• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate investigators: Apple sheltered $44 billion from taxes

CalGun said:
Why should the US be entitled to income tax revenue from sales not in the United States of products not made in the United States? Maybe North Korea should make a claim and see how that goes?
Click to expand...

We invest enough in foreign infrastructure that off shore companies make use of to justify it.
 
specklebang said:
Didn't a recent SCOTUS ruling called Citizens United change that? Don't the individuals who make corporate decisions have any personal liability? Are constructs sentient?
Click to expand...

No, Citizens United rules that people have a right to free speech, whether they are doing it themselves, or using a construct. They ruled that corporations are the people who make them.
 
Then don't you think it's unfair to allow corporations to commit crimes without traditional punishment? Or are you OK with that? It seems very unfair to me.





jonny5 said:
No, Citizens United rules that people have a right to free speech, whether they are doing it themselves, or using a construct. They ruled that corporations are the people who make them.
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
No, Citizens United rules that people have a right to free speech, whether they are doing it themselves, or using a construct. They ruled that corporations are the people who make them.
Click to expand...

Then we should be able to sue those people individually for what the "construct" does. But we can't. The rightwing supreme court really blew this one, as usual.
 
We should simply tax all global income of US corporations including any spin offs without credit for foreign taxation.

That would force them to stop seeking out tax shelters and pay their fair share.
 
head of joaquin said:
Then we should be able to sue those people individually for what the "construct" does. But we can't. The rightwing supreme court really blew this one, as usual.
Click to expand...

Of course these individuals can be sued. In fact, they can even be jailed.

Not surprising you've been taught to believe otherwise.
 
ocean515 said:
Of course these individuals can be sued. In fact, they can even be jailed.

Not surprising you've been taught to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Jesus man, your ignorance of corporate law is massive.

Shareholders can't be sued individally for corporate actions. Only their stake in the corproration is at risk. This is the very core of the corporate structure.

NEXT RIGHTWING MEME!
 
head of joaquin said:
Jesus man, your ignorance of corporate law is massive.

Shareholders can't be sued individally for corporate actions. Only their stake in the corproration is at risk. This is the very core of the corporate structure.

NEXT RIGHTWING MEME!
Click to expand...

Of course, you've just proved yourself the fool.

Please continue.
 
ocean515 said:
Of course, you've just proved yourself the fool.

Please continue.
Click to expand...

Wow, talk about a witty reply. So you think shareholders are personally liable for corporations they have stock in?

BWHAAHHAHAHHAHAH!

God the, tea party is all knownothing all the time.
 
Henrin said:
That has nothing to do with me complying with their desire to have access to my money. Usually when someone is trying to take something from me without my consent I will do everything in my power to resist. The government is no different. I don't care if the government doesn't like people putting money in off shore accounts. I just don't. They have the power to tax and I have the power to make it hard on them by hiding what is mine.
Click to expand...

This is kinda why the articles of confederation failed.

But if those companies use American resources and infrastructure and government which is funded by American tax payers, then they can pay up to help fund all the things they use. There's no such thing as a free lunch
 
head of joaquin said:
Wow, talk about a witty reply. So you think shareholders are personally liable for corporations they have stock in?

BWHAAHHAHAHHAHAH!

God the, tea party is all knownothing all the time.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Piercing the Corporate Veil legal definition of Piercing the Corporate Veil. Piercing the Corporate Veil synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Piercing the Corporate Veil: When LLCs and Corporations May be at Risk | Nolo.com


I understand, "uninformed" is a part of the Progressive Mission statement, but most don't try to be so visible when proving the point.

Perhaps you should actually learn something about Corporations and Shareholders before chewing your feet down to your ankles.
 
Ikari said:
This is kinda why the articles of confederation failed.

But if those companies use American resources and infrastructure and government which is funded by American tax payers, then they can pay up to help fund all the things they use. There's no such thing as a free lunch
Click to expand...

No, the AOC failed due to the government not having the power to tax. It had nothing to do with people not accepting the idea of the government taking money from them by force. Ah...I mean doing business with the government.
 
Henrin said:
No, the AOC failed due to the government not having the power to tax. It had nothing to do with people not accepting the idea of the government taking money from them by force. Ah...I mean doing business with the government.
Click to expand...

Yes, the problem was that they couldn't collect taxes. So here you're advocating people hiding money away to avoid paying taxes. If you aggregate that enough you fall into the same thing which sunk the Articles. Government will not be able to collect taxes. As much as taxation sucks, to have something like America takes money, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, the problem was that they couldn't collect taxes. So here you're advocating people hiding money away to avoid paying taxes. If you aggregate that enough you fall into the same thing which sunk the Articles. Government will not be able to collect taxes. As much as taxation sucks, to have something like America takes money, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

I advocate people hide money from a government that just takes money from its citizens without any sort of consent from the party being acted on. If the government sees it fit to form its tax system around such an uncivil and violent act that is their problem. I will still advocate people do what is in their power to resist. Furthermore, my statement is factual. People have a right to their property and as such all parties must get their consent if they are to take it. Yes, that means that people have a right to defend their property by hiding it from the thieves.
 
