|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
We are tempted to say, in fact, that the flag's deservedly cherished place in our community will be strengthened, not weakened, by our holding today. Our decision is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism such as Johnson's is a sign and source of our strength. Indeed, one of the proudest images of our flag, the one immortalized in our own national anthem, is of the bombardment it survived at Fort McHenry. It is the Nation's resilience, not its rigidity, that Texas sees reflected in the flag -- and it is that resilience that we reassert today.
The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong.
"To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to bee applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 274 U. S. 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). And, precisely because it is our flag that is involved, one's response to the flag-burner may exploit the uniquely persuasive power of the flag itself. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by -- as one witness here did -- according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 490-91 (1989).
|
On August 30 2016 20:05 Plansix wrote:
In a shocking turn of events, some people are deeply offended the way a brown man protested inequality. And now they discuss all the ways the brown man should not have protested in that manner to avoid discussing the reason why he protested in the first place.
Agreed, he is free to protest as he wishes. It is a non story as far as I'm concerned, just like the Weiner sexting scandal.
|
While America’s political kingmakers inject their millions into high-profile presidential and congressional contests, Democratic mega-donor George Soros has directed his wealth into an under-the-radar 2016 campaign to advance one of the progressive movement’s core goals — reshaping the American justice system.
The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors.
His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial. It is by far the most tangible action in a progressive push to find, prepare and finance criminal justice reform-oriented candidates for jobs that have been held by long-time incumbents and serve as pipelines to the federal courts — and it has inspired fury among opponents angry about the outside influence in local elections.
“The prosecutor exercises the greatest discretion and power in the system. It is so important,” said Andrea Dew Steele, the president of Emerge America, a candidate-training organization for Democratic women. “There’s been a confluence of events in the past couple years and all of the sudden, the progressive community is waking up to this.”
Soros has spent on district attorney campaigns in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas through a network of state-level super PACs and a national “527” unlimited-money group, each named a variation on “Safety and Justice.” (Soros has also funded a federal super PAC with the same name.) Each organization received most of its money directly from Soros, according to public state and federal financial records, though some groups also got donations from nonprofits like the Civic Participation Action Fund, which gave to the Safety and Justice group in Illinois.
The Florida Safety and Justice group just poured nearly $1.4 million — all of which came from Soros and his 527 group — into a previously low-budget Democratic primary for state attorney in Central Florida before Tuesday’s vote. The group is backing Aramis Ayala, a former public defender and prosecutor, in her campaign against incumbent Jeff Ashton, whose jurisdiction covers over 1.6 million people across two counties in metro Orlando.
One TV ad from Florida Safety and Justice boosts Ayala, touting her “plan to remove bias so defendants charged with the same crime receive the same treatment, no matter their background or race.” The Soros-funded group is also attacking Ashton with ads saying he “got rid of protections that helped ensure equal treatment regardless of background or race. ... Take two similar traffic incidents that happened on the same night. A white man got off with a slap on the wrist, while the black man faces prison.”
Opponents of Soros’ favored candidates have laced into the billionaire, saying that his influence has wildly tipped the scales of local elections and even charging that he made residents less safe.
Source
|
On August 30 2016 20:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2016 20:05 Plansix wrote:
In a shocking turn of events, some people are deeply offended the way a brown man protested inequality. And now they discuss all the ways the brown man should not have protested in that manner to avoid discussing the reason why he protested in the first place. Agreed, he is free to protest as he wishes. It is a non story as far as I'm concerned, just like the Weiner sexting scandal.
Damn, I agree with biology]major on something. It's the end of the world!
Apparently Kaepernick didn't stand in the 2 previous preseason games and no one noticed or cared. The NFL has no rule that you have to stand, so beyond doing something he's got the constitutional right to do he didn't break any league or team rules either. Its a total non issue. Whatever you think of him as a player he gets to have his convictions and the fact that his adoptive parents are white doesn't somehow mean that racism and oppression don't exist in America.
