Tim Cook Calls Apple's Tax Avoidance Accusations 'Total Political Crap'

[Dmunjal]

Part of the problem is that the Republicans we have in office now are not real conservatives. It's bad enough that the liberals have ignored laws and have the media in their pocket, but now the Republicans are either scared to be called racist or don't share the old values.

GWB was a huge spender and now Republicans have more seats than since the Civil War! Yet still, the dems are getting everything they want. This is part of the reason Trump is doing so well.

I'm almost at the point where I'd rather see Hillary get in and go far left so that the system crashes on her clock.

Right now it's mostly a mud slinging blame game. That why 75% think we're going in the wrong direction and the same feel the government is corrupt. I don't remember the US being closer to civil war or revolution than now. The scary part is what would be the end result. Would it look anything like the balance of power we used to have or would it be more government control?

I thought the same thing with Obama! What I learned is this broken system can go on a lot longer than I think.

What I'd rather have is a Trump or Sanders to completely kill the corrupt two party establishment and start over. At least we'll be in control instead of a third party like China or the IMF.

 

[1458279]

One of the upsides of Obama's work is that we can see how the policies in the Middle East worked out. It's hard for him to claim victory over there.

Another is the ACA, they've delayed many costs and taxes so right now we don't know the true cost of the system. Many co-ops have failed and a major carrier is looking to leave. The problem is that it didn't do anything to improve the system.

 

[Eraserhead]

It really has nothing to with technology. It is about human nature. If I know my second million will be taxed at 90%, I'll decide to stop working after my first million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law

No matter what the actual tax rate is, the effective tax rate is always between 16-20% of GDP.

It's obvious to me that liberals live in some sort of fantasy land when it comes to economics.

And conservatives live in a fantasyland where tax rates like 90% occur for people coming off welfare.

 

[Eraserhead]

They can't keep cell phones and weapons out of prison and you think 'tech' will solve the problem

Well it's possible to properly value assets as its been done for pension valuations. And you need to make it so accountancy firms and lawyers are held financially liable for their tax avoiding advice. Then you just need to start putting rich people in prison for tax evasion.

No matter what the actual tax rate is, the effective tax rate is always between 16-20% of GDP.

If that's really true then we are ****ed, because there is no way you are going to get government spending anywhere close to that sort of percentage of GDP. Pensions + education + healthcare + infrastructure + defence + policing comes to way more than that.

 

[Dmunjal]

And conservatives live in a fantasyland where tax rates like 90% occur for people coming off welfare.

I'm not a conservative so my economics are based on sound fundamentals, not some sort of misplaced ideology that seems to afflict both sides of the aisle.

 

[Eraserhead]

So someone that's a business analyst can't be a programmer? More of that 'logic'

Well given you're claiming to be the greatest programmer the world has ever seen when its convenient to your position and before you were a business analyst who didn't know what offshoring meant, yes I'm calling ********.

 

[thekev]

If that's really true then we are ****ed, because there is no way you are going to get government spending anywhere close to that sort of percentage of GDP. Pensions + education + healthcare + infrastructure + defence + policing comes to way more than that.

He said about the same thing I was going to mention. I wasn't going to link Hauser's law, but tax revenues haven't really exceeded 20% of estimated gdp much if at all for the past century. This is what the federal government manages to claim in tax revenues, not what is described in terms of marginal rates.

And conservatives live in a fantasyland where tax rates like 90% occur for people coming off welfare.

That's why you shouldn't argue with idealogues. I should probably take my own advice on that.

 

[Dmunjal]

Well it's possible to properly value assets as its been done for pension valuations. And you need to make it so accountancy firms and lawyers are held financially liable for their tax avoiding advice. Then you just need to start putting rich people in prison for tax evasion.



If that's really true then we are ****ed, because there is no way you are going to get government spending anywhere close to that sort of percentage of GDP. Pensions + education + healthcare + infrastructure + defence + policing comes to way more than that.

Exactly! We're screwed.

 

[Eraserhead]

I wasn't going to link Hauser's law, but tax revenues haven't really exceeded 20% of estimated gdp much if at all for the past century. This is what the federal government manages to claim in tax revenues, not what is described in terms of marginal rates.

Our tax take is about ~35% of GDP. I'm sure Sweden's is higher still.

 

[Dmunjal]

Our tax take is about ~35% of GDP. I'm sure Sweden's is higher still.

It is possible to get a higher take. Two things have to happen. A much larger tax on the middle class (think VAT) and much weaker economy.

 

[Eraserhead]

It is possible to get a higher take. Two things have to happen. A much larger tax on the middle class (think VAT) and much weaker economy.

While in Europe GDP is lower generally the people come across as richer and have more fun etc.

 

[thekev]

Our tax take is about ~35% of GDP. I'm sure Sweden's is higher still.

I was looking at the US up to this point. It hasn't collected more than 20%. It is not sound to base budgets on something that deviates greatly from past results.

