Skip to main content

View Diary: Apple launches iRomney (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In my opinion here is the difference in Romney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and Apple.

    Both paid all the taxes they are required to pay and I have no problem with either for doing so. It is what all law abiding citizens do.

    But Romney was running for President - and Presidents make tax policy - on the position that his taxes were high enough and  in fact should be reduced further. Romney approved of the special treatment he was getting and wanted more. That is the difference between him and President Obama - Obama recognizes the inherent unfairness of current tax laws and is trying to change it.

    Apple does not make tax policy. That is a huge difference.  If Apple was running for President (in the land of corporate personhood, why not), that would be different.

    When asked his opinion, Tim Cook said that the law should be changed so that corporations could repatriate money but at a single digit rate and not at 35%  and that the corporate tax should be around 25% instead of 35%. Now you may disagree with the numbers he advocates, but the 25% rate without so many loopholes seems much fairer to me. It is in line with other countries. And it seems to me that he favors reform that would actually increase Apple's tax liability, but he is under no legal or moral obligation to pay more taxes than Apple owes as long as the law is what it is.

    The argument that people or corporations should voluntarily pay more than they legally owe is what RWers say about Warren Buffett. They think he has no right to advocate a change in the law to make it more fair, especially unless he voluntarily pays more. Silly and stupid argument IMO.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Sat May 25, 2013 at 04:57:11 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site