“Apple chief executive Tim Cook plans to propose a ‘dramatic simplification’ of corporate tax laws when he testifies for the first time before Congress next week, just as lawmakers are considering an overhaul of the tax code,” Cecilia Kang reports for The Washington Post.
“In an interview with The Washington Post, Cook said he will present specific proposals aimed at encouraging companies to bring back foreign earnings to the United States and invest that money injob creation, as well as research and development. He will speak at a Senate hearing Tuesday,” Kang reports. “More than 1,000 U.S. companies hold an estimated $1.7 trillion in earnings overseas, according to a JPMorgan report. And Apple, which has built up one of the biggest cash piles in corporate history, holds massive amounts in foreign countries… Apple has $145 billion in cash, but analysts estimate it has only $45 billion available in the United States.”
Kang reports, “‘If you look at it today, to repatriate cash to the U.S., you need to pay 35 percent of that cash. And that is a very high number,’ Cook said in an interview Thursday. ‘We are not proposing that it be zero. I know many of our peers believe that. But I don’t view that. But I think it has to be reasonable… When you combine state and federal, Apple is paying approximately $1 million an hour in just domestic income taxes,’ he said. ‘You may not know this, but Apple likely is the largest corporate taxpayer in the U.S.,’ Cook added.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Would that he’d propose a dramatic simplification for U.S. personal income tax laws, too.
Related articles:
Apple CEO Tim Cook to propose U.S. tax reform for offshore cash – May 17, 2013
Apple CEO Tim Cook goes on offense in Washington D.C. over $100 billion offshore cache – May 16, 2013
Apple CEO Tim Cook at Senate Permanent Subcommittee over Apple’s offshore tax practices – May 15, 2013
Study: U.S. companies’ overseas earnings hit record $1.9 trillion – May 8, 2013
Unlike the US tax code, Apple is perfectly rational – May 7, 2013
Apple Inc.’s taxdodging ways – May 5, 2013
Apple, corporate taxes, and The New York Slimes – May 2, 2013
Apple avoids potential $9 billion U.S. tax bill – May 2, 2013
Debt-free Apple to take on debt to avoid huge U.S. repatriation tax hit – April 26, 2013
Apple’s massive $100 billion capital return program is a perfect tax arbitrage – April 26, 2013
Apple to tap a hungry debt market; strong demand likely from investors eager to get cash off sidelines – April 25, 2013
Debt-free Apple plans to borrow to finance massive capital-return program – April 23, 2013
Apple beats Street on EPS and revenue; ups quarterly dividend by 15%; ups buybacks to $60 billion – April 23, 2013
Apple paid $6 billion in U.S. federal income taxes, 1/40th of all corporate income taxes collected by U.S. government in 2012 – January 5, 2013
Google, Apple, eBay shouldn’t pay taxes – people should pay taxes – November 25, 2012
So how much did Apple really pay in taxes? – November 1, 2012
Apple’s showdown with the U.S. government over taxes on offshore cash – July 13, 2012
Apple‘s $74 billion tops list of U.S. tech companies’ overseas cash – July 9, 2012
Apple’s dividend move puts spotlight on foreign cash holdings, repatriation tax reform – March 20, 2012
Apple: Good start; and what about the overseas cash? – March 19, 2012
Apple’s foreign cash hoard piles up: $54 billion and rapidly growing – January 11, 2012
Senator John McCain eyes Apple’s $54 billion overseas cash pile – November 3, 2011
Google joins Apple in push for U.S. repatriation tax holiday – October 3, 2011
Apple lobbies Obama for tax holiday, wants to bring overseas bounty home – August 24, 2011
U.S Senate Democrat Schumer allies with Apple, other multinationals on repatriation tax talks – June 21, 2011
U.S. companies push for tax break on foreign cash – June 20, 2011
Apple, Oracle, Duke Energy, others organize lobbying blitz for tax holiday – February 17, 2011
Hope he doesn’t go for the two-line IRS Form:
1 State your earnings
2 Send the amount on Line 1 in
Unless income tax is say 10% or less, and, everyone has to pay at the same rate with no exceptions [exemptions]
That would last one minute, until the Congressional Mafia starts to meddle with it.
