Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | clarky07's comments login

To be fair, while we only have 2 parties (with any chance at all) those parties are spectrums. Not everyone within the parties agree with each other. There are wings to each party, and the candidates selected in primaries reflect that.

For example, whether you love or hate them, the tea party has almost been a third party in America. Yes they ran as republicans so they'd have a chance, and do agree on a lot of things, there is no question that there are also lots of things mainstream republicans and tea party candidates disagree on.

While we stick to the 2 parties, there is a wide spectrum of viewpoints still available within those parties. The republican primary in particular will show that not everyone agrees.


3 times. Adams, Bush, Harrison. Point remains.

Is that true? Is the HN demographic really that young. No wonder it seems like everyone here is more liberal than average.

Except for our current president, when he ran in 2008?

He was a state senator for 7 years, and a US senator for 4.

why the downvotes? Most people wouldn't consider half a term in congress significant experience. I can't think of many presidents with less. That doesn't mean he did a terrible job or was completely unqualified or anything of the sort. It's just a statement of fact that he didn't have very much experience at the time. Frankly, even though I disagree with his views on most things, I don't think he's actually done that badly. He hasn't done great IMO mind you, but I'm mostly content with how things have gone the last 6 years.

He's suggesting the lobbyists are in the right in this case, and the tax rates for repatriation should be lowered to something more reasonable. Then companies would be paying more tax than they are currently giving the govt getting more revenue, as well as bringing more money into the U.S. for investment in local economies. Everyone wins if they lower taxes. At the current rates, it's simply irresponsible to bring the money back instead of leaving it where it is.

-----


what is 0% of 100 billion? 0

What is 10% of 100 billion? 10 billion.

10 billion is more than 0 dollars, so it makes sense. 0 is what they will get if the keep the rate the same as it is now.

>If the IRS is going to give Apple a tax holiday, can they give me a tax holiday too?

That sure would be nice, I wouldn't mind one. That being said, we don't have billions of dollars to offer, and it's unlikely we have money overseas that needs repatriated.

-----


Of course. Totally makes sense that the U.S. is protecting China allowing apple to sell the phones made in China and then sold in China. Oh wait, the U.S. Military isn't protecting China?

Every first world country has court systems, copyright laws, and many of them are more respected than we are. Samsung likely benefits as much as apple does for any of these things and yet they don't pay US taxes on sales in China. They only pay US taxes on sales in the U.S.

-----


Except it's the US military that helps decide the final outcome if China one day seizes all US' company assets within China.

You don't need a military until the one day you do.

And come on, you know what I'm talking about with respect to force projection and protection of assets.

-----


1. That is incredibly far fetched. China isn't stupid, and nobody wins in that scenario.

2. If that did happen, we'd be in a world war, and I'm guessing that would lower iPhone sales and nobody would much care about repatriation taxes.

3. Every other country in the world has the same concerns of incredibly far fetched ideas as this, and yet they don't take 35% for protection money. In your world the U.S. Govt sounds a bit like the mafia. I'm not sure that's how it's supposed to work.

-----


Winners write the textbooks.

-----


There's very little reason to. unless they were just desperate to use the cash why pay more taxes than they need to? The money wasn't made in America, they don't have a great claim to it (many countries don't have this tax we are talking about).

In the past, we've had tax holidays were they made it a bit cheaper, seems sensible to wait and hope it happens again.

Alternately, they could buy companies overseas. It's obviously going to be hard to invest that much money, but if they can find interesting options it'd be a much better use of the money than paying a really high tax.

-----


by being "lamest" it is most reasonable for humans to go to, and most likely to actually be useful to us.

-----


>If you believe that small retail investors should be protected from themselves when it comes to early stage investing, this is a good thing.

Alternately, the small retail investor isn't getting the chance to make life changing amounts of money by putting 1k into Microsoft or Amazon.

I suspect I (and lots of other people) would have been willing to invest in Facebook when it was a 1 billion company. That would be a 270x return from now. If you bought at IPO you'd be a little more than 2x now. Alternately, if you bought at the absolute bottom it's ever been you'd be at 4x.

Certainly 2x and 4x are nice, but they don't make you wealthy in the way 270x does.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: