Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Gets Tax Break Approval for Arizona Sapphire Glass Facility
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, you agree that (within your nation) it is fair that wealth should be distributed to those who are poorest and work hardest? Good, I like your sense of morality!
But why then do you reverse your opinion when it comes to the entire human race on a global scale? Is it not also fair and good that Apple provides jobs for people in developing countries, who work longer hours than people in the developed world, for less pay, and have a less-robust welfare safety net?
Step back a bit, and try not to draw arbitrary borders around your (apparently rather good) moral code.
There still paying taxes on several levels. Federal , State, City and Sales taxes. Its just a lower percentage than if they did not get the tax breaks but if we did not even give them one they would certainly go to another town that did. Look at there server farms they went to areas that they can get tax breaks but people forget about the positive side of it.
Fair Is Fair...
The only way to make it fair, is if Apple gets so much consessions tax free, then the same amount of tax free consessions should be allotted to all the other Arizona small businesses. Fair is fair.
The only way to make it fair, is if Apple gets so much consessions tax free, then the same amount of tax free consessions should be allotted to all the other Arizona small businesses. Fair is fair.
So you're watching TV and an ad pops up with an insane deal for your cable company. You call them and they say well, it's really for new customers but if you sign a contract that locks you in for 2 years. You agree...
You get a discount and the Cable company gets guaranteed revenue. Win to both you and the Cable Company.
2 years later DirectTV comes out with an insane deal with better technology. You call your cable company and say, DIrect TV has this great deal, before I leave you, since we've had such a great relationship, I want to give you the opportunity to match it. Oh, you won't now? Well then see ya.
Win to you, and now the prideful dumb cable companies loses revenue. It is better to make less but keep making money than to make no money at all
BTW - You are Apple, and the Cable Company is the State. They both are exploiting each other.
Then Apple should spend all of its money quickly so they can expect a tax break instead of storing it up, right? Or they could split into smaller companies so they don't look as rich and evil.
----------
It shouldn't be on a per-company basis. Why should Apple get a tax break and nobody else? Sounds like some unfair practice taking place. Lower them for all corporations.
Unfortunately, the government probably sees that small corporations can't outsource and therefore are willing to pay whatever the government wants, while the large corporations will only stay if given a tax break.
Last edited:
That's exactly what will happen. Has been happening and continues to happen. They will build plants somewhere cheaper, like China, india, mexico where there aren't taxed for anything and everything.
Good job Arizona.
No, you have it wrong.
There were 5.8 million employer firms in the U.S.
Firms with less than 20 workers made up 89.7 percent of these businesses.
You are much better off encouraging these small firms rather than the 0.3% who are employed with companies with over 500 employees.
Nobody pays "full" taxes, at least in the USA. Do you take any deductions when you file your taxes? When the government gave everyone a "tax break" a few years ago did you rip up the check and say "nah, fed, you keep it"? Those are all legal things to do, but I bet you didn't do them.
Now let's tackle the illegal ones:
Have you purchased anything on the internet and not paid your state/local sales tax? It's the responsibility of the purchaser to make that happen in most states.
Have you ever bought something on Craigslist or from a third party and not paid sales tax? In most states you're supposed to.
Have you ever been paid "under the table" even by a friend to do something for you and not filed it under your income tax?
Because all those, unlike a legal tax break, are all tax EVASION and are illegal.
I'm not saying that just because you carry out illegal activity that Apple should as well. But please take a step back from your podium of rationales to contemplate the hypocrisy of Apple actually playing WITHIN the system to earn their shareholders more money, while you and millions of others work outside the system to save yourself a buck.
BINGO. I don't think people realize that if you live in the USA you are under more than a single government. You are likely under at least 3, and more likely under 4: Federal, State, County, City. Each have elected officials and each has their own form of tax. The fed doesn't give a crap about giving local tax breaks, but every other government is competing against every other one. Business WILL make the decision that gets them more money, that is the entire POINT of a business, to gain more money than you lose. It's up to your governments (note, it's plural) to make business decisions that make sense for the people and land that they govern. And if you as a citizen of that government don't like it, vote for someone else. Also note that unless you live in Arizona you shouldn't give a ratsass, because it doesn't effect you...unless you live in a state that didn't compete hard enough for Apple's business, and wanted to.
Why oh why is it the "right thing" for a company to play favorites with america, or any other "citizen"? "morals" and "ethics" don't care about nationality, they are supposed to be inherent global truths. As far as what a business should do, they SHOULD make money, and as long as they aren't hurting humanity and breaking global truths, they should do so. It's up to a country/state/city to "do business" in order to succeed.
I'm fine with people wanting to promote America instead of Some other country all things being equal. On a small scale I'll buy an item from a friend for $10 before I'll buy from a stranger. But when I give my friend $10 I'm not going to pretend that I'm doing the more ethical thing based entirely on the fact that he's my friend. Ethics as nothing to do with it. Neither does Ethics have anything to do with nationalism.
And to be clear, a for profit company shouldn't be asking the question:
"What the most ethical thing to do, and can I make money from it?"
Instead it will always be:
"What's the most financially responsible thing to do, and is it ethical".
----------
First, citation required. Second, 89.7 percent of the businesses might have been small, but what percentage of employed people work for small businesses? Because I, and everyone I know personally, works for companies that employ more than 20 workers. Scratch that, I know of two people that are in tech startups, and I think they are still under 20...
I'm all for looking at statistics that matter. The ones you provided don't really help your point, because I think you are trying to help the employees, not the employers, right?
Nearly 90% of people are employed in companies with fewer than 20 employees.
getting these companies to the point where they could employ 1-2 more staff would have a far greater impact on employment than Apple or any other large corporation could make.
Yet these small companies don't get the tax breaks.
The only way to make it fair, is if Apple gets so much consessions tax free, then the same amount of tax free consessions should be allotted to all the other Arizona small businesses. Fair is fair.
You need to remember these big companies hire a lot of smaller companies to support there efforts. I'm one of them and I freelance for a lot of big companies here in Phoenix. I'm a one man operation but they hire me to work for them on a independent basis like many small companies like myself will benefit from being local small businesses.
Sure it helps everyone, but it's not fair to tax one corporation more than another.
It is entirely likely there is a net gain in tax revenue
I looked this up...the deal is basically a 75% reduction in property tax for as long as it is classified an Arizona foreign trade zone.
There are some additional side benefits as well, for example if they have a bunch of foreign components come in for manufacturing purposes, no duty is paid on the components. Instead, duty is paid on the final manufactured item.
Now I'm not familiar with this specific deal, but usually communities that approve these kind of incentives are not starving themselves of taxes. Despite the reduced percentage rate, there is likely an increase in property tax revenue...if this is currently a vacant lot generating little to no money at a 100% rate vs a high tech manufacturing plant (it has an ion cannon!) at a 25% rate.
In other words, 25% of a $578,000,000 facility is better than 100% of a $50,000 dirt lot (or whatever is there now).
Secondly, local governments often fully expect side benefits as well. 700 great jobs that weren't there before will have an affect on income tax from salaries, sales tax from spending, house values from increased demand, property tax from increased property values in the area, and more.
Lastly, if it doesn't go as expected and communities find out, they have many avenues of recourse available to them to make up for it. A new tax on sapphire manufacturing companies, a tax on companies with 700 or more employees located in a certain zone, an expensive annual permit fee for ion cannons, etc etc). The foreign trade zone classification itself is not permanent. It can be revoked and certainly would be if the community felt it got taken in a bad deal.
Saying that Apple got some sweetheart deal that will screw over the community because they bribed people with half a dozen iPhones is a bit crass.
I looked this up...the deal is basically a 75% reduction in property tax for as long as it is classified an Arizona foreign trade zone.
There are some additional side benefits as well, for example if they have a bunch of foreign components come in for manufacturing purposes, no duty is paid on the components. Instead, duty is paid on the final manufactured item.
Now I'm not familiar with this specific deal, but usually communities that approve these kind of incentives are not starving themselves of taxes. Despite the reduced percentage rate, there is likely an increase in property tax revenue...if this is currently a vacant lot generating little to no money at a 100% rate vs a high tech manufacturing plant (it has an ion cannon!) at a 25% rate.
In other words, 25% of a $578,000,000 facility is better than 100% of a $50,000 dirt lot (or whatever is there now).
Secondly, local governments often fully expect side benefits as well. 700 great jobs that weren't there before will have an affect on income tax from salaries, sales tax from spending, house values from increased demand, property tax from increased property values in the area, and more.
Lastly, if it doesn't go as expected and communities find out, they have many avenues of recourse available to them to make up for it. A new tax on sapphire manufacturing companies, a tax on companies with 700 or more employees located in a certain zone, an expensive annual permit fee for ion cannons, etc etc). The foreign trade zone classification itself is not permanent. It can be revoked and certainly would be if the community felt it got taken in a bad deal.
Saying that Apple got some sweetheart deal that will screw over the community because they bribed people with half a dozen iPhones is a bit crass.
