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

[HMI]

It appears that all of Apple's techniques are legal by U.S. law, though some politicians have said that corporations going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying income tax and that they are violating the spirit of tax laws.

It's sick how "violating the spirit of the law" is only one-sided and left completely up to their whim. So these politicians are saying the "spirit of the law" only matters when it affects them. What about protecting the "spirit of the law" of the constitution, or pretty much everything else that they touch and destroy?

Our sad country!

I wish Abraham Lincoln would come back and kick their asses!

 

[Lesser Evets]

I wonder how much GE paid?

OH, I remembered: $ 0.00.

Too bad, Apple. Buy a few politicians next time. Not Al Gore: he's useless.

 

[rnizlek]

No, they'll lower the prices, just like how they raise prices when taxes go up. You'd also have to raise the sales tax a bit. The idea is to switch the tax system over to a non-avoidable method.

But the one problem is that sales tax is not as fine a tool as income tax. Still, it's worth it.

While this intuitively may make sense, I don't think real world experience bears this out. This past summer, FAA authority to collect taxes on airline tickets expired. As a result, airlines no longer needed to collect taxes on the sale of tickets (which can be quite substantial) for period of weeks. Rather than lower prices, every single carrier, without exception, pocketed the difference, rather than lowering prices (the particular taxes in question are built into the cost of airlines tickets, they are not the fees tacked on at the end).

I disagree with eliminating corporate income taxes, as it would only serve as an encouragement for corporations to retain income, rather than investing it in their business (as doing so isn't taxed - only their income after expenses is taxed). I do agree, though, with substantially lowering corporate tax rates, while eliminating deductions. We have high corporate taxes because of the ridiculous loopholes in the system, which generally favor massive multinationals over the small businessman. Reduce the tax substantially, tax all companies equally (but keep it revenue neutral) and that's a plan I can get behind. The problem is all the special interests defending their individual tax loopholes. In any event, though, I think majorities in both parties realize we need to reform the system.

 

[KdParker]

I like this. This way everyone would pay their "fair share". (including illegals)

This is laughable.

 

[AustinIllini]

Unfortunately, when they compromise, it usually means they decide not to cut anything when what we need is for them to cut both.

Unless they want to give themselves a raise.

 

[jrswizzle]

If you want a smaller scale example of how the lack of sales tax affects businesses - look at Texas. No state income tax = businesses flocking here to do business. In fact look at the 11 or so (? I think) states that don't require income taxes and you see the same type of trend.

Texas was one of the last states to go into recession and operated a surplus for years.

But the mere fact a company, which brought in $47B in 2012, paid $6B in taxes in its home country shows there's something wrong with the system. It's not just the "crazy republican corporate schemers" either - Apple leans pretty stinkin' liberal.

 

[SilentPanda]

This is only assuming you increase all sales taxes equally. You could lower sales tax on food to 5% and raise non essential items to 15% if you chose to.

The Fair Tax taxes everything but exempts the first $x you spend per month. It doesn't really matter if you spend it on food or not since it's the spending of money that is taxed and not the item you're purchasing. The amount per month is determined based on a nationwide cost of living. One reason it does this is because not only is it easier, but you also don't have to classify "food" since some people consider lower taxed food to be "necessary food" and not just "food" in general.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

That's what the FairTax attempts to do. It gives a prebate to everybody based on people in the household. The first $x you spend a month is not taxed, no matter what you spend it on.

This is only assuming you increase all sales taxes equally. You could lower sales tax on food to 5% and raise non essential items to 15% if you chose to.

And yet no matter how you cut it both of those would still be very regressive. The so called "fair tax" is very very regressive. The only people who benifit are the rich. Everyone else at best break even and most are hurt by the fair tax.

The Fair tax is anything but fair.

 

[KdParker]

No, they'll lower the prices, just like how they raise prices when taxes go up. You'd also have to raise the sales tax a bit. The idea is to switch the tax system over to a non-avoidable method.

But the one problem is that sales tax is not as fine a tool as income tax. Still, it's worth it.

Really....you think lower taxes mean lower prices.

 

[rnizlek]

Unfortunately, when they compromise, it usually means they decide not to cut anything when what we need is for them to cut both.

BINGO! I really wish more people acknowledged this. One of the reasons that I hoped that the cuts in the fiscal cliff need to go into effect.

I do believe that we need to increase infrastructure spending over the long term, though. That's one of the areas that just needs to be exempt from cuts, and it's just a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements and defense spending.

 

[smileyborg]

As an Intuit employee, I'm curious as to why the Mint iOS app logo is being used on this story?

 

[Starflyer]

And yet no matter how you cut it both of those would still be very regressive. The so called "fair tax" is very very regressive. The only people who benifit are the rich. Everyone else at best break even and most are hurt by the fair tax.

The Fair tax is anything but fair.

How so?

 

[AustinIllini]

If you want a smaller scale example of how the lack of sales tax affects businesses - look at Texas. No state income tax = businesses flocking here to do business. In fact look at the 11 or so (? I think) states that don't require income taxes and you see the same type of trend.

Texas was one of the last states to go into recession and operated a surplus for years.

But the mere fact a company, which brought in $47B in 2012, paid $6B in taxes in its home country shows there's something wrong with the system. It's not just the "crazy republican corporate schemers" either - Apple leans pretty stinkin' liberal.

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.

