Apple still pushing for $1.5 trillion US overseas profit tax holiday - Page 3

Well that would provide about $79 Billion in taxes at 5.25%. The regular tax rate is 35% which does appear high. at 10.5 it would still be to the companies advantage and provide $157.5 Billion.

Apple had around $12 Billion in June, but it's likely more buy now. They would pay $630 Million at 5.25% vs. $4.2 Billion at 35% a $3.57 Billion saving for Apple.

You must realize that Apple and these other companies likely payed local taxes on this money to the country the sale was conducted in. The US is just taking a cut for them bringing it back home to the US.

It's called jail, hold your soap bar tightly.

I couldn't agree more. Name one free country with a socialist or communist economy that has been a success. There are none.

If you hate the rich and want to see them locked up and have their wealth confiscated you need to take an honest look at what kind of person you have become. These ideas are not in keeping with a free society. Do you even want to live in a free society? Or do you want to live in a country where a near-totalitarian government can target any group of people and confiscate their wealth and property and tightly control their behavior through endless layers of regulation and bureaucracy?

Honestly, I am not familiar with the minutia of tax laws as they relate to the money held in foreign countries by the kinds of corporations mentioned in this article (I doubt that many people commenting in this forum are). I am not necessarily for or against taxation of this money if it is repatriated to the United States. I would have to learn more about it before I formed an opinion. But I am against this thug'ish left wing anti-rich mentality that is so common in many circles here in America.

From the links it looks like pretty much the exact same. Can you tell us why it's any different?

Nearly 50% of Americans pay NO income tax! Of course these freeloaders will favor soaking the "rich". It's only "fair" that they get a free ride off the industry of others. It's somewhat ludicrous to talk about the "tax breaks for the rich" when they are already footing the vast portion of the tax burden. And no, I'm not one of those evil tax evading rich people.
John

That $79B is fr all thee holdings around the world. If I'm not mistaken the US is still the single largest profit center for Apple so a good portion of their holdings are already in the States. This is common with US-based companies so there is little no need for them to bring additional monies back to the States. The tax holiday is an incentive to help stimulate the economy in ways that simply aren't prudent when their is 35% levy. It may no good in most short term cases but it's certainly doing no good for the US being outside the US. Less of two evils, if you will.

PS: For all those complaining about their own tax holiday. If you have billions you wish to bring into the US I'm all for you getting a tax break as well.

While I agree wholeheartedly about Steve Jobs (I think he's a model of what corporate executives *should* be in almost every way), I don't get your last sentence at all.

"Fat Cats" at the top of the food chain are indeed a huge problem. That and general corruption have always been the main source of the economy's problems all through the 1900's and also today. In fact the same two things are more rampant and more of a problem today than they ever were.

The recent crash for instance was caused by corruption and greed not economic instability. The money's been paid back but the rules haven't changed. It could happen again tomorrow and probably will.

yeah! Just like the commie Warren Buffett!

Again...I agree. What's that old saying where a society will only remain free for as long as it takes for the common man to figure out that he can vote himself access to the public treasury?

Yeah, blah blah blah ...

It's pretty much impossible to even have a discussion with Americans about taxes. They hold a different view than pretty much every other country on the planet.

Hmmm... I wonder who's probably right here?
Everyone else, or the one backward country with the weird ideas?

80 billion in cash reserves. Does anyone else think that it's because of huge piles of cash like that that poverty exists in the first place?
Fuck, spend the frickin' money at home Apple if you truly care about the country.

Originally Posted by Orangeoutsider


First, re Hands Sandon, what is the philosophical problem with "the wealthy pay[ing] only marginally more as a percentage of their income in taxes than everybody else"? Sounds like a plan that doesn't favor the rich unnecessarily to me.

And to be fair, re Orangeoutsider, I don't think you're considering everything low-income folk pay - which proportionally hits them harder. That would include sales tax - considered the most regressive of taxes, since the low-income spend the highest proportion of their income on sales-taxed items in most jurisdictions. (Some sales taxing states "solve" this by not taxing food or clothing, e.g., or at least taxing it only within limits.)

