or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Overseas cash restricts Apple's options for reallocating capital
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Overseas cash restricts Apple's options for reallocating capital - Page 3

post #81 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Wrong answer.

Why do you always give useless answers, as if you actually know why you're talking about, and it is this big secret? If you're so sure of yourself, just come out and explain it. If not, keep quiet.

I did. Read.

It would be equally good if you could follow our own advice.
post #82 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

'Finally understand' what? What do you think I did not understand before, and when/where did I express that lack of understanding? Moreover, are you implying I am anti-poor and pro-rich or pro-poor and anti-rich? Or pro both? Anti both?

Simply put, what the heck are you talking about!? Are you sure you're responding to the right person?

I was just making a simple point about the regressivity of the sales tax, man, that's all.

I took your entire statement into account, beginning with the first sentence, and with the experience of reading, and responding to your many posts over the years.

Should have seen that knee-jerk tendency for fact-less overgeneralization on your part coming from a mile away.....
post #83 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

Here's a question:

Could Apple use cash held internationally to buy back AAPL stock on foreign stock exchanges without having to pay US tax?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like if foreign cash is being used to buy AAPL on a foreign exchange, then that cash would never come under the purview of US taxes.

Yet, the benefit to stockholders would be the same as if Apple conducted a stock buy-back on an American exchange using domestic cash (because stock is fungible across borders).

Is this the perfect loophole?

 

Even without the benefit to shareholders, I've posted before that Apple should aggressively buy back shares to the point of even becoming a privet company. If their concern is not the stock, but the product, then remove this yoke from around their neck!! 

post #84 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don108 View Post

By "costly" to Apple what you actually mean is "paying their fair share of taxes instead of hiding profits offshore."

If they can't use the money because they'd have to pay some of it in taxes, they have $137 billion doing nothing and going to waste. If they bring it back to the U.S. they'll have over $100 billion that can be used.

Which would you prefer, a bunch of money you can't touch, can't do anything with, and is doing nothing for you, or tons of money that can be used?

 

What an absolutely stupid post!! 

 

Apple can use the money offshore all they want. The money was made offshore and can be spent offshore. Why make money offshore, pay those taxes, then move it to the US and pay more taxes?? Why not, if they desire, buy more offshore assets, facilities, etc.? 

 

I really HATE these take from the Rich and give to the Poor (or the government)!  

post #85 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie View Post

I love Apple but they need to pay their taxes like the rest of us, along with the other corporate welfare recipients!

 

they do pay their taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

When they make money oversees, they pay taxes oversees. Why do they ALSO need to pay US taxes on top of that?? 

 

Would you people stop watching MSNBC?! 

post #86 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


R&D, Marketing come to mind.

 

 

They don't market oversees? There is not R&D  oversees? And I am sure Apple pays CA sales tax for R&D equipment and pays heavily in CA for payroll taxes!!

 

What an ignorant post! 

post #87 of 100

Thanks jragosta !

post #88 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


I was suggesting that most -- if not all -- taxes are paid by you and me. Ultimately, it is all passed though to consumers (through the prices they pay for goods and services) and shareholders (who would otherwise have a claim to the pre-tax rather than after-tax income). Period. I am not taking a stand on whether corporations should be taxed or not, but just saying that it is not some entity that is ultimately independent of us.

Regarding foreign share ownership, unfortunately, US companies don't have to report that data. (Many European companies do.)


I know where you were going with it, however it's not an absolute rule in pricing. Apple's taxes could go down to 0, and pricing could remain the same with increased profits. The other part is that sales and shareholders exist at a global scale. People on here complain about Apple being taxed on income that resides overseas without any idea of what originated where. All they know is it's overseas so it must have been earned there1rolleyes.gif. Anyway the statement was extremely transparent, because so many people use it to the point if it being meme like.

post #89 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple pays their fair share. As much or more than most other companies in the same situation. And, by the way, if it's legal, it's fair. I expect a company to do what's legal to save money, and that includes taxes. All multinational companies are in this position. Google, Microsoft, and others do the same thing. You should tar all equally if you don't understand how this works.

Legal doesn't not equate fair, if someone accidentally killed a family member of yours and only got a 5 year sentence by the 'legal' system would you think it fair?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #90 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

While that's true, I think there's a simple matter of justice.

Since you have sales taxes in most of the states, it's not fair for the B&M stores to collect it and the online places not to. It basically subsidizes the online retailers. The effect? Amazon has put thousands of local book shops out of business. Those are lost jobs for local stores (Amazon's jobs don't make up for all the losses) and lost revenue for states and cities. To get around that, they end up raising tax rates and therefore charge more to the people who ARE paying it.

