I wish I could declare 70% of my wages as off-shored and pay just 8% per year like Apple. It's ridiculous that these loopholes exist for corporations, but not for the rest of us. For example, any of us who own foreign stocks end up paying foreign taxes on their dividends. And Uncle Sam has us make up the difference. So if I paid 10% tax to say Israel for some Israeli company, I would still owe the US the leftover 5% so that the tax totals 15%. Yet, the biggest, richest companies are allowed to skip out on this. Appalling.
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
Indeed, many health problems are easily preventable.
The public healthcare is great for those unpredictable things, like bad accidents that would otherwise put someone into poverty forever (or death). It should ideally not be wasted on things that are so preventable, especially smoking-related health problems.
----------
Actually, I think an individual could do this sort of thing, but it would take a lot of work. So much work that it is not worth it (excuse the fragment). Maybe if we lowered corporate taxes, it wouldn't be worth it for them either?
A way for someone to avoid taxes is to move somewhere with only capitalism, like Lebanon, to earn money before returning to the US.
Trickle-down works, and I've personally been a beneficiary of it and have been right in the middle of what happens in its absence. To say the economy was best over such a long period of time and to assume taxes were the key is ridiculous and ignores so many more important variables. You missed the influence of a few major wars in there, a shift in American lifestyle developing the suburbs, the growth of an international economy, and, dare I mention, the Carter Administration...
Also, Robert Reich is about as smart as he is tall.
Huh? Why not just have the corporations pay their fare share to begin with? If I have to make up the remaining 5%, why not have Apple do the same. Corporate taxes, are lower now than EVER IN THE PAST 75 years, and you are saying lower them more???
I agree with much of what you say here. Most problems are preventable, but it is very hard in practice to actually bring about the changes needed for such preventative measures to take place. People like to blame the obese, but I think the current nutritional infrastructure with its excessive amounts of processed foods and high sugar content is just as much to blame as the people who over consume these foods. Many individuals are constantly starving themselves but still obese. Others are born into an environment that encourages overconsumption. It is hard to simply blame them outright and say they should have known better. Alternative lifestyles and education regarding nutrition was never even presented to them.
Oh and incidentally, not that I condone smoking in the least, but the revenue generated through the taxes on tobacco more than covers the medical expenses, as shown in multiple studies. So we can't blame the problem on healthcare on smokers. They've collectively paid for that medical care. And if they aren't generating enough revenue, increase the taxes on tobacco until the revenue covers the costs.
There is no better example of the failure of a socialist system than the public school system. It's a socialist dream: completely universal attendance in cost and availability with endless pools of tax money - including federal money - but it holds the biggest disparity when compared to its private counterpart in terms of quality of education, graduation, success rates, and any other comparison.
Microsoft is not letting Apple outdo them in the tax-dodging department:
http://microsofttaxdodge.com/2012/04/dummies-guide-to-microsofts-nevada-tax-dodge.html
http://microsofttaxdodge.com/2012/04/dummies-guide-to-microsofts-nevada-tax-dodge.html
Ha ha, it works for the rich, yeah. But seriously, look at how many times trickle down has been given a chance over the past 30 years, and then look at how disastrous the results have been.
They are very high compared to the world, and someone here said that they were the highest when you add the state tax. Would you rather have them pay almost no tax to the US (how it is now) or have them pay less than the current rate to the US.
In the end, the US would get more money from lower taxes if it means that the corporations will pay US taxes instead of Ireland taxes.
Actually, you were the only one to use the pejoratives "exploit loopholes" and "evade taxes". Neither the NYT nor Eric's article used those terms.
It's a question of tone. Why did you use phrases far more extreme than either of the sources ever used?
Again: you are the only person using those two phrases. Neither of the sources you cite use either term.
Here's a counteroffer. You are the only one accusing Apple of evading taxes. Please tell us what law that Apple is breaking. Are you using that pejorative to claim they are breaking the law?
It's completely on-topic. It points to a problem with the NYT: they're happy to demonize some big business, but they're unwilling to demonize that SOX was a FAIL to protect us. As Carl Sagan would say: billiyons and billiiyons of dollars down the drain.
