General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 362

It often is applied retroactively if the regulatory body finds that they were given a special deal or there was some sort of discrepanacy in the years since they've been residing in a given country.

The argument is, they're presenting this as an iron-clad law, but it is symptomatic of the underlying problem, I imagine, the regulatory body is trying to address and which has been evident across multinational businesses, i.e., the necessity for super profits their protection from governmental bodies as business model. They may objectively leave, but that economic framework is what I was referring to as a lie. That is the specific assumption that I am addressing. One can be taxed progressively, turn a high profit and employ people at a decent wage. That they see it otherwise is political/economic position. If your argument, then, is that this is true because of the threat, then so be it. I am looking more deeply into what Apple is claiming as the truth for its continued operations.

 

Charged with murder, but they didn’t kill anyone—police did

 

What’s he hiding? Donald Trump has blown off nearly his entire remaining campaign schedule

 

And I think that's wrong. Changing a law can be a good thing, when needed, but retroactively punishing someone for a law that didn't exist before, is wrong. That precedent alone I find strange.

And my counter argument to that is: Apple does just this. They are taxed progressively, turn a high profit, and employ people at a decent wage. They will continue to do this regardless of the outcome of this specific case. However, in this specific case the argument/the statement about job creation and investment:

the most profound and harmful effect of this ruling will be on investment and job creation in Europe. Using the Commission’s theory, every company in Ireland and across Europe is suddenly at risk of being subjected to taxes under laws that never existed.

I don't see how it can be argued this is a lie, the only framework it argues is one of taxing under laws that never existed. There is no argument made about not being about to be "taxed progressively, turn a high profit and employ people at a decent wage" — but one that they should be taxed at the legal rate, and if that legal rate goes up, they be taxed at it as well ... but that a company should not have to worry about doing business in a country with the idea that five years from now they'll be forced to pay more because a law was changed that didn't exist at the time. Paying a progressive tax is never argued against. Neither is paying people a good wage.

 

#vox #journalismism

 

Hey, it's a dick in a vox!

 

no you're right, it's more interesting and useful a thought experiment applied broadly to all such CEOs, just thought of Cook because of his public stance on LGB rights (i eschew TQ because i forget if he's talked at length about those)

 

There was an investigation by the EU over the course of three years, they found the arrangement was illegal and now they are held accountable. It isn't about a new law or whatever Apple has made up as a means to defend itself. In effect, the commission determined they were underpaying taxes for over a decade (they were paying about a one percent tax on their European profits). This is what regulation looks like. If I avoid paying my taxes, I will be compelled, at some point, to pay them. That is the bottom line.


Jason, they're not actually doing that in the EU. They chose Ireland for tax incentives, which has allowed them to shield their profits from being taxed. In fact, when one actually looks at it, their effective rate went from one percent to 0.005 percent in 2014. I am sure that Apple pays their employees well enough, depending on where they are in the hierarchy, but the other part of that is not. I am, of course, speaking of how progressive taxation, which isn't what is happening with regard to Apple, of businesses is used to create an apparatus that supports people. Since 2008, Ireland's poverty rate has steadily gone upward. You think of these things as separate, but I do not. Lower tax rates are constitutive elements of a neoliberal state in market fundamentalism reigns supreme.

Once again, I referred it as a lie, because it is a lie. Apple isn't being compelled to make these decisions, it is choosing to make a threat. That's the fundamental difference and that is the argument I was making. It is only true if you accept Apple's premises on how economics functions and their argument is ideological; that is, it corresponds to the same right-wing rhetoric and threats we often hear. I bring up the progressive taxation because that is what, structurally, Apple is arguing against and that is linked with a broader ideological trend of low taxes and the suppression of wages. You can keep deferring to their explanation, but that is sort of like relying on the police to give an overview of system racism: we would not do it because their perspective is tethered to a socioeconomic set of relations that have had a deleterious effect on various communities. The same is applicable to Apple. If this were anyone else, if this were any other business, people would see it for what it is, but branding, as an ideological tool, has obfuscated a real set of relations that is actually quite regressive on an economic and social level.

