Rand Paul defends Apple's tax avoidance

[Moliere]

loop hole?

He hits all the right points:
1) Apple has broken no law in regards to minimizing taxes. We're wasting their time dragging them into meetings.
2) Why wouldn't a company do their best to legally minimize taxes?
3) Which member of Congress doesn't minimize their taxes?
4) The U.S. tax code is overly complex.

[hepcat]

As Eco has told us in the past, Republicans do not believe that "loop holes" are a bad thing.  They actually refer to them as "Strategic Financing".

[Teggy]

I'll agree on one thing. Having a hearing on a company using a loophole is not really a good use of time. If what they are doing is not illegal there's really no value in shaming them. Spend your time closing the loophole.

[hepcat]

Couldn't agree more. 

[Moliere]

As Eco has told us in the past, Republicans do not believe that "loop holes" are a bad thing.  They actually refer to them as "Strategic Financing".

How do you define loop hole?

I'll agree on one thing. Having a hearing on a company using a loophole is not really a good use of time. If what they are doing is not illegal there's really no value in shaming them. Spend your time closing the loophole.

So you don't think the U.S. tax is overly complex? As with any regulation, the more complex the more it favors large organizations that can pay a team of lawyers and accountants to interpret and stay compliant (aka find all those loop holes). You don't think individuals or companies should legally minimize their taxes?

[hepcat]

You don't have to make them more complex to address loop holes/ways of gaming the system.

[Gratch]

I'll agree on one thing. Having a hearing on a company using a loophole is not really a good use of time. If what they are doing is not illegal there's really no value in shaming them. Spend your time closing the loophole.

Pretty much this.  If Apple did nothing illegal, then there's no reason to drag them into the spotlight other than to create a public spectacle and try to earn political points...which is the same thing I've been endlessly frustrated at the GOP for doing recently.  

I also actually agree with Paul that the US tax code can be needlessly complex.  Where I'm sure we would disagree, however, is that taxes are very necessary to keep us functioning as a civil society.  Despite the rhetoric, not all US citizens can survive on bootstraps.

[Teggy]

I'll agree on one thing. Having a hearing on a company using a loophole is not really a good use of time. If what they are doing is not illegal there's really no value in shaming them. Spend your time closing the loophole.

So you don't think the U.S. tax is overly complex? As with any regulation, the more complex the more it favors large organizations that can pay a team of lawyers and accountants to interpret and stay compliant (aka find all those loop holes). You don't think individuals or companies should legally minimize their taxes?

Not sure where I said anything to that effect. All I said was the if they think there is a loophole they should close it. In addition, closing loopholes should by nature make the tax code less complex.

[Ironrod]

I'll agree on one thing. Having a hearing on a company using a loophole is not really a good use of time. If what they are doing is not illegal there's really no value in shaming them. Spend your time closing the loophole.

This is sensible and straightforward, and must therefore be wrong.

[Moliere]

I'll agree on one thing. Having a hearing on a company using a loophole is not really a good use of time. If what they are doing is not illegal there's really no value in shaming them. Spend your time closing the loophole.

So you don't think the U.S. tax is overly complex? As with any regulation, the more complex the more it favors large organizations that can pay a team of lawyers and accountants to interpret and stay compliant (aka find all those loop holes). You don't think individuals or companies should legally minimize their taxes?

Not sure where I said anything to that effect. All I said was the if they think there is a loophole they should close it. In addition, closing loopholes should by nature make the tax code less complex.

My questions are based on you saying "I'll agree on one thing" which implies that you don't agree on the other points I made in the OP. Closing loop holes tend to create other loop holes. It's always about adding more rules and regulations, thereby making it more complex. That's why lobbyist make so much money.

[Teggy]

I'll agree on one thing. Having a hearing on a company using a loophole is not really a good use of time. If what they are doing is not illegal there's really no value in shaming them. Spend your time closing the loophole.

So you don't think the U.S. tax is overly complex? As with any regulation, the more complex the more it favors large organizations that can pay a team of lawyers and accountants to interpret and stay compliant (aka find all those loop holes). You don't think individuals or companies should legally minimize their taxes?

Not sure where I said anything to that effect. All I said was the if they think there is a loophole they should close it. In addition, closing loopholes should by nature make the tax code less complex.

My questions are based on you saying "I'll agree on one thing" which implies that you don't agree on the other points I made in the OP. Closing loop holes tend to create other loop holes. It's always about adding more rules and regulations, thereby making it more complex. That's why lobbyist make so much money.

No, I meant it in the sense that "I rarely see to eye to eye with Rand Paul, but without even listening to the speech I am willing to agree on this point".  And not sure how closing a loophole has to make things more complex.  For example:

Hypothetical loophole: you can take $X and drop it in a foreign bank and then it is not taxed.
Closed loophole: no matter where your money is, it gets taxed
Result: 1) completely remove form ABC123 which used to account for money in foreign bank 2) less forms, less complicated tax code.

With regards to "minimizing taxes" - people shouldn't have to go out of their way to make sure they are not paying more taxes than they should. I can see some tax incentives meant to encourage charitable donations or getting people to save for retirement, but they should toss most of the rest of those. There may be some growing pains (some business activities looking less attractive), but at the same time revenue will be up and they can quickly lower those taxes as necessary.

[Isgrimnur]

"Tell me what the rules are and I'll tell you how I'll play the game."

[Eco-Logic]

I completely agree with Paul.  What a complete waste of time.

[gellar]

I completely agree with Paul.  What a complete waste of time.

Yep.  This is absurd.

[Eco-Logic]

Glad you agree Gellar

[Gratch]

Wait, did we just find something we all agree on?

 

[hepcat]

I think you'll find that Eco doesn't agree that there really IS a loophole though.  Just that it shouldn't be investigated when exploited...or the use of the word "exploited".

[Eco-Logic]

I think the entire bloated ass tax code should be completely redone actually.

I do not think our governments time should be spent questioning Tim Cook for the legal methods Apple has utilized to avoid taxes.

How about they actually grow some balls and revamp what is an overly complex tax code and couple that with significant spending cuts??

[Victoria Raverna]

I think the entire bloated ass tax code should be completely redone actually.

I do not think our governments time should be spent questioning Tim Cook for the legal methods Apple has utilized to avoid taxes.

How about they actually grow some balls and revamp what is an overly complex tax code and couple that with significant spending cuts??

To revamp the tax code and close loopholes, they need to understand the problem first, right? To question Tim Cook and others about how corporate use loopholes to avoid taxes is a reasonable way to research the problem.

[Eco-Logic]

All the better to them if that is their objective, alas I'll believe it when I see it.

[Fireball1244]

I'd be in favor of dramatically reducing the tax rate, down to something like 10%, closing all loopholes (except those necessary to provide for financing of *very large* industrial or equipment purchases), and taxing overseas earnings in as un-hostile a way as possible. My notion is to tax foreign earnings at the same rate as domestic earnings *minus* all income taxes paid to foreign entities. This would be a straight on tax reduction, not a reduction in taxable income.

So if company A earned $100 million overseas, their tax bill on that money would be $10 million. However, if they paid $3.5 million in overseas income taxes, their tax to the US government would only be $6.5 million. If their taxes overseas were more than the $10 million tax they owe here, then their tax would be something nominal, like 2%.

I'd eliminate most deductions, but leave in place tax incentives for jobs created in the United States, and establish tax penalties for jobs outsourced from the United States to foreign countries.