The money he spends IS the economy.

 

A slight flaw in your argument.

 

If he had more, he'd spend more.

 

Well you're either clueless or intentionally deceptive. I suppose it's also possible that that you weren't that into providing the explanation as you're bored with the thread. I bet on intentionally deceptive. Most people want to be right. It doesn't force everyone to have some skin in the game. It means that the portion of income that is taxed is directly tied to living expenses, which tend to take on logarithmic gains relative to income past a certain point. Even the poor do pay taxes in some form when you look at all taxes collected. When you base everything on consumption, anything not needed to live can be taken out of the equation. Even if you alleviate sales tax on most food as they do in California, there are still glaring issues with such a one dimensional system.

The hyperbole here is ridiculous. The laws weren't set up with the idea that companies would route money through several foreign subsidiaries to reduce liability. This isn't the same as writing down costs of doing business. You're being intentionally disingenuous here.

That isn't really true at all. They have a reasonably stable banking system and favorable infrastructure here. Some countries do operate the way I mentioned. I'd have to look up the list again, but you're simply fear mongering. I mean you might lose some that are already heavily weighted overseas, but there's nothing to support the idea that the only thing which keeps these companies in the US at all is the ability to hold profits overseas. Anyone is welcome to prove me wrong on this.

That's not what the article stated.

Also, you're not paying it right...

Why Republicans? That's what he said so everyone quotes him on that...

"If you've got a business—you didn't build that"

President Barack Obama - 13 July 2102

But if the companies are making less money because of high taxes why would they work harder to do business?  I think this is an age old question. 

You are not comprehending what Apple is claiming.  They are saying they pay 2.5% of all taxes paid by all corporations.  Their tax rate is not even mentioned here. It is a number that gives you an idea of how large they actually are.  I am not at all sure what percentage of corporate income Apple earns but it is probably more than one percent.  

 

Let them. Their talent will not follow them to a second or third world country.

It amazes me how so many people are so dense that they can't comprehend what Obama was saying - even after the press showed the ENTIRE clip (not just the portion that Fox News took out of context.

What Obama clearly said was that companies rely on roads. Rail. Schools. Police protection. Banking infrastructure. And so on. And the multimillionaire who owns a company didn't build all of those things - society did.

He never said (or even implied) that someone didn't build the business they own.

(Not to mention, of course, that we'll be something like 130 years old on the date you're claiming he 'made' the statement).

READ the article again, and several more times if need be TO UNDERSTAND IT.

 

Edited by Realistic - 1/5/13 at 3:53pm

 

Yahoo's numbers are questionable. Apple admitted paying $6b for 2012.

 

Now, looking at Apple's 2012 income of $55.763b before taxes (Yahoo was close on that one), and knowing they paid $6b, Apple's tax rate was 10.75%.

Much too small for any company or person.

 

And the have the gall to tell congress they need a "tax holiday" on their overseas profits before they will spend it in the US.

 

 

 

Apple Not Bringing Overseas Cash Back Home, Blames U.S. Tax Policy

 

"Repatriating cash from overseas would result in significant tax consequences under U.S. law," Oppenheimer said on a conference call with analysts. "We have expressed our views to Congress and the administration. We think current tax laws provide significant disincentive to U.S. companies that would otherwise repatriate the significant cash they have on hand."

 

Many major U.S.-based multinational corporations have pressed for a repatriation tax holiday in recent years, arguing that if they were given a tax break on the money they make overseas they would invest and create jobs back home.

 

Congress already tested the repatriation tax holiday in 2004, but it did little to create jobs, according to Treasury Department analysis. The report found the companies that reaped the most from the holiday actually cut jobs from 2005-2006 and used the money instead to buy back stock.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/apple-us-tax-law_n_1362934.html

 

The question then becomes whether that can be said, doesn't it?

 

Well, that's a mouthful of BS.   Firstly, Eisenhower was a fiscal conservative.  After the WW2 (and the Korean war), while the highest tax bracket remained high, Eisenhower aggressively cut gov't spending against liberals', "the spenders", dire warning that the economy would relapse back into depression. As the gov't spending was cut, private demand / consumption grew. Throughout the 50's, the economy remained strong & inflation low, so much so that W. Martin created two artificial recessions to cool down the economy.

