Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Apple is so hip, they've been making up Irish-American corporations that reside in both countries yet pay taxes in neither. That's like...whoa, man. My mind just got blown by your bodacious use of tax loopholes   (talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Apple Inc., United States, u.s. income tax, share buyback, income taxes  
•       •       •

7695 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 May 2013 at 10:05 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-21 10:38:46 AM  
As global capital becomes ever more powerful, giant corporations are holding governments and citizens up for ransom - eliciting subsidies and tax breaks from countries concerned about their nation's "competitiveness" - while sheltering their profits in the lowest-tax jurisdictions they can find. Major advanced countries - and their citizens - need a comprehensive tax agreement that won't allow global corporations to get away with this.

Google, Amazon, Starbucks, every other major corporation, and every big Wall Street bank, are sheltering as much of their U.S. profits abroad as they can, while telling Washington that lower corporate taxes are necessary in order to keep the U.S. "competitive."

Baloney. The fact is, global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible - and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.

Link
 
2013-05-21 10:38:47 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?


Corporations are people, so this doesn't make sense.
 
2013-05-21 10:38:49 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?


And how would you do that, tax the value of people's investment portfolios?
 
2013-05-21 10:39:05 AM  

theorellior: Pappy091: I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.

You do know you're not supposed to get money back for filing 941s, right?


And....?

Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.
 
2013-05-21 10:41:57 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Cook should just strip and drop a hot crackling shiat on the table while looking the lead of the panel in the eye and say "If you don't like it, change the law", then wipe with 100 dollar bills.


And here I am giggling over imagining a hot crackling shiat on a table. The new special at Lenny's.
 
2013-05-21 10:42:47 AM  
The very rich people and large corporations utilize loopholes in our tax code, just like Apple does FTA.
No need to increase taxes or lower them if you are some backwards GOP moron. Just close the farking loopholes so the ultra rich and corporations can pay a proportionate amount like the rest of the working class...
 
2013-05-21 10:43:31 AM  

jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

Corporations are people too, my friend.


Do you have something meaningful to add to the conversation? Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?
 
2013-05-21 10:45:07 AM  

Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees


Yes. Point to a single outlier to cancel our the average effective tax rate of each quintile calculated by the IRS. Makes sense. Cold today so no global warming and all that.
 
2013-05-21 10:47:03 AM  

GoldSpider: You're the jerk... jerk: What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

And how would you do that, tax the value of people's investment portfolios?


Same way it is done today, capital gains.
 
2013-05-21 10:47:17 AM  

theorellior: The more I parse it, the more I think Pappy091 is trolling everyone. The tone of that post reminds me of the "top-shelf pussy" frat troll.



He thinks because he owns Jefferson County Investments, LLC he qualifies as "rich".  He doesn't realize that the rich we're talking about are orders of magnitude wealthier than him.

Another one of the 5% thinking they're part of the .005%
 
2013-05-21 10:47:22 AM  
Don't hate the player; hate the game.
 
2013-05-21 10:47:36 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

Corporations are people too, my friend.

Do you have something meaningful to add to the conversation? Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?


Romney's quip may be glib, but its not really inaccurate.  They are (legal) "people" in most senses of the word, with most of the same rights & responsibilities.  I can't see any reason why they should get an exemption on taxation unless they're willing to also give up the other benefits of "personhood" -- i.e., free speech rights, the ability to absorb legal liability rather than passing it on to their owners, etc...  Why should a fictitious entity be treated as a person for the purpose of granting legal rights & benefits, but not for the purpose of tax liability?
 
2013-05-21 10:47:53 AM  

jshine: Quiefenburger: cman: Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple Apple did nothing against the law.
ftfy

Its still very telling what you left in place...


Don't knock it til you try it
 
2013-05-21 10:49:00 AM  

MyRandomName: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Yes. Point to a single outlier to cancel our the average effective tax rate of each quintile calculated by the IRS. Makes sense. Cold today so no global warming and all that.


Fine then, cup.
Rmoney, Donald Trump, every celebrity member of the church of Scientology, Bill Gates...should I keep going?
 
2013-05-21 10:54:14 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?


Because the shareholders are already taxed on any dividends they receive, and a corporation is under no obligation to pay them dividends in the first place. If a corporation make $1B, and the shareholders receive $0 of that $1B, why would we tax the share holders?

What, exactly, are the share holders paying taxes on, if not the income they receive from their shares?
 
2013-05-21 10:55:09 AM  

jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

Corporations are people too, my friend.

Do you have something meaningful to add to the conversation? Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?

Romney's quip may be glib, but its not really inaccurate.  They are (legal) "people" in most senses of the word, with most of the same rights & responsibilities.  I can't see any reason why they should get an exemption on taxation unless they're willing to also give up the other benefits of "personhood" -- i.e., free speech rights, the ability to absorb legal liability rather than passing it on to their owners, etc...  Why should a fictitious entity be treated as a person for the purpose of granting legal rights & benefits, but not for the purpose of tax liability?


The legal rights of the owners are imputed onto the corporation, they don't exist without them. Instead of treating them as a separate entity for tax purposes, just continue the logic and treat the corporation as a pure investment vehicle. Otherwise, as I indicated the corporation is making inefficient decisions on how to utilize capital and making tax decisions for the investors.

There is also a common misconception about how they absorb legal liability, in essentially all cases there would be no liability for the owners at all without the corporate entity. It does not absorb the liability, it creates and limits the liability. I know this is not always the case (IANAL but I did graduate from law school) but it is the most common use of it today.
 
2013-05-21 10:55:34 AM  

you have pee hands: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.


BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.
 
2013-05-21 10:58:27 AM  
Apple may not want to pay their fair share of taxes, but at least they still employee slave labor in China.

Hey, when does the new iPhone come out?
 
2013-05-21 10:58:57 AM  

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?

Because the shareholders are already taxed on any dividends they receive, and a corporation is under no obligation to pay them dividends in the first place. If a corporation make $1B, and the shareholders receive $0 of that $1B, why would we tax the share holders?

What, exactly, are the share holders paying taxes on, if not the income they receive from their shares?


Ask yourself a question, if a corporation is profiting $1B and not paying a dividend (or the equivalent such as share buy backs) what are they doing with it?

Capital Gains taxes are paid on the increase in share price from time of purchase.
 
2013-05-21 10:59:12 AM  

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.

BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.


Or how bout close the loopholes that lets Apple and all the other mega-corporations sit on the mountain of gold they have? Why pass on yet another tax to the working class?

/Apple sucks
 
2013-05-21 11:00:19 AM  

scanman61: theorellior: The more I parse it, the more I think Pappy091 is trolling everyone. The tone of that post reminds me of the "top-shelf pussy" frat troll.


He thinks because he owns Jefferson County Investments, LLC he qualifies as "rich".  He doesn't realize that the rich we're talking about are orders of magnitude wealthier than him.

Another one of the 5% thinking they're part of the .005%


Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.
 
2013-05-21 11:02:15 AM  
Apple be some gangster ass mofo's. Ya'll don't know it...but them fools is from the street son! They know how to get they rob on.
 
2013-05-21 11:02:48 AM  

Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.


Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.
 
2013-05-21 11:02:49 AM  
Make them pay every penny in back taxes + interest + penalties. Then fine them again for the sheer audacity to do this to the American people. Levy 100% import tax on all apple products manufactured outside the United States, that should be a good start.
 
2013-05-21 11:04:23 AM  

Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.


Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!
 
2013-05-21 11:05:27 AM  

you have pee hands: Your response has nothing to do with my post. It also doesn't make any sense.


Basically the definition of his posts.
 
2013-05-21 11:05:41 AM  
A corporation will spend 100 million dollars to avoid paying 99 million in taxes.
 
2013-05-21 11:05:47 AM  

theorellior: Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.

Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!


Hopefully, and then you will be free to hate me. I will be too rich to care, lol.
 
2013-05-21 11:06:32 AM  
Or err, I got that backwards (or have I?)
 
