Just came in to say +1 to this
This is just one company using this "loophole"
If it's a known loophole it should be closed. This is revenue that the US desperately needs.
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
Just came in to say +1 to this
This is just one company using this "loophole"
If it's a known loophole it should be closed. This is revenue that the US desperately needs.
Hogwash... I had a corporation and I can ASSURE you I paid taxes on the business and as an individual. In fact, several years I paid more in withholding taxes than I had previously ever hoped to make.
True their employees also pay taxes. Ever wondered how many times the same money is taxed? Many..
For example, your weekly check is $1000 gross. You pay $300 and $100 SS.. All of the deductions are based on the gross amount ($1K)... As soon as ONE of the deduction transactions occur, the $1K is no more so how can further taxes be computed on it?
All I will say is that the Governments have the right to make sure that all relevant taxes are paid. Just as businesses (and individuals) have the right to make sure that they don't pay any more than is due.
End of story.
End of story.
I just want to point out that this is not accurate. The Bible says the pursuit or love of money is evil. Common error. 1Ti. 6:9,10. And I might add it is not entirely against having money, as so many claim. For instance, a parable where the rich man is the good guy: Mt. 18:23-35.
Last edited:
Where? Please list the companies/etc that the entire (or majority) of Apple's reserves are invested in and how many jobs that money has generated. DO you have any sources. Or are you "supposing?"
Money market funds are required to keep 10% of their assets in 7 day liquidity funds and 30% in 30 day liquidity funds. Apple discloses some general details of how domestic US funds are invested and they skew toward short term.
Money market funds "broke the buck" during the transition of the Bush/Obama administrations.
I suggest managing funds for return OF capital not return ON capital in these times/conditions.
I give offlist advise in this field. 30 years of provable advise.
Rocketman
Money market funds "broke the buck" during the transition of the Bush/Obama administrations.
I suggest managing funds for return OF capital not return ON capital in these times/conditions.
I give offlist advise in this field. 30 years of provable advise.
Rocketman
Not sure I understand the point
What was the point of the NYT article, it certainly didn't have a conclusion....
Was the point that companies should "ante" up money in the form of taxes, and hope and pray that they can stay competitive???
Was the point that tax regulations should be changed, from a global level to the local level????
Or was it the NYT with their "burr under the saddle" with Apple, venting and trying to create ill will.
It is apparent that most all multi national companies are using the same tax avoidance tactics, but the NYT's chose to use Apple as an example, and not others such as GE, Chevron, Google etc.
What was the point of the NYT article, it certainly didn't have a conclusion....
Was the point that companies should "ante" up money in the form of taxes, and hope and pray that they can stay competitive???
Was the point that tax regulations should be changed, from a global level to the local level????
Or was it the NYT with their "burr under the saddle" with Apple, venting and trying to create ill will.
It is apparent that most all multi national companies are using the same tax avoidance tactics, but the NYT's chose to use Apple as an example, and not others such as GE, Chevron, Google etc.
The only way to combat this in my view is for every country to set the same rate of corporation tax. Therefore there would be no incentive to swing money across several continents to avoid tax.
But... this will NEVER happen. Smaller countries like to be competitive and attract big business.
As long as Apple meets its legal obligations, it has done nothing wrong.
However, it is my personal view that companies should make contributions back into society when they have extracted wealth, be it in the form of tax or other charitable projects. (I'm not saying Apple hasn't done this, just that companies should!)
But... this will NEVER happen. Smaller countries like to be competitive and attract big business.
As long as Apple meets its legal obligations, it has done nothing wrong.
However, it is my personal view that companies should make contributions back into society when they have extracted wealth, be it in the form of tax or other charitable projects. (I'm not saying Apple hasn't done this, just that companies should!)
You all talk as if they paid no taxes. They still paid BILLIONS in taxes. How much is "enough" then?
And all that profit that didn't meet your tax burden requirement-- do you think that money just sits in Tim Cook's pockets? Or is the use of that money in acquiring other strategic companies a LESS efficient use of capital than giving it to a government entity so they can buy votes by handing that money over to non-productive assets in the economy?
I'd rather have Apple keep its billions and continue hiring people and building/expanding facilities that employ thousands of people so those people can get real income versus giving Congress and this administration any more money to waste.
The problem is some ppl here think the money actually is in Tim cooks pockets and he's partying every night. Silly...i know.
I don't get it...
How is a company that isn't doing anything unlawful, immoral, or unethical, acting unethically?
Do you truly believe it is ethical to waste billions of dollars unnecessarily?
That's the only thing I could think you are agreeing with.
----------
Let's see, new data center in NC, expanding the locations in Oregon and Texas. Just to name three off the top of my head.
As for stockpiling cash... You mean a company has the forethought to make sure it doesn't have to run to the government for a bailout, and you want to complain? What the hell kind of bizzaro world do you live in?
----------
No, it's not the only way to combat it. There have been some great ideas posted on how to handle it...
----------
The point was that the NYT wanted to demonstrate its inability to do basic journalism. They used the wrong numbers, and came to the wrong conclusion. The point is they need to hire a few people that can explain to their reporters how business taxation works. That was the point.
How is a company that isn't doing anything unlawful, immoral, or unethical, acting unethically?
Do you truly believe it is ethical to waste billions of dollars unnecessarily?
That's the only thing I could think you are agreeing with.
----------
Let's see, new data center in NC, expanding the locations in Oregon and Texas. Just to name three off the top of my head.
As for stockpiling cash... You mean a company has the forethought to make sure it doesn't have to run to the government for a bailout, and you want to complain? What the hell kind of bizzaro world do you live in?
----------
No, it's not the only way to combat it. There have been some great ideas posted on how to handle it...
----------
The point was that the NYT wanted to demonstrate its inability to do basic journalism. They used the wrong numbers, and came to the wrong conclusion. The point is they need to hire a few people that can explain to their reporters how business taxation works. That was the point.
What in the world? I didn't think this was a controversial statement. Look at their financial statements (10-Q). Most of the $100+ billion is in short or long term marketable securities. I'm not sure what you think the money is doing.
Like Headstart. Where after 40 years of investing in underprivileged children (we currently spend 7 BILLION per year on the 1 MILLION enrolled children), there is NO DISCERNIBLE positive benefit. There is conclusive evidence that children enrolled in the program receive no net benefit over children not enrolled in the program. NONE.
So yes, can we please continue to throw money around where it is GUARANTEED to have no net benefit? This was an article in Time, feel free to look it up...
Last edited:
Explain how these investments are creating jobs. You made the statement, not me.
The reason that your argument is completely WRONG is, Apple paid its taxes! That's been stated several thousand times... Your Uncle NOT paying taxes, and Apple legally paying taxes, and your tax avoiding Uncle, have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with each other. And this unadulterated line of crap "That way they're free to do anything they want with no consequences," is that what happened to MCI Worlcom? Enron? Goldman Sachs? Do you even READ the news?
NO IT DOESN'T! I talks about the evil of LOVING money (more than people).
So money isn't evil, and has a purpose?
And this is exactly what Apple ISN'T doing. Why don't you take a basic economics class so that you can present something valid to this argument?
Who do you think shoulders most of the tax burden in this country? Those with money, or those without money?
The first intelligent thing you've said. It is proven that a handout creates an entitled dependent, which your whining sounds like :rolls eyes:
Last edited:
What do you suppose they're doing with the invested money? I'm just curious if you believe they're investing money and then Tim has it in a huge vault where he swims in it like scrooge mcduck? I understand you're arguing for the sake of arguing but come on...
First, take a class in basic economics....
Apple invests in *SOMETHING* That doesn't mean that Apple hands money to an entity that then takes it and stuffs it in a mattress. That will not yield a profit. So Apple invests in something that is yielding a profit, like other companies, that hire people. Simple enough?
Apple invests in *SOMETHING* That doesn't mean that Apple hands money to an entity that then takes it and stuffs it in a mattress. That will not yield a profit. So Apple invests in something that is yielding a profit, like other companies, that hire people. Simple enough?
Okay, I'm game. In order to define FairTax we must first determine if the word Tax is the Noun or the Verb.
Noun: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions
Verb: Impose a tax on (someone or something).
It is likely that the definition of tax we should be using is the noun version. My reasoning is we are talking about the system of taxation, a thing, not the act of taxing someone. Also the term FairTax is the name of a thing or idea, not an action. Since that is the case we have to use the adjective version of fair to modify tax.
Adjective: In accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
The other option is to modify the verb version of tax with an adverb
Adverb: Without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage: "he played fair"
Since we're using the noun form of tax, we HAVE to use the adjective version of fair. Let's see what that creates...
FairTax definition: In accordance with rules or standards this would be a legitimate system created for controlling compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
I went to the website and read what was there. I could not find anything contradictory to the above definition. Please identify what you found that shows the above definition does not apply, or that the use of the adjective fair was improperly applied.
Last edited:
I am well aware of how investments work. I was asking BaldiMac to back up his statement with actual facts not conjecture. What and how is Apple investing its money and how many quantitative jobs are those investments making? Further - these companies that Apple invests in aren't necc HIRING new people. Where is the proof of that? If Apple invests - in say - GE - and GE is having layoffs, then Apple isn't creating jobs. They might be preventing further layoffs. But more likely - they aren't really affecting jobs at all - but rather infusing GE with capital for continued R&D or other business expenses.
The whole money invested in companies EQUALS creating jobs isn't anything that can be proven directly at all. It's a myth.
Apple invests money. Entity that is invested in hires people to do things.
Where's the proof in that though? As I wrote earlier - just because money is invested into a company doesn't mean it increases its workforce.
----------
Of course. Do you have proof of any sort that just because a company gets an infusion of cash - they increase their workforce. Maybe they use the money to buy patents. Maybe they use it to pay of debts. There are many things a company does with cash besides start hiring more people.
I am not suggesting money never means an increase in staffing. But by the same token - it doesn't necc. cause it either.
ETA: On an individual level. One of the reasons that the stimulus package didn't work that well was because people used the money to pay off debt or it was simply saved. Not exactly what was "supposed" to happen with that infusion.
Okay, I'll entertain this... What is the difference between not paying more than you are legally required to, and not paying more than you are legally required to?
Stop. You are NOT unethical for doing everything that is legally required of you, which Apple has done. In FACT, there is NO accusation of wrong doing. The ONLY place that wrong doing exists is in peoples imagination.
What action has Apple taken that is unethical (I've heard that word thrown around in this discussion, and NO ONE has supported it)?
How is it unethical to NOT waste? In what way are ethics being violated when Apple has the money to NOT go to the government and ask for a bail out? Explain.
Your asking for proof that you know is not available. Is it really hard to accept that $100 billion in investment has created at least one job?