or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by plovell

This is true to a certain extent. U.S. citizens are, in general, taxed on their worldwide income. So even if, for example, you live and work the whole year in England, if you're a U.S. citizen then you're liable for U.S. taxes on that income. As well as taxes to HMRC. But in most cases you will not have to pay tax to the U.S. because there are "tax treaties" between countries, and you get to offset your U.S. tax liability with whatever tax you already paid in England....
Was the price of an iPhone sold by Apple International to Apple Germany (for sale in the Apple Store) the same as sales to Deutsche Telekom? Or maybe DT buys its phones from Apple Germany rather than Apple International ? If not, then why is there a difference? Warranty liability, perhaps? Maybe there are others. And is the price of iPhones sold to various retailers in Europe the same?
The Senate would have us believe that Apple was involved in profit-shifting from the U.S. to Ireland. The report intimates although does not directly state that Apple just assigned IP rights to Ireland. The full truth is more complicated. >Apple Inc. shares that cost with its Irish affiliates in proportion to their salesThe cost of "...the labor of thousands of designers and programmers ... who are in California" [I'm not sure about the marketers] is indeed shared between...
As I said, it's close but not the same. In the Ford case (hypothetical), the profit on manufacturing IN GERMANY is being moved out. Ford Germany buys steel, etc etc, employs lots of people in factories and turns this into cars. And adds a lot of value to the raw materials with which it started. The high price of the designs is then the way to move that locally-generated profit out of Germany. In the Apple case, there is NO manufacturing etc in Germany, so no profit...
There is a subtle difference in what Apple is doing.  Consider a hypothetical scenario where Ford has its headquarters and designers located in Ireland. They design and specify plans for the Fiesta and then "sell" those plans to Ford Germany for manufacture in Cologne. That selling price would be "IP costs". In some instances, that would be set quite high in order to move profit from the manufacturing operation in Cologne to the headquarters in Ireland. Apple does not do...
Not so fast. Corporate tax  does not directly change the selling price but might do so indirectly.  Corporate tax reduces the amount of profit available for investors. If that's too low then prices will rise, if possible, to increase profit to a level that is satisfactory - after the tax is taken out. Pricing impact might be zero but is not necessarily so. I agree that this is not the scenario in the case of Apple but I wasn't about to let this pass unremarked.
Only if the situation is unfavorable after the changes. If it's still better than elsewhere then companies will stay. We don't yet know what will happen.
Actuallly, my problem with the Bose mall stores is that they were selling both headphones and speakers. The speakers were run so loud that noise-cancellation was a joke. That was years ago - maybe they've separated them now.
Yeah but ... Bose also makes speakers, and those do not compete with Beats.
We don't know that. Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen anything more - is there any announcement out there?
New Posts  All Forums: