Donald Trump Tells Tim Cook He'll Offer Apple 'Very Large Tax Cut' to Make Products in America

[Larry-K]

Bill Clinton grew the economy while balancing the budget. Big difference.

Congress balanced the budget because of the tech bubble.

Clinton did squat! He was just fortunate to preside over that bubble. If you look, you can probably find quotes of him near the end of presidency saying he thought it would take two more years to balance the budget.[/QUOTE]

 

[TsMkLg068426]

As much as some people hate Trump there is no way you can say this is a bad thing to bring jobs and manufacturing back to the US.

It will be bad if we don't have any export or import or else we will be stuck with a bunch of U.S. made products and get into huge inflation which will be like the Bush era and this is a Republican idea that they never grasp other than their wallets.

 

[iPad Air]

I understand that it's an incentive for the greater good of bringing jobs back to the U.S., but why does it always end up being the big corporations that get tax cuts?

Partly because the big corporations are already taxed at EXTREMELY high rates. That tax bracket is on a much higher level than a typical income person would be in.
[doublepost=1480086286][/doublepost]

Given the disgraceful unemployment rate in the US, I'd say there are plenty of people available for those jobs. Once we get them off welfare and into the workforce.

Yes, there are PLENTY of people to do the work. But, they have their hands out instead. There is no "we" that can fix this. Yes, shutting down welfare programs would help, but that won't suddenly make these people hard workers. Difficult situation.

 

[TurboPGT!]

Yes, there are PLENTY of people to do the work. But, they have their hands out instead. There is no "we" that can fix this. Yes, shutting down welfare programs would help, but that won't suddenly make these people hard workers. Difficult situation.

Indeed, of course. Nothing is ever that simple. We need to get lazy pathetic people off welfare and into the productive workforce. We desperate need to do that. But there is no easy way to do it. Any way is going to come with some pain.

 

[ericgtr12]

they'll take those jobs if they don't get gov't aid. no work = no eat.

Nice to see we agree on something.

 

[Dmunjal]

Congress balanced the budget because of the tech bubble.

Clinton did squat! He was just fortunate to preside over that bubble. If you look, you can probably find quotes of him near the end of presidency saying he thought it would take two more years to balance the budget.

[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Give credit to Greenspan and Gingrich. But the fact remains, you don't need government to grow the economy. The private sector can do it just fine.

Why is that Bush and Obama have spent $15T combined in deficit spending in the last 15 years yet the GDP has not gone up similarly?

While the entire 20 century GDP grew faster than government spending?

 

[0098386]

How would that benefit us, though?

 

[oldtime]

Trump might as well say we're getting a Mac Mini update, too.

Dreams and wishes, dreams and wishes.

 

[tooltalk]

So, future iPhone will now be made in the US by robots made in Asia?

Unless you are talking about Japan, most advanced manufacturing machineries used in Asia come from the West, most notably Germany or the US.
[doublepost=1480099651][/doublepost]

How does bringing jobs back to the US help if there's nobody there to take them? You can't just regulate your way out of a complacent workforce.

Sure, so long as Apple is willing to pay US living wage and not their typical Chinese slave wage, Apple won't have any problem finding those willing to work for Apple.

 

[amegicfox]

people who complain about bringing manufacturing back to the US are anti-american

regardless of robots or not, I rather have american built robots, managed by american workers, on american soil

 

[tooltalk]

If you think that the increased cost of producing products is coming out of any business's pocket, then you've got a poor sense of the way things work. How does this manufacture in the US work for Samsung (a South Korean company)? Will they be able to produce products elsewhere and then just 'export' their products to the US. Because if that's the case then Apple is doomed as they wouldn't be able to compete against that.

Well, Samsung's bread and butter is in semiconductor and, since they opened their Austin, TX plant in late 1990's, they've invested about $15B and greatly expanded their manufacturing of memory and AP chips -- including those used in Apple's own mobile devices. Contrary to what many of you are led to believe by US companies like Apple all bent on penny pinching in their endless quest to squeeze profit margin, many of Apple's parts can be made in the US.

