You simply refute whatever I say without any kind of meaningful rebuttal. Thank you for reminding me that liberalism is a mental disorder that cannot be resolved with facts and logic.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Excerpts of Apple Executives' Senate Committee Testimony on Tax Policy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You simply refute whatever I say without any kind of meaningful rebuttal. Thank you for reminding me that liberalism is a mental disorder that cannot be resolved with facts and logic.
Republicans live in Hypocrite Land where they claim to be for things like conservative values, Bible Belt "Christian" values and against things like abortion and YET they put someone like Mark Sanford (a proven adulterer, liar, and waster of tax dollars to finance his trips to South America to cheat on his wife) back into office to represent them and their so-called values proving exactly the type of people they REALLY are.
I'm an Independent. I hate party systems in general because representatives should represent the people that elect them FIRST, not a party platform agenda. And frankly, neither party represents all my beliefs and values. However, I'd take a party of people who can't control their spending that at least have some good intentions with that spending to help their fellow man (as the Bible actually teaches), even if some abuse that system over a group of people that always CLAIM one thing and DO another.
* The Republicans CLAIM to be largely Christian and yet I don't recall health and wealth being a topic in the Bible (quite the opposite; you're supposed to give to help the poor, not help yourself to more profits at the expense of those less fortunate than yourself).
* They CLAIM to be for family values (and yet they re-elect proven adulterers that destroyed their family; I can place the blame for Sanford's actions solely on him, but when the people re-elect human filth, the blame then falls on them as well).
* They CLAIM to be for gender and race equality, yet the reality is the vast majority of them are white males and their policies have continually reflected their bias against Hispanics and it seems few African Americans identify with them lately either.
* They CLAIM to be "Patriots" and yet they do everything they can to avoid paying their taxes to the country that they claim to love.
* They CLAIM to be against "Tax & Spend" but in the past decade under the Bush Administration they proved that it's actually ONLY the "Tax" part they have a problem with. Until the Obama Administration took over the recession, they held the record for the most spending in the history of the country. So NOW they want to claim that if we keep giving them MORE chances, they'll stop spending the NEXT time?
Personally, I watch CNN, Fox News and MSNBC (i.e. the broad spectrum) and read several papers at work as well on my breaks. While MSNBC is clearly biased towards the Democratic Party and as I would expect, Fox is biased towards the Republicans (and CNN mostly focuses on anything BUT politics to avoid taking sides), I have to say that I see far more BS, propaganda and outright LIES on the right. I've seen MSNBC take the Democrats to task. I've NEVER EVER seen Fox criticize a Republican yet no matter how far out into the right they are. People like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are total WHACK JOBS and they won't even call that. Glenn Beck's style of propaganda would have made even Herman Goebbels proud and I don't say that lightly at all. The ironic thing to me is that it's the LEFT that is supposed to be "radical" in nature and yet I see more scary crap from so-called fundamentalists than anyone else. Yes, when you blame Hurricane Sandy on this country allowing gay marriage (like Bachmann did), you get the CRAZY card from me. And YET I still think despite all this that it's just a distraction from what's REALLY going on in the background that neither party can control.
In the end, the tax thing all comes down to FAIRNESS to me. Our tax system is screwed up. It shouldn't take a legal expert to file your taxes each year. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that people making $400k a year are hurt less by taxes in terms of just making ends meet than people making $40k a year and that's why we have a progressive system in the first place. But instead of people being grateful for living in a society where they are safe to express their beliefs and have the freedom to follow their dreams in the first place, we have people angry that they have to pay more out in taxes each year than people 10x poorer than them despite the fact they have no financial difficulties to worry about what-so-ever unless they can't spend their own money worth a darn.
People should be upset. They should be upset that The land of the free and the home of the brave has turned into The land of the greedy and the home of the ignorant. They should be upset that nearly ALL the people elected to represent them on both sides of the aisle are out of touch with the average American's life and that "normal" people don't stand a chance in hell of getting elected to major offices due to the sheer expense of the campaigns that put the offices out of reach for the average citizen. They should be upset that the mass media has more power than the government in some cases. They should be upset that both sides will sell out their souls and beliefs to get re-elected rather than represent the people that elected them. They should be upset that laws allow soul-less Corporations to have the same rights as citizens and lobby the government with unlimited capital to represent their 1% interests when they are NOT people or citizens. They should be upset that our country fought against Communism for the better part of a century only to make a pretense stand against Cuba while making Communist Nuclear Armed China our favored trade partner despite them screwing us every single year while we do NOTHING about it. Our own government (both sides) sold us out and we should be ANGRY about it. But no, we fight amongst ourselves and finger point and let the media get us worked up while the real shadow government (Federal Reserve) does whatever the hell it wants.
Apple? They're a minor player looking after their own interests. The Federal Reserve and their collectors (the IRS) is who EVERYONE should be worried about. They are separate entities in government that barely answer to any part of the government and then usually only lip-service at that. We've got black projects, hidden bases and loads of propaganda and outright lies all hidden by terms of like National Security. People wonder why we would like a petty crap hole like North Korea push us around? It's because they are a good distraction so we ask less questions about things at home. Congress fighting is another good distraction lest we spend too much time asking questions about why a private company started by some of the richest people on the face of the Earth controls ALL our money. They print money, artificially control interest rates through debt buying (with endless money since they can print it) and no one asks any questions about any of it.
Yeah, I don't like what Apple is doing. They should pay their fair share of taxes for the opportunities given them by this country. But their motives are purely greed driven and simple to understand. They CAN get away with it so they DO get away with it. You can't expect a soul-less corporation to have actual ethical values and morals can you? Well, you probably should, but let's face it, the people driving hte company through share buying only care about money too so they're all on the same footing. For all the talk about government overreach and the idea you can't legislate morality, the simple FACT is you HAVE to legislate morality because otherwise, as these companies prove, they can and will do anything and everything they can get away with.
If you think I have "refuted" your previous statements, then you are, by definition, agreeing your statements are in error. Since you have not provided me with a coherent argument, nor have you provided me with any evidence organized in a fashion to support that non-existent argument, I cannot rebut it.
Apparently you know two words: "liberal" and "socialist", neither of which you have gone to the trouble to accurately determine the meaning of. You somehow feel these are pejorative terms, and use them at random, apparently to promote some non-rational response from individuals you seem to disagree with.
Why don't you attempt to distill your premise into a sentence? Or is this just a Monty Python sketch?
Keep using turbo tax to do your taxes.
You don't understand the tax system so you claim it is unfair.
The reality is apple paid a higher effective tax rate than most people here even you and your 1040ez.
The real issue is the tax code is overly complex. The only people paying too much are the extremely lazy ones though.
I know several people who are accountants or independent tax preparers. In almost every single case the preparer will legally save them much more money then their fee, often by a substantial margin. People groan and say the tax system is unfair to them and they don't spend the 250 dollars to save the two thousand dollars.
People admit that the tax code is ridiculously complicated yet then they do their own taxes. It is imbecilic.
Yes, it's an evolutionary process and eventually it will get there. It will happen very slowly over many years when people like you finally see the need. You currently believe the system works and is doing alright for us? I have nothing else to say.
Politics is about power. Power comes in numbers. American elections are "winner takes all". Thus, our system will always be fractioned into two dominant groups pitted against one another.
And yes I strongly believe our system of government is working for us. It's not an "accident" that nothing gets accomplished unless emergent situations exist (I figured you might have understood this being libertarian). The idea is to make it an ugly place where passing new legislation is difficult. You really want the government to pass more laws quicker than ever? I like to think our founding fathers figured it was best to let me and you live our lives without bother of the federal government while they argue about details in Washington that will never pass and become law.
Clarify this for me. If a foreign company who had no business in the US chose to invest in the US they would need to pay taxes not on any income but on their investment.
That is what you are suggesting apple does here and it does not make a lot of sense. Why would American companies be forced to pay taxes on investment money used in the US while their foreign competitors would not?
That would take a horrible situation and make it catostraphic.
I should have probably explained my position better. Simply put, I think territorial taxation is a horrible idea. It convinces multinational corporations, such as Apple or Google, to increase their profits overseas (why? Because doing so allows them to pay less taxes on their total profit income that's then able to be invested back home in the US). Now I think we SHOULD tax foreign profits. Basically, we should outright end the foreign income tax deferral law, BUT provide tax credits on any foreign income tax paid. This ensures all companies participating inside the US in any way are paying a 35% income tax in total (US tax rate + foreign tax rate = 35%). The trick is you don't just apply this to "American" companies (and absolutely ridiculous term in today's day and age). You must apply this to absolutely all multinational corporations.
Everyone should get a fair chance at life. That's not socialism. That's just fair. Socialism is when it is said that everyone must have the same stuff, i.e. everyone should make the same salary, limit the amount of property people can own, etc.
On paper, socialism sounds great, but it has never truly worked out in reality. Human nature gets in the way. The most productive will lose the incentive to perform to the best of their abilities after seeing that they don't get to enjoy the rewards of their labor. There are some who may realize that they'll get the same rewards regardless of the effort they put in so they'll put in the bare minimum effort.
At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms....
I actually do think capitalism is better than pure socialism, in general terms. But be careful about saying how socialism sounds great in real life, but never really works out. The exact same argument could be made of capitalism. It works out well on paper ... but in practice to get the kind of evils that Marx quite legitimately critiqued -- child labor and other atrocities, since power naturally rests in the hands of the owners of the factors of production. Now, in practice, does capitalism (or rather, welfare capitalism, which is its current form) work better than pure socialism? Sure. But that's just setting up a straw man. You do realize that there isn't a single nation on earth that is pure capitalist. Medicare is actually a "socialist" idea, as is public education. Progressive taxation is actually, to some degree, "socialist."
I'm all about capitalism and free enterprise, but I recognize that some degree of "socialism" is healthy and good. Capitalism is a great system, but free markets can't solve everything. They're work great for the problems they can solve, but elsewhere, as experience has shown us, they can end in complete disaster.
Just be careful about setting up capitalism in a perfect world and comparing it to communism in realize, and vice versa.
Didn't realize there was one exact definition for Socialism and you happen to know what it is. Please share it so the rest of us can be enlightened.
You are quite right, socialism takes many forms, but none of which include the premise of 100% equality. That is more in line with communism, which is not socialism.
Great points all.
I think economists would agree that fiscal stimulus has been shown to reduce unemployment, the most recent example being the Reagan weaponized Keynesian stimulus that reduced unemployment from 10.2% to well under 6% while tripling the national debt.
Whether the same quality of jobs will be created as were lost depends on other factors, and although manufacturing jobs have held constant at about 20 million for decades, service jobs have increased sixfold from the same number. I think the data is pretty clear that inequality has increased dramatically, starting in Reagan's term. (See Gini Index). Many well-paying jobs have disappeared which are likely to be replaced, even with fiscal stimulus, with lesser paying jobs in service industries or in non-union product-producing jobs.
Monetary policy is limited by the lower bound: when interest rates are already nearly at zero, and with banks dying to make good loans, when companies sit on mountains of cash and buy back stock or redeem equity instead of investing in production, it's pretty clear that simply lowering the interest rate another few basis points is not going convince them. Remember that increasing the money supply does not increase wealth; the Fed simply trades currency for bonds, creating more liquidity, but no more wealth. Presumambly most people who are selling used 30-year treasury bonds to the Fed are not the ones whose ability to consume goods and services has been markedly diminished. Only when greater demand appears will companies step up production, and only fiscal policy can spur aggregate demand when interest rates are so low.
Your point questioning the political will to reduce deficits through fiscal austerity in good times is unfortunately quite well-founded. Not one president since WWII--even Clinton--has left office with a smaller public debt than existed at the beginning of his term. Real public debt did, in fact, decrease during several Clinton years, and also as a percentage of GDP, but it's not unfair to point out that it was likely due more to a robust economy fueled by the productivity gains during the time of most rapid computerization and the rise of the Internet than due to austerity measures (even acknowledging welfare reform).
You've certainly given us a lot to think about, and good reason for concern, but I think I'm still more afraid of continued high unemployment than of high debt. I think that's because I can see a possibility of a disciplined government someday, but I can't imagine a healthy democracy with persistent high unemployment, especially among the young.
Last edited:
Socialism is by far the best form of government in vitro. With that said, however, it's impossible in vivo. Capitalism with protective regulations and well funded social programs is the best system man has yet to implement.
Interesting. Would you say that cold war Russia was a communist country?
Kind of funny that they called themselves a Socialist Republic.
North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
It's certainly not democratic, nor is it the people's.
To answer your question, no, I personally would not refer to the Soviet Union as a communist state.
But China could claim a stronger claim to those profits because the devices sold are *created* there, and the infrastructure which makes that possible was supported by Chinese taxes and the Chinese court system and educational system.
A variety of *other* countries could make similar claims, and those claims would be every bit as (in)valid as any such US claim.
I see...Are there any countries in the past century you would personally refer to as "Communist"? What set of criteria do you use to determine this? So far it seems what really matters is your personal opinion.
