How Apple Minimizes its Corporate Tax Burden

[faroZ06]

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.

This makes sense. I think if people stopped hating the wealthy so much and instead tried to do as they did, it would be better. Maybe the kids in schools will be more ambitious, and people will stop smoking and overeating. They should try to follow the general way of the people who worked their way up to be successful, which starts at the very lowest with not doing graffiti and vandalism.

I found it horrible that the Occupy protestors got a chance to "educate" some kids from schools in Los Angeles. They essentially told them to hate the businesses and essentially try to fight more and work less, which is not the right way to be successful. Even if a business were to take advantage of some people, it's better to "keep calm and carry on" instead of wasting your time camping in public parks.

 

[isdmd10]

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.

Do they not receive tons of cash in federal aid? It's socialism. Local poverty does not affect the potential ability of a given school. Part of the problem is with the teachers that can't get fired - another socialist aspect.

 

[FloatingBones]

I see, you are objecting to "exploit" and "evade".

Bingo. You used terms that were far more inflammatory than the Times OR the MacRumors article. And you deceived us: you claimed that you were simply using the terms from those articles. Incorrect: you were the one who injected those pejoratives.

"Tax evasion" implies that Apple was doing something illegal. Do you have anything at all to back up that clam.

If taxes were avoided, they were evaded (from the meaning, to escape or avoid).

"Evading taxes" definitely implies that AAPL was doing something illegal. They are not.

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.

One good approach is just to use the same words used by the sources.

As an aside: your English is very good. Your grammar and spelling are far better than most in this forum. I would have never assumed that you were not a native speaker.

I never meant to imply Apple acted illegally, only immorally.

"Immorally" is in the eye of the beholder, and Apple is operating legally.

I agreed that the NYT is meriting criticism here. Let's move on.

One more comment: the NYT is acting in a divisive fashion, and that is unhealthy. They have sold out to SEO, and they don't seem to care.

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 believe the error is trying to make it a separate issue. The tax law should be black and white; "immoral" is a really silly way to describe Apple's behavior.

They are operating in a legal fashion, and that should be the end of the story.

 

[Judas1]

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.

Your perspective is skewed. Sure Apple employs people and that's a good thing. But what businesses doesn't employ people? And as you said, working people help the economy by paying sales tax, yet they also pay income tax too. Why should people pay income tax but corporations get a free ride?

----------

Do they not receive tons of cash in federal aid? It's socialism. Local poverty does not affect the potential ability of a given school. Part of the problem is with the teachers that can't get fired - another socialist aspect.

Look, if socialism is the problem, then why are some public schools performing great. All public schools get public money, according to you an example of socialism, so why don't all public schools fail? Why do some fail and some thrive? And why do the ones that fail coincide with poverty strickened districts? Me thinks that poverty is the culprit and not socialism.

 

[JohnDoe98]

"Immorally" is in the eye of the beholder, and Apple is operating legally.

And we are beholding.

They are operating in a legal fashion, and that should be the end of the story.

As I pointed out earlier, simply because something is legal doesn't make it ok. When companies dumped chemicals in rivers before regulations prohibited it, they were acting legally but immorally. When Tobacco companies initially increased the amount of nicotine in their product without disclosing this information since no regulation exited, they were acted legally but immorally. Countless other examples can be provided. The point? Often times the law is slow to catch up to what our ethics ask of us. Rest assured, these loopholes will be closed in the future to prevent this behavior from continuing. And the only reason these changes would be made is because many people think there is something wrong and ethically objectionable in this entire affair.

Just think of the extreme financial risk that was taken and which caused the collapse in the economy a few years back. Firms were selling stock and options to their clients and then betting against them. They did so legally, but few would think they acted morally. They failed to disclose pertinent information to their clients and took advantage of them.

 

[darkplanets]

http://www.fairtax.org

Wasn't aware of that. Interesting indeed.

