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.
It's not the responsibility of taxpayers or government to babysit the kids of others.
So parents are primarily responsible for paying for their kids education!!! What a HORRIBLE thing! Why should parents pay for their childrens education! HORRIBLE. Oh wait.....
Maybe if parents need to carry a more heavy burden of paying for their kids education they would think twice before having kid's when they are 16 or having 10 kids. Look if you can pay for it go ahead and have 10 kids. But having 10 kids and expecting OTHER TAX PAYERS pay for their education is ridiculous.
My suggestions is for online schools for high school students only. There is no need to have day care for high school students.
Its about time PARENTS take responsibility and take care of their FRICKEN kids. If you can't do that then dont have kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
It's not the responsibility of taxpayers or government to babysit the kids of others.
That's why I would suggest online schools only for high school children.
Also they would go to a brick and mortar school twice a week.
My plan is to have half the amount of high schools since half the student body will be going to school on Mon/Tue and the other half Wed/Thur.
This would cut down on education expense by almost 50%.
Even if you just get rid of 25% of the high schools that would be a massive tax saver.
That is a reasonable suggestion (though unlikely to happen for another generation). My only question is why it took you about 20 posts to get from your earlier sensationalist comment (all schooling should be done online) to something reasonable.
First Apple and shareholders will get access to the $200 Billion. If that happens I expect a massive one time special dividend, increase in regular dividend, and massive increase in buyback program.
Second Apple has over $25 billion of accrued taxes on the books. If this law passes that liability disappears. Unlike other companies like Google, Apple expenses taxes they have not and may never have to pay. Thus that $25 billion will be recorded as INCOME when the tax law changes. This will also change Apple tax accrual going forward. Right now their tax rate is about 26%. If this law passes it could dip to 20%.
Great points
I highly doubt the special dividend. I think a massive buyback is more likely
The $25B has no real benefit. They will simply move it in the balance sheet and it will flow through income statement as a one-time, non-cash adj
The reduction in-going of tax rate to 20% is huge. I did not know Goigle does not accrue and always wondered why their tax rate was so much lower. This would result in $3-$4 billion additional net income per quarter. Apple's PE would plunge
Is anyone forcing millions to have two-income families?
Some don't have a choice. But that is rare. Most want to drive that shiny new BMW, have a new iPhone every year, and live in that 4,000 square foot house. That's why both mom and dad need to work.
If you want to have kid's take care of them. If all you are going to do is see your kids 10 minutes a day because you are working so damn much than maybe you should not have kid's. But especially don't expect other people to foot the bill.
Completely agree. Sick to death of being forced via taxation to support deadbeats.
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.
University level education is vastly different as the folks involved are semi-mature at that point and obviously self motivated. Education at the younger levels is a phenomenally complex issue and while many of your suggestions may sound logical they simply would not work for so many reasons. Not least of which is the vast majority of children would not study remotely (heard of GTA V?) or come from very poor homes and school is their only escape to a form of normality. Remote learning certainly would not have the benefit of social skill development or of meeting good teachers although I understand you are suggesting a quasi remote / establishment base system. Alas, 'good teachers' isn't the case these days in many schools anyway. The qualification level and pay levels are far too low in the USA. If you want to see successful educational systems just travel the globe a little, check out the Scandinavian countries first. There are many models out there that have proven track records. I have a bachelors degree in education which gets me about as far as knowing I'm glad I am not involved anymore and I don't have to try and solve the problems.
My recommendation is to have have half the students go to the brick and mortar school on Mon/Tue and half on Wed/Thur. That way you could shut down half of the brick and mortar schools. Many of which are so run down they should be closed. This is for high school kids only.
You would be surprised how much of the young generation would actually learn MORE from remote study. The young generation are so much into mobile devices they'd probably learn more. The problem with mobile learning now is they basically just do the same thing as a regular class but film it. That does not cut it. They need to take advantage of software. It can't simply be watching a teaching on your webcam. That is boring as hell.
If we had unlimited tax dollars I see no problem with continuing the status quo. But we don't. We need to cut expenses somewhere. And the most logical place is to cut brick and mortar costs which are MASSIVE.
If you just close down 25% of the high schools you would save a ton of money.
Sorry I updated my comment after you'd obviously replied so a bit out of sync there. Look, I agree in part but IMHO the only children that would succeed at the system you suggest would most likely succeed in any type of system and sadly the reverse of that statement is true. So yes, you could migrate the better motivated kids to such a system no doubt.
Knowing how good the Scandinavians are at educational systems, I will read up on their latest developments. I would not be surprised if they are not including some of your ideas already but most likely for extra studying not instead of school time. US kids spend less time in studying than any developed country from what i recall.
But think of the kid's in poor run down neighborhoods. In the current system they don't get high quality teachers. Why? Because the best teachers don't want to live or commute in a dangerous run down area.
But if you are doing remote teaching you can have the BEST teachers in the district teach these same kid's. You can show them the same videos, use the same apps, as the kid's in rich areas. The rich areas get all the most updated textbooks. With this system all the kids will get the same e-books. Everyone has a chance to a quality education.
If a kid is not motivated to learn they won't learn IN ANY ENVIRONMENT. PERIOD. You can't force anyone to learn. So even in expensive brick and mortar schools those problem kid's won't learn either but you will be spending much more $$$ for them to take up space.
An added benefit is parents can occasionally watch their kids 'go to school' at home. They can listen to what the teacher is saying. They can see FIRST HAND what the kids are doing. That is pretty much impossible in a brick and mortar environment. And for trouble families where one or both parents don't have jobs they can monitor their kids even better at home.
Just two comments; First the kids at younger ages would have no one at home to supervise as both parents or the only parent/guardian working so there is a problem right off the bat. Secondly the only way to motivate a kid that is hard to motivate is a very, very good teacher and as you say those sort of kids are unlikely to get that. I guess Scandinavia has a head start since the overall population is at a far higher standard of living than here in the USA where the wealth gap is so vast.
Just two comments; First the kids at younger ages would have no one at home to supervise as both parents or the only parent/guardian working so there is a problem right off the bat. Secondly the only way to motivate a kid that is hard to motivate is a very, very good teacher and as you say those sort of kids are unlikely to get that. I guess Scandinavia has a head start since the overall population is at a far higher standard of living than here in the USA where the wealth gap is so vast.
Comparisons are ultimately futile since there are vast differences in population size, homogeneity and cultural mores.
I still find it amazing that in a few more years, one company would enough profit that it could almost single handedly wipe out the debt of an entire European nation (Greece, if their $300 billion dollar debt is correct). No wonder governments are taking such an interest in Apples activities. They must be salivating at a chance to waste some of that money.
Why shouldn't it be 0% like in the rest of the world? What did the U.S. do for it's cut? The products were made and sold out of the U.S. but just to bring the money into the U.S. the Government should get a chunk of it also? That's just laughable!! How about Apple brings in it at ZERO percent like any normal country and then is able to spend it in the U.S. and at that point it gets taxed like anything else?
One things needs to be clarified. A number such as 6 - 6.5% is not trivial: it merely splits the difference between the corporation and the government.
Companies like Apple have already paid about 15% - 20% abroad. The U.S. statutory rate is 35%, but the effective rate is often less because of various deductions, let's say 30%. So the effective additional amount owed to the U.S. government is no more than 10 - 15%.
Given that, 6% seems about right.
Even 6% is crap and completely unfair! The product wasn't made in the U.S. it wasn't sold in the U.S. So it's a free grab at 6%. That's better then the 35%, but still a load of crap. It should be ZERO percent like the rest of the world!!! Then these company's can bring the money home and spend it here and at that point it can get taxed FAIRLY like everything else. There's not a single reason for the U.S. government to get a money grab. Hell why doesn't the U.S. government just force a Tax on any product sold anywhere in the world. Buy a cup of coffee in France, there's a 2% U.S. tax thrown into the price. Why not, it's the SAME THING!!! That's exactly what's happening here.
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?!?!
I'm all for that also!!!! If you made your money out of the U.S., why should any of that be taxed just bringing it into the U.S? It shouldn't. Once you bring it here and spend it, you are now getting taxed on it. I could care less if it's a Corporation or a individual. This is just the U.S. wanting to tax anything and everything. Even the air your breath.
The last thing we need is a tax holiday. We need to change the tax code so these companies are always paying taxes like the rest of us.
Why should a Individual or a Corporation have to pay Taxes to the U.S. just to bring Money into the country? Most all other countries don't do this. Once the money is here, it would get taxed when used just like everyone else at that point. So they would be paying taxes just like everyone else!!!
One things needs to be clarified. A number such as 6 - 6.5% is not trivial: it merely splits the difference between the corporation and the government.
Companies like Apple have already paid about 15% - 20% abroad. The U.S. statutory rate is 35%, but the effective rate is often less because of various deductions, let's say 30%. So the effective additional amount owed to the U.S. government is no more than 10 - 15%.
Given that, 6% seems about right.
Sure about that? There's evidence Apple paid less than 2% on the bulk of it, and that's an average. Some of it has never had a penny of income tax paid on it. To be fair Apple isn't the only one but there's nowhere that I see validated claims of Apple paying 20% on average on it's overseas profits. But perhaps you have the citations.
Net cash never takes Accts Payable into account. Just as net cash never takes Accts Receivable into account. You need to get your definitions straight.
Ok - Im wrong then, but how would such a non-intuitive definition of net cash even be useful? Accounts Payable is the worst kind of debt, due in 60 days, and people who want to know how much cash Apple has on hand to do stuff with would need to take that into account.
Net Assets (minus goodwill and intangibles) is the more useful measure, Net Cash by your definition seems totally useless. Apple has about $116B in usable cash (i.e. not some investor definition of "usable cash", just the obvious amount of cash that they could actually use in real life).
Second Apple has over $25 billion of accrued taxes on the books. If this law passes that liability disappears. Unlike other companies like Google, Apple expenses taxes they have not and may never have to pay.
What??
I swear you make this stuff up as you go along and think no one will notice. Have you actually looked at Google's Consolidated Balance Sheet? Nope, not if you're claiming they don't account for deferred tax liabilities. I think you said you were an accountant did you not? Any good accountant should be familiar with FAS 109. Accurately reporting deferred tax liabilities is a requirement which all publicly traded companies including Google adhere to or risk a lawsuit from the SEC!
Comments
It's not the responsibility of taxpayers or government to babysit the kids of others.
So parents are primarily responsible for paying for their kids education!!! What a HORRIBLE thing! Why should parents pay for their childrens education! HORRIBLE. Oh wait.....
Maybe if parents need to carry a more heavy burden of paying for their kids education they would think twice before having kid's when they are 16 or having 10 kids. Look if you can pay for it go ahead and have 10 kids. But having 10 kids and expecting OTHER TAX PAYERS pay for their education is ridiculous.
My suggestions is for online schools for high school students only. There is no need to have day care for high school students.
Its about time PARENTS take responsibility and take care of their FRICKEN kids. If you can't do that then dont have kids.
It's not the responsibility of taxpayers or government to babysit the kids of others.
Do either of you have children?
That's why I would suggest online schools only for high school children.
Also they would go to a brick and mortar school twice a week.
My plan is to have half the amount of high schools since half the student body will be going to school on Mon/Tue and the other half Wed/Thur.
This would cut down on education expense by almost 50%.
Even if you just get rid of 25% of the high schools that would be a massive tax saver.
That is a reasonable suggestion (though unlikely to happen for another generation). My only question is why it took you about 20 posts to get from your earlier sensationalist comment (all schooling should be done online) to something reasonable.
Great points
I highly doubt the special dividend. I think a massive buyback is more likely
The $25B has no real benefit. They will simply move it in the balance sheet and it will flow through income statement as a one-time, non-cash adj
The reduction in-going of tax rate to 20% is huge. I did not know Goigle does not accrue and always wondered why their tax rate was so much lower. This would result in $3-$4 billion additional net income per quarter. Apple's PE would plunge
Completely agree. Sick to death of being forced via taxation to support deadbeats.
University level education is vastly different as the folks involved are semi-mature at that point and obviously self motivated. Education at the younger levels is a phenomenally complex issue and while many of your suggestions may sound logical they simply would not work for so many reasons. Not least of which is the vast majority of children would not study remotely (heard of GTA V?) or come from very poor homes and school is their only escape to a form of normality. Remote learning certainly would not have the benefit of social skill development or of meeting good teachers although I understand you are suggesting a quasi remote / establishment base system. Alas, 'good teachers' isn't the case these days in many schools anyway. The qualification level and pay levels are far too low in the USA. If you want to see successful educational systems just travel the globe a little, check out the Scandinavian countries first. There are many models out there that have proven track records. I have a bachelors degree in education which gets me about as far as knowing I'm glad I am not involved anymore and I don't have to try and solve the problems.
Sorry I updated my comment after you'd obviously replied so a bit out of sync there. Look, I agree in part but IMHO the only children that would succeed at the system you suggest would most likely succeed in any type of system and sadly the reverse of that statement is true. So yes, you could migrate the better motivated kids to such a system no doubt.
Knowing how good the Scandinavians are at educational systems, I will read up on their latest developments. I would not be surprised if they are not including some of your ideas already but most likely for extra studying not instead of school time. US kids spend less time in studying than any developed country from what i recall.
Just two comments; First the kids at younger ages would have no one at home to supervise as both parents or the only parent/guardian working so there is a problem right off the bat. Secondly the only way to motivate a kid that is hard to motivate is a very, very good teacher and as you say those sort of kids are unlikely to get that. I guess Scandinavia has a head start since the overall population is at a far higher standard of living than here in the USA where the wealth gap is so vast.
Comparisons are ultimately futile since there are vast differences in population size, homogeneity and cultural mores.
Thanks for pointing out that Apple holds back the potential tax it will have to pay on the overseas money.
Agreed that this could be a windfall. I certainly would love to get a large dividend bonus but would be surprised if Apple did that.
The cash on hand would have a huge impact on the stock price and I would imagine Apple would increase the regular dividend and also buybacks.
Great idea....and not to get into political flame war, but much of that money could go to crumbling schools and not just crumbling roads.
The schools would still be crumbling, the money would just go to everything else, the Teachers, more administrators and the Union!!!
It shouldn't be 0%. 6-10 is a good number.
Why shouldn't it be 0% like in the rest of the world? What did the U.S. do for it's cut? The products were made and sold out of the U.S. but just to bring the money into the U.S. the Government should get a chunk of it also? That's just laughable!! How about Apple brings in it at ZERO percent like any normal country and then is able to spend it in the U.S. and at that point it gets taxed like anything else?
One things needs to be clarified. A number such as 6 - 6.5% is not trivial: it merely splits the difference between the corporation and the government.
Companies like Apple have already paid about 15% - 20% abroad. The U.S. statutory rate is 35%, but the effective rate is often less because of various deductions, let's say 30%. So the effective additional amount owed to the U.S. government is no more than 10 - 15%.
Given that, 6% seems about right.
Even 6% is crap and completely unfair! The product wasn't made in the U.S. it wasn't sold in the U.S. So it's a free grab at 6%. That's better then the 35%, but still a load of crap. It should be ZERO percent like the rest of the world!!! Then these company's can bring the money home and spend it here and at that point it can get taxed FAIRLY like everything else. There's not a single reason for the U.S. government to get a money grab. Hell why doesn't the U.S. government just force a Tax on any product sold anywhere in the world. Buy a cup of coffee in France, there's a 2% U.S. tax thrown into the price. Why not, it's the SAME THING!!! That's exactly what's happening here.
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?!?!
I'm all for that also!!!! If you made your money out of the U.S., why should any of that be taxed just bringing it into the U.S? It shouldn't. Once you bring it here and spend it, you are now getting taxed on it. I could care less if it's a Corporation or a individual. This is just the U.S. wanting to tax anything and everything. Even the air your breath.
The last thing we need is a tax holiday. We need to change the tax code so these companies are always paying taxes like the rest of us.
Why should a Individual or a Corporation have to pay Taxes to the U.S. just to bring Money into the country? Most all other countries don't do this. Once the money is here, it would get taxed when used just like everyone else at that point. So they would be paying taxes just like everyone else!!!
Net cash never takes Accts Payable into account. Just as net cash never takes Accts Receivable into account. You need to get your definitions straight.
Ok - Im wrong then, but how would such a non-intuitive definition of net cash even be useful? Accounts Payable is the worst kind of debt, due in 60 days, and people who want to know how much cash Apple has on hand to do stuff with would need to take that into account.
Net Assets (minus goodwill and intangibles) is the more useful measure, Net Cash by your definition seems totally useless. Apple has about $116B in usable cash (i.e. not some investor definition of "usable cash", just the obvious amount of cash that they could actually use in real life).
I swear you make this stuff up as you go along and think no one will notice. Have you actually looked at Google's Consolidated Balance Sheet? Nope, not if you're claiming they don't account for deferred tax liabilities. I think you said you were an accountant did you not? Any good accountant should be familiar with FAS 109.
Accurately reporting deferred tax liabilities is a requirement which all publicly traded companies including Google adhere to or risk a lawsuit from the SEC!
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.
Yeah, it is called Home Schooling and we are about to start our 20th year.