No individual, company owner or company owes the government anything out of patriotic duty. Businesses exit to innovate and market products and services that people want badly enough to pay for them.
If businesses are allowed to do what they do best, then opportunities for real jobs supporting such companies will come.
A business does not exist to support the government. Rather government exists to create freedom and allow individuals and the companies they work for to prosper. In this way, innovation is rewarded with money -- as it should be.
Some of you have things turned around.
Neither Apple nor any sane company will pay more taxes than they have to. And they owe it to their investors and customers to offer products at affordable prices. And avoiding high taxes to reduce costs and improve profits is just common sense and proper behavior.
Remember that taxes paid by any company becomes overhead that transfers directly to product costs. So those of you who want Apple or any company to pay more taxes will actually pay more for these companies? products when their tax bills go up. And guess who actually ends up paying those taxes? If you are an Apple customer, you do.
The government is systematically reducing job opportunities in the US by taxing corporations.
Just because Apple has done so well in increasing its profits does not mean that they somehow owe the government a single dime. It?s their money that they earned honestly. Why should they owe more just because they have innovated and created a cash cow. More power to them.
So let Apple enjoy the fruits of their labor instead of being forced to support an ineffective and inefficient federal government. The government is nothing more than a black hole of waste.
The big problem here is that, if the US government did this, it would actually create more incentive for companies to move operations away from the US.
Think about it: move operations to a country with very low corporate taxation, generate higher profits there, move the money back to the US with no taxation. Sounds like the best option to me.
And there's no guarantee that they'd reinvest that money back in the US. What if they gave the money to shareholders who may not even live in the US?
Nothing is stopping Apple from investing it's money in the US. How about starting by, I don't know, investing money in the US? One great way to invest money in the US is to bring that money back to the US and paying rightful taxes on it. It's not like they couldn't afford it and it's not money lost either. The states is trillions of dollars in debt in part because companies keep sending jobs overseas due to greed.
so that your federal gov't can blow away Apple's money on Solyndra?
I guess somebody has to pay for all those wasteful gov't welfare and warfare.
Apple made a LOT of money exporting jobs and manufacturing overseas. It seems fair that some of that money should be taxed on its way back to the U.S.
You got that right! Steve Jobs tells Obama the manufacturing jobs are NEVER coming back to the US. Now the company wants their money made overseas with little to no taxation. Can you say chutzpa?
I don't quite see how people see apple as dodging taxes here... they're a multinational corporation, and have to follow the rules in all of the countries they operate in. However, they're based in the USA, and this is where the problem is. If they earn money from sales in Japan, this has NOTHING to do with the USA, and is taxed in japan (or wherever the income is earned that a country taxes it). These goods would not have been made had apple not operated in a foreign country. By operating elsewhere, they sell more goods.
However, because of tax laws in the USA, they cannot move this money over without paying large taxes (on income that had nothing to do with the USA). One common way companies avoid this is by not being based in the USA. If apple was a foreign corporation (in countries that don't require "repatriation" of money owned externally, or most all other countries) they would have no problem moving that money back and giving it to the stock holders, or buying back stock with it. In fact, because of this, many international companies have left the USA, because it doesn't make sense to pay extra taxes for the "luxury" of being based in the USA.
The most amusing thing about this is how much this money would get taxed. Lets say the income was made overseas, it would first be taxed by that country. Then, apple wants to bring it back to the USA (to pay dividends), they then have to pay corporate income taxes on this money. Then, apple issues dividends on the reduced amount, and the stock holders have to pay capital gain taxes on the dividends.
If you ask me, the tax laws are a good reason for international companies to not be based in the USA, and if they are, they will encourage companies to invest externally. Lets look at it another way, if Samsung wanted to open up a design center in the USA, and was investing 2 billion on it (earned all over the world, and taxed accordingly), they wouldn't have to pay extra taxes on it, in fact the government would likely give them ADDITIONAL tax breaks on property taxes etc to encourage the company to invest there.
Apple has made a lot of money by selling their products overseas and has been taxed on those earnings. Bringing it back to the US of A would result in additional taxation.
