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 Lobbies for Tax Breaks for Manufacturing More Chips in United States
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I *hope* this is part of the long term goal of Actually moving those production to US.
TSMC didn't really want to produce in US, because it financially does not make any sense. But With enough incentive they will ( or plan ) to open a Small Fab.
I think Apple wants to have some chips produced in the US just incase any thing happen they will have diversification. But the current cost and budget does not Allow either TSMC or Apple to do so. Remember, the TSMC Fab is at least a generation, or more realistically two generation behind once it is up and running.
So Apple is willing to sign contract and work with TSMC on it. But it has to have some additional help else somewhere. Apple isn't going to paid additional $5 per chip just because it is Fabbed in US, TSMC wont be able to hike the price as no one will buy them.
TSMC didn't really want to produce in US, because it financially does not make any sense. But With enough incentive they will ( or plan ) to open a Small Fab.
I think Apple wants to have some chips produced in the US just incase any thing happen they will have diversification. But the current cost and budget does not Allow either TSMC or Apple to do so. Remember, the TSMC Fab is at least a generation, or more realistically two generation behind once it is up and running.
So Apple is willing to sign contract and work with TSMC on it. But it has to have some additional help else somewhere. Apple isn't going to paid additional $5 per chip just because it is Fabbed in US, TSMC wont be able to hike the price as no one will buy them.
Apple, a $2.03 trillion company, hardly pays any tax on the sale of its products thanks to layered and intricate arrangements in tax haven jurisdictions.
As it comes to onshore manufacturing, one of those areas where tax cannot be dodged as easily, it howls the cry of the poor...
As it comes to onshore manufacturing, one of those areas where tax cannot be dodged as easily, it howls the cry of the poor...
I would love to see manufacturing move back to US and to EU countries. it is aa paradox that the most valuable companies needs tax breaks to make a profit. In a market economy view point these are not per definitions sustainable companies. Funny that the local hair dresser can pay the taxes while the large multinational cannot. This is a typical and morally wrong money grab.
If manufacturing moves back it will be highly automated processes with very little media and low skilled labours needed.
If manufacturing moves back it will be highly automated processes with very little media and low skilled labours needed.
From wiki
So 40 years ago really, it was also a time of local property values increasing, along with rents in Silicon Valley. But Apple was local to Tim started their high tech move to overseas.
Not necessarily a bad thing until you take it too far on being dependent on foreign manufacturing.
source
Last edited:
They want tax breaks yet almost all the big dogs in the company will vote for Biden. 🤦♀️
And all the people who complain about their phone costing too much . . . Apple is a business trying to compete with Android. How do you make your phones in the US and do that without a tax incentive?
FBI spyware vs Chinese spyware. It's all the same to me.
The "free market" is a reflection of the principle that an individual has the right to make decisions about their own life, and can take whatever actions they like, free from the compulsion of anyone else.
America was founded on that principle, and the idea that the means by which we "make america great again" is to engage in fascist protectionist measures, so us fat dumbass, lazy, and expensive Americans can insulate ourselves from the necessity to compete with others is a self-evident absurdity.
This is the land of the free, not the land of those who are subject to the backwards whims of the majority.
It's not an economic principle. That shows a gross misunderstanding of the whole point. You dont have a right to insulate yourself from competition, just because you dont feel like dealing with it. And your scenario of "dumping" and "countries going bankrupt" never happened, and could never happen.
It's all one big floating rationalization, *completely* detached from reality.
Sounds just like those leftists who complain about the "monopolies" of the "Robber Barons."
Something which is necessary, for life that is, is preferable by definition. If that which is not preferable also turns out to be necessary, then I suggest you check your premises.
I do not pretend to be an expert of the supply chains of multi-national corporations, or portent to have the right to control them. That is the difference between freedom and rights, versus collectivistic central planning -- the exact opposite of what made America great.
If a country steals IP, then the means by which a country deals with them is to sanction trade with them. You don't make IP theft better by making people pay a premium to purchase stolen property.
That is silly. Even the people in the factories think so. ... That's why they stay.
-----------------
I wonder if this chart will have any affect...
But at least we paid all those taxes, and screwed up companies' supply chains in the middle there... Definitely very pro-freedom, etc.
Attachments
Government won’t give tax benefit to a hair dresser but will give it to big businesses because big businesses then create jobs and income in the area, which means more tax, which a hair dresser can’t do.
Business 101.
It is not preferable to discipline a child, but it may be necessary.
Likewise, free trade between countries is preferable — but it may be necessary to discipline the ones that aren’t playing fair.
