Not true, if IBM gets a term in India it employs directly to work on a project instead of a team in America, then it has been offshored but not outsourced.
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.
Tim Cook Calls Apple's Tax Avoidance Accusations 'Total Political Crap'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not true, if IBM gets a term in India it employs directly to work on a project instead of a team in America, then it has been offshored but not outsourced.
Opps, sorry, I grabbed the wrong quote. The quote was someone else and I didn't go back the to prior page.
Ok, so ignore the degree and logic stuff, that wasn't you
As for the issue of Apple being 20% of the gains over the last 5 years, it was probably a guest speaker for NBR or Cramer but I really don't keep track of all the sources.
Ok, I think this will support the point:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-27/stock-markets-ugly-truth-only-6-stocks-matter
"Six firms not account for more than all the $199B in market-cap gains in the S&P500."
You do realise that the gains in 2015 were largely wiped out in August 2015...
The quote I got was probably a few months ago and it didn't say which 5 years, so looking at Apple's stock, I'd guess the 5 years stopped with 2014.
Yeah, 2015 won't go down in the books as the best year for stock growth
The quote I got was probably a few months ago and it didn't say which 5 years, so looking at Apple's stock, I'd guess the 5 years stopped with 2014.
Yeah, 2015 won't go down in the books as the best year for stock growth
Your source only talks about gains up until July 2015
Ok, so offshoring is when it's the same company but operates outside the host nation, I can see that.
I was thinking outsourcing inside the host nation vs outsourcing inside the same host nation, maybe there's a different term for that. So it wouldn't be offshoring if it's done be a different company. I can see that. But there is two different outsourcing types based on where the work is performed.
Very well said!
It's very refreshing to read a post from someone who understands the specifics.
Opps, sorry, I grabbed the wrong quote. The quote was someone else and I didn't go back the to prior page.
Ok, so ignore the degree and logic stuff, that wasn't you
Uh huh. So, next time, maybe take a chill pill before blowing your fuse, especially when it was already show that you were likely confused who you were responding to.
Yes, six firms account for just over half of the growth. But Apple being 20% of it is not mentioned anywhere. In fact, the graph shown (which is only the first half of 2015 and not the last five years) gives Apple $62.63B in gains, with the overall Nasdaq gains being $663.8B. So, Apple was just less than 10% of Nasdaq in the period referred to (still impressive). No idea how they fall within the S&P as a whole.
Well Apples gains in 15 were pretty much flat, compare that to the gains for the prior 5 years and it wouldn't be far fetched to think that it could very well be a huge factor on the S&P.
Even if the data was mostly cherry picked by whoever said it, it's still very telling about the very narrow support of the market overall.
Even more concerning would be the trying to continue the same line of growth with such narrow support. At some point, the market will become saturated and people won't shell out for a new phone that's only marginally better than the last one. How much thinner of a phone or better camera will it take for someone to upgrade? Esp with Apple not having a low cost solution for poorer nations, it's hard to think this kind of growth could be maintained.
Much like the frenzy over the Internet that created the DotCom bubble, sooner or later the bubble pops.
Also, just to make sure, Apple's complaints about the tax system are not because its lobbyists are vying to have the laws changed in its benefit more than for other companies, whose lawyers are wanting things changed to benefit themselves more at the expense of Apple?? I mean, it's easy to blame government but if government isn't convincing government to make tax laws so excessive or ludicrous then someone must be. Or is that an outlandish claim?
Of course not. It's like someone being best friends with their HOA president, having rules changed for them, then saying "Hey, I just follow the rules!". When you're friends with the ones who make the laws, of course the laws will be crafted for your benefit. And then you act all innocent because "you just follow the laws"? Please.
But if Apple doesn't use the loopholes their competitors will which means Apple will be at a competitive disadvantage.
No, really. Apple will pay a higher tax rate on their profits if they don't use these tactics. Those extra dollars can be used for R&D and acquisitions. Google and Microsoft would have a competitive advantage since they do.
Not that much of one. All of those companies have plenty of money.
If they actually paid taxes on their international profits instead of relying on a jackpot deal (which may have been illegal) from the Irish Government together with avoidance gimmicks, then they would not be double taxed on that corporate income if they were to bring it back to the United States. They would receive a tax credit.
Apple wants their cake and to eat it, too. They would like to continue paying near 2% tax on global profits and a reduction to single digits in the U.S. corporate rate (as Mr. Cook stated during the Senate hearing).
Your argument would also be more convincing if they weren't already sitting on $41 billion in the United States.
Many people do "tax avoidance". In fact, in the US, a low tax rate person can pay no taxes on unearned income. Some setup a foundation as a way to get paid without paying taxes. The whole system is just a complex game setup between the government and those that pay the government thru bribes.
Anytime you have near unchecked control over people, you'll get abuse. The tax code and the election system are clear examples of creating rules that help those that create the rules.
Members of congress can do insider trading, they can sell insider info, they exempted themselves from the ACA. Welfare is about getting votes, it's all about getting and keeping power and control over others.
It would be funny if Apple left the US and moved entirely over to Ireland. When Nissan left California they said it was like their employees got a 20% raise.
Wait till we become just as dysfunctional as Greece.
Anytime you have near unchecked control over people, you'll get abuse. The tax code and the election system are clear examples of creating rules that help those that create the rules.
Members of congress can do insider trading, they can sell insider info, they exempted themselves from the ACA. Welfare is about getting votes, it's all about getting and keeping power and control over others.
It would be funny if Apple left the US and moved entirely over to Ireland. When Nissan left California they said it was like their employees got a 20% raise.
Wait till we become just as dysfunctional as Greece.
Do you really think they'd be building that spaceship campus thing if they had even a brain twitch about leaving the US, or California for that matter?
How is this relevant?
Apple makes a very nice profit selling products at a premium that millions of people around the world want.
They are not bringing their foreign profits back into the US because of what they consider confiscatory US tax policies.
That's your government punishing successful corporations who sell abroad, and forcing them to invest their foreign profits overseas.
If the US government wants Apple to invest its foreign profits BACK Into the US, they need to reduce this confiscatory tax.
Most nations impose NO taxes on income earned abroad that is reinvested in the home country... That's an INCENTIVE to invest at home, with money earned by selling in other countries. That brings CASH INTO the US, and is a good thing.
The US government doesn't see it that way of course. They just want their taxes and with the overwhelming class and corporate envy that permeates US politics, if they let that horrible corporation get away without paying taxes on money that has ALREADY been taxed in the country where it was earned, the politicians are seen as soft on big business.
Insanity at work.
So what? Who pays for their parking lots? Government? So the government should get the road but not the parking lot is that right? Who would pave the parking lots? *Distressed*
*Fair* Right. Define fair. Because "Fair" always seems to be synonymous with "More." The line is a bit old by now...
lol BS. You think there aren't people who value roads and bridges? You think they wouldn't pay to use them if a company charged them to use it? And let's not get into the whole "A company could buy all the roads and make a monopoly and charge outrageous prices etc. etc. etc... ...If you don't mind.
Even if that were true, which it's not, but if it were, that does not give you the right to extort them at gunpoint just because you think its for their own good. You have no right to stick a gun in my face or a the faces of shareholders just because you think you know what's best for them.
Well that's for damn sure.
Apple has no obligation to anyone but themselves. Just because you think you need their money to build your roads does not give you the right to steal it from them.
And this is amazing to me. It's like on one hand, Apple created a world where we are now able to carry a supercomputer around in our pockets, and they did it all on their own with their own money, and their own intelligence, and their own investment, and on the other hand, we have socialists who hold the strongest conviction in the contention that only government possesses the capacity to put pavement on the dirt to allow us to get from point A to point B. ... And they do it at a loss. Because government.
Good. They get too much already. And seriously, let's not pretend that if only Apple and others paid what they don't owe in taxes, that somehow politicians would stop being morons, and spending almost a trillion more than they take in every year. Like if only they had extorted a few more billion from the most productive companies in the world, they would somehow gain the intelligence to understand that spending more than you have over time is like, a bad thing. Like. Duh.
Oh please.
1. It's not Apple's responsibility to make sure that their money somehow benefits you or society. Understand this. Their money is THEIRS. You want it? EARN it from them, by providing a service to them which they value and are willing to pay for. But do not tell me that you deserve or have the right to shove a gun in their face to extort a "Fair" amount from them for your benefit. That is some really evil stuff. Knock it off etc.
I'm sure it'll be fine. Frankly I don't give a damn what all the wrong people think.
Right. They're much better off forking over the $40 Billion or so that they don't owe to anyone but themselves, because a majority feels they have a "right" to someone else's stuff.
I'd much rather they stand on principle anyways. Pandering to this altruistic "you owe me stuff because you had a greater capacity to produce stuff than I did" BS attitude doesn't help anyone. Its what's killing this country, And frankly I'm pretty tired of people embracing and/or shouting it out, in spite of how obviously evil it is. I don't claim to have a right to your stuff, stop telling me you have a right to mine or anyone else. You don't have the right to it, no matter how much you vote for it, and no matter what some moron politician tells you to the contrary.
Good. Screw those entitled morons. Let's see how well they do without the productive vitality that is Amazon or Apple. Let's stick them out in the middle of the woods and leave them to their own devices, and let's see how far they get before they starve. Then we'll try to say with a straight freaking face that these companies which provide us our jobs and our sustenance are as "evil and greedy and selfish" as the left makes them out to be.
Um. They're not. They're making the best products in the world, and appealing to the intelligence of their customer in the hopes that they will buy the things they make. Treating companies like they are sources of wealth whose primary purpose in life is to be the vitality from which you leech your sustenance however, is hardly conducive to a proper code of morality.
You don't have a right to other people's stuff. Grasp it.
Wait...Apple doesn't use roads? I'm pretty sure that quite a few roads are used to build their new hula hoop headquarters. Roads that they didn't build, but use.
Maybe if they received the tax they were supposed to, they wouldn't be spending more than they take in. When my son was diagnosed with Autism, and the therapy bills started coming in, I couldn't cut enough to cover them. I lost money. Until I made more money to pay for them. Pretty simple concept. Making more money didn't mean I spent even more on frivolous stuff, it meant I was able to cover the expenses I had (and before you pull out that bootstraps BS, I've been in the upper 5-10% of earners over the past few years). First thing we should do is cut defense by 75%...that would go an extreme way towards fixing that deficit.
You mean, like the infrastructure they use to a high degree? The patent system they use to every degree? The over bloated defense department which exists mostly to protect companies like theirs? The trade agreements that allow them to do what they do?
Should they get to use all this for nothing, because they deserve it?
Really? Weren't taxes much higher when this country was doing much better? Maybe, just maybe, you're flat-out wrong. Greed is what is killing this country.
And frankly I'm pretty tired of people embracing and/or shouting it out, in spite of how obviously evil it is. I don't claim to have a right to your stuff, stop telling me you have a right to mine or anyone else. You don't have the right to it, no matter how much you vote for it, and no matter what some moron politician tells you to the contrary.
Do you really think Amazon and Apple are what is keeping the world alive?
Well, that's highly debatable. Their software is deplorable.
Neither does Apple. So they should not be able to use any public services, I guess?
Jesus this post is ridden with collectivism...
Go re-read what I wrote. I'm not gonna repeat myself endlessly.
Like hell. They always spend more. You know, there was a time in this country's history when we had no income tax at all, and we experienced the highest rate of growth in the history of the world. Somehow, we managed to *eek* by without extorting half of the wealth generated by the private sector in this country. Politicians got more money, and they spend more. Then they got even more, and they spent even more. Your assertion that the politicians wouldn't spend more if they had it is ridiculous. Historically ridiculous.
So your son got autism, and so you robbed and extorted enough people to make sure you could pay for the therapy bills? Or did you produce more economic value instead?
The purpose of government is not to produce economic wealth, it is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force by any party. The way government is funded today, the only way they get more money is to extort it from individuals at gunpoint, under the threat of imprisonment or death. That is an inescapable fact, and it is evil on it's face to anyone who is willing to be even partially rational.
The solution to government spending money on things it shouldn't be involved in is not to extort more money from it's peaceful citizens, it's to get the government out of those areas, and recover the funds which would have been spent in those areas.
Stop telling me "we don't have a spending problem, we have a paying for it problem," Nancy.
What would BS have to do with this?
Anyways, as I have already covered, you obtained more money by providing more value, not by extorting it from others who created value because you "needed it" to pay for X.
And by the way, thanks for producing the value you required to sustain your existence, instead of contending that you should be able to extort it from someone else who produced the value that you didn't, by voting for someone who promised "Free" stuff at the expense of the rich or whatever.
THIS is the proper way in which to deal with other individuals.
Well maybe not the first thing, but we could certainly do that within a year if we decided to operate on a rational foreign policy, but that's a completely different discussion.
Again. Collectivism. Government has no business being involved in infrastructure. Privatize it and charge people to use it. Just like every other service ever. ...At least before government improperly stuck its nose in those businesses too.
And spare me the monopoly induced gridlock arguments please.
This is one of the few legitimate functions of government, but that doesn't mean you pay for it by means of extortion.
Charge a nominal fee to cover the costs involved with processing/filing the application, and if it needs to be defended in court, charge a fee for that as well. Done.
There goes that tax burden.
Lol oh like hell. And don't tell that to Exxon, they're still waiting for their "Iranian oil" back. This department hasn't done much defending of any of America's interests in a very long time.
Just look how ISIS is allowed to take over an area which we spent over a decade in. Tell me that a military with the might that the American military possesses can't crush a bunch of savages who can only sustain their existence by buying their materials and weapons they need with money they get by selling the oil which they stole from us in the first place. You think they're defending the rights of these companies and the citizens of this country??
Trade doesn't need agreements. Free people are FREE to trade with whomever they want, so long as the counter-party is not a declared enemy of the country. I don't need an agreement in order to identify the fact that I value a product, just because it happens to be made in China, or wherever.
Been addressed repeatedly. See above.
Correlation does not equal causation.
And again, even if you were right, which you're not, but even if you were, "We were doing better when we were extorting people, and violating their individual rights to a higher degree" IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR EXTORTION.
Grasp. It.
So it's your position that people weren't greedy before??
Don't you want stuff? More stuff? Stuff that would your life better?
Because it sounds like you want more stuff at gunpoint. ...Which I would contend is *slightly* more evil than wanting something, and then producing the economic value necessary to purchase the thing you desire through voluntary trade.
Just slightly though.
*Whooshhhhhh*
Maybe. But 90% pop the profits generated in the smartphone space would disagree with you.
Not that it's particularly relevant anyways. It follows that you would evade the point.
The point is that Apple is NOT treating their customers like fools, they're creating a product and appealing to people's reason by offering the product to them for purchase. And 90% of the value added in the smartphone space can be attributed to Apple, as is shown by the fact that they command 90% of the profits in the space, while EVERYONE else comprises the remaining 10%. The world is BETTER off because Apple exists, and just because they created more value than anyone else in the spaces in which they are involved, does not mean you should be entitled to a higher magnitude of extortion.
And frankly, Apple paying as little tax as possible is none of the customer's concern. They should mind their damn business. And spare me the roads and bridges spiel if you wouldn't mind.
Addressed so many times by now. Go re-read stuff.
Go re-read what I wrote. I'm not gonna repeat myself endlessly.
Like hell. They always spend more. You know, there was a time in this country's history when we had no income tax at all, and we experienced the highest rate of growth in the history of the world. Somehow, we managed to *eek* by without extorting half of the wealth generated by the private sector in this country. Politicians got more money, and they spend more. Then they got even more, and they spent even more. Your assertion that the politicians wouldn't spend more if they had it is ridiculous. Historically ridiculous.
So your son got autism, and so you robbed and extorted enough people to make sure you could pay for the therapy bills? Or did you produce more economic value instead?
The purpose of government is not to produce economic wealth, it is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force by any party. The way government is funded today, the only way they get more money is to extort it from individuals at gunpoint, under the threat of imprisonment or death. That is an inescapable fact, and it is evil on it's face to anyone who is willing to be even partially rational.
The solution to government spending money on things it shouldn't be involved in is not to extort more money from it's peaceful citizens, it's to get the government out of those areas, and recover the funds which would have been spent in those areas.
Stop telling me "we don't have a spending problem, we have a paying for it problem," Nancy.
What would BS have to do with this?
Anyways, as I have already covered, you obtained more money by providing more value, not by extorting it from others who created value because you "needed it" to pay for X.
And by the way, thanks for producing the value you required to sustain your existence, instead of contending that you should be able to extort it from someone else who produced the value that you didn't, by voting for someone who promised "Free" stuff at the expense of the rich or whatever.
THIS is the proper way in which to deal with other individuals.
Well maybe not the first thing, but we could certainly do that within a year if we decided to operate on a rational foreign policy, but that's a completely different discussion.
Again. Collectivism. Government has no business being involved in infrastructure. Privatize it and charge people to use it. Just like every other service ever. ...At least before government improperly stuck its nose in those businesses too.
And spare me the monopoly induced gridlock arguments please.
This is one of the few legitimate functions of government, but that doesn't mean you pay for it by means of extortion.
Charge a nominal fee to cover the costs involved with processing/filing the application, and if it needs to be defended in court, charge a fee for that as well. Done.
There goes that tax burden.
Lol oh like hell. And don't tell that to Exxon, they're still waiting for their "Iranian oil" back. This department hasn't done much defending of any of America's interests in a very long time.
Just look how ISIS is allowed to take over an area which we spent over a decade in. Tell me that a military with the might that the American military possesses can't crush a bunch of savages who can only sustain their existence by buying their materials and weapons they need with money they get by selling the oil which they stole from us in the first place. You think they're defending the rights of these companies and the citizens of this country??
Trade doesn't need agreements. Free people are FREE to trade with whomever they want, so long as the counter-party is not a declared enemy of the country. I don't need an agreement in order to identify the fact that I value a product, just because it happens to be made in China, or wherever.
Been addressed repeatedly. See above.
Correlation does not equal causation.
And again, even if you were right, which you're not, but even if you were, "We were doing better when we were extorting people, and violating their individual rights to a higher degree" IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR EXTORTION.
Grasp. It.
So it's your position that people weren't greedy before??
Don't you want stuff? More stuff? Stuff that would your life better?
Because it sounds like you want more stuff at gunpoint. ...Which I would contend is *slightly* more evil than wanting something, and then producing the economic value necessary to purchase the thing you desire through voluntary trade.
Just slightly though.
*Whooshhhhhh*
Maybe. But 90% pop the profits generated in the smartphone space would disagree with you.
Not that it's particularly relevant anyways. It follows that you would evade the point.
The point is that Apple is NOT treating their customers like fools, they're creating a product and appealing to people's reason by offering the product to them for purchase. And 90% of the value added in the smartphone space can be attributed to Apple, as is shown by the fact that they command 90% of the profits in the space, while EVERYONE else comprises the remaining 10%. The world is BETTER off because Apple exists, and just because they created more value than anyone else in the spaces in which they are involved, does not mean you should be entitled to a higher magnitude of extortion.
And frankly, Apple paying as little tax as possible is none of the customer's concern. They should mind their damn business. And spare me the roads and bridges spiel if you wouldn't mind.
Addressed so many times by now. Go re-read stuff.
Last edited:
The poster was suggesting that Apple would be at a disadvantage if it did not aggressively avoid global profit taxes. They are already sitting on tens of billions in the United States, which have already been taxed, and their R&D totalled $8 billion in FY 2015.
To suggest they would be at a competitive disadvantage if they paid due taxes globally (and then brought that money back to the U.S., where it would not be double taxed), when their own filings show they would not even use the money for investment (and already have enough in domestic cash for those purposes), is laughable.
What they want is their cake and to eat it. They don't want that money for investment. They're already sitting on domestic cash that would cover their 2015 R&D expenses fivefold. It's pretty obvious what they want the money for. They want to increase dividends for their shareholders without having to contribute any of those profits to international governments nor the U.S. Government (or at the very maximum, single digits according to Mr. Cook himself).
Many people disagree. Whether you like it or not, the public sector and public spending, through its multiplier effects, have contributed to economic growth for many, many decades. The system we live in allows people like you to vote in people who hold similar views such as yours. If it is "evil on its face" to anybody "partially rational" then I'd have expected the system to have been changed, given that you have the power to vote people in to get those changes. Libertarians and free-market fundamentalists such as yourself always seem to delude themselves into believing that their perspective is fact when, in reality, I would be 100% certain that a majority of people believe a taxing and spending system is necessary. And not a voluntary one.
If you think the Government should not be involved in those areas then vote for people who think that. We don't live in a system whereby you can dictate what areas the Government should be involved in if other people think it should be involved in those areas.
This is an unbelievable way of phrasing it. I never understood this sickening attitude of supporting social darwinism. What of people who are not able to produce value to sustain their existence? The physically ill? The mentally ill? The elderly? The poor? Are these people not worthy of existence because you would deem governmental attempts to assist them as extortion?
Infrastructure across many sectors is generally a natural monopoly. Electricity, gas, water, telecoms, roads, railways, and even major bridges should not be privatised (or at least, not privatised and unregulated) because you would be creating a private monopoly accountable to nobody but the (private) owner. In the 1930s electric utilities were generally fully privatised in the U.S. About 90% of rural farms did not have access to any electricity because the private utilities did not deem them commercially viable. When the U.S. Government intervened to provide electricity to these places and people, the utilities screamed murder and protested, much the same way you are doing. The Department of Agriculture set up a rural utilities agency that gradually extended electricity to these farms and by the 50s, almost all rural farms had access to electricity. This would not have been possible in your privatised utopia.
It is a valid point. Something you cannot dispute by saying "the free market will prevent monopolies from happening" because certain industries are by definition monopolies. All industries will tend to monopolies regardless. It doesn't matter where you look, markets have always become more concentrated as time progressed.
Your post is nothing more than the same recycled buzzwords used by libertarians and Ayn Rand worshippers.