Right? Why would we EVER need things like 'more roads', 'more high-voltage transmission grids', 'more bridges', 'more water treatment and waste facilities'?
We should be fine with what we had in 1900....
SIAP: Does this HUGE Apple announcement prove Trump was right?
- Thread starter Hawkman34
- Start date
Right? Why would we EVER need things like 'more roads', 'more high-voltage transmission grids', 'more bridges', 'more water treatment and waste facilities'?
We should be fine with what we had in 1900....
I mean where do the cost savings kick in? Does the government suddenly get a break when it has to serve the water demands of 100,000 people vs 90,000? Can the government contract out to build a new bridge cheaper that services a thousands cars a day vs five hundred? To me this seems like an odd statement to make. I'm willing to listen to the reasoning behind it, but I'm not sure why the government should be able to operate leaner when it has to serve more people?
This is why we should make people in remote rural areas pay more in taxes.
Repairing a bridge that only two people use is not cost efficient.
A very salient point. Business doesn't have to serve everyone. If Starbucks decides it isn't cost effective to open a store in a small town they don't have to. But government does. And not only do they have to open the store, but they have to supply the water, the roads to get there, and in some cases, even the electricity to power it all. This is why trying to compare the government to business is a risky proposition.
Not the same amount, just more and more efficiently as the population rises or are you suggesting our govt has completely run through all economies of scale?
Second question: Do you even cost accounting?
It is also why we have three levels of govt. You seem to want money and authority consolidated at the top while I am more comfortable with it being closer to its constituents.
I would gladly pay Iowa 25% of my check and the fed 8%....you ok with that?
This is how economies of scale work. It's cheaper per person to build a water treatment plant to service 100k than one to service 10k. That's why when folks say some EU nation can do something because they are smaller, I scoff. Size is an advantage, more buying power, more consolidation.
Last edited:
It isn't our money, it is theirs...I think many people are forgetting that.
Or put another way: What kind of govt operates under the assumption that everything you make is theirs and they then get to tell you how much allowance out of it you can keep?
Some of you guys frighten the hell out of me with your delusions.
They don't work in every situation.
One example:
Having 100,000 people to deliver mail to in a 5 square mile radius is completely different from having 100,000 people to deliver mail to in a 50 or 100 square mile radius.
If you're USPS, the mandate is "daily delivery", irrespective of the costs involved. If you were a company, you could alter a policy to "less than xx population density, you get mail 2x or 3x a week"; over that, you get daily delivery.
Same thing with a hog or cattle farming operation; yeah, you set up 100x the density of animals in your lot, you are "more efficient", but then the waste retention can become a major problem for that density of animals, vs what it was for a smaller operation. Becomes an even worse problem when that waste issue now becomes an "externalized cost" to those living near the operations. Like a retention pond bursting during a flood and fouling all the waterways and streams in the area (or even the local water treatment facility).
Then why not eliminate all corporate taxes? And eliminate all personal taxes?
Let everyone keep their own money.
They maintain significant infrastructure and social benefits from what the government provides; educated employees, social stability, internet backbone for information flow, subsidized cheap energy and stable energy supply.
They can pay their "fair share", which arguably should NOT be less than what private citizens pay (and many pay WAY less than what private households pay in rates).
Did anyone really suggest that?
But lets take your approach and say that "govt" is something that we "do together". If that is the case shouldn't we be using those tax receipts to build Trumps wall since that is the will of the people according the the last election? Now I think that is insanely stupid but I also think our govt has not done a good job of prioritizing the resources that our countries citizens produce and turn over to them...or do you think we have been great at that?
Govt certainly needs to fear its people, govt also needs to make sure it is listening to and doing the peoples bidding HOWEVER govt does not own us or our money...it is scary that you are even hinting that you believe that to be the best approach to building a society.
Funny.
Anytime a liberal suggest raising the minimum wage, cons say why not $50 an hour as a retort
I am merely applying your same conservative (you may not be a repub but you are damn conservative) logic to the tax cuts. We lowered the corporate tax cut by 14% to increase economic growth. Why wouldn't cutting it even more be better????
More 'dense'; not 'more scale'. And, one example is NOT more efficient when externalized costs are included, because the operators would be required to build their own treatment facility to handle the waste.
So long as externalized costs can be $0 to the private entity and be pushed onto the public, that's "privately" more efficient, but economically it is more costly.
Those off shore profits are those that have been produced outside of our nations boundaries and have already been taxed once by the countries in which they are produced. Nothing makes a company bring those profits back and if you want to put a gun to their head and force them to they will simply pull up shop and headquarter in another area of the world. If you do that enough China will pass us as the world's economic superpower in no time flat...your suggestion or better put threat of them paying their "fair share" on these particular dollars is a ridiculous and frightening (I realize you can't see it but it doesn't change those facts).
