Cupertino mayor accuses Apple, responsible for nearly 20% of the city's tax revenue, of not paying

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 114
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member

    cali said:
    apple ][ said:
    Serves 'em right!

    I bet that a lot of Apple employees are Bernie supporters who have contributed to the campaign and they support higher taxation!

    Now pay up what you owe! Put your money where your mouth is!

    Apple only contributes nearly 20% of the city's tax revenue? It should clearly be much higher!

    Down with the rich! Down with greedy corporations! The rich are evil! And Apple has plenty of money! It's absolutely disgusting that any company should make that much money.

    Let's dismantle Apple and nationalize it! Power to the people! Crackhead lives matter!
    You're a trump supporter.
    No, he just forgot to close the /sarc tag. It's hard to tell with plain text.
    entropys
  • Reply 82 of 114
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member
    apple ][ said:
    macseeker said:
    Yes!   
    It's been years since I last saw that video, but I still remember some council member asking for benefits like free WIFI for the entire city.
    Absolutely.

    Steve was looking to make an Apple campus roughly modeled in function after some IBM, Polaroid, and Kodak research parks even back in the Apple// days. Apple bought property in Coyote, at the southern border of San Jose decades ago for just such a project near the intersection of Santa Teresa Blvd. and Bailey Ave., next to an existing IBM facility.

    Then he blew up, went off to found NeXT, and the whole thing languished. Apple eventually sold the property, Cisco planned to do something similar there until the Tech bust in 2000.

    We lived a few minutes south of there for 35 years; Bailey was a good, if steep, bicycle ride over the hills to the west toward Calero reservoir on a sunny day.
  • Reply 83 of 114
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,355member

    sog35 said:
    That's the way I see Cook. A weak CEO who was lucky to be given the CEO job without earning it at all.
    you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, from week to week. it's insane. the notion that Cook didn't earn his role, or that no respects him, is insane. you really need help.

    You're being generous. sog35 is beyond insane, and beyond help. His endless, mindless, non-sensical, hysterical ramblings full of such ego and misplaced confidence are beyond pitiful. Sog35 pretends to hold SJ on a high pedestal and consistently (and moronically) compares Cook to him, while at the same time completely shitting on SJ, by stating over and over that TC is "lucky" to be given a position by SJ that he "didn't earn at all". sog35 is too moronic to understand his own contradictions and hypocrisy. It's true what they say, that fools are the most confident about everything they say. He claims it's another "bone-headed" move by Cook to keep the new Campus in CA (even though it's been planned for a decade and SJ presented the idea just 5 years ago). He suggests Austin, as if this is some brilliant idea he just came up with, that was never considered internally by Apple, and claims it would "obviously" be a superior choice, something that is utterly and completely baseless.

    What about relocating the many THOUSANDS of employees that work at Apple HQ and their families to another state, instead of across the street, and the MASSIVE burden that would entail- financially, logistically, and in a way that rips them from their communities and can affect their lives, productivity, and mental health in a negative way? Sog35 doesn't take more than 2 seconds to come up with his proclamations, so he doesn't get to (non) details like this. Obviously, Tim cook should have ripped up Apple's legacy, and spit on SJ's vision about the campus- to sog35, that is the only correct route, because he woke up this morning believing it. 

    Sog35 should sell his fucking stock so he can spare everyone is insufferably asinine word-vomit that has become so predictable in it's spam like qualities. He's an intellectual midget that makes himself feel better by shitting on people who are infinitely more intelligent, capable, and successful than him- like Tim Cook. 
    edited May 2016 brucemcjasenj1lord amhrancrowley
  • Reply 84 of 114
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,355member
    crowley said:
    Billions to the local economy is about the dumbest thing you've ever said. 
    I think he got the BILLIONS and the MILLIONS the wrong way round.  So definitely don't take financial advice from him.

    It's sog35. He was only off by a factor of 1000x, so basically, one of his more accurate posts. I think it's a bit too much to ask a raving lunatic like him to get any more accurate than that. 
    singularitylord amhrancrowley
  • Reply 85 of 114
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,243member
    This seems a bit of a late thought by the local government. It was never assumed that the building would sit empty, rather that new staff members would settle in Cupertino and surrounding areas. The congestion of this would have been a key consideration during the approval process, and something the government would have planned for and weighed against the additional tax and land revenues generated by having the campus located in Cupertino Certainly it's fine to bring up the idea of local big players further helping to support the local traffic network, but it's a bit unreasonable to suggest that this is a new revelation or even "their fault".
  • Reply 86 of 114
    ZarkinZarkin Posts: 16member
    This argument is little different than the argument that the rich in general don't pay enough taxes, when in reality the richest 10% pay the majority of federal income tax...in fact the bottom 50% of earners pay almost no federal tax at all.

    That is a true statement, but also quite misleading, the top 10% do pay 53% of the taxes.  More than half!!!  To really qualify that though you also have to point out that those 10% own 73.1% of the wealth- which is even crazier.

    So if the people that make 73% of the income only pay 53% of the taxes, who is it that subsidizes them and picks up the rest of their share?
    baconstangjibberjjasenj1wmfork
  • Reply 87 of 114
    diegogdiegog Posts: 134member
    sog35 said:
    slurpy said:
    You need some help, seriously. What do you want Cook to do, go to the guy's house, tie him up along with his family, and threaten him? The guy is the fucking Mayor, he has freedom of speech like anyone else. As far as I know, Cook hasn't caved in or agreed with any demands or proposals, so don't know WTF you're talking about. He's a tech CEO, not a mob boss. In regards to "crapping on Apple" (a term you've repeated like 5 times in your post), ironic coming from you, as you often have the most unfair, unhinged and unsubstantiated attacks on Cook and the company, that have literally NOTHING to do with their performance or anything under their control- this post being a prime example. Oh, and you have a horrible or selective memory. Apple was "crapped on" substantially under Jobs, there's no reason to expect it to lessen with time and as the company has exploded in size and success.
    Was Steve Jobs a mob boss?
    Is Elon Musk a mob boss?
    Is Jeff Bezos a mob boss?

    Then why the hell is the media/Wall Street/politicians constantly going after Apple now that Cook is CEO? Why doesn't the media go after Musk or Bezos?  Or the Google CEO's?  Or Steve Jobs when he was alive?  Because they knew there would be consequences for it. With Cook?  No consequences at all.  Cook is too much of a coward to stand up and call these clowns out in the public. That is why Apple gets crapped on 10x a day in the media and in Wall Street. Because Cook is a weakling and a coward and no one respects him or fears him.

    Tim Cook is better served being the CEO of Doctors without Boards or the Red Cross. He has no business being the CEO of the most powerful company on the planet. 

    Tim Cook is like King Edward II of the England.



    That's the way I see Cook. A weak CEO who was lucky to be given the CEO job without earning it at all.
    Didn't earn it? I think Steve Jobs would disagree with you...
  • Reply 88 of 114
    vision33rvision33r Posts: 213member
    Consider the accounting flexibility that gives businesses all sorts of creative tax advantages.  Paying more taxes won't hurt them, they always find ways to save or cheat the system.
    baconstang
  • Reply 89 of 114
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,046member
    San Jose wide opens for Apple to move here. Fck yeah, we ain't complain about traffic. Fucking Cupertino's rich asses always complain. San Jose is ghetto enough, so residents don't complain. Now, I still hear a Mexican bands playing loud music with that Accordion close by at 10PM...who cares 
  • Reply 90 of 114
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,612member
    genovelle said:
    This argument is little different than the argument that the rich in general don't pay enough taxes, when in reality the richest 10% pay the majority of federal income tax...in fact the bottom 50% of earners pay almost no federal tax at all.
    The rich also take in 90% of the financial gains over the last 2 decades and actually end up paying a lower effective tax rate than most citizens. And the comment that 50% pay no federal tax is crap. Unless you are making close to minimum wage, you are paying federal taxes. If you are you are in extreme poverty and can barely afford to eat and have shelter. 


