They are paying ridiculously low tax rates in countries that they would otherwise have little or no presence in, like Ireland. If the laws were changed so they had to pay US taxes, then they would move their fake operations out of countries like Ireland and back into the US to avoid the pointless double taxation you refer to.
it's ludicrous to suggest Apple would instead merely move entirely out of the US. Lotsa luck finding the same caliber of talent willing to live elsewhere.
Why should Apple have to pay U.S. taxes on income earned in other countries?
Did we not just pass a budget with defense almost 1 trillion? Thinking so.
We are trillions in debt from useless wars and tax cuts for the super rich. Time to pay up like the rest of us.
What about the 15 million plus illegal immigrants the Democrats are supporting. Are they going to pay up too?
I accidentally "liked" this post, and since it's not possible to revoke my "like" I felt the obligation to respond to it.
While there are plenty of examples of government inefficiencies, the solution is not to defund and kill government but to work to improve it. FDR's New Deal saved the US from the Great Depression. What followed were the most prosperous decades in the country's history and the explosion of a prosperous middle class that not only elevated the living standards of millions, but also buoyed the economy and benefitted business enormously.
The reversal or these policies and the relentless drive towards regressive tax laws since the Reagan administration have hurt the economy as a whole and devastated the middle class.
The land of the free, you must be kidding me.
The US already has (so its appears) the biggest tax burden of any country, full stop. Europeans can laugh about this, and btw not only because they only pay the tax in the country they reside in (they do however, if getting overseas income, pay tax on both but because unlike the US the Europeans do sign tax treaties the risk of double taxation is much less)
US Citizens overseas always have to pay US tax and for what really. For most countries, a "centre of vital interest" is chosen for taxation and that's normally where you usually live or live more than half of the year. If you live overseas, you pay overseas' tax only overseas (unless you are american then you can't escape).
This is for individuals.
Now for companies, I don't really get this at all, because if you are a company then you can't do business overseas, full stop. Instead a daughter - sister - holding - whatnot company can do business on your behalf overseas. But then of course, the earnings they do are not your earnings, because technically and practically you are not doing business there.
So with what right does the US government even begin to ask to have to get a cut of this lawfully earned money offshore. Don't forget that this has been perfectly taxed already.
And there are still people who support this? It's unbelievable.
So let me get this straight...the people who complain about offshoring low wage jobs, now want to offshore complete US Corporations? What CEO isn't going to look at moving to a lower taxed country, as part of the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders? If this goes through, the US will not only lose low wage jobs, but also all mid to high level jobs to foreign countries!
The US needs to compete with the whole world! if our taxes, wages and employees don't fit the companies needs, they will move!
I love to hear these people without any boardroom experience or shareholders to explain too that just scream "yeah tax them, they don't need all that money"...sorry, free world market that the US pushes for does not allow for that attitude!
big brother 84 wrote: »
Why does anyone want mega corporations to sit on vast pots of money when that money could be working for good? When each of us is dead and buried it'll still be there, lifeless, inert, wasted, like ourselves.
Because the income wasn't really earned in other countries. The taxes are based on the company's base of operations, which in reality is the US, though it's artificially made to seem like it's Ireland.
My wife is an accountant. For as long as I know, a company never pays tax twice. Whatever it pays to the foreign country is credited so it only has to top up the difference when repatriate the profit to the US. So if you already paid 15% in country X, you need to pay another 20% when bringing it back to the states. My wife's company pay 18% effective tax last year. No company I know pays anywhere near 35%.
The US was built by immigrants. If you eliminated illegal immigrants tomorrow there'd by an awful lot of pissed off white people annoyed at their overgrown lawns and expensive produce at the supermarket. Those illegal immigrants do work that Americans don't want to do and they pay taxes like the rest of us (except for the wealthy, of course.)
if companies don't like paying US taxes they're welcome to GTFO and try doing the same business elsewhere.
Incidentally, it's ludicrous to suggest the US has the highest taxes. Sure, the corporate tax rate may be high, but most corporations spend insane amounts of money on lawyers and accountants to ensure they pay only a fraction of the taxes they should be paying. Eliminate tax loopholes and shelters and maybe then we can talk about reducing the tax rate.
Ever shop in Europe? 20% VAT on everything!. Over here people get mad at paying 9% state sales tax for online orders.
Almost every country require its tax residents to report income from all sources (foreign and domestic) for tax purposes. Most (including the US) will give credits to taxes already paid to foreign authorities. Notice that I said tax resident. There are certain criteria to determine if you are a tax resident in the country (having significant income there, own properties or live for part of the year, etc.) The US is unique in that every citizen is considered a tax resident. Even if you haven't set foot in the US for the last 20 years, you still have to pay US taxes on your income.
What do you mean it "wasn't really earned in other countries?" An iPhone sold in another country is income earned in that country. It wasn't earned here in the U.S.
Regardless of where the product is sold, the company selling it is American. If you want to bring those profits back to the US you should have to pay US taxes on it. Right now the profits are being kept outside of the US for the sole reason of avoiding taxes.
if I make a mint selling crap on Ebay to foreign customers I still have to pay income tax on my profits regardless. Companies should be the same.
If the taxing bodies only realized that the more they tax the less they make, and the less they tax the more they make, because money always flow from a high tax jurisdiction to a low tax haven.
Income taxes should be no more than 30% of total income, where that 30% is divided between state, federal, and an interest earning Social Security Individual Retirement Account (SSIRA).
The SSIRA would replace the Social Security System, where instead of a pyramid of the younger working class financing the Social Security Benefits of retired seniors, all of that individual's Social Security taxes would instead go to their SSIRA, which they would accumulate over a period of 50 years from the moment a youth begin to earn wages, (from the working age of 16 to their retirement age of 66) that they would draw from tax-free when they retire.
To transition from the existing Social Security System to the SSIRA system, the Federal Government would have to grandfather into an interest earning Social Security Escrow Account, all of the retired seniors who are receiving Social Security Benefits; where the Federal Government would add up all of the Social Security Benefits that would have been dispersed to this group of seniors over their expected lifetime, and borrow the entire amount and deposit it into the Social Security Escrow account - which would then distribute the benefits unto those seniors.
A second Social Security Escrow Account would be set-up for those between the ages of 20 and 64, where the Federal Government would add up all of the contributed Social Security taxes that would have been dispersed to this group upon retirement over their expected lifetime, and borrow the entire amount and deposit it into their individual Social Security Individual Retirement Accounts.
The individuals would only get the benefits equivalent to their past contributions. The younger they are, the less contributions they would be reimbursed; the older they are, the more contributions they would be reimbursed. From the ages of 20 to 64, they would each contribute the rest of their Social Security Taxes to their SSIRA until retirement.
The Federal Government would only have to borrow the money once to finance the transition of the Social Security System from a pyramid scheme to a self-financed interest earning Social Security IRA.
jaayco wrote: »
I'm confused over all the negativity over this. The US benefits from these overseas funds, which they don't now. US companies have an incentive to bring money back into the country - they can use it and not pay any more tax than they already have.
Companies in the US pay less tax.
Companies manufacturing in the US pay less tax. All the incentives flow towards more money in the US and more jobs. How does any of this ruin America?
While that is true about the history of this country, it was done legally. We had immigration laws in the late 1700's. They may pay sales tax and income tax, but a big number of them don't pay taxes like the rest of us. Plus, don't forget the billions of dollars us American's are paying so they can enjoy free healthcare and food stamp benefits.
Amen to you!
You sound like a typical pro immigration liberal.
And you sound like a typical anti-immigrant racist.