 

National debt steadily declined since Truman, despite his unnecessary, expensive, bungled war in Korea. LBJ's warfare / welfare programs instead gave us the the double digit inflation & the lost decade. Reagan was precisely elected to end the macroeconomic instability caused by 1+ decade of liberals' warfare/welfare programs.  

 

No.

 

Well, there can certainly be identical taxes across the board, but even then there has to be a minimum.

 

Say zero income of any sort. You're to still pay xx.xx% income tax on that? Or you don't own property. You're to still pay xx.xx% property tax? 

There has to be a minimum tax, which means that even though an administration can claim a minimum is "too minimum", it still can't be the lowest.

Agreed.

Why would he be talking about bridges, roads, etc. then say, "If you've got a business" then in the middle of this sentence, refer to the previous stuff?

So what about "If you've got a business"?

 

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

 

Yes, his meaning was most likely that you would not have been able to make your business successful if it were not for others along the way, but after this came out, he should have clarified it that way.

sorry if already stated - have not read all comments -

I know the article is about corporate taxes but what about -

Income tax collected from employees at federal, state and local levels.

Sales taxes on every product sold.

Income tax on all the folks who work at authorized resellers (okay just a portion if they products other than Apple).

Plus Capital Gains tax on investors.

Plus inheritance tax on employees who die (and have an estate and no surviving spouse at the time).

Plus - gotta be other ways the government is profiting from Apple in some way.

And the problem is not inefficient government infrastructure or criminal activity on the part of individuals or departments etc of the government who embezzle funds or simply waste them - no no - the problem is that squeezing the golden goose harder is not producing larger golden eggs.

So what rate would you suggest?

Keep in mind that is only federal, corporate tax.

and employees are still gonna pay federal, state, local taxes out of that $55.763b.

That's misleading. Of that $55.763 B pre-tax income, much of it was earned overseas - and is taxed at the location where it is earned. The US income was much lower than that-so the tax rate was higher.

That's the thing that keeps getting ignored here. While Apple is a US company, that doesn't mean that the US government is entitled to a portion of all global income. Some income is earned overseas and never comes back to the US. In essence, the money is earned and expenses are paid overseas, so the profits remaining belong in the country where they are earned. Only if the profits are repatriated into the US does the US government get any portion.

It's a global economy. Companies like Apple earn a great deal of their profit overseas. While one might be able to quibble about the amount that the overseas subsidiaries pay for R&D, etc, the general principles remains: the US government can only tax income from US operations. And there's nothing unreasonable about that. If a company sets up an independent subsidiary in Brazil (for example), why should the US government have any say in how that subsidiary is run?


Furthermore, of course, one needs to be careful to differentiate between incremental tax rates and average tax rates. Even if your calculations were correct, Apple's AVERAGE tax rate was 11%. If someone wants to compare that to personal income taxes, they should be comparing it to average tax rates, not incremental rates (or the tax bracket you are in). For example, a couple of years ago, I was in the 35% tax bracket, but I paid only 12% of my income in taxes. - due to deductions and the graduated nature of our tax system. Any ADDITIONAL income I earned would haver been taxed at 35%, but my average was 1/3 of that.

You made a mistake here.  The employee salary does not come from the $55.763b profit. 

 

The rates are fine, whatever it is 35%. Remove the loopholes which makes their effective rate 10.75%

 

The $55b is what Apple has left over after paying expenses which include salaries. Employees will not be paying taxes from it.

Edited by Russell - 1/5/13 at 5:10pm

You ignored one important fact.  60% of Apple revenue now comes from aboard.  Apple is making money selling products in foreign countries.  I think one third of the business now comes from China.  To be honest, we have to ask this question.  Will China be happy that Apple make a lot of money from China with no return. The Americans were not happy when Japanese auto makers made a lot of money in US.  Two American father and son actually bludgeoned one Chinese immigrant engineer to death in Detroit.  My question is if Apple make a lot of money from foreign countries, is America entitled to tax all the profits? 

So, Americans are ripping of Americans? Maybe someone should invade you to liberate you from your oppressive regime. It's not like 'taxpayers' are carrying this load... everyone in Sillycone Valley is living the high-life on these tech giants... and those people pay taxes and buy stuff.

Why do so may people not understand that increasing taxes to corporations simply equates to taxing their customers?

For example, if Apple paid $60 billion instead of $6 billion, they would increase the prices of their products to pay for this added expense.

If they did this, it would also mean that foreign corporations, that pay far less tax, would sell their cheaper products displacing Apple sales. Why? Because foreign companies already pay less than American companies do to their governments.

In the end, forcing American companies to pay more would cost many American jobs. That is already happening due to higher corporate taxes and punitive regulations in America. We are cutting off our noses to spite our face.

jragosta and tzeshan need to do their homework.

 

 

Because Apple is a company based out of the US, ALL of their overseas profits are subject to tax.

 

 

Apple paid 2% in taxes on $36.8B of foreign revenue for fiscal 2012

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154084/apple-paid-2-in-taxes-on-36-8b-of-foreign-revenue-for-fiscal-2012

 

 

 

Since Apple benefits immensely from our country's infrastructure (court system, roadways, immigration, utilities,...) shouldn't they help pay/maintain it?

 

If they increase their profits by raising prices to "compensate" for taxes, they'll just have additional profits subject to taxes, and so on. If they want to avoid taxes, they can invest the money back into the business, without pricing themselves out of business on a foolish, no-win strategy.

 

Product prices are already as high as they think customers are willing to pay. Increasing taxes will not change it.

 

Yes, and the "age old" answer is that they won't, they'll just give up. But, like much "age old wisdom" that answer doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. People don't "work hard" at business to make money. Not most of them anyway, and the ones who do that aren't generally successful. They work hard at business either because they have a passion for what they are doing, or because they want the things that wealth brings: status and power, among other things.

 

The ones who are doing it for passion aren't going to be affected. The ones who are doing it for power and status aren't going to be affected either, because they are driven by a need for status and power. If anything, making it harder to achieve that level of status and power will cause them to work even harder for it, because achieving it will be an even greater reward. That's human nature.

 

The idea that people will just give up contradicts everything we know about human nature, and especially what we know about the psychology of people driven by a need, not for money -- there aren't that many true misers -- but for the power and status that money brings with it. 

I understand that.  Any US company has to follow US laws.  So US can tax any amount as long as it is legal.  I believe Apple paid taxes according to US laws.  I also believe what you advocate is not a US law but your personal opinion.  

To be clear, you think Apple, Inc., which has it's worldwide corporate HQ in the US should not only pay taxes in other countries for the items they sell in those other countries that but also pay taxes in the US despite the revenue and profits residing in that other country.

For instance, Apple Gesellschaf m.b.H., their Austrian subsidiary for that country, should pay all Austrian taxes for money spent in that country, but then have all that added up so they can send taxes back to the US for money that was not spent in the US.

Would they also be paying a tax to bring the money back into the US from overseas specifically to pay this double taxation you think is required by law?

Why do you think any international country would reside in the US if they had to pay double taxes?

Let's put this another way. You decide to go on a European vacation. When you try to get back in the US you are told by customs that Uncle Sam won't let you back in until you add up all the money spent in other countries so you can pay sales and hotel taxes for everything you spent money on outside the US. Would you think that is perfectly fair or would you note that you already paid the appropriate taxes in each country you traveled to?

 

 

All of those products sold in other countries were designed and engineered where?

 

A European vacation for consumers is not the same thing.

We go there to spend money. Businesses go there to make money.

So not only do you want all corporate and sales tax worldwide to be paid to a single country you want it based on where something was designed, not made or sold. Good luck with trying to get bill.

You really paint a picture of a shitty future since much of our CE has been designed and engineered in a multitude of nations. They way you'd want business to be done companies would opt out of doing any international sales because the cost of doing business would be too high. Unless of course you only meant this for Apple because you are American and therefore want them to pay even more money.

I suppose you want all Apple products to be completely designed and made in the US, too, but aren't willing to pay the astronomical difference in cost even if it could be done.
Edited by SolipsismX - 1/5/13 at 7:28pm

but it is subject to U.S. tax ONLY when that cash is brought back to the U.S.