Wrong thinking.
There were 5.8 million employer firms in the U.S.
Firms with less than 20 workers made up 89.7 percent of these businesses.
So instead of employment change it to income.
If you could increase your income by 10% where would you make the most effort, the income that accounts for 90% of your wealth or the 10%... you can only pick ONE.
So, if the all the states said "Sod Off" to the large corporations and put the effort into making small business more profitable (so they would take on 1-2 more staff) EVERY ONE, the state, the small businesses , and the tax payers would ALL win.
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`
Please stop before you embarrass yourself further.
"I'm all for private companies making profits and such - but why do Apple really need tax breaks when they have over $100 billion in the bank?"
Tax breaks are incentives. If what you are incentivizing is a good thing, granting a tax break is a GOOD thing, no matter who gets it. That's like saying rich people make enough money, therefore they shouldn't get any tax breaks. In a word -- ridiculous. I'm as much for a fair (read "graduated" here) tax distribution system as the next guy, but the answer isn't a blanket "Oh they already have plenty of money". Stop the incentivizing, and you won't get whatever you're trying to incentivize in the first place.
It's especially the case with the income and distribution of wealth. Apple looks for tax breaks yet those working in the lowest wage (probably doing the most work than some top paid execs) paying departments producing Apple products in factories can barely afford to live.
Overlooking the fact that this paragraph is barely understandable grammatically, you aren't making any sort of cogent argument here.
Let me get this straight -- here's what you're saying (a bit more clearly):
Premise: There are a lot of people working for Apple (indirectly, perhaps -- I assume you are talking about Foxconn employees and the like) who make a very low wage.
Conclusion: Therefore, Apple shouldn't get tax breaks.
What do these two even have to do with each other? How does one follow from the other?
Apple should be producing everything in the United States - and it's the United States governments fault for not acting quick enough when these technology companies started shifting production to Asia and beyond. It's not political, it's moral and ethics we're talking here and it's the fault of whose at the top of both Apple and the US government.
Why should a company have to produce everything in one country? Are you saying other countries aren't qualified or skilled enough to manufacture products? And more importantly, how the hell is restriciting product manufacturing to a single country a MORAL OBLIGATION?
The closest thing I can come up with is that you are indignant with low wages in such countries, and therefore you think Apple has an obligation to take these jobs away (further lowering wages in these countries, I might add) to countries with higher wages?
Apart from being complete economic nonsense, that would actually HURT people who already have low wages in "Asian countries" by lowering the demand for their labor, and thus the amount people are willing to pay for it. Apple isn't the cause of low market wages here.
Don't get me wrong -- I am passionate to see labor exploitation end in developing countries, and wages rise -- I studied development economics in college and am passionate about this. But by throwing around claims like "Oh they already have enough" and "Apple should be producing everything in the United States" is foolish and doesn't give any credibility to people who care about such issues.
The only way to make it fair, is if Apple gets so much consessions tax free, then the same amount of tax free consessions should be allotted to all the other Arizona small businesses. Fair is fair.
Agree to a point but I'm not employing hundreds of people either. I'm all for. Small businesses getting some tax relief belief me but that is out of our local hands and more in a Federal level. I do get some tax relief it's just not in huge numbers like this. In a way think about it what do I have to offer as a small business a couple employees maybe compared to Apple . Sure it's a scale thing I agree but it's a tough fight for us small businesses.
I don't totally disagree and would love to see more effort for small business owners. We just don't have the power
Having various American governmental bodies competing against each other is retarded.
The rest of the world thinks we are nuts about this.
BTW "In before..." is lame.
Care to explain why you think it's retarded? The alternative is to have one government. In the mean time we still tend to play by the idea that we are a bunch of united states. If my state decided to let a neighbor state lure one of our largest companies away, I'd be pissed.
Either the person pays both halves of it if they are a 1099, or their contracting company pays the SSI. It does not get unpaid.
"Foreign trade zone"?
Yes they need that consideration (zone) because the parts manufactured there will be sent back to Asia for final assembly and then the final products sent to all their markets worldwide. So it makes sense.
I still can't figure out why in the hell the school board had to approve this. Must be missing something.
I'm far, far away from being an anti-guvment, anti-tax person, but corporations should should only be charged a mitigation tax, one that is fairly low. After all, they simply pass taxes along as price hikes and we pay them.
However, I would tax them on simple income, no fake "losses", just like us people, and corporations want to be people, right?
However, I would tax them on simple income, no fake "losses", just like us people, and corporations want to be people, right?