 

Don't even know how to respond, the quote below pretty much sums it up...would love a nationwide stat for this.

'a Reader investigation finds that his case was one of at least ten in Cook County in the past five years in which killings by Chicago Police Department and Cook County sheriff's officers have resulted in felony murder charges for civilians.'

Sidenote: Not sure if anyone's familiar with the movie Copland, but it's amazing how relatable that movie is to the articles we read about Police Misconduct...good flick by the way, Deniro, Sly, can't remember who else...

 

This country is so thorough in its efforts to utterly destroy black people. How people can look at this and not call it a genocidal project is beyond me.

 

I'm surprised how much you go to bat for the overseeing EU, "judge", and accept their reasoning as pure, complete, fact. If, on appeal, they finds this to not be "illegal," I'm assuming you'll apply the same logic?

However, let's look at the facts: it literally is about a new law, this former arrangement was known as the “Double Irish” scheme, and in "2010 Ireland passed a law intended to counter such arrangements" although "companies have until 2021 to adjust." (Reuters). So, this is about the new law and it is being applied retroactively, to quote from the Commission's report: "Ireland must now recover the unpaid taxes in Ireland from Apple for the years 2003 to 2014."

But if you are paying your taxes at a rate of 20%, and then the rate goes up to 25% next year, you are not asked to pay the 5% on last year's taxes. This is what the G20 refers to as "tax certainty" and is a fundamental aspect of international business.

And this is where we disagree, if you don't have tax certainty, you are absolutely compelled to seek a place where that is guaranteed. It's not a threat to say that companies don't want to do business in a place where they agree to one tax rate, and then 5 years later they are told they actually have to pay under a different tax rate. I actually do believe a company is compelled to do business where they have relative tax certainty, and if they and the government agree to a tax rate, that it is something that can remain until changed. If you were working for a company, and all of a sudden they said, "pay your taxes this year, and then in three years we will let you know if you paid the right amount or not," would you not argue you're compelled to work elsewhere? I do.

This analogy fails for many reasons for me, but I'll accept it as true ... therefore, if that's true - then if the EC finds on appeal in Ireland and Apple's favor, you'd have just made the argument it is by default correct. Guess we can wait for the appeal to see what happens there, but my gut tells me you would not side with the EC ruling unless you agreed with the EC's findings, and if they were the opposite you'd argue against their validity. But the core of your argument here is that branding is why I think taxes should not be retroactively applied, and that is false. This could be company X and I would still argue that retroactively taxing them is fundamentally wrong. I would argue this on a personal level, and I argue it on a corporate level. I am not arguing that taxes should be lower, in fact, I would argue they should be higher. But, I am arguing that to make them higher you raise them and you make new agreements with companies, and you let them know what they're going to be paying up front. I think Apple should pay more in taxes, even now the corporate rate in Ireland is going to be roughly 12.5% (btw, Trump is proposing a 10% rate here in America, which we may just end up seeing), but that has no relation to my belief that an agreement was made before Ireland joined the EU, and then for years the EU audited Apple, for years were ok with the arrangement, and then retroactively decided, basically, "just kidding." It's that principle alone I am arguing, the argument for higher taxes is one I agree with, this maneuver for how one gets to that is one I disagree with.

 

Speaking of genocide, this is a couple days old but,

As The Death Penalty Declines, A Look At Where It's Sentenced The Most
Listen Now: As The Death Penalty Declines, A Look At Where It's Sentenced The Most

 

So, just like that, it seems that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, despite woefully mishandling the last midterm, blatantly suppressing the Democratic primary, being outed as giving preferential treatment during the primary, being shown strong arming media outlets, tirelessly defending payday lenders that are ravaging the lower class members of her district (before recently turning on a dime), supporting fracking (unrelated to the money she has gotten from oil companies), having obvious ties to dirty money in both the national and Floridian arenas, refusing to engage in any fucking debates during her entire primary race other than one 15-minute debate with pre-screened questions on a news show, despite being an all-around piece of shit scum bag corporatist......will retain her Congressional seat even against a national grassroots fundraising effort for her opponent.