Yes, but Apple, nor any other company, is taxed to import those products that are sold here. You and I get charged tariffs when we bring stuff from abroad, even when you buy it on an airplane via "sky mall". Why isn't Apple?
so that your federal gov't can blow away Apple's money on Solyndra?
I guess somebody has to pay for all those wasteful gov't welfare and warfare.
Please! The only wasteful spending is giving tax breaks to gazillionaires while expecting the 99% to pick up the tab (see George Bush). The Republicans are the guilty party and have suppressed the Middle Class, turning them into low-wage slaves, lucky to make minimum wage with no benefits. Give me a break. If Apple wants to enjoy all the benefits of being headquartered in the USA, they must start acting responsibly. Pay up.
No individual, company owner or company owes the government anything out of patriotic duty. Businesses exit to innovate and market products and services that people want badly enough to pay for them.
If businesses are allowed to do what they do best, then opportunities for real jobs supporting such companies will come.
A business does not exist to support the government. Rather government exists to create freedom and allow individuals and the companies they work for to prosper. In this way, innovation is rewarded with money -- as it should be.
Some of you have things turned around.
Neither Apple nor any sane company will pay more taxes than they have to. And they owe it to their investors and customers to offer products at affordable prices. And avoiding high taxes to reduce costs and improve profits is just common sense and proper behavior.
Remember that taxes paid by any company becomes overhead that transfers directly to product costs. So those of you who want Apple or any company to pay more taxes will actually pay more for these companies‘ products when their tax bills go up. And guess who actually ends up paying those taxes? If you are an Apple customer, you do.
The government is systematically reducing job opportunities in the US by taxing corporations.
Just because Apple has done so well in increasing its profits does not mean that they somehow owe the government a single dime. It’s their money that they earned honestly. Why should they owe more just because they have innovated and created a cash cow. More power to them.
So let Apple enjoy the fruits of their labor instead of being forced to support an ineffective and inefficient federal government. The government is nothing more than a black hole of waste.
But, the thing is, a company has absolutely no obligation to act in the best interest of society. The only incentive is to act in their own best interest. In some cases, this is beneficial to society (e.g. job creation). In some cases, it's not (e.g. pollution).
IMO, the government's role is to create a structure so that there is incentive to act in the best interest of society as a whole. This is how we've evolved from the cave man era to a civilized society. While you see government as waste, I see it as the only thing keeping society from degenerating into whoever has the biggest stick has power (as is the case in many other societies around the world where the government is corrupt or nonexistent).
Is there corruption and waste in government? Sure. Does the same thing exist in large companies? You bet. No difference other than one organization has, as it's founding principals, the interests of a nation. While the other simply has profits and growth. One has to answer to voters every few years, the other only answers to the shareholders.
You got that right! Steve Jobs tells Obama the manufacturing jobs are NEVER coming back to the US. Now the company wants their money made overseas with little to no taxation. Can you say chutzpa?
If it isn't taxed then there is more left to pay dividends and stock buy backs. The real winners are the shareholders. But they will pay tax on the dividends or capital gains when they sell the stock.
The big problem here is that, if the US government did this, it would actually create more incentive for companies to move operations away from the US.
Think about it: move operations to a country with very low corporate taxation, generate higher profits there, move the money back to the US with no taxation. Sounds like the best option to me.
And there's no guarantee that they'd reinvest that money back in the US. What if they gave the money to shareholders who may not even live in the US?
Of course there is no guarantee where jobs will go because taxation is only one factor of many for why jobs go overseas.
But taxing corporations beyond what other foreign countries charge makes it much harder for both Apple and other US companies to manufacture their products in the US or create new jobs in the US.
I don't quite see how people see apple as dodging taxes here... they're a multinational corporation, and have to follow the rules in all of the countries they operate in. However, they're based in the USA, and this is where the problem is. If they earn money from sales in Japan, this has NOTHING to do with the USA, and is taxed in japan (or wherever the income is earned that a country taxes it). These goods would not have been made had apple not operated in a foreign country. By operating elsewhere, they sell more goods.
