I might be wrong as im not an intellectual type. If this tax cut was not made then none of this $350 billion dollars would not be coming into the US so that $38 billion from apple going into your economy would not happen. If this creates jobs then these new employees will help pay the bill PLUS spend their earnings on other stuff helping create new jobs, again helping pay this bill. when your children grow up this deficit should be clear. As I said im just a simpleton so might be wrong.
Gary.
PS I was good at monopoly
The issue being argued is whether the increase in growth will offset the increase in debt.
The increase in debt is already known but historically the assumed increase in growth has fallen short but by the time folks can prove that, many of the folks that voted for the bill (either D or R) are out of office or simply hope that either no one understands or will believe that they didnt know it would turn out this way.
The difference, in many ways, is like investors looking for profit in the near term and companies structuring for near term profit to make them happy as opposed to looking at the long term and making those folks unhappy with more tepid near term growth.
As a deficit hawk and fiscal conservative this bill seems a lot more like the former (near term thinking) vs the latter (long term thinking).
It it would have been better to have cut spending to go along with cutting income but that would result in slower growth which looks bad and is painful. The party has really abandoned long term thinking on almost every front. Eventually that will bite us on the ass but nobody cares. They only care about the next election cycle which has always been true but it’s really bad and really obvious now.
If the US had a dictatorship or a monarchy, cutting spending and reworking the tax code to attract more business activity with a long-term outlook would be possible. Because the US is a republic with state representatives acting in the interests of themselves and their constituents—this is why there is no long game.
I’d rather have the flawed system than the dictatorship. People usually live longer when the opposition isn’t being slaughtered wholesale.
Here's the thing, folks. Apple is a business. Trump's tax cut may be good or bad for America, depending on a lot of things, but there is no question it benefits Apple. They get to bring home a larger portion of the profits earned overseas than they would have before. But the idea that Apple will now create a lot of American manufacturing jobs is fantasy. Apple recently took a 90 billion dollar domestic loan to buy back stock. They'll pay that down with money brought home. They will use more of that money for sizeable future stock buybacks. They will use the money for acquisitions of promising companies. They will give small dividends to stockholders and employees. And they'll make some token investments in new "campuses" like call centers and data centers here in the U.S., in order to get Trump off their back. But note that none of this will bring you a cheaper iPhone, or the computer you've been longing for them to build, or an iPhone manufacturing plant in Kentucky or Missouri. We don't have the kind of workers we would need, and even if we did, they would cost too much. If Apple diversifies its manufacturing, look towards India, where people with masters degrees in Engineering work for pennies on the American dollar. Very few jobs will come of this cash repatriation. Divide 350 billion by the promised 20,000 jobs and you'll see what I mean.
Here's the thing, folks. Apple is a business. Trump's tax cut may be good or bad for America, depending on a lot of things, but there is no question it benefits Apple. They get to bring home a larger portion of the profits earned overseas than they would have before. But the idea that Apple will now create a lot of American manufacturing jobs is fantasy. Apple recently took a 90 billion dollar domestic loan to buy back stock. They'll pay that down with money brought home. They will use more of that money for sizeable future stock buybacks. They will use the money for acquisitions of promising companies. They will give small dividends to stockholders and employees. And they'll make some token investments in new "campuses" like call centers and data centers here in the U.S., in order to get Trump off their back. But note that none of this will bring you a cheaper iPhone, or the computer you've been longing for them to build, or an iPhone manufacturing plant in Kentucky or Missouri. We don't have the kind of workers we would need, and even if we did, they would cost too much. If Apple diversifies its manufacturing, look towards India, where people with masters degrees in Engineering work for pennies on the American dollar. Very few jobs will come of this cash repatriation. Divide 350 billion by the promised 20,000 jobs and you'll see what I mean.
You have no idea what the hell you're writing about, buddy:
I'd love to see a plot of Apple's employee count and capital investment in the US over the last 10 years, a regression line projecting into the future based on that data, and then how these announcements compare to that line.
