Apple's Tax Hypocrisy

[temujin987]

No growing taxes to the point of wealth redistribution is communism. This is just a symptom of a broken tax code, and politicians unwillingness to reform it. Taxes are a necessary evil in order to have a functioning government with public services. However your functionally retarded to be shocked that if taxes are lower in other states or other country's that company's will go elsewhere to pay less and increase revenue, that's what businesses are designed to do . .. . make money! Not provide revenue for the government .. . . shocker I know right.

This is why in a "global economy" you have to be compete to keep businesses in your state or country, because if it costs more to do business here, company's that can will take their jobs and move elsewhere. Look at California businesses and people have been leaving that place in droves for nearly a decade for other states like Nevada, Texas, and Arizona, to avoid the bat shit tax rates at the personal and corporate level.

some degree of wealth re-distribution is fine for the simple reason that i don't want to be robbed or injured in the streets or my house broken into or my car stolen just because the crime rate skyrockets due to social decline and people who don't have enough to get by. and the answer can't be that i arm myself or have more police patrolling because that just tries to get rid of the symptoms and doesn't fix the cause of the problem within the society as a whole. not everybody who doesn't have a job or not a well paying one is a lazy bum.

also, why should it be fine to transfer money overseas to save taxes? those earnings were made in, say the USA (or any other country with a relatively high tax rate), so why shouldn't it be, in general, subject to taxation of that country? i know there are a lot regulations and reasons why this is not the case, but i mean in principle. *I* can't "optimize" my tax rate that way and my share of taxes of total income is way, way higher than that of a multi-billion dollar corporation or that of a multi-millionaire. imo this is fucked up. i just said it's communism because discussions about taxes and guns always result in extreme points of view instead of a sane compromise.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

People keep saying companies do this because of a competitive advantage, it's far from it and everyone is doing something similar. They aren't doing it to hoard money, they are doing it because they are legally required to return the best value possible to their shareholders. This is why Tim Cook's statement that simplifying the code even taxes aren't really lowered would really help because they would have money due to not having to go through all the S-companies and shuffling they currently have to do.

Another good example is how Softbank has basically bent over backwards to allow Sprint to persue a deal with Dish. They don't want shareholders to get pissed and threaten to sue to stop the merger like they threatened Clearwire with one for blowing off Dish's offer during their buyout. Softbank is effectively calling Dish's bluff by not fighting it, so they won't have to end up paying more than originally agreed, unlike Sprint. It's also is doing Sprint a solid by getting Dish to back off of Clearwire.

The best way to do this is to pay taxes in America for the simple reason that your own country is instrumental in the way you make money those are the only shareholders that count, the financial people just have to make due with a little less. Profit is still profit.

It is sad that companies don't take responsibility and normal citizens have to it is like saying that due to your financial position you are a 2nd rate citizen.

 

[BBA]

Flat tax rates are inherently not fair at all. If you think so you don't understand what you're talking about and should go read up on progressive taxation but in a nutshell: the poor/non-rich must spend much more of their income on housing/food/necessities than the rich and so it is not only moral to tax them less and the rich more but actually economically required if you want any sort of middle class at all. If you want historical examples of proof of this then by all means look at pre modern history, especially in France, to see what happens to countries that effectively tax the non-rich more than the rich.


No communism is pure utopia IMO. But then so is a near perfect meritocracy or an efficient economic market that prices labor and/or skill accurately.

I don't think the fair tax is a flat tax system, it just eliminates rewarding those who do not pay taxes. Big difference.

Oh, and we do have a progressive tax system in place, which is why I consider it absurd the government wants to increase taxes on the already overtaxed population because they want to spend more.

Question: Are you not paying higher taxes right now than you did 4 years ago? How about lower than you did one year ago? I am. I've even gotten pay raises every year and my take home pay is less than it was one, two, three and four years ago. I've made almost 15% more over the period and every year my pay checks go down...yet everything I have to pay for keeps getting more expensive. That's everything from gas to food to daycare, school costs for kids to clothing to phone bills and etc...etc...

Face it...the current system of tax and spend government is broken and I am feeling it. So when people complain about businesses going overseas to save money I say OUR government is the cause.

 

[WaltC]

The author of this article is the hypocrite (and pretty nearly an idiot, sad to say.) I'll wait with interest to see how long it takes him to start donating even a mere $1k a year over and above his actual tax obligations so that the government can do what he wants to see it do. Lol. The government does what it wants with tax revenues and deficit spending (which evidently the author has never heard of and doesn't understand), and the government doesn't let Apple, Intel, or Joe Shmoe from Idaho tell it how to spend the money it has and the money it doesn't have.

The government never lets a little matter like not having the money to spend keep it from spending the taxpayer's money; the government then borrows it and pledges to pay it all back with interest--which never happens. What happens is that Congress raises the debt ceiling--again and again and again and again and again and...with no end in sight. If Apple paid $6B *more* than it currently pays, that wouldn't put a dent in the government's 2-3 trillion-dollar budgets, and the author of this story would never know it. Neither would Apple.

People who say they are in favor of companies paying higher taxes are by far the largest hypocrites, because what they really mean is that are in favor of people aside from themselves paying more taxes. Anyone who wants to pay the government more in taxes without demanding that the government balance its budget and spend that money responsibly is getting very close to being a fool. And we all know what they say about "a fool and his money," don't we? (A: they're soon parted)

 

[maverikv]

I really really wish people would stop acting like the poor get a free ride because they don't pay federal income taxes. The poor pay an astronomical percentage of their income in taxes.

The poor also spend pretty much all of their income. So while raising taxes on the rich or a corporation may have a minimal effect on the economy, raising taxes on the poor has a huge impact, because every cent you take away from them is a cent that doesn't get spent and circulated in the economy.

Also, it sucks balls to be poor and it still sucks on the "free ride" they get. If you derpers are so damn jealous quit your jobs and get on welfare. Why wouldn't you do that if you are so concerned about what a sweet deal it is? Put up or shut up.

Read a book for god's sake. A book by someone who knows what the hell they are talking about.

 

[dr.stevil]

The poor also spend pretty much all of their income. So while raising taxes on the rich or a corporation may have a minimal effect on the economy, raising taxes on the poor has a huge impact, because every cent you take away from them is a cent that doesn't get spent and circulated in the economy.

Raising taxes on business has a MAJOR impact on the economy.

http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-...ia/-/11797728/18533954/-/ivlxudz/-/index.html

No one will obviously change your mind, so we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I encourage you to read (speaking of books) the story of the goose and the golden egg

 

[dr.stevil]

More crap from a Limbaugh wanna-be and random Repub. that was upvoted and paid for by his suckers/fans if the Amazon reviews are anything to go by. Restating the same old arguments in a different way is not a refutation and its pretty terrible of you to expect people to shell out money to read something like that.

Even worse is he goes around asking d-bag business men their opinion about stuff as "evidence". Good lord how stupid do you have to be to spend money on this propaganda much less actually believe it?

Protip, when you resort to name calling, you're only making yourself look childish and uninformed. You certainly aren't enlightening anyone

It always surprises me how many neo-cons, fair taxers, armchair economists, gold standarders, randians and general derpers there are in the computer hardware enthusiast community considering the general perception of geeks as intelligent. These threads are always full of gems. Depressing little gems.

see above Try forming a coherent and intelligent rebuttal if you want people to take your posts seriously

 

[Retronym]

This is a simplistic econ 101 world view and the world doesn't work that way and never has FYI. Taxes are after all on profit and not principal so capital is preserved even in a high tax environment. It should be noted too the best periods of prosperity for the middle class and poor have always had higher taxes on the rich and investor capital.

charts n shit
http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/41000592.pdf

OECD= neoliberal scumbags on par with the IMF that have consistently been wrong about the "recovery" the world is supposed to be in for years and always and forever push for lower taxes as a solution despite taxes already being at historical lows.

Better chart without the shit:
[/QUOTE]

Your chart that examining one metric is correct, while my lengthy pdf examining all key tax variables is overly simplistic?

I guess its hard for me to attack your imgur source as a 'scumbag' in a pathetic attempt to discredit empirical evidence.

The article wasn't looking at only capital, but the effects of taxation on the economy. I have no idea how you came away with that, assuming you even gave it a cursory glance.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

People confuse legality and morality all of the time. Yes, what Apple is doing is legal. But you'd have a tough time arguing the morality of hiding the bulk of your money so that you don't have to pay into the system from which you're benefiting.

But since taxation is, in point of fact, theft--keeping as much of your money away from the thief is a good thing (as theft is immoral).

And one "benefits" from the mafia's protection scheme, right?

 

[Retronym]

I really really wish people would stop acting like the poor get a free ride because they don't pay federal income taxes. The poor pay an astronomical percentage of their income in taxes.

The poor also spend pretty much all of their income. So while raising taxes on the rich or a corporation may have a minimal effect on the economy, raising taxes on the poor has a huge impact, because every cent you take away from them is a cent that doesn't get spent and circulated in the economy.

Also, it sucks balls to be poor and it still sucks on the "free ride" they get. If you derpers are so damn jealous quit your jobs and get on welfare. Why wouldn't you do that if you are so concerned about what a sweet deal it is? Put up or shut up.

Read a book for god's sake. A book by someone who knows what the hell they are talking about.

I'm curious. What astronomical percentage do they pay? Please be specific and give an actual numerical value, not an arbitrary interpretation.

I'm unclear as to what rich people have advocated switching places with the poor, I haven't observed that argument being made, perhaps I missed it. I have observed people noting the difference between wanting to keep more of one's money, versus wanting to keep government-managed services. Only one of those is directly earned.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

some degree of wealth re-distribution is fine for the simple reason that i don't want to be robbed or injured in the streets or my house broken into or my car stolen just because the crime rate skyrockets due to social decline and people who don't have enough to get by. and the answer can't be that i arm myself or have more police patrolling because that just tries to get rid of the symptoms and doesn't fix the cause of the problem within the society as a whole. not everybody who doesn't have a job or not a well paying one is a lazy bum.

But that's a non sequitur. Just because you don't want those things does not mean that there should be wealth redistribution (in this tense: taxes), nor that the only way to have protection against those things is via wealth redistribution (taxes).

 

[maverikv]

Raising taxes on business has a MAJOR impact on the economy.

http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-...ia/-/11797728/18533954/-/ivlxudz/-/index.html

No one will obviously change your mind, so we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I encourage you to read (speaking of books) the story of the goose and the golden egg

Please tell me how this article illustrates your point. They are leaving California, not the United States. My point was about MPC, not the attractiveness of states and localities to businesses

 

[mesyn191]

I don't think the fair tax is a flat tax system

Explain in your own words what you think a Flat Tax is. Bear in mind that the Flat Tax was also espoused by its proponents to be fair.

Oh, and we do have a progressive tax system in place,

The chart I already posted on page 2 shows effective tax dropping with increased income. That does not happen in a progressive tax system. There are also more subtle areas of taxation that been effectively regressive for years, like the FICA withholding limit which if raised appropriately would effectively solve any issues with funding SS/Medicare/Medicaid indefinitely.

Question: Are you not paying higher taxes right now than you did 4 years ago?

What does this have to do with progressive taxation? You know there was a temporary tax moratorium that expired right?

I've made almost 15% more over the period and every year my pay checks go down...yet everything I have to pay for keeps getting more expensive. That's everything from gas to food to daycare, school costs for kids to clothing to phone bills and etc...etc...

That has less to do with taxation than it does with wages not keeping pace with inflation. Already posted on page 2 along with other charts you need to spend a looong hard time staring at to allow the full implications to sink in:

So when people complain about businesses going overseas to save money I say OUR government is the cause.

Corporate taxes are at historical lows, lower than during Saint Regan's term, just like corporations and Repubs wanted but the government is still to blame for your low wages? Are you sure you're using your critical thinking skills and not just repeating some talking points?

 

[maverikv]

I'm curious. What astronomical percentage do they pay? Please be specific and give an actual numerical value, not an arbitrary interpretation.

I'm unclear as to what rich people have advocated switching places with the poor, I haven't observed that argument being made, perhaps I missed it. I have observed people noting the difference between wanting to keep more of one's money, versus wanting to keep government-managed services. Only one of those is directly earned.

Most of the country pays over 20% of their income in total taxes. Now ask yourself who that 20% hurts more, someone who has to spend every cent they have to survive, or someone who doesnt?

No rich people advocate switching places with the poor. That's my point. You people whine and complain about the takers and how they get a free ride but the free ride isn't sweet enough for anyone to seek it out on purpose

 

[mesyn191]

Protip, when you resort to name calling, you're only making yourself look childish and uninformed. You certainly aren't enlightening anyone

That isn't name calling, that is just the plain unvarnished truth. Also "here pay for this book and read it which BTW "cites" the author's previous book and random businessman's opinion's as evidence" isn't a argument or proof of anything and is worthy of nothing but disdain at best.

 

[Retronym]

Most of the country pays over 20% of their income in total taxes. Now ask yourself who that 20% hurts more, someone who has to spend every cent they have to survive, or someone who doesnt?

No rich people advocate switching places with the poor. That's my point. You people whine and complain about the takers and how they get a free ride but the free ride isn't sweet enough for anyone to seek it out on purpose

Still waiting on an astronomical number. I believe I paid 28%, which I feel is too high. I think 20% is too high as well, however 28% > 20%.

Unfortunately, your personal interpretations of pain thresholds is no basis for setting taxation levels for an entire nation. This is a rationalization for the continued initiation of force of the state against holders of wealth.

 

[maverikv]

Still waiting on an astronomical number. I believe I paid 28%, which I feel is too high. I think 20% is too high as well, however 28% > 20%.

Unfortunately, your personal interpretations of pain thresholds is no basis for setting taxation levels for an entire nation. This is a rationalization for the continued initiation of force of the state against holders of wealth.

Come back when you understand marginal propensity to consume and why the same or even a lower percent can hurt the poor more than the middle class or rich as well as the economy as a whole. Its not a personal interpretation of pain threshholds. I have to understand how this stuff works or I would be very bad at my job.

 

[Retronym]

I have never claimed a group is not hurt by taxes. I am claiming it is not a valid reason to steal from another group.

I also have not advocated shifting the tax burden from one group to another, I am advocating reducing the overall tax burden on everyone.

 

[dr.stevil]

Please tell me how this article illustrates your point. They are leaving California, not the United States. My point was about MPC, not the attractiveness of states and localities to businesses

You said that taxes on 'the rich' and business has minimal effects on the economy. I showed you how it does, in fact, effect the economy pretty significantly.

We're living in a global economy... if the tax burden in the US is too high... companies will go elsewhere. You're effectively killing, not only your bread and butter (corporate income tax) but also the millions you're taking in from said companies employees.

Taxes aren't a bad thing... but when it starts to chase people and business away, that's a very bad thing.

 

[maverikv]

I have never claimed a group is not hurt by taxes. I am claiming it is not a valid reason to steal from another group.

I also have not advocated shifting the tax burden from one group to another, I am advocating reducing the overall tax burden on everyone.

Taxes are not theft. We have a graduated income tax for various reasons. The most important is the health of the economy; people with high MPC need to keep a higher percentage of their money. When that suffers all tax receipts drop across the board. People lose jobs so income tax receipts drop. Then they spend less so sales tax receipts drop. Then the businesses who lost sales post lower profits so corporate tax receipts drop. Then the people who work for those companies get laid off and the cycle continues. Its not as simple as you think.

 

[maverikv]

You said that taxes on 'the rich' and business has minimal effects on the economy. I showed you how it does, in fact, effect the economy pretty significantly.