That’s the beauty of flat taxes systems. They take the power away from politicians, which eliminates incentive for corruption. And that’s exactly why Congress will never go for it.
Never fear, they’ll find something else to corrupt.
For those of you who are Christians, God figured that we could run the world and take care of every societal need with 10% of our income but humans managed to make it 25% to 50% to do the same thing.
deities are human inventions.
moreover, you’re already enjoying the benefits that your representatives have, for the past 50 years or so, refused to pay off.
What makes you think that christianity is the most cost effective religion anyway? What do you get in return for your 10% that any other person would not?
… ands how much does the pope charge for indulgences these days?
Perhaps it is a waste of time to explain my post to you. I am not sure how you think the pope is involved or how you would come to the conclusion that Christianity is the most cost effective religion. The point was that an efficient system of governance doesn’t need more than 10% of our workforce or money. I use the concept of the tithe to illustrate a possible system that could have worked if man didn’t get in there and wreck it.
Well said, simply, veryApple-like 🙂
I don’t disagree that 10% may be enough of universally applied. Keep in mind though that the OT required more than the oft stated 10% and actually approached 30% when all was added together.
If churches did a fraction of what they claim to do, then governments would happily step back from providing social services.
The problem with your post is that you pulled an arbitrary number out to compare two entirely different things. You might as well compare the budgets from the Boy Scouts with that of the Air Force.
When your church (headed by the pope or otherwise) begins to offer a small fraction of the services that your government provides all citizens — even those citizens who don’t believe in it — then we can talk about how much those services are worth, and how much the beneficiaries should be charged.
Religious nuts, it comes as no surprise, are notoriously bad at accounting, since both inputs and outputs of the business (yes, religion IS a business) are essentially freebies. The tangiible benefits of the glorified social club are laughably small for the vast majority of the flock, especially if you actually tracked where the money was spent (hint: all the pomp and ornamentation does nothing for the people). The vast majority of church budgeting is done with essentially no results analysis to ensure that money spent actually accomplishes a damn thing. (pun intended). Audit the books some time — if you are allowed to even see them. At least with democratic governments, budgets are public, and representatives can be held accountable.
Interesting perspective. If be glad to check the books when I’m done helping at the soup kitchen my church supports and after a meeting with the family that is leaving for Swaziland to help aids orphans. The church keeps completely open financial records and has no ornamentation as they consider it wasteful when the funds could be used for more community services. Not all churches are a social club. Many feel that serving others in many ways is the biggest part of our purpose on this planet. Hope that’s not too offensive to anyone here.
Bravo! I am sincerely glad that someone walks the talk. Sadly, you may be the exception to the rule. Religion should in no way ever be a prerequisite for service to fellow humans, as it frequently detracts from the important work, building barriers instead of tearing them down.
We have always donated time & money to nonprofit, nonreligious charities that meet objective efficiency measures. Moneysense offers one excellent guide for Canada. (you will notice only 3 religious organizations made the cut):
http://www.moneysense.ca/the-2012-charity-100/
Apparently you missed the statement I had made that man has messed up on the utilization of the money that the Christ has asked for. In my opinion, it was never intended to make grandiose palaces for those who usurped power. It was for education, sanitation, helping the poor in tough times, building commerce and roads and delivering justice. It was man who did not use the money wisely. The same thing is true for governments today. There are many politicians and public servants who misuse public money for their own selfish purposes.
Can the rich grovel for money or what. There are more millionaires in America than all other countries combined by a wide margin. Gee, I didn’t know so many millionaires read MDN.
Steve Forbes had it right years ago. He explains it yet again in here:
As I said, can the rich grovel for money or what. Republicans always try to compare past history to current times. Yes, during the time of Lincoln and the US constitution things were simpler and evidently very short (word count) which is why we (Christian nation) owned slaves and women weren’t allowed to vote to name a few. If it wasn’t written, then it was legal, hence human slavery and all else that followed.
Republicans want a flat tax so all pay the say tax rate, rich and poor. They are effectively re-distributing the tax burden across all working classes while heavily biased toward the rich who will see the only windfall. Keep in mind it is these same wealthy people or corporations that are moving jobs overseas, blue-collar and white-collar leaving only service low paying jobs with no benefits. They then fight against any law giving working people a living wage.
No one becomes rich or poor by paying or not paying taxes. It is sales. Sales come from consumers with enough disposable income because they earn a living wage. Speaking of fairness, the death tax is not taxing the dead for, well, they are dead and they can’t take with them. The money inherited is taxed because those receiving it wasn’t their money. It is the same as a person winning a slot machine jackpot or a lottery, they have to pay taxes. But you don’t see the rich standing for those people do you.
The rich cry an awful lot don’t they, but they certainly don’t mind those tax loopholes that allow them to pay a relatively low tax rate. Look at the oil industry who still enjoys taxes breaks after a 100 years of existence while they bemoan the tax breaks for new industries as they once were.
Gutless and shameless to a fault. That’s why it says in the bible about the chances of rich man gaining entrance into heaven, less than 0.
Jesus will you stop it already.
And your first paragraph is wrong.
I live in a country where tax is flat (well, almost flat… Disabilities, etc) and the tax code collects $0 from people that make less than $22k/ year.
And there is no deficit here in gvt spending. And many social programs that help every citizen.
And religion has nothing to do with it.
It’s interesting that you chose not to name your country. True, religion has nothing to with anything, but try telling that to the rich (Beck, Rush, Fox, republican politicians) that are always interjecting God and Christianity into everything. Always condemning the poor and weak while praising the wealthy. Where is your outrage on this, man without a dog in the fight.
Why name just Republicans? (And who’s Fox?) Al Gore and John Kerry have more money than Romney. And “fair share” proponents Gates and Buffett aren’t foolish enough to pass their wealth on to the government. They pass it to their Foundation and spend it as *they* choose.
The republicans represent the interest of the rich only. It’s true at the local, state and federal level as they cut programs, cut public workers and their benefits and give tax breaks to the rich all the while claiming one with God.
Maybe you missed the republican primaries, “let him die” to the hypothetical example of a person without heath ins dying of a grave decease. Or maybe Rush as he calls women using birth control “whores” while saying “talent on loan from God”. Then there’s Beck that about the only thing he hasn’t accused the president and dems is being in bed with Aliens (UFO) as he claims we need more God in our lives and public schools.
All of them portray the unemployed, poor and elderly as lazy, criminal and drug using and to that end attempt to pass legislation at the local, state and federal level cutting their assistance and violating their rights. Oh, that’s Fox news as if you didn’t know. Well, now you know.
James, if you live in America, you are wrong. Low income people may not pay Federal Income Tax, but they do pay sales taxes, taxes on their gasoline and payroll taxes (FICA and MediCare).
The facts are that the lowest quintile of American households receive about 3.5% of all the income generated in America and pay about 2.9% of all taxes. The top 1% of households receive about 20% of all the income and pay about 21.5% of all taxes. The US tax code as it stands is very slightly progressive, but certainly not a place that has a large number of people who do not contribute to the common good.
Re MDN Take: Or at a minimum, get the IRS enforcement guidelines to match the written law.
They tried that. They took new, 22-year-old IRS agents, and had them read the entire tax code and all of the regulations, plus all the changes as they came out.
Unfortunately, when they finished that task, they were eligible for retirement.
Sounds like there’s some generally balanced thinking from Mr. Cook.
As for me:
1) I believe that income tax should be “simplified” across the board.
2) Everyone pays income tax – period. No loopholes, no exemptions, ever, period. (Corporate and personal, rich and poor, and, needless to say, everybody in between.)
Actually we should ALL pay the exact same rate (whatever that is, rich or poor) and then we should ALL get the exact same rebate back at the end of the year. For example $4,000.
If you are living in poverty you get $4000, and if you are Bill Gates you get $4000.
This has a balancing affect to help the poor who are struggling where $4000 is a very big deal, and where rich people (like Bill Gates) won’t even care.
Every year they can evaluate the poverty level of the working people and change the rebate number up or down.
In addition they should increase the minimum wage for ALL people, and combined with identical Rebates for ALL people a minimum standard of living can be achieved.
I don’t mind paying taxes some of my tax money that go into paying rebates even if a larger portion of it flows down to the poor. The guy who works hard at McDonalds providing me and my family services has just as much right to health and happiness as I do.
