or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple's bond offering will allow it to avoid $9.2B in US taxes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's bond offering will allow it to avoid $9.2B in US taxes - Page 2

post #41 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk7117 View Post


Exactly right. And what does our current President do after getting his increased taxes in January 2013, he submits a budget with more increased spending and higher taxes. My question is that no one answers is how much spending is enough for this government? And let's not forget the monstrosity un-affordable care act, that was suppose to save us all money, we'd get keep our current doctor and more people will be insured, oh guess what none of that is happening, it's just the opposite. So now the people who pushed that complete POS are saying they need more money to fund it, surprise, surprise.

Oh please ... Take this to a political blog!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #42 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


I wonder, is the actual tax rate closer to 30% than your 300% exaggeration ..hmmmm?

The US government should just change the law so that the tax is payable now - repatriated or not - and make it retrospective for the last 10 years - job done.  National debt reduced slightly.

That would be insanely stupid - and violate virtually every trade law on the books.

The money overseas was earned overseas. The expenses were paid overseas and whatever was left over is profit that was earned overseas. The US has absolutely no jurisdiction over things that occur in other countries.

If you want to start down that path, why not start to tax car owners in Germany? Or punish companies who follow local health and safety rules rather than US rules? Or go arrest all those legal drug users and prostitutes in the Netherlands?

Every country has its own rules and has a near-absolute right to do whatever they want within their borders. The US has no right to interfere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Apple paid 6 billion. In any case both parties work for corporations and not us.

Which probably made it the largest taxpayer in the country. IIRC, Apple paid several percent of ALL corporate income taxes last year. Arguing that they didn't pay their fair share is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk7117 View Post


Exactly right. And what does our current President do after getting his increased taxes in January 2013, he submits a budget with more increased spending and higher taxes. My question is that no one answers is how much spending is enough for this government? And let's not forget the monstrosity un-affordable care act, that was suppose to save us all money, we'd get keep our current doctor and more people will be insured, oh guess what none of that is happening, it's just the opposite. So now the people who pushed that complete POS are saying they need more money to fund it, surprise, surprise.

Maybe you should start getting information from places other than Fox News. The "democrats spend like drunken sailors' meme is just plain wrong.

During the past 50 years, government spending has increased more under Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations.

And if you look at the Obama record, if you ignore the first year (when government spending was controlled by the previous administration's budget and which he had no control over), government spending has increased less under Obama than under any administration in the past 40 years.
"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 #43 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


This is why the USA is in debt and the economy is in the toilet.

 

The US is in debt because of too much spending not because of not enough taxes. It is no different than when a highly paid professional athlete has to file for bankruptcy. But I suppose in those cases you would blame the athlete's team for not paying him enough.

 

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #44 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

In the same way as it is allowed for me to go 200mph on I95, if I am willing to pay a massive fine.

It's not the same at all. When you speed, you break the law. The fine is because of that.

Apple's strategy is not breaking current law, but it is breaking the spirit of the purpose of the tax code and the economy.

Almost no Fortune 500 companies pay Federal taxes most years. This is why the country is broke. Our Congress, especially Republicans, are like Leona Helmsly. She said, "pay taxes? Only the little people pay taxes," but she went to jail for it (for not paying taxes, not for the statement).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This is all there is to it.

 

[...]

 

If the US has a fiscal mess, it's totally because of its f'ed up fiscal policies. The problem could be got rid of in one stroke if Obama and the Congress could move to the territorial taxation system that most of the industrialized world uses.

In case you haven't noticed the entire world has a fiscal mess on their hands. This single policy change would do very little to mitigate the root cause of troubled world economics. Over population and consumerism gone out of control. 

 

 

His point about taxation stands. Apple pays taxes when they make their products. They pay taxes when they pay their employees. They pay taxes when they earn a profit. They pay taxes again when they pay a dividend and finally they are told they should pay taxes when they move the monies that would make those profits and dividends from one country to another.

 

The problem isn't that they don't pay enough taxes.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That would be insanely stupid - and violate virtually every trade law on the books.

The money overseas was earned overseas. The expenses were paid overseas and whatever was left over is profit that was earned overseas. The US has absolutely no jurisdiction over things that occur in other countries.

If you want to start down that path, why not start to tax car owners in Germany? Or punish companies who follow local health and safety rules rather than US rules? Or go arrest all those legal drug users and prostitutes in the Netherlands?

Every country has its own rules and has a near-absolute right to do whatever they want within their borders. The US has no right to interfere.
Which probably made it the largest taxpayer in the country. IIRC, Apple paid several percent of ALL corporate income taxes last year. Arguing that they didn't pay their fair share is absurd.
Maybe you should start getting information from places other than Fox News. The "democrats spend like drunken sailors' meme is just plain wrong.

During the past 50 years, government spending has increased more under Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations.

And if you look at the Obama record, if you ignore the first year (when government spending was controlled by the previous administration's budget and which he had no control over), government spending has increased less under Obama than under any administration in the past 40 years.

Again, excellent post, thank you.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #46 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Maybe you should start getting information from places other than Fox News. The "democrats spend like drunken sailors' meme is just plain wrong.

During the past 50 years, government spending has increased more under Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations.

And if you look at the Obama record, if you ignore the first year (when government spending was controlled by the previous administration's budget and which he had no control over), government spending has increased less under Obama than under any administration in the past 40 years.

 

It isn't wrong and perhaps you should get your information from someplace other than MSNBC and Huffington Post. Spending comes from Congress. The Democrats controlled Congress during most Republican presidential terms. Even during the latest Republican president, George W. Bush, the Senate was controlled by Democrats during 4 of the 8 years. To compare spending by party, you have to look at control of Congress, not just the presidency.

 

The first year under the Obama record counts against Obama because Democrats knew there was a chance of a Democratic president and thus did not pass the bills for Bush to sign. Out of the 12 major appropriation bills for 2009, Bush signed four and Obama signed the remaining 8. Obama has made the level of spending that was supposed to be associated with a temporary stimulus to now be a norm along with trillion dollar a year deficits. He has borrowed more in five years than Bush borrowed in eight and will have borrowed more than all prior presidents combined including Bush.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

His point about taxation stands. Apple pays taxes when they make their products. They pay taxes when they pay their employees. They pay taxes when they earn a profit. They pay taxes again when they pay a dividend and finally they are told they should pay taxes when they move the monies that would make those profits and dividends from one country to another.

 

The problem isn't that they don't pay enough taxes.

Except that wasn't his point as far as I can tell, at least not the point I was responding to. Changing the policy on taxing foreign earned profit is not in any appreciable way going to fix the US economy or the world economy because that aspect of world trade has almost nothing to do with the root causes of the  financial mess that the entire world is facing.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


This is why the USA is in debt and the economy is in the toilet. The whole system is insane. This is the "self regulating" economy. Bunch of BS. Why exactly should I love my country for being obsessed with self-destructive, antisocial, sociopathic, greedy stupidity?

 

How many countries tax income when repatriating after tax has already been collected locally?

 

You might want to know the answer to this question before you call American capitalists self-destructive and greedy.

post #49 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Spending comes from Congress. The Democrats controlled Congress during most Republican presidential terms. Even during the latest Republican president, George W. Bush, the Senate was controlled by Democrats during 4 of the 8 years. To compare spending by party, you have to look at control of Congress, not just the presidency.

1) Presidents have the right to veto. At no time was the Democratic control of Congress sufficient to overcome a veto.

 

2) Why don't you compare spending in Congresses under the two parties, compare, and come back and tell us what you find empirically. (Hint: You might be surprised).

post #50 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Now that Apple has debt, it is apparently more valuable in enterprise value terms. Doesn't make any sense.

 

Oddly enough, it does... especially for a very secretive company like apple because debt reduction is long term plan and investors love those.

