Apple Paid $6 Billion in Federal Income Tax in 2012, 1/40 of All U.S. Corporate Income Tax Collected

[WestonHarvey1]

Originally Posted by skunk

You seem to have great difficulty with the word "temporary".

So: Please pick one. Taxes are:

A. Going down
B. Going up
C. Staying the same

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

So: Please pick one. Taxes are:

A. Going down
B. Going up
C. Staying the same

D. Doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

[WestonHarvey1]

Originally Posted by mcrain

D. Doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

Can you state that mathematically and show how it isn't A, B, or C?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

Can you state that mathematically and show how it isn't A, B, or C?

Are you (a) entirely white, or (b) entirely black?

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

So: Please pick one. Taxes are:

A. Going down
B. Going up
C. Staying the same

So, you didn't answer my question from earlier. Do stores raise prices after Black Friday, or do they just return them to their pre-sale prices.

Using your choices, I would have to say that prices are going up. But, that's kind of disingenuous, don't you think? Dare I say, it's an intentionally disingenuous attempt to convince people that their taxes are being raised, when in reality, they are simply losing their discount.

But, I would expect nothing less.

You want it mathematically?

Thursday: TV cost = $500
Friday: TV cost = $250
Saturday: TV cost = $450

Did the price of the TV get raised? What if it cost $500 on Saturday?

[clibinarius]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

What do you mean by "Northern Europe"?

Denmark, Norway, Sweden...

Originally Posted by Rocketman

Nope. Just overspent. Solution: off-budget fully funded pensions and health plans. The average of taxation in the USA over the last 100 years or so is 18.5% with all ranges of tax "rates".

Governments spend the funds set aside for pensions and health plans. Stupid. I think Pomona College alone has a $4B endowment fund. Tiny private college. They invest in infrastructure and safety net programs. With cash. From the interest.

Don't get me started on how the government wastes cash in many ways. Seriously, I don't really want to put my opinion in writing. I don't view it as a overtax-overspend issue. I view it as a waste issue. The private sector, left unchecked, will waste as much as the public sector-it has nothing to do with ideology. A powerful government is likely to be corrupt simply because it can. In the absence of a powerful government, a powerful private bureaucracy can set prices as they want without any actual competition in many sectors because they become monopolies and set their prices above competitive but below startup...

When it comes to Northern Europe, the fate of countries with balanced budgets and interest rates rests on the hands of their big brothers. They have high taxes and high spending and are solvent-at this time. They will have massive problems if, say, Italy defaults knocking France to default and causing a liquidity crunch in Europe. So, countries that are responsible-despite high taxes-face a nasty recession regardless of the tax rate.

[WestonHarvey1]

Originally Posted by samiwas

So, you didn't answer my question from earlier. Do stores raise prices after Black Friday, or do they just return them to their pre-sale prices.

Using your choices, I would have to say that prices are going up. But, that's kind of disingenuous, don't you think? Dare I say, it's an intentionally disingenuous attempt to convince people that their taxes are being raised, when in reality, they are simply losing their discount.

But, I would expect nothing less.

You want it mathematically?

Thursday: TV cost = $500
Friday: TV cost = $250
Saturday: TV cost = $450

Did the price of the TV get raised? What if it cost $500 on Saturday?

Yes. The price of the TV was raised to $450 from its previous price of $250. Its price on Thursday is not relevant.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by clibinarius

Denmark, Norway, Sweden...

So Europe's most successful economies - and also countries with very high tax rates.

Originally Posted by clibinarius

They will have massive problems if, say, Italy defaults knocking France to default and causing a liquidity crunch in Europe.

To be fair on the Italians they have a primary surplus.

And a lot of the debt is owed to the Mafia in leu of taxes .

----------

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

Yes. The price of the TV was raised to $450 from its previous price of $250. Its price on Thursday is not relevant.

But the price of the TV is also lower than it was 2 days before. It isn't black and white .

[CodeJingle]

Originally Posted by KPOM

Perhaps replace it with a small consumption tax on the ultimate buyer.

I think that is called Sales Tax. Consumers already pay taxes once on income earned and a second time for sales tax when buying something. There isn't any room in your average Joe's budget for a third tax.

[KPOM]

Originally Posted by CodeJingle

I think that is called Sales Tax. Consumers already pay taxes once on income earned and a second time for sales tax when buying something. There isn't any room in your average Joe's budget for a third tax.

The idea is that right now, a portion of the taxes paid by the corporation make it into the price of the finished goods. Eliminate the corporate tax, and competitive forces will drive the price of goods down (initially companies will try to pocket as much of the tax savings for their shareholders, but fairly quickly someone will lower the price to win/preserve market share).

One of the arguments that advocates of single-payer healthcare systems often put forth is that the cost of employee healthcare benefits puts American companies at a disadvantage (e.g. $2000 of the cost of a car is to pay health benefits). They argue that if healthcare were nationalized these costs would go down. I'm not trying to turn this into a healthcare debate, but it's the same principle here. The high corporate income tax puts American companies at a disadvantage.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by KPOM

The high corporate income tax puts American companies at a disadvantage.