 

[isdmd10]

Look, if socialism is the problem, then why are some public schools performing great. All public schools get public money, according to you an example of socialism, so why don't all public schools fail? Why do some fail and some thrive? And why do the ones that fail coincide with poverty strickened districts? Me thinks that poverty is the culprit and not socialism.

It's variation comes from differences in local systems, not from socially-driven federal funding. If poverty were the problem, handing out money to the patrons of a school would make it perform better, and I don't see how that's the case. Throwing money at the school itself hasn't worked.

 

[faroZ06]

And we are beholding.



As I pointed out earlier, simply because something is legal doesn't make it ok. When companies dumped chemicals in rivers before regulations prohibited it, they were acting legally but immorally. When Tobacco companies initially increased the amount of nicotine in their product without disclosing this information since no regulation exited, they were acted legally but immorally. Countless other examples can be provided. The point? Often times the law is slow to catch up to what our ethics ask of us. Rest assured, these loopholes will be closed in the future to prevent this behavior from continuing. And the only reason these changes would be made is because many people think there is something wrong and ethically objectionable in this entire affair.

Just think of the extreme financial risk that was taken and which caused the collapse in the economy a few years back. Firms were selling stock and options to their clients and then betting against them. They did so legally, but few would think they acted morally. They failed to disclose pertinent information to their clients and took advantage of them.

Naked shorting, while it was legal, was horrible. It was the sure-fire way to kill any small business at personal gain. However, it did help kill of a lot of scam organizations.

On the other hand, many illegal things are also moral, like hanging fuzzy dice on your rear-view mirror or watering your neighbor's garden after 10PM.

 

[michaelz]

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!

Yes, china's labor cost is much lower, but apple should be able to find a way to make the same product within reasonable costs by using more automated process vs hand assembling. SJ told Obama one of the reasons he cannot build factories in US is that he can't find enough entry level engineers here. Our public school system does not give enough education to our kids. Our school should be teaching from 8 to 5.

 

[Judas1]

It's variation comes from differences in local systems, not from socially-driven federal funding. If poverty were the problem, handing out money to the patrons of a school would make it perform better, and I don't see how that's the case. Throwing money at the school itself hasn't worked.

The biggest influence on how a student does is the parents, not the teachers. A poverty strickened home equals a struggling student. The school system doesn't even come into play.

 

[faroZ06]

Look, if socialism is the problem, then why are some public schools performing great. All public schools get public money, according to you an example of socialism, so why don't all public schools fail? Why do some fail and some thrive? And why do the ones that fail coincide with poverty strickened districts? Me thinks that poverty is the culprit and not socialism.

This sounds very cheesy and vague, but it depends a lot on "school spirit".

Watch the movie Waiting for Superman to see what I mean. If a school encourages success, ignores self-esteem, discourages excuses, and emphasizes general nerdiness like math and science instead of English and art, there can be a lot of kids who want to work hard in school and do well. When there are not any kids who don't give a @#$% about school, then the others are not dragged down.

I don't like the idea of "people make mistakes" and "be yourself" and "everyone is equal". No, you have to be competitive because nobody is equal. Face it, if you are a student in the public education system, everyone is INVESTING thousands of dollars in you, hoping for you to succeed.


----------

The biggest influence on how a student does is the parents, not the teachers. A poverty strickened home equals a struggling student. The school system doesn't even come into play.

True. With a different family, I could easily end up being a drug-addicted hobo. But I think that the school (and other things) can still save a student who has bad influences from his/her parents. Someone from a family of luddites could end up being a computer science engineer.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Wasn't aware of that. Interesting indeed.

Yeah, real interesting... You think it is fair for someone who owns 14 houses, 10 cars, god knows how much other junk, to pay for the same police protection of his private goods as someone who doesn't own anything worth stealing?

Oh, I'm sure that there are services the poor use that the rich don't, but the point is our needs aren't the same, why should our contribution be the same? How is that fair? To ignore the discrepancies in need is what is unfair.

