Apple could face huge tax bill as Obama calls for new taxes on offshore profits in FY2016 budget

15681011

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 203
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,826member
    boltsfan17 wrote: »
    The problem today is the government really isn't representing the people that vote them into office. There are just too many special interest groups involved in the government.
    Yet if you aren't involved in special interest groups to recognize your interests and support them in congress you would loose everything no matter what the constitution says. In this regard I support a few of organizations that I hope can keep congress in check.
    Democrats lost because of all the lies like keeping your health care provider and not doing anything in other areas.
    If it was just health care I don't think people would mind but this administration has passed off more lies and disinformation than any I know of. Out right lies to the American public are never a good way to govern. I'm actually surprised that the democrats had any success at all the last election.
    Will the Republican controlled congress do better? We will see, but I imagine it's going to be the same ole politics going on thats ruining this country. I just wish I knew what the answer is to fix the mess in DC. 
    I don't think they can be all that successful. You still need a president that can act ethically.
    Edit: If you really think about it, I think the answer is this country needs to be ran like a business. I think that could potentially solve many problems. 

    Running a business you have to be absolutely ruthless. While I see a real need to be more aggressive on the social end of government I still believe there is plenty of reason, evidence really, that much of the social spend is non productive. We don't need to be ruthless but we need to expect more from our welfare dollar. That means work for pay for one, even if that means chain gangs in some cases.
  • Reply 142 of 203
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,486member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Big Brother 84 View Post



    Obama's plan sounds great. All that money sitting offshore is not working for anyone.

     

    I'm very confused by this. That money was earned overseas. Why does the US feel entitled to a portion of it? That sense of entitlement is what is out of control. If the US removed repatriation tax entirely, allowed foreign funds to be brought into the country tax-free, then guess what – that money would be IN the country, spent IN the country, and a portion of that spent money would be given to the government in the form of taxes. To tax the simple transfer of money is insanity! I would never pay my bank a fee to transfer money from one account to another.

     

    This reminds me of the fee charged by AirMiles (Canadian points program) of 15¢ per mile to transfer the funds from one account holder to another. It's a form of double-dipping.

     

    I really don't know what I'm talking about, but this world is out of control. Too many rules, too many laws. The problem with that is there's no end to the cycle... there's never an end-game. Someone always loses.

  • Reply 143 of 203
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,486member

    If there's going to be a tax charged for moving money from one country to another, it should be applied by the country currently housing the money... not the country receiving the money. That's just so backwards! The US should remove all barriers to money flowing INTO their borders. I seriously don't understand a repatriation tax, or even why this is called repatriation. Does the US think the money somehow originated in the US and now they need to bring it back? Oh, give me a break! There's over 200 other countries on this planet.

  • Reply 144 of 203
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,826member
    koop wrote: »

    Same ol talking point that I hear every time we think about raising taxes, minimum wage etc etc. "Just let a business operate as it sees fit. Free to pay unlivable wages,
    Why does every job need to pay a livable wage? Should the kid working after school earn a livable wage flipping burgers? How about raking your lawn in the fall? Maybe shoveling the driveway tomorrow? There are lots of jobs that shouldn't be considered suitable for sustaining an independent life, that doesn't mean the jobs aren't worthwhile or the wages too low. The problem with this idea that every job need to pay a living wage is that it effectively closes out those just entering the work force or those looking for part time employment.
    no taxes and that'll keep the economy going strong.
    Agian more BS. No one here has said that corporations should pay no tax, what we have said is that oaing taxes on earnings that have already been taxed is unethical.
    I mean, with all that profit i'm sure they'll get around to raising wages and hire more people...soon." And it's the same shit, every election cycle with this. The same exact Republican talking point. We can never raise taxes, we can never impose taxes and we should never raise the minimum wage.
    Yet the minimum wage has gone up. Further taxes have increased dramatically in the last eight years but what have we gotten out of it? Consider this does it really make sense to pay a high school student $15 an hour after school to flip burgers? This by the way may be his very first form of employment.

    Now some seem to want to turn these jobs into welfare programs for failed individuals. My take on this is if you didn't pay attention in high school and didn't educate yourself beyond that then screw you. I see no reason to reward those that don't put in the effort.
    40 years of wage stagnation but we'll i'm sure if we just keep taxes low, subsidies, and loopholes for just a teensy bit longer I'm sure all these rich corporations and their executives will shower money back into the middle class. Whatever is left of it. 
    Nobody expects corporations to shower the public with money. That makes no sense at all. As for rich corporations that is a function of public buying. If you object to rich corporations don't buy from them.

    Who am I kidding, keeping the iPhone at the affordable $650 price tag seems like the better bet. 

    There is your answer, no one really needs an iPhone, after all humanity got by for centuries without one. However Apple literally has billions of people it can sell iPhones to, it would make a profit almost by default because they can literally sell more than they can make. It isn't evil that results in Apple making billions but rather it is simply a numbers game. In effect the world now supplies an unlimited number of customers feeding companies like Apple that have successful products.
  • Reply 145 of 203
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,826member
    I see. You neglected to mention that important detail.

    Yeah the web is just getting worst by the day. Apple needs to add some sort of host blocking capability to IOS.
  • Reply 146 of 203
    tcasey wrote: »
    So whats the solution ?
    Make it illegal for anyone with ties to congress or executive office be excluded from bidding on war contracts. Violators would have long madatory jail time.
  • Reply 147 of 203
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,826member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    1) You think people are poor because they are lazy? The hardest workers I've ever met are the poorest people I've ever come in contact with. This is true all over the world.
    A good portion of them yes, there is no doubt in my mind there. And yes I've had plenty of first hand experience with what it is like to work with the poor, especially the chronic welfare cases.

    Does that mean all the poor are lazy? Certainly not, however the lazy do concentrate themselves into areas of high welfare use. This high concentration leads to the development of a won't work culture.
    2) What about those that can't work?
    There are very few that can't work, so few that it is an extremely tiny minority of those on welfare. It is just a matter of overcoming challenges, even Hawking can provide good works and he has lived far longer than expected. Ultimately though yes a cut off of benefits must happen if one is capable of working and won't, most likely with starvation to follow.
    Should be just euthanize all of them?
    The liberal term would be post partum abortion! At least you would be offering the welfare cheats a chance to redeem themselves before dropping the knife.
    They just leaching off your hard earned tax money, right?
    Yep! Maybe you haven't gotten around much but I have. There are many problems with the welfare system and a good portion of that comes from the free handouts. The first step in correcting the system is to demand work for pay. Simple concept really. The second step is to attack the people that won't work, you don't need to kill mos too them but making a public spectacle might be a good idea. Let a few sit outside in the elements, stuck in an old fashion stock, so that the community can address their lack of desire to work.

    In any event these two elements would be key to addressing people misunderstanding about their social obligation to work. By the way the expectation to work could be fullfilled ether by government supplied work ( breaking rocks in a quarry for example) or via private oppotunities. The goal is a rapid change in mindset or a lot of suffering on the part of the lazy.

    I think where you and I disagree the most is what proportion of the welfare population is just plain lazy. You seem to think it is close to non existent where I see it reaching 50% in some areas. Maybe nationwide it is someplace in the middle but I really doubt it slips below 25%.
  • Reply 148 of 203
    nick29nick29 Posts: 111member
    News flash, the New Deal did not end the Great Depression! It prolonged it! Doing the same thing 80 years later isn't going to work either. Shows what a garbage education all of these "fairness" commenters received. Taxation and redistribution doesn't create prosperity, it spreads misery more widely. Socialism doesn't work, even when your defense budget is mostly covered by the U.S. *cough* Europe..
  • Reply 149 of 203
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Agian more BS. No one here has said that corporations should pay no tax, what we have said is that oaing taxes on earnings that have already been taxed is unethical.

    Actually I will say that corporations should not pay tax, because in reality they don't at all now.  Where do people think that corporations get their money?  Eventually that money flows from people who buy the products.  So say product X is made from Parts A,B, and C, a corporation buys those parts from other companies, paying tax each time, that is just built in to the price we pay for that product and of course are taxed again for when we buy it.  



    Why do people not understand that more taxes for corporations just mean that the prices of their products go up and we pay more for them? 

  • Reply 150 of 203
    kpluckkpluck Posts: 500member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    I fail to see how the US can tax corporations that aren’t US corporations.


    Well if we have learned anything from the Obama administration it is that the US Constitution and US laws really don't play a role in anything they do.

     

    -kpluck

  • Reply 151 of 203
    morkymorky Posts: 179member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

     

     

    No other country taxes its corporations (or citizens) on income earned outside that country. So the deferred 35% US tax on overseas income is nothing more than a strong incentive for US companies to avoid investment in the US. Which is terrible. Obama's "solution" is to remove the ability to defer the tax, while reducing the rate to teen digits. The currently competing bill reduces this to around 6%, essentially reversing the incentive to encourage US companies that are profitable overseas to reinvest their profits in US investment. 

