I fully agree that the losses from the War on Iraqis/SS/medicare/etc don't outweigh the profits made by taxing Apple/etc and providing them with a few cheap services (corporate registration, enforcement of contracts, etc). That's a separate issue.
Regulatory competition helps - if the profitable people/businesses flee from corruption/inefficiency, then those wasteful programs will eventually run out of money.
The existence of corruption and regulatory capture is all the more reason to have regulatory competition. If California is captured by corrupt special interests (e.g., prison guard unions), corporations can purchase corporate registration and contract enforcement from states which offer a better value.
Ironic that you mention SS and Medicare. Two programs designed to help companies out (and people too). Do the cheap services include a road system? Do they include an education system capable of producing adequate workers? Do they include protection from enemies? These things are not cheap. And it is especially helpful to be located in a country with great influence that helps smooth things in other countries.
I think you don't understand what regulatory capture is. When an industry has capture the regulators that is a good thing from the perspective of that industry. Regulatory capture is what oligopolies want. It's the good kind of corruption from their perspective. Large companies don't flee from corrupt societies. They use that corruption to their advantage. Obviously there are counterexamples to this but overall the gist is correct.
Why should Apple be taxed on profits earned in Ireland to pay for CA roads?
As for protection from enemies, we should simply stop defending Ireland. Then Ireland will be forced to defend itself (from Iraq, I suppose) and charge corporations commensurately.
But supposing Apple does pay it's share of all these things. Given our current deficit and that a large portion of our deficit goes toward maintenance of both soft and hard power and that such power is used for the benefit (not solely) of large corporations its clear that business are not paying their share of the burden. And a large portion of the current deficit comes from stabilizing the economy. Without infusions of cash into the system after Lehman went bankrupt Apple would have been greatly disrupted.
Corporations in the U.S. currently sit on a great hoard of cash. I don't know another hoard of cash government can access to pay for the maintenance of the system. From you last paragraph it seems it would be advisable for you to read the Wikileaks cables. Your view about the role of military power and its relationship with soft power the use of said power for the benefit of corporate interests appears to naive.
In an environment where public policy has been co-opted by corporate interests to serve business interests to the detriment of other interests it's hardly reasonable to think that "we should simply stop defending Ireland". Why would businesses want such a thing when they benefit from our power without having to pay for it?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2010USbt_1...
As for the federal road system, that's paid for by gas taxes - Apple (or fedex, or whoever delivers iPhones) pays for it whenever they fill up their gas tanks roughly in proportion to how much they use it.
It's also hardly clear that businesses are not paying their share of the burden. The services businesses require cost very little - corporate registration, police protection, roads, etc. The fact that these services are cheap is demonstrated by the fact that Nevada provides those services and charges very little for it.
Most other services are given to individuals and different individuals (usually younger ones) are charged for those services. The individuals who work for Apple raise their prices commensurately.
Labor has very little power in the U.S. and in an environment of 8%+ unemployment (15% U2 rate) it's hard to believe that labor can raise prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Fina...
There is a pretty simple solution to this problem - raise user fees until the system is revenue neutral.
As for "soft power", could you define that in a less vague manner? Are you asserting that dead Iraqis somehow benefit Apple?
And again, I'll note you keep harping on a few cheap, useful items, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of spending is merely redistribution from the young to the old which doesn't benefit Apple at all.
Consult Wikileaks cables for how corporations benefit from U.S. soft power and hard power. Apple benefits from being in the U.S. It should pay for this benefit. I don't know the optimum rate. It should not only pay for the tangible, easily understood benefits. It and other corporations benefit from the U.S. exerting its power to their benefit. The U.S. does this quite a bit.
The US has been running up the debt for many years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_pu...
The biggest problem is the lack of a passed federal budget in over a 1,000 days. This is causing a lot of budget increasing in a time when we cannot afford it. What the media and politicians (from both sides) chose to concentrate on is emotion grabbing (good for votes and ratings), systemic issues with how the government is being run are boring and not emphasized.
Low taxes don't kill budgets (check right after WWII when they had to drop), it is runaway spending. Income from taxes of all sorts has averaged 19% GDP, spending above that is the problem.
Your last two paragraphs are not germane to my point and they are wrong in any case. However, let's assume your last statement is correct.
Right now taxes around 15.4% GDP [1]. You seem to believe that 19% GDP in taxes is a reasonable amount to pay for government services. The GDP of the U.S. is around $15 trillion [2]. A 3.5% GDP increase in taxes to get us to 19% GDP for taxes would mean an increase of taxes by $525 billion. Current budgetary projections have the U.S. deficit at slightly over $500 billion in 4 years [3]. A lot of the current deficit is in non-recurring expenditures that are related to the fiscal crisis that started in 2008.
I might be wrong on my belief about the Bush II tax cuts being a large portion of our long term fiscal problems but from your sentence one must conclude that you agree that raising taxes by a reasonable amount would eliminate our long term fiscal problems.
[1] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...
[2] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
[3] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.ht...
I have no idea how any of the links prove my point on not having an actual budget in 1000+ days isn't increasing the problem. Heck the debt ceiling raise had parts that immediately added quite a lot of debt. Given that [3] says the deficit amounts will be going down is off base. I assume it ignores the CBO estimates[1].
[1] http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/116x...
It has been clearly demonstrated time and time again that in periods of depression you DO NOT dramatically cut government spending. All it does is hamper growth which results in less tax income.
I have no idea why the US debt is being touted about as being the number one priority when surely increasing growth rates and reducing unemployment are key.
That is the Keynesian point of view, but it has counter examples. The difference between three points in history 1920, 1929, and 1945-46 show a different story. Herbert Hoover was a Keynesian and made the increase spending decision in 1929 as opposed to the tactic that worked while he was Sec of Commerce under Harding. Harding didn't pull the spending panic despite Hoover's recommendation. 1945-47 is even more interesting in that Congress didn't let Truman continue the massive WWII spending into civilian government programs. Taxes and spending were cut drastically which finally led to a booming economy and an end to the shortages and rationing. So, I would say the case for the Keynesians is not as clear cut. The 19th century also has some good examples.
gains pretty much explained why debt is bad.
It would be one thing if spending had been static during all the tax cuts; it's quite different in reality.
You appear to assign to the government of Ireland some sort of rationality and ignore things like regulatory capture and corruption. Your belief that a government will only lower until "revenues raised == cost of services + small margin" is not rooted in fact.