How Apple Minimizes its Corporate Tax Burden

[econgeek]

prevented many no name kids with higher tests scores and more eagerness to learn from getting in.

This didn't prevent these kids from getting an education, probably even a better education than the ones who went in their place. Those who skate by on political pull are far less likely to learn what they need to learn than those with "eagerness to learn". You can learn whatever you want even without college.

Further, it is the overarching state and its control over the economy that creates this pull in the first place.

So, you're complaining about the rich having better access in a political system as a justification for that political systems existence!

If there were no government control over education, then the rich would have no more pull. (and education would also be much higher quality and cheaper to boot.)

 

[Lennholm]

Good, less tax the better.

Rich people dont hang on to money, they invest it in other things, they pay employees they start new ventures.

Government just force their crap services on to you from funds they steal from the productive class.

Tax = violence because if you dont pay you eventually get police with guns to your door.

We need less violence not more.

peace.

"Crap services", like law enforcement, fire departments, emergency stand-by's, the infrastructure with roads and railways etc?

If taxes are moral, was the USA an immoral country before 1900?

The two taxes americans (and businesses) pay at the federal level are income taxes and inflation. The IRS was created in 1915 and the Federal Reserve in 1913. Before that there was no federal income tax or consistent inflation for over 100 years.

No, people who say taxes are "moral" are people who think that impoverishing people is moral.

Taxes and inflation are just the mechanism by which the many are kept poor and the few elite criminals that run government are enriched.

Since said criminals run the "education" indoctrination centers that the many are forced-- by law-- to send their kids, naturally most kids learn that this theft is "moral" and that failing to be enslaved in this manner is "immoral".

And I won't even get into the economic nonsense.

Just note this- over the past century poverty has gone up, when it was on its way to being eliminated. All of these countries form the EU to the USA are completely bankrupt because once they start stealing they want to steal it all.

You are going to suffer for your own ignorance, and lack of a moral spine.

Taxes are theft. Inflation is theft.

Apple is acting morally here.

How do you suggest the government pay for the services you take for granted, like law enforcement, public roads etc. if they aren't allowed to collect taxes?

 

[cadillac1234]

I think its hilarious when you guys point out things like police-- an agency that works for the government, and not for the people, to ensure that government edicts are enforced-- as "benefit"s that justify the theft via taxes.

If government benefits were worth a damn, they wouldn't have to threaten violence to make you pay.

In the bay area, in the 1800s, private police forces existed, the people voluntarily paid for them and they were answerable to the people Not the corrupt situation you have now.

This is literally like a slave owner claiming the chains used to keep the slave in bondage justify the slavery in the first place-- after all, he needs to work to cover the cost of those chains!

I'm not sure what you are getting at aside from going on a libertarian tangent attack on the police force.

I can almost guarantee that as CEO, Tim Cook would rather have a public police force that he does not have to worry about privately maintaining than a potential anarchy of private security forces.

 

[econgeek]

Tim Cook will "invest" his money on a 200 yard yacht (as we know Steve Jobs did). The society could get by without this and be much better off.

If Tim Cook does build a boat, that money will be used to buy materials and manufactured components and to pay the employees who provide those, as well as the employees who build the actual boat. All of this benefits society.

By the way, "society" is just code word people like you use for the mafia thugs who enslave people for their profit. The ironic thing is, you're probably not profiting from it yourself but your'e defending your own enslavement.

That 200 yard yacht (600 foot is damn big, btw.) produces economic growth when its built. If he put the money in a bank it would be lent out, producing economic growth. If he put the money into the stock market it would be providing capital used to fund economic growth.

All of these investments benefit society... probably far more than you ever will in your lifetime.

not that we're slaves to "society" and not that we need to justify our existence against some measure of "benefit to society".

That's exactly the way communists talk, by the way.

 

[Rennir]

Corporations are people. And people already pay taxes. Income taxes, sales taxes, VAT, etc. I don't want corporations paying more taxes because that means I'll be paying more for goods and services as a consumer.

I think you missed a step in your logic there, because I was just about to use that statement. Corporations are people. Every person in the United States is legally obligated to pay taxes and ethically obligated not to dodge them. Therefore, Apple should pay taxes like the rest of us people.

But if we consider your argument, you want to enlarge the burden on people while businesses get a pass, so that they'll lower prices of their products? But that doesn't take into account other factors. At what level should the taxes be? If they're too low for corporations, then the government will suffer huge deficits, cut jobs, stop fundin education, cut Medicare/Medicaid:social security, you get the point. Would you argue that that is actually good for the people? At te same time I agree that if taxes are too high, then some of that cost will be out in us as the customer. But the relationship between taxes on corporations and benefits to the people isn't a direct inverse relationship like you make it out to be.

 

[econgeek]

I'm not sure what you are getting at aside from going on a libertarian tangent attack on the police force.

I can almost guarantee that as CEO, Tim Cook would rather have a public police force that he does not have to worry about privately maintaining than a potential anarchy of private security forces.

Why is it you guys never can answer arguments and instead just side step them and engage in smug ad hominem?

As I pointed out, we've had private police forces in the USA, including the Bay Area, and they worked out a whole lot better than the corruption we have now.

You call it "anarchy" because you're trying to smear it. But what you have now is a police state.

 

[Rot'nApple]

The Moral, Ethical thing to do. Rich get richer crap?! Just a few replies to this story... Maybe I'd buy those comments if our Buffoon President (and wifey) didn't take his version of the rich man's Mitt Romney, Cayman Island tax shelter and gifted a total of $48,000 to their daughters TAX FREE, which also made him not eligible for his beloved, Buffett Rule tax. All this after running around the country spouting the rich aren't paying their fair share and spread the wealth crap, that THIS is your pathetic stance that when you, Mr. President, had the morally, ethically, right thing to do, and you totally wussed out by looking for TAX BREAKS! What an IGNORAMOUS!

Then there is the paper not worthy of lining my bird cage, the rag called The NY Times. They write of the scorn of the WI Gomernor, Scott Walker, for wanting to revise the pensions of state workers, and now the NY Times is doing the same to their staff. Of course these pontificating baboon reporters are now all up in arms over this. It's called reality you dolts, come down from your Ivory Towers and join the real world.

Of course I am LMAO, because the NY Times as a business is only taking the same actions that Scott Walker is as a governor and the NY Times staff are only reacting like the scum unions of WI, which begs the question of the Times staffers... Who you gonna recall? The NY Times CEO of a family runned, centuries old paper business? That's something I'd like to see. What have the reporters of the NY Times done thus far? Posted a video showing them as the whinny Liberal crybabies they are! COULDN'T HAPPEN TO A BUNCH OF NICER PEOPLE!. You stoked up this mentality with your lame reporting, and now you reap what you sew. In other words you Progressive dumb a$$ reporters of the Times, 'You made your bed. Now lie in it!'

Apple, do as these hypocrites do... Keep as much of your money as you legally can! Keep it away from the government that is as legally possible! Apple YOU are doing the right thing!

 

[imageWIS]

Don't blame Apple. It's the current tax code that leaves the burden on the individual's. Look it up!

And who lobbies for the tax code? Corporations that can afford it. Who can't afford to lobby for a more fair tax code? Individuals who can't afford it.

Not blaming corporations is asinine (before and Especially after citizens united).

 

[JAT]

Except nobody pays 35% and some, as we just learned, pay just 9%. And yes there are lobbists, like Chamber of Commerce that lobby for all businesses at once. Not to mention the likes of Koch brothers etc. who make sure they select a puppet president (Bush) who will lower the taxes for all of them.

This is the problem with the media. This person just "learned" that Apple pays 9% tax. Of course, there is no actual knowledge associated with that number, but that number is going to stick in his head and color his perception. Even though we have no basis for understanding the number, or even if it is accurate.

Also, 89% of all statistics are simply made up on the spot. And the gullible always believe them.

 

[jlasoon]

You thin you are smart, right? So, let's all change ourselves and get fancy jobs that pay a lot. Would not it be fun? But wait... who is going to teach our kids, or make our bread, or clean our streets or... Every society has certain needs and generally it does not need a lot (or at all) rich people but it does need a lot of working people. And no Apple should not be doing it. That's just spoiled rich brat mentality in you that thinks that this is what Apple should be doing.

Do you have any idea what happens when you over tax a population? The idea that corporations and people are going to stick it out and just fork over the money because Congress and the Feds need more money to prop up their failing social policies is complete nonsense.

Some of us have been making "beaucoup" dollars betting against the stupidity of this country and the people who reside within it's borders. We saw it first with the Nasdaq bubble, you saw it a few years ago with the housing meltdown, and you're going to see it in the near future with the destruction of the dollar. Keep pushing your silly ideas, keep espousing insane economic rhetoric, keep advocating for more, and eventually you and your ilk will be the last ones occupying what was once a great and prosperous country. In the end, I don't really give a crap what Democans & Republicrats do, both parties make me money as the policies never change. But I do have a sore spot for those who will be destroyed by the fiscal insanity espoused by individuals such as yourself who blame corporations for making money and defend government bureaucracy i.e., Greece.

Government Revenue anyone?

 

[Lennholm]

I think its hilarious when you guys point out things like police-- an agency that works for the government, and not for the people, to ensure that government edicts are enforced-- as "benefit"s that justify the theft via taxes.

If government benefits were worth a damn, they wouldn't have to threaten violence to make you pay. You don't see Apple threatening violence to make people buy their computers.

In the bay area, in the 1800s, private police forces existed, the people voluntarily paid for them and they were answerable to the people Not the corrupt situation you have now.

This is literally like a slave owner claiming the chains used to keep the slave in bondage justify the slavery in the first place-- after all, he needs to work to cover the cost of those chains!

Your reasoning is so backwards I don't even know where to begin. The police works for the people. They are regulated by the law, the law is regulated by the legislators, the legislators are elected by the people. That's how a representative democracy works, the government is by and for the people.

 

[cadillac1234]

Why is it you guys never can answer arguments and instead just side step them and engage in smug ad hominem?

As I pointed out, we've had private police forces in the USA, including the Bay Area, and they worked out a whole lot better than the corruption we have now.

You call it "anarchy" because you're trying to smear it. But what you have now is a police state.

I would like to see your sources about the reliable private police forces in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1800s.

Having lived here for 40+ years I am a bit of a history buff and have read a lot on the Gold Coast in the 1800s. If you didn't mind the corruption, the private police force riots, the Shang-hais, the arson, the murders and the overall anarchy of the period, I guess the private police forces were a good idea.

 

[DisMyMac]

But the relationship between taxes on corporations and benefits to the people isn't a direct inverse relationship like you make it out to be.

Also consider that tax rates are effectively non-negotiable, whereas individuals must beg and whore themselves in order to work anywhere.

 

[econgeek]

"Crap services", like law enforcement, fire departments, emergency stand-by's, the infrastructure with roads and railways etc?

All of which are of low quality in the USA.

How do you suggest the government pay for the services you take for granted, like law enforcement, public roads etc. if they aren't allowed to collect taxes?

The same way any moral service provider does.

Here's a historical example. Originally there was no "US Post Office", it was unregulated and there were a lot of companies offering first class mail. Back then this was a growth industry- it was like the dotcom of its time. The poorest person could afford to send a letter across the country and the distribution system was efficient as all hell, prices were dropping and service was growing.

The politicians were concerned that these services could be used to send political propaganda (I'm to making this up) and decided to nationalize it to be able to better censor the mail. Thus they passed a law prohibiting first class letter delivery to anyone buy the government.

Despite having this government created monopoly, the US Postal service is a completely failing business, charges more and more every year and delivers lower and lower quality service.

Meanwhile these police you love, do things like seize people's fedex deliveries and charge companies hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines if its found they are shipping mail via fedex that doesn't need to be their (in the governments opinion) rapidly. I'm not making this stuff up!

So, here's a perfect example of a service that existed in both states. When it was free, there was competition and it was rapidly improving, profitable and available to all. Under government it is available to all, but the prices are rapidly increasing, its unprofitable, and declining... even with a monopoly enforced at the point of a gun.

So, the idea that we need taxes to pay for these things is absurd-- all of these services could be delivered by private entities, and in the case of justice, for instance, already are. (arbitration has replaced courts because government courts are so incompetently and inefficiently run.)

 

[guzhogi]

"Crap services", like law enforcement, fire departments, emergency stand-by's, the infrastructure with roads and railways etc? How do you suggest the government pay for the services you take for granted, like law enforcement, public roads etc. if they aren't allowed to collect taxes?

I agree. If the government instead sold resources like oil, people would complain how it's setting the price too high and not at market levels. But if we had no government at all and had everything privatized, these same people would probably complain about how we don't have a good military. Or how awful the roads are and how they have to get their cars fixed frequently or buying a new car.

 

[econgeek]

Not blaming corporations is asinine (before and Especially after citizens united).

Do you believe in freedom of speech? All Citizens United did, was say that you have freedom of speech.

If you and I want to get together and buy an add in the WSJ, or make a documentary about Hillary Clinton, when we pool our money to do so, we are exercising our own personal right of freedom of speech.

I have to say, though, I'm not surprised to see how strongly the left came out against freedom of speech after citizens united. But don't fall for that "corporate personhood" red-herring. A corporation is just you and I pooling our money to buy speech.

 

[cadillac1234]

All of which are of low quality in the USA.

I don't think you have travelled much....

 

[ProVideo]

I hate Congress and everyone in there is corrupt… except my congressman. He's a good guy and I will keep voting for him. It's obvious that everyone else in congress should be voted out except for him. 'Murica, F Yeah!

