Apple slams story of cash hidden in Jersey to reduce taxes, calls itself 'largest taxpayer...

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 103
    It is not just about Apple may other companies do the same and more, as well as numerous wealthy individuals. The issue is about how wealth is distributed throughout society and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. Is a CEO of company really worth a 1,000, 10,000 times plus, more than those at the bottom of the company? The fact that the 8 richest people in the world own the same as half the world's population of 3.6 billion is obscene. But the reason why is nothing done about it is because it is those same very rich people that make the laws and until that changes nothing will.
  • Reply 82 of 103
    The issue is about how wealth is distributed throughout society and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor.
    No. The issue is the existence of the Federal Reserve (and all other analogues thereto), fiat currency, and usury.
    Is a CEO of company really worth a 1,000, 10,000 times plus, more than those at the bottom of the company?
    It’s not for you to say.
    The fact that the 8 richest people in the world own the same as half the world's population of 3.6 billion is obscene.
    And who are the 8 richest people in the world? Fun fact: Forbes doesn’t list them. Be careful. You won’t like the answer.
    until that changes nothing will.
    END THE FED.
    beowulfschmidtSpamSandwich
  • Reply 83 of 103
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,122moderator
    It is not just about Apple may other companies do the same and more, as well as numerous wealthy individuals. The issue is about how wealth is distributed throughout society and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. Is a CEO of company really worth a 1,000, 10,000 times plus, more than those at the bottom of the company? The fact that the 8 richest people in the world own the same as half the world's population of 3.6 billion is obscene. But the reason why is nothing done about it is because it is those same very rich people that make the laws and until that changes nothing will.
    That’s a bit off topic.  However, the way I explain CEO pay is to think of it in terms of the effect one decision can have on the business.  A CEO gets paid some high multiple of the salary of the business’ average worker because his/her decisions typically have a much greater effect on the future of the business.  And it’s those leveragable decisions that determine the success, or sometimes lack of success, of the business. Each position gets paid roughly according to the expected impact on the business of one person in that position.  

    There are exceptions, of course, as in the case of a lowly patent clerk who has locked in his head the secrets to relativity, or some such, but generally how I’ve described is how things function.  

    Workers, on the other hand, often cast the equation according to what they know, according to their own view of the universe.  A factory worker might bitch that the CEO, sitting up in his ivory tower, never did an honest day’s work in his life; work being lifting heavy objects or running hot machinery, in the factory worker’s perspective.  Everyone has their own perspective on the matter, but what’s universal is the effect of each agent’s decisions/actions on the overall business.   
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 84 of 103
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,122moderator
    It is not just about Apple may other companies do the same and more, as well as numerous wealthy individuals. The issue is about how wealth is distributed throughout society and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. Is a CEO of company really worth a 1,000, 10,000 times plus, more than those at the bottom of the company? The fact that the 8 richest people in the world own the same as half the world's population of 3.6 billion is obscene. But the reason why is nothing done about it is because it is those same very rich people that make the laws and until that changes nothing will.
    • Michael Bloomberg: $40 billion. ... 
    • Larry Ellison: $43.6 billion. ... 
    • Mark Zuckerberg: $44.6 billion. ... 
    • Jeff Bezos: $45.2 billion. ... 
    • Carlos Slim Helu: $50 billion. ... 
    • Warren Buffett: $60.8 billion. ... 
    • Amancio Ortega: $67 billion. ... 
    • Bill Gates: $75 billion.

    So here’s the thing... the wealth of every single person on that list is not in dollars taken out of circulation (depriving others of the use of that money) and stuffed under a mattress.  The wealth of these eight folks is represented by their ownership of a portion of the businesses they created.  

    So, first... that’s new wealth that would not exist but for them, unless those businesses would have been created by some others had these eight not done the job.  But that merely changes the names in the list; we can make up eight other names of the people who would have stepped in to create these businesses had these eight not done so.  

    Second, this is mostly unrealized wealth.  By that I mean these folks merely happen to be title holders to significant portions of the businesses they created.  But they haven’t each sucked that money out and built themselves a $40 billion fortress of solitude.  The money is being put to productive use, creating huge numbers of jobs, and others who have ownership stakes in these businesses have also benefited, as has society in the form of the products and services these businesses provide and the taxes they have paid.  

    To change the system, to spread wealth equally, is to upset the foundations upon which these businesses and most others are constructed, that being the promise of rich reward for innovation, invention, and success.  You can survey history and compare other countries where other philosophies took hold versus the western capitalist system, then ask yourself what the world might look like today had those systems prevailed.  I’ll take capitalism’s allowance of wealth inequality every day for the incentives that are associated with it.
    edited November 2017 beowulfschmidt
  • Reply 85 of 103
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 1,805member

    nht said:


    avon b7 said:
    unphocus said:
    Why is it so high a tax rate for US company to bring home earnings? It’s like the US Government doesn’t want US multinational company to bring back any earnings to the US. High repatriation tax rate makes company looks for loopholes to pay less taxes. The US Congress should be saying “we see what’s happening; let’s reduce repatriation tax rate to make is easy for company to bring back earning from abroad so these companies can use the money to create more jobs” or something to that nature. It boggles my mind the stupidity of high repatriation tax rate. 
    I take a slightly different viewpoint. Earnings are made in tax years and rules apply to those years. Whatever the rules are, companies in any given tax jurisdiction, should abide by those rules and push for a change in tax legislation if they consider them to be unfair.

    From a moral perspective, I believe witholding payment of taxes until such a time is 'right' for the company, is wrong. As is the idea that a company itself, can determine how much to make available for taxation. Especially if that same option is not open to competitors.

    You can be sure that some here will roll out the shareholder argument and that Apple must do all it can to maximise it's return to shareholders, even if it means employing questionable accounting practices. That is missing the point entirely.
    When you do your own taxes do you ever decide late in the year to add more money to a tax deferred account or perhaps time your sale of assets to defer taxes by 1 year?  If not, you're a fool.  The tax laws lay out what is permissible.  Taking advantage of every possibility to reduce or defer taxes within those boundaries is the only smart thing to do.
    I suspect Avon B7 doesn’t grok that this is a tax deferral issue.  Many seem to believe Apple is somehow avoiding taxes rather than merely deferring them.  You’d think he be up to speed; the guy comments on pretty much every AI article, has been around for years...  but some folks never catch on, and that betrays an ulterior motive/agenda. 
    He's a troll.  First is was the MBP had poor sales, just wait.  Then it was they said it was strong but never reported numbers besides massive profits and increased unit sales.  Now it's they are lying about the iPhone X.

    This guy is our resident concern troll. 
    Yeah he’s a master of moving the goalposts however it suits him — now that the X appears to be killing it, he’s saying the “true” measure of its success can’t be known until next september. riiight...whatever helps you sleep at night.
    'Appears to be'? Are you unsure?

    You should be as you have little to nothing solid to go on. 

    The only valid measure of success in Apple land are the sales from one revision to another. Trying to reach conclusions beforeand is fine but is only a snapshot of the situation and by definition, temporary.

    Even then, Apple doesn't break the numbers down so it's all down to interpretation of what comes out of Cupertino in terms of occasional comments, tweets etc. The rest is purely anecdotal. 

    For the X we have an 'off the charts' comment for initial demand. Deja vu to a point of Schiller making dumb claims about initial late 2016 MBP sales and  I never following through on the claims. During the earnings call, that was translated as 'very strong'. Apart from that nothing. And it is unlikely we will see anything more.

    You haven't read anything more from me on the subject except for that. Call it stating the obvious if you want but I prefer not to get my knickers in a twist on these things. There are few facts other than what I have mentioned.

    Same thing with last year's MBPs. 

    With this year's new phones there is one massive difference though. Apple is now shipping phones at pretty much every price point heading into its normally best quarter (the Christmas season). This has never happened before and many right here told me it would never ever happen (I'm pretty sure you were in that group btw) because Apple doesn't do that bla, bla, I don't know what is best for Apple bla,  bla, Apple doesn't race to the bottom. You name it, someone had a reason why it wouldn't happen. Well, it did.

    They were wrong. Plain and simple.

    I do not move the goalposts. If someone asks for more information on my thinking I give it if there is more to give. Some people just can't get that into their heads.

    This year Apple has taken multiple risks. I support those risks as all the evidence suggested it was going to be a fierce quarter if they had kept going with the old way of doing things.

    Now, pretty much anyone who wants an iPhone can get one. Few will be priced out. That has a potential knock on effect of keeping users onboard and from moving to Android. The biggest and most evident risk is having your users opting for lower priced Apple  hardware instead of shiny new flagships. That is tempered by Apple's move into services. Apple is casting its net further than ever before in the hope of feeding off the largest pool of potential purchasers possible. That can only be achieved by implementing changes in the product lineup and pricing. Apple could possibly sell less new models (compared with previous roll outs) as a result during the lifetime of these new phones but that shouldn't be considered a failure. More like part of the plan from the moment they decided to switch tactics. They have the cushion of a supercycle in their favour too. I believe it could happen.

    They were also running out of useful features to add and being overtaken in many areas by competitors. This is understandable if your release cycle is yearly.

    Take dual cameras as an example. Apple was not first out of the gate and initially had just one dual camera phone. In the time up to the next version, competitors had released entire families of dual camera phones. Great camera phones and they have continued to get better. Useful features like fast charging were simply not present. Ditto wireless charging. OLED screens. Shell design was stale. Dual SIM wasn't an option, SD Cards weren't an option. Etc.

    I have not criticised FaceID. I don't consider it a killer feature though. Just another biometric option for unlocking. I have spoken in favour of the notch. I have not criticised that either. I have supported the move to the new retail strategy. Of course I wouldn't have criticised a rear mounted fingerprint sensor either. Something Apple actually has a patent on I believe.

    All in all I'm giving Apple a fair amount of slack and defending some of their recent decisions.

    There are still wider issues but the changes they have made definitely haven't been for the worse.


    gatorguy
  • Reply 86 of 103
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    kkqd1337 said:
    This is a global problem. Apple is no different from other companies doing the same, but their huge success magnifies the situation.

    All international companies treat their tax liability and employees with contempt. And Apple do to - they do little to protect their factory workers or their Apple store employees who are on minimum wage despite each probably selling >$1million of product every year
    Source?
    As reported by real employees.
    https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/apple-store-salary-SRCH_KO0,11.htm

    Product sales per employee? As of four years ago the average Apple store was selling approx. $50M in product and services. Should be higher than that now I would presume. 
    1) none of those user reported wages are minimum wage, as claimed. 

    2) no source provided for the claim that apple does little to protect “their” factory workers. first this assertion begins incorrect as apple doesn’t have factories or factory workers. but second, they nonetheless go to great lengths to protect their contract manufacturers’ workers building apple inventory, and this has been well publicized.

    so both of the claims i highlighted are FUD bullshit. but thanks for weighing in — when it comes to apple FUD i know you’ve got us covered. 
    You're very welcome, and yes I do. I'll chime in when no one else does to counter misunderstandings vis-a-vis Apple just as I do with other companies/issues. This is one of those cases where you didn't know but I did know where to look. 

    I think it's nearly always better to post the source link so readers can see for themselves rather than just believing "some guy on the internet".  You might like to make fun of it when it's not favorable to you but I doubt you're complaining about this one. :)
    You’ve missed the point entirely. None of what you provided backed up his claim that apple workers are paid minimum wage, and that apple does little to protect factory workers. None. I asked him to source his absurd claim, and all we got were links from you. Thus just muddying the waters with more FUD, which is apparently your purpose. 
    edited November 2017 radarthekat
  • Reply 87 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 17,822member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    kkqd1337 said:
    This is a global problem. Apple is no different from other companies doing the same, but their huge success magnifies the situation.

    All international companies treat their tax liability and employees with contempt. And Apple do to - they do little to protect their factory workers or their Apple store employees who are on minimum wage despite each probably selling >$1million of product every year
    Source?
    As reported by real employees.
    https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/apple-store-salary-SRCH_KO0,11.htm

    Product sales per employee? As of four years ago the average Apple store was selling approx. $50M in product and services. Should be higher than that now I would presume. 
    1) none of those user reported wages are minimum wage, as claimed. 

    2) no source provided for the claim that apple does little to protect “their” factory workers. first this assertion begins incorrect as apple doesn’t have factories or factory workers. but second, they nonetheless go to great lengths to protect their contract manufacturers’ workers building apple inventory, and this has been well publicized.

    so both of the claims i highlighted are FUD bullshit. but thanks for weighing in — when it comes to apple FUD i know you’ve got us covered. 
    You're very welcome, and yes I do. I'll chime in when no one else does to counter misunderstandings vis-a-vis Apple just as I do with other companies/issues. This is one of those cases where you didn't know but I did know where to look. 

    I think it's nearly always better to post the source link so readers can see for themselves rather than just believing "some guy on the internet".  You might like to make fun of it when it's not favorable to you but I doubt you're complaining about this one. :)
    You’ve missed the point entirely. None of what you provided backed up his claim that apple workers are minimum wage, and that apple does little to protect factory workers. None. 

    Youve just muddied the waters with more FUD, which is apparently your purpose. 
    No it's YOU who has missed the entire point. The link I gave you wasn't meant to prove what he said was true. It was meant to show that at least much of it was NOT true. Apple isn't paying minimum wages.  In your quest to hate-on you do yourself a disservice. 
  • Reply 88 of 103
    avon b7 said:

    nht said:


    avon b7 said:
    unphocus said:
    Why is it so high a tax rate for US company to bring home earnings? It’s like the US Government doesn’t want US multinational company to bring back any earnings to the US. High repatriation tax rate makes company looks for loopholes to pay less taxes. The US Congress should be saying “we see what’s happening; let’s reduce repatriation tax rate to make is easy for company to bring back earning from abroad so these companies can use the money to create more jobs” or something to that nature. It boggles my mind the stupidity of high repatriation tax rate. 
    I take a slightly different viewpoint. Earnings are made in tax years and rules apply to those years. Whatever the rules are, companies in any given tax jurisdiction, should abide by those rules and push for a change in tax legislation if they consider them to be unfair.

    From a moral perspective, I believe witholding payment of taxes until such a time is 'right' for the company, is wrong. As is the idea that a company itself, can determine how much to make available for taxation. Especially if that same option is not open to competitors.

    You can be sure that some here will roll out the shareholder argument and that Apple must do all it can to maximise it's return to shareholders, even if it means employing questionable accounting practices. That is missing the point entirely.
    When you do your own taxes do you ever decide late in the year to add more money to a tax deferred account or perhaps time your sale of assets to defer taxes by 1 year?  If not, you're a fool.  The tax laws lay out what is permissible.  Taking advantage of every possibility to reduce or defer taxes within those boundaries is the only smart thing to do.
    I suspect Avon B7 doesn’t grok that this is a tax deferral issue.  Many seem to believe Apple is somehow avoiding taxes rather than merely deferring them.  You’d think he be up to speed; the guy comments on pretty much every AI article, has been around for years...  but some folks never catch on, and that betrays an ulterior motive/agenda. 
    He's a troll.  First is was the MBP had poor sales, just wait.  Then it was they said it was strong but never reported numbers besides massive profits and increased unit sales.  Now it's they are lying about the iPhone X.

    This guy is our resident concern troll. 
    Yeah he’s a master of moving the goalposts however it suits him — now that the X appears to be killing it, he’s saying the “true” measure of its success can’t be known until next september. riiight...whatever helps you sleep at night.
    'Appears to be'? Are you unsure?

    You should be as you have little to nothing solid to go on. 

    The only valid measure of success in Apple land are the sales from one revision to another. Trying to reach conclusions beforeand is fine but is only a snapshot of the situation and by definition, temporary.

    Even then, Apple doesn't break the numbers down so it's all down to interpretation of what comes out of Cupertino in terms of occasional comments, tweets etc. The rest is purely anecdotal. 

    For the X we have an 'off the charts' comment for initial demand. Deja vu to a point of Schiller making dumb claims about initial late 2016 MBP sales and  I never following through on the claims. During the earnings call, that was translated as 'very strong'. Apart from that nothing. And it is unlikely we will see anything more.

    You haven't read anything more from me on the subject except for that. Call it stating the obvious if you want but I prefer not to get my knickers in a twist on these things. There are few facts other than what I have mentioned.

    Same thing with last year's MBPs. 

    With this year's new phones there is one massive difference though. Apple is now shipping phones at pretty much every price point heading into its normally best quarter (the Christmas season). This has never happened before and many right here told me it would never ever happen (I'm pretty sure you were in that group btw) because Apple doesn't do that bla, bla, I don't know what is best for Apple bla,  bla, Apple doesn't race to the bottom. You name it, someone had a reason why it wouldn't happen. Well, it did.

    They were wrong. Plain and simple.

    I do not move the goalposts. If someone asks for more information on my thinking I give it if there is more to give. Some people just can't get that into their heads.

    This year Apple has taken multiple risks. I support those risks as all the evidence suggested it was going to be a fierce quarter if they had kept going with the old way of doing things.

    Now, pretty much anyone who wants an iPhone can get one. Few will be priced out. That has a potential knock on effect of keeping users onboard and from moving to Android. The biggest and most evident risk is having your users opting for lower priced Apple  hardware instead of shiny new flagships. That is tempered by Apple's move into services. Apple is casting its net further than ever before in the hope of feeding off the largest pool of potential purchasers possible. That can only be achieved by implementing changes in the product lineup and pricing. Apple could possibly sell less new models (compared with previous roll outs) as a result during the lifetime of these new phones but that shouldn't be considered a failure. More like part of the plan from the moment they decided to switch tactics. They have the cushion of a supercycle in their favour too. I believe it could happen.

    They were also running out of useful features to add and being overtaken in many areas by competitors. This is understandable if your release cycle is yearly.

    Take dual cameras as an example. Apple was not first out of the gate and initially had just one dual camera phone. In the time up to the next version, competitors had released entire families of dual camera phones. Great camera phones and they have continued to get better. Useful features like fast charging were simply not present. Ditto wireless charging. OLED screens. Shell design was stale. Dual SIM wasn't an option, SD Cards weren't an option. Etc.

    I have not criticised FaceID. I don't consider it a killer feature though. Just another biometric option for unlocking. I have spoken in favour of the notch. I have not criticised that either. I have supported the move to the new retail strategy. Of course I wouldn't have criticised a rear mounted fingerprint sensor either. Something Apple actually has a patent on I believe.

    All in all I'm giving Apple a fair amount of slack and defending some of their recent decisions.

    There are still wider issues but the changes they have made definitely haven't been for the worse.


    TLDR it all (being consise is a virtue). But as I said, the X appears to be killing it. No shame saying appears because we don’t have the actual data, of course. But Cook said it was off the charts and he’s barred from lying. Carrier stores have weighed in as well, in addition to the lines and shipping delays. Yes, it appears to be killing it. 

    Your claim that it will take a year to make that call is absurd. Yes Apple has a full spread of phones (please quote where I said they wouldn’t when you attribute your straw men arguments to me). But the success of the X will be known in short order. 

    Dont know what to make of your claims that Schiller was lying. But I know that the executives and officers of a public corp can’t lie to investors, so I’m going to side with Apple over your crackpot theories of what the sales really are. 
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 89 of 103
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    kkqd1337 said:
    This is a global problem. Apple is no different from other companies doing the same, but their huge success magnifies the situation.

    All international companies treat their tax liability and employees with contempt. And Apple do to - they do little to protect their factory workers or their Apple store employees who are on minimum wage despite each probably selling >$1million of product every year
    Source?
    As reported by real employees.
    https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/apple-store-salary-SRCH_KO0,11.htm

    Product sales per employee? As of four years ago the average Apple store was selling approx. $50M in product and services. Should be higher than that now I would presume. 
    1) none of those user reported wages are minimum wage, as claimed. 

    2) no source provided for the claim that apple does little to protect “their” factory workers. first this assertion begins incorrect as apple doesn’t have factories or factory workers. but second, they nonetheless go to great lengths to protect their contract manufacturers’ workers building apple inventory, and this has been well publicized.

    so both of the claims i highlighted are FUD bullshit. but thanks for weighing in — when it comes to apple FUD i know you’ve got us covered. 
    You're very welcome, and yes I do. I'll chime in when no one else does to counter misunderstandings vis-a-vis Apple just as I do with other companies/issues. This is one of those cases where you didn't know but I did know where to look. 

    I think it's nearly always better to post the source link so readers can see for themselves rather than just believing "some guy on the internet".  You might like to make fun of it when it's not favorable to you but I doubt you're complaining about this one. :)
    You’ve missed the point entirely. None of what you provided backed up his claim that apple workers are minimum wage, and that apple does little to protect factory workers. None. 

