Cook is correct about the tax code being onerous and anti-business, but he supports and pals around with those politicians who would most likely drain all US companies of their combined wealth to grow government. Tim needs to re-think the people and party he supports. Even Steve Jobs supported irresponsible Democrat policies, while acting like a responsible businessman.
paranoid nonsense not based on facts or reality.
and i dont see how you could expect him to pal around with the other party, since they support laws which could have him being fired simply for being gay (as in my state). doesnt sound like such a swell bunch to put into power, does it? no, i think ill take the spenders over the bigots, thank you. (and guess what? theyre ALL spenders...)
Daniel you're one of the best writers in tech these days. It's like a breath of fresh air -a journalist who actually writes like a journalist and editors that don't pander or clickbait with a headline. Keep up the good work.
Stop the presses! "Famous Rich Guy Thinks Taxes are Bad!"
youre reading it wrong. Cook didnt say taxes are bad, and said he's happy for Apple to be the largest tax payer in the US. please cite your claim.
what Cook doesnt want is for Apple to give the feds 40% of the profit from goods they built and sold overseas. i dont see that being different than my US friends who work overseas and dont want to or dont pay US income tax.
He's dead right too. The US government has no valid claim on that money. It wasn't earned in the US. The Irish Government's policy is correct. So long as you pay your taxes on what you've actually earned in Ireland by selling to Irish consumers that's the only tax you'll pay as well as your standard corporation tax. What the US government wants Apple to do is to pay VAT and income tax in every country it operates in (which it currently does) and then pay the US government another 40% on that already taxed profit. It's madness. And fringe politicos are taking advantage of the public's lack of understanding of the tax system to politicise it. Even the EU commission is doing it. It's all just dirty politics.
What is completely different to what Apple and Google are doing is the type of stuff Starbucks has been known to do which is to actively avoid tax on domestic income. That's different. But not wanting to repatriate your profits because you'll have to give 40% of it away is completely reasonable. It's what any of us would do too, despite the moral high ground certain Bernie Bots might claim.
You mean “evades” here. It is clear that Apple avoids plenty of tax in Europe, totally legally and as is its right.
I think the EU has a different viewpoint on the legality of Apple's tax "rate”
If I understand correctly the one who will ultimately be in trouble with the EU, if anyone, will be Ireland rather than Apple.
Certainly many countries including the UK are working on trying to change their taxation systems to make it harder/impossible for companies to avoid tax in the manner they currently do.
As for the US repatriation rule, it is really quite baffling that it hasn’t been changed. As pointed out, all it achieves is forcing companies to invest overseas, or even more oddly, borrow money in the U.S., secured by the money overseas, as that’s more cost effective than bringing the money home.
He's dead right too. The US government has no valid claim on that money. It wasn't earned in the US. The Irish Government's policy is correct. So long as you pay your taxes on what you've actually earned in Ireland by selling to Irish consumers that's the only tax you'll pay as well as your standard corporation tax. What the US government wants Apple to do is to pay VAT and income tax in every country it operates in (which it currently does) and then pay the US government another 40% on that already taxed profit. It's madness. And fringe politicos are taking advantage of the public's lack of understanding of the tax system to politicise it. Even the EU commission is doing it. It's all just dirty politics.
What is completely different to what Apple and Google are doing is the type of stuff Starbucks has been known to do which is to actively avoid tax on domestic income. That's different. But not wanting to repatriate your profits because you'll have to give 40% of it away is completely reasonable. It's what any of us would do too, despite the moral high ground certain Bernie Bots might claim.
i was going to +1 you until the nonsense about Bernie Sanders. i havent heard Sanders state his opinion on repatriating. further, Sanders is the only candidate who 1) voted against the wars. 2) voted against the Patriot Act. 3) is opposed to domestic spying. he does support increasing SS and payroll taxes so billionaires dont pay in at the same exact level as i do, and im fine with that because its fair.
He's dead right too. The US government has no valid claim on that money. It wasn't earned in the US. The Irish Government's policy is correct. So long as you pay your taxes on what you've actually earned in Ireland by selling to Irish consumers that's the only tax you'll pay as well as your standard corporation tax. What the US government wants Apple to do is to pay VAT and income tax in every country it operates in (which it currently does) and then pay the US government another 40% on that already taxed profit. It's madness. And fringe politicos are taking advantage of the public's lack of understanding of the tax system to politicise it. Even the EU commission is doing it. It's all just dirty politics.
What is completely different to what Apple and Google are doing is the type of stuff Starbucks has been known to do which is to actively avoid tax on domestic income. That's different. But not wanting to repatriate your profits because you'll have to give 40% of it away is completely reasonable. It's what any of us would do too, despite the moral high ground certain Bernie Bots might claim.
i was going to +1 you until the nonsense about Bernie Sanders. i havent heard Sanders state his opinion on repatriating. further, Sanders is the only candidate who 1) voted against the wars. 2) voted against the Patriot Act. 3) is opposed to domestic spying. he does support increasing SS and payroll taxes so billionaires dont pay in at the same exact level as i do, and im fine with that because its fair.
I didn't say anything about Bernie Sanders. I respect Bernie Sanders. I think he's a good man. I personally support Hillary because I think she's more likely to actually get things done but that doesn't change my view that he's a good, genuine man. I was referring to many of his supporters. They act as bots on the internet. Literally. They deliberately skew online polls and organise in very effective and often petty ways, spreading half-truths. They're generally younger, more opinionated and more effective online than other candidates' supporters so that's why I specifically referred to them (the bots, not all Sanders supporters). Corporate Taxes are one of their go-to skewings. For the record, both Hillary and Obama support punitive Corporate Tax measures so it doesn't matter much to me what Sander's own views are. I disagree with the Democratic platform on corporate taxes even though I am a democrat.
Cook told Rose that he would "love to bring it home," but current policies are outdated and unfair.
"It would cost me 40 percent to bring it home, and I don't think that's a reasonable thing to do," Cook said.
??
If the US rate is 35%, less the corporate taxes already paid overseas in the country of origin, it couldn't be anywhere close to 40% to bring it home could it? Am I missing something?
Um... Give me a break.
You're forgetting state taxes, especially given that Apple is located in California. And, it was clear to me he was talking about the aggregate rate, not the incremental.
Meanwhile it’s starting to look like Alphabet will be the first trillion dollar company, not Apple. AAPL is shrinking like a limp male appendage in cold weather. All because two suppliers are supposedly reducing output. Ain’t capitalism wonderful?
Stop the presses! "Famous Rich Guy Thinks Taxes are Bad!""Wealthiest Company in the History of Human Existence, Wants a Tax Break!"
Has there ever been a billionaire who didn't think the tax laws were bad or outdated?
American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he believed it was wrong that rich people, like himself, could pay less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.
Meanwhile it’s starting to look like Alphabet will be the first trillion dollar company, not Apple. AAPL is shrinking like a liImp male appendage in cold weather. All because two suppliers are supposedly reducing output. Ain’t capitalism wonderful?
Ignore stocks. AAPL and GOOG are stocks you keep, not stocks you short. Google is not going to be the first trillion dollar company. If that ever happens we'll know we're back in a tech bubble because there's no basis for it. The profit and revenue simply isn't there. What's happening right now is just the cycle. It happens every two years since Apple got its mojo back. Apple stock peaks and troughs and so does Google's because investors don't understand the companies they're investing in. So what generally happens is that you'll get periods like October 2014 when the news on Apple is simply too good for the press to do the "doom and gloom" business on so the stock begins, rightly to soar, then you fast forward a year later and even though the company beat its forecasted numbers, the press goes into overdrive that it wasn't another giant leap quarter. This filters down to the investors and the stock begins to drop. It's a symptom of being the most talked about companies in the world. The same goes for Google. Right now it's soaring based, weirdly, on Apple's perceived weakness. There's no basis for this. The gave published good numbers, sure, but it doesn't explain the massive spike. The only thing that does is edginess with AAPL. So Google's soaring despite all the data because investors are nervous about Apple's upcoming quarterly results. They'll release them, they'll hit Apple's own forecasts and the stock will reach its trough, then gradually start climbing again on anticipation for the iPhone 7.
I'm not pulling this out of my ass btw, look at the 10 year graph on Yahoo of Apple stock. It's heavily, heavily influenced by the rumour mill and Google simply rides the same wave.
Daniel you're one of the best writers in tech these days. It's like a breath of fresh air -a journalist who actually writes like a journalist and editors that don't pander or clickbait with a headline. Keep up the good work.
Stop the presses! "Famous Rich Guy Thinks Taxes are Bad!"
youre reading it wrong. Cook didnt say taxes are bad, and said he's happy for Apple to be the largest tax payer in the US. please cite your claim.
what Cook doesnt want is for Apple to give the feds 40% of the profit from goods they built and sold overseas. i dont see that being different than my US friends who work overseas and dont want to or dont pay US income tax.
He's dead right too. The US government has no valid claim on that money. It wasn't earned in the US. The Irish Government's policy is correct. So long as you pay your taxes on what you've actually earned in Ireland by selling to Irish consumers that's the only tax you'll pay as well as your standard corporation tax. What the US government wants Apple to do is to pay VAT and income tax in every country it operates in (which it currently does) and then pay the US government another 40% on that already taxed profit.
No not another 40%. The US corporate rate of 35% will be reduced by whatever income/corporate taxes Apple already paid on those profits. But even Apple themselves admitted (in Senate testimony) that $Billions of that has never been subject to any tax in any country yet as the associated Apple subsidiary(s) is not tax resident in any country on the planet. It is certainly creative but apparently legal.
Cook told Rose that he would "love to bring it home," but current policies are outdated and unfair.
"It would cost me 40 percent to bring it home, and I don't think that's a reasonable thing to do," Cook said.
??
If the US rate is 35%, less the corporate taxes already paid overseas in the country of origin, it couldn't be anywhere close to 40% to bring it home could it? Am I missing something?
Um... Give me a break.
You're forgetting state taxes, especially given that Apple is located in California. And, it was clear to me he was talking about the aggregate rate, not the incremental.
That could certainly be what he was saying. Or it could be what SpamSandwich read it as: While Apple might not be paying 40% to bring it home the tax rate as a whole would come up to around 40% in general. Watching the interview will probably put the comment in better context.
Daniel you're one of the best writers in tech these days. It's like a breath of fresh air -a journalist who actually writes like a journalist and editors that don't pander or clickbait with a headline. Keep up the good work.
He's dead right too. The US government has no valid claim on that money. It wasn't earned in the US. The Irish Government's policy is correct. So long as you pay your taxes on what you've actually earned in Ireland by selling to Irish consumers that's the only tax you'll pay as well as your standard corporation tax. What the US government wants Apple to do is to pay VAT and income tax in every country it operates in (which it currently does) and then pay the US government another 40% on that already taxed profit.
No not another 40%. The US corporate rate of 35% will be reduced by whatever income/corporate taxes Apple already paid on those profits. But even Apple themselves admitted (in Senate testimony) that $Billions of that has never been subject to any tax in any country yet as the associated Apple subsidiary(s) is not tax resident in any country on the planet. It is certainly creative but apparently legal.
I'm sorry, I respect your opinion but you don't know what you're talking about. You need to understand the difference between Corporate Tax, income tax, sales tax and VAT. Apple and all multinationals pay some combination of those taxes in every country they operate in. It varies by jurisdiction. Apple also pays corporation tax in Ireland because that's where Apple Operations is based (in other words, about $130 billion). However, because of certain capital tax rules in Ireland, and because of how Apple organises itself into three separate registered companies, it doesn't have to pay a full 12.5% rate on that income. 2013 it paid just over 2% on parts of it but since then certain capital gains and investment loopholes have been closed so it is subject to change. You're also wrong about 35%. That's simply the corporate tax rate. Cook frequently mentions 40% because corporate tax isn't the only bill he'll face. It works out at just over 39% due to state taxes, etc. I'm not in California so I'm afraid I can't provide reference on the exact codes. But just know that we're talking about principles here, not hard figures. 35% is still, in principle, too high a figure.
I find it genuinely hilarious that people would call on the Irish government to enforce a strict 12.5% on all international income btw. It would be outrageous. Not only would Apple continue to pay its international taxes there (because 12.5% is still a hell of a lot better than 35%), the Irish government would see immediately almost 10% added to its yearly tax take from just one company. It's incredible that any rational human being can imagine this outcome.
Though I have little stomach for taxes, as tax money is always used nationally for unconstitutional and/or militaristic and/or corporatist purposes....
FairTax.org
Did you write this after you dropped off your kids at public school?
Why do techie guyz (in general, not in particular to the original poster) always think they know and understand tax laws and the such when the subject comes up? That and also their pseudo-libertarian proclivities which probably might at odds with just about everything they do.
Daniel you're one of the best writers in tech these days. It's like a breath of fresh air -a journalist who actually writes like a journalist and editors that don't pander or clickbait with a headline. Keep up the good work.
He's dead right too. The US government has no valid claim on that money. It wasn't earned in the US. The Irish Government's policy is correct. So long as you pay your taxes on what you've actually earned in Ireland by selling to Irish consumers that's the only tax you'll pay as well as your standard corporation tax. What the US government wants Apple to do is to pay VAT and income tax in every country it operates in (which it currently does) and then pay the US government another 40% on that already taxed profit.
No not another 40%. The US corporate rate of 35% will be reduced by whatever income/corporate taxes Apple already paid on those profits. But even Apple themselves admitted (in Senate testimony) that $Billions of that has never been subject to any tax in any country yet as the associated Apple subsidiary(s) is not tax resident in any country on the planet. It is certainly creative but apparently legal.