And then there are taxes and fees on phone and other utility bills. It also costs the same to inspect, emissions test and feed the meter for a Mercedes and a junker. Or to enter a National Park or State Park or public campground or cross a toll bridge, etc., etc.

Back on the other side, however, starting within the last year or two, over 1/3 of ALL citizens are receiving some kind of "transfer payment" from the gov't, i.e., a freebie bennie.

I also have friends receiving UI and food stamps and have been amazed that all they have to do is make a few clicks on a website every week or month to testify that, e.g., they're "looking for work," as the UI law requires (and some aren't) - and have no other income (while many are working off the books) as the food stamp law requires. And that's all the monitoring of eligibility there is!!

Add it all up and I see two things:

1. Our debates on taxation are generally merely exchanges of half-truths and insults because few consider (or are willing to acknowledge) the whole picture. (And I'm not claiming to be always innocent of this.)

2. If you really look at who's getting the rawest deal you'll likely find it's the people in the middle-middle - NOT the rich - with their advantages - NOR the poor - with their bennies - who can make a case of being the most squeezed - receiving neither the perks nor the direct bennies, but making payments in every category of taxes and fees there are.

Let me get this straight...America has reached greater degrees of prosperity as a free society than any other country in the world yet somehow we are "backward" and need to emulate other countries because they are all different? Which country do we need to emulate? Laos? Cambodia? Cuba? How about Greece?

I thought being "different" was somehow always good and was always to be tolerated.

Play the class-envy card? Watch Fox much?

THOSE low-income earners ... get it ALL back and MORE...

Got numbers to back that up? Across the entire range of low-to middle class workers? (And BTW, stop playing the class card. Those people...)

Hell, you probably got all of your taxes back too... in education, roads, infrastructure maintenance, et al [sic].

"47% pay NO taxes"

Income taxes, dolt. At least get your sound bit right. FICA et al are taxes too.

Tweaking the donkey's tail is so much fun, I hardly know where to begin. Child care tax credits? Ummm.. Doesn't everyone (low, middle, upper) get credit for those? Should we cut those for everyone? Oh, and just for the record, child care tax credits are used solely to reduce the amount of income tax owed. You don't get the money back.

Tax breaks on dependents? If you're low income, a higher proportion of your salary goes to housing, and deductions on mortgage interest also cut a significant amount off your tax bill. Should mortgage interest deductions go away for everyone?

I'm self employed and spent almost $4,000 last year on health insurance. An amount deducted from my taxes. Should health insurance and medical expense deductions be zapped too?

That way I don't "get it all back."

Hey! Here's a number for you. One year I made $80,000 in consulting income. However, I did some investments and had some depreciations and some R&D credits and purchased some equipment, and that year I paid ZERO in income tax. (I did pay about $6,000 in SE tax.)

I had a job. Made $80,000. But paid NO income tax. So add me to that 47% bracket. Am I a deadbeat?

Or did all of the aforementioned deductions add up to the point where I simply paid no taxes? Did I get it ALL back???

Quite spouting sound bites, and do a little bit of thinking for yourself for a change...

Not really, no.

Well, if don't think you are paying your fair share, pay in more to the government. Don't take your mortgage deduction. The IRS want mind. However, that is your choice and you shouldn't dictate what others should pay.

Based on your post I'm surprised your were able to make any $

First, learn the difference between the two. When you think you've got that down, sit down with a map of the world, maybe Google, and start to make a list. Write small. Don't ask Sarah Palin for help - but not because it'd be cheating .

Referring to differences between communism and socialism and taking a shot at Sarah Palin is the best you can do?

Again...name one free country with a socialist or communist economy that is a tremendous economic success please.

How about we give an incentive for the behavior we want, e.g. for every 1,000 net new jobs a company creates and keeps in the U.S. we let the company bring back $100m in profits tax free. Gov't gets what they want, jobs, companies get what they want, tax free profits.

Down to insults, are we?

Once you go past the sound bite, there's not much left, is there?

