I'm not sure what's more silly: that politicians should scare away so much capital by threatening to rob businesses; that politicians feel a hat and a document entitles them to other people's property; or that people feel governments, with their appalling history of destroying capital, can do better with billions of dollars than a staggeringly successful business.
Seems like "staggeringly successful" banks actually have an "appalling history of destroying capital", but why let historical facts get in the way ...
Various governments around the world, particularly those in the EU. Specifically, those countries there that are missing out on the taxes. And here as well.
Out of control spending has gotten more governments in trouble than the citizens of those countries.
You mean paying an income tax and then paying sales tax on top of already taxes gas? I don't really think that's a fair assessment as the various taxes are for different things. Now there have surely been cases where the tax for one thing goes for something completely unrelated. For instance, if your fuel excise tax went to fund art programs in Iceland for exchange student I'd understand it not being a good use of taxation.
No I'm talking about products or services taxed thus increasing it's price and then having to pay tax on the whole amount. Cigarettes for instance have cost, federal tax, state tax, and sales tax is determined by the price of all 3.
Repatriate is a misnomer. That would imply the money was expatriated. The money was never in the US. Those earning are from overseas operations. Why would they be pressured to bring earnings here in the first place and suffer yet another tex penalty to pay for a bloated government and their pensions. (they're NOT bringing it back, it was never here).
No I'm talking about products or services taxed thus increasing it's price and then having to pay tax on the whole amount. Cigarettes for instance have cost, federal tax, state tax, and sales tax is determined by the price of all 3.
I'll need another example as I care so little about the plight of the smoker that I want their taxes to be increased even higher.
I'll need another example as I care so little about the plight of the smoker that I want their taxes to be increased even higher.
It's suicide, really. Should the extendedly suicidal be given tax breaks and warrant insurance for what will happen to them? Ah, but there's the burden of proof, I suppose. Sure, they can certainly be covered for what we know smoking won't do to the body, but the things that it will do can have other causes, to…
I'm not sure why it's fair to tax that money twice. If they paid the tax in the country the money was made in, why do they need to pay again to move it into the United States? Seems like it should be one or the other.
They will get taxed at the (higher) US Tax Rate but will receive a credit for the taxes already paid to the foreign government. So, no, they won't be getting taxed "twice". They will be getting taxed in total at the US tax rate. Not that I approve of the situation, but there it is.
The main effect of a "tax holiday" would be to train US corporations into never repatriating cash into the US under normal circumstances... just pay for some lobbying, buy a couple of senators (Disney-style) and wait.
The US tax code needs a lot of fixing (holes and exemptions removed, rates regulated), but a "tax holiday" would just create a bigger longer term problem by training companies into the undesirable behaviour.
US companies are already completely trained in that regard. Another holiday won't make them any more resistant to bringing home dollars when the tax rate is so high. They simply aren't going to repatriate and pay the big tax bill because THEY DON'T HAVE TO. (Sorry about the caps, but I really wanted to emphasize that point.) The real bottom line is what you indicate: the tax code (and especially that exorbitant rate) needs significant fixing.
It's suicide, really. Should the extendedly suicidal be given tax breaks and warrant insurance for what will happen to them? Ah, but there's the burden of proof, I suppose. Sure, they can certainly be covered for what we know smoking won't do to the body, but the things that it will do can have other causes, to…
Everything is suicide, we're killing ourselves one way or another. Did SJ's 'healthy' lifestyle exclude him from getting cancer and dying?
US companies are already completely trained in that regard. Another holiday won't make them any more resistant to bringing home dollars when the tax rate is so high. They simply aren't going to repatriate and pay the big tax bill because THEY DON'T HAVE TO. (Sorry about the caps, but I really wanted to emphasize that point.) The real bottom line is what you indicate: the tax code (and especially that exorbitant rate) needs significant fixing.
Thompson
What exorbitant rate? Is it anything close to the 90% the rich used to pay in the 50s and were still able to live lavish lifestyles?
Is the USA the only place where you can be penalized for doing exactly what the law says you are supposed to be doing?
Why should all the foreign profits be taxed? Because our (the USA) government wants a piece of it, why? to pay of the national debt? That's like saying I need to steal a bucket from my neighbor so I can "fix" the flooding in my basement that is caused by (fill in the blank).
The entire story here is that it is much easier to go after a something that you can define than something you cannot and that you think you can do something about. Whether you are talking about drunk driving, or abortion, or gun control, etc, few if any are wiling or able to attack the root cause of the problem because...
Those in power have some rules to follow:
1. The root cause of most of these issues is extremely complicated and exceedingly difficult to define.
2. Pointing your finger at someone else or some external factor means not having to examine your own behavior.
3. Changing that external thing means you don't have to change your own behavior.
4. Getting the public focussed on some easy identifiable target keeps them distracted while you continue to do your own thing.
I'm not sure why it's fair to tax that money twice. If they paid the tax in the country the money was made in, why do they need to pay again to move it into the United States? Seems like it should be one or the other.
This is the crux of the problem though. Most of Apple's profits come from selling phones in the US. They record most of their profits as having been made in Ireland.
Apple did not sell $130billion worth of phones in Ireland Probably not even $2 billion. Its legal and just about all multinational corporations do it.
If they actually made most of the money in Ireland and were taxed there, there would be no issue. The problem is they make all their money in the US and get the advantages of being a US corporation, take what they can out of the system, but don't pay in. Our government spends 'n' dollars every year (where 'n' is a really f'in big number). They need to take in as close to 'n' in taxes every year from wherever they can get it. Since the people making most of the money (large corporations), can conveniently opt out of paying, that leaves the rest of us to pay higher taxes.
Obviously the government needs to make 'n' a smaller number regardless of who is paying taxes. But having the people making the most money only pay @ 2% taxes on their income would be a nice thing to fix along the way too.
2) There is plenty Apple can invest in with that oversea's cash. I suspect there is a need for more data centers outside the US, especially in China right now and in India in years to come, not to mention centralized ones for S. America, Africa, Europe, and Asia Pacific.
Here's what I have figured out they can use that money for.
1. Additional Apple Stores or renovating the stores from time to time.
2. Buying foreign companies such as what Apple did with Anobit.
3. Data Centers as you mentioned, Call Centers for sales and tech support.
4. Marketing/advertising.
5. Litigation.
6. Investing in mfg. Apple has supplied lots of cash to foreign component suppliers and assembly companies to build plants and buy equipment to assist in ensuring supply and delivery of product in plants that are specifically for Apple. I can see Apple reaching a point where they will have assembly of various products in various countries to supply products like iPhones. So, instead of them being made just in China, they might have various plants around the world to get the products out to the customers faster. I think Apple is supposed to be opening up or looking into making iPhones in Brazil to serve certain markets.
Plus components are made around the world in different factories so they might be supplying funds out of their various cash piles to do this.
The whole "hoarding cash" to avoid taxes is just one TINY aspect of using money in the various ways I've described. It's all about how the media SPINS it. I wish they would get better journalists that actually had a background in technology, mfg., business background and finance rather than some idiot with very little background in what they are writing about. Journalists usually only know how to get people's attention, tech savvy people might know about technology, but little about business, finance, money management, etc. and then finance majors typically don't know much about technology. I read articles with a LOT OF SALT handy, because a grain of salt may not be enough to swallow the BS.
Everything is suicide, we're killing ourselves one way or another. Did SJ's 'healthy' lifestyle exclude him from getting cancer and dying?
Aside from that being completely and utterly different in every single respect, you're absolutely right on all counts.
Also, does this belong in PO? It's taxes and the conversation is starting to lean that way. If the conversation would benefit from the restriction on political talk being lifted, I'll move it over there.
Though I don't remember the last time something good came from moving a thread to PO…
What exorbitant rate? Is it anything close to the 90% the rich used to pay in the 50s and were still able to live lavish lifestyles?
Just because you mention a much higher number doesn't make the lower number acceptable.
Obviously, 35% is exorbitant enough to encourage those companies to keep profits overseas where they were earned. Do you favor passing a law compelling companies to bring all profits home and pay taxes on it? If you don't, then I think your next best chance for ever seeing a dime of that profit is to lower the tax rate on it. Seems obvious, no?
35% of nothing is nothing. Perhaps 15% would result in something, which is, by definition, greater than nothing.
This is the crux of the problem though. Most of Apple's profits come from selling phones in the US. They record most of their profits as having been made in Ireland.
Apple did not sell $130billion worth of phones in Ireland Probably not even $2 billion. Its legal and just about all multinational corporations do it.
If they actually made most of the money in Ireland and were taxed there, there would be no issue. The problem is they make all their money in the US and get the advantages of being a US corporation, take what they can out of the system, but don't pay in. Our government spends 'n' dollars every year (where 'n' is a really f'in big number). They need to take in as close to 'n' in taxes every year from wherever they can get it. Since the people making most of the money (large corporations), can conveniently opt out of paying, that leaves the rest of us to pay higher taxes.
