I have attacked Apple plenty of times in this forum, and have been labelled a "troll" even though I have been here since 2003. Do a quick search of recent posts, where I attack the present management. Most of the last posts have been critical. I've gotten more critical this year, in fact.
On this issue I would defend them, (and Google, Amazon or MicroSoft),
So because you've been critical elsewhere, Apple, and Amazon, and Microsoft, and everyone else, gets a free pass for this argument because you in all your gracious wisdom have deemed it to be ok? Why are you even mentioning this? I don't care what you're previous form is. Why is this about you at all?
Quote:
particularly against predatory British bureaucrats. ( American senators have some logic, the British claim on Irish tax is absurd). I mentioned Britain because you are British, and was responding to you.
I don't particularly want to derail the thread into the Irish tax issue, but since you clearly do, how can you possibly claim an aburdity argument on the logical premise that British workers operating out of British facilities shipping British goods to mainland Europe is a transaction between Britain and mainland Europe, and that transfer pricing to a low tax centre like Ireland is a misrepresentation of economic activity solely for tax benefit?
Quote:
Also, an adhominem is not a debate. You claimed that Apple is doing something wrong.
Actually... no I didn't. I laughed about the reactions in this thread. I made no direct comment on the topic.
Quote:
To prove it you need to state what you think is wrong, so an actual debate can ensue.
Oh this is Debate 101. Thanks for the introduction professor, but I was looking for Snark 203. My apologies.
Quote:
Instead you engaged in two logical fallacies - ad hominem you ( is AI) would always defend Apple and redudcto ad absudrum even if they stole babies.
Neither ad hominem or reductio ad absurdum are logical fallacies. Sorry.
And I didn't use either of them in serious argument, so please, spare me your efforts to impress.
The one thing that stands out is that for all their posturing, this committee hasn't dared used the phrase 'tax evasion.' If they can't say 'tax evasion' then they don't have a leg to stand on.
What they are hoping to do is fix an idea in the public mind that 'tax avoidance' is illegal, which is completely untrue. So, this is nothing more than an attempt to shame Apple into paying more tax than it is legally required to do (it worked in the UK with Starbucks).
Why are they targeting Apple, and not Google, or Microsoft or GE?
Well, I hate to say this but I think that Tim Cook's actions regarding loans and dividend payouts have made him look like a CEO who can be easily swayed by external influences.
He has the chance to redress this tomorrow. If he fails then government bodies and investment analysts will spend the next ten years picking Apple clean.
I think the whole exercise is an excuse to fast track changes to the corporate tax laws. I didn't see any claims anywhere that what Apple has done with their tax policies is illegal. Instead there's an effort to paint it as unfair and unethical and something that has to change to keep individual taxpayers from bearing a heavier tax burden. All the comments about "Apple (or whoever) didn't' do anything illegal" is beside the point.
Apple happens to be holding a whole lot more cash than most small countries so of course they make a good target for highlighting the tax problem. Who would anyone have suggested instead if the committee was trying to drive home a point about corporate tax avoidance?
I'm not American, but isn't Senator McCain a Republican?
Yes he is, but he isn't leading this non sense. Frankly if McCain went after Apple with a logical and rational argument that would be rational. What bothers me is that the Democrtes kissed up to Apple during the last election. It just looks like sad bit of a joke the way they are thanking Apple for their support.
.
I daresay that any extra revenue that the US Government collects from this will not be going towards public welfare, more likely the military or to corporate welfare.
Have you looked at recent budgets? The vast majority of the budget goes to welfare.
I think the whole exercise is an excuse to fast track changes to the corporate tax laws. I didn't see any claims anywhere that what Apple has done with their tax policies is illegal. Instead there's an effort to paint it as unfair and unethical and something that has to change to keep individual taxpayers from bearing a heavier tax burden. All the comments about "Apple (or whoever) didn't' do anything illegal" is beside the point.
Apple happens to be holding a whole lot more cash than most small countries so of course they make a good target for highlighting the tax problem. Who would anyone have suggested instead if the committee was trying to drive home a point about corporate tax avoidance?
Nail on the head.
I'll add that to get backing for changing corporate tax laws in any particular direction, the bill proposers have to be able to lean on evidence of what is happening. That's why there's this investigation. It's not inherently suggesting that the companies/people being interviewed have done anything illegal or immoral, it's just fact finding as part of good due process. And to that end it's doing its job.
That the media latch onto any negative connotations with sensational headlines about how evil the respective companies and people are is a problem with the media portrayal. But ultimately the media portrayal may give even more leverage to the move for reform, so even that may not be a bad thing.
Short: this isn't about Apple so much as it's about the tax system and the need to change it. Apple are giving good feedback, and are also being examined for real world evidence of what's going on that the tax system needs to address. They're playing nice, which speaks in their favour.
Apple could be caught stealing babies and this place would defend them.
Not the babies thing again. Apple is selective and only takes babies that are Irish and geniuses. They are not the only one that have stolen babies you know. To prove that beyond any argument whatsoever I will cite a mildly related link here:
Apple is the richest corporation in the world and can provide these babies a better life than their actual parents ever could. These babies should be crying tears of joy that they've been stolen by Apple!
You obviously just hate Apple because they are the most successful company in history and you prefer to use cheap, inferior, junky products. You obviously support a welfare state- which these babies would most likely be on if Apple hadn't abducted them.
Apple could be caught stealing babies and this place would defend them.
Who is defending anything illegal (or even 'wrong') that Apple has done? The fact is that Apple has done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, they specifically stated that they do NOT use some of the legal methods that Google and others use to reduce their taxes.
If they are doing nothing wrong then why are you leaping to defend them?
Because some people believe in honesty and integrity - concepts that apparently are foreign to you.
Apple is being unfairly attacked and the people defending them have every right to do so. You, of course, have the right to attack them, as well, but since you haven't provided a single example of anything Apple has done wrong, your complaints are rather pointless.
Yes he is, but he isn't leading this non sense. Frankly if McCain went after Apple with a logical and rational argument that would be rational. .
No, if McCain came up with a logical and rational argument, that would be a miracle. In decades of public service, he hasn't yet accomplished that and I doubt if he's going to start now.
I think the whole exercise is an excuse to fast track changes to the corporate tax laws. I didn't see any claims anywhere that what Apple has done with their tax policies is illegal. Instead there's an effort to paint it as unfair and unethical and something that has to change to keep individual taxpayers from bearing a heavier tax burden. All the comments about "Apple (or whoever) didn't' do anything illegal" is beside the point.
Apple happens to be holding a whole lot more cash than most small countries so of course they make a good target for highlighting the tax problem. Who would anyone have suggested instead if the committee was trying to drive home a point about corporate tax avoidance?
Oh, maybe any of the companies that have done the more egregious things that are listed - transferring IP overseas and using unfair transfer fees. Putting HQ and keeping bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. Setting up shell subsidiaries for the sole purpose of tax avoidance. And so on. There are plenty of examples of those.
Or, for that matter, they could simply start going after the companies that are actually breaking the law and drop the stupid 'tax avoidance' argument.
Oh, maybe any of the companies that have done the more egregious things that are listed - transferring IP overseas and using unfair transfer fees. Putting HQ and keeping bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. Setting up shell subsidiaries for the sole purpose of tax avoidance. And so on. There are plenty of examples of those.
Or, for that matter, they could simply start going after the companies that are actually breaking the law and drop the stupid 'tax avoidance' argument.
Names might be a bit more useful. Two of the things you mention, transferring IP economic rights overseas and transfer fees are things that the Senate report says Apple does.
Oh, maybe any of the companies that have done the more egregious things that are listed - transferring IP overseas and using unfair transfer fees. Putting HQ and keeping bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. Setting up shell subsidiaries for the sole purpose of tax avoidance. And so on. There are plenty of examples of those.
Or, for that matter, they could simply start going after the companies that are actually breaking the law and drop the stupid 'tax avoidance' argument.
Which companies are actually breaking the law that aren't under investigation? If you have information you should really be forwarding it on to the IRS.
… What? Not that Apple pays the most, because that was stated just a few days ago.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Amazing reactions in this thread
Apple could be caught stealing babies and this place would defend them.
Shut up and go away. Turns out you already are away. The UK, in fact. Where, unless you have a degree in understanding US tax law, you don't really have anything to say about anything in this thread and are, by all accounts, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG about what you're saying.
Originally Posted by Crowley
If they are doing nothing wrong then why are you leaping to defend them?
What are you, an idiot? How is that in any way a valid logical construct?
It's clear you don't have any real reason to be on this site.
Apple is being unfairly attacked and the people defending them have every right to do so. You, of course, have the right to attack them, as well, but since you haven't provided a single example of anything Apple has done wrong, your complaints are rather pointless.
Apple's effective Federal income tax rate was over 30%. That's not counting state taxes, SSI/FICA, or other incidental taxes.
I really doubt that you're paying >30% of your income in Federal income tax.
Apple isn't being 'unfairly attacked.' HP and Microsoft already appeared before this same committee last year, and there will be more companies to follow. From the posts here it looks like many aren't aware of that- maybe because people here tend to focus more on Apple than the others. Additionally Apple sticks out because Tim Cook chose to respond in person rather than sending representatives.
Secondly you are refuting Apple's own claims. Apples claims on taxes as cited by Forbes:
"The Company’s effective tax rates were approximately 25.2%, 24.2%, and 24.4% for 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively. The Company’s effective rates for these periods differ from the statutory federal income tax rate of 35% due primarily to certain undistributed foreign earnings for which no U.S. taxes are provided because such earnings are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the U.S."
This was in response to a NYT article that did the math and came up with Apples real tax rate being 9.8%, Forbes I believe came up with somewhere around 14%
Apples own account of 25% is obviously going to be using whatever methods skew the data in their favor the most- but Tim is now claiming it was 30.5%, so maybe they found another method.
More importantly- that is the rate on the money they actually claim to have made in the US. The money made in the US would not include any artificial profits they made overseas. Note that Apple makes a TON of legitimate money overseas (which they also offshore but that's a different matter)- so it makes it seem more legit to make claims like their 'Irish Geniuses' subsidiary accounting for $30billion of their income so that it is taxed there instead of in the US. When you add some of that money in to the markets it was actually earned in (a decent percentage of that being in the US) their tax rate drops substantially lower.
Apple claims not to do that, and also claimed explicitly they don't have a bank in the Bahamas or the Cayman islands. Would be kind of funny if it is in Bermuda and Apple goes- 'see, we weren't lying that's not the Bahamas or Cayman islands.'
Either way, should be interesting to see the end result. Apple (nor Microsoft, nor HP, nor whoever is next) did not do anything illegal. Senators are going to grandstand because that is what they do, but ultimately no one is going to get in trouble. The main gist is to figure out what companies are doing so that they can devise laws so that income actually earned in the US is taxed here. And its tricky. Corporations have an easy dance of it 'How can you prove our Irish geniuses aren't making the company $10b a year by their contributions?"
The claim by many Senators and Tim Cook is that the goal is for him to help them craft a more robust tax code. That would be the ultimate win. If Apple actually succeeds and provides a legitimately good proposal- my next phone will be an iPhone (provided it has a big screen and widgets). I half suspect Tim will turn the proposal more into a sugar coated 'buzz word' laden tripe of: 'How do we get all these billions back into the US so that we can use it to put hard working Americans back to work'
That's the downside of offshoring- companies end up with piles of money that they can't bring into the US where they'd really like to use it. If this whole hearing is just a pretense to figure out how corporations can make piles of money they pay little taxes on; and then bring that money into the US with little or no taxes.... ummm..... America is doomed!
Back when? The stealing babies thing? I'll admit that was conjecture, though I'm not sure it's fair to say that I'm completely and utterly wrong, we'll need a full-on field test before there's any solid data either way.
Nonsense. It's a valid argument. I'm doing what I can to minimize my tax-hit so I buy stuff to lower my taxable gross income. I buy a laptop, some buy hummers, all reduce their tax exposure. Do I (they) need it? Not really. It it legal? Sure. Is it morally correct? Grey area.
Well let's say you were audited and the purchase was questioned. They would be looking at what percentage of its use is for work purposes. Anyone can write something off. It doesn't mean the writeoff would be valid if questioned. I assumed a section 179 purchase, as it allows for you to take its total value in the year of purchase rather than a 5 year depreciation schedule to estimated salvage value.
Quote:
I could have just pretend to be patriotic and just pay more taxes so that the money goes to needed services, military, of Congress' fat a$$. That's what people think Apple should do.
I wasn't arguing that either. I wasn't being disingenuous with this. I merely wanted to point out that many corporate tax practices do not equate to simply writing off expenses like your private arguments. Much of the time they involve weird valuation assessments on assets transferred to or from subsidiaries. I also didn't accuse Apple of anything, as that would be pointless. It was just a prediction of what they would be looking for in their dog and pony show.
Quote:
Apple did nothing wrong, it did nothing illegal. Congress is simply whoring themselves to the media to justify their jobs. That's all. I wished Tim Cook would just stand there and give them all the middle-finger.
I'm not really following the whole thing closely as it looks uninteresting. If I thought it would lead to greater corporate tax reform or Congress addressing their bloated military budget, which outpaces every other expense on the balance sheet, I might find it more interesting. Reducing corporate tax rates wouldn't solve anything anyway. The companies that are typically questioned have adequate balances to invest wherever necessary. They're not going to invest every dollar simply because it's available. Sometimes the opportunities just aren't there or visible.
Quote:
They have nothing on him, and they know it.
I would agree with you there.
Edit: Frood made a decent post above this. I hadn't bothered to look up numbers and claims, which would be why I didn't comment on them.
Shut up and go away. Turns out you already are away. The UK, in fact. Where, unless you have a degree in understanding US tax law, you don't really have anything to say about anything in this thread and are, by all accounts, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG about what you're saying.
Sorry, do we have to show passports now to post in this thread?
As usual, some Americans can't see the bigger picture. This is a global issue, not a US only issue. Google were in front of a parliamentary committee this week in the UK about the exact same thing and got ripped apart similar to how Apple are.
And there lies the issue with finding a resolution. It needs a global solution in a world where countries are all self-serving.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
I have attacked Apple plenty of times in this forum, and have been labelled a "troll" even though I have been here since 2003. Do a quick search of recent posts, where I attack the present management. Most of the last posts have been critical. I've gotten more critical this year, in fact.
On this issue I would defend them, (and Google, Amazon or MicroSoft),
So because you've been critical elsewhere, Apple, and Amazon, and Microsoft, and everyone else, gets a free pass for this argument because you in all your gracious wisdom have deemed it to be ok? Why are you even mentioning this? I don't care what you're previous form is. Why is this about you at all?
Quote:
particularly against predatory British bureaucrats. ( American senators have some logic, the British claim on Irish tax is absurd). I mentioned Britain because you are British, and was responding to you.
I don't particularly want to derail the thread into the Irish tax issue, but since you clearly do, how can you possibly claim an aburdity argument on the logical premise that British workers operating out of British facilities shipping British goods to mainland Europe is a transaction between Britain and mainland Europe, and that transfer pricing to a low tax centre like Ireland is a misrepresentation of economic activity solely for tax benefit?
Quote:
Also, an adhominem is not a debate. You claimed that Apple is doing something wrong.
Actually... no I didn't. I laughed about the reactions in this thread. I made no direct comment on the topic.
Quote:
To prove it you need to state what you think is wrong, so an actual debate can ensue.
Oh this is Debate 101. Thanks for the introduction professor, but I was looking for Snark 203. My apologies.
Quote:
Instead you engaged in two logical fallacies - ad hominem you ( is AI) would always defend Apple and redudcto ad absudrum even if they stole babies.
Neither ad hominem or reductio ad absurdum are logical fallacies. Sorry.
And I didn't use either of them in serious argument, so please, spare me your efforts to impress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
The one thing that stands out is that for all their posturing, this committee hasn't dared used the phrase 'tax evasion.' If they can't say 'tax evasion' then they don't have a leg to stand on.
What they are hoping to do is fix an idea in the public mind that 'tax avoidance' is illegal, which is completely untrue. So, this is nothing more than an attempt to shame Apple into paying more tax than it is legally required to do (it worked in the UK with Starbucks).
Why are they targeting Apple, and not Google, or Microsoft or GE?
Well, I hate to say this but I think that Tim Cook's actions regarding loans and dividend payouts have made him look like a CEO who can be easily swayed by external influences.
He has the chance to redress this tomorrow. If he fails then government bodies and investment analysts will spend the next ten years picking Apple clean.
I think the whole exercise is an excuse to fast track changes to the corporate tax laws. I didn't see any claims anywhere that what Apple has done with their tax policies is illegal. Instead there's an effort to paint it as unfair and unethical and something that has to change to keep individual taxpayers from bearing a heavier tax burden. All the comments about "Apple (or whoever) didn't' do anything illegal" is beside the point.
Apple happens to be holding a whole lot more cash than most small countries so of course they make a good target for highlighting the tax problem. Who would anyone have suggested instead if the committee was trying to drive home a point about corporate tax avoidance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I think the whole exercise is an excuse to fast track changes to the corporate tax laws. I didn't see any claims anywhere that what Apple has done with their tax policies is illegal. Instead there's an effort to paint it as unfair and unethical and something that has to change to keep individual taxpayers from bearing a heavier tax burden. All the comments about "Apple (or whoever) didn't' do anything illegal" is beside the point.
Apple happens to be holding a whole lot more cash than most small countries so of course they make a good target for highlighting the tax problem. Who would anyone have suggested instead if the committee was trying to drive home a point about corporate tax avoidance?
Nail on the head.
I'll add that to get backing for changing corporate tax laws in any particular direction, the bill proposers have to be able to lean on evidence of what is happening. That's why there's this investigation. It's not inherently suggesting that the companies/people being interviewed have done anything illegal or immoral, it's just fact finding as part of good due process. And to that end it's doing its job.
That the media latch onto any negative connotations with sensational headlines about how evil the respective companies and people are is a problem with the media portrayal. But ultimately the media portrayal may give even more leverage to the move for reform, so even that may not be a bad thing.
Short: this isn't about Apple so much as it's about the tax system and the need to change it. Apple are giving good feedback, and are also being examined for real world evidence of what's going on that the tax system needs to address. They're playing nice, which speaks in their favour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Amazing reactions in this thread
Apple could be caught stealing babies and this place would defend them.
Not the babies thing again. Apple is selective and only takes babies that are Irish and geniuses. They are not the only one that have stolen babies you know. To prove that beyond any argument whatsoever I will cite a mildly related link here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22004491
Apple is the richest corporation in the world and can provide these babies a better life than their actual parents ever could. These babies should be crying tears of joy that they've been stolen by Apple!
You obviously just hate Apple because they are the most successful company in history and you prefer to use cheap, inferior, junky products. You obviously support a welfare state- which these babies would most likely be on if Apple hadn't abducted them.
Very good
Who is defending anything illegal (or even 'wrong') that Apple has done? The fact is that Apple has done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, they specifically stated that they do NOT use some of the legal methods that Google and others use to reduce their taxes.
Because some people believe in honesty and integrity - concepts that apparently are foreign to you.
Apple is being unfairly attacked and the people defending them have every right to do so. You, of course, have the right to attack them, as well, but since you haven't provided a single example of anything Apple has done wrong, your complaints are rather pointless.
Apple's effective Federal income tax rate was over 30%. That's not counting state taxes, SSI/FICA, or other incidental taxes.
I really doubt that you're paying >30% of your income in Federal income tax.
No, if McCain came up with a logical and rational argument, that would be a miracle. In decades of public service, he hasn't yet accomplished that and I doubt if he's going to start now.
Oh, maybe any of the companies that have done the more egregious things that are listed - transferring IP overseas and using unfair transfer fees. Putting HQ and keeping bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. Setting up shell subsidiaries for the sole purpose of tax avoidance. And so on. There are plenty of examples of those.
