If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Apple proves a higher corporate tax won't matter with its own tax games. I didn't realize those games were compatible with OS X   (finance.fortune.cnn.com) divider line 46
    More: Sad, OS X, corporate tax, tax rates, operating systems  
•       •       •

2664 clicks; posted to Business » on 26 Apr 2013 at 11:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-26 11:04:50 AM
"Because bears are brown, kumquats can't operate heavy machinery"
 
2013-04-26 11:33:10 AM
I really wish this was in the politics tab. I keep telling them that the super rich and mega corps just find a way around the taxes and/or just move.

Never cheer higher taxes. The government counts will come to count on that money and they will have to find someone to pay for it.
 
2013-04-26 11:47:25 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
Corporations and the very wealthy use tax loopholes to not pay taxes.
 
2013-04-26 11:51:40 AM
Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders, not whatever governmental taxing authority where it does business.  If Apple is not breaking the law then get over it.

The only sad thing here is the convoluted tax code in the US that forces companies to play these games.  A flat 15% with no deductions would save these companies, like GE who paid no US taxes, millions in accounting fees and bring some revenue in to the Treasury.
 
2013-04-26 11:52:31 AM
Tax corporations on their total market cap.  That'll fix the problem.  That'll probably create new problems, but oh, well.
 
2013-04-26 11:52:34 AM
I bet the hipsters are furiously venting about this on their iPad 2 in the Starbucks they've been camping out in for 3 months now.
 
2013-04-26 11:55:51 AM
 
2013-04-26 11:59:12 AM

NewWorldDan: Tax corporations on their total market cap.  That'll fix the problem.  That'll probably create new problems, but oh, well.


No, that'll create new loopholes.
 
2013-04-26 12:01:17 PM
I would really like to see our corporate rate reduced significantly and the loopholes that large companies use to avoid taxes closed. It's absolutely ridiculous that a company like GE can pay no taxes on billions in profits, but Mom & Pop, Inc. has to pay 35% because they can't afford an army of lobbyists to buy new tax breaks and a hoard of accountants and tax lawyers to help them take advantage of them. I'd rather see everyone pay 12% or 15%. It will never happen because our lawmakers are the most greedy and corrupt motherfarkers on the planet, but a guy can dream.
 
2013-04-26 12:03:12 PM
I have no loopholes. Give corporations the tax laws that apply to me.
 
2013-04-26 12:05:23 PM

Wizzin: I have no loopholes. Give corporations the tax laws that apply to me.


So tax them on income, not profit? That has no possible negative consequences, I'm sold
 
2013-04-26 12:29:26 PM

mod3072: I would really like to see our corporate rate reduced significantly and the loopholes that large companies use to avoid taxes closed. It's absolutely ridiculous that a company like GE can pay no taxes on billions in profits, but Mom & Pop, Inc. has to pay 35% because they can't afford an army of lobbyists to buy new tax breaks and a hoard of accountants and tax lawyers to help them take advantage of them. I'd rather see everyone pay 12% or 15%. It will never happen because our lawmakers are the most greedy and corrupt motherfarkers on the planet, but a guy can dream.


Mom & Pop, Inc don't pay 35%, dum dum.
 
2013-04-26 12:33:26 PM

mod3072: I would really like to see our corporate rate reduced significantly and the loopholes that large companies use to avoid taxes closed. It's absolutely ridiculous that a company like GE can pay no taxes on billions in profits, but Mom & Pop, Inc. has to pay 35% because they can't afford an army of lobbyists to buy new tax breaks and a hoard of accountants and tax lawyers to help them take advantage of them. I'd rather see everyone pay 12% or 15%. It will never happen because our lawmakers are the most greedy and corrupt motherfarkers on the planet, but a guy can dream.



in 2008, 2009, 2010, 78 major US corporations, like Goldman Sachs, Phizer, and Merck payed $0 taxes. In those same 3 years, GE earned $10 Billion in profits and not only payed $0 taxes, but they also received $4.5 Billion in tax rebates. Your tax dollars at work, citizen.
 