Except US companies rarely pay that rate. The system is gamed so that those who are already successful will continue to be successrful.

[KPOM]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So Europe's most successful economies - and also countries with very high tax rates.

Actually, Germany's economy is what is propping up the EU right now. Norway has 4% unemployment, but they are thinly populated and have lots of oil. Guess what. North Dakota has lots of oil and natural gas, and they have a 3% unemployment rate.

Sweden's unemployment rate is about the same as ours. They have high personal income taxes, but a lower corporate income tax rate (26.3%) that they plan to lower even further (22%). http://www.thelocal.se/43202/20120913/

----------

Originally Posted by mcrain

Except US companies rarely pay that rate. The system is gamed so that those who are already successful will continue to be successrful.

Part of the reason they don't pay that rate is that they set up operations overseas and leave the profits there. They would be put at a disadvantage if they brought the money back home. The US and Russia are the only major countries that tax worldwide income.

Also, this doesn't take into account all the time spent on avoiding high taxation that could be better spent elsewhere. A big company like Apple can afford it, but it is a real drag on medium-sized companies.

[Chupa Chupa]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

It depends how they get paid - they might well not pay very much tax on it if its paid out as a dividend.

Shows how much you know about business. Dividends are paid to shareholders and all qualified shareholders get equal per share dividends whether they work for the company, and happen to hold shares, or they are a teacher with that company's shares held in her 401K. Dividends are not a form of employee compensation.

Now the company could grant and employee shares in the company as compensation, but tax would still have to be paid on the value of the shares at the time of transfer. And then once the share are sold, the employee also has to pay capital gains tax if there is a gain... no guarantee there will be one, could be a net loss.

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

Yes. The price of the TV was raised to $450 from its previous price of $250. Its price on Thursday is not relevant.

^^Oblivious of reality^^

[WestonHarvey1]

Originally Posted by Geckotek

^^Oblivious of reality^^

^^Oblivious of mathematics^^

[Dave00]

Originally Posted by starflyer

At our current spending rate that will last us about a 1/2 day.

We don't have a revenue problem.

I may be overly optimistic that confronting such a statement with facts will do any good, but I will try anyway.
Percentage of GDP in taxes, 2001 (last year of budget balance): 19.5%
Percent GDP in taxes, 2011: 15.4%
Percent GDP in spending, 2000: 18.2%
Percent GDP in spending, 2011: 24.1%
The great majority of the extra spending came from two wars and Medicare Part D. The great majority of the lower taxes came from lowered income and investment tax rates in 2001 and 2003.
There is no way to fix the problem without both decreasing spending and increasing taxes. You want to balance the budget without raising taxes? The last time spending was less than 15.4% was in 1951. You could fix the problem completely by pulling out of Afghanistan, funding Medicare Part D, and letting taxes return to 2001 levels.

Dave

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

^^Oblivious of mathematics^^

Nope, this isn't a simple math issue. It's a relational issue which you can't seem to grasp.

[wgnoyes]

Originally Posted by skunk

So I suppose we should patronise only those companies which pay no tax, make a loss or get rebates, then. Makes sense.

I'M JUST SAYING..... there's a very popular misconception that corporations pay income taxes. THEY DO NOT! Their CUSTOMERS pay the taxes for them. So when people start belly-aching that XYZZY Company and similar companies in the "widget" (substitute "automotive", "oil", "pharmaceutical", whatnot) business aren't paying "their fair share" (gag me!), if you raise their taxes, the cost will simply be passed on to their customers. If you were running a business and YOUR corporate income taxes went up, you would do the same thing.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa

Shows how much you know about business. Dividends are paid to shareholders and all qualified shareholders get equal per share dividends whether they work for the company, and happen to hold shares, or they are a teacher with that company's shares held in her 401K. Dividends are not a form of employee compensation.

I'm sure they can legally structure the company in such a way as to only pay those "dividends" to their senior management.

Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa

Now the company could grant and employee shares in the company as compensation, but tax would still have to be paid on the value of the shares at the time of transfer. And then once the share are sold, the employee also has to pay capital gains tax if there is a gain

Capital gains tax is paid at a lower rate than income though...

----------

Originally Posted by wgnoyes

Their CUSTOMERS pay the taxes for them.

They don't with profit taxes.

[vvswarup]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

It depends how they get paid - they might well not pay very much tax on it if its paid out as a dividend.

Companies can't arbitrarily call something a dividend just so they can pay less tax on it. The payment has to fulfill certain requirements in order to qualify for that lower tax rate. I am not sure about the requirements but my gut tells me that even if companies paid that extra cash out as a dividend, it's not just upper management that would benefit from it. Making a fat paycheck look like a dividend is one of the oldest tricks in the book on tax avoidance. Chances are that all shareholders would have to receive this dividend in order for it to qualify for the lower tax rate.

And I know that many of you on this forum think that shareholders deserve no breaks at all, but actually, the shareholder base includes the middle class. Look at it this way. Most of Apple's shares are owned by institutional investors such as hedge funds, mutual funds, and other money managers. Many pension funds invest with these money managers. So even if companies were to pay this extra money out as a dividend, the benefit would accrue to many people.

