6 ms·
It’s more like, poor working SOBs getting robbed of services that tax funds should’ve been going to
by skullborg 7y ago
It’s more like, poor working SOBs getting robbed of services that tax funds should’ve been going to
- sbenitoj 7y agoIt’s amazing how many socialists there are on this forum. People don’t need governments to provide terrible services to meet their needs.
- sbenitoj 7y agoAnyone care to refute the proposition rather than just downvote?
- b_tterc_p 7y ago1) many people depend on government services 2) calling anyone who recognizes utility of government services is unnecessary and just incorrect 3) suggesting that everyone can take of themselves is simply not true. Some people need help. 4) tone is dickish
- sbenitoj 7y ago1) does that mean they’re entitled to them? Why can’t these needs be met by those people, their families, or simply remain unmet? 2) socialism = redistribution of wealth; govt services are redistribution of wealth 3) didn’t say everyone can take care of themselves, many people can’t take care of themselves now even WITH govt assistance, it’s completely beside the point 4) true
- detaro 7y agoPatent protection, law enforcement, safe international finance and goods market access are just some examples of "govt services" Apple benefits greatly from.
- arcticbull 7y ago(1) They are entitled to them because the government is an extension of the will of the people, and the people entitled certain classes to certain benefits. We, the people, can change this. Until we do, they are and will remain entitled. People payed in to provide these benefits and these benefits are being rendered. That said they're not all "take" and no "give." As a sibling posted, patent protection incentivizes the inclusion of invention in the public domain in exchange for temporary monopoly. Copyright law and IP law give rise to whole industries in and of themselves. All of which rely on law enforcement, on fire protection, on education, on healthcare, etc. These things cost money. (2) Classical Socialism is not redistribution of wealth. Socialism is the government controlling the means of production. Wealth is not the means of production it is the ends. Socialism in the public discourse in the US is yet another definition, basically "capitalism with guard rails" where society ensures a minimum standard of health and well-being for everyone so that we can all rise to the level of our abilities in a meritocratic way instead of plutocratically. (3) Yes, you are correct, however I personally believe in the "I'd rather 90% of my contributions squandered than see someone die unnecessarily because they fell through the cracks" -- it's really easy to end up there through a series of unfortunate events and I'm not willing to write these people off. (4) Dick-ish tone or not (and it happens to me by accident from time to time) you do deserve level-headed reply, though I do only speak for myself.
- mwfunk 7y agoIf someone uses hyperbole, scare words, and sweeping generalizations about complicated issues, rational people often assume that (a) that person is trying to bullshit them, or (b) someone else has successfully bullshitted (bullshat?) that person, but they haven't realized it yet.
- sbenitoj 7y agoHow do you define socialism?
- opnitro 7y agoCommunal ownership of the means of production? Social democratic redistribution schemes are not socialist.
- sbenitoj 7y agoSocial democratic redistribution (of the means of production) are in fact socialist, which is what’s going on here.
- opnitro 7y agoThe means of production are _not_ being redistributed via taxes and foodstamps. Apple still owns the factories, the IP, the land, the offices, etc.
- sbenitoj 7y agoYes, and they moved specific means of production to Jersey in order to sell their services from there. Now there are complaints that Apple actually owes more taxes to USG (and other govts). So which one is it — does Apple own the means of production (and thus what they did is totally legal) or do they not own the means of production (and thus this is socialism)?
- 7y ago
- karlakush 7y agoThis forum is designed to make it difficult for people to submit low-quality comments. A side-effect of this is that it's difficult to submit any comment without the support of the forum's power users. Some time long before I got here, it seems there was a probably a power struggle that the socialists won. Now, it's impossible for anybody else to break in. The socialists are the only ones with the ability to downvote and the ability to flag comments, and they use that power to great effect to silence most dissent. All of this is to say don't expect an explanation. It's much easier to shadow-ban you than refute you.
- detaro 7y agoPeople need Apple sitting on cash reserves larger than the GDP of many countries even less.
- sbenitoj 7y ago“People” aren’t entitled to tell you what to do with your iPhone after you buy it from Apple, why are “people” entitled to tell Apple what they should do with the money they earned?
- opnitro 7y agoPerhaps the "people" who helped create that wealth should have some say in how it's spent
- detaro 7y agoUsing an iPhone doesn't magically put you above the law, so yes, society in the wider sense does tell you (one of it's members) what you can't do with your iPhone after you bought it. Apple is part of society in more or less the same way, benefiting from what society provides and expected to follow the rules set by society in return.
- slivanes 7y agoI'm trying remember a case of where a public utility / service becoming privatized resulted in better outcomes for the public in the medium or long term.
