If any corporation has already paid taxes on revenue in whatever country it was earned wishes to bring that money into the US, 35% on top would be a little onerous. Let's put it this way: If you had a job overseas, made about 100k, and paid 30k in taxes to the British Government, and then wanted to move your bank account to the US and were forced to pay another 24.5k to the US government, you'd probably think twice.
Another important point to consider. If the money stays overseas, the government sees $0. If 1 trillion dollars is brought back into the US and taxed at 5%, the government sees $50 billion, and the corporations in question are still essentially being taxed twice on that revenue. I say negotiate 10%, earn $100 billion in revenue and keep slashing discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending alike.
I think one best way to do it: if a US company sells a product inside or outside US, it has to pay tax on that revenue irrespective of where the product is sold. If an iPhone is made by apple and sold, it has to pay tax.
Apple simply cannot state that it sold 10 million iphones while paying tax on sale of 1 million phones in US.
?Our philosophy is simple?when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,? said Steve Jobs, Apple?s CEO.
?Our philosophy is simple?You make money, we take a 30 percent share; when you make nothing, you keep 100 percent and we get nothing,? said Barak Obama, America's CEO.
Did you think that up all yourself? Was it a homework assignment?
I would say that Apple is throwing its weight around, using that money as a bargaining chip. So, maybe the legislative lobbying effort will be successful with some economic benefits to some people, but it is still a form of corruption.
I think that one of the things the consortium is trying to do is educate senators and reps about the benefits of the tax holiday. There is so much disinformation out there. Here you can see people opposing it for the same reasons that they should be in support of it.
The bottom line is that the influx of cash into the US from the tax holiday will create more taxable income in the long run and will contribute to our economy, thereby hopefully reducing the overall tax burden on the individual taxpayer.
"Apple created the company on April 6, 2006 to better manage its assets and to avoid certain California state taxes.[1] At the end of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, Apple's cash and short-term investments were valued at US$8.3 billion,[2] US$10.1 billion,[2] US$18.45 billion,[3] and US$24.490 billion,[4] respectively. As of September 26, 2009, its cash holdings were reported to be US$33.992 billion.[5]"
Sure they're not dodging Federal taxes, but California taxes are effectively being dodged even though the company is headquartered in California and employes tens of thousands of Californians (who probably do pay their CA taxes).
Well, the truth of the matter is that we are all paying approximately the same percent that you are, when you include federal, state, local, property, sales tax, etc. The question is who is more likely to afford it? The person that is making minimum wage and struggling to make ends meet or the rich billionaire who can own a mansion, abandon it for 10 years to demolish it to build another house? I don't understand how anyone can defend any corporation when it comes to taxes because no corporation pays the actual amount of what they are supposed to because of all the loopholes built into the system and their ability to move their money off-shore to not pay taxes.
I think that you are both talking about different things. You are talking about all taxes as I mentioned above and lamewing is likely talking about his tax bracket. The highest tax bracket is 35% and that's for people making close to 400K/year or more.
I'm talking about Federal + State + City income tax. I haven't included sales, property tax. I'm talking about what my paycheck ends up being after deductions compared to what my stated income is.
Precisely. A tax holiday for the entire country, in addition to a complete government shut down is in order. It's amazing what we can do if we're not saddled with regulations and taxes.
What does the US do without government regulation?
- Slavery and segregation from unregulated civil rights
- The Depression and regular recessions caused by unregulated banks and markets
- The "Dirty 30s" dust bowl from unregulated farming
- Cities enveloped in 70s toxic smog from unregulated car makers
- Unnecessary death and injury from unregulated workplace and product safety
- Failure to respond to natural disasters like Katrina from unregulated emergency services
- Failure to prevent manmade disasters like the Gulf Coast BP spill from unregulated industry
Sure, regulations have to make sense, but saying government and "regulation" is inherently bad is simply ignorant propaganda voiced by people who support absurd, unconstitutional regulations (affecting drug use, sex, entertainment, scientific education) and are against any regulations that clearly do help people and society (regulation of banks, the insurance industry, employee and product safety).
If any corporation has already paid taxes on revenue in whatever country it was earned wishes to bring that money into the US, 35% on top would be a little onerous. Let's put it this way: If you had a job overseas, made about 100k, and paid 30k in taxes to the British Government, and then wanted to move your bank account to the US and were forced to pay another 24.5k to the US government, you'd probably think twice.
Another important point to consider. If the money stays overseas, the government sees $0. If 1 trillion dollars is brought back into the US and taxed at 5%, the government sees $50 billion, and the corporations in question are still essentially being taxed twice on that revenue. I say negotiate 10%, earn $100 billion in revenue and keep slashing discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending alike.
The thing is multinational corporations don't pay taxes in the countries they earn the money in, they use transfer pricing schemes to minimise tax paid.
In the example I gave earlier with Google, they pay 2.4% in tax.
"Apple created the company on April 6, 2006 to better manage its assets and to avoid certain California state taxes.[1] At the end of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, Apple's cash and short-term investments were valued at US$8.3 billion,[2] US$10.1 billion,[2] US$18.45 billion,[3] and US$24.490 billion,[4] respectively. As of September 26, 2009, its cash holdings were reported to be US$33.992 billion.[5]"
Sure they're not dodging Federal taxes, but California taxes are effectively being dodged even though the company is headquartered in California and employes tens of thousands of Californians (who probably do pay their CA taxes).
At least it's a Nevada company not some remote company in Ireland....
I think one best way to do it: if a US company sells a product inside or outside US, it has to pay tax on that revenue irrespective of where the product is sold. If an iPhone is made by apple and sold, it has to pay tax.
Apple simply cannot state that it sold 10 million iphones while paying tax on sale of 1 million phones in US.
When you do stupid things like that, it only creates an incentive for US companies to make products overseas and sell them directly to other countries through an affiliated set of foreign companies.
For example, Microsoft licenses Windows to a subsidiary in Ireland, which then licenses the rest of the world, paying virtually no US tax despite making billions.
Tax policy clearly needs a rewrite, but if you think you can raise everyone else's taxes and that they'll just pay them you are stupid. Our tax code is so complex that it penalized companies that do good and perform well while encouraging abuse of loopholes and doing things that are not in the company's own interest (or society, or the US specifically), such as buying inventory they don't need, or withholding domestic investment.
Countries and USA have bilateral agreements on avoiding dual taxation. So a person/corporation who earns $xxx in US pays tax on that earning and the same person, if he/she earns $yyy in, say Australia, pay Aussie tax.
That is not true at a corporate level, and not even completely true at a individual level. The US typically double taxes profits that are repatriated, most other countries do not. Most of the tax shelter games delay the double tax by delaying the repatriation of the money, in hopes of a future tax holiday that will let them bring it back to the US.
I think one best way to do it: if a US company sells a product inside or outside US, it has to pay tax on that revenue irrespective of where the product is sold. If an iPhone is made by apple and sold, it has to pay tax.
Apple simply cannot state that it sold 10 million iphones while paying tax on sale of 1 million phones in US.
Brilliant idea. So what you are saying is you want 100% of the international businesses currently in the US to leave? Who needs jobs? and no I don't mean Steve Jobs! Under your plan Apple would simply become a Bermuda company or a grand caymen company or an irish company or whatever. They could maintain a foreign subsidiary in the US to sell the 1 million US products but they would not be a US company for the other 9 million. The US trade deficit would balloon, the unemployement rate would skyrocket, tax receipts would plummet, and the costs of social programs for the newly poor would explode. Great idea huh? In fact this is exactly what Obama has been proposing since the campain. So you are in good company.
Thats basicly where Apples money is right now. They just want to "launder" it for 5% into the US. So no, Apple is not the "nicer" company while google is the evil monster, both of them try to make the most money possible
I don't see Apple creating a company in Bermuda to license their technology to an Irish Apple subsidiary...
For a company that's essentially a result of a Standford University research to avoid paying tax in the US, that's a whole other level of greed.
Since Apple mainly deals with consumer physical goods, this can't be easily done. If they could, they would. Remember that a corporation operates for the benefit of the shareholders, not the general public of the US.
I don't see Apple creating a company in Bermuda to license their technology to an Irish Apple subsidiary...
For a company that's essentially a result of a Standford University research to avoid paying tax in the US, that's a whole other level of greed.
The two parts you are missing. 1) this is for sales of non-US assets to non-US customers. 2) "without paying U.S. tax on the profits unless and until they are remitted to the U.S."
If an Irish company sells products in the US they pay US taxes on the profits. They do not have to also pay Irish taxes on the same profits. Pretty much only the US tries to double tax like that and hence only US companies need to engage in such strategies to reduce their taxes to internationally competitive levels.
Personally I would rather the US be the tax haven and have all the companies some here. Another word for comapnies is "employer" but the greedy american voters just want to see high tax rates on evil companies and they don't care about job creation or trade deficits.
I think that one of the things the consortium is trying to do is educate senators and reps about the benefits of the tax holiday. There is so much disinformation out there. Here you can see people opposing it for the same reasons that they should be in support of it.
The bottom line is that the influx of cash into the US from the tax holiday will create more taxable income in the long run and will contribute to our economy, thereby hopefully reducing the overall tax burden on the individual taxpayer.
As AI has mentioned in its article?
"A tax holiday would bring a substantial amount of cash back to the United States and paying that out to shareholders is good for the economy," said the study's co-author Kristin Forbes, who Forbes noted is an economics professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and was a member of President George W. Bush's council of economic advisers. "But if you're a politician claiming this will create a lot of jobs or new investment, it isn't supported by the data."
I do have a financial portfolio, so I probably would benefit indirectly. Most American citizens do not have substantial stock holdings. That fact needs to be factored in.
The government could use the money to improve public education and scholarship opportunities so Apple has a better domestic talent pool to hire from.
What part of "tax holiday" dont you understand. It means the government gets squat. Let me the guess the money is going to trickle down to the masses. Yea ok, I also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
What part of "tax holiday" dont you understand. It means the government gets squat. Let me the guess the money is going to trickle down to the masses. Yea ok, I also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
I would love to sell you something, anything. The "holiday" would give the US 5% of hundreds of billions, or more, veses 35% of $0. Which one would you rather have? The other 95% will come into the US verses 100% stayiong in other countries. Which one would you rather have?
I think that is MY bridge you are trying to sell, and I think you owe me some serious back taxes for your past use
Comments
Another important point to consider. If the money stays overseas, the government sees $0. If 1 trillion dollars is brought back into the US and taxed at 5%, the government sees $50 billion, and the corporations in question are still essentially being taxed twice on that revenue. I say negotiate 10%, earn $100 billion in revenue and keep slashing discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending alike.
Apple simply cannot state that it sold 10 million iphones while paying tax on sale of 1 million phones in US.
?Our philosophy is simple?when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,? said Steve Jobs, Apple?s CEO.
?Our philosophy is simple?You make money, we take a 30 percent share; when you make nothing, you keep 100 percent and we get nothing,? said Barak Obama, America's CEO.
Did you think that up all yourself? Was it a homework assignment?
Yea, I know, don't feed the trolls, sorry.
I would say that Apple is throwing its weight around, using that money as a bargaining chip. So, maybe the legislative lobbying effort will be successful with some economic benefits to some people, but it is still a form of corruption.
I think that one of the things the consortium is trying to do is educate senators and reps about the benefits of the tax holiday. There is so much disinformation out there. Here you can see people opposing it for the same reasons that they should be in support of it.
The bottom line is that the influx of cash into the US from the tax holiday will create more taxable income in the long run and will contribute to our economy, thereby hopefully reducing the overall tax burden on the individual taxpayer.
at least Apple's not sending all the money to tax haven... like Google.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1043146825.htm
5% is still way more than 2.4% Google's paying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital
"Apple created the company on April 6, 2006 to better manage its assets and to avoid certain California state taxes.[1] At the end of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, Apple's cash and short-term investments were valued at US$8.3 billion,[2] US$10.1 billion,[2] US$18.45 billion,[3] and US$24.490 billion,[4] respectively. As of September 26, 2009, its cash holdings were reported to be US$33.992 billion.[5]"
Sure they're not dodging Federal taxes, but California taxes are effectively being dodged even though the company is headquartered in California and employes tens of thousands of Californians (who probably do pay their CA taxes).
Well, the truth of the matter is that we are all paying approximately the same percent that you are, when you include federal, state, local, property, sales tax, etc. The question is who is more likely to afford it? The person that is making minimum wage and struggling to make ends meet or the rich billionaire who can own a mansion, abandon it for 10 years to demolish it to build another house? I don't understand how anyone can defend any corporation when it comes to taxes because no corporation pays the actual amount of what they are supposed to because of all the loopholes built into the system and their ability to move their money off-shore to not pay taxes.
I think that you are both talking about different things. You are talking about all taxes as I mentioned above and lamewing is likely talking about his tax bracket. The highest tax bracket is 35% and that's for people making close to 400K/year or more.
I'm talking about Federal + State + City income tax. I haven't included sales, property tax. I'm talking about what my paycheck ends up being after deductions compared to what my stated income is.
Precisely. A tax holiday for the entire country, in addition to a complete government shut down is in order. It's amazing what we can do if we're not saddled with regulations and taxes.
What does the US do without government regulation?
- Slavery and segregation from unregulated civil rights
- The Depression and regular recessions caused by unregulated banks and markets
- The "Dirty 30s" dust bowl from unregulated farming
- Cities enveloped in 70s toxic smog from unregulated car makers
- Unnecessary death and injury from unregulated workplace and product safety
- Failure to respond to natural disasters like Katrina from unregulated emergency services
- Failure to prevent manmade disasters like the Gulf Coast BP spill from unregulated industry
Sure, regulations have to make sense, but saying government and "regulation" is inherently bad is simply ignorant propaganda voiced by people who support absurd, unconstitutional regulations (affecting drug use, sex, entertainment, scientific education) and are against any regulations that clearly do help people and society (regulation of banks, the insurance industry, employee and product safety).
If any corporation has already paid taxes on revenue in whatever country it was earned wishes to bring that money into the US, 35% on top would be a little onerous. Let's put it this way: If you had a job overseas, made about 100k, and paid 30k in taxes to the British Government, and then wanted to move your bank account to the US and were forced to pay another 24.5k to the US government, you'd probably think twice.
Another important point to consider. If the money stays overseas, the government sees $0. If 1 trillion dollars is brought back into the US and taxed at 5%, the government sees $50 billion, and the corporations in question are still essentially being taxed twice on that revenue. I say negotiate 10%, earn $100 billion in revenue and keep slashing discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending alike.
The thing is multinational corporations don't pay taxes in the countries they earn the money in, they use transfer pricing schemes to minimise tax paid.
In the example I gave earlier with Google, they pay 2.4% in tax.
I would like to keep 97.6% of the money I earn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital
"Apple created the company on April 6, 2006 to better manage its assets and to avoid certain California state taxes.[1] At the end of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, Apple's cash and short-term investments were valued at US$8.3 billion,[2] US$10.1 billion,[2] US$18.45 billion,[3] and US$24.490 billion,[4] respectively. As of September 26, 2009, its cash holdings were reported to be US$33.992 billion.[5]"
Sure they're not dodging Federal taxes, but California taxes are effectively being dodged even though the company is headquartered in California and employes tens of thousands of Californians (who probably do pay their CA taxes).
At least it's a Nevada company not some remote company in Ireland....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_technology
I think one best way to do it: if a US company sells a product inside or outside US, it has to pay tax on that revenue irrespective of where the product is sold. If an iPhone is made by apple and sold, it has to pay tax.
Apple simply cannot state that it sold 10 million iphones while paying tax on sale of 1 million phones in US.
When you do stupid things like that, it only creates an incentive for US companies to make products overseas and sell them directly to other countries through an affiliated set of foreign companies.
For example, Microsoft licenses Windows to a subsidiary in Ireland, which then licenses the rest of the world, paying virtually no US tax despite making billions.
Tax policy clearly needs a rewrite, but if you think you can raise everyone else's taxes and that they'll just pay them you are stupid. Our tax code is so complex that it penalized companies that do good and perform well while encouraging abuse of loopholes and doing things that are not in the company's own interest (or society, or the US specifically), such as buying inventory they don't need, or withholding domestic investment.
Countries and USA have bilateral agreements on avoiding dual taxation. So a person/corporation who earns $xxx in US pays tax on that earning and the same person, if he/she earns $yyy in, say Australia, pay Aussie tax.
That is not true at a corporate level, and not even completely true at a individual level. The US typically double taxes profits that are repatriated, most other countries do not. Most of the tax shelter games delay the double tax by delaying the repatriation of the money, in hopes of a future tax holiday that will let them bring it back to the US.
I think one best way to do it: if a US company sells a product inside or outside US, it has to pay tax on that revenue irrespective of where the product is sold. If an iPhone is made by apple and sold, it has to pay tax.
Apple simply cannot state that it sold 10 million iphones while paying tax on sale of 1 million phones in US.
Brilliant idea. So what you are saying is you want 100% of the international businesses currently in the US to leave? Who needs jobs? and no I don't mean Steve Jobs! Under your plan Apple would simply become a Bermuda company or a grand caymen company or an irish company or whatever. They could maintain a foreign subsidiary in the US to sell the 1 million US products but they would not be a US company for the other 9 million. The US trade deficit would balloon, the unemployement rate would skyrocket, tax receipts would plummet, and the costs of social programs for the newly poor would explode. Great idea huh? In fact this is exactly what Obama has been proposing since the campain. So you are in good company.
Google pays 2.4% tax on money (88% of foreign earnings) they transfer from Ireland to Bermuda via The Netherlands.
Legal yes, evil ???
You're not evil for claiming all available tax deductions to you, neither is Google.
Thats basicly where Apples money is right now. They just want to "launder" it for 5% into the US. So no, Apple is not the "nicer" company while google is the evil monster, both of them try to make the most money possible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_...he_arrangement
I don't see Apple creating a company in Bermuda to license their technology to an Irish Apple subsidiary...
For a company that's essentially a result of a Standford University research to avoid paying tax in the US, that's a whole other level of greed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_...he_arrangement
I don't see Apple creating a company in Bermuda to license their technology to an Irish Apple subsidiary...
For a company that's essentially a result of a Standford University research to avoid paying tax in the US, that's a whole other level of greed.
Since Apple mainly deals with consumer physical goods, this can't be easily done. If they could, they would. Remember that a corporation operates for the benefit of the shareholders, not the general public of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_...he_arrangement
I don't see Apple creating a company in Bermuda to license their technology to an Irish Apple subsidiary...
For a company that's essentially a result of a Standford University research to avoid paying tax in the US, that's a whole other level of greed.
The two parts you are missing. 1) this is for sales of non-US assets to non-US customers. 2) "without paying U.S. tax on the profits unless and until they are remitted to the U.S."
If an Irish company sells products in the US they pay US taxes on the profits. They do not have to also pay Irish taxes on the same profits. Pretty much only the US tries to double tax like that and hence only US companies need to engage in such strategies to reduce their taxes to internationally competitive levels.
Personally I would rather the US be the tax haven and have all the companies some here. Another word for comapnies is "employer" but the greedy american voters just want to see high tax rates on evil companies and they don't care about job creation or trade deficits.
I think that one of the things the consortium is trying to do is educate senators and reps about the benefits of the tax holiday. There is so much disinformation out there. Here you can see people opposing it for the same reasons that they should be in support of it.
The bottom line is that the influx of cash into the US from the tax holiday will create more taxable income in the long run and will contribute to our economy, thereby hopefully reducing the overall tax burden on the individual taxpayer.
As AI has mentioned in its article?
"A tax holiday would bring a substantial amount of cash back to the United States and paying that out to shareholders is good for the economy," said the study's co-author Kristin Forbes, who Forbes noted is an economics professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and was a member of President George W. Bush's council of economic advisers. "But if you're a politician claiming this will create a lot of jobs or new investment, it isn't supported by the data."
I do have a financial portfolio, so I probably would benefit indirectly. Most American citizens do not have substantial stock holdings. That fact needs to be factored in.
The government could use the money to improve public education and scholarship opportunities so Apple has a better domestic talent pool to hire from.
What part of "tax holiday" dont you understand. It means the government gets squat. Let me the guess the money is going to trickle down to the masses. Yea ok, I also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
What part of "tax holiday" dont you understand. It means the government gets squat. Let me the guess the money is going to trickle down to the masses. Yea ok, I also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
I would love to sell you something, anything. The "holiday" would give the US 5% of hundreds of billions, or more, veses 35% of $0. Which one would you rather have? The other 95% will come into the US verses 100% stayiong in other countries. Which one would you rather have?
I think that is MY bridge you are trying to sell, and I think you owe me some serious back taxes for your past use
oh brother....