However, because of tax laws in the USA, they cannot move this money over without paying large taxes (on income that had nothing to do with the USA). One common way companies avoid this is by not being based in the USA. If apple was a foreign corporation (in countries that don't require "repatriation" of money owned externally, or most all other countries) they would have no problem moving that money back and giving it to the stock holders, or buying back stock with it. In fact, because of this, many international companies have left the USA, because it doesn't make sense to pay extra taxes for the "luxury" of being based in the USA.
The most amusing thing about this is how much this money would get taxed. Lets say the income was made overseas, it would first be taxed by that country. Then, apple wants to bring it back to the USA (to pay dividends), they then have to pay corporate income taxes on this money. Then, apple issues dividends on the reduced amount, and the stock holders have to pay capital gain taxes on the dividends.
If you ask me, the tax laws are a good reason for international companies to not be based in the USA, and if they are, they will encourage companies to invest externally. Lets look at it another way, if Samsung wanted to open up a design center in the USA, and was investing 2 billion on it (earned all over the world, and taxed accordingly), they wouldn't have to pay extra taxes on it, in fact the government would likely give them ADDITIONAL tax breaks on property taxes etc to encourage the company to invest there.
phil
Apple sets up foreign offices to handle sales in other countries. They do this to avoid tariffs, just like Toyota builds many of its cars in the US to avoid import duties and shipping costs. But I am sure they pay tax in Japan on sales in the US as they are ultimately a Japanese Corporation. Apple has the same obligation. Paying taxes is not evil. It is pat of doing business. Big corporations who complain about their taxes just sound foolish.
This is clearly a complex situation. But don't those profits exist overseas because Apple and other companies exported the jobs, and paid for work that yielded no benefits to the US in terms of materials sourcing, jobs, the multiplier effect of wages, or the income taxes that would have been paid by US workers? Like I say--it's complex--but it doesn't seem like good policy to embrace corporate behavior that costs the US in all those ways on the front end, and then lower taxes for the same corporations on the back end. I'll try to keep an open mind.
Apple may make higher profits for having moved manufacturing offshore, but that doesn't generate income and thus taxes.
Here's what built that big hoard of cash oversees. A guy in England buys an iPad from a store in England. It ships from China, maybe spent some time in a warehouse in Germany. Apple UK, a division of Apple, Inc., reports the sale to the tax people in the UK, pays VAT taxes, payroll taxes for the UK employees, and then UK income tax based on the profit left over. Combine a lot of people in England, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, now China, etc. etc. and you get a big pile of cash sitting offshore, all earned outside of the United States.
That money may move from banks to different countries in the EU, spent in developing countries, etc. For all those other countries, taxmen say "Hey, that money, how much of it was earned in our country, and did you pay taxes" and being told it is so, is satisfied.
Unless they want to move those to the United States, for investment here, or a major acquisition, or just to distribute to the stockholders. Here, the IRS says "Hey, you owe us tax on that. We don't care that none of it was earned here, you want to spend it here, you must pay tax."
So Apple has two choices for the money. They can leave it in Europe, investing it or getting interest or using it to do things like build a factory or a server farm, and they can use all the money that way. Or they can bring it to the US, take a big tax hit, and only invest the remainder here.
What is the moral claim that the American government has on profit from sales in the UK? It doesn't really matter, the American government has the guns and based on the comments here and elsewhere, it's clear that enough of the citizenry doesn't care about a moral claim so long as "we" get the money. This taxation on economic activity taking place outside of the U.S. is going to happen, whether it's right or wrong. So we're down to arguing the pragmatic view, what's the best way for America to benefit from that guy who bought an iPad in the UK.
The big problem here is that, if the US government did this, it would actually create more incentive for companies to move operations away from the US.
This doesn't alter the fact that companies can move out of the US already or kept profits they made overseas in the originating countries. All this would do is create a "low pressure" where profits from overseas could filter into the US.
But, the thing is, a company has absolutely no obligation to act in the best interest of society. The only incentive is to act in their own best interest. In some cases, this is beneficial to society (e.g. job creation). In some cases, it's not (e.g. pollution).
IMO, the government's role is to create a structure so that there is incentive to act in the best interest of society as a whole. This is how we've evolved from the cave man era to a civilized society.
You are leaping to the conclusion that government is smart enough and incorruptible in its ability to see that companies do the right thing. That is a leap of faith that I believe is fundamentally false.