It's great to see that you--and the majority of the folks on this thread--understand the situation at hand. Kudos.
Everyone's goal should be to pay as little tax as possible. If you feel so strongly that the government deserves more money, they accept donations, and you should take advantage of that. The rest of us will keep doing what we can, while corporations do the same.
Tim didn't quite do this in a vacuum. He may have had the smarts to plan and coordinate a move like this, but mgmt and board had to have been behind it.
You seem to be assuming that the profits that would be made would be ploughed back into jobs, rather than, say, dividends, stock buy-backs, unemployment-inducing robotics, and executive bonuses. I don't share your faith, and corporate America does not have a good record in converting tax breaks into good paying jobs for workers.
In any case, I support this idea, not because I believe it will bring jobs to the US, but because of the strategic importance of semiconductors. And I lean far to the left. Those of you on the right supposedly don't like state intervention in business, which this is, so I am wondering how you square that circle.
This is a continuation of the give-aways corporate America has been 'ransomed' to create jobs and stay, or move into, areas around the country.
Many of those corporations have taken the money, and never fulfilled their obligations. Corporations have faced little to no push-back for reneging on their agreements.
Walmart has been a huge benefactor of that largess... Municipalities have purchased buildings, gifted property, and given massive tax breaks to get Walmart in their communities, and very often been sorry for it afterwards. Examples of Walmart's power has been documented many times in the past.
One story is of a community that gave them a total sales tax abatement and also for their property taxes too, 'socializing' the societal costs even farther than pushing their employees on the local welfare and social programs. The massive tax breaks were up for reconsideration. The people in charge of the community listened to opinions at a public hearing, and ended up deciding that the sweetheart deal was not going to be renewed. The cost of having that parasite was far and above any benefit. So Walmart announced they were closing their store, and built a new store a handful of miles away, across the city limits! Yes, they got the sweetheart deal, and took full advantage of it. The parasite jumped to a different host. How fitting a description of their corporation.
If Apple wants to 'do the right thing', or whatever they think, they should do it because it's 'the right thing', not because they get a handout to do it. Apple, either do it, or don't. Don't beg for a bag of cash to do it...
And perhaps, rather than saying they need the money to 'make this more profitable', etc, they should be working to raise the standard of living of their employees, and their subcontractor employees at their facilities outside this country. If the standard of living was raised for every employee that Apple uses and exploits across the globe, the 'advantage' of exploiting poor countries for labor would disappear. Then jobs would 'come back'. The cost of offshoring so many jobs has been incredible...
Many of those corporations have taken the money, and never fulfilled their obligations. Corporations have faced little to no push-back for reneging on their agreements.
Walmart has been a huge benefactor of that largess... Municipalities have purchased buildings, gifted property, and given massive tax breaks to get Walmart in their communities, and very often been sorry for it afterwards. Examples of Walmart's power has been documented many times in the past.
One story is of a community that gave them a total sales tax abatement and also for their property taxes too, 'socializing' the societal costs even farther than pushing their employees on the local welfare and social programs. The massive tax breaks were up for reconsideration. The people in charge of the community listened to opinions at a public hearing, and ended up deciding that the sweetheart deal was not going to be renewed. The cost of having that parasite was far and above any benefit. So Walmart announced they were closing their store, and built a new store a handful of miles away, across the city limits! Yes, they got the sweetheart deal, and took full advantage of it. The parasite jumped to a different host. How fitting a description of their corporation.
If Apple wants to 'do the right thing', or whatever they think, they should do it because it's 'the right thing', not because they get a handout to do it. Apple, either do it, or don't. Don't beg for a bag of cash to do it...
And perhaps, rather than saying they need the money to 'make this more profitable', etc, they should be working to raise the standard of living of their employees, and their subcontractor employees at their facilities outside this country. If the standard of living was raised for every employee that Apple uses and exploits across the globe, the 'advantage' of exploiting poor countries for labor would disappear. Then jobs would 'come back'. The cost of offshoring so many jobs has been incredible...
ok.
So who makes up the tax shortfall? Unless I am wrong.... there is a certain level of revenue required for government services to operate. Give large tax breaks to one group. You then have to remove tax breaks or raise taxes on other groups. Or worst cut services that some groups rely on.
No one is going to make up for any "shortfall" because such tax income doesn't even exist, manufacturing in the US decreased at an alarming rate during the last decades, so even if little tax is collected (enough to maintain area, safety, schools, etc.) it is a win rather than nothing at all. Plus you get employment, transportation, inter-relations with other businesses, etc.