I think the point Elian was trying to make is that this tax cut — which the rest of you are correct in saying will be good for corporations and possibly good in the short term for the US in terms of some investment like what Apple is making — is almost entirely paid for on credit (ie funded by increasing the deficit, ie your kids are paying for it). The bill added/will add at least $1.5 trillion to the already-massive deficit. That is not a political viewpoint; it is a statement of fact.
I haven’t finished doing the math yet, but my premiliminary figures suggest that Apple would actually save a few billion long-term if they just carried on they way they have for the past few years; borrowing to pay US costs and investing its foreign profits in overseas ventures/selling. I’m delighted that they are “repatriating” some of their massive foreign profits in the US, but it is actually costing them considerably more than if they didn’t; I guess they want to invest more heavily in the US (they’ve said this for years) and figured this was the best break they were ever going to get in the foreseeable, so the good publicity and higher stock price would make the loss (compared to not repatriating) worth it.
Let’s also not kid ourselves about how MOST companies not named Apple will handle the windfalls they might get from this tax bill: MOST of it will go to executive bonuses and stock buybacks, just like it has every previous time the US corporate tax rate was lowered, or there was a temporary “tax holiday” for repatriation of foreign profits. Again, not a political statement; a statement of fact based on abundant historical record.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. First, the tax bill will bring "foreign profits" back to the U.S. forever as they can't be sheltered like that anymore. Second, the way to lessen our national debt is to GROW the economy. The U.S. will have more people pulling the cart instead of riding in the cart. Every person that now gets a job and gets off social assistance will become a taxpayer instead and help our country. So yes, former President Obama, Trump has a magic wand - it is called actual business experience versus just reading about business.
Your assumption that extra monies will go to executive bonuses and stock buybacks is nobody's business. It really bothers me that there are some who have a huge case of wealth envy and that they form an opinion about what other people do with their money but get irked when asked what they do with their own. If corporation A is a competitor to corporation B and they both now have the means to step it up a notch you think they both are just going to increase their bonuses? Come on, man. If I'm corporation A and I know that corporation B is doing just that I'm putting all extra monies into making my corporation better than corporation B so that I have the upper hand. That's smart business. If both corporations increase their profitability and satisfy their stockholders then they are entitled to a bigger bonus. Period. There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. That's their job.
I'd rather much see the FairTax implemented than anything these politicians put together. American corporations across the globe would come back on that alone. Much more than what's happening now.
I might be wrong as im not an intellectual type. If this tax cut was not made then none of this $350 billion dollars would not be coming into the US so that $38 billion from apple going into your economy would not happen. If this creates jobs then these new employees will help pay the bill PLUS spend their earnings on other stuff helping create new jobs, again helping pay this bill. when your children grow up this deficit should be clear. As I said im just a simpleton so might be wrong.
Gary.
PS I was good at monopoly
The issue being argued is whether the increase in growth will offset the increase in debt.
The increase in debt is already known but historically the assumed increase in growth has fallen short but by the time folks can prove that, many of the folks that voted for the bill (either D or R) are out of office or simply hope that either no one understands or will believe that they didnt know it would turn out this way.
The difference, in many ways, is like investors looking for profit in the near term and companies structuring for near term profit to make them happy as opposed to looking at the long term and making those folks unhappy with more tepid near term growth.
As a deficit hawk and fiscal conservative this bill seems a lot more like the former (near term thinking) vs the latter (long term thinking).
It it would have been better to have cut spending to go along with cutting income but that would result in slower growth which looks bad and is painful. The party has really abandoned long term thinking on almost every front. Eventually that will bite us on the ass but nobody cares. They only care about the next election cycle which has always been true but it’s really bad and really obvious now.
If the US had a dictatorship or a monarchy, cutting spending and reworking the tax code to attract more business activity with a long-term outlook would be possible. Because the US is a republic with state representatives acting in the interests of themselves and their constituents—this is why there is no long game.
I’d rather have the flawed system than the dictatorship. People usually live longer when the opposition isn’t being slaughtered wholesale.
