Without taking a side, I'm also curious what specifically OP thought was short-sighted, or if it was just the result post facto indicating short-sightedness.
One of the most profitable companies in the world definitely needs to have more of their wealth extracted by the least profitable organization in the world — USG.
They charge 30% for app store transactions for the paltry amount of services they provide. Governments provide far more services from which the corporations benefit, so if apple can charge that much so can any govt.
Governments aren't intended to be profitable, they're provided in the public good, not their own. You should look at governments as massive non-profits.
“Indeed, tax strategies like the ones used by Apple — as well as Amazon, Google, Starbucks and others — cost governments around the world as much as $240 billion a year in lost revenue, according to a 2015 estimate by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”
Awww poor little governments not getting their fair share...
1) 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
Patent protection, law enforcement, safe international finance and goods market access are just some examples of "govt services" Apple benefits greatly from.
(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.
If 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.
Yes, 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)?
Honestly, it's because intent counts. There's lots of reasons a company who wants to do business in and with the US would want a US entity. They are not required to sell their services from the US for all eternity, however they are also not required to sell their services to the US either. For now, at least, the calculus is in favor of doing business both from here and to here.
Also I'm a pretty hard core capitalist myself but plenty of people aren't actually afraid of the label "socialism", especially those outside the US, so you won't be able to convince someone by just labeling something as socialist.
If I had to generalize, the problems at hand are growing the pie and distributing the pie, and the two are often at odds.
I’m not trying to argue semantics, I don’t think most people on this forum realize that the redistribution of wealth IS socialism. I’m aware that “socialist” does not carry the bad connotation I believe it deserves on this forum.
Capitalist companies are first and foremost concerned with growing the pie; socialist govts are concerned with getting a bigger slice of the current pie and don’t care very much about growing it.
> I’m not trying to argue semantics, I don’t think most people on this forum realize that the redistribution of wealth IS socialism
Heh, that is literally arguing over the definition of a word ;)
But yes, let's do the math trick of "Let X = Y" and say "Sbenitoj's Socialism" means wealth redistribution which I would assume to entail welfare, taxation, etc.
I think that's a good jumping point to debate about what the best mix is (which would then depend on what measuring stick people are using... gdp? median happiness? min(happiness)?) and then you can get somewhere.
I don't think most of us agree that redistribution of wealth (the proceeds of production) is socialism (the redistribution of the means of production). The US has particularly strong property rights, and asking companies to chip in to reimburse the public for the benefits they've leveraged to become and remain successful (such as national defense, public education, public roads, public police, public fire departments, public water, courts, etc) is beyond the pail even if you choose to label that socialism. I don't think it's beyond the pail to work to build a more meritocratic than plutocratic society to ensure the next generation of businesses also.
Fair, he seemed genuinely surprised that some of us had a different idea so I wanted to explain where I’m coming from so we had a shared basis to work from. It was more of a pitch than an argument :)
I suppose the reason I choose to argue the semantics is that I think overdefining the term socialism hides the critique of capitalism that socialism embodies, and I think that does a disservice to the debate.
Ownership rights include the right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. The more rights another has to the profits, the more ownership rights they have.
Therefore, the more taxes that are extracted, the less ownership one has, and the more "communal ownership", i.e., socialistic it is.
Sure, I don't think many would argue that social democratic schemes are further down the scales to the left. But if we define a system that explicitly exists within the context of supporting privately owned corporations socialist, I feel we've overdefined the term to where it's no longer meaningful.
This 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.
“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?
Using 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.
I'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.
Railroads? 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.
Privatization 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.
I'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.
The two best examples I can think of are the DMV in Alberta, Canada, and alcohol sales in the same province.
Prior to prioritization, the DMV was run by the govt and it sucked, hard. Two locations in a city of 1M. Took forever to get stuff done and the hours sucked (like the DMV in the US!). Post privatization, it was awesome. About 50 locations in the city, open until 9pm at night so you could go after work, good customer service and no lines! The difference was night and day.
Alcohol sales were similar. Better hours, better prices and more convenient. Specialty stores opened up and actually catered to customers needs versus the old govt run stores.
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.
Definitely, 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.
Most 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.
Poor 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.
I 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.
The efficient use of money by the government is an important, but separate point. I am in support in improving the way the government uses every cent of our taxes.
The thing about someone else robbing my money is that companies that hide money due in taxes are effectively taking what is not theirs by law, and hiding in a foreign country where we'll never see it. If the government is misusing the money, at least some of it may be recovered, and even the most inefficient use is made inside our country, thus contributing to the local economy.
Big companies aren't hoarding money to prove a point about government waste. They're doing it because they are entities designed to maximize and further solely their own interests and that of the shareholders. Government and law serve as constraints to ensure their good is compatible with ours.
Here we have two conversations:
(1) Governments should collect all taxes they're entitled to (they are acting on our will after all).
(2) Government waste should be eliminated.
Only the big ones are in a position to evade successfully further stratifying and consolidating power within the top few. Monopolies and even oligopolies are pretty distasteful to capitalists are they not?
62 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadAwww poor little governments not getting their fair share...
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
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
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.
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)?
Why are they required to sell their services from the US for all of eternity?
Also I'm a pretty hard core capitalist myself but plenty of people aren't actually afraid of the label "socialism", especially those outside the US, so you won't be able to convince someone by just labeling something as socialist.
If I had to generalize, the problems at hand are growing the pie and distributing the pie, and the two are often at odds.
I’m not trying to argue semantics, I don’t think most people on this forum realize that the redistribution of wealth IS socialism. I’m aware that “socialist” does not carry the bad connotation I believe it deserves on this forum.
Capitalist companies are first and foremost concerned with growing the pie; socialist govts are concerned with getting a bigger slice of the current pie and don’t care very much about growing it.
Heh, that is literally arguing over the definition of a word ;)
But yes, let's do the math trick of "Let X = Y" and say "Sbenitoj's Socialism" means wealth redistribution which I would assume to entail welfare, taxation, etc.
I think that's a good jumping point to debate about what the best mix is (which would then depend on what measuring stick people are using... gdp? median happiness? min(happiness)?) and then you can get somewhere.
Therefore, the more taxes that are extracted, the less ownership one has, and the more "communal ownership", i.e., socialistic it is.
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.
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.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
The two best examples I can think of are the DMV in Alberta, Canada, and alcohol sales in the same province.
Prior to prioritization, the DMV was run by the govt and it sucked, hard. Two locations in a city of 1M. Took forever to get stuff done and the hours sucked (like the DMV in the US!). Post privatization, it was awesome. About 50 locations in the city, open until 9pm at night so you could go after work, good customer service and no lines! The difference was night and day.
Alcohol sales were similar. Better hours, better prices and more convenient. Specialty stores opened up and actually catered to customers needs versus the old govt run stores.
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.
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.
The thing about someone else robbing my money is that companies that hide money due in taxes are effectively taking what is not theirs by law, and hiding in a foreign country where we'll never see it. If the government is misusing the money, at least some of it may be recovered, and even the most inefficient use is made inside our country, thus contributing to the local economy.
Here we have two conversations:
(1) Governments should collect all taxes they're entitled to (they are acting on our will after all).
(2) Government waste should be eliminated.
Only the big ones are in a position to evade successfully further stratifying and consolidating power within the top few. Monopolies and even oligopolies are pretty distasteful to capitalists are they not?