     

    However, keep in mind that South Korea only charges Samsung an effective tax rate of <5%. When Samsung sells a Note 4 in the US, those profits are essentially not taxed by South Korea. When Apple sells an iPhone 6 in Korea, it pays Korean income tax (higher than Samsung's) and then is expected to pay the difference up to 35% to the US. 

     

     

    A huge windfall of corporate holdings tax would certainly make it more attractive to start a new war, if 2016 ushered in a war-hawk president.

     

     

    Also noteworthy that Apple has set aside most the money to pay (apparently) the full 35% taxes on its cash, so if that % were reduced in half  it wouldn't even need to restate how much cash it has, because it has already accounted for payment. 

     

    What Tim Cook actually asked for was a comprehensive simplification of the US tax code to make it fair, even if it would result in higher taxes for Apple. What's being proposed by Congress and the President is a short term bandaid to supply some money for the highway fund before it RUNS OUT this summer. 

     

    Meanwhile, China is rapidly building infrastructure that will enable growth and prosperity, while the US is inventing new controversy about whether bridges should be allowed to fall down and whether vaccines should be required in public schools. Another ten years of Fox News and the USA will be a dust bowl with a flammable water table ringed by coastal cities that generate all the remaining economic activity.


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Nobody is arguing that Apple shouldn't pay taxes, what we are arguing against is this appalling attempt at taxing income that has never been brought into the USA. Do you really think the EU will stand by and just watch this happen? Considering what is presented it is very much an attempt to tax European corporations, tax paying corporations under US law. It will not go over well at all after all the free trade agreements and the tariff regulations that have been introduced over the years to reduce trade barriers.



    I'm aware Apple pays a lot of taxes, and I'm also aware of the massive legal tax dodges multinationals use to avoid paying what they really owe. Let's read some Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-12-29/dodging-repatriation-tax-lets-u-s-companies-bring-home-cash

  • Reply 152 of 203
    tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post







    A good portion of them yes, there is no doubt in my mind there. And yes I've had plenty of first hand experience with what it is like to work with the poor, especially the chronic welfare cases.



    Does that mean all the poor are lazy? Certainly not, however the lazy do concentrate themselves into areas of high welfare use. This high concentration leads to the development of a won't work culture.

    There are very few that can't work, so few that it is an extremely tiny minority of those on welfare. It is just a matter of overcoming challenges, even Hawking can provide good works and he has lived far longer than expected. Ultimately though yes a cut off of benefits must happen if one is capable of working and won't, most likely with starvation to follow.

    The liberal term would be post partum abortion! At least you would be offering the welfare cheats a chance to redeem themselves before dropping the knife.

    Yep! Maybe you haven't gotten around much but I have. There are many problems with the welfare system and a good portion of that comes from the free handouts. The first step in correcting the system is to demand work for pay. Simple concept really. The second step is to attack the people that won't work, you don't need to kill mos too them but making a public spectacle might be a good idea. Let a few sit outside in the elements, stuck in an old fashion stock, so that the community can address their lack of desire to work.



    In any event these two elements would be key to addressing people misunderstanding about their social obligation to work. By the way the expectation to work could be fullfilled ether by government supplied work ( breaking rocks in a quarry for example) or via private oppotunities. The goal is a rapid change in mindset or a lot of suffering on the part of the lazy.



    I think where you and I disagree the most is what proportion of the welfare population is just plain lazy. You seem to think it is close to non existent where I see it reaching 50% in some areas. Maybe nationwide it is someplace in the middle but I really doubt it slips below 25%.

    Honestly if you think the reason people are poor is because there lazy its because of 2 reasons ..

    1. you don't understand business and capitalism and should not talk about it and spread lies.

    2. or your so f+cking lazy and/or you get your news from Faux News...and hence your a moron.

     

    you only have to look at how in the state of nevada alone...since 2008 that the top 1 percent earned 51 percent more and the bottom 99 percent dropped 17 percent...it had nothing to do with how hard they worked....it's because the system is rigged and it will continue.

     

    http://www.epi.org/publication/unequal-states/    <----- More stats to review....

  • Reply 153 of 203
    tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post

     

     

    I'm very confused by this. That money was earned overseas. Why does the US feel entitled to a portion of it? That sense of entitlement is what is out of control. If the US removed repatriation tax entirely, allowed foreign funds to be brought into the country tax-free, then guess what – that money would be IN the country, spent IN the country, and a portion of that spent money would be given to the government in the form of taxes. To tax the simple transfer of money is insanity! I would never pay my bank a fee to transfer money from one account to another.

