Apple cash reserves greater than those held by most US industries combined
The $178 billion in cash reserves Apple held at the end of 2014 was more than aggregate of every other non-financial U.S. industry sector, excluding the technology and medical industries, according to a Moody's Investors Service study released on Thursday.
The U.S. technology sector had a combined $690 billion in cash in 2014. Apple has been the top American cash holder since 2011, Moody's said. Apple controlled 10.2 percent of all the cash held by companies in the study.
In terms of individual corporations, Microsoft's $90.2 billion in cash ranked it second next to Apple, while Google came in third with $64.4 billion. Rounding out the top 10 were Pfizer, Cisco, Oracle, Johnson & Johnson, Qualcomm, Medtronic, and Merck.
Apple's cash reserves climbed even higher during the March quarter to $194 billion. $171 billion of that was kept overseas, however, since like a number of major American businesses, Apple has refused to repatriate the money at current tax rates. Apple and other businesses have periodically lobbied for a one-time tax "holiday" to bring cash back.
On April 27, Apple announced that it was adding another $50 billion to its capital return program, which should now see a total of $200 billion given to shareholders by the end of March 2017. That includes a higher dividend for the recent quarter, increased from $0.47 to $0.52 per share.
The U.S. technology sector had a combined $690 billion in cash in 2014. Apple has been the top American cash holder since 2011, Moody's said. Apple controlled 10.2 percent of all the cash held by companies in the study.
In terms of individual corporations, Microsoft's $90.2 billion in cash ranked it second next to Apple, while Google came in third with $64.4 billion. Rounding out the top 10 were Pfizer, Cisco, Oracle, Johnson & Johnson, Qualcomm, Medtronic, and Merck.
Apple's cash reserves climbed even higher during the March quarter to $194 billion. $171 billion of that was kept overseas, however, since like a number of major American businesses, Apple has refused to repatriate the money at current tax rates. Apple and other businesses have periodically lobbied for a one-time tax "holiday" to bring cash back.
On April 27, Apple announced that it was adding another $50 billion to its capital return program, which should now see a total of $200 billion given to shareholders by the end of March 2017. That includes a higher dividend for the recent quarter, increased from $0.47 to $0.52 per share.
Comments
Studies have shown time after time, when you jack up taxes, you end up bring in less money in taxes. Think about it. But it sounds better to tax those evil rich people. All that happens is they pay less in taxes.
Here's a idea, the U.S. could drop it's crazy high Tax 35% rate rate just to bring the money back into the U.S. I don't believe other countries do this. That would be like The E.U. taxing Apple for the money Apple made in the U.S. It's double taxation and for what? Apple and other U.S. company's that made money outside of the U.S. shouldn't even be taxed, but if that's going to happen, it should be far less!!! Not just a one time thing, a all the time thing!!! The Government would be getting something and not nothing. Bring the money home opens up new business here which means JOBS which brings in even more money to the government.
Studies have shown time after time, when you jack up taxes, you end up bring in less money in taxes. Think about it. But it sounds better to tax those evil rich people. All that happens is they pay less in taxes.
Yeah... When those taxes were 75% to 95% in the last century, the U.S. Government could barely operate on the pittance they took in. Hitler and the Commies just rolled right over us. And the middle-class were so bad off.
America produced nothing in the 20th Century!
Apple's paid foreign tax on that money, in theory, which is tax-deductible from the 35% rate to repatriate the money. So, not "double tax", just evening off at 35% overall. Of course, if they've already deducted the foreign tax paid on the money from it's domestic income, it would feel like double taxation...but then again, they've probably been paying less than their fair share on domestic money.
How do you figure, since they pay domestically 26%... per the IRS public tax statement .. Thats MORE than nearly every business in the US.. In-fact.. most large businesses pay well under 35%, average is UNDER 13%..
Guess who we DONT see on USA Todays list for 0% tax companies? Apple...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-companies-pay-no-taxes/2480281/
So please.. explain how they are 'under' paying domestically? Or is that just stupid you're speaking w/o actually having a clue?
Ah, the "fair share" brigade is here! :no:
The US government brought in 470 billion dollars in April alone. Cry me a river about their budget issues.
This is the most damning refutation of so-called "trickle down economics" that anyone could ask for. Does Apple create jobs? Of course they do. But the idea that a corporation needs to stockpile even 1/10th of what Apple has tucked in the mattress is an absurdity. The number of jobs and improvements to society that could come from even part that $690B is beyond our wildest dreams.
The question isn't whether Apple has the right to keep mountains of wealth, but rather whether this hoarding is acceptable based on our common goals and needs as a society. My personal opinion is that in so far as we try to create societal (governmental) mechanisms where no one gets too little, we also quite clearly need complimentary mechanisms to make sure no one gets too much.
Personal responsibility does not get wealth out of the mattress. Regulations and taxes do.
