Right. Just the other day the Motley Fool published effective tax rates. That takes into account not just federal taxes but aveerage state/provincial tales and other tax-related burdens that actually get paid in real life by actual companies doing actual business in all the countries they list. The effective rate for businesses in the US is 40%. The second highest, behind only the UAE.

...it won't have a single thing I need.

So, desktop apps. What's the difference now?

The correct analogy would be: do you like tofu? No? Well, here's a coupon for free tofu anyway. If you like it, pick it up at the store. If not, don't. Either way. Free tofu.

Create a worm hole and communicate through it.

Sheesh.. haven't you ever saw Stargate?

Seriously, I doubt we can even travel light years at present.

The problem here is the most of the money is either made or spent off shore from the incorporated nation. These corporations have created subsidiary corporations within other jurisdictions and sell to them at costs of a loss and the subsidiary ends up making the money in the jurisdiction that has low taxes.

And Alternative minimum tax would not be able to get around that because each incorporation is recognized legally as a separate corporation/company even when they are entirely owned by one of them.

Where the confusion happens is in the SEC (and equivalent) filings in which the owned subsidiaries get counted as an asset so it's activities are reported along with the parent corporation's activities. However, it doesn't reflect the obligations in differing nations or jurisdictions. Imagine it like this, you own an apartment building in the US and another in France. You form a corporation in France and place the apartment building there so make accounting and legal compliance easier. You pay property taxes on the properties only in the countries in which they actually are. Well, as long as you do not bring your rental income back to the US, you pay taxes on it only in France and it wouldn't even be counted on your US tax forms. But if I sued you because you got drunk and ran over my cat and you lost everything, those apartments in France would count as one of your assets.

Keep in mind, it's a bit more complicated then that, but that should give the gist of it.

You are a moron. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. But more importantly, you should never infer guilt by association and discount anything because of preconceived notions that are not even relevant.

Grow up.

Once in a while it is time to go pedantic.
Words have meanings. We can string words together without regard to their meanings, and create an aphorism that sounds good, but it leads to logical incorrectness and a misunderstanding of how things work. It would be better if you were just gibbering.

Theft
In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Tax
A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to collection, is punishable by law.

Donation
A donation is a gift given by physical or legal persons,

Taxation is not theft. The two words describe different circumstances and processes. The outcome may be the same (your stuff is gone), but they are two different words with different meanings.

It would seem to me that if you do not want to pay your taxes but do so under threat of law, it would be theft. If you do want to pay your taxes voluntarily, it would be a donation. Of course this is using common understanding of definitions.

The first Budget in Obama's term put the war spending on budget.

They were off budget during Bush's terms but one of the first acts Obama did with a democrat congress was to put them on budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...

Now, people may think "good, we need to account for that money anyways" but the fact is they were always accounted for in the end. The problem with this is the rules of congress say you have to pay for new spending. With the wars off budget, when congress decided to do something new or increase something, they had to either decrease somewhere else, raise taxes, or assume an influx of revenue with a realistic chance of it happening. Now, when the wars wind down, congress can simply spend the money as new spending without having to at minimum look for it.

Note, I saw some articles saying that we are still using some supplemental appropriates (off budget) for spending on the wars. I am led to believe this is minor compared to the on budget spending for it.

Not sure how it works in other countries, but if you REALLY want a true tax reform, in the USA, outlaw the FICA taxes. Give everyone their paycheck, and FORCE them to give it to the government each month. Once they find out 1/3 or more of their paycheck goes to the government, they would be standing outside of DC with pitchforks and torches. Always bugs me when I hear someone say how much they earn by saying my "take home pay" is xxxxxx. No, your SALARY is MORE, but the government STEALS a set amount. And, with more and more people on the government take, they will have to confinscate more and more from the producers, to give to the takers to ensure they are elected again and again. Socialism in the USA will end, when those elected, run out of other peoples money to spend!

What's the skype version of sexting?

Now wouldn't it suck if the FBI had that in a database.

I, for one, welcome our new, umm, overlords.

Right. Usually, that's because:

1) We want people to risk their money making investments to start and grow businesses. That creates economic activity, which is taxed.

2) If the person risking their money on such an investment loses it (as most do - most new businesses fail), they do NOT get to write that loss off on their own income taxes. It's just gone, goodbye. 3) The lower rates only apply if you let the investment site for a good long time. Those who throw money in and yank it back up pay a much higher rate.

Employees ARE people who profit from a business. In fact employees account for the vast majority of the outbound cash that most businesses spend. And its taxed at normal payroll rates. And the taxes levied on the money those people are getting out of the company are a big part of what pays for the public infrastructure that they (as the people who are making money daily in the business) use. Why do you think that city, county, state, and federal programs to encourage business presence and growth aren't hesitant to wave, for some period of time, taxes charged directly to the business? It's because the net result of establishing that business in place and keeping it there is MUCH MORE TAX REVENUE - from all of the other activity and employment that results.

My source was a US military training manual. It didn't provide references, though.