Apple Dodged Paying Billions In Taxes, Subcommittee Says

[kbrickley]

And then you'd be bitching because of the deficits. That wouldn't even bring in enough money to pay half of the defense budget, and wouldn't address the issue of corporations and individuals hiding their money in off shore accounts and refusing to pay.

Most corporations aren't "hiding" these moneys ... they do it legally and openly (if you know where to look) ... people are beating up corporations because they don't follow the "intent" of the law ... the law doesn't work that way

The tax maneuverings they do are legal. Because they are legal they are also ethical, and they are designed to maximize profits for the only group that the corporation is legally mandated to serve (their shareholders)

Don't like the system then Congress should change the laws ... that is after all THEIR job

 

[NLW]

Don't like the system then Congress should change the laws ... that is after all THEIR job

This, sadly, is the answer. Unfortunately, the chance that it will actually happen in an intelligent manner is near zero.

 

[bigdogchris]

Then the companies would just move their "headquarters" out of the country. As an example of this kind of effect, just notice how many ships are registered in Panama.

Well, now we're going to have to have a debate over our tariff system. We need to make it more expensive to build over seas and ship it in than it cost to just build here.

 

[bigddybn]

I get your point. You are missing my point here. (my fault for not explaining well) USA is nearly 17 trillion in debt plus an easy 100 trillion in liabilities. It is time for everyone to pay up on taxes including tax haven losers. If the dollar dies, we are all broke and the business end of a rifle comes out.

These are facts, hate them or embrace reality.

You just completely changed your point but whatever.

This country has a problem all right but it certainly isn't revenue generation. PM me your Obamaphone number and we'll talk.

 

[UrielDagda]

Most corporations aren't "hiding" these moneys ... they do it legally and openly (if you know where to look) ... people are beating up corporations because they don't follow the "intent" of the law ... the law doesn't work that way

The tax maneuverings they do are legal. Because they are legal they are also ethical, and they are designed to maximize profits for the only group that the corporation is legally mandated to serve (their shareholders)

Don't like the system then Congress should change the laws ... that is after all THEIR job

And we've pretty much handed that Congress over to the corporate lobbyists.

Something being legal doesn't mean it's ethical. Corporations already get to write the laws, since when do they get to determine common ethical standards? Are we all going to just bend over and give them that, too? Now with the Citizens United ruling, even our elections are corporate pissing contests to see which side comes out with the most convincing fabrications, all spewed in our face constantly up to a year before the damn election takes place.

With the amount of money corporations use to determine elections and to pay lobbyists to get their crap pushed through Congress, the could have just paid their taxes and SAVED money!

 

[ballistic90]

Most corporations aren't "hiding" these moneys ... they do it legally and openly (if you know where to look) ... people are beating up corporations because they don't follow the "intent" of the law ... the law doesn't work that way

The tax maneuverings they do are legal. Because they are legal they are also ethical, and they are designed to maximize profits for the only group that the corporation is legally mandated to serve (their shareholders)

Don't like the system then Congress should change the laws ... that is after all THEIR job

Legality is not equated to ethics. Don't even pretend for a damn second that it is. And yes, they are in fact "hiding" their money. Just because they got the law changed for it to be "legal" does not make it ethical. If you push congress to add a loophole so corporations can have people murdered that publish papers that they disagree with, does that become "ethical"? No, it doesn't.

Legally, if you are doing a majority of your business in a country, and if your headquarters are also in that same country, you should be taxed like you are in that country. No ifs, ands or buts. If the companies want to leave? Fine! They'll actually pay MORE taxes as they try to import their products into the US than they do while operating entirely within the country with how the tax codes stand right now. Don't think so? Remember that the largest corporations in the US pay no taxes. In fact, they take money from the government. That includes AT&T and Verizon. Also known as companies that do all of their business in the US.

 

[JayteeBates]

Everyone needs to pay something, no one should get a pass. Flat tax works for me. Guy that just paid $10 million on his $100 million income just paid the equivalent of 3,333 people making $30K. I could see some basis doing it gradually for example 5% at $0 income rising evenly to 10% at 30K.

No deductions, no thousands of pages of tax code just a simple income tax.

 

[ballistic90]

Well, now we're going to have to have a debate over our tariff system. We need to make it more expensive to build over seas and ship it in than it cost to just build here.

Blackmark the corporations that abuse the tax system and then try to leave when it gets fixed. Either tax their products and services at a higher rate, or ban them from operating within the country.

At this point, they employ people, but are otherwise a leach on society.

 

[ballistic90]

Everyone needs to pay something, no one should get a pass. Flat tax works for me. Guy that just paid $10 million on his $100 million income just paid the equivalent of 3,333 people making $30K. I could see some basis doing it gradually for example 5% at $0 income rising evenly to 10% at 30K.

No deductions, no thousands of pages of tax code just a simple income tax.

That wouldn't even come close to covering the expenses required. And if you tax the poor for making too little to survive on, then you might as well just hand them welfare money and be done with it.

 

[JayteeBates]

That wouldn't even come close to covering the expenses required. And if you tax the poor for making too little to survive on, then you might as well just hand them welfare money and be done with it.

The 10% was an example, could be higher lower. Everyone has to pay in or they have no interest in the system.

 

[Shalafi]

The true fault lies in our government, which punishes the productive and forcefully confiscates their wealth in order to give to the least productive.

Rand Paul got up there today and apologized to Apple and said the fault lies with the government for making the tax code run tens of thousands of pages that nobody can possibly keep up with it.

I think that as long as loopholes exist, companies can and should exploit them. There is absolutely zero reason to give government any more money than you absolutely have to, it's not productive, and it's an illegal confiscation of wealth.

 

[UrielDagda]

PM me your Obamaphone number and we'll talk.

You mean Reaganphone don't you? The program that provides that particular service was created in the early 1980s by Ronald Reagan. It was expanded to include simple cell phone service in the late 1990s under Bill Clinton. So maybe you could call it a Clintonphone.

 

[Lebowski]

It's not a non-story. What Apple and all the other corporations are doing is horseshit. Just because it's "legal" doesn't make it right.

That said it's up to Congress to close the loopholes and make the tax code simpler. Until they do that well stories like this will keep hitting the headlines.

Why is it horseshit? Apple made the money, why does the government need more of Apples money?
This isn't a new phenomenon. Since the inception of taxes, people have found ways to not pay.

 

[Nobified[H]]

You just completely changed your point but whatever.

This country has a problem all right but it certainly isn't revenue generation. PM me your Obamaphone number and we'll talk.

Gave a PM!

Dude that made my day, got a $250 sewer bill waiting to be paid due to the city busting my vent pipe in my house.

I do not vote Democrats FYI!

 

[UrielDagda]

The true fault lies in our government, which punishes the productive and forcefully confiscates their wealth in order to give to the least productive.

Rand Paul got up there today and apologized to Apple and said the fault lies with the government for making the tax code run tens of thousands of pages that nobody can possibly keep up with it.

I think that as long as loopholes exist, companies can and should exploit them. There is absolutely zero reason to give government any more money than you absolutely have to, it's not productive, and it's an illegal confiscation of wealth.

That's a load of crap. If you use the roads, and all of the services government provides, which without none of our modern culture would have ever even come into existence without, then when you get fabulously wealthy through the use of those services, you have a duty to pay back into that system to keep it running for the next person through.

Corporations make massive use of these systems. Road, rail, air, internet, law enforcement so bandits don't steal everything, to sell their goods and deliver them, all of which wouldn't exist without government-built infrastructure!

To boot the vast majority of corporations don't even pay their employees well.. Employees who are MAKING all the stuff they sell, and doing the selling!

You know who steals from the most productive and gives to the least productive? CEOs and Wall Street. Especially Wall Street. I could take $100 million, and turn it into $1 billion, all while I sit at home on the couch while masturbating all day.. All I'd have to do is pay some accountants to move stocks around. Or, Hell, I could do it myself while masturbating with an iPhone and an app!

Then I could make that money, and complain about having to pay taxes is giving all my "hard earned money" to lazy pricks like those that work 70 hours a week for $8/hr.

 

[UrielDagda]

Rand Paul got up there today and apologized to Apple and said the fault lies with the government for making the tax code run tens of thousands of pages that nobody can possibly keep up with it.

That's also quite rich, since those thousands of pages exist because of corporate lobbyists wanting tons of loopholes in there to exploit... Now they're publicly saying, close the loopholes--- while the lobbyists are saying behind closed doors "no, don't close them, make more for us".

 

[Nobified[H]]

That's a load of crap. If you use the roads, and all of the services government provides, which without none of our modern culture would have ever even come into existence without, then when you get fabulously wealthy through the use of those services, you have a duty to pay back into that system to keep it running for the next person through.