This scheme would be fair to everybody, and everyone would pay the EXACT same tax rate, get the EXACT same rebate, and would be subjected to the EXACT same minimum wage law — and if you fight for a bigger rebate for yourself, then you’d be fighting for the poor as well because if YOU need a bigger rebate, then the poor will need it even more than you!
Let’s start caring about our fellow man for a change.
If you pay the correct amount of tax, there is no rebate.
Many people don’t know how to save and want the government to do it for them. They rely on these ‘rebates’ to buy some useless toy or pay down some of their unpaid credit card debt. Financial education is absolutely necessary for the poor and middle classes.
hopefully, a socialist won’t be teaching “financial education.”
That was the single most absurd statement I’ve ever read on this site.
The exact same rebate ????
A rebate is a returning of what one has paid already isn’t it?
My youngest paid in $27.00 during his partial year, part time job … can anyone really believe he ought to receive a “rebate” for $3,973.00 that someone else paid in ????
Wow, it is a changing world and often very sadly for the worse when the same poster implies FREE healthcare and then that INSANE redistribution!
I miss the proper use of INSANELY as Apple applies it to our favorite products.
No a rebate is could be returning MORE than a person paid in. That is the whole point. If a person is making minimum wage with a family of 4, it is quite possible the $4000 rebate will be more than they paid. This is a system to guarantee a minimum standard of living to all people.
I am not so sure that part time income should factor in this the same way. Maybe the Rebate should be cut in half. But yes, if he worked 20 hours a week and only paid $27 in taxes, then he is getting paid too low, and probably SHOULD get a $2000 rebate at the end of the year.
The semantics of the word are clearly the issue friend. It’s a HAND OUT or a SUBSIDY maybe a GIFT or a generous PRIZE for being the current low income winner in a competitive economy. But if I drive by the local car dealer and stop in to GET MY REBATE on the purchase of a 2013 whatever … I MUST purchase the vehicle, pay the asking price (in theory) and then and ONLY then do I receive a REBATE.
No purchase (no paying in) … it’s not a rebate in the generally understood and accepted use of the word.
As for paying my and all young people starting out a living wage … I’m all for that.
I just don’t advocate the inevitable political extremes who will take your money and my money and everyone else’s via HIGH TAXES and then give to their prospective donors be they rich corporate friends or the sadly quite often mass of disenfranchised poor who will foolishly believe their loved by those that keep them in servitude.
maybe “rebate” is a wrong word, but the whole point is to flow money downward to make sure that anybody who is working full time never falls below the poverty line. The “rebate” would be adjusted every year based on the poverty line. If the minimum wage didn’t keep up with the poverty line the rebate would increase. If the minimum wage is over the poverty line the rebate would decrease (maybe 0).
The poor would probably win, lower middle class might break even, and the wealthy would pay more in “rebate” tax than they would receive.
This is only a good idea if you believe that anybody who is working full time should never be allowed to live below poverty.
Maybe I am socialist, but I believe that whenever anybody worked 40 hours and got paid below poverty, that means that the rest of society (us) took unfair advantage and therefore it is our obligation to refund some money back to them. In general, the wealthier you are the more you benefit from the working poor, therefore making this a fair (as possible) scheme.
The correct amount of tax means the poor in many cases get back more than they paid in. If a poor person is working 40 hours a week making current minimum wage he will likely have paid less then $4000 (more or less). The whole point of the Rebate is guarantee a minimum standard of living to all people.
“In addition they should increase the minimum wage for ALL people”
In 1965 the minimum wage was 75¢ per hour. Today is 10X higher, so is the cost housing, gasoline, hamburger, clothing, movie tickets, etc. The key to bettering your life is not increasing the minimum wage, it is making yourself more VALUABLE than minimum wage.
Contrary to socialist ideology, the only effect that raising the minimum wage has on employment, is that it forces employers to seek less expensive ways to do the same job (thereby reducing entry level employment opportunities).
Easy to say. How much income tax for someone already living at 80% of the poverty line? Will income from land, labor and capital all taxed the same? You’ll get a lot of resistance from big land owners and investors on that. Will corporations retain their “personhood” for tax purposes, or just free speech? They already get a pass on murder. The magical flat tax doesn’t generate much revenue until the rates are so high that poor people will be starving in the streets and the government won’t be able to afford to collect the corpses. Who will mow the lawns of the rich if the poor are dead?
