No offense, but you should learn to read a Balance Sheet before you post on it in a public forum.
Total assets minus total liabilities is book equity, or net worth.
(And no, Accounts Payable is not debt; in any event, you should, look at it net of Acoounts Receivable plus Inventory. I'll stop there).
I did look at inventory, it is part of the the calculation of total assets and total liabilities. Accounts Payable is absolutely a debt, in that it needs to be paid. $125 billion is the real net cash that Apple has if they had to pay off all liabilities - actually it would be more like $116B since goodwill and intangible assets are bs.
Also, you have a bad attitude with that "learn to read a balance sheet", pretty sure that violates the rules of the site.
If it isn't low enough nobody will take the deal. Apple would be a lot better off issuing new debt instead of bringing money back at 10%.
If they make a bad decision in this matter also, they will be assured a large class-action lawsuit by shareholders. Apple should not be willing to jump on this unless it provides a clear advantage relative to their other options. Doing a deal purely for politics would be the worst decision.
I did look at inventory, it is part of the the calculation of total assets and total liabilities. Accounts Payable is absolutely a debt, in that it needs to be paid. $125 billion is the real net cash that Apple has if they had to pay off all liabilities - actually it would be more like $116B since goodwill and intangible assets are bs.
Also, you have a bad attitude with that "learn to read a balance sheet", pretty sure that violates the rules of the site.
Attitude? What 'attitude' rule am I violating? My first response to to you was a simple, entirely straightforward, fact-based response. You persisted with your wrong definition and analysis. You're in a public forum, and I believe I am doing a service to other readers by pointing out errors (on topics about which I know something). People call me out on any mistakes I make as well, all the time. Grow up.
Please go ahead and complain to the mods, if you wish.
in the old days there were no schools. You would learn a trade or learn the arts from your parents or a tutor.
Having kids socialize with other kids is easy. Go to the FRIKEN mall or play some softball in your neighborhood park. And you would have more time to do that instead of getting stuck in traffic during rush hour. There is no proof that children learn better when in the physical presence of other children. IN fact its the exact opposite! They are more distracted and have more anxiety, espeically from other genders! Seperating social activities from education is a no brainer.
The social aspects of school are overrated.
People also said it was delusional to have online University classes. Online stores. Online social networks.
Bottom line is the current school system is ridiculously expensive for no reason at all. With online schools people would be saving THOUSANDS on their tax bill. Almost everyone already has internet and a computer/tablet. If they don't the governement can provide it. Thats a thousand times cheaper than buying and maintaining huge buildings.
In the old days both parents didn't work. As soon as you convince parents that one of them has to be a stay at home mom/dad and come up with a solution for single parents we can discuss your suggestion. It's unfortunate, but school today is partly about baby sitting while mom and dad both work.
And as others have said, education is far more than just the "classic" learning (math, grammer, etc). Emotional, social, and physical education simply aren't going to be learned by the occasional field trip to a museum.
That's not to say that there's not opportunities for massive improvement in our educational infrastructure. I just don't think getting ride of physical schools is the answer.
Computer nerds make 300% more than the average actor.
Nice try though.
Some of the brightest minds in history did not go to large schools as children 5-14 years old.
Schools in their current form have only been around for about 200 years. Before that people learned mostly from a single teacher, not with other students around. To say you need a social aspect with learing Math/Science/ect is ridiculous
I've noticed that you've mentioned "large" schools. Not sure what your definition of large is. But on that point I might agree. I disagree wholly on elimination of schools. I think the notion that there's not an important social aspect to education is absurd. Not to mention, how are you going to teach other classes like shop, home ec, art (ie, sculpture)? What about doing experiments in science class? Music? Does every home need to have a fully equipped workshop, kitchen, and science lab? Math, literature/grammar, and to some degree science can probably be tought remotely. But there are plenty of subjects that simply require hands-on.
If we could better network smaller schools together so that not every school would have to have a teacher for every conceivable subject, for example, and they could share other resources, then you could return to smaller, neighborhood schools which would address some of the points you mentioned (commute time, etc). But it would not eliminate the physical infrastructure you are trying to get rid of.
show me research that dealing with kids at large schools benefits children. No one is saying they can't have outings at museums, zoos, ect. But its an absolute waste of money to spend billions on classrooms when most children have perfectly good computers at home.
