Discussions

8 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Your complaining about the lower 50% of wage earners not paying any income tax is like a billionaire complaining that dahat doesn't have to pay for a hangar to maintain a fleet of business jets. Paying income taxes is a problem of having earned income, and that should be a problem that corporations have to deal with just like I do, as somebody who doesn't happened to be in the bottom 50%.

First, re-read what I said... I specifically referred to "a conservative talking head on TV"... if you'd like to have a conversation about the fact that a head of a household of 4 making minimum wage has more disposable income than if they made $60k a year... or the fact that a single mom is better off earning $29k a year than if she were to earn $69k... I'd welcome it... as I do agree with the President and Vice President (in a couple limited ways)... such as the fact that everyone should have skin in the game... though I do not think dependency is skin... in this case though, I was pointing out the duplicity of meanings that people like to hide behind and calling for clarity.

27 minutes ago, davewill wrote

*snip*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

Unfortunately it isn't very defensible.

It's one option, and has long needed a stronger navy for sure. Though there are a number of micronations... and a number of ways to make your own.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

When the argument is weak, the weak get pedantic. 

He knows damn well that the discussion is about income tax, but he's backed himself into a tea party shaped corner so....

Ahh liberal double-think.

When a conservative talking head on TV points out that in the US, ~50% of the population doesn't pay any taxes, they are attacked by liberals who point out that while they don't pay any income taxes... they still pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (either directly or indirectly), fuel taxes, cigarette taxes, etc... and yet here when liberals are up in arms about big evil corporations don't pay 'any taxes'... the even meaner conservative is attacked for pointing out the anger is over specifically income taxes... and that still a huge amount of taxes are still being paid in many jurisdictions... just not as much as the liberals would like.

Which is it? Does the term 'no taxes' only refer to 'income' taxes... or 'all' or 'any' taxes'?

I'm sorry for liking specificity and taking things seriously... anytime you care to start it would be a welcome change.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Purposeful misunderstanding...charming.  Nobody would every confuse your motives with altruism.  It would require some semblance of a soul.

Starting off with personal attacks and ignoring what was said above... thanks for coming out of the box admitting that you are incapable of having this discussion like an adult. I don't know why I ever think you capable of anything else.

Actually, he stated his opinion.

Actually, he stated his opinion as fact.. while accusing many of crimes as well. Big difference.

You just took it as a challenge to the warped ideologies you internalized after reading vast amounts of randian fiction

So Marx is real... but Hayek, de Tocqueville, Locke, Montesquieu, Friedman and others... all fiction.

I'm sorry that anything above "Dr. Seuss's ABC: An Amazing Alphabet Book!" is beyond your reading or comprehension ability.

And this is why history repeats itself.

So people spending their own money... caused the collapse? Amazing how this country never collapsed until the passage of the 16th Amendment.

Yes.  Why should the investment in infrastructure and society that fostered the growth of these companies ever benefit from their success.  If they want money, they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps like Apple did.

Aka "You didn't build that, someone else made that happen"... the pronouncement of a lessor upon their betters... claiming an unbreakable right to keeptheir betters in a state of permanent bondage. No work, no level of taxes paid, no deed can ever repay the debt that is owed... as for every bit it is paid... the claimed need for even more money manifests.

Am I sayin' it right?

Just go back to singing "The wheels on the bus go round and round" as again, this is an adult conversation and you clearly have no ability to participate.

1 hour ago, bizbazboo wrote

What is it with Microsoft employees pretending they're autistic out of sheer boredom?

I know many that are genuinely giving... and clearly the Giving Campaign which has raised over 1 billion dollars from employees is just a farce.

Speaking personally... Where have I shown any semblance of altruism here? In fact I'm offended by the implication. Altruism is not a trait I exhibit and that is by design. Where one sees it, it is generally a sign of mutual self-interest.

This isn't a game of chess, it's somebody who posted their opinion on the internet.

Actually he stated his opinion as fact... and failed to support it.

One could make a fortune opening a rave/party bar in Redmond across the street I think.

Come on out... though the real estate in Redmond near campus I suspect would be rather expensive... hence why I live on the other side of a lake from campus.

34 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Rand Paul and his Paw are batsh1t crazy. They think getting rid of the IRS is the solution for everything. The thing about the tax code is that it wasn't always so complex. It's the nutters that want to do away with the tax code altogether but can't that fostered loophole upon loophole to get their cronies in big business tax breaks for the most ridiculous crap. That's the reason why we have a 70,000+ page tax code today. In 1913, it was 400 pages.

*cough* Fair Tax *cough*

11 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

Just a quick point of history :  the fall of the Roman Empire came about because the rich stopped paying taxes. I was always taught that we learned history to avoid making the same mistakes over again.  Apparently we don't learn very well.

One reason of many... and a rather simplistic comparison to today.

Unlike time of old where the area a wealthy person could invest or spend their money was limited... today there is an entire world for investment and spending.

While Apple and others have billions in cash sitting largely unused overseas and wish to bring it into the US... it surprises me that we have not seen more investments abroad from such companies.

Why bother bringing the funds into the US and paying high taxes on it... when you can buy or build a factory or three overseas (or other large acquisitions) or even your own country and do so without paying many a tax in your country of origin?

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

So? If Google closes their London Headquarters, it'll make literally zero impact to the UK government, because they don't pay any taxes here.

I see that quote and have to pause and shake my head... because the inanity of that statement really makes my head hurt.

Let me get this straight... Google in London... pays no taxes... none what so ever...

Not a pence of sales tax, payroll taxes, 'corporation taxes', sewer taxes, VAT taxes, fuel taxes, insurance taxes, property taxes.

No taxes whatsoever you say... not even the possibility that a London based Google Street View vehicle gets caught up in downtown London traffic and gets hit by the congestion tax... nope... no chance at all for ANY taxes you say.

I'd do a Bing search to try to prove you wrong... but your statement is so laughable that it's not even worth attempting to disprove as it's rather hard for ANY entity in a developed country to avoid paying ALL taxes... be they direct or indirect.

Specific claim:

Kinda like how Apple International (registered in Ireland) who made $30 BILLION PROFIT last year didn't file a tax return IN ANY COUNTRY.

Specific request:

Citation please.

Supporting response:

Unsupportive.

Aside from the fact that your sources contradict each other (one saying no taxes paid in Ireland at all, while the other says less than 2% in Ireland), and the fact that that you seemed to claim that Apple International is registered in one country but not registered anywhere else... you made a very specific claim that they "didn't file a tax return IN ANY COUNTRY"... which again... is NOT supported by what you said... unless you are claiming that Apple paid taxes in this or that country... but opted not to file any form of paperwork behind it.

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

Wait ... it's a bug that the US can't tax companies that operate in jurisdictions outside of the US? You might be joking, right? If the US started taxing foreign companies, they would be in violation of literally hundreds of international laws. It would be a complete farce.

Again, not only to I enjoy it when people show themselves to be supportive of the use of authoritarian force against those they disagree with (by the way, there may be a job for you at the IRS)... but they also show their ignorance of the law involved.

You realize that a US citizen working (fully) abroad is taxed... right? Or that a US national... living in the US but who has foreign investments is required to report (and pay taxes) on those investments?

While it's a little trickier to explicitly tax foreign holdings of foreign companies... not only is it within the right of the US to tax the activities and assets of companies who do business here... but also to tax the money from said entities when they attempt to return it to the US... which is part of the Apple curfufle we are seeing in Washington this week... only Apple doesn't want to bring the money in because it will be taxed at a rather high rate.

Many ways this could be resolved... most of the power though rests in Washington as they have the legal authority to use violence to achieve their ends (you know, the thing you keep pleading for).

Oh, so your country doesn't have elected representatives who make the laws you live in? Must suck to live where you do. Or are you being pedantic in order to avoid discussing the main point that I was making which is that the citizens elect lawmakers who make tax laws that Apple are clearly flouting.

You again ignore the difference between a democracy and a federal republic... or in the UK, a constitutional monarchy... the latter two having more in common with each other than the prior.

Words have meanings... if you opt to ignore their meanings that is on you... but don't expect to have much of a conversation with those who understand the differences involved.

Whoa there cowboy! We're not talking about healthcare. (Also I pay my government for healthcare out of income tax, so WTF are you talking about?)

Again you attempt to change the meaning of words... I mentioned 'health insurance' not 'health care', the prior is a policy (aka contract), while the latter is a larger system which may involve the prior.

Again, why do you keep ignoring the meaning of words?

Why did I mention it? If you would have read what I said? (tricky I know as you've clearly ignored much of what I've said and forced me to repeat myself (and you)). You said

That sounds fantastic. We live in a democracy where the country is run by elected people who are furious that companies like Apple get away with this. The population is livid that companies file tax returns no-where, or pay less than 1% tax.

To which I said:

More so.. I'm furious that my government took by force of law my health insurance plan... unlike you... I work every day to change that.

You know... pointing out the fact that some times people, organizations or governments do things we don't like... and one can either sit around griping about it until they are blue in the face (ie you)... or attempt to do something about it (ie me).

I'm talking about Corporation tax. Companies don't pay income tax. Individuals pay income tax.

Just a 'corporation tax'? Must be good to be an LLP then! Here in the states corporations (like many other types of organizations pay income tax... in addition to individuals... though what few (like you) understand is that despite filing tax paperwork with this or that government for income taxes at the state or federal level... or business & occupancy taxes in other jurisdictions... companies do not pay these taxes... despite ultimately cutting a check to the government agency. The end customers do... they are just charged higher prices in order to pay the company 'share' to the government.

If you were to get over the hate stick you are obviously sitting wrong on... you might understand these things.

You could claim "Nyeh, them not paying 'their fair share' means the rest of us have to pay more"... which might be true... if there was any connection between government spending and government income.

Unlike most EU countries... the UK and the US have something going for them... they have the ability to print currency and monetize their debts... and given the rate at which both are doing it... it's a pretty tall tail to claim that if only Apple and this or that other international company were to pay their bills (as you define them)... that such printing and deficit spending wouldn't be necessary.

6 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Nope. This isn't because I made so little money. This is because I can't be bothered to fill in my tax return.

Kinda like how Apple International (registered in Ireland) who made $30 BILLION PROFIT last year didn't file a tax return IN ANY COUNTRY.

Citation please.

This isn't a "bug" in the tax code. This is companies that are multinational making money in the US, and then directly lying to the tax authorities by saying that the sales weren't made in the country (like Google in the UK), shuffling debts between countries to pretend that the profitable entity is the one selling brands or $20 coffee cups or whatever out of Monaco (like Starbucks), or is so complicated that it doesn't actually need to pay tax anywhere (like Apple).

If you think they should be paying in location X... but the law in X allows what they do... and it happens against the desires of those who implemented or are responsible for the code... then yes... it is a bug.

If the prosecutor is not compelled to bring charges because of prosecutorial discretion... then I say again... it is a bug (or feature) of the system.

That sounds fantastic. We live in a democracy where the country is run by elected people

You might... I live in a federal republic. Big difference.

...who are furious that companies like Apple get away with this. The population is livid that companies file tax returns no-where, or pay less than 1% tax.

More so.. I'm furious that my government took by force of law my health insurance plan... unlike you... I work every day to change that.

We'll also ignore your statement of 'less than 1% tax'... I assume you mean 'income tax'... because oodles of other taxes still come into play (eww... I feel like a liberal saying that).

When people break the laws, they go to jail.[quote]

I'm about to stop responding to you here if you keep making things up...

Just because someone breaks a law doesn't mean they automatically go to jail... both of our countries have these things called 'trials' and 'due process' to determine not only if the law was violated... but if it applied in the specific case at hand.

This of course ignores the difference between criminal and civil laws...

[quote]And when it's not immediately obvious if they've broken the law (i.e. the country says "you broke the law" and the accused says "no I didn't" - i.e. pleads "not guilty", we let a judge and jury decide).

Semi true... only that assumes someone/something is charged with a crime... I'm still waiting on that here.

You can't just "change" international tax laws. This is something that congress couldn't do, even in the impossible case that 100% of the senators backed it and the President wanted to sign it into law.[quote]

Quitter.

This isn't about changing international tax rates, it's about how a countries tax law applies to those businesses doing business within it.

[quote]Apple International (the entity that made $30bn last year but didn't file a tax return anywhere) isn't a US company. The US can't tax it.

Citation please... until you back up some of these rather fantastical claims you are making... I'm going to quit reading or responding to what you are saying... as it is clear you are quite full of hate and jealousy and a refusal to see how things can be changed short of hauling people before your version of the Star Chamber.

It's worth pointing out that there is a solution to what many are angry at about Apple (and other companies)... the Fair Tax... something I have a history of advocating for here (just to name a few links):

http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/250648-Who-Pays-the-Largest-Percentage-of-Federal-Income-Taxes/7088cc0c5a594f5fa6629dec00404f75

http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/192750-Fair-Tax-Rally

http://channel9.msdn.com/(A(djgbrEcLzQEkAAAAMWUxODhlOGQtZDFkZC00ZDVhLWJmZjEtNWYzZjQ2YWI4MTY4QPJh7AkHWIrFqlpz_jc4BLNdrFE1))/Forums/Coffeehouse/463446-Tax-Day-Tea-Party-Map/d9eaef591183456d912e9deb00d4a8fa

Many of us here are into computers, a good chunk probably people who know how to program more than a simple 'hello world' app... we should all know that while we can try to take into account many different incoming variables... short of having significant testing infrastructure that can validate each and every change in a dynamic environment (ie what the CBO is prohibited from doing to most any proposed law put before them)... it's rather hard to account for every variable and expect to have a reliable and stable system.

When we encounter a new and previously unknown edge case... we can ignore it (assuming it's a minor issue which doesn't affect the end result significantly) or write some additional code to accommodate it and hopefully eliminate the effects of it... and not expose any additional exploits.

Of course... every additional line we write adds not only more complexity to the main logic, but the test logic, but also (potentially) the difficulty of those who use the system.

Why shouldn't this apply to the tax code?

The more exceptions, deductions, schedules and forms you add to the system... the more ways you give someone dedicated enough to find ways to gum up the system and pay the least (or exploit the most access from the system).

The Fair Tax... a national sales tax on all new goods and services at the retail level.

A limited surface and attack area that is revenue neutral.

No deductions.

No exemptions.

Everyone pays something.

I am always pleased when someone who supports authoritarianism and using the instrumentalities of government in order to punish those who they disagree with said government outs themselves.

1 day ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

If the US government wishes me to stand trial for anything it so chooses me to stand trial for, I will be arrested and compelled to attend court.

Yes... that's the way being arrested tends to work... but...

For example: If I choose to pay 0.0005% income tax this year, I expect by the end of the year I will be wearing a particularly fetching orange jumpsuit in one of the US government's many fine custodial establishments.

So if you chose (or happened) to make so little income (or use other legal loopholes (ie things written into the tax code)) that that 0.0005% was your income tax for the year... you expect to get arrested? Interesting...

I guess I don't expect to be arrested and charged when I am obeying the law... like when I drive through a green light when there are no pedestrians on the road or emergency vehicles driving by.

You clearly live in a horrifying world.

Granted... you come from a country that had the Star Chamber... so it's understandable if you live in that kind of terror of governmental abuses. And here I thought it was long dead.

Claiming that all of your Starbucks establishments aren't making any profits (and hence don't need to pay any taxes) when what's actually going on is that you're making sh1ttons of profits, opening several stores a week, reporting to your shareholders how well you're doing, but are cleverly selling your UK/US companies coffeebeans from an office in Switzerland at $20 a bean to trick the tax man isn't valid tax accounting.

Whaaaaaaah! Someone found a bug in the tax code and should be charged with horrible crimes for doing so... lets not patch the bug, we'll just throw before a court anyone who dares to exploit the bugs that we refuse to fix. Whaaaaaaaaaaah!

You think I could get away with saying to the US government "Oh, I didn't earn any money this year. I was paid in magical rent vouchers which I exchange with my landlord who is paid by my company through some opaque bank account in the Cayman Islands in some clever deal to avoid me having to pay tax on the rent that I would otherwise need to pay" that that would wash with the US government? Of course not. That would be "go to jail" time for me for tax evasion.

No... if I were to do that I'd have a set of well paid lawyers who understand the tax code better than I tell me that that is the case... convince me of that... and then make sure they are liable along with me if their advice turns out to be wrong.

Again... you can complain all you want about people not paying the taxes you think they should (ie 'spirit of the law')... but that is quite a different thing than the law (ie 'letter of the law').

If you want to live in a 'spirit of the law' sort of world... that is ok... but then you risk any prosecutor or jury coming after you for anything someone feels like telling a convincing story about.

If you're a company, you should pay taxes on your profits - the tax system is actually quite specific on this.

THEN CHANGE THE LAW

Pretending that you didn't make profits in this country when you clearly did by doing opaque accounting isn't optimising your taxes, or making use of tax schemes that government put there to encourage other parts of the economy.

And yet... thus far that does not seem to be what the law says.

It's deceptive

Says you.

it's fraudulent

Now you are accusing them of committing crimes? Doesn't the UK have strict and harsh liable laws? Again clearly you should be hauled before a court to answer for what rather seem to me to be crimes (notice how I use passive terms like 'seem' and 'appear' rather than explicit and accusatory terms like you... good judgment of action is also how one reduces the changes of to court).

and it requires straightforwardly misleading the tax authorities about how your business is structured for the sole purpose of avoiding tax.

So many assumptions... what if your business is actually structured that way? Are you still 'misleading'? What law says it is illegal to attempt to structure your affairs in such a legal way so as to minimize your tax liability?

Assuming you take a SINGLE tax deduction... you have no foot to stand on in this argument.

Can a single person who makes a good bit of money marry someone who does not? Yup. Will that decrease their his tax liability? Probably. Is that illegal? Nope... at least not unless (in your mind) he got married with the intent of LEGALLY decreasing his tax liability.

It's tax evasion, not tax avoidance.

In your opinion yes... in the eyes of the written law, prosecutors and judges... its not.

What's it like to be wrong so much?

Again... if you don't like it... CHANGE THE LAW.

And it's legal only because it's hard to prosecute, not because it's what the lawmakers think is reasonable. And CFOs that take part in this sorry game should be spending time behind bars.

Again you advocate for mob rule... why not just bring back the Star Chamber... sure would be an efficient way to deal with these people.

The reason this pisses me off isn't because I want to punish big companies, or think they're evil. It's that I think it's not fair for small businesses and entrepreneurs to have to pay tax at full rate (or go to jail) whilst working opposite a multinational that can't be bothered to pay tax.

And there we see another critical mistake from you... the law is not about making things fair... but about making things predictable and mostly regular. Big difference.

We should be encouraging small businesses. Not giving them a 20% tax penalty compared with their multinational competitors. It's criminal that we allow this to continue.

I agree with the first part... so why not change the law rather than accusing those you disagree with of criminal actions?

It's no wonder the US was so keen on codifying the concept of ex-post-facto... as it's importance sure doesn't seem to exist where we rebelled from.

13 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

I define it the same way that the legal profession does. Put it to a jury. Let them decide whether the tax-return is a valid representation of the company's tax affairs, or whether they are fabricated financial structures designed to avoid the paying of taxes that parliament and the treasury intended and expect companies to pay.

If we decide whether someone goes to jail by presenting the jury with evidence and them deciding if a law was broken, why can't we do the same with CFOs and blatantly tax-evading tax returns?

Interesting world you live in... where if someone does something you don't like... they should be thrown before a jury to decide if it was actually illegal or not... never mind the costs involved (on both sides of such a system.

Unrelated, you have routinely offended my sensibilities on this site, I demand that you be hauled before a jury to answer for your 'crimes'.

First amendment you say? Isn't it for the jury to decide if you are actually violating some law which may be invented or discovered later.