Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple CEO Tim Cook and CFO Peter Oppenheimer Testify In Front of Senate Committee on Tax Strategies [Hearing Over]

I'm assuming McCain was trying to get at a different point, that Apple chose Ireland specifically because of it's low tax rates, especially compared to it's neighbor Great Britain, and other European countries. I suppose there may be some unfairness in that, for companies that can't create holding companies overseas or for companies that have holding companies in other countries, weather it be for operational reasons or otherwise.
 
bacaramac said:
Well, interesting so far. Paul was pretty to the point with his feedback. Cook is pretty calm and cool, so glad McCain wasn't elected as US President. Maybe back in 1930 he would have been good.

Would be funny to hear "okay, Apple is picking up and moving out of the US if you guys keep this up". Haha
Click to expand...

Bullock was like a deer in headlights. :D
 
prowlmedia said:
Bull. The founding fathers would have cast you all out as Satan for the witchcraft that is electricity. The founding fathers wrote in the right to bear arms which is the worst lingle line of ANY law anywhere in the world.

They wouldn't have known what to do with the mess that is the US economy any more than the current one does which was screwed up by Bush.
Click to expand...

Funny, then, that one of our founding fathers (i.e. Warlock Ben) was so interested in electricity! ;)

I am not a fan of Bush, but you do know that he hasn't been president for over four years, right? How long before the problems we are facing now are due to someone else's policies?
 
Prof. said:
A tax that is a whopping 15%. Woohoo! It should be 35% tax and the top marginal tax rate should be closer to 70%.
Click to expand...

If we raised the top marginal rate to 70%, we'd likely have an economy that is as bad as it was during the Eisenhower administration.

Or maybe not.

The top marginal rate then was 92% and we had the strongest economy in the history of the world.

:confused::eek::confused:
 
Tunnel vision, much?

How does Apple contribute to the U.S. economy? All SORTS of ways. Here's just a few:

- Constructing new corporate HQ in California at huge expense means lots of money funneled into everything from construction workers to inspectors to utility companies who get paid monthly for services provided to the new structure

- Every single Apple retail store means rent paid to owners of shopping malls and other facilities, as well as all the retail jobs created

- Apple products create huge new opportunities for educators and trainers to instruct on how the products are used. Software developers are given a new platform to write code on to resell for profit. Companies implementing products like the iPad find ways to achieve big cost savings with them (such as airlines saving fuel from reduced weight of pilots carrying an iPad instead of heavy sets of flight manuals)

- Apple's pioneering efforts in taking media digital helps set up a change in the entire business model for how music, TV shows and movies are purchased and consumed. (EG. A band can now distribute their work world-wide to a huge audience without having to pay for physical pressing of albums onto CD media, printing cover art for said media, and incurring distribution costs of getting it into people's hands.)

- Apple provides the only real viable commercial competition to Microsoft Corporation in the are of computer operating systems. Without them, we'd be collectively stuck only buying Microsoft's offerings, unless we wanted to go the open source route (fraught with its own set of issues).


Luis Ortega said:
Yeah, and how's that? By outsourcing the manufacturing to sweat shops in China?
By not paying taxes?
By overcharging for their products?
I could also make out like a bandit if I didn't pay taxes, but I wouldn't have the temerity to claim that I was helping the country's economy.
Click to expand...
 
iGrip said:
If we raised the top marginal rate to 70%, we'd likely have an economy that is as bad as it was during the Eisenhower administration.

Or maybe not.

The top marginal rate then was 92% and we had the strongest economy in the history of the world.:confused::eek::confused:
Click to expand...
We have to find a happy medium, but a happy medium that isn't determined by the rich and special interests. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen. There are very few rays of hope for the US economy right now.
 
Surely the Senate Committee could have found a better company than Apple to grill over tax avoidance. Seems to me, for a multinational, Apple are pretty good about paying tax and generate a lot of wealth for the US. In fact it looks like if they really tried, they could pay a lot less than they actually do and still be within the law.:confused:
 
iGrip said:
If we raised the top marginal rate to 70%, we'd likely have an economy that is as bad as it was during the Eisenhower administration.

