**** yes apple, bring that cash back to the mainland just like Trump said you would.
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 Plans $350 Billion Boost to U.S. Economy Over 5 Years, 20,000 New Jobs, and a New Campus [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m sure there’s a cloud in every sky.
1. That’s an illusion. If the power company lowers your rates, how is that paid for? Every tax cut in the last 50 years wound up raising more revenue. It’s the spending side that needs to be curbed.
2. It is coming.
3. No mandate. Freedom to say “no” is an essential freedom.
4. That sound is money coming back home to yes, jack up share values by adding value to build new stuff.
The fact that it came straight from Tim cooks mouth that policy changes have made this possible, and yet people still are so biased they wanna spin it and pretend to know better than ceo of apple as armchair economists, is fantastic evidence that some people will truly never be happy or accept reality under this administration.
Every new Congress has to re-introduce bills, and since this Congress was sworn in on 1/3/17, that was only 17 days before Trump was sworn in.
Since no Democrats voted on it, I think it’s fair to say that Obama would have vetoed it, but that’s just a guess.
I think we’ll have to disagree on this one.
Let's talk about this tax plan.
Imagine you run a company. You are currently running it at a deficit. Not only are you not generating enough cash flow to cover your expenses, but you are also borrowing money from everyone around you to pay those bills, including interest on debt you already have.
So, you sit down around a kitchen table and convince everyone in the family that you should collect less income from some of the wealthiest corporations you service, because that will somehow put you in a better position.
That is essentially what the brilliant minds in congress came up with... On the most fundamental level, this is the most idiotic legislation passed by Congress in a long while.
Imagine you run a company. You are currently running it at a deficit. Not only are you not generating enough cash flow to cover your expenses, but you are also borrowing money from everyone around you to pay those bills, including interest on debt you already have.
So, you sit down around a kitchen table and convince everyone in the family that you should collect less income from some of the wealthiest corporations you service, because that will somehow put you in a better position.
That is essentially what the brilliant minds in congress came up with... On the most fundamental level, this is the most idiotic legislation passed by Congress in a long while.
Every tax cut in the last 50 years has resulted in more money coming in to the treasury. You might want to, at that table, cut expenses.
[doublepost=1516237903][/doublepost]
Please record the amount in your 401(k) on 1/1/18, and come back in 5, 10, and 15 years and see what it is.
For me, I’m up 58% since 11/8/16.
Mr. Cook indicated that the $38 billion in new tax liability (which is included in the $350 billion figure) was a result of the tax law changes. That was also made clear in Apple's press release (and would, I think, be clear anyway to people who follow Apple fairly closely).
But Mr. Cook declined the opportunity to quantify how much of the rest of the $350 billion was attributable to those tax law changes. He dodged that inquiry. The press release itself, however, gives us some insight in that regard, especially if we put what is said in that press release together with what we know about Apple's operations from its financial reporting.
Sure, because this would have happened under a President Hillary Clinton...
He pushed, it whipped the Senators and signed the bill. Jesus...
[doublepost=1516238407][/doublepost]
This would have happened two years ago? Um...it didn't happen two years ago. It's truly Trump derangement.
[doublepost=1516238476][/doublepost]
Yeah...um...Obama or Clinton would have vetoed this bill. Didn't you see the Democrats in Congress saying this was going to literally kill people?
Tim Cook was talking about this long before Trump was a presidential candidate. He didn’t do jack squat other than signing the bill. But we could get a robot to do that.
I was trying to be gentle. I keep deluding myself in thinking that if I'm nice to people, they'll be nice back. I guess that's why I'm not in politics.
Plus, I won't use tax money to buy peoples' votes. I'd rather buy their votes by not taking their money, rather than taking their money and buying other peoples' votes.
Of course Pbama would have vetoed it. But any Republican would have beaten loser Hillary and they all would have signed this tax bill. This isn’t Trump’s tax bill.
Per Article I, Section 7, no, you cannot use a robot. The President has to sign the bills presented to him or her.
After watching the debate last November and December, he did do a lot to get the bill signed. However, he really doesn't have to do anything. That's Congress' job to pass bills, but the President can present them to Congress, just as other citizens can do.
[doublepost=1516239238][/doublepost]
OK, that makes sense.
Are people really so stupid as to believe this is because of Trump's tax bill? The tax bill passed less than month ago, was talked about really only a few weeks, maybe a month or two before that. And you think a massive global corporation has already designed a massive new expansion with details about how much they are investing, how many jobs they are bringing, and all the details within that time?? Man, you people are gullible as hell.
On this forum? Lot of vitriol; not a lot of niceness. I am guilty myself sometimes and will work on it...
You might have wanted to explain that to the Bush fils administration which chose to throw an unfunded invasion of Iraq for the purposes of "regime change" into the mix.
I am somewhat amused to see so many conservative Apple product owners posting here. Did your fake god give you the OK to financially support a corporation run by a homosexual?
And I’m not quite sure why Donald is receiving credit here. I believe Apple deserves the credit.
And I’m not quite sure why Donald is receiving credit here. I believe Apple deserves the credit.
Are people so stupid to not take what the CEO of the company said even though he despises Trump?
Correct. Today’s news isn’t at all a problem
It’s a victory
For Apple and America
Devout President haters can continue sucking on a sour lemon
I did not vote for the President, and I am a pretty big critic of most of his policies. Also, I think he often behaves like a petulant narcissistic child.
But, he does deserve credit for the tax bill. He has also slashed regulations, which is clearly being viewed as pro-business by the financial markets. And, at present, the economy looks pretty darn robust.
Of course, there are trade-offs (no such thing as a free lunch) for these and other actions, e.g. larger deficits (even if you believe in dynamic scoring....deficits will likely go up), environmental impacts, possible financial fallout from lack of oversight/regulations (remember 2008). There will be a price to pay. Only time will tell if the benefits out weigh the costs.
But, he does deserve credit for the tax bill. He has also slashed regulations, which is clearly being viewed as pro-business by the financial markets. And, at present, the economy looks pretty darn robust.
Of course, there are trade-offs (no such thing as a free lunch) for these and other actions, e.g. larger deficits (even if you believe in dynamic scoring....deficits will likely go up), environmental impacts, possible financial fallout from lack of oversight/regulations (remember 2008). There will be a price to pay. Only time will tell if the benefits out weigh the costs.
But he could have only agreed to license clothing made in the U.S. He could have made that a condition of his license. That is, if he really cares about these things.
And this thread is about jobs in the U.S., so my comments are relevant. I want our leader to lead and show the way.
What multinational corporation would not be thrilled to know they can repatriate money cheaply? This has nothing to do with people "being happy or accepting reality under this administration." The multinationals make out like bandits, so they're happy. I'm not happy for the USA taking a ding in expected revenues and not showing how they will make up for it.
That it's Tim Cook and Apple raving about this windfall doesn't negate the fact that it's a break no individual tax payer's going to get percentage wise, and since no rate drop going forward is paid for, individual or otherwise, we get to pick up the tab some other way -- and Paul Ryan's back to dreaming fondly again of ditching Social Security and Medicare before he steps down from public office. That's not going to happen so it will be up to Democrats to find a way to cut spending when those tax cuts expire. As usual, this doesn't bother the GOP one bit in the meantime. Tomorrow never comes when there's the smell of a tax cut in the air.
Sure it's nice Apple plans to invest more stateside. It's really nice for Apple they get to bring a bonanza home paying so much less in taxes that they're willing to take the hit they do take just to take advantage of it.
If you want to give credit to Trump for this, then will you also blame him when ten million people lose their health care because of the recently passed tax bill? Or will that be Obama's fault? Hillary's? "The Dems"?
Uhhh...source?
When taxes were cut in the mid 60s, revenue plateaued. When taxes were cut in the early 80s, government revenue dropped for a few years before climbing again at about the same rate it was previously. When taxes were cut again in the mid 80s revenue did not increase in any measurable rate. When taxes were raised a little in the mid 90s, the rate of revenue increased somewhat. Tax cuts in early 2000s don't seem to have done much...hard to say since they were during a period of large revenue drop post 9/11, with revenue starting to increase again a few years later much like it was previously. Revenue increased substantially throughout Obama's tenure, even though we were being "taxed to death".