Apple still pushing for $1.5 trillion US overseas profit tax holiday - Page 4

No it isn't . . .
but it's now more like "the fat cats era from the 1900s" than any time in the last 70 years. Do we have to go back to that for people to wake up?

Wake me up when all Corporate Tax Loopholes are closed.

Let's start with every dollar that's off-shored through a loophole is taxed at 70%. Let's see how much money going forward gets off-shored. I'm betting none of it.

NO? Don't like that idea? Fine.

Corporations should get taxed at the present rate they are coded to be charged: 15%-35%. Republicans all claim it's fixed at 35% though it's not. When GE is being paid a return on their corporate taxes you know the system is beyond fubar'd.

A 5% tax is an insult to the Nation.

China charges 20%-25% import tariffs on US Goods whereas we charge a 5% import tariff on goods imported from China.

Let's cut the deal equally at 12.5%. No Deal?

We can even compromise and cut the deal at off-shoring will cost you 35% just as it would cost you 35% in the States. Don't like that either?


The one way to avoid such taxes at 35% is to put the majority of that capital back into the Corporation for reinvestment of new R&D. Let's start at 75% of those profits. Full transparency of where funds are being invested [Publicly traded after all] and we'll let the remaining 25% receive a 25% tax rate. The 75% obviously would include the cost of expansion, payroll, utilities, etc.

Don't like that either?

A Tax Holiday isn't a sound idea to the Nation.

You forgot "gay," "godless" and "pot-smoking."

Pay your goddamned taxes, Apple. Just like The Rest Of Us.

There is so much vicious hatred for corporations and rich people.

Look through these posts in this thread and see all the threats to confiscate 70% of this money, imprison executives, "...stick it to..." corporations, etc. This is not the dialog of a free and peace loving people. It is the venom of hateful, selfish, and mis-informed individuals.

Some opinions are based upon a careful analysis of facts. Others are based upon mistaken misapprehensions of total and complete bullshit, lies and propaganda.

Without supporting evidence, an opinion is best ignored.

But isn't he a socialist? We don't even have to consider the facts he cites, given his political party.

</sarcasm>

I agree, a little bit of something is a lot better than a lot of nothing

Or the dialog of people who are sick and tired of having jobs off-shored, pay cut, benefits slashed, and watching unemployment numbers skyrocket while the top US corporations enjoy record year-over-year profits, all while paying no taxes. (Exxon)

Or the dialog of people who are tired of watching a few at the very top walk away with a multi-million dollar golden parachute after basically destroying the companies they were hired with great fanfare to run. (Carly, Lee, et al)

Or the dialog of people tired of watching corporations beg to be deregulated, and then begging to be bailed out by the government after they've screwed up the world economy, all because they're "too big to fail." (Goldman, BA)

Or the dialog of people tired of watching corporations bitch and moan about having to comply with clean air and water laws, or complaining about having to clean up their mess after spilling oil all through the Gulf of Mexico. (Koch, BP)

Or the dialog of people tired of having their "leaders' bought and paid for by multi-national corporations and lobbyists.

Or... you get the idea.

The sad part is that looks like the Democrates will cave AGAIN on this soon. The Republicans, they're always opposing taxes, right or wrong, so no surprise they'd want to support this tax holiday for the big corporations thing. But the Democrates, these guys have become slaves of the big corporations. There's nobody who's looking for the people.

Now before those who come and tell me that these companies will invest in US if they get this tax holiday, this is the biggest pile of BS and we all know it. Just look at the treasury yields nowadays, these guys are piling all thier cash in US onto treasuries right now, why would they suddenly 'invest' if they're allowed to bring the overseas money in?

Okay lets stop the off-shoring by turning the US into a bastion of anti-corporate vitriol and heavy-handed regulation. That will get them to create jobs here. How ridiculous.

As far as people walking away with golden parachutes...it's the business of the shareholders and nobody else. If you don't like the way a corporation pays its executives either buy their stock and vote against the current leaders or just stop buying goods or services from them...enrich their competitors.

Yeah right...companies like Apple are "screwing up the world" and letting leftists dominate them is what will work. Please. For you to even say that corporations are "screwing up the world" proves my point that your beliefs are based on nothing but irrational hatred.