The US treasury will pocket a cool $38B in tax revenues that it otherwise would not have without these changes (as the monies most likely would have stayed off shore) it also means that approximately $200b more will eventually make its way into our private citizens hands via additional investments/payouts in American by Apple. The fact that you are looking at this almost as a bad thing or something that is "unfair" really does tell everyone who reads this what you think about them and their money.
Big Bad Joe doesn't want people to have ownership of their own money bc they don't know any better. Why do I know this, well bc to him deficits didn't really matter until around 1 year ago, the previous 8...no big deal, lets just borrow borrow away. You are a hack bro.
Nope, density is part of scale. And your less dense cattle ranch has those same external costs and less efficient options to deal with them.
If ownership of money is the issue, answer my question.
Why not eliminate all federal taxes? How is 21% ok but not 19%? Or why not 24%? What do you consider fair tax rate for a corp?
You won't answer my question honestly. That is my prediction.
Conservative, hardly, that is your label to things that you simply don't agree with politically. I am for the maximization of the individual and believe in a smaller role for the state than we have today...as we have seen conservative really don't believe in those things.
I believe in math and science. I also believe that the goal of govt shouldn't be to maximize its revenue unless it absolutely needs to.
I don't have the link to this portion of the article about AAPL I clicked on this AM but I can get it if anyone insists.
"Many also took Apple’s promise to pay $38 billion in repatriation taxes as a promise that Apple would bring home more than a quarter-trillion dollars it currently has overseas. However, Apple does not have to bring home that money, and much of it is tied up in long-term investments that would make it unlikely. The company has to pay taxes on overseas earnings whether it brings the money back to the United States or not, so paying the tax does not mean the money is coming home."
"Many also took Apple’s promise to pay $38 billion in repatriation taxes as a promise that Apple would bring home more than a quarter-trillion dollars it currently has overseas. However, Apple does not have to bring home that money, and much of it is tied up in long-term investments that would make it unlikely. The company has to pay taxes on overseas earnings whether it brings the money back to the United States or not, so paying the tax does not mean the money is coming home."
I understand that maximizing govt receipts is a moving target, you are stating that higher taxes will always equal higher tax receipts. As a percentage that may be true but it may not be true in real dollars...we pay for stuff in real dollars.
Here it is. The following is the title of the article dated today.
Apple didn’t say it was hiring 20,000 new workers, nor bringing back all of its overseas cash
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/d164443d-4f36-354a-9dcb-5082d4c38716/ss_apple-didn’t-say-it-was.html
Apple didn’t say it was hiring 20,000 new workers, nor bringing back all of its overseas cash
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/d164443d-4f36-354a-9dcb-5082d4c38716/ss_apple-didn’t-say-it-was.html
I am not stating that at all. Shockingly, you dodged my question. You are a hack. No surprise there.
Last time I am asking this: If ownership of money is your issue (and it is) why not eliminate all federal taxes???
And if you are not for eliminating all taxes, what should be the corporate tax rate? Give me a number
No, that is what your words and posts on here have demonstrated. I know you don't consider yourself a party man and I get that. But, you lean strongly on the conservative side of the political spectrum. I'm not labeling you anything other than telling you your political leanings.
If that is not truly who you are, then you need to change your posts to accurately reflect that. Be accountable for your words and actions.
The corporate tax rate should be set in a manner that has the most positive impact on society regardless if that benefit is derived via tax/govt works, income to employees, income to shareholders, wealth to shareholders, reinvestment in current/other industries within our country. I don't know what that number is, either the eff do you dipshit, I am suggesting that if we are going to error on the side of either we error on the side of what is best for individuals and not what is best for our central govt...you seem to think otherwise.
Can you say with 100% certainty that higher is better than what it has recently been set too, what is your proof of that...why not tax all corporations at 100%, after all what difference does it make and business like Apple should just be happy that they get to breath our American air. Jesus you are stupid sometimes.
Seriously the fact that I think govt works better structurally when it is closer to its people and the fact that I would rather error on the side of taxing people too little vs taxing people too much makes me a con...LOL bro.
I thought America worked best from the bottom and and not the top down...you seem to say that applies to most things BUUUUUTTTTTT not govt, bc it is a magical mystical thing that doesn't apply to the norms of most other entities.
You want to ring up my social views as conservative as well bc I bet they are quite a bit more left leaning (whatever that means) than your own.
Surely it behooves Apple to make expressions of confidence (investment) — given consumer confidence helps Apple be Apple.
Not in this era. Apparently if something good comes about/happens due to anything that could be remotely considered political then you are going to piss off half of the childish population that can't just look at something good happening as "something good happening".
Nice. Resorting to name calling. Not surprised with you.
If you can't give me a number, what range do you think best achieves your goal of having the most positive impact on society?
I am all for having the most positive impact on society. I just have never believed that giving corps huge tax cuts really trickles down to the average person. Maybe I'm wrong.