2013-04-26 12:52:14 PM

Shazam999: mod3072: I would really like to see our corporate rate reduced significantly and the loopholes that large companies use to avoid taxes closed. It's absolutely ridiculous that a company like GE can pay no taxes on billions in profits, but Mom & Pop, Inc. has to pay 35% because they can't afford an army of lobbyists to buy new tax breaks and a hoard of accountants and tax lawyers to help them take advantage of them. I'd rather see everyone pay 12% or 15%. It will never happen because our lawmakers are the most greedy and corrupt motherfarkers on the planet, but a guy can dream.

Mom & Pop, Inc don't pay 35%, dum dum.


Any business that does is doomed to fail, if it hasn't already.
 
2013-04-26 12:57:00 PM
No need to tax corporations at all - they only pass it on, anyway. Just eliminate the capital gains loophole, and let those who own them pay taxes on what they earn - like secretaries do.
Of course, we'll never do that - the last thing the "fair, flat" taxers want is a fair, flat tax.
 
2013-04-26 01:50:37 PM

jso2897: they only pass it on, anyway.


*headdesk*
 
2013-04-26 01:52:46 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I really wish this was in the politics tab. I keep telling them that the super rich and mega corps just find a way around the taxes and/or just move.


yes let's bend over backwards for the few, who in times past had no problem going along with things.
 
2013-04-26 01:59:06 PM
Oh it's this thread.  God forbid that corporations pay for the infrastructure they use, because the few jobs they begrudgingly "create" are a form of charity or something.
 
2013-04-26 02:05:22 PM
 I didn't realize those games were compatible with OS X

One less word and it would have been a A+++ headline.
 
2013-04-26 02:07:45 PM

Shazam999: Mom & Pop, Inc don't pay 35%, dum dum.


No, but their effective tax rate is generally higher than multinationals, as they cannot take part in the things that reduce rates as much as big companies can.
 
2013-04-26 02:21:04 PM

jso2897: No need to tax corporations at all - they only pass it on, anyway. Just eliminate the capital gains loophole, and let those who own them pay taxes on what they earn - like secretaries do.
Of course, we'll never do that - the last thing the "fair, flat" taxers want is a fair, flat tax.


Plenty of other countries don't have capital gains tax.  They actually want to attract hard working innovative people to their country.  All you will do by increasing captial gains is drive more investment there.
 
2013-04-26 02:24:20 PM

ThePastafarian: Oh it's this thread.  God forbid that corporations pay for the infrastructure they use, because the few jobs they begrudgingly "create" are a form of charity or something.


But they're job creators! ...in China.
 
2013-04-26 02:33:18 PM
The other problem is that the corporations know if they wait long enough -- specifically, until we have another GOP President --  there will be a tax holiday where they can repatriate their offshore stockpiles of cash, only having to pay a fraction of the corporate tax rate. If corporations thought that they'd never be able to bring their money back to the United States, they'd be more willing to deal with closing loopholes.
 
2013-04-26 02:42:37 PM
There's a widely shared idea that if the U.S. reduced its corporate income tax rate to 25% from the current 35%, big corporations would stop playing tax games.

Only an idiot would think that way...  Let's look at the only two possibilites:

1. You lower taxes so that companies can now pay the same amount in taxes as they were before, only without jumping through loopholes.

2. You lower taxes but the amount of taxes a company would end up paying is still more than they would pay via the current loopholey method.

In case 1, you're basically saying, "Fine, you're only willing to pay $X in taxes? Then that's what you're legally required to pay now."  Which is just caving in to their tomfoolery.  Bullshiat!

In case 2, why would anyone pay more in taxes than they were paying before?  You're effectively trying to haggle up the price with someone who can already walk out the door, item in hand, for a price lower than what you're trying to haggle them up to...

gabrielchapman.com
 
2013-04-26 02:51:28 PM
Hey look at that, Subby. Unlike you, most people in this thread understand that all companies use these loopholes.
 
2013-04-26 03:00:48 PM
Both rates are bad, so tax lower!
 
2013-04-26 03:01:16 PM
This only works because interest rates are still so low. As long as it's cheaper for Apple to borrow money than to bring it back home, they won't.
 
2013-04-26 03:11:56 PM

StrikitRich: Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders, not whatever governmental taxing authority where it does business.  If Apple is not breaking the law then get over it.


That's the same kind of response the gun nuts make when the country cries out for little things like background checks. It's all, "b-b-b-but the 2nd Amendment! It's the law!!" And I say to you what I say to them:

Sure, right now this is legal. But it's clearly time to change the laws.
 
2013-04-26 03:37:24 PM

Honest Bender: There's a widely shared idea that if the U.S. reduced its corporate income tax rate to 25% from the current 35%, big corporations would stop playing tax games.

Only an idiot would think that way...  Let's look at the only two possibilites:

1. You lower taxes so that companies can now pay the same amount in taxes as they were before, only without jumping through loopholes.

2. You lower taxes but the amount of taxes a company would end up paying is still more than they would pay via the current loopholey method.

In case 1, you're basically saying, "Fine, you're only willing to pay $X in taxes? Then that's what you're legally required to pay now."  Which is just caving in to their tomfoolery.  Bullshiat!

In case 2, why would anyone pay more in taxes than they were paying before?  You're effectively trying to haggle up the price with someone who can already walk out the door, item in hand, for a price lower than what you're trying to haggle them up to...

[gabrielchapman.com image 300x230]


Make it less than what they have to pay lobbyists and they will pay the lesser amount. They are businessmen! So do you want money going to the reelection campaigns of your congressmen or into the national coffers?

Everyone says "well they can afford to hire lobbyists" like it is a cheap thing to do!
 
2013-04-26 03:43:49 PM

jso2897: No need to tax corporations at all - they only pass it on, anyway. Just eliminate the capital gains loophole, and let those who own them pay taxes on what they earn - like secretaries do.
Of course, we'll never do that - the last thing the "fair, flat" taxers want is a fair, flat tax.


Hello, I am John McRichGuy. Meet John McRichGuy Inc, a wholely owned private corporation that operates buys and sells financial assets.

It is pretty easy to defer most taxes pretty much indefinitely in this case. Sure you need to pull out some to live off, but you put as much as you can through the corporation to reduce your drawings. This already happens with various HoldCos and such, it would get crazy if you made it zero tax at the corporate level.
 
2013-04-26 04:01:10 PM

plcow: jso2897: No need to tax corporations at all - they only pass it on, anyway. Just eliminate the capital gains loophole, and let those who own them pay taxes on what they earn - like secretaries do.
Of course, we'll never do that - the last thing the "fair, flat" taxers want is a fair, flat tax.

Plenty of other countries don't have capital gains tax.  They actually want to attract hard working innovative people to their country.  All you will do by increasing captial gains is drive more investment there.


How does having capital gains mean you're hard working? Isn't it getting paid for having money?
 
2013-04-26 04:02:56 PM

dywed88: jso2897: No need to tax corporations at all - they only pass it on, anyway. Just eliminate the capital gains loophole, and let those who own them pay taxes on what they earn - like secretaries do.
Of course, we'll never do that - the last thing the "fair, flat" taxers want is a fair, flat tax.

Hello, I am John McRichGuy. Meet John McRichGuy Inc, a wholely owned private corporation that operates buys and sells financial assets.

It is pretty easy to defer most taxes pretty much indefinitely in this case. Sure you need to pull out some to live off, but you put as much as you can through the corporation to reduce your drawings. This already happens with various HoldCos and such, it would get crazy if you made it zero tax at the corporate level.


But wouldn't you have to pull out lots if you wanted to actually live a wealthy lifestyle? You could try to get around it by having the corporation buy a luxurious house and sports car, but I'm pretty sure you're required to list the equivalent value on your personal income taxes if you are living in a corporate house etc.
 
2013-04-26 05:01:18 PM

plcow: Plenty of other countries don't have capital gains tax. They actually want to attract hard working innovative people to their country. All you will do by increasing captial gains is drive more investment there.


You're totally right, America has had zero innovation and we haven't worked hard at all from 1913 onward. Great thinking there sport.
 
