[axau]

That makes no sense. Then the government would get nothing, plus give up future leverage, so obviously it will not do that. Comparing what happened to having no tax is a straw man.

What happened here is that the government finally set a rate that is agreeable to both parties, which is of course in its interest and long overdue.

[lbrdn]

How is it a straw man? Maybe it's the right way to go. I honestly don't know.

My point is that encouraging a behavior where the country sets a rate, then many celebrate the reduction because they get a short term gain, risks leading the US farther down a path that neglects its obligations.

[axau]

Because the US is not going “down a path that neglects its obligations”. In fact quite the opposite since it just got a massive tax revenue increase. So comparing it to a situation where the US decided to just stop levying tax doesn’t make sense.

[onezerozeroone]

> In fact quite the opposite since it just got a massive tax revenue increase.

Nah, they capitulated and accepted a far lower rate than they should have received otherwise if Apple (and companies like them) weren't permitted to play these shifty legal games.

If the U.S. gov was really looking out for its own interests and the interests of its citizens, it would have closed these loopholes years ago and told Apple to go pound sand going forward.

Pay your taxes or get slammed with massive fines and be barred from selling product in the U.S. until your tax bill is paid.

Not many markets can afford their products, see how they like it when the country whose resources and laws allowed them to become so successful becomes off limits to them.

[danjayh]

I find it odd that you start from a position that assumes that the federal government has a right to Apple's money. It was basically an attitude like that on the part of the British that led to the American revolution in the first place. If you want a health economy with strong labor demand and robust wage growth, we need to start from the opposite position - the federal government must avoid taxation for all but the most essential services and cut out everything else. If individual states wish to have more services, let them tax and spend for their local populations. At least that way if businesses and people don't like it, they can leave without leaving the country.

[onezerozeroone]

> a position that assumes that the federal government has a right to Apple's money

I'm starting from a position that assumes the government is entitled to the prevailing tax rate that was law at the time the income was earned.

A tax rate that existed during a time when Apple became the world's most valuable company. It wasn't a colony with no representation suffering under a tyrannical monarchy that was leeching it like a parasite for the enrichment of an elite class. They ARE the elite class.

In fact the opposite is true. Apple benefited from all the services paid for by other tax payers (security and military, infrastructure, legal system, etc) and avoided paying their fair share using legal tricks and loopholes.

The result wasn't "fix the loopholes" it was "give the finger to the American people and government until we get someone elected that will change the rules in our favor"

I'm not saying government is the answer to all problems. Far from it. But there's no question Apple exists and is as successful as it is in large part due to the favorable environment America provides to business...and part of that environment exists due to things paid for with taxes. Never mind the ridiculous wealth inequality that is only continuing to grow in the U.S...this road leads to oligarchy.

[axau]

Whether or not Apple/whatever was being shifty or not is a matter of opinion. The fact is, though, that nearly every other country already had a territorial tax system.

[fjsolwmv]

And Apple used bullshit rationale to hide their money in a territory where they did not earn their money. They tell Europe that all the innovation is from California, then tell USA that all the IP is owned by an Irish company.

[gonvaled]

It legislated a reduction in tax revenue hoping / pretending that an increase in economic activity will offset the reduction.

Fact 1: reduced tax rate and revenue

Fact 2: permanent beneffit to corporations, in the form of tax reductions

Bet 1: the economy will grow

Bet 2: the proffits will trickle down

Bet 3: increase in economy will allow to fullfill obligations

If the bets do not materialize, nobody cares. That is, nobody except tax payers and recipients of federal promises.

Corporations and wealthy individuals will pocket proffits upfront. The rest are left praying for the bets to work out.

[axau]

We’re talking about the repatriation part here, not all the others, which are a different debate.

[autokad]

i already received 1,000$, to which I spent on a new energy efficient door, to which I paid a handyman to install it. there is a lot more winners than your dogma suggests.

I am interested in seeing where this goes. if we do see wage growth from it, it provides evidence to a lot of questions about how the cost of healthcare was squeezing out our wages. if it doesnt, then a lot of complaints about corporations will have a lot more evidence.

putting all that aside, this news about apple bringing over the cash is a huge win for everyone. having that money sit and do nothing was pretty much bad for everyone.

[maxerickson]

There are no cuts in healthcare spending offsetting these tax cuts.

Ending the individual mandate will likely reduce the number of people buying insurance from ACA marketplaces, but that isn't going to dramatically change the price of other insurance (to the extent it has an impact, it will probably push insurance prices up...).

The tax cuts are, at present, going to largely be paid for by borrowing money.

[croon]

> I am interested in seeing where this goes. if we do see wage growth from it, it provides evidence to a lot of questions about how the cost of healthcare was squeezing out our wages. if it doesnt, then a lot of complaints about corporations will have a lot more evidence.

Spoiler alert: It's a remake. Trickle-down doesn't work.

Investing significant money in businesses doesn't create more work. Increasing demand creates more work. How do you do that? You put more money into the hands of consumers, which is the opposite of what this bill did.

[autokad]

from what I am told, my taxes were lowered - thus you would be factually wrong. but I'll wait and see if that is true when I fill out my taxes.

beyond that, I have seen me and many others see immediate returns. your position is already starting from a hole, but I am a wait and see kind of person.

I hope it works out, you should too, unless you are one of those people who just want to see the world burn types.