 

[econgeek]

I don't think you have travelled much....

Funny you would say that given that I'm thousands of miles away from the USA at the moment, on another continent. Have travelled my whole life, and live as a nomad full time for the past 5 years. I've been just about everywhere except asia, which is next on the itinerary.

A lot of countries have much higher quality of life despite much lower levels of resources.

Part of the reason I can afford to travel like this is that its cheaper to live in much of the rest of the world due to much lower taxes. Mexico, for instance, has about %80 the infrastructure as the USA on about %8 of the tax burden.

Have you ever left the states?

 

[Lennholm]

If Tim Cook does build a boat, that money will be used to buy materials and manufactured components and to pay the employees who provide those, as well as the employees who build the actual boat. All of this benefits society.

By the way, "society" is just code word people like you use for the mafia thugs who enslave people for their profit. The ironic thing is, you're probably not profiting from it yourself but your'e defending your own enslavement.

That 200 yard yacht (600 foot is damn big, btw.) produces economic growth when its built. If he put the money in a bank it would be lent out, producing economic growth. If he put the money into the stock market it would be providing capital used to fund economic growth.

All of these investments benefit society... probably far more than you ever will in your lifetime.

not that we're slaves to "society" and not that we need to justify our existence against some measure of "benefit to society".

That's exactly the way communists talk, by the way.

It only benefits society because taxes are being collected. If we'd have it your way it would only benefit the individuals involved in the work. That's irrelevant of course since in your world there would be no roads for the workers to reach the construction site, materials wouldn't be available since they couldn't be imported due to the absence of trading harbours and chances are some workers will get killed off by work related accidents.

 

[econgeek]

I agree. If the government instead sold resources like oil, people would complain how it's setting the price too high and not at market levels.

That's exactly what they're doing. They're spending irresponsibly and taxing to pay for it at way too high prices and people rationalize this by pointing out these crap services as justification.

If there was a free market, the prices would be better and the service would be better-- the Postal Service example shows this.

Or how awful the roads are and how they have to get their cars fixed frequently or buying a new car.

Right because private cars are so much worse than the ones delivered by the soviets in the USSR, right? The best roads I've seen in the USA were private toll roads.

----------

It only benefits society because taxes are being collected. If we'd have it your way it would only benefit the individuals involved in the work.

I see, so when boat workers make money, that's not a benefit to society, but when taxes are collected and Obama blows $4M of that tax money on a months long vacate in Hawaii, that "benefits society"?

That's irrelevant of course since in your world there would be no roads for the workers to reach the construction site, materials wouldn't be available since they couldn't be imported due to the absence of trading harbours

Its funny you'd say that as a liberal when a private company wanted to modernize america's harbors and shipping infrastructure only a few years ago (largely government controlled right now) you guys screamed bloody murder and opposed it because the company was from the middle east.

The idea that without government these things wouldn't exist is nonsense-- as I point out, the federal government collected no taxes before 1915-- so we've had historical proof in this very country to the contrary.

 

[guzhogi]

As I pointed out, we've had private police forces in the USA, including the Bay Area, and they worked out a whole lot better than the corruption we have now.

Honest question: what happens to those people who can't afford the private forces? Do they not deserve police protection?

Please do not give me the whole "They're too lazy to get a good paying job" argument. I'll admit, there are a lot of lazy people out there. However, are you calling someone like a priest who takes a vow of poverty lazy? Or maybe is he just stupid for doing that?

As I've said in other threads, I'm all for people getting properly rewarded for their efforts. However, I don't believe that many and material wealth should be the sole, or even the main, driving factor for people.

 

[slrandall]

Nice idea, except Apple is not known for paying its rank and file employees high salaries, and puts a relatively low percentage back into R&D.

So the government knows how to better spend Apple's money than Apple? Do I know how to better spend your money than you, the one who earned it?

 

[3282868]

Wow. I cannot believe the Apple apologists. It's voodoo and trickle down economists (which is laughable, the rich don't hold on to their money, they keep it).

Note: You are not rich! Apple is rich, and rich off of your Apple products and cheating the system whether the system allows it or not. The system needs to be overhauled. Apple has billions. Some of you defending Apple is laughable. Wake up people!

 

[emaja]

I have absolutely no problem with Apple - or any other entity - taking the existing tax codes and using all the deductions and shelters that are available to them.

As mentioned, businesses do not pay taxes anyway. It is simply a cost of doing business and as such is passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

You as an individual take all the deductions available to you. Why shouldn't a business do the same?