I'm just goofing around with you, don't be a brick, and try reading for content.

If a U.S. company designs products in one country, manufactures them in another country, and sells them in a third, in which jurisdiction should the company pay tax? The country in which it's domiciled?

I have no problem with Apple paying federal income tax on every product designed in the U.S., and then paying sales taxes or VAT to the governments of the countries in which those goods are sold. I don't think the country of manufacture should matter at all when it comes to determination of corporate income tax.

Apple is a U.S. corporation. So long as it reaps the benefits of incorporating here, they have to pay for it.

You're joking, right? I get to deduct the salaries I pay employees, but I still have to pay corporate income tax on my profits, after deductions.

That may not be the way you want the world to be, but that's the way it is right now.

Whoosh much? I was referring to "Libertarian wackos" not "RightwingNutjobs."

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but do you have any proof of this, or is this supposition on your part.

For example, is there anywhere in the quarterly report that I could find proof that this occurred? I don't doubt that Apple is doing this (as I'm sure Cisco, Google, et al are), but how can we prove it?

No, those would be examples to support my argument, the total argument itself.

It DOES read "Designed by Apple in California" on the box for every hardware product Apple makes. So, by your argument, shouldn't Apple pay US and California state taxes on every hardware product it sells, no matter where?

Ah, Atlas Shrugged. Written by a sociopath, rule book for the selfish, prized tome to Libertarian wackos everywhere.

Go ahead, you John Galts! Take your ball and leave, like a four year-old throwing a tantrum.

You THINK that you’re special, but the truth is you’re completely disposable. There are a hundred Americans just waiting to take your place with great ideas and hard work. Perhaps they’ll even do your work better than you could.

As an entrepreneur, I relish this mindset, as I don’t have to compete against pouting quitters.

You won’t be missed.

It’s part of the budget, which the President submits to Congress. I’m pretty sure that counts as talking to them.

Congress can always strip it out, but there’s nothing requiring the President to sign that modified budget, and then we’re right back to CRs to pay for everything, like we’ve been doing for the past several years.

How’s this for fair share: corporations used to pay 27% of the taxes in this country, and now they pay 7%.

I’d argue that they were paying their “fair share” when they paid 27%, rather than the 7% they pay now. They use the roads more and the courts more than the average citizen does.

Something doesn’t add up there. Apple just posted the largest corporate profit in world history, and according to their filings, paid a 26% rate (rather than the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate). Apple stated this was due to their foreign holdings.

What am I missing here? Are you claiming that Apple’s true profit is far greater than the $18B reported?

First, some definitions: in English, the word "many" is defined as a large number. Two is not a large number.

There are only two countries in Europe with compulsory voting, and they don't enforce it (I'm not going to name them for you, you'll have to learn something by doing the research yourself). Australia is the only English-speaking nation with compulsory voting which also enforces with a fine, and they aren't in Europe.

Second, you're (intentionally, I suspect) missing my point that, in general, an educated populace is more likely to vote, where an ignorant populace will not, and that's the reason Europe has higher voter turnout than the U.S.

Third, you can't claim I'm spouting biased propaganda without providing evidence. Do you have any? Ah, I thought not. But don't trouble yourself, I do have evidence. Both President Clinton and President Obama have raised taxes on the wealthy, and they are Democrats. President George W. Bush TWICE cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and he's a Republican. Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul...all are Republicans, and all have consistently suggested lowering taxes on the wealthy. Just this month, Republicans reduced the amount of the Social Security Disability Fund in the future, which helps those who are not wealthy. Republicans have reduced food stamp funding, and they've fought to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which help poorer people afford food and health insurance, respectively. Republicans support the Keystone Pipeline, which benefits the billionaire Koch brothers. The United States Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, illegally halted the recount in 2000 to allow Republican (and member of the top 1%) George W. Bush to become president. He subsequently charged up trillions in debt to pay wealthy private industry to wage war, probably one of the largest redistributions of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy that we've ever seen.

President Reagan (darling of Republicans everywhere) reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 50%. He was a Republican, and that benefitted the wealthy, no one else. And it was Republicans in Congress who came up with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, allowing the 1% to gamble with their money and stick middle class and poor taxpayers with the bill (while also setting us up for the Great Recession).

Have you even looked at the Republican Party platform? You can read it, you know. It endorses regulatory reform (so the wealthy can get away with poisoning our food and environment without fines or penalties), and privatizing Social Security (so wealthy banks can get trillions of dollars in new accounts they can charge fees). It suggests pulling more money out of welfare programs (so the poor will be desperate enough to take that job at the local McDonald's...owned by a wealthy person), and both gut the FDA and restrict Americans' rights to sue when they're harmed (both great for the top 1%).

I don't straddle the fence like some milquetoast moderate, I see things for what they are: the Republican Party stands for elevating the wealthy, while destroying the middle class and the poor, and represents the single largest threat to America since World War II. Yes, more than terrorism. And much more than Libertarians.

While we're engaging in ad hominem attacks, I'm sorry you don't have the balls to admit the truth, and think I should moderate my position. Republicans came down with the Citizens United decision, which benefits the top 1%. Democrats take corporate money for their campaigns as well, but it is a false equivalency to claim the parties are basically the same. Democrats are pro-union, which benefits working people, and not the top 1%. Republicans are anti-union. Democrats want to help poor people, and the Republican Party does not.

Honestly, I can't figure out if you're just ignorant, or a moron. Is it possible you're a sociopath or a malignant narcissist? Those are practically prerequisites for Republicans and Libertarians these days.

Politics is a hobby of mine, so I don't expect you to know everything I do, but you could bother to do SOME small amount of research before taking such an untenable, absurd position. America can't afford to have voters so naive.

By the way, the Fortune 500 is much too large to be an oligarchy. I would characterize the United States as more of a kleptocracy than republic these days.

Try harder...to know what you're talking about.

There won’t be a backdoor for anyone but the Americans, and maybe Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, because those nationas already have agreements in place to spy on each others’ citizens when the home country is legally prevented from doing so.

As an American, I think it’s more than a little unfair to blame Europe for what has happened to our country.

European citizens vote at rates far higher than we do. If we ever get to 80% of the eligible population casting votes in an election, and we still get corruption, then maybe it would be time for a revolution.

But you can’t even consider a revolution when barely half your nation votes. When a large segment of the population thinks the government should keep its hand off medicare, when they consistently vote for Republicans who only have the interests of the top 1% and the corporations in mind.

President Obama sucks in many ways, but he’s no President George W. Bush, and he’s no Mitt Romney. He may kill people with illegal drone strikes, but he didn’t destroy an entire nation for nothing, leaving hundreds of thousands dead. He didn’t run up a $3T war debt, with billions unaccounted-for being paid to government contractors.

As a nation, we get the government we deserve, and many of us just don’t pay attention or vote.

I don’t think you understand how this works. The states draw their own districts, which explains Republicans’ desire over the last several years to capture as many state legislatures as possible.

You’re actually making the OP’s point: Democrats lost so many seats in the House this year BECAUSE of the Republicans’ gerrymandering. Without it, Republicans lose votes each year, as the will of the voters is actually expressed.

I did read the link, and I surmised only that conservatives or more deeply disgusted by the images than liberals.

Does this mean liberals are more tolerant of the reprehensible? Does this mean conservatives are less tolerant of the reprehensible? Who knows.

I’m not sure that the study has any practical application.

Is this guy really so short sighted as to employ reductio ad absurdam to make an argument?

If Slashdot contained a fallacy filter it would reduce posts by half.