Apple Responds To Tax Criticism

blackhand1001 said:
If your wondering why the economy is so bad its because of this

Income_gains.jpg

Inflation adjusted percentage increase in mean after-tax household income in the United States between 1979 and 2005.
Click to expand...

And the more the goverment grows, the larger the gap will be.

The rich can afford to move thier money around or buy whatever influence they need to avoid taxes and regulations (where do you think all these loopholes come from). It's always the middle class who end up suffering from the tax-the-rich class warfare.

As for the poor (bottom 5th), these number never include the aid they receive. If you included the Walfare, food stamps, wica, section 8 housing, etc, most these "poor" would end up closer to middle class income levels.


I also noticed the graph left out the middle/bottom 5th.
I guess the numbers for that group where a little to high and would have hurt your arguement.
 
The problem is the politicians are the ones who make the laws and enforce them. A politician who steals millions and destroys the lives of 1000's is never convicted (in most cases it’s not even illegal) yet minor petty crimes are dealt with harshly.

It's quite amazing how even the most blatant abuse of the rules by the politicians is swept away by the media while tiny inconsequential details decide our elections.


Fixed that for you....
 
Pretending that politicians and the rich are a different class of people is part of the problem.

If you can actually find someone elected to Federal government who isn't already rich, they damn well will be within a few years.
 
Azhar said:
Good grief. They're singling Apple out on this? Not the Big Oil? The auto industries? General Electric? Mitt Romney? Or the $400 million per year worth tax doding Walmart enjoys? Or you know, all of the 1%?

I'm all for leveled playing fields when it comes to paying taxes - especially repealing the Bush tax breaks - but honestly, Cnet's riding on the Apple-hate bandwagon.
Click to expand...
If they did the same report on anything else it wouldn't get nearly as much attention/traffic which is why every other tech site including [H] posts almost anything that has to do with Apple.

1684.gif
 
It's not surprising, people are built to respond to specific situations and names. Same thing works in comedy. If you say "I knew a guy who had a distracted-driving accident," it's not funny. If you say "my uncle Bob crashed his car into a tree while texting" you're halfway to a minute of standup material.
 
Aluisious said:
There is no income tax regime that makes sense given those facts other than progressive income tax. What we have instead is regressive income tax. I pay a far higher rate than Romney or Buffet, and that's bullshit.

I'd be for a flat rate over an exclusion amount. Say everyone's first 20k is tax free, and after that 30%. No deductions, no nothing. You want a mortgage and five kids you pay for it yourself.
Click to expand...

The problem with a progressive tax is that you lessen the incentive to make more money. It's easily possible to make more money pre-tax one year, and yet have less take-home pay. The question ultimately becomes "how much money are you allowed to take home". Anyone who wants the government to tell you how much money you're entitled to take home is a fool, plain and simple.

The $20k tax free is exactly what one of the proposal's for a fair tax is. That's done by sending a check to all taxpayers. Minimal overhead, since it's done on a flat rate. I don't need to look at your income, receive paperwork from several different sources to determine how much to pay you, I just cut you a flat check.

Obviously the impact of changing to a fair tax is somewhat unknown, since there are few people in this country that even understand the current tax code. I have dealt with a tax attorney (for IT purposes) who has told me stories of him correcting IRS officials who go around enforcing laws they don't even grasp. He stopped getting physical copies of the tax statutes several years ago, since he doesn't have the space for them, referencing them electronically's pretty much the only option. The conflicts within the tax code are another problem that would be resolved by grossly simplifying the tax code.

There will be some instability associated with changing the tax system in any way. The benefit of a flat/fair tax system, is that it will make it much easier for the common man to start and manage his own business after the change. The amount of regulation compliance required to run a small business in the US is simply staggering. If you want to support small businesses, you have to make it easier to run one. It's simply not worth the hassle as it is for many owners.
 
Sorry if this was already posted, but didn't they lose Jobs? (yes I have grim humor)
 
c4v3man said:
The problem with a progressive tax is that you lessen the incentive to make more money. It's easily possible to make more money pre-tax one year, and yet have less take-home pay.
Click to expand...

That's not how the tax bracket system works. Also, the idea that paying a higher rate is going to dissuade people from earning more money when the rate on the primary form of income for the richest people now is 15% is laughable.
 
That's every businesses' response to any time someone points out that they're not paying their fair share.

So where are all these jobs I keep hearing about? You'd think with all the taxes they're able to avoid, we'd have like 105% employment by now.

Dirty little secret: tax savings go to their bottom line, not jobs.
 
The only way you could be making more money next year yet still pay more taxes is if you didn't qualify for some sort of deduction that you did before. Just because you jump from the 15% bracket to the 25% bracket doesn't mean you suddenly pay 25% taxes on your entire income. The tax bracket figures are marginal brackets, not absolute.

It's laughable that the top 1% get to pay 15% in taxes, sure, but who do you think writes the bills that become our tax code?
 
night_2004 said:
It's laughable that the top 1% get to pay 15% in taxes, sure, but who do you think writes the bills that become our tax code?
Click to expand...

People who can afford to hire lobbyists. It's really a completely crooked system by now, and the amazing thing is that they've suckered in millions of useful idiots to vote against their own interests.
 
night_2004 said:
The only way you could be making more money next year yet still pay more taxes is if you didn't qualify for some sort of deduction that you did before. Just because you jump from the 15% bracket to the 25% bracket doesn't mean you suddenly pay 25% taxes on your entire income. The tax bracket figures are marginal brackets, not absolute.
Click to expand...

This is correct. I was in the 25% bracket last year, and paid an actual tax of a bit over 16%.
 
Aluisious said:
You also likely paid payroll tax on your entire income. The rich don't.
Click to expand...

Yup. Please show me an example of where taxing only 15% on stock profits leads to jobs. After all that is what the do-nothing Congress claims keeping taxes low accomplishes. I don't think you will find a valid example :).

Deductions/expense depreciation is one matter. But the lower tax rate on capital gains is just an attempt to continually line the pockets of those who already golden spoons in the kitchen and golden toilets in the bathroom.
 
night_2004 said:
Yup. Please show me an example of where taxing only 15% on stock profits leads to jobs. After all that is what the do-nothing Congress claims keeping taxes low accomplishes. I don't think you will find a valid example :).

Deductions/expense depreciation is one matter. But the lower tax rate on capital gains is just an attempt to continually line the pockets of those who already golden spoons in the kitchen and golden toilets in the bathroom.
Click to expand...

The "trickle down" theory definitely has potential to work, and in some cases, it certainly does work. The rich that hang onto their money and only spend it on "elitist" products certainly will have a minimum effect on job creation, but those who reinvest, grow additional businesses, and buy more consumer level goods with their extra money are certainly contributing significantly to job creation.

In a perfect, "honest" capitalist society, trickle down would work better, but too many at the top (and in the upper middle nowadays, as well) are so hyperfocused on holding onto wealth as much as possible that trickle down is not helping as much as it should. People are losing (and have already lost) hundreds of thousands on properties such as homes and businesses that have plummeted in value over the last few years. The market still hasn't completely recovered from the recent recession, and there are signs that most income levels are actually more likely to save than spend in this moment.

Spending is risky, among other factors, and the trickle down theory just doesn't make as much sense now as it used to. I'm not saying I'm for more taxes right now, because some day I want to be rich, and my incentive to do so may dwindle a bit if the taxes up there get too extreme. It's the little red hen making bread story there, I suppose.
 
Government is not the problem, American citizens are the problem with America, you keep voting in the same douche bags and letting them get away with it
 
SirKronan said:
some day I want to be rich, and my incentive to do so may dwindle a bit if the taxes up there get too extreme. It's the little red hen making bread story there, I suppose.
Click to expand...
The red hen story an intellectually bankrupt false dichotomy. If getting shooting for a promotion means you will only make $10,000 more per year instead of $14,000 because of moving into a higher tax bracket, are you just going to go "Fuck it. I just won't work harder to get it and stay where I am"?

There are shades of gray in everything. We're constantly propagandized in the U.S. by the hen story (in the case of children) and Rush Limbaugh (in the case of adults) that the big bad gubbamint is going to take all your money. Not some! All!

Then these propagandists have the audacity to pay off government officials to keep their taxes low and buy their military contracts and bail out their businesses, thus taking back what little in taxes they lost.

The ones who benefit the most from society also have the greatest debt to society, and they're fighting their damnedest not to pay it back.
 
The issue on taxes will never be solved because inserting loopholes into the tax code, any tax code, is what keeps politicians in office.
 
I 100% support Apple keeping as much of its profit out of the US as possible. They're not dodging anything. If the government wants to tax Apple profits so badly it should make it worthwhile for apple to conduct business in the US.

and imo, a flat tax with no loop holes for the citizens and 0% corporate tax is the best thing that could be done for the worldwide economy and our country.
 
The flat tax does nothing to cease income shifting or obfuscation.

Carrying over losses is already generous.

And corporate executives enjoy tremendous bonuses and retirement packages, de-facto legal protection/immunity, lavish perks, direct access to lawmakers, etc.

But they could simplify the code by disallowing "ordinary and necessary" expenses for foreign operations to utilize 19th century labor conditions and pay. They could increase deductibility for hiring domestic workers and renewing/creating infrastructure, facilities, training employees, etc.
 
c4v3man said:
The problem with a progressive tax is that you lessen the incentive to make more money. It's easily possible to make more money pre-tax one year, and yet have less take-home pay.
Click to expand...
No! That's literally impossible in our progressive tax structure. Higher tax rates only apply to income earned in those brackets, not to the rest of your income earned below them. I saw you were already called out, but this idea is so wrong it needs to be thoroughly corrected.

c4v3man said:
Obviously the impact of changing to a fair tax is somewhat unknown, since there are few people in this country that even understand the current tax code.
Click to expand...
Such as yourself... and apparently a lot of other flat/fair tax supporters.

Your other arguments and anecdotes against our tax structure basically boil down to "it's complicated". Well, so what? Taxation and fiscal policy are not uncomplicated issues. The influence of taxation is a powerful driving force upon the direction of a society. Its implementation must be approached with flexibility and nuance.
 
Every single public corporation has a legal obligation to seek profits for their shareholders.

I extend that to mean that every public corporation has a duty to legally minimize their tax obligation as best as is reasonable.

Apple should be applauded, not chided, for optimizing their business like this. But no.... they're evil and don't pay their fair share... :rolleyes:
 
Zangmonkey said:
Every single public corporation has a legal obligation to seek profits for their shareholders.

I extend that to mean that every public corporation has a duty to legally minimize their tax obligation as best as is reasonable.

Apple should be applauded, not chided, for optimizing their business like this. But no.... they're evil and don't pay their fair share... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That says more about the failures of the capitalist system than it does of participating corporations.
 
XvMMvX said:
Bunch of retarded democrats/s on here.

The people who pay no taxes decide not to work, have kids they can't afford, smoke and drink themselves into poverty... Get off your ass and do something for YOURSELF...

That's Apple's Shareholders money not the governments, and a tax on corporations is double taxation anyways as companies are owned by shareholders and shareholders are people who then have to pay income tax on the dividends/gains. If you are for repealing bush tax cuts to "level the playing field" then you are a hipporcrite.

15% flat tax would solve this, but then GASP the lolpoors would have to pay taxes.

Keep talking.... Its enjoyable when people show thier ass for all to see.
Click to expand...

Hahahah a flat tax, yes. That's an absolutely wonderful idea. Fair, right?

Not regressive at all. Someone making $20,000 a year can certainly afford to give up 15% of their income just as easily as someone making $200,000. No big deal, really.
 
steal said:
Hahahah a flat tax, yes. That's an absolutely wonderful idea. Fair, right?

Not regressive at all. Someone making $20,000 a year can certainly afford to give up 15% of their income just as easily as someone making $200,000. No big deal, really.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The current tax system is not necessarily the best, but a flat tax just seems silly.
 
Zangmonkey said:
Every single public corporation has a legal obligation to seek profits for their shareholders.

I extend that to mean that every public corporation has a duty to legally minimize their tax obligation as best as is reasonable.
Click to expand...
Corporations are not legally obligated to seek profit for their shareholders nor for anyone else.
 
mope54 said:
Corporations are not legally obligated to seek profit for their shareholders nor for anyone else.
Click to expand...

They have a fiduciary duty to act with due care, or they can be personally liable for corporate decisions.

This doesn't mean rape and pillage to secure profits, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Apple put an office in a state with favorable tax codes to avoid the tax codes of another state.
There is no ethical issue here. It is a reasonable thing for a corporation to do to minimize profits.

If, presented with this same situation, the directors decided that they could reasonably, easily and ethically reduce their tax liability then choosing *not* to so do could be a breach of their duty.

It is important to note that "most profitable" and "best interest" are not inherently the same thing. I would suggest, though, that for Apple to choose to pay a higher taxes than required at no detrimental alternative to the corporation that it would be a negligent failure.
 
I understand what you're trying to argue it's just that the points you're using to support your argument are factually incorrect.

There's no reason to try and talk me into agreeing with you that Apple's behavior is not unethical or illegal or otherwise improper because I already agree that for-profit corporations are amoral entities. Your argument, however, that corporations are legally obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders or that anyone can be held legally liable if they don't are not true.
 
mope54 said:
I understand what you're trying to argue it's just that the points you're using to support your argument are factually incorrect.

There's no reason to try and talk me into agreeing with you that Apple's behavior is not unethical or illegal or otherwise improper because I already agree that for-profit corporations are amoral entities. Your argument, however, that corporations are legally obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders or that anyone can be held legally liable if they don't are not true.
Click to expand...

It depends on the degree.
A director who makes a decision with the direct intention of damaging the corporation can certainly be held liable by the shareholders.
 
A 501(c) is one of many types of public corporations that are not profit motivated.

You're conflating some issues with your last post that aren't really worth the time arguing over.
 
mope54 said:
A 501(c) is one of many types of public corporations that are not profit motivated.

You're conflating some issues with your last post that aren't really worth the time arguing over.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. My use of the words "every single" was incorrect.
 
Zangmonkey said:
Apple put an office in a state with favorable tax codes to avoid the tax codes of another state.
Click to expand...

No.

They were putting an office into a locale where they had hired lobbyists to basically bribe government officials into giving them preferential treatment.
 
Steve does a really top notch job of mucking up news that incites arguments and generates page views.
 
Zangmonkey said:
Every single public corporation has a legal obligation to seek profits for their shareholders.
Click to expand...

Yes, and their should also be a goal to prevent and avoid huge, crushing losses and financial destruction, even if "boring" companies do this more successfully. Just because an exotic financial instrument CAN be invented and pawned off on thrifts, for example, doesn't mean it should. But once salaries and bonuses are made, vacations are taken, etc. they aren't reclaimed for ruining the company later.

The punishment for running a company into the ground or other poor performance is usually... a large severance package, joining a different company in a similar role, becoming a lobbyist, etc. even in cases of wanton fraud and malfeasance. There should be more criminal convictions, asset seizures, and nationalization.

And they have... not a legal obligation, but a de facto, commonly accepted goal of enriching those few at the highest levels of their company. There is rampant cronyism and incompetence, from boards of directors, to executives, to "financial anaylsts," to corrupt SEC and other law enforcement folks (aka alumni from Goldman, JP Morgan, etc.) Whistle-blowers are squelched or even attacked, shareholders voting down extreme executive compensation are ignored or circumvented.

And it's not a utopian vision. Companies from Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Germany... they can be drastically different, while still being incredibly successful. (not that every company from those countries is similar)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top