 

[shareef777]

Well, Samsung's bread and butter is in semiconductor and, since they opened their Austin, TX plant in late 1990's, they've invested about $15B and greatly expanded their manufacturing of memory and AP chips -- including those used in Apple's own mobile devices. Contrary to what many of you are led to believe by US companies like Apple all bent on penny pinching in their endless quest to squeeze profit margin, many of Apple's parts can be made in the US.

This isn't a discussion if they can or can't. With enough funds and man power they can make iPhones on the moon! Fact of the matter is that Apple will not cut into their profit margins. No one denies that Apple is the most frugal company out there. Always have been and always will be. But if Trump moves the production to the US, costs WILL go up and WE'LL be the ones eating those costs, not the companies.

Also, there's a significant difference between chip manufacturing (which is almost 100% done by machines) and iPhone assembly which literally uses hundreds of thousands of people (there are steps that are still too intricate for machines).

 

[Dmunjal]

What you don't understand is that taxes are a big part of Apple's expense. If Trump can lower Apple's taxes, Apple can use some of that money to invest in plant, equipment, and labor here.

What Trump is trying to do is put America and Americans first instead of what the global elite have been doing for 20 years. That experiment had enriched the coasts but hurt middle America. It will take time to undo the damage but we have to start somewhere.

 

[shareef777]

What you don't understand is that taxes are a big part of Apple's expense. If Trump can lower Apple's taxes, Apple can use some of that money to invest in plant, equipment, and labor here.

What Trump is trying to do is put America and Americans first instead of that the global elite have been doing for 20 years. That experiment had enriched the coasts but hurt middle America. It will take time to undo the damage but we have to start somewhere.

I see the con-artist elect still has his loyal followers even after he filled his cabinet with lobbyists and corporate shills.

 

[Dmunjal]

I see the con-artist elect still has his loyal followers even after he filled his cabinet with lobbyists and corporate shills.

Let's stop sinking to this level, the election is over. I didn't even vote him. I voted libertarian.

Let's talk about the policy. Does it make sense to lower taxes on US corporations in exchange for investing in the US? Or do we hold onto our idealistic and stubborn position while we continue to hemorrhage jobs to Asia?

 

[Larry-K]

Fair enough. Give credit to Greenspan and Gingrich. But the fact remains, you don't need government to grow the economy. The private sector can do it just fine.

Why is that Bush and Obama have spent $15T combined in deficit spending in the last 15 years yet the GDP has not gone up similarly?

While the entire 20 century GDP grew faster than government spending?

Those wars weren't free, although Bush/Cheney escaped free of responsibility.

Don't give Greenspan any credit, his obfuscation laid the groundwork for the recession.

As little as I care for Newt (after all, if you "drain the swamp", he's pretty much what you'll find at the bottom), he and our "Distinctly American Criminal Class", accomplished that short-lived goal.

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP peaked in 2009. Hmmm, what could that coincide with?

Now, Baby Boomers are retiring, somebodies gotta pay for their social security, increased medical costs and services for the elderly, so don't expect any savings on that front. A lot of then are the frustrated old white people that voted Trump in. They're no longer employable, many of them did not adapt well to the Tech revolution, and a lot of them have saved zero for retirement, because they were too busy living the good life.

Those people will not be assembling iPhones.

Everybody says they want smaller, less expensive government, but it's always at somebody else's expense. Real conservatives pay their bills, they don't foist them off on somebody else's grandchildren, with interest, to enrich themselves.

If you think the private sector can grow the economy "just fine," then why chastise them for sending jobs overseas? They're doing what they want with their capital, at the behest of their stockholders to maximize profit. They don't owe anybody a job, and corporations, while legally people, aren't particularly patriotic unless there's an ad campaign to promote it.

I live in a country where veterans, who actually sacrificed more than money, sleep in the gutter, while billionaires worry about getting bigger tax breaks, while they pay less then the average middle-class worker.

That's wrong, and America won't be "Great Again" (Reagan's slogan while was dealing arms for hostages, and granting amnesty) till the real issues like this are addressed, instead of sloganeering in badly designed hats.

 

[shareef777]

Let's stop sinking to this level, the election is over. I didn't even vote him. I voted libertarian.