Or, for that matter, they could simply start going after the companies that are actually breaking the law and drop the stupid 'tax avoidance' argument.
If you'd like to pay 12% like Romney...
...then do it.
Go ahead. Bust your butt for decades and earn the success he has. Then you can do exactly what he is doing.
I'm sick and tired of all the people who say that "the rich" don't pay what they deserve. Maybe everyone else isn't earning their keep?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Oh, maybe any of the companies that have done the more egregious things that are listed - transferring IP overseas and using unfair transfer fees. Putting HQ and keeping bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. Setting up shell subsidiaries for the sole purpose of tax avoidance. And so on. There are plenty of examples of those.
Or, for that matter, they could simply start going after the companies that are actually breaking the law and drop the stupid 'tax avoidance' argument.
Names might be a bit more useful. Two of the things you mention, transferring IP economic rights overseas and transfer fees are things that the Senate report says Apple does.
Read the first section here, Executive Summary:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142667884/Subcommittee-Memo-on-Offshore-Profit-Shifting-Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Oh, maybe any of the companies that have done the more egregious things that are listed - transferring IP overseas and using unfair transfer fees. Putting HQ and keeping bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. Setting up shell subsidiaries for the sole purpose of tax avoidance. And so on. There are plenty of examples of those.
Or, for that matter, they could simply start going after the companies that are actually breaking the law and drop the stupid 'tax avoidance' argument.
Which companies are actually breaking the law that aren't under investigation? If you have information you should really be forwarding it on to the IRS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by commoncents
Maybe everyone else isn't earning their keep?
What does this mean? What is "keep" in this context?
Originally Posted by Just_Me
Wrong.
… What? Not that Apple pays the most, because that was stated just a few days ago.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Amazing reactions in this thread
Apple could be caught stealing babies and this place would defend them.
Shut up and go away. Turns out you already are away. The UK, in fact. Where, unless you have a degree in understanding US tax law, you don't really have anything to say about anything in this thread and are, by all accounts, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG about what you're saying.
Originally Posted by Crowley
If they are doing nothing wrong then why are you leaping to defend them?
What are you, an idiot? How is that in any way a valid logical construct?
It's clear you don't have any real reason to be on this site.
Welcome to the party TS. Ready to contribute?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Apple is being unfairly attacked and the people defending them have every right to do so. You, of course, have the right to attack them, as well, but since you haven't provided a single example of anything Apple has done wrong, your complaints are rather pointless.
Apple's effective Federal income tax rate was over 30%. That's not counting state taxes, SSI/FICA, or other incidental taxes.
I really doubt that you're paying >30% of your income in Federal income tax.
Apple isn't being 'unfairly attacked.' HP and Microsoft already appeared before this same committee last year, and there will be more companies to follow. From the posts here it looks like many aren't aware of that- maybe because people here tend to focus more on Apple than the others. Additionally Apple sticks out because Tim Cook chose to respond in person rather than sending representatives.
Secondly you are refuting Apple's own claims. Apples claims on taxes as cited by Forbes:
"The Company’s effective tax rates were approximately 25.2%, 24.2%, and 24.4% for 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively. The Company’s effective rates for these periods differ from the statutory federal income tax rate of 35% due primarily to certain undistributed foreign earnings for which no U.S. taxes are provided because such earnings are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the U.S."
This was in response to a NYT article that did the math and came up with Apples real tax rate being 9.8%, Forbes I believe came up with somewhere around 14%
Apples own account of 25% is obviously going to be using whatever methods skew the data in their favor the most- but Tim is now claiming it was 30.5%, so maybe they found another method.
More importantly- that is the rate on the money they actually claim to have made in the US. The money made in the US would not include any artificial profits they made overseas. Note that Apple makes a TON of legitimate money overseas (which they also offshore but that's a different matter)- so it makes it seem more legit to make claims like their 'Irish Geniuses' subsidiary accounting for $30billion of their income so that it is taxed there instead of in the US. When you add some of that money in to the markets it was actually earned in (a decent percentage of that being in the US) their tax rate drops substantially lower.
