Who studies arts and expects a job, really?
By the way, "San Francisco" is spelled with two "C"...
Attachments
Last edited:
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 "Not Religious" About Holding Cash; 66% of Apple's $81B in Cash is Held Overseas
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who studies arts and expects a job, really?
By the way, "San Francisco" is spelled with two "C"...
International sales accounted for 63% of last quarter's revenue. If Apple wants to invest overseas the money it earns overseas, I call that fair. If apple opens more stores internationally or invests in companies internationally with money it has earned internationally then I say Apple's actually being responsible. Stop trying to get something for nothing.
Corporations dont pay taxes-only people do!
Corporate taxes reduce the profits of business owners. This is true because net income is reduced by the tax rate. For example, Firm X, with a $100 investment, earning a 7% return has an income — before taxes — of $7. With a 10% corporate tax rate, net income — after taxes — is $6.30. Firm X now has earned a 6.3% return. In contrast, a corporate tax rate of 40% reduces net income after taxes by $2.80 to $4.20, or a 4.2% after-tax return. This rise in taxes, on the margin, reduces the profit-seeking incentive to take business risks. Why risk starting a biotech company when inflation-protected T-bill's will give you the same return? Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists less willing to take risk means less innovation and fewer innovative ideas being economically viable. This results in less economic growth. Conversely, higher returns on invested capital encourage investment and savings. All of this leads to more capital savings, more innovation, better technology, and higher wages.
Further, the above example of Firm X is true if the firm does not have the pricing ability to transfer the tax to its customers. If the ability does exist, an increase in the corporate tax rate is really a tax on customers of the firm. In this case, consumers now have less to spend and save and the end result is the same.
Finally, a firm unable to pass on a tax increase or bear the reduced profit will either attempt to cut costs by reducing wages (among other costs) or be forced to go out of business.
The main point is this: by definition, corporations do not pay taxes — people pay taxes. A corporate tax is either a tax on shareholders of the firm, customers of the firm, or employees of the firm. Less corporate tax means more innovation, capital savings, and spending by these groups — also known as economic growth.
Corporate taxes reduce the profits of business owners. This is true because net income is reduced by the tax rate. For example, Firm X, with a $100 investment, earning a 7% return has an income — before taxes — of $7. With a 10% corporate tax rate, net income — after taxes — is $6.30. Firm X now has earned a 6.3% return. In contrast, a corporate tax rate of 40% reduces net income after taxes by $2.80 to $4.20, or a 4.2% after-tax return. This rise in taxes, on the margin, reduces the profit-seeking incentive to take business risks. Why risk starting a biotech company when inflation-protected T-bill's will give you the same return? Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists less willing to take risk means less innovation and fewer innovative ideas being economically viable. This results in less economic growth. Conversely, higher returns on invested capital encourage investment and savings. All of this leads to more capital savings, more innovation, better technology, and higher wages.
Further, the above example of Firm X is true if the firm does not have the pricing ability to transfer the tax to its customers. If the ability does exist, an increase in the corporate tax rate is really a tax on customers of the firm. In this case, consumers now have less to spend and save and the end result is the same.
Finally, a firm unable to pass on a tax increase or bear the reduced profit will either attempt to cut costs by reducing wages (among other costs) or be forced to go out of business.
The main point is this: by definition, corporations do not pay taxes — people pay taxes. A corporate tax is either a tax on shareholders of the firm, customers of the firm, or employees of the firm. Less corporate tax means more innovation, capital savings, and spending by these groups — also known as economic growth.
Last edited:
Here's an article Chambers co-authored explaining what he's looking to do titled "The Overseas Profits Elephant in the Room" (WSJ). Basically, "There's a trillion dollars waiting to be repatriated if tax policy is right."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704469004575533880328930598.html
You're completely right, zero dollars is zero dollars, doesn't matter what the percentage is. The old "Cutting off the nose to spite the face" expression comes to mind here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704469004575533880328930598.html
You're completely right, zero dollars is zero dollars, doesn't matter what the percentage is. The old "Cutting off the nose to spite the face" expression comes to mind here.
Just because Tim Cook's "not religious" about holding cash doesn't mean this thread isn't on the slippery slope to the PRSI right now 
yup so they are allowed to keep $66 billon in other countries and not have it taxed.. and is not circulation in or benefiting the american economy at all.. that the govt want to increase taxes on the lower and middle class to make u for the brakes it gives these companies.. what a mess.
----------
^^um when companies are sitting on billions of untaxed dollars that are not circulation and benefiting this economy there is a massive problem.... the companies like to pretend that they are always on the edge of failing but they are actually hoarding massive capital reserves..
then over time those reserves "disappear" and those companies get more capital from the govt which comes from the population who cant have 3/4 of their income hidden from taxation..
only very wealthy citizens would not see a problem with the system the way it is now cause of course they will not empathize with the millions of people barely and unable to survive in this system.
----------
^^um when companies are sitting on billions of untaxed dollars that are not circulation and benefiting this economy there is a massive problem.... the companies like to pretend that they are always on the edge of failing but they are actually hoarding massive capital reserves..
then over time those reserves "disappear" and those companies get more capital from the govt which comes from the population who cant have 3/4 of their income hidden from taxation..
only very wealthy citizens would not see a problem with the system the way it is now cause of course they will not empathize with the millions of people barely and unable to survive in this system.