The cutest part of all this is once upon a time a black athlete refused to stand for the anthem as well (along with many other shows of protest). That athlete on the other hand, these same people crying about Kaepernick, were tripping over themselves to wax poetic over as "The Greatest" boxer to ever live when he died a few months ago. This whole story is just the same outrage culture that fuels the "PC Culture" they hate so much flipped on its head. Two sides of the hypocrite coin.
Also yes, man trying to stick genitals in other genitals, uses text message to attempt to make that happen is as yawn city as it gets IMO.
|
And Apple gets slapped by the EU for avoiding taxes through sweet heart deals other nations. Love it.
|
$14.6 Billion, good lord that's spicy.
|
Well, those 13b € are not a fine/punishment, but just the amount(+intrest) they paid less than they should have without that deal considered illegal by the EU.
But now they are being forced to pay that money to Ireland, but Ireland is supporting Apple to revoke that decision. It is kind of a weird situation.
|
The best part is they tried to avoid those paying those taxes in the US and got called before congress for doing so. Their response was “Our share holders demand we avoid these taxes and Ireland has a much better tax rate.” Little did we know that the tax rate was artificially low due to a sweetheart deal that only Apple got. Tax evasion at its finest.
|
WASHINGTON ― House Speaker Paul Ryan’s re-election to his leadership post in January is fast turning into a potential showdown between establishment Republicans and conservatives looking to weaken the speaker and win changes to House rules.
Conservatives don’t have enough votes to oust Ryan (R-Wis.). But they say their coup movement shows his hold on the speakership is far more tenuous than he realizes. Denying Ryan re-election on the first ballot would undermine his political future and cast him as a conservative pariah, they say, and may give conservatives leverage to enact rules changes that would help them push their agenda for years.
“If he loses the speaker election, he’s not going to be president,” one conservative member told The Huffington Post on Monday.
Conservatives hold no illusion of preventing Ryan from remaining speaker (or, you know, becoming president), according to the eight Republicans HuffPost interviewed on Monday. That there is coup chatter at all, however, suggests Ryan’s relationship with conservatives is already fraying, less than a year into his speakership.
Even without a clear alternative candidate, one member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus said, Ryan may not have the votes he needs to win on the first ballot. Members of the Freedom Caucus, a group of roughly 40 hard-line conservatives, said that may give them a way to link the speaker election and the 115th Congress rules package.
“The only leverage any Republican member of the House has for getting rule changes is the speaker vote,” said one member of the caucus.
House Freedom Caucus members are discussing four major proposals, though the talks are in early stages and haven’t gained formal backing. Their ideas include increasing caucus representation on committees, bulking up subcommittee staff with hard-liners who could be groomed for election, allowing the GOP House campaign arm to collect contributions for the Freedom Caucus that could be directed to conservative candidates, and clarifying rules-suspension votes.
Ryan’s re-election as speaker could be greatly complicated if Republicans lose more than a dozen seats on Nov. 8. Republicans currently hold 247 seats in the House, with 218 votes needed to win the speakership (if every member votes).
One conservative noted that nine Republicans opposed Ryan’s election to speaker in October ― technically 10, if you count Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) abstaining ― and at least that many would be against him in January. Another conservative predicted more than 20 Republicans would disapprove of Ryan.
Of course, a lot could change before 2017. Members talk a big game in August. And all of those interviewed by HuffPost would only speak anonymously.
Source
|
On August 30 2016 22:07 Plansix wrote:
The best part is they tried to avoid those paying those taxes in the US and got called before congress for doing so. Their response was “Our share holders demand we avoid these taxes and Ireland has a much better tax rate.” Little did we know that the tax rate was artificially low due to a sweetheart deal that only Apple got. Tax evasion at its finest.