Strawman. It’s not either a semi-fiscally conservative republican party or a monarchy.
You could viably argue that the Republican Party has never really been a fiscally conservative party and I would even agree with you to a point.
I'd love to see a plot of Apple's employee count and capital investment in the US over the last 10 years, a regression line projecting into the future based on that data, and then how these announcements compare to that line.
We have some information along those lines, but it's incomplete so we can't really extrapolate and make clear comparisons. I'd also say that, for a number of reasons, I think the numbers Apple announced yesterday are very conservative. That said, to the extent we have information that we can use to try to make the kinds of comparisons you're talking about, what Apple announced yesterday doesn't suggest a significant increase in domestic spending or job creation above what we'd have expected (i.e. without the tax law changes).
So, some numbers, others can make of them what they will...
The largest part of the $350 billion plus (in direct contribution to the U.S. economy) which Apple announced yesterday comes from its spending with domestic suppliers and manufacturers. That accounts for around $275 billion of the $350 billion number. That's based on Apple's current pace of spending, an estimated $55 billion for 2018. For comparison, Apple has elsewhere indicated that it spent more than $50 billion with domestic suppliers and manufacturers in CY 2016, which was a bit of a down year for Apple revenues. That $50 billion would, for the most part, be included in Apple's cost of sales which was around $134 billion total (globally) for CY 2016. For 2017 Apples' total cost of sales was on pace to be, maybe, $143-ish billion. So what did it spend with domestic suppliers and manufacturers in 2017? Likely more than $50 billion. So $55 billion a year for the next 5 years likely doesn't represent a substantial expansion of that kind of spending.
The information we have with regard to capital expenditures is less helpful, at least that which I'm familiar with is. Apple's reported capital expenditures for the last 5 years have been $7 billion, $11 billion, $11 billion, $13 billion, and $15 billion. But that's globally. How much of it was in the United States? A lot would be related to tooling and such for manufacturing processes which would be outside of the United States. It would also be for data centers and retail stores, which would be in and outside the United States. Some of it would be for the new headquarters that was built in the United States. Some of it would be for software development. I won't guess how much of that $11 billion a year, on average, was in the United States. But it would be compared to the $6 billion a year, on average over the next 5 years, in domestic capital expenditures which Apple announced yesterday. And we might include the $5 billion total for the Advanced Manufacturing Fund which Apple announced yesterday. That's around $7 billion a year compared to some portion of $11 billion a year over the last 5 years.
The last piece of the $350 billion referred to is the $38 billion tax bill Apple now has as a result of the recent tax law changes. That is, clearly, attributable to those tax law changes.
Then there's the 20,000 created jobs which Apple referred to. The best I can tell from piecing together a couple of Apple sources, Apple has added something like 50,000 or 60,000 U.S. employees over the last 10 years. So 5,000-ish a year? That's more than the pace suggested in Apple's announcement yesterday. But we shouldn't assume that the pace from the last 10 years would have continued for the next 5 years. And as I indicated, I suspect that 20,000 is a conservative estimate. Still, it doesn't to me seem like a great expansion in job creation from what we might otherwise have expected.
I might be wrong as im not an intellectual type. If this tax cut was not made then none of this $350 billion dollars would not be coming into the US so that $38 billion from apple going into your economy would not happen. If this creates jobs then these new employees will help pay the bill PLUS spend their earnings on other stuff helping create new jobs, again helping pay this bill. when your children grow up this deficit should be clear. As I said im just a simpleton so might be wrong.
Gary.
PS I was good at monopoly
The issue being argued is whether the increase in growth will offset the increase in debt.
The increase in debt is already known but historically the assumed increase in growth has fallen short but by the time folks can prove that, many of the folks that voted for the bill (either D or R) are out of office or simply hope that either no one understands or will believe that they didnt know it would turn out this way.
The difference, in many ways, is like investors looking for profit in the near term and companies structuring for near term profit to make them happy as opposed to looking at the long term and making those folks unhappy with more tepid near term growth.