The government cannot even manage itself. So what makes you think that they can somehow lead companies to serve society?
Companies are run by many different kinds of leaders. They are accountable to many including boards of directors and customers as well as regulators (and regulators? track record is atrocious).
The bottom line: companies are more efficient and don?t waste nearly as much money as the federal government.
Companies are not perfect, but government abuse is far worse. And companies are more accountable than the federal government.
You can?t put the government out of business. But companies are put out of business every day when they don?t perform. The government, on the other hand, is just getting bigger and bigger and more out of control with every day that passes.
I think Apple and companies like then have a brass neck trying to avoid taxation. They have more money than they know what to do with yet helping the US and its citizens is not on the agenda. As long as the wall street suits get their cash to add to their pile, the rest of you can sing for it. A disgrace.
Please! The only wasteful spending is giving tax breaks to gazillionaires while expecting the 99% to pick up the tab (see George Bush). The Republicans are the guilty party and have suppressed the Middle Class, turning them into low-wage slaves, lucky to make minimum wage with no benefits. Give me a break. If Apple wants to enjoy all the benefits of being headquartered in the USA, they must start acting responsibly. Pay up.
LOL!! This is hilarious. Oh really? Is that why some bottom 50% of lower income folks don't pay any federal taxes while the top 2% pays 40% of taxes? (or top 10% 70% of taxes?)
Perhaps Apple should move its headquarters to Bahamas or Ireland like Accenture did.
Does anybody see what those complaining about Apple not paying their "fair share" are asking?
This is the scenario they want...
Apple makes a product in China. They sell it to someone in Japan. Japan taxes the import of the product. Japan taxes Apple Japan on the profit Apple makes on the product.
If Apple wants to move that money (which has already been DIRECTLY taxed twice, not to mention the added cost of all the hidden taxes in the supply chain)... if they want to move that money to the United States to pay a dividend...
These "fair share" advocates, want it taxed AGAIN at the 35% corporate rate.
THEN they ALSO want it taxed AGAIN either through capital gains or income tax on the dividend.
Comments
This was a failed policy in 2004, and it would be another colossal failure today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...022129888.html
...according to report from the Democratic staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released Monday night.
I wouldn't trust a report made by idiots. Look, it is real simple...
35% x $0 = 0
5% x $60,000,000,000 = $3,000,000,000
I know this is complex math, but which result is larger? Who cares what the companies do with the money once it is here, that is just gravy.
-kpluck
Apple made a LOT of money exporting jobs and manufacturing overseas. It seems fair that some of that money should be taxed on its way back to the U.S.
What do you mean "export"? Apple created jobs that didn't exist here before.
If businesses are allowed to do what they do best, then opportunities for real jobs supporting such companies will come.
A business does not exist to support the government. Rather government exists to create freedom and allow individuals and the companies they work for to prosper. In this way, innovation is rewarded with money -- as it should be.
Some of you have things turned around.
Neither Apple nor any sane company will pay more taxes than they have to. And they owe it to their investors and customers to offer products at affordable prices. And avoiding high taxes to reduce costs and improve profits is just common sense and proper behavior.
Remember that taxes paid by any company becomes overhead that transfers directly to product costs. So those of you who want Apple or any company to pay more taxes will actually pay more for these companies? products when their tax bills go up. And guess who actually ends up paying those taxes? If you are an Apple customer, you do.
The government is systematically reducing job opportunities in the US by taxing corporations.
Just because Apple has done so well in increasing its profits does not mean that they somehow owe the government a single dime. It?s their money that they earned honestly. Why should they owe more just because they have innovated and created a cash cow. More power to them.
So let Apple enjoy the fruits of their labor instead of being forced to support an ineffective and inefficient federal government. The government is nothing more than a black hole of waste.
Think about it: move operations to a country with very low corporate taxation, generate higher profits there, move the money back to the US with no taxation. Sounds like the best option to me.
And there's no guarantee that they'd reinvest that money back in the US. What if they gave the money to shareholders who may not even live in the US?
