Apple's Tax Hypocrisy

[Taldren]

We also had the biggest recessions in the last 20-30 years thanks to those 2 FYI. Their economic policies produced booms that all busted leaving the rich richer and the poor poorer and on top of that left us with massive regulatory capture.]

You really have a perverted view of history. The booms and busts were result of government intervention in the market. The lovely bust we are in now are directly linked to the Clinton administrations interference in to housing market by placing pressure and incentives on the banks to make high-risk loans that up until the interference that would have never made. It had nothing to do with the tax rate. In fact, if Bush/Reagan didn't increase government revenue by cutting the tax rate when they did the busts would have been many times worse.

No. Even econ 101 no longer takes the Laffer Curve seriously. Hell I think even Laffer walked back most of this thoughts on it and now considers it a "pedagogical tool" at best. FYI as near as anyone can tell this is what the "real" (its open to serious academic debate still) Laffer Curve looks like and not the idiotic inverted U you see elsewhere

I never referenced the simpletons laffer curve you are referring too ... and honestly it doesn't matter. Universally ... if you lower taxes and your government revenue increases as a result then you are to the right of maximized government revenue. Both Bush and Reagan have proven this to be the case. My question is why you want to reduce government revenue by increasing tax rates? Removing legal exceptions is doing just that ... I won't be bogged down in your nonsense word games.


As for your graph ... I really wish you would stay in context ... I don't care what the reported tax rates were in the past ... NO ONE PAID THEM DUE TO LOOPHOLES.

The only way we are going to get rid of loopholes and remove the IRS threat from everyday citizens is to go to a flat tax.

 

[maverikv]

Tax avoidance and mitigation is as american as apple pie. There is a massive history and tradition in this country to find and use any legal mechanism to avoid paying taxes and minimize your tax liabilities. It isn't wrong nor immoral. The idea that you think it is, is what is wrong.

I dare you to make less sense

 

[Methadras]

Please don't state things like this as fact. It is disingenuous.

When/if our schools were highly ranked other countries were not really up to par. Now, our kids are in school less time than countries where kids perform better academically. Additionally, the US is ranked 25th in public funding for early learning as a percentage of GDP which is probably correlated to how much less time they spend in schools.

We had an advantage because kids weren't learning at all before, now we have lost that advantage because other countries' kids are learning more than ours.

"leftist indoctrination" lol

Also Marxism is a theoretical sociological framework which was used to view the present and future of the time. His predictions did not really come true. And the ham-fisted approach to making them or those of his contemporaries come true didn't work out very well, now did it? Its evolution is really only still alive in small patches in higher academia. Marxism is not taught in North American schools, clearly its history was not taught either if you went through the American school system. Also "Soft Marxism" is not a real thing. You made it up to rant about some perceived enemy you have.

It's nice that you think these things. It's really to bad you done' really have a cogent grasp on the issue at all. Soft marxism as I described it as a less rigorous form of the ideology that Marx described in his manifesto Das Kapital. When you are done reading it and actually understand something, get back to me. Then I can lead you tot he burgeoning philosophies that sprang up from that ideology that exist today. Otherwise, your attempt at intellectual dissemination isn't really going all that well here.

Oh, by the way, I really don't have any 'enemies' as you put it. I simply have formed an opinion based on my travels to different countries and how they've applied these political philosophies over time. They aren't very good and their economics prove that. kthxwhatever.

 

[Methadras]

I dare you to make less sense

It made perfect sense. It's not my problem that your mental blocks keep you from understanding the simple concept that tax avoidance and mitigation is a traditional american activity. Could I have distilled this any less for you or were you looking for a more nuanced and bloviated response?

 

[InternationalHat]

Yes, that is where we were shown the laffer curve to begin with ... back before the dept of education dumbed down the curriculum so people could be hoodwinked into believing they are actually smart.

Laffer curve is estimated to be between 70-80% marginal tax rate... we're nowhere near that in any country. Why was it brought up?

