Tim Cook Calls Apple's Tax Avoidance Accusations 'Total Political Crap'

[1458279]

Au contraire. We know exactly what Apple is doing. Morally and ethically it's wrong regardless if they view themselves as being legally "right". They're parking that money offshore and crying wolf about it when it should be brought home and taxed appropriately.

I'm not sure who the 'we' is in reference to, but I quoted "why should Apple get a free pass paying their due taxes " Apple paid it's taxes, according to Apple they paid every single dollar that was due.
The issue about moral and ethics is a different issue from paying what is due.

I also find it a bit odd when someone talks about morals and ethics with our government. What morals and ethics does our government have?

 

[dogslobber]

I'm not sure who the 'we' is in reference to, but I quoted "why should Apple get a free pass paying their due taxes " Apple paid it's taxes, according to Apple they paid every single dollar that was due.
The issue about moral and ethics is a different issue from paying what is due.

I also find it a bit odd when someone talks about morals and ethics with our government. What morals and ethics does our government have?

How you view the government is irrelevant to the topic of Apple's tax dodge. As stated, Apple counterattacked those who were critical of their offshoring of the cash so that opens Apple up to very close scrutiny. That means ethics and the moral case of them paying tax in a US jurisdiction. I apologize if this isn't the sanitized view of Apple that you were hoping for.

 

[1458279]

How you view the government is irrelevant to the topic of Apple's tax dodge. As stated, Apple counterattacked those who were critical of their offshoring of the cash so that opens Apple up to very close scrutiny. That means ethics and the moral case of them paying tax in a US jurisdiction. I apologize if this isn't the sanitized view of Apple that you were hoping for.

You are still mixing two different things. 1. the tax laws. 2. some people's view of ethics.

Wouldn't 'offshoring' mean that it was once 'on shore'? As I understand it that money was never in the US to begin with. It's from products, services, that aren't in the US.

This is the same thing as CAT, they make heavy equipment in China, sell it in China. It's never touched US soil.

Did you pay more than the law said you owed? If you didn't give 100% of your income to the government, wouldn't that also be a 'tax dodge'? Somehow Apple owes more than that law says they owe? Do you also owe more than the law says you owe?

Did you take the personal exemption on your taxes? Isn't that a tax dodge because you are using the law to dodge your duty to pay taxes?

 

[dogslobber]

You are still mixing two different things. 1. the tax laws. 2. some people's view of ethics.

Wouldn't 'offshoring' mean that it was once 'on shore'? As I understand it that money was never in the US to begin with. It's from products, services, that aren't in the US.

This is the same thing as CAT, they make heavy equipment in China, sell it in China. It's never touched US soil.

Did you pay more than the law said you owed? If you didn't give 100% of your income to the government, wouldn't that also be a 'tax dodge'? Somehow Apple owes more than that law says they owe? Do you also owe more than the law says you owe?

Did you take the personal exemption on your taxes? Isn't that a tax dodge because you are using the law to dodge your duty to pay taxes?

Apple [and others, for there are other companies who do this] get by on a technicality. Under any other set of circumstances, that offshore cash would be brought home and taxed appropriately. I pay my taxes on worldwide income and that gives me license to whine about it. Let Apple bring the cash home, pay taxes, then Cook can fight the perceived wrong.

Meanwhile, kids suffer due to lack of government funding of programs of children.

 

[1458279]

Apple [and others, for there are other companies who do this] get by on a technicality. Under any other set of circumstances, that offshore cash would be brought home and taxed appropriately. I pay my taxes on worldwide income and that gives me license to whine about it. Let Apple bring the cash home, pay taxes, then Cook can fight the perceived wrong.

Meanwhile, kids suffer due to lack of government funding of programs of children.

By 'technicality' you mean 'the law'? So you don't give 100% of your income to the government because of a 'technicality' ?

Q. Did you pay more of your income in taxes that you had to? Did you use your personal exemption 'technicality' to dodge paying more taxes?

Which of the tax laws qualify as a 'technicality' ?

"Kids suffer due to lack of government funding of program of children" ?

Since 1970 we've kept spending more and more on education, yet the test scores have gone down.

We've spent $22,000,000,000,000.00 on poverty programs and ended up with more people in poverty than when we started a 1/2 century ago.

When Mark Zuckerberg gave $100,000,000.00 it was match, so they got nearly a 1/4 billion dollars and have nothing to show for it.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/zuckerbergs-100-million-lesson-1444087064

We spend more money on poverty programs than it would cost to just end poverty by giving the people the money.

Anyone ever wonder why poverty has never ended? They're aren't trying to end poverty, they're trying to treat it forever at the cost of the producers.

What evidence do you have that throwing more money at a problem, makes it go away.

BTW, if you really cared about children, you wouldn't continue to dodge taxes by taking your personal exemption 'technicality'. Remember, there are children starving because of you getting away with your tax dodging 'technicality'.

If any of these programs would actually work, why not just add them to the national debt. We're never going to pay back the national debt, so why not add a few trillion more? The national debt is a source of free money, spend all you want, we're never going to pay it anyways.

How much more money do they need and what will we get for our money? How about $100 trillion, would that cover things? Would that fix the system? Just add it to the national debt then.

To quote Hillary: "What difference at this point does it make" ... Just apply that to the national debt and spend as you want, the ship is sunk either way.

If you actually cared about children, you'd care that they have no economic future. They'll spend their entire lives paying for the failed system we've created.

Enjoy the ride, you've earned it.

 

[samiwas]

Q. Did you pay more of your income in taxes that you had to?

I did.

We've spent $22,000,000,000,000.00 on poverty programs and ended up with more people in poverty than when we started a 1/2 century ago.

That's insanely false, unless you want to count numbers and not percentage. 50 years ago, there were almost, if not more than 20% of the population in poverty. The number has hovered between 11-15% since the 70s.

Anyone ever wonder why poverty has never ended? They're aren't trying to end poverty, they're trying to treat it forever at the cost of the producers.

One might argue that "the producers" had a big hand in causing it.

BTW, if you really cared about children, you wouldn't continue to dodge taxes by taking your personal exemption 'technicality'. Remember, there are children starving because of you getting away with your tax dodging 'technicality'.

If you're comparing taking the personal exemption, which is the first line on every tax form that every single person takes, to creating overseas shell corporations and falsely attributing certain aspects of your operations to those corporations, then all I can do is laugh, as you are not credible.

How much more money do they need and what will we get for our money? How about $100 trillion, would that cover things? Would that fix the system? Just add it to the national debt then.

What would fix a great deal of our woes is to pay people a wage that actually gave them money live on and to spend, instead of funneling it all into shareholders and executives pockets. And spare me the "they use that for innovation and to create more jobs". Give a billionaire a million dollars, he will likely do nothing with it but add it to his stash. Give 1000 poor people $1000 each and they will immediately spend that $1000 with businesses.

 

[Dmunjal]

I did.



That's insanely false, unless you want to count numbers and not percentage. 50 years ago, there were almost, if not more than 20% of the population in poverty. The number has hovered between 11-15% since the 70s.



One might argue that "the producers" had a big hand in causing it.



If you're comparing taking the personal exemption, which is the first line on every tax form that every single person takes, to creating overseas shell corporations and falsely attributing certain aspects of your operations to those corporations, then all I can do is laugh, as you are not credible.



What would fix a great deal of our woes is to pay people a wage that actually gave them money live on and to spend, instead of funneling it all into shareholders and executives pockets. And spare me the "they use that for innovation and to create more jobs". Give a billionaire a million dollars, he will likely do nothing with it but add it to his stash. Give 1000 poor people $1000 each and they will immediately spend that $1000 with businesses.

I really like your comments on this board as they are very sincere. I do actually respect your opinion.

But you have a serious misunderstanding of economics with your last sentence.

Giving people a $1000 to spend does ABSOLUTELY nothing for the economy but move money around. This is a zero sum game and does not improve the quality of life for the larger population. Unfortunately, much of that money doesn't even stay in this country anymore as it goes to our trading partners like China. Having the GDP be 70% consumption is a serious problem because we are not earning enough as a country to produce what we consume. Even worse, we go into debt to make up the difference. I know the liberal opinion is that giving the poor helps the economy but it is fundamentally false. It does help the poor though but it is just redistribution at its core.

What does grow the economy and improve the quality of life of the general population is innovation. When someone invents something like the cotton gin, or a computer, or smartphone, or an electric car it makes people more productive. That productivity allows the economy to do more than before and everyone benefits. Even better, when someone figures out how to do the same thing but cheaper, this also helps the economy be more efficient. You hear about the young billionaire who invented a cheaper blood test process?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes

So how does innovation happen? It cannot happen without capital investment. Where does capital investment come from? It comes from savings of rich people. So when banks, venture capital, etc. need to invest in a new business venture that can create innovation (think Silicon Valley startups like Uber or Tesla) they use this pool of savings. It does not appear naturally and government can't create it with fiat and debt without consequences.

So when rich people save their money in banks, it is now available to be lent out to new opportunities. It is not sitting still or wasted at all. If they buy stocks or corporate bonds they are putting money into a growing business. If they buy public bonds, they are helping the government build schools, bridges, buildings, etc.

This process built this country from 13 colonies to a world power in a short 150 years. Government was tiny and redistribution was minimal.

Only in the last 40-50 years have we become a consumerist society and that started with the age of credit cards and the proliferation of the finance sector.

If you really want to help the poor, your way doesn't work. The poor have actually benefited more from private industry advancements in healthcare, food, transportation, computing, telecommunications, etc. than any government handout. Government has a role to assist private industry in this like the creation of the Internet.

I hope this simple Econ 101 lesson makes sense. I'm really disappointed that we are not learning these simple concepts in school anymore.

 

[1458279]

I did.



That's insanely false, unless you want to count numbers and not percentage. 50 years ago, there were almost, if not more than 20% of the population in poverty. The number has hovered between 11-15% since the 70s.



One might argue that "the producers" had a big hand in causing it.



If you're comparing taking the personal exemption, which is the first line on every tax form that every single person takes, to creating overseas shell corporations and falsely attributing certain aspects of your operations to those corporations, then all I can do is laugh, as you are not credible.



What would fix a great deal of our woes is to pay people a wage that actually gave them money live on and to spend, instead of funneling it all into shareholders and executives pockets. And spare me the "they use that for innovation and to create more jobs". Give a billionaire a million dollars, he will likely do nothing with it but add it to his stash. Give 1000 poor people $1000 each and they will immediately spend that $1000 with businesses.

1st line or last line, you still used a legal 'technicality' to dodge paying more in taxes. Saying everyone does doesn't address the issue of legality. The fact is that it is legal and so is everything Apple does.

Does Apple actually make the iPhone in the US? Do they actually make all sales of the iPhone in the US? Are all the Apple stores in the US? That's quite a 'shell' there isn't it?
That's money that NEVER entered the US, from a product that NEVER entered the US, sold from a store that was NEVER in the US.

Keep painting that sunken ship, nothing quite like a freshly painted ship as it continues to sit at the bottom of the sea.

Whatever you do, never, ever question the path you're on.

Large traded companies certainly are out for shareholder profit. They pay the least to get the job done and focus on investor returns. This creates an economic drain on many people.

Just like "trickle down", there's no way to assure the jobs created will even be in this country, let alone any assurance that the jobs created will be in the best interest of the people.

As we move to a more investment based economy, this becomes more of an issue for the labor force.
[doublepost=1452365455][/doublepost]

I did.

Did it help?

Ok, wait... I tracked your tax returns down and found out where your tax money actually went...

$50,000 on Alpaca Poop Paks
The U.S. Department of Agriculture doled out $50,000 to Virginia Mary’s Alpaca, LLC to develop and market Alpaca poop as fertilizer for plants. With the help of your tax dollars, the company sells its “Poop Paks” in “colorful, unmistakable green bags.”

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media...0-Outrageous-Examples-Government-Waste?page=5

Ok, there you go. Your tax dollars went to "Alpaca Poop Paks"

Good job, keep those dollars coming in

 

[samiwas]

I really like your comments on this board as they are very sincere. I do actually respect your opinion.

But you have a serious misunderstanding of economics with your last sentence.

Giving people a $1000 to spend does ABSOLUTELY nothing for the economy but move money around. This is a zero sum game and does not improve the quality of life for the larger population. Unfortunately, much of that money doesn't even stay in this country anymore as it goes to our trading partners like China. Having the GDP be 70% consumption is a serious problem because we are not earning enough as a country to produce what we consume. Even worse, we go into debt to make up the difference. I know the liberal opinion is that giving the poor helps the economy but it is fundamentally false. It does help the poor though but it is just redistribution at its core.

What does grow the economy and improve the quality of life of the general population is innovation. When someone invents something like the cotton gin, or a computer, or smartphone, or an electric car it makes people more productive. That productivity allows the economy to do more than before and everyone benefits. Even better, when someone figures out how to do the same thing but cheaper, this also helps the economy be more efficient. You hear about the young billionaire who invented a cheaper blood test process?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes

So how does innovation happen? It cannot happen without capital investment. Where does capital investment come from? It comes from savings of rich people. So when banks, venture capital, etc. need to invest in a new business venture that can create innovation (think Silicon Valley startups like Uber or Tesla) they use this pool of savings. It does not appear naturally and government can't create it with fiat and debt without consequences.

So when rich people save their money in banks, it is now available to be lent out to new opportunities. It is not sitting still or wasted at all. If they buy stocks or corporate bonds they are putting money into a growing business. If they buy public bonds, they are helping the government build schools, bridges, buildings, etc.

This process built this country from 13 colonies to a world power in a short 150 years. Government was tiny and redistribution was minimal.

Only in the last 40-50 years have we become a consumerist society and that started with the age of credit cards and the proliferation of the finance sector.

If you really want to help the poor, your way doesn't work. The poor have actually benefited more from private industry advancements in healthcare, food, transportation, computing, telecommunications, etc. than any government handout. Government has a role to assist private industry in this like the creation of the Internet.

I hope this simple Econ 101 lesson makes sense. I'm really disappointed that we are not learning these simple concepts in school anymore.

Paying people a reasonable wage is not "redistribution of wealth". That is an incredibly ridiculous statement. Wages in this country have not kept up with cost of living or anything else, and certainly have not kept up with the upper levels' wages. They have pretty much sat stagnant. Minimum wage alone is 40% lower than it was 50 years ago, and some 40% of the country makes less than a full-time minimum wage person would 50 years ago. And this has happened all while people have become more productive and worked harder, and while corporate profits have skyrocketed. So, no, productivity and innovation have not helped bring the poor up. In fact, pretty much exactly the opposite has happened. It's created wealth at the top beyond any reasonable measure (with 0.1% holding as much wealth as the bottom 90%), and left more and more people at the bottom using government assistance programs to get by.

I didn't say that we should "take from the rich and give to the poor", even though the rich have taken everything for themselves as it is in this rigged game. The solution is not to give the rich more, because supposedly they don't have enough already. That system has been tried and it has not worked. Yes, capitalism built this country, but that was NOT the system of capitalism that we practice now. We've discussed Wal-Mart before. By raising prices just a few cents on most items, Wal-Mart could raise the wages of its employees by some 50% without affecting profits negatively, and send well over a million people out into the world to spend the thousands of extra dollars they now have, supporting businesses and everything else.

Notice that my post you quoted said nothing about using government programs to keep the poor going. You added that yourself. In fact, almost every time I champion better wages for working people, someone responds about government handouts. Surprisingly, I'm the one talking about paying people enough so that they don't need government programs, whereas others seem to think that they'll fix everything by funneling even more money to the top, an that it will trickle down. It hasn't worked in 30 years, and it won't work in the next 1000 years.

The problem is, if the people don't have money to spend, because their wages are too low to allow them to do so, then there is nothing for "the producers" to sell. The only thing keeping the economy going right now is that the government gives a bunch of benefits to a huge portion of the population. You cut that off, an enormous number of people now have no money to spend. They won't spend it at businesses, who will start closing an/or cutting jobs, meaning more people lose, until everyone crashes. You will not fix this by funneling more money to already super-rich people. It's great that their money can now be used to build a business, but if there are no clients for that business, it's rather pointless in the end.
[doublepost=1452366275][/doublepost]

1st line or last line, you still used a legal 'technicality' to dodge paying more in taxes.

Entering a line that they tell you to enter on your form is not even close to the same thing as creating a complex web of shell corps. You're essentially saying murder is the same as jaywalking because they are both illegal activities. You are laughable.

Saying everyone does doesn't address the issue of legality. The fact is that it is legal and so is everything Apple does.

Really? You've gone through Apple's books and can attest to that? Highly doubtful.

Does Apple actually make the iPhone in the US? Do they actually make all sales of the iPhone in the US? Are all the Apple stores in the US? That's quite a 'shell' there isn't it? That's money that NEVER entered the US, from a product that NEVER entered the US, sold from a store that was NEVER in the US.

Never claimed otherwise. But, if they are claiming a vast majority of their profits through their Ireland subsidiary, when you know damn well that the vast majority of their profits aren't made in Ireland, that's essentially scamming the system. And the US isn't the only one here. Remember, there are far more countries than the US, and Apple is bilking them all.

[doublepost=1452365455][/doublepost]

Did it help?

Ok, wait... I tracked your tax returns down and found out where your tax money actually went...

$50,000 on Alpaca Poop Paks
The U.S. Department of Agriculture doled out $50,000 to Virginia Mary’s Alpaca, LLC to develop and market Alpaca poop as fertilizer for plants. With the help of your tax dollars, the company sells its “Poop Paks” in “colorful, unmistakable green bags.”

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media...0-Outrageous-Examples-Government-Waste?page=5

Ok, there you go. Your tax dollars went to "Alpaca Poop Paks"

Good job, keep those dollars coming in [/QUOTE]

Are you high? You go off on some of the most random tangents of any person ever on this board.

That being said, I'd rather my money go to Alpaca poop packs than to help the Walton family profit while we pay their employees for them or to gigantic military supply companies.

 

[Dmunjal]

Paying people a reasonable wage is not "redistribution of wealth". That is an incredibly ridiculous statement. Wages in this country have not kept up with cost of living or anything else, and certainly have not kept up with the upper levels' wages. They have pretty much sat stagnant. Minimum wage alone is 40% lower than it was 50 years ago, and some 40% of the country makes less than a full-time minimum wage person would 50 years ago. And this has happened all while people have become more productive and worked harder, and while corporate profits have skyrocketed. So, no, productivity and innovation have not helped bring the poor up. In fact, pretty much exactly the opposite has happened. It's created wealth at the top beyond any reasonable measure (with 0.1% holding as much wealth as the bottom 90%), and left more and more people at the bottom using government assistance programs to get by.

I didn't say that we should "take from the rich and give to the poor", even though the rich have taken everything for themselves as it is in this rigged game. The solution is not to give the rich more, because supposedly they don't have enough already. That system has been tried and it has not worked. Yes, capitalism built this country, but that was NOT the system of capitalism that we practice now. We've discussed Wal-Mart before. By raising prices just a few cents on most items, Wal-Mart could raise the wages of its employees by some 50% without affecting profits negatively, and send well over a million people out into the world to spend the thousands of extra dollars they now have, supporting businesses and everything else.

Notice that my post you quoted said nothing about using government programs to keep the poor going. You added that yourself. In fact, almost every time I champion better wages for working people, someone responds about government handouts. Surprisingly, I'm the one talking about paying people enough so that they don't need government programs, whereas others seem to think that they'll fix everything by funneling even more money to the top, an that it will trickle down. It hasn't worked in 30 years, and it won't work in the next 1000 years.

The problem is, if the people don't have money to spend, because their wages are too low to allow them to do so, then there is nothing for "the producers" to sell. The only thing keeping the economy going right now is that the government gives a bunch of benefits to a huge portion of the population. You cut that off, an enormous number of people now have no money to spend. They won't spend it at businesses, who will start closing an/or cutting jobs, meaning more people lose, until everyone crashes. You will not fix this by funneling more money to already super-rich people. It's great that their money can now be used to build a business, but if there are no clients for that business, it's rather pointless in the end.

You've correctly identified the problem but not its source or its solution.

Businesses don't set wages. They go by what supply and demand is available of the work force. Only a small percentage actually make minimum wage so by definition businesses will happily pay more if they get more from their employees. That is because they are better educated, better trained, or more productive.

What has hurt the minimum wage worker? There are too many people willing to do the same job for less. This is because of our liberal immigration policies and our trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP. All championed by liberals. Cheap immigrant labor and outsourcing is hurting the poor working class not the rich business owner.

 

[1458279]

Paying people a reasonable wage is not "redistribution of wealth". That is an incredibly ridiculous statement. Wages in this country have not kept up with cost of living or anything else, and certainly have not kept up with the upper levels' wages. They have pretty much sat stagnant. Minimum wage alone is 40% lower than it was 50 years ago, and some 40% of the country makes less than a full-time minimum wage person would 50 years ago. And this has happened all while people have become more productive and worked harder, and while corporate profits have skyrocketed. So, no, productivity and innovation have not helped bring the poor up. In fact, pretty much exactly the opposite has happened. It's created wealth at the top beyond any reasonable measure (with 0.1% holding as much wealth as the bottom 90%), and left more and more people at the bottom using government assistance programs to get by.