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #51 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
Except that wasn't his point as far as I can tell, at least not the point I was responding to. Changing the policy on taxing foreign earned profit is not in any appreciable way going to fix the US economy or the world economy because that aspect of world trade has almost nothing to do with the root causes of the  financial mess that the entire world is facing.

That wasn't my main point (it was just a throwaway statement), but never mind.

post #52 of 87

Of course this is a good thing why would Apple hand over $9B to the US gov't when all they want to do is return money to shareholders.  And Apple is the most widely held stocks in the US it's not dominated by hedge funds.

post #53 of 87

Why do so many people view a large portion of a companies post tax profits somehow belonging to the US gov't, this is insane.  Does a large portion of your you post tax savings account belong to the US gov't?   I think not.

post #54 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) Presidents have the right to veto. At no time was the Democratic control of Congress sufficient to overcome a veto.

2) Why don't you compare spending in Congresses under the two parties, compare, and come back and tell us what you find empirically. (Hint: You might be surprised).

As a Brit who moved to the US I did just that and was surprised. When first moving from UK I was pretty clueless about the system here and was keen to take a balanced, long look at everything and that particular point was unexpected based on the rhetoric from much of the media not to mention 'conventional wisdom', your inferred answer in 'hint' is entirely true. (This is me not being political). 1biggrin.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #55 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCC View Post

This is dumb. Steve Jobs is rolling over in his grave. Unless they feel that they can repatriate that cash at a lower tax rate later, they have not only NOT save $9.4 bil but they've also just wasted hundreds of millions that they have to pay in servicing the debt.

For what? So they can please bottom feeding, scum sucking hedge funds? I wish Steve were alive to tell these bone heads where to stick their damn dividend. This cash is the lifeblood of the company and they're draining it. WTF is Cook thinking?

Non investors never fail to miss the point about these kinds of things. I am an owner of Apple, along with all the other holders of Apple stock. That's the reality, and that's the decision Steve himself made (to issue stock) early on when Apple needed capital. Most of us Apple owners wanted management to put our cash to better use instead of simply letting it lay dormant. The pressure was certainly high and Cook had to do something. Remember, he has a legal responsibility to manage Apple and it's cash in the best interest of Apple owners, NOT Apple fans nor Apple employees and executives. Both of your points reveal a woeful lack of understanding. And the fact that Apple's overall value has risen by tens of $billions$ since this action, and as a direct result of it, should have given you pause. But somehow you think it was a huge failure. Bad call, man.

 

I will give you one thing though, sort of. I don't like the Hedge Fund investment companies either. They seem a bit like pick-pockets to me. All those people who make their living out of playing the market are, to some extent, feeding off of hard working people like me who are trying to built up our retirement savings. Investing in a company is one thing. But using the world's most advanced computers and investment know-how to buy and sell and get the jump on all us honest investors seems like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

post #56 of 87

deleted duplicate.

post #57 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

As a Brit who moved to the US I did just that and was surprised. When first moving from UK I was pretty clueless about the system here and was keen to take a balanced, long look at everything and that particular point was unexpected based on the rhetoric from much of the media not to mention 'conventional wisdom', your inferred answer in 'hint' is entirely true. (This is me not being political). 1biggrin.gif

I wasn't being political either (I hate politics with a passion! 1hmm.gif).

 

Here's a nice academic -- non-political -- study on Democratic v. Republican spending: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1740767

post #58 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That would be insanely stupid - and violate virtually every trade law on the books.
 

 

Would you care to cite an example of a 'trade' law that would be violated?  This is about taxation, not trade.  What might be at issue are international agreements on double taxation.  These are just agreements, though and are not laws.

 

Quote:
The money overseas was earned overseas. The expenses were paid overseas and whatever was left over is profit that was earned overseas. The US has absolutely no jurisdiction over things that occur in other countries.
 

 

It does when it comes to taxation of entities resident in the US.

 

I can give you a personal example.  I live in Ireland.  I have investments in Australia.  The Australian taxation rate on the income earned from those investments is far less than the Irish taxation rate.  I pay the Australian tax to the Australian government.  The Irish Government taxes my income from those investments at it's far higher rate, but gives me a credit on the tax already paid so as to avoid double taxation.  I have to pay the Irish Government it's pound of flesh, irrespective of whether I repatriate the income to Ireland or not.

 

Forgive me for not being sympathetic to Apple for being able avoid what I can not.

 

I could give you multiple examples of the US government applying it's laws to individuals in other countries who are abiding by the laws of those countries. Here is one particularly egregious example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14496805

 

Basically, the guy had a legal and legitimate business supplying chemicals which were perfectly legal to trade in in the UK.  The US has sought to extradite him to the US to prosecute him for violating US laws - un &^%$  believable.

post #59 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It isn't wrong and perhaps you should get your information from someplace other than MSNBC and Huffington Post. Spending comes from Congress. The Democrats controlled Congress during most Republican presidential terms. Even during the latest Republican president, George W. Bush, the Senate was controlled by Democrats during 4 of the 8 years. To compare spending by party, you have to look at control of Congress, not just the presidency.

Then if I accept your premise, will you stop the Obama bashing that you and your faux news friends throw around?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I can give you a personal example.  I live in Ireland.  I have investments in Australia.  The Australian taxation rate on the income earned from those investments is far less than the Irish taxation rate.  I pay the Australian tax to the Australian government.  The Irish Government taxes my income from those investments at it's far higher rate, but gives me a credit on the tax already paid so as to avoid double taxation.  I have to pay the Irish Government it's pound of flesh, irrespective of whether I repatriate the income to Ireland or not.

If you don't understand the differences between an individual and a multinational corporation, you have no business even participating in this discussion.
"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 #60 of 87

For all those who think Apple screwed up with this bond deal, you should read this:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1400231-apple-bonds-are-good-for-the-economy?source=yahoo

post #61 of 87

Taxes create incentives/disincentives. Repatriation of income earned elsewhere creates a huge tax liability for Apple. Hence the money stays where it was earned. Right now they can earn more than it costs to service the debt they are taking on.

 

There is enormous room to clean out the tax code, in my opinion. I like the flat tax idea. Anything that lowers the rate (incentivizing economic activity and growth) and broadens the base gets my vote.

 

On parties, I see both sides. But I'd rather have Reagan and Bush II's economies than Carter and Obama's. It might just be me, but Obama has no limit to what he wants to spend. He has said in a debate that he would raise cap gains to 28% even if it reduced treasury revenue (to create fairness). And I see the debt skyrocketing under Obama like never before and still the creation of yet another multi-trillion dollar entitlement program.

 

Apple is doing what is advantageous to Apple given the current tax code. We could change it and perhaps more would flow in from every corporation and every person without stifling growth. Bush lowered taxes and despite CBO projections, treasury revenue skyrocketed to record levels. Maybe seeking ever higher taxation is not the answer. Tax rates and treasury receipts are not the same thing. Increasing one does not always lead to and increase in the other.

post #62 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If you don't understand the differences between an individual and a multinational corporation, you have no business even participating in this discussion.

I understand the difference perfectly. Of what relevance is it in the context of my suggestion that the US govt. just do what the Irish govt does?  I am still awaiting an example of the trade laws you were spouting off about being violated and your explanation as to why trade laws have anything to do with my original suggestion you lost the plot on.

post #63 of 87

Someone please explain to me how offering bonds that must be repaid to the buyers will get the $100 billion in value that is parked overseas back to the USA without being taxed.

post #64 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I understand the difference perfectly. Of what relevance is it in the context of my suggestion that the US govt. just do what the Irish govt does?  I am still awaiting an example of the trade laws you were spouting off about being violated and your explanation as to why trade laws have anything to do with my original suggestion you lost the plot on.

You obviously don't understand the difference.

As an Irish citizen, you are subject to the laws of Ireland and the tax structure - even if you earn it elsewhere.

