or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple details 'extraordinary amount' of taxes it pays in testimony to US Senate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple details 'extraordinary amount' of taxes it pays in testimony to US Senate - Page 2

post #41 of 52
The idea that "Corporations" pay taxes separately from "individuals" is silly. Corporations are just groups of people.

The problem is not that corporate taxes are "only" $250B, it's that income tax is an additional $2.2 Trillion.

The federal government should be able to "live" off a budget of $250B a year. It should do everything it needs to do on that.

This shows that %90 of the money they take (plus the deficits they spend on top of that) is simply wasted or stolen.

Plus, what do Politicians pay in taxes? Most of their income is tax free, plus they get lots of perks, and get to spend OUR TAX MONEY to benefit themselves.... which is a total scam.

Where's the investigation of the fact that politicians pass laws that they then exclude themselves from? For instance, congress and the administration are not forced to live under the burdens of "obamacare", which means they get to keep their "cadillac health plans" which they also don't ever pay for (or pay taxes on!)

Of course they're going to go after Apple-- that's where the money is.

They don't care that the US government has no moral right to money earned overseas for products made overseas and sold overseas.

They're just greedy.

People talk about corporations being greedy but they all make something that people want. And if people don't wnat it, they don't force you to buy it.

The government makes things people don't want, and if you don't buy it, they send you to jail.

No politician has any room to talk about people shirking their duties.... hypocrites!
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I have said this before, as much as I would like to avoid paying any taxes and keep everything I make and earn. However, I realize tax $ most times bring lots of value to everyone, such as the highway system in this country. 

 

The highway system is like 1/1000th of the budget.   And even at that size, it is rife with fraud waste and abuse.   If the roads were privately built and operated they would be a lot cheaper.

 

The reality is, %99.99 of the money collected in taxes is simply theft, nothing more.  You don't get even $0.01 on the dollar in value from the government for what you pay.

 

It's a massive scam.

 

But since they take over as much of the economy as they can, people think that without government we'd have no roads, or police, or fire.

 

Reality, is we had all of these and they were better and cheaper before government took them over.

 

Before long, people will think that without government there would be no healthcare!   (And healthcare is only going to get worse, already tens of million of low income kids have been forced off of their inexpensive insurance plans by obamacare!) 

post #43 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

If it was possible for my lemonade stand to simply raise prices to make $123 in profit, why wouldn't I have done so already? 

 

You're right.  You can't raise the price of lemonade to make that $123 in profit. 

 

So, what happens when your taxes go up is that you go out of business. 

 

This is why taxes destroy jobs.  And all you people claiming we need more taxes (and pretending like it won't hurt people because businesses can't raise prices)  are clearly operating without sufficient comprehension of economics. 

post #44 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

The highway system is like 1/1000th of the budget.   And even at that size, it is rife with fraud waste and abuse.   If the roads were privately built and operated they would be a lot cheaper.

The reality is, %99.99 of the money collected in taxes is simply theft, nothing more.  You don't get even $0.01 on the dollar in value from the government for what you pay.

It's a massive scam.

But since they take over as much of the economy as they can, people think that without government we'd have no roads, or police, or fire.

Reality, is we had all of these and they were better and cheaper before government took them over.

Before long, people will think that without government there would be no healthcare!   (And healthcare is only going to get worse, already tens of million of low income kids have been forced off of their inexpensive insurance plans by obamacare!) 

If roads were privately built, they all would have tolls to recoup the costs.

Military needs money. First responders need money. Government needs money for staffer salaries. While I believe spending should be controlled, to say 99% is waste is foolish.
post #45 of 52

Taxes are riddled with such issues, that several countries have faced. There have been several innovative solutions to these issues, and these solutions have also been implemented in a large number of countries, with phenomenal success. For whatever reasons, the US stubbornly refuses to adopt these new tax paradigms.

 

Take the case of VAT - taxing the value added at each stage is now considered to be the fairest and most reasonable form of sales tax, which avoids all the issues related to cascading, etc. God only knows why the US still does not have VAT implemented. Of course, the number one reason is that Sales Taxes in the US are controlled at the State level, and it makes zero sense to move to VAT by a single state - because a lot of inputs might not originate from that state. Even other countries have had the same issue, and they have responded by implementing a single nationwide VAT system.

 

In this specific case, the solution is extremely simple - Transfer Pricing Guidelines are part and parcel of every country's tax system - and Arms Length Pricing is part of parcel of Transfer Pricing Guidelines. This simply means that when Apple California sells something to Apple in Ireland or Apple in India, the price has to discovered as an Arms Length Transaction - that means the price should be the same what would be offered to a non-Apple party in that country. Quite obviously, even if Apple has 38% margins, they would not be offering a 38% discount rate to a non-Apple party. In all likelihood, they would offer something like a 10% margin directly to distributors in that country. In such a scenario, Apple would be forced to count most of the profits from its overseas sales also, in its parent jurisdiction, so they wont be in a position to avoid taxes on foreign sales.

 

This is not something new - there are literally dozens of large countries that have a proper, well structured, reasonable Transfer Pricing Policy, and this problem has been dramatically minimized in all these countries. If the US still insists on sticking to a very outdated tax model, riddled with exceptions granted over the years to various lobbying groups, you cannot blame Apple. Apple is just doing whatever it can, legally, under current guidelines, to minimize its tax liability. This is exactly the same as you and I would do - don't blame Apple for this, blame the US.

 

This issue of owning the IP in Apple Ireland is obviously hogwash. The IRS should go after Apple and ask them to explain what Apple Ireland paid to acquire the IP, and if it was developed locally by Apple Ireland, who developed it, and what salaries were paid to them, where they were residing, etc. On this issue, Apple is definitely in the wrong.

post #46 of 52

Reminds me of that movie "The Aviator."

post #47 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

 

Taking a step back, what exactly is wrong with this? It's not as if money paid in taxes just disappears. As sequestration recently proved, it goes to ensuring someone's in the control tower at your local airport, or someone is inspecting your meat for contamination, or someone is rebuilding your local crumbling bridge. The only people who don't want to pay taxes are those who want something for nothing.

 

Money in the hands of individuals to spend in the market place is far more powerful than in the hands of Washington.

 

Sequestration is a politically exploited event.  Wasn't it President Obama's idea in the first place?? (it was, just to answer the question)

post #48 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

The idea that "Corporations" pay taxes separately from "individuals" is silly. Corporations are just groups of people.

 

No one here is debating the fact that taxing 'corporations' is effectively the same as taxing 'individuals'. What is being debated is who these 'individuals' are. Several here are trying to suggest that increased taxes will only be paid by consumers, when in reality, they are paid by the profit takers. 

 

The fact remains that corporations benefit immensely from government services. They benefit from government provided infrastructure to deliver their products. They benefit from a legal system to protect their IP. They benefit from emergency services to protect their property from theft and fire. They benefit from a subsidized education system that offers a large pool of employee skill sets. They benefit from the military that ensures their means of production are safe. And the list goes on and on.....

 

This is an issue of properly attributing taxes to those who benefit from them. 

post #49 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

You're right.  You can't raise the price of lemonade to make that $123 in profit. 

 

So, what happens when your taxes go up is that you go out of business. 

 

This is why taxes destroy jobs.  And all you people claiming we need more taxes (and pretending like it won't hurt people because businesses can't raise prices)  are clearly operating without sufficient comprehension of economics. 

 

Maybe you can explain why countries with far higher effective corporate tax rates have far lower unemployment? The US only collects 2.1% of GDP in corporate taxes in this country, with a measly average effective rate of 13.4%. There are only a hand full of countries with lower numbers than those. How does Australia manage an average effective corporate rate of 30.5%, but yet has an unemployment rate around 5%.

 

While I agree that increasing corporate taxes would put downward pressure on job creation, you also seem to ignore that this would reduce the need to collect additional taxes on your average 'consumer', which would have upward pressure. As stated earlier, this isn't about increasing overall taxes; this is about properly collecting from those who benefit the most. 


Edited by e_veritas - 5/21/13 at 7:20am
post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Someone needs to put the Koch Kool-aid down. Let's say I have a lemonade stand that makes $100, and I am taxed at an effective rate of 20%; thereby paying $20 to Uncle Sam and keeping $80 for myself. Now let's take that same scenario, but increase the effective rate to 35%. According to you, for me to make my same $80, I would need to raise my prices in a manner that would have me make $123 in profit. But this is where you argument falls apart!

 

If it was possible for my lemonade stand to simply raise prices to make $123 in profit, why wouldn't I have done so already? If I was a half-way decent lemonade stand owner, I would already have my product priced to be maximizing profits; regardless of my tax rate. You think corporations need the excuse of 'I need to compensate for my tax burden' to raise prices if it will yield higher profit? You seem to suggest that corporations are simply in business to make enough profit to meet a 'minimum floor', but that is not the case. I don't know of a single corporation whose sole objective isn't to MAXIMIZE profit.

 

I partly agree, but there are other factors in play. If all lemonade stands were subject to the same tax (true for all domestic stands), then everyone would have the same pressure and prices at all stands would rise; maybe not to recover the full $80, but somewhat. You can't just go to $123 today because the guy up the street is happy with his $80 after tax.

post #51 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Maybe you can explain why countries with far higher effective corporate tax rates have far lower unemployment? The US only collects 2.1% of GDP in corporate taxes in this country, with a measly average effective rate of 13.4%. There are only a hand full of countries with lower numbers than those. How does Australia manage an average effective corporate rate of 30.5%, but yet has an unemployment rate around 5%.

While I agree that increasing corporate taxes would put downward pressure on job creation, you also seem to ignore that this would reduce the need to collect additional taxes on your average 'consumer', which would have upward pressure. As stated earlier, this isn't about increasing overall taxes; this is about properly collecting from those who benefit the most. 

Australia digs up rocks, sends them to China who make stuff out of them and send them to you.

If Australia didn't have lots of the rocks people want, we'd be f*cked.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #52 of 52

gee our government calls apple before it for apple to grovel and beg plead

same as the chinese a few months ago

the people making the laws are surprised by their lack of insight and people find ways to pay less taxes

 

those who wrote the laws are a bunch of boobs

 

we avoid taxes  

how about the govt employees that are not paying their taxes its billions

 

hypocritical messes our congress,  yet they give out plum exemptions to their "buddies"

 

the whole purpose of the tax code is to pass out goodies to congress buddies not you and me

yet they talk of taking away our mortgage deduction ,  and oblamo thinks our IRA's are too much and want to limit them to ...... lets see........less than a congressman and himself.

I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple details 'extraordinary amount' of taxes it pays in testimony to US Senate