Will UNIONS retain their “personhood” for tax purposes, or just free speech? They’ve certainly had a pass on murder.
A flat tax with zero deductions would easily generate the funds the government needs to run. We already have 50% of the population paying NO taxes.
Personally I’m tired of writing checks that barely cover one of Michelle Obama’s evening gowns.
Anywhere there is a concentration of power there will be potential for abuse of that power. Unions aren’t evil by nature. I think they should be treated under the same laws as corporations. Most importantly, no monopolies allowed. They should be split up in monopoly situations (most if not all) and there would be a union marketplace where unions have to compete with each other for employees and to hold jobs with major corporations and government.
TMac, will CORPORATIONS retain their personhood for screwing around with the U.S. political system? Unions at least represent a group of people with somewhat similar interests. Corporations are owned by a large number of people and organizations, very few of which have any real input or influence with respect to the day-to-day activities of the corporation. Corporate officers and boards are using owner assets to foster their political agendas. I don’t like it. Corporations were intended to be legal entities for the purpose of asset management and distribution and liability considerations.
Corporations are *not* people.
And let’s be completely factual, TMac. A significant percentage of American workers pay no INCOME tax. The primary reason for this is that they don’t make that much money. They do pay other taxes and fees as appropriate to their state and locality – sales tax, personal property tax, etc.
I would prefer a consumption tax over an income tax. That would encourage personal savings and eliminate all of the retirement complexities with IRAs and 401Ks and so on. If we retain the income tax, then I agree that we should simplify it by eliminating deductions.
With a flat tax approach, you would have to exempt a fairly significant amount of wages from taxation before the flat tax kicked in. For example, exempt the first $30K (single) or $60K (married).
An graduated tax might be a good alternative. Adding a few tax steps – exempted portion of income, then 10%, 15%, and 20%, for example. This would still be quite simple to calculate, but would roll in the taxation rather than abruptly going from exempt to a flat tax rate.
In the end, the tax revenue must equal the spending. We need to face the pain of paying for the services rendered. We have to stop rewarding politicians who buy votes, gather power, trade favors, and promote pork with borrowed money. Many of these elected federal officials are independently wealthy and do not appear to be that concerned about the downstream economic repercussions of this excessive government borrowing.
• Will UNIONS retain their “personhood” for tax purposes, or just free speech? They’ve certainly had a pass on murder.
– I was thinking of the fact that corporations have made conscious decisions to market deadly products while concealing the truth from buyers. Cigarettes come to mind. Many people have died from cigarettes, yet no cigarette company has been put to death for their crimes. How would it go if a killer with a lot of money could just pay a fine?
• A flat tax with zero deductions would easily generate the funds the government needs to run.
– You can say it, but it isn’t true. The number generally bandied around for a flat tax is about 17%. If a family is struggling to get by with an income at 80% of the poverty level, how will they do at 66% of the poverty level.
• We already have 50% of the population paying NO taxes.
– This just makes you sound stupid, yet we know you are not. The true statement is “about half of taxpayers pay no Federal Income Tax” They are mostly poor families, students and people on Social Security. And they pay pretty much their proportional share when all taxes are taken into account. The share of taxes that each fifth of households pays is similar to its share of the nation’s total income. ITEP data show that in 2011, the bottom fifth of households received 3.4 percent of the total income in the nation and paid 2.1 percent of the total taxes. The middle fifth of households received 11.4 percent of income and paid 10.3 percent of taxes. The top 1 percent of households received 21.0 percent of income and paid 21.6 percent of taxes. ( http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505 )
• Personally I’m tired of writing checks that barely cover one of Michelle Obama’s evening gowns.
– You have a couple of options I can see. One is to ask FLOTUS to dress down. Another is to pray for your income to be reduced to the point your tax checks make you happy.
Income tax is a tax on production. This method was OK while US consumption was primarily of US produced goods. But that stopped being the case during the 1960s.
Imported goods (cars, electronics, household appliances, clothing) now dominate the US market. We are competing with the tax system of the originating countries, not the lower cost labor.