Reasonable levels of environmental regulation are fine but it gets out of hand and you and I end up paying for it in the end when the costs are passed on to us. Leftists use the desire for a clean environment as a reason to regulate practically everything everybody does. You let irresponsible sensationalist "journalism" about things like the BP oil spill make you believe things are much worse than they really were and thus you make yourself vulnerable to all this mindless anti-corporate leftist ideology. That spill was no way near as bad as what it was made out to be and BP cleaned it up...yet you still sit around spewing hatred for them for the whole thing. For God's sake let it go.

The fact that leaders can and do get bought and paid for by corporations is one of the best arguments I know of for limited government that requires and receives far smaller amounts of tax "revenue" than what we currently have. If our leaders really don't have much power then there really isn't that much there to "buy" if you are an unscrupulous corporation then is there. It's only through massive nearly-all-powerful government that unscrupulous corporations have a "vehicle" for cronyism and bailouts and stimulus funds and what have you. Shrink government and shrink their life-blood in tax revenues and then corporations will have to earn their money...which is a good thing.

You are motivated by irrational hatred for corporations and the rich. There are excellent arguments in opposition to everything you stated but you choose to reject them all in favor of hatred and misinformation.

I would disagree that we have been moving towards a more socialist model OR that is why we are sliding further into debt. In 2000 we had a budget surplus. If we had truly conservative republicans in power they would have wisely used that to start paying down the debt. Instead we had fools who wanted to "starve the beast" - the government - and in response to the CBO saying the Bush tax cuts would add a trillion dollars to the deficit said "deficits don't matter". Along with these expensive and unnecessary wars IS WHY we are sliding further into debt. Taxes are TOO low. Let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire, and end these wars. That is what we need to do to start turning things around.

They're not investing in America and in jobs here because they are afraid of draconian federal regulations like Obamacare. All this anti-corporate, pro-leftist, heavy-handed regulation, and pro-tax policy has created an America where no sane business would want to invest its capital. Is this so hard to see or understand?

If you want to understand the economy always try to understand the incentives or dis-incentives that are created by things like government policies.

Nonsense...higher taxes depress economic activity which leads to LESS tax revenue flowing into the government. Yes, the Republicans under Bush spent way to much but that is a spending problem not a "revenue" problem.

The Democrats just rammed Obamacare down the throats of the American people through sickening parliamentary tricks and you say we are not sliding toward socialism? Are you kidding me?

Granted...the wars were expensive but to say they were unnecessary is naive as hell. What would YOU have done to defend the US? This is a whole rat-hole of dialog we can agree to disagree on though because we will be here all week. The wars though are not the major driving cause of our massive levels of debt...maybe try to trillions of "stimulus" and bailout dollars that were wasted in the last few years.

You will not create a flourishing business economy in America through massive taxation and draconian anti-corporate regulation. Period. All you create is a bloated and overly-powerful federal government with a bunch of corrupt crony'ists and a business climate that our job creators will flee en masse.

Your original post said, "name one" so I did.
Actually the larger point I was trying to make had to do with the label "socialism" that most people misuse. I am not against capitalism -- I am against unbridled/unregulated capitalism. Remember capitalist believe "Greed" is good. While it is certainly a motivator, it is a two edged sword that is also bad. I believe capitalism has to be checked. I believe is Bad for society to have a CEO who makes 500 times what his average employ makes -- in a public corporation. I believe universal health care would be good for society. 50 years ago we were the nation that said we were going to put a man on the moon - and did it! Today we can't agree on whether we should pay our past debt. The rest of the world is leaving us behind on health care, education, fighting climate change, transportation, etc.
RIP the Empire of the United States 2001.

which have proven over the last 15 years that there is more profit to made by investing in factories oversees and not in the USA. I wish our government would invest in small businesses, time after time new jobs come from grassroots economic growth. Corporations are mature, go where labor is cheaper and taxes are lower. A small business immediately pumps tax money into a local economy and will hire within that community. Congress has got this all backwards and either has no knowledge of economic history or more sadly in the pockets of such international corporation.