Corporations make massive use of these systems. Road, rail, air, internet, law enforcement so bandits don't steal everything, to sell their goods and deliver them, all of which wouldn't exist without government-built infrastructure!

To boot the vast majority of corporations don't even pay their employees well.. Employees who are MAKING all the stuff they sell, and doing the selling!

You know who steals from the most productive and gives to the least productive? CEOs and Wall Street. Especially Wall Street. I could take $100 million, and turn it into $1 billion, all while I sit at home on the couch while masturbating all day.. All I'd have to do is pay some accountants to move stocks around. Or, Hell, I could do it myself while masturbating with an iPhone and an app!

Then I could make that money, and complain about having to pay taxes is giving all my "hard earned money" to lazy pricks like those that work 70 hours a week for $8/hr.

Not only that, you have to take in consideration of all the new laws on the book written by insurance companies giving birth to Obamacare!

 

[Deleted member 126051]

It's not a non-story. What Apple and all the other corporations are doing is horseshit. Just because it's "legal" doesn't make it right.

That said it's up to Congress to close the loopholes and make the tax code simpler. Until they do that well stories like this will keep hitting the headlines.

Nobody in this country (corporations included) is obligated in any way, shape or form to pay maximum possible taxes on their earnings.

As for "right", if the government was going to hit YOU for several BILLION in taxes, wouldn't you do everything you could to minimize YOUR tax burden?

If not, there's a word for people like you.

Sucker.

 

[bigddybn]

That's a load of crap. If you use the roads, and all of the services government provides, which without none of our modern culture would have ever even come into existence without, then when you get fabulously wealthy through the use of those services, you have a duty to pay back into that system to keep it running for the next person through.

Corporations make massive use of these systems. Road, rail, air, internet, law enforcement so bandits don't steal everything, to sell their goods and deliver them, all of which wouldn't exist without government-built infrastructure!

To boot the vast majority of corporations don't even pay their employees well.. Employees who are MAKING all the stuff they sell, and doing the selling!

You know who steals from the most productive and gives to the least productive? CEOs and Wall Street. Especially Wall Street. I could take $100 million, and turn it into $1 billion, all while I sit at home on the couch while masturbating all day.. All I'd have to do is pay some accountants to move stocks around. Or, Hell, I could do it myself while masturbating with an iPhone and an app!

Then I could make that money, and complain about having to pay taxes is giving all my "hard earned money" to lazy pricks like those that work 70 hours a week for $8/hr.

Amazing. I wonder what all of those people did in the thousands of years before we had the IRS?

I also don't think anyone is making the point that a corporation shouldn't pay taxes. They are simply playing by the rules they are given. If congress doesn't like the game then perhaps they should change the rules?

If that money is so easy to earn then why would people work 70 hours a week for 8 bucks an hour? I assume you've already made your millions?

Please do go on. Don't let simple fact or principle to interfere with your rant.

 

[Shalafi]

No, a flat tax would be better. Then all corporations and citizens can pay the same thing. All, rich, and poor should pay a flat tax, no excuses.

 

[UrielDagda]

Not only that, you have to take in consideration of all the new laws on the book written by insurance companies giving birth to Obamacare!

They were afraid of single payer. That's where they figured the whole 40+ year healthcare reform discussion was going, so they made the deal.

It's a big give for both sides, however, because when it's up and running, the exchanges are going to, essentially, force insurers to compete with each other more like car insurance companies are doing.

As for the structural problems with our health care system otherwise, those are not properly addressed with this bill.

 

[g-money]

Why is it horseshit? Apple made the money, why does the government need more of Apples money?
This isn't a new phenomenon. Since the inception of taxes, people have found ways to not pay.

You're right, this isn't a new phenomenon. The wool has been pulled over our eyes for so long that people don't want to contest it, its complicated to make arguments against the establishment.

The issue with Apple, who we are criticizing because it put themself on show for critique by its newsworthy actions (every other similar corporation is just as worthy of critique) , is that while its tax code adherence is 'legal', it is not necessarily ethical nor appropriate by intent of the tax laws. By intent of the laws, which were not manipulated by Congress and corporate lobbyists specifically to allow this situation and legal/ethical gray-areas, the amount of taxes paid is less than what it should be. Were it not for the manipulated laws and regulations, looking at it externally from a 10,000 foot view, you could easily assume some type of fraud or cheating is going on.

I'm not suggesting that Apple's earnings do not belong to it, nor that it should pay more to the government because the government *needs* it. But it should pay the share of its earnings to the government which the law intends for an established & managed corporation to function in this country. I'll spin your question another way: Apple made the money, why does it need to keep more of the share that it owes to the government?

Again, you *could* replace Apple with any number of large, successful corporations.

 

[dr.kevin]

who gives a shit, as long as they return that money to investors.

 

[MacLeod]

I don't get this either. Nobody is accusing Apple of doing anything illegal. They're just saying they didn't pay "enough". So what if they used all the deductions they could? As long as they took legal one, its nonobody's business. It's Apple's money. Contrary to popular belief, all money isn't the property of government. It's OUR fucking money and I have no problem with any person or company trying to keep as much of it as they can so long as it's thru legal means.

 

[GaryJohnson]

Everyone needs to pay something, no one should get a pass.

It doesn't make sense to me to collect taxes from the bottom 10% to 35% and then turn around and give the money back to them in the form of welfare. It's inefficient - unnecessary overhead.

 

[Spidey329]

10% Flat Income Tax for all; individuals, families, businesses, and corporations that live in the US.

No exemptions, tax credits, or subsidies, therefore no loopholes.

Tax code reduced from 27,000+ pages to one.

Then onto congressional term limits!

At 10%, you're essentially slashing every government program.

 

[mavrocket]

I put $1,000 in a savings account. I make 1% interest. Am I taxed on that 1% now, or when I pull the money out?

No, you were taxed on the $1,000 before you deposited it.

I put $5,000 in a retirement account. I have a kid who requires severe medical treatment. I pull the money back out of the account to pay for it. Do I pay an early-withdrawal tax?

No, because you already paid 10% when you earned the income, therefore the 10% had already been deducted prior to it being placed in the retirement account.

I make $11,343 ($1 under the poverty threshold). That 10% is the difference between eating this month or not. Do I still owe it?

Yes, get rid of the cell phone and XBox Live account to save money. NO EXCEPTIONS.

I own a highly successful business. I pay myself $1/year in salary. I own 51% of the stock in my company, valued at $123 million dollars. Thanks to the hard work and tireless efforts of myself and my company employees, next year, the stock is valued at $234 million dollars. Through financial voodoo, our profit for that year was only $100,000. How much do I owe personally on my taxes, and what does my business owe?

You owe 10% of the earnings from the stock, your business owes 10% of the profit.

I bought 36 gold bars. The price of gold tripled. Do I have to send the IRS a couple of my gold bars?

No, you pay 10% of the added worth of the gold bars. If that means you turn some of them to cash, then that's what it means.

10%, no exceptions.

 

[Shalafi]

At 10%, you're essentially slashing every government program.

Good. If government can't function on a pared down budget, then the problem is government.

They should be held to the same standard as the rest of us. If Apple when it first started spent outside it's means and was unable to pay it's obligations, then Apple wouldn't exist today.

If me or you spend outside our means, we lose our homes. Same standard with businesses, if a business doesn't manage it's money properly, then it goes out of business.

If government can't function on a certain level of taxes it takes, then it shouldn't exist. Taxes are not a rich and poor issue. Rich and poor are labels that the left uses to divide. They want more government, and they are using the force of government to go after Apple for not paying what the government deems it's fair share. Government isn't the reason why Apple made all that money. The genius of Steve Jobs and Wozniak were the reason why Apple is as successful as it is today.

Government didn't have anything to do with it. BTW, the analogy about roads and infrastructure is moot. If those things didn't exist, then private industry would step in and build them because there would be a demand for them.

Apple exists to make a profit. Businesses exist to make a profit. Government exists to take money from everybody and use the money to continue it's agenda of growing ever bigger and bigger. Bigger government doesn't mean better government in any sense of the word.

 

[mavrocket]

At 10%, you're essentially slashing every government program.

Aw shucks...

The IRS could downsize quite a bit, they won't need much of a budget...

 

[TeeJayHoward]

No, you were taxed on the $1,000 before you deposited it.

Awesome. I'm going to put all of my money into savings, since the income on that is untaxed!

No, because you already paid 10% when you earned the income, therefore the 10% had already been deducted prior to it being placed in the retirement account.

Good. That's the way it should be.

Yes, get rid of the cell phone and XBox Live account to save money. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Uhh... People living on $11K/year don't have an xbox or cell phone. At a little over $9,000/year net income, they're looking at surviving off $750/month. Rent, Insurance, Gas, and Food are their priorities. And many will neglect insurance.

You owe 10% of the earnings from the stock, your business owes 10% of the profit.

Wait, so I'm taxed on my stocks if I own the company, but not if I purchase the stocks through my retirement account/savings account/windsor/mutual funds/other investment vehicle?

No, you pay 10% of the added worth of the gold bars. If that means you turn some of them to cash, then that's what it means.

I was taxed on the money when I made it. I probably paid tax when I bought the bars. Now, I'm going to be taxed again, just for owning an item? Do I get a refund if the price of gold falls? What if I buy a $0.25 book at a yard sale that turns out to be a first-edition of something ridiculously expensive, say, a $40,000 book? Do I now have to pay taxes on that, too? Should I have to pay taxes on it every single year? What if I pay the taxes (which are greater than the purchase price of the book) on it, and some other collector's house burns down, making my copy even more valuable. Do I have to pay taxes on it again? How often do I need to pay taxes on something I own?

Flat rate taxes could work. 10% is far too low a number to support our current infrastructure. Some could say it's a good thing. Some would argue it's bad. The end result, however, would not be a one-page tax code. It would still be a book. (Just not a library.)

 

[mavrocket]

It doesn't make sense to me to collect taxes from the bottom 10% to 35% and then turn around and give the money back to them in the form of welfare. It's inefficient - unnecessary overhead.

So that means that since I'm a federal government employee, I shouldn't pay federal income, social security, or medicare taxes?

It's all just being recycled back to me isn't it?

That's a lame excuse for people who don't contribute their "fair share".

 

[mavrocket]

Awesome. I'm going to put all of my money into savings, since the income on that is untaxed!

Good point, pay 10%.

Good. That's the way it should be.

I'm glad we agree on something!

Uhh... People living on $11K/year don't have an xbox or cell phone. At a little over $9,000/year net income, they're looking at surviving off $750/month. Rent, Insurance, Gas, and Food are their priorities. And many will neglect insurance.

Then you don't know the people I do. I could post pages of examples of people making less than that or nothing, who have a smartphone, XBox, TV, etc., but that would make for a very uninteresting read.

Wait, so I'm taxed on my stocks if I own the company, but not if I purchase the stocks through my retirement account/savings account/windsor/mutual funds/other investment vehicle?

Was it earned income? If so, pay 10%

I was taxed on the money when I made it. I probably paid tax when I bought the bars. Now, I'm going to be taxed again, just for owning an item? Do I get a refund if the price of gold falls? What if I buy a $0.25 book at a yard sale that turns out to be a first-edition of something ridiculously expensive, say, a $40,000 book? Do I now have to pay taxes on that, too? Should I have to pay taxes on it every single year? What if I pay the taxes (which are greater than the purchase price of the book) on it, and some other collector's house burns down, making my copy even more valuable. Do I have to pay taxes on it again? How often do I need to pay taxes on something I own?

Was it earned income? Then you pay 10% If you lost money on the gold, then you didn't earn any income. The book is not earned income, it is a book.

Flat rate taxes could work. 10% is far too low a number to support our current infrastructure. Some could say it's a good thing. Some would argue it's bad. The end result, however, would not be a one-page tax code. It would still be a book. (Just not a library.)

If everyone paid 10%, then it wouldn't be far too low for the Federal Government to do it's Constitutionally designated duties.

It may not be able to provide 23 different programs for renewable energy (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/09/wasteful-government-spending/2063511/), or afford to pay $2.7 million towards studies to figure out why lesbians drink more than heterosexual women (http://www.examiner.com/article/des...-spends-2-7-million-on-lesbian-drinking-study), but I think those kinds of things are a bit of a waste, no?

 

[mavrocket]

Good. If government can't function on a pared down budget, then the problem is government.

They should be held to the same standard as the rest of us. If Apple when it first started spent outside it's means and was unable to pay it's obligations, then Apple wouldn't exist today.

If me or you spend outside our means, we lose our homes. Same standard with businesses, if a business doesn't manage it's money properly, then it goes out of business.

If government can't function on a certain level of taxes it takes, then it shouldn't exist. Taxes are not a rich and poor issue. Rich and poor are labels that the left uses to divide. They want more government, and they are using the force of government to go after Apple for not paying what the government deems it's fair share. Government isn't the reason why Apple made all that money. The genius of Steve Jobs and Wozniak were the reason why Apple is as successful as it is today.

Government didn't have anything to do with it. BTW, the analogy about roads and infrastructure is moot. If those things didn't exist, then private industry would step in and build them because there would be a demand for them.

Apple exists to make a profit. Businesses exist to make a profit. Government exists to take money from everybody and use the money to continue it's agenda of growing ever bigger and bigger. Bigger government doesn't mean better government in any sense of the word.

+1... thousand.

 

[Retronym]

i still don't understand we we even have a corporate tax at all.

so pointless.

 

[TeeJayHoward]

Was it earned income? Then you pay 10% If you lost money on the gold, then you didn't earn any income. The book is not earned income, it is a book.

Both are tangible items, not income. Both can be converted into cash. Personally, I prefer the concept of paying taxes when the item is converted to cash. However, if we use that concept, nobody pays taxes on stocks until they cash them out, and then, only on the amount that they cash out. If we go the other way around, and pay taxes yearly on everything we own that's appreciated, nobody would want to own a house. A mix of the two is the best compromise. Where do you draw the line, though?

It may not be able to provide 23 different programs for renewable energy (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/09/wasteful-government-spending/2063511/), or afford to pay $2.7 million towards studies to figure out why lesbians drink more than heterosexual women (http://www.examiner.com/article/des...-spends-2-7-million-on-lesbian-drinking-study), but I think those kinds of things are a bit of a waste, no?

I agree with you. That's the whole bit I posted earlier about people arguing rather it's a good thing or not.

Personally, I'm a fan of the 10% number. I think that a small, efficient government can do their duties with that amount of money, and nothing more. However, we would be looking at severely reducing or even eliminating our standing military. It would be a heck of a decade or two while the world adjusted. Whole economies could be destroyed while we alter our money's value. Plus, I like the phrase I saw on a protest sign once, paraphrased as follows: "God himself only demands 10%. Who is the government to ask for more?"

 

[kbrickley]

i still don't understand we we even have a corporate tax at all.

so pointless.

Agree ... they should have the payroll tax on workers (but keep it reasonable) ... property taxes ... and fees associated with needed services (electricity, sewer, water, waste, etc) ... make sure their employees are taxed (including the executives) and maintain the capital gains taxes so their investors will pay taxes and that should be enough ... if they absolutely must have a corporate tax then set it at the rate of Mauritius or the Caymans

 

[mavrocket]

Both are tangible items, not income. Both can be converted into cash. Personally, I prefer the concept of paying taxes when the item is converted to cash. However, if we use that concept, nobody pays taxes on stocks until they cash them out, and then, only on the amount that they cash out. If we go the other way around, and pay taxes yearly on everything we own that's appreciated, nobody would want to own a house. A mix of the two is the best compromise. Where do you draw the line, though?

That's a good point. I like the idea of taxing it when it's converted to cash, as it keeps it simpler, and the point of the house, I think you should pay the 10% on any income earned from the sale of the house that isn't put toward your next house, similar to what we have now.

Personally, I'm a fan of the 10% number. I think that a small, efficient government can do their duties with that amount of money, and nothing more. However, we would be looking at severely reducing or even eliminating our standing military. It would be a heck of a decade or two while the world adjusted. Whole economies could be destroyed while we alter our money's value. Plus, I like the phrase I saw on a protest sign once, paraphrased as follows: "God himself only demands 10%. Who is the government to ask for more?"

That's assuming that social security, medicare and medicaid, which take up over 60% of the budget, were still 60% of the budget.

Entitlement reform would definitely have to take place, and needs to take place NOW, otherwise were all screwed anyways.

 

[kbrickley]

That's a good point. I like the idea of taxing it when it's converted to cash, as it keeps it simpler, and the point of the house, I think you should pay the 10% on any income earned from the sale of the house that isn't put toward your next house, similar to what we have now.



That's assuming that social security, medicare and medicaid, which take up over 60% of the budget, were still 60% of the budget.

Entitlement reform would definitely have to take place, and needs to take place NOW, otherwise were all screwed anyways.

I am not sure I would fully classify Social Security as an entitlement at this point. Yes, the workers do eventually get more than they paid in but it does take awhile (and many workers die before they ever collect a dime) ... transitioning off of SS is not trivial and it was actually at a surplus for many many years (with the government happily spending that cash)

Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare do need substantial changes though and they are all entitlements.

 

[Lith1um]

Hell, even the last presidential candidate has billions in offshore holdings. I'm sure that members of Congress do.

 

[Lith1um]

Tax, spend, it's all a day at the Indy 500 for our government. It all just flies by at 230mph, like a blur.


Look what they do with the money, take a long look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zt9BZD7mlc