Apple CEO Tim Cook calls US tax code outdated and 'awful for America'

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 132
    What's outdated is that today's taxes are about half of what they were forty years ago, and even less than that compared to the 1950's through the 1970's.

    Tim and company may be paying "everything they owe", but it is not their "fair share". Apple and Time should be ashamed of themselves.
  • Reply 102 of 132
    justbobf said:
    Tim and company may be paying "everything they owe", but it is not their "fair share".
    Explain why you get to determine what is “fair” for them and why I do not get to determine what is fair for you.
    flaneur
  • Reply 103 of 132
    >>> charge a VAT on all goods and services sold in the US

    The trouble with a VAT tax is that it is a flat tax: everyone pays the same percentage. It is only fair that the rich, and rich corporations—those better abled to pay—should pay a higher percentage than the poor or less well-off.

    In England, the VAT is 20%, and everyone just accepts it. I would prefer to tax the wealthy 78%, as we once did. That makes it a dis-incentive for companies to pay multi-million dollar bonuses. That makes for a fairer, more equal society overall.

    Don't like that? We are fast approaching the untenable conditions that brought on the French Revolution. Be careful in granting unlimited wealth and power to just a few.
    mr omdriftmeyer
  • Reply 104 of 132
    shahhet2 said:

    Also most of Europe profit is routed through Ireland at 2% rate, so to bring that profit back AAPL have to pay 38%(40%-2% Ireland Tax) of Tax. 
    China should be reasonable at 15% difference.(40%-25% China Tax)
    Not sure where the 2% rate comes from.

    Irish Times recently said this (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/apple-s-us-returns-indicate-substantial-rise-in-irish-tax-paid-1.2417355):

    Apple’s accounts for its year to the end of September show that the multinational’s effective tax rate, ie the average rate at which its profits are taxed given it books profits in various jurisdictions with varying tax rates, increased to 26.4 per cent, from 26.1 per cent in 2014. 
    The equivalent figure in 2013 was 26.2 per cent.
    The accounts also say “substantially all” of its unrepatriated foreign (ie non-US) profits were generated by subsidiaries “organised” in Ireland.

    If it was 2%, and "substantially all" foreign profit was generated in Ireland, then the average Apple paid would not be 26.4%.

    And Apple paid 12% to UK on profits it booked in UK (which, admittedly, wasn't much of the profits apparently generated from sales in the UK).

    The question is: what does "routing profits through Ireland" entail? The UK would say that it reckons that 1.9B of profit were generated in the UK, and therefore it is owed much more (400M GPB vs the 11.8M it was paid in corporate tax).

    But, it has to be remembered, Ireland isn't just an off-shore PO Box for Apple. It IS a large regional HQ, with warehousing and loads of staff that actually assemble, service and shop actual devices throughout the rest of Europe. Apple isn't present in most places other than having an online store with some localisation. So, orders do actually get shipped from Ireland. Therefore, while a customer might live in the Czech Republic, Apple Ireland is actually legitimately booking and fulfilling the order, not just pulling some kind of fast one.

    I'm sure the USA would love it if every country in the world that had citizens that ordered goods from the USA claimed the corporate tax on that sale! Of course, they do claim VAT on those sales (I got some T-Shirts from the USA, and the postman wouldn't give them to me until I forked over 21% of their price to him, on top of what I had already paid the company). But imagine my country expected 25% of the profit on that sale to bypass the USA treasury and land here! That's what the UK, USA, EU apparently want.

    So, should you be taxed from where you fulfil the order, or from where each and every customer resides? And does fulfilling an order from a certain location not mean the profit was also generated there, and that the profit isn't being "routed through"?

    edited December 2015
  • Reply 105 of 132
    justbobf said:
    The trouble with a VAT tax is that it is a flat tax: everyone pays the same percentage. It is only fair that the rich, and rich corporations—those better abled to pay—should pay a higher percentage than the poor or less well-off.
    Explain how a fixed percentage makes it “easier” for the rich to pay. If I pay 20% of $1, I pay 20¢. If I pay 20% of 100,000,000, I pay $20,000,000. Guess what? It’s the SAME PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT.

    A flat AMOUNT would make it easier for the rich to pay, but that’s completely insane and wouldn’t happen.
    I would prefer to tax the wealthy 78%, as we once did.
    So you, yourself, go ahead and pay 78%.
     That makes it a dis-incentive for companies to pay multi-million dollar bonuses.
    Hey, thanks for destroying the economy! The only legal disincentive for the growth of business should be regarding the ability of large business to exert undue damage the existence of other businesses, damage individuals, or promote collusion.
    That makes for a fairer, more equal society overall.
    I’m going to say this as kindly as possible: you don’t have the first fucking clue what fairness or equality are.
    We are fast approaching the untenable conditions that brought on the French Revolution.
    Yeah. And guess who’s responsible for creating those conditions? And guess how it ended? The same people in control after the blood was shed.
  • Reply 106 of 132
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,011member
    shahhet2 said:

    Also most of Europe profit is routed through Ireland at 2% rate, so to bring that profit back AAPL have to pay 38%(40%-2% Ireland Tax) of Tax. 
    China should be reasonable at 15% difference.(40%-25% China Tax)
    Not sure where the 2% rate comes from.

    Irish Times recently said this (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/apple-s-us-returns-indicate-substantial-rise-in-irish-tax-paid-1.2417355):

    Apple’s accounts for its year to the end of September show that the multinational’s effective tax rate, ie the average rate at which its profits are taxed given it books profits in various jurisdictions with varying tax rates, increased to 26.4 per cent, from 26.1 per cent in 2014. 
    The equivalent figure in 2013 was 26.2 per cent.

    If it was 2%, and "substantially all" foreign profit was generated in Ireland, then the average Apple paid would not be 26.4%.


    "Paid" may not mean what you assume it does. 
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-23/apple-tax-rate-ignores-profit-shifting-offshore
  • Reply 107 of 132
    justbobf said:
    >>> charge a VAT on all goods and services sold in the US

    The trouble with a VAT tax is that it is a flat tax: everyone pays the same percentage. It is only fair that the rich, and rich corporations—those better abled to pay—should pay a higher percentage than the poor or less well-off.

    In England, the VAT is 20%, and everyone just accepts it. I would prefer to tax the wealthy 78%, as we once did. That makes it a dis-incentive for companies to pay multi-million dollar bonuses. That makes for a fairer, more equal society overall.

    Don't like that? We are fast approaching the untenable conditions that brought on the French Revolution. Be careful in granting unlimited wealth and power to just a few.
    Every household under the poverty line gets a refundable tax credit payed throughout the year, all spending above the line is "luxury" income and is taxed at the same rate across the board.  

    Some countries do the same GST/VAT tax but omit some essentials like groceries/books from the tax.
  • Reply 108 of 132
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,285member
    The last time corporations paid the same percentage of overall federal revenue as individual citizens did was back in the early to mid 1940's. Both were around 37 percent. During the last 70 years, the corporate percentage has dropped like a rock down to around 13.5% of total federal revenue today, while individual citizens now pay around 46% of the total. The idea that corporations are suffering under an "outdated" system or high tax level just isn't the case. If anything, the government has bent over backwards decade after decade to make it easier for them since the middle of the last century.
    You're only comparing corporate income tax with individual income tax.

    In the 40"s, corporations paid very little in the form of payroll tax. Take a look at the chart comparing the two. As the amount of payroll tax collected by the Fed increases, corporate income tax decreases. Corporate tax rate in the 40's was about 38% and is now 35% . Not much of a difference, though it's been as high as 52% in the 50"s and 60's. Payroll tax is a tax deduction for corporation. Thus the more they pay, the less corporate income tax they pay. 

    And I know individuals also pay a payroll tax. But it's not a true tax for them as individuals gets it back in the form of SS and medicare when they retire. The part that corporations pays is a true tax as they get nothing back directly for what they paid. Notice that the increase payroll tax collected did not impact the individual income tax collected. 

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/
  • Reply 109 of 132
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,285member

    flaneur said:
    Sorry, you're taking a very childish approach here. In case you haven't been paying attention — at all! — Tim Cook is not a typical rich guy, and Apple is not a typical corporation. 

    Deal with the facts. Thirty-five per cent is ridiculous, outdated, in the age of global economy.
    This same childish "it ain't fair", "it's outdated", "we will hold profits overseas until we turn blue" whine from industry leaders could happen all the way down to 0% corporate tax.

    Just change the code to force repatriation within 12 months of when it is earned.  Problem solved. 

    No it won't. If a corporation is face with losing over 25% of their profits by bringing it in to the US and spending it here, they might just assume spend all that money overseas. Companies like Apple can use the money to buy out foreign companies, help foreign suppliers increase production, open more Apple Stores overseas, expand operations overseas, etc. I'm sure most foreign countries, from which the profits were made, wouldn't mind corporations spending that money in their country. Then what, now the US got nothing, when they could maybe have gotten 10%.

    An indirect way of taxing that profit would be to let corporation bring in that money tax free, only if they use it to a pay dividend to share holders. This way the Feds will collect tax on it when the shareholders pays the income tax on the dividend. But I can see liberals (that are not share holders) get bent way out of shape on that idea.    
    edited December 2015 anantksundaram
  • Reply 110 of 132
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,285member
    justbobf said:
    What's outdated is that today's taxes are about half of what they were forty years ago, and even less than that compared to the 1950's through the 1970's.

    Tim and company may be paying "everything they owe", but it is not their "fair share". Apple and Time should be ashamed of themselves.

    Where you pull that out of?

    The corporate tax rate in 1975 was 48% and it's now 35%. The high was about 52% in the 50's and late 60"s

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/content/pdf/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf

    In 1975 the US collected $40,621,000,000 in corporate income taxes and in 2014 it was $320,731,000,000. 

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203
  • Reply 111 of 132
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    justbobf said:
    >>> charge a VAT on all goods and services sold in the US

    The trouble with a VAT tax is that it is a flat tax: everyone pays the same percentage. It is only fair that the rich, and rich corporations—those better abled to pay—should pay a higher percentage than the poor or less well-off.

    In England, the VAT is 20%, and everyone just accepts it. I would prefer to tax the wealthy 78%, as we once did. That makes it a dis-incentive for companies to pay multi-million dollar bonuses. That makes for a fairer, more equal society overall.

    Don't like that? We are fast approaching the untenable conditions that brought on the French Revolution. Be careful in granting unlimited wealth and power to just a few.


    edited December 2015
  • Reply 112 of 132
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    I am torn on this issue.

    On one side, as a company, you have to be able to pay your taxes. If not, then you're out of business. Every year - after paying your taxes - you start with a clean sheet all over again. It doesn't matter if you paid your taxes the previous thirty or so years, if you are not able to pay your taxes just once, your Dream is over and you're out of business. This is cruel.

    On the other side, it is not cool that your hard earned tax money is being abused by those in power to fight pointless wars and sustain the oil & weapons industry. Especially if your business is about the wellbeing of this Planet. This is absurd.

    A solution would be to have an unconditional equal Basic Income for all. Presidents, CEO's, young mothers, students, billionaires and Tim Cook would all receive the same amount of Basic income every month. We should get rid of this "Earn your Living" nonsense. Especially at the advent of the robot era taking over our jobs. Robots will create aplenty of wealth for society. It should not end up with a happy few. Everyone should have the right to be alive as a decent Human Being and pursue his Dream that gives Purpose to his Life. 

    A Basic Income would dramatically change the Dynamic of our Society. Everyone would have the Freedom to say 'No' to a job they don't like. It is what is needed to tackle the random challenges of Climate Change that has become irreversible now. Apple cannot do this by itself.

    edited December 2015
  • Reply 113 of 132
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    shahhet2 said:

    Also most of Europe profit is routed through Ireland at 2% rate, so to bring that profit back AAPL have to pay 38%(40%-2% Ireland Tax) of Tax. 
    China should be reasonable at 15% difference.(40%-25% China Tax)
    Not sure where the 2% rate comes from.