Larger more complex laws are far more likely to have loopholes, but the NYT doesn't demonize congress for making hopelessly complex laws.
You don't make any pejoratives about the actions of congress.
In a real socialistic framework there could be no disparity between educational institutions. The talented teachers would be equally distributed throughout the system and graduate, success rates, etc. would tend to be fare more balance. What you say here demonstrates that the education you are talking about is about as far from socialist as you can get. Look at countries where there is no private education whatsoever and you won't find these gaps. In other words, your sample is terribly flawed and fails to consider far too many conflicting variables.
It works for everyone. In my past job I had small businesses and even the delivery-men begging me for more deliveries but I couldn't because my wealthy clients had to tighten their belts.
What do you think the wealthy do when they have more cash on hand? Hide it in their mattresses? No. It goes back in to the economy one way or the other.
If I were a pilot for someone's private jet, I'd be pretty screwed if they had to start taking fewer flights.
----------
Damn, I knew I should have gone to school in North Korea.
I'm glad to read some sensible posts.
Finally, a couple of posts that make sense. (These are just a few) The bottom line, and it seems too simplistic, governments waste much of the tax revenue.
Perhaps (one obvious reason), it's because the government worker who spends the tax money on services that provide for the citizens doesn't go home with more money in their pocket (legally) whether the money was spent wisely or not, and this government worker doesn't think of more ways to save money after hours (generally speaking).
The business owner, however, spends company revenue, but will always look for a better way to spend the money, a way to save, and still provide goods and services to all it provides. The more money a business has, the more they are able to provide better service and products. It's a win-win.
After hours, this business owner will still think about saving money, or a better way of spending the hard earned cash because it does mean more money in their pocket at the end of the day. That is simply human nature, and rarely greed, hard earn money is well deserved money. The less taxed, the more can go to charities.
Charities provide so much more than a government handout (appreciation for a gift is a big deal), and is obviously better for the economy. I did say this is putting is simplistically. Historically, charitable contributions are far more effective than overtaxing because, as I've said, human nature doesn't work within government spending. (Yes, I do know most taxes do not go to handouts or welfare, my argument for charities does refer to this. I also know Apple historically hasn't been the most charitable company, but Apple has provided something much more valuable, jobs and money for the economy.)
Finally, a couple of posts that make sense. (These are just a few) The bottom line, and it seems too simplistic, governments waste much of the tax revenue.
Perhaps (one obvious reason), it's because the government worker who spends the tax money on services that provide for the citizens doesn't go home with more money in their pocket (legally) whether the money was spent wisely or not, and this government worker doesn't think of more ways to save money after hours (generally speaking).
The business owner, however, spends company revenue, but will always look for a better way to spend the money, a way to save, and still provide goods and services to all it provides. The more money a business has, the more they are able to provide better service and products. It's a win-win.
After hours, this business owner will still think about saving money, or a better way of spending the hard earned cash because it does mean more money in their pocket at the end of the day. That is simply human nature, and rarely greed, hard earn money is well deserved money. The less taxed, the more can go to charities.
Charities provide so much more than a government handout (appreciation for a gift is a big deal), and is obviously better for the economy. I did say this is putting is simplistically. Historically, charitable contributions are far more effective than overtaxing because, as I've said, human nature doesn't work within government spending. (Yes, I do know most taxes do not go to handouts or welfare, my argument for charities does refer to this. I also know Apple historically hasn't been the most charitable company, but Apple has provided something much more valuable, jobs and money for the economy.)
Some public schools are great, some are not. You know what the biggest indicator of how a school does? Its the student body's family income. If the school is an inner city school, where the majority of students are poor, the school will underperform. Poverty is the culprit. Not socialism as you claim.
I agree. It is very tough to get everyone to change their lifestyle to be healthier.
There is a bad influence in the US. People are all the same (well, very generally), but the ones in the US are influenced into making these bad decisions. It is mostly not their fault, but it is still preventable. However, I am not saying that I have the solution to the problem of people not realizing that the influences are bad. I'm just surprised that they haven't learned from all of that education.