    Wrong. The rich on the average, pays more of a percent of their income than the bottom 80%. Using "effective tax rate" also is deceiving as many of the rich donate a lot of money to charity and thus lowering their effective tax rate. The rich also pays a higher percent of tax, compare to their total income earned. The top 10% account for 45% of the gross income but pays about 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% only account for 11% of the gross income but pays only 2.5% of the taxes collected. 

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/11/bottom-50-earn-11-of-income-pay-3-of-taxes-top-1-earn-19-of-income-pay-38-of-taxes.html

    http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0

    http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes

    http://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/how-much-do-americans-pay-in-federal-taxes

    Don't be like David letterman when presented with the facts. 

    http://www.aei.org/publication/irs-data-the-top-1-pay-37-of-all-taxes-the-bottom-half-pay-2-a-blubbering-david-letterman-cant-believe-the-facts/

    You also clearly don't unstained how taxes work. A person making $50,000 a year can end up paying no income taxes because of deductions, exemptions and tax credit. The bottom 50% cuts off is about $37,000. Clearly 2 times the income of the Federal minimum wage of $7.25/h and $15,000 a year. Only about 15% of the US are considered in the poverty level by making less than $15,000 a year.

    A married couple with 2 kids, with a stay at home mom (or dad) and one income of $50,000 a year can deduct a $16,000 for 4 exemptions, $12,600 for standard deduction. That brings taxable income to $21,400. Put away about $2,000 in a tax deferred IRA, TSP or 401K and that would bring their taxable income to $19,400. That would be about $2000 in taxes but they also get a tax child credit of $2000 ($1000 per child) so they end up paying $0 in taxes. 

    Now, $50,000 a year may be poverty level in some area of the US, but it's livable income in most. The median income (not average) in the US is about $52,000 (depending on who's doing the calculation)

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/16/news/economy/census-poverty-income/




    tallest skilbrucemc
  • Reply 91 of 114
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,612member
    Zarkin said:
    This argument is little different than the argument that the rich in general don't pay enough taxes, when in reality the richest 10% pay the majority of federal income tax...in fact the bottom 50% of earners pay almost no federal tax at all.

    That is a true statement, but also quite misleading, the top 10% do pay 53% of the taxes.  More than half!!!  To really qualify that though you also have to point out that those 10% own 73.1% of the wealth- which is even crazier.

    So if the people that make 73% of the income only pay 53% of the taxes, who is it that subsidizes them and picks up the rest of their share?


    But wealth is not income. The US IRS do not tax wealth. If one makes $10,000,000 one year, pays the taxes on that money that year and still have $5,000,000 of it the next year, he/she is not taxed on it again. A stock portfolio and property is considered wealth, but one is not taxed on it until it's sold and capital gains is realized. How would you like to be taxed based on what you managed save every year because it's considered wealth that you own? How would you like to be taxed like you're in the 1% because you managed to accumulate over $1,000,000 in your IRA? Your tax deferred IRA is wealth but not taxed until you withdraw money from it. That's how it works. And it shouldn't matter if your rich, middle class or poor.  So you saying the rich owning 73% of the wealth is meaningless when it comes to income taxes paid every year. If they haven't paid tax on that wealth, they eventually will. If they already paid tax on it, then they shouldn't be taxed again on it for still having it.

    It's a liberal fallacy in logic when one uses wealth as a criteria for how much income taxes one should pay every year.  
    edited May 2016 tallest skilbrucemcentropys
  • Reply 92 of 114
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,154member
    slurpy said:

    you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, from week to week. it's insane. the notion that Cook didn't earn his role, or that no respects him, is insane. you really need help.