2013-05-21 11:06:40 AM  

someradicaldude: Make them pay every penny in back taxes + interest + penalties. Then fine them again for the sheer audacity to do this to the American people. Levy 100% import tax on all apple products manufactured outside the United States, that should be a good start.


static.giantbomb.com
 
2013-05-21 11:06:58 AM  

DeathCipris: Rmoney, Donald Trump, every celebrity member of the church of Scientology, Bill Gates...should I keep going?


John Forbes Kerry, all of Hollywood, etc.

Here's a way to "solve" the under-taxation "problem" -- let's slap a 95% tax on all entertainment profits, at every level of the production and distribution chain, across all industries (sports, music, movies, etc.).  They're non-essential products and services, like cigarettes and liquor.  Entertainment is, by definition, a luxury.

Sure, the luxury tax invariably kills luxury industries, and Hollywood is a huge donor to Democrats, but that isn't a good reason to let them get away with not paying their Fair Share.

And what's with all the Slave Labor working for free on movies?  The highest-paid worker should get no more than, say, five times what the lowest-paid worker gets.  So, the interns should be fairly compensated compared to Matt Damon and George Clooney.

"We" should "ask" them to pay "more."

"We" have to "do something."

Who's with me on this Tax the Crap Out of Hollywood Campaign?
 
2013-05-21 11:07:22 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: Ask yourself a question, if a corporation is profiting $1B and not paying a dividend (or the equivalent such as share buy backs) what are they doing with it?


Well, in the case of Apple, they sat on it- for  years. They often use it for acquisitions- my employer has been buying up a lot of smaller companies lately, Apple's done the same. They may re-invest it into the company. Regardless, a company is not beholden to pay dividends, nor is there any guarantee that a successful company's share price will increase (Apple's profitability has remained incredibly high, their share price has tanked over the past year), and only a fool would believe that share price is an accurate representation of the value of a company,  anyway.

The key point is that there's no relationship between a company's income and the income of its share holders. As a result, it makes a great deal of sense to tax the company as an entity separate from its share holders.

You're the jerk... jerk: Capital Gains taxes are paid on the increase in share price from time of purchase.

Only

when those gains are realized. If you're a buy-and-hold investor, like pretty much anybody with a 401(K), IRA, or any sort of mutual funds-  most shareholders- you aren't going to be paying very much capital gains tax on the increase of your net worth.
 
2013-05-21 11:08:09 AM  
Rich 

you have pee hands: Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.



The problem here is that Apple doesn't HAVE to stay in the US. They do so because it suits them, but it's not absolutely necessary. Their attitude (shared among many corps) is that, "Well if you're going to tax us that much we'll just leave and you get a pittance."

I don't think it's right, but they do have a point. Squeeze the golden goose too hard and you get squat.

As a libertarian, I'm not sure what the best course of action here is. It's not like we can (or should) seize their companies and demand our national cut.
 
2013-05-21 11:08:51 AM  

GORDON: Apple may not want to pay their fair share of taxes, but at least they still employee slave labor in China.

Hey, when does the new iPhone come out?


iPhone is coming out...now
 
2013-05-21 11:08:56 AM  

pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.


In and of itself no, it would not encourage companies to stop using clever accountants and loopholes to avoid taxes for a simple reason: if they're saving less money they're still saving money.

Think about it... Let's say Company X is using tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying $150 million in taxes. Let's say they pay $1 million in costs for the lawyers and accountants on the payroll to handle that for them, so they are profiting $149 million from the scheme. So say we slash the tax rate precipitously so that Company X now only owes $75 million. They're now still making $74 million on the deal. So they keep doing it because there's still $75 million in it for them. They'd be nuts to stop doing it, they have absolutely no reason to change their behavior, just because the rate was lowered. If anything they have the incentive to try to cheat the system even harder, to get back to as close to the $149 million from before as they can get.

It would be nice to just have a set corporate tax rate and no loopholes, no adjustments. But that will never happen because the folks running those companies basically write their own laws through the legislators that we elect and that they pay. They WANT deductions, loopholes and other complexity in the tax code - as much complexity as possible - because they can hide behind that complexity.