Lets say 4 times a week they do remote learning. And once a week they have an outing to socialize with other kids. And kids have the rest of the day to socialize with neighbors anyway. And without having to commute they will have more time to do so.
Having brick and mortar schools are a waste:
1. Billion dollar buildings
2. Billion dollar debt and interest payments to pay for those schools
3. Expensive school buses, security, and causing tons of traffic.
4. Expensive maintenance of the property, insurance, ect
Every other industry is going remote. Why not schools?
Another added benefit is you can monitor bullying better since everything will be recorded by webcam.
You can learn almost anything remotely now. Colleges and unviersities have been doing this for decades.
Because 10x more kids would be overweight. The social skills development argument mentioned earlier is spot-on 100% correct, also. We need to expose and push our kids towards more outside activity rather than keep them holed up in their houses.
Sure, make the billionaires richer and richer. Let the working people pay the taxes to run this country. What a bunch of motherf_____s Congress is - run and paid for by the lobbyists of the billionaires. Of course there any making working class schmucks that think this would be great for them - LOL. Hey Trump, before long you will be rich enough to buy the Washington, DC - King Trump, yep, that's what we're talking about. Get ready to be a "subject", not a citizen.
At the time Cook gave his congressional testimony, one of the problems some congress members had with a "tax holiday" was that it hasn't historically increased investment in the U.S. Instead, the funds were used for things like huge executive bonuses, special dividends, and stock buybacks. If you want the tax holiday, that is fine, but prepare yourself for the probability that conditions will be attached disallowing certain actions by companies who take advantage.
Because 10x more kids would be overweight. The social skills development argument mentioned earlier is spot-on 100% correct, also. We need to expose and push our kids towards more outside activity rather than keep them holed up in their houses.
Speaking for myself, I absolutely hated school and would've loved having self-paced courses I could advance through on my own. Classrooms are bottomless pits of wasted time and teachers dealing with problem students instead of teaching.
The article mentions the fact that "the U.S. is the only developed country that imposes taxes on the worldwide income of its citizens and corporations." Yet it only mentions that the new tax code will benefit multinational corporations.
Guess it's safe to assume that, once again, corporations will get a huge break, while citizens will get the shaft. As a US citizen living overseas, I'd like in on the action, too! How about it?!?!
It's a complete fallacy to say that U.S. companies are taxed twice for foreign earnings.
Quote:
As the Tax Policy Center report says, “[T]he United States allows corporations to claim credits for income taxes paid to foreign governments directly or by foreign subsidiaries on distributed earnings. These foreign tax credits can be used to offset US tax liability on foreign-source income.”
The foreign tax credit is subtracted from taxes that would otherwise be owed, on line 5a of the corporate tax return form 1120. IRS instructions define taxes eligible for a credit as those “paid or accrued during the tax year to any foreign country or U.S. possession.”
Toder, a coauthor of the Tax Policy Center report, told us in an email that “this results in their paying tax at the US rate, not double taxation.”
“Gov. Christie is wrong to say that we tax the income twice,” Toder wrote to us. “The U.S. does tax income that its MNCs [multinational corporations] repatriated to the U.S. and some of that income has paid tax in foreign countries. But we allow companies to claim a credit for foreign taxes paid, so the income is not subject to double taxation.”
The article mentions the fact that "the U.S. is the only developed country that imposes taxes on the worldwide income of its citizens and corporations."
That isn't even correct. Chile, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Poland, and South Korea also tax overseas earnings.
Our government should not be offering "one-time tax holidays" every so often but should be changing our tax code to encourage businesses to bring back their offshore holdings back anytime they see fit.
Indeed. Hence tax-treaties should reflect the difference in tax rates between Country X and Country USA and only charge the differential, not "double taxing" revenue.
Tax-holidays just encourage the status-quo. Hold on to your monies until papa-USA cries about being poor and accepts a lower rate.
That said, If the money is brought over, Apple should tell Icahn to GTFO.
in the old days there were no schools. You would learn a trade or learn the arts from your parents or a tutor.