Nothing is stopping Apple from investing it's money in the US. How about starting by, I don't know, investing money in the US? One great way to invest money in the US is to bring that money back to the US and paying rightful taxes on it. It's not like they couldn't afford it and it's not money lost either. The states is trillions of dollars in debt in part because companies keep sending jobs overseas due to greed.
so that your federal gov't can blow away Apple's money on Solyndra?
I guess somebody has to pay for all those wasteful gov't welfare and warfare.
Apple made a LOT of money exporting jobs and manufacturing overseas. It seems fair that some of that money should be taxed on its way back to the U.S.
You got that right! Steve Jobs tells Obama the manufacturing jobs are NEVER coming back to the US. Now the company wants their money made overseas with little to no taxation. Can you say chutzpa?
However, because of tax laws in the USA, they cannot move this money over without paying large taxes (on income that had nothing to do with the USA). One common way companies avoid this is by not being based in the USA. If apple was a foreign corporation (in countries that don't require "repatriation" of money owned externally, or most all other countries) they would have no problem moving that money back and giving it to the stock holders, or buying back stock with it. In fact, because of this, many international companies have left the USA, because it doesn't make sense to pay extra taxes for the "luxury" of being based in the USA.
The most amusing thing about this is how much this money would get taxed. Lets say the income was made overseas, it would first be taxed by that country. Then, apple wants to bring it back to the USA (to pay dividends), they then have to pay corporate income taxes on this money. Then, apple issues dividends on the reduced amount, and the stock holders have to pay capital gain taxes on the dividends.
If you ask me, the tax laws are a good reason for international companies to not be based in the USA, and if they are, they will encourage companies to invest externally. Lets look at it another way, if Samsung wanted to open up a design center in the USA, and was investing 2 billion on it (earned all over the world, and taxed accordingly), they wouldn't have to pay extra taxes on it, in fact the government would likely give them ADDITIONAL tax breaks on property taxes etc to encourage the company to invest there.
phil
Apple has made a lot of money by selling their products overseas and has been taxed on those earnings. Bringing it back to the US of A would result in additional taxation.
Yes, but Apple, nor any other company, is taxed to import those products that are sold here. You and I get charged tariffs when we bring stuff from abroad, even when you buy it on an airplane via "sky mall". Why isn't Apple?
so that your federal gov't can blow away Apple's money on Solyndra?
I guess somebody has to pay for all those wasteful gov't welfare and warfare.
Please! The only wasteful spending is giving tax breaks to gazillionaires while expecting the 99% to pick up the tab (see George Bush). The Republicans are the guilty party and have suppressed the Middle Class, turning them into low-wage slaves, lucky to make minimum wage with no benefits. Give me a break. If Apple wants to enjoy all the benefits of being headquartered in the USA, they must start acting responsibly. Pay up.
Apple made a LOT of money exporting jobs and manufacturing overseas. It seems fair that some of that money should be taxed on its way back to the U.S.
Be careful what you wish for. The money was made on sales outside of the US. If fair is fair then they should invest the money in those countries.
No individual, company owner or company owes the government anything out of patriotic duty. Businesses exit to innovate and market products and services that people want badly enough to pay for them.
If businesses are allowed to do what they do best, then opportunities for real jobs supporting such companies will come.
A business does not exist to support the government. Rather government exists to create freedom and allow individuals and the companies they work for to prosper. In this way, innovation is rewarded with money -- as it should be.
Some of you have things turned around.
Neither Apple nor any sane company will pay more taxes than they have to. And they owe it to their investors and customers to offer products at affordable prices. And avoiding high taxes to reduce costs and improve profits is just common sense and proper behavior.
Remember that taxes paid by any company becomes overhead that transfers directly to product costs. So those of you who want Apple or any company to pay more taxes will actually pay more for these companies‘ products when their tax bills go up. And guess who actually ends up paying those taxes? If you are an Apple customer, you do.
The government is systematically reducing job opportunities in the US by taxing corporations.
Just because Apple has done so well in increasing its profits does not mean that they somehow owe the government a single dime. It’s their money that they earned honestly. Why should they owe more just because they have innovated and created a cash cow. More power to them.
