Apple could receive up to 20 years in tax breaks for solar-powered Arizona data center

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,212member
    slurpy wrote: »
    I find it very difficult to demonize any corporation for attempting to minimize their taxes, and get tax breaks, as long as it's in the confines of the law. Especially the biggest taxpayer in the country. 
    The company "paying" the most is US taxes is not Apple. There's at least a couple ahead of "em. And to be clear I'm not demonizing them either. I just didn't agree with Sog that these tax breaks are all to benefit the states residents, a solely benevolent move on the part of our legislators. IMHO they are more often designed to benefit already wealthy corporations and their owners.

    EDIT: Note that what Apple says it may technically have computed as it's Federal income tax obligation is not what they actually pay. For instance Apple publicly claimed to have paid nearly $7 billion in Federal taxes in 2011, going on to claim they were the country's largest taxpayer. But how much did they actually pay the IRS? A few billion less than that, just $2.5 billion. They aren't alone of course in factually paying much less than public statements or investors 10-K's claim. A whole lotta corporations do it.

    For details see this document, page 39 to be exact.
    http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/ab635df2-c18c-11e2-b93b-00144feab7de.pdf
  • Reply 42 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,212member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Tell me who pays more Fed taxes than Apple.

    Apple is reporting their tax liability CORRECTLY.  Its according to GAAP and part of the calculation includes taxes that would result from repatriating funds from another country.  That is the correct way to account for it.  Its called ACCRUAL accounting.

    IMO, US Corporations should not even be paying taxes at all.  All the taxes should be paid by SHAREHOLDERS.  Why should a corporation pay tax on profits.  And then the SHAREHOLDERS pay taxes on dividends. Double Taxation. Its ridiculous.  All this leads to is more expensive product and government waste.
    Both Chevron and Exxon say they're paying more in taxes than Apple does.
  • Reply 43 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,212member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Tell me who pays more Fed taxes than Apple.

    Apple is reporting their tax liability CORRECTLY.  Its according to GAAP and part of the calculation includes taxes that would result from repatriating funds from another country.  That is the correct way to account for it.  Its called ACCRUAL accounting

    Yeah I know what accual accounting is. I've used it for two of the three companies I set up.

    Still it remains that most folks including AI readers read "paid" x-number taxes as they actually really, well... PAID them just like they themselves paid their own taxes and not that they might pay them one day if nothing changes.
  • Reply 44 of 61
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    sog35 wrote: »
    IMO, US Corporations should not even be paying taxes at all.  All the taxes should be paid by SHAREHOLDERS.  Why should a corporation pay tax on profits.  And then the SHAREHOLDERS pay taxes on dividends. Double Taxation. Its ridiculous.
    Because shareholders also earn from stock appreciation, not just dividends? Because shareholders might be foreign nationals who pay little or no tax on those dividends? Also because profit can be invested overseas, not benefitting the host nation, or divested in options for employees which are taxed at a lower rate than income?

    Multiple reasons.

    What exactly is wrong with double taxation if total taxation ends up at a reasonable rate of taxation in comparison to other rates?
  • Reply 45 of 61
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Dense? Hardly! The insult makes you look a bit silly considering the facts.



    From the first paragraph:

    "Apple's forthcoming "global command center" for its online operations in Mesa, Ariz., could be the beneficiary of up to 20 years' worth of tax breaks, thanks to new rules proposed by the state legislature."



    Apple was already committed. They weren't going to Texas and do not need another tax break to convince them to stay. image



    They were committed by a Sapphire foundry, which no longer exists.

  • Reply 46 of 61
    davendaven Posts: 696member
    jd_in_sb wrote: »
    It's just liberal math

    As compared to consevative math that would have you believe that eliminating all taxes will result in infinite tax revenues and everyone becoming billionaires. The diverging middle class and 1% since Reaganonimics took hold has proven that wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
  • Reply 47 of 61
    davendaven Posts: 696member
    sog35 wrote: »
    IMO, US Corporations should not even be paying taxes at all.  All the taxes should be paid by SHAREHOLDERS.  Why should a corporation pay tax on profits.  And then the SHAREHOLDERS pay taxes on dividends. Double Taxation. Its ridiculous.  All this leads to is more expensive product and government waste.

