Well, here in America we hate our government. We believe that we elected it to rob us. That is why we keep our guns loaded (in case the "government" come to rob us). We think that by depriving our government of any money we will succeed as a society. We like it how Somalia lives. They have very low taxes.
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.
How Apple Minimizes its Corporate Tax Burden
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, here in America we hate our government. We believe that we elected it to rob us. That is why we keep our guns loaded (in case the "government" come to rob us). We think that by depriving our government of any money we will succeed as a society. We like it how Somalia lives. They have very low taxes.
And people wonder why we have this huge deficit in this country. Mega-Corporations don't want to pay any taxes for the privilege of enjoying the US's protection and economic markets. That leaves the working man to pay it, except he's out of a job because those same corporations don't want to hire US workers either.
Yes, our government spends too much, but it's hard to get a handle on things when you have sleazy companies and rich people like Mitt Romney that constantly try to get out of paying their fair share. You make more money; you pay more money. It's that simple. But no, leave the burden for the middle class that's disappearing and leave that debt to future generations. It's only business, after all.
I don't understand this "fair share" business. Who determines what "fair" is? Seems to me it's politicians who take as much as they want from who they can and give breaks to who they want. A tax burden only exists if the politicians let it exist.
It's no fault of a given corporation, because after all, they exist to make a profit. It's when government tries to pick the winners and losers that screws everyone. These businesses that are getting screwed respond by hiring overseas, and the workers getting screwed just get screwed...and eventually are forced into being dependent on the government, at the very whim of the politicians who screwed them in the first place.
Also, demonizing successful people like Mitt Romney for being successful is damning yourself to mediocrity.
Yes, that was big mistake but now the the Netherlands was faced with a billion dollar fine and it got its act together and cut the deficit back to the limit of 3% of GDP just last week.
It factors in. It does not determine pricing in the way that other things do. Sometimes they're trying to hit a price target to increase adoption rates. Sometimes a company will charge more simply because enough people will pay it, and this increases their profits. I agree that they invest, but perhaps you should read where the article mentions Cupertino's financial problems
. Corporations expect certain certain services just like anyone else. I'm not really blaming Apple here. I'm blaming the culture, and it's not truly sustainable.Ahh it's just Obama right? This has never happened with the past administrations going back through US history? Perhaps you've never spent any time reading about US history outside of elementary school. Anyway you should really look into vacation days taken by Bush vs Obama. Bush barely worked at all.
It does get tiring hearing companies talk about "job creation" in relationship to their tax burden. Those jobs aren't created out of charitable intent towards the job market because the corporate tax rate is so low. They're created out of self-interest, i.e., Apple believes they need those employees as part of their business plan. There is no significant relationship between the jobs created and the tax burden.
Keynesian economics is flawed and is currently destroying western economics?
That's news to me.
Most European countries went with austerity and that's destroying their economies. The UK is double dipping.
Compare that to the US, where the stimulus and the bailouts saved the economy from something a lot worse.
European countries are now finally rethinking choosing austerity, it's all over the news...
I thought Somalia was the libertarian utopia?
It factors in. It does not determine pricing in the way that other things do. Sometimes they're trying to hit a price target to increase adoption rates. Sometimes a company will charge more simply because enough people will pay it, and this increases their profits. I agree that they invest, but perhaps you should read where the article mentions Cupertino's financial problems
Ahh it's just Obama right? This has never happened with the past administrations going back through US history? Perhaps you've never spent any time reading about US history outside of elementary school. Anyway you should really look into vacation days taken by Bush vs Obama. Bush barely worked at all.
You should be happy that Bush barely worked at all considering what he was able to do the few days that he actually worked...
If you always get tax money back at the end of the year, but don't want it that way, change it by submitting a new W-4 to your employer to take out less tax.
I'm highly educated, younger than you, and I apologize if my post offended you. But with that being said, this is not academia, this is an internet forum in which civil discourse is far from the norm. My point is simple, as long as individuals refuse to acknowledge the real problems facing our country, I, and others such as myself will continue to exploit what is essentially inevitable and obvious for profit.
Thank you, I appreciate your reply. Now that states a lot about your character, in a good way. I do agree with some of your points and am learning much in the interim, I suppose a lot gets lost in translation online. Plus this is a heated discussion, which on MacRumors can turn into a free for all.
Thanks again.
Vote them all out.
Couldn't agree more. The Federal government needs to spend less so they can tax less. They are many huge government entities that are complete and total failures. The tax code needs to be rewritten to take out all the favoritism that is built into it. The Federal government is much too large and is mostly nothing but a burden.
Couldn't agree more. The Federal government needs to spend less so they can tax less. They are many huge government entities that are complete and total failures. The tax code needs to be rewritten to take out all the favoritism that is built into it. The Federal government is much too large and is mostly nothing but a burden.
Pick your poison; Hyperinflation or 15%-20% interest rates. Both of which will destroy this country. One or the other is inevitable at this point. Heck I'm banking on QE3, QE4, & QE5 from Bernanke. No bank, automaker, or homebuilder would survive a jump in interest rates, let alone the federal government or the general public. He has to keep those interest rates artificially low. which means 0. Everyone would default, everyone's maxed out. That makes the end result obvious for the dollar.
Plus, I didn't know Greece could print Euros
Couldn't agree more. The Federal government needs to spend less so they can tax less. They are many huge government entities that are complete and total failures. The tax code needs to be rewritten to take out all the favoritism that is built into it. The Federal government is much too large and is mostly nothing but a burden.
You posted in the wrong thread. It's not about government waste. Would you be happy if corporate taxes were set at 1% and Apple paid 0.1%? The two problems are unrelated.
If Apple made $27b instead of $30b, the shortfall has to be made up somewhere, either in higher prices (on the revenue side) or cutbacks on the R&D, infrastructure expansion and/or maintenance, employee hiring/wages, management compensation, dividends for stockholders, etc. It's not like they're blowing it on coke and prostitutes (a la the Secret Service!).
Did you read my post? There are a LOT of factors other than higher consumer prices that create an overall negative impact when a corporation is overtaxed. When push comes to shove, the consumer eats all expenses when he/she buys a product/service. Taxes are an expense.
So while higher prices aren't guaranteed, they are a distinct possibility. What is guaranteed, however, is the overall negative economic impact of removing money from the private sector and depositing it in the public sector, making the free market smaller and bureaucracy larger and more expensive to maintain.
I'd say 15% across-the-board corporate tax rate with zero loopholes would be fair, and low enough to end the overseas bank/subsidiary game. it would also be closer in line to the rates paid in the rest of the world. Ending "pork-barrel" government subsidies to cherry-picked industries and/or corporate bail-outs would also help--not only to save revenue (by not rewarding failure and punishing success), but, more importantly, to reward innovation.
IMHO, this is why I hated the bailout money the last two US Presidents have spread around (W & Obama). The only appropriate means of "bailing out" a corporation is bankruptcy. That's what it's for. The losing company either dies or has its outstanding debt restructured, and its competition are rewarded with the opportunity to either buy its component assets for pennies on the dollar (if it dies) or at least gain a larger share of the remaining market for that sector's product or service.
Wow, you are really missing the point, killing someone is illegal, Apple is not doing anything illegally. People are arguing that they are doing something unethical. I would love to do a tax audit of the "ethical" people pointing at Apple. I wonder if those people did anything to save a few bucks on their income tax when it might have been ethical to just pay the taxes. It's so easy to look at another with scrutiny.
No one wants to take the medicine, i.e., the cure. What's coming should surprise no one. Just as the housing market collapse should have surprised no one.
Couldn't agree more. The Federal government needs to spend less so they can tax less. They are many huge government entities that are complete and total failures. The tax code needs to be rewritten to take out all the favoritism that is built into it. The Federal government is much too large and is mostly nothing but a burden.
The federal government (and many other organizations) can stand to be way more efficient.
Though one problem I see with right wingers is that they want lower taxes but more military spending. I wonder if we go rid of all the government services except for the military and what's explicitly said by the constitution, kept the tax system the way it is, and gave all the extra money to the military, they'll still say the military needs more.
As for people who ask whether or not the government knows how to handle money better than Apple, who said anything about knowing "better" or "worse"? Maybe just use it for different causes? Maybe the government is trying is trying to do what's best for the community as a whole, even though it may not be the best thing for any individual. I'm not apologizing for the government, just giving a different perspective. And I'll admit, the government can do and has done a lot of really stupid things.
Instead of talking in vague generalities, how about being a little more specific?
It factors in. It does not determine pricing in the way that other things do. Sometimes they're trying to hit a price target to increase adoption rates. Sometimes a company will charge more simply because enough people will pay it, and this increases their profits. I agree that they invest, but perhaps you should read where the article mentions Cupertino's financial problems
Pricing/taxes- While increasing the price of an iPad won't change everyone's "buy" decision, it will make marginal customers decide to hold off on their purchase. This comment was made because someone said that the taxes would be passed along to customers and not affect volume sold, which is false. The loss from the tax is a deadweight loss. Marginal buyers are the important ones to pay attention to.
The investing bit- I was referring to when people say "Apple has so much money, they should invest in X." Apple looks at the risk and reward of a variety of projects and picks ones that have a return greater than their cost of capital. Apple is incredibly well run, so you have to imagine their ability to pick successful projects to work on is superior to most companies.
Easy.
1. Companies aim to make at least a minimum profit. If they don't then they either raise prices or stop doing whatever they're doing (airlines for example). Apple, I suspect, achieves its goal with respect to profit. This is standard micro theory.
2. There was no collusion between Apple and the publishers. Apple got it's standard 70/30 deal - just like for app developers and the newspaper/magazine publishers. If you're curious as to why the prices on Amazon went up, the publishers went from the wholesale model (all the books you want at 'X' price and charge whatever you want) to the agency model (we'll set the price and you take a cut). Article in the Wall Street Journal by Daniel Henniger.
3. I don't believe that Greenpeace is really interested in conservation anymore. I do believe they enjoy hectoring large companies and putting out press releases. The founder of Greenpeace feels quite the same way.
Go here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...ore-and-the-future-of-the-environment/3336998
Or here: http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=120750
Hope this helps.