Apple sidesteps paying billions of dollars? I can't allow that. I need that money. I may have to send a few of the boys from the IRS to pay a visit on Mr. Cook.
Even though many think raising corporate tax rates would solve all the worlds problems it never works out that way.. Remember nothing is free, if you raise corporate tax rates the corporation will just increase the prices on their products and services to offset the tax increase.
No matter how you see it, ultimately the bottom line will always end up being people pay taxes, corporations / companies don't and governments spend the money, hopefully for the greater good of it citizens.
<p> Even if CA reduced tax rate to 4%, that is still 4% more than Nevada. There is still no incentive for Apple to pay CA taxes.</p><p> <br /> </p>
Sure there is. Being in California is worth something to them or they would not be there any more. Maybe if it was cut in half (like my other responder scoffed at, and accused me of thoughtless posting) they would bring some of that business back. At least it would be a positive negotiating point to start from.
Why is it always the other guy who's supposed to pay their "fare share"?
States are in competition with each other for businesses. Make no mistake about that.
How would you feel if two vendors offered their services to you, and one said you should pay more because it's "fair"?? I think you'd run away from that one.
As a Apple stock investor thank you Apple for doing this.Every thing you do is very legal and most successful companies follow your practice. Keep up the good work and lets get that stock higher.
<p> The hell w/ their job creation. They weren't creating jobs with billions of dollars in tax revenue. Like other large multinational corporations, they know damn well they're avoiding paying taxes with their activities. </p>
Why is this even news? Apple follows the law. The law allows them to avoid California state income taxes by setting up an investment entity in Nevada. Period. Nobody is asserting otherwise. So what is the news?
Don't like it? Change the law! But don't whine about Apple. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - follow the law and minimize their tax burden...
Don't know if anyone has noticed, but hundred of thousands of retirees move to Nevada, Florida and Texas each year... Why? To avoid state income taxes!
<p> Start your own company. I pay $100 in federal taxes for $100,000 in income. It is legal and the law needs to be reformed. It won't be as long as people are ignorant about how much they are getting ripped off. The reason we have a deficit is that we have made an overly complex and dishonest system. Make Congress reform it and bury any member of Congress that says that tax reform needs to avoid raising taxes. The taxes that should be raised are those who avoid paying taxes. It is really simple. Set a floor like the alternative minimum tax for corporations and investment income over 50,000. </p><p> </p><p> On the other hand, if Apple did not take every loop hole they can find then shame on them. The guilty party is the Lawmakers that made this possible, and not the corporation that is looking after its shareholders.</p>
The reason we have a deficit is that spending has outstripped income, for individuals as well as the government. Did people really think they could spend with abandon forever?
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>nagromme</strong> <a href="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation#post_2102703"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> Let’s hope this is the tip of the iceberg for constant media stories revealing how corporations and the very wealthiest dodge taxes, resulting (inevitably) in a greater share of the load being borne by the rest of us.</p> </div></div><p> </p><p> </p><p> I assume that you own Apple products since you post here. What do you think will happen if the government raises taxes on corporations? They will raise prices. That's all corporate taxation does - makes goods more expensive for consumers. </p><p> </p><p> Apple pays way too much in tax. Apple is a great company that has gotten where they are by hard work and innovation. The media should focus on how our government and Fed collude with the military-industrial complex, medical-industrial complex, and Wall St. to waste all of our tax dollars.</p><p> </p><p> Apple is being used as a scape-goat for the massive debt-bomb that is blowing up the country. THEY ARE PAYING BILLIONS INTO THE SYSTEM, let's focus on those who suck trillions out of the system. Bailouts?</p>
And if "the current government" thinks the deficit gap can be closed by squeezing businesses and wealthy individuals, believe me, some of those companies and more individuals will pick up and leave the US. When the negatives outweigh the positives, people can make a big decision in a hurry.
Interesting how liberals equate the property of other's as the government's rightful allowance. What the governments should be taking from this is that more businesses would flourish if they were more competitive and fair when it comes to taxation.
Sure there is. Being in California is worth something to them or they would not be there any more. Maybe if it was cut in half (like my other responder scoffed at, and accused me of thoughtless posting) they would bring some of that business back. At least it would be a positive negotiating point to start from.
Why is it always the other guy who's supposed to pay their "fare share"?
States are in competition with each other for businesses. Make no mistake about that.
How would you feel if two vendors offered their services to you, and one said you should pay more because it's "fair"?? I think you'd run away from that one.
Maybe I'm reading this post wrong, but it sounds like you're arguing with yourself.
<p> HI, SpamSandwich. You're quote seems to deal more with how rather than why.</p><p> </p><p> I can't quote a reference, I'm just going from memory, but my recollection of why corporations exist was to preserve the business after the founder died. Before corporations, the founder owned the company and everything about it. When this person died, his associates (if any) and especially his family, stood to lose everything. But, with the invention of corporations, the business could continue. The fate of his associates, the business, the customers, and his family, had a path much more controllable and beneficial to all.</p><p> </p><p> Of course, this is a memory from a discussion from years ago, but that's the gist of my recollection.</p><p> </p>
I suppose once immortality has been achieved, the laws may change to accommodate that reality.
I wondered when the Left would focus on bashing Apple Inc., especially since their recent forays into bashing Big Oil and Big Banks have led to political dead ends. Poor California, losing all those taxes to Nevada. Maybe those lefties should get a clue and follow Nevada's example of lower corporate profit taxes; they might just keep some of those profits within their borders. Apple has enriched the lives of Americans with fantastic innovative products that are worth paying a premium to own and use. Shareholders, which is many more Americans who invest in mutual funds and 401k's than the Left likes to acknowledge, are also making a pretty penny on Apple. So what's the fuss about their maximizing profits by reducing their tax burden? Don't all of us try to do the same at tax time?
But it could do one more good thing: It could pay its fair share of taxes!
Ah the 'fair share' 'argument'. Define 'fair share'. If whatever they are doing is legal, I'd say they are paying it. Since when is anyone obligated to maximize their tax bill?
Perhaps the wise leftists in tax heavy states and countries will realize that lowering their rates to competitive levels might actual be better.
No man is an island, and neither is any corporation. Everybody with skin in the game simply loves the status quo, but all things change.
Property taxes pay only a portion of each state's education bills, but why let facts get in the way of a good story?
Federal taxes are an issue here, too.
Governments do waste money, but that's no reason not to shore up "loopholes".
Governments do waste money, that's a great reason to shrink government and get rid of corporate tax and income tax, then we wouldn't even have to discuss loopholes.
So you consider going to another state that has a lower tax rate to be a loophole? So what do you propose? Apple only be allowed to do business in California? You want the government to dictate what states a business can choose to operate in?
Ah the 'fair share' 'argument'. Define 'fair share'. If whatever they are doing is legal, I'd say they are paying it. Since when is anyone obligated to maximize their tax bill?
Perhaps the wise leftists in tax heavy states and countries will realize that lowering their rates to competitive levels might actual be better.
Fair share = they want what they don't have without putting in the hard work.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>MJ1970</strong> <a href="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation/40#post_2102765"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> You were right put to the point of confiscating people's wealth as "realized" income. The correct solution to balance the playing field is to eliminate the corporate income tax...but also the personal income tax.</p> <p> </p> <p> Implied in all discussions about taxation is the assumption that spending is fixed and/or should never be reduced. Spending needs to be reduced.</p> </div></div><p> </p><p> </p><p> We differ in that I believe we need a huge government. Yes it should be slashed by 50%. But it would still be huge. We need it to be large. It needs to be paid for by taxes. Income taxes are the proven way to raise this money to provide education, health care and defense. </p><p> </p><p> I am literally advocating elimination of corporate taxes <em>because</em> we already can collect tax at the shareholder's front gate. We need not tax businesses. But, we do need to tax something, sometimes. Taxing small and medium businesses while Apple and GE pay nothing is sickening and completely, absolutely terrible.</p>
I don't believe in "no government" , but I do believe in a vastly reduced one because be they institutions or businesses, if they operate without facing competition they will tend to grow out of control, become inefficient and tone-deaf as to their purpose. One of the primary purposes of our government is to defend and adhere to our Constitution, not enrich itself at the expense of the people.
Also, I find the sudden appearance of the article in the NY Times amusing considering the deep ocean of trouble their owner, Rupert Murdoch, is currently floundering (with regards to the wiretap scandal in England).
Governments do waste money, that's a great reason to shrink government and get rid of corporate tax and income tax, then we wouldn't even have to discuss loopholes.
So you consider going to another state that has a lower tax rate to be a loophole? So what do you propose? Apple only be allowed to do business in California? You want the government to dictate what states a business can choose to operate in?
Oh, dear, I hadn't noticed Apple moved its HQ out of California.
After being questioned about its tax practices, Apple has issued a public comment to defend itself, noting that it has more than 47,000 total full-time employees in the U.S. in all 50 states.
Apple should tell them to pound sand.
Besides, the entire premise of the claim is wrong.
Apple's income taxes are only part of the equation. As long as Apple is legally calculating and filing their taxes, no one has any right to complain. But beyond that:
Sales taxes. Apple sells well over $100 B in products a year. Let's assume that the average sales tax rate is 5% (obviously, it's zero in some places, but as high as 17% or more in parts of Europe). That's $5,000,000,000 in sales taxes from selling Apple products.
Then, Apple will be issuing a dividend this year. I'm not going to look up the number, but say it's $20 B. If the average recipient pays 30%, that's another $6,000,000,000 in income taxes.
Add in 30,000 direct employees. When you add income taxes, employment taxes, etc, that's probably close to another $1,000,000,000.
Property taxes? I'm not even going to guess.
Finally, all the indirect jobs created. Apple claims as many as 500,000, so multiple that last figure by 10.
Clearly, the government is getting a lot of tax revenue based on Apple's success. The whiners really need to just shut the heck up. If there's a problem with the tax code, then they should lobby the government to fix it. But singling out one company and chastising them for not paying more taxes than legally required is asinine. And, btw, how about if all the executives at the NYT publish their tax returns and show us how much more tax they paid than they were legally required to.
Comments
Apple sidesteps paying billions of dollars? I can't allow that. I need that money. I may have to send a few of the boys from the IRS to pay a visit on Mr. Cook.
Even though many think raising corporate tax rates would solve all the worlds problems it never works out that way.. Remember nothing is free, if you raise corporate tax rates the corporation will just increase the prices on their products and services to offset the tax increase.
No matter how you see it, ultimately the bottom line will always end up being people pay taxes, corporations / companies don't and governments spend the money, hopefully for the greater good of it citizens.
Sure there is. Being in California is worth something to them or they would not be there any more. Maybe if it was cut in half (like my other responder scoffed at, and accused me of thoughtless posting) they would bring some of that business back. At least it would be a positive negotiating point to start from.
Why is it always the other guy who's supposed to pay their "fare share"?
States are in competition with each other for businesses. Make no mistake about that.
How would you feel if two vendors offered their services to you, and one said you should pay more because it's "fair"?? I think you'd run away from that one.
As a Apple stock investor thank you Apple for doing this.Every thing you do is very legal and most successful companies follow your practice. Keep up the good work and lets get that stock higher.
Consider yourself blocked.
Why is this even news? Apple follows the law. The law allows them to avoid California state income taxes by setting up an investment entity in Nevada. Period. Nobody is asserting otherwise. So what is the news?
Don't like it? Change the law! But don't whine about Apple. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - follow the law and minimize their tax burden...
Don't know if anyone has noticed, but hundred of thousands of retirees move to Nevada, Florida and Texas each year... Why? To avoid state income taxes!
YAWN...
The reason we have a deficit is that spending has outstripped income, for individuals as well as the government. Did people really think they could spend with abandon forever?
And if "the current government" thinks the deficit gap can be closed by squeezing businesses and wealthy individuals, believe me, some of those companies and more individuals will pick up and leave the US. When the negatives outweigh the positives, people can make a big decision in a hurry.
Interesting how liberals equate the property of other's as the government's rightful allowance. What the governments should be taking from this is that more businesses would flourish if they were more competitive and fair when it comes to taxation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas
Sure there is. Being in California is worth something to them or they would not be there any more. Maybe if it was cut in half (like my other responder scoffed at, and accused me of thoughtless posting) they would bring some of that business back. At least it would be a positive negotiating point to start from.
Why is it always the other guy who's supposed to pay their "fare share"?
States are in competition with each other for businesses. Make no mistake about that.
How would you feel if two vendors offered their services to you, and one said you should pay more because it's "fair"?? I think you'd run away from that one.
Maybe I'm reading this post wrong, but it sounds like you're arguing with yourself.
I suppose once immortality has been achieved, the laws may change to accommodate that reality.
No man is an island, and neither is any corporation. Everybody with skin in the game simply loves the status quo, but all things change.
Property taxes pay only a portion of each state's education bills, but why let facts get in the way of a good story?
Federal taxes are an issue here, too.
Governments do waste money, but that's no reason not to shore up "loopholes".
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Ok. so Apple does a lot of good things.
But it could do one more good thing: It could pay its fair share of taxes!
Ah the 'fair share' 'argument'. Define 'fair share'. If whatever they are doing is legal, I'd say they are paying it. Since when is anyone obligated to maximize their tax bill?
Perhaps the wise leftists in tax heavy states and countries will realize that lowering their rates to competitive levels might actual be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
No man is an island, and neither is any corporation. Everybody with skin in the game simply loves the status quo, but all things change.
Property taxes pay only a portion of each state's education bills, but why let facts get in the way of a good story?
Federal taxes are an issue here, too.
Governments do waste money, but that's no reason not to shore up "loopholes".
Governments do waste money, that's a great reason to shrink government and get rid of corporate tax and income tax, then we wouldn't even have to discuss loopholes.
So you consider going to another state that has a lower tax rate to be a loophole? So what do you propose? Apple only be allowed to do business in California? You want the government to dictate what states a business can choose to operate in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Andersen
Ah the 'fair share' 'argument'. Define 'fair share'. If whatever they are doing is legal, I'd say they are paying it. Since when is anyone obligated to maximize their tax bill?
Perhaps the wise leftists in tax heavy states and countries will realize that lowering their rates to competitive levels might actual be better.
Fair share = they want what they don't have without putting in the hard work.
I don't believe in "no government" , but I do believe in a vastly reduced one because be they institutions or businesses, if they operate without facing competition they will tend to grow out of control, become inefficient and tone-deaf as to their purpose. One of the primary purposes of our government is to defend and adhere to our Constitution, not enrich itself at the expense of the people.
Also, I find the sudden appearance of the article in the NY Times amusing considering the deep ocean of trouble their owner, Rupert Murdoch, is currently floundering (with regards to the wiretap scandal in England).
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyouneed
Governments do waste money, that's a great reason to shrink government and get rid of corporate tax and income tax, then we wouldn't even have to discuss loopholes.
So you consider going to another state that has a lower tax rate to be a loophole? So what do you propose? Apple only be allowed to do business in California? You want the government to dictate what states a business can choose to operate in?
Oh, dear, I hadn't noticed Apple moved its HQ out of California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
After being questioned about its tax practices, Apple has issued a public comment to defend itself, noting that it has more than 47,000 total full-time employees in the U.S. in all 50 states.
Apple should tell them to pound sand.
Besides, the entire premise of the claim is wrong.
Apple's income taxes are only part of the equation. As long as Apple is legally calculating and filing their taxes, no one has any right to complain. But beyond that:
Sales taxes. Apple sells well over $100 B in products a year. Let's assume that the average sales tax rate is 5% (obviously, it's zero in some places, but as high as 17% or more in parts of Europe). That's $5,000,000,000 in sales taxes from selling Apple products.
Then, Apple will be issuing a dividend this year. I'm not going to look up the number, but say it's $20 B. If the average recipient pays 30%, that's another $6,000,000,000 in income taxes.
Add in 30,000 direct employees. When you add income taxes, employment taxes, etc, that's probably close to another $1,000,000,000.
Property taxes? I'm not even going to guess.
Finally, all the indirect jobs created. Apple claims as many as 500,000, so multiple that last figure by 10.
Clearly, the government is getting a lot of tax revenue based on Apple's success. The whiners really need to just shut the heck up. If there's a problem with the tax code, then they should lobby the government to fix it. But singling out one company and chastising them for not paying more taxes than legally required is asinine. And, btw, how about if all the executives at the NYT publish their tax returns and show us how much more tax they paid than they were legally required to.