Also it's kind of a silly joke:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/laughing-at-the-laffer-curve.html

It's not really a curve, it probably wobbles all over, and it doesn't really say much. It is a weird idea and it should be dropped from most curricula. It is reductionism. It dumbs down a complex idea to a simple estimation that is prone to error which is why it was blatantly wrong for so long and frequently used to justify cuts.

 

[Retronym]

I dare you to make less sense

taxation is not theft.

 

[maverikv]

It made perfect sense. It's not my problem that your mental blocks keep you from understanding the simple concept that tax avoidance and mitigation is a traditional american activity. Could I have distilled this any less for you or were you looking for a more nuanced and bloviated response?

Slavery is a traditional American activity too. What does that have to do with whether it is wrong or not? There's a line somewhere between tax mitigation/reduction and avoidance/dodging and I think setting up shell corporations and bouncing money between Ireland, Holland and the Cayman Islands qualifies as the latter.

 

[maverikv]

taxation is not theft.

a-hyuck

 

[Taldren]

Progressive taxation isn't stealing. Its economic common sense since the rich benefit heavily from the infrastructure, laws, and labor of the country and will otherwise rapidly increase their wealth leaving only a few very powerful monied interests that can use their power to have undue influence on the country.

Right, because the towns around those same rich/businesses aren't benefiting at all from their presence. I have been to towns that only exist because of what a rich person has done ... not the government through taxation.

Progressive tax is made up by someone that doesn't know how %'s work. Saying that 15% of 100 Million and 15% of 50 Thousand is unfair because the rich pay the same rate is grounds for a Darwin award.

You don't know what you're talking about. The rich still take home FAR more cash even after taxes in a progressive taxation system than your average worker. They're still rich, just not FU/Rockerfeller/Bill Gates level of rich.

Your being thickheaded. You want to take money from so-called "Rich" person A so that "Rich" politician B can do whatever they want with it. You are basically saying that you don't trust person A to spend their own money so you will give it to politician B to spend for them and you TRUST them to spend it better than person A would? Lunacy. Pure and simple lunacy.

 

[maverikv]

Right, because the towns around those same rich/businesses aren't benefiting at all from their presence. I have been to towns that only exist because of what a rich person has done ... not the government through taxation.

Progressive tax is made up by someone that doesn't know how %'s work. Saying that 15% of 100 Million and 15% of 50 Thousand is unfair because the rich pay the same rate is grounds for a Darwin award.

Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand marginal propensity to consume.

 

[Methadras]

Slavery is a traditional American activity too. What does that have to do with whether it is wrong or not? There's a line somewhere between tax mitigation/reduction and avoidance/dodging and I think setting up shell corporations and bouncing money between Ireland, Holland and the Cayman Islands qualifies as the latter.

Slavery as the ownership of another human being is not morally equivalent to tax avoidance and tax mitigation. Try again. Setting up any shell corp. to shuffle money around isn't A) the government business when it's your money and B) only their business with respect to how much any corporation pays in taxes after they are filed. What Apple and many other corporations have done is not illegal, nor wrong. You wishing or thinking it was still doesn't make it true. if you choose to cling to this idea and beat it to the ground, then there is no point in furthering this dialogue.

 

[Taldren]

Laffer curve is estimated to be between 70-80% marginal tax rate... we're nowhere near that in any country. Why was it brought up?

Also it's kind of a silly joke:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/laughing-at-the-laffer-curve.html

It's not really a curve, it probably wobbles all over, and it doesn't really say much. It is a weird idea and it should be dropped from most curricula. It is reductionism. It dumbs down a complex idea to a simple estimation that is prone to error which is why it was blatantly wrong for so long and frequently used to justify cuts.

Ok, let me put this at the department of education level:

It's cold outside. Ronald turns dial left and it gets warmer. George turns the dial left and it gets warmer still. If you want to increase the temperature what do you do:
A. Turn it Right.
B. Turn it Left.
C. Leave it alone.
D. Go outside.
E. Crawl your 26 year old, no job having butt out of the basement and ask your mom.

 

[maverikv]

Slavery as the ownership of another human being is not morally equivalent to tax avoidance and tax mitigation. Try again. Setting up any shell corp. to shuffle money around isn't A) the government business when it's your money and B) only their business with respect to how much any corporation pays in taxes after they are filed. What Apple and many other corporations have done is not illegal, nor wrong. You wishing or thinking it was still doesn't make it true. if you choose to cling to this idea and beat it to the ground, then there is no point in furthering this dialogue.

Its the government's business if they put a stop to it. Right now it may be legal. Doesn't make it right. You are arguing that because it is legal it is morally justified. Therefore I use the analogy of slavery. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

 

[maverikv]

Ok, let me put this at the department of education level:

It's cold outside. Ronald turns dial left and it gets warmer. George turns the dial left and it gets warmer still. If you want to increase the temperature what do you do:
A. Turn it Right.
B. Turn it Left.
C. Leave it alone.
D. Go outside.
E. Crawl your 26 year old, no job having butt out of the basement and ask your mom.

Are you trying to get help planning your day?

 

[Taldren]

Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand marginal propensity to consume.

Oh look another Keynesian. Maybe if they were correct even once throughout history I would actually respect their opinion.

Maybe read some Hayek and Bastiat and we will talk.

 

[Taldren]

Its the government's business if they put a stop to it.

Again, you are showing your ignorance. The people formed the States, the States formed the Federal Government. The States tell the government what to do after the people tell the states what to do. Unfortunately you have been educated by government run schools to think that the government is some sort over overlord entity that allows the states to do things and that the states allow the people to do things.

Again, more Bastiat and Hayek and less Marx and Keynes.

 

[Retronym]

I actually had one tell me there was no historical evidence of their failure once.

 

[InternationalHat]

Ok, let me put this at the department of education level:

It's cold outside. Ronald turns dial left and it gets warmer. George turns the dial left and it gets warmer still. If you want to increase the temperature what do you do:
A. Turn it Right.
B. Turn it Left.
C. Leave it alone.
D. Go outside.
E. Crawl your 26 year old, no job having butt out of the basement and ask your mom.

The economy does not immediately react to changes like this. The Reagan Tax Cuts did not bring in more revenue. Debunked by Thoma and Delong. You have to compare business cycle peaks, real GDP, etc. They Reagan cuts hurt revenue in the long and short term.

Also, I like how you resort to indirect ad-hominem. I am none of those things - unemployed, living with parents, nor am I 26 or younger.

 

[Taldren]

The economy does not immediately react to changes like this. The Reagan Tax Cuts did not bring in more revenue. Debunked by Thoma and Delong. You have to compare business cycle peaks, real GDP, etc. They Reagan cuts hurt revenue in the long and short term.

Also, I like how you resort to indirect ad-hominem. I am none of those things - unemployed, living with parents, nor am I 26 or younger.

And Daniel J. Mitchell proved that it did. In fact, most of the gain from the Reagan tax rate reduction came in during the Clinton era which was attributed to him wrongfully. The Bush reduction reaction occurred far faster and hit in his second term just in time for the Clinton admins housing bubble to burst.

That statement wasn't directed at you ... but is now so common place that I wouldn't be surprised to find it on a DOE suggested exam somewhere.

 

[maverikv]

Oh look another Keynesian. Maybe if they were correct even once throughout history I would actually respect their opinion.

Maybe read some Hayek and Bastiat and we will talk.

I lol'd. Keynesian/Neo Keynsian theory explains a lot of economic history. of course, it is ostensibly just a model, so if we don't implement the policies that's not Keynes's fault. I guess you don't count the great depression as part of history?

You think you can just come in here and name drop a couple of dead economists that neo-cons happen to like and its your trump card?

Let me ask you something. Do you think I never had to read Hayek or Bastiat?

 

[InternationalHat]

Oh look another Keynesian. Maybe if they were correct even once throughout history I would actually respect their opinion.

Maybe read some Hayek and Bastiat and we will talk.

Why would you read anything that old and take it as gospel as if nothing has happened since? There have been plenty of economic developments since then.