If people are educated and smart enough, the average American should deduce that it is better to stay away from fast food and overconsumption. There are those Americans who stay healthy, and the rest should do as they do.
As for tobacco, that statistic is interesting (and I don't doubt it). But aren't some of those smokers on private healthcare anyway, so a lot of smokers are paying for only a few smokers' medical bills? Either way, I don't like the idea of so many people suffering and paying to stay alive with the tax they paid on tobacco.
I see, you are objecting to "exploit" and "evade".
Honestly, I didn't realize they were more extreme. I figured if a loophole was used, it was exploited (from the meaning, to make use of). If taxes were avoided, they were evaded (from the meaning, to escape or avoid). I take your criticism though. If I was using more inflected language, I apologize. I was just trying to be explicit. This isn't an excuse, but english isn't my first tongue, so I may be missing some nuances. Either way, I'll try and use softer terms, tenses, and moods.
I thought I was clear, sorry if I wasn't. I never meant to imply Apple acted illegally, only immorally. Yes, there is some understanding on my part that this is standard in business and amongst most major players, but that's why I fault the entire lot.
I agreed that the NYT is meriting criticism here. Let's move on.
You don't make any pejoratives about the actions of congress.
I haven't had opportunity to do so in this thread, but I assure you, I have my heap of criticisms for them too.
I know zero is impossible. My point is even if apple didn't pay corporate income tax, they still pay employment tax, their employees pay income tax, consumers pay sales tax, they are building data centers in US. Even they don't know how to spend their cash, it is still better then give it to a government don't want to control it's budget. Just think about, how bad our enconomy would be with out apple's success.
Some public schools are great, some are not. You know what the biggest indicator of how a school does? Its the students' families' income. Poor students perform poorly because they have access to less resources. Poverty is the culprit. Not socialism as you claim.
Poorer families have less access to less resources? Aren't all of the required resources provided by the school?
I'm thinking that the richer families have parents who were more successful due to their cleverness, and they passed it on to their children. This is a broad generalization.
But even the poorest kid should be able to do well with the right attitude and some determination. They are dragged down by other kids who do not. Really, the public schools need to be more harsh and stop worrying so much about the self esteem of those kids who don't care about school.
Some public schools are great, some are not. You know what the biggest indicator of how a school does? Its the student body's family income. If the school is an inner city school, where the majority of students are poor, the school will underperform. Poverty is the culprit. Not socialism as you claim.
It's not income it is culture. A lot of Chinese famillies in US are poor, but their children always performs better, even in very bad schools.
The interesting thing here is the demographical one. The healthy americans are overwhelmingly the affluent. The obesity and smoking rates are disproportionately higher amongst the lower end of the wage spectrum. Funny that the affluent and telling others "to be like them". The typically response: "easy for you to say; keep living in your bubble". This isn't directed at you. I'm just sharing what's becoming increasingly known.
Sadly, it is their choice. The good news though is the more money you tend to have, the less you tend to smoke. So there is a growing counter-culture coming from the top-down.
Yes, AAPL is a big chunk of the S&P500. When they go down, everyone goes down.
I see the point of your idea. The question is, would the companies actually be bigger and employ more if they were taxed less? At the right tax rate, they could. We might not actually have to go as low as zero.
The US should try taxing corporations at a rate that would make outsourcing and tax-avoiding not worth it. I think it will work. Imagine if all of the labor for US companies was in the US!
Sorry, you are in error. But I think readers would be most interested to know that both fascism and communism in their most virulent forms (the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany) were financed by Wall Street. Here is just one item about the Bolshevik revolution. And another about the Nazis.
The rulers of the world today have only one aim in mind: to consolidate the reins of power in THEIR own hands. They accomplish this by playing one "ism" against the other while steadily tightening their grip on the world's governments (through financial controls and other means) and steadily eroding individual rights, and removing political dissenters by either violence, forced psychiatric "treatment" or by destroying their reputation via the captive press. The masters of this planet have a vested interest in conflict and division. The only thing that scares them is the idea that men of goodwill might realize what is going on, band together, isolate the evil ones and say "NO MORE!"