Honestly, the best solution is probably to end corporate income tax completely - and just tax the disproportionately wealthy directly instead. We and the rich all did just fine with a 90+% top marginal tax rate in the past... Now the effective tax rate for the wealthiest Americans is actually lower then the average Americans' rate. Drop the corporate rate completely, add a small financial transaction tax to quick stock sales (well, or all of them really) to help keep machine trading to a dull roar, push the top marginal tax rate back up to something like 75%, and an estate tax again for inheritances over (oh let's just pick a number) $600,000. We should probably do something about the capital gains rate as well...

The folks who were rich 100 years ago, are largely the same folks (their descendents that is) who are rich today. Money has power, and kind of it's own gravity. When you have money already you attract more of it more easily, in proportion, and are able to take advantage of our economy in ways that the poor simply cannot. There's nothing wrong with more taxes for those folks who benefit from our economic
system more. In fact, it would be (and currently is) wrong to do anything else.They are not seperate issues. The very reason why the system is as screwed up as it i
 
2013-05-21 11:09:20 AM  

Pappy091: theorellior: Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.

Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!

Hopefully, and then you will be free to hate me. I will be too rich to care, lol.


I know I shouldn't feed the fire here, but Pappy091's comments remind me of that episode of Futurama where Fry is advocating all these concessions for the rich, but actually isn't rich. Then he says "I might be someday, then people like me better watch out!"
 
2013-05-21 11:10:50 AM  

Rapmaster2000: This is why I only use Samsung devices.  Their shell corporations are far superior and lower-priced than Apple shell corporations.

My preference of shell corporations is a unique statement of my personal brand identity and I have included these preferences as a part of my personality.


I only use a small, local shell corporation.  You probably haven't heard of it.
 
2013-05-21 11:11:43 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: As global capital becomes ever more powerful, giant corporations are holding governments and citizens up for ransom - eliciting subsidies and tax breaks from countries concerned about their nation's "competitiveness" - while sheltering their profits in the lowest-tax jurisdictions they can find. Major advanced countries - and their citizens - need a comprehensive tax agreement that won't allow global corporations to get away with this.

Google, Amazon, Starbucks, every other major corporation, and every big Wall Street bank, are sheltering as much of their U.S. profits abroad as they can, while telling Washington that lower corporate taxes are necessary in order to keep the U.S. "competitive."

Baloney. The fact is, global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible - and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.


The more reason to start treating tax evasion/avoidance much like a variant of terrorism.  Leave no place to hide, no reward for creative accounting, no way to play nations against each other.

Unlike most of the world, the US has the assets to effectively moot jurisdiction - if it so pleases.  Perhaps it is time to use them.
 
2013-05-21 11:12:23 AM  

Phinn: DeathCipris: Rmoney, Donald Trump, every celebrity member of the church of Scientology, Bill Gates...should I keep going?

John Forbes Kerry, all of Hollywood, etc.

Here's a way to "solve" the under-taxation "problem" -- let's slap a 95% tax on all entertainment profits, at every level of the production and distribution chain, across all industries (sports, music, movies, etc.).  They're non-essential products and services, like cigarettes and liquor.  Entertainment is, by definition, a luxury.

Sure, the luxury tax invariably kills luxury industries, and Hollywood is a huge donor to Democrats, but that isn't a good reason to let them get away with not paying their Fair Share.

And what's with all the Slave Labor working for free on movies?  The highest-paid worker should get no more than, say, five times what the lowest-paid worker gets.  So, the interns should be fairly compensated compared to Matt Damon and George Clooney.

"We" should "ask" them to pay "more."

"We" have to "do something."

Who's with me on this Tax the Crap Out of Hollywood Campaign?


Your reductio ad absurdum argument advocating communism with a sprinkling of teatard nonsense will get you no where.

I live with my mom
 
2013-05-21 11:12:25 AM  
But Apple isn't a corporation!  It's an environmentally conscious, culturally benevolent, liberal-minded collective of satisfied independent product effectors.
 
2013-05-21 11:14:00 AM  

mongbiohazard: They WANT deductions, loopholes and other complexity in the tax code - as much complexity as possible - because they can hide behind that complexity.