A multinational corporation has no 'citizenship' and is not subject to US taxes outside the US.

The proof is in the pudding. If the US government could legally grab a portion of the money stored by Apple and other multinationals overseas, why haven't they done it? Obviously, they can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Someone please explain to me how offering bonds that must be repaid to the buyers will get the $100 billion in value that is parked overseas back to the USA without being taxed.

Technically, it doesn't get the $100 B overseas back to the US. It does, however, allow them to get essentially the same result as if they did - but without paying taxes.
"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 #65 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by nollam View Post

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding (or just misrepresentation) on this topic. Apple *has* paid tax on its overseas earnings, it pays tax in each of the jurisdictions in which it operates. What AAPL is wisely trying to avoid, is a double-taxation situation where it will have to pay *again* on revenues it returns to the US.

You may be of the opinion that AAPL should pay tax multiple times on its profits, but that will put APPL in an unfair position when competing in the global market.
 

 

Actually, that whole portion of your post shows a big misunderstanding of how offshoring works.  Apple sold over 40% of its products in the US.  They did not claim anywhere near 40% of their profits in the US.

 

Apple makes things on the cheap in China.  They sell them for a hefty price in the US.  They should be taxed on that profit in the US.

 

A simplistic version of what they do is this. 

 

1) Figure out what country and tax breaks are the most beneficial possible.  (Ireland->Netherlands->Ireland->Bahamas currently has a 'winning' combo)

2) Set up essentially dummy subsidiaries in all those countries

3) Claim those subsidiaries are where you are making all your profits

 

So Apple Ireland essentially 'buys' the cheap phones from China on 'paper'

Apple Ireland than sells itself those same phones for a much higher price

Apple Ireland than sells those 'expensive' phones to Apple America for a high price

Apple America then sells the majority of the product in America at a high price, but for little profit on paper.

All the profit on paper was made in Ireland and the Netherlands and stored in the Bahamas.

If you combine the entire sales of phones in the Netherlands, Ireland, and the Bahamas it is diddly squat compared to the rest of the world.  Yet those are the countries Apple records the majority of its profits and where it keeps most of the money.

 

It is smart and it is legal.  Our laws need to not be dumb.   There are a lot of companies paying our leaders a lot of money to keep our laws dumb.  They pay the media a lot of money to make it seem like the government is the problem.

 

'A lower corporate tax rate!' is a common slogan.  Apple paid about 2% in taxes on its US earning using its offshore method.  So we'd have to beat that....

post #66 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Actually, that whole portion of your post shows a big misunderstanding of how offshoring works.  Apple sold over 40% of its products in the US.  They did not claim anywhere near 40% of their profits in the US.

Apple makes things on the cheap in China.  They sell them for a hefty price in the US.  They should be taxed on that profit in the US.

A simplistic version of what they do is this. 

1) Figure out what country and tax breaks are the most beneficial possible.  (Ireland->Netherlands->Ireland->Bahamas currently has a 'winning' combo)
2) Set up essentially dummy subsidiaries in all those countries
3) Claim those subsidiaries are where you are making all your profits

So Apple Ireland essentially 'buys' the cheap phones from China on 'paper'
Apple Ireland than sells itself those same phones for a much higher price
Apple Ireland than sells those 'expensive' phones to Apple America for a high price
Apple America then sells the majority of the product in America at a high price, but for little profit on paper.
All the profit on paper was made in Ireland and the Netherlands and stored in the Bahamas.
If you combine the entire sales of phones in the Netherlands, Ireland, and the Bahamas it is diddly squat compared to the rest of the world.  Yet those are the countries Apple records the majority of its profits and where it keeps most of the money.

It is smart and it is legal.  Our laws need to not be dumb.   There are a lot of companies paying our leaders a lot of money to keep our laws dumb.  They pay the media a lot of money to make it seem like the government is the problem.

'A lower corporate tax rate!' is a common slogan.  Apple paid about 2% in taxes on its US earning using its offshore method.  So we'd have to beat that....

That is, of course, all nonsense. Apple does not buy its US phones via Ireland, for example. Apple does not claim that the subsidiaries are making all the profits - they paid $6 B in taxes in the US. And your 2% figure is ridiculous. Last year, Apple's total income from their 10K was $55 B. They paid $6 B in US tax last year on something like $25 B in US net income. That's a far cry from your silly 2% claim.

There is some flexibility in transfer pricing, but it's nowhere near as bizarre as you claim. When the US subsidiary buys products from China, the transfer price must be a fair one. The IRS is not going to let them get away with a ridiculous transfer price.
"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 #67 of 87
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
…retrospective…

 

Horrifying insanity. Nothing more needs said.


National debt reduced slightly.


For a few hours of one day.

post #68 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Speeding is illegal. Keeping $$$ offshore isn't.
So I guess you don't take any deductions or tax credits when you did your taxes.

I'm poor. My taxes are a non-issue. I essentially have nothing to file. I don't count. What I'm complaining about is how imbalanced the system is and how slanted it is toward the benefit of big corporations. These entities should be contributing more to the country they exist in. Instead, they steal from it by exporting as much employment as possible, so that they're essentially getting all the benefits of conducting business in the USA without actually contributing to the economic infrastructure, taking advantage of the country where they're getting the industrial labor, and getting endless tax loopholes that regular people don't have access to. Why is it still a problem for people to grasp the idea that a larger income should mean greater tax contribution?
post #69 of 87
Apple could just pay the tax and help pay for the education of the next generation of Apple engineers.
post #70 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

His point about taxation stands. Apple pays taxes when they make their products. They pay taxes when they pay their employees. They pay taxes when they earn a profit. They pay taxes again when they pay a dividend and finally they are told they should pay taxes when they move the monies that would make those profits and dividends from one country to another.

 

The problem isn't that they don't pay enough taxes.

Except that wasn't his point as far as I can tell, at least not the point I was responding to. Changing the policy on taxing foreign earned profit is not in any appreciable way going to fix the US economy or the world economy because that aspect of world trade has almost nothing to do with the root causes of the  financial mess that the entire world is facing.

 

It could make a large difference. Perhaps it might not make a large difference is your criteria is how much the government will get and then be allowed to spend on top of what they borrow and spend now. However those dollars being put to economic use in the United States would be a benefit as well as the dollars of many other companies that could come back into the U.S. Is the $9 billion a small bit compared to what the U.S. government is doing? Yes but the hundreds of billions waiting to return would have an economic effect OUTSIDE of the government. They would be put to use and seeking a return WITHIN our economy instead of outside of it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Spending comes from Congress. The Democrats controlled Congress during most Republican presidential terms. Even during the latest Republican president, George W. Bush, the Senate was controlled by Democrats during 4 of the 8 years. To compare spending by party, you have to look at control of Congress, not just the presidency.

1) Presidents have the right to veto. At no time was the Democratic control of Congress sufficient to overcome a veto.

 

2) Why don't you compare spending in Congresses under the two parties, compare, and come back and tell us what you find empirically. (Hint: You might be surprised).

 

Hint, I haven't been surprised. Reagan had 23% of his veto's overridden and W. Bush had 36% of his veto's overridden. To say that veto power was enough is wrong.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

As a Brit who moved to the US I did just that and was surprised. When first moving from UK I was pretty clueless about the system here and was keen to take a balanced, long look at everything and that particular point was unexpected based on the rhetoric from much of the media not to mention 'conventional wisdom', your inferred answer in 'hint' is entirely true. (This is me not being political). 1biggrin.gif

I wasn't being political either (I hate politics with a passion! 1hmm.gif).

 

Here's a nice academic -- non-political -- study on Democratic v. Republican spending: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1740767

 

That paper barely touches on spending and only goes back to 1967. It comes after the changes that made up the entire War on Poverty and every change tha makes up the Great Society. Even then it only deals with what it claims as social spending instead of total spending. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Speeding is illegal. Keeping $$$ offshore isn't.
So I guess you don't take any deductions or tax credits when you did your taxes.

I'm poor. My taxes are a non-issue. I essentially have nothing to file. I don't count. What I'm complaining about is how imbalanced the system is and how slanted it is toward the benefit of big corporations. These entities should be contributing more to the country they exist in. Instead, they steal from it by exporting as much employment as possible, so that they're essentially getting all the benefits of conducting business in the USA without actually contributing to the economic infrastructure, taking advantage of the country where they're getting the industrial labor, and getting endless tax loopholes that regular people don't have access to. Why is it still a problem for people to grasp the idea that a larger income should mean greater tax contribution?

 

The reality is that if one claims to be an advanced economy, one should have employees who have advanced education and advanced skill to do those jobs. You cann't create value from nothing. The value of putting a couple screws into a phone in an assembly line isn't enough to keep the job here because they couldn't pay the employee what the value of the job adds to the product. They would have to steal from some other area of the product.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #71 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It could make a large difference. Perhaps it might not make a large difference is your criteria is how much the government will get and then be allowed to spend on top of what they borrow and spend now. However those dollars being put to economic use in the United States would be a benefit as well as the dollars of many other companies that could come back into the U.S. Is the $9 billion a small bit compared to what the U.S. government is doing? Yes but the hundreds of billions waiting to return would have an economic effect OUTSIDE of the government. They would be put to use and seeking a return WITHIN our economy instead of outside of it.

So Apple should voluntarily pay more than they are required to? Why not Exxon? Why not GE? Why not you and all the other trolls on AI?

If you want to donate your money to the government, feel free. But don't expect Apple to be giving someone else's (the shareholders) money away.
"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 #72 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

You don't know what you are talking about, and Frood does. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?_r=0

"Double irish with a dutch sandwich".

Nice misdirection. Do you really think everyone else's reading comprehension is as bad as yours?

The original statement was that Apple pays only 2% of US profits in tax.

I provided figures that they paid something like $6 B on $25 B in US profits.

You come back with an article that says that they only pay 2% of their NON-US income in taxes.

See how wrong you were?
"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 #73 of 87

Apple is not being allowed to avoid the tax. It is postponing paying the tax. US tax law is simple: bring money earned and taxed overseas into the US and you will be required to pay a 35% penalty to the IRS. Leave it overseas and pay nothing.

 

What would you do? If you say you would "bring it back" then tell us about the most recent gift check you wrote to the IRS. Not a check for taxes due, but a simple gift to the IRS. The IRS does accept gifts, the same thing the commenters here expect Apple to do.

 

Last quarter alone, Apple paid 26% of its net income to the IRS. As Apple mentioned, it paid one in every 40 dollars paid by corporate taxpayers. Not exactly tax evasion.

 

Every blogger who perpetuates this myth, that Apple is avoiding taxes, is as dishonest as the commenters who believe it, are ignorant.

post #74 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


I'm poor. My taxes are a non-issue. I essentially have nothing to file. I don't count. What I'm complaining about is how imbalanced the system is and how slanted it is toward the benefit of big corporations. These entities should be contributing more to the country they exist in. Instead, they steal from it by exporting as much employment as possible, so that they're essentially getting all the benefits of conducting business in the USA without actually contributing to the economic infrastructure, taking advantage of the country where they're getting the industrial labor, and getting endless tax loopholes that regular people don't have access to. Why is it still a problem for people to grasp the idea that a larger income should mean greater tax contribution?

This reeks of entitlement mentality. You have "nothing to file" yourself, meaning you're getting your free ride. And yet you can't pass up the opportunity to drag corporations through the mud and complain about how greedy they are. Apple gives up 6B in taxes (in one year!) and you, of all people, want to make them look like a deadbeat corporation trying to wiggle out of its tax responsibility. Good grief. I'm a lifelong liberal, but your attitude makes me want to jump ship.

 

You say you're "complaining about how imbalanced the system is and how slanted it is toward the benefit of big corporations." Of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that big corporations are nothing other than large groups of hard working people. They are not the Borg, although they are certainly self-interested entities, not unlike you and me.

post #75 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Someone please explain to me how offering bonds that must be repaid to the buyers will get the $100 billion in value that is parked overseas back to the USA without being taxed.

 

Suppose you had $100billion in a bank in the Bahamas, but in order to get that money inside the US, it would be taxed.

 

Now suppose you want $17billion inside the US for whatever reason.

 

You could do this:

Take $26.2 billion out of the bank in the Bahamas.  Bring it in the US.  Pay your $9.2 billion in taxes.  Voila- you have 17Billion inside the US and $73.7billion offshore

 

OR:

Issue a bond for $17billion. Pay 50ish million in underwriter fees and 350ish million in debt service over the life of the bond.

 

Either way you get the same $17 billion.  The first way it cost you $9.2 billion, the second way it cost you about $400 million.  You choose.

post #76 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post




Whatever. Apparently you just can't admit you don't know what you are talking about (since your post denied the possibility of the very scheme described in the NYT article).

No, I simply stated facts while you distorted everything with your bizarre interpretations.

You claimed that Apple only paid 2% income tax on its US income. In reality, it paid more like 25-30%. As "evidence", you provided an article that says that Apple paid 2% on its NON-US income. Clearly, you're confused. The amount it pays on NON-US income has nothing to do with the amount it pays on US income.
"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 #77 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Nice misdirection. Do you really think everyone else's reading comprehension is as bad as yours?

The original statement was that Apple pays only 2% of US profits in tax.

I provided figures that they paid something like $6 B on $25 B in US profits.

You come back with an article that says that they only pay 2% of their NON-US income in taxes.

See how wrong you were?

 

 

Whatever. Apparently you just can't admit you don't know what you are talking about (since your post denied the possibility of the very scheme described in the NYT article).

Ah.... there you go again. Making a recurrent fool of yourself seems to be something you're condemned to repeat......

 

Whatever......

post #78 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

Ain't the US financial system grand!  Apple is not allowed to repatriate its cash, instead it:

1. Still collects 1% a year on its offshore cash.

2. Pays 2% on its debt.

3. Pays underwriting fees to the investment banks.

4. But wait, there is more! 2 and 3 are tax deductible items, resulting in a transfer of wealth from the tax payer to said investment banks (which, I am guessing, are holding most of the bonds also).

Blame the system, if you are unhappy write to your congressman/men.

Stand for election a a congressman and change the law.

Oh, is only Apple to blame or some people just love to bitch when Apple is involved.
post #79 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


You obviously don't understand the difference.

As an Irish citizen, you are subject to the laws of Ireland and the tax structure - even if you earn it elsewhere.

A multinational corporation has no 'citizenship' and is not subject to US taxes outside the US.

The proof is in the pudding. If the US government could legally grab a portion of the money stored by Apple and other multinationals overseas, why haven't they done it? Obviously, they can't.
Technically, it doesn't get the $100 B overseas back to the US. It does, however, allow them to get essentially the same result as if they did - but without paying taxes.


You are inventing stuff again.   If the overseas income can be taxed on it's remittance to the US, then the US govt clearly has dominion over it - n'es ce pas? 'Citizenship' is an irrelevant concept in this discussion.  The Irish govt can tax the foreign earnings of anyone - citizen or not - who is resident in the country for tax purposes. While US laws may currently be configured to prevent them taxing earnings prior to repatriation, I imagine the laws could be changed unless the constitution has an element that would preclude that.

post #80 of 87
So I wonder... Can they use the foreign currency holdings to buy back stock held by foreign owners, and thereby repatriate the capital without paying any taxes? That is, can they use foreign currency to purchase stock held in foreign countries, and then return the stock to the treasury tax-free?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple's bond offering will allow it to avoid $9.2B in US taxes