If it's legal, it's not "tax avoidance". It's just "taxes". Those are the rules, and you play by them.
Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
I'll remind you of that if Australia decides to hit Apple and others with multi billion retrospective tax bills for avoidance. You and others on here will be screaming blue murder and calling on the US to nuke Oz, no doubt, because it's so outrageously unfair.
I say preemptive strike now! Throw that shrimp on the barbie!
Why doesn't Australia just go to a flat tax to get rid of all loopholes?
Answer that question or the STFU.
I suggested several topics back that perhaps Australia should introduce a turnover tax where companies were reporting unbelievably low levels of profit.
If it was up to me, I would just say, 'Geeze, it's a pitty you bas***s didn't make any profit on that $10 Billion of stuff you sold here. Tell you what, seeing as were sympathetic blokes, you can give us $3 Billion anyway and we do hope you will be able to turn things around and be able to run your company profitably.'
The lawmakers are MORE to blame than anyone. They are the ones that have the power to change things.
Because the world isn't as simple as you are and because doing so could well hurt some companies the existing laws were designed for. For at least 20 years I have thought Australia should re-write their tax laws from scratch. Unlike you, who seem to have a few roos loose in top paddock, I don't think corruption among the pollies is a reason why it hasn't been done. I suspect it's more to do with it probably costing a shed load and because there wouldn't be a single vote in it.
The USA is they ONLY country in the world that taxes businesses and individuals on income earned outside the country. This is the root of the problem.
No, it's not the only one, there are a few others. But, yes, that's the root of the problem. People criticizing Apple for minimizing taxes are talking from their wishes and not from reason. Or would anybody (with almost everyone thinking taxes are high), gladly pay taxes not that one costly time, but twice?
No, it's not the only one, there are a few others. But, yes, that's the root of the problem. People criticizing Apple for minimizing taxes are talking from their wishes and not from reason. Or would anybody (with almost everyone thinking taxes are high), gladly pay taxes not that one costly time, but twice?
Apple would not have to pay taxes twice on money they repatriated from overseas bank accounts held in NY banks. If they paid 10% tax in Ireland and the US rate is 35%, they would only pay 25% on money repatriated, not 35%.
I wonder what would happen to the share price if Apple said they were in future going to repatriate 75% of all foreign earnings, pay up and distribute the money to shareholders as dividends? I suspect it would do a lot more good than anything Icahn has ever said or done.
But it will never happen. Why? Because all the companies that FUND these politicians campaigns are the ones who would be hurt with a flat tax.
Just admit it already. There is no flat tax because it would hurt the rich people and rich companies. The same rich people/companies that fund the politicians campaigns.
Oh, FFS!
Would you stop with the paranoia and misconception that US = Australia.
I really dislike the length Apple goes through to avoid paying taxes. I generally like Apple, but not when it comes to these shenanigans.
maybe the ones you should be pissed at is our government officials that keep these loopholes open. if they're not being sued by any governments, they're probably staying within the law.
apple can certainly afford to do this. the reason these loopholes exist are for all the other 1%'ers that have our lawmakers and other government officials in their pockets looking out for their best interests.
So tell me again why Australia won't institute a FLAT TAX that has ZERO LOOPHOLES?
And don't give me excuses that its too complicated. It isn't.
15% tax on all profits on items sold in Australia. PERIOD.
Why don't they do that? Answer me.
What country has a tax system with no loopholes? What is it about a flat rate tax you think renders it automatically bulletproof?
You said 'profits.' That is exactly how Apple scams the system, they claim to make next to no profit whatsoever in Australia, which is why I suggested taxing turnover where a low profit claim is patently BS.
No, it's not the only one, there are a few others. But, yes, that's the root of the problem. People criticizing Apple for minimizing taxes are talking from their wishes and not from reason. Or would anybody (with almost everyone thinking taxes are high), gladly pay taxes not that one costly time, but twice? [/quoteUSA and Eritrea !
They can write down EXACTLY how profit should be calculated.
It could be easy as:
1. Apples goods sold in Australia $10,000,000
2. Find Apple's company wide profit margin the last 3 years per SEC report = 25%
3. $10,000,000 x 25% = $2,500,000 in profits
4. $2.5 million x 15% flat tax = taxes due
Its as easy as hell to do it. They write the laws. They make it needlessly complicated to please their campaign contributors.
Politicians rarely write the laws. That is actually done by public servants. Politicians rarely have good ideas or original thoughts either; most of those also come from Public Servants.
I actually think that is a great idea and would fully support Australia implementing that. Effectively not much different to my suggestion of just taxing turnover if it's high and the claimed profit is laughable.
Once again, I really don't think Australia's tax legislation is as it is due to corruption. 'Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence' or something like that.
No, it's not the only one, there are a few others. But, yes, that's the root of the problem. People criticizing Apple for minimizing taxes are talking from their wishes and not from reason. Or would anybody (with almost everyone thinking taxes are high), gladly pay taxes not that one costly time, but twice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Apple would not have to pay taxes twice on money they repatriated from overseas bank accounts held in NY banks. If they paid 10% tax in Ireland and the US rate is 35%, they would only pay 25% on money repatriated, not 35%.
I wonder what would happen to the share price if Apple said they were in future going to repatriate 75% of all foreign earnings, pay up and distribute the money to shareholders as dividends? I suspect it would do a lot more good than anything Icahn has ever said or done.
Any amount of that net income going back to the shareholders via dividends is taxed again. So in my case Apple makes, say, $100 in net income in this country, pays $35 in taxes, puts $50 of that over time in my IRA, from which the fed eventually takes another $15, giving the country ~50% of the $100 profit Apple made. AND it wants the same deal on the money Apple makes outside of the country, minus whatever tax the country where the sale was actually made gets.
It doesn't take a genius to see that, from my point of view, I am being effectively double taxed. Perhaps that's fine for people that aren't senior citizens, aren't living on fixed income, and are wealthy. But how is that remotely fair for those of us who are senior citizens, are living on fixed income, and aren't wealthy? Oh, and that can't get decent jobs any more?
What everyone conveniently forgets is that Apple isn't the only one doing this. And yet - Apple is supposed to hog-tie itself and give its competitors an advantage because "it's the right thing to do". No, it's not. Not until that playing field is leveled.
The same argument goes for bringing production back to the U.S. Apple is playing by the rules its competitors are playing by. And actually, it's tying its hands somewhat by spending considerably more than its competitors on workers' rights and clean energy, and insisting on the same by its suppliers. It does that because it wants to be a good citizen and carry it's part of the load.
It's dumb to destroy your company in the interests of "doing the right thing". Those who are saying the onus is on the world's governments have it right.
Sog35, tax eaters don't like a flat tax with no deductions as they suffer from the delusion that every one would be just as wealthy if they tax the rich a lot more. That the rich would react by keeping their money out of the jurisdiction, instead of growing the economy and jobs of that country never enters their tiny heads. In their world, the pie is a certain size and can never be bigger. In the words of a great prime minister, they would rather the poor be poorer, than the rich be richer.
Anyway, what's to bet Senator Destyrari negative gears property, has travel expenses that would pay the economy of a small Eastern European country, and always travels business class. And he will retire wealthy, despite never having a real job outside the world of ALP factions and politics. But that will be OK, because he is a champion of the wukkers.
What everyone conveniently forgets is that Apple isn't the only one doing this. And yet - Apple is supposed to hog-tie itself and give its competitors an advantage because "it's the right thing to do". No, it's not. Not until that playing field is leveled.
The same argument goes for bringing production back to the U.S. Apple is playing by the rules its competitors are playing by. And actually, it's tying its hands somewhat by spending considerably more than its competitors on workers' rights and clean energy, and insisting on the same by its suppliers. It does that because it wants to be a good citizen and carry it's part of the load.
It's dumb to destroy your company in the interests of "doing the right thing". Those who are saying the onus is on the world's governments have it right.
So when Apple do the right thing it's right that they get applauded, but when they do the wrong thing it's wrong that they get criticised?
Really?? Watching an old lady struggle after a fall and not helping her is LEGAL but that doesn't make it right.
Murdering a child in the womb is legal but is not right.
The government does not determine morality.
Any amount of that net income going back to the shareholders via dividends is taxed again. So in my case Apple makes, say, $100 in net income in this country, pays $35 in taxes, puts $50 of that over time in my IRA, from which the fed eventually takes another $15, giving the country ~50% of the $100 profit Apple made. AND it wants the same deal on the money Apple makes outside of the country, minus whatever tax the country where the sale was actually made gets.
It doesn't take a genius to see that, from my point of view, I am being effectively double taxed. Perhaps that's fine for people that aren't senior citizens, aren't living on fixed income, and are wealthy. But how is that remotely fair for those of us who are senior citizens, are living on fixed income, and aren't wealthy? Oh, and that can't get decent jobs any more?
In Australia the double taxation of corporate profits is mitigated by a system of Franking Credits. Perhaps the US should introduce them.
Comments
If it's legal, it's not "tax avoidance". It's just "taxes". Those are the rules, and you play by them.
Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
I'll remind you of that if Australia decides to hit Apple and others with multi billion retrospective tax bills for avoidance. You and others on here will be screaming blue murder and calling on the US to nuke Oz, no doubt, because it's so outrageously unfair.