Lost Decade (Japan)

The strong economic growth of the 1980s ended abruptly at the start of the 1990s. In the late 1980s, abnormalities within the Japanese economic system had fueled a massive wave of speculation by Japanese companies, banks and securities companies. A combination of exceptionally high land values and exceptionally low interest rates briefly led to a position in which credit was both easily available and extremely cheap. This led to massive borrowing, the proceeds of which were invested mostly in domestic and foreign stocks and securities.

Recognizing that this bubble was unsustainable, the Finance Ministry sharply raised interest rates in late 1989. This abruptly terminated the bubble, leading to a massive crash in the stock market. It also led to a debt crisis; a large proportion of the debts that had been run up turned bad, which in turn led to a crisis in the banking sector, with many banks being bailed out by the government.
Michael Schuman of Time magazine noted that banks kept injecting new funds into unprofitable "zombie firms" to keep them afloat, arguing that they were too big to fail. However, most of these companies were too debt-ridden to do much more than survive on further bailouts, which led to an economist describing Japan as a "loser's paradise." Schuman states that Japan's economy did not begin to recover until this practice had ended.

Eventually, many became unsustainable, and a wave of consolidation took place, resulting in only four national banks in Japan. Critically for the long-term economic situation, it meant many Japanese firms were burdened with massive debts, affecting their ability for capital investment. It also meant credit became very difficult to obtain, due to the beleaguered situation of the banks; even now the official interest rate is at 0.1%[3] and has been for several years. Many borrowers turned to Sarakin for loans.

This led to the phenomenon known as the "lost decade", when economic expansion came to a total halt in Japan during the 1990s. The impact on everyday life was muted, however. Unemployment ran rather high, but not at crisis levels. This has combined with the traditional Japanese emphasis on frugality and saving to produce a quite limited impact on the average Japanese family, which continues much as it did in the period of the miracle.

***

Looks to me that it was massive over-speculation by Japanese companies, banks and securities companies. (Ring any bells?) Not "socialist programs."

If the rest of the world is leaving us behind on things like wasting money on phantom things like climate change (which has been thoroughly debunked) then that is a good thing.

Spending is spending is spending. Going into debt to finance spending is a problem, "revenue" or not.

Wisconsin, anyone? Then there the minor matter of holding the entire country ransom over the debt issue. (Kind of like a child throwing a tantrum until his demands are met.)


I wasn't aware Iraq was invading the US. The towers came down and very nearly the first thing out of Bush's mouth was (and I paraphrase), "How can we pin this on Iraq?" 9/11 was a tragedy, but nearly every other civilized country on the planet treats terrorism as criminal issue. We drop bombs.


Like the stimulus dollars wasted by the Bush Tax cuts? Or the TARP funds that were signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008, and 99% of which have been repaid?

Selective memory is a wonderful thing...

Was going to continue, but that changed my mind. There's political discussion, and then there's political fanaticism...

In response to ahmlco...

Spending is spending is spending. Going into debt to finance spending is a problem, "revenue" or not.
...okay...so lets cut spending...for real...not just cut the rate of growth in spending.


Wisconsin, anyone? Then there the minor matter of holding the entire country ransom over the debt issue. (Kind of like a child throwing a tantrum until his demands are met.)
...In the last paragraph you said spending is a problem yet in this paragraph you say those who wanted to cut spending were "holding the country ransom" or "throwing a tantrum". So which is it? Do you want somebody to really fight for spending cuts or not?


I wasn't aware Iraq was invading the US. The towers came down and very nearly the first thing out of Bush's mouth was (and I paraphrase), "How can we pin this on Iraq?" 9/11 was a tragedy, but nearly every other civilized country on the planet treats terrorism as criminal issue. We drop bombs.
...Germany didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor but they needed to be taken down along with Japan. You see, we had to provoke the enemy into a fight with our military somewhere "over there" than have them continue their terrorist attacks on the US unabated. Iraq was a good choice given Hussein's long history of belligerence and use of WMD. Where did you get that "...pin this on Iraq..." quote anyways?


Like the stimulus dollars wasted by the Bush Tax cuts? Or the TARP funds that were signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008, and 99% of which have been repaid?
...so a tax cut...which leaves money in the hands of the private sector is somehow wrong but for the government to take the money via taxes but turn around and put it back into the economy via stimulus is somehow good? That is oxymoronic.