Last edited:
If the feds don't want people performing these legal maneuvers to "shelter" money from taxes, then maybe they should change the law, instead of just bitching about it.
 
specklebang said:
Then don't you think it's unfair to allow corporations to commit crimes without traditional punishment? Or are you OK with that? It seems very unfair to me.
Click to expand...

No, corporations are not people, they are ideas.
 
Ikari said:
This is kinda why the articles of confederation failed.

But if those companies use American resources and infrastructure and government which is funded by American tax payers, then they can pay up to help fund all the things they use. There's no such thing as a free lunch
Click to expand...

They don't pay up because they pass the cost down to people, ie. YOU. By taxing them all you do is employ accountants and create inefficiency, which again costs you more.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Why? Because they are avoiding taxes.
Click to expand...

And here's the issue. You are taxing income earned in foreign jurisdictions, where the company is already subject to foreign taxes. It is simply confiscatory and a major contributing factor to failure of the US economy to perform as well as it should.

And the reaction to making this "illegal" would be simple.

Apple, welcome to Canada. Glad to have you aboard.

US extraterritorial nonsense may be viewed as a "right" by Americans who like to leech off foreign production and consumption, but it does nothing for you overall.

This is just an illustration of that at play.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
:lamo

Piercing the Corporate Veil legal definition of Piercing the Corporate Veil. Piercing the Corporate Veil synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Piercing the Corporate Veil: When LLCs and Corporations May be at Risk | Nolo.com


I understand, "uninformed" is a part of the Progressive Mission statement, but most don't try to be so visible when proving the point.

Perhaps you should actually learn something about Corporations and Shareholders before chewing your feet down to your ankles.
Click to expand...

Pssst: you can only pierce the veil if the corporation is in fact a veil -- i.e., a fraud because it's undercapitalized from the start.

So now you're claiming you were only talking about fraudulent corps? Keep dancing.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Here is the deal, profits made overseas are not taxable unless they are brought into the US in some way. If Apple maintains those funds in overseas subsidiaries, they are only subject to taxes within the country they are made in or sold in. Thats the law. Thats ALWAYS been the law.
Click to expand...

And that, coupled with the obvious result that unless Apple needs the cash it will sit outside the US forever, is a perfect illustration of how the US system's attempt to extract more from its resident companies actually harms the US economy.

I know socialists of various stripes won't accept this, but the answer here is to back off, not to criminalize. At some point you will only succeed in causing these corporations to flee your jurisdiction. And unless you plan on taxing all foreign direct investment (which would be suicide), there will be nothing you can do when Apple patriates its foreign earnings in Canada or ireland or wherever else it decides to move its country of residence.

And you folks (not the poster) can bitch to the moon about unfairness and evilness and ungratefulness until the cows come home, but you have it ass-backwards. YOU are the ones who are ungrateful and evil in all this, seeking to confiscate wealth generated abroad from people who earned it. You will get a piece of the pie if you allow it back and then it is dividended out to shareholders, but that isn't enough - you want the share of corporate taxes too. So not only do you deserve nothing, if you push it you deserve to see Apple and the other multinationals pull up roots and settle somewhere else. There are tons of countries that would be glad to have them, and not so many of your fellow Americans are as willing to "punish" them for their "disloyalty" in refusing to give you their money that it could change the economics of such a move.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
And here's the issue. You are taxing income earned in foreign jurisdictions, where the company is already subject to foreign taxes. It is simply confiscatory and a major contributing factor to failure of the US economy to perform as well as it should.

And the reaction to making this "illegal" would be simple.

Apple, welcome to Canada. Glad to have you aboard.

US extraterritorial nonsense may be viewed as a "right" by Americans who like to each off foreign production and consumption, but it does nothing for you overall.

This is just an illustration of that at play.
Click to expand...

Tax US corporation's global income. No foreign tax credit gameplaying. No spins off treated differently. Problem solved.
 
specklebang said:
Are you aware that as American citizens we are subject to global taxation by US law? So how can you support a corporation having greater rights than an individual?
Click to expand...

When the earnings are dividended out to US shareholders it is taxed.

And from an industrial policy perspective, additional corporate taxes on foreign earnings is just retarded.
 
Deuce said:
Roads don't make a business successful, but without roads they wouldn't be successful. And it's more than just roads. It's a stable, safe environment to work in. Police protect the streets. Military protects the border. Schools make useful workers. The lights always turn on because there's an incredibly stable power grid and when it fails in a major way there's a major response. And the customers have reasonable assurance that whatever product they buy will be safe and work as advertised, because someone is checking up on that business from time to time.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. It doesn't really matter whether or not you like the idea.
Click to expand...

Yes yes. And without poor people not pitchforking the rich in their homes, they wouldn't be alive, so the rich owe the poor all of their money.

This argument was nonsense back in the election and it is nonsense today. The janitor that allows the restaurant to pass a safety inspectuion is not worth as much money as the world renound chef that puts people in the chairs night after night. Sure the business couldn't function without both of them, but that is not the way real life works, nor is it the way it ought to work, commerade.
 
Why don't you explain this further what with retarded people trying to understand it.


CJ 2.0 said:
When the earnings are dividended out to US shareholders it is taxed.

And from an industrial policy perspective, additional corporate taxes on foreign earnings is just retarded.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom