Where do you think most taxpaying individuals work? Who do you think manufactures your food, clothes, shelter, transportation, computers, entertainment, .......?
So, Apple and the other companies want to move the profits made from other countries to the US economy. Now, the US economy definitely can use it (given that compromise in the divided US political system means creating a bigger budget hole by combining more spending (democrats) and less taxes (republicans) instead of the other way around).
But it seems stealing from other economies to me. The profits made in one economy from the money spent by people there are also taxed there to provide for the common good. Generally, the rule (in international tax agreements) is: if you pay taxes in one place, you don't have to pay in another. So, by moving the profits for a 5% tax to the US, it seems the corporations are trying to evade taxes in other countries. Seems like economic warfare to me and if anything produced the big crisis in the 1930's, it was patriotic economic behaviour of all parties.
Seems more right that those profits are invested in the economies that generated those profits than use those profits to try to fill the black hole that is the US budget.
Note: I don't know if the worldwide tax system of the US will enable corporations to ask a refund of tax in the country where the profits were made. I assume that it is, but f that is not so, the above does not hold water.
How many US soldiers are "on patrol" in Australia?
Probably very few. Do you think Australia does not benefit from the general peacekeeping that the USA does around the world? Who do you think makes all the military hardware that most western countries (in geography and philosophy) use? As another poster pointed out, the USA provides soldiers who are dying and being injured around the world in peacekeeping efforts that the rest of the world is not willing to participate in.
Note: I don't know if the worldwide tax system of the US will enable corporations to ask a refund of tax in the country where the profits were made. I assume that it is, but f that is not so, the above does not hold water.
You (generally, tax codes can be complex) pay taxes on your profits when and where they are earned. If apple sells an iPod in Singapore and makes $100 US in profit, they pay Singapore $16 in income tax and they have $84 left over. If and when they bring the $84 back to the US, the IRS wants them to pay $35 in tax on the $100, but they can usually deduct the $16 already paid, so the tax bill to the US would be $19. Singapore already collected their money and they don't care what the US does.
Also note, that some of the expense of the iPod sold in Singapore includes intelectual property rights from the US. That expense is revenue to the US unit of Apple (Does the Nevada unit own the IP?) and any profits from that royalty stream will be taxed locally at the US and if applicable state rates.
The US government is not in anyway getting shortchanged on this deal because the IRS monitors transfer pricing between US and foreign entities, unlike what can be done in Ireland where companies can virtually set any price they want.
"Solipsism: In philosophy, a view that maintains that the self is the only thing that can be known to exist. It is an extreme form of skepticism. The solipsist sees himself or herself as the only individual in existence...."
Epic. It's like the matrix. I know I exist, but is that person real or a program?
Hey leave soli alone, he's not here to argue with himself.
Probably very few. Do you think Australia does not benefit from the general peacekeeping that the USA does around the world? Who do you think makes all the military hardware that most western countries (in geography and philosophy) use? As another poster pointed out, the USA provides soldiers who are dying and being injured around the world in peacekeeping efforts that the rest of the world is not willing to participate in.
Again, you're welcome.
Did Australia ask us to send troops to those places? Do peace keeping missions make the world safer for Australia or more dangerous?
The Aussies should thank the US Marines who stopped the Japanese advance at Guadacanal, and they did, but I am not sure they owe us a darn thing for any of our current deployments against threats that were not threatening Australia. On the flip side, we should be thanking them for being one of the few allies to send troops and support for our wars in Afganistan and Iraq.
By the way, do you realize you just described every individual's job in society as well, as far as consuming goods and services go? Get everything he can for the best price possible without doing anything illegal. I'm guessing that you, KC, Mr. Business School, don't shop around for the grocery with the highest prices for your staples, do you? DO YOU?
Of course we all do that and not with just the staples. My problem is does the CFO look in the mirror and say "WHOA, I make too much money and so does every other C_O of this company, I could save us many more millions by cutting our salaries than cutting the wages of the guy making 35K"
Most folks in the IRS pay taxes too. ;-) I agree it's an uphill battle, but just imagine those thousands of workers doing something productive for our economy -- building products that people want to buy, helping businesses find financing, or general business accounting. The possibility of not having to file an income tax return, and the (seemingly endless) hours spent doing that being put towards something productive... that is something we should reach for.
It would be just about as stupid as what's happening in Wisconsin with our new governor and giving back millions in investments to the state of money already technically spent, it's not saving us anything to give it back (like trains, you're welcome Cali). If they didn't give this option, it would be throwing away billions of dollars worth of investment into the US.
They aren't asking for a hand-out, they are just stating facts: the tax code currently provides disincentives for them to bring that money back to the US. If the disincentives are removed (temporarily), they will behave rationally and take advantage of it by bring it "ashore" and paying US taxes that they would otherwise avoid.
No, the point of the tax holiday is that they bring the money "ashore" and don't pay taxes on it.
But as the report stated, the last time this happened it did nothing for unemployment. I agree with those who think this is corporate greed. One of the reasons the federal budget is in such bad shape is because corporations are not paying their fair share in taxes. That's why individual tax burdens are so high (although taxes on the rich, despite the hype, are far lower than they were under Nixon or Reagan).
In the third quarter of 2010, American corporations earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion - the highest total since the government began keeping track more than 60 years ago. But are they hiring? No.
Going back a decade, according to the GAO, 6 in 10 American corporations reported no tax liability for the five years from 1996 to 2000 and 7.1 in 10 foreign corporations doing business in the U.S. reported no tax liability.
In the late 1990s, almost 2/3 of American corporations paid little or no taxes. 90% paid less than 5%. Corporate taxes were 7.5% of total tax receipts. During WWII, they were 40%.
So all this screaming by corporations that taxes are too high is total B.S. They put the burden of taxes on individuals and they're not keeping people employed. They have no shame.
I'd be in favor of the tax holiday if corporations could prove that at least 75% of the savings was going into job creation. Otherwise, it's just a scam to benefit executives with bonuses and the largest stock holders. I own Apple stock and even if Apple paid this money as a dividend (which they're unlikely to do anyway), I'd be opposed to the tax holiday.
Lowering it would be actually a wise idea, cuz it would allow companies who make lots of their money outside the USA to have lover investment coasts in the USA.
On paper, for every project they have to bring in money from elsewhere, the coast for the project goes up quite a bit.
Apple gets plenty of money from HERE. How do you think they got the opportunity to make money elsewhere? Keep their tax shelter money overseas, a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN company will fill the void.
No, the point of the tax holiday is that they bring the money "ashore" and don't pay taxes on it.
But as the report stated, the last time this happened it did nothing for unemployment. I agree with those who think this is corporate greed. One of the reasons the federal budget is in such bad shape is because corporations are not paying their fair share in taxes. That's why individual tax burdens are so high (although taxes on the rich, despite the hype, are far lower than they were under Nixon or Reagan).
In the third quarter of 2010, American corporations earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion - the highest total since the government began keeping track more than 60 years ago. But are they hiring? No.
Going back a decade, according to the GAO, 6 in 10 American corporations reported no tax liability for the five years from 1996 to 2000 and 7.1 in 10 foreign corporations doing business in the U.S. reported no tax liability.
In the late 1990s, almost 2/3 of American corporations paid little or no taxes. 90% paid less than 5%. Corporate taxes were 7.5% of total tax receipts. During WWII, they were 40%.
So all this screaming by corporations that taxes are too high is total B.S. They put the burden of taxes on individuals and they're not keeping people employed. They have no shame.
I'd be in favor of the tax holiday if corporations could prove that at least 75% of the savings was going into job creation. Otherwise, it's just a scam to benefit executives with bonuses and the largest stock holders. I own Apple stock and even if Apple paid this money as a dividend (which they're unlikely to do anyway), I'd be opposed to the tax holiday.
Gee, why are companies not hiring in the US, could it be 2nd highest taxes in the world that you think are too low? Inflated wages and labor costs? Highest risk of employee lawsuits? Burdensome regulations from the DOL and states? A president who blames businesses for everything government has done wrong? A president and his minions who promise to raise taxes in the future, increase benefits costs and make it even more expensive to have an American employee? The better question is why have corporations not laid more of us off and replaced us with off shore employees in countries that LIKE employers?
Why should any company keep more than a minimal staff in the US if they can do things cheaper and better with less risk in other countries? After you make every business pay what you have decided is their fair share, or leave, who is going to provide jobs and pay salaries? Where is the money for everyones retirement going to come from? Where will we get the money to buy all our imported goods? Who will the government tax to pay off the debt? Who will they tax to pay for wefare, medicare etc. for all the people who lost their jobs when the corporations left?
You want to stick your hands in someone elses pockets and take a chunk of their money, and you call THEM greedy when they try to stop it? Get a mirrror and get a clue.
I have no idea how this all works, but it feels like the way we tax import/export is wrong. The taxes should take place earlier in the import/export process so that they must be paid. Then there would be no problem bringing the money back.
Again I have no idea, but could there be double taxation here that companies are trying to avoid? Or maybe this is money earned by selling to other countries and should not be taxed more then selling a product locally? It would be nice to have more background on the taxation process in these articles. Most of us are not experts in this area.
Gee, why are companies not hiring in the US, could it be 2nd highest taxes in the world that you think are too low? A president who blames businesses for everything government has done wrong?
I don't think he blames businesses. He rightly thinks that businesses need to fix this. There is only so much the government can do to stimulate a private economy. Putting decent import/export laws in place is one of those things they can do though. I'd like to know if our current laws are reasonable or if they are full of special interest exceptions and double taxation.
Countries and USA have bilateral agreements on avoiding dual taxation. So a person/corporation who earns $xxx in US pays tax on that earning and the same person, if he/she earns $yyy in, say Australia, pay Aussie tax.
But the problem here is countries like China and India offer tax incentives to US companies where the companies will not pay tax for 5 yrs or so during tax holiday period, and hence those companies keep money there by paying nothing in taxes. If the company wants to bring those earnings to US, the US government wants to tax that amount, because the US company did not pay any tax on that amount.
Any private corporation is evil when it comes to money. That includes Apple !
The tax treaties usually leave you to cover the difference in the tax rates. So if one country charges 15% and the US charges 30% you got to pay 15% to the US.
Comments
You can try to avoid going down the rabbit hole, but sometimes the rabbit comes up and bites you on the keister.
Brilliant ..... I like you better when you display this kind of humor .....
Keep in mind that because of the USA, Australia can spend FAR less on their defense than they would otherwise. You're welcome.
How many US soldiers are "on patrol" in Australia?
Where do you think most taxpaying individuals work? Who do you think manufactures your food, clothes, shelter, transportation, computers, entertainment, .......?
Overseas manufacturers!
There is a big issue with the theory that throwing money at a problem will make it go away.
Spot on ..... and we all can see how that seems to be working for the "corporation" known as Microsoft.
But it seems stealing from other economies to me. The profits made in one economy from the money spent by people there are also taxed there to provide for the common good. Generally, the rule (in international tax agreements) is: if you pay taxes in one place, you don't have to pay in another. So, by moving the profits for a 5% tax to the US, it seems the corporations are trying to evade taxes in other countries. Seems like economic warfare to me and if anything produced the big crisis in the 1930's, it was patriotic economic behaviour of all parties.
Seems more right that those profits are invested in the economies that generated those profits than use those profits to try to fill the black hole that is the US budget.
Note: I don't know if the worldwide tax system of the US will enable corporations to ask a refund of tax in the country where the profits were made. I assume that it is, but f that is not so, the above does not hold water.
How many US soldiers are "on patrol" in Australia?
Less than the number of Aussie soldiers on patrol in Afghanistan and Iraq and certainly less than the number of Aussie soldiers who died in Vietnam.
You do have some spy satellite bases here. Pine Gap is one of them.
You keep protecting us and we'll keep digging up rocks and selling them to China so they can make all the stuff you want to buy.
All the way with LBJ.
How many US soldiers are "on patrol" in Australia?
Probably very few. Do you think Australia does not benefit from the general peacekeeping that the USA does around the world? Who do you think makes all the military hardware that most western countries (in geography and philosophy) use? As another poster pointed out, the USA provides soldiers who are dying and being injured around the world in peacekeeping efforts that the rest of the world is not willing to participate in.
Again, you're welcome.
Note: I don't know if the worldwide tax system of the US will enable corporations to ask a refund of tax in the country where the profits were made. I assume that it is, but f that is not so, the above does not hold water.
You (generally, tax codes can be complex) pay taxes on your profits when and where they are earned. If apple sells an iPod in Singapore and makes $100 US in profit, they pay Singapore $16 in income tax and they have $84 left over. If and when they bring the $84 back to the US, the IRS wants them to pay $35 in tax on the $100, but they can usually deduct the $16 already paid, so the tax bill to the US would be $19. Singapore already collected their money and they don't care what the US does.
Also note, that some of the expense of the iPod sold in Singapore includes intelectual property rights from the US. That expense is revenue to the US unit of Apple (Does the Nevada unit own the IP?) and any profits from that royalty stream will be taxed locally at the US and if applicable state rates.
The US government is not in anyway getting shortchanged on this deal because the IRS monitors transfer pricing between US and foreign entities, unlike what can be done in Ireland where companies can virtually set any price they want.
"Solipsism: In philosophy, a view that maintains that the self is the only thing that can be known to exist. It is an extreme form of skepticism. The solipsist sees himself or herself as the only individual in existence...."
Epic. It's like the matrix. I know I exist, but is that person real or a program?
Hey leave soli alone, he's not here to argue with himself.
Probably very few. Do you think Australia does not benefit from the general peacekeeping that the USA does around the world? Who do you think makes all the military hardware that most western countries (in geography and philosophy) use? As another poster pointed out, the USA provides soldiers who are dying and being injured around the world in peacekeeping efforts that the rest of the world is not willing to participate in.
Again, you're welcome.
Did Australia ask us to send troops to those places? Do peace keeping missions make the world safer for Australia or more dangerous?
The Aussies should thank the US Marines who stopped the Japanese advance at Guadacanal, and they did, but I am not sure they owe us a darn thing for any of our current deployments against threats that were not threatening Australia. On the flip side, we should be thanking them for being one of the few allies to send troops and support for our wars in Afganistan and Iraq.
I GUARANTEE you didn't go to business school.
By the way, do you realize you just described every individual's job in society as well, as far as consuming goods and services go? Get everything he can for the best price possible without doing anything illegal. I'm guessing that you, KC, Mr. Business School, don't shop around for the grocery with the highest prices for your staples, do you? DO YOU?
Of course we all do that and not with just the staples. My problem is does the CFO look in the mirror and say "WHOA, I make too much money and so does every other C_O of this company, I could save us many more millions by cutting our salaries than cutting the wages of the guy making 35K"
They aren't asking for a hand-out, they are just stating facts: the tax code currently provides disincentives for them to bring that money back to the US. If the disincentives are removed (temporarily), they will behave rationally and take advantage of it by bring it "ashore" and paying US taxes that they would otherwise avoid.
No, the point of the tax holiday is that they bring the money "ashore" and don't pay taxes on it.
But as the report stated, the last time this happened it did nothing for unemployment. I agree with those who think this is corporate greed. One of the reasons the federal budget is in such bad shape is because corporations are not paying their fair share in taxes. That's why individual tax burdens are so high (although taxes on the rich, despite the hype, are far lower than they were under Nixon or Reagan).
In the third quarter of 2010, American corporations earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion - the highest total since the government began keeping track more than 60 years ago. But are they hiring? No.
Going back a decade, according to the GAO, 6 in 10 American corporations reported no tax liability for the five years from 1996 to 2000 and 7.1 in 10 foreign corporations doing business in the U.S. reported no tax liability.
In the late 1990s, almost 2/3 of American corporations paid little or no taxes. 90% paid less than 5%. Corporate taxes were 7.5% of total tax receipts. During WWII, they were 40%.
So all this screaming by corporations that taxes are too high is total B.S. They put the burden of taxes on individuals and they're not keeping people employed. They have no shame.
I'd be in favor of the tax holiday if corporations could prove that at least 75% of the savings was going into job creation. Otherwise, it's just a scam to benefit executives with bonuses and the largest stock holders. I own Apple stock and even if Apple paid this money as a dividend (which they're unlikely to do anyway), I'd be opposed to the tax holiday.