Let's talk about the policy. Does it make sense to lower taxes on US corporations in exchange for investing in the US? Or do we hold onto our idealistic and stubborn position while we continue to hemorrhage jobs to Asia?

On one hand you admit that corporations like Apple are greedy (and I agree), but on the other you think THEIR lower taxes are somehow going to equate to OUR lowered prices!? Tell me how that adds up.

 

[Dmunjal]

Those wars weren't free, although Bush/Cheney escaped free of responsibility.

Don't give Greenspan any credit, his obfuscation laid the groundwork for the recession.

As little as I care for Newt (after all, if you "drain the swamp", he's pretty much what you'll find at the bottom), he and our "Distinctly American Criminal Class", accomplished that short-lived goal.

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP peaked in 2009. Hmmm, what could that coincide with?

Now, Baby Boomers are retiring, somebodies gotta pay for their social security, increased medical costs and services for the elderly, so don't expect any savings on that front. A lot of then are the frustrated old white people that voted Trump in. They're no longer employable, many of them did not adapt well to the Tech revolution, and a lot of them have saved zero for retirement, because they were too busy living the good life.

Those people will not be assembling iPhones.

Everybody says they want smaller, less expensive government, but it's always at somebody else's expense. Real conservatives pay their bills, they don't foist them off on somebody else's grandchildren, with interest, to enrich themselves.

If you think the private sector can grow the economy "just fine," then why chastise them for sending jobs overseas? They're doing what they want with their capital, at the behest of their stockholders to maximize profit. They don't owe anybody a job, and corporations, while legally people, aren't particularly patriotic unless there's an ad campaign to promote it.

I live in a country where veterans, who actually sacrificed more than money, sleep in the gutter, while billionaires worry about getting bigger tax breaks, while they pay less then the average middle-class worker.

That's wrong, and America won't be "Great Again" (Reagan's slogan while was dealing arms for hostages, and granting amnesty) till the real issues like this are addressed, instead of sloganeering in badly designed hats.

The jobs went overseas BECAUSE of government policies around taxation, regulation, and trade. It certainly wasn't a free market.

I support entitlement spending but there's a lot that can be done to improve both plans by increasing the retirement age and doing some means testing.

We have a bridge to cross with the baby boomers but we can if we stop our foreign adventurism and nation building we can get there. Trump is right when he says we have spent $6T on war since 9/11 that could have been used here.

 

[amegicfox]

Trump obviously does not understand the first thing about how real business operates - especially the manufacturing of mass-market consumer high-tech like the iPhone.

He also does not understand the first thing about how either US, or international tax-law works. You cannot single out one company to receive a benefit such as incentives or a lower tax rate. And such an arrangement would clearly violate WTO law against such policies.

And for what? Why should the US taxpayer subsidize the production of tens of millions of iPhones that are shipped to China and Germany? The US already captures that vast majority of the "value" created in the iPhone. And Apple already creates tens of thousands of well-paying US jobs in conjunction with the iPhone.

Trump is an imbecile.

production right now is in china, so taxes and jobs are lost anyway

having factories here, even with a tax break, will create jobs and generate money

Apple USA factory workers will need to eat (food stores), sleep (rent, buy and maintain properties), manage robots etc. factories need to use electricity, water, etc. so that's how the economy will pick up

 

[Dmunjal]

On one hand you admit that corporations like Apple are greedy (and I agree), but on the other you think THEIR lower taxes are somehow going to equate to OUR lowered prices!? Tell me how that adds up.

I didn't say lower prices. I said more investment in the US. The $2T in offshore accounts isn't doing us any good.

There's a reason corporations having been using so much financial engineering over the last 8 years. Because US policy encouraged it. High taxes and zero percent interest rates don't really encourage US corporations to invest money here. It's easier to buy back stock using borrowed funds instead of what they should be doing which is innovating.

Again, I'll use Tesla as an example that is doing it right. Innovating in new markets, investing in the US and employing thousands.

 

[amegicfox]

I can't believe some people in this forum are opposed to Apple manufacturing their products in the USA

and these same people make up stories on how the economy will not allow it or the it's only robots that make iPhones

these people are USA haters like what we see daily on CNN and MSNBC

 

[Dmunjal]

I can't believe some people in this forum are opposed to Apple manufacturing their products in the USA

They're not. They are just religiously and philosophically opposed to lowering taxes. The US has to compete for capital on a global basis now and we're not the prettiest girl in the room anymore.

