Apple Issues $1 Billion Green Bond Sale to Fund Renewable Energy

[TheShadowKnows!]

I am all for the ultimate recycling: "Soylent Green":

"Taken from a 70's film. Soylent Green is a supposedly soy and lentil based nutrition source which later turns out to be made out of harvested humans hence the quote "Soylent green is people" [Urban Dictionary]
​

And, I would start with orange-men Soylent Green [which appears to be the new white] /s

 

[IJ Reilly]

U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly proposed offering a one-time tax holiday where companies like Apple can repatriate large amounts of foreign cash at a reduced tax rate of between 10 and 15 percent. But, as of this month, the relevant corporate tax laws have yet to be reformed in the country.

Reformed? Hmm. Why not just go with "changed" given that it's hardly agreed that a tax holiday on repatriated profits qualifies as tax "reform."

Second, it is not actually correct to report that repatriated profits would be subjected to a 35% tax. Because of the complexity of the tax codes and the number of deductions allowed (including for foreign taxes paid), few corporations pay even close to the rack rate.

Third, no repatriation tax rate has actually been proposed either by the Trump administration or Congress, so any number you cite is going to be completely arbitrary, and surely not based on any "reports" of what may be proposed.

 

[Carnegie]

I would say Apple's decision to keep money offshore is "wrong for our country"

I would say that the archaic policy of (income) taxing U.S. companies on earnings which are legitimately made in other countries - or requiring that those earnings be held by foreign subsidiaries in perpetuity in order to avoid such taxation - is wrong for our country.

Corporations are people...except when it comes to taxes.

In what regard, related to taxes, are you suggesting that they are treated differently?

To be sure, people are often treated differently based on their circumstances or actions. When it comes to corporations (i.e. people acting through corporations or using a corporate form for various purposes), they can cause different tax treatment. Perhaps most notably they often create an additional layer of taxation which would not exist if the owners of those corporations conducted their business without the benefits of incorporation.

But if you're alluding to what was referred to in the OP - Apple not having to pay taxes on foreign earnings unless or until they are repatriated - then individuals are treated much the same as corporations are under similar circumstances. If an American owns part of a foreign corporation, they don't have to pay taxes on certain earnings of that corporation unless those earnings are distributed to them. However, if they (in combination with other Americans) own enough of that foreign corporation, they have to pay taxes on certain kinds of earnings of that foreign corporation regardless of whether those earnings are distributed to them. But that's also true for Apple and other U.S. corporations.

 

[DearthnVader]

This move by Apple is good on so many levels:

#1 is less pollution, #2 is borrowing money is how more money and wealth are created, #3 is it's not government taxing one group of people, and giving the money to it's political cronies.

 

[coolfactor]

I still get hung up on the word "repatriate". It doesn't really apply. That foreign cash was never in the US to begin with, so how can you bring it back?

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Hm. If I spend 10,000 on an iMac Pro, but keep it a decade, even assuming it's fully depreciated to 0, I've only spent 1k/yr on it, and that's 5 new wimpier computers they didn't have to build me, each bound for the short track through the secondary market into an Indian landfill. ...while resulting in Apple paying Foxconn for less work, for the same profit.

Question is, will the OS updates so cripple even a $10k machine to unusability in a decade?

If the iMac pro can actually be a ten year system, it may be the greenest Machine they make.
...ignoring how many 2007 iMacs are still out there that didn't cost 10k...
Hm.

 

[Carnegie]

Reformed? Hmm. Why not just go with "changed" given that it's hardly agreed that a tax holiday on repatriated profits qualifies as tax "reform."

Second, it is not actually correct to report that repatriated profits would be subjected to a 35% tax. Because of the complexity of the tax codes and the number of deductions allowed (including for foreign taxes paid), few corporations pay even close to the rack rate.

Third, no repatriation tax rate has actually been proposed either by the Trump administration or Congress, so any number you cite is going to be completely arbitrary, and surely not based on any "reports" of what may be proposed.

