Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Tim Cook to Testify In Front of Senate Committee Over Apple's Tax Practices

Status
Not open for further replies.
ToddClemmer said:
Want a free nation? Keep people like "Saladinos" out of it.
Click to expand...

Want a bankrupt nation?

Then just keep doing what you're doing.

Also, what kind of 'free' nation shuts out people with opinions? Unless you mean 'free' as in 'pay no tax if you're a billionaire', in which case you're right. I won't ever stop protesting that which I believe (and which I can rationally explain) to be unfair.
 
Last edited:
nostaws said:
It isn't unfair to other companies, it is unfair to the tax paying citizens (you and me) who have to pay more because "every big company" doesn't pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

Except they do since they all pay the same. I'm all in favor of closing the loopholes so other countries don't get taxes from US companies, though. If they do that, they'd have to balance it with a corporate tax that isn't punitively high.

----------
Saladinos said:
The cost of Apple suddenly disappearing would be huge. The cost of Apple never existing is debatable.
Click to expand...

Besides the initial shock and massive loss to investors, there's no real difference. Either way, some other big company would just take Apple's place. You can't have 1000 different corporations selling PCs and cellphones. I guess the difference is that the big company would be someone else, not Google, if Apple never existed.
 
toaster64 said:
Except they do since they all pay the same. I'm all in favor of closing the loopholes so other countries don't get taxes from US companies, though. If they do that, they'd have to balance it with a corporate tax that isn't punitively high.
Click to expand...

Closing that off would just create tariffs on goods being brought into those other countries from US companies. Those countries don't want some other nation to enrich themselves at the cost of their economy either, and will address it in one way or another. But if my memory serves, the reason the tax bill would be "only" 13bn is because US tax code for foreign revenue considers the double-taxation, and thus uses lower rates or the ability to deduct the original taxes from what you use the US government (I honestly can't remember which it is).

SPUY767 said:
If companies had to pay tax like individuals, you wouldn't be able to afford anything because the cost of goods would be so damned high.
Click to expand...

Corporations do pay tax like individuals. The top Corporate tax rate is at 35% to boot, which isn't too different than the top income tax rates in the US. And these are just the federal level taxes. However, much like individuals, not many actually pay the "normal" rate as they get towards the top. Tax breaks and the like lower your tax rates by encouraging certain behavior and providing tax havens for those who can afford them (IRAs, 401ks being obvious ones for individuals... corporations try to change tax jurisdictions, find larger deductions, and so on).
 
Saladinos said:
They also take more from the US economy than I would in 1000 lifetimes. They get more money in R&D tax breaks than I'll ever earn.

And then they go and pay some ridiculous low share of tax. That has an effect on me. It means I need to pay more (a lot more, since as you mentioned, they are on a much larger scale).

They may pay more in than I ever will, but they also do more damage than I ever could.



Apple takes serious advantage of all the benefits the US (and other countries) give to them and their employees. We let them do business here and make profits here for one thing; no country is obliged to let them do that.

We let them do those things because they are supposed to pay a fair rate for those benefits. They don't. They are freeloading.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you don't take any deductions or credits when you file your income taxes?
 
Saladinos said:
The cost of Apple suddenly disappearing would be huge. The cost of Apple never existing is debatable.

Again, I'll take Starbucks in the UK as an example. They've come from the US and swallowed up a large part of the coffee-house market. They are required to license their logo, the store design, the apron design, etc from "Starbucks licensing" which is based in a tax haven. They are also required to buy their coffee from that same subsidiary.

Now no profits are being made by the UK unit - they're all being paid as licensing fees in to a tax haven which probably doesn't even have a Starbucks on its tiny island. So that's where the taxes get "paid", not in the UK.

So that is money that has been stolen by Starbucks.

If that money had been paid to a company without internal transfers, a portion of it would have gone to the UK government and more money would stay in the UK. In that way, Starbucks are doing active damage to the UK economy. Apple are doing the same thing. There is an enormous opportunity cost that is of comparable magnitude to the national debt of these countries.

Also, by shipping away money that UK shoppers spent to the Bahamas or somewhere, they are extracting wealth from the UK economy. Normally the government would get some of that back. That shrinks the economy, and in the kinds of scales we're seeing (billions of dollars a year from most major multinationals) can cause recession.

These companies should not be welcome abroad. Governments (including the US government) need to put their foot down and say, "if you're not going to pay the same rates for the same services as local non-multinational businesses do, you're not welcome here".

These government are also very good to these companies - they work on trade deals, negotiating more favourable trading environments in foreign countries, etc.

The US government does all kinds of stuff to promote and support "American businesses". Unfortunately, American businesses like Apple would bankrupt the USA tomorrow if it made them more money, and not give two shiznits about it.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that foreign corporations should or should not move their profits from other countries? Apple paying the tax (which you support) would require them moving foreign profits to the US (which you oppose?).
 