If you ask me, they should profit share it across all Apple employees globally, share the wealth around after all every Apple employee has contributed to the wealth of the company. Giving back to shareholders is one thing but share the love around to everyone what would seem ethically the right thing to do.
A paycheck IS profit sharing. In fact, it's better than profit sharing, because employees of companies that lose money still get paychecks. Oh, and that money you want to give to employees? That's not the company's money to give. It belongs to the shareholders. We, collectively, own the company. You do know these things, right?
Wihout corporations, you don't have money to buy. :rolleyes:
How do you figure, since they pay domestically 26%... per the IRS public tax statement .. Thats MORE than nearly every business in the US.. In-fact.. most large businesses pay well under 35%, average is UNDER 13%..
Guess who we DONT see on USA Todays list for 0% tax companies? Apple...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-companies-pay-no-taxes/2480281/
So please.. explain how they are 'under' paying domestically? Or is that just stupid you're speaking w/o actually having a clue?
I guess it's not stupid if you read the hypothetical I put out there, but reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Quit the name calling when you get frustrated and focus on putting together a better rebuttal. You took my last line that said "probably" and put together an entire response to "probably" without rebutting the scenario I put forward, leading me to wonder if what I said had merit. Please do better or leave it to someone else who can focus.
You really need a visionary type person like a Steve Jobs or Elon Musk or Thomas Edison to even know how to spend that much money.
There are hundreds of people, soon to be thousands, working for Apple right now whose projects will use up tens of billions of this cash reserve.
Your calling it "hoarding" is a result of our ignorance of what they're doing and have planned, as well as a failure of imagination. I know just as little as you, but I foresee Apple spending easily 50 billion on projects that have already been hinted about. I can imagine more, much more. The one thing I can't imagine is the visionaries who worked there with Steve Jobs letting the money go to waste by lying fallow forever.
Here's a idea, the U.S. could drop it's crazy high Tax 35% rate rate just to bring the money back into the U.S. I don't believe other countries do this. That would be like The E.U. taxing Apple for the money Apple made in the U.S. It's double taxation and for what? Apple and other U.S. company's that made money outside of the U.S. shouldn't even be taxed, but if that's going to happen, it should be far less!!! Not just a one time thing, a all the time thing!!! The Government would be getting something and not nothing. Bring the money home opens up new business here which means JOBS which brings in even more money to the government.
Corporations pay tax where the corporations are headquartered. That is the international standard, give or take a few outliers. If you want to argue for unitary taxation and country-by-country reporting, hey, I'm all in favour of that, and that appears to be where we're heading, but almost anything else is just inviting dodgy deals and international chicanery from multinationals.
Studies have shown time after time, when you jack up taxes, you end up bring in less money in taxes. Think about it. But it sounds better to tax those evil rich people. All that happens is they pay less in taxes.
The US corporation tax has not been "jacked up". It's at a relatively low rate compared to its historical average, and the most recent time it was significantly lower, at the the time of Reagan's reflex cuts, federal revenues fell, and Reagan had to raise taxes again to compensate. So no, studies have not shown anything of the sort.
Plus, it's a marginal rate (though not nearly as marginal and progressive as some would like).
Plus, Laffer curve and associated studies tend to view optimal tax to lie, in terms of revenue at least, between 50 and 70%. Subject to debate of course. Certainly not "think about it" simple.
We'll have to settle for Carl Icahn.
Consumers create jobs. Without us there is no sale
Try and get a job from a "consumer". They create them right?
Absolutely. If consumers are demanding something, that's a job opportunity. Economies are primarily led by demand, not supply.
Absolutely. If consumers are demanding something, that's a job opportunity. Economies are primarily led by demand, not supply.
Which consumer do you work for and pays you?
Which consumer do you work for and pays you?
My employer is a consumer of my labour.
My employer is employed by consumers of their business.
Many others are more directly employed by what you'll patronisingly parenthesise as "consumers". Nae true consumer, and all that, I'm sure.
If you have an actual pertinent point to make then please just make it, otherwise stop this ridiculousness please.
My employer is a consumer of my labour.
My employer is employed by consumers of their business.
Many others are more directly employed by what you'll patronisingly parenthesise as "consumers". Nae true consumer, and all that, I'm sure.
If you have an actual pertinent point to make then please just make it, otherwise stop this ridiculousness please.
Yes! Employers. Don't forget those guys. Jobs don't automatically create themselves just because "consumers". Someone has to do the work of creating the task required, a place to work, finding someone willing to fill it and paying that someone whether profitable or not for the business. Employers are not trivial in the equation of job creation <----- my whole point to jsmythe00 and later you. Stating "Consumers create jobs" may sound right but it is incomplete.
^
Only in a trivial and uninteresting sense. If consumers stop consuming then you can have all the "employers" and "job creators" in the world, but they're all going to go under pretty damn soon.
Those "job creators" are expending effort to get the consumers' money, not to "create jobs" as an end in itself.