The countries I speak of don’t tax production, they tax consumption, ergo there is no tax burden embedded in the cost of their goods.
If our tax system needs overhauling, and it does, change it from taxing production to taxing consumption. US goods consumed in the US will remain priced about as they are now. Foreign production, consumed in the US, will increase in price by ~25%. US production consumed offshore will see drop in pricing of the same 25%, benefitting US manufacturers (workers) a great deal.
Liberal politicians will not allow this kind of overhaul to take place, because it eliminates their red herring blame the rich argument.
http://www.fairtax.org
Thats not the reason liberal politicians won’t support it. Taxing consumption, or creating a high federal sales tax to eliminate income tax, would effectively create a flat tax rate. Liberal philosophy precludes this in the current climate due to the vast disparity of wealth in this country, especially given how many people currently pay effectively no tax but still can’t afford safe housing and to properly feed themselves. America is supposed to be about freedom, social mobility, and equal opportunity. We’re losing all three inch by inch.
While I agree with greggthurman’s preference for a consumption tax over an income tax, his final statement regarding “liberal politicians” is both disingenuous and asinine. Switching from an income tax to a consumption tax has been discussed and debated for decades, across multiple administrations of both parties, some with supermajority power in Congress. None have passed this legislation, or even given it much effort.
greggthurman, you might want to consider how you are undermining your stated objective. If you want to build consensus and effect positive change, then stop issuing blanket attacks on large groups of people. You will not gain supporters, even for worthy and reasonable causes, by disparaging others.
There is no hope of ever simplifying the tax code corporate or otherwise. It would be magnificently beneficial for the population as a whole, and wholly detrimental to the power politicians.
We have a population incapable of understanding the ramifications. The so called “99%” are easily manipulated into voting on single issues that keep us separated… balkanized. They think they are punishing the rich by assisting the government with a mandated shakedown, only just the government gets the money!
So we’re stuck in a battle between liberal fascism and shortsighted hidebound conservatism, and the tax code gets more complex and taxes go up, and our money goes to blowing up people we know nothing about and growing a social welfare bureaucracy that will just want more and more of it.
And to add to the ironic humor of it all, Tim Cook goes to Washington to do an impression of Ronald Reagan.
I going to go walk my dog and relish in his healthy bowl movement.
Thelonious, I like the way you think. You and I should have coffee one day.
How much are you willing to pay for a chance to have a cup of java with Thelonious?
Thelonious,
Well stated.
Cook could better use his time by going into a closet and talking to the walls about a better tax code. Once upon a time the purpose of the tax code was to generate the revenue the government needed to pay its expenses. Those days are long, long gone. Now the purpose of the tax code is to do social engineering and hand out favors to the friends and cronies of our fine legislators.
We are all doomed! I think I’ll go walk my dog too.
Does your dog have some sort of movement in a bowl? Does it have a bowel movement in a bowl? I once had a vowel movement at a vole. ( I yelled at it to get out of my lawn)
You were wasting your breath. Those voles simply don’t listen. Neither do the moles. Speaking of which, Eric Schmidt joined Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs for a 2011 meeting with Obama to discuss an offshore tax holiday that would have repatriated $1 trillion. I guess voles, moles, and trolls aren’t the only ones who fail to listen.
All taxes could be done away entirely, if the C.A.F.R.s (look it up) were tapped instead. Perhaps Tim Cook could propose that.
No tax, no highways, no police and fire protection, no garbage removal, no emergency services, . . . .
So those who pay NO tax should not benefit, right?
Simplication, fairness, inclusion. Well, would could argue against that?
I know it’s popular for the flat tax proponents to say “no deductions”, but I believe there should be just one: medical expenses.
You want that exception. Somebody else wants another. Pretty soon you get the same mess we have now.
Even Canadians don’t get medical expense deductions! …wait a second…
Rovian Facist!
Taxes should be connected to products and services.
Another thing, no one should have to pay for insurance. Car insurance costs could be covered at the pump. Add a few cents to each gallon of gas. The more you drive the more you pay. Makes sense because the more you drive the more risk you could be in an accident. The added cost to each gallon of gas covers everyone on the road in damages and injuries. Maybe even covers road maintenance and development.
The same concept goes for anything. Lets look at health. Tax food, tax cigarettes, tax anything related to health. This tax money pays for everyone’s medical.
Property tax, energy tax, water & sewer, all taxed for infrastructure repairs and development.
Compartmentalizing taxes into categories will mean the money payed in each tax is used for that category alone. The government needs to be prevented from lumping tax money together and spending on whatever they want. I want to know when I buy something that my where my tax money is going.
The first step is identifying the categories. Defense, infrastructure, Health, etc. Then each product and service is assigned into a category.
“Lets look at health. Tax food, tax cigarettes, tax anything related to health. This tax money pays for everyone’s medical”
Until the tax rate is so high that it diminishes sales and gives rise to black markets.
“Car insurance costs could be covered at the pump. Add a few cents to each gallon of gas. The more you drive the more you pay”
Which has nothing to do with higher-risk groups. You wreck several times, rates are the same. Get a plug-in, you pay nothing.
Sorry, but these are just a tad oversimplified. I understand airline taxes supporting airports and gas taxes funding infrastructure. But when you get into personal insurance, you can’t fund these with a consumption tax. Doesn’t work that way.
Tax simplification! Gee! Where have I heard that before in the last, oh say, 50 or so years? Never gonna happen; the tax industry will just not roll over and die.
From 1789 to 1913, there was no federal income tax nor a banking cartel that controlled the issuance of currency (Federal Reserve System, also imposed in 1913). US currency was issued by congress through the US Treasury (per the Constitution). During this period the US economy grew at an AVERAGE of 11% per year.
The annual growth rate for the US economy from May 2012 to May 1, 2013 is +1.9%.
botvinnik, you compared economic growth over 124 years starting with a brand new country with huge tracts of land and extending through a massive period of expansion capped by the industrial revolution to a *single* year in the modern era close on the heels of a major recession. Are you serious?
Naturally, you pick 2012 as a comparison rather than 2001 or 2007 because that supports your political paradigm.
Let’s review annual growth in U.S. GDP for Clinton, Bush, and Obama…
1993: 2.9%
1994: 4.1%
1995: 2.5%
1996: 3.8%
1997: 4.5%
1998: 4.4%
1999: 4.9%
2000: 4.2%
2001: 1.1%
2002: 1.8%
2003: 2.6%
2004: 3.5%
2005: 3.1%
2006: 2.7%
2007: 1.9%
2008: -0.4%
2009: -3.5%
2010: 3.0%
2011: 1.7%
2012: 2.2%
2013: 2.5% (first quarter)
To be fair, Bush inherited a stock market bubble. He also faced some crises (as have other administrations). But he also had a supermajority in Congress for several years, implemented several major tax cuts, borrowed money for massive increases in defense spending plus two wars, and kept interest rates low. All of that stimulus and debt did not produce superior economic performance. The end result was the housing bubble and economic collapse that Obama inherited.
GDP performance under Obama has not been great either, especially considering the large stimulus package. But Obama was also saddled with a large and growing deficit, two long running wars, and interest rates so low that there was little room left to reduce them to stimulate the economy (in addition to the aforementioned housing bubble and economic collapse). The economic problems of the European Union placed an additional drag on the U.S. recovery. All things considered, GDP performance under Obama has been decent, and it compares fairly well with performance under Bush. Both inherited some economic problems (although it is fair to say that Obama inherited a worse situation), and both borrowed money for stimulus spending.
botvinnik, your partisanship is demonstrably both blind and irrational. You seldom post anything worth serious consideration. In short, you are a waste of time.
Melvin, I have no partisanship preference between Obama Messiah, Dubya, Billy Boy or CIA George. 124 years old is not a new country, Melvin. I have just told you the reasons your buying power is a fraction of what your father’s was and if you have children, they will have no sovereign country of their own. Cut the elephants and donkeys crap, it is smoke and mirrors..your personal liberty is at stake. If you do not understand how the Federal Reserve System works, you will never understand present economics in the United States…maybe this quote will help you:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.” – Jefferson
also, a good primer in understanding the Federal Reserve System (and its harlot partner, the Federal Income Tax Act) is “The Creature From Jekyll Island.” It is available at the iBooks Store.
PS – I selected May ’12 to May 1, ’13 simply because it was the latest data, not because your Messiah was in power. For the billionth time, there is no difference in the policies of Obama Messiah, Dubya, Billy Boy and CIA George…rhetoric, yes…policy, none.
Are you too stupid to comprehend simple statements? The 124-year period that you referenced began in 1789…brand new country. Get it?
If you were serious about comparing/contrasting GDP growth before and after the implementation of an income tax, then you would not have compared a 124-year period to a single year in the modern era. You would have considered 1914 to the present. In addition, there are many related variables to consider – income tax rate, demographics, socioeconomic conditions, and so forth that make a simplistic comparison meaningless. You occasionally include some interesting data in your posts, but your positions and conclusions are typically superficial and overly simplistic.
If you read my post, you might further realize that Obama is not my “messiah.” That statement clearly marks your ignorance and your viewpoint. I briefly compared relevant GDP data over three consecutive administrations while also identifying key economic drivers.
You have sparred with me in the past, botvinnik, and attacked me with total BS on multiple occasions. I told you then and I am telling you now that I will never back down from you on this forum.
you are a genuine idiot. This concludes my last attempt to save you from your remarkable ignorance.
one more thing…George Orwell said the worst advertisement for socialism is its adherents. Melvin, you make the case in spades
Actually in 2006 it was 2.6%.
lol
America’s business is attacking third world countries that are unable to defend themselves, are no threat to our defense and sustain defense department contracts and the Pentagon. This is known as imperialism. The true purposes of this policy are to enrich international banking that operate through the Federal Reserve System and deplete the US Treasury. Any American leader who interferes with this policy will promptly have their head blown off.
MDN noted: “Would that he’d propose a dramatic simplification for U.S. personal income tax laws, too.”
All…every last bit of this discussion ignores the fact that we in this country are now being taxed like and TREATED like we are serfs.
What is being ignored is that all forms of taxes, fees, permits, licenses, duties and such now take about 50% of the out put of the country.
In feudal times, the common peasant farmer only had to give up 25% of his crop to the lord of the valley.
This has only occurred in the the US within the last 100 years and the more that is spent, seemingly the more welfare is needed to keep citizens alive.
More than just a little bit is wrong here.
“This has only occurred in the the US within the last 100 years..”
excellent observation, BoC…now, what occurred 100 years ago in 1913?
Taxes on income won’t change now that politicians have a taste of how it changes behavior. The right of the government to tax income in principle means they can take 100% should they vote that way. Only the threat of revolt stops them.
The government does need revenue to prevent deficits and borrowing, but there is always something more the government “should”. It is job of the Congress, The Executive, and the Courts to say no at a certain point. But two of them want to be re-elected and the Courts have their own agenda.
So I guess Tim cook is an US Senator now.
This is some ludicrous self serving BS. This is why the US government can’t get nothing done by working together.
Instead of working for the people the government is working for big business. What Tim Cook is doing here is basically telling the US government to shove up your ass JfK’s famous speech of “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.”
Frankly I believe any business or individuals that funnel their money out of their Domicile country to avoid paying taxes are unpatriotic and should be tried for treason.
These companies are doing everything they can for the sole reason of claiming ridiculous pay checks for high level management individuals and shareholders while their blue & white collar workers remain well underpaid.
Frankly, I believe any company or individual that can keep the money they’ve earned out of the hands of the current criminal Federal government is a patriot.
The personal and SMALL business income tax issue is desperately in need of national attention. But the headline issue of this article is the Apple CEO’s advise on how to reform the tax code for large corporations and we can only hope the repatriation of somewhere between $1,000,000,000,000.00 and $2,000,000,000,000.00 …. that’s seems to me to be the best STIMULUS package we could get that would not cost the rest of us one penny!
The so called “cash for clunkers” program was in contrast a VERY expensive program that GAVE away $5,000.00 to people who could afford to buy a car already and did nothing to help lower income taxpayers. I could not avail myself of the program with a clear conscience. I purchased two new vehicles from local dealers, trading two used vehicles without I inquiring about the program.
How could I TAKE $5,000.00 (Federal tax someone paid in) off a new truck purchase when my trade in was worth $500.00 … while my youngest child was working hard to save $1,500.00 for a first car?
I don’t have all the answers, but I try hard to live what I believe.