I didn't say that we should "take from the rich and give to the poor", even though the rich have taken everything for themselves as it is in this rigged game. The solution is not to give the rich more, because supposedly they don't have enough already. That system has been tried and it has not worked. Yes, capitalism built this country, but that was NOT the system of capitalism that we practice now. We've discussed Wal-Mart before. By raising prices just a few cents on most items, Wal-Mart could raise the wages of its employees by some 50% without affecting profits negatively, and send well over a million people out into the world to spend the thousands of extra dollars they now have, supporting businesses and everything else.

Notice that my post you quoted said nothing about using government programs to keep the poor going. You added that yourself. In fact, almost every time I champion better wages for working people, someone responds about government handouts. Surprisingly, I'm the one talking about paying people enough so that they don't need government programs, whereas others seem to think that they'll fix everything by funneling even more money to the top, an that it will trickle down. It hasn't worked in 30 years, and it won't work in the next 1000 years.

The problem is, if the people don't have money to spend, because their wages are too low to allow them to do so, then there is nothing for "the producers" to sell. The only thing keeping the economy going right now is that the government gives a bunch of benefits to a huge portion of the population. You cut that off, an enormous number of people now have no money to spend. They won't spend it at businesses, who will start closing an/or cutting jobs, meaning more people lose, until everyone crashes. You will not fix this by funneling more money to already super-rich people. It's great that their money can now be used to build a business, but if there are no clients for that business, it's rather pointless in the end.
[doublepost=1452366275][/doublepost]

Entering a line that they tell you to enter on your form is not even close to the same thing as creating a complex web of shell corps. You're essentially saying murder is the same as jaywalking because they are both illegal activities. You are laughable.



Really? You've gone through Apple's books and can attest to that? Highly doubtful.



Never claimed otherwise. But, if they are claiming a vast majority of their profits through their Ireland subsidiary, when you know damn well that the vast majority of their profits aren't made in Ireland, that's essentially scamming the system. And the US isn't the only one here. Remember, there are far more countries than the US, and Apple is bilking them all.

[doublepost=1452365455][/doublepost]

Did it help?

Ok, wait... I tracked your tax returns down and found out where your tax money actually went...

$50,000 on Alpaca Poop Paks
The U.S. Department of Agriculture doled out $50,000 to Virginia Mary’s Alpaca, LLC to develop and market Alpaca poop as fertilizer for plants. With the help of your tax dollars, the company sells its “Poop Paks” in “colorful, unmistakable green bags.”

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media...0-Outrageous-Examples-Government-Waste?page=5

Ok, there you go. Your tax dollars went to "Alpaca Poop Paks"

Good job, keep those dollars coming in

Are you high? You go off on some of the most random tangents of any person ever on this board.

That being said, I'd rather my money go to Alpaca poop packs than to help the Walton family profit while we pay their employees for them or to gigantic military supply companies.[/QUOTE]

You're missing the point. The act is either legal or not legal. You took a legal exemption to dodge paying more in taxes, so did Apple. Because your's was a simple line or check box, doesn't change it's legal status.

You dodged paying more taxes just like Apple did. They likely have more forms than you, but the question of legal status is the issue.

Q. What gives you the right to use a legal loophole to dodge paying more in taxes?
A. The tax law does. Same with Apple.

The scale doesn't matter, the legal status does.
BTW, how many jobs have you created? More than Apple? How much in taxes has been created by those jobs?

So Apple is guilty before proven innocent? I fully expect that Cook is right when he says Apple pays what they owe and if there is a problem, I'm sure they'll fix it.

Random tangents? That's one example of government waste. You brought up how children are hurt because they need more tax dollars. $50,000.00 was given to poop bags while those children are being hurt.

The government has money for poop bags but not to help children. How many poop bags does Apple have to buy before money starts helping the children?

You're the one that brought hurting children into the argument. Suggesting that Apple is hurting children because the government doesn't have enough money to help the children. Yet the government has a enough money for poop bags.

 

[samiwas]

You've correctly identified the problem but not its source or its solution.

Businesses don't set wages. They go by what supply and demand is available of the work force. Only a small percentage actually make minimum wage so by definition businesses will happily pay more if they get more from their employees. That is because they are better educated, better trained, or more productive.

A small percentage actually make THE minimum wage, but a huge number are with a dollar or two an hour of it, which is not substantially different. Like I said, approximately 40% of the country is making less than minimum wage 50 years ago. And no, this isn't because they aren't as educated, trained, or productive. Quite the opposite.

The money is there, as evidenced by insane profits. It's just not being paid. And to say business has no part in this is asinine.

What has hurt the minimum wage worker? There are too many people willing to do the same job for less. This because of our liberal immigration policies and our trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP. All championed by liberals. Cheap immigrant labor and outsourcing is hurting the poor working class not the rich business owner.

This has hurt all workers below the median, not just minimum wage ones. I agree with the immigrant labor and outsourcing. But I have yet to see most conservatives willing to forgo some profits in order to give those jobs to Americans. So spare me the "this is a liberal problem".

And who's hiring the immigrants and outsourcing? Rich business owners, i.e., a big part of the problem.

