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 Reaches $800 Billion Valuation On Path to Becoming World's First Trillion Dollar Company
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, all sales from the U.S. iTunes Store are calculated towards Apple U.S.
I invested last year in May when the share price was $92.xx
67% increase since then. That's pretty good return for 1 year.
From that viewpoint, the biggest factor you should blame is the unnecessarily extremely high and still ever-growing military expenses. With our existing military power of 100-ish year more advanced than any other countries in the world, there are only a very very minor group in this country ever get benefited from those military spending -- the weapon company and the conventional giant companies who need the country's pressing power to gain beneficial contracts.
I believe they are demonized for their corrupt practices, not the products.
[doublepost=1494272070][/doublepost]
I am pretty sure other companies with billions of dollars in cash reserves stashed outside of US share equal blame.
All I can say to that is I am grateful that enough voters disagree with you that a politician even saying that will be political suicide for the rest of our lives.
[doublepost=1494274653][/doublepost]
Yes. What a stupid question. It's sad that people actually don't get that. This not some leftist ideal (I'm actually pretty far right), but it is the way things work and Apple is evading their obligations to society.
[doublepost=1494274768][/doublepost]
Apple and everyone like them. This is an Apple forum.
The amount of money I personally pay in taxes makes virtually zero difference to anything the government runs. If I stopped paying it, nobody would ever notice the loss. So by your logic I shouldn't have to pay taxes?
[doublepost=1494275010][/doublepost]
Either you've missed out on what Apple actually does with their taxes or you're being deliberately obtuse. Apple does not pay the taxes they are obligated to. They use hollywood style accounting to make it look like most of their revenue comes through a few tiny countries (see Ireland) that let them pay almost no taxes. Because a 0.05% tax on Apple's European revenue is a lot more than what they actually owe in Ireland. So Ireland is happy and the rest of Europe is screwed over. They do that around the world.
I don't understand. Apple was the single largest tax payer in the U.S. in 2016 so why all this tax talk?
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/69bsmf/in_2016_apple_was_the_largest_single_taxpayer_in/
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/69bsmf/in_2016_apple_was_the_largest_single_taxpayer_in/
When my child gets sick, it will be covered under the healthcare plan I CHOOSE to buy, I don't need you or the government remming your policy down my throat, for whatever coverage you think I need, thank you very little.
Companies would and do invest in their own R&D without stolen tax allocations, so long as their property rights are protected properly. The U.S. Government, primarily through the FDA, has been an incredible burden on innovation in the healthcare/biotech sector. There are tons of stories out there where a company had a drug that they thought could help a sick person, and the sick person was begging them to let them try it, but because of these regulations, these companies were legally banned from helping them. At what point did it make sense to stick a damn bureaucrat in between me, my doctor, and my drug company? And by what RIGHT did ANYONE tell me we're not permitted to make these decisions for ourselves?
And ad no point do I need the government to steal Apple's tax money to make these decisions for me. And even if I DID need it, it doesn't give me or anyone else the RIGHT to Apple's money. Period.
What JFK did was issue an Executive Order (#11110) which delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury the president's authority to issue silver certificates. The order allowed the Secretary to issue silver certificates, if any were needed, during the transition period under President Kennedy's plan to eliminate Silver Certificates and use Federal Reserve Notes.
In 1964, Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon halted redemption of silver certificates for silver dollars. In the 1970s, large numbers of the remaining silver dollars in the mint vaults were sold to the collecting public for collector value. All redemption in silver ceased on June 24, 1968.
President Reagan revoked JFK's Executive Order in 1987.
Today the Fed is all about $11 billion in gold bullion reserves, not silver.
In order to get rid of the Fed, Congress would need to pass and the president would need to sign legislation that supercedes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Last edited:
Why? And where does this claim that one person or entity has a claim on the life of another person or entity come from? And how did you prove this concept?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
No more like: raise prices for Macs and work up some new higher pricing for services. Also can we get any more dongle revenue? Anything else we can kick out of our stuff and then upsell the same as some kind of case/module/dongle? Etc.
Why?
We have to make that last $200B ASAP!
The new spaceship campus has a much larger, much deeper safe to swim in. I hear it has a slide now too. Take that Scrooge McDuck.
So you want your child to suffer if you misjudge and CHOOSE to buy inappropriate coverage.
And you want other children to suffer because of their bad luck to be born to poor parents. All so Apple can squeeze more profit. Classy.
What is there to say to someone like you?
Honestly, I think it is a bit more complicated than that. Especially when you demonstrate either a willingness to engage in hyperbole that is not grounded in reality, or an ignorance of how the "offshoring" of corporate revenues work. But the reality is that our tax code as it relates to corporations is horribly out of date to handle the reality of a global marketplace with companies that have cash flows that dwarf some small countries.
That said, I do think we should have a tax code that doesn't incentivize this behavior. It may be hard to completely prevent some of it, since Ireland's super-low corporate tax rate is partly why so many subsidiaries are put there (being in the EU is the other part), but it is certainly an issue that we are encouraging US companies to leave foreign revenue outside the country, when it could be used locally. Instead it is getting used to build out in Europe, India, and China. That's not terribly beneficial for us.
But I'm not sure that in this era where major corporations are mobile at a global scale, and so a company can effectively pick their jurisdiction, that our goal should be to fix this by being uncompetitive. It sucks since it seems like corporate tax rates are in a sort of race to the bottom, which encourages accumulated corporate wealth (which I don't see as a good thing long-term), but it is also the reality we live in.
Probably around the time we said "all people are created equal" while at the same time still classifying some people as property. Or perhaps the idea that parents have claim on their children to make decisions for them. Or perhaps the idea that there are limits to what you are allowed to do when it impacts other individuals or the community around you. The idea that there can be some claim is not new. I have yet to see a political party not use this in some form or another, even though it has more recently turned towards talk about freedoms for certain groups, while sweeping the reality of the balancing act under the rug in order to speak to their political base and drum support.
At best, when you talk about societies as large as ours, you can talk about where the balance point should be. The balance between the rights of individuals as they come into conflict with each other. The balance between social programs for the whole and individual responsibility to oneself. I'd argue that it is almost impossible to skew entirely towards the end of the spectrum where individual responsibility to oneself is the sole guiding force within a society today in places like the US and Europe. With populations getting ever more dense, and industrial activity also concentrating in a similar way, the day where you could get close to that end of the spectrum and live a reasonable life by it is practically gone now. You can still pull it off, but it's no longer the rule, it is the exception.
Not such a big deal. Elon Musk said Tesla will be right up there with Apple shortly. He said only needs to sell a few more vehicles each year and it's a done deal. You wait and see (but don't hold your breath while waiting).
First trillion dollar company? That's not true. NASDAQ is 6.8 trillion alone and Aramco may be bigger than that, just to name two.
Based on Apple's relatively conservative P/E makes the number even more impressive.One of the few large companies in the world who actually DESERVE their earnings because it is based on products that people want and make the world a better place. Well done Apple!!!
Company P/E
Apple 17.9
Amazon 177.8
Google 30.1
Microsoft 30.4
Facebook 37.8
Netflix 205.1
Apple shareholders are seriously getting stiffed by Wall Street and it makes no sort of sense to me as to why. My conspiracy theory says there are factions who are definitely trying to hold Apple's value down for reasons I'm unable to fathom. How can they honestly value Microsoft over Apple? There's not one fundamental metric I can find for Microsoft that warrants such value.
1. At no point did you identify the source of your right to the life or sustenance of another individual.
2. Individuals are responsible for the actions they take, and kids the responsibility of the parent. Not the government, not you, and not some damn bureaucrat somewhere.
3. Do you care about the kid who didn't have the right insurance? Would you donate money to help them out? Or do you need the government to stick a gun in your back to help you be a good person? I'll suppose this is the part where you'll ignore the charity work that tons of companies do, many times stupidly, and to their own detriment?
4. What you really want is magic. You want the magic of permitting yourself the evasion that you don't have a right to initiate force against another individual, this time in the form of theft, but you also want to take care of the individuals who can't or won't take care of themselves, but you want to do it with SOMEONE ELSE'S money. You want the magic that if theres a problem in the world, you, and the caring benevolent government will always be there to steal as much of other people's money as you think is necessary, to help. Because you're a good person, after all. As though if you just wish hard enough, and steal enough of other people's money, all the bad things and the problems in the word will just melt away. World doesn't work like that.
To say I want bad things like this in the world is pure emotionalist garbage. This is about the right of individuals to exist for their own sake, and be free from the initiation of physical force from others. If you deny this basic right to others, you can't then pretend to maintain that right for yourself, and those people whose rights you violate should then treat you by the standard you prefer: Force.
What is there to say to someone whose basic premise is magic?
Individual's rights do not conflict. I have a right to live my life, and you have a right to yours, and neither of us has a right to violate each other's rights to live free of the initiation of physical force. And I dot propose to strike a balance between my right to live, and someone else's right to rob/kill me.
Also, neither side has been supported here. The OP is treating these concepts as though they're self evident, i.e. We have then now, and have done them fora while, so that's what's right. That is not a foundation on which these ideas can rest, that's straight dogma.
Deductions are one thing. Hiding and shuffling money around in shell companies and transfers of money in elaborate schemes is quite another.
Last edited:
And that was before a few stock splits:
06/21/2000 2 for 1
02/28/2005 2 for 1
06/09/2014 7 for 1
Because a economically biased wealthy politician said so doesn't make it a correct statement, especially from the viewpoint of the majority less-wealthy middle class.
If we cut our military spending by 50%, we will easily stay on THE TOP of the most advanced military power in the world for at least 30 more years, without ANY danger, at the same time those fund will easily boost all other economical and educational spending, whichin turn, after these 30 years, will make our country far beyond any other country could ever dream of catching up, in overall capability and in technology.
Either you've taken misleading information as granted blindly or you're deliberately misleading others.
Apple pay taxes, under strict US corporate tax rate, on all of its US sales, plus whatever it has to direct back to the US from overseas sales (Apple paid $13 billion tax to US on 2015, and will pay another $3.19 billion at a later time for 2015). The so-called "tribute most revenue to a few tiny countries" only applies to part of its international sales (excluding several big regions including China and Japan).
The 0.05% calculated tax rate is obviously a extremely exaggerated number, or purely a typo. On year 2015 Apple paid $400 million tax to Ireland, to satisfy that 0.05% rate, Apple need to have $800 billion profit from Apple Ireland, which is over 10 times of Apple's worldwide profit.
Europe is screwed over, not the US. If Apple would pay higher taxes in the EU then they would still need to pay extra 35% to repatriate it, and as a European shareholder i would pay the US 25% tax and EU 15% tax on the dividends that Apple would pay me with it.
That is tax upon tax upon tax, tax should be reasonable and simple but it isn't, that is not Apple's fault.