MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Apple just nuked the Democrats' tax-mora...

Apple just nuked the Democrats' tax-morality narrative


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/apple-just-nuked-the-democrats-tax-morality-narrative/article/2646310

Regardless of ideology, we should all welcome Apple’s decision to pay around $38 billion in taxes in order to repatriate hundreds of billions of dollars in overseas cash holdings.

Announcing the decision on Wednesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook also pledged major new investments in job creation and a second operations base that will add 20,000 jobs. As part of what Apple says will be a $350 billion boost to the U.S. economy, it will invest $10 billion in capital projects over the next five years.

There’s no other rational way to greet this news other than with a smile and celebration. Of course, the smile primarily belongs to President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan who were the drivers of the recent tax reform effort to reduce corporate taxes from 35 percent to 21 percent.

At the time and since, Democrats have declared that the corporate tax cuts represented a payoff that would benefit only the richest companies and their dominant shareholders. Instead, as Apple is showing, political empowerment of businesses is leading to capitalist empowerment of workers.

Sure, the Left will say that 20,000 jobs is no big deal, and that $38 billion in new tax receipts pales in comparison with the amounts that a retention of the 35 percent corporate tax rate would have brought in to the federal coffers.

But this argument is wrong for two reasons. First, it ignores the fact that Apple is far from the only major company responding to tax reform by investing in the future and in American families. Consider Walmart’s decision to increase its basic starting wage to $11 an hour and to provide a one-off payment of between $200 and $1000 to employees. AT&T, Boeing, and Wells Fargo and others have all made similar pledges. Without going any further, we're already talking about millions affected.

Yet the key point here is not that these companies are acting this way because their boards and CEOs have suddenly become incredibly kind people. Rather, it's because they sense a new space to divert tax savings to their frontline services rather than to legions of tax lawyers and attorneys. They sense a business environment ripe for long-term investment in the pursuit of long-term productivity.

Second, the Left fail to recognize that the U.S. is suddenly once again becoming the world's go-to place to do business. Where the Obama administration hamstrung businesses with an ever-growing minefield of regulations, the Trump administration is breaking down the walls of inefficiency and encouraging global multinationals to expand or set up shop here in the U.S.

It’s a big deal. Considering the U.S. market size, our access to the globalized economy, our high living standards and our now unashamedly pro-capitalist agenda, tax reform should bring hundreds of billions in new investments to our shores. Trump has now done what Cook's predecessor, Steve Jobs unsuccessfully begged Obama to do many years ago.

So yes, the Left will continue to complain that abandoning one of Earth's highest corporate tax rates has denied government the funds to invest in a better future. But their argument is a very weak one.

The divergent history of capitalism and socialism proves that the former has done far more good for far more people. Now we're getting a new chapter of historical proof to that effect.

reply

What? No libtards want to respond to this?

reply

I don't qualify as a strict Liberal, since I'm not a Democrat and the terms have become interchangeable, but I'll respond.

First off, lowering tax rates is fine by me, I'd even smile at a 0% tax rate and a removal of government, but I don't think society is ready for that quite yet. It'll happen on its own in successive generations as governing becomes less relevant.

(And no, I am not going to debate anarcho-capitalism, let's move on)

My main response is this, though: From my perspective, I saw an outcry about how much the personal tax rates and lowering estate tax would hugely benefit the wealthiest people, compared to the paltry benefit that the vast majority of Americans would receive.

I don't recall seeing any hug outcry about dropping the corporate tax rate... At least not compared to what I mentioned.

I'm sure plenty argued that it would lead to more debt.... Although the U.S. debt over my entire life has basically become this near-imaginary concept that treats "trillions" as mere units and overall doesn't seem to really matter.

If there was a point where the debt was unsustainable, I'd think that was passed long ago. Also: Screw the entire military-industrial complex for basically pilfering the country as much as possible for decades now. It's sick.

reply

"I saw an outcry about how much the personal tax rates and lowering estate tax would hugely benefit the wealthiest people, compared to the paltry benefit that the vast majority of Americans would receive."

When the top 1% are paying 39.5% of the income taxes, and the top 50% are paying 97.3% of the income taxes, which means the bottom 50% are only paying 2.7% of the income taxes, any meaningful cut is going to benefit those paying more. It's simple mathematics.

But of course, the Democrats push the class envy card, like you're doing here, telling those bottom 50% that the rich aren't paying their 'fair share.'

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

reply

I'm only reporting what I'd seen, not pushing.

When it comes to taxing wealth, I think I can give a good view on it due to being against taxation from the start.

Frankly, the wealthy benefit much more from public resources. This is probably true with nearly every example possible.

The wealthy use the court system far more than average people. They benefit more from Police, and even FBI resources, because they have more to protect. Average people benefit from roads that get them to work, but wealthy businesspeople need those roads far more in order to allow customers to reach them and also to allow the employees to show up and make their business happen.

Wealthy businesspeople are also in control of wages, and largely aim to pay as little as possible to the people who keep their businesses alive, the people who make it possible for them to profit. This is easily seen in statistics that show how much executive pay has exploded over time while wages have largely stagnated.

That is a complete imbalance of power. It doesn't help that there is a culture of near idolatry for extreme wealth. Forbes, for example, does their part to contribute to this, and they profit from doing so.

There is no real answer, but one big problem is that primary schools largely taught kids that they're going to be an employee some day. There was a nearly complete absence of any notion that we might create a business, innovate, and make our own money. There certainly wasn't a shred of encouragement in that direction.

But that was from my days of schooling. I graduated high school in 1995.

reply

"Frankly, the wealthy benefit much more from public resources."

Nope. The wealthy make much better use of public resources, and the rest of us benefit from public resources that the wealthy pay for the majority of.

"The wealthy use the court system far more than average people. They benefit more from Police,"

You're joking, right? The courts are chock full of the scum of the earth. Drug dealers, murderers, hookers, pimps, muggers, thieves, gang-bangers, and others. So the bottom 50% (for the most part) are not only not paying for the court system, they're the major cause of it costing us so much. Same with the police. How much less would it cost to maintain a police force if they didn't have to deal with all those problems?

"Wealthy businesspeople are also in control of wages, and largely aim to pay as little as possible to the people who keep their businesses alive, the people who make it possible for them to profit. "

Again, not true. They have to pay the going rate for the professionals who have the skill to do the jobs that need to be done. I used to be a software developer. I would never take a job at a company that attempted to pay me 'as little as possible'. These companies are competing with each other over talent, so I would just find another company that was willing to pay me what I was worth. And the companies paying 'as little as possible' would fall behind, because they were hiring inferior talent.

It's not a one-way street, as the Left likes to frame it, where the rich fat cats are making money off the backs of the working class. From the other side, you have people putting their own money at risk, investing in businesses and creating jobs. Jobs that wouldn't exist for the working class otherwise. Take away the incentive for profit through too-high taxes and regulations, and motivation to take risks goes away, and less jobs is the result.

reply

[deleted]

Liberals see taxes as a tool for 'evening up' what they consider 'injustice.'

reply