Your second point has merit when it comes to foreign earnings held by U.S. corporations in general. But when it comes to Apple's circumstances in particular, it would (under existing law) have to pay something fairly close to that 35% if it repatriated all of its as-yet unremited foreign earnings because it has paid very little foreign taxes on those (particular) foreign earnings.'


EDIT: It's true that the President's budget proposal doesn't specify a preferred rate for a one-time repatriation tax, but it does propose one. Further, it in effect proposes a rate of 0% going forward as it calls for a move to a territorial taxation system and for the ability to repatriate new foreign earnings without any additional tax liability.

 

[Kaibelf]

I would say Apple's decision to keep money offshore is "wrong for our country"

Despite what you want to believe, the US doesn't run the world and shouldn't be trying to tax items that were built, shipped, and sold AND taxed entirely offshore.
[doublepost=1497369104][/doublepost]

Your second point has merit when it comes to foreign earnings held by U.S. corporations in general. But when it comes to Apple's circumstances in particular, it would (under existing law) have to pay something fairly close to that 35% if it repatriated all of its as-yet unremited foreign earnings because it has paid very little foreign taxes on those (particular) foreign earnings.

1. Repatriated means the money was here and left. It wasn't here at all.

2. If a foreign country has lower taxes that's their business, and it's not up to the US to tell them that we know better. It's also certainly not up to the US to try to make up the difference.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Your second point has merit when it comes to foreign earnings held by U.S. corporations in general. But when it comes to Apple's circumstances in particular, it would (under existing law) have to pay something fairly close to that 35% if it repatriated all of its as-yet unremited foreign earnings because it has paid very little foreign taxes on those (particular) foreign earnings.

Yes, they've managed to channel quite a bit of overseas profit through tax havens so that would certainly limit their ability to reduce the domestic rate through claiming foreign taxes paid. However not all of their overseas profits by any means have gone virtually untaxed, and they would likely have access to other deducts in the tax code that would reduce the effective rate. So I think the point has merit in any case.

 

[Carnegie]

I still get hung up on the word "repatriate". It doesn't really apply. That foreign cash was never in the US to begin with, so how can you bring it back?

I agree with this general sentiment. I sometimes use the word patriate, instead of repatriate, in order to make that point, though that usage isn't really proper or conventional.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Despite what you want to believe, the US doesn't run the world and shouldn't be trying to tax items that were built, shipped, and sold AND taxed entirely offshore.
[doublepost=1497369104][/doublepost]

1. Repatriated means the money was here and left. It wasn't here at all.

2. If a foreign country has lower taxes that's their business, and it's not up to the US to tell them that we know better. It's also certainly not up to the US to try to make up the difference.

Repatriated in this case means profits earned by U.S. corporations outside of the U.S.

Your second argument is puzzling. Every nation is entitled to their own tax codes. If you are aware of industrialized nations that don't tax the foreign earnings of domestic companies, I'd be happy to know the names of those nations.
[doublepost=1497369895][/doublepost]

I agree with this general sentiment. I sometimes use the word patriate, instead of repatriate, in order to make that point, though that usage isn't really proper or conventional.

I am often the first to make a semantical point when it goes to some point of clarity but in this case debating the meaning of repatriation only serves to muddy the water. No matter what you call it, we are talking about cash earned by U.S. corporations outside of the U.S. and held abroad for the purpose of avoiding taxation as profit in the U.S.

 

[Carnegie]

Yes, they've managed to channel quite a bit of overseas profit through tax havens so that would certainly limit their ability to reduce the domestic rate through claiming foreign taxes paid. However not all of their overseas profits by any means have gone virtually untaxed, and they would likely have access to other deducts in the tax code that would reduce the effective rate. So I think the point has merit in any case.

Apple certainly does pay some foreign taxes. But (though Apple doesn't report this explicitly, it's something you have to figure out by piecing together information which it does report) what Apple apparently does is repatriate some of the foreign earnings on which it's paid significant foreign taxes and leave most of that on which it hasn't paid significant foreign taxes unremitted.

As for other kinds of deductions, it does take some of those - e.g., domestic production deductions - but not to the degree that some might expect. And remitting (the as-yet unremitted) foreign earnings likely wouldn't create much in the way of additional available deductions.

Apple's own estimates would put the rate, if it were to repatriate all of its as-yet unremitted foreign earnings) at nearly 30%.
[doublepost=1497370532][/doublepost]

Despite what you want to believe, the US doesn't run the world and shouldn't be trying to tax items that were built, shipped, and sold AND taxed entirely offshore.
[doublepost=1497369104][/doublepost]

1. Repatriated means the money was here and left. It wasn't here at all.

2. If a foreign country has lower taxes that's their business, and it's not up to the US to tell them that we know better. It's also certainly not up to the US to try to make up the difference.

As to (1): That second bit is right. But repatriated, misleading though the term may be, is the right term - i.e., it's the accepted term for such things.

As to (2): I agree. Along with being misguided in general, I think extraterritorial taxation is incredibly arrogant. We should not, for the most part, feel entitled to tax economic activity which (legitimately) happens outside of the United States.

 

[routine_analyst]

 ENERGY vs. TESLA

 

[IJ Reilly]

Apple certainly does pay some foreign taxes. But (though Apple doesn't report this explicitly, it's something you have to figure out by piecing together information which it does report) what Apple apparently does is repatriate some of the foreign earnings on which it's paid significant foreign taxes and leave most of that on which it hasn't paid significant foreign taxes unremitted.

As for other kinds of deductions, it does take some of those - e.g., domestic production deductions - but not to the degree that some might expect. And remitting (the as-yet unremitted) foreign earnings likely wouldn't create much in the way of additional available deductions.

Apple's own estimates would put the rate, if it were to repatriate all of its as-yet unremitted foreign earnings) at nearly 30%.

I haven't checked recently but I believe Apple's effective tax rate on its domestic earnings is not under 25%. So if Apple is estimating "nearly 30%" for repatriation of foreign earnings then the rate is only a bit higher than they'd have paid on the earnings if they'd been reported in their home country. This is the point I am making. The 35% rate is waived like a bloody flag whenever the subject of corporate tax rates comes up, but rarely are the important qualifying details mentioned.

 

[Carnegie]

Repatriated in this case means profits earned by U.S. corporations outside of the U.S.

Your second argument is puzzling. Every nation is entitled to their own tax codes. If you are aware of industrialized nations that don't tax the foreign earnings of domestic companies, I'd be happy to know the names of those nations.
[doublepost=1497369895][/doublepost]

I am often the first to make a semantical point when it goes to some point of clarity but in this case debating the meaning of repatriation only serves to muddy the water. No matter what you call it, we are talking about cash earned by U.S. corporations outside of the U.S. and held abroad for the purpose of avoiding taxation as profit in the U.S.

I understand that repatriated is the correct term, and it's the one I use most often when discussing these matters. But it is misleading to some extent. For example, some of the people whom I've spoken to (and who are only casually aware of Apple's tax situation) were under the impression that we were talking about money that was really made in the United States and moved offshore by way of accounting tricks.

 

[usarioclave]

Virtue signaling is virtuous.

 

[Carnegie]

I haven't checked recently but I believe Apple's effective tax rate on its domestic earnings is not under 25%. So if Apple is estimating "nearly 30%" for repatriation of foreign earnings then the rate is only a bit higher than they'd have paid on the earnings if they'd been reported in their home country. This is the point I am making. The 35% rate is waived like a bloody flag whenever the subject of corporate tax rates comes up, but rarely are the important qualifying details mentioned.

