Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Damned if you do.... (Score 1) 273

If the same person had said they attempt to live frugally and therefore don't travel you'd probably say they were a typical Ugly American with no interest in the rest of the world

FYI: The Ugly American was the one who was trying to help the locals in a practical way. It was the pretty Americans who were behaving badly.

Comment: Re:Did they break any laws? (Score 1) 716

by magarity (#43787859) Attached to: Web of Tax Shelters Saved Apple Billions, Inquiry Finds

Of course labor costs of course are built into the price of goods and services.
Furthermore, from the employer's point of view the labor expense is what they're willing to pay for an employee. How much of it goes to the government isn't really the employer's problem. And if you get paid by a corporate operation the actual amount they pay to have you working is a fair amount higher than what you know about because of behind the scenes payroll taxes. Just let that soak in: the company isn't "willing to pay you x and the government y" in order for you to come to work; the company is "willing to pay x+y" to have you come to work.
In short, income based taxes suck whether they are corporate or personal. They should be replaced with consumption based taxes. Comsumption based taxes are *really hard* to cheat, don't contain many loopholes, and are much more equitable across the low income vs high income spectrum.

Comment: Re:Did they break any laws? (Score 1) 716

by magarity (#43783541) Attached to: Web of Tax Shelters Saved Apple Billions, Inquiry Finds

So you've laid out a great moral argument except that it completely ignores the mechanics of tax collection. Corporate taxes are paid exclusively by their customers who get it built into the prices of the products. If Apple (or Samsung or Nokia or ...) pays more in taxes then it gets passed on to cell phone owners. It makes some people feel better to think the rich companies are getting soaked by high corporate income taxes but their feeling better about it doesn't make it any better for the consumers. Then loopholes in the tax codes of different countries and layers of international cross ownership make it a game between the companies to lower their tax burden and thus undersell their competitors. It keeps some accountants employed but it's a net loss for the consumer.

Comment: Re:No contest, surely. (Score 1) 405

by magarity (#43671977) Attached to: The public sector in direst need of reform is ...

Well health isn't really in the public sector so it should not be a choice on the pole.

Depends on what country you're in. In most of Europe it has been for years. Lately in the USA the purchase of strictly defined health insurance has become mandatory for everyone who isn't already on government coverage so that's de facto public sector. The few places where health care is not at all public sector are either communist countries like China and places with dysfunctional or barely existing governments like large sections of Africa.

Comment: Re:Oh yeah, thats a great idea (Score 1) 256

Yeah, because the Chinese have bases in countries all over the world... Oh, wait that's us. No, it's the Chinese who are spending themselves into oblivion on weapons of war... Oh, wait, that's us again. We spend more on our military than the next 13 nations combined (but we can't afford to educate our children... bright.) I dunno, perhaps if we moved from offense to defense, these things wouldn't be issues?

Just a thought.

You need to check the ratios on the federal budget to see on what it is the US is spending itself into oblivion. Military spending is not the lion's share. And spending on public education exceeds what the feds spend on the military.

The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.

Working...