I don't know why people don't seem to know this, but Corporations DON'T pay taxes!!!! Well, they do, but they don't. They may write the check for them, but it's YOU the customer that is paying the taxes. If the taxes go UP, the prices go UP right along with them. Apple is not just going to eat it, they'll pass it right along to you. In effect, you're just taxing yourself more money!!! The government in effect steals more of your money, and then wastes it on all kinds of CRAP!!!
Talking about CRAP. Of course corporates pay taxes. Taxes on profits are paid on average about 18 months after the sale of the goods. Companies cannot ask for an additional payment from the customers after 18 months. And taxes on profits cannot be anticipated, because they are calculated on the total profit of a company. Items like financial costs and gains, acquisitions, mix of profit and loss making products and services, exchange rates, ... are all influencing this total profit figure. Only companies selling a single product in a single market can make a good guess of the profit figures of next year and can anticipate the taxes on profits. The rest does not have a crystal ball and cannot make the customer pay for taxes on profits. Bear in mind there is also competition. If one company would increase the price of product to anticipate the taxes on profit, while a competitor is not, which product do you think a customer will buy?
This is true in theory, but it assumes the tax revenue is fairly and efficiently used. I’d say there is so much bloat and misuse that any case of ‘tax avoidance’ is pittance in the pool of tax issues.
What evidence do you base that statement on? Is government less efficient than the average private organisation? How would you measure that and would you take into consideration that governments often perform the most difficult functions in society?
If you read this statement this sounds like a sales tax not income tax,
A draft document from the European Commission, seen by Reuters last month, proposed a levy of between 1 percent and 5 percent of a company's "aggregated gross revenues." A crucial part of these draft proposals would be that the levy would be based on where the customer is located for each transaction, not the location of the company itself.
Income tax it based on net profits not gross revenues. What they are saying is apple will be required to pay a tax on the sale price of the phone, not on the profits Apple makes on a sale of phone which is far less than the sale price. This is a cute way of France to add a 1% to 5% sale taxes and hide it from the consumer, they think consumer will not see it at the register. But as people already pointed out, Apple will just add the cost to the COGS and pass it right along to the consumers. Let me show how the math works.
Let say Apple sells a product for $100 and currently there is a 6% sales taxes so the consumer pays $106 for the product today. In the future when France implement the 5% tax on each Apple product, everything think Apple will continue to sell it for $100, Apple will absorb these costs, Apple is not going to cut its margins by 5%, why, investor will have Apples head. In reality what Apple will so is add the 5% to the COGS. In the case of the $100 product and using Apple 38% margin the COGS Is around $72.50, since the $100 Apple product will cost apple another $5 in taxes, that will be added to the $72.50 so the COGS is now $77.50 add back in the 38% margin, the $100 product now sales for $106.90 and the consumer pays ends up paying $113.35.
Hopefully you all saw the trick here, instead of the government making $6 on each phone sale which the consumer pays, they just turn that into $13.90 they more than double what they made on each phone sale and the consumer paid it all. The government hopes the consumer never notices.
Much as a love Apple’s products, this type of tax avoidance is morally repugnant. A move to tax on revenue will fix this shenanigans. Large multinationals have got away with paying almost no corporation tax in the same markets that domestic companies have to pay full dues for years.
As a corporation, Apple is required to pay as little tax as possible within the law.
No they are not. There is zero requirement for anyone, corporation or not, to aggressively seek out creative ways to possibly avoid taxation. I don't know how that claim took on a life of its own but it has.
They are. The job of the board of directors is to maximize profits for shareholders. That's why a companies share price goes up after axing 10% of the workforce. Maybe you just don't like capitalism either? Regardless, the solution is simple. Close the loopholes. You can't fault a company working within the law.
Much as a love Apple’s products, this type of tax avoidance is morally repugnant. A move to tax on revenue will fix this shenanigans. Large multinationals have got away with paying almost no corporation tax in the same markets that domestic companies have to pay full dues for years.
As a corporation, Apple is required to pay as little tax as possible within the law.
No they are not. There is zero requirement for anyone, corporation or not, to aggressively seek out creative ways to possibly avoid taxation. I don't know how that claim took on a life of its own but it has.
They are. The job of the board of directors is to maximize profits for shareholders.
I love the Apple ecosystem but I wish they would pay their fair share of tax. Much of what we pay in tax goes in to making a country civilised and humane. Massive corporations, like Apple Inc., should recognise their moral duty to serve the citizens of those countries in which they generate obscene profits by contributing more than new tech. Tax aids the welfare of the most needy and deprived.
Apple claim to act within the fiscal laws of each and every territory, however, this they achive by using mechanisms which are beyond the reach of yer average Joe or even yer more than average Joe.
Does it not trouble each and every one of you that the 62 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorer half of the earth's population?