That's not entirely false, but there's something else going on here.  Taxation is a complex problem. Simple tax systems- like say, the so-called "Fair Tax"- are deeply unfair and highly regressive. Complex tax systems  also end up being deeply unfair, because complexity creates confusion. It's simple to say, "Taxation should be fair," but it's much  much harder to identify what "fair" is.
 
2013-05-21 11:14:08 AM  

Phinn: Who's with me on this Tax the Crap Out of Hollywood Campaign?


Your grandfather did marketing for Phillip Morris, didn't he? Did he come up with the "T-Zone" campaign? That was a pretty good one.
 
2013-05-21 11:14:20 AM  

duenor: As a libertarian, I'm not sure what the best course of action here is. It's not like we can (or should) seize their companies and demand our national cut.


This is the Hipster Leftist's worst nightmare, when the Hipster side of their smartphone-and-student-loan-fueled lifestyles competes with their Leftist insane-hatred of all things related to profit.

On the one hand, there the idea that someone, somewhere might be profiting without the gubment getting a cut ...  Bbbbbut tax-killing Apple might interfere with the next generation of iPad ....   What is a Hipster Leftist to do?
 
2013-05-21 11:14:52 AM  

you have pee hands: Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.

Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.


People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?
 
2013-05-21 11:18:19 AM  

DeathCipris: Your reductio ad absurdum argument advocating communism with a sprinkling of teatard nonsense will get you no where.

I live with my mom


You're an enemy of the Hollywood Intern, I can tell you that much.

Hater.
 
2013-05-21 11:19:25 AM  

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.

Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.

People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?


Ah, I see, some nutjob that is determined to make everything political. Go peddle your insanity over in the politics tab, Thunderpipes. But I guess they made fun of you and that's why you are over here now.
 
2013-05-21 11:20:14 AM  

Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.


Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?
 
2013-05-21 11:20:27 AM  

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.

Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.

People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?


Libbiest lib lib evar here.


Android/PC user.

Neener
 
2013-05-21 11:21:12 AM  
Buy drugs = fund death, corruption and violence in Latin America.

but

Buy Apple products = fund unicorns who fart sprinkles and shiat rainbows.

Wait, WUT? It's really ...

Buy Apple products = fund morally reprehesible tax avoiders who hate America


i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-21 11:21:38 AM  

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: Ask yourself a question, if a corporation is profiting $1B and not paying a dividend (or the equivalent such as share buy backs) what are they doing with it?

Well, in the case of Apple, they sat on it- for  years. They often use it for acquisitions- my employer has been buying up a lot of smaller companies lately, Apple's done the same. They may re-invest it into the company. Regardless, a company is not beholden to pay dividends, nor is there any guarantee that a successful company's share price will increase (Apple's profitability has remained incredibly high, their share price has tanked over the past year), and only a fool would believe that share price is an accurate representation of the value of a company,  anyway.

The key point is that there's no relationship between a company's income and the income of its share holders. As a result, it makes a great deal of sense to tax the company as an entity separate from its share holders.

You're the jerk... jerk: Capital Gains taxes are paid on the increase in share price from time of purchase.

Only when those gains are realized. If you're a buy-and-hold investor, like pretty much anybody with a 401(K), IRA, or any sort of mutual funds-  most shareholders- you aren't going to be paying very much capital gains tax on the increase of your net worth.


If you do not think a share price accurately reflects the expected future value of a company (based on the consensus of the investing public), than there is no discussion to be had. The fact you would think people who hold that view to be foolish, makes me wonder how much you have studied economics and/or corporate finance.

All investors who are pricing Apple will note the cash on the balance sheet and consider that part of the investment. (Hence the incredibly high P/E despite reduced growth projections). Your comment about Apple being profitable but declining in stock price implies you do not see them failing to hit margin goals (which the higher price included in their assumption) or downward revisions to growth plans (previous stock prices had included these higher projections)

Some investors are buy and hold investors, you would have to adjust capital gains rates to account for this when shrinking the revenue gap.
 
Displayed 50 of 380 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report