queencitybuckeye;1446727 wrote:So Apple paying one dollar out of every 40 in corporate income tax collected by the U.S. treasury isn't paying their fair share?

Ignorant or disingenuous. The ONLY two options for a post THIS silly.

The benefit conferred onto Multinationals by the United States Government...in particular the U.S. Navy goes well beyond the amount that they contribute to the treasury and that includes Apple.

BoatShoes;1446747 wrote:The benefit conferred onto Multinationals by the United States Government...in particular the U.S. Navy goes well beyond the amount that they contribute to the treasury and that includes Apple.

Only to a fool with an obvious agenda.

You know, if you ever simply admitted you're wrong, you wouldn't come off nearly as intellect-challenged. Sticking to obviously foolish positions impresses no one. You just look stupid.

queencitybuckeye;1446754 wrote:Only to a fool with an obvious agenda.

I suppose I could post links to articles written by people who are neither fools nor have an agenda who share similar sentiment but how could that persuade a person so quick to levy insults?

(BTW, noticed you were able to edit out calling me stupid in time...just go with your instincts next time lol).

BoatShoes;1446640 wrote:It did...with the extreme risk of piracy.

You are, again, committing a huge fallacy that the bulk of global trade occurs over the seas. You are ignoring all the intracontinental trade done by truck and rail, not to mention air. You're also ignoring other countries can, and do, police their waters to facilitate trade.

Besides giving the US navy entirely too much credit (to the absolute point of absurdity) for Apple's overseas profitability, you're basically claiming the US should collect a tax on all international trade because of its navy. Why should Apple's overseas profits, on good also manufactured overseas, be any different from foreign companies in foreign sovereign states?

gut;1447301 wrote:You are, again, committing a huge fallacy that the bulk of global trade occurs over the seas. You are ignoring all the intracontinental trade done by truck and rail, not to mention air. You're also ignoring other countries can, and do, police their waters to facilitate trade.

Besides giving the US navy entirely too much credit (to the absolute point of absurdity) for Apple's overseas profitability, you're basically claiming the US should collect a tax on all international trade because of its navy. Why should Apple's overseas profits, on good also manufactured overseas, be any different from foreign companies in foreign sovereign states?

90% of international trade travels by Sea with the U.S. Navy is present globally to protect international trade routes above and beyond national waters. It really isn't absurd how much the world free rides on our Navy. And, I never gave the U.S. Navy credit for Apple's ability to profitably manufacture products overseas, but simply suggested that they and other MNC's engage in dubious practices to avoid paying for the services they do benefit from in the ordinary course of their overseas production.

I never really claimed in a normative sense that all MNC's out to pay fees to the U.S. for the benefit of the U.S. Navy but certainly that is what a private firm would demand.

The U.S. as the sole hegemon in the world projects the great power of its global force with a global military presence. Because of this, we tax on worldwide income unlike other industrialized countries. This should be our prerogative if we want to project ourselves into the whole world. But for that matter, we offer foreign tax credits for foreign source income. So Apple takes a tax credit for the taxes it pays elsewhere and we only require they pay U.S. taxes where they aren't paying taxes to foreigners. This is where the dubious practices come into play as these MNC's don't pay foreign taxes, hold their profits dubiously earned in a tax haven and then defer the taxes long enough to the point where deferral functionally eliminates the tax burden.

Any standard welfare queen engaging in such behavior would draw utter contempt from the likes of you as a free loader lol.

BoatShoes;1447337 wrote:90% of international trade travels by Sea with the U.S. Navy is present globally to protect international trade routes above and beyond national waters. It really isn't absurd how much the world free rides on our Navy. And, I never gave the U.S. Navy credit for Apple's ability to profitably manufacture products overseas, but simply suggested that they and other MNC's engage in dubious practices to avoid paying for the services they do benefit from in the ordinary course of their overseas production.

90% by volume (admittedly a surprising number). Closer to 70% by value. Both numbers are grossly inflated by commodities, especially oil.

But, again, MNC's pay foreign taxes - that's the FTC you were railing about. What proof do you have they aren't paying any foreign taxes? You've taken a dump on FTC and also transfer pricing - both perfectly legitimate practices, the latter necessary to manage a business (and common in the US, even for companies with no exports).

Besides, Apple's dividends are taxed, which is actually a form of double taxation. I see no issue with Apple avoiding triple taxation. Claiming a tax because of a service provided by the US Navy is just weak sauce. Besides, what's the global trade value? $18T+? What's our naval budget? $150B? So we're talking like a 1% tax?

I don't see any evidence, remotely, of a "free rider" you are trying to claim. Majority of global trade is subject to customs/import fees, not to mention local sales tax.

I don't know why people are even arguing this. If you don't like the corporate taxation rules get Congress to change the rules. You can't expect any entity (individual or business) to not act rationally for its own benefit. Even the most die-hard liberal tax professors used to say "Tax avoidance is a noble endeavor, tax evasion is a crime." Now because we have an ineffective and broke government led by a DEM we now expect everyone to pay their "fair" share even if they are acting legally within the rules presented by the government?

Again, we've let the inmates run the asylum.

Manhattan Buckeye;1447651 wrote:I don't know why people are even arguing this. If you don't like the corporate taxation rules get Congress to change the rules. You can't expect any entity (individual or business) to not act rationally for its own benefit. Even the most die-hard liberal tax professors used to say "Tax avoidance is a noble endeavor, tax evasion is a crime." Now because we have an ineffective and broke government led by a DEM we now expect everyone to pay their "fair" share even if they are acting legally within the rules presented by the government?

Again, we've let the inmates run the asylum.

This.

/thread.