Slashdot Mirror


How Apple Sidesteps Billions In Global Taxes

An anonymous reader writes "An article at the NY Times explains the how the most profitable tech company in the world becomes even more profitable by finding ways to avoid or minimize taxes. Quoting: 'Apple's headquarters are in Cupertino, Calif. By putting an office in Reno, just 200 miles away, to collect and invest the company's profits, Apple sidesteps state income taxes on some of those gains. California's corporate tax rate is 8.84 percent. Nevada's? Zero. ... As it has in Nevada, Apple has created subsidiaries in low-tax places like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands — some little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office — that help cut the taxes it pays around the world. ... Without such tactics, Apple's federal tax bill in the United States most likely would have been $2.4 billion higher last year, according to a recent study (PDF) by a former Treasury Department economist, Martin A. Sullivan. As it stands, the company paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8 percent."

599 comments

  1. Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good citizens pay their fair share, so it must be asked: why does Apple hate America?

    1. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But my capital gains have already been taxed once!! Er...

    2. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should anyone have to pay more tax than they're required to by law?

      Corporations have more loopholes than natural people to reduce the amount of tax that they pay, but even normal people have a number of ways that they can minimise the amount of tax that they're required to pay. If these methods are perfectly legal, then why would you not avail yourself of them?

      Would you voluntarily pay more tax than you are legally obliged to?

      Furthermore, I can absolutely guarantee you that Apple are not the only company doing this, they're just the flavour of the month and they generate page views around here. s/Apple/Microsoft/g, s/Apple/IBM/g or s/Apple/Google/g or pretty well any other large company at all and the story will read the same.

    3. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Shoten · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wake up. Almost all corporations do this. HP does this. IBM does this. Dell does this. It's not called 'hating America,' it's called 'loopholes.' If you were beholden to shareholders and you were in charge of a corporation, you would do it too, I bet. And if not...you would never be in charge of a corporation for long.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    4. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by mcavic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as they're doing it legally, there's nothing wrong with playing the game by the game's rules.

    5. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why should anyone have to pay more tax than they're required to by law?

      Not the question at hand, but a fine Straw man all the same.

      Do you actually believe it is morally OK for corporations to seek loopholes to escape what is otherwise their fair-share responsibility to the country that provides the framework for their existence? If there was no America there would be no Apple. Every dollar cheated from the Government (read: you and me) is one less dollar less that can be invested in the public infrastructure (the thing that once made America great).

      So please just answer the question: why does Apple hate America?

    6. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No they haven't. They probably haven't been even taxed once.

      Your dividends have been, sort of....

      Personally though I don't think corps should be taxed at all. It gives them too much ammo to say things like 'taxation without representation' etc.

      If we didn't tax corps then I think it would be easier to ban political speech by corporations.

      The income to individuals from corps would then be taxable as ordinary income and we wouldn't have the whining about dividends being taxed twice, or the baloney about US taxes on corporations being high.

      We also wouldn't have the baloney regarding local jurisdictions competing for corps based on tax give backs.

      All in all it would be a nicer world....

    7. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Stewie241 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Meh. If it wasn't tax give backs it would be other incentives to encourage companies to create jobs.

    8. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      And because they are not paying more than they have to they must be evil.

    9. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by symbolset · · Score: 2
      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    10. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a straw man. You're of the opinion that it's immoral to avoid taxation, even when it's entirely legal, suggesting that your "fair share" is every tax that could possibly be applied to you if you volunteered to do so.

      He's saying that's crap, and I have to agree. As far as I'm concerned, the tax liabilities you subject yourself to is largely an ammoral subject, as long as you're working within the law.

      If you don't like the tax code, deal with that. There's no reason to be angry at individuals and companies doing what they legally can to avoid taxation above and beyond what they're required to pay. You're only owed what tax law says you're owed, and they're abiding by it.

    11. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2

      Or we could just say that companies are not intelligent living breathing biological entities and don't deserve taxation with representation. If a corporation wants representation go as the individual citizens working for that company. They got the representation all the way up to the CEO and board of directors as long as they're American citizens.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    12. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Certainly its logical to minimize your tax liability. But its interesting to me that Apple only paid 9.8 percent. We individuals pat at least twice that, and closer to 30%. The country is by and for corporations, I can't see that there's much one can argue against that. The constitution is dead, a more current one should probably read like a EULA.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    13. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should anyone have to pay more tax than they're required to by law?

      Why? Because they love their country. That's why. Because they give back to the people that made them successful, and the elected government of that people.

      Sounds like apple HATES america.

    14. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by joocemann · · Score: 0, Troll

      As long as they're doing it legally, there's nothing wrong with playing the game by the game's rules.

      So exploits are ok? From what I garner, exploits are wrong unless its Apple and the opinion comes from a fanboi. No 'reason', just feelings.

      Legal !=right. And you already know that, but doubletalked anyway...

    15. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move your focus from Reno just south to Incline Village, a town on Lake Tahoe, and you'll find lots of very, very rich Americans hiding from the taxman, including our dear friend Michael Milken. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken)
      Hey, it's the American Way.
      it's not illegal to protect your assets.
      It's not illegal to buy as much influence as cou can afford.
      It's not illegal to keep all this subrosa activity cloistered.
      And as long as Americans continue to approve of things like "Citizens United" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_united) they will continue to get the best government money can buy!

    16. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you redefine as fair-share and loopholes, the rest of us call the law. They teach this at university too.
      YOU DOPE!
      The problem of teaching logical fallacies is mostly only liberal socialist democrats bother to learn them at our fine liberal socialist institutions. They are mainly used to justify arguments of forgiving student loan debt which was mostly accumulated at the local pub.
      The rest of us have no problem with this method of argumentation.
      oh, you mentioned straw man, I kind of got caught up in Ad hominem. - It's my favorite.

    17. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      We don't say they are

      1. Living
      2. Breathing
      3. Biological entities

      all we do is create a legal fiction that gives them some of the rights of people.

      Just too many...

    18. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      So tell me Warren,
      Did you send a little extra this year?

    19. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also note that Apple pays 9.8% on their *profit*, you pay ~30% on your "revenue." Apple's effective tax rate on their revenue would certainly be less than 5%.

    20. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      Nah, my secretary is still covering that for me.
      Didn't you get my newsletter?
      Why don't you go pick on Bill.

    21. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Ice+Station+Zebra · · Score: 2

      Your money has already been spent before too. Guess it is worthless.

    22. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Their share is defined by law and only law, not some nebulous metric of "goodness".

      Don't like the law, change that, but unless and until they are found guilty of lawbreaking they are indeed paying their fair (as defined by law) share.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    23. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we didn't tax corporations, then the corporations themselves could be used as tax havens. CEO would have multiple "company cars" and live in a "company owned house" all of which might depart the company on him when he left - or just be granted to his use, depending on his exit.

      It would just make more work for the IRS and the SEC, while probably making things worse.

    24. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly its logical to minimize your tax liability. But its interesting to me that Apple only paid 9.8 percent. We individuals pat at least twice that, and closer to 30%. The country is by and for corporations, I can't see that there's much one can argue against that. The constitution is dead, a more current one should probably read like a EULA.

      But you as an individual most likely aren't taxed by multiple countries. Say a company operates in 4 countries. Now image if every country claimed 30% on the total net profit. That would make the company owe 120% in taxes. That's obviously absurd and unsustainable so you need to only tax on the income earned in that country. So 9.8% is a meaningless comparison to your 30% tax rate since the 9.8% is averaged all over the world. You need to compare your tax rate to the tax rate Apple pays in the United States. After all most of Apple's growth isn't in the United States it coming from China.

    25. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you can't be bothered to form an opinion on your own? Got it.

    26. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by sjames · · Score: 2

      There's no reason we should. Since they are not living, breathing, or biological, they have no natural rights, not even the natural rights of a wild animal. They have only granted rights.

    27. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by caseih · · Score: 2

      This was rated +5, Funny, right? Oh wait... are you serious? Look, corporations don't pay income taxes of any kind. Every last penny of income tax is passed on to me and you, the customers/consumers. So in reality taxing corporations is a bizarre form of consumption tax. I think a strong case can be made for eliminating corporate income tax in general, but closing personal income tax loopholes where individuals can hide income and assets in corporations. Trying to make Apple pay their "fair share," isn't going to generate that much revenue for the government or revitalize the economy. Of republican tax breaks won't do that either.

    28. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Guppy · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, I can absolutely guarantee you that Apple are not the only company doing this, they're just the flavour of the month and they generate page views around here. s/Apple/Microsoft/g, s/Apple/IBM/g or s/Apple/Google/g or pretty well any other large company at all and the story will read the same.

      On the other hand, small local businesses most likely do not have multi-state operations and international subsidiaries that can be used to shelter profits, nor do they have lobbyists that can write targeted loopholes into the code -- resulting in a hidden regressive skew.

    29. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Genda · · Score: 2

      When the tax code is subject to the very same corporate pressure, influence, bribery that all other law in this land is subject to, the question arises what is fair vs what it legal. When Wallmart uses billions of your/my tax dollars to subsidize the benefits for their working impoverished, they are robbing society (i.e. you and me.) As the parent says, when corporations don't pay for their use and support of the nations infrastructure, they rob society and shirk their responsibility as stakeholders in the health and sustainability of this nation.

      At issue is the concept that when done properly, a government provides a healthy and productive environment in which human endeavor may proceed. When private or corporate citizens look to profit at the expense of society, then they may be practicing good business, but they are also practicing horrible citizenry. It is high time we taught ethics, responsibility and accountability in our law, business and schools of science.

      A government is composed of its citizens. If you find it untrustworthy, evil or irresponsible, you may have some soul searching to do.

    30. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want, you can waive your mortgage interest deduction or pay your full tax rate on your capital gains. But why would you do that when you don't have to and no one else is?

      It's absolutely morally OK to do anything in your legal power to minimize your taxes. Just as it should be a moral imperative for lawmakers to stop caving to the corporate lobbyists and FIX those loopholes. If it's legal, it's not cheating (which should be self evident from the word CHEATING). So change the rules!

    31. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why should anyone have to pay more tax than they're required to by law?

      Tax avoidance is different from maximising your tax entitlements under law. This is clearly avoidance.

      Corporations have more loopholes than natural people to reduce the amount of tax that they pay, but even normal people have a number of ways that they can minimise the amount of tax that they're required to pay. If these methods are perfectly legal, then why would you not avail yourself of them?

      Minimising your tax obligation according to your entitlements is legal and expected. Tax avoidance by setting up tiny offices in places with favourable tax laws to collect revenue is a deliberate construct made to avoid paying tax to the community, not a loophole.

      Would you voluntarily pay more tax than you are legally obliged to?

      The key word here is "obliged". I meet my obligation under law. If a company want to operate with all the benefits my state provides then why is it too much to expect them to contribute to the community that supports their profitability. If they want access to great tax laws, then move. What they want though is access to great talent from one community and exploit the tax laws of another community trying to attract business and employment to theirs.

      If the law was amended so that the offices had to have a *minimum* employee count before being eligible for the tax breaks and they were made to conform to the intention of the tax laws then the story would change very quickly.

      I'll bet money that personal tax obligation is a lot higher than company tax obligation.

      Furthermore, I can absolutely guarantee you that Apple are not the only company doing this, they're just the flavour of the month and they generate page views around here. s/Apple/Microsoft/g, s/Apple/IBM/g or s/Apple/Google/g or pretty well any other large company at all and the story will read the same.

      All that says is this is a widespread problem that has to be addressed. It would seem that all of these companies want the benefit of the talents that the community provides but they have no interest in paying their fair share in developing that community with schools, hospitals, roads etc. The flip side is that the technical talent to create that technology in the first place is devalued, driving IT salaries lower because the demand for the jobs are focused in an area of their benefit. The state with the favourable tax laws still hasn't attracted jobs for taxpayers who drive up demand for other services and the state with the population still has the cost of the services the community needs, offsetting those costs onto the individual taxpayer who receives poorer community services.

      Theirs is not ethical taxation behaviour, it's called plundering communities with tax avoidance.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    32. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's your income minus expenses (deductions) which is your *net income* ie. profit.

    33. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a game has a well known and documented glitch that benefits anyone that exploits it, and the developer is aware of the glitch but doesn't patch it for whatever reason, then it is not cheating to exploit the glitch for personal gain, nor is it cheating to use a save editor to achieve the same goal as could be achieved by exploiting the glitch.

      However if the glitch is fixed by an update then using a save editor to achieve the same goal as before would then constitute cheating.

      Cheating in Boarderlands, not even once.

    34. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by cfulmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's no such a thing as "fair share." Your fair share is whatever the tax law says it is.