    It comes from Tim Cook's testimony before Congress.
  • Reply 114 of 132
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,216member
    mr o said:
    MrSinatra said:
    cook is right on the money! we should have the fairtax! google it!
    I did, and it doesn't look too good:


    I get very different results for the FairTax with top searches pointing more to why it is good. 

    Welcome me to the Google bubble showing you what you want to believe. 
  • Reply 115 of 132
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,653member
    cnocbui said:
    asdasd said:
    It bugs me that people think that corporation tax is paid where you sell. You are right that Apple is paying <2% in Ireland of its worldwide (non-US) profits. The Australians are owed anything except the VAT. Apple is not based in Australia. Also revenue? What's revenue in Apples retail and other stores in Oz got to do with the profits they realise in selling to retailers (including Apple retail) which is much lower than revenue. 

    The he only taxes apple owes in Oz is the Apple retail tax, that is the profit the retail arm of the business makes. 

    You are quite correct, Apple only owes the Australian government tax based on the profit they make in Australia and not corporation tax except for the operations of their subsidiaries which are actually incorporated in Australia.  For them to be paying only 1.3% of income means their operations in Australia must be unbelievably expensive to operate or the products and services they are selling must be amazingly expensive to obtain from their Irish operations.  There seems to be more than a slight disparity between what Apple reports it's margins and profitability in the US to be vs those they must be telling the Australian Taxation Office they are - I would have thought.

    The accusation/suggestion that has been made is that Apple's vast and extensive manufacturing operations in Ireland [cough] bullshit] [cough] somehow manage to infuse their products and services with magical fairy (little people) dust, which in the accounts is referred to as 'intellectual property', to prevent laughter and disbelief.  This fairy dust is incredibly expensive stuff - almost as expensive as unicorn manure - to the extent that poor Apple can barely manage any profit whatsoever when they come to sell their stuff in Oz.

    I do not understand your comment regarding VAT.
    None of this is an argument on the level of taxes ( in general I think corporations should pay more) but your incredible misunderstanding of how corporate tax works or could work. Most of which you've picked up from insanely stupid Oz or British reports. 

    You seem to be confused as to where Apple owes money. Is it the US (where Apple generated the vast majority of its IP), Ireland or where it sells? If it's the latter and Apple should pay Australia whatever the corporate rate is in Australia then it would owe neither Ireland nor the US any money due to double taxation. I'll come back to why it pays anything to Australia in a moment. 

    The reason Ireland would under present corporate law be owed money on apples international sales is historical. The Apple plant in Cork did manufacture for the international market and has the transferred IP to do that (that is Apple Ireland has rights to those IP as a wholey owned subsidiarity of Apple Inc). If it didn't it couldn't legally sell. As Apple grew, as China grew as a manufacturer then both Apple Inc and its worldwide headquarters in Apple international Ireland outsourced the manufacturing. Unlike the Irish Apple plant in Cork, Foxconn doesn't own IP, it's just an assembly plant. It can't sell the finished product, as its own. That's contractually a product owned by either Apple Ireland or Apple America to sell in either of their jurisdictions. This is why any investigation into who is owed tax isn't going to transfer anything to the UK, Australia or the other half wits who argue that Apple is paying 1% corporate tax on income. 

    So so why is Apple paying any corporate tax in Australia at all? Simply put its the Apple stores there. Apple Australia exists to own it's OZ stores. That's all. There's nothing else going on. 

    And why why is the profit low? Because the retail margins are probably low and most Apple products are not sold directly in those stores but by Telstra etc. In those cases Telstra books any retail profit not Apple Australia. 

