jmgregory1
About
- Username
- jmgregory1
- Joined
- Visits
- 72
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 333
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 474
Reactions
-
What Apple would have to do to comply with Donald Trump's American-built mandate
Lowering corporate taxes is not a recipe for more higher paying jobs. That's a fallacy. We had a society of significantly higher average wages back when corporate taxes were as high as 70%. In fact, the great middle class was born out of those times. When they started dropping, the middle class took the brunt of the loss, but it's been felt now equally across the vast majority of the population.ben20 said:
How about you are respectful and keep the discussion professional ? Apple has the hugest profit ever of any US coporation in the last quarter and has a big social responsibilty to create jobs in the USA, and I am not talking about low paying ones. We want well paid jobs ! Donald Trump gives them and everybody else a great incentive with lowering the coporate taxes to 15%.wood1208 said:How about if I am Apple than put/sheve ipad pro inside Mr. Trump' Hippocrates's A*. He wants to target Apple but how about Walmart and others including himself in his hotels/casino who is using China oe some other countries manufactured stuff.
As a business owner myself, I'm not making job decisions based on lower taxes. I dont discount any tax savings we get when we do add positions, but we only add positions to address increased sales of our product.
-
What Apple would have to do to comply with Donald Trump's American-built mandate
Except lowering taxes and repatriation of capital will do nothing for the average worker. Apple, just like every public and private company is not beholden to the republic / society in general. They're beholden to their shareholders / owners. In fact, they're legally bound to do what's best for shareholders. Assuming that any company would take tax breaks and use the money to build more plants domestically, or hire more people, is just not going to happen. Companies won't hire more domestic employees unless they have to in order to satisfy production and sales of whatever they make and sell, and that it makes good fiscal sense to do so. The thing Trump pitched, like bringing back steel and coal production isn't just some simple decision any company can make.sirozha said:The higher labor costs in the US could be partially offset by the lowering of the corporate tax and repatriating the capital back to the US. In the long run, the profit margins of around 40-45% that Apple has been showing would likely be in the mid-30% range, but this would also apply to Apple's competitors, and thus should not cause any long-term negative effect for shareholders. Apple has been accumulating mountains of cash due to its high profitability, and the stock has been moving sideways for the last 4 years. In fact, the AAPL stock price is now lower than it was in August of 2012, so it's been 3 1/2 years of lost time for long-term AAPL investors, whereas the amount of Apple's cash reserves probably doubled since then.
Apple has no clear vision about what to do with the mountains of cash that it's sitting on. If Apple could repatriate the cash reserves back to the US, it could at least increase the dividend and thus compensate the shareholders for a temporary effect that the lowering of profit margins may cause. In the long run, I believe everyone would win if the US government created favorable conditions for the US companies to bring manufacturing back to the US by a combination of increased tariffs on goods manufactures overseas, by instituting a lower corporate tax rate, and by other measures. We could also lift the US inner city population out of poverty if we brought production back to US cities, and thus the tax payers would benefit because of the reduced cost of social programs that would not have to be used to support tens of millions of poor Americans who are currently unemployed due to the lack of high-tech skills required to participate in the current US labor market, which is devoid of manufacturing jobs.
Companies would need to change from the top down, with a CEO and board making the decision to make less profit, share less profit with owners and shareholders, so that they could use that money to make product at higher costs due to higher domestic employee costs. And then you have to have their customers, those who buy the products they make, agree to pay the higher price for the product, be it a component or end product, which then drives costs up further on that company's finished products.
And that can all work, as long as there are enough workers earning enough dollars to pay for the ever-increasing costs of goods.
This election wasn't really any different than those in the past, with one side or the other making promises that are entirely impossible to fulfill, but it blows my mind to see just how many really ignorant people there are that buy into these promises (on both sides).
-
Tesla buys Grohmann Engineering to speed up electric car manufacturing
Good for Tesla. They're making the right moves and have the big picture view of their future, which it seems most other car makers just do not have. Forget about an Apple car. That's one product I have zero interest in, and I've been a big Apple follower and user since the early '80's.
-
Neil Young restores catalog to Apple Music, Spotify & other streaming services
Neil was trying to do the right thing for music aficionados, but the music player was just so poorly designed. It would have been better if he simply tried to partner with Apple on offering his own library of music, plus those of artists he likes, as lossless digital files. Let the consumer decide whether they want to pay for a higher quality sound using their existing devices.
-
Watch: Hands-on with Apple's entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro with USB-C
There will be no comparison to a $500 PC, as the adage is absolutely true that you get what you pay for. Maybe look at the good side of what Apple has done for you - the new higher priced, and to those that see the lack of old USB and card reader as a negative, rMBP's will likely have a positive effect on the price of the previous generation rMBP's. So perhaps you can sell your old MBP's and pay less for the updated version?williamh said:How does it compare to a $500 Windows laptop with similar specs? I know the screen won't be as good. It won't be as light. It will be running Windows. FFS, I have about just about everything Apple makes in my house: I'm willing to pay a premium for Apple quality, security, etc. but they got the pricing on this wrong.
(iMac 27", Macbook Air 11", Macbook Pro (2), Watch (2) Time Capsule, iPhone 7 (2), iPhone 6+, iPhone 6s, iPad Mini, iPad Mini3, iPad2, iPad Air2 - perhaps I've forgotten something? Sold the old AppleTV a few weeks ago)