The effective tax rates that get reported for Apple (and by Apple) don't apply to just domestic earnings and they include deferred tax accounting - i.e., include taxes which aren't actually paid. The actual rate which Apple pays on all of its earnings is considerably lower.

As for a would-be domestic earnings tax rate (which really doesn't exist because some of the domestic taxes which Apple pays are, in effect, for foreign earnings), it would be quite high. As I indicated before, Apple doesn't take a lot of deductions which would serve to reduce its effective tax rate (on domestic earnings) much below the statutory rate.

Anyway, the point in pointing out that Apple would have to pay 35% or 30% on its foreign earnings if it repatriated them isn't that it would be paying more on them than it effectively does on domestic earnings. That would of course not be the case. In the aggregate it would be paying a little less (in domestic taxes) on those foreign earnings than it effectively does on domestic earnings.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I understand that repatriated is the correct term, and it's the one I use most often when discussing these matters. But it is misleading to some extent. For example, some of the people whom I've spoken to (and who are only casually aware of Apple's tax situation) were under the impression that we were talking about money that was really made in the United States and moved offshore by way of accounting tricks.

Misimpression is certainly common. So add that one to the U.S. having "one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world."

It's so easy to be misleading in talking about taxation. Simply omit half of the equation. This trick has been pulled for as long as I can remember, i.e., "we are going to greatly simply the tax code by reducing the number of tax brackets."
[doublepost=1497371938][/doublepost]

The effective tax rates that get reported for Apple (and by Apple) don't apply to just domestic earnings and they include deferred tax accounting - i.e., include taxes which aren't actually paid. The actual rate which Apple pays on all of its earnings is considerably lower.

As for a would-be domestic earnings tax rate (which really doesn't exist because some of the domestic taxes which Apple pays are, in effect, for foreign earnings), it would be quite high. As I indicated before, Apple doesn't take a lot of deductions which would serve to reduce its effective tax rate (on domestic earnings) much below the statutory rate.

Anyway, the point in pointing out that Apple would have to pay 35% or 30% on its foreign earnings if it repatriated them isn't that it would be paying more on them than it effectively does on domestic earnings. That would of course not be the case. In the aggregate it would be paying a little less (in domestic taxes) on those foreign earnings than it effectively does on domestic earnings.

All that being said, Apple (as most corporations) pay an effective aggregate rate on earnings below (often well below) the rack rate. And again I point out that the U.S. is hardly the only country that taxes earnings made abroad. If any industrialized nation allows these earnings to be sheltered from domestic taxation, I'd be happy to know which one.

 

[Marx55]

"Apple Issues $1 Billion Green Bond Sale to Fund Renewable Energy".

Really? To protect the environment, stop producing iMac all-in-one computers and potentiate instead a Mac mini tower. CPU may last for seven years, but displays last for more than 20. At the same time, use standard ports and components inside, not soldered ones. Stop destroying the environment with programmed obsolescence.

 

[willybNL]

Hm. If I spend 10,000 on an iMac Pro, but keep it a decade, even assuming it's fully depreciated to 0, I've only spent 1k/yr on it, and that's 5 new wimpier computers they didn't have to build me, each bound for the short track through the secondary market into an Indian landfill. ...while resulting in Apple paying Foxconn for less work, for the same profit.

Question is, will the OS updates so cripple even a $10k machine to unusability in a decade?

If the iMac pro can actually be a ten year system, it may be the greenest Machine they make.
...ignoring how many 2007 iMacs are still out there that didn't cost 10k...
Hm.

10 years is a long time.

But as a reference:
My macbook pro late 2008 worked perfect up to el Capitan. Unfortunalty sierra could not be installed, so in 2016 it was EOL. Thus: 8 years. Really loved that.

But I Did notice a macbook 2016 has way more hardware accelarations, making me use less power in the end.