Hey all...I am getting tired of this reading and typing. We will have to agree to disagree. The points made in response to me about Germany and Japan were about the best but I don't think they are an indictment of capitalism. If I don't respond it doesn't mean I am conceding anything...it just means I have other things to do.

If you are Apple fans you may find it amusing to know that I got so much into these comments today because my work computer which runs on Windows XP was freezing up repeatedly today so I had time on my hands to argue in this forum.

I think it's worth making a distinction between rich people and rich corporations. I say give the corporations the lower tax rate to bring the money home. But the second that money turns into personal income for anyone, either for an executive or a shareholder or even a lowly employee, tax it (and remove all of the personal tax break loopholes...and yes, I understand that's a gray area).

Having the money sit in banks overseas does nobody in the US any good. Might as well let them move it to banks in the US, while taking 5% off the top in taxes when it transfers. The government gets more tax revenue. The banks get more deposits which could potentially free up cashflow for lending (as opposed to the government pumping money it doesn't have into the banking system). If it does get paid out to executives or investors, tax it for more revenue for the government. If the company uses it to hire more people or build more facilities, that's great, too. But even if the company doesn't invest any of the money in the US, it's still no worse than it sitting in bank in another country.

No matter how high you make X, X% of $0 is always going to be less than 5% of $1.5 trillion. Let the companies bring the money home to give then the option of investing it in their domestic business operations. And tax the sh*t out of it as soon as any of it turns into personal income.

No. They have $12B cash and $16B short term securities.
Look at their 10Q -> http://investor.apple.com/

It's not one or the other. They have already paid taxes in the foreign countries.

No. No. No. A thousand times no. While I am all for corporate profits (at a sensible price), I also believe that it is time that corporations pay their fair share of the tax burden. Giving them a tax holiday comes at the expense of they very taxpayers that support them by buying products and by helping to fund the tax loopholes these corporations love so much.

Corporations have all of the normal tax breaks that people have plus the ability to deduct expenses from income and the benefit of loopholes designed for them, tax credits, and sweetheart deals with local governments for reduced property taxes in the form of incentives. Worse, when they take advantage of incentives and credits, there is no promise that the corporations will stick around any longer than the life of the incentive. By doing so, they do not allow the entity granting the incentive to do more than break even ... thus proving that the incentive wasn't really for all.

Why, when this country is in such bad shape financially, should one group of taxpayers be allowed to escape it's fair share of taxes?

Its been that way from FDR to the beginning of Reagan. American still grow over the decades with higher taxes and regulations. What has deregulations given us? Two economic bubbles in a row. TWO! IF its not broken don't fix it.

I WOULD HAVE STAYED THE HELL OUT OF iRAQ.

Too true. Unfortunately, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I graduated in 1981 with a BS in Economics and it was interesting at the time to be studying the Laffer Curve aka supply side economics and listening to David Stockman. It is no longer a theory. We had the perfect A/B test -- Clinton vs Bush. The exact same arguments were made in 1993 when the Democrats raised taxes -- the economy was going to implode and the sky was falling -- as we know absolutely wrong. 2001 Bush has surplus as far as could be seen and instead of being a true conservative and saying we are trillions in debt let's start paying the debt down he says lets give massive tax cuts and add another trillion to the debt. Now we can't go back to those "terrible" tax brackets we had under Clinton because we have to protect the "Job creators". That people are so stupid and forgetful is beyond comprehension.

I don't understand why you are dismissing the behavior of the companies. That's not double taxation. If the revenue was unsheltered and taxed in the USA, that same company would be able to get all their foreign taxes paid as a credit just like you can do with individuals. And if there's not a 1:1 credt, then sure a deal should be worked out.. but not 5% that's just silly.

Don't you see what they're doing? Don't paint these busineses as innocents.
These businesses are actively shifting their business on paper into lower taxed countries to avoid taxes in the USA. They are shifting their losses to the US and their gains to foreign markets. It's all a scam and not a new one.