Did your heart bleed for all the B&M music stores that were eliminated by iTunes?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #91 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Did your heart bleed for all the B&M music stores that were eliminated by iTunes?

No - because they were different things.

B&M Music stores were selling disks. Apple was selling something that the B&M stores couldn't or wouldn't offer. AND, Apple routinely collects sales tax on iTunes purchases, so they don't have an advantage due to people cheating on their taxes.

Amazon selling books at a lower cost than B&M stores by taking advantage of sales tax loopholes is entirely different.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #92 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No - because they were different things.

B&M Music stores were selling disks. Apple was selling something that the B&M stores couldn't or wouldn't offer. AND, Apple routinely collects sales tax on iTunes purchases, so they don't have an advantage due to people cheating on their taxes.

Amazon selling books at a lower cost than B&M stores by taking advantage of sales tax loopholes is entirely different.

No they sold digital music on discs, same product different medium. And of course you're heart didn't bleed because as long as the killing benefits Apple it's alright by you.
Edited by dasanman69 - 2/9/13 at 12:25pm
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #93 of 100

Amazon.com collects sales taxes in WA state and their sales are doing just fine. They offer low prices because that's the bent of their CEO.

 

While it may seem like a minor advantage for Amazon to not have to collect sales taxes in many states, they lose some of that benefit as the typical consumer must trust shopping without seeing or touching while suffering the delays and costs of shipping.

 

B&M stores only have to know sales tax law in one state. It's onerous for online small businesses to learn to navigate the tax laws of 50 states.

 

A good compromise would be to have online businesses pay an online tax that's perhaps a bit lower than the sales tax. Say, 5% to the state where the goods are shipped. It'd probably reap as much revenue as a complicated system that many businesses simply dodge.

post #94 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The 35% number is a red herring. Almost no business (certainly few, if any, of the largest businesses) pay anywhere near that amount. It's not uncommon for large, profitable businesses to pay no income tax at all.
Apple is already investing everywhere that it thinks it can improve products or create value. Getting 2% return isn't going to change that.
 

 

That's exactly what I said. Very few corporations pay that rate. But people use the fact that few corporations pay that rate to justify the fact that our taxes aren't really all that high, something that I disagree with.

 

As I said before, corporations reduce the tax that they actually have to pay after paying lawyers and accountants to come up with a tax strategy. If our marginal tax rate were lower, there wouldn't be as much of an incentive to come up with ways to avoid tax.

post #95 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


The rich always make their money off the poor, but the poor never make money off the rich. Glad you finally understand that!

Really?...tell that to the people who receive food stamps, welfare, health insurance, education, etc.  Those things are important and good as gold.  I wonder who "pays" for those services?

 

Further, rich can and do make money off the rich (making many rich people less rich).  Logic allows that.  Poor never makes money off the poor.

 

I'm all for improving fairness and maximizing charity/service...but there are better and more efficient methods of serving those less fortunate than giving the gov't more of my money.

post #96 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I did. Read.

It would be equally good if you could follow our own advice.

No, you didn't, and you aren't here. If you feel you are repeating it, fine, do so. Amuse me.
post #97 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Should have seen that knee-jerk tendency for fact-less overgeneralization on your part coming from a mile away.....

If you say so, it must be right.
post #98 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Legal doesn't not equate fair, if someone accidentally killed a family member of yours and only got a 5 year sentence by the 'legal' system would you think it fair?

That's an extremely bad example on your part. This is business, not murder or other forms of criminal behavior. But, no matter what, there are laws. They may be good, they may be bad. When it comes to business, there is that competitive position that must be regarded. Countries have the ability to write whatever laws they think will benefit them. If they screw up, that's too bad for them. I don't blame companies when they find legal ways to pay less taxes.

And, I doubt that you are any better. If you have any income, I'd bet that you try to avoid taxes wherever possible, and to minimize it as much as you can. Don't bother to deny it, because it wouldn't be believable.
post #99 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

Really?...tell that to the people who receive food stamps, welfare, health insurance, education, etc.  Those things are important and good as gold.  I wonder who "pays" for those services?

Further, rich can and do make money off the rich (making many rich people less rich).  Logic allows that.  Poor never makes money off the poor.

I'm all for improving fairness and maximizing charity/service...but there are better and more efficient methods of serving those less fortunate than giving the gov't more of my money.

Yeah, those people are living real well! I'm sure you would just love to trade places with any one of them.
post #100 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Yeah, those people are living real well! I'm sure you would just love to trade places with any one of them.


That has nothing to do with anything...and there are some very rich people I wouldn't want to trade places with either.  Your point is stupid.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Overseas cash restricts Apple's options for reallocating capital