Or maybe not.

The top marginal rate then was 92% and we had the strongest economy in the history of the world.:confused::eek::confused:
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with tax rate. More to do with the fact that the US was the only industrial economy not in utter shambles after WWII.
 
jlgolson said:
What's wrong with hunting deer and driving a truck and not living on a coast?
Click to expand...

Nothing, he's just painting a picture much like Conservatives do to Liberals.

Example: They think all Liberals don't work, leach off the system, want handouts, big government, and social programs for all.
 
spacehog371 said:
How?

On products in the U.S., they pay just like any other U.S. company. On products outside the U.S., they pay the taxes due in reach respective company, and then hold the rest in Ireland. Why would they pay U.S. taxes on that money if they haven't repatriated it?

They don't put money made in the U.S. into Ireland. This by definition cannot be an advantage.
Click to expand...

Are you going to suggest that Apple has no tax advantages over smaller or only domestic companies? Really?

MagnumOP said:
The true test.... Apple's stock price is up since the hearing began.
Click to expand...

What? Apple stock has been down and is still down..
 
nefan65 said:
FauxNews, and Hannity will be talking about this non-stop. They'll be Benghazi/Apple 24/7.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they'll find a way to tie Hilary Clinton into this hearing. That would be a Republican's wet dream for setting up 2016 elections. :p
 
everything-i said:
Surely the Senate Committee could have found a better company than Apple to grill over tax avoidance. Seems to me, for a multinational, Apple are pretty good about paying tax and generate a lot of wealth for the US. In fact it looks like if they really tried, they could pay a lot less than they actually do and still be within the law.:confused:
Click to expand...

It's not about who is really avoiding taxes, it's about making a circus out of it, and no company is going to generate the headlines of Apple.
 
I get the feeling that everyone in the courtroom knows that this is not a simple issue. It is complex as it deals with the question of "What is fair?".

Apple pays tax in America for stuff sold in America.
Apple pays tax locally in countries outside America for stuff sold in those very countries.
Apple collects the profits (after tax) into a no tax company in Ireland to simplify administration.

Now, the question is, if Apple wants to bring the cash earned (and taxed locally) outside the US back to the US what would be a fair re-tax? (if any at all).
And is it fair of America to just re-tax the money held in the Irish holding company even if Apple decides not to bring the money back (on the belief that Apple in an American company no matter where in the world it makes its money?).

What is fair?

PS: I think Cook is doing a great job in this hearing.
 
everything-i said:
Surely the Senate Committee could have found a better company than Apple to grill over tax avoidance. Seems to me, for a multinational, Apple are pretty good about paying tax and generate a lot of wealth for the US. In fact it looks like if they really tried, they could pay a lot less than they actually do and still be within the law.:confused:
Click to expand...

I think Apple was chosen for this very fact. They do not participate in tax avoidance schemes. Had the senate named another company, the public would be more aware of what a joke these loopholes for the elite are.
 
flottenheimer said:
I get the feeling that everyone in the courtroom knows that this is not a simple issue. It is complex as it deals with the question of "What is fair?".

Apple pays tax in America for stuff sold in America.
Apple pays tax locally in countries outside America for stuff sold in those very countries.
Apple collects the profits (after tax) into a no tax company in Ireland to simplify administration.

Now, the question is, if Apple wants to bring the cash earned (and taxed locally) outside the US back to the US what would be a fair re-tax? (if any at all).
And is it fair of America to just re-tax the money held in the Irish holding company even if Apple decides not to bring the money back (on the belief that Apple in an American company no matter where in the world it makes its money?).

What is fair?

PS: I think Cook is doing a great job in this courtroom.
Click to expand...

I only caught part of this - so I could be wrong. But one issue that came up is that a company like Apple can get a tax deduction based on taxes paid overseas - but yet companies like Apple aren't necc paying taxes overseas (on everything). So is it really "fair" for them to get a deduction. I'm not saying they should be taxed on foreign monies - but they also shouldn't get deduction either.
 
My PowerMac (Mirrored Doors NOISY SoB) was built or assembled in Ireland at the time, so there were workers at one time, now I guess it's mostly China or Korea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back