The problem with the Soviet Union being "true" Communist is that they didn't really follow Karl Marx or early Communism. They followed Lenin and ultimately, it was really an oligarchy (i.e. rule by the Communist Party and within that party they could vote and didn't follow the "everyone is equal" type philosophy. In fact, the government hierarchy lived quite well (like royalty) while everyone else was waiting for hours to get a loaf of bread. True Communism would not make an exception for leadership as it leads to complete hypocrisy and runs more like a small party-lead dictatorship in practice than any kind of true sense of everyone being the same. It was more like everyone ELSE was the same, but even that wasn't really true. Marxism allowed for a transitional dictatorship, but the state was eventually supposed to move to total public/collective ownership of everything (kind of like the Kibbutz farms in Israel) and that simply NEVER happened nor would it likely EVER happen since those in power were and are just as greedy as any Capitalist (i.e. It would be good for everyone ELSE to live like a peasant, but not us leaders!)
You see similar things in China, but they are moving more and more towards Capitalistic tendencies despite being ruled by what is really an Oligarchy once again. That Oligarchy has recognized that if they want ANY hope of maintaining power, they have to give the people more freedoms of they would likely eventually revolt (Tiananmen Square was a good indicator of where things were heading).
Socialism is a much broader term for any system of economics or government that is based upon ventures or ownership for the collective good of society rather than private capital gain. It can be any sub-sect of another type of government (e.g. Medicare is socialistic in nature in that it is for the total public good at a certain age, but even it operates within a largely privately run capitalistic medical industry). In other words, by its very definition, all socialism is designed for the public good. It fails only when people refuse to do their part (i.e. many say it's ineffective as an economic system since greed is literally a massive motivator to both innovate and work harder and smarter than when you feel as though you have little to gain personally by doing such). In other words, someone like Jesus probably would be 100% for socialism in theory, but in practice, people can't seem to live up to it in its entirety. That does not mean, however, that certain programs or basic needs type industries (i.e. money, water, power, heat, food) can't or shouldn't be run at non-profit to benefit everyone compared to Capitalism that must always try to make a profit and therefore often ends up costing more with a drive to keep costs down such as in the medical field where they would prefer to NOT give you an operation if they can avoid it even if it means a better chance of you living since it might cut into their profits. But of course in socialism, you might end up waiting in line which is bad for the rich who think they are more important than everyone else. Thus, the rich and parties that represent them (e.g. Republicans) are staunchly against ANY and ALL socialistic programs (which they call "entitlements" instead since it sounds like you don't deserve anything at all if you can't afford to pay through the nose for it including life itself).
Is there an established mechanism for determining the cost/benefit of fiscal stimulus? I'd imagine that it might be difficult given the difficulty of measuring counterfactuals. While the cost of unemploymentment must certainly be high, with a significant amount of productive potential lying unusued, the tripling of the national debt surely seems a steep price to pay, especially given the difficulty we've had trying to pay any of it back.
As to the inequality gap (and related to the employment problem), it seems like it must be an education problem. For example, a recent WSJ article pointed out that over the next decade, there are 120,000 jobs projected to be created in the computer science field, but only 40,000 Americans capable of filling them. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323744604578470900844821388.html?mod=trending_now_1)
With the technological bias of growth, "keeping up" in the educational world is more important than ever. And yet, though the cost of education is skyrocketing, American test scores are relatively flat. What gives?
On a somewhat more abstract note, it seems as though we have been using deficit spending in the last 50+ years less as a carefully measured medicine than an irresponsible addiction. Could it be that since we've become so used to deficits in our economy, the dependence they've created will only make matters worse when we will inevitably have to start eliminating the deficit and paying down the debt? I'm not sure what this would look like in economic terms or empirical terms, but it makes sense to me anecdotally at least.
Finally, while I am cautious and somewhat critical of what seems to be the conservative axiom that government is essentially bad (or at least a necessary evil) in all of its forms, I worry at the acceleration of government spending as a percentage of GDP. I'm all for cyclical adjustments, for deficits and surpluses to smooth out the business cycle, but it seems to me to be less of a cycle than a permanent upward trend. And while I certainly see the need for government action in various capacity to address the many failures of markets, the sheer rate of expansion (at least by spending) concerns me.
Thoughts?
I see...Are there any countries in the past century you would personally refer to as "Communist"? What set of criteria do you use to determine this? So far it seems what really matters is your personal opinion.
Not really my personal opinion. Stalin, Lenin, Engels, the big "communists" all stated their belief that in eventuality, true communism would only arise when the state disappeared.
"So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state." (Vladimir Lenin).