Fuck this country, but especially fuck the Florida 23rd.

 

What I picture every time I hear the word Pivot referencing Trumps stance on immigration:

 

Of all the spurious and oppressive laws in Illinois, and like states, the felony murder rule is fairly sensible in my mind, so long as the convicted took part in a forcible crime that involved a deadly weapon. It deters people from evading prosecution by ensuring that another person handle the firearm-- it's sadly more common than you think that people dupe others into holding weapons so that they would bear the brunt of the law in the event of being caught. Here in Missouri, it was used to convict guys who forced a mentally handicapped man into aiding in a robbery that went wrong. It's also been used for persons who fled police pursuit like these two did, which then led to an officer dying after crashing at a high speed.

However, justification of the charge would be predicated on the deceased having pointed the firearm at the officer as reported. The article says that the video is documented on their incident log, but I found nothing when I searched the site using the incident date. Regardless of your moral take on the issue, this really isn't an exceptional case with regard to the felony murder rule imo.

 

I hate that show, except this very scene. Easily one of my favorite lines in sitcom history, and I use it every time I move furniture.

 

Ditto, but I've now been looking at 'Friends' memes for the last 30 min...

 

I don't like, nor do I support, the EU. However, upon inspecting particular laws or rulings, I can, more or less, advocate support, particularly if it adversely affects a company that exploits labor and evaded taxes.

As for the articles you posted, they are, in fact, irrelevant:

"How did Apple get away with such a low rate? European regulators said that Apple had split the profits from its European sales, with only a small slice going to the Irish branch. The vast majority of the money went to a "head office" within Apple Sales International that was not based in any country and didn't face taxes, the commission said."

Again, this has to do with taxes, but not tax certainty. It is meant to regulate business, the taxes they pay and the extent to which they are avoiding taxation on profits earned, in order to achieve an advantage within the marketplace. That is to say, it falls much more in line with anti-trust laws, which you ignore and, instead, buy into Apple's narrative. There is no principle present in this. But, we fundamentally disagree on this, because I do, in fact, believe that businesses should be subjected to harsher restrictions, taxes, regardless of their certainty, in order to expropriate more of their wealth and put it to public use. That is not a knock on you, but there is a philosophical difference in that I am not looking for a balance and you are.

 

So progressive:

President Obama just extended the "state of emergency" that’s existed for 15 years

 

"The financial system accentuates all the absurdities of capitalism, but it does this in a way that can make finance appear to be separate from the capitalist economy, rather than an inevitable outgrowth from it. Almost every observer of capitalism makes a distinction between the ‘real’ and the ‘financial’ economy. Even those who would claim to be anti-capitalist often advocate policies to save the capitalist economy from the vagaries of disruptive financial markets.

A division between a ‘real’ and a ‘financial’ economy can seem to make sense, especially given the extravagant rewards of financiers who seem to perform no function other than to boost their own incomes and wealth. A closer look at how the capitalist economy works, though, throws a very different light on what is happening. We need to recognise that the global economy is dominated by a small number of countries and their corporations – and that the financial system is a means by which they maintain their privileged status in the world."

Finance, Economics and Politics | Salvage

 

Moving this over as not to distract from the sexism thread, but a surprising number of media outlets are unionized. New York Times, Washington Post, Time Inc. (which includes Sports Illustrated & People), all the Philly papers, the San Francisco Bee, etc. Huffington Post just moved to unionize, I'm not sure what the status is off the top of my head.

They're not as prevalent as they used to be, but a lot of these outlets are unionized. I'm sure other cases may differ, but I know for Inquirer and Daily News staffers, the wage stagnation (no raises in 7 years) has been more to do with falling profits than union inaction.

 

Turkey PM.

The hashtag #Irexit is already picking up stream. Uh oh.