Isn't Apple about making the impossible 'possible', yet apparently their 'making a particular product at particular price point' means they must find tax loop holes and use Chinese slave-like labor to do it. I'm not saying Apple broke any laws because they didn't, but neither did southern slave owners before the civil war and what they did was evil but not illegal at time.
Slave-like labor? Southern slave owners? Apple?
I hold a few small positions in AAPL, I request to be formally addressed as MASTA from now on, LOL.
OK, Apple itself, the entity, pays Apple's taxes. Nobody else.
At the simplest level, that's true. If you explore it a bit more deeply, it's not quite so simple.
If Apple paid more taxes, that would mean less money left over. The left over money belongs to the shareholders. So, by charging Apple more taxes, you would be essentially taking money from the shareholders.
Furthermore, of course, all of the money that Apple does not pay in income taxes eventually gets taxed. Apple could issue the money as a dividend. They could buy companies which increase future profits. Or they could hold onto the money which increases share value - in which case the shareholder pays taxes when the stock is sold.
But, most importantly, none of that matters one bit. Apple pays the amount that they're obligated to pay. Unless you're paying more of your income in taxes than you are required to, you have no room to complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
According to Forbes the tax rate the NY Times quoted in their article is incorrect. Basically they too estimated tax payments against 2011 earnings when most of those estimates we're based on 2010 earnings. In Apple's SEC filing they report a 24.2% effective tax rate, much higher than the 9.8% the Times is reporting.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>stelligent</strong> <a href="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation/120#post_2102907"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> </p> <div class="quote-container"> </div> <p> <br /> What is Apple failing to comply with?</p> </div></div><p> </p><p> </p><p> They do not pay the amount of taxes intended by the various tax codes. </p><p> </p><p> Instead, they slice and dice otherwise innocuous provisions and set up huge inefficient edifices in order to exploit provisions in a manner never intended when they were drafted.</p><p> </p><p> But you knew that.</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.
Unfortunately I'm sure it will only be the beginning. This year is an election year and someone "big" has absolutely no chance at re-election unless they can successfully project a massive class warfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
An individual could incorporate and there are a number of strategies for minimizing taxes legally. For one thing, have your employer hire you as a consultant and take advantage in that way. In my opinion, a person who does not take advantage of what is available to them to save money is a fool. As they say, "It's not what you make, it's how much you keep".
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!
Like most of the higher-ups in the Obama administration right? Since they've set such a good example...
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.
To hell with job creation? In this economy? They aren't creating new jobs? I think you need to tai a look at things like data centers, head quarters, developers, etc. and rethink your statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
You need to consider something here. Apple is a big company, so even a small percentage is a lot of money. It wouldn't matter what percentage California charges. Apple would avoid it if possible simply because you're talking about a lot of money. All your statement indicates is that you typed the first thing that came to mind. Apple is trying to avoid taxes, so taxes must be too high, right? California does have some issues, but your solution wouldn't change anything.
Some issues? Seriously? California is a disaster when it comes to taxes and regulations. FInally the budget shortfalls are starting to show just how bad of shape it is in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyouneed
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.
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.
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?
I'm beginning to think Steve really pissed Obama off at that meeting they all had about a year ago. With everything else going on in the economy, all this attention on Apple all of a sudden is laughable at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I'm still waiting for the New York Times to do an analysis on GE's taxes, or the billions in back taxes that Berkshire Hathway, aka Warren Buffett are refusing to pay. Of course that's not good click bait like Apple is.
This is true on so many levels it makes me sick to read some of the "righteous" posts here.
I started reading these posts, marking a few to comment on before it became obviously clear there are groups of people here who have real jobs and/or own companies (large or small it does not matter), and then there are those who live in a phantasy land. The second group should sue their schools for their sever lack of understanding of economics. How someone can argue that even though Apple is doing nothing illegal or different from any other global company, they are still wrong, is beyond me. Stop "us versus them" mentality and look at the whole picture. As much as I despise GE, I applaud them for not paying taxes. I'd rather them keep and use the money they earned for something better than what the government could do with it. Our current tax scheme is incredibly out of date and should be rebuilt from the ground up. I don't agree with Ron Paul on a lot of stuff however he's right on taxes...
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>whatisgoingon</strong> <a href="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation/80#post_2102817"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> Did Apple remember to subtract the millions of jobs they have caused to be lost at RIM, HP and others around the world? And all the associated small independent companies that have gone bankrupt because there aren't enough handsets/tablets sold to support them developing the necessary software for those OS's?</p> </div></div><p> </p><p> Well, RIM is Canadian, Samsung (South Korea), HTC (Taiwan), Nokia (Finland).. Motorola was already in decline, so it wouldn't have mattered much. On the other hand, Apple's contractor Foxconn hires hundreds of thousands of workers in China, so it's net positive. </p>
Curious, how did Apple cause those companies to mismanage their budget and employee base? Are you the kind of person that thinks last place is good enough and all the kids should get a medal?
First off, read joyoftech.com this morning... that pretty much sums up the motivations of the print media industry.
Second, 'sidestepping' sounds like 'illegally underpaid," It is not, so it's not that bad.
And yes, everyone is doing it. I read the same thing about Amazon's and Google's Offshore accounts (the Double Irish Double Dutch Cayman connection) last year.
As for Nevada. Wow. Who'd a thunk it. Apple created jobs in the State of Nevada? and California is complaining... Oh wait, the jobs are about setting up a storefront and claiming that store holds all the profits... Bad Bad Apple... Oh,
Except... I bet you can't name a Bank or Credit Card issues that isn't incorporated in Delaware. Heck most corporations (60% of the F500) incorporate in Delaware. On the first count... why? Because Delaware has relaxed Usury laws (why is that 24.99% rate for missing one payment legal... Delaware law?). Otherwise all the rest of the laws are there to protect the corporation from a shareholder revolt.
Oh and one more thing... income 'earned' outside of Delaware is not subject to corporate income tax, so it's not double taxed.
Anyone writing articles about Goldman Sachs?
Anyone writing about JP Morgan Chase?
No.
Apple... incorporated in California. So, that angle couldn't stick
Does anyone write articles or march to Olympia WA or Washington DC and make USBank incorporate in Washington state to support the REIVisa card which 'looks' like it's part of REI, based in Seattle?
Nah... because they aren't THE BIGGEST FASTEST GROWING MEGANASTYCORPORATION THAT HAS IT'S PRODUCTS IN EVERY POCKET OF EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET, USING SLAVE LABOR TO ASSEMBLE POISONOUS COMPONENTS IN CHINA, AND FLEECING STATES AND LITTLE OLD LADIES OF THEIR HARD EARNED TAX MONIES (because you know, if Apple isn't paying it, some old lady on the pension has to).
I personally think that Exxon sort of likes having Apple at #1.... ;-)
According to Forbes the tax rate the NY Times quoted in their article is incorrect. Basically they too estimated tax payments against 2011 earnings when most of those estimates we're based on 2010 earnings. In Apple's SEC filing they report a 24.2% effective tax rate, much higher than the 9.8% the Times is reporting.
Excellent find. The Forbes guy is spot on. (Apple's "Provision for Taxes" based on estimated 2011 income is $8.3B, not the reported "Cash Taxes Paid" of $3.3B, which reflects the actual earnings from 2010).
The NYT article also makes three other assertions that are plainly wrong or incendiary:
(i) It says that Apple does not provide data on US versus foreign taxes paid. Wrong. Apple does so, in Table 22 (see its footnote under "Income Taxes");
(ii) It quotes an "ex-Treasury department expert" as saying that Apple's allocated earnings for the US should be closer to 50% (than Apple's claim of 30%). Quite apart from the fact that no analysis or explanation is offered for why this should be the case, this is tantamount to implying that the largest firm in the world (by mkt cap) and its auditors are engaged in a massive tax fraud -- a pretty incendiary implication;
(iii) The article makes a claim that taxes can be deferred indefinitely -- that is a ridiculous assertion. Any executive that belives that runs the risk of ending up in jail.
Apple created a cottage industry with thousands of developers who earn a living and pay taxes off the apps they make. Is Apple credited with job creation? No!
Maybe I'm reading this post wrong, but it sounds like you're arguing with yourself.
How so? Maybe I'm trying to state too tersely what to me are obvious points. I'm simply making the point that it's not an all or nothing proposition when it comes to state taxes. States set their rates (and types of things taxed) with a view towards satisfying their budgeted needs as perceived by the representatives (and eventually the people who elect them). But they also must consider the impacts of their tax structures with respect to other states, with which they are in competition for businesses and people.
And I'm trying to highlight the reality of the situation. If you are a business (or a person) you have various factors leading you towards residing in one state or another. All other things being equal, would you choose a state that says to you "you should pay more because that's fair"? Just like would you as an individual choose a vendor of a service who says that to you?
Maybe you'd pay something extra because there are things that attract you to that state, or you're already there and there is a cost to moving. But maybe not as much as you're being taxed. That is my point.
I will add a couple of things here:
a) The POV that says that if a successful corporation like Apple isn't paying their "fair share" because they choose to move some of their operations or finances to other states, leads you down a bad path. There is an unstated assumption as to what's "fair", meaning what the blue states would like to do (expand government, fund union payrolls and pensions, do more transfer payments aka "spread the wealth", etc.). Putting this under the "fair" moniker is your basic relabeling ploy which makes you think that "fair" == "good and desirable". Just like, who wouldn't be "pro-life" until you find out it really means they want to make abortions and even contraception illegal? It's important to talk about things AS THEY ARE without these tendentious relabelings.
And, the blue states hate the red states for not "playing fair" and therefore attracting more businesses and people. And, they'd like to force (and I use that word advisedly) all the states into the same mindset that they are in. Their favorite ways to force that are (a) federal government taking over more and more of what used to be state programs and decisions, (b) federal government regulating what's left of state programs and decisions, and (c) attempts to sway public opinion (which this NYT article is a good example of).
A lot of people move to states that have lower tax rates. They undertake all sorts of measures to reduce their taxes as much as possible within the bounds of the law. Outsmarting Uncle Sam has been a national pastime for decades.
Many individuals have tried tax saving strategies such as gifting some of their income to their kids as a way to avoid taxes. Since kids have no income, they have no income tax, so parents would be able to get some of their come tax-free. This only scratches the surface of the innovative tax-saving strategies individuals have tried to employ before the IRS put its foot down.
You people who are standing on your soapbox vilifying Apple should ask yourselves if you would reject a strategy that your tax accountant gave you that would lop off tons of money from your tax bill or if you would voluntarily pay more. All of you would pay exactly what you had to pay and not a fraction of a penny more.
What's wrong if Apple does the same? If governments aren't getting enough revenue because of dozes of bigshot companies employing this strategy, then the governments aren't doing their job. The tax is clearly lacking. As I see it, Apple has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders.
Apple created a cottage industry with thousands of developers who earn a living and pay taxes off the apps they make. Is Apple credited with job creation? No!
Of course Apple is credited with job creation. There are many news stories about municipalities trying to entice Apple to locate facilities in their town. Why? In large part, because of job creation.
Yeah - Apple is the poor whipping boy, mistreated, misunderstood and scapegoated for the sins of the world.
But they most certainly are credited with job creation. You hear about it all the time.
Nonsense. It is factored into the prices Apple charges its consumers.
Nonsense. That's not how prices are set at any company. To believe otherwise shows a misunderstanding of everything from market analysis, product management to taxes.
At the simplest level, that's true. If you explore it a bit more deeply, it's not quite so simple.
If Apple paid more taxes, that would mean less money left over. The left over money belongs to the shareholders. So, by charging Apple more taxes, you would be essentially taking money from the shareholders.
Furthermore, of course, all of the money that Apple does not pay in income taxes eventually gets taxed. Apple could issue the money as a dividend. They could buy companies which increase future profits. Or they could hold onto the money which increases share value - in which case the shareholder pays taxes when the stock is sold.
But, most importantly, none of that matters one bit. Apple pays the amount that they're obligated to pay. Unless you're paying more of your income in taxes than you are required to, you have no room to complain.
Sure, but stelligent will continue to argue that it's a perfectly fair article.....
If the article is wrong, then it's wrong and I wouldn't support it.
And I've agreed with you all along that Apple is not doing anything wrong. Just because I see two sides of the story does not mean I'm trying to paint Apple as a villain in this scenario.
Apple's owners pay them. 70% or more are institutional investors.
To say anything else is a stretch.
Your knowledge of public ownership of corporations is inadequate.
Apple Inc. pays its own taxes. It's right there in their SEC filings, just look at their cash flow statements. Taxes are a line item. Naturally, now much taxes Apple pays influences their cash on hand and their balance sheet.
Shareholders of public corporations do not pay corporate taxes. Here are the first two sentences of Wikipedia's definition of equity:
"In accounting and finance, equity is the residual claim or interest of the most junior class of investors in assets, after all liabilities are paid. If liability exceeds assets, negative equity exists. In an accounting context, Shareholders' equity (or stockholders' equity, shareholders' funds, shareholders' capital or similar terms) represents the remaining interest in assets of a company, spread among individual shareholders of common or preferred stock."
I've underlined the pertinent phrase "after all liabilities are paid" which includes taxes.
Basically, the board of directors hires a senior management team that is tasked with the daily operations of the business. It's up to that management team to make sure that Apple pays their bills, employees, creditors, etc. Shareholders are not involved in the daily operations of the company. It is not their duty to make sure the landscaping company gets paid, order t-shirts for the new retail staffers, pay their NAND flash memory bill from Toshiba, or pay taxes.
Shareholder equity is the value of the company's assets (cash & securities, buildings, inventory, accounts receivable, etc.) minus its liabilities (debt, accounts payable, etc.).
Apple Inc. pays its own taxes. It's right there in their SEC filings, just look at their cash flow statements. Taxes are a line item. Naturally, now much taxes Apple pays influences their cash on hand and their balance sheet.
Shareholders of public corporations do not pay corporate taxes. Here are the first two sentences of Wikipedia's definition of equity:
"In accounting and finance, equity is the residual claim or interest of the most junior class of investors in assets, after all liabilities are paid. If liability exceeds assets, negative equity exists. In an accounting context, Shareholders' equity (or stockholders' equity, shareholders' funds, shareholders' capital or similar terms) represents the remaining interest in assets of a company, spread among individual shareholders of common or preferred stock."
I've underlined the pertinent phrase "after all liabilities are paid" which includes taxes.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodification
Isn't Apple about making the impossible 'possible', yet apparently their 'making a particular product at particular price point' means they must find tax loop holes and use Chinese slave-like labor to do it. I'm not saying Apple broke any laws because they didn't, but neither did southern slave owners before the civil war and what they did was evil but not illegal at time.
Slave-like labor? Southern slave owners? Apple?
I hold a few small positions in AAPL, I request to be formally addressed as MASTA from now on, LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
OK, Apple itself, the entity, pays Apple's taxes. Nobody else.
At the simplest level, that's true. If you explore it a bit more deeply, it's not quite so simple.
If Apple paid more taxes, that would mean less money left over. The left over money belongs to the shareholders. So, by charging Apple more taxes, you would be essentially taking money from the shareholders.
Furthermore, of course, all of the money that Apple does not pay in income taxes eventually gets taxed. Apple could issue the money as a dividend. They could buy companies which increase future profits. Or they could hold onto the money which increases share value - in which case the shareholder pays taxes when the stock is sold.
But, most importantly, none of that matters one bit. Apple pays the amount that they're obligated to pay. Unless you're paying more of your income in taxes than you are required to, you have no room to complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
According to Forbes the tax rate the NY Times quoted in their article is incorrect. Basically they too estimated tax payments against 2011 earnings when most of those estimates we're based on 2010 earnings. In Apple's SEC filing they report a 24.2% effective tax rate, much higher than the 9.8% the Times is reporting.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/30/apples-9-8-tax-rate-new-york-times-ignorance-again/
Sure, but stelligent will continue to argue that it's a perfectly fair article.....
That's not what he asked.
But you knew that.
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.
Unfortunately I'm sure it will only be the beginning. This year is an election year and someone "big" has absolutely no chance at re-election unless they can successfully project a massive class warfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
An individual could incorporate and there are a number of strategies for minimizing taxes legally. For one thing, have your employer hire you as a consultant and take advantage in that way. In my opinion, a person who does not take advantage of what is available to them to save money is a fool. As they say, "It's not what you make, it's how much you keep".
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!
Like most of the higher-ups in the Obama administration right? Since they've set such a good example...
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.
To hell with job creation? In this economy? They aren't creating new jobs? I think you need to tai a look at things like data centers, head quarters, developers, etc. and rethink your statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
You need to consider something here. Apple is a big company, so even a small percentage is a lot of money. It wouldn't matter what percentage California charges. Apple would avoid it if possible simply because you're talking about a lot of money. All your statement indicates is that you typed the first thing that came to mind. Apple is trying to avoid taxes, so taxes must be too high, right? California does have some issues, but your solution wouldn't change anything.
Some issues? Seriously? California is a disaster when it comes to taxes and regulations. FInally the budget shortfalls are starting to show just how bad of shape it is in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyouneed
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.
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.
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?
I'm beginning to think Steve really pissed Obama off at that meeting they all had about a year ago. With everything else going on in the economy, all this attention on Apple all of a sudden is laughable at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I'm still waiting for the New York Times to do an analysis on GE's taxes, or the billions in back taxes that Berkshire Hathway, aka Warren Buffett are refusing to pay. Of course that's not good click bait like Apple is.
This is true on so many levels it makes me sick to read some of the "righteous" posts here.
I started reading these posts, marking a few to comment on before it became obviously clear there are groups of people here who have real jobs and/or own companies (large or small it does not matter), and then there are those who live in a phantasy land. The second group should sue their schools for their sever lack of understanding of economics. How someone can argue that even though Apple is doing nothing illegal or different from any other global company, they are still wrong, is beyond me. Stop "us versus them" mentality and look at the whole picture. As much as I despise GE, I applaud them for not paying taxes. I'd rather them keep and use the money they earned for something better than what the government could do with it. Our current tax scheme is incredibly out of date and should be rebuilt from the ground up. I don't agree with Ron Paul on a lot of stuff however he's right on taxes...
Curious, how did Apple cause those companies to mismanage their budget and employee base? Are you the kind of person that thinks last place is good enough and all the kids should get a medal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Apple's owners pay them. 70% or more are institutional investors.
To say anything else is a stretch.
Nonsense. It is factored into the prices Apple charges its consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
OK, Apple itself, the entity, pays Apple's taxes. Nobody else.
Clueless.
First off, read joyoftech.com this morning... that pretty much sums up the motivations of the print media industry.
Second, 'sidestepping' sounds like 'illegally underpaid," It is not, so it's not that bad.
And yes, everyone is doing it. I read the same thing about Amazon's and Google's Offshore accounts (the Double Irish Double Dutch Cayman connection) last year.
As for Nevada. Wow. Who'd a thunk it. Apple created jobs in the State of Nevada? and California is complaining... Oh wait, the jobs are about setting up a storefront and claiming that store holds all the profits... Bad Bad Apple... Oh,
Except... I bet you can't name a Bank or Credit Card issues that isn't incorporated in Delaware. Heck most corporations (60% of the F500) incorporate in Delaware. On the first count... why? Because Delaware has relaxed Usury laws (why is that 24.99% rate for missing one payment legal... Delaware law?). Otherwise all the rest of the laws are there to protect the corporation from a shareholder revolt.
Oh and one more thing... income 'earned' outside of Delaware is not subject to corporate income tax, so it's not double taxed.
Anyone writing articles about Goldman Sachs?
Anyone writing about JP Morgan Chase?
No.
Apple... incorporated in California. So, that angle couldn't stick
Does anyone write articles or march to Olympia WA or Washington DC and make USBank incorporate in Washington state to support the REIVisa card which 'looks' like it's part of REI, based in Seattle?
Nah... because they aren't THE BIGGEST FASTEST GROWING MEGANASTYCORPORATION THAT HAS IT'S PRODUCTS IN EVERY POCKET OF EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET, USING SLAVE LABOR TO ASSEMBLE POISONOUS COMPONENTS IN CHINA, AND FLEECING STATES AND LITTLE OLD LADIES OF THEIR HARD EARNED TAX MONIES (because you know, if Apple isn't paying it, some old lady on the pension has to).
I personally think that Exxon sort of likes having Apple at #1.... ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
According to Forbes the tax rate the NY Times quoted in their article is incorrect. Basically they too estimated tax payments against 2011 earnings when most of those estimates we're based on 2010 earnings. In Apple's SEC filing they report a 24.2% effective tax rate, much higher than the 9.8% the Times is reporting.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/30/apples-9-8-tax-rate-new-york-times-ignorance-again/
Excellent find. The Forbes guy is spot on. (Apple's "Provision for Taxes" based on estimated 2011 income is $8.3B, not the reported "Cash Taxes Paid" of $3.3B, which reflects the actual earnings from 2010).
The NYT article also makes three other assertions that are plainly wrong or incendiary:
(i) It says that Apple does not provide data on US versus foreign taxes paid. Wrong. Apple does so, in Table 22 (see its footnote under "Income Taxes");
(ii) It quotes an "ex-Treasury department expert" as saying that Apple's allocated earnings for the US should be closer to 50% (than Apple's claim of 30%). Quite apart from the fact that no analysis or explanation is offered for why this should be the case, this is tantamount to implying that the largest firm in the world (by mkt cap) and its auditors are engaged in a massive tax fraud -- a pretty incendiary implication;
(iii) The article makes a claim that taxes can be deferred indefinitely -- that is a ridiculous assertion. Any executive that belives that runs the risk of ending up in jail.
Apple created a cottage industry with thousands of developers who earn a living and pay taxes off the apps they make. Is Apple credited with job creation? No!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
Maybe I'm reading this post wrong, but it sounds like you're arguing with yourself.
How so? Maybe I'm trying to state too tersely what to me are obvious points. I'm simply making the point that it's not an all or nothing proposition when it comes to state taxes. States set their rates (and types of things taxed) with a view towards satisfying their budgeted needs as perceived by the representatives (and eventually the people who elect them). But they also must consider the impacts of their tax structures with respect to other states, with which they are in competition for businesses and people.
And I'm trying to highlight the reality of the situation. If you are a business (or a person) you have various factors leading you towards residing in one state or another. All other things being equal, would you choose a state that says to you "you should pay more because that's fair"? Just like would you as an individual choose a vendor of a service who says that to you?
Maybe you'd pay something extra because there are things that attract you to that state, or you're already there and there is a cost to moving. But maybe not as much as you're being taxed. That is my point.
I will add a couple of things here:
a) The POV that says that if a successful corporation like Apple isn't paying their "fair share" because they choose to move some of their operations or finances to other states, leads you down a bad path. There is an unstated assumption as to what's "fair", meaning what the blue states would like to do (expand government, fund union payrolls and pensions, do more transfer payments aka "spread the wealth", etc.). Putting this under the "fair" moniker is your basic relabeling ploy which makes you think that "fair" == "good and desirable". Just like, who wouldn't be "pro-life" until you find out it really means they want to make abortions and even contraception illegal? It's important to talk about things AS THEY ARE without these tendentious relabelings.
And, the blue states hate the red states for not "playing fair" and therefore attracting more businesses and people. And, they'd like to force (and I use that word advisedly) all the states into the same mindset that they are in. Their favorite ways to force that are (a) federal government taking over more and more of what used to be state programs and decisions, (b) federal government regulating what's left of state programs and decisions, and (c) attempts to sway public opinion (which this NYT article is a good example of).
b) Ran across this story today which is germane. http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/morning_call/2012/04/texas-cities-add-more-jobs-than-bay-area.html
A lot of people move to states that have lower tax rates. They undertake all sorts of measures to reduce their taxes as much as possible within the bounds of the law. Outsmarting Uncle Sam has been a national pastime for decades.
Many individuals have tried tax saving strategies such as gifting some of their income to their kids as a way to avoid taxes. Since kids have no income, they have no income tax, so parents would be able to get some of their come tax-free. This only scratches the surface of the innovative tax-saving strategies individuals have tried to employ before the IRS put its foot down.
You people who are standing on your soapbox vilifying Apple should ask yourselves if you would reject a strategy that your tax accountant gave you that would lop off tons of money from your tax bill or if you would voluntarily pay more. All of you would pay exactly what you had to pay and not a fraction of a penny more.
What's wrong if Apple does the same? If governments aren't getting enough revenue because of dozes of bigshot companies employing this strategy, then the governments aren't doing their job. The tax is clearly lacking. As I see it, Apple has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
Apple created a cottage industry with thousands of developers who earn a living and pay taxes off the apps they make. Is Apple credited with job creation? No!
Of course Apple is credited with job creation. There are many news stories about municipalities trying to entice Apple to locate facilities in their town. Why? In large part, because of job creation.
Yeah - Apple is the poor whipping boy, mistreated, misunderstood and scapegoated for the sins of the world.
But they most certainly are credited with job creation. You hear about it all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Nonsense. It is factored into the prices Apple charges its consumers.
Nonsense. That's not how prices are set at any company. To believe otherwise shows a misunderstanding of everything from market analysis, product management to taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
At the simplest level, that's true. If you explore it a bit more deeply, it's not quite so simple.
If Apple paid more taxes, that would mean less money left over. The left over money belongs to the shareholders. So, by charging Apple more taxes, you would be essentially taking money from the shareholders.
Furthermore, of course, all of the money that Apple does not pay in income taxes eventually gets taxed. Apple could issue the money as a dividend. They could buy companies which increase future profits. Or they could hold onto the money which increases share value - in which case the shareholder pays taxes when the stock is sold.
But, most importantly, none of that matters one bit. Apple pays the amount that they're obligated to pay. Unless you're paying more of your income in taxes than you are required to, you have no room to complain.
Sure, but stelligent will continue to argue that it's a perfectly fair article.....
If the article is wrong, then it's wrong and I wouldn't support it.
And I've agreed with you all along that Apple is not doing anything wrong. Just because I see two sides of the story does not mean I'm trying to paint Apple as a villain in this scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Apple's owners pay them. 70% or more are institutional investors.
To say anything else is a stretch.
Your knowledge of public ownership of corporations is inadequate.
Apple Inc. pays its own taxes. It's right there in their SEC filings, just look at their cash flow statements. Taxes are a line item. Naturally, now much taxes Apple pays influences their cash on hand and their balance sheet.
Shareholders of public corporations do not pay corporate taxes. Here are the first two sentences of Wikipedia's definition of equity:
"In accounting and finance, equity is the residual claim or interest of the most junior class of investors in assets, after all liabilities are paid. If liability exceeds assets, negative equity exists. In an accounting context, Shareholders' equity (or stockholders' equity, shareholders' funds, shareholders' capital or similar terms) represents the remaining interest in assets of a company, spread among individual shareholders of common or preferred stock."
I've underlined the pertinent phrase "after all liabilities are paid" which includes taxes.
Basically, the board of directors hires a senior management team that is tasked with the daily operations of the business. It's up to that management team to make sure that Apple pays their bills, employees, creditors, etc. Shareholders are not involved in the daily operations of the company. It is not their duty to make sure the landscaping company gets paid, order t-shirts for the new retail staffers, pay their NAND flash memory bill from Toshiba, or pay taxes.
Shareholder equity is the value of the company's assets (cash & securities, buildings, inventory, accounts receivable, etc.) minus its liabilities (debt, accounts payable, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Apple Inc. pays its own taxes. It's right there in their SEC filings, just look at their cash flow statements. Taxes are a line item. Naturally, now much taxes Apple pays influences their cash on hand and their balance sheet.
Shareholders of public corporations do not pay corporate taxes. Here are the first two sentences of Wikipedia's definition of equity:
"In accounting and finance, equity is the residual claim or interest of the most junior class of investors in assets, after all liabilities are paid. If liability exceeds assets, negative equity exists. In an accounting context, Shareholders' equity (or stockholders' equity, shareholders' funds, shareholders' capital or similar terms) represents the remaining interest in assets of a company, spread among individual shareholders of common or preferred stock."
I've underlined the pertinent phrase "after all liabilities are paid" which includes taxes.
A day late, dude. A day late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
A day late, dude. A day late.
And a dollar short?
*rimshot*
*crickets*