Even just in the past 2 years there have been major developments in diverse macroeconomic areas influenced by anyone from Hayek to Irving Fisher and Hyman Minsky.

No one was just like "Oh wait, stop everything this guy got it all right" because that's completely false and is probably why people like Peter Schiff are wrong 99% of the time.

 

[InternationalHat]

And Daniel J. Mitchell proved that it did. In fact, most of the gain from the Reagan tax rate reduction came in during the Clinton era which was attributed to him wrongfully. The Bush reduction reaction occurred far faster and hit in his second term just in time for the Clinton admins housing bubble to burst.

That statement wasn't directed at you ... but is now so common place that I wouldn't be surprised to find it on a DOE suggested exam somewhere.

Daniel J Mitchell is funded by the Cato institute. Sources funded by far right or left think tanks are unacceptable. So no heritage foundation either...

 

[maverikv]

Why would you read anything that old and take it as gospel as if nothing has happened since? There have been plenty of economic developments since then.

Even just in the past 2 years there have been major developments in diverse macroeconomic areas influenced by anyone from Hayek to Irving Fisher and Hyman Minsky.

No one was just like "Oh wait, stop everything this guy got it all right" because that's completely false and is probably why people like Peter Schiff are wrong 99% of the time.

People with simplistic economic understanding take simplistic view of economic theory. He assumes because I talk about a concept like MPC that I am a dyed in the wool Keynesian, and all of the classes I took at business school were about Keynes and how I love him so huggy muggy much. That's not how it works.

 

[Methadras]

Its the government's business if they put a stop to it. Right now it may be legal. Doesn't make it right. You are arguing that because it is legal it is morally justified. Therefore I use the analogy of slavery. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

I should feel bad because you've made bad arguments to prop up your bad beliefs? Using slavery as a justifier for immoral and evil behavior as a function of trying to highlight tax avoidance and tax mitigation as an immoral and evil behavior is not only functionally illogical, it's downright wrong.

It's legal, it's used. Whether you think it wrong or evil is irrelevant and to use this as an excuse to bludgeon companies and guilt them into 'paying their fair share' is really the immoral behavior here. You and people like you cry over things they've never had. You use the politics of envy to promote wrong headed thinking. You covet other peoples money to justify that your ideas are right and should be paid by them while people like you stand on the sidelines encouraging that wholesale theft of hard earned capital and labor should be redirected at your behest. That is what is evil and wrong thinking and yet you have the temerity to claim that I should feel bad about it? Get real and grow up.

 

[maverikv]

I should feel bad because you've made bad arguments to prop up your bad beliefs? Using slavery as a justifier for immoral and evil behavior as a function of trying to highlight tax avoidance and tax mitigation as an immoral and evil behavior is not only functionally illogical, it's downright wrong.

It's legal, it's used. Whether you think it wrong or evil is irrelevant and to use this as an excuse to bludgeon companies and guilt them into 'paying their fair share' is really the immoral behavior here. You and people like you cry over things they've never had. You use the politics of envy to promote wrong headed thinking. You covet other peoples money to justify that your ideas are right and should be paid by them while people like you stand on the sidelines encouraging that wholesale theft of hard earned capital and labor should be redirected at your behest. That is what is evil and wrong thinking and yet you have the temerity to claim that I should feel bad about it? Get real and grow up.

Whether I think it is wrong or evil is irrelevant? Then what the hell are we talking about? Isn't that the discussion here?

At the end of the day its about whether or not they can do it, because if they don't other companies will. To me its slimy. That is my opinion. its legal and its slimy and its wrong. The fact that you are both morally bankrupt and economically illiterate doesn't mean I don't have a point to make. But by all means, keep embarassing yourself.

 

[Methadras]

Whether I think it is wrong or evil is irrelevant? Then what the hell are we talking about? Isn't that the discussion here?

At the end of the day its about whether or not they can do it, because if they don't other companies will. To me its slimy. That is my opinion. its legal and its slimy and its wrong. The fact that you are both morally bankrupt and economically illiterate doesn't mean I don't have a point to make. But by all means, keep embarassing yourself.

