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

[KdParker]

Originally Posted by Morshu9001

Cause stuff needs to be cut, and cutting stuff angers unions, special interest groups, etc. Do you realize that the system is set up to elect those who spend more and kick out those who cut spending?

Lets start with cutting defense spending, and corporate tax breaks(corporate welfare), and eliminate loop holes in our tax code.

Then, let move back to the pre-Clinton tax rates and let the middle class keep more of thier income since they are more likely to push that money back into the economy.

----------

Originally Posted by tbrinkma

Oh, it *sounds* fair. But only until you take a look with real numbers involved.

The poor spend the vast majority of their income on basic necessities.
The middle class spend a significant portion of their income on necessities and small luxuries.
The genuinely wealthy spend a small portion of their income *period*.

Limiting taxes to sales tax (or similarly structured taxes like the OP mentioned) means increasing those tax rates. Increasing those tax rates hit those with the least means to pay hardest.

If you're normally left with 10% of your income left over, and sales taxes rise by 10%, your savings ability has just dropped to 1%.

If you're normally left with 30% of your income left over, and sales taxes rise by 10%, your savings ability has just dropped to 23%.

If you're normally left with 80% of your income left over, and sales taxes rise by 10%, your savings ability has just dropped to 78%.

Couple those percentages with appropriate income figures, and you see the real problem.
The poor family, making $25K/year is able to save $250/year instead of $2500/year.
The middle class family, making $100K/year is able to save 23K/year instead of 30K/year.
The wealthy family, making $1M/year is able to save 780K/year instead of 800K/year.

Getting tires replace for the family car will cost 3-5 years worth of savings for the poor family, about a week's or two worth for the middle class family, and less than a day for the wealthy family, even if the tires for their car cost at about 5x as much.

When you get into the 1B/year folks, things get even more extreme.

Sales taxes are regressive. They most hurt the people least able to take the pain.

Couple that with the fact that the poor folks are stuck buying used or cheap gear, they end up having to replace their gear more often, leading to further cost increases. There's an expression that says:


I'll explain it if I need to, but you ought to be able to figure it out.

Well said.

[jrswizzle]

Originally Posted by AustinIllini

Texas benefits from a lot of things. Texas makes up the tax money elsewhere (property taxes, oil money, etc.). Also, Texas is a right to work state, which is a huge incentive for business.

Sure - I didn't mention those. Fact is I can add up my property taxes, sales taxes and such and still pay WAY less than a state like California where sales taxes are lower than TX but income taxes are HIGH.

Funny - CA taxes their people more, yet they're still bankrupt? If your kid/wife/husband was buying things (some maybe necessary, others not so much) outside of your family's budget what would your first instinct be?

The Fed's seems to be "where can we get more money" not an actual look at the spending occurring and where legitimate cuts can be made.

[apolloa]

Shame they evade paying UK taxes then. A stupid loophole that the UK government say is being fixed....
I wonder where else these mega corps evade their dues?

[iGrip]

Everything that Apple did was legal.

But will that shut up the haters? No. they will want Apple to pay even more.

----------

Originally Posted by blacktape242

"and its gone......"

I hope someone gets that joke....

The N-word guy heard that when he deposited his kid's money in the bank, eh?

[jrswizzle]

Originally Posted by KdParker

Lets start with cutting defense spending, and corporate tax breaks(corporate welfare), and eliminate loop holes in our tax code.

Then, let move back to the pre-Clinton tax rates and let the middle class keep more of thier income since they are more likely to push that money back into the economy.

----------



Well said.

We spend more on SS/Medicare (by more than double) what we do on defense. I'm not saying there aren't cuts to be made - the government is the most unorganized, inefficient manager of money there is, but we need to look at entitlements as well. Raising the benefits age to adjust for increases in lifespan are necessary and make sense. When FDR came up with SS, benefits started at 62 and the avg lifespan was 67.....now you're looking at a retirement age of 67 and a lifespan of 78....that's double the amount of time (on average) the government is paying benefits.