We're living in a global economy... if the tax burden in the US is too high... companies will go elsewhere. You're effectively killing, not only your bread and butter (corporate income tax) but also the millions you're taking in from said companies employees.

Taxes aren't a bad thing... but when it starts to chase people and business away, that's a very bad thing.

You know taxes are at record lows, right?

 

[mesyn191]

Your chart that examining one metric is correct, while my lengthy pdf examining all key tax variables is overly simplistic?

The length of the .pdf doesn't mean anything and you know that. Sure it has some nice charts but all that matters are their conclusions which are always the same: lower taxes. Admittedly sometimes they'll change it up and also push for less regulation or cutting worker's wages/benefits (which BTW are all suggested in that paper's conclusions) but it aaaaalways comes back to lower taxes with these guys.

At least for the rich anyways.

 

[dr.stevil]

You know taxes are at record lows, right?

Record lows compared to what/when/who? (that's a rhetorical question BTW... think about it)


As someone else mentioned... the US should be a tax haven for business around the world and we would flourish because of it. More people/entities paying = lower tax burden per capita (assuming of course, our dysfunctional 'spend spend spend' govt used the money responsibly... which is really a pipe dream)

 

[Retronym]

Taxes are not theft. We have a graduated income tax for various reasons. The most important is the health of the economy; people with high MPC need to keep a higher percentage of their money. When that suffers all tax receipts drop across the board. People lose jobs so income tax receipts drop. Then they spend less so sales tax receipts drop. Then the businesses who lost sales post lower profits so corporate tax receipts drop. Then the people who work for those companies get laid off and the cycle continues. Its not as simple as you think.

You've explained why taxes are set up the way they are, but not how taxes are not theft.

If you go in to detail about what taxes pay for, or who they help, you've still not explained it. You've rationalized it.

 

[mesyn191]

I am claiming it is not a valid reason to steal from another group.

Taxes aren't stealing though, particularly not progressive taxes which target the rich with a higher rate.

I also have not advocated shifting the tax burden from one group to another, I am advocating reducing the overall tax burden on everyone.

Its not that you're advocating it, the problem is that you can't see that it would be the end result of the tax scheme you want. The road to hell is paved with best intentions and all that.

 

[Retronym]

Progressive tax is of course stealing.

One group is more equal than the other.

LOL

 

[dr.stevil]

Progressive tax is of course stealing.

One group is more equal than the other.

LOL

yup.

There is NO equality... it kills incentive.

 

[maverikv]

yup.

There is NO equality... it kills incentive.

More money is always an incentive. Please look at how much richer our rich are getting and tell me with a straight face that incentive is being killed.

 

[maverikv]

You've explained why taxes are set up the way they are, but not how taxes are not theft.

If you go in to detail about what taxes pay for, or who they help, you've still not explained it. You've rationalized it.

If you want to live in society it has a price. Nobody likes paying taxes but they have no problem using and enjoying the thins that they pay for

 

[mesyn191]

Progressive taxation isn't stealing. Its economic common sense since the rich benefit heavily from the infrastructure, laws, and labor of the country and will otherwise rapidly increase their wealth leaving only a few very powerful monied interests that can use their power to have undue influence on the country.

As has happened multiple times over history. Yes even in the US. The Robber Barons of the Gilded Age in the US were able to do some pretty terrible things for decades thanks to their wealth.

There is NO equality... it kills incentive.

You don't know what you're talking about. The rich still take home FAR more cash even after taxes in a progressive taxation system than your average worker. They're still rich, just not FU/Rockerfeller/Bill Gates level of rich.

 

[dr.stevil]

Progressive taxation isn't stealing. Its economic common sense since the rich benefit heavily from the infrastructure, laws, and labor of the country and will otherwise rapidly increase their wealth leaving only a few very powerful monied interests that can use their power to have undue influence on the country.

Its a two way street though, we (the people and the govt) benefit from them just as much as they benefit from us. Taxing because of fear that someone will use that money to influence others is ridiculous IMO and doesn't fix the root of the problem. People need to hold lawmakers accountable for that (but they don't, long as they're on their side of the political spectrum)

 

[mesyn191]

No we (as in the avg. worker) don't. Otherwise everyone would be getting richer at an increasing rate. In the real world however wages stopped increasing with productivity increases back in the late 70's and labor in the US has been getting poorer since.

Mean while the rich are indeed getting richer at an increasing rate. And today much of the country's wealth is held by a relative few.

 

[Retronym]

Progressive taxation isn't stealing. Its economic common sense since the rich benefit heavily from the infrastructure, laws, and labor of the country and will otherwise rapidly increase their wealth leaving only a few very powerful monied interests that can use their power to have undue influence on the country.

As has happened multiple times over history. Yes even in the US. The Robber Barons of the Gilded Age in the US were able to do some pretty terrible things for decades thanks to their wealth.


You don't know what you're talking about. The rich still take home FAR more cash even after taxes in a progressive taxation system than your average worker. They're still rich, just not FU/Rockerfeller/Bill Gates level of rich.

If it is such common sense, why does it have to be done via the initiation of force?

Type this shit up and just fax it to all the rich people, they should be frothing at the mouth to voluntarily implement such things!

 

[Retronym]

I received a 12% raise last year.

I did it by working hard.

A fucking foreign concept around here.

 

[Skripka]

I received a 12% raise last year.

I did it by working hard.

A fucking foreign concept around here.

And I know a now retired ex-manager who used to work for Intel who worked his ass off for 30 years...and didn't see a raise for most of that time...while the CEO and the board voted themselves raises in the 10s of millions of dollars. When he asked at a yearly review about at least a COLA raise, the board sighed and said "no money"....when he pointed out the clear lack of money by the self-voted raises of the execs....he was told to get back to work.

Most people only see raises by getting a new job at a new company. Whether they work hard or not.

 

[mesyn191]

If it is such common sense, why does it have to be done via the initiation of force?

Because many people don't care about the common good and only themselves. Put more plainly: they're greedy. Its the same old story that has played out time and again throughout history.

I received a 12% raise last year.

I did it by working hard.

A fucking foreign concept around here.

Farm hands, EMT's, housekeepers, construction workers etc. also work pretty hard and not only do they probably not get a raise most years they also tend to get paid shit. This is actually true for most people right now and has been for years, maybe you've seen this chart before:


So good on you for getting a raise but most everyone else is also working pretty hard, sometimes even harder then you I bet, and not getting much for their labor. Much less raises. The market place is very obviously NOT an efficient or fair means of pricing labor and/or skill so please no Just World Fallicies or BOOTSTRAPS talking points cuz' they're blatantly false and just pointless to talk about at this point.

 

[XamediX]

The pretty charts in here are amazing. At this point, I don't know who is right or wrong or agreeing or disagreeing.

I wonder how many people in here have at least a degree in business and more importantly majored in economics? I am curious. Because the subject of taxes is pretty complex and isn't something someone can just pick up in a few weeks. There's layers to this shit.

 

[Retronym]

Because many people don't care about the common good and only themselves. Put more plainly: they're greedy. Its the same old story that has played out time and again throughout history.

Everything is based on greed. This 'common good' is a form of greed. Some people have placed a high priority on the quality of their community. Nothing changes, same paradigm.

So we're back to the simple fact that keeping one's money is fundamentally different than seeking more government services via the burden of taxes.

I agree about greed, it is a story old as time. All the more reason why deliberate market distortions are an illogical approach to 'solving' inevitable problems.

 

[mesyn191]

There are layers to the laws and the macroeconomic math which is why the college degrees and mathematics come into play. But we're not discussing macroeconomic nuts n' bolts or case law minutiae .

And you don't have to be a genius to look at a chart graphing productivity vs compensation over time and see that things are screwed up. People are not getting compensated for working harder and/or producing more...something that is not supposed to happen in a meritocracy or an efficient/effective labor market.

 

[Retronym]

Taxes and government cause distortions in the market, how can you advocate fixing distortions via deliberately distorting the market?