My belief is we need a certain amount of revenue to meet our expenses. Personally, I believe in providing high quality safety nets for our citizens. So, for me, that might mean spending money in areas other people don't want to (Medicare for all). But I would rather cut military spending in half and apply that to the healthcare. That's just me tho.
I'm a dipshit in your eyes. Joe is a hack to you.
Have you even read my thoughts on our military and its spending?
At the very least though military spending is something that our federal govt should be doing, I just think we do way way too much of it. I also believe in high quality safety nets but I also believe that those nets are best cast by people in areas that are close to home not by far reaching bureaucrats in DC. The more voices you put in the pot DC the more drowned out everyone becomes and you get a govt that doesn't have the same priorities as its people.
The sad part is many states/cities cannot afford to raise revenues via raising taxes on its citizens bc the US Federal govt has sucked up so much of that resource that it would most likely have a detrimental effect if they did so. Like I have said a zillion times here, I would rather see 25% of my check go to Iowa and 8% go to DC.
No, did you publish them somewhere that I should have seen them? Now after reading them, I am aware. Stop being so cocky.
On the surface, this makes sense. However, I have some big concerns.
I think there should be some national standards in areas like education, health, and quality of life. You are only as strong as your weakest link and Mississippi already sucks in most categories. Without some federal pushing, they are the kid who won't even try (along with other states).
Also, there are already struggles with states cooperating with one another. We are America. Not Iowa and Minnesota. Healthcare should something that is applied at the federal level to avoid many battles between states. I do think that there are certain areas where states should have more say.
It's not, imo, an easy call and I understand where you are coming from on that.
I certainly don't want Mississippi kids thrown into the pool or Iowa's education standards, it sucks for them but why punish (via lower standards...I know the kids won't feel as if it is punishment) kids from Iowa who are ready for that much higher standards. Like it in many cases people manage down to the level of their assigned expectations, that would be a very poor choice for much of our country. I also don't think it is fair to try and bring up students in lower education areas to that of higher ones via an overreaching and oversimplified standard...it doesn't work in reality I am looking for max benefits and not necessarily fairness in all situations.
Healthcare: I have stated I could go either direction here but I think Obamacare was a big failure. Much like the middle east our country needs to make a decision if it is going to be all in or all out in regard to providing a minimum healthcare standard. Personally I think everyone should have a high deduction and premium based healthcare provided by the state or federal govt. Deductions/premiums could be made as a moving scale based on ones income. If people want supplemental private insurance or if employers want to offer it to attract talent then they should have that option, today we have a system that is totally messed up and Obamacare didn't make it any easier when it was decided there would be no public options...it was dumb.
As it pertains to people being the owner of their own money I 100% believe that and I 100% believe we are moving into scary waters when our citizenry so freely talks about other peoples earnings being "theirs", you might not be specifically doing it but that sentiment is out there and the democrat party is doing nothing to cool that rising rhetoric (mobs of people and fascist can form on either "side" this type of talk when perpetuated leads to dark places so I believe people should be more mindful of not calling the earnings of others the absolute property of the state). Does that mean I believe in no taxes, no it doesn't, but for some reason you decided to be INH cute and try and bring it into the discussion. I just think whenever possible we should error on the side of lower taxes that maximize the opportunity for all Americans regardless if that is via govt programs or private sector growth and when a company like Apple states/hints that the new tax code has helped them make some decisions as it pertains to bring money back to our shores or investing more in America I think we should be willing to take that at face value vs trying to act like a political bully and refute any good, even the smallest bit, for political gain.
Our politic is poison, it has been for some time, democrats and republicans have dirtied the well and continue to do so over time so the more power/influence we can take away from those people and people like Trump the better IMO. It is pretty sad but most of my lashing at others here is bc, for the most part, they decide to act like political bullies vs even being remotely willing to listen to the thoughts and ideas of others without showing malice or disdain before even giving someone a chance to explain their rational so I am sorry if I snapped back at you but it was clear that people here have already made up their minds before we even know that actual outcomes. We have become technologically connected but so overly politicized we have allowed ourselves to be isolated in thought and you know what...that is exactly how the DNC and RNC want it.
I would even be ok with some of it all if it was even remotely funny or even an attempt at humor but Joe isn't funny at all, mostly he just acts like a more educated version of IowaNiceHawk or those other right wing trolls that also think they are better than everyone else here.
I'm right, Joe acts like a bully often, me and sram21 butt heads but probably agree more than we think, mom jokes.
Apple also doesn't have to "pay taxes" on money it "brings back" to build new facilities or upgrade them. That's all writeoffs, anyway.....
Looks like your premise is pretty much shot by others who have posted updated info.
But localized problems can be more efficiently addressed. Spreading out the problem just makes it harder to deal with and more likely it will be ignored, because it's more hidden.