 

[KPOM]

While this intuitively may make sense, I don't think real world experience bears this out. This past summer, FAA authority to collect taxes on airline tickets expired. As a result, airlines no longer needed to collect taxes on the sale of tickets (which can be quite substantial) for period of weeks. Rather than lower prices, every single carrier, without exception, pocketed the difference, rather than lowering prices (the particular taxes in question are built into the cost of airlines tickets, they are not the fees tacked on at the end).

It's a case of what's seen vs. what's unseen. The airlines may have temporarily pocketed the difference. We can see that. We can't see if they decided to delay another fare increase later. In general, airlines aren't very profitable. There's a reason every major American airline except Southwest went through Chapter 11 over the last decade, and why lots of foreign carriers are struggling.

Over time (and usually quite quickly in a market economy with lower barriers to entry), prices gravitate to lower levels. It is only to the extent that companies can differentiate their products that they can maintain higher prices. Apple has been particularly good at that over the last 10 years.

 

[WhoDaKat]

^^^ The main reason I like the Republican party better. They understand this. Taxing and spending more is just a bad idea because government is inefficient by design.

As opposed to the Republican plan of cutting taxes for rich people while increasing our spending. Did you miss Bush II?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

How so?

The fair tax is nothing more than a fancy sales tax. Sales tax are very regressive tax.

Also cost of living is not linear with income. They are more logarithmic in nature. So anything that X% off the top across the board is going to hurt you more the less you make.

We already have explain why sales tax is regressive in nature.
Fair tax once you look into it with any basic break down you will see it for exactly what it is. A sales tax that pushes the burden of paying for the gov onto the poor.

 

[DYER]

As an Intuit employee, I'm curious as to why the Mint iOS app logo is being used on this story?

I can't work out the connection either. It had me stumped as I didn't recognise it ^^

 

[KdParker]

^^^ The main reason I like the Republican party better. They understand this. Taxing and spending more is just a bad idea because government is inefficient by design.

Taxing and spending is what the republican party is good at doing also if you want to be real.

The only difference is who is taxed and where the money is spent.

 

[jrswizzle]

BINGO! I really wish more people acknowledged this. One of the reasons that I hoped that the cuts in the fiscal cliff need to go into effect.

I do believe that we need to increase infrastructure spending over the long term, though. That's one of the areas that just needs to be exempt from cuts, and it's just a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements and defense spending.

I think there are some pretty obvious things that should happen which haven't as far as spending cuts.....

$12B subsidy for wind energy - which has gotten as much over the last 5 years and only produces 3% of the US's energy.....

The albatross that is SS/Medicare - the age has to be raised....I don't see what's so difficult about this. Either we 1) raise the age to accommodate for longer life spans or 2) we go broke and no one gets anything.....

When FDR first brought SS into existence the average lifespan in America was 67.....and the normal retirement age was 65 (though 62 was as early as you could claim benefits). Now we've seen the average retirement age increase to 67 but the average lifespan increase by a decade to 78! A relatively simple fix that would undoubtedly cause some activist to go into a rage - but would nevertheless save this country a lot of money, and ultimately be a big help to saving the country financially.

 

[WhoDaKat]

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?

Actually the system is set up to be representative of the population that elects it.... such is life in a democracy... ok a republic.

 

[lazyrighteye]

Minty Fresh

I honestly don't care either way. Just general curiosity about the following...

Did MR have to get Mint's permission to use their app icon in association with this completely unrelated-to-the-app article?

 

[thekev]

This is only assuming you increase all sales taxes equally. You could lower sales tax on food to 5% and raise non essential items to 15% if you chose to.

In California food in many circumstances food isn't taxed. It's typically if it's "prepared" with an exception for baked goods. There are some weird areas to it, but it's the same principle as what you're suggesting.

Oh please, corporations are just individuals (shareholders). Corporate taxes just get passed on to consumers (in many cases who are also shareholders). It might make some people feel good that these big corporations pay taxes but its not good economics.

You sir are over-simplifying with your blatant troll post. When it involves non-essential items or decisions like whether or not to replace something that still functions with a newer improved version, people make obvious choices. Companies set things at strategic price points much of the time and derive as much profit as possible. See? I can over-simplify things too.

The easy solution is to eliminate the corporate income tax altogether. Perhaps replace it with a small consumption tax on the ultimate buyer. At the end of the day corporations just collect taxes. People (whether customers, employees, or shareholders) ultimately bear the burden of corporate taxes.

If it ever goes that route, I hope they're required to mark things by their final price like you see in other countries. Adding it at the register just makes things appear cheaper than they really are. It sounds simplistic, yet it has an effect on purchasing behavior.

Barring that, then just lower the corporate tax rate to what other countries have, and don't tax overseas income (most countries don't). The current system creates a perverse incentive for multi-national companies to leave their profits overseas, since they would wind up paying the difference between 35% and the foreign rate if they brought the money home. We gave a tax holiday to multinationals in 2004 and companies repatriated billions of dollars.

You seem to be advocating overall reform there. On the 2004 holiday, I'd remind you it was considered extremely unsuccessful in terms of its net effect.

 

[SilentPanda]

I honestly don't care either way. Just general curiosity about the following...

Did MR have to get Mint's permission to use their app icon in association with this completely unrelated-to-the-app article?

As an Intuit employee, I'm curious as to why the Mint iOS app logo is being used on this story?

While you may not get an answer, you'd more likely get one in the Site & Forum Feedback subforum.

 

[lazyrighteye]

While you may not get an answer, you'd more likely get one in the Site & Forum Feedback subforum.

Thanks.

 

[jrswizzle]

As opposed to the Republican plan of cutting taxes for rich people while increasing our spending. Did you miss Bush II?

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.