No matter how you slice it, the money will go a lot farther in the hands of corporations than it will in the hands of the government.

----------

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

but Apple can be used as a prime example how lowering corprate taxes is not going to lower prices for the rest of us. All it will do is increase their profit margins and only the higher ups benefit from that. The line workers not so much.
It case and point they will push profit margins as high as they can get away with it so all lowering taxes will do is increase the profit margins and not lower prices.

But with that higher profit, Apple will have more money to play with, which can be used for investing in future growth opportunities. And paying the higher-ups all of the added profit will not work out in the long range. Other companies will be able to poach employees away from Apple, forcing Apple to pay more to their employees.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

Yes. The price of the TV was raised to $450 from its previous price of $250. Its price on Thursday is not relevant.

Originally Posted by Geckotek

^^Oblivious of reality^^

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

^^Oblivious of mathematics^^

Originally Posted by Geckotek

Nope, this isn't a simple math issue. It's a relational issue which you can't seem to grasp.

OH, no...I think he has a full grasp of it. But, if you read my earlier post, I believe that it's an intentionally disingenuous post meant to "trick" people, who aren't smart enough to see otherwise, that they are somehow being screwed. You see, if you're stupid, you look at it and think "OMG! The store raised their prices!!1!" If you're not stupid, you see that the store lowered prices for one day for a temporary sale.

But there is an entire camp of people out there who actually believe people like WestonHarvey1 when he says that the store raised prices. This was the very same argument used around election time, and that MANY of my friends bought into, that gas prices have soared under Obama, because they were around $1.68 when he took office. Of course, this point doesn't take into account that they were at their highest levels ever (which we haven't gotten back up to) just a couple of months before, and that they aren't substantially higher than they were for much of the mid 2000s. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised for a second if gas prices were dropped for that extremely short time just so that people could point at Obama and show how much prices have gone up under him.

In fact, I could just as easily say that Obama has lowered gas prices substantially since Bush, because they were $4.40 under Bush and they are now at around $3.30. It works both ways. Lies. Damn Lies. And statistics.

This same thing has happened with our HOA and has started a firestorm amongst a few people. When the neighborhood started, our HOA dues were $200/month. When the economy slowed, the builder slashed them to $100/month in order to sell more homes. Doing so meant that the HOA was losing money, but since it was under the builder's control at the time, it didn't matter to him as long as he was selling homes. When the board took over, they raised the dues back to $195, where they should have been, and lower than they originally were. Recently, they had to up them again due to a large number of maintenance projects that must be done. Some people went ballistic that the HOA raised their dues twice in a matter of two years. But the truth is that the dues were returned the first time to a lower level than they started, and that the bottom level was simply a temporary and unsustainable sales pitch.

So yes, you can technically say that the TV price was raised, or that the ending of temporary tax cuts means that your taxes are being raised. But, it's a pretty dishonest and misleading statement.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by KPOM

Actually, Germany's economy is what is propping up the EU right now.

Due to two very important factors: its sheer size, and the fact that they've had an undervalued currency for years. But to the point, taxes are 40 % of GDP in comparison to the US' 27.

Norway has 4% unemployment, but they are thinly populated and have lots of oil. Guess what. North Dakota has lots of oil and natural gas, and they have a 3% unemployment rate.

Does North Dakota have an around 43 % tax-to-GDP ratio?

Sweden's unemployment rate is about the same as ours. They have high personal income taxes, but a lower corporate income tax rate (26.3%) that they plan to lower even further (22%). http://www.thelocal.se/43202/20120913/[COLOR="#808080"]

Wanna trade the higher corporate taxes against the total tax pressure of about 50 % of GDP?

[hafr]

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

Yes. The price of the TV was raised to $450 from its previous price of $250. Its price on Thursday is not relevant.

To view economics in a strict mathematical sense where 250<450 and that's the be all end all argument to a price increase having taken place is completely ignoring the complexity of economics.

What you're saying is a person on vacation no longer has a job. Do you consider yourself unemployed during weekends?

[Chupa Chupa]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I'm sure they can legally structure the company in such a way as to only pay those "dividends" to their senior management.



Capital gains tax is paid at a lower rate than income though...

Sorry, a public company's stock has to available on the open market. A company can't issue a class of stock just to circulate among insiders. That's why it's called a publicly held company.

Also what does the cap gains rate being lower have to do with anything here? Tax was already paid on the "income" of the stock value itself at time of transfer. The cap gains tax is an additional tax on any gains.

[KPOM]

Originally Posted by hafr

Due to two very important factors: its sheer size, and the fact that they've had an undervalued currency for years. But to the point, taxes are 40 % of GDP in comparison to the US' 27.


Does North Dakota have an around 43 % tax-to-GDP ratio?


Wanna trade the higher corporate taxes against the total tax pressure of about 50 % of GDP?

My point is that Scandinavian countries have other factors at play. People take more kindly to higher taxes when they are receiving fat dividend checks from the oil company. With Sweden it is a culture of forced egalitarianism, which is somewhat easier to do in a small homogeneous country. Nevertheless, on the whole their standard of living isn't very high. They would be one of the poorer states in terms of GDP per capita (PPP) if they were part of the US.