 

[michaelz]

Wasn't aware of that. Interesting indeed.

Interesting indeed. It may not work, smuggling will become a hugh issue. Americans may start doing most of their shopping overseas.

 

[faroZ06]

[/COLOR]

Interesting indeed. It may not work, smuggling will become a hugh issue. Americans may start doing most of their shopping overseas.

I already do that! Hong Kong. I got a wireless camera for $30 instead of $160. Screw you, merchants and high taxes.

 

[michaelz]

Yeah, real interesting... You think it is fair for someone who owns 14 houses, 10 cars, god knows how much other junk, to pay for the same police protection of his private goods as someone who doesn't own anything worth stealing?

Oh, I'm sure that there are services the poor use that the rich don't, but the point is our needs aren't the same, why should our contribution be the same? How is that fair? To ignore the discrepancies in need is what is unfair.

What's not fair? Rich guy properly paid one million dollar tax for his 14 houses and 10 cars. He should deserve the same police protection at least. What makes you think you deserve more then rich guy if you only pay little or nothing in tax?

 

[FloatingBones]

And we are beholding.

You -- and others -- are conjecturing.

As I pointed out earlier, simply because something is legal doesn't make it ok.

As I have noted, simply because you claim it's immoral doesn't make it so. Repeating the claim makes no difference.

Where is the book written on what is "immoral" and what is not? Where is the line? Why the hell do you think you get to say?

When companies dumped chemicals in rivers before regulations prohibited it, they were acting legally but immorally.

That analogy is a FAIL.

When Tobacco companies initially increased the amount of nicotine in their product without disclosing this information since no regulation exited, they were acted legally but immorally.

Agreed. But that analogy is also a FAIL.

Countless other examples can be provided.

If there are countless examples, could you please find one where the analogy that is not a FAIL?

The point? Often times the law is slow to catch up to what our ethics ask of us.

That is your conjecture. But you've done a terrible job backing up your opinion. Really the best you have is "it's unethical because I say it is."

Rest assured, these loopholes will be closed in the future to prevent this behavior from continuing.

Maybe yes, and maybe no. In either case, it's not a commentary on whether Apple is acting in an ethical fashion today.

And the only reason these changes would be made is because many people think there is something wrong and ethically objectionable in this entire affair.

Nonsense. If the law is changed, then it will be changed. "Wrong" is just some spin you're adding to this hypothetical change in the law. One thing is certain: if the law changes, then Apple will be in compliance with that changed law.

Just think of the extreme financial risk that was taken and which caused the collapse in the economy a few years back. Firms were selling stock and options to their clients and then betting against them. They did so legally, but few would think they acted morally. They failed to disclose pertinent information to their clients and took advantage of them.

OK. I've thought about it. You've now created a third analogy that's a FAIL. None of those analogies are remotely comparable with Apple's being in compliance of the tax law.

If there are countless analogies, can you please provide a couple that are not a FAIL?

Wasn't aware of that. Interesting indeed.

One of its great features: it is very simple.

Thank you for doing some background research in the middle of this discussion. Sadly, I expect that very few will follow your example.

----------

Yeah, real interesting... You think it is fair for someone who owns 14 houses, 10 cars, god knows how much other junk, to pay for the same police protection of his private goods as someone who doesn't own anything worth stealing?

With all due respect, this is a knee-jerk reaction.

Oh, I'm sure that there are services the poor use that the rich don't, but the point is our needs aren't the same, why should our contribution be the same?

Someone who consumes more will pay a proportionally higher tax. And there will be a certain minimum of consumption for which everyone pays NO tax.

How is that fair?

It sounds pretty damn fair to me.

To ignore the discrepancies in need is what is unfair.

Why?

You need to study the FAIR tax for more than 30 minutes to understand it. There's no hurry to respond; I recommend taking at least a day to understand it.

 

[lilo777]

Collectivist philosophies (communism, fascism, socialism of every variety) have dominated this earth for well over a century. The result?

1. Massive theft of individual and group wealth by governments through heavy taxation and by banking institutions (the Fed) charging governments "interest" on fiat money that they, the private banks, have no right to issue in the first place.
2. Huge world wars and ongoing smaller wars to feed an insatiable military-industrial complex.
3. Mass displacement of employment opportunities as companies, in understandable efforts to SURVIVE (oh my, how DARE they??), shift their operations from countries with completely insane taxation and regulation (like the USA) to other countries that are not (yet) so nutty.

We live in an Orwellian world now (if you haven't read "1984", do it now - I read it in high school but in many areas since then it has been banned from schools... wonder why?)

Hypertaxation and regulation of individuals and groups, spying on the citizenry and making perpetual war are all part of the Orwellian state's standard operating basis.

Do YOU want to live as a slave? I sure don't. Maybe you don't mind, but you sure as heck do not have any right to take me down the tubes with you. You're not going to get ANY help from the puppets on the left and right. There's only one guy in Congress who knows the score and is trying sincerely to turn the tide: Ron Paul.

Apple, in my book, deserves every single tax break it can get, and I thank them for giving others the ideas on how to save taxes as well. Should "the workers" also be entitled to similar breaks? Absolutely!! Rather than complaining about how companies "get out of paying taxes" we should applaud them and then turn around and DEMAND congress REPEAL the income tax, estate taxes and the Fed and thus allow individual, ordinary families of all classes to accumulate wealth over the generations. The people who NEED this liberty the most are todays "poor". Remove the government thieves and the central bankers from the equation and these folks will now have a fighting chance to change their lot.

Let's stop funding endless wars, stop funding government spying and oppression of our own citizens and those in other countries and give the world a chance to heal from a century of insane adventurism. Let's create a Jeffersonian nation of respect for individual rights, non-interventionism in foreign affairs and an ethic of personal creativity, devotion to learning and productive exchange between people.

I sense a lot of sarcasm here. Or do you really want us to go to a stone age (i.e. total individualism, no government, no taxes, lots of fan - primitive but fun).

 

[iMikeT]

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.

Reaganomics/trickle-down/supply-side works? Yours is a joke post right? Even if it is, I'm not laughing.

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!"

I'll agree that the powers that be (the banks, corporations, oligarchs) definitely want more power to themselves and bring the world back to a state of feudalism.

However, I'll disagree with what you have to say about communism. True socialism and communism is far from that fascist state that once falsely called itself communism. What socialism is so we both know that I'm not in error.

 

[iansilv]

It's the fault of our corrupt Congress who write a corrupt tax code.

Thank you. This should pretty much be the only comme t in the thread.

 

[lilo777]

That's analogy is a FAIL.

Agreed. But that analogy is also a FAIL.


If there are countless examples, could you please find one where the analogy that is not a FAIL?

And who is the judge? You? I suspect that then all analogies will fail. It sort of like asking corporations to police themselves. They generally don't like to do it.

 

[isdmd10]

Reaganomics/trickle-down/supply-side works? Yours is a joke post right? Even if it is, I'm not laughing.

It works. No joke. It's the truth.

 

[iansilv]

And who is the judge? You? I suspect that then all analogies will fail. It sort of like asking corporations to police themselves. They generally don't like to do it.

You fail! ... At judging.... Or something...

 

[maconservative]

Vote to Lock

I vote to lock this thread. It has become a ideological pissing match. So many illogical, uneducated posts makes my eyes bleed.

 

[iansilv]

I vote to lock this thread. It has become a ideological pissing match. So many illogical, uneducated posts makes my eyes bleed.

I agree! It's clear that the socialist policies of Barack Hussein Obama are destroying this nation!

Wait... What did I write?

 

[maconservative]

I agree! It's clear that the socialist policies of Barack Hussein Obama are destroying this nation!

Wait... What did I write?

Thanks, but I left my post politically benign for a reason.