People may not like it now, but eventually would get used to it and would be grateful for it when it helps the government NOT go bankrupt.

But I agree - completely overhauling the tax code (not to raise tax rates on the rich but to close loopholes like those Apple takes advantage of) and reigning in the tax breaks would help. Right now, its so convoluted - which the politicians prefer. Then they can be the only ones to understand it and they keep control.

To be honest, the way they currently sit - SS/Medicare are the most ridiculous programs there are. To think - if you had a buddy who was...say, $16 T in debt and asked you for a loan of about 6.5% of every paycheck you get, telling you he would pay you back when you turned 65 what would you say?

[KdParker]

Originally Posted by jrswizzle

I dreamt of a world where everyone made enough money to live comfortably and had everything they needed.

And then human nature took over, and no one had anything - except those with the biggest guns.

This is the biggest lie/folly of the modern democratic party. That those who make more should pay more (i.e. bring their net worth/income closer to the median) so those who either don't make much money/can't/won't work can pay less and see their net worth/income rise to the median.

I hate to break it to you.....but socialism has been tried and always leads to the same outcome - the top earners realize they could make just as much without working, ambition is sucked out of society, and a dictator moves in to take the country's riches - it's called communism.

Obviously this wouldn't happen tomorrow - but its a slippery slope. Today we're "Making the rich pay just a little bit more so the poor have a fair shot" (as if the person making this statement has any business saying what is fair). Next we see "Well we (the govt) still needs more money so those rich people need to pay a little more - they still make more than most"....

I think you see where I'm taking this.

Problem is that tax rates have been moving in the wrong direction for the last 40 years. It is time to for an adjustment and take the burden of the middle class.

[Mak47]

Originally Posted by sportsfan

What do you think would happen if corporate tax went away?

1. Corporations will lower their service costs
2. Pocket it all for Upper Mgmt bonuses

These are rather simplistic and naive economic options don't you think?

If the corporate tax went away several things could happen:

1. Some companies would line the pockets of executives

2. Some companies would reduce the price of their products to gain a competitive edge over those who chose to do otherwise--thereby increasing profits and likely executive bonuses.

3. Invest in corporate infrastructure--which generates jobs

4. A little bit of all of these things.

Now you ask "But what about all the money our country needs from these taxes?"

We would likely lose none of it.

Executives that pay themselves bonuses = top tier personal income tax rates. We would collect roughly half of any of those dollars right back into the IRS.

Companies that lower their prices and sell more product would need to hire additional workers. Those workers must pay income taxes, so we'll collect a lot of it back right there. The same logic can be applied to companies that invest in infrastructure or operational expansion.

Additionally, all of those newly hired workers will now be spending money in the larger economy, money that will be turned into tax revenue in other areas.

In the end, eliminating the corporate tax may actually increase revenues as a whole for the government all while lowering consumer prices, boosting consumer confidence and creating jobs.

The corporate tax is idiotic. It's always been nothing but a feel-good populist trick. Corporations simply collect the taxes and pay them in, at the end of the day it's the consumer who actually foots the bill. Lawmakers simply understand that most consumers are too dumb to realize that.

[iGrip]

Originally Posted by Morshu9001

No, they'll lower the prices, just like how they raise prices when taxes go up.

If they can raise prices when taxes go up, then whey they heck don't they raise prices BEFORE taxes go up, and thereby make higher profits?

Because they can't and don't set prices based upon expenses.

If taxes go down, why would they lower prices and profits, rather than keeping prices high?

They wouldn't. They would keep prices high and make more profits.



This is all very basic stuff. Prices are related only tangentially to a business's costs. Businesses ALWAYS charge as high a price as they can, consistent with maximum total profits. Overhead costs really ain't got much of anything to do with it.

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by G4DP

I think it's more astounding that total corporation tax is only $240bn a year. That is a joke for the size of country the US is.

How big are the tax loopholes in the US, is it just a bus or an oil tanker you can get through them?

How much tax do you think they should pay and why do you think they should pay it? Is it for this silly notion of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"?

[JPark]

Originally Posted by Mak47

These are rather simplistic and naive economic options don't you think?

If the corporate tax went away several things could happen:

1. Some companies would line the pockets of executives

2. Some companies would reduce the price of their products to gain a competitive edge over those who chose to do otherwise--thereby increasing profits and likely executive bonuses.

3. Invest in corporate infrastructure--which generates jobs

4. A little bit of all of these things.

Now you ask "But what about all the money our country needs from these taxes?"

We would likely lose none of it.

Executives that pay themselves bonuses = top tier personal income tax rates. We would collect roughly half of any of those dollars right back into the IRS.

Companies that lower their prices and sell more product would need to hire additional workers. Those workers must pay income taxes, so we'll collect a lot of it back right there. The same logic can be applied to companies that invest in infrastructure or operational expansion.

Additionally, all of those newly hired workers will now be spending money in the larger economy, money that will be turned into tax revenue in other areas.

In the end, eliminating the corporate tax may actually increase revenues as a whole for the government all while lowering consumer prices, boosting consumer confidence and creating jobs.

The corporate tax is idiotic. It's always been nothing but a feel-good populist trick. Corporations simply collect the taxes and pay them in, at the end of the day it's the consumer who actually foots the bill. Lawmakers simply understand that most consumers are too dumb to realize that.

I agree with much of what you said. However, it's naive to think top tier managers would end up having to pay half that money back in the form of personal income tax. There's a reason they so often get compensated in company stock.

[WatchTheThrone]

Originally Posted by tbrinkma

Oh, it *sounds* fair. But only until you take a look with real numbers involved.

The poor spend the vast majority of their income on basic necessities.
The middle class spend a significant portion of their income on necessities and small luxuries.
The genuinely wealthy spend a small portion of their income *period*.

Limiting taxes to sales tax (or similarly structured taxes like the OP mentioned) means increasing those tax rates. Increasing those tax rates hit those with the least means to pay hardest.

If you're normally left with 10% of your income left over, and sales taxes rise by 10%, your savings ability has just dropped to 1%.

If you're normally left with 30% of your income left over, and sales taxes rise by 10%, your savings ability has just dropped to 23%.

If you're normally left with 80% of your income left over, and sales taxes rise by 10%, your savings ability has just dropped to 78%.

Couple those percentages with appropriate income figures, and you see the real problem.
The poor family, making $25K/year is able to save $250/year instead of $2500/year.
The middle class family, making $100K/year is able to save 23K/year instead of 30K/year.
The wealthy family, making $1M/year is able to save 780K/year instead of 800K/year.

Getting tires replace for the family car will cost 3-5 years worth of savings for the poor family, about a week's or two worth for the middle class family, and less than a day for the wealthy family, even if the tires for their car cost at about 5x as much.

When you get into the 1B/year folks, things get even more extreme.

Sales taxes are regressive. They most hurt the people least able to take the pain.

Couple that with the fact that the poor folks are stuck buying used or cheap gear, they end up having to replace their gear more often, leading to further cost increases. There's an expression that says:


I'll explain it if I need to, but you ought to be able to figure it out.

Wow!!!! Now that explanation is the best I've ever read!! Kudos to you sir!!!!

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by KdParker

Problem is that tax rates have been moving in the wrong direction for the last 40 years. It is time to for an adjustment and take the burden of the middle class.

We'll see how that works in the USA now that the "middle class" didn't get their taxes raised but the "wealthy did". Because of course the "wealthy" consume more government services so they should pay more taxes, right?

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by ryuok

Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich to go please.

Can I get that with a triple latte?