Good to see American corporations tax dodging in their own country's too :rolleyes: but then again apparently they can do it due to loop holes in tax laws of country's.

----------
Saladinos said:
Why don't you enlighten me as to how a company's employees in Cupertino can create inventions, enjoying the protection of US Patent Law, and then book the licensing revenue to an offshore account in the Bahamas, pay no tax, and not be a freeloader?

The issue isn't overseas sales income. It's about the huge number of things you can classify as overseas income in order to avoid tax.

Starbucks in the UK, for example, buy their coffee from a Starbucks subsidiary based in Luxembourg or somewhere, and then pay all their profits as license fees to use the Starbucks logo and related intellectual property. It's not a franchise, either - those Starbucks companies in the UK have the same parent company as the ones they supposedly need to license their existence from.

Microsoft recently moved their licensing operations from the US to Singapore. That one move avoided $4Bn in tax. That's all tax money that the Government used to get. American people are going to have to make up that new, $4bn shortfall. Oh, did I mention that was $4Bn per year? Best get saving, all you Americans!

This kind of crap is literally eating the western economy.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the modern capitalist western society we have created. You have to take the rough with the smooth.
 
Should be a short meeting.

I believe this will be Cook's comment to the Senate Committee: "You make the rules. I only play by them."
 
iMikeT said:
How long until this thread goes into the PRSI forum?
Click to expand...
Off-topic: There were quite a few comments in the thread about the Attorney General of New York that I wanted to reply to. Instead of replying to each one as I read it, I did the conscientious thing and made a note of its number (to see if anyone else had already posted what I was going to say and to consolidate multiple replies into one post). I didn't notice that it was in the PRSI forum until I tried to post a comment. (I don't have 100 posts yet.) :(
 
Renzatic said:
I don't know what socialism is, but I'm gonna shout about it every chance I get, by God! :mad:
Click to expand...

When I read about a new bill being introduced that there will be no cuts or investigations into misuse/fraud in the SNAP program until farm insurance is investigated I can't help but think its one more way to keep unwarranted/in eligible payouts flowing in two tax payer funded programs.
 
bruinsrme said:
How dare someone circumvent the wealth redistribution plans?
Click to expand...

I would like to see the numbers, but I don't think the majority of taxes go to "wealth redistribution." How about infrastructure, defense, etc, that is where the bulk of the money goes.
 
Everyone needs to pay their fair share, except the company with a CEO that is invited to the SOTU address and sits there with a dumb grin on his face as he hears about everyone needing to pay their fair share.
 
aristotle said:
What does Homeland Security have to do with collecting of taxes?
Click to expand...
RTFA: It's the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. I suppose it's fair to ask why the committee is named that, but that's not what you asked. However, it would have been lazy of you to ask that because if you wanted to know, you could have just clicked on the link in the MacRumors story, then clicked on "About" instead of posting that question.
 
bruinsrme said:
How dare someone circumvent the wealth redistribution plans?
Click to expand...

FYI. Capitalism by definition is the most efficient wealth redistribution plan. Just look huge income disparity that we have in US now. The system sucks everything from the workers and passes it to "investors" and upper management.
 
hobo.hopkins said:
They're operating legally in order to maximise profit - that's what a business is supposed to do. If you don't like the law, then petition to have it changed; a company exploiting a legal - and not malicious - advantage is not them "freeloading." Hopefully hearings like this can illuminate that to the people who actually make law.
Click to expand...

Just change the tax law so that there is a higher tax on the revenues parked outside the country and celebrated in the accounting prepared for Wall Street audiences (as opposed to the accounting done for minimizing IRS taxes) than if the money is imported into the U.S. The reason it's like this is because there is money-savings in leaving it overseas- huge savings. So take away the savings by making this trick more expensive than bringing it home and paying the in-country tax and it comes home. Problem solved.

Of course, what will really happen here is campaign coffers will get some big donations and this "shake down"- er, I mean "investigation"- will just quietly fade away. Cue some sex scandal. Cue some war mongering. Maybe a terrorist act. And this is forgotten... except by select campaign offices counting the spike in contributions.

----------
Narrator Jack said:
What could be tangible short term results of the hearing?
Click to expand...

Campaign coffers fatten up. Then, this just goes away.

That's about all.
 
lilo777 said:
FYI. Capitalism by definition is the most efficient wealth redistribution plan. Just look huge income disparity that we have in US now. The system sucks everything from the workers and passes it to "investors" and upper management.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with comments on that firm of distribution.
There is the ROI and workforce salaries. For both one thing is given for something in return.
Other forms of distribution is taking from others and giving to others without providing a contribution.
Before the starving the children characterizations come out, when nothing is being one in regards to known system inefficiencies then introducing new taxes and so on, that's what upsets me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back