Having kids socialize with other kids is easy. Go to the FRIKEN mall or play some softball in your neighborhood park. And you would have more time to do that instead of getting stuck in traffic during rush hour. There is no proof that children learn better when in the physical presence of other children. IN fact its the exact opposite! They are more distracted and have more anxiety, espeically from other genders! Seperating social activities from education is a no brainer.
The social aspects of school are overrated.
People also said it was delusional to have online University classes. Online stores. Online social networks.
Bottom line is the current school system is ridiculously expensive for no reason at all. With online schools people would be saving THOUSANDS on their tax bill. Almost everyone already has internet and a computer/tablet. If they don't the governement can provide it. Thats a thousand times cheaper than buying and maintaining huge buildings.
Let's see. Pass the cost back to parents? Or just leave the kids at home alone? So instead of schools funded by taxpayers, parents ship their kids off to daycares where the same thing occurs, but the parents pay the full cost of daycare, which is hardly affordable for anyone.
Guess it's safe to assume that, once again, corporations will get a huge break, while citizens will get the shaft. As a US citizen living overseas, I'd like in on the action, too! How about it?!?!
You get the first $100,800 of foreign income tax free, a tax deduction for all foreign housing, and also a tax credit for all foreign tax paid - sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.
Canada is better, though - once you leave you can keep your citizenship and never file or pay taxes as long as you don't own any real estate, bank account or credit card in Canada.
The shittiest thing that the USA does to its expatriates isn't taxes, it is banking regulations. People are renouncing their citizenship just to open a bank account and avoid the risk of huge fines for not filing the FATCA paperwork (if you don't file form 8938 and the FBAR each year they can take half of your money, and the penalty is each year so you can lose everything if you don't file for a few years).
Do you even understand the current corporate tax law?
Lets say you sell iPhones in Japan. Apple gets taxed 20% Japan corp tax. Now Apple wants to use those profits to buy a new factory in the USA. Guess what? Apple needs to pay 35% tax to the IRS on income they already paid taxes on! Can you not see how ridiculous that is! So ridiculous that the USA is the only country on the planet that does this. No other developed world country charges you taxes on foreign profits.
There are many tax loop holes for the rich and corporations that are unfair. But this isn't one of them.
So now Apple paid 20% Japanese tax, 35% US Tax, and 5% State tax. That is 60% taxes!! Now the investor sells his shares and then you add another 15-25% tax on that also! Its no wonder so many companies are moving OUT of the USA. If the USA had more reasonable corporate tax maybe we could keep more jobs in the USA. Taxing US corps MORE is not the answer to help the USA middle class. You know as well I do that tax will just passed on to the consumer.
Um, wrong. You get a discount for foreign taxes paid. So, effectively, you only pay the higher of the two rates [as in, you are taxed 40% in Italy (totally made up number), you pay 0% to US]. Nevermind that how you imply the percentages go together is completely incorrect (as you certainly imply that all the percentages add up, leaving only 20% or so at the end).
Maybe if the Feds reduced the corporate tax rate for everyone, that would be reasonable. But tax holidays like this:
1) ONLY benefits the companies that need it the least. The ones that make a bunch of profit, and can park it overseas. IP is the worst, because you just declare that you have to pay an arbitrarily large amount in royalties to pay to a foreign subsidiary in a no-tax country, and like magic, profits without taxation. And yes, Apple does this A LOT. So, most of their profits are UNTAXED.
2) encourages those companies to make it worse, because every time you do a tax holiday, more companies look at the situation and say "hey, we want in on this" and start parking more money overseas, waiting for hookers and coke day.
It would only be for high school. Sorry i forgot to mention that.
Good that you mentioned that, since I assumed that when upvoting your previous and original posts and was just going to qualify my vote.
It's the High School age education where a large number of changes need to take place to be able to compete in the world today.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that only online education is the answer, but something that combines the best of classroom, use of resources, and receiving the best education for the effort and amount of time spent learning. Not every teacher or local curriculum can achieve that, so it stands to reason that ever more online top educators should be made available to ALL students regardless where they live. <- That's the main reason for my upvote.
As for America tearing down the equally successful (in mostly wealthy neighborhoods and athletics focused), as well as tragic (poor neighborhoods, no resources, bullying clique culture) high school education apparatus, to start over with a singular focused goal towards educating youth for the evermore competitive world-economy...? At the end of my dire run-on sentence: I doubt it.
Plus if its online you can monitor EXACTLY what the teacher is saying/teaching. No more questions about abuse, bullying, or discrimination. No more students bullying other students.
The social aspect of growing up is better to be done with PARENTAL supervison anyway. Commuting a child to school can take an extra 2 hours a day for many parents. If they don't have to communte they will have time to setup social events with other kids (of their choosing, instead of being forced to socialize with drug babies and bullies)
The brick and mortar schools are a relic of the past.
There are aspects to remote learning that indeed can and should be expanded upon, especially as it relates to post-secondary education (lots happening here already, but more can be done).
You seem to think that a parent has nothing else to do than be at home to watch what their kids are getting taught? There are millions of two-income families and so this concept for young children would not work.
Comments
No offense, but you should learn to read a Balance Sheet before you post on it in a public forum.
Total assets minus total liabilities is book equity, or net worth.
(And no, Accounts Payable is not debt; in any event, you should, look at it net of Acoounts Receivable plus Inventory. I'll stop there).
I did look at inventory, it is part of the the calculation of total assets and total liabilities. Accounts Payable is absolutely a debt, in that it needs to be paid. $125 billion is the real net cash that Apple has if they had to pay off all liabilities - actually it would be more like $116B since goodwill and intangible assets are bs.
Also, you have a bad attitude with that "learn to read a balance sheet", pretty sure that violates the rules of the site.
schools should be done remotely. No reason to fund expensive buildings and playgrounds.
The model of going to school and having billion dollar buildings is obsolete.
I do hope that you're joking about this. Perhaps you are a young techie without children, that would explain the thought.
If it isn't low enough nobody will take the deal. Apple would be a lot better off issuing new debt instead of bringing money back at 10%.
If they make a bad decision in this matter also, they will be assured a large class-action lawsuit by shareholders. Apple should not be willing to jump on this unless it provides a clear advantage relative to their other options. Doing a deal purely for politics would be the worst decision.
http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Net+Debt
Attitude? What 'attitude' rule am I violating? My first response to to you was a simple, entirely straightforward, fact-based response. You persisted with your wrong definition and analysis. You're in a public forum, and I believe I am doing a service to other readers by pointing out errors (on topics about which I know something). People call me out on any mistakes I make as well, all the time. Grow up.
Please go ahead and complain to the mods, if you wish.
in the old days there were no schools. You would learn a trade or learn the arts from your parents or a tutor.
Having kids socialize with other kids is easy. Go to the FRIKEN mall or play some softball in your neighborhood park. And you would have more time to do that instead of getting stuck in traffic during rush hour. There is no proof that children learn better when in the physical presence of other children. IN fact its the exact opposite! They are more distracted and have more anxiety, espeically from other genders! Seperating social activities from education is a no brainer.
The social aspects of school are overrated.
People also said it was delusional to have online University classes. Online stores. Online social networks.
Bottom line is the current school system is ridiculously expensive for no reason at all. With online schools people would be saving THOUSANDS on their tax bill. Almost everyone already has internet and a computer/tablet. If they don't the governement can provide it. Thats a thousand times cheaper than buying and maintaining huge buildings.
In the old days both parents didn't work. As soon as you convince parents that one of them has to be a stay at home mom/dad and come up with a solution for single parents we can discuss your suggestion. It's unfortunate, but school today is partly about baby sitting while mom and dad both work.
And as others have said, education is far more than just the "classic" learning (math, grammer, etc). Emotional, social, and physical education simply aren't going to be learned by the occasional field trip to a museum.
That's not to say that there's not opportunities for massive improvement in our educational infrastructure. I just don't think getting ride of physical schools is the answer.
Computer nerds make 300% more than the average actor.
Nice try though.
Some of the brightest minds in history did not go to large schools as children 5-14 years old.
Schools in their current form have only been around for about 200 years. Before that people learned mostly from a single teacher, not with other students around. To say you need a social aspect with learing Math/Science/ect is ridiculous
I've noticed that you've mentioned "large" schools. Not sure what your definition of large is. But on that point I might agree. I disagree wholly on elimination of schools. I think the notion that there's not an important social aspect to education is absurd. Not to mention, how are you going to teach other classes like shop, home ec, art (ie, sculpture)? What about doing experiments in science class? Music? Does every home need to have a fully equipped workshop, kitchen, and science lab? Math, literature/grammar, and to some degree science can probably be tought remotely. But there are plenty of subjects that simply require hands-on.
If we could better network smaller schools together so that not every school would have to have a teacher for every conceivable subject, for example, and they could share other resources, then you could return to smaller, neighborhood schools which would address some of the points you mentioned (commute time, etc). But it would not eliminate the physical infrastructure you are trying to get rid of.
Because 10x more kids would be overweight. The social skills development argument mentioned earlier is spot-on 100% correct, also. We need to expose and push our kids towards more outside activity rather than keep them holed up in their houses.
Sure, make the billionaires richer and richer. Let the working people pay the taxes to run this country. What a bunch of motherf_____s Congress is - run and paid for by the lobbyists of the billionaires. Of course there any making working class schmucks that think this would be great for them - LOL. Hey Trump, before long you will be rich enough to buy the Washington, DC - King Trump, yep, that's what we're talking about. Get ready to be a "subject", not a citizen.
Because 10x more kids would be overweight. The social skills development argument mentioned earlier is spot-on 100% correct, also. We need to expose and push our kids towards more outside activity rather than keep them holed up in their houses.
Speaking for myself, I absolutely hated school and would've loved having self-paced courses I could advance through on my own. Classrooms are bottomless pits of wasted time and teachers dealing with problem students instead of teaching.
Guess it's safe to assume that, once again, corporations will get a huge break, while citizens will get the shaft. As a US citizen living overseas, I'd like in on the action, too! How about it?!?!
It's a complete fallacy to say that U.S. companies are taxed twice for foreign earnings.
As the Tax Policy Center report says, “[T]he United States allows corporations to claim credits for income taxes paid to foreign governments directly or by foreign subsidiaries on distributed earnings. These foreign tax credits can be used to offset US tax liability on foreign-source income.”
The foreign tax credit is subtracted from taxes that would otherwise be owed, on line 5a of the corporate tax return form 1120. IRS instructions define taxes eligible for a credit as those “paid or accrued during the tax year to any foreign country or U.S. possession.”
Toder, a coauthor of the Tax Policy Center report, told us in an email that “this results in their paying tax at the US rate, not double taxation.”
“Gov. Christie is wrong to say that we tax the income twice,” Toder wrote to us. “The U.S. does tax income that its MNCs [multinational corporations] repatriated to the U.S. and some of that income has paid tax in foreign countries. But we allow companies to claim a credit for foreign taxes paid, so the income is not subject to double taxation.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/christies-tax-dodge/
The article mentions the fact that "the U.S. is the only developed country that imposes taxes on the worldwide income of its citizens and corporations."
That isn't even correct. Chile, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Poland, and South Korea also tax overseas earnings.
Indeed. Hence tax-treaties should reflect the difference in tax rates between Country X and Country USA and only charge the differential, not "double taxing" revenue.
Tax-holidays just encourage the status-quo. Hold on to your monies until papa-USA cries about being poor and accepts a lower rate.
That said, If the money is brought over, Apple should tell Icahn to GTFO.
in the old days there were no schools. You would learn a trade or learn the arts from your parents or a tutor.
Having kids socialize with other kids is easy. Go to the FRIKEN mall or play some softball in your neighborhood park. And you would have more time to do that instead of getting stuck in traffic during rush hour. There is no proof that children learn better when in the physical presence of other children. IN fact its the exact opposite! They are more distracted and have more anxiety, espeically from other genders! Seperating social activities from education is a no brainer.
The social aspects of school are overrated.
People also said it was delusional to have online University classes. Online stores. Online social networks.
Bottom line is the current school system is ridiculously expensive for no reason at all. With online schools people would be saving THOUSANDS on their tax bill. Almost everyone already has internet and a computer/tablet. If they don't the governement can provide it. Thats a thousand times cheaper than buying and maintaining huge buildings.
Let's see. Pass the cost back to parents? Or just leave the kids at home alone? So instead of schools funded by taxpayers, parents ship their kids off to daycares where the same thing occurs, but the parents pay the full cost of daycare, which is hardly affordable for anyone.