Right, so now you attack me again, this time, as being morally bankrupt and economically illiterate because I don't now believe in your wishful thinking fairy tale of how you believe that this type of taxation avoidance is wrong only highlights the embarrassment that has been your responses. You know neither my moral character, nor my levels of literacy on economics. None. You don't like taxation laws for corporations. That's fine, but do not attribute moralisms to what levels of taxation should be applied to anyone or any company because once you do that, then any justification can be made on how to tax and how much to tax and how to enforce said taxation. I'd tell you to grow up again, but that level of redundancy isn't in my nature and you clearly are incapable of it. I hope your foolish ideas never pass muster and are laughed at ad nauseum wherever you try to promote them.

 

[maverikv]

Right, so now you attack me again, this time, as being morally bankrupt and economically illiterate because I don't now believe in your wishful thinking fairy tale of how you believe that this type of taxation avoidance is wrong only highlights the embarrassment that has been your responses. You know neither my moral character, nor my levels of literacy on economics. None. You don't like taxation laws for corporations. That's fine, but do not attribute moralisms to what levels of taxation should be applied to anyone or any company because once you do that, then any justification can be made on how to tax and how much to tax and how to enforce said taxation. I'd tell you to grow up again, but that level of redundancy isn't in my nature and you clearly are incapable of it. I hope your foolish ideas never pass muster and are laughed at ad nauseum wherever you try to promote them.

Individuals and corporations receive benefit and protection from the government. I believe they have a moral obligation to contribute to perpetuity of availability of those benefits and protection. Therefore, I believe tax dodges like this are immoral. Morality is relative, so its laughable that you are telling me I wrong for calling them immoral.

And I can tell your levels of literacy on economics by reading your posts. Trust me, you are embarassing yourself.

 

[InternationalHat]

I guess as far as Apple... There is a shortage of skilled engineering labor. Part of that is because companies don't typically train employees in the same way they did years ago. They expect people to hit the ground running.

What we're talking about is this by the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

I'm not sure about the morality of this, but I think the amount of power in the hands of modern multinational corporations dwarfs that of chartered exploration companies... something that should be concerning to all. They're brutal and economic coercion can be more effective than violent coercion in a lot of cases. There's also a lot less accountability with a multinational than an entirely domestic business.

 

[Saabjock]

People are still buying Apple's $500 I-phones and $600+ I-pads, so the disgust apparently hasn't hit home yet.
.

 

[XamediX]

After reading all these new posts, I don't know what to believe now....

It's all so conflicting! I will ask this question though. How many of you think the government as it is now, handles/manages the money it receives correctly? If no, why the hell would you care if less goes to them?

 

[Taldren]

Daniel J Mitchell is funded by the Cato institute. Sources funded by far right or left think tanks are unacceptable. So no heritage foundation either...

Wait ... you bring up Mark Thoma and Brad DeLong who have ties to George Soros and you want to disqualify Mitchell because of the Cato institute? We don't need to go any further, your bias is showing. Maybe you should go work for the IRS ... you would fit right in.

 

[Taldren]

Why would you read anything that old and take it as gospel as if nothing has happened since? There have been plenty of economic developments since then.

Even just in the past 2 years there have been major developments in diverse macroeconomic areas influenced by anyone from Hayek to Irving Fisher and Hyman Minsky.

No one was just like "Oh wait, stop everything this guy got it all right" because that's completely false and is probably why people like Peter Schiff are wrong 99% of the time.

I forgot, anything old is worthless ... just like the Constitution ... I forgot.

Peter Schiff predicted the housing crash years before it happened ... almost to the day it would occur. Ron Paul did too ... and they used Hayek's models to do it. So don't give me this bullcrap ... The Keynesian economic model is fundamentally flawed and incompatible with mankind. Just like Socialism ... it is a Utopian idea that fails in the real world.

 

[maverikv]

I forgot, anything old is worthless ... just like the Constitution ... I forgot.