As a deficit hawk and fiscal conservative this bill seems a lot more like the former (near term thinking) vs the latter (long term thinking).
It it would have been better to have cut spending to go along with cutting income but that would result in slower growth which looks bad and is painful. The party has really abandoned long term thinking on almost every front. Eventually that will bite us on the ass but nobody cares. They only care about the next election cycle which has always been true but it’s really bad and really obvious now.
If the US had a dictatorship or a monarchy, cutting spending and reworking the tax code to attract more business activity with a long-term outlook would be possible. Because the US is a republic with state representatives acting in the interests of themselves and their constituents—this is why there is no long game.
I’d rather have the flawed system than the dictatorship. People usually live longer when the opposition isn’t being slaughtered wholesale.
Strawman. It’s not either a semi-fiscally conservative republican party or a monarchy.
You could viably argue that the Republican Party has never really been a fiscally conservative party and I would even agree with you to a point.
Actually, I agree with you that neither Republicans nor Democrats are demonstrably fiscally responsible. Their interests come first.
Here's the thing, folks. Apple is a business. Trump's tax cut may be good or bad for America, depending on a lot of things, but there is no question it benefits Apple. They get to bring home a larger portion of the profits earned overseas than they would have before. But the idea that Apple will now create a lot of American manufacturing jobs is fantasy. Apple recently took a 90 billion dollar domestic loan to buy back stock. They'll pay that down with money brought home. They will use more of that money for sizeable future stock buybacks. They will use the money for acquisitions of promising companies. They will give small dividends to stockholders and employees. And they'll make some token investments in new "campuses" like call centers and data centers here in the U.S., in order to get Trump off their back. But note that none of this will bring you a cheaper iPhone, or the computer you've been longing for them to build, or an iPhone manufacturing plant in Kentucky or Missouri. We don't have the kind of workers we would need, and even if we did, they would cost too much. If Apple diversifies its manufacturing, look towards India, where people with masters degrees in Engineering work for pennies on the American dollar. Very few jobs will come of this cash repatriation. Divide 350 billion by the promised 20,000 jobs and you'll see what I mean.
You have no idea what the hell you're writing about, buddy:
"That’s why, in its press release, Apple said its “direct contribution to the US economy will be more than $350 billion over the next five years,” not that it is actually investing $350 billion. How Apple defines “direct contribution” is anyone’s guess and probably the company’s prerogative."
Here's the thing, folks. Apple is a business. Trump's tax cut may be good or bad for America, depending on a lot of things, but there is no question it benefits Apple. They get to bring home a larger portion of the profits earned overseas than they would have before. But the idea that Apple will now create a lot of American manufacturing jobs is fantasy. Apple recently took a 90 billion dollar domestic loan to buy back stock. They'll pay that down with money brought home. They will use more of that money for sizeable future stock buybacks. They will use the money for acquisitions of promising companies. They will give small dividends to stockholders and employees. And they'll make some token investments in new "campuses" like call centers and data centers here in the U.S., in order to get Trump off their back. But note that none of this will bring you a cheaper iPhone, or the computer you've been longing for them to build, or an iPhone manufacturing plant in Kentucky or Missouri. We don't have the kind of workers we would need, and even if we did, they would cost too much. If Apple diversifies its manufacturing, look towards India, where people with masters degrees in Engineering work for pennies on the American dollar. Very few jobs will come of this cash repatriation. Divide 350 billion by the promised 20,000 jobs and you'll see what I mean.
You have no idea what the hell you're writing about, buddy:
"That’s why, in its press release, Apple said its “direct contribution to the US economy will be more than $350 billion over the next five years,” not that it is actually investing $350 billion. How Apple defines “direct contribution” is anyone’s guess and probably the company’s prerogative."
Your selected quotes and spin on what Apple itself published is... interesting... but incomplete.
”Planned capital expenditures in the US, investments in American manufacturing over five years and a record tax payment upon repatriation of overseas profits will account for approximately $75 billion of Apple’s direct contribution.”
”Apple expects to invest over $30 billion in capital expenditures in the US over the next five years and create over 20,000 new jobs through hiring at existing campuses and opening a new one.”
“Building on the initial success of the Advanced Manufacturing Fund announced last spring, Apple is increasing the size of the fund from $1 billion to $5 billion. The fund was established to support innovation among American manufacturers and help others establish a presence in the US. It is already backing projects with leading manufacturers in Kentucky and rural Texas.”
These are just a few paragraphs from your own link. Trying to characterize any of this negatively is hilarious.
Comments
I’d rather have the flawed system than the dictatorship. People usually live longer when the opposition isn’t being slaughtered wholesale.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/01/apple-accelerates-us-investment-and-job-creation/
You could viably argue that the Republican Party has never really been a fiscally conservative party and I would even agree with you to a point.
So, some numbers, others can make of them what they will...
The largest part of the $350 billion plus (in direct contribution to the U.S. economy) which Apple announced yesterday comes from its spending with domestic suppliers and manufacturers. That accounts for around $275 billion of the $350 billion number. That's based on Apple's current pace of spending, an estimated $55 billion for 2018. For comparison, Apple has elsewhere indicated that it spent more than $50 billion with domestic suppliers and manufacturers in CY 2016, which was a bit of a down year for Apple revenues. That $50 billion would, for the most part, be included in Apple's cost of sales which was around $134 billion total (globally) for CY 2016. For 2017 Apples' total cost of sales was on pace to be, maybe, $143-ish billion. So what did it spend with domestic suppliers and manufacturers in 2017? Likely more than $50 billion. So $55 billion a year for the next 5 years likely doesn't represent a substantial expansion of that kind of spending.
The information we have with regard to capital expenditures is less helpful, at least that which I'm familiar with is. Apple's reported capital expenditures for the last 5 years have been $7 billion, $11 billion, $11 billion, $13 billion, and $15 billion. But that's globally. How much of it was in the United States? A lot would be related to tooling and such for manufacturing processes which would be outside of the United States. It would also be for data centers and retail stores, which would be in and outside the United States. Some of it would be for the new headquarters that was built in the United States. Some of it would be for software development. I won't guess how much of that $11 billion a year, on average, was in the United States. But it would be compared to the $6 billion a year, on average over the next 5 years, in domestic capital expenditures which Apple announced yesterday. And we might include the $5 billion total for the Advanced Manufacturing Fund which Apple announced yesterday. That's around $7 billion a year compared to some portion of $11 billion a year over the last 5 years.
The last piece of the $350 billion referred to is the $38 billion tax bill Apple now has as a result of the recent tax law changes. That is, clearly, attributable to those tax law changes.
Then there's the 20,000 created jobs which Apple referred to. The best I can tell from piecing together a couple of Apple sources, Apple has added something like 50,000 or 60,000 U.S. employees over the last 10 years. So 5,000-ish a year? That's more than the pace suggested in Apple's announcement yesterday. But we shouldn't assume that the pace from the last 10 years would have continued for the next 5 years. And as I indicated, I suspect that 20,000 is a conservative estimate. Still, it doesn't to me seem like a great expansion in job creation from what we might otherwise have expected.
”Planned capital expenditures in the US, investments in American manufacturing over five years and a record tax payment upon repatriation of overseas profits will account for approximately $75 billion of Apple’s direct contribution.”
”Apple expects to invest over $30 billion in capital expenditures in the US over the next five years and create over 20,000 new jobs through hiring at existing campuses and opening a new one.”
“Building on the initial success of the Advanced Manufacturing Fund announced last spring, Apple is increasing the size of the fund from $1 billion to $5 billion. The fund was established to support innovation among American manufacturers and help others establish a presence in the US. It is already backing projects with leading manufacturers in Kentucky and rural Texas.”
These are just a few paragraphs from your own link. Trying to characterize any of this negatively is hilarious.