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

I did. Read.

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

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

 

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!! 

 

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)!  

 

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?! 

 

 

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! 

Thanks jragosta !

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 there. Anyway the statement was extremely transparent, because so many people use it to the point if it being meme like.

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?

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.

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

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.

 

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.

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.

No, you didn't, and you aren't here. If you feel you are repeating it, fine, do so. Amuse me.

If you say so, it must be right.

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.

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.