- jcranmer 7y agoRailroads? Nationalization of the US railroads during WWI was definitely a long-term loss for a short-term gain, although it was only ever meant to be temporary I guess.
- Jweb_Guru 7y agoGerman rail has been absolutely awful since it was privatized.
- Bahamut 7y agoPrivatization of the railroads neutered a lot of their utility in much of the US. I remember taking my first Amtrak in Illinois to Chicago and experiencing that my train was delayed for 3 hours because the tracks were privately owned & slow freight trains had priority on the majority single track rails. I later learned that such delays were typical.
- sbenitoj 7y agoBetter according to whom? Perception is subjective.
- sbenitoj 7y agoReally? A downvote on this?
- arcticbull 7y agoI'd wager it's because "better" is well-defined in this context. A service provided by the government is designed to maximize the good and value it provides to the people. A corporation is designed to maximize its own interests. It stands to reason that a well-run government service by definition is better across many metrics. They don't all need to be socialized of course, but the raw foundation of society (health, education, police, fire, even rail, etc) put people on an even footing that allows them to rise to the level of their capabilities. It provides a foundation for meritocracy instead of supporting plutocracy.
- jcranmer 7y agoIt's not socialism to think that large companies being able to wave away all their tax liabilities through creative manipulation is a problem.
- sbenitoj 7y agoWhy is Apple destined to pay taxes to USG? Is Apple a slave to USG? Why can’t they move and pay taxes to another country just like an individual can?
- woodruffw 7y ago> Why is Apple destined to pay taxes to USG? Apple is incorporated in Delaware. Delaware is a state in the United States. > Is Apple a slave to USG? No, they're a business. (Almost) every country taxes all businesses that are incorporated and do business within their borders. > Why can’t they move and pay taxes to another country just like an individual can? Under current US law, you still have to pay income and estate taxes if you're living abroad. But even if we ignore that, the case is far weaker: Apple hasn't moved to another country, and (regardless) continues to do substantial business in the US.
- sbenitoj 7y agoDefine “move” — it’s a multinational corporation, and it’s incorporated in many jurisdictions.
- arcticbull 7y agoDefinitely, and the Delaware corporation is both the head of the entity and also the place from which it choses to do business with US persons. To do business in the US and with US persons it generally is advantageous to have a presence. If they want to stop participating in the US market for the tax savings they are welcome to divest and restructure to avoid it. They choose not to because the benefits outweigh the costs.
- opnitro 7y ago"Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the more socialister it is."
- mixmastamyk 7y agoPoor quality arguments get downvoted here universally.
- shadowprofile76 7y agoMost governments already have plenty of money that they take in from various taxes, in many cases government tax collection is at record levels and government size (both fiscally and in terms of raw personnel and asset bloat) is definitely greater than at any time in modern history for most western states. At what point does the discussion turn to asking governments to you know, actually prioritize and allocate their spending better? Considering just how much they waste on the simple inertial task of keeping all their perpetually active very often useless things alive. We could list so many examples of huge resource waste by governments, but no no, let's blame Apple et al for "hoarding". I fail to see how any thinking person could first pin the blaim on Apple and other companies for "poor working SOBs getting robbed" Those SOBs are already getting robbed but mainly by government, which literally takes money from them and still keeps their services shitty under bullshit justifications like "not enough funding", unlike Apple, that's mainly holding onto more of money it actually earned by selling things customers wanted.
- blunte 7y agoOne wrong does not justify another.
- coliveira 7y agoPoor argument. Even if the government robbed money (which is most of the time not true), it would be better to have the money robbed by my government than by some rich dude that I never saw in my life to maintain his wealth in some foreign country.
- shadowprofile76 7y agoI am not referring to government robbing money in a crassly criminal/corrupt sense. My point was in reference to the government simply spending poorly the money it legitimately takes through legally sanctioned means (taxes), but then crying about budget problems despite this. I repeat, government size, reach and government spending are all at nearly record levels in most western states, despite this the focus keeps being placed on companies avoiding taxes instead of government reallocating its existing funds better. This is not simple whataboutism either, It's a point that's directly relevant to the arguments around to what degree companies should be allowed to avoid their perceived tax obligations. Furthermore, you mention preferring having money robbed from you by someone in government than by some rich dude you never saw in your life. What's the difference? Since I assume your definition of theft is about actual stealing by either party, then in either case, someone you don't know is taking money you could have had access to for their personal benefit. Except that in the corporate case, the person in question is not even actually stealing from you, they're keeping more of something they first earned through sales. The corrupt government thief however literally takes from what was first taken from you by taxation.
- karlakush 7y agoNobody is getting robbed of anything. You aren't entitled to somebody else's money just because you're poor.