    Youve just muddied the waters with more FUD, which is apparently your purpose. 
    No it's YOU who has missed the entire point. The link I gave you wasn't meant to prove what he said was true. It was meant to show that at least much of it was NOT true. Apple isn't paying minimum wages.  In your quest to hate-on you do yourself a disservice. 
    Right which is my point which you’re still missing — I challenged his absurd claims that Apple pays its retail workers minimum wage and treated factory workers poorly and asked him for a “source?” to back up the claims. Strangely you replied to my request to him for a source on the claims, providing a link to data that didn’t back up the claims in question. 

    There is no “hate” as you say, I‘ve done no disservice to myself. I saw bullshit claims, I challenged them, and found your reply odd since it didn’t back up the two claims being made. Perhaps if your reply were clearer...?
    radarthekat
  • Reply 90 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 17,822member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    kkqd1337 said:
    This is a global problem. Apple is no different from other companies doing the same, but their huge success magnifies the situation.

    All international companies treat their tax liability and employees with contempt. And Apple do to - they do little to protect their factory workers or their Apple store employees who are on minimum wage despite each probably selling >$1million of product every year
    Source?
    As reported by real employees.
    https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/apple-store-salary-SRCH_KO0,11.htm

    Product sales per employee? As of four years ago the average Apple store was selling approx. $50M in product and services. Should be higher than that now I would presume. 
    1) none of those user reported wages are minimum wage, as claimed. 

    2) no source provided for the claim that apple does little to protect “their” factory workers. first this assertion begins incorrect as apple doesn’t have factories or factory workers. but second, they nonetheless go to great lengths to protect their contract manufacturers’ workers building apple inventory, and this has been well publicized.

    so both of the claims i highlighted are FUD bullshit. but thanks for weighing in — when it comes to apple FUD i know you’ve got us covered. 
    You're very welcome, and yes I do. I'll chime in when no one else does to counter misunderstandings vis-a-vis Apple just as I do with other companies/issues. This is one of those cases where you didn't know but I did know where to look. 

    I think it's nearly always better to post the source link so readers can see for themselves rather than just believing "some guy on the internet".  You might like to make fun of it when it's not favorable to you but I doubt you're complaining about this one. :)
    You’ve missed the point entirely. None of what you provided backed up his claim that apple workers are minimum wage, and that apple does little to protect factory workers. None. 

    Youve just muddied the waters with more FUD, which is apparently your purpose. 
    No it's YOU who has missed the entire point. The link I gave you wasn't meant to prove what he said was true. It was meant to show that at least much of it was NOT true. Apple isn't paying minimum wages.  In your quest to hate-on you do yourself a disservice. 
    Right which is my point which you’re still missing — I challenged his absurd claims that Apple pays its retail workers minimum wage and treated factory workers poorly and asked him for a “source?” to back up the claims. Strangely you replied to my request to him for a source on the claims, providing a link to data that didn’t back up the claims in question. 

    There is no “hate” as you say, I‘ve done no disservice to myself. I saw bullshit claims, I challenged them, and found your reply odd since it didn’t back up the two claims being made. Perhaps if your reply were clearer...?
    BS. You asked for a source for something that you had no idea yourself about where to look. I gave you one which was to your advantage, laying evidence at your feet to prove he wasn't. 

    Your hate has you convinced that anything I post must necessarily be anti-Apple, but with little actual history of me doing so. I'm sure you went thru a crapload of my posts the other day searching for evidence. The only place you'll find my supposed anti-Apple FUD is in your imagination, so don't be so quick to assume.
    edited November 2017 avon b7muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 91 of 103
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 3,895member
    It is not just about Apple may other companies do the same and more, as well as numerous wealthy individuals. The issue is about how wealth is distributed throughout society and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. Is a CEO of company really worth a 1,000, 10,000 times plus, more than those at the bottom of the company? The fact that the 8 richest people in the world own the same as half the world's population of 3.6 billion is obscene. But the reason why is nothing done about it is because it is those same very rich people that make the laws and until that changes nothing will.


    But no one can take it with them so they are all equal in the end.

    But I see you buy into the fact that no one person is better than another else so everyone is 100% equal in all ways. You do not think those who are willing to work harder and smarter (smarter does not mean educated) should not have more, whether it is time or money. If you went out in the world and just stood there and observe people you will see exactly why most people are where they are. It is more choice than circumstance. I seen people who had everything going against them exceed and those who had everything handed to them fail it came down to the choice they made.

    edited November 2017 radarthekat
  • Reply 92 of 103
    I have an idea. Solves everything. Simple. Also follows the Constitution, its tenets, and its intent.