I say preemptive strike now! Throw that shrimp on the barbie!
Why doesn't Australia just go to a flat tax to get rid of all loopholes?
Answer that question or the STFU.
I suggested several topics back that perhaps Australia should introduce a turnover tax where companies were reporting unbelievably low levels of profit.
If it was up to me, I would just say, 'Geeze, it's a pitty you bas***s didn't make any profit on that $10 Billion of stuff you sold here. Tell you what, seeing as were sympathetic blokes, you can give us $3 Billion anyway and we do hope you will be able to turn things around and be able to run your company profitably.'
I say preemptive strike now! Throw that shrimp on the barbie!
Make sure Pine Gap is at the top of your target list.
So again why doesn't Australia inact a flat tax?
Why are the lawmakers against this? Why?
Tell me why.
The lawmakers are MORE to blame than anyone. They are the ones that have the power to change things.
Because the world isn't as simple as you are and because doing so could well hurt some companies the existing laws were designed for. For at least 20 years I have thought Australia should re-write their tax laws from scratch. Unlike you, who seem to have a few roos loose in top paddock, I don't think corruption among the pollies is a reason why it hasn't been done. I suspect it's more to do with it probably costing a shed load and because there wouldn't be a single vote in it.
The USA is they ONLY country in the world that taxes businesses and individuals on income earned outside the country. This is the root of the problem.
No, it's not the only one, there are a few others. But, yes, that's the root of the problem. People criticizing Apple for minimizing taxes are talking from their wishes and not from reason. Or would anybody (with almost everyone thinking taxes are high), gladly pay taxes not that one costly time, but twice?
No, it's not the only one, there are a few others. But, yes, that's the root of the problem. People criticizing Apple for minimizing taxes are talking from their wishes and not from reason. Or would anybody (with almost everyone thinking taxes are high), gladly pay taxes not that one costly time, but twice?
Apple would not have to pay taxes twice on money they repatriated from overseas bank accounts held in NY banks. If they paid 10% tax in Ireland and the US rate is 35%, they would only pay 25% on money repatriated, not 35%.
I wonder what would happen to the share price if Apple said they were in future going to repatriate 75% of all foreign earnings, pay up and distribute the money to shareholders as dividends? I suspect it would do a lot more good than anything Icahn has ever said or done.
Excuses.
Just make a flat 15% tax.
But it will never happen. Why? Because all the companies that FUND these politicians campaigns are the ones who would be hurt with a flat tax.
Just admit it already. There is no flat tax because it would hurt the rich people and rich companies. The same rich people/companies that fund the politicians campaigns.
Oh, FFS!
Would you stop with the paranoia and misconception that US = Australia.
I really dislike the length Apple goes through to avoid paying taxes. I generally like Apple, but not when it comes to these shenanigans.
maybe the ones you should be pissed at is our government officials that keep these loopholes open. if they're not being sued by any governments, they're probably staying within the law.apple can certainly afford to do this. the reason these loopholes exist are for all the other 1%'ers that have our lawmakers and other government officials in their pockets looking out for their best interests.
So tell me again why Australia won't institute a FLAT TAX that has ZERO LOOPHOLES?
And don't give me excuses that its too complicated. It isn't.
15% tax on all profits on items sold in Australia. PERIOD.
Why don't they do that? Answer me.
What country has a tax system with no loopholes? What is it about a flat rate tax you think renders it automatically bulletproof?
You said 'profits.' That is exactly how Apple scams the system, they claim to make next to no profit whatsoever in Australia, which is why I suggested taxing turnover where a low profit claim is patently BS.
You might like to see how they get away with paying only 4% tax: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/how-ireland-got-apples-9bn-profit-20140305-j7cxm
So you admit it.
Australia does not institute a FLAT TAX RATE because it will HURT some companies.
In other words the current tax law is written to HELP SOME COMPANIES and NOT HELP OTHER COMPANIES.
Sounds like corruption to me. Why can't Australia be fair to ALL COMPANIES and institute a flat tax for ALL COMPANIES?
I think you know the answer but just don't want to admit it.
You are slipping gears there. report to the factory for servicing and adjustment.
No, it's not the only one, there are a few others. But, yes, that's the root of the problem. People criticizing Apple for minimizing taxes are talking from their wishes and not from reason. Or would anybody (with almost everyone thinking taxes are high), gladly pay taxes not that one costly time, but twice?
[/quoteUSA and Eritrea !
The politicans make the laws.
They can write down EXACTLY how profit should be calculated.
It could be easy as:
1. Apples goods sold in Australia $10,000,000
2. Find Apple's company wide profit margin the last 3 years per SEC report = 25%
3. $10,000,000 x 25% = $2,500,000 in profits
4. $2.5 million x 15% flat tax = taxes due
Its as easy as hell to do it. They write the laws. They make it needlessly complicated to please their campaign contributors.
Politicians rarely write the laws. That is actually done by public servants. Politicians rarely have good ideas or original thoughts either; most of those also come from Public Servants.
I actually think that is a great idea and would fully support Australia implementing that. Effectively not much different to my suggestion of just taxing turnover if it's high and the claimed profit is laughable.
Once again, I really don't think Australia's tax legislation is as it is due to corruption. 'Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence' or something like that.
No, it's not the only one, there are a few others. But, yes, that's the root of the problem. People criticizing Apple for minimizing taxes are talking from their wishes and not from reason. Or would anybody (with almost everyone thinking taxes are high), gladly pay taxes not that one costly time, but twice?
Apple would not have to pay taxes twice on money they repatriated from overseas bank accounts held in NY banks. If they paid 10% tax in Ireland and the US rate is 35%, they would only pay 25% on money repatriated, not 35%.
I wonder what would happen to the share price if Apple said they were in future going to repatriate 75% of all foreign earnings, pay up and distribute the money to shareholders as dividends? I suspect it would do a lot more good than anything Icahn has ever said or done.
Any amount of that net income going back to the shareholders via dividends is taxed again. So in my case Apple makes, say, $100 in net income in this country, pays $35 in taxes, puts $50 of that over time in my IRA, from which the fed eventually takes another $15, giving the country ~50% of the $100 profit Apple made. AND it wants the same deal on the money Apple makes outside of the country, minus whatever tax the country where the sale was actually made gets.
It doesn't take a genius to see that, from my point of view, I am being effectively double taxed. Perhaps that's fine for people that aren't senior citizens, aren't living on fixed income, and are wealthy. But how is that remotely fair for those of us who are senior citizens, are living on fixed income, and aren't wealthy? Oh, and that can't get decent jobs any more?
What everyone conveniently forgets is that Apple isn't the only one doing this. And yet - Apple is supposed to hog-tie itself and give its competitors an advantage because "it's the right thing to do". No, it's not. Not until that playing field is leveled.
The same argument goes for bringing production back to the U.S. Apple is playing by the rules its competitors are playing by. And actually, it's tying its hands somewhat by spending considerably more than its competitors on workers' rights and clean energy, and insisting on the same by its suppliers. It does that because it wants to be a good citizen and carry it's part of the load.
It's dumb to destroy your company in the interests of "doing the right thing". Those who are saying the onus is on the world's governments have it right.
In their world, the pie is a certain size and can never be bigger. In the words of a great prime minister, they would rather the poor be poorer, than the rich be richer.
Anyway, what's to bet Senator Destyrari negative gears property, has travel expenses that would pay the economy of a small Eastern European country, and always travels business class. And he will retire wealthy, despite never having a real job outside the world of ALP factions and politics. But that will be OK, because he is a champion of the wukkers.
What everyone conveniently forgets is that Apple isn't the only one doing this. And yet - Apple is supposed to hog-tie itself and give its competitors an advantage because "it's the right thing to do". No, it's not. Not until that playing field is leveled.
The same argument goes for bringing production back to the U.S. Apple is playing by the rules its competitors are playing by. And actually, it's tying its hands somewhat by spending considerably more than its competitors on workers' rights and clean energy, and insisting on the same by its suppliers. It does that because it wants to be a good citizen and carry it's part of the load.
It's dumb to destroy your company in the interests of "doing the right thing". Those who are saying the onus is on the world's governments have it right.
So when Apple do the right thing it's right that they get applauded, but when they do the wrong thing it's wrong that they get criticised?
Really?? Watching an old lady struggle after a fall and not helping her is LEGAL but that doesn't make it right.
Murdering a child in the womb is legal but is not right.
The government does not determine morality.
Any amount of that net income going back to the shareholders via dividends is taxed again. So in my case Apple makes, say, $100 in net income in this country, pays $35 in taxes, puts $50 of that over time in my IRA, from which the fed eventually takes another $15, giving the country ~50% of the $100 profit Apple made. AND it wants the same deal on the money Apple makes outside of the country, minus whatever tax the country where the sale was actually made gets.
It doesn't take a genius to see that, from my point of view, I am being effectively double taxed. Perhaps that's fine for people that aren't senior citizens, aren't living on fixed income, and are wealthy. But how is that remotely fair for those of us who are senior citizens, are living on fixed income, and aren't wealthy? Oh, and that can't get decent jobs any more?
In Australia the double taxation of corporate profits is mitigated by a system of Franking Credits. Perhaps the US should introduce them.