Reagan and Bush

Rather than making them, of talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, and then, while they're working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back they can go back, and cross. And open the border both ways, by understanding their problems. This is the only safety valve they have right now, with that unemployment, that probably keeps the lid from blowing off...And I think we could have a fine relationship.

I'd like to see something done about the illegal alien problem that would be so sensitive, and so understanding about labor needs, and human needs, that that problem wouldn't come up. But today, if those people are here, I would reluctantly say they would get whatever it is, what society is giving their neighbors. But the problem has to be solved ... We're creating a whole society of really honorable, decent, family-loving people that are in violation of the law, and secondly we're exacerbating relations with Mexico. The answer to your question is much more fundamental than whether they attend Houston schools, it seems to me. I don't want to see ... six- and eight-year-old kids, being made, you know, one, totally uneducated, and being made to feel that they're living outside the law. Let's address ourselves to the fundamentals. These are good people, strong people. Part of my family is a Mexican.

 

[Dmunjal]

A small percentage actually make THE minimum wage, but a huge number are with a dollar or two an hour of it, which is not substantially different. Like I said, approximately 40% of the country is making less than minimum wage 50 years ago. And no, this isn't because they aren't as educated, trained, or productive. Quite the opposite.

The money is there, as evidenced by insane profits. It's just not being paid. And to say business has no part in this is asinine.



This has hurt all workers below the median, not just minimum wage ones. I agree with the immigrant labor and outsourcing. But I have yet to see most conservatives willing to forgo some profits in order to give those jobs to Americans. So spare me the "this is a liberal problem".

And who's hiring the immigrants and outsourcing? Rich business owners, i.e., a big part of the problem.

Reagan and Bush

Both parties are responsible for outsourcing and immigration. There is a reason why Trump is resonating with the working class who have been hit hard by these policies.

As for business profiting, yes I do agree that business has done a better job of navigating these changes driven by government policies.

I do think the corporate tax needs to be overhauled so we can collect more tax and have less cash stashed offshore.

 

[samiwas]

You're missing the point. The act is either legal or not legal. You took a legal exemption to dodge paying more in taxes, so did Apple. Because your's was a simple line or check box, doesn't change it's legal status.

So, then you are essentially saying that murder and jaywalking are one in the same, because both are illegal vs. legal. Well, okay then.

You dodged paying more taxes just like Apple did. They likely have more forms than you, but the question of legal status is the issue.

Q. What gives you the right to use a legal loophole to dodge paying more in taxes?
A. The tax law does. Same with Apple.

The scale doesn't matter, the legal status does.

Sure, dude. Some guy who steals a pack of gum is the same as Bernie Madoff bilking his investors. You know, since scale doesn't matter.

I'm trying to figure out how a line on the tax form which says "Enter $xxxx for yourself" is a loophole, and the exact same thing as creating a complex web of corporations through which you can claim operations. You certainly are entertainment at least on this rainy Sunday.

BTW, how many jobs have you created? More than Apple? How much in taxes has been created by those jobs?

Irrelevant. Doesn't give them the right to cheat the system, if they are indeed doing so. Companies demanding special tax breaks for themselves in order to stay in a place is essentially legal extortion. I do not respect them at all, while you revere them.

Random tangents? That's one example of government waste. You brought up how children are hurt because they need more tax dollars. $50,000.00 was given to poop bags while those children are being hurt.

You're the one that brought hurting children into the argument. Suggesting that Apple is hurting children because the government doesn't have enough money to help the children. Yet the government has a enough money for poop bags.

I brought up children being hurt?

The government has money for poop bags but not to help children. How many poop bags does Apple have to buy before money starts helping the children?

$50,000. Apple's profits in approximately 36 seconds. US Government spending in about 0.46 seconds.

 

[1458279]

So, then you are essentially saying that murder and jaywalking are one in the same, because both are illegal vs. legal. Well, okay then.



Sure, dude. Some guy who steals a pack of gum is the same as Bernie Madoff bilking his investors. You know, since scale doesn't matter.

I'm trying to figure out how a line on the tax form which says "Enter $xxxx for yourself" is a loophole, and the exact same thing as creating a complex web of corporations through which you can claim operations. You certainly are entertainment at least on this rainy Sunday.



Irrelevant. Doesn't give them the right to cheat the system, if they are indeed doing so. Companies demanding special tax breaks for themselves in order to stay in a place is essentially legal extortion. I do not respect them at all, while you revere them.



I brought up children being hurt?



$50,000. Apple's profits in approximately 36 seconds. US Government spending in about 0.46 seconds.

Yes, both jaywalking and murder are illegal, congrats, you're starting to get the point. However, saying they are the same punishment is different.

Let me help you understand this loophole. You are given a legal exemption that you can choose to take. Apple is given a legal exemption that they can choose to take. You said you took your legal exemption. That's money that could have been used to help children, yet you kept that money for yourself. That's your choice, from what you've said, that's hurting children that could have used that money. You're clearly using as you've said, "essentially legal extortion" to dodge paying more in taxes. Just because the government makes one simple and another complex does not change the legal standing of them.

Face it, you dodged paying more taxes by taking your personal exemption. If you didn't take your personal exemption, you would have paid more in taxes. That, by your definition, is cheating. You try to say "my cheating is simple and their's is complex, that makes mine right and their's wrong" is false. They both are either legal or not legal.

