4 ms·

This is a classic example of singling out one particular actor for blame when the problem is clearly systemic. There is little value for society to spend its t

This is a classic example of singling out one particular actor for blame when the problem is clearly systemic. There is little value for society to spend its time saying, "Apple is bad because it minimizes, within the contours of the law, its tax burden." And, contrary to Mr. O'Reilly's assertions at the beginning of his piece, I don't say this because I think Apple can spend its money better than the US Government can. For this argument, I don't care either way because it's irrelevant; he merely dismissed a strawman. The question has to do with our tax code. Is it achieving the goals that we created it to achieve? If so, then there is nothing to discuss, so presumably it's not. If it's not achieving its goals, let's look at the entire picture and talk about where its failures are and how we should change it. Attacking any one particular company is merely a distraction that impedes our ability to discuss the things that actually matter.

skore 15y ago
This makes me wonder, again, whether I have read a different article. If you want to attack the NYT piece, maybe you should comment on that thread, but this is the discussion about Tim O'Reilly's post containing reflections on the general theme, not apple as an actor in particular. That makes your comment seems misplayed here.
- carbocation 15y ago
  No, I read Mr. O'Reilly's piece and am responding to it. You seem to be saying that, because I reject the premises and false arguments that he makes in his introduction, therefore I didn't read it? Feel free to respond to my substantive point rather than just distracting from the actual conversation.
  - skore 15y ago
    Tims post has two parts. The first part is him explaining why he has wrote it (Hey, I've read the NYT piece as well!) and then what he has to say (Hey, let me elaborate on the theme of taxation). The NYT piece is not a premise in his argument, it's simply the reason why he writes about taxation.
    - carbocation 15y ago
      As I stated, I read the article and am familiar in fact with the bold "hey, I said I'd give you my personal opinion" transition that he makes midway through. He has no actionable thesis, just a vague "we should look out for each other" message that makes it easy to read into it whatever you want to see. Yes, we should look out for each other. We compel this via taxation. If we aren't compelling corporations to do what we actually want given the rules we have set up, let us change the rules. In other words, the actual problem that he is talking about, whether he chooses to address it or not, is that systemically we have a taxation problem. That's the only interesting thing to discuss here.
      - skore 15y ago
        Now I'm profoundly confused - That is precisely what he is doing: Arguing that we should establish that tone of conversation in order to get some change going. The real problem is that it is somewhat presentable to pay as little taxes as you can. Tim is trying to spark a conversation where that changes. Before you can change tax law, you have to get people engaged in caring about tax law. Because for the last decades, big corporations have invested a lot of money in having people either not care, or care in a direction that directly hurts them.
  - jarcoal 15y ago
    Your initial post is the distraction. It doesn't address the main point of the article at all, it should have been posted in the NYT thread. This heart of this post begins at "But to my promised personal reflections"
dredmorbius 15y ago
When that actor is that largest player on the stage, and the article (and Tim's commentary on it) make clear that many others are simply playing the same game, then your criticism falls doubly flat. The biggest and most profitable companies are avoiding huge portions of their tax obligations. It's a systemic problem. Both points are made by the NY Times piece and Tim O'Reilly's commentary on it. It's hardly a distraction. And yes, the underlying dynamics of the problem are manifold. Both statute and regulation should change.
- carbocation 15y ago
  Unless you alleging fraud, then it's patently incorrect to say that Apple is avoiding its obligations. Apple is merely demonstrating what their obligations under the law are, and people aren't liking what they see. That's fine; let's change the tax code.
  - dredmorbius 15y ago
    Given that 1) the law involved is tremendously complex, that 2) enforcement and compliance actions by the IRS are hugely underfunded and undermanned, and 3) that corporate and monied America has an undue direct influence on the legislative process, including tax legislation, then I'd say that de facto fraud if not de jure fraud is an open question.

skore 15y ago

This makes me wonder, again, whether I have read a different article. If you want to attack the NYT piece, maybe you should comment on that thread, but this is the discussion about Tim O'Reilly's post containing reflections on the general theme, not apple as an actor in particular. That makes your comment seems misplayed here.

carbocation 15y ago
No, I read Mr. O'Reilly's piece and am responding to it. You seem to be saying that, because I reject the premises and false arguments that he makes in his introduction, therefore I didn't read it? Feel free to respond to my substantive point rather than just distracting from the actual conversation.
- skore 15y ago
  Tims post has two parts. The first part is him explaining why he has wrote it (Hey, I've read the NYT piece as well!) and then what he has to say (Hey, let me elaborate on the theme of taxation). The NYT piece is not a premise in his argument, it's simply the reason why he writes about taxation.
  - carbocation 15y ago
    As I stated, I read the article and am familiar in fact with the bold "hey, I said I'd give you my personal opinion" transition that he makes midway through. He has no actionable thesis, just a vague "we should look out for each other" message that makes it easy to read into it whatever you want to see. Yes, we should look out for each other. We compel this via taxation. If we aren't compelling corporations to do what we actually want given the rules we have set up, let us change the rules. In other words, the actual problem that he is talking about, whether he chooses to address it or not, is that systemically we have a taxation problem. That's the only interesting thing to discuss here.
    - skore 15y ago
      Now I'm profoundly confused - That is precisely what he is doing: Arguing that we should establish that tone of conversation in order to get some change going. The real problem is that it is somewhat presentable to pay as little taxes as you can. Tim is trying to spark a conversation where that changes. Before you can change tax law, you have to get people engaged in caring about tax law. Because for the last decades, big corporations have invested a lot of money in having people either not care, or care in a direction that directly hurts them.
- jarcoal 15y ago
  Your initial post is the distraction. It doesn't address the main point of the article at all, it should have been posted in the NYT thread. This heart of this post begins at "But to my promised personal reflections"

dredmorbius 15y ago

When that actor is that largest player on the stage, and the article (and Tim's commentary on it) make clear that many others are simply playing the same game, then your criticism falls doubly flat. The biggest and most profitable companies are avoiding huge portions of their tax obligations. It's a systemic problem. Both points are made by the NY Times piece and Tim O'Reilly's commentary on it. It's hardly a distraction. And yes, the underlying dynamics of the problem are manifold. Both statute and regulation should change.

carbocation 15y ago
Unless you alleging fraud, then it's patently incorrect to say that Apple is avoiding its obligations. Apple is merely demonstrating what their obligations under the law are, and people aren't liking what they see. That's fine; let's change the tax code.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  Given that 1) the law involved is tremendously complex, that 2) enforcement and compliance actions by the IRS are hugely underfunded and undermanned, and 3) that corporate and monied America has an undue direct influence on the legislative process, including tax legislation, then I'd say that de facto fraud if not de jure fraud is an open question.