Discussions

33 minutes ago, cbae wrote

Evading taxes causes harm because it creates a greater burden on others.

Agreed... only that's not what is happening here is it? They are being accused of avoidance, not evasion. Sounds like the IRS wants to make sure things are on the up and up.

Besides, Google themselves are the ones who established the bar for doing "no evil"--not Bing web search. If they're going to hold Microsoft to such high standards, they should not be throwing stones from their glass house.

Again... you have not yet established that their act is evil... in fact, the fundamental basis for all of this sounds like it was OKed by the IRS back in '03.

Spare me your producer-wanking rhetoric. "Producers" that try to skate and pay no taxes do a disservice to all the other producers, including me and you, and they have no moral or legal right to benefit from any of the infrastructure that my tax contributions helped pay for.

Aside from the fact that those producers like Google not only provide more economic benefit to the economy (ignoring taxes for the moment) than you or I have or ever will... don't they have a greater claim to said infrastructure that they almost certainly paid orders of magnitude more for than you? Federal income taxes are not the only taxes out there you know.

That you would respect any company that goes to these means to avoid taxes, as if it's a normal part of doing business, shows me what you really think about this concept of being a "producer".

Again... why this double standard? Why should a company seek out to pay every penny of tax they can when few individual tax payers do?

Call me crazy... but I've never heard a single person say "I found the greatest tax guy ever! He made sure I was paying every penny I can, in fact, he found extra ways I increase my tax burden that I never thought of!"

People don't have to deduct their charitable donations, college tuition, student loan interest, mortgage interest, or any one of a thousand other ways that individuals reduce their tax burden.

Why is it so horrible for a company to do the same thing as any individual?

I think your philosophy is an utter crock of sh1t, but I have far more respect for a company that puts more money into its employees to (you know, to actually "produce" something?) and takes a smaller profit than one that hires an army of lawyers to work the tax loopholes.

What all do you think the companies do when they save a few bucks on their taxes? While it is true many are sitting on their cash right now (as many individuals are) given the uncertainty in the economy... more often than not they spend it (doubly so when things are good and there is certainty)... either on R&D, increased wages, expansion, etc.

Wanna encourage them to spend more? Remove some/all of the uncertainty that hinders them.

If you're going to have this grandiose notion about what being a "producer" means, believing that just producing money makes you a producer almost belittles even what that batsh1t crazy Ayn Rand thought.

While I have said nothing of the sort... it is more than clear that is clear you do not understand Ayn Rand very well... allow me to quote from the end of the 'money speech' in Atlas Shrugged (emphasis mine): 

   If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to MAKE money.'  No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor.  Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.  The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

   Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents.  Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-as, I think, he will.

   Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.  Blood, whips and guns—or dollars.  Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out.

Unlike you it seems... I recognize the tremendous economic benefit that companies like Google have created... and not just in terms of direct taxes paid... or the # of employees they have (who are not only paying taxes as well, but also having taxes paid for on their behalf).

More so, there is a dirty little secret which folks on the left tend to forget... or more likley ignore (as vilification of corporations is just so fun & easy)... corporations don't actually pay taxes. Sure... they do fill out forms with the IRS... however they have the ability to simply charge their customers more to make up for the cost.

I must say though, given this rather anti-corporate attitude you have... I think your time would be better spent joining your local contingent of the Parasites on Parade (or if you prefer, the Flea Party) than trying to make your case here... as you don't seem to understand taxes (or the law) all that well.

I can take a standard deduction without taking any kind of action other than marking a box on my 1040.

Then you sir... by your own words... are evil... and might I say a hypocrite as you are doing something yourself (using the system legally) to reduce your tax burdon which you do not think Google should be able to.

But but... you said...

Taking advantage of some foreign income tax loophole requires some kind of external deliberate act: creating a shell company and then moving the money.

And yet... for the most part it is perfectly legal, provided it is done within the letter of the law.

Know what the funny thing about loopholes is? They don't just accidently happen... are tend to be deliberate acts. I said it before and I said it again... if you don't like it, then change the law... otherwise they are acting legally.

8 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

There's a very thin line between the two. Besides what does legality have to do with being evil or not? It's completely legal to swindle 10% of people's income by convincing them that you can show them a way to achieve an afterlife. Is this evil? In my book, it is.

Besides, nothing Microsoft has done that Google claims to be "evil" is illegal either. Microsoft's getting licensing fees from Android OEMs is completely legal, but how does Google feel about that? Would they consider that evil?

Bing tells me that:

Then explain to the class how they reducing the amount of tax they pay through legal means is profoundly immoral or wrong, how their act deliberately causes great harm, pain or upset, or how it is characterized by, bringing, or signifying bad luck.

The money in question... is not yours to be taken from them, you have no moral or legal right to it.

If you feel they should be paying more in taxes, then change the law so as to ensure that, otherwise Gregory v. Helvering gets in your way as it holds:

The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted

Do note... if you take any deductions yourself... write anything off on your taxes... even the standard deduction... contribute to a 401k... or any other act that reduces your taxes in the slightest... you are guilty of the exact same moral crime that you claim Google is... and thus EVIL!

16 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

Hmmm...now that you mention it, if it weren't for governments establishing a framework for paper money to exist, it might finally be that fictional burden to be rich.  You'd have to find some way to store the goods and keep track of the services owed to you. 

You realize that there has been a system for that that goes back a couple thousand years right? it's called the cheque.

Oh my head hurts...

It seems some people here failed basic vocabulary.

Recap:

Tax avoidance: Legally using the tax system to reduce ones taxes by arranging their affairs so as not to incur a tax.

Tax evasion: Illegally using omissions or other fraud to minimize a tax.

The very fact that the word "avoid" keeps being used would seem to indicate the weakness of the IRS case... hell, I'm pretty sure that Google has good enough lawyers who have made sure they've got a good case.

As far as it being evil... I think one Justice Learned Hand in 1947 put it best:

Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.

2 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

I generally don't like to hear answers from people that use their own version of reality, so the answer to the first question is "no". As for the second question, when did you develop such a thin skin? I don't see you running to the defense of ComeOnBeer when he's called a "moron" after one of his classic diatribes.

So you are going to stick to your talking points and name calling? Very well. Thanks for saving me a bit of typing.

No more of a response from me is required when you are going to play such games.

47 seconds ago, cbae wrote

@dahat: Obama rigid? Are you out of your freaking wingnut mind? He's been bending over backward to appease the Party of No. The progressives have been criticizing him for being far too accommodating to a party that would rather see the country go down the sh1tter than for him to get re-elected.

Would you like an answer? Or would you like to continue name-calling? 

29 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

Why are you sorry.  I may not have been clear enough, but that's no reason to get emotional about it.  I'm a big boy, I'm wearing my big-boy britches.

And yet resorting to childish insults to try to make your point. Bravo!

Did you fail to notice that I also included clinton in the list of folks who did this?  Why yes, yes you did.

Did you fail to notice my use of the phrase "Bush didn't start it but he made it worse"? Why yes, yes you did.

Is it legal?  You do understand how the legal system works, right?

As I demonstrate time and time again in a rational and level headed way... yes, I do.

"We aren't going to enforce this law" effects the same result as not passing the law.

Only for the time of that a given administration decides to not enforce the law as written... as seen in this case... they changed their mind.

I think I was pretty clear about why I think it was smart.  He said as much when dealing with DADT.  The goal isn't to kick the can down the road, the goal is to get it into law, then the courts so it can be challenged and fixed if neccessary.

Talk about some doublespeak!

No, if he was smart he would have challenged the law immediately, not allow the creation of a dependency (the users) and aboveground economy (the jobs) through the explicit and intentional enforcement of the law... only to risk all of it after the fact.

He himself has now caused what you are/were afraid a Republican would do. Why not just cut out the middle stuff?

Hell... an even smarter (and more politically savvy) would have been to allow the grey market to grow flourish (and likely become more politically powerful) so that when a future administration tried to re-enforce the laws, there would be an even larger push back against such a move.

You know... what successive administrations have done with regards to illegal immigration?

Perhaps if you'd quit smacking yourself in the face with your palm, you'd give yourself a chance to comprehend stuff.

You'll note my tag line off to the side there... "inanity makes my head hurt". It has nothing to do with *face palms*.

I'm sorry, are you giving me a civics lesson or discussing finance and prioritization.  Either way, thanks, but I've got a pretty decent grasp of both.

Again, your words say otherwise.

Establishing precident in the courts would make for a much clearer answer to the question "can I sell weed in california". So Obama directs the DOJ to go back to enforcing it

#BasicLogicFAIL!

Again... the precident was already there... then he changed it... then he changed it again.

Maybe some campaign bundling could make them safer... or even get them a nice DoE loan. I mean, they are green jobs, aren't they?

(Like he directed them to challenge DADT)

Wait! When exactly did Obama direct the DOJ to challenge DADT (ie in court)? He's ordered them not to defend DOMA... but I can find no information as to the DOJ challenging DADT... hell, I can actually find the opposite.

I would suggest supporting your claim before you dig yourself into any other factual holes.

and lets the courts determine the correct answer.  That way, the next time a dem isn't running the show, the change in how the executive enforces the rules won't cause a shakeup in the industry. 

You mean like the President just did!??!?!

I know you and I don't agree, often, if ever, but try and remember that I"m not a complete f*cking idiot.

Your words sure seem to say otherwise.

I know you want the President to do well. I know you believe in him and want him to succeed in everything he does... and when he doesn't, defend it to your last breath.

The sooner you recognize that he is a horrible project/program manager, the better off you and the rest of us will be.