"cheat the system"
Again, missing the point. Did Apple actually cheat?

Did you perform the audit or have the audit of Apple that proves that the cheated?

Post a link to where Apple actually did something illegal and if they did, did they make it legal after it was pointed out.

Saying Apple is cheating and your not cheating has no legal basis.
Did you follow the law when you dodged paying more taxes?
Did Apple follow the law when they dodged paying more taxes?

 

[samiwas]

Yes, both jaywalking and murder are illegal, congrats, you're starting to get the point. However, saying they are the same punishment is different.

Let me help you understand this loophole. You are given a legal exemption that you can choose to take. Apple is given a legal exemption that they can choose to take. You said you took your legal exemption. That's money that could have been used to help children, yet you kept that money for yourself. That's your choice, from what you've said, that's hurting children that could have used that money. You're clearly using as you've said, "essentially legal extortion" to dodge paying more in taxes. Just because the government makes one simple and another complex does not change the legal standing of them.

Face it, you dodged paying more taxes by taking your personal exemption. If you didn't take your personal exemption, you would have paid more in taxes. That, by your definition, is cheating. You try to say "my cheating is simple and their's is complex, that makes mine right and their's wrong" is false. They both are either legal or not legal.

"cheat the system"
Again, missing the point. Did Apple actually cheat?

Did you perform the audit or have the audit of Apple that proves that the cheated?

Post a link to where Apple actually did something illegal and if they did, did they make it legal after it was pointed out.

Saying Apple is cheating and your not cheating has no legal basis.
Did you follow the law when you dodged paying more taxes?
Did Apple follow the law when they dodged paying more taxes?

I don't think you are capable of understanding simple points. Let me try to spell this out clearly.

Profits made in the US belong to the US. Profits made in Ireland belong to Ireland. Profits made in Italy belong to Italy. When they decide to bring that money to the US or to whatever other country, it should be taxed by the US or that other country appropriately. I have no issue with any of that, and am perfectly fine with Apple, and any other company, taking the proper credits, just as I do.

Where the issue lies is if they are creating corporations that do not actually do anything, solely in order to pass operations through those corporations in order to not get taxed on the money correctly. I know that you know the whole double-Irish, Dutch Sandwich setup involving Ireland, Holland, and the Caymans. You know damn well that the system was not set up purposely to achieve such a scenario. And I also know that you know that filling out a line on a tax form exactly how they tell you to fill it out is in no way cheating, and not even comparable to full tax avoidance schemes. If they were designed that way purposely, corporations wouldn't need huge teams of very expensive lawyers and accountants to discover them. Look, I get it. You support this setup, because it makes "the producers" richer at the expense of everyone else. I have not once said it is illegal. I have said it's cheating the system. Cheating may or may not be illegal. I'd hold a little more respect for your views if you weren't so hyperbolic.

Let's look at a common scenario in my line of work. I work in the movie and TV industry, and thus have a lot of friends who do as well. Obviously, if they buy tools, attend classes, or purchase equipment used for work, they can write that stuff off, just as I do. Writing stuff off for business is completely legal and good. Now, I have several friends who write off literally every entertainment-related thing they buy. That DVD of Dumb and Dumberer? "That's research into editing techniques!" The new X-Box? "Playback equipment!" The high-end stereo equipment in the car? "Studying musical arrangements!" That's complete horsesh** and cheating the system.

 

[1458279]

I don't think you are capable of understanding simple points. Let me try to spell this out clearly.

Profits made in the US belong to the US. Profits made in Ireland belong to Ireland. Profits made in Italy belong to Italy. When they decide to bring that money to the US or to whatever other country, it should be taxed by the US or that other country appropriately. I have no issue with any of that, and am perfectly fine with Apple, and any other company, taking the proper credits, just as I do.

Where the issue lies is if they are creating corporations that do not actually do anything, solely in order to pass operations through those corporations in order to not get taxed on the money correctly. I know that you know the whole double-Irish, Dutch Sandwich setup involving Ireland, Holland, and the Caymans. You know damn well that the system was not set up purposely to achieve such a scenario. And I also know that you know that filling out a line on a tax form exactly how they tell you to fill it out is in no way cheating, and not even comparable to full tax avoidance schemes. If they were designed that way purposely, corporations wouldn't need huge teams of very expensive lawyers and accountants to discover them. Look, I get it. You support this setup, because it makes "the producers" richer at the expense of everyone else. I have not once said it is illegal. I have said it's cheating the system. Cheating may or may not be illegal. I'd hold a little more respect for your views if you weren't so hyperbolic.

Let's look at a common scenario in my line of work. I work in the movie and TV industry, and thus have a lot of friends who do as well. Obviously, if they buy tools, attend classes, or purchase equipment used for work, they can write that stuff off, just as I do. Writing stuff off for business is completely legal and good. Now, I have several friends who write off literally every entertainment-related thing they buy. That DVD of Dumb and Dumberer? "That's research into editing techniques!" The new X-Box? "Playback equipment!" The high-end stereo equipment in the car? "Studying musical arrangements!" That's complete horsesh** and cheating the system.

So you distinguish cheating and illegal? Where do you draw the line between cheating and illegal?

If the law says they can do it, how would it be cheating?

Some look at the letter of the law and others look at the spirit of the law. Look at how a drug company gets convicted of using paid speeches to hide bribes to Drs. Then look at how Clinton used paid speeches as a way to fund her lifestyle.

This is one of the reasons we have so many laws. If the government doesn't like the outcome, they need to change the laws.

 

[samiwas]

So you distinguish cheating and illegal? Where do you draw the line between cheating and illegal?

If the law says they can do it, how would it be cheating?

Some look at the letter of the law and others look at the spirit of the law.

The very definition of "loophole" is "an exception that allows a system to be circumvented or avoided" and "failures of a system to account for all conditions, variables, or exceptions". If a law is written to mean one thing, but you find some obscure way around it by playing two systems off of each other or a poorly-written section of a law, then you've essentially cheated what the law actually intended. Legal? Yes. Cheating? Yes.

Non-tax example. When Minnesota law banned smoking indoors, but created an exception for actors in stage performances, bars began to claim they were presenting on-going performance pieces in which all of the actors, who happened to be the patrons doing improvisational performances, smoked. Obviously, it didn't work in the end, but they were cheating the law as written and intended and got busted on it.

Look at how a drug company gets convicted of using paid speeches to hide bribes to Drs. Then look at how Clinton used paid speeches as a way to fund her lifestyle.

Giving a speech and paying a bribe in the medical field are two completely different things. You know that.

This is one of the reasons we have so many laws. If the government doesn't like the outcome, they need to change the laws.

Agreed. I'm all for it. Lower the corporate tax rate, and remove all deductions. Make it simple. You make money, you pay money. Done and done. Lose all the big teams of accountants and lawyers and send them packing.

(EDIT: Actually, the only deduction should be for actual taxes paid already on profits to other governments)

 

[1458279]

Giving a speech and paying a bribe in the medical field are two completely different things. You know that.

They (the drug company) used paid speeches to Drs as a way to pay them off for selling their drugs.

This is the same thing Clintons do, they broker their power.

As far as cheat vs illegal, your views really hold up. In other words, I doubt the IRS can touch Apple. They might find a problem if they dig hard enough, but I doubt that because I'm pretty sure Apple has some of the best tax lawyers around.

The IRS wouldn't see it as cheating because they would have went after them if that were the case.

When I think of cheating, I'm thinking someone moves a chess pawn where the rules say it can't go. Meaning, you can't do that, the rules say you can't move the pawn like a bishop.

Everything Apple did follows the rules. If they didn't break the rules, how can it be cheating? Apple didn't write the rules.

Cheating is when some in power gives an advantage to someone that shouldn't have that advantage. Look at Silver from NY that just got convicted. He cheated. Look at that Chicago School board member that got convicted of cheating on contracts.... That's cheating.

Apple didn't lie about income, they have open books, they follow all the rules the government makes.

 

[samiwas]

Everything Apple did follows the rules.

Eh, you don't know that. But, it's cute that you think so.

Apple didn't lie about income, they have open books, they follow all the rules the government makes.

And I'll laugh out loud when the loopholes finally get closed and all these companies cry like little bitches about how their success is being punished because they can no longer shuffle money in ways it wasn't meant to be in the first place.

 

[1458279]

Eh, you don't know that. But, it's cute that you think so.



And I'll laugh out loud when the loopholes finally get closed and all these companies cry like little bitches about how their success is being punished because they can no longer shuffle money in ways it wasn't meant to be in the first place.

I'm sure that a business that was once the largest multinational business in the history of the world has a few people working on the books to make sure everything checks out.

I'm not sure if the loopholes will ever be closed. Look at all the companies that are leaving or have left the US. Now look at the number of new businesses vs businesses that die. The birth/death rate has never gone neg before now.

High tech does their mfg in Mexico, BugerKing is trying to leave the US. Drug mfg, med device mfg, everyone that can leave will leave or suffer by not being competitive.

US has to come to terms with it's spending and costs of living, simple as that. Can't keep kicking the can down the road forever.

 

[samiwas]

US has to come to terms with it's spending and costs of living, simple as that. Can't keep kicking the can down the road forever.

So, essentially, you're saying we just need to be another third-world country? We have all the ability not to be, but greed will win and take us all down with it.

 

[aaronvan]

I made January's mortgage payment entirely with my Apple dividends. Keep up the good work, Tim.

 

[1458279]

So, essentially, you're saying we just need to be another third-world country? We have all the ability not to be, but greed will win and take us all down with it.

Look at a graph of world population growth. It's hard to find a graph that's more exponential than world population growth.

http://www.susps.org/overview/numbers.html

Then tell me where you think we'll end up. (Don't forget which nation is playing global police)

Look at where the population comes from. Look at corruption around they world. It won't take too much for things to turn into a "every man for himself".

Where do they all want to move to?

The more humanity advances, the more challenging the problems are to solve.

 

[Dmunjal]

And I'll laugh out loud when the loopholes finally get closed and all these companies cry like little bitches about how their success is being punished because they can no longer shuffle money in ways it wasn't meant to be in the first place.

So naive. Do you not realize that the only reason the loopholes are there in the first place is because some lobbyist working for a corporation put it there?

If they actually do close the loophole, it's because another corporation paid more than the one who put it there.

There will always be loopholes as long as there are lobbyists. The only solution is to move to a flat tax with no deductions on worldwide income. Something in the 20-25% range. That's more than the effective rate (18%) and less than the statutory rate (35%) so both sides will be happy.

Unfortunately, this will never happen because our elected officials like the current system because it pays for their elections.

Welcome to the real world samiwas.