    Individual person: 0% income tax
    Business: 20% income tax, all forms, methods, and types of income
    • Business below $100,000 per year: 20% income tax
    • Business between $100,000 and $500,000 per year: 20%
    • Business between $500,000 and $1,000,000 per year: 20%
    • Business between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000 per year: 20%
    • Business between $10,000,000 and $100,000,000 per year: 20%
    • Business between $100,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 per year: 20%
    • Business between $1,000,000,000 and $10,000,000,000 per year: 20%
    • Business between $10,000,000,000 and $100,000,000,000 per year: 20%
    • Business above $100,000,000,000 per year: 20%

    Wow. So hard. There’s a lot of backlash from the government to something like this. Even just the business aspect of it. Makes you wonder why. Makes you wonder who they really serve. Makes you wonder why we haven’t killed them all yet.
    So, basically you are saying that those who own business, apart from having headaches of owning and operating one, need to pay taxes, unlike those who are employees of all those businesses? Do you have any idea of what will this cause?
    By doing that, you punish the MOST ACTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE members of the society. Good luck collecting your taxes, when businesses start fleeing your country, if you implement this.
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 93 of 103
    Think of it this way: what if you asked 100 random people on the street if they would prefer to...

    A. Have an income level so low that they paid very little in taxes
    B. Have an income level so high that they paid the maximum in taxes

    How many do you think are going to pick A? Very few. The truth of the matter is that paying a lot of taxes is not actually a burden at all, so statements about being the world's largest taxpayer are essentially meaningless. A poor person that pays sales tax, payroll tax, and state/city taxes has more of a tax burden relative to their income than Apple.
    So what? If there is a person who did not do shit through his college years and now make 20k at walmart, 'cause he graduated with a degree in puppetry, and there is a  person who busted his ass off when he was creating his company and risking HIS money, while doing so, why are you making that smart guy pay for the dumb and lazy?
    By creating too much drag on that type of people, you will make him leave your place or your country entirely, and then you lose everything, because the only people you will be left with, will be laze and unable to work people.

    "The truth of the matter is that paying a lot of taxes is not actually a burden at all, ".
    Lets make you pay 60%, for starters. I have a feeling, you are underpaying, so that must be true.

  • Reply 94 of 103

    Gosh, you mean that Apple is taking steps to keep as much of its own assets as possible, instead of giving it to money grubbing statists, who did absolutely nothing to earn that money, who think that it's somehow immoral and against the laws of nature for one entity to have more money than another?

    Avoiding taxes is the moral high ground, not the low road.

    Avoiding taxes is the moral high ground, not the low road. - That is some logic, that I have read in AI forum in a long long time. You may NEED to think next time, before you post!!!


    I think all the time.  So yes, resisting statist thieves is absolutely the moral high ground.
  • Reply 95 of 103
    gatorguy said:
    robjn said:
    avon b7 said:
    This is a damage control statement. The article by the BBC is a damning revelation that leaves Apple in a bad moral light.

    The questionnaire leak alone paints a picture which will make everyone in PR at Apple squirm.

    This is going to be like quicksand in the sense that any move to defend itself will probably make things worse. Just like this statement has done. I can see it being torn apart line by line for deliberately trying to distract from the reality that the leaks have put onto the table.



    The fact is that international tax law is probably not fair.

    I follow Apple’s financial reporting and they pay about 25% tax.
    In the meantime Apple just follows the law as it stands.
    ...on what they decide is taxable income. Around $100B is not considered taxable as far as Apple is concerned, and no provision for deferred taxes have been set aside for it. Apple has other revenues that they have decided are taxable and some of that is deferred, not actually paid to tax authorities. 

    Did Apple truly decide that income was non-taxable, or did they examine the relevant tax law and determine that it wasn't based on what the relevant legislators wrote?
  • Reply 96 of 103

    Gosh, you mean that Apple is taking steps to keep as much of its own assets as possible, instead of giving it to money grubbing statists, who did absolutely nothing to earn that money, who think that it's somehow immoral and against the laws of nature for one entity to have more money than another?

    Avoiding taxes is the moral high ground, not the low road.