They are the largest tax-paying entity in the US, to the tune of ~$16B/year at a rate of 26% or so. Only pointing this out as nearly every thread I see on this subject seems to have people who believe they pay little to no taxes in the US.
Much as a love Apple’s products, this type of tax avoidance is morally repugnant. A move to tax on revenue will fix this shenanigans. Large multinationals have got away with paying almost no corporation tax in the same markets that domestic companies have to pay full dues for years.
Great. Much as you “love Apple’s products” are you willing to pay a higher price for them to cover those higher taxes? What? You think Apple and the others will simply absorb those higher taxes and not pass them on to you? You the consumer pay for everything or didn’t you know that?
Do you take every tax deduction your are legally allowed to take? If you do then you are morally repugnant by your own standard.
In general tax avoidance is where people or companies game the system ie use a loop hole not designed as such by legislators. It’s not expensing something or taking a deduction on pension or charity contributions. That’s a design.
On the second point companies tend to sell at a price that generates demand. That’s econ 101.
So, Apple will not pay this tax. Other companies might, but not Apple. Because demand for Apple’s products is relatively inelastic. The consumer will pay.
its probably true that Econ 101 does not apply to Apple in terms of supply and demand. In any case nobody is gong to pay this ill thought out tax.
It's so "ill-thought out" that you haven't even seen a proposal for it yet, just a bunch of speculative incensed comments on an Apple message board, which are obviously going to be much more insightful than the work of actual lawmakers.
Save the judgement for when you have some evidence dude.
Why are these EU posts the only ones you seem to post on way more than anything else?
Much as a love Apple’s products, this type of tax avoidance is morally repugnant. A move to tax on revenue will fix this shenanigans. Large multinationals have got away with paying almost no corporation tax in the same markets that domestic companies have to pay full dues for years.
Great. Much as you “love Apple’s products” are you willing to pay a higher price for them to cover those higher taxes? What? You think Apple and the others will simply absorb those higher taxes and not pass them on to you? You the consumer pay for everything or didn’t you know that?
Do you take every tax deduction your are legally allowed to take? If you do then you are morally repugnant by your own standard.
In general tax avoidance is where people or companies game the system ie use a loop hole not designed as such by legislators. It’s not expensing something or taking a deduction on pension or charity contributions. That’s a design.
On the second point companies tend to sell at a price that generates demand. That’s econ 101.
So, Apple will not pay this tax. Other companies might, but not Apple. Because demand for Apple’s products is relatively inelastic. The consumer will pay.
its probably true that Econ 101 does not apply to Apple in terms of supply and demand. In any case nobody is gong to pay this ill thought out tax.
It's so "ill-thought out" that you haven't even seen a proposal for it yet, just a bunch of speculative incensed comments on an Apple message board, which are obviously going to be much more insightful than the work of actual lawmakers.
Save the judgement for when you have some evidence dude.
Why are these EU posts the only ones you seem to post on way more than anything else?
Much as a love Apple’s products, this type of tax avoidance is morally repugnant. A move to tax on revenue will fix this shenanigans. Large multinationals have got away with paying almost no corporation tax in the same markets that domestic companies have to pay full dues for years.
Great. Much as you “love Apple’s products” are you willing to pay a higher price for them to cover those higher taxes? What? You think Apple and the others will simply absorb those higher taxes and not pass them on to you? You the consumer pay for everything or didn’t you know that?
Do you take every tax deduction your are legally allowed to take? If you do then you are morally repugnant by your own standard.
In general tax avoidance is where people or companies game the system ie use a loop hole not designed as such by legislators. It’s not expensing something or taking a deduction on pension or charity contributions. That’s a design.
On the second point companies tend to sell at a price that generates demand. That’s econ 101.
So, Apple will not pay this tax. Other companies might, but not Apple. Because demand for Apple’s products is relatively inelastic. The consumer will pay.
its probably true that Econ 101 does not apply to Apple in terms of supply and demand. In any case nobody is gong to pay this ill thought out tax.
It's so "ill-thought out" that you haven't even seen a proposal for it yet, just a bunch of speculative incensed comments on an Apple message board, which are obviously going to be much more insightful than the work of actual lawmakers.
Save the judgement for when you have some evidence dude.
Why are these EU posts the only ones you seem to post on way more than anything else?
Why do you care what posts I'm interested in?
Because your profile seems fake and intended to draw more opposing comments. Or you’re just an EU troll. Either way it’s weird.
Much as a love Apple’s products, this type of tax avoidance is morally repugnant. A move to tax on revenue will fix this shenanigans. Large multinationals have got away with paying almost no corporation tax in the same markets that domestic companies have to pay full dues for years.
As a corporation, Apple is required to pay as little tax as possible within the law.
No they are not. There is zero requirement for anyone, corporation or not, to aggressively seek out creative ways to possibly avoid taxation. I don't know how that claim took on a life of its own but it has.
They are. The job of the board of directors is to maximize profits for shareholders.
That article is nonsense. She starts her piece off with a straw man argument worthy of known clown Paul Krugman.
"There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees." (emphasis mine)
Running a company irresponsibly would endanger profits!
Much as a love Apple’s products, this type of tax avoidance is morally repugnant. A move to tax on revenue will fix this shenanigans. Large multinationals have got away with paying almost no corporation tax in the same markets that domestic companies have to pay full dues for years.
Great. Much as you “love Apple’s products” are you willing to pay a higher price for them to cover those higher taxes? What? You think Apple and the others will simply absorb those higher taxes and not pass them on to you? You the consumer pay for everything or didn’t you know that?
Do you take every tax deduction your are legally allowed to take? If you do then you are morally repugnant by your own standard.
In general tax avoidance is where people or companies game the system ie use a loop hole not designed as such by legislators. It’s not expensing something or taking a deduction on pension or charity contributions. That’s a design.
On the second point companies tend to sell at a price that generates demand. That’s econ 101.
So, Apple will not pay this tax. Other companies might, but not Apple. Because demand for Apple’s products is relatively inelastic. The consumer will pay.
its probably true that Econ 101 does not apply to Apple in terms of supply and demand. In any case nobody is gong to pay this ill thought out tax.
It's so "ill-thought out" that you haven't even seen a proposal for it yet, just a bunch of speculative incensed comments on an Apple message board, which are obviously going to be much more insightful than the work of actual lawmakers.
Save the judgement for when you have some evidence dude.
Why are these EU posts the only ones you seem to post on way more than anything else?
Why do you care what posts I'm interested in?
Because your profile seems fake and intended to draw more opposing comments. Or you’re just an EU troll. Either way it’s weird.
My profile seems fake? Why's that? Do... I... sound... like... an... robot? And it's both fake and has some kind of intent? What even is an intent "to draw more opposing comments"? You mean I like discussing things? I suppose that's true, though hardly rare on a message board. An EU Troll? Because I'm not rabidly opposed to the EU? That's a pretty low bar to trolldom, you must get upset very easily.
A quick gander through my recent comments history and I've posted about Google, headphones, iPhone addictiveness, Nokia, and yes, a couple of times about the EU. I apologise for having interests.
Comments
Only companies selling a single product in a single market can make a good guess of the profit figures of next year and can anticipate the taxes on profits.
The rest does not have a crystal ball and cannot make the customer pay for taxes on profits. Bear in mind there is also competition. If one company would increase the price of product to anticipate the taxes on profit, while a competitor is not, which product do you think a customer will buy?
A draft document from the European Commission, seen by Reuters last month, proposed a levy of between 1 percent and 5 percent of a company's "aggregated gross revenues." A crucial part of these draft proposals would be that the levy would be based on where the customer is located for each transaction, not the location of the company itself.
Income tax it based on net profits not gross revenues. What they are saying is apple will be required to pay a tax on the sale price of the phone, not on the profits Apple makes on a sale of phone which is far less than the sale price. This is a cute way of France to add a 1% to 5% sale taxes and hide it from the consumer, they think consumer will not see it at the register. But as people already pointed out, Apple will just add the cost to the COGS and pass it right along to the consumers. Let me show how the math works.
Let say Apple sells a product for $100 and currently there is a 6% sales taxes so the consumer pays $106 for the product today. In the future when France implement the 5% tax on each Apple product, everything think Apple will continue to sell it for $100, Apple will absorb these costs, Apple is not going to cut its margins by 5%, why, investor will have Apples head. In reality what Apple will so is add the 5% to the COGS. In the case of the $100 product and using Apple 38% margin the COGS Is around $72.50, since the $100 Apple product will cost apple another $5 in taxes, that will be added to the $72.50 so the COGS is now $77.50 add back in the 38% margin, the $100 product now sales for $106.90 and the consumer pays ends up paying $113.35.
Hopefully you all saw the trick here, instead of the government making $6 on each phone sale which the consumer pays, they just turn that into $13.90 they more than double what they made on each phone sale and the consumer paid it all. The government hopes the consumer never notices.
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
Running a company irresponsibly would endanger profits!
What even is an intent "to draw more opposing comments"? You mean I like discussing things? I suppose that's true, though hardly rare on a message board.
An EU Troll? Because I'm not rabidly opposed to the EU? That's a pretty low bar to trolldom, you must get upset very easily.
A quick gander through my recent comments history and I've posted about Google, headphones, iPhone addictiveness, Nokia, and yes, a couple of times about the EU. I apologise for having interests.
Odd person you are.