google really doing to make the world better?

Yes, the fact that you engage in these discussions without doing any research is sorry. Thank you for saying so.

If you can't see the various initiatives that Apple puts into green projects, recycling, carbon footprint, and human rights, or have gleaned what Google's long term goals are with Google fiber and self driving cars, or have listened to Elon Musk and some of the things he has proposed (a few of which have now happened)...

If you are seeing all this and cannot connect the dots to see how these people and corporations utilizing the larger portion of their earned profit is better for our development and national infrastructure than the government getting 50%, then I can't help you.

 

[Rocketman]

If you see Woz's early interviews he literally wanted to give away his tech to the world. Problem is it takes money to do that and IP to justify it. Steve got that. Steve spread Woz's tech to the world, essentially against his communist will.

When people say Steve is Apple, they are not exaggerating. If not for Steve we would not have access to handheld supercomputers for under $1000 that does everything. Remotely. Amazing.

 

[Renzatic]

Steve spread Woz's tech to the world, essentially against his communist will.

That isn't communism, brah.
[doublepost=1461442844][/doublepost]

If it were ever implemented with reduced government involvement, the test would be interesting. Regulatory agencies are controlled by the executive and employ authority designated to the legislature in the constitution. Change that and we will see, but not one second sooner. Heck, let congress approve with line item veto all (all) regulatory changes.

It's a test that's already been ran. What you're advocating is the US model of economy up until 1929. Like anything, it had it's ups and downs, but was hardly the capitalist paradise some people envision it as being.

Employees need employers. Is that trickle down or not?

And employers need employees. You need to understand that the economy is a circle, not an umbrella.

 

[Bubba Satori]

That isn't communism, brah.
[doublepost=1461442844][/doublepost]

It's a test that's already been ran. What you're advocating is the US model of economy up until 1929. Like anything, it had it's ups and downs, but was hardly the capitalist paradise some people envision it as being.



And employers need employees. You need to understand that the economy is a circle, not an umbrella.

Nice metaphor.