As a US citizen in the UK, I hope that everybody understands that individual US citizens are liable to pay taxes on money they earn overseas. Of course it's reasonable in that there are deductions for taxes paid overseas if there is a tax treaty, but still why should Apple be allowed to avoid the liability by fancy legal footwork? Hmm ... I wonder: I am an academic. If I set up a research company in Ireland, and have my University (and various companies from time to time) who pay my salary pay this company, I wonder if I would be allowed to avoid paying reasonable UK and US tax. Like Apple.
It's also totally true.
You don't understand the economics. Lower tax rates bring in more revenue. Higher tax rates bring in less revenue. That sounds counterintuitive, I know, but that's the way it works.
Yes, that's another reason for wealthy folks to setup charities and foundations. It's the legal method to launder their profits and earn goodwill at the same time. Win/win!... although on second thought...Just to add some perspective on this... A big pharm company was convicted of using paid speeches to doctors in order to get those doctors to prescribe their product. Rich people setup up a foundation to avoid taxes. Most think these rich people are doing something great for people, yet the people get very little benefit from the money, sometimes less than 10% of the money goes to the target people.
This is how the people in Washington work, they don't take bribes, they get insider trading, paid speeches for favors, foundation donations. While the rich setup foundations where they pay themselves tax free.
This shouldn't surprise anyone that's been around for a while, it's common and been around for all of time. They've gone from gangsters with tommy guns offering "protection" to passing laws for cash.
At least Apple is creating a few jobs and opening new business models.
Toyota is moving here from Cal.
There are two points on the inverted bell curve where the tax receivable is the same, and in the centre is the sweet spot of maximum revenue. 40% is not at all high.You don't understand the economics. Lower tax rates bring in more revenue. Higher tax rates bring in less revenue. That sounds counterintuitive, I know, but that's the way it works. The reason the overseas money is being "hoarded" is because the tax of 40% is too high. That high rate is DISINCENTIVE. So the money sits and does nothing, and the government gets nothing. If the tax was lowered to a more reasonable 15% or 20%, then the money would come back, and a piece would be taxed and go into the federal treasury.
So it is very simple. 40% tax rate, money stays put and zero revenue to the US treasury. 20% tax rate, money can move back and the US treasury can get some revenue. Which do you want?
Then why don't they change the laws?
Apple will do exactly what the laws say.
But if there's anything extra you think Apple should do... you might wanna make that into a law in order to make them do it.
Otherwise... Apple is gonna do just what they have to do... and you'll be stuck complaining about it... thinking they should do more.
I am not a lawmaker! I do not make the law! I want the loopholes closed as much as the next person. Perhaps it's Apple's lobbying that stops them from being closed?Do you hate loopholes? THEN GET RID OF THE LOOPHOLES. Eliminate the reason that thousands of companies set up offices in Ireland or whatever.
You can't blame the wild animals for entering your house when you left the door open.
Also... if Apple broke laws... why aren't they being punished? That's what usually happens.
I have seen enough movies to know that the CEO can be taken away in handcuffs for breaking the law.
For the record, the President came to him, because he wanted to glob onto his celebrity.
Your rationale is insane, quite honestly. You owe no government a moral obligation to pay them more than you're legally bound to do. Apple's "moral obligation" is met when they legally pay their taxes. Frankly, they show good citizenship by publicly telling the government why it is that their laws are counterproductive.
When was the last time you paid the government more than your legally mandated tax burden, "just because it was the right thing to do?"
People who get all up in arms about this lose sight of the fact that it is not about the amount, but the principle. I utilize every advantage I can as written in the tax laws to maximize my tax savings. For me, it generally only saves me hundreds of dollars, not billions. But I do it because I have the resources to know what the laws are, and I utilize them. My resources are that I possess the diligence and cognizance necessary to find the laws that are in my favor, and use them. Just because my next door neighbor might not possess those same resources does not make me less moral.
I believe one of the issues with this debate is a total lack of universal experience. I live in a country that was founded on the principle that government should serve and be accountable to its citizenry. While it is not perfect, and we often do not achieve that goal, the basic tenants of our constitution are that the rule of law governs us. A set of rules were laid out that places our government on the same level of legal footing as its citizens. This means that they are just as prone to bear the brunt of their own stupidity and shortsightedness as any individual. The current US tax code is an example of our government paying the price for their own stupidity and shortsightedness. The beauty of our current situation is that the global economy has placed the government in a rather precarious position, in that they are being forced to compete. If they try to change the laws in order to fit their fiscal gluttony they face the potential of losing prominent corporate citizens.
Many of those in this forum who are chastising Apple for following their country's laws to their advantage live in a monarchy, where for thousands of years a constant line of inbreeds have been exalted as "higher beings" since the days when they were considered near deities. Their view of the world seems to be that the citizenry should serve the government, rather than the other way around.
No they don't. Don't be clueless.
The second statement refers to bringing the money they have over seas into the United States. They don't HAVE to do that. They are free to keep their money overseas right where it is. There is no Evasion going on here.
His problem with that is that it would cost him 40% of that money to bring it into the US because are tax system is such a total mess that we make companies pay taxes to bring money they made in other places into the country.
It should be FREE to do that. That money only benefits the country by being here instead of there.
The first comment regarding the tax avoidance issues are other matters and have nothing to do with the money they have in banks overseas.
Immoral?
Screwing your brother's wife is immoral.
Stealing money from your child's piggybank is immoral.
Strangling your sister is immoral.
This is far from immoral.
First, I find it most ridiculous that the USA wants people living outside the USA to pay US taxes on non-US income. The USA are quite unique in that.
in one sentence he says, that he doesn't want to pay taxes in the u.s. because they'd be too high, in the other one he says that the accusation of tax avoidance is total political crap.
that sounds like total political crap to me. either say it out loud that you'll go where you pay the least taxes, so the least people can benefit from those taxes, or pay your taxes, no matter, how high.
dark side or light, responibility they should take.
Why give 40% of the money they worked for to the Empire when they could just hold on to it? It's their responsibility to minimize their tax burden. Just as it is for you to take as much deductions as you can. Unless, of course, you volunteer to pay without taking any deductions and you pay all state sales tax on online purchases?
lol @ armchair economists trying to defend Cook or any other high level CEO for this type of nonsense.
Rant
This is what I think of as "16GB Tim." This is the Tim Cook who has the gall to look like he's showing off photos of his grandchildren when presenting a lineup of iPhones that start at 16GB in storage despite being designed for taking 4K video. I'm beginning to see what Steve Jobs saw in him, after all.Oh damn! I like seeing this business aggressive side of Tim. This I think is what happens in meetings with the executives, and we usually don't get to see it.
If you pay 40% of your earnings to the UK government, then I'd love to make as much money as you do (over £350,000 a year).
Amazing how many feel entitled to the labors of others. I dare any of you to earn a fortune and then hand over 40% to the Fed when there are tax loopholes that will help you avoid it. It's unreasonable and you'd be daft not to exploit those loopholes. Any of you would do the same.
The majority of Americans elected a guy who had an official policy of "sharing the wealth". He was elected twice. My taxes have increased substantially in the past 7 years. My wealth has been increasingly redistributed to others as an official American policy, endorsed by rocket scientists like Tim Cook and all of the rest of the liberal creeps in the Apple universe, who are now suddenly against people feeling "entitled to the labor of others".
Funny how that works.
I like Apple in most regards, but in this regard Tim Cook is really trying it on. Is Apple tax haven legal? Yes. Is it immoral? Yes.