[New York Times] How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes - Page 4

I stand corrected, partially. However I still have yet to see an issue with my proposed 60% figure. The same argument can be applied to both the individual and corporate tax rates, they work essentially the same way on a very basic level.

Not if laws are passed that prevent them from doing so (and enforced.) Even if Apple were to set up shop somewhere else, they'd still have to pay taxes in the countries that they do business in, including the US. They could make X amount of money and pay taxes on it, or they could pull out altogether to avoid taxes but make no money at all in that country. The US with its huge population and customer base (and Apple's birthplace) would be an enormous loss.

Spending isn't in and of itself a problem, borrowing and debt are. Governments have to spend money as a function of their existence. There's a difference between spending and spending money you don't have.
Edited by Malcolm - 4/29/12 at 8:51am

i doubt they would put a law like :
product will be made in america,not assembled but made.and if there is i bet the req is so low just final boxing the stuff in america would cover the requisition lol

Really the biggest issue is the fact that more laws means less freedom. As a soon to be graduate and hopefully, in the near future, owner of my own software business; by creating such laws as what you would purpose would cause more spending by the government. You give them more money they will spend more and more and more money. You give them less money they have to actually spend wisely. It is dealing with not living within your means. In essence when say the government doesn't living within it's means it borrows and keeps borrowing. The issue is when the time comes to pay back the loans taxpayers flip the bill, not the people in government whom make the deal.

Moreover, forcing a company to pay as much if not more taxes for parts of the company in other countries would actually cripple international business because it would just keep them in America, also would give congress and the government yet more power and would be unconstitutional. It would cause huge issues because no company would survive the tax rate and they just would start up in other countries. See the big thing with Apple and other companies is they start up here and then branch out. If say you force them to stay here you would cause them never to start up here at all!

The biggest issue here is yes Apple and other companies are dodging taxes with the loop holes but who isn't and why are they motivated to do it??? It has to do with that 35% tax rate and I am sure if we drop it to 15-20% they would pay it. The worse thing is that even though the bigger companies can dodge it, the small start ups and smaller businesses whom, by the IRS, are identified as a "Corporation" have to pay that huge tax and don't have any loop holes available. Really increasing the tax on business would really squash the "little man" Especially for you that think the middle class will be gone it surely will with an increase tax rate, because most middle class own their own small business or work for one.

**EDIT**
http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/corporate_tax.htm

Edited by adramalech707 - 4/29/12 at 9:49am

Amen.

How do you figure? I'm not calling for "more laws", I'm calling for a rewrite of the tax code.

More economic freedom is not always a good thing. Unless the market is regulated and businesses are held accountable for their actions, they expand, mistreat their employees, squash their competitors, dominate the market and the "free" market ceases to exist. Regulations keep the market free from domination by megacorps.

Do you have some evidence to back up these claims?

Again, citation? A high *top end* corporate tax rate wouldn't affect startups.

Uh, yeah...tax revenue is a source of income that allows governments to repay loans. Ideally most income is internal, and foreign debt is low.

How else are we supposed to pay off $14 trillion? That's not a single person's doing.

You're far too trusting. If it was dropped to 15% they would whine and demand 10%. If it where dropped to 10% they would whine some more and demand 5%. And so on.

The biggest issue here is *not* really the tax rate per se, I suppose, but the fact that it's not enforced and actively collected.

In my previous post I noted the progressive nature of my proposal. Nowhere did I say small businesses should be taxed very high. Taxes should *not* be high for the low end (individuals and small start-ups). That's also why I said the tax code needs to be rewritten. Again, only the largest and wealthiest corporations, such as Apple and the oil companies, should pay 60%.
Edited by Malcolm - 4/29/12 at 10:09am

Makes me want to ask my employer to pay me off the books. I hate having to get $100-200 taken off my paycheck every week for those welfare mofos.

My replies in bold.

Do you by chance attend a public school (or attended in the past) and drive on public roads?

Selfish tax evasion yayyyyy.

If a company's headquarters are based in a taxable state or if they sell their products in any taxed locations, the company should be taxed. End of story.

I hate you having to pay even more income tax on running prisons, not to mention increased policing and hospitalisation costs because of increased blue collar crime because of a lack of a social welfare system, which ironically due to the US's complete illogical lack of universal healthcare, will send more people onto welfare because they couldn't afford the healthcare costs of them being assaulted by a petty criminal.

the monetary costs of supporting a person on welfare is far lower than the costs of the person resorting to more crime to support themselves, not to mention the far lower societal costs.

Brain > Muscles
Edited by chinesekiwi - 4/29/12 at 10:25am