    <snip>
    Sog35 should sell his fucking stock so he can spare everyone is insufferably asinine word-vomit that has become so predictable in it's spam like qualities. He's an intellectual midget that makes himself feel better by shitting on people who are infinitely more intelligent, capable, and successful than him- like Tim Cook. 


    Or at least quit this forum and spare the rest of us.

  • Reply 93 of 114
    reiszriereiszrie Posts: 19member
    classic ineptitude and incompetency, if his solution to every problem is merely to take from the rich, then even an idiot can replace him as mayor. 

    he needs to start coming up with better solutions and not merely the easiest one. 
    tallest skilentropys
  • Reply 94 of 114
    reiszriereiszrie Posts: 19member
    wdowell said:
    Frankly would it kill Apple to support its local community a bit more. It can afford it.
    Frankly, why do you think its a good idea to take from others without good reason just because they can afford it? it sounds like an awfully self-serving notion.
    edited May 2016 tallest skilentropys
  • Reply 95 of 114
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    sog35 said:
    It already does.  It provides the community THOUSANDS of well paying jobs.  It pays MILLIONS in corporate taxes and generates BILLIONS to the local economy.


    Billions to the local economy is about the dumbest thing you've ever said. 
    NO, I think there is ample evidence to show there is even more dumber things he has said.. in every thread usually.
  • Reply 96 of 114
    davidw said:
    genovelle said:
    The rich also take in 90% of the financial gains over the last 2 decades and actually end up paying a lower effective tax rate than most citizens. And the comment that 50% pay no federal tax is crap. Unless you are making close to minimum wage, you are paying federal taxes. If you are you are in extreme poverty and can barely afford to eat and have shelter. 


    Wrong. The rich on the average, pays more of a percent of their income than the bottom 80%. Using "effective tax rate" also is deceiving as many of the rich donate a lot of money to charity and thus lowering their effective tax rate. The rich also pays a higher percent of tax, compare to their total income earned. The top 10% account for 45% of the gross income but pays about 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% only account for 11% of the gross income but pays only 2.5% of the taxes collected. 

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/11/bottom-50-earn-11-of-income-pay-3-of-taxes-top-1-earn-19-of-income-pay-38-of-taxes.html

    http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0

    http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes

    http://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/how-much-do-americans-pay-in-federal-taxes


    Federal income tax is not the only tax paid by citizens of the United States. You also have state and local taxes, which are (surprise!) not as progressive as federal income taxes. People who are wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in state and local taxes in EVERY state in the U.S. For example, the "no state income tax" states like Texas and Florida rely heavily on regressive tax policies like sales tax and excise tax that are a greater burden on citizens in the lower income brackets to make up for it. 

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-how-the-states-destroy-the-fairness-20150413-column.html

    "CTJ shows that combined local, state and federal taxes produce a system that more resembles a flat tax than a progressive tax: In 2015, the top 1% will pay 32.6% of their income in taxes, while those in the 60th-80th percentile (with average income of $81,000) pay 30.4% and the next highest 10% (average income of $125,000) pay 32.1%. Overall, the bottom 99% pay 29.8% of their income in taxes, a ratio not much smaller than the top 1%." --from the above link
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 97 of 114
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    Snowbump said:
    Texas is a much more business friendly state that California will ever be. Building in California was a huge mistake. The Cupertino offices should have been closed and moved to Austin, TX. http://www.wired.com/2012/12/apple-austin/
    Should we recall what happened to Tesla and corrupt and presumably friendly Texas officials that didn't not let Tesla in, because it refused to use a middleman? That can hardly be qualified as "more business friendly state".
  • Reply 98 of 114
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Zarkin said:
    This argument is little different than the argument that the rich in general don't pay enough taxes, when in reality the richest 10% pay the majority of federal income tax...in fact the bottom 50% of earners pay almost no federal tax at all.

