It's nice to see public figures making the practical arguments not unlike those MF publishes. If you missed the point, Paul was saying that too high a tax rate causes people to not want to pay it. Are raising taxes really the solution?
Those who say everyone should "pay their fair share" must remember that raising taxes does not automatically gain more revenue any more than the old supply-side saw of lowering taxes increases revenue "every time it's been tried" in the words* of the Rush Limbaugh crowd.
Creating a situation where companies may do ethically-questionable things to avoid inappropriately high taxes, and then prosecuting them for doing such things, well, that sounds a lot like entrapment to me.
CNN Money reports that the judge in the Apple case has already started writing her decision before the trail proper has begun. Wha?!?
Secondly, one cannot justify a judge making a judgement before hearing any facts upon which she must judge. I'm sorry she's busy, but so is everybody.
Perhaps if the courts were not so overloaded with the prosecution of things that should not be crimes, they'd have more time to, you know, look at the facts in their current cases and make judgments.
*This "every time it's been tried" line is absolutely an AM Talk Show trope. I believe it's commonplace enough to state here without citation, but I'll be glad to point to a few examples if there is any doubt.
Those who say everyone should "pay their fair share" must remember that raising taxes does not automatically gain more revenue any more than the old supply-side saw of lowering taxes increases revenue "every time it's been tried" in the words* of the Rush Limbaugh crowd.
Creating a situation where companies may do ethically-questionable things to avoid inappropriately high taxes, and then prosecuting them for doing such things, well, that sounds a lot like entrapment to me.
CNN Money reports that the judge in the Apple case has already started writing her decision before the trail proper has begun. Wha?!?
The trial doesn't begin until June 3. Also, there's no jury, so Judge Cote's decision is final, and she says she's already begun writing a draft of it.
In her defense -- a strange phrase to use about a judge -- she's had a chance to read some of the evidence. (...)
The book publishers have long since settled with the DOJ, leaving Apple as the sole defendant. It could be that Judge Cote is trying to put pressure on Apple to settle as well, something federal judges with heavy schedules have been known to do.Two things: "in here defense" is not a strange phrase to use about a judge, you authority suckled twit. Judges can be wrong just like anybody else.
Secondly, one cannot justify a judge making a judgement before hearing any facts upon which she must judge. I'm sorry she's busy, but so is everybody.
Perhaps if the courts were not so overloaded with the prosecution of things that should not be crimes, they'd have more time to, you know, look at the facts in their current cases and make judgments.
*This "every time it's been tried" line is absolutely an AM Talk Show trope. I believe it's commonplace enough to state here without citation, but I'll be glad to point to a few examples if there is any doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment