or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple CEO talks taxes ahead of hearing: 'We pay every dollar that we owe'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple CEO talks taxes ahead of hearing: 'We pay every dollar that we owe' - Page 2

post #41 of 126

The reality is that Apple is under zero pressure.  What is congress going to do?  Force Apple to bring that money back into the country?  Not going to happen.  Is congress going to fine Apple for doing nothing illegal?

Tim Cook has no pressure.  It's Congress doing their typical 15-minute fame show.  Nothing will come out of it.  Congress knows that they have to change the tax laws that will affect every company, not just Apple and Congress has to be very careful it doesn't alienate these companies.

post #42 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

In bookkeeping, the balance sheet has three columns, assets, liabilities and ownership equity. Which column does Margin go in?

 

How "clever" of you. Not.

 

Did you intentionally exclude the fact that there are other critical financial statements like...the income (or P&L) statement? In that case the "margin," which is synonymous with profit, goes into the profit lines which help to increase assets or owner equity.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #43 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

In bookkeeping, the balance sheet has three columns, assets, liabilities and ownership equity. Which column does Margin go in?


Did you intentionally exclude the fact that there are other critical financial statements like...the income (or P&L) statement? In that case the "margin," which is synonymous with profit, goes into the profit lines which help to increase assets or owner equity.

Sorry, you're losing me. I was trying to keep it simple so I could perhaps understand how the consumer allegedly pays the corporation's income taxes.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #44 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sorry, you're losing me. I was trying to keep it simple so I could perhaps understand how the consumer allegedly pays the corporation's income taxes.

 

1. You asked where "margin" goes on the balance sheet.

2. The balance sheet is not the only financial statement for a business, there is also an income statement.

3. Margin is profit.

4. Profit goes (first) into the income statement and then makes it to the balance sheet as assets or owner equity.

 

But all of this is really smoke and mirrors. The point is that companies will maximize profits. Where taxes reduce profits, the company will look for other ways to (effectively) maintain or hide profits or "reduce" profits. All of these actions are ultimately paid for directly or indirectly by the company's customers.

 

But, more directly and clearly. All of the dollars the company gets come from the customers. The taxes come out of that money. The company is not paying the taxes, the customers (and investors also) are. So product prices are higher (or features are fewer and quality is lower) relative to what they would be without those taxes to be paid.

 

This isn't some attempt at a Jedi mind trick of some kind. It's just a reality.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #45 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

 

But since it's Apple that makes it an abomination worth dragging the CEO in front some corrupt politicians so they can rail against the company. 


You realize that the same subcommittee already saw Microsoft and HP right? Those two sent company representatives. Apple could've done the same instead they or Cook decided he will go rather than send a representative.

 

He wasn't dragged or subpoenaed to appear.

post #46 of 126

I say Apple uses it's large, overseas cash hoard to create a floating headquarters in international waters. There, no one gets tax. Screw the politicians.

post #47 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sorry, you're losing me. I was trying to keep it simple so I could perhaps understand how the consumer allegedly pays the corporation's income taxes.

It's simple. You make a product for $1 and sell it for $1.50, netting $.50. Now government steps in and demands $.50 tax from each sale. Your profit is wiped out, so you raise the price to $2.00. Guess who pays? The consumer.

post #48 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

I say Apple uses it's large, overseas cash hoard to create a floating headquarters in international waters. There, no one gets tax. Screw the politicians.

They can afford to buy a very large island to call home. How about New Zealand? I think it's mostly uninhabited¡

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #49 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

But, more directly and clearly. All of the dollars the company gets come from the customers. The taxes come out of that money. The company is not paying the taxes, the customers (and investors also) are. So product prices are higher (or features are fewer and quality is lower) relative to what they would be without those taxes to be paid.

That is sort of a stretch "All of the dollars the company gets come from the customers." By that logic you could argue that all the money comes from the Federal Reserve. Simplified, all expenses come out of the gross revenue and what is left is the profit. The taxes are the last thing in the equation. Generally speaking, you can't deduct taxes as an expense except property taxes and the like.

 

Now I fully understand that if the corporation was required to comply with some new regulation that cost them money, that is an expense and the company is likely to raise the price of the product to cover that expense thus maintaining their profits, but income taxes are a different situation because it is coming out of the profit at the very end of the calculation.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #50 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

That is sort of a stretch "All of the dollars the company gets come from the customers." By that logic you could argue that all the money comes from the Federal Reserve.

 

You could argue that, but that would merely show a fundamental misunderstanding of things.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Now I fully understand that if the corporation was required to comply with some new regulation that cost them money, that is an expense and the company is likely to raise the price of the product to cover that expense thus maintaining their profits, but taxes are a different situation because it is coming out of the profit at the very end of the calculation.

 

Sorry I'm unable to explain it in a way that makes it clear to you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #51 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Good for Apple (and its investors and its employees and its customers!)

 

While you use terms like "loophole" and "tax dodging" in the pejorative sense, I am quite sure Apple is following the law. They are doing their best to keep as much of the money they have earned as possible. Good for them! Every business and individual should do the same thing. Sadly there are not as many "loopholes" available to individuals.

Just because it is not illegal it doesn't make it just. I have no idea why people think it is OK for corporations and wealthy folks not to pay the taxes they owe. The thinking behind taxation is not to screw the rich, don't people understand that? 

post #52 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Sorry I'm unable to explain it in a way that makes it clear to you.

That is quite clear.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #53 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


They can afford to buy a very large island to call home. How about New Zealand? I think it's mostly uninhabited¡

And even if it isn't its so far away nobody could possibly care, could they? Ireland might be better. I hear its going cheap.

post #54 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by eat@me View Post

Apple is using every loophole and trick known to Wall Street and leveraging offshore accounts to "pay every dollar they owe" which is very little.  They used loopholes to pay dividends.
Just like every other company

And it's not really dodging when it's 100% legal. What's really sad is that the US could make a little money on funds coming in from out of country divisions if they would just change their rules. Money earned in the US would be taxed at X% regardless of if its held in US banks or not. Money earned out of country and presumably held out of country is currently also being taxed at X% just to be transferred into the country. So companies don't do it. If they would change it to a lower transfer tax, companies might. Heck Apple has all buy said the same thing when they brought up a tax holiday. And that's on top of the money they had to pay in the country the money came from

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #55 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

I don't believe Apple is under any kind of investigation, therefore neither Apple nor Cook have an obligation to testify in this hearing. I think Cook is rather foolish to sit in a congressional hearing, being asked questions, and looking like Apple is on trial when it isn't. Cook should have taken a pass and instead, invited a few Senators to discuss tax policy with him at his headquarters in Cupertino without any cameras present. That is how you do things. Now Cook is going to open his big fat mouth, look like a criminal in front of questioning senators, and Apple's stock will fall again.

Thanks Tim!

I agree with this assessment. I see no good coming out of this (and hope nothing bad does). Entirely unnecessary. He should simply have said -- even if Apple was subpoenaed -- that he is no expert on taxes (and I'll bet he's not), and that he'd be happy to send the CFO Oppenheimer or even better, the tax guy/gal that reports to the CFO.
post #56 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


Oh, and I'm pretty sure you don't pay "the most"-whatever the hell that means.  Apple one of the largest US corporate tax payers in existence. The US gvt gets BILLIONS annually in revenue from them. 

The game isn't about the most but what is legally required of them

And think about it, you don't not take deductions on your income tax do you, you don't not file because you would be getting a refund. So you're suggesting Apple pay every cent they can but you don't do that.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #57 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sorry, you're losing me. I was trying to keep it simple so I could perhaps understand how the consumer allegedly pays the corporation's income taxes.

The consumer pays because companies pass-through the effects through their product pricing. Why do they do that? Because what matters at the end of the day for a company's market value is is its **post-tax** (expected) returns. Of course, the ability to pass-through depends on a number of factors, including competitive conditions, the nature of the demand curve, and the company's cost structure. For a company like Apple, I am guessing that it is all pretty much passed-through.
post #58 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

I don't believe Apple is under any kind of investigation, therefore neither Apple nor Cook have an obligation to testify in this hearing. I think Cook is rather foolish to sit in a congressional hearing, being asked questions, and looking like Apple is on trial when it isn't.

So they refuse, the press finds out and spreads it around and rumors that Apple has something to hide start up

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #59 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sorry, you're losing me. I was trying to keep it simple so I could perhaps understand how the consumer allegedly pays the corporation's income taxes.

The consumer pays because companies pass-through the effects through their product pricing. Why do they do that? Because what matters at the end of the day for a company's market value is is its **post-tax** (expected) returns. Of course, the ability to pass-through depends on a number of factors, including competitive conditions, the nature of the demand curve, and the company's cost structure. For a company like Apple, I am guessing that it is all pretty much passed-through.

So if I understand what you are saying, is that Apple picks a figure that they want to end up with at the end of the year as post-tax profit and then works backwards to arrive at a price for their product that also includes the income tax they would owe?

 

Honestly this doesn't make sense to me because that additional cost to the consumer will show up as more profit.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #60 of 126
The issue is that the US tax code is both ridiculously expansive trying to extend US jurisdiction beyond US borders AND full of loopholes made for politically well connected interests both corporate and private.

And that's an insane combination.

To single out Apple in that context is nothing but a publicity stunt.
post #61 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

So if I understand what you are saying, is that Apple picks a figure that they want to end up with at the end of the year as post-tax profit and then works backwards to arrive at a price for their product that also includes the income tax they would owe?

That is exactly right. The market demands an after-tax expected return based on its assessment of a company's business risks. That expected return, in turn, is the company's (after-tax) cost of capital. The value of a company is nothing more, nothing less than its expected future (after-tax) cash flows discounted at its (after-tax) cost of capital.

This is all Finance 101.

If you think that's too difficult to understand, I don't know what else to tell you except to perhaps take a couple of finance classes! (I am not being snarky).
post #62 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Just because it is not illegal it doesn't make it just. I have no idea why people think it is OK for corporations and wealthy folks not to pay the taxes they owe. The thinking behind taxation is not to screw the rich, don't people understand that? 

 

First, I have no idea what "just" means here. In my view what is just and fair is keeping what you earn. Second, they are paying what they owe, they just may not be paying what you want them to or think they should pay. They are different things. Third, I disagree that the goal is not to screw the rich. I think for many that's exactly what it is about. Finally, I think everyone should be paying substantially less in taxes. Everyone.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #63 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

So if I understand what you are saying, is that Apple picks a figure that they want to end up with at the end of the year as post-tax profit and then works backwards to arrive at a price for their product that also includes the income tax they would owe?

That is exactly right. The market demands an after-tax expected return based on its assessment of a company's business risks. That expected return, in turn, is the company's (after-tax) cost of capital. The value of a company is nothing more, nothing less than its expected future (after-tax) cash flows discounted at its (after-tax) cost of capital.

This is all Finance 101.

If you think that's too difficult to understand, I don't know what else to tell you except to perhaps take a couple of finance classes! (I am not being snarky).

Well like I said I'm not an accountant. I just don't think any of the replies adequately explain how the consumer pays the corporation's income taxes.

 

However little or much you raise the price of your product it just goes into the asset column. You end up with more after tax profit but you pay more taxes too. It all works so long as the price is still reasonable for the consumer. At a certain point they will buy a competitor's product who will sell one for a lot less because they are willing to take less profit. In the end it seems more reasonable to build your product and set your margin and pay the tax on the profit you earned like you are supposed to. Saying that the consumer pays the corporations taxes is a sensational headline but in reality the consumer is buying a product that has x amount of profit built into the price.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #64 of 126

Corporations are required to maximize shareholder value.  You could argue that it would be illegal for them NOT to offshore, if that is the best legal way to maximize profits.  Apple is no more to blame for offshoring than any of the other companies doing it.

 

If I am investing in two identical companies and one of them makes 30% more profits than the other because they *legally* pay less taxes than their identical competitor- that's the company I'm putting my money in.  Its better than putting it in the 'noble', 'responsible' company that is soon going to be out of business.

 

It is a little comical to see these Senators putting on a dog and pony show claiming to be 'livid' at companies offshoring.

 

'Shore' up the tax LAWS and then go after the companies that are breaking those laws illegally.  Keeping it legal and stomping your feet at corporations telling them, 'we really wish you'd pay more taxes' is just dumb, but does give you a platform to pretend to be high and mighty and pander for votes because you are 'doing something about it.'  The biggest thing holding that back are the Senators themselves.  Granted they are getting a ton of money from the lobbyists of these corporations to make sure the offshoring loopholes never get closed.  Maybe that's what they should have a hearing on?  They could grill themselves on why they accept so much money to ensure laws that damage the country as a whole remain in effect for the few that benefit from them.

post #65 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

'Shore' up the tax LAWS and then go after the companies that are breaking those laws illegally.  Keeping it legal and stomping your feet at corporations telling them, 'we really wish you'd pay more taxes' is just dumb, but does give you a platform to pretend to be high and mighty and pander for votes because you are 'doing something about it.'

 

Or...just lower tax rates, streamline or eliminate deductions.

 

Or...even better...eliminate the (corporate and personal) income tax altogether and go with a national sales tax.

 

Or...best...reduce the fucking spending by getting government (federal, state and local) out of doing the 90% of the crap it really has no business doing....and eliminate the (corporate and personal) income tax altogether and go with a national sales tax.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #66 of 126
Unless all these posters claiming Apple is abominable do not use any of the loopholes pertinent to individual tax returns we can disregard them as being hypocritical. (And one might say a bit dumb as well). Until such time as we have a truly fair tax system companies and individuals will continue to take legal advantage of the system.

People, you are angry at the wrong parties. You need look no further than congress and the idiots who keep voting the same imbeciles back in time after time. For the life of me I can't figure out why people send the same politicians back again and again expecting different results. Many conveniently forget that it is not only corporations that buy elections but also big unions. Neither has our best interests at heart.
post #67 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

eliminate the (corporate and personal) income tax altogether and go with a national sales tax.

Wealthy people don't like that because they can't avoid paying taxes.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #68 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Wealthy people don't like that because they can't avoid paying taxes.

 

Possibly. But, they'd probably pay about the same amount, possibly a bit less.

 

The real enemies of such a plan are politicians in general for whom the real level of taxation would now be exposed and become a liability, and Democrats/leftists/liberals in particular who would have a harder time trying to pit one class against another, punishing success, hard work and productivity, and trying to force the rich to pay for all of their spendy ways.

 

If we must tax, a consumption tax is perhaps the best, most economically efficient, least "distortive" and fairest way to go. It also has the benefit of exposing the real level of taxation for all to see...perhaps creating somewhat of a governor on higher taxes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #69 of 126
Quote:

Or...best...reduce the fucking spending by getting government (federal, state and local) out of doing the 90% of the crap it really has no business doing....and eliminate the (corporate and personal) income tax altogether and go with a national sales tax.

 

If you mean with "the 90% of the crap it really has no business doing" builting a world-wide American military empire, you're right.

 

If you think the government should stop making sure that there's a reasonably level playing field, enforce laws, protect the environment, prevent slavery by other names, etc. then you're wrong.

 

The problem is, most people agree that the government should stop doing 90% of things, they just don't agree which 90%; and the people most vocal usually want military expenses to go up not down.

 

Also, a sales tax would be good, if the basic necessities were tax free (unprocessed food, basic clothing), otherwise it's too regressive and would make the lowest income classes pay a disproportionally high percentage of taxes. Don't be surprised if the Coke will then cost $0.10, with $0.80 in sales taxes added on. The thing is, that the cumulative taxes we pay are today hidden in the price (gas taxes, road tolls, corporate income taxes, employee's payroll taxes, local sales taxes, state sales taxes, taxes hidden in the cost of ingredients, etc.) plus these prices with all the hidden taxes you pay with after tax dollars.

 

All these hidden taxes would fall away, making things potentially VERY cheap. But the cost of government wouldn't go down all that much (except for savings in the bureaucracy), so sales taxes would have to be what would now seem astronomically high. But on the plus side: no more need for accounting, record keeping, dealing with complicated tax forms, government information collection on private people in the guise of tax forms, etc.

 

You win some, you lose some.

post #70 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

If you mean with "the 90% of the crap it really has no business doing" builting a world-wide American military empire, you're right.

 

That's part of it, but not all of it. The welfare start is another huge part. Bigger than the empire part. The amount of spending that goes to the basics government ought to be doing is probably only about 10-15% of what the total spending is now. The level of taxation to support that would be acceptable.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

If you think the government should stop making sure that there's a reasonably level playing field, enforce laws, protect the environment, prevent slavery by other names, etc. then you're wrong.

 

If you think the government has ever been about "leveling the playing field" you're wrong. It depends on the laws and what "protect the environment" means exactly and...the government is the primary creator of slavery. Shit, this country...the land of the free...had it built right into its constitution from the start! But, yes, the proper and only role for the government is to protect the basic rights of life, liberty and property of its citizens. Unfortunately, most do a shitty job of that...in part because they basically need to violate those right to do the rest of the shit so many people ask for them to do.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

The problem is, most people agree that the government should stop doing 90% of things, they just don't agree which 90%; and the people most vocal usually want military expenses to go up not down.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Also, a sales tax would be good, if the basic necessities were tax free (unprocessed food, basic clothing), otherwise it's too regressive and would make the lowest income classes pay a disproportionally high percentage of taxes.

 

Sales taxes are not regressive. That's only something your leftist teachers told you. Look up the definition of progressive, flat and regressive. To call a flat sales tax regressive is an abuse of the language and a torturing of the definitions for political purposes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

The thing is, that the cumulative taxes we pay are today hidden in the price (gas taxes, road tolls, corporate income taxes, employee's payroll taxes, local sales taxes, state sales taxes, taxes hidden in the cost of ingredients, etc.) plus these prices with all the hidden taxes you pay with after tax dollars.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

But the cost of government wouldn't go down all that much (except for savings in the bureaucracy), so sales taxes would have to be what would now seem astronomically high.

 

I know that government won't get smaller simply by changing the taxing model.


Edited by MJ1970 - 5/16/13 at 5:14pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #71 of 126

I don't like efforts to demonize corporations or huge classes of people (Obama likes referring to bankers as fat cats). It's not rich vs. poor.

 

I don't think the word "Loophole" applies when discussing Apple's legal tax strategies.

 

Example: I sold artwork at one time. If I sold artwork on a reservation, I did not have to collect sales tax. Effectively lower prices often meant more money for me. So...I sold a lot more artwork on reservations (there's that incentive thing again).

 

It's not a loophole. It's the way the law was written. A loophole is where someone is abusing the law by taking advantage of ambiguity or complexity.

 

The rules for offshore taxation are pretty clear and straightforward. That Irish ice-cream sandwich thing that the Times wrote about a while back, in my mind, more closely resembles a loophole. An unintentional result of complexity or ambiguity.

 

Often, the IRS will rule that those gray area loopholes violate the spirit of the law and those strategies end up being liabilities.

 

Good luck, Tim. In the current environment, you face being demonized publicly for political gain (and then asked later for contributions).

post #72 of 126
Tim - "Tax everyone the same rate regardless if the circumstances"

[Insert random Senator here] - "Ridiculous! How would we engineer our reelections? "
post #73 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


The game isn't about the most but what is legally required of them

And think about it, you don't not take deductions on your income tax do you, you don't not file because you would be getting a refund. So you're suggesting Apple pay every cent they can but you don't do that.

 

Uh, where the hell did I suggest that? I'm saying the opposite. You must have been replying to someone else. 

post #74 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

First, I have no idea what "just" means here. In my view what is just and fair is keeping what you earn. Second, they are paying what they owe, they just may not be paying what you want them to or think they should pay. They are different things. Third, I disagree that the goal is not to screw the rich. I think for many that's exactly what it is about. Finally, I think everyone should be paying substantially less in taxes. Everyone.
Just in this case meant 'right'. At first I wondered why you couldn't understand but when I read on I got it. FYI there is a school of thought out there that is focused on the community, the common good. Taking the bad with the good, as it were. For better or worse, kind of thing. There is a way of thinking where the good of the people as a group come first, where everyone contributes according to ability. It is the opposite of 'us versus them', or in your case, you and yourself against the rest. Some people think it is a good thing. Every sports team relies on it. I am not sure you'd ever understand but it's about looking out for one another. Success is often the result of hard work but it is also a privilege that comes with responsibility. For the most part I think Apple tries to honor that responsibility.
post #75 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Just in this case meant 'right'.