2013-04-26 05:24:57 PM

Tommy Moo: dywed88: jso2897: No need to tax corporations at all - they only pass it on, anyway. Just eliminate the capital gains loophole, and let those who own them pay taxes on what they earn - like secretaries do.
Of course, we'll never do that - the last thing the "fair, flat" taxers want is a fair, flat tax.

Hello, I am John McRichGuy. Meet John McRichGuy Inc, a wholely owned private corporation that operates buys and sells financial assets.

It is pretty easy to defer most taxes pretty much indefinitely in this case. Sure you need to pull out some to live off, but you put as much as you can through the corporation to reduce your drawings. This already happens with various HoldCos and such, it would get crazy if you made it zero tax at the corporate level.

But wouldn't you have to pull out lots if you wanted to actually live a wealthy lifestyle? You could try to get around it by having the corporation buy a luxurious house and sports car, but I'm pretty sure you're required to list the equivalent value on your personal income taxes if you are living in a corporate house etc.


You will have to take out some. But anything reinvested will be deferred until the death of the person and his spouse. And most of a rich person's gains will fall into this boat. Then they claim various dedcutions and credits to reduce taxes further.

Take Romney as a famous and available return with a large investment income. There is no way he withdraws most of that. And, yes,you will have some income if the corporation provides you with a house or something, but you can still put an awful lot through the corp.

The idea that it is a simple solution to all the problems is simply a joke. And this idea would definitely be in favour of the wealthier people.
 
2013-04-26 05:51:44 PM

StrikitRich: Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders, not whatever governmental taxing authority where it does business.  If Apple is not breaking the law then get over it.

The only sad thing here is the convoluted tax code in the US that forces companies to play these games.  A flat 15% with no deductions would save these companies, like GE who paid no US taxes, millions in accounting fees and bring some revenue in to the Treasury.


The shareholders in every case are worse than OPEC. They are goddamned traitors. Each would slit his mother's throat for a penny. When you cater to the worst humanity has to offer, you do awful things to make it all happen.

StrikitRich: The only sad thing here is the convoluted tax code in the US that forces companies to play these games.  A flat 15% with no deductions would save these companies, like GE who paid no US taxes, millions in accounting fees and bring some revenue in to the Treasury.


The tax code in the US is complicated because the shareholders want it complicated. They are the primary beneficiaries of our convoluted system of taxation. It's certainly not written that way for the benefit of the common clay of the earth.
 
2013-04-26 05:52:38 PM
I don't think that's what TFA said at all, subby. What TFA said is that corporations engage in shenanigans at 35%. If you cut it to 25%, they'll continue to engage in shenanigans, but those shenanigans will be less lucrative (although will still BE lucrative).

That's not the same as 'a higher tax rate doesn't matter.' If anything, TFA is arguing against lowering the tax rate because the *lower* tax rate won't change their behaviors.
 
2013-04-26 06:30:12 PM

StrikitRich: Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders, not whatever governmental taxing authority where it does business.  If Apple is not breaking the law then get over it.

The only sad thing here is the convoluted tax code in the US that forces companies to play these games.  A flat 15% with no deductions would save these companies, like GE who paid no US taxes, millions in accounting fees and bring some revenue in to the Treasury.


What makes you think Apple has a responsibility to their shareholders?

Shareholders are just holders of pieces of paper that the original investors bought.  And unless they can get a majority voting edge then the company, simply put, owes them nothing.   Why do you think it's been decades since they're paid out dividends?

Sure, you might argue that Apple needs to worry about their stock price and shareholder confidence in case they want to release more stock to raise money, but do you honestly think Apple needs to raise money by stock release any time soon?
 
2013-04-26 06:30:26 PM

MrEricSir: You're totally right, America has had zero innovation and we haven't worked hard at all from 1913 onward. Great thinking there sport.


They spend most of their time here. But legally they live in Holland.


Jamming with the Stones and U2
 
2013-04-26 06:51:09 PM

StrikitRich: Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders, not whatever governmental taxing authority where it does business.  If Apple is not breaking the law then get over it.

The only sad thing here is the convoluted tax code in the US that forces companies to play these games.  A flat 15% with no deductions would save these companies, like GE who paid no US taxes, millions in accounting fees and bring some revenue in to the Treasury.