Unfortunality my MacBook late 2008 is now unable to run Sierra or windows 10, while it still more powerful than a budget pc that perfectly runs Windows 10. Id love to just install windows 10 and make it as a nice pc for students. Re-use instead of re-cycle.

I bet my 2016 won't last 8 years though, as the battery and ssd cannot be exchanged.

Guess there are still things to do when it comes to being fully green.

 

[Carnegie]

Misimpression is certainly common. So add that one to the U.S. having "one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world."

It's so easy to be misleading in talking about taxation. Simply omit half of the equation. This trick has been pulled for as long as I can remember, i.e., "we are going to greatly simply the tax code by reducing the number of tax brackets."
[doublepost=1497371938][/doublepost]

All that being said, Apple (as most corporations) pay an effective aggregate rate on earnings below (often well below) the rack rate. And again I point out that the U.S. is hardly the only country that taxes earnings made abroad. If any industrialized nation allows these earnings to be sheltered from domestic taxation, I'd be happy to know which one.

I haven't done an exact count, but at this point I suspect the majority of advanced economies use a territorial system when it comes to corporate taxation. I'm heading out, so I won't try to do an exhaustive list for now. But... Canada, Spain, U.K., Australia, Japan, France, Germany... lots of nations don't tax the foreign earnings of domestic corporations. Some of them tax a tiny portion of those earnings, but a lot don't tax them at all. I'm sure you can find more on your own if you're interested, or I'll get you a more comprehensive list after I return.

 

[Altis]

Sigh.

Apple's products last the longest on the market compared to the rest of the industry, yet they're the only ones who get flack for 'planned obsolescence'.

They're the only ones that I know of that have permanent updates.

If an update ruins a device, you should be able to go back. With Apple, it means buy a new one.
[doublepost=1497373623][/doublepost]

Unfortunality my MacBook late 2008 is now unable to run Sierra or windows 10, while it still more powerful than a budget pc that perfectly runs Windows 10. Id love to just install windows 10 and make it as a nice pc for students. Re-use instead of re-cycle.

I bet my 2016 won't last 8 years though, as the battery and ssd cannot be exchanged.

Yeah, my 2010 17" MBP is getting painful on OSX, but Windows 7/10 and Linux all run absolutely great on it (though with less battery life).

Windows 10 is good until 2025 so that would be 15 years of support, if nothing changes that make it suddenly too slow to use.

Linux will run further than that, I'm sure.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Probably because people misuse, misunderstand, and misinterpret that term. Climate Change is much safer in light of climate change denier arguments.

The term "climate change" is just people hedging their bets. If humans are so terrible and the World is warming up because of man-made carbon emissions then go all in and say "man-made global warming".
However, if you know your history (at one point the planet was molten lava, at another point it was a frozen rock), you'll know that we live with a constantly changing climate planet and the degree of arrogance from people thinking they can make a difference is mind blowing.

 

[Jsameds]

They're the only ones that I know of that have permanent updates.

If an update ruins a device, you should be able to go back. With Apple, it means buy a new one.

I'm assuming you're talking about device slow down? If so, that was a valid argument a year ago with iOS 9 but even the oldest device that is running iOS 10 such as the iPhone 5 runs fine.

In fact it's quite remarkable that a soon to be 5-year old device can run the latest OS at the rapid pace that it does. I for one hope that this sets a new precedent going forward, because you're right - ruining a device is not acceptable.

 

[DaveN]

They're the only ones that I know of that have permanent updates.

If an update ruins a device, you should be able to go back. With Apple, it means buy a new one.
[doublepost=1497373623][/doublepost]

Yeah, my 2010 17" MBP is getting painful on OSX, but Windows 7/10 and Linux all run absolutely great on it (though with less battery life).

Windows 10 is good until 2025 so that would be 15 years of support, if nothing changes that make it suddenly too slow to use.

Linux will run further than that, I'm sure.

You can go back on Macs. You can download older versions of OSX from the App Store and create a flash installer drive.