Peter Schiff predicted the housing crash years before it happened ... almost to the day it would occur. Ron Paul did too ... and they used Hayek's models to do it. So don't give me this bullcrap ... The Keynesian economic model is fundamentally flawed and incompatible with mankind. Just like Socialism ... it is a Utopian idea that fails in the real world.

What a bunch of gibberish. The keynesian economic model is incompatible with mankind? Do you even know what keynesians believe?

Hint: look at what's happening in Europe right now. Look at the new deal. Keynesian economics is right.

And schiff didn't predict squat. He was predicting a bear market and identifying what he believed was an existing equity bubble, not housing. Ron Paul predicted a crash but he had the wrong reason so I don't see how he can get credit for it. He said it would be the result of a weak dollar causing people to dump MBS over treasuries which is NOT what caused the crash. Paul cries wolf about everything collapsing anyway. You can't give him credit when something eventually does, especially if he was wrong about why.

 

[deadrody]

This is the only salient point that matters. Take the figure thrown out by Jon Stewart in his Apple Taxmen segment - $44 billion over 4 years. Assume they pay the FULL 35% corporate income tax rate on all that.

That would be $3.85 Billion per year. As part of a nearly $4,000 Billion federal budget. Or about 0.1% of the federal budget. Effectively non-existent. Even just considering the education system. That works out to roughly $200,000 per day per STATE. In just salaries, that's maybe 1000 teachers. 20 per state. You really think that amount does ANYTHING ?

Please. Make all the arguments you want for or against our complicated tax code, for or against the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. But please stop pretending that throwing MORE money at a problem where we spend more per student than any other country in the world already, is going to have any effect at all.

I agree we need to fix the education system in the US. Maybe then people wouldn't make idiotic arguments like this.

 

[deadrody]

Look at the new deal. Keynesian economics is right.
.

I assume you are speaking relative to how the Keynesian New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression for a decade ?

 

[maverikv]

I assume you are speaking relative to how the Keynesian New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression for a decade ?

Uh, no cuz that would be false. Nice try though. Right wing talking points and Cato institute BS don't overwrite actual data

 

[potency]

This is the only salient point that matters. Take the figure thrown out by Jon Stewart in his Apple Taxmen segment - $44 billion over 4 years. Assume they pay the FULL 35% corporate income tax rate on all that.

That would be $3.85 Billion per year. As part of a nearly $4,000 Billion federal budget. Or about 0.1% of the federal budget. Effectively non-existent.

You're so smart that I bet you already knew that this isn't just about Apple, i.e. they aren't the only ones doing this. If the gov't succeeds in squeezing some money out of them, they'll move on to the next corporation or possibly legislation. With Jobs gone, Apple is likely viewed as low hanging fruit. (drums)

 

[fdiaz78]

Uh, no cuz that would be false. Nice try though. Right wing talking points and Cato institute BS don't overwrite actual data

Cite a source please. Less insults.

 

[fdiaz78]

What a bunch of gibberish. The keynesian economic model is incompatible with mankind? Do you even know what keynesians believe?

Hint: look at what's happening in Europe right now. Look at the new deal. Keynesian economics is right.

And schiff didn't predict squat. He was predicting a bear market and identifying what he believed was an existing equity bubble, not housing. Ron Paul predicted a crash but he had the wrong reason so I don't see how he can get credit for it. He said it would be the result of a weak dollar causing people to dump MBS over treasuries which is NOT what caused the crash. Paul cries wolf about everything collapsing anyway. You can't give him credit when something eventually does, especially if he was wrong about why.

Schiff was wrong on his timing but s crash is coming. You can't spend this much and get away scott free. The price is bankruptcy and/or inflation but since government is lies about inflation you won't see it until its too late.

 

[maverikv]

Cite a source please. Less insults.

Cite a source for the fact that the new deal pulled us out of the depression? Are you hopped up on goof balls?

The "study" that blames the new deal for extending the depression counted all the wpa employees as unemployed. Which is retarded. Full pants on head.