Just wait for it... Starbucks, Amazon, McDonalds, Google are next on the list. In other countries.
|
On August 30 2016 22:42 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2016 22:07 Plansix wrote:
The best part is they tried to avoid those paying those taxes in the US and got called before congress for doing so. Their response was “Our share holders demand we avoid these taxes and Ireland has a much better tax rate.” Little did we know that the tax rate was artificially low due to a sweetheart deal that only Apple got. Tax evasion at its finest. Just wait for it... Starbucks, Amazon, McDonalds, Google are next on the list. In other countries.
Absolutely, because the EU businesses are going to start doing the same thing. The EU and US have no interest in supporting this sort of tax evasion. So rather than create rules to prevent companies from sending the money abroad, it is easier to end the sweet heart deals these companies are creating with specific nations.
|
“Perhaps the [European Commission] decision will spur the U.S. authorities to step up their own efforts to collect more taxes from Apple. Apple may be a tax cheat, but Apple is our tax cheat,” said Steven Rosenthal, a fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
From the WaPo-Article.
Pure Gold.
|
On August 30 2016 22:50 Plansix wrote:
The [...]US have no interest in supporting this sort of tax evasion.
Are you sure?
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/White-Paper-State-Aid.pdf
Sounds more like: We only care if someone is evading our taxes, but please don't stop US companies from evading other countries taxes. Otherwise we are very sad and angry puppies and will find something to take revenge on like we learned in Uncle Kims book of international diplomacy 101.
|
I should have said, “This form of tax evasion”. Really I would rather the US slap down Apple, but I have low expectations of congress until the election is over.
|
Tim Cook did seem to link repatriation with a tax holiday + good use of the tax dollars (infrastructure spend) awhile back. Not sure if it's a bluff, but it's likely the likely Clinton Administration will take him up on the offer.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if they structured it so they get a future tax credit for the amount they repatriate/ the taxes on it.
|
On August 30 2016 22:06 mahrgell wrote:
Well, those 13b € are not a fine/punishment, but just the amount(+intrest) they paid less than they should have without that deal considered illegal by the EU.
But now they are being forced to pay that money to Ireland, but Ireland is supporting Apple to revoke that decision. It is kind of a weird situation.
Why would they want 13 bil when they can stay in the tax haven business and make much more?
|
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm
The two tax rulings issued by Ireland concerned the internal allocation of these profits within Apple Sales International (rather than the wider set-up of Apple's sales operations in Europe). Specifically, they endorsed a split of the profits for tax purposes in Ireland: Under the agreed method, most profits were internally allocated away from Ireland to a "head office" within Apple Sales International. This "head office" was not based in any country and did not have any employees or own premises. Its activities consisted solely of occasional board meetings. Only a fraction of the profits of Apple Sales International were allocated to its Irish branch and subject to tax in Ireland. The remaining vast majority of profits were allocated to the "head office", where they remained untaxed.
Therefore, only a small percentage of Apple Sales International's profits were taxed in Ireland, and the rest was taxed nowhere. In 2011, for example (according to figures released at US Senate public hearings), Apple Sales International recorded profits of US$ 22 billion (c.a. €16 billion[1]) but under the terms of the tax ruling only around €50 million were considered taxable in Ireland, leaving €15.95 billion of profits untaxed. As a result, Apple Sales International paid less than €10 million of corporate tax in Ireland in 2011 – an effective tax rate of about 0.05% on its overall annual profits. In subsequent years, Apple Sales International's recorded profits continued to increase but the profits considered taxable in Ireland under the terms of the tax ruling did not. Thus this effective tax rate decreased further to only 0.005% in 2014.
What the fuck? For years they directed their profits to an office that doesn't exist in any country and the US govt is willing to officially defend this?
|
On August 30 2016 22:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2016 22:42 Velr wrote:On August 30 2016 22:07 Plansix wrote:
The best part is they tried to avoid those paying those taxes in the US and got called before congress for doing so. Their response was “Our share holders demand we avoid these taxes and Ireland has a much better tax rate.” Little did we know that the tax rate was artificially low due to a sweetheart deal that only Apple got. Tax evasion at its finest. Just wait for it... Starbucks, Amazon, McDonalds, Google are next on the list. In other countries. Absolutely, because the EU businesses are going to start doing the same thing. The EU and US have no interest in supporting this sort of tax evasion. So rather than create rules to prevent companies from sending the money abroad, it is easier to end the sweet heart deals these companies are creating with specific nations.