Guess it's safe to assume that, once again, corporations will get a huge break, while citizens will get the shaft. As a US citizen living overseas, I'd like in on the action, too! How about it?!?!
You get the first $100,800 of foreign income tax free, a tax deduction for all foreign housing, and also a tax credit for all foreign tax paid - sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion
Canada is better, though - once you leave you can keep your citizenship and never file or pay taxes as long as you don't own any real estate, bank account or credit card in Canada.
The shittiest thing that the USA does to its expatriates isn't taxes, it is banking regulations. People are renouncing their citizenship just to open a bank account and avoid the risk of huge fines for not filing the FATCA paperwork (if you don't file form 8938 and the FBAR each year they can take half of your money, and the penalty is each year so you can lose everything if you don't file for a few years).
Do you even understand the current corporate tax law?
Lets say you sell iPhones in Japan. Apple gets taxed 20% Japan corp tax. Now Apple wants to use those profits to buy a new factory in the USA. Guess what? Apple needs to pay 35% tax to the IRS on income they already paid taxes on! Can you not see how ridiculous that is! So ridiculous that the USA is the only country on the planet that does this. No other developed world country charges you taxes on foreign profits.
There are many tax loop holes for the rich and corporations that are unfair. But this isn't one of them.
So now Apple paid 20% Japanese tax, 35% US Tax, and 5% State tax. That is 60% taxes!! Now the investor sells his shares and then you add another 15-25% tax on that also! Its no wonder so many companies are moving OUT of the USA. If the USA had more reasonable corporate tax maybe we could keep more jobs in the USA. Taxing US corps MORE is not the answer to help the USA middle class. You know as well I do that tax will just passed on to the consumer.
Um, wrong. You get a discount for foreign taxes paid. So, effectively, you only pay the higher of the two rates [as in, you are taxed 40% in Italy (totally made up number), you pay 0% to US]. Nevermind that how you imply the percentages go together is completely incorrect (as you certainly imply that all the percentages add up, leaving only 20% or so at the end).
Maybe if the Feds reduced the corporate tax rate for everyone, that would be reasonable. But tax holidays like this:
1) ONLY benefits the companies that need it the least. The ones that make a bunch of profit, and can park it overseas. IP is the worst, because you just declare that you have to pay an arbitrarily large amount in royalties to pay to a foreign subsidiary in a no-tax country, and like magic, profits without taxation. And yes, Apple does this A LOT. So, most of their profits are UNTAXED.
2) encourages those companies to make it worse, because every time you do a tax holiday, more companies look at the situation and say "hey, we want in on this" and start parking more money overseas, waiting for hookers and coke day.
Good that you mentioned that, since I assumed that when upvoting your previous and original posts and was just going to qualify my vote.
It's the High School age education where a large number of changes need to take place to be able to compete in the world today.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that only online education is the answer, but something that combines the best of classroom, use of resources, and receiving the best education for the effort and amount of time spent learning. Not every teacher or local curriculum can achieve that, so it stands to reason that ever more online top educators should be made available to ALL students regardless where they live. <- That's the main reason for my upvote.
As for America tearing down the equally successful (in mostly wealthy neighborhoods and athletics focused), as well as tragic (poor neighborhoods, no resources, bullying clique culture) high school education apparatus, to start over with a singular focused goal towards educating youth for the evermore competitive world-economy...? At the end of my dire run-on sentence: I doubt it.
Online schools can and have been successful
http://thejournal.com/articles/2012/01/27/the-4-keys-to-a-successful-online-school.aspx
Plus if its online you can monitor EXACTLY what the teacher is saying/teaching. No more questions about abuse, bullying, or discrimination. No more students bullying other students.
The social aspect of growing up is better to be done with PARENTAL supervison anyway. Commuting a child to school can take an extra 2 hours a day for many parents. If they don't have to communte they will have time to setup social events with other kids (of their choosing, instead of being forced to socialize with drug babies and bullies)
The brick and mortar schools are a relic of the past.
There are aspects to remote learning that indeed can and should be expanded upon, especially as it relates to post-secondary education (lots happening here already, but more can be done).
You seem to think that a parent has nothing else to do than be at home to watch what their kids are getting taught? There are millions of two-income families and so this concept for young children would not work.