    So rather than sum up all Apples income ( presumably the total retail value of all iPhones, Macs and accessories sold in Oz) you need to

    1) work out the fraction of those sales made in Apple stores. That's probably <10%. 
    2) work out the costs to Apple stores of those items sold (legally they can't be higher than any other retailer). That's your gross profit of all items sold 
    3) deduct rent and labour costs and other Op Ex
    4) tax the Australian corporate tax on that remaining net profit and you get whatever Apple paid. 
  • Reply 116 of 132
    mr o said:
    It doesn't matter if you paid your taxes the previous thirty or so years, if you are not able to pay your taxes just once, your Dream is over and you're out of business. This is cruel.
    That’s how it is for everyone. Even if you own your house (no payments), you don’t actually own your house at all. Miss a payment on your property taxes and it’s over.
    A solution would be to have an unconditional equal Basic Income for all. 
    How is that a solution for anything, anywhere, at any time?
    We should get rid of this "Earn your Living" nonsense.
    Explain where the work will come from. The Pilgrims nearly starved to death because they did this. Then the next year they implemented a system whereby you work your damnedest to provide for yourself and your family and had enough to, get this, hold a thanksgiving feast in the fall.
    Especially at the advent of the robot era taking over our jobs.
    I’m sure in the 1890s the feeling that pneumatic tubes were the end-all, be-all was high, too.
    …pursue his Dream that gives Purpose to his Life. 
    Not all dreams are equally valid, and what purpose is a life serving if no one buys what it is selling? Or can buy it?
    A Basic Income would dramatically change the Dynamic of our Society.
    It would solidify, permanently, the power of the super rich in ruling over us serfs. So yeah, you’re right.
    Everyone would have the Freedom to say 'No' to a job they don't like.
    You have that now.
     It is what is needed to tackle the random challenges of Climate Change that has become irreversible now. Apple cannot do this by itself.
    Not only does basic income have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with AGW, predicating economic decisions on something that isn’t happening is madness bordering on treason.
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 117 of 132
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    mr o said:
    It doesn't matter if you paid your taxes the previous thirty or so years, if you are not able to pay your taxes just once, your Dream is over and you're out of business. This is cruel.
    That’s how it is for everyone. Even if you own your house (no payments), you don’t actually own your house at all. Miss a payment on your property taxes and it’s over.
    How is that a solution for anything, anywhere, at any time?
    Explain where the work will come from. The Pilgrims nearly starved to death because they did this. Then the next year they implemented a system whereby you work your damnedest to provide for yourself and your family and had enough to, get this, hold a thanksgiving feast in the fall.
    I’m sure in the 1890s the feeling that pneumatic tubes were the end-all, be-all was high, too.
    Not all dreams are equally valid, and what purpose is a life serving if no one buys what it is selling? Or can buy it?
    It would solidify, permanently, the power of the super rich in ruling over us serfs. So yeah, you’re right.
    You have that now.
    Not only does basic income have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with AGW, predicating economic decisions on something that isn’t happening is madness bordering on treason.
    Thank you for shredding my not so well constructed argument. I will respond with three videos. They make a great Sunday watch:

    1. Humans Need Not Apply [15:00] on how robots are replacing humans in the Economy. Robots will put an end to the idea that one should work to 'earn a Living'. Imagine e.g. how self driving cars in the not so distant future will dramatically change the transportation economy.
    2. We Can Do It Ourselves [59:00] a thought provoking documentary about a democratic cooperative way of doing business.
    3. Why We Should Give Everyone An Unconditional Basic Income [16:00]

    EDIT: fixed a broken link for 'We Can Do It Ourselves'.
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 118 of 132
    bkkcanuck said:
    macarena said:
    I really don't think the real picture is being seen here by ANYONE. This should not be about where the money is kept, or where the money is earned.

    The simple point is this - Apple does almost all of its Research and Development in the US. They give a contract to Foxconn to build devices matching specs they have set. Foxconn loads the software for this on the phone, and charges Apple for the hardware, the assembling costs, etc. All of these are legitimate expenses to Apple.

    Now, irrespective of wherever in the world those phones are sold, the profit is belongs to, and is due to Apple in the US. If Apple has structured itself in such a way that there is an entity that is selling the products in a particular jurisdiction, then that entity should either be treated as a wholly owned subsidiary, with the profits rolling up to Apple in the US, or it should be treated as an arms length transaction, with the foreign entity paying Apple in the US a royalty for the rights to use its IP to sell devices somewhere.
    Apple, like many large companies wholly owns other corporations [e.g. Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co Ltd] which are incorporated with a board of directors, etc. under the laws of the country it operates in.  Just like any investment in any other incorporated company the money does not come back to Apple Inc. until the other company pays a dividend.  