 

[Dmunjal]

While in Europe GDP is lower generally the people come across as richer and have more fun etc.

That's true. I'm not sure Americans want the European model. Also, where would all the innovation come from? Who would police the world?

 

[Eraserhead]

That's true. I'm not sure Americans want the European model. Also, where would all the innovation come from?

I think America takes more credit than it should for that.

Who would police the world?

If you can't tax at more than 20% of GDP that's going to be on the chopping block regardless.

It's not essential spending.

 

[Dmunjal]

I think America takes more credit than it should for that.

Really? Google, Apple, Cisco, Facebook, Tesla, etc. None of this happens anywhere else in the world. I work in Silicon Valley and meet many bright Europeans who are so happy to escape the oppressive tax regime there. Not just taxes but also the work ethic that it breeds.

And I didn't even mention Hollywood as a cultural innovation engine of the world. You see Star Wars yet??

If you can't tax at more than 20% of GDP that's going to be on the chopping block regardless.

It's not essential spending.

The point is if we don't do it, someone else has to.

 

[Eraserhead]

Really? Google, Apple, Cisco, Facebook, Tesla, etc. None of this happens anywhere else in the world.

Except that all those companies have offices worldwide. And America is bigger than individual European countries. Probably Australia having Atlassian doesn't put them too far behind given their population.

Don't forget there's lots of big it companies in China too.

I work in Silicon Valley and meet many bright Europeans who are so happy to escape the oppressive tax regime there. Not just taxes but also the work ethic that it breeds.

Depends where in Europe. It's not like that here.

And I didn't even mention Hollywood as a cultural innovation engine of the world. You see Star Wars yet??

Ah Hollywood, these days it puts out 1-2 good films a year. Star Wars was good.

The point is if we don't do it, someone else has to.

It's still not essential spending for you.

 

[Dmunjal]

Except that all those companies have offices worldwide. And America is bigger than individual European countries. Probably Australia having Atlassian doesn't put them too far behind given their population.

Don't forget there's lots of big it companies in China too.

All of those companies BEGAN in Silicon Valley and expanded as needed to sell to the world. Offices worldwide is meaningless because they wouldn't exist without the original innovation.

Depends where in Europe. It's not like that here.

My experience is mainly with the French and Spanish. Great universities put out great minds but not as many places to go.

Indians and Chinese also flock to Silicon Valley to become technology entrepreneurs.

Ah Hollywood, these days it puts out 1-2 good films a year. Star Wars was good.

I didn't mention quality. Quantity and influence defines Hollywood. Billions are made there.

It's still not essential spending for you.

Defense is like insurance. It is not essential but required. Let's say it takes 5% of the worldwide budget. Unfortunately, we assume 90% of the total but if we didn't, it would still have to be spent by other countries.

 

[zin]

Exactly. What's interesting about this, if you wanted the GDP to grow, you'd LOWER the tax rates. Yet they don't seem to get that. It's as if they are stupid or they want the system to fail.

Either way, most of us are tired of waiting for the government to get it's act together.

There is no empirical relationship between cutting top tax rates and higher GDP growth. As a matter of fact, there is actually a slight inverse relationship, although not statistically significant. The data also suggests that there is a strong negative relationship between top tax rates and income disparities (inequality goes up as you cut the top tax rates).

So much so that when the CBO published a report on the very subject, senior Republicans pressured the agency to withdraw it from circulation (and they did).

 

[zin]

One of the upsides of Obama's work is that we can see how the policies in the Middle East worked out. It's hard for him to claim victory over there.

Another is the ACA, they've delayed many costs and taxes so right now we don't know the true cost of the system. Many co-ops have failed and a major carrier is looking to leave. The problem is that it didn't do anything to improve the system.

Where are you getting your information? It's just full of talking points that are not true.

The ACA has slowed the rate of increase of healthcare costs. Repealing it would increase budget deficits and cost the Government money. The uninsured rate has fallen at historically dramatic rates. Not only that, but people now cannot be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and lifetime limits are no more.

It's not perfect. Far from it. Single payer would be better. But "it didn't do anything to improve the system"? Of course it has (and is).

 

[Dmunjal]

This is why we need a simple flat tax of 25% with no deductions on every penny above $75K. The very rich pay no tax no matter what the rates are.

For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions http://nyti.ms/1JHdOnL

 

[Snoopy4]

This is why we need a simple flat tax of 25% with no deductions on every penny above $75K. The very rich pay no tax no matter what the rates are.

For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions http://nyti.ms/1JHdOnL

There should be regional adjustments based on cost of living. Someone making six figures in Silicon Valley isn't the same as someone making six figures in Oklahoma City. It's not even close.

 

[samiwas]

Exactly. What's interesting about this, if you wanted the GDP to grow, you'd LOWER the tax rates. Yet they don't seem to get that. It's as if they are stupid or they want the system to fail.