      Apple employs thousands of people. Those people pay taxes on their paycheck, and Apple pays payroll taxes on those individuals. Apple pays property taxes. It collects and pays sales taxes. It generates revenue for the music industry, which pays taxes. It generates revenue for the movie industry, which pays taxes. It pays rent to hundreds of shopping centers where the Apple stores are located; they all pay taxes. It pays advertising agencies, who pay taxes. It pays for medical benefits for its employees, and those doctors pay taxes. Its cafeterias purchase millions of dollars worth of food every year. And, what's more, Apple makes products which make the lives of tens of millions of people better.

      Here's what happens when you try to start imposing some sort of "You're an American Company; pay American taxes" argument: Apple re-incorporates off-shore; its US operations are shunted to a US subsidiary, who works under contract with the main off-shore company. In the end, it pays a lot less tax, but is now a Cayman Islands company.

    35. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We individuals pat at least twice that, and closer to 30%.

      Speak for yourself!

      -Mitt

    36. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So donate a few dollars to http://garyjohnson2012.com, and put a little of your money where your mouth is. Because Governor Johnson is going to be on the presidential ballot in all 50 states this year. And eliminating corporate taxes, and then taxing consumption and not earnings, is his plan. Think he can't do it? That's what they said four months before he won the New Mexico governor's seat, when he was polling at 2%. It's six months before the presidential election, and he's polling at 7 to 9% nationally. So go ahead, donate a few dollars, tell a few friends, and vote for, as you put it, "a nicer world." It will feel so much better than just complaining on Slashdot.

    37. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should anyone have to pay more tax than they're required to by law?

      Why? Because they love their country. That's why. Because they give back to the people that made them successful, and the elected government of that people.

      Sounds like apple HATES america.

      As does over 30% of its population http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_citizens_cheat_on_their_taxes. No wait, that's only those who even file tax returns - 50% don't pay any federal taxes. They all must hate America.

    38. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Taxing corporations is important for two reasons. The first obvious reason is that it raises revenue for the state. The second is that if you tax corporate income, then it is in the corporation's best interest to minimize income - i.e. to not pile up wads of cash as Apple is currently doing. It's not money per se, but the velocity of money, that moves the economy. Fat cats getting fatter is bad economics - unless you're the fat cat or one of their apologists of course.

    39. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Personally though I don't think corps should be taxed at all. It gives them too much ammo to say things like 'taxation without representation' etc.

      While I get where you're coming from, I believe that would create the biggest, fattest tax loophole anyone could imagine. "Oh, I didn't make a dime this year, but my corporation made a king's ransom! My car? Actually belongs to the corporation. My house? That too. Yeah, I'm chairman and CEO of my one person corporation, Tax Free American Inc."

      Besides, the idea that corporations in the US could claim to be under represented is beyond absurd. Everyone knows they are the primary source of bribery and corruption in the political process.

    40. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's your income minus expenses (deductions) which is your *net income* ie. profit.

      What country do you live in where every expense (food, housing, transport, etc) is a tax deduction ?

    41. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake up. Almost all corporations do this. HP does this. IBM does this. Dell does this. It's not called 'hating America,' it's called 'loopholes.' If you were beholden to shareholders and you were in charge of a corporation, you would do it too, I bet. And if not...you would never be in charge of a corporation for long.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html Google’s income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.

    42. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by couchslug · · Score: 0

      "If we didn't tax corps then I think it would be easier to ban political speech by corporations."

      Doesn't work very well for motivated "churches", and corps can afford better lawyers....

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    43. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Certainly its logical to minimize your tax liability. But its interesting to me that Apple only paid 9.8 percent. We individuals pat at least twice that, and closer to 30%. The country is by and for corporations, I can't see that there's much one can argue against that. The constitution is dead, a more current one should probably read like a EULA.

      But you as an individual most likely aren't taxed by multiple countries. Say a company operates in 4 countries. Now image if every country claimed 30% on the total net profit. That would make the company owe 120% in taxes. That's obviously absurd and unsustainable so you need to only tax on the income earned in that country. So 9.8% is a meaningless comparison to your 30% tax rate since the 9.8% is averaged all over the world. You need to compare your tax rate to the tax rate Apple pays in the United States. After all most of Apple's growth isn't in the United States it coming from China.

      Strawman, strawman, burning bright...

      I as an individual earn 'revenue' in one place because I only 'do business' in one place. Multinationals earn revenue in multiple places. The profits on that revenue are taxed in those places as a percentage of the revenue. If you have revenue of 20% in Great Britain, for instance, the Brits only tax that 20%. Your statement implies the corporations get taxed everywhere for their full revenue/earnings/gains. They don't. And the way the laws are, a corporation can have its main offices in one country where all business is conducted, but be 'headquartered' in a post office box in a country where the tax rates are significantly lowered.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    44. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. It's an American corporation. It's highest priority under American law is maximization of shareholder value. Given that initial condition, it's pretty easy to predict this outcome. If we want to change the outcome, we have to change the legal conditions under which American corporations operate.

    45. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by hherb · · Score: 1

      Considering what the current and last few governments did to America, I would presume anybody not giving those governments money (taxes) must dearly love America!

    46. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by paiute · · Score: 2

      Do you actually believe it is morally OK for corporations to seek loopholes....

      Yes. A corporation exists to take advantage of every legal method at its disposal to make its shareholders more money. You don't like it? Close the god damn "loopholes".

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    47. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the rules are written by Corporation and given to the law makers through their lobbyist. These corporation provide goods and services in the USA and get the profit from American tax payers without paying taxes. If the corporation makes only profit from outside, then they don't have to pay US taxes. If we change the rule that any profit earned in the USA is used to create more US jobs, then pay 10% corp. tax, else pay 30% on all global income combined.Problem solved. But this will never happen because elected crooks plus SC judges decide the issues.

    48. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by MacDork · · Score: 0

      So you think the average US household struggling to make ends meet with $50,000 per year should pay 25% of their income in taxes, but Apple computer should pay less than 10% on $34,000,000,000?

    49. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Simple solutions for complex problems don't tend to work. Individuals would use that to evade taxes and, maybe even worse, that would make it harder to control the market (something libtards believe is a sin). Want greener cars? Raise taxes on oil-fueled cars, lower them for electrical/whathaveyou cars. To develop a region, lower the taxes there as an incentive for companies to invest there. Taxes allow the state to steer corporations towards a (ideally good for all) goal that the "free" market would not reach without a push.

    50. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they haven't. They probably haven't been even taxed once.

      Your dividends have been, sort of....

      Personally though I don't think corps should be taxed at all. It gives them too much ammo to say things like 'taxation without representation' etc.

      If we didn't tax corps then I think it would be easier to ban political speech by corporations.

      The income to individuals from corps would then be taxable as ordinary income and we wouldn't have the whining about dividends being taxed twice, or the baloney about US taxes on corporations being high.

      We also wouldn't have the baloney regarding local jurisdictions competing for corps based on tax give backs.

      All in all it would be a nicer world....

      Corporations don't pay tax if you think about it.

      You could take all of the money that Apple has and it won't be but spit in a bucket... *sigh*

    51. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      But I'm still allowed to hate the game, right?

    52. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      That's the standard deduction. It's woefully inadequate unless you live in a tiny shared rental or your parents' basement and eat Taco Bell every day (which, actually, might be more than a few on /.) but that's the idea.

      At least it makes sense that it's the same for everyone - you are welcome to live at more than the level of a semi-homeless person, but don't expect a tax break for it (until you are wealthy enough to live off of your capital gains, at least - then expect huge breaks).

    53. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by slowLearner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's what happens when you try to start imposing some sort of "You're an American Company; pay American taxes" argument: Apple re-incorporates off-shore; its US operations are shunted to a US subsidiary, who works under contract with the main off-shore company. In the end, it pays a lot less tax, but is now a Cayman Islands company.

      The old "if we don't pay what we want we will leave" argument. If they are not prepared to pay the appropriate taxes for the privilege of doing business in your country then why let them? This goes for Micro$oft and General Electric too!
      Large corporations employ less people than small businesses (a small business is less than 500 people) and yet it is small businesses that bear the brunt of taxation while large corporates get the tax breaks, the ear of the government and multi-million-dollar CEO's

    54. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the end, it pays a lot less tax, but is now a Cayman Islands company.

      Then the US judicial system should have no interest in upholding their patent claims, right?

    55. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2

      Wake up. Almost all corporations do this. HP does this. IBM does this. Dell does this.

      So, HP, IBM, Dell, etc hate America too? Or are you trying to say "it's okay because everyone else does it"?