Lowering it would be actually a wise idea, cuz it would allow companies who make lots of their money outside the USA to have lover investment coasts in the USA.
On paper, for every project they have to bring in money from elsewhere, the coast for the project goes up quite a bit.
Apple gets plenty of money from HERE. How do you think they got the opportunity to make money elsewhere? Keep their tax shelter money overseas, a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN company will fill the void.
The US has the second highest corporate tax of the developed nations...
We're Number Two! We're Number Two! Oh please, pretty please, government - make us Number One - so these robber barons get what they deserve.
No, the point of the tax holiday is that they bring the money "ashore" and don't pay taxes on it.
But as the report stated, the last time this happened it did nothing for unemployment. I agree with those who think this is corporate greed. One of the reasons the federal budget is in such bad shape is because corporations are not paying their fair share in taxes. That's why individual tax burdens are so high (although taxes on the rich, despite the hype, are far lower than they were under Nixon or Reagan).
In the third quarter of 2010, American corporations earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion - the highest total since the government began keeping track more than 60 years ago. But are they hiring? No.
Going back a decade, according to the GAO, 6 in 10 American corporations reported no tax liability for the five years from 1996 to 2000 and 7.1 in 10 foreign corporations doing business in the U.S. reported no tax liability.
In the late 1990s, almost 2/3 of American corporations paid little or no taxes. 90% paid less than 5%. Corporate taxes were 7.5% of total tax receipts. During WWII, they were 40%.
So all this screaming by corporations that taxes are too high is total B.S. They put the burden of taxes on individuals and they're not keeping people employed. They have no shame.
I'd be in favor of the tax holiday if corporations could prove that at least 75% of the savings was going into job creation. Otherwise, it's just a scam to benefit executives with bonuses and the largest stock holders. I own Apple stock and even if Apple paid this money as a dividend (which they're unlikely to do anyway), I'd be opposed to the tax holiday.
Gee, why are companies not hiring in the US, could it be 2nd highest taxes in the world that you think are too low? Inflated wages and labor costs? Highest risk of employee lawsuits? Burdensome regulations from the DOL and states? A president who blames businesses for everything government has done wrong? A president and his minions who promise to raise taxes in the future, increase benefits costs and make it even more expensive to have an American employee? The better question is why have corporations not laid more of us off and replaced us with off shore employees in countries that LIKE employers?
Why should any company keep more than a minimal staff in the US if they can do things cheaper and better with less risk in other countries? After you make every business pay what you have decided is their fair share, or leave, who is going to provide jobs and pay salaries? Where is the money for everyones retirement going to come from? Where will we get the money to buy all our imported goods? Who will the government tax to pay off the debt? Who will they tax to pay for wefare, medicare etc. for all the people who lost their jobs when the corporations left?
You want to stick your hands in someone elses pockets and take a chunk of their money, and you call THEM greedy when they try to stop it? Get a mirrror and get a clue.
Again I have no idea, but could there be double taxation here that companies are trying to avoid? Or maybe this is money earned by selling to other countries and should not be taxed more then selling a product locally? It would be nice to have more background on the taxation process in these articles. Most of us are not experts in this area.
Gee, why are companies not hiring in the US, could it be 2nd highest taxes in the world that you think are too low? A president who blames businesses for everything government has done wrong?
I don't think he blames businesses. He rightly thinks that businesses need to fix this. There is only so much the government can do to stimulate a private economy. Putting decent import/export laws in place is one of those things they can do though. I'd like to know if our current laws are reasonable or if they are full of special interest exceptions and double taxation.
Countries and USA have bilateral agreements on avoiding dual taxation. So a person/corporation who earns $xxx in US pays tax on that earning and the same person, if he/she earns $yyy in, say Australia, pay Aussie tax.
But the problem here is countries like China and India offer tax incentives to US companies where the companies will not pay tax for 5 yrs or so during tax holiday period, and hence those companies keep money there by paying nothing in taxes. If the company wants to bring those earnings to US, the US government wants to tax that amount, because the US company did not pay any tax on that amount.
Any private corporation is evil when it comes to money. That includes Apple !
The tax treaties usually leave you to cover the difference in the tax rates. So if one country charges 15% and the US charges 30% you got to pay 15% to the US.