So let Apple enjoy the fruits of their labor instead of being forced to support an ineffective and inefficient federal government. The government is nothing more than a black hole of waste.
But, the thing is, a company has absolutely no obligation to act in the best interest of society. The only incentive is to act in their own best interest. In some cases, this is beneficial to society (e.g. job creation). In some cases, it's not (e.g. pollution).
IMO, the government's role is to create a structure so that there is incentive to act in the best interest of society as a whole. This is how we've evolved from the cave man era to a civilized society. While you see government as waste, I see it as the only thing keeping society from degenerating into whoever has the biggest stick has power (as is the case in many other societies around the world where the government is corrupt or nonexistent).
Is there corruption and waste in government? Sure. Does the same thing exist in large companies? You bet. No difference other than one organization has, as it's founding principals, the interests of a nation. While the other simply has profits and growth. One has to answer to voters every few years, the other only answers to the shareholders.
You got that right! Steve Jobs tells Obama the manufacturing jobs are NEVER coming back to the US. Now the company wants their money made overseas with little to no taxation. Can you say chutzpa?
If it isn't taxed then there is more left to pay dividends and stock buy backs. The real winners are the shareholders. But they will pay tax on the dividends or capital gains when they sell the stock.
The big problem here is that, if the US government did this, it would actually create more incentive for companies to move operations away from the US.
Think about it: move operations to a country with very low corporate taxation, generate higher profits there, move the money back to the US with no taxation. Sounds like the best option to me.
And there's no guarantee that they'd reinvest that money back in the US. What if they gave the money to shareholders who may not even live in the US?
Of course there is no guarantee where jobs will go because taxation is only one factor of many for why jobs go overseas.
But taxing corporations beyond what other foreign countries charge makes it much harder for both Apple and other US companies to manufacture their products in the US or create new jobs in the US.
I don't quite see how people see apple as dodging taxes here... they're a multinational corporation, and have to follow the rules in all of the countries they operate in. However, they're based in the USA, and this is where the problem is. If they earn money from sales in Japan, this has NOTHING to do with the USA, and is taxed in japan (or wherever the income is earned that a country taxes it). These goods would not have been made had apple not operated in a foreign country. By operating elsewhere, they sell more goods.
However, because of tax laws in the USA, they cannot move this money over without paying large taxes (on income that had nothing to do with the USA). One common way companies avoid this is by not being based in the USA. If apple was a foreign corporation (in countries that don't require "repatriation" of money owned externally, or most all other countries) they would have no problem moving that money back and giving it to the stock holders, or buying back stock with it. In fact, because of this, many international companies have left the USA, because it doesn't make sense to pay extra taxes for the "luxury" of being based in the USA.
The most amusing thing about this is how much this money would get taxed. Lets say the income was made overseas, it would first be taxed by that country. Then, apple wants to bring it back to the USA (to pay dividends), they then have to pay corporate income taxes on this money. Then, apple issues dividends on the reduced amount, and the stock holders have to pay capital gain taxes on the dividends.
If you ask me, the tax laws are a good reason for international companies to not be based in the USA, and if they are, they will encourage companies to invest externally. Lets look at it another way, if Samsung wanted to open up a design center in the USA, and was investing 2 billion on it (earned all over the world, and taxed accordingly), they wouldn't have to pay extra taxes on it, in fact the government would likely give them ADDITIONAL tax breaks on property taxes etc to encourage the company to invest there.
phil
Apple sets up foreign offices to handle sales in other countries. They do this to avoid tariffs, just like Toyota builds many of its cars in the US to avoid import duties and shipping costs. But I am sure they pay tax in Japan on sales in the US as they are ultimately a Japanese Corporation. Apple has the same obligation. Paying taxes is not evil. It is pat of doing business. Big corporations who complain about their taxes just sound foolish.
This is clearly a complex situation. But don't those profits exist overseas because Apple and other companies exported the jobs, and paid for work that yielded no benefits to the US in terms of materials sourcing, jobs, the multiplier effect of wages, or the income taxes that would have been paid by US workers? Like I say--it's complex--but it doesn't seem like good policy to embrace corporate behavior that costs the US in all those ways on the front end, and then lower taxes for the same corporations on the back end. I'll try to keep an open mind.