You're missing the point. I'll reply with "remind me again about corporate responsibility" or "remind me again about corporate culture" or "remind me again about giving back to the community".
Sheeeez. Apple gives $0 to charity year after year while sitting on TENS of BILLIONS of CASH and you're trying to give me a Business 101 lesson.
business cannot be allowed to syphon such large amounts of capital legally or illegally out of general circulation that it causes the economy to have trouble sustaining itself..
cause if you let that happen you are causing massive human redundancy and over population which is fine if you are willing to close the borders and but a cap on human reproduction to avoid the creation of a massive impoverished servitude class (but i know that what the rich want so they can get even richer off cheap labor..)
If a company decides to sit on cash there is usually a reason. It may feel that it needs it due to future economic issues or may want to buy another company or use it for R&D. Savings is beneficial to a society. Not all money should be spent immediately, it makes no sense. That is the problem with our economy is that the gov. has been pushing immediate consumption when we need more savings.
Companies should not get any money from the government. But the government should only tax individuals. It makes no sense to tax corporations. This is a regressive tax that usually paid by the lower income individuals that either consume the corporate goods or the workers of the corporation.
Lol, I'm graduating with a bachelor's in biomedical engineering, with a 3.6, and even I can't seem to find a job.
yes and under capitalism that reason i usually greed.. which is instinctive in humans BUT they should not be allowed to do that to the point that it becomes destructive the economy.. in effect they are obtaining capital then denying the population from being able to benefit because the tax revenue is not be obtained.. but i know the govt now works for these companies so 99% of what they do is to me the companies and govt members richer .. general population can go to her or live as slave that is pure capitalism.
Good.
Now if we let them bring that money back in tax free and they promise to build an assembly plant, then we can talk, otherwise Apple can blow me.
yes but they are "saving" this 66 billion in other countries so that is essentially massive lost tax revenue here.. but the politicians let it happen for personal greed reasons.. they get rich when they help these companies avoid taxation...
funny how they IRS will hunt down a regular citizen if the hid 3/4 of their money from taxation but massive companies get away with it.. all thanks to capitalism
----------
they wont cause the standard of living here is still to high that they will never find labor as cheap as in those 3rd world countries. they will not want to pay a fair living wage .. give it 20 years and USA will be 3rd world also and we will have sweat shops..
So they get a free ride? I have to pay to educate their work force, to pave the roads they use to distribute, the fire stations and police and even the army that protect them, AND THEY GIVE NOTHING BACK TO THE COUNTRY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO PROFIT???
Are you CRAZY?
Oh, wait, you have to be a Randian.
Then yes, yes you are.
81B is not a lot of money to make the changes you'd like. I'd like them, too, but Apple can't do it alone and nobody would follow suit.
1. did you expect a job after studying performing arts?
2. I'm missing what that has to do with Apple.
Why is capitalism (free markets) considered greedy and selfish? Let me rephrase the question: Why are mutually beneficent transactions considered greedy and selfish?
They're considered greedy and selfish by those who 1) weren't party to the transactions, but 2) want one or both of the things that were exchanged in them. On one level, this can simply be a ploy by the latter people to get stuff without having to earn it.
----------
So apple has not given anything back? Is that what you are saying?
----------
The real question you ought to be asking is why is it "greed" to want to keep one's own property, and yet not "greed" to demand the property of another or demand the exchange though a medium such as the government.
A friend of mine asked me why capitalists shouldn't have to share their profits with their laborers. I told him because it is the capitalist that fronts all the capital and takes all the risk. The laborer gets paid up front, even when no profits have yet, if ever, been made. He didn't follow. So I asked him a simple question: Should laborers reimburse capitalists when they take losses?
In a free market there is no such thing as a "profit system"...it is a "profit and loss" system.
If a company has profits in a free market it is because they have produced something (from the limited resources) that is more benificial to the society. People willfully bought the goods. This benifits society much more than any tax base that is provided from the goods. Further the taxes will be paid only by the people anyways not some "entity" that is a corporation.
You can't dodge the money you owe. Oh wait yes you can because you are a big business. Now if I tried to dodge my taxes all hell would break loose.
Have you not realized that these loopholes were created with campaign contributions and PACs with lobbyists heavily influencing our politicians?
What rational person would allow these loopholes in the first place?
Money can and does buy influence.
Corporate money has been a big reason why we are in the mess we are in now.
Many of our laws and policies should be for the people not the corporations.
Get money out of politics and stop the corruption.
I agree that it sucks that corporations have the ability to manipulate the markets through the government. No corporate subsidies. No bailouts. No regulations that typically benefit only big business while not letting small businesses compete.
But the problem is NOT that these corporations do this -- IT IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO GRANT THESE. If they do not have the power to legislate such issues then all this mercantilist lobbying goes away and we are left with a society/government that is most beneficial to the people.
What?
Who controls the government?
It's the people that are in political positions.
Maybe I was not clear in defining "Politicians" but that includes both elected and appointed individuals that are in power to make, change and set regulations.
Yes I am saying take that power away from these individuals. Society would benefit if the government is restricted to just protecting personal and property rights as originally constructed. Without all this meddling in controlling and regulating people and their property.