    That is a true statement, but also quite misleading, the top 10% do pay 53% of the taxes.  More than half!!!  To really qualify that though you also have to point out that those 10% own 73.1% of the wealth- which is even crazier.

    So if the people that make 73% of the income only pay 53% of the taxes, who is it that subsidizes them and picks up the rest of their share?
    Yes, THAT IS THE QUESTION. When you take into account that much of their wealth is probably hidden too, because they can... Well, the question gets a lot more uncomfortable.

    The middle class has been subsidizing the top 10% ever since trickle down has been a thing.
    Even if they weren't, trickle down is based on some magical thinking that says those elite will do the patriotic thing and invest this bonanza they've been given into productive assets instead of being used as further leverage in stock speculation and other financial shenanigans.

    Seeing as the richest are the most likely to be able to make money from a countries infrastructure, capacity to produce and then export this wealth out, ever thinking taxing them less would actually lead to actual investment in that particular countr that would create wealth for those 90% is laughable (and that's the whole gist of trickle down).

    The result : someone like Trump exploiting this rage about 30 years of trickle down (that someone like him would do it is the ultimate irony); the GOP Reaganites and successors eventually screwed by their own plan (that's also Ironic).

    The Democrats have been somehow less responsible as they've not been in control of the agenda over the last 48 years (Since LBJ left).
    Obama had the global mess for the first 2 years (when he could have done something) and then had no control of congress.
    Clinton had a low popular vote in his first term and the triickle down GOP there for most of his term.

    Getting the GOP wiped out (like in1964) would be a chance to truly change thing for the better.

    Getting at least to a more balanced taxation would be the first step; at least go back to mid 1990s taxation; that would be a first step.

    PS:  I'm am part of the 1%, and live in Canada, were I'm taxed, ahem, a lot more :-) than when I lived in the US.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 99 of 114
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member

    I sure do wish that a pre-requirement of every elected offical would be a mandatory course in economics.
    That would retroactively disqualify the majority of politicians from occupying any office, then.
    longpath
  • Reply 100 of 114
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    sog35 said:
    slurpy said:
    You need some help, seriously. What do you want Cook to do, go to the guy's house, tie him up along with his family, and threaten him? The guy is the fucking Mayor, he has freedom of speech like anyone else. As far as I know, Cook hasn't caved in or agreed with any demands or proposals, so don't know WTF you're talking about. He's a tech CEO, not a mob boss. In regards to "crapping on Apple" (a term you've repeated like 5 times in your post), ironic coming from you, as you often have the most unfair, unhinged and unsubstantiated attacks on Cook and the company, that have literally NOTHING to do with their performance or anything under their control- this post being a prime example. Oh, and you have a horrible or selective memory. Apple was "crapped on" substantially under Jobs, there's no reason to expect it to lessen with time and as the company has exploded in size and success.
    Was Steve Jobs a mob boss?
    Is Elon Musk a mob boss?
    Is Jeff Bezos a mob boss?

    Then why the hell is the media/Wall Street/politicians constantly going after Apple now that Cook is CEO? Why doesn't the media go after Musk or Bezos?  Or the Google CEO's?  Or Steve Jobs when he was alive?  Because they knew there would be consequences for it. With Cook?  No consequences at all.  Cook is too much of a coward to stand up and call these clowns out in the public. That is why Apple gets crapped on 10x a day in the media and in Wall Street. Because Cook is a weakling and a coward and no one respects him or fears him.

    Tim Cook is better served being the CEO of Doctors without Boards or the Red Cross. He has no business being the CEO of the most powerful company on the planet. 

    Tim Cook is like King Edward II of the England.



    That's the way I see Cook. A weak CEO who was lucky to be given the CEO job without earning it at all.
    Part of the reason is that it is the new liberal fad to go after big corporations with a lot of money. It's the new bully pulpit to say big corporations need to 'pay their fair share.'
    tallest skillongpath
Sign In or Register to comment.