To be fair, Republicans lower the tax rate, stimulate the economy, and then go about destroying it with war boondoggles and corporate giveaways instead of paying down the debt.

Ummm...GDP did pretty darn well under Clinton after he raised taxes a little, and didn't do so hot under Bush after he lowered taxes. Lowering taxes is not some great economic stimulator. In fact, a graph showing tax rates along with a graph showing unemployment doesn't show any real decrease in unemployment after tax cuts. In fact, it sometimes shows an increase in unemployment. I've posted the graph before...will have it find it again.

Really? Google, Apple, Cisco, Facebook, Tesla, etc. None of this happens anywhere else in the world.

I think I need one of those jkcerda staring gifs right now. You don't think innovation happens anywhere in the world but America?

And I didn't even mention Hollywood as a cultural innovation engine of the world. You see Star Wars yet??

You do realize most of Star Wars was filmed in England, right?

This is why we need a simple flat tax of 25% with no deductions on every penny above $75K. The very rich pay no tax no matter what the rates are.

I often disagree with you because i think you're too hardcore business, etc, and harder on the people. But this time, even I might be harder on the people than you. Do you mean that ether would be no tax at all for incomes under $75k, or that it would be different under $75k. Even I, seen as a whackadoodle liberal by a few in this thread, think that we can tax a larger part of the population than that. You'd capture only about 15% of the population your way. Don't get me wrong, I'd be elated at the idea, even though I'd still owe quite a bit. You can still have a progressive tax, but with no deductions. Or just lower your rate, but lower your base number. But, hey, why not start with the 25% over $75k and see what happens?

 

[Dmunjal]

Ummm...GDP did pretty darn well under Clinton after he raised taxes a little, and didn't do so hot under Bush after he lowered taxes. Lowering taxes is not some great economic stimulator. In fact, a graph showing tax rates along with a graph showing unemployment doesn't show any real decrease in unemployment after tax cuts. In fact, it sometimes shows an increase in unemployment. I've posted the graph before...will have it find it again.

Clinton did well for the same reason Bush did for a while. They both had bubbles during their terms which drove up capital gains and income tax revenue. Unfortunately, Bush's (housing) bubble crashed in his 8th year while Clinton's (dotcom) bubble busted in Bush's first year (or what would have been Clinton's 9th year). Clinton really should be blamed for the dotcom bust and then his numbers don't look so good.

I think I need one of those jkcerda staring gifs right now. You don't think innovation happens anywhere in the world but America?

Of course not. But it is disproportionately done in America. And I believe the tax code has something to with it.

You do realize most of Star Wars was filmed in England, right?

And much of the software by Silicon Valley companies is done in India. IPhones are built in China. The point is that the innovation, the investment, the risk happened in the US. Star Wars was financed by Lucas and now Disney with American creativity.

I often disagree with you because i think you're too hardcore business, etc, and harder on the people. But this time, even I might be harder on the people than you. Do you mean that ether would be no tax at all for incomes under $75k, or that it would be different under $75k. Even I, seen as a whackadoodle liberal by a few in this thread, think that we can tax a larger part of the population than that. You'd capture only about 15% of the population your way. Don't get me wrong, I'd be elated at the idea, even though I'd still owe quite a bit. You can still have a progressive tax, but with no deductions. Or just lower your rate, but lower your base number. But, hey, why not start with the 25% over $75k and see what happens?

I don't what the magic number is. But I know there's enough money in personal and corporate income if it was taxed correctly. A 25% personal income tax on income and capital gains along with a 25% corporate tax with NO deductions would probably allow a zero income tax for workers below $50-75K.

 

[1458279]

Well it's possible to properly value assets as its been done for pension valuations. And you need to make it so accountancy firms and lawyers are held financially liable for their tax avoiding advice. Then you just need to start putting rich people in prison for tax evasion.



If that's really true then we are ****ed, because there is no way you are going to get government spending anywhere close to that sort of percentage of GDP. Pensions + education + healthcare + infrastructure + defence + policing comes to way more than that.

"held financially liable for their tax avoiding advice." Using your same 'logic' I could be held liable for my jail avoiding advice. My jail avoiding advice is: Don't break the law.

Is it somehow illegal to 'avoid jail'. Are all the people not in jail guilty of 'avoiding jail' ?

Are all the stupid people guilty of 'avoiding smart' ?

At some point you might be able to open your mind and realize they are NOT breaking the law. They are following the law.

As for the % of GDP, it is true, look it up. This is why debt matters because it makes it harder to grow the GDP.

This is a demand-feeds-demand model. Like the freeway system, the more people that get on the freeway, the slower it goes and that's when you have gridlock. When you need 100,000 cars on a freeway that can only handle 50,000 you have a problem that gets worse.

It's like Chinese finger cuffs, the harder you pull, the tighter they grip. The answer is to go the other way. Some will die before they understand this.

 

[jaymzuk]

'We pay every tax dollar we owe'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35197547