Obviously the government needs to make 'n' a smaller number regardless of who is paying taxes. But having the people making the most money only pay @ 2% taxes on their income would be a nice thing to fix along the way too.
OK, you are making a good point, but you have some of your basic facts wrong. Apple has become such a global player that they make less than 40% of their $$$ here in the US. (This is a seasonal number, of course, due to iPhone releases in the states being huge, but still it gets nowhere near "most" as you indicate.) Nevertheless, Apple probably does pull some accounting stunts to avoid paying a fraction of US earnings, too. So you might want to modify your argument in the future. That way you can still make a good point without getting bashed by someone on a technicality.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
I'm not sure what's more silly: that politicians should scare away so much capital by threatening to rob businesses; that politicians feel a hat and a document entitles them to other people's property; or that people feel governments, with their appalling history of destroying capital, can do better with billions of dollars than a staggeringly successful business.
Seems like "staggeringly successful" banks actually have an "appalling history of destroying capital", but why let historical facts get in the way ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
GTR@: "chicks" not "chics" ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Various governments around the world, particularly those in the EU. Specifically, those countries there that are missing out on the taxes. And here as well.
Out of control spending has gotten more governments in trouble than the citizens of those countries.
No I'm talking about products or services taxed thus increasing it's price and then having to pay tax on the whole amount. Cigarettes for instance have cost, federal tax, state tax, and sales tax is determined by the price of all 3.
I'll need another example as I care so little about the plight of the smoker that I want their taxes to be increased even higher.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'll need another example as I care so little about the plight of the smoker that I want their taxes to be increased even higher.
It's suicide, really. Should the extendedly suicidal be given tax breaks and warrant insurance for what will happen to them? Ah, but there's the burden of proof, I suppose. Sure, they can certainly be covered for what we know smoking won't do to the body, but the things that it will do can have other causes, to…
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb
I'm not sure why it's fair to tax that money twice. If they paid the tax in the country the money was made in, why do they need to pay again to move it into the United States? Seems like it should be one or the other.
They will get taxed at the (higher) US Tax Rate but will receive a credit for the taxes already paid to the foreign government. So, no, they won't be getting taxed "twice". They will be getting taxed in total at the US tax rate. Not that I approve of the situation, but there it is.
Thompson
Gasoline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xyzzy01
The main effect of a "tax holiday" would be to train US corporations into never repatriating cash into the US under normal circumstances... just pay for some lobbying, buy a couple of senators (Disney-style) and wait.
The US tax code needs a lot of fixing (holes and exemptions removed, rates regulated), but a "tax holiday" would just create a bigger longer term problem by training companies into the undesirable behaviour.
US companies are already completely trained in that regard. Another holiday won't make them any more resistant to bringing home dollars when the tax rate is so high. They simply aren't going to repatriate and pay the big tax bill because THEY DON'T HAVE TO. (Sorry about the caps, but I really wanted to emphasize that point.) The real bottom line is what you indicate: the tax code (and especially that exorbitant rate) needs significant fixing.
Thompson
Everything is suicide, we're killing ourselves one way or another. Did SJ's 'healthy' lifestyle exclude him from getting cancer and dying?
What exorbitant rate? Is it anything close to the 90% the rich used to pay in the 50s and were still able to live lavish lifestyles?
Is the USA the only place where you can be penalized for doing exactly what the law says you are supposed to be doing?
Why should all the foreign profits be taxed? Because our (the USA) government wants a piece of it, why? to pay of the national debt? That's like saying I need to steal a bucket from my neighbor so I can "fix" the flooding in my basement that is caused by (fill in the blank).
The entire story here is that it is much easier to go after a something that you can define than something you cannot and that you think you can do something about. Whether you are talking about drunk driving, or abortion, or gun control, etc, few if any are wiling or able to attack the root cause of the problem because...
Those in power have some rules to follow:
1. The root cause of most of these issues is extremely complicated and exceedingly difficult to define.
2. Pointing your finger at someone else or some external factor means not having to examine your own behavior.
3. Changing that external thing means you don't have to change your own behavior.
4. Getting the public focussed on some easy identifiable target keeps them distracted while you continue to do your own thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb
I'm not sure why it's fair to tax that money twice. If they paid the tax in the country the money was made in, why do they need to pay again to move it into the United States? Seems like it should be one or the other.
This is the crux of the problem though. Most of Apple's profits come from selling phones in the US. They record most of their profits as having been made in Ireland.
Apple did not sell $130billion worth of phones in Ireland
If they actually made most of the money in Ireland and were taxed there, there would be no issue. The problem is they make all their money in the US and get the advantages of being a US corporation, take what they can out of the system, but don't pay in. Our government spends 'n' dollars every year (where 'n' is a really f'in big number). They need to take in as close to 'n' in taxes every year from wherever they can get it. Since the people making most of the money (large corporations), can conveniently opt out of paying, that leaves the rest of us to pay higher taxes.
Obviously the government needs to make 'n' a smaller number regardless of who is paying taxes. But having the people making the most money only pay @ 2% taxes on their income would be a nice thing to fix along the way too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) "You're hoarding it wrong!"
2) There is plenty Apple can invest in with that oversea's cash. I suspect there is a need for more data centers outside the US, especially in China right now and in India in years to come, not to mention centralized ones for S. America, Africa, Europe, and Asia Pacific.
Here's what I have figured out they can use that money for.
1. Additional Apple Stores or renovating the stores from time to time.
2. Buying foreign companies such as what Apple did with Anobit.
3. Data Centers as you mentioned, Call Centers for sales and tech support.
4. Marketing/advertising.
5. Litigation.
6. Investing in mfg. Apple has supplied lots of cash to foreign component suppliers and assembly companies to build plants and buy equipment to assist in ensuring supply and delivery of product in plants that are specifically for Apple. I can see Apple reaching a point where they will have assembly of various products in various countries to supply products like iPhones. So, instead of them being made just in China, they might have various plants around the world to get the products out to the customers faster. I think Apple is supposed to be opening up or looking into making iPhones in Brazil to serve certain markets.
Plus components are made around the world in different factories so they might be supplying funds out of their various cash piles to do this.
The whole "hoarding cash" to avoid taxes is just one TINY aspect of using money in the various ways I've described. It's all about how the media SPINS it. I wish they would get better journalists that actually had a background in technology, mfg., business background and finance rather than some idiot with very little background in what they are writing about. Journalists usually only know how to get people's attention, tech savvy people might know about technology, but little about business, finance, money management, etc. and then finance majors typically don't know much about technology. I read articles with a LOT OF SALT handy, because a grain of salt may not be enough to swallow the BS.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Everything is suicide, we're killing ourselves one way or another. Did SJ's 'healthy' lifestyle exclude him from getting cancer and dying?
Aside from that being completely and utterly different in every single respect, you're absolutely right on all counts.
Also, does this belong in PO? It's taxes and the conversation is starting to lean that way. If the conversation would benefit from the restriction on political talk being lifted, I'll move it over there.
Though I don't remember the last time something good came from moving a thread to PO…
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
What exorbitant rate? Is it anything close to the 90% the rich used to pay in the 50s and were still able to live lavish lifestyles?
Just because you mention a much higher number doesn't make the lower number acceptable.
Obviously, 35% is exorbitant enough to encourage those companies to keep profits overseas where they were earned. Do you favor passing a law compelling companies to bring all profits home and pay taxes on it? If you don't, then I think your next best chance for ever seeing a dime of that profit is to lower the tax rate on it. Seems obvious, no?
35% of nothing is nothing. Perhaps 15% would result in something, which is, by definition, greater than nothing.
Thompson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
This is the crux of the problem though. Most of Apple's profits come from selling phones in the US. They record most of their profits as having been made in Ireland.
Apple did not sell $130billion worth of phones in Ireland
If they actually made most of the money in Ireland and were taxed there, there would be no issue. The problem is they make all their money in the US and get the advantages of being a US corporation, take what they can out of the system, but don't pay in. Our government spends 'n' dollars every year (where 'n' is a really f'in big number). They need to take in as close to 'n' in taxes every year from wherever they can get it. Since the people making most of the money (large corporations), can conveniently opt out of paying, that leaves the rest of us to pay higher taxes.
Obviously the government needs to make 'n' a smaller number regardless of who is paying taxes. But having the people making the most money only pay @ 2% taxes on their income would be a nice thing to fix along the way too.
OK, you are making a good point, but you have some of your basic facts wrong. Apple has become such a global player that they make less than 40% of their $$$ here in the US. (This is a seasonal number, of course, due to iPhone releases in the states being huge, but still it gets nowhere near "most" as you indicate.) Nevertheless, Apple probably does pull some accounting stunts to avoid paying a fraction of US earnings, too. So you might want to modify your argument in the future. That way you can still make a good point without getting bashed by someone on a technicality.
Thompson
Seriously?! :rolleyes: I think you're better than that.
Yes seriously. ALL of our food has been modified, there's less nutrients in the soil, there's more pollution in the air, I can go on and on.