THIS.

/if a company I invested in didn't do everything possible to minimize their tax burdan I would insist that the CEO resign
//but this is Apple so more people will get all false outraged over it
 
2013-04-26 07:00:38 PM

gingerjet: StrikitRich: Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders, not whatever governmental taxing authority where it does business.  If Apple is not breaking the law then get over it.

The only sad thing here is the convoluted tax code in the US that forces companies to play these games.  A flat 15% with no deductions would save these companies, like GE who paid no US taxes, millions in accounting fees and bring some revenue in to the Treasury.

THIS.

/if a company I invested in didn't do everything possible to minimize their tax burdan I would insist that the CEO resign
//but this is Apple so more people will get all false outraged over it


The tax code is so convoluted BECAUSE these exact companies paid for it to be that way.  I guarantee you that every single loophole was put in there for specific reasons for specific companies.
 
2013-04-26 08:16:03 PM
Corporations and the wealthy hate America?

img37.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-26 09:47:52 PM

Tommy Moo: dywed88: jso2897: No need to tax corporations at all - they only pass it on, anyway. Just eliminate the capital gains loophole, and let those who own them pay taxes on what they earn - like secretaries do.
Of course, we'll never do that - the last thing the "fair, flat" taxers want is a fair, flat tax.

Hello, I am John McRichGuy. Meet John McRichGuy Inc, a wholely owned private corporation that operates buys and sells financial assets.

It is pretty easy to defer most taxes pretty much indefinitely in this case. Sure you need to pull out some to live off, but you put as much as you can through the corporation to reduce your drawings. This already happens with various HoldCos and such, it would get crazy if you made it zero tax at the corporate level.

But wouldn't you have to pull out lots if you wanted to actually live a wealthy lifestyle? You could try to get around it by having the corporation buy a luxurious house and sports car, but I'm pretty sure you're required to list the equivalent value on your personal income taxes if you are living in a corporate house etc.


For a number of reasons,many assets are held that way (especially aircraft and cars).  Depending on how it's set up, all the individual return sees is a few income and expense entries from the holding company.
 
2013-04-27 02:16:50 AM
"The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward." - John Maynard Keynes
 
2013-04-27 10:21:54 AM

Notabunny: mod3072: I would really like to see our corporate rate reduced significantly and the loopholes that large companies use to avoid taxes closed. It's absolutely ridiculous that a company like GE can pay no taxes on billions in profits, but Mom & Pop, Inc. has to pay 35% because they can't afford an army of lobbyists to buy new tax breaks and a hoard of accountants and tax lawyers to help them take advantage of them. I'd rather see everyone pay 12% or 15%. It will never happen because our lawmakers are the most greedy and corrupt motherfarkers on the planet, but a guy can dream.


in 2008, 2009, 2010, 78 major US corporations, like Goldman Sachs, Phizer, and Merck payed $0 taxes. In those same 3 years, GE earned $10 Billion in profits and not only payed $0 taxes, but they also received $4.5 Billion in tax rebates. Your tax dollars at work, citizen.


and Warren Buffet does everything in his power to avoid taxes for himself and his company as well.
 
2013-04-27 01:17:42 PM

Satanic_Hamster: The tax code is so convoluted BECAUSE these exact companies paid for it to be that way. I guarantee you that every single loophole was put in there for specific reasons for specific companies.


THIS...specific companies or industries who convinced politicians that it was for the "greater good."

Occasionally the "greater good" may even be true, but don't act like it was hippie bums who were the driving force behind the convoluted corporate tax code.  Corporations did this to themselves/each other.
 
2013-04-27 02:15:48 PM

StrikitRich: Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders, not whatever governmental taxing authority where it does business.  If Apple is not breaking the law then get over it.

The only sad thing here is the convoluted tax code in the US that forces companies to play these games.  A flat 15% with no deductions would save these companies, like GE who paid no US taxes, millions in accounting fees and bring some revenue in to the Treasury.


Flat taxes are regressive and allow those with extra wealth/capital an advantage over others.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report