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.
Did you read the NYT article in full? It is not a slight on Apple as you seem to imply. In fact, it points out how Apple has long been a *pioneer* in exploiting loopholes. If this is true, why is it necessary to defend Apple?
I did question at first why NYT is once again singling out Apple. But it makes sense if you read it - the numbers are larger and Apple has been most effective and efficient at exploiting loopholes than others. Other companies are cited too.
If someone criticizes your nose for being too large, bringing up the number of girls to pick up is defensive but irrelevant. So too are the jobs created by Apple, the taxes its employees pay and the dividend, etc., Interesting but irrelevant facts in this context, whether you or Apple mention them. Absolutely irrelevant and absolutely defensive.
[" url="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation/80#post_2102845"]<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>Planet Blue</strong> <a href="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation/80#post_2102835"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> I am speechless. The ignorance, intolerance, and utterly disgusting and childish posts on this site are just too much sometimes.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </div></div><p> </p><p> I notice that you do not address or even present a single educated rebuttal to any of the valid points that I made in my lengthy post which lays out why it is simply wrong for anybody to demand that Apple pays more than their legal share in taxes in compliance with the law. </p><p> </p><p> I find your view to be extremely ignorant and also rather shallow minded. And just FYI, it is the left in this country which has recently been demonizing the successful and the rich, and I do not need to be tolerant towards intolerant individuals and leftist media outlets which promotes such propaganda. </p>
When literally 50% of your essay is hate directed at various groups and individuals, there are no valid points to rebut.
To focus on any individual corporation is to completely miss the point.
Like so much writing on corporate behavior, the insistence on ignoring context means the result resembles surrealist poetry more than journalism.
The part of your statement I've quoted is true. The American tax code alone (not including those of the 50 states and DC and possessions) - besides those of the many countries Apple does business in - runs hundreds of thousands of pages in total. A simple, flatter, rational, gimmick-free reform is probably too much to hope for - but is where a solution would start.
Complicated tax compliance is also a huge business (and personal tax payer) expense in an of itself. I pay a thousand a year to my accountant - and that's after paying a bookkeeper and many hours of my own time so probably more like $3-5,000 including some small value on my time - mostly just be sure I haven't missed something obscure for my personal taxes and small LLC that I'll get crucified for. And I read my own tax return and ask lots of questions and spend time on the IRS site pouring through their publications, but I still don't fully understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyshacklefor
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.
And if you had a multi-state, multi-national corporation, you would make sure to locate all your assets in exactly the jurisdictions where you'd be guaranteed to pay the most taxes? And that would help create jobs how exactly (other than more bureaucrats collecting way above median salaries and benefits that require more ever more taxes)? But then, to hell with private job creation, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas
Gee, maybe California should consider lowering its ridiculous tax rate instead of complaining about Nevada.
Nawww. Too simple and logical. The left-sided (right-brained) emotional mind is simply incapable of grasping this simple truth - or when they do - think that federalizing - and then world-governmentizing everything will at last make us all equally under the thumb of a groupthink elite who knows what's best in every aspect of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
"Designed by Apple in California"
That mantra doesn't look so cool now.
Looks better than "Taxed to death BY California".....
The South - and other states - have discovered how to get business development: Lure the companies who don't want to get eaten alive by States whose big gov't's keep growing without any realistic limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
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.
And exactly what is your (presumably unfair) share of the load (and bennies) pray tell?
Whenever I hear of somebody complaining about how people/corporations try to minimise tax, I remember an Australian Government Parliamentary inquiry that touched on tax minimisation. The inquiry was actually about media ownership, but an absolute classic statement occurred when some socialist tosser asked Kerry Packer, a media magnate second only to Rupert Murdoch, if he minimised his tax. He replied:
"Of course I am minimising my tax. And if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read, because as a government, I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!"
Yeah but who's paying that sales tax...Apple or you and I?
Exactly, this thread is just churning over the same comments we've already had in the other thread. It doesn't matter if people think Apple is paying enough, they aren't paying their intended tax rates. I don't have the privilege of determining my own fair share of income tax so Apple shouldn't have the privilege of determining their own either.
When we pay for products, the product tax is paid by consumers and it comes off the earnings we get after we pay our fair share of income tax. Apple is reducing the taxes on their earnings and ending up with more money than they know what to do with while the world languishes in recession.
The fact is, Apple purposefully setup lower taxed offices around the world to save on tax and then complains that they won't bring the money home due to the repatriation tax.
It's true that loads of corporations and multi-millionaires use technically legal measures to avoid tax it but legality varies across the world. If a 22 year old flies to the Philippines and has intercourse with a 13 year old girl, it's legal but the law is not there to encourage tourism. Likewise, tax laws in other, smaller countries are not setup with the intention of attracting the tax avoidance schemes of multi-billion dollar companies but rather to help the businesses of the inhabitants.
Apple is targeted because, in case anyone has forgotten, it's now the most valuable company in the world so it should lead by good example. That's part of the responsibility you get when you are number 1.
It's not as if we are talking about money they can't afford, it would only be about 10% of their profits.
As far as making them pay it, I don't think taxing employees extra is the way to go as they will just reduce their staff. I think the profit tax should be calculated based on the shipping addresses of the products and not the address of the headquarters. That way, it doesn't matter where you base your HQ, if the bulk of your sales are to mainland UK, your profit tax is UK mainland tax and not Irish tax and payable to the appropriate government.
Note to Obama: Please stop berating the wealthy and successful. They do good things for this country. We need enough regulation to create a level playing field. After that, get out of the way and allow American ingenuity to thrive.
Please point out a single case where Obama has been 'berating the wealthy and successful'.
Obama's position is that the wealthy do not pay as much tax as they should - and people like Warren Buffett who admits that he pays a smaller percentage of income in taxes than his secretary agree. Having a difference of opinion on what constitutes 'fair' is not 'berating the wealthy and successful'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodification
Steve Jobs could get those who work for them to do the impossible, but apparently making stuff in the USA and paying their fair share of taxes wasn't one of them.
Still waiting for you to show where Apple hasn't paid its fair share of taxes. 'Fair' is defined by the laws of the various countries that they operate in. The politicians set the tax rate that they believe is appropriate - and Apple pays that amount. If you think the politicians should have a higher tax rate, then lobby your representatives, but until then, please drop the 'Apple isn't paying its fair share' garbage.
As for the jobs, you can't blame Apple for that. There is a host of reasons why manufacturing in the U.S. doesn't make sense - and it has been listed repeatedly every time these threads come up. The entire system (taxes, liability, infrastructure, regulations) is stacked against it.
Besides, if Apple switched all of its manufacturing to the U.S., the cost would be so much higher that profits would drop and NYT would be running articles about how Apple is forcing retirees to live in poverty because their actions caused their share price to plummet. You seem to have the impression that companies are independent entities as far as their finances are concerned. In reality, companies like Apple are owned either directly or indirectly by hundreds of millions of people. Forcing Apple to do something impractical like manufacturing in the U.S. would have a horrible impact on the owners of Apple - people like most of your neighbors and friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
I don't believe it is legal to evade taxes. However, any business that doesn't take every available deduction is just foolish and could be making themselves uncompetitive with companies that are doing so. The federal, state and local governments have it within their authority to modify tax laws at any time...after all, they created the laws in the first place.
FYI: When you use pejorative terms like "evade" and "loopholes" when you write, you begin to sound like those you find so ignorant and intolerant.
That's the problem. People want to redefine terms to try to make their political points. In reality, there's no indication that Apple is paying less than legally required (at least, no sign of it yet. There is certainly the possibility of an inadvertent error in their tax returns somewhere, but there's no intentional push to pay less than the law requires). Therefore, the entire issue is ridiculous.
People like the NYT seem out to attack Apple for some reason. I guess they're upset that their Daisey nonsense didn't have traction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
You don't know squat. The USA is FAR from being the most taxes country. Use Google for a few seconds before you expose your ignorance to badly.
Depends on the type of taxes. If you consider total tax burden, you are correct. But in terms of corporate income tax, the US is near the top of the list (with only Japan being higher):
These "socialist mouthpieces" are simply pointing out the hypocrisy that if "corporations are people too" then there is a massive discrepancy between average corporate tax rates and average personal tax rates. Apple pays less than 10 % corporate tax. How much tax do you pay? If corporations paid more (their fair share of) tax then either you would pay less tax or you would get much better and cheaper public services, or a combination of the two.
The tax is only on corporate profits. Apple are making squillians and they can afford to give a bit more back. If they paid just 20 % tax that's billions more to support things like hospitals, schools, roads, whatever! If I were in California with a broke government I'd be wanting the law changed to close some of these loopholes!
I suspect that you're earning more than a subsidence level. You can therefore afford to give more back. So how much more taxes are you paying than required by law? How much more is NYT paying than the law requires?
Besides, if Apple voluntarily donated a few billion dollars to the government, you and NYT would be complaining about them giving away the shareholder's money which cased the share price to drop - hurting poor, starving retirees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodification
It's like how they use to justify slavery in the south when it was legal at the time. If Steve wanted it bad enough he could of brought assembly jobs back to the USA, but like paying their fair share of taxes they found a loop hole bigger than the one that is at the center of Apple's 15 billion dollar future (one ring to rule them all) HQ.
Who defines 'fair share of taxes'? The government. And Apple is paying what the government told them to pay.
The nonsense about the assembly jobs has been answered repeatedly in these forums. You can't blame Apple for lack of assembly jobs in the U.S. The entire system is stacked against that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Did you read the NYT article in full? It is not a slight on Apple as you seem to imply. In fact, it points out how Apple has long been a *pioneer* in exploiting loopholes. If this is true, why is it necessary to defend Apple?
I did question at first why NYT is once again singling out Apple. But it makes sense if you read it - the numbers are larger and Apple has been most effective and efficient at exploiting loopholes than others. Other companies are cited too.
If someone criticizes your nose for being too large, bringing up the number of girls to pick up is defensive but irrelevant. So too are the jobs created by Apple, the taxes its employees pay and the dividend, etc., Interesting but irrelevant facts in this context, whether you or Apple mention them. Absolutely irrelevant and absolutely defensive.
It's not NECESSARY to defend Apple, but I chose to do so because I don't like seeing idiots like the NYT making false accusations like they consistently seem to do when Apple is involved. The facts are simple - Apple is doing what the law allows. If you don't like it, lobby your representatives. Expecting Apple to pay more than they are required is foolish. How much more than required do YOU pay to the US government?
As for the rest, your analogy is silly. The point is that people are criticizing Apple for not doing its 'fair share' for the economy. Yet over the past decade, it's hard to imagine ANYONE who has done more for the US economy than Apple. So if someone wants to criticize, why aren't they going after companies that haven't done their share to improve the global economy? For example, if you want to argue about corporate tax fairness, why is it that Exxon is making billions and billions in profit - yet we're still subsidizing them to the tune of billions of dollars?
Apple is targeted because, in case anyone has forgotten, it's now the most valuable company in the world so it should lead by good example. That's part of the responsibility you get when you are number 1.
It's not as if we are talking about money they can't afford, it would only be about 10% of their profits.
Fair enough. As soon as you agree to pay your legally required taxes and then contribute an additional 10% of your income voluntarily, then you would have the right to make that statement.
Just curious, how many electronics products (smartphones, computers, televisions, etc.) are assembled in the United States? Are there any companies doing this?
Please point out a single case where Obama has been 'berating the wealthy and successful'.
Obama's position is that the wealthy do not pay as much tax as they should - and people like Warren Buffett who admits that he pays a smaller percentage of income in taxes than his secretary agree. Having a difference of opinion on what constitutes 'fair' is not 'berating the wealthy and successful'.
Still waiting for you to show where Apple hasn't paid its fair share of taxes. 'Fair' is defined by the laws of the various countries that they operate in. The politicians set the tax rate that they believe is appropriate - and Apple pays that amount. If you think the politicians should have a higher tax rate, then lobby your representatives, but until then, please drop the 'Apple isn't paying its fair share' garbage.
As for the jobs, you can't blame Apple for that. There is a host of reasons why manufacturing in the U.S. doesn't make sense - and it has been listed repeatedly every time these threads come up. The entire system (taxes, liability, infrastructure, regulations) is stacked against it.
Besides, if Apple switched all of its manufacturing to the U.S., the cost would be so much higher that profits would drop and NYT would be running articles about how Apple is forcing retirees to live in poverty because their actions caused their share price to plummet. You seem to have the impression that companies are independent entities as far as their finances are concerned. In reality, companies like Apple are owned either directly or indirectly by hundreds of millions of people. Forcing Apple to do something impractical like manufacturing in the U.S. would have a horrible impact on the owners of Apple - people like most of your neighbors and friends.
That's the problem. People want to redefine terms to try to make their political points. In reality, there's no indication that Apple is paying less than legally required (at least, no sign of it yet. There is certainly the possibility of an inadvertent error in their tax returns somewhere, but there's no intentional push to pay less than the law requires). Therefore, the entire issue is ridiculous.
People like the NYT seem out to attack Apple for some reason. I guess they're upset that their Daisey nonsense didn't have traction.
Depends on the type of taxes. If you consider total tax burden, you are correct. But in terms of corporate income tax, the US is near the top of the list (with only Japan being higher):
I suspect that you're earning more than a subsidence level. You can therefore afford to give more back. So how much more taxes are you paying than required by law? How much more is NYT paying than the law requires?
Besides, if Apple voluntarily donated a few billion dollars to the government, you and NYT would be complaining about them giving away the shareholder's money which cased the share price to drop - hurting poor, starving retirees.
Who defines 'fair share of taxes'? The government. And Apple is paying what the government told them to pay.
The nonsense about the assembly jobs has been answered repeatedly in these forums. You can't blame Apple for lack of assembly jobs in the U.S. The entire system is stacked against that.
It's not NECESSARY to defend Apple, but I chose to do so because I don't like seeing idiots like the NYT making false accusations like they consistently seem to do when Apple is involved. The facts are simple - Apple is doing what the law allows. If you don't like it, lobby your representatives. Expecting Apple to pay more than they are required is foolish. How much more than required do YOU pay to the US government?
As for the rest, your analogy is silly. The point is that people are criticizing Apple for not doing its 'fair share' for the economy. Yet over the past decade, it's hard to imagine ANYONE who has done more for the US economy than Apple. So if someone wants to criticize, why aren't they going after companies that haven't done their share to improve the global economy? For example, if you want to argue about corporate tax fairness, why is it that Exxon is making billions and billions in profit - yet we're still subsidizing them to the tune of billions of dollars?
What are the false accusations in this NYT article? Now, it may turn out that inaccuracies are present but, so far, Apple's response does not imply this. Furthermore, aside from a few sentences suggesting that the state of California could use more tax revenue from tech companies, the article is not truly critical of Apple.
Nowhere in the article (that I can see) is that an implication that Apple is not doing anything illegal. In fact, it agrees with you in that "Apple is doing what the law allows", except that the article details what the law allows, and how Apple is taking advantage of it. This makes the article informative and interesting.
I agree that the "fair tax share" notion is nebulous and provocative. But I don't think Duhigg and Kocieniewski spent too many words on that.
Should the article have included Exxon? Perhaps, if Exxon uses the same tactics. But given the disparate nature of two businesses, Exxon might not be a good additional exemplar. Should it have included more mention of Google too? Perhaps. But I see the article as one that sheds light specifically on Apple's tax strategy rather than the strategies of technology companies in general. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it gives Apple credit for being *innovative*.
The article only seems to be critical of Apple because it is singling out the Cupertino company. But that is the prerogative of the author of the article. And, for the most part, it states the facts and leaves the reader to make the judgment.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>whatyouneed</strong> <a href="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation#post_2102730"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> That's all corporate taxation does - makes goods more expensive for consumers. </p> </div></div><p> </p><p> And help pay for public education to produce future employees, roads, utilities, make up for tax incentives that were given, etc.</p>
Very naive. More likely the money will go to pork belly projects that make some local politician seem better in the eyes of their lobbyists and sponsors. Taxation is not a zero-sum game. The more money put in, the more is spent. Remember when we had a surplus a few years ago. We did not pay down our debt, nor put in place a sensible strategy for helping out our educational system.
First, fix government spending (and this is not a republican/democrat thing, it's a politician-power/lobbyist thing). Then I'd be more sympathetic to demands to have corporations pay more into the system. I'd be more comfortable that my money (and yours too, because don't for one moment believe that tax costs would not devolve to the corporation's customers) would be going into socially responsible projects like education, infrastucture etc. Which, currently, they do not.
What are the false accusations in this NYT article? Now, it may turn out that inaccuracies are present but, so far, Apple's response does not imply this. Furthermore, aside from a few sentences suggesting that the state of California could use more tax revenue from tech companies, the article is not truly critical of Apple.
Nowhere in the article (that I can see) is that an implication that Apple is not doing anything illegal. In fact, it agrees with you in that "Apple is doing what the law allows", except that the article details what the law allows, and how Apple is taking advantage of it. This makes the article informative and interesting.
Should the article have included Exxon? Perhaps, if Exxon uses the same tactics. But given the disparate nature of two businesses, Exxon might not be a good fit. Should it have included more mention of Google too? Perhaps.
The article only seems to be critical of Apple because it is singling out the Cupertino company. But that is the prerogative of the author of the article. And, for the most part, it states the facts and leaves the reader to make the judgment.
Bull. The title of the article is "Apple sidesteps billions of dollars in taxes". The entire article is about how Apple is managing its business in such a way as to pay less than its fair share.
The fact that they didn't come right out and accuse Apple of committing a crime doesn't change the fact that it was an intentional smear piece targeted at Apple. And the fact that it follows right on the heels of them trying to make waves with Daisey-gate and then NC-energy-gate suggests that Apple is being treated unfairly.
Bull. The title of the article is "Apple sidesteps billions of dollars in taxes". The entire article is about how Apple is managing its business in such a way as to pay less than its fair share.
The fact that they didn't come right out and accuse Apple of committing a crime doesn't change the fact that it was an intentional smear piece targeted at Apple. And the fact that it follows right on the heels of them trying to make waves with Daisey-gate and then NC-energy-gate suggests that Apple is being treated unfairly.
I agree the headline is inflammatory (and it worked, didn't it?). But writers do not pick the headlines. Often, they don't even see it (although in this case, I think the authors would have because this was not a column with a deadline). The article is about how Apple manages to pay less. Some parts of it dwell on fair share. Smear piece? Is it? To qualify as such, there has to be egregious fact distortion. I don't see it.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>jragosta</strong> <a href="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation/80#post_2102811"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a> <p> 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.</p> </div></div><p> </p><p> Yeah but who's paying that sales tax...Apple or you and I?</p>
A lot of larger companies do things that could get them fined or prosecuted if the IRS actually had the resources to unravel them. The IRS generally doesn't like corporate targets. Corporate audits cost a lot of money and take a lot of time, so they would have to be sure they could extract a lot of money before proceeding. Apple's biggest problem would be if they were hit with an accumulated earnings tax, but again that's unlikely as I doubt the IRS even has the resources to audit such a thing.
My only issue with your post is that your opinion would flip if a similar story involved Samsung or Google.
Very true, but at least we'd get to find out what childish names he would make up for Samsung and Google.
The fact is, Apple purposefully setup lower taxed offices around the world to save on tax and then complains that they won't bring the money home due to the repatriation tax.
It's true that loads of corporations and multi-millionaires use technically legal measures to avoid tax it but legality varies across the world. If a 22 year old flies to the Philippines and has intercourse with a 13 year old girl, it's legal but the law is not there to encourage tourism. Likewise, tax laws in other, smaller countries are not setup with the intention of attracting the tax avoidance schemes of multi-billion dollar companies but rather to help the businesses of the inhabitants.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. Foreign banks in small countries have to know that they're going to make more money from foreign companies than they ever will from local business. How many major corporations were founded in the Caymen Islands?
What some people fail to realise is that by using clever accountants to avoid paying their fair share of tax in many countries around the world, Apple is simply shifting the burden onto small local businesses and ordinary people who have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall or see cuts in important public services like hospitals, schools and police.
I think it's a disgrace the way Apple manages to avoid paying their fair share of corporate taxes. However the real problem lies is lazy, corrupt and incompetent politicians who let Apple and other big corporations get away with this level of tax avoidance. There needs to a co-ordinated and concerted effort by governments around the world in unison to stamp this out and punish those governments who fail to comply.
What some people fail to realise is that by using clever accountants to avoid paying their fair share of tax in many countries around the world, Apple is simply shifting the burden onto small local businesses and ordinary people who have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall or see cuts in important public services like hospitals, schools and police.
I think it's a disgrace the way Apple manages to avoid paying their fair share of corporate taxes. However the real problem lies is lazy, corrupt and incompetent politicians who let Apple and other big corporations get away with this level of tax avoidance. There needs to a co-ordinated and concerted effort by governments around the world in unison to stamp this out and punish those governments who fail to comply.
Comments
I have never heard of a company trying to reduce their taxes. Only apple is so non altruistic.
/s
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Did you read the NYT article in full? It is not a slight on Apple as you seem to imply. In fact, it points out how Apple has long been a *pioneer* in exploiting loopholes. If this is true, why is it necessary to defend Apple?
I did question at first why NYT is once again singling out Apple. But it makes sense if you read it - the numbers are larger and Apple has been most effective and efficient at exploiting loopholes than others. Other companies are cited too.
If someone criticizes your nose for being too large, bringing up the number of girls to pick up is defensive but irrelevant. So too are the jobs created by Apple, the taxes its employees pay and the dividend, etc., Interesting but irrelevant facts in this context, whether you or Apple mention them. Absolutely irrelevant and absolutely defensive.
When literally 50% of your essay is hate directed at various groups and individuals, there are no valid points to rebut.
I wonder who you are in real life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh
To focus on any individual corporation is to completely miss the point.
Like so much writing on corporate behavior, the insistence on ignoring context means the result resembles surrealist poetry more than journalism.
The part of your statement I've quoted is true. The American tax code alone (not including those of the 50 states and DC and possessions) - besides those of the many countries Apple does business in - runs hundreds of thousands of pages in total. A simple, flatter, rational, gimmick-free reform is probably too much to hope for - but is where a solution would start.
Complicated tax compliance is also a huge business (and personal tax payer) expense in an of itself. I pay a thousand a year to my accountant - and that's after paying a bookkeeper and many hours of my own time so probably more like $3-5,000 including some small value on my time - mostly just be sure I haven't missed something obscure for my personal taxes and small LLC that I'll get crucified for. And I read my own tax return and ask lots of questions and spend time on the IRS site pouring through their publications, but I still don't fully understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyshacklefor
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.
And if you had a multi-state, multi-national corporation, you would make sure to locate all your assets in exactly the jurisdictions where you'd be guaranteed to pay the most taxes? And that would help create jobs how exactly (other than more bureaucrats collecting way above median salaries and benefits that require more ever more taxes)? But then, to hell with private job creation, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas
Gee, maybe California should consider lowering its ridiculous tax rate instead of complaining about Nevada.
Nawww. Too simple and logical. The left-sided (right-brained) emotional mind is simply incapable of grasping this simple truth - or when they do - think that federalizing - and then world-governmentizing everything will at last make us all equally under the thumb of a groupthink elite who knows what's best in every aspect of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
"Designed by Apple in California"
That mantra doesn't look so cool now.
Looks better than "Taxed to death BY California".....
The South - and other states - have discovered how to get business development: Lure the companies who don't want to get eaten alive by States whose big gov't's keep growing without any realistic limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
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.
And exactly what is your (presumably unfair) share of the load (and bennies) pray tell?
Whenever I hear of somebody complaining about how people/corporations try to minimise tax, I remember an Australian Government Parliamentary inquiry that touched on tax minimisation. The inquiry was actually about media ownership, but an absolute classic statement occurred when some socialist tosser asked Kerry Packer, a media magnate second only to Rupert Murdoch, if he minimised his tax. He replied:
"Of course I am minimising my tax. And if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read, because as a government, I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!"
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!
Are you really that bullheaded? They are just following the tax rules, and are indeed paying their fair share.
Exactly, this thread is just churning over the same comments we've already had in the other thread. It doesn't matter if people think Apple is paying enough, they aren't paying their intended tax rates. I don't have the privilege of determining my own fair share of income tax so Apple shouldn't have the privilege of determining their own either.
When we pay for products, the product tax is paid by consumers and it comes off the earnings we get after we pay our fair share of income tax. Apple is reducing the taxes on their earnings and ending up with more money than they know what to do with while the world languishes in recession.
The fact is, Apple purposefully setup lower taxed offices around the world to save on tax and then complains that they won't bring the money home due to the repatriation tax.
It's true that loads of corporations and multi-millionaires use technically legal measures to avoid tax it but legality varies across the world. If a 22 year old flies to the Philippines and has intercourse with a 13 year old girl, it's legal but the law is not there to encourage tourism. Likewise, tax laws in other, smaller countries are not setup with the intention of attracting the tax avoidance schemes of multi-billion dollar companies but rather to help the businesses of the inhabitants.
Apple is targeted because, in case anyone has forgotten, it's now the most valuable company in the world so it should lead by good example. That's part of the responsibility you get when you are number 1.
It's not as if we are talking about money they can't afford, it would only be about 10% of their profits.
As far as making them pay it, I don't think taxing employees extra is the way to go as they will just reduce their staff. I think the profit tax should be calculated based on the shipping addresses of the products and not the address of the headquarters. That way, it doesn't matter where you base your HQ, if the bulk of your sales are to mainland UK, your profit tax is UK mainland tax and not Irish tax and payable to the appropriate government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If only employees could have as many successful avenues for avoiding taxes as the corporations that pay them.
Are you kidding me? You do have the same options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw
Note to Obama: Please stop berating the wealthy and successful. They do good things for this country. We need enough regulation to create a level playing field. After that, get out of the way and allow American ingenuity to thrive.
Please point out a single case where Obama has been 'berating the wealthy and successful'.
Obama's position is that the wealthy do not pay as much tax as they should - and people like Warren Buffett who admits that he pays a smaller percentage of income in taxes than his secretary agree. Having a difference of opinion on what constitutes 'fair' is not 'berating the wealthy and successful'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodification
Steve Jobs could get those who work for them to do the impossible, but apparently making stuff in the USA and paying their fair share of taxes wasn't one of them.
Still waiting for you to show where Apple hasn't paid its fair share of taxes. 'Fair' is defined by the laws of the various countries that they operate in. The politicians set the tax rate that they believe is appropriate - and Apple pays that amount. If you think the politicians should have a higher tax rate, then lobby your representatives, but until then, please drop the 'Apple isn't paying its fair share' garbage.
As for the jobs, you can't blame Apple for that. There is a host of reasons why manufacturing in the U.S. doesn't make sense - and it has been listed repeatedly every time these threads come up. The entire system (taxes, liability, infrastructure, regulations) is stacked against it.
Besides, if Apple switched all of its manufacturing to the U.S., the cost would be so much higher that profits would drop and NYT would be running articles about how Apple is forcing retirees to live in poverty because their actions caused their share price to plummet. You seem to have the impression that companies are independent entities as far as their finances are concerned. In reality, companies like Apple are owned either directly or indirectly by hundreds of millions of people. Forcing Apple to do something impractical like manufacturing in the U.S. would have a horrible impact on the owners of Apple - people like most of your neighbors and friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
I don't believe it is legal to evade taxes. However, any business that doesn't take every available deduction is just foolish and could be making themselves uncompetitive with companies that are doing so. The federal, state and local governments have it within their authority to modify tax laws at any time...after all, they created the laws in the first place.
FYI: When you use pejorative terms like "evade" and "loopholes" when you write, you begin to sound like those you find so ignorant and intolerant.
That's the problem. People want to redefine terms to try to make their political points. In reality, there's no indication that Apple is paying less than legally required (at least, no sign of it yet. There is certainly the possibility of an inadvertent error in their tax returns somewhere, but there's no intentional push to pay less than the law requires). Therefore, the entire issue is ridiculous.
People like the NYT seem out to attack Apple for some reason. I guess they're upset that their Daisey nonsense didn't have traction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
You don't know squat. The USA is FAR from being the most taxes country. Use Google for a few seconds before you expose your ignorance to badly.
Depends on the type of taxes. If you consider total tax burden, you are correct. But in terms of corporate income tax, the US is near the top of the list (with only Japan being higher):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf
These "socialist mouthpieces" are simply pointing out the hypocrisy that if "corporations are people too" then there is a massive discrepancy between average corporate tax rates and average personal tax rates. Apple pays less than 10 % corporate tax. How much tax do you pay? If corporations paid more (their fair share of) tax then either you would pay less tax or you would get much better and cheaper public services, or a combination of the two.
The tax is only on corporate profits. Apple are making squillians and they can afford to give a bit more back. If they paid just 20 % tax that's billions more to support things like hospitals, schools, roads, whatever! If I were in California with a broke government I'd be wanting the law changed to close some of these loopholes!
I suspect that you're earning more than a subsidence level. You can therefore afford to give more back. So how much more taxes are you paying than required by law? How much more is NYT paying than the law requires?
Besides, if Apple voluntarily donated a few billion dollars to the government, you and NYT would be complaining about them giving away the shareholder's money which cased the share price to drop - hurting poor, starving retirees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodification
It's like how they use to justify slavery in the south when it was legal at the time. If Steve wanted it bad enough he could of brought assembly jobs back to the USA, but like paying their fair share of taxes they found a loop hole bigger than the one that is at the center of Apple's 15 billion dollar future (one ring to rule them all) HQ.
Who defines 'fair share of taxes'? The government. And Apple is paying what the government told them to pay.
The nonsense about the assembly jobs has been answered repeatedly in these forums. You can't blame Apple for lack of assembly jobs in the U.S. The entire system is stacked against that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Did you read the NYT article in full? It is not a slight on Apple as you seem to imply. In fact, it points out how Apple has long been a *pioneer* in exploiting loopholes. If this is true, why is it necessary to defend Apple?
I did question at first why NYT is once again singling out Apple. But it makes sense if you read it - the numbers are larger and Apple has been most effective and efficient at exploiting loopholes than others. Other companies are cited too.
If someone criticizes your nose for being too large, bringing up the number of girls to pick up is defensive but irrelevant. So too are the jobs created by Apple, the taxes its employees pay and the dividend, etc., Interesting but irrelevant facts in this context, whether you or Apple mention them. Absolutely irrelevant and absolutely defensive.
It's not NECESSARY to defend Apple, but I chose to do so because I don't like seeing idiots like the NYT making false accusations like they consistently seem to do when Apple is involved. The facts are simple - Apple is doing what the law allows. If you don't like it, lobby your representatives. Expecting Apple to pay more than they are required is foolish. How much more than required do YOU pay to the US government?
As for the rest, your analogy is silly. The point is that people are criticizing Apple for not doing its 'fair share' for the economy. Yet over the past decade, it's hard to imagine ANYONE who has done more for the US economy than Apple. So if someone wants to criticize, why aren't they going after companies that haven't done their share to improve the global economy? For example, if you want to argue about corporate tax fairness, why is it that Exxon is making billions and billions in profit - yet we're still subsidizing them to the tune of billions of dollars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Apple is targeted because, in case anyone has forgotten, it's now the most valuable company in the world so it should lead by good example. That's part of the responsibility you get when you are number 1.
It's not as if we are talking about money they can't afford, it would only be about 10% of their profits.
Fair enough. As soon as you agree to pay your legally required taxes and then contribute an additional 10% of your income voluntarily, then you would have the right to make that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please point out a single case where Obama has been 'berating the wealthy and successful'.
Obama's position is that the wealthy do not pay as much tax as they should - and people like Warren Buffett who admits that he pays a smaller percentage of income in taxes than his secretary agree. Having a difference of opinion on what constitutes 'fair' is not 'berating the wealthy and successful'.
Still waiting for you to show where Apple hasn't paid its fair share of taxes. 'Fair' is defined by the laws of the various countries that they operate in. The politicians set the tax rate that they believe is appropriate - and Apple pays that amount. If you think the politicians should have a higher tax rate, then lobby your representatives, but until then, please drop the 'Apple isn't paying its fair share' garbage.
As for the jobs, you can't blame Apple for that. There is a host of reasons why manufacturing in the U.S. doesn't make sense - and it has been listed repeatedly every time these threads come up. The entire system (taxes, liability, infrastructure, regulations) is stacked against it.
Besides, if Apple switched all of its manufacturing to the U.S., the cost would be so much higher that profits would drop and NYT would be running articles about how Apple is forcing retirees to live in poverty because their actions caused their share price to plummet. You seem to have the impression that companies are independent entities as far as their finances are concerned. In reality, companies like Apple are owned either directly or indirectly by hundreds of millions of people. Forcing Apple to do something impractical like manufacturing in the U.S. would have a horrible impact on the owners of Apple - people like most of your neighbors and friends.
That's the problem. People want to redefine terms to try to make their political points. In reality, there's no indication that Apple is paying less than legally required (at least, no sign of it yet. There is certainly the possibility of an inadvertent error in their tax returns somewhere, but there's no intentional push to pay less than the law requires). Therefore, the entire issue is ridiculous.
People like the NYT seem out to attack Apple for some reason. I guess they're upset that their Daisey nonsense didn't have traction.
Depends on the type of taxes. If you consider total tax burden, you are correct. But in terms of corporate income tax, the US is near the top of the list (with only Japan being higher):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
I suspect that you're earning more than a subsidence level. You can therefore afford to give more back. So how much more taxes are you paying than required by law? How much more is NYT paying than the law requires?
Besides, if Apple voluntarily donated a few billion dollars to the government, you and NYT would be complaining about them giving away the shareholder's money which cased the share price to drop - hurting poor, starving retirees.
Who defines 'fair share of taxes'? The government. And Apple is paying what the government told them to pay.
The nonsense about the assembly jobs has been answered repeatedly in these forums. You can't blame Apple for lack of assembly jobs in the U.S. The entire system is stacked against that.
It's not NECESSARY to defend Apple, but I chose to do so because I don't like seeing idiots like the NYT making false accusations like they consistently seem to do when Apple is involved. The facts are simple - Apple is doing what the law allows. If you don't like it, lobby your representatives. Expecting Apple to pay more than they are required is foolish. How much more than required do YOU pay to the US government?
As for the rest, your analogy is silly. The point is that people are criticizing Apple for not doing its 'fair share' for the economy. Yet over the past decade, it's hard to imagine ANYONE who has done more for the US economy than Apple. So if someone wants to criticize, why aren't they going after companies that haven't done their share to improve the global economy? For example, if you want to argue about corporate tax fairness, why is it that Exxon is making billions and billions in profit - yet we're still subsidizing them to the tune of billions of dollars?
What are the false accusations in this NYT article? Now, it may turn out that inaccuracies are present but, so far, Apple's response does not imply this. Furthermore, aside from a few sentences suggesting that the state of California could use more tax revenue from tech companies, the article is not truly critical of Apple.
Nowhere in the article (that I can see) is that an implication that Apple is not doing anything illegal. In fact, it agrees with you in that "Apple is doing what the law allows", except that the article details what the law allows, and how Apple is taking advantage of it. This makes the article informative and interesting.
I agree that the "fair tax share" notion is nebulous and provocative. But I don't think Duhigg and Kocieniewski spent too many words on that.
Should the article have included Exxon? Perhaps, if Exxon uses the same tactics. But given the disparate nature of two businesses, Exxon might not be a good additional exemplar. Should it have included more mention of Google too? Perhaps. But I see the article as one that sheds light specifically on Apple's tax strategy rather than the strategies of technology companies in general. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it gives Apple credit for being *innovative*.
The article only seems to be critical of Apple because it is singling out the Cupertino company. But that is the prerogative of the author of the article. And, for the most part, it states the facts and leaves the reader to make the judgment.
Very naive. More likely the money will go to pork belly projects that make some local politician seem better in the eyes of their lobbyists and sponsors. Taxation is not a zero-sum game. The more money put in, the more is spent. Remember when we had a surplus a few years ago. We did not pay down our debt, nor put in place a sensible strategy for helping out our educational system.
First, fix government spending (and this is not a republican/democrat thing, it's a politician-power/lobbyist thing). Then I'd be more sympathetic to demands to have corporations pay more into the system. I'd be more comfortable that my money (and yours too, because don't for one moment believe that tax costs would not devolve to the corporation's customers) would be going into socially responsible projects like education, infrastucture etc. Which, currently, they do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
What are the false accusations in this NYT article? Now, it may turn out that inaccuracies are present but, so far, Apple's response does not imply this. Furthermore, aside from a few sentences suggesting that the state of California could use more tax revenue from tech companies, the article is not truly critical of Apple.
Nowhere in the article (that I can see) is that an implication that Apple is not doing anything illegal. In fact, it agrees with you in that "Apple is doing what the law allows", except that the article details what the law allows, and how Apple is taking advantage of it. This makes the article informative and interesting.
Should the article have included Exxon? Perhaps, if Exxon uses the same tactics. But given the disparate nature of two businesses, Exxon might not be a good fit. Should it have included more mention of Google too? Perhaps.
The article only seems to be critical of Apple because it is singling out the Cupertino company. But that is the prerogative of the author of the article. And, for the most part, it states the facts and leaves the reader to make the judgment.
Bull. The title of the article is "Apple sidesteps billions of dollars in taxes". The entire article is about how Apple is managing its business in such a way as to pay less than its fair share.
The fact that they didn't come right out and accuse Apple of committing a crime doesn't change the fact that it was an intentional smear piece targeted at Apple. And the fact that it follows right on the heels of them trying to make waves with Daisey-gate and then NC-energy-gate suggests that Apple is being treated unfairly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Bull. The title of the article is "Apple sidesteps billions of dollars in taxes". The entire article is about how Apple is managing its business in such a way as to pay less than its fair share.
The fact that they didn't come right out and accuse Apple of committing a crime doesn't change the fact that it was an intentional smear piece targeted at Apple. And the fact that it follows right on the heels of them trying to make waves with Daisey-gate and then NC-energy-gate suggests that Apple is being treated unfairly.
I agree the headline is inflammatory (and it worked, didn't it?). But writers do not pick the headlines. Often, they don't even see it (although in this case, I think the authors would have because this was not a column with a deadline). The article is about how Apple manages to pay less. Some parts of it dwell on fair share. Smear piece? Is it? To qualify as such, there has to be egregious fact distortion. I don't see it.
Who do you think ultimately pays Apple's taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
A lot of larger companies do things that could get them fined or prosecuted if the IRS actually had the resources to unravel them. The IRS generally doesn't like corporate targets. Corporate audits cost a lot of money and take a lot of time, so they would have to be sure they could extract a lot of money before proceeding. Apple's biggest problem would be if they were hit with an accumulated earnings tax, but again that's unlikely as I doubt the IRS even has the resources to audit such a thing.
My only issue with your post is that your opinion would flip if a similar story involved Samsung or Google.
Very true, but at least we'd get to find out what childish names he would make up for Samsung and Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The fact is, Apple purposefully setup lower taxed offices around the world to save on tax and then complains that they won't bring the money home due to the repatriation tax.
It's true that loads of corporations and multi-millionaires use technically legal measures to avoid tax it but legality varies across the world. If a 22 year old flies to the Philippines and has intercourse with a 13 year old girl, it's legal but the law is not there to encourage tourism. Likewise, tax laws in other, smaller countries are not setup with the intention of attracting the tax avoidance schemes of multi-billion dollar companies but rather to help the businesses of the inhabitants.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. Foreign banks in small countries have to know that they're going to make more money from foreign companies than they ever will from local business. How many major corporations were founded in the Caymen Islands?
What some people fail to realise is that by using clever accountants to avoid paying their fair share of tax in many countries around the world, Apple is simply shifting the burden onto small local businesses and ordinary people who have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall or see cuts in important public services like hospitals, schools and police.
I think it's a disgrace the way Apple manages to avoid paying their fair share of corporate taxes. However the real problem lies is lazy, corrupt and incompetent politicians who let Apple and other big corporations get away with this level of tax avoidance. There needs to a co-ordinated and concerted effort by governments around the world in unison to stamp this out and punish those governments who fail to comply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
What some people fail to realise is that by using clever accountants to avoid paying their fair share of tax in many countries around the world, Apple is simply shifting the burden onto small local businesses and ordinary people who have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall or see cuts in important public services like hospitals, schools and police.
I think it's a disgrace the way Apple manages to avoid paying their fair share of corporate taxes. However the real problem lies is lazy, corrupt and incompetent politicians who let Apple and other big corporations get away with this level of tax avoidance. There needs to a co-ordinated and concerted effort by governments around the world in unison to stamp this out and punish those governments who fail to comply.
What is Apple failing to comply with?