Like many PMs, he paints a grand and rosy vision of the future... only when defining the intermediate steps to getting there he just can't adequately understand the external dependencies which usually leads to poorly managed expectations along the way as the schedule slips. When things go wrong, he's unable to accept responsibility nor alter his spec when a feature needs to be cut to help get the product out the door. Because of this rigidness he ends up with a poor ability to build a non-obvious network of support or alignment with sympathetic stakeholders.

It is unfortunate that he got promoted too fast from his last job (evangelist). Sure, he might not have grown much more in that old role, but it was a far better fit for his skills than where he is today.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

I'm not really picking on you, you just had the last of a bunch of similar statements on the issue, so don't take this personally.

Then you should address your comments specifically... rather than go through the nonsensical rambling you do. I'm sorry... but what you said above is quite nonsensical.

For the 8 years prior to Obama, Bush simply 'reinterpreted' the various laws passed using signing statements.  This process is legally dubious, and about as cynical as anything I can think of.  Clinton did it before him, but to a much lesser extent.

Blame Bush. Bush is bad. Bush didn't start it but he made it worse. Yada yada.

I enjoy how you leave out the fact that this administration is attempting to do something on such a scale that no previous administration has... use it's regulatory authority (sometimes invented (see health care law wavers)) to enforce policy that was explicitly rejected by the law makers.

I'm not sure who came up with the actual concept, but the end result is that laws are altered by the exectutive (which isn't legal) and the great unwashed masses blame the executive for 'not passing a law'.

1. You could do some reading about the subject.
2. The signing statement doesn't change the law... it changes how it will be enforced... more on that in a minute though.

Obama is actually being quite smart about it.  If he made it seem legal through lack of enforcement, then as soon as a more conservative president comes through, it's back to enforcement again, and a bunch of young businesses go out of business.

*face palm*

How exactly is he being smart about it... when he's not doing what you said he'd be smart to do? Instead he's getting the blame for himself nice and early... in a time when his poll numbers are increasingly looking bleak and he needs more than a little support from every corner.

Perhaps it's time for another uplifting and rhetorical speech as to why this policy reversal is a good thing?

If, instead, he lets congress do their job and make it legal, then it actually has a chance to stand up in court.  Same goes for any other 'law' that civic ignorants seem to think that Obama has complete control of.

*double face palm*

I know you are desperate to try to defend him, lord knows he needs defending... but you aren't doing it very well.

It looks like it's time for a brief civics lesson: The President is head of the Executive Branch which is charged with the enforcing of the law. While the Rule of Law means that there is a consistent law that is applied to all equally... we don't exactly live under a fully applied system as your local cop has the discretion to give you a warning for speeding, rather than issue a ticket, or a prosecutor the ability to offer a plea deal to a lesser crime so as to ensure a conviction.

Similarly, our government (at all levels) has limited resources, so will necessarily prioritize crimes in terms of which they will apply more resources to the investigation and prosecution of (or other times because they think the law is unjust and decide to simply ignore it rather than seek it's repeal).

It's not the previous limited enforcement of the law that has people outraged (something I might add given your statements above would deem as very illegal as it is the equivalent of a signing statement coming from the DoJ)... but the reversal of their original decision.

At the end of the day... signing statements (assuming we ignore the explicitly political ones which tend to boil down to "I disagree with this law, but will enforce it") are little more than directives to the executive branch as to how it will be enforced... also known as an executive order... both of which are trivially changed at any time by a current or future executive.

No... actually... it's exactly the same thing.

It's a group of entitled little whiney children who feel they have been jilted by society and not given their just rewards for simply existing and/or just showing up with their hand out... as a result through a hissy fit by seeking to hijacking the lives & property of other people and seek to change things through some of the least effective means imaginable.

The occupy wall street kids hijack a park and annoy locals with blocked traffic, drum circles and a foul smell of rotting trashing and un-showered hippies... while you hijack thread after thread here, annoy the locals with your incessant whining, ranting, and a foul smell of failure.

Behold, your intellectual and moral sibling... who also made a few bad choices in the world and now blames everybody but themselves for it:

Again... grow up.

1 hour ago, ComeOnBeer wrote

Your leader had a chance to say something to congress, and this is what he said.

 

Today governor Brown signed the 2nd half of the dream act forcing us to pay for the college tuition of immigrants we never met.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/10/09/governor-brown-signs-second-half-california-dream-act/

Bill could have easily made marijuana legalization his issue and not acted to serve his own, personal, super selfish financial interests, but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.........................

What if we enacted a law that made people personally responsible for their ideas and statements before congress. Imagine how many billions we could recoupe on people filing extended unemployment claims and drawing on government services.

What type of responsible person would allow an "infinite amount" of workers into their country no matter how skilled or pay for the education of people who didn't even bother to become citizens or even residents?

Just the word infinite is irresponsible. The reason pot is banned federally is the same reason Bill Gates whined about more cheap labor from the emerging world. It's exploitation.

Wall Street should be occupied. I am only sad that I am no longer a college student to join against the corporate leaders of America like your buddy Bill.

You know you want to say it... "they took ur jerb!"

Grow up beer.