Germany.

Now I know you are going to argue Germany has a capitalistic economy and said position would have merit. However, if you asked any Republican or Tea Party person, the vast majority would say Germany is a socialist country -- because they don't know what the word "socialist" means. So instead of using labels most people don't understand, how about we just say let's be more like Germany - strong economy, second leading exporter behind China AND universal health care, workers treated fairly, not the great income disparity we have in this country.

And for ALL the people who are complaining about ALL the people who pay NO taxes (Income tax) there is an easy solution. Better income distribution that actually gives the middle class a growth in wages that they haven't seen in the last 30 years so that they now make enough to pay INCOME tax.

Well, I thought it'd be a good start - to save you further embarrassment, if nothing else.

However, taking you seriously for a moment: depending on what you mean by "tremendous economic success", you could look at any number of European countries. In direct answer to you question (I'm sure it was a question, not a challenge), start with Germany.

Better idea. Give them a 100% tax deduction on any manufacturing plant they build in the US. Let them write it all off. The problem with your suggestion there are too many variables to work around. If they build a new plant that will create the jobs.

How about Apple bring some manufacturing back to the US!

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China [not free, but tremendous economic success], Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

All have socialized medicine and universal (or near universal) health care.

There in lies much of the problem with this debate. I'm as entitled to my opinion that this is unfair (just as you are entitled to your opinion that you think the current system is fair), but all too many people react like you and just assume people who don't want taxes to lowered time and time again jump behind the bandwagon of calling people communists (I know you have not done this, but it's come up a lot on this forum), or just dismissing people who think differently to you.

I'm going to pay what I legally have to and not anymore. It's for society as a whole to decide what is fair and unfair. At the moment I personally believe the system is unfair, but consider myself fortunate that I benefit from that, but it still doesn't change the fact that I don't think it's fair.

The bottom 50% control about 1.5% of the total US wealth and have an average HH income of $22,500. With the current tax code and a kid or two you won't pay any taxes. The top 10% control 85% of the wealth and pay less than the so called fair share on a percentage basis. Those of us not in the top 10% or bottom 50% are the ones getting screwed.

You sound like a nice, reasonable person but we just disagree on this question of what is fair.

It reminds me of what former Sen. Russell Long (D) LA once said " don't tax you and don't tax me. Tax the man behind the tree." It seems most people don't care how much tax a person has to pay as long as it is not them who is paying the tax. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Germany is a successful country but even in your post you had to agree that it is largely a capitalist economy and arguments to that effect "have merit". I appreciate that you offered an apparently reasoned opinion but if all you can name is one successful country that is largely capitalist but with a fair number of socialist programs it's hardly much of a defense of socialism.

America has its socialist elements, and not inconsiderable. Does that make America not a capitalist economy? Nearly half of the healthcare dollars in the US go through the federal and state governments. That sounds like socialized medicine to me, just very inefficient socialized medicine, compared to our European peers.

Depends upon your type of operation and corporate structure, I can tell you that for our operation in UK (and other regions), we pay taxes to both UK and US. The monies left over (what little there is) would be taxed if we brought it back to the US, the rate would differ spending on what was down with the monies. Demanding that all funds be repatriated shows that someone has no clue on what it takes to run a foreign operation. If you starve it of cash it will fail, if you constantly send funds back and forth you'll get dinged by transfer fees and audits because you are sending back and forth. We try to keep things separate until year end and then even things out. Foreign funds stay that way unless we need them to pay our double taxation penalty in the US, what is left is essentially operating capital for the foreign division. We also do work in China, that currency isn't an officially traded currency by the US. Any profits we make are in local currency but since we can't exchange it (can't bring it out) we pay taxes on Chinese operations using other funds as there is only 1 place you can spend Chinese currency and yes we pay taxes there and in the US.

Sure, and I'm fine with that disagreement and to be clear, I don't want to pay more tax, and I'm not going to pay more than I absolutely have to (as I said, my household income is about $250k, and I do object to the idea of me paying more than someone else who earns the same amount as me), but at the same time, I do think that I probably should be made to pay more.

