[notJim]

> I think a number of people reading the article have the tacit impression that if the government taxed the money from Apple, that they would somehow benefit to a greater extent. But given that the US Government spends $11.5 billion more per day[1] than it receives in taxes, even seizing all of Apple's worldwide profits would just be a drop in the bucket.

What about the net effect of the government going after every company that does this?

> Exactly. And this extends down to the personal level. Elizabeth Warren, a millionaire Senatorial candidate who supports the Buffet Rule, nevertheless did not voluntary pay a higher tax rate:

I think it is entirely consistent and rational to support a rule for higher taxation while still striving to pay the minimum required amount.

[greedo]

>I think it is entirely consistent and rational to support a rule for higher taxation while still striving to pay the minimum required amount.

Yes. It's called hypocrisy. Rational yes, consistent with the idea that there are rules for me and rules for thee.

[clavalle]

It is not hypocrisy.

Say in the NFL a group of players started advocating for a change in rules. Say, they want a rule where a player must be evaluated and sit out of a game after taking so many hits of so many g forces to the head.

If certain teams decide to implement the rules unilaterally it would put them at a disadvantage. The rules have to change for everyone for it to make sense. It is perfectly reasonable for a team or player to advocate for a rule change without acting as if that rule is in place without a hint of hypocrisy.