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

[daveathall]

Change the tax laws, don't blame the companies for paying what they lawfully need to.

We have a similar thing going on in the UK here ATM, answer is same as the above. None of us and I mean none, knowingly pay more tax than we should, why double standards when it comes to companies?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Let's say an IBM employee fuels up his/her vehicle. How exactly did they get the money to fuel up their vehicle? They're using what IBM paid them to fuel up.

And the Federal Reserve printed the "money" they were paid. I mean WTF is your point supposed to be? As far as I can tell, you have NONE. Your "paid for the by the private sector" fits the bill with government employees as well, except they're not paid by the private sector, unless you're going to make some convoluted argument that their money is from tax payers who are paid by the private sector (except the government workers who also pay taxes and are not from the private sector, thus junking your silly argument with an infinite loop ad nauseum).

And IBM gets the money to pay them because of demand for their goods and services. So "you and I" are part of the private sector in that we work for companies in the private sector.

Speak for yourself. I do not work in the private sector.

Don't you just love it when your government wastes money like a drunken sailor?

Don't you just love it when greedy corporations waste money on CEOs that bankrupted the company and get golden parachute packages worth MILLIONS anyway?

And if you think that YOU don't pay for it (unlike government jobs by taxes), think again. All those costs are passed on to the consumer and when banks get bailed out, YOU foot the bill once again, private or not. So once again, I say your argument has no merit what-so-ever. Money is money and it's ultimately just numbers in an account or ink printed on paper. Unless you've purchased something like gold, your "money" will disappear the minute inflation runs rampant in a Greece Gone Bad scenario.

Don't you love it when your tax dollars go towards paying salary and benefits to a government employee for a particular job when someone in that same job in the private sector could never dream of getting those benefits/salary?

That depends on the job and what job you're comparing it to. I think a LOT of private sector jobs are massively overpaid, particularly at the top-end which has risen at rates hundreds of times higher than the people under them over the years. CEOs used to make maybe $1-5 million. Now they make $50 million a year plus $200 million in stock options and if they're a bad CEO they still get rewarded for it. But people like you justify that by saying they're somehow "worth" it (even if they run the company into the ground), because "supposedly" they're not easily replaced unlike your mid-level office worker where ten interns are waiting at the door to get into the company. Human life is measured and valued by how many replacements are waiting at the door. It's a crock of crap.

I make Middle Class income. I have Blue Cross health insurance. I pay large co-pays. My house isn't worth 1/8 what the same size house goes for in California (i.e. 2000 sq. feet). I drive a Subaru, not a Ferrari. The only person that "dreams" of making what I make (rather than what CEOs make) are minimum wage employees. The idea I'm overpaid is laughable. 1st Energy down the street typically pays 1.5-2x what I make for the same sort of job. They're downsizing/consolidating right now, though or I'd probably be applying there right now.

And before you say, I'm not talking teachers, firefighters, police officers, and ambulance drivers.

I'm none of those. My two degrees are in electronic engineering. Nobody "gave" me this job either. I spent seven full time years in college to get where I'm at and I don't owe a dime to anyone except for my house mortgage.

And what you are talking about is not investment. Maintaining an existing road/bridge is not an investment. It's just the cost of maintenance.

Your words do little to convey the fact that are infrastructure is CRUMBLING and so whether you want to call it an investment of just "maintenance" is irrelevant. The right wing does NOT want to spend another dime on repairing our infrastructure. All they can do is whine that we spend spend spend too much, block every program suggested (even ones they themselves proposed years earlier since they don't want the other side getting ANY credit what-so-ever) and so the GARBAGE drags on and on and our country sits here rotting away while these politicians play fraking GAMES with our lives. Complain about wasting money in one breath and give away land for $2 an acre to oil companies as a gift in the waning years of the Bush administration. Cry we are taxed too much on one hand, but refuse to vote for removing tax incentives for oil drilling on the other (even though they don't need a dime of it right now). Vote to screw people with preexisting health conditions but scream that "death panels" are going to decide who lives and dies with senior citizens (even though it's a total lie).