Those already gpt fined. Including AB inbev and fiat iirc.
The apple response is correct regardless of the deal. Irish corporate tax rate is 12.5% compared to 35 in the US not to mention that part of the reason for the offshoring is the fact that the US taxes worldwide income.
|
On August 30 2016 23:54 Dan HH wrote:http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htmShow nested quote +The two tax rulings issued by Ireland concerned the internal allocation of these profits within Apple Sales International (rather than the wider set-up of Apple's sales operations in Europe). Specifically, they endorsed a split of the profits for tax purposes in Ireland: Under the agreed method, most profits were internally allocated away from Ireland to a "head office" within Apple Sales International. This "head office" was not based in any country and did not have any employees or own premises. Its activities consisted solely of occasional board meetings. Only a fraction of the profits of Apple Sales International were allocated to its Irish branch and subject to tax in Ireland. The remaining vast majority of profits were allocated to the "head office", where they remained untaxed.
Therefore, only a small percentage of Apple Sales International's profits were taxed in Ireland, and the rest was taxed nowhere. In 2011, for example (according to figures released at US Senate public hearings), Apple Sales International recorded profits of US$ 22 billion (c.a. €16 billion[1]) but under the terms of the tax ruling only around €50 million were considered taxable in Ireland, leaving €15.95 billion of profits untaxed. As a result, Apple Sales International paid less than €10 million of corporate tax in Ireland in 2011 – an effective tax rate of about 0.05% on its overall annual profits. In subsequent years, Apple Sales International's recorded profits continued to increase but the profits considered taxable in Ireland under the terms of the tax ruling did not. Thus this effective tax rate decreased further to only 0.005% in 2014. What the fuck? For years they directed their profits to an office that doesn't exist in any country and the US govt is willing to officially defend this?
It's easy to understand why US wants to defend it: if Apple taxed by other countries, it means when they eventually bring money back to US (LOL) there will be less money to tax.
International tax is like prisoners' dilemma, even though the system only works when every country is taxed evenly, no country want other countries to collect them, then corps play them against each other and laugh their arses off.
|
On August 30 2016 23:57 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2016 22:50 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2016 22:42 Velr wrote:On August 30 2016 22:07 Plansix wrote:
The best part is they tried to avoid those paying those taxes in the US and got called before congress for doing so. Their response was “Our share holders demand we avoid these taxes and Ireland has a much better tax rate.” Little did we know that the tax rate was artificially low due to a sweetheart deal that only Apple got. Tax evasion at its finest. Just wait for it... Starbucks, Amazon, McDonalds, Google are next on the list. In other countries. Absolutely, because the EU businesses are going to start doing the same thing. The EU and US have no interest in supporting this sort of tax evasion. So rather than create rules to prevent companies from sending the money abroad, it is easier to end the sweet heart deals these companies are creating with specific nations. Those already gpt fined. Including AB inbev and fiat iirc. The apple response is correct regardless of the deal. Irish corporate tax rate is 12.5% compared to 35 in the US not to mention that part of the reason for the offshoring is the fact that the US taxes worldwide income.
It is correct in the fact that their stoke holders require that they seek the lowest tax rate possible for their profits. But Apple uses the US economy, infrastructure, labor market, housing and every other aspect of our country. So the only reasonable response from the US is to make the practice illegal if the US wants to collect those taxes.
The whole argument that companies are victims of taking the path of least resistance and most profit only works if we assume they have no free will. Every nation isn’t going to play a race to the bottom to be able to tax Apple’s profits, so they maybe need to get used to the idea making a little less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