As noted in the article you linked to, "Apple does account for a portion of its foreign profits as subject to U.S. taxation"

And they don't actually pay any U.S. tax on that amount. They simply show it as a liability and that they will owe tax on it at some point (when they bring it back to U.S.). 

 

Profits yes. I never said sales tax. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

 

Being made in the US would be good for the country. Apple has already started to do that. They obviously think the cost difference is negligible.

 

Can you objectively define "fair share" for us.

 

 

 

Who cares?

 

 

 

All things considered? Or just the one thing you think is important?

 

"Fairness" itself is pretty subjective, I doubt you're really trying to ask for objectivity there, you just want to say you disagree, which is fine, just don't try to pretend you're really curious of an objective answer. 

 

No, he's just drawing attention to exactly that: fairness is subjective. You're right.

So profit made outside the US through a subsidiary that doesn't exist in the US you still want to have all taxed as if the sale and money were all in the US? And you think this sounds reasonable?

So Apple is obeying the law and yet you think it's not fair for Apple (haven't even mentioned Google and the double Irish agreement) is paying only 2.5% of all corporate taxes even though all the companies in the US Apple is much less than 1/40th? Is that right?

Where are your numbers? Where have you taken into account all of Apple's profits for the year and said they they need to pay taxes in every country they do business as well as this mobster like payment you want them to pay extra to the US? Where is your analysis on how many companies will simply move their HQ out of the US to avoid this draconian law you wish to establish? Have you considered how this would negatively affect our country?

Where has Warren Buffet said that profit made outside the US through a subsidiary that doesn't exist in the US should still be taxed as if the sale and money were all in the US.

No, they haven't done that. There are parts that are done in the US, like automated manufacturing and smaller-scale assembly, but you cannot get any Apple Mac or iDevice completely designed and made in the US without the cost being astronomical, even if it's possible, which it might not be because there are licensing that may require paying a company outside the US which would therefore be putting some of the money back in those nasty foreigner's pockets. Then you have equipment to make the products which very likely aren't made in the US. We are a worldwide economy. The South will not rise again.

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe" ~Dr. Carl Sagan
Edited by SolipsismX - 1/5/13 at 10:44pm

 

In fact, statements like yours miss the point and defend the status quo.  The point was and still is that the Reps and Dems both spend too much.  That is a fact that cannot be denied.  Once Americans realize that, then they can stop pounding on companies like Apple for "not having paid enough."  The focus needs to be on "spending less of taxpayer dollars," not verbally castigating corporations like Apple for not "paying as much as we think they should."

 

 

 

Congratulations.  You've made a serious "attempt" at defending the status quo, albeit offering zero advice for real change. Furthermore, you said nothing that keeps the attack dogs off Apple's back.  Big government didn't begin with Reagan.  It in fact took off with FDR.  We've only had a federal income tax for 100 years too.  It's time to cut the pork out of Federal spending.  But in terms of this thread, it's time to get off Apple's back.  That's the main driving force for all I've written, and I stand by what I've written.  It's utter stupidity to lay all this on the back of Apple.

 

 

The fact remains that things in our government don't really change (flip-flopping between Welfare-spending Democrats and Warefare-spending Republicans isn't "change," it is the Status Quo of American politics).  The lack of change is due to how Americans vote.  Most Americans think they vote logically, voting for the candidate who has the most chance of winning.  I'll admit my own guilt at that.  Sadly though, that ends up meaning that most Americans vote primarily for either the Dems or the Reps, exclusive of most other parties.  That's why some people in other parties become Reps or Dems so they can actually win a seat (like Ron Paul did in the past).  Personally, I'd like to let the Libertarians take a run at it.  And I say this as someone who is not even a registered Libertarian.  We need to be less logical in our voting and more open minded.  Once we cast aside the two main parties, real change will be ushered in.  Of course, with human beings what they are, even that "new change" will grow old after a while, and we'll then need to make another change.  True change is endless.  That shouldn't be a surprise to any of us.

 

But as far as this discussion goes, the change I want to see is for people to stop casting the buck to Apple for America's financial mess.  Argue about politics all you want. Just get off Apple's back.