You mean you pay what the government says you owe, just like Apple does... Or are you saying that you don't claim any deductions and pay the maximum allowable by the system?
I don't have the power to entice politicians to enact loopholes which I can then take advantage of.
A ambassador might take advantage of his diplomatic immunity to commit a crime with impunity. One could say, "what's wrong with that? he was acting within the law." Or one could say, "That ambassador is a vile person and is taking advantage of the system."
I see where you're coming from (we're in agreeance that Apple is paying what the law says they owe), I think what people are discussing is that these loopholes probably shouldn't exist (i.e. that the spirit of the law is Apple should be paying ~30% tax on ALL profits, instead of just 50% of profits).
GP made a specific point about the fact that companies lobby for the creation of such loopholes, a point which has been made over and over in threads on this subject and even in this thread. Why are you misrepresenting their argument?
Virtually everyone lobbies for tax policy, like most everyone the policy Apple lobbies for is not the policy in existence. Tax policy is generally a major election issue and politicians offer a wide variety of policies to attract votes.
However, what I have noticed is that like Apple those who lobby for a different policy do not pay what they advocate for but rather the minimum (like Apple).
I'm asking if anyone on this thread who thinks Apple should not avail themselves of these deductions or loopholes knows of deductions or loopholes available to them that they don't take because it doesn't represent their views on tax policy.
Given the predominant view amongst those that advocate for higher taxes that paying more tax improves their lot in life it surprises me that they don't take individual action to purchase more government. For instance I think technology improves my life so I purchase a lot more than the average person.
I always find what people do to be far more instructive as to their views than what they say, the general consensus seems to me to be that paying more tax generates poor returns on investment so people minimize these costs.
I'm also wondering due to people not purchasing much lobbying if it's really as effective as they say it is, surely if a few million dollars would result in drastically higher taxes that someone would make a kickstarter to lobby for more tax and then voila a year later they're paying more tax. Could it be that increased taxes is not something that is palatable to a large segment of the populace and thus it is the votes and not lobbying dollars that results in the current tax policy?
Just wondering... is purchasing the services of lobbyists something that is not available to regular citizens and only corporations may purchase?
I've also noticed the poor spend a lot of money on lottery tickets, cigarettes, and alcohol so I surmise there is available funding amongst the great unwashed masses to purchase lobbying, however they find lotteries and various vices to be a better way to utilize their capital.