      It's not called 'hating America,' it's called 'loopholes.'

      Why did those miners die? Why did all that oil leak from that well? It's not murder; it's not even killing. Nor is It gross negligence. It's called 'loopholes'. It's certainly not 'hating America'*.

      If you were beholden to shareholders and you were in charge of a corporation, you would do it too, I bet. And if not...you would never be in charge of a corporation for long.

      Remember kids: once the first CEO decides to suck the blood of a virgin to gain greater power and such actions become sanctioned by the corporation's shareholders, well, we just have to accept that vampirism is a necessary trait of being a CEO. I mean, after all, we as a nation are beholden to those same shareholders and to their decisions upon CEOs. I mean, it's not like incorporation happens under the sanction and regulation of a government, so it's not like we can make any rules or stipulate any expectations about things.

      *As an aside, I do agree it's not 'hate America'. It might be 'hate Americans'. I mean, corporations have their tentacles in the US government just fine, so that part of America is pretty good for them. Sure, there's still all those pesky Americans demanding they pay *something*; I'm sure if they had full say, their tax rate would be zero. Create jobs? Well, sure, if it's effectively the government paying for them. I mean, it's not like a company would spend money on employees otherwise. Oh, right, the reason they hire people is because it's necessary to achieve those profits they desire; and negatively, they don't go around creating jobs for the mere benefit to the people they employ (cronyism not withstanding). And as for loopholes? Why, sure, there's even plenty of cheerleaders on the side arguing about the fairness of loopholes that legitimize all sorts of damage a corporation commits that would never be accepted at the personal level (well, traffic accidents seem the real exception), all because it might damage the economy if corporations were set to the sort of standard we hold real people to. The real absurdity, then, is why everyone doesn't just become a corporation to gain those same sorts of loopholes. I'm sort of surprised Bermuda or some other nation hasn't pushed more for tax shelters for the average American under that same logic. I mean, it aggregate, that represents potentially billions of dollars.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    56. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

      The question, if you insist on looking at it that way, is why does every large company hate America (or wherever they are incorporated)?

      The question I'm putting to you is why would you voluntarily pay more tax than you are legally obliged to?

    57. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wake up. Almost all corporations do this. HP does this. IBM does this. Dell does this. It's not called 'hating America,' it's called 'loopholes.' If you were beholden to shareholders and you were in charge of a corporation, you would do it too, I bet. And if not...you would never be in charge of a corporation for long.

      Completely agree. Apple is actually far better than most: many companies pick up and move all their people to a cheaper part of the US or worse, move all operations overseas, bringing only the best and brightest and outsourcing the rest.

      California is still making billions in taxes off Apple, with 13,000 employees at Apple Campus and all the property taxes and money the employees spend generates sales taxes. Just be glad Apple is in California at all because how many phone manufactures still keep 13,000 employees in the US? Apple sells phones, computers, tablets, and a online store, they could be in the middle of China employing 13,000 people if they wanted and we would still buy iPhones.

      Apple is probably the worse possible company to choose as an example of a "tax dodge". Why don't you go after Samsung, HTC, or any of the other phone manufactures that make billions in sales in the US market but have all of their operations based overseas.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    58. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it would be other incentives to encourage companies to create jobs.

      You mean, outside of the profit they earn on our labors? That not enough incentive anymore, now the taxpayers have to kick in a little extra, too?

      God, what I would give to have a government with the sack to tell these extortionist fucks to go pound sand. Think Apple is going to risk the boycotts and bullshit if they fired all their employees? I doubt it very fucking much...

      Steve Jobs benefited from all the things taxpayers fund growing up, just like all of us did. He wasn't raised by wolves in the fucking forest, he grew up in California, the nanny state to end all nanny states, and all those things these assholes bitch about today played a part in making him who he was, as successful as he was. Now that the company is successful, what, they have no moral obligation to pay it fucking forward?

      I mean, that's what all this shit comes down to. These guys stood on the shoulders of who knows how many giants before them, giants that were subsidized by the tax dollars of the people of this country, and now that it's their turn to give a little back, they want to cry and complain about how unfair that idea is and do everything they can to hide their profits. It's no different than knowingly hiring illegals in this fucking country. People that do that shit, and play these fucking games where they only get paid a dollar on fucking paper so they don't have to pay taxes...they're doing