     

    This reminds me of the fee charged by AirMiles (Canadian points program) of 15¢ per mile to transfer the funds from one account holder to another. It's a form of double-dipping.

     

    I really don't know what I'm talking about, but this world is out of control. Too many rules, too many laws. The problem with that is there's no end to the cycle... there's never an end-game. Someone always loses.


    Who paid for the roads,staff and education and ability for the u.s corporation's to do business here and overseas....tax payers...why should someone who works for a living making min monies pay more taxes then a billion dollar corporation ...

  • Reply 154 of 203
    tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Which makes no sense at all! The average person has zero contact with government. A corporation can and often needs to be in constant contact with government. There simply isn't anyway around that reality, corporations can't function without government approval and the governemnt can't privide the right services without knowing the reality of the corporations needs.



    Corporate sponsors aren't the problem, the problem is elected officials forgetting who elected them ten minutes after the election.

    the problem is they know who got them elected its the corp monies...90 percent of elections are one by people with more monies...remove the monies and then people will have a loud voice and not corporations.

  • Reply 155 of 203
    tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Aaron Drake View Post

     

    Actually I will say that corporations should not pay tax, because in reality they don't at all now.  Where do people think that corporations get their money?  Eventually that money flows from people who buy the products.  So say product X is made from Parts A,B, and C, a corporation buys those parts from other companies, paying tax each time, that is just built in to the price we pay for that product and of course are taxed again for when we buy it.  



    Why do people not understand that more taxes for corporations just mean that the prices of their products go up and we pay more for them? 


    Because it's not true...corp don't pay taxes now and they don't pay people more to work for them or drop the prices of there services/products...the idea that corporations and shareholders of those corp pay no taxes and poor people then pay for the infrastructure in society to help these corporations is obsurd.

  • Reply 156 of 203
    ^^^ I try to avoid Bloomberg at all times. They are as biased as the Huffington Post or the NY Times.
  • Reply 157 of 203

    Someone explain why the US government has the right to tax earnings outside of the country?  How about we develop fair business policy that incentivizes companies to bring that hard earned money back into the US to reinvest...or would that actually make too much sense???

  • Reply 158 of 203
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,037member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post



    As long as it's applied properly to all companies, it is an excellent idea for governments the world over to tax multi mega million companies at a rate of at least 35%. Provided that these funds go where they ought.

     

    This comment reflects a stunning ignorance on your part.   This ignorance is one of what motivates business and how it behaves, as well as the effects on economic activity high tax rates have.  

     

    Corporations are certain to do one thing:  Act in their own self-interest.  You can tax them and regulate them all you want, but it is in their very nature to make as much money and find as many loopholes as possible.  This is not evil, it is just reality.  The problem here is that you're advocating for government to force corporations to behave a certain way, which is impossible.  It is very difficult to force anyone or any organization to anything.  

     

    Once governments stop treating taxation as behavior modification and get back to raising revenue for needed services, things get much better.  A low, flat tax rate on all profits reduces the incentive and ability of corporations to cheat.  That's the answer...removing the incentive to shelter, not punishing or vilifying  those who do.    Moreover, you clearly don't realize that, in the final analysis, corporations don't pay taxes.  People pay taxes.  

     

    Of course, the above is all moot, since Congress will never pass such a tax plan.  

  • Reply 159 of 203

    Let's be honest, this has ZERO chance of passing with a Republican lead House and Senate. Obama is probably putting this in there so the House and Senate will shoot it down and then he can say,"See, the Republicans only care about protecting the wealth of the big businesses."

  • Reply 160 of 203
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tcasey View Post

     

    Honestly if you think the reason people are poor is because there lazy its because of 2 reasons ..

    1. you don't understand business and capitalism and should not talk about it and spread lies.

    2. or your so f+cking lazy and/or you get your news from Faux News...and hence your a moron.

     

    you only have to look at how in the state of nevada alone...since 2008 that the top 1 percent earned 51 percent more and the bottom 99 percent dropped 17 percent...it had nothing to do with how hard they worked....it's because the system is rigged and it will continue.

     

    http://www.epi.org/publication/unequal-states/    <----- More stats to review....




    Hey, you notice how things are getting unbalanced, and the middle class is being destroyed!? Guess who's fault that is! Progressivism! It's not that hard to understand!

Sign In or Register to comment.