One of the things I have a problem with is that who gets a say in what is fair and is not fair I don't think is really representative of the country as a whole. Maybe I'm wrong, but Republicans control over half of the House, and none of them seem to believe rich people should pay anymore tax, but do more than 50% of the public really believe that the rich shouldn't pay a bit more?

It just doesn't seem likely to me that the 90% who earn <$80,000 and who have frankly been stiffed during the downturn aren't in favor of the top 10% who earn over that paying a little more.

I'll cheerfully admit that I may be wrong, but I do feel that we're never able to have a sensible discussion about this because it all too quickly comes down to either:

a. You're a communist.
b. You want to destroy Medicare.

And it's much more complex than that.

Greece? You actually included Greece in this list? They're an economic basket case because of the rampant government spending. They're rioting in the streets because of the disastrous effect socialism has had on their economy.

I don't see the great economic success in any of those countries save for a few exceptions. There is Japan but they are struggling with their "lost decade" due to their socialist programs. China isn't a free country and life there is hardly prosperous for the ordinary citizen. Russia and Saudi Arabia aren't free countries either (Russia is a thugocracy and Saudi Arabia is a theocracy) but both are sustained not by socialism but by huge oil reserves.

All the rest are either small countries with modest economic success or they are larger economies that are in the news every day because there are riots over proposed austerity measures that their governments now have to consider because they can no longer afford their disastrously expensive social programs.

Germany is the only example, as I and another contributor discussed in other posts in this thread, that you might hold up as a bit of an example but everybody has to concede that Germany is primarily a capitalist country and what prosperity they have stems from their being so.

But let me get this straight...you are in effect proposing that the path to prosperity for the ordinary American is for the United States to become more like...say...Cyprus? Don't make me laugh.

The top 1% own about the same amount of financial wealth as the poorest 95% of Americans. The bottom 40% own just 0.3% of Americas total wealth and the richest 400 tax filers have the same amount of total wealth as the poorest 60% of Americans.

Read it for yourself here- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nancial-wealt/

And here- http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...-more-wealth-/

And here- http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

That is a very good point...America has been sliding more and more toward a more socialist model over the last 30 or 40 years. Which proves my point...because we have also been sliding further and further into debt.

I would hardly call European health care systems economically efficient ones though that provide excellent care and should thus serve as a model for ours. Keep in mind that all across Europe there is a growing wave of government spending shortfalls to the point where citizens are rioting in the streets at proposed austerity measures.

Habañero -- you're mistaken.

A 2008 study found that 23% of the "repatriated funds went to hiring and training of US employees." (from a link inside the ThinkProgress article you cited: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._us/?page=full)

"During the 2004 tax holiday — when the corporate tax rate was effectively lowered to 5.25 percent — 843 companies moved $362 billion into the American economy." That's $19 Billion (2004 dollars) directly into the US Treasury. An estimated $83+ Billion into jobs.

Now, if I were designing the current law (proposal), I'd put in Actual Incentives (like other tax laws) that said XX% (I don't know - 30%?) must go directly into Approved Infrastructure Improvements.

Probably said by someone else, but I'll take a crack at this.

All this would do would make Apple a foreign company.

They are keeping their money overseas. The question we should ask is whether we want them to keep their money overseas or bring it home for domestic use.

It cost We the people nothing for Apple to make that profit in those other countries. US didn't regulate them, protect them, provide courts for them, ports for them. Those things were done in the country where the profits were made and taxes were paid on those profits in that country. Why is it we feel entitled to any part of it? What's it going to cost me if they move it to a bank here and spend it here?

Fine Apple! Move the money here and we'll tax you some millions. Then you can raise the price of goods and services here in the US to cover the difference. That'll show you!!!

.....

And as an AAPL stockholder then, I didn't get any dividends then either!
They should pay their taxes.
But be sure to stick it to companies that are "incorporated" in Bermuda, the Caymans, etc. (like much of Google, Stanley Tools, etc. etc.)