Apple may make higher profits for having moved manufacturing offshore, but that doesn't generate income and thus taxes.
Here's what built that big hoard of cash oversees. A guy in England buys an iPad from a store in England. It ships from China, maybe spent some time in a warehouse in Germany. Apple UK, a division of Apple, Inc., reports the sale to the tax people in the UK, pays VAT taxes, payroll taxes for the UK employees, and then UK income tax based on the profit left over. Combine a lot of people in England, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, now China, etc. etc. and you get a big pile of cash sitting offshore, all earned outside of the United States.
That money may move from banks to different countries in the EU, spent in developing countries, etc. For all those other countries, taxmen say "Hey, that money, how much of it was earned in our country, and did you pay taxes" and being told it is so, is satisfied.
Unless they want to move those to the United States, for investment here, or a major acquisition, or just to distribute to the stockholders. Here, the IRS says "Hey, you owe us tax on that. We don't care that none of it was earned here, you want to spend it here, you must pay tax."
So Apple has two choices for the money. They can leave it in Europe, investing it or getting interest or using it to do things like build a factory or a server farm, and they can use all the money that way. Or they can bring it to the US, take a big tax hit, and only invest the remainder here.
What is the moral claim that the American government has on profit from sales in the UK? It doesn't really matter, the American government has the guns and based on the comments here and elsewhere, it's clear that enough of the citizenry doesn't care about a moral claim so long as "we" get the money. This taxation on economic activity taking place outside of the U.S. is going to happen, whether it's right or wrong. So we're down to arguing the pragmatic view, what's the best way for America to benefit from that guy who bought an iPad in the UK.
The big problem here is that, if the US government did this, it would actually create more incentive for companies to move operations away from the US.
This doesn't alter the fact that companies can move out of the US already or kept profits they made overseas in the originating countries. All this would do is create a "low pressure" where profits from overseas could filter into the US.
But, the thing is, a company has absolutely no obligation to act in the best interest of society. The only incentive is to act in their own best interest. In some cases, this is beneficial to society (e.g. job creation). In some cases, it's not (e.g. pollution).
IMO, the government's role is to create a structure so that there is incentive to act in the best interest of society as a whole. This is how we've evolved from the cave man era to a civilized society.
You are leaping to the conclusion that government is smart enough and incorruptible in its ability to see that companies do the right thing. That is a leap of faith that I believe is fundamentally false.
The government cannot even manage itself. So what makes you think that they can somehow lead companies to serve society?
Companies are run by many different kinds of leaders. They are accountable to many including boards of directors and customers as well as regulators (and regulators? track record is atrocious).
The bottom line: companies are more efficient and don?t waste nearly as much money as the federal government.
Companies are not perfect, but government abuse is far worse. And companies are more accountable than the federal government.
You can?t put the government out of business. But companies are put out of business every day when they don?t perform. The government, on the other hand, is just getting bigger and bigger and more out of control with every day that passes.
Please! The only wasteful spending is giving tax breaks to gazillionaires while expecting the 99% to pick up the tab (see George Bush). The Republicans are the guilty party and have suppressed the Middle Class, turning them into low-wage slaves, lucky to make minimum wage with no benefits. Give me a break. If Apple wants to enjoy all the benefits of being headquartered in the USA, they must start acting responsibly. Pay up.
LOL!! This is hilarious. Oh really? Is that why some bottom 50% of lower income folks don't pay any federal taxes while the top 2% pays 40% of taxes? (or top 10% 70% of taxes?)
Perhaps Apple should move its headquarters to Bahamas or Ireland like Accenture did.
This is the scenario they want...
Apple makes a product in China. They sell it to someone in Japan. Japan taxes the import of the product. Japan taxes Apple Japan on the profit Apple makes on the product.
If Apple wants to move that money (which has already been DIRECTLY taxed twice, not to mention the added cost of all the hidden taxes in the supply chain)... if they want to move that money to the United States to pay a dividend...
These "fair share" advocates, want it taxed AGAIN at the 35% corporate rate.
THEN they ALSO want it taxed AGAIN either through capital gains or income tax on the dividend.
This is seriously what people are advocating.