I'm sorry, I respect your opinion but you don't know what you're talking about. You need to understand the difference between Corporate Tax, income tax, sales tax and VAT. Apple and all multinationals pay some combination of those taxes in every country they operate in. It varies by jurisdiction. Apple also pays corporation tax in Ireland because that's where Apple Operations is based (in other words, about $130 billion). However, because of certain capital tax rules in Ireland, and because of how Apple organises itself into three separate registered companies, it doesn't have to pay a full 12.5% rate on that income. 2013 it paid just over 2% on parts of it but since then certain capital gains and investment loopholes have been closed so it is subject to change. You're also wrong about 35%. That's simply the corporate tax rate. Cook frequently mentions 40% because corporate tax isn't the only bill he'll face. It works out at just over 39% due to state taxes, etc. I'm not in California so I'm afraid I can't provide reference on the exact codes. But just know that we're talking about principles here, not hard figures. 35% is still, in principle, too high a figure.
I perfectly understand the difference in each of those taxes. It doesn't change one whit the fact that any corporate taxes Apple would be subject to by bringing cash home will be reduced by any taxes on profits already paid to the countries where that revenue was realized and/or reported. As far as I can tell my original statement was accurate. You're bringing other things to the discussion which of course may also be true.
And yes I agree that 35% is too high, and yes I'm an owner of a US corporation. Worse, combined tax rates are far, far too high IMO. I could live with even 40% total if that's all I had to deal with. But combine it with unemployment taxes, matching SS taxes, local business taxes, excise taxes and then throw in mandated insurance payments (ie workman's comp, liability) and you better be a damn good businessman with at least a bit of luck to go along with it.
You mean “evades” here. It is clear that Apple avoids plenty of tax in Europe, totally legally and as is its right.
No. 'Evasion' is illegal, 'avoidance' is not. So, AI gets it right.
Nope. Apple don’t claim that they don’t avoid tax. If they did, they would be lying. They avoid many state taxes (corporation tax or equivalent) in the EU by funnelling money around and making it “look” like all the profit is made in Ireland, when it clearly isn’t. However, everything they do is legal, so they do not evade tax. Therefore, AI’s statement should read:
"Apple has also steadfastly denied allegations that it evades taxes in Europe as well.”
Because, what Apple actually steadfastly states, is that they pay all tax legally owed. This is absolutely not the same as claiming that they don’t avoid tax.
Also, this would enable the shutdown and elimination of the IRS.
Or not. Someone would still have to make sure that you or your company paid the 10% (or whatever) flat tax owed and collect from those who're unwilling to pay their share.
If you read the proposal at FairTax.org you can see how this works, although I'll readily admit that the Federal government never met a tax it didn't like and few Federal agencies disappear once they are created.
Comments
and i dont see how you could expect him to pal around with the other party, since they support laws which could have him being fired simply for being gay (as in my state). doesnt sound like such a swell bunch to put into power, does it? no, i think ill take the spenders over the bigots, thank you. (and guess what? theyre ALL spenders...)
Certainly many countries including the UK are working on trying to change their taxation systems to make it harder/impossible for companies to avoid tax in the manner they currently do.
As for the US repatriation rule, it is really quite baffling that it hasn’t been changed. As pointed out, all it achieves is forcing companies to invest overseas, or even more oddly, borrow money in the U.S., secured by the money overseas, as that’s more cost effective than bringing the money home.
You're forgetting state taxes, especially given that Apple is located in California. And, it was clear to me he was talking about the aggregate rate, not the incremental.
Gosh, I expected something slightly more intelligent from you.
I'm not pulling this out of my ass btw, look at the 10 year graph on Yahoo of Apple stock. It's heavily, heavily influenced by the rumour mill and Google simply rides the same wave.
That could certainly be what he was saying. Or it could be what SpamSandwich read it as: While Apple might not be paying 40% to bring it home the tax rate as a whole would come up to around 40% in general. Watching the interview will probably put the comment in better context.
Did you write this after you dropped off your kids at public school?
Why do techie guyz (in general, not in particular to the original poster) always think they know and understand tax laws and the such when the subject comes up? That and also their pseudo-libertarian proclivities which probably might at odds with just about everything they do.
And yes I agree that 35% is too high, and yes I'm an owner of a US corporation. Worse, combined tax rates are far, far too high IMO. I could live with even 40% total if that's all I had to deal with. But combine it with unemployment taxes, matching SS taxes, local business taxes, excise taxes and then throw in mandated insurance payments (ie workman's comp, liability) and you better be a damn good businessman with at least a bit of luck to go along with it.
"Apple has also steadfastly denied allegations that it evades taxes in Europe as well.”
Because, what Apple actually steadfastly states, is that they pay all tax legally owed. This is absolutely not the same as claiming that they don’t avoid tax.