 

You've done nothing whatsoever to clarify.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

FYI there is a school of thought out there that is focused on the community, the common good.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

There is a way of thinking where the good of the people as a group come first, where everyone contributes according to ability.

 

I know. It's called socialism and communism and Marxism.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

It is the opposite of 'us versus them', or in your case, you and yourself against the rest.

 

If you don't understand, just admit it. I've not advocated us vs. them or me vs. the rest. That's just an ignorant assertion on your part.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Some people think it is a good thing.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Every sports team relies on it.

 

Are you using this analogy because you don't understand the fundamental differences between the state and a sports team?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I am not sure you'd ever understand but it's about looking out for one another.

 

I understand looking out for others and even helping out those who are in need. I simply disagree with the means that you obviously support.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Success is often the result of hard work but it is also a privilege that comes with responsibility. For the most part I think Apple tries to honor that responsibility.

 

And what responsibility is that exactly?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #76 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

I don't believe Apple is under any kind of investigation, therefore neither Apple nor Cook have an obligation to testify in this hearing. I think Cook is rather foolish to sit in a congressional hearing, being asked questions, and looking like Apple is on trial when it isn't. Cook should have taken a pass and instead, invited a few Senators to discuss tax policy with him at his headquarters in Cupertino without any cameras present. That is how you do things. Now Cook is going to open his big fat mouth, look like a criminal in front of questioning senators, and Apple's stock will fall again.

Thanks Tim!

 

I tend to agree with you. Apple is not under investigation and this gives a number of Senators the opportunity to berate, insult and corner Tim Cook. Why would he do this? Just because he has a friendly relationship with the president?


Edited by SpamSandwich - 5/16/13 at 6:03pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #77 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And what responsibility is that exactly?

If you consider the USA as a success then it could be supported that the USA should share its success with other nations by offering food, financial aid, protection, education, health science and governmental guidance, which they do. Sometimes they get a little over zealous in these pursuits but I believe their intentions are well meaning. This is the same ideology that produces free health care and antimissile protection which you earlier scoffed at. Conservative Republicans, Libertarians and the like, generally behave very selfishly in my opinion. What surprises me is why Christians align themselves with conservatives strictly because of the abortion issue when on virtually every other philosophical core principle, they are complete polar opposites.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #78 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

If you consider the USA as a success then it could be supported that the USA should share it's success with other nations by offering food, financial aid, protection, education, health science and governmental guidance, which they do.

 

I have no problem (and strongly believe people should) be generous out of their personal wealth and help people in need. I disagree that this needs to be done through the government at all.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

This is the same ideology that produces free health care and antimissile protection which you earlier scoffed at.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Conservative Republicans, Libertarians and the like, generally behave very selfishly in my opinion.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion, however mis-informed it may be...at least regarding libertarians. The fallacy is thinking that advocating for liberty and against state provision of things implies taking a position against those things. The fallacy is thinking that because one opposed a group of people taking your property by force to be spent on things you may or may not agree with means you simply wish to keep all your money for yourself.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What surprises me is why Christians align themselves with conservatives strictly because of the abortion issue when on virtually every other philosophical core principle, they are complete polar opposites.

 

That's probably a subject for a whole other thread.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #79 of 126
What Tim Cook said may be factually true however if Apple ever lobbied for tho loop holes they are using now or contributed to the campaigns of the politicians who wrote them into law, then it can be said that they cheated those of us who do not have access to the same power when we pay our taxes.
post #80 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Well like I said I'm not an accountant. I just don't think any of the replies adequately explain how the consumer pays the corporation's income taxes.

However little or much you raise the price of your product it just goes into the asset column. You end up with more after tax profit but you pay more taxes too. It all works so long as the price is still reasonable for the consumer. At a certain point they will buy a competitor's product who will sell one for a lot less because they are willing to take less profit. In the end it seems more reasonable to build your product and set your margin and pay the tax on the profit you earned like you are supposed to. Saying that the consumer pays the corporations taxes is a sensational headline but in reality the consumer is buying a product that has x amount of profit built into the price.

Ok... whatever. Works for you. Or doesn't.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple CEO talks taxes ahead of hearing: 'We pay every dollar that we owe'