3 ms·

The value of the word tax is not limited to government obligations. Not colloquially anyway; a tax is a burden. From a mathematical perspective alone, these co

The value of the word tax is not limited to government obligations. Not colloquially anyway; a tax is a burden. From a mathematical perspective alone, these companies have soaked up immense wealth. There’s little to go around for infrastructure projects while it’s locked up in private vaults. Many communities did not have much say in how decimated the local economy would become by the last few decades of neoliberalism. It’s placed a heavy burden on many lives.

zepto 6y ago
> The value of the word tax is not limited to government obligations. Not colloquially anyway; a tax is a burden. This is true. Such a colloquial definition does exist. However using that definition in a discussion about government and economic policy is a form of dissembling. > From a mathematical perspective alone, these companies have soaked up immense wealth. This makes no sense. The concept of ‘soaking up wealth’ is a completely subjective political characterization. It cannot be a mathematical perspective. > There’s little to go around for infrastructure projects while it’s locked up in private vaults. What are you talking about when you talk about infrastructure? Is this point about taxing corporations so you can build schools? If so, that’s nothing to do with what the article (written by Republican politicans) support. A generalized attack on neoliberalism has nothing to do with the points being made here. For example, I support the idea of forcing something like bootcamp to be made available for all general purpose computers.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  "The concept of ‘soaking up wealth’ is a completely subjective political characterization." It an ironclad economic reality that Apple has $200 billion literally sitting in offshore tax heavens. It has failed to effectively invest or spend it for the past decade. If you deny that this is unproductive, then you have left the realm of reasonable discourse and it's like debating Nasa's research with a flat-earther.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > It an ironclad economic reality that Apple has $200 billion literally sitting in offshore tax heavens. It’s not actual banknotes. It’s in investment vehicles. Generally that means it’s invested in things like stocks commodities etc. We can debate whether Apple is investing their money in productive vehicles or not. But it’s not literally sitting anywhere. > It has failed to effectively invest or spend it for the past decade. Has it? You may be right. You are certainly right that they have this much capital offshore. To claim that it hasn’t been invested effectively isn’t something you can say without qualification. > If you deny that this is unproductive, then you have left the realm of reasonable discourse and it's like debating Nasa's research with a flat-earther. If you say so. One reason businesses keep large amounts of securities on hand, is to mitigate risk. I’d say Apple faces some of the largest risks of any company in the world. It is dependent on China for most of its manufacturing, and Taiwan for all of almost all of it’s silicon. It’s not at all unreasonable for them to consider a future where one or both of these are the subject of political instability. The government can certainly precipitate disaster for Apple in China or Taiwan, or fail to protect Apple’s interests. What it cannot do is rebuild its supply chain or silicon vendor in such an event. For that Apple would need a large reserve in the order of 100’s of billions of dollars. Do you deny that?
    - scyAnts0 6y ago
      You’re presuming a society owes acknowledgment of the value stored in their investment vehicles? Which is ultimately my point. None of us have to view Apple as “valuable”. It’s simply a political routine built upon exposure to previous political routine. Time series of the brain. There’s a tax on our agency to keep propping up systems that are devaluing our agency to the benefit of a moneyed minority. We’re under no political obligation to enable or protect that, no matter how much economic theory you copy-paste. Imo the free market is not Apple and Dell computers, or Ford and Chevy cars. It’s between public and private power. One has cost us reliability and resiliency for fiscal efficiency. We do not have to politically accept that.
      - zepto 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

zepto 6y ago

> The value of the word tax is not limited to government obligations. Not colloquially anyway; a tax is a burden. This is true. Such a colloquial definition does exist. However using that definition in a discussion about government and economic policy is a form of dissembling. > From a mathematical perspective alone, these companies have soaked up immense wealth. This makes no sense. The concept of ‘soaking up wealth’ is a completely subjective political characterization. It cannot be a mathematical perspective. > There’s little to go around for infrastructure projects while it’s locked up in private vaults. What are you talking about when you talk about infrastructure? Is this point about taxing corporations so you can build schools? If so, that’s nothing to do with what the article (written by Republican politicans) support. A generalized attack on neoliberalism has nothing to do with the points being made here. For example, I support the idea of forcing something like bootcamp to be made available for all general purpose computers.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
"The concept of ‘soaking up wealth’ is a completely subjective political characterization." It an ironclad economic reality that Apple has $200 billion literally sitting in offshore tax heavens. It has failed to effectively invest or spend it for the past decade. If you deny that this is unproductive, then you have left the realm of reasonable discourse and it's like debating Nasa's research with a flat-earther.
- zepto 6y ago
  > It an ironclad economic reality that Apple has $200 billion literally sitting in offshore tax heavens. It’s not actual banknotes. It’s in investment vehicles. Generally that means it’s invested in things like stocks commodities etc. We can debate whether Apple is investing their money in productive vehicles or not. But it’s not literally sitting anywhere. > It has failed to effectively invest or spend it for the past decade. Has it? You may be right. You are certainly right that they have this much capital offshore. To claim that it hasn’t been invested effectively isn’t something you can say without qualification. > If you deny that this is unproductive, then you have left the realm of reasonable discourse and it's like debating Nasa's research with a flat-earther. If you say so. One reason businesses keep large amounts of securities on hand, is to mitigate risk. I’d say Apple faces some of the largest risks of any company in the world. It is dependent on China for most of its manufacturing, and Taiwan for all of almost all of it’s silicon. It’s not at all unreasonable for them to consider a future where one or both of these are the subject of political instability. The government can certainly precipitate disaster for Apple in China or Taiwan, or fail to protect Apple’s interests. What it cannot do is rebuild its supply chain or silicon vendor in such an event. For that Apple would need a large reserve in the order of 100’s of billions of dollars. Do you deny that?
  - scyAnts0 6y ago
    You’re presuming a society owes acknowledgment of the value stored in their investment vehicles? Which is ultimately my point. None of us have to view Apple as “valuable”. It’s simply a political routine built upon exposure to previous political routine. Time series of the brain. There’s a tax on our agency to keep propping up systems that are devaluing our agency to the benefit of a moneyed minority. We’re under no political obligation to enable or protect that, no matter how much economic theory you copy-paste. Imo the free market is not Apple and Dell computers, or Ford and Chevy cars. It’s between public and private power. One has cost us reliability and resiliency for fiscal efficiency. We do not have to politically accept that.
    - zepto 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]