The Soviet Union had a committee with plans through its party congress on implementing true communism (through the abolition of the state). Of course, we both know that this never occurred, especially after Stalin seized control. The state actually got bigger and had no expectation of sizzling out as was planned.
Part of the criteria I'm using is the fact that true communism can only exist without a state. As far as I know, there have never been countries in the past century without one. Furthermore, the other major criteria, being a classless society, hasn't existed in the last century, either. This is also discounting the other criteria whereby money becomes useless and therefore unused. (see the document by Engels).
I also have to note that I am not a communist nor do I support communism, but it gets very annoying to see and hear the two words being thrown around to generally describe every Democratic President, Representative, Senator, you name it.
Also, we are way off topic here. If you want to continue the discussion then a new thread could perhaps be created.
Well said.. I agree for the most part. I think you are showing a slight bias though in insinuating that pretty much all Republicans are "Staunchly against ANY and All socialist programs". This is simply not the case. No, I am not a Republican. Your bias tells me you are most likely a liberal and probably a Democrat.
Trotsky was a true marxist, that is why he was murdered by Stalin. If all humans were saints Communisim would work perfectly. This is not the case. All Governments are flawed because Human beings are flawed. This will not change anytime soon.
----------
Thanks for your more thoughtful reply. I agree.
If there are consensus answers to your quite pertinent questions I'm unaware of it.
We produce some brilliant and disciplined graduates who will have great futures, but more than half of our high school graduates can't compete in a global economy where technology and capital eliminate human labor at every opportunity and where workers with lower expectations of quality of life supplant higher-paid workers whenever possible. Only service jobs that are necessary to be performed locally are certain to remain. We may well be seeing an intractable problem, and one which general stimulus may not address. So the discussion moves to how we improve the capability of our workforce, and I'm afraid I'm not at all knowledgeable in that area.
In addressing the persistence of deficits I'd suggest placing each missed opportunity to reduce debt in good times in its historical context since a necessary war, natural disasters, and supply shocks in imported commodities, are often impossible to anticipate, avoid, or address without incurring deficits. Insufficient will may not always account for persistent high amounts of public debt.
On the other hand, lowering taxes instead of paying down debt in a normally growing economy is irresponsible. Military spending beyond what is required to sensibly protect the country's vital interest should be closely scrutinized, and war should be a last resort rather than a first response. Increases in government spending in a normal economy should be paid for by increases in revenue or with cuts in less beneficial expenditures.
Lastly, wise and principled leaders are essential if a sound and consistent fiscal policy is to be followed. At some point every leader will need to forcefully advocate an unpopular but correct tax increase or spending cut. A nation led by fools or panderers will fail as the rise and fall of great empires throughout history has demonstrated. If the U.S. lacks the intelligence or will to incur debt to stimulate a weak economy and to pay down the debt in a strong one, we voters will only have ourselves to blame for the consequences.
Thank you for the interesting exchange of ideas; it's been a real pleasure.
We produce some brilliant and disciplined graduates who will have great futures, but more than half of our high school graduates can't compete in a global economy where technology and capital eliminate human labor at every opportunity and where workers with lower expectations of quality of life supplant higher-paid workers whenever possible. Only service jobs that are necessary to be performed locally are certain to remain. We may well be seeing an intractable problem, and one which general stimulus may not address. So the discussion moves to how we improve the capability of our workforce, and I'm afraid I'm not at all knowledgeable in that area.
In addressing the persistence of deficits I'd suggest placing each missed opportunity to reduce debt in good times in its historical context since a necessary war, natural disasters, and supply shocks in imported commodities, are often impossible to anticipate, avoid, or address without incurring deficits. Insufficient will may not always account for persistent high amounts of public debt.
On the other hand, lowering taxes instead of paying down debt in a normally growing economy is irresponsible. Military spending beyond what is required to sensibly protect the country's vital interest should be closely scrutinized, and war should be a last resort rather than a first response. Increases in government spending in a normal economy should be paid for by increases in revenue or with cuts in less beneficial expenditures.
Lastly, wise and principled leaders are essential if a sound and consistent fiscal policy is to be followed. At some point every leader will need to forcefully advocate an unpopular but correct tax increase or spending cut. A nation led by fools or panderers will fail as the rise and fall of great empires throughout history has demonstrated. If the U.S. lacks the intelligence or will to incur debt to stimulate a weak economy and to pay down the debt in a strong one, we voters will only have ourselves to blame for the consequences.
Thank you for the interesting exchange of ideas; it's been a real pleasure.