Apple claims not to do that, and also claimed explicitly they don't have a bank in the Bahamas or the Cayman islands. Would be kind of funny if it is in Bermuda and Apple goes- 'see, we weren't lying that's not the Bahamas or Cayman islands.'
Either way, should be interesting to see the end result. Apple (nor Microsoft, nor HP, nor whoever is next) did not do anything illegal. Senators are going to grandstand because that is what they do, but ultimately no one is going to get in trouble. The main gist is to figure out what companies are doing so that they can devise laws so that income actually earned in the US is taxed here. And its tricky. Corporations have an easy dance of it 'How can you prove our Irish geniuses aren't making the company $10b a year by their contributions?"
The claim by many Senators and Tim Cook is that the goal is for him to help them craft a more robust tax code. That would be the ultimate win. If Apple actually succeeds and provides a legitimately good proposal- my next phone will be an iPhone (provided it has a big screen and widgets). I half suspect Tim will turn the proposal more into a sugar coated 'buzz word' laden tripe of: 'How do we get all these billions back into the US so that we can use it to put hard working Americans back to work'
That's the downside of offshoring- companies end up with piles of money that they can't bring into the US where they'd really like to use it. If this whole hearing is just a pretense to figure out how corporations can make piles of money they pay little taxes on; and then bring that money into the US with little or no taxes.... ummm..... America is doomed!
Originally Posted by Crowley
Welcome to the party TS. Ready to contribute?
Once you admit you didn't have a clue what you were on about back then, we should be able to get the ball rolling.
I maintain hopeful scepticism.
Back when? The stealing babies thing? I'll admit that was conjecture, though I'm not sure it's fair to say that I'm completely and utterly wrong, we'll need a full-on field test before there's any solid data either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Nonsense. It's a valid argument. I'm doing what I can to minimize my tax-hit so I buy stuff to lower my taxable gross income. I buy a laptop, some buy hummers, all reduce their tax exposure. Do I (they) need it? Not really. It it legal? Sure. Is it morally correct? Grey area.
Well let's say you were audited and the purchase was questioned. They would be looking at what percentage of its use is for work purposes. Anyone can write something off. It doesn't mean the writeoff would be valid if questioned. I assumed a section 179 purchase, as it allows for you to take its total value in the year of purchase rather than a 5 year depreciation schedule to estimated salvage value.
Quote:
I could have just pretend to be patriotic and just pay more taxes so that the money goes to needed services, military, of Congress' fat a$$. That's what people think Apple should do.
I wasn't arguing that either. I wasn't being disingenuous with this. I merely wanted to point out that many corporate tax practices do not equate to simply writing off expenses like your private arguments. Much of the time they involve weird valuation assessments on assets transferred to or from subsidiaries. I also didn't accuse Apple of anything, as that would be pointless. It was just a prediction of what they would be looking for in their dog and pony show.
Quote:
Apple did nothing wrong, it did nothing illegal. Congress is simply whoring themselves to the media to justify their jobs. That's all. I wished Tim Cook would just stand there and give them all the middle-finger.
I'm not really following the whole thing closely as it looks uninteresting. If I thought it would lead to greater corporate tax reform or Congress addressing their bloated military budget, which outpaces every other expense on the balance sheet, I might find it more interesting. Reducing corporate tax rates wouldn't solve anything anyway. The companies that are typically questioned have adequate balances to invest wherever necessary. They're not going to invest every dollar simply because it's available. Sometimes the opportunities just aren't there or visible.
Quote:
They have nothing on him, and they know it.
I would agree with you there.
Edit: Frood made a decent post above this. I hadn't bothered to look up numbers and claims, which would be why I didn't comment on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Shut up and go away. Turns out you already are away. The UK, in fact. Where, unless you have a degree in understanding US tax law, you don't really have anything to say about anything in this thread and are, by all accounts, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG about what you're saying.
Sorry, do we have to show passports now to post in this thread?
As usual, some Americans can't see the bigger picture. This is a global issue, not a US only issue. Google were in front of a parliamentary committee this week in the UK about the exact same thing and got ripped apart similar to how Apple are.
And there lies the issue with finding a resolution. It needs a global solution in a world where countries are all self-serving.