You are buying into the idea that the "money" will stay overseas. What "money" will be staying? The only reason the money is "there" at all is becuase of the tax dodge. It's not like this is inherant profit created in local markets. It's all book keeping. it doesn't matter where it resides. If it were "here"it wouldn't benefit America either ( outside of tax revenue ). It's not like this money is somehow introduced into these foreign countries markets. Buying into the idea that these companies will be somehow generous and hire new employees because the government is forcing them to "take their money home" is ridiculous.

When have you ever heard of a company voluntarily doing something that doesn't benefit them? I don't say that as someone who is against business.. I am a staunch capitalist, and it's actually because of that belief that I can be certain that a company wouldn't give one sweet dime if there wasn't something in it for them. It just isn't logical.

I hadn't heard about what is going on in Iceland, I'll read up on that. Thanks for pointing that out.

...purposely kept out of the country... huh? You've GOT to be repeating someone else's Talking Point.

Co's like Apple PAY taxes in the country where the Profits are made OR in the US. Their choice. They are under ZERO obligation to bring that money back in!

Of the 10 companies Bernie Sanders (our only avowed Socialist lawmaker) list... well, I'll look into them and get back with this thread. BUT, Co's basically don't pay taxes. Taxes are part of the Cost of Goods Sold. So, the consumers of their products and services pay the taxes. UNLESS, the taxes are so high that the price of the product is Priced Out of the market (like Labor from the Industrial West vs. Far East labor). Please chew on this awhile before spouting off more socialist-tinged rhetoric. Thank you.

Thank you for your concise post... as though "the rich" are taking away THEIR piece of the pie. I have an acquaintance that thinks you are filthy rich if you earn $50,000 a year. Good luck reasoning with them.

Just REQUIRE IT. This is US Tax Law we're talking about. Well, Company, any "repatriated" cash that goes toward XYZ activitiy is taxed at 5%.

That is NOT BS. That could be the law. period.

In an economy where money derives it's value by being limited, how can you not see that someone having tons of money necessarily means other people will have less of it?

Tax holidays/amnesty are dumb. It's an issue better dealt with at a baseline level. Last time they did it, it didn't really stimulate growth. If the government gives in each time, companies can hold funds offshore whenever possible in anticipation of further tax holidays.

That acquaintance isn't worth being an acquaintance if they are that slow in the head, but with $4 Trillion now estimated [$2.5 Trillion from Corporations + $1.5 Trillion from bailed out Banks] as being on the side-lines this is a simple game--starve the system until the legislation goes into your favor, then pour the money back in and charge a higher tax rate than what you are being charged which suddenly turns you a profit!

So you would be okay with the government telling you where you WILL spend your earnings?

I think this is money held overseas from purchases people make overseas. In other words, this is money largely held in rich countries like in Europe. Not many slave labour factories there. Many customers, though...

That money already has been taxed overseas (sales tax and corporate tax), though on corporate taxes there are many loopholes in many national tax codes to prevent paying too much. And companies have incorporated subsidiaries often based on how to minimize taxes. Corporations in Europe often do not have to pay taxes at all on income that has already been (corporate) taxed elsewhere. A permanent 0% tax on income taxed outside the country. So for Europe, you make sure you make your profits in the country with the lowest taxes. Then move it wherever you like,

There is however another angle. Europeans would probably like to see the profits generated by companies from Europeans to be invested again in Europe. By repatriating those profits to the US, Europe's economy gets the profit of the public money (taxes, not that much) but not the re-investment per se. Of course, this is normal global economy, so one should probably not make too much of that. In the end, the taxes paid end up in the local economy via public finance (e.g. education, infrastructure, etc.), the re-investments go the the place where they make the much money.

Returning profits to the US might well see them invested largely in Asia. This is why their influence on the US economy probably will be minimal.

Chris_CA: No, I am completely opposed to the general proposition of the government telling anyone where to spend their earnings.

I am in favor of specific programs (1 year "tax holiday" reduction) for the PORTION of the "repatriated" cash. Perhaps the program could stipulate that 50% of the repatriated earnings would be subject to the "jobs" requirement to qualify for the entire amount to be taxed at a reduced amount (5% or 5.25% or 12.5% or whatever is determined).

But, thank you Chris_CA, for drawing out the distinction between general and specific.

I think we can all agree that you're a complete moron.

I'm glad you live in Europe too. The problem here in America is our dumbass politicians trying to make it like Europe's failed policies.