The US gov't needs to find a way to fix these loopholes in a way that keeps the companies from leaving the US entirely.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

We'll see how that works in the USA now that the "middle class" didn't get their taxes raised but the "wealthy did". Because of course the "wealthy" consume more government services so they should pay more taxes, right?

Absolutely right. They do and they should.

[jrswizzle]

Originally Posted by KdParker

Problem is that tax rates have been moving in the wrong direction for the last 40 years. It is time to for an adjustment and take the burden of the middle class.

How exactly is the burden on the middle class?

The top 1% of income earners pay over a third of all income taxes in the US.

The top 25% pay over 80% of all income taxes in the US

The top 50% pay almost ALL of US income taxes.

So if the middle class falls between say the 25%-75% that would mean the middle 50% of the country is paying rougly 20% of all US income taxes.....

[portishead]

Originally Posted by jrswizzle

I hate to break it to you.....but socialism has been tried and always leads to the same outcome - the top earners realize they could make just as much without working, ambition is sucked out of society, and a dictator moves in to take the country's riches - it's called communism.

Should this end with "I am Thomas Peterffy and I am responsible for the content of this message"?

[Xgm541]

What Apple is doing is not a new practice and they are not the only company/individual to do this. A lot of wealthy individuals have accumulated wealth overseas in countries that have probably less money than the company itself, hence little military/government power to stop it. Who wins? The wealthy.

If you tax the wealthy more, they will continue to practice "unethical" (in my opinion) tax evasion via these routes.

Tax them less and the gap between the poor and wealthy grows further.

On the other hand, anybody who is on the board of directors at apple probably sees taxes as yet another expense. Lowering the money spent on them is in their interest.

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

The US should change to a territorial system. That means any money made in the US is going to be taxed before it leaves the country. AKA if it is going over seas then you are getting tax in the US.

I was daydreaming the other day thinking exactly this.

[jrswizzle]

Originally Posted by portishead

Should this end with "I am Thomas Peterffy and I am responsible for the content of this message"?

You could if you wanted. Makes no difference to me - I think he has a better perspective on it than I do having been born in a then communist Hungary. And it wouldn't make it any less true.

[Rogifan]

If we had a consumption tax we'd find out how many poor people we have in a hurry. Just the other day I saw a story about a woman trying to buy an iPad with food stamps.

[mankar4]

I pay nearly 50% tax and apple less than 10%? Or are there many other taxes outside this one for big corporations?

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by jrswizzle

How exactly is the burden on the middle class?

The top 1% of income earners pay over a third of all income taxes in the US.

The top 25% pay over 80% of all income taxes in the US

The top 50% pay almost ALL of US income taxes.

So if the middle class falls between say the 25%-75% that would mean the middle 50% of the country is paying rougly 20% of all US income taxes.....

I see someone else is buying the GOP lies of the 50% do not pay taxes......

[G4DP]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

How much tax do you think they should pay and why do you think they should pay it? Is it for this silly notion of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"?

What are you on? Well done on actually ignoring what my post said.

Where did I say Apple should pay more? Here's a clue, I didn't.

I said TOTAL tax is only $240bn is a joke.

[jrswizzle]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

I see someone else is buying the GOP lies of the 50% do not pay taxes......

Didn't say they didn't pay ANY taxes - specifically talking about income taxes.

And since I only began working last year in October, my wife and I fell into the lower part of that 50%.....and guess what - we received all our federal income tax money back in our return effectively paying $0 in income tax.

[drorpheus]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

How much tax do you think they should pay and why do you think they should pay it? Is it for this silly notion of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"?

They should be paying 30% or about 74 billion more. Why do you think ceo's pay themselves $1? Its not because they care about the country, its so they get paid in stock options and pay an effective rate under 15% or in Mitt Romneys case more like 9%. Not the 30-35% they should be paying. Then have the nerve to whine about it. Some one making 20 mil a year paying tax like they make 20k a year. That why Greece is where it is today.