    If you were to turn around and change the rules of the IRS to "force" an imaginary dividend payment or gain/loss calculation at the end of the financial year to tax the corporation on world-wide income..... many large companies would have no real option other than to invert and move their headquarters over to somewhere like Canada that does not tax on world-wide income.    It is a case of shooting yourself in your foot.  If you reverted to a VAT/GST tax and reduced corporate taxes or eliminated them, and offset that with a tax-credit check to low income families to cover any potential increase in prices..... you would create a situation where you make it difficult to move where you earn services income or manufacturing income around.   Additionally since VAT/GST is typically levied only on internal consumption, you would create a more competitive landscape for manufactures since you have basically cut the cost of manufacturing in the US by up to 35%.   Often Income tax rises - which are offset for large companies by loopholes and other government handouts to lift the economy but all that ends up doing is giving a disproportionate advantage to connected large companies and handicapping new smaller companies that don't have the same clout.

    Additionally since the VAT/GST is a stable revenue stream vs Income it is a more reliable source of funds to cover necessary operational costs of the government.  What happens is that you have some really good years and the government is flush in new Income tax and goes wow -- great we can spend all this money on new programs and the voters will be happy..... then the economy goes into recession and income tax revenues all but disappear but the obligations the government have still exist and the government runs up a massive debt....  (sound familiar).  

    Tax should be about a necessary source of funding for funding essential services done by the government, not about being some sort of social engineering experiment....



    You aren't getting the point - Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co Ltd profits will be taxed at Apple Inc hands only after the dividend is received. However, under Transfer Pricing guidelines that cover transactions between related parties, Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co Ltd has to pay royalties to Apple Inc for using its IP and selling products made by Apple Inc. This is typically done before or soon after the product is sold, and in any case, in every fiscal year.

    Apple has been ingeniously declaring that royalty to be zero, and keeping entire profit in the hands of Apple Shanghai. Which is not acceptable under almost any law, including IRS.

    There is a simple test for transfer pricing - whether Apple will offer the same terms to third parties, as it does to related parties. If it is offering special terms to related parties, then they are trying to hoodwink the law.

    Imagine a scenario were Apple Ireland bought all the iPhones made by Foxconn, and sold them to various Apple entities around the world at a price higher than retail price. So all these other entities would declare a loss, whereas Apple Ireland would declare a huge profit - and take advantage of Irish law to pay very low taxes. I am painting an extreme case, but I think now you understand what is wrong with what Apple is doing?
    mdriftmeyer
  • Reply 119 of 132
    davidw said:
    justbobf said:
    What's outdated is that today's taxes are about half of what they were forty years ago, and even less than that compared to the 1950's through the 1970's.

    Tim and company may be paying "everything they owe", but it is not their "fair share". Apple and Time should be ashamed of themselves.

    Where you pull that out of?

    The corporate tax rate in 1975 was 48% and it's now 35%. The high was about 52% in the 50's and late 60"s

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/content/pdf/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf

    In 1975 the US collected $40,621,000,000 in corporate income taxes and in 2014 it was $320,731,000,000. 

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

    https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/2010-12-02_incometax_chartbook.pdf

    Read Page 17 (Page 11 in the CBO PDF Document excluding the frontmatter)

    Effective Tax Rates for Capital Income on Corporate side vs. Labor Side.

    In short, Labor is being hosed two fold over that of Capital.


    applepieguy
  • Reply 120 of 132
    This is an excellent article on the current state of US Corporate Tax Policy:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddganos/2015/12/19/apple-ceo-tim-cook-is-absolutely-right-and-wrong-on-u-s-corporate-tax-policy/

    I particularly like the second to last paragraph:

    "So, if I were a member of Congress, I’d be asking Mr. Cook a simple question. If U.S. tax policy were to fall in line with virtually every other country on the planet and you could repatriate foreign-earned profits to the U.S. without taxation, might you locate your Apple car assembly plant in the U.S.? Which would support the U.S. manufacturing base. Which would be employing U.S. workers. Which would foster economic growth in the U.S."


Sign In or Register to comment.