    Because "corporations are people too, my friend." I am taxed on the money I earn (but don't get to deduct all my "living" expenses like corporations do). When I pass that money on to another person, they are taxed on their income. You act like money should have a tracking device attached. If money is taxed once, all subsequent uses are tax free. Good luck with that system.

    Like I said earlier. As an Apple shareholder, I appreciate their tax expertise. As an intelligent taxpayer, I realize that tax breaks for someone else must be made up by those not getting the same break. Someone has to pay for all those wars the USA fights.
  • Reply 48 of 61
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Why?  Would you rather have that land be vacant?  Would you rather have the factory not producing ANY tax income?  Or any jobs?

    Its a win/win for Apple and AZ residents.  More jobs, more tax revenue.

    Exactly and the exact same reason the US should allow Apple to repatriate overseas profits at a far lower tax level than currently legislated.
  • Reply 49 of 61
    nick29nick29 Posts: 111member
    Wait, Apple isn't going solar because they love the environment?
  • Reply 50 of 61
    davendaven Posts: 696member
    nick29 wrote: »
    Wait, Apple isn't going solar because they love the environment?

    Perhaps you missed the story about Apple's huge solar project in Southern California.
  • Reply 51 of 61
    Exactly and the exact same reason the US should allow Apple to repatriate overseas profits at a far lower tax level than currently legislated.

    The offer is 17%. Multinational conglomerations have screwed the country out of trillions and you want them to get below sales tax at 5%: what they want.

    It will never happen.
  • Reply 52 of 61
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    Exactly and the exact same reason the US should allow Apple to repatriate overseas profits at a far lower tax level than currently legislated.



    See the Rand Paul plan.

  • Reply 53 of 61
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post





    The offer is 17%. Multinational conglomerations have screwed the country out of trillions and you want them to get below sales tax at 5%: what they want.



    It will never happen.



    No one has been "screwed" out of anything. Why do you believe you're entitled to the profits of others? By that logic, if you make more money than me, even by $1.00, then you "owe" me!

  • Reply 54 of 61
    mactacmactac Posts: 316member

    Tax breaks. The real reason Apple is wasting money on expensive, unreliable, inefficient "green" energy.

  • Reply 55 of 61
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

     

    Tax breaks. The real reason Apple is wasting money on expensive, unreliable, inefficient "green" energy.




    True. If a technology is uncompetitive, it may either be that it's not the right technology for the times or there may not be enough competition. Subsidies are like bailouts, both result in malinvestment.

  • Reply 56 of 61
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post





    The offer is 17%. Multinational conglomerations have screwed the country out of trillions and you want them to get below sales tax at 5%: what they want.



    It will never happen.

     

    If Apple did not exist, the US economy would be worse off, not better. So they haven't "screwed" the country out of anything. Personally, I'd prefer that $$ stay in Apple's hands, as I think it would go to the best use that way. 

  • Reply 57 of 61
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    No one has been "screwed" out of anything. Why do you believe you're entitled to the profits of others? By that logic, if you make more money than me, even by $1.00, then you "owe" me!


    He'll owe tax on that dollar that you don't owe.  That's how tax works.

  • Reply 58 of 61
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

    Tax breaks. The real reason Apple is wasting money on expensive, unreliable, inefficient "green" energy.


    Spend a billion to save a few million?

    Why not simply don't spend a billion plus the few million?

  • Reply 59 of 61
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    chris_ca wrote: »
    Spend a billion to save a few million?
    Why not simply don't spend a billion plus the few million?

    Because it's not about saving money.
  • Reply 60 of 61
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    Because it's not about saving money.

    Yes, I know.

    However, that’s what MacTac said...

Sign In or Register to comment.