Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Scenario #1: Apple gets tax breaks. Apple saves hundreds of millions over the course of 10 years in taxes. This money could then be used to offer jobs to new people, or to increase the salaries of existing workers.

Scenario #2: No tax breaks. Apple takes the hundreds of millions it could have spent on its workforce and gives it to the government. Now there's a whole bunch of people who could have been working at Apple and paying taxes... now not.

I fail to see how Scenario #2 is in any way better for ANYONE. Arguing against the tax breaks is essentially saying that it's better to give money to the government than it is to hire people or raise salaries.
 
Scenario #1: Apple gets tax breaks. Apple saves hundreds of millions over the course of 10 years in taxes. This money could then be used to offer jobs to new people, or to increase the salaries of existing workers.

Scenario #2: No tax breaks. Apple takes the hundreds of millions it could have spent on its workforce and gives it to the government. Now there's a whole bunch of people who could have been working at Apple and paying taxes... now not.

I fail to see how Scenario #2 is in any way better for ANYONE. Arguing against the tax breaks is essentially saying that it's better to give money to the government than it is to hire people or raise salaries.

Surely you realize money that is paid to the government gets reinvested in programs and things for society??

Too bad in scenario #1, the only people who will be getting increased salaries are the executives at the top getting 8 figure bonuses, while the retail people who have to deal with all the whiny consumers who complain about sharp edges will still make a paltry $9.
 
Surely you realize money that is paid to the government gets reinvested in programs and things for society??

Too bad in scenario #1, the only people who will be getting increased salaries are the executives at the top getting 8 figure bonuses, while the retail people who have to deal with all the whiny consumers who complain about sharp edges will still make a paltry $9.

Drinking the kool-aid here...

Money that goes to the government gets lost in red tape or wherever some slimy politician feels he can get the biggest return (see: Solyndra).

Money that stays with Apple stays with the people that earned it and they decide what best to do with it.
 
Scenario #1: Apple gets tax breaks. Apple saves hundreds of millions over the course of 10 years in taxes. This money could then be used to offer jobs to new people, or to increase the salaries of existing workers.

Scenario #2: No tax breaks. Apple takes the hundreds of millions it could have spent on its workforce and gives it to the government. Now there's a whole bunch of people who could have been working at Apple and paying taxes... now not.

I fail to see how Scenario #2 is in any way better for ANYONE. Arguing against the tax breaks is essentially saying that it's better to give money to the government than it is to hire people or raise salaries.

Last time I checked, apple had >100 Billion in cash that it wasn't using to create any jobs. Oh wait.. does hiring people to count money count as job creation?
 
People don't seem to realize what we're getting from our government. Am I the only one who is amazed by what I get for the taxes I pay? And trust me, Apple gets a lot more
Most of what you get/use was paid for and installed a long time ago when deficits were not as extreme. The current meme prevents investments now future people can use, so that should in principal annoy you greatly. Even if you love government programs, deficits are bad for that too.

Public debt is crowding out private and muni debt. The investment dollars have to go somewhere and when it goes to government the velocity is reduced from 3x+ to ~1x. Attached is a chart to prove it. Sorry for presenting facts that confuse the mis-direction debate. So you can read the charts right, the Federal Fiscal Stimulus started October 2009 and has continued due to the lack of a Senate budget since. Perma-stimulus (tm).

Check Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Rocketman
 

Attachments

  • Picture 5.png
    Picture 5.png
    25.6 KB · Views: 86
  • Picture 7.png
    Picture 7.png
    19.4 KB · Views: 69
  • Picture 8.png
    Picture 8.png
    22.8 KB · Views: 71
  • Picture 11.png
    Picture 11.png
    40 KB · Views: 73
Last edited:
Last time I checked, apple had >100 Billion in cash that it wasn't using to create any jobs. Oh wait.. does hiring people to count money count as job creation?

Unless you think that it's sitting under a mattress somewhere, of course it's being used to create jobs. It's almost all invested somewhere.
 
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.

Well, who do you want to determine it? The rich don't want to pay any taxes at all and increasingly, everyone else wants them to pay it all. So there you go. Personally, I'd be fine with a flat tax rate or even a federal sales tax in lieu of income taxes. But let me tell you it won't bloody likely ever happen because people will say that it's STILL unfair. Why? Because people WANT to deduct dependents, mortgages and charitable contributions and you CAN'T allow tons of deductions and make the system SIMPLE since one man's 'reasonable deduction' is another mans' excuse to keep scamming the system. Hey, I'm a single male and so I get screwed on everything from car insurance to federal income taxes so what do I have to lose by supporting a flat rate type system? But then someone would call that biased as well.

It's no fault of a given corporation, because after all, they exist to make a profit.

Well that's what my uncle use to say when he didn't file any tax returns. He wants the money, so you can't fault him for not paying his taxes. I mean it's just a BS excuse. Corporations aren't robots from the future. They're run by people and people can behave in morally and ethically responsible ways. It's the government's responsibility to see that they do, but you have an entire party that wants NO regulations of ANYTHING. That way they're free to do anything they want with no consequences. What a lovely idea. I got labeled a "communist" at work for saying I support health care reform and keeping social security. Yeah, if that makes me a communist, then they must be anarchists to want to get rid of all regulation.

Also, demonizing successful people like Mitt Romney for being successful is damning yourself to mediocrity.

I don't demonize him because he's successful. I demonize him because he's a greedy SOB that's made his views of outsourcing and deregulating America VERY clear. He also doesn't pay squat for taxes compared to myself as a percentage of total income because his is from capital gains (and he and his party want to get rid of that tax entirely so he doesn't have to pay ANY taxes!)

I mean what part of THAT'S A BUNCH OF BULLCRAP isn't obvious? :rolleyes:

I don't know a lot about the Mormon Church, but if he's their representative for ethics and morality, I don't want to know any more about them. The Bible I read talks about the evil of money and giving it away to help others, not hoarding millions and billions and taking control the system to get millions more. Yes, the rich pay more taxes in absolute dollars, but they also make a LOT more and quite frankly a lot more than they need to live in luxury, let alone their basic needs that many of us paying a higher percentage of taxes have to actually be concerned about. Hey, but get rid of food stamps. Get rid of welfare. Get rid of all the programs to help the poor and give the rich another tax cut because they sure do NEED it! :rolleyes:
 
Apple isn't using it to create jobs. If apple wasn't investing that money, someone else would. If they weren't apples profits, it would be someone elses

I'm not sure what distinction you are going for here. When Apple invests that $100+ billion in other companies, I'm pretty sure there are some jobs being created. Again, this money isn't cash sitting around under a mattress. It's almost all invested somewhere.
 
Scenario #1: Apple gets tax breaks. Apple saves hundreds of millions over the course of 10 years in taxes. This money could then be used to offer jobs to new people, or to increase the salaries of existing workers.

Scenario #2: No tax breaks. Apple takes the hundreds of millions it could have spent on its workforce and gives it to the government. Now there's a whole bunch of people who could have been working at Apple and paying taxes... now not.

I fail to see how Scenario #2 is in any way better for ANYONE. Arguing against the tax breaks is essentially saying that it's better to give money to the government than it is to hire people or raise salaries.

In scenario 1, that money either gets distributed to shareholders as dividends (which Apple has announced will happen) and taxed or given to other investors if Apple uses the cash to purchase other companies (and also taxed).

As an Apple shareholder, I'm pleased they do what they can to legally avoid taxes their competitors also avoid. All you peeps that want to tax corporations more, write your congress representative.

----------

Apple isn't using it to create jobs. If apple wasn't investing that money, someone else would. If they weren't apples profits, it would be someone else's...


...And they'd be doing everything Apple is to lower their tax burden. So your point is???
 
I don't know a lot about the Mormon Church, but if he's their representative for ethics and morality, I don't want to know any more about them. The Bible I read talks about the evil of money and giving it away to help others, not hoarding millions and billions and taking control the system to get millions more. Yes, the rich pay more taxes in absolute dollars, but they also make a LOT more and quite frankly a lot more than they need to live in luxury, let alone their basic needs that many of us paying a higher percentage of taxes have to actually be concerned about. Hey, but get rid of food stamps. Get rid of welfare. Get rid of all the programs to help the poor and give the rich another tax cut because they sure do NEED it! :rolleyes:

A: Mitt Romney is NOT the church's representative for ethics and morality anymore than JFK was for the Catholic church.

B: Do a little research on the LDS Church's Humanitarian Services (Here, I'll help you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Humanitarian_Services) "From 1985 - 2009, $327.6 million in cash and $884.6 million in commodities of aid was given throughout 178 countries." I'm sure you'll find that there is PLENTY of giving. Along with his legal share of taxes. Mitt Romney donated millions to this program as well. He has no problem using his wealth to help others.
 
Last edited:
I was only referring to one post. It's a fairly long thread for a new topic. You still made up your own statistic there to look ironic:p. Newspapers do use fact checkers. They would prefer not to be sued for libel. They should mention sources and an estimated margin of error on the figure given that the corporate tax return would not be a matter of public record. Anyway your figure is still silly.
Being silly is fun.


And I guess now that Forbes has agreed with my posts of yesterday morning, maybe people will believe me.
 
Why, yes. It is categorically different. In your example, people are hiding assets. For these large corporations, they are openly declaring what they're doing.

@JohnDoe98: this is another example of a failed analogy.

Oh your soooooo smart. IT was not so much an analogy as showing the lengths some ppl go to so they can dodge taxes. Whether its legal or illegal, hidden or out in the open.
 
i thought i should add this as an easy way for everyone to understand our tax system. it's roughly the same for businesses to...





Submitted by Sacramento_Jeff on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 10:14
in*Daily Paul Liberty Forum

This may be the single best explanation of how the tax system works in*the US, and the problems with those that demagogue it.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day; ten men go out for beer and the bill for all tencomes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, itwould go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every*day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm
going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten*now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the*first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men -- the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his*"fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if*they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the*sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So the bar*owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by*roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men*began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat*down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,*they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our*tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most*benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being*wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might*start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Author unknown

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


**sorry for the poor formatting, i'm doing this from my phone.**
 
i thought i should add this as an easy way for everyone to understand our tax system. it's roughly the same for businesses to...





Submitted by Sacramento_Jeff on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 10:14
in*Daily Paul Liberty Forum

This may be the single best explanation of how the tax system works in*the US, and the problems with those that demagogue it.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day; ten men go out for beer and the bill for all tencomes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, itwould go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every*day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm
going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten*now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the*first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men -- the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his*"fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if*they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the*sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So the bar*owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by*roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men*began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat*down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,*they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our*tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most*benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being*wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might*start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Author unknown

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


**sorry for the poor formatting, i'm doing this from my phone.**


That really sounds good but in all actuality where would they go and get all the other things afforded them in this country. They might be able to retain some of the privileges but where would they be able to keep them all.

For all those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those that do not understand, no explanation is possible.

I could not resist that lol. But we all know it is never that simple.
 
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

That's sorta rude.

Any way, I doubt all wealthy Americans would suddenly run away if their tax bill increased.
 
i thought i should add this as an easy way for everyone to understand our tax system. it's roughly the same for businesses to...

snip

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Classic.

The other exercise that proves the point is the professor that says the grades will be shared - So A students will have to give some of their good grades to the F students. Of course the A students are all shocked by this. Its not fair, they say, they work hard for those grades while the F students are out partying every night.

So while many of these same students think its perfectly ok to take from the rich and give to the poor, they do not think its good to do the same with grades. Once again, they feel that people that earn lots of money somehow cheat the system and unfairly earn their wealth.
 
Being silly is fun.


And I guess now that Forbes has agreed with my posts of yesterday morning, maybe people will believe me.

It seems we agree on something.

I noted Forbes, which assuming its validity means the NYT was way off. I do still dislike the culture of tax avoidance. Deducting things such as expenses and inventory is much different from setting up a dummy corporation in another state or country to shuffle income. Even if one of the larger corporations was doing something illegal, the IRS does not necessarily have the manpower or will to do something about it.
 
That really sounds good but in all actuality where would they go and get all the other things afforded them in this country. They might be able to retain some of the privileges but where would they be able to keep them all.

For all those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those that do not understand, no explanation is possible.

I could not resist that lol. But we all know it is never that simple.

haha...trust me, i know it's not that simple. but a flat tax across the board for every citizen and business would make it simple.

----------

That's sorta rude.

Any way, I doubt all wealthy Americans would suddenly run away if their tax bill increased.

not my saying...quoted from the website...but i agree with it.

----------

Classic.

The other exercise that proves the point is the professor that says the grades will be shared - So A students will have to give some of their good grades to the F students. Of course the A students are all shocked by this. Its not fair, they say, they work hard for those grades while the F students are out partying every night.

So while many of these same students think its perfectly ok to take from the rich and give to the poor, they do not think its good to do the same with grades. Once again, they feel that people that earn lots of money somehow cheat the system and unfairly earn their wealth.

trust me...i have a love/hate relationship with that when my professors grade on a curve. haha.
 
Yes... you are correct sir!

Of course this is the mini version of the Ayn Rand novel "Atlas Shrugged"


i thought i should add this as an easy way for everyone to understand our tax system. it's roughly the same for businesses to...





Submitted by Sacramento_Jeff on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 10:14
in*Daily Paul Liberty Forum

This may be the single best explanation of how the tax system works in*the US, and the problems with those that demagogue it.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day; ten men go out for beer and the bill for all tencomes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, itwould go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every*day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm
going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten*now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the*first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men -- the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his*"fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if*they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the*sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So the bar*owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by*roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men*began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat*down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,*they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our*tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most*benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being*wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might*start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Author unknown

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


**sorry for the poor formatting, i'm doing this from my phone.**
 
Of course not. Feel free to fix the leaks. Just make sure your motives aren't based on jealousy. Jealousy is a dangerous motivation. I wish newspapers wouldn't pull that lever so often.
Hey, I own Apple stock, I profit from them reducing their tax expenditure. I also am liable to pay 'income' tax in a jurisdiction where I have to declare any gain made by buying and selling stock as 'income' but at lower rate than most 'normal' income.
 
it almost reads like they are money laundering!! But they are not the only ones, big corporations apparently, accordion to the 9to5mac story, pay lobbyists lots of money to ensure the tax loopholes are kept open to allow this practice, that wouldn't surprise me either.
But the only reason this story is out is cause it's an American election year right? Corporations should be paying their taxes sure, but the loopholes allowing tax evasion should be shut, and corporations proved to have been involved in lobbying to ensure the loopholes remain should be seen in court for corruption.

But meh, worlds run by selfish banks, corrupt dumb governments and giant corporations anyway...

And remember the other Apple tax story last week? Where Apple is refusing to expand it's buildings somewhere in America because it isn't getting the tax breaks it wants from the government.... yeah.. welcome to the modern corporate capitalist world.

Banks are not selfish. They invest money in everyone and try to help them with their business or whatever it is.

I don't blame the companies at all for avoiding the highest corporate taxes in the world. How about lowering the tax to a point where they'd just use American workers and pay American taxes instead of paying it all to other countries?

----------

They won't run away... they would find better ways to hide it from the leeches (Feds).
There will always be loopholes to exploit. ;)

Not if the Feds just give in and lower the taxes...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.