Sorry, but I know the right's line of bullcrap all too well and the problem is that they've destroyed all their own credibility along the way trying to disguise the fact that they think anyone who can't afford health care should die and that anyone in industries like fast food should make LESS than minimum wage (because they never wanted the minimum wage to ever be this high in the first place) and nevermind that you can't live on the wages most retail type jobs pay, they write them off as the jobs of students and idiots that couldn't get a college degree (even though a HELL of a lot of college degree people are stuck working those jobs right now with tons of debt beacause they excessed all those higher paying jobs to places like India for the SAME FREAKING REASON. GREED

Yes, you don't want your tax dollars to pay for ANYTHING that doesn't benefit you personally and you'll whine all flipping day long about it, but in the mean time everyone beneath you is worthless animal trash and should be euthanized if they need health care. Yeah, I know your type very well and you make me sick. Call that insubstantial all you want. That's what I call your conscience, after all.

Countries like Germany and China are investing in their own transportation networks like high speed rail. We have Amtrak. I think there was another train collision somewhere today even. Yeah, we don't need high speed rail. We don't need NASA. We don't need a lot of things. But the difference between a 1st world country and a 3rd world one isn't measured on what they need, but on how they LEAD. We used to lead in space exploration. We used to lead in manufacturing. We used to lead in new technology. We used to do a lot of things. Now all we do is EXCESS middle class labor (because we can make more profit for the top 1% by doing so) and who gives a crap about this country? We can always move our headquarters to Mexico, after all (threat threat). Oh wait, technically we are already headquartered in the Bahamas where there are no corporate taxes what-so-ever.

 

[vvswarup]

Speak for yourself. I do not work in the private sector.

Don't you just love it when greedy corporations waste money on CEOs that bankrupted the company and get golden parachute packages worth MILLIONS anyway?

For your information, I don't like it. But that's on shareholders for allowing those packages to exist. And the reality is that a private organization chose to pay those packages to CEOs.

And if you think that YOU don't pay for it (unlike government jobs by taxes), think again. All those costs are passed on to the consumer and when banks get bailed out, YOU foot the bill once again, private or not. So once again, I say your argument has no merit what-so-ever. Money is money and it's ultimately just numbers in an account or ink printed on paper. Unless you've purchased something like gold, your "money" will disappear the minute inflation runs rampant in a Greece Gone Bad scenario.

I am a believer in the idea that if you want the freedom to make your your own decisions, you better live with the consequences. If banks make short-sighted decisions for quick profit, they better live with the consequences. And come up with a way to make sure that no one but bank CEOs suffer from those bad decisions. I will support it right away.

That depends on the job and what job you're comparing it to. I think a LOT of private sector jobs are massively overpaid, particularly at the top-end which has risen at rates hundreds of times higher than the people under them over the years. CEOs used to make maybe $1-5 million. Now they make $50 million a year plus $200 million in stock options and if they're a bad CEO they still get rewarded for it. But people like you justify that by saying they're somehow "worth" it (even if they run the company into the ground), because "supposedly" they're not easily replaced unlike your mid-level office worker where ten interns are waiting at the door to get into the company.

If a private sector job is overpaid, that's on the company. A private organization is choosing to pay that salary. That overpaid CEO is not paid out of the taxes that I'm required to pay. A pr

I make Middle Class income. I have Blue Cross health insurance. I pay large co-pays. My house isn't worth 1/8 what the same size house goes for in California (i.e. 2000 sq. feet). I drive a Subaru, not a Ferrari. The only person that "dreams" of making what I make (rather than what CEOs make) are minimum wage employees. The idea I'm overpaid is laughable. 1st Energy down the street typically pays 1.5-2x what I make for the same sort of job. They're downsizing/consolidating right now, though or I'd probably be applying there right now.

I'm none of those. My two degrees are in electronic engineering. Nobody "gave" me this job either. I spent seven full time years in college to get where I'm at and I don't owe a dime to anyone except for my house mortgage.

I never claimed that anyone gave you your job.

Your words do little to convey the fact that are infrastructure is CRUMBLING and so whether you want to call it an investment of just "maintenance" is irrelevant. The right wing does NOT want to spend another dime on repairing our infrastructure. All they can do is whine that we spend spend spend too much, block every program suggested (even ones they themselves proposed years earlier since they don't want the other side getting ANY credit what-so-ever) and so the GARBAGE drags on and on and our country sits here rotting away while these politicians play fraking GAMES with our lives. Complain about wasting money in one breath and give away land for $2 an acre to oil companies as a gift in the waning years of the Bush administration. Cry we are taxed too much on one hand, but refuse to vote for removing tax incentives for oil drilling on the other (even though they don't need a dime of it right now). Vote to screw people with preexisting health conditions but scream that "death panels" are going to decide who lives and dies with senior citizens (even though it's a total lie).

I merely stated a general principle. If our infrastructure is crumbling, then fix it by all means. But I don't subscribe to the notion that infrastructure spending is ALWAYS sensible. There are times when it makes sense to build new infrastructure and there are times when it doesn't make sense.

The reality is that the money to pay for infrastructure comes from somewhere. If the money spent on infrastructure doesn't lead to increased economic output, then in my book, the money was not wisely spent.

For example, our natural gas/oil pipeline infrastructure is in bad shape. I'm all for spending on that infrastructure because I know that the economic output that will result from that will more than make up for what was spent on building those pipelines.

Sorry, but I know the right's line of bullcrap all too well and the problem is that they've destroyed all their own credibility along the way trying to disguise the fact that they think anyone who can't afford health care should die and that anyone in industries like fast food should make LESS than minimum wage (because they never wanted the minimum wage to ever be this high in the first place) and nevermind that you can't live on the wages most retail type jobs pay, they write them off as the jobs of students and idiots that couldn't get a college degree (even though a HELL of a lot of college degree people are stuck working those jobs right now with tons of debt beacause they excessed all those higher paying jobs to places like India for the SAME FREAKING REASON. GREED

I make much less than what I think I should be making. But I'm not going to sit here and complain that it's all because of greedy executives. I know that there is a lot that I could have done from my side to be in a better position, such as going to a prestigious school.

Yes, you don't want your tax dollars to pay for ANYTHING that doesn't benefit you personally and you'll whine all flipping day long about it, but in the mean time everyone beneath you is worthless animal trash and should be euthanized if they need health care. Yeah, I know your type very well and you make me sick. Call that insubstantial all you want. That's what I call your conscience, after all.

And you want everyone's tax dollars but yours to go up. Never mind that if you were in Apple's position, you would do exactly what Apple is doing. You think that everyone who was successful somehow got lucky and that's the only reason they're rich. While I agree that most successful people got lucky at some point, they still had to do something with those lucky breaks.

 

[PracticalMac]

Where does the government get those funds to build roads, bridges, rail roads, and airports? They sure don't just create it out of thin air. The government gets those funds from the private sector. They build those roads, rail rods, bridges, airports, etc. in order to help the private sector. A private sector has to exist in order for the government to be able to spend money on infrastructure. The government by itself doesn't create jobs.

And infrastructure improvement can be a waste of money under certain circumstances. Infrastructure makes sense if the increase in economic output exceeds the investment in infrastructure. For example, in the 1930s, the US spent a lot on infrastructure. However, that didn't pay off until WWII because there was a sharp increase in demand for manufactured goods. That infrastructure was essential because it helped support high manufacturing capacity. That's when we saw the infrastructure investment create millions of jobs.

Spending for the sake of spending doesn't help anybody. Infrastructure spending is beneficial if it leads to gains in productivity. That's when you see those millions of jobs being created. But the infrastructure spending itself didn't create those jobs. It's the fact that there was demand for goods that necessitated more infrastructure in order to support more production.

Well, we both agree that gov can and does influence job creation, and the infrastructure spending needs to take in account on returns, where we depart is how much gov activities has an impact.

----------

Money does = power in this world not just the US. Most presidents have been bought and paid for since Andrew Jackson(not including) Also the US debt can never be temporary when taken from a central bank. All US money is owed to the Federal Reserve with interest. The US can never be without debt and inflation under this system.

Hummm. Trying to understand what you are saying.

Could the US just have a tiny debt?

Is the dollar actually not a government note, just one used by permission?

Thanks

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

And you want everyone's tax dollars but yours to go up.

That's simply not true. I want sensible spending, cuts in pork barrel useless crap and the government to start getting better deals. If a government organization calls up someone like Granger, they pay on the order of 2x what everyone else pays (which is already higher than something like Lowes would charge for the same items). Who makes those decisions? Do they enjoy getting ripped off? Because whether it's your tax dollar or postage prices, someone is going to end up paying for it.

Never mind that if you were in Apple's position, you would do exactly what Apple is doing.

Apple is a company. Perhaps you mean Tim Cook's position? And no, I doubt that very much. I'd probably never get to that position in the first place regardless of luck or skill because I don't believe in the current top/down structures that started to get out of control during the Reagan years where top management started to believe they were "entitled" to make a lot more than they were already making. A million or two at the top per year wasn't enough (despite being 10x-50x what the people under them made). They wanted 1000x-10,000x what everyone else was paid. That's pure greed. The problem is someone got the idea that if another company was doing that, they had to do it too in order to keep the "talent" from jumping ship. I still don't believe some of that "talent" was anything to worry about. I've seen plenty of well paid CEOs run companies into the ground.

For example, some CEO thought, hey you know what would be a good idea? Let's wipe out 100% of all sales at our store called JC Pennys and say we just have low prices everyday instead. Yes, I see "Low prices" advertised at Giant Eagle supermarket too It means "regular" price. It's a gimmick like $19.99 instead of $20 so they can say it's "under twenty bucks". I used to buy polo shirts at JC Penny sometimes when walking through the mall. I rarely paid over $8 a shirt because they went on sale on a semi-regular basis. With their new business model, the lowest price I could find in the store was $19.99 for a shirt (with many more brands above that). So immediately, whether true or not, the first thing that went through my mind is I'm now going to buy cheap polo shirts at Sears instead (I won't shop Walmart if I can avoid it regardless of prices due to the way they have done business). Yeah, maybe they're $12 there instead of $8, but it still beats $20+. On the other hand, if I could get Made In the USA polo shirts, I'd be willing to pay $40 a shirt. But by not renewing our tariff on textiles, that killed off what remained of the U.S. textile industry save a few small specialty manufacturers.

You think that everyone who was successful somehow got lucky and that's the only reason they're rich. While I agree that most successful people got lucky at some point, they still had to do something with those lucky breaks.

No, I think success also takes skill and intelligence. However, I don't feel that it's necessarily $200 million a year in stock options plus $50 million salary "talent". Sure, you can measure sports players by the money they bring in for the owners and at least they get a chunk of the action, but in reality they're still just playing a game and if ALL the teams didn't perpetuate those salaries, it would seem so ridiculous. Sports take skills too, but genetics (i.e. luck) plays an overwhelming factor. I could shoot hoops all day long and get in the best shape of my life and I still couldn't be an NBA player. So we have a society that rewards luck (including being born into a rich family for that matter which means you might just have a shot at being a politician) and looks and while talent is needed, at some point it typically only gets you so far. I've found plenty of talented musicians, for example, that never get "discovered" while that PSY guy get millions for a very questionable song, IMO. Like other bizarre popular wonders (the Macarena comes to mind), I simply can't explain it anymore than I can explain how someone can win the Super Lotto more than one time in a lifetime (a friend of mine knows one that hit for over $1 million TWICE) while billions of others will never hit for more than $2. Random luck? Proof of a collective consciousness with odd tastes (the music thing) or perhaps we're all living in the equivalent of The Matrix and nothing is random at all.

Ultimately, I can do nothing about the way companies operate (not being born into a rich family, I'll likely never make a Senate committee), but I can give my opinion, worthless or not, in a forum when I see something, unfair, unjust or just plain awful. Apple might get more positive press from stepping up and paying their fair share of taxes in bringing that money back into the country (they could certainly market it towards helping to rebuild America's greatness as many rich philanthropists have done, even if it was really to show their own). Besides, Apple has never really given a crap what the shareholders really want or they would have been paying dividends nearly a decade ago. Are people really going to sell off Apple's stock with $140+ BILLION in cold hard cash if they paid a small percentage back to the US in taxes? Actually, given the way people invest today (like a casino), they just might.

 

[OllyW]

Please continue in the Apple CEO Tim Cook and CFO Peter Oppenheimer Testify In Front of Senate Committee on Tax Strategies [Live] thread.