 

[vrDrew]

Apple us factory workers will need to eat (food stores), sleep (rent, buy and maintain properties), manage robots etc. factories need to use electricity, water, etc. so that's how the economy will pick up

Yes, but making that happen will require the expenditure (either through massive tax credits, or direct subsidies) of many tens of billions of dollars.

To do something we don't really need to do here: In case you haven't noticed, there isn't exactly a shortage of new iPhones on the streets of America's cities.

If Trump (or anyone) wants to create jobs, far better to spend the money hiring people to do things that we actually need doing: Like rebuilding our infrastructure; caring for our children and elderly; and remediating ecological damage in places like Flint, MI and other places contaminated by lead and other pollutants.

 

[Larry-K]

The jobs went overseas BECAUSE of government policies around taxation, regulation, and trade. It certainly wasn't a free market.

I support entitlement spending but there's a lot that can be done to improve both plans by increasing the retirement age and doing some means testing.

We have a bridge to cross with the baby boomers but we can if we stop our foreign adventurism and nation building we can get there. Trump is right when he says we have spent $6T on war since 9/11 that could have been used here.

They followed cheap labor with little or no restraints on labor conditions, that's always the case with business, this country was founded by people who thought they could exploit its cheap and abundant resources with indentured servitude of one form or another. If you want children under 12 working 12 hours a day (24? even better), business will be all too happy to take advantage of it. They ARE responding to government policies, just not ours.

Want to solve the entitlements programs? Lift the caps on the payroll tax, then the one-percenters will have to pay the same tax rate that most of us do. Sure, they'll have to shave a couple of feet off their yachts, and downsize the mansion, maybe keep the Bentley for an extra year, but if some vets get a hot meal and a place to stay, it's worth it.

You can lift the retirement age, but it doesn't change the fact, that people in their late 50's aren't employable, a lot of them found that out in the Great Recession. Make 'em wait another few years, they'll probably be dead of exposure at that point. Doctors in the South were certifying people in their late 50's and 60's as "Disabled" because they were pretty sure they'd never find another job.

I know it's more fun to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly and disabled, but hey, didn't the Republicans in congress have parents too? I mean, somebody had to be responsible for raising them wrong.

Duh, Of course we spent a lot on war, Donald ought to know since he supported it. Where exactly did that war come from? Let me think about that. Let's just say it's a safe bet that the morons who did it, never actually served in the military, kind of like our five deferment (or was it six? you can never tell with those bone spurs, and look at the man today, he can barely walk [if he's chewing gum]) Draft-Dodger elect (he's a super patriot you know, has a pin on his lapel and everything). Our new commander in chief's proposed massive military build-up won't be cheap, and in all likelihood, his petulant attitude will mean he has to exercise that power somewhere because somebody insulted his hair or wasn't white. I mean, let's face it, the man is more "Baitable" than a walleye.

The money could have been used here, but it was never going to happen, just as when tax cuts for the wealthy were pilfered from Social Security funds (yeah, it's in that 20 trillion you like so much). Congress at the time was a lot more concerned with a Motor Vehicle code for Iraq, than infrastructure at home.

Of course you can't trust Donald's numbers, they're universally wrong on everything, and he won't release the real ones, that's part of being "Authentic" I suppose.

He just filed tax paperwork (had to, he's not in charge yet, and it's not optional) about spending over $40K on self-portraits (Only two, that shows restraint for a narcissist) from his bogus foundation, and admitted to past illegal expenditures, although not specific at this point, but likely it's that's the quarter of a million he channeled to cover his various company's debts illegally.

I wouldn't bring it up, but since he branded Hillary as "Crooked", I have to hold him to a higher standard.

 

[citizenzen]

The jobs went overseas BECAUSE of government policies around taxation, regulation, and trade. ...

You left out a key factor: lower wages.

Even if you lower taxes, you still haven't solved the difference in wages.

Additionally, any country in danger of losing manufacturing back to the U.S., can likewise lower their corporate tax or offer other incentives to remain in their country.