Notes of interest from Apple's Q2 2015 conference call

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 24
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by trumptman View PostBad policy is bad policy even when you are a good liberal Californian.

     

    Not sure why you think that's a bad policy. If they repatriate that profit now, they'll be paying 35% tax on it. But they don't need to, nor are they breaking any tax laws in not doing so now - which is to say, they're not ducking taxes, just delaying them. I suspect they're holding out hoping for a better deal to bring some of that back into the US.

  • Reply 22 of 24
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 857member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     

     

    Not sure why you think that's a bad policy. If they repatriate that profit now, they'll be paying 35% tax on it. But they don't need to, nor are they breaking any tax laws in not doing so now - which is to say, they're not ducking taxes, just delaying them. I suspect they're holding out hoping for a better deal to bring some of that back into the US.


     

    The problem is actually that no government is bold enough to actually correct the problem.  Business "Income" taxes are not a stable source of funding to rely on.... good years you have a feast, bad years you starve to death.  Not to mention business income is really a derived number after lots of fiddling, deductions, etc. Whether a corporation is taxed before they report income or after it does not change the fact that in the end it will come out of the consumers pockets.  

     

    The US should replace the Business Income tax with a GST/VAT (Goods and Services tax on all goods and services sold in the US).  The income taxes would disappear and the price of goods sans taxes would decrease, but the GST would be calculated on the sale price of the products so it would be a wash overall in the long term.  This would change the reliance for the government to a more stable form of funding.  It would also mean that imports are taxed the same as those manufactured in the US, which would decrease the wage advantage of manufacturing overseas.  It would also mean that exports are sent overseas without any embedded taxes in the structure making them more competitive.   To help low income people the government could calculate the basic deduction that those in need could claim and would receive (starting before the taxes are started to be collected) monthly.....  at the end of the year if you are still considered low income it would continue, and would work into the normal personal income tax cycle.  

     

    It would also mean that capital (which is already taxed in the country of origin) would be free to flow back into the US which would add trillions of dollars to the US economy -- which would then be available for investing in the US economy itself instead of left overseas.  It is not a given that someday they would bring the cash home and pay tax (a second time) on that income.....  Global companies can just move it around internationally through investments and never bring it home.  Not to mention if the company does an inverse takeover and locates HQ overseas for a global company -- it may never ever come back to the US..... especially if the investment climate is not conducive to investing it in the US itself.  

  • Reply 23 of 24
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    bkkcanuck wrote: »
    The problem is actually that no government is bold enough to actually correct the problem.  Business "Income" taxes are not a stable source of funding to rely on.... good years you have a feast, bad years you starve to death.  Not to mention business income is really a derived number after lots of fiddling, deductions, etc. Whether a corporation is taxed before they report income or after it does not change the fact that in the end it will come out of the consumers pockets.  

    The US should replace the Business Income tax with a GST/VAT (Goods and Services tax on all goods and services sold in the US).  The income taxes would disappear and the price of goods sans taxes would decrease, but the GST would be calculated on the sale price of the products so it would be a wash overall in the long term.  This would change the reliance for the government to a more stable form of funding.  It would also mean that imports are taxed the same as those manufactured in the US, which would decrease the wage advantage of manufacturing overseas.  It would also mean that exports are sent overseas without any embedded taxes in the structure making them more competitive.   To help low income people the government could calculate the basic deduction that those in need could claim and would receive (starting before the taxes are started to be collected) monthly.....  at the end of the year if you are still considered low income it would continue, and would work into the normal personal income tax cycle.  

    It would also mean that capital (which is already taxed in the country of origin) would be free to flow back into the US which would add trillions of dollars to the US economy -- which would then be available for investing in the US economy itself instead of left overseas.  It is not a given that someday they would bring the cash home and pay tax (a second time) on that income.....  Global companies can just move it around internationally through investments and never bring it home.  Not to mention if the company does an inverse takeover and locates HQ overseas for a global company -- it may never ever come back to the US..... especially if the investment climate is not conducive to investing it in the US itself.  

    www.FairTax.org
  • Reply 24 of 24
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View PostBad policy is bad policy even when you are a good liberal Californian.

     

    Not sure why you think that's a bad policy. If they repatriate that profit now, they'll be paying 35% tax on it. But they don't need to, nor are they breaking any tax laws in not doing so now - which is to say, they're not ducking taxes, just delaying them. I suspect they're holding out hoping for a better deal to bring some of that back into the US.


     

    It isn't a bad Apple policty. It is a bad federal policy. The point is that a company like Apple still won't endorse double-taxation nor paying what people in Washington deem to be their fair share. It knocks down one of the key claims often put forward by many that tax policy doesn't alter decision making or business and investment behaviors. It is clear that it does and was mentioned in the other post, the cost is in the trillions with regard to economic activity and money that could be coming back to the U.S.

Sign In or Register to comment.