    Avoiding taxes is the moral high ground, not the low road. - That is some logic, that I have read in AI forum in a long long time. You may NEED to think next time, before you post!!!

    Your point is unclear. What are you trying to say?

    He's trying to say that the money Apple makes doesn't really belong to Apple, but he's trying to say that without actually using those words.
  • Reply 97 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 17,822member
    gatorguy said:
    robjn said:
    avon b7 said:
    This is a damage control statement. The article by the BBC is a damning revelation that leaves Apple in a bad moral light.

    The questionnaire leak alone paints a picture which will make everyone in PR at Apple squirm.

    This is going to be like quicksand in the sense that any move to defend itself will probably make things worse. Just like this statement has done. I can see it being torn apart line by line for deliberately trying to distract from the reality that the leaks have put onto the table.



    The fact is that international tax law is probably not fair.

    I follow Apple’s financial reporting and they pay about 25% tax.
    In the meantime Apple just follows the law as it stands.
    ...on what they decide is taxable income. Around $100B is not considered taxable as far as Apple is concerned, and no provision for deferred taxes have been set aside for it. Apple has other revenues that they have decided are taxable and some of that is deferred, not actually paid to tax authorities. 

    Did Apple truly decide that income was non-taxable, or did they examine the relevant tax law and determine that it wasn't based on what the relevant legislators wrote?
    Apple decided it was not taxable. They could have made the choice to bring it home (eventually) by setting aside deferred taxes on their balance sheet to cover what would be owed to the IRS. They did not and have not. As far as Apple is concerned they've deemed $100B plus or minus as non-taxable profit by aggressively using the tax avoidance structure they've chosen, and I'm sure the overwhelming majority of it was in accordance with Apple's interpretation of tax laws. Noted that various tax agencies have taken issue with some of that.
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 98 of 103
    So, basically you are saying that those who own business, apart from having headaches of owning and operating one, need to pay taxes, unlike those who are employees of all those businesses?
    Yes.
     Do you have any idea of what will this cause?
    Freedom. Prosperity. Restoration of constitutional law.
    By doing that, you punish the MOST ACTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE members of the society.
    You mean the people working at those very businesses who now KEEP tens of thousands more of their own dollars, which they use to buy things made by businesses?
    Good luck collecting your taxes, when businesses start fleeing your country, if you implement this.
    Sure thing, despite the tax rate for businesses now being lower than ever before.
  • Reply 99 of 103
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    ...on what they decide is taxable income. Around $100B is not considered taxable as far as Apple is concerned, and no provision for deferred taxes have been set aside for it. Apple has other revenues that they have decided are taxable and some of that is deferred, not actually paid to tax authorities. 

    Did Apple truly decide that income was non-taxable, or did they examine the relevant tax law and determine that it wasn't based on what the relevant legislators wrote?
    Apple decided it was not taxable. They could have made the choice to bring it home (eventually) by setting aside deferred taxes on their balance sheet to cover what would be owed to the IRS. They did not and have not. As far as Apple is concerned they've deemed $100B plus or minus as non-taxable profit by aggressively using the tax avoidance structure they've chosen, and I'm sure the overwhelming majority of it was in accordance with Apple's interpretation of tax laws. Noted that various tax agencies have taken issue with some of that.
    Deciding to take advantage of tax law provisions is not the same as deciding that the income was non-taxable.  They either decided to take an action that made the income non-taxable, or they decided to decline to take an action that would have made it taxable, but they didn't just look at the income and decide that it was non-taxable.  Some provision of the tax law they decided to follow did that for them.
  • Reply 100 of 103
    nhtnht Posts: 4,005member
    maestro64 said:


    Correct, the expert did say all of that. Until he laid it all out, I personally thought the money was held off shore physically. The Bank that holds apple money can move it anywhere in the world that Apple wants them and invest the money anyway Apple wants. But Apple can never use the Money in the US for any US purposes. The US government knows this and as you pointed out by Apple's Banks investing in government bonds and such, it helps our government. This whole things is just a hit piece trying to make people think Apple and other companies are doing something unethical.

    As Apple and Trump both said, they are following the laws which our government put in place, if they do not like it change the laws, Congress has complete control over this situation they just need to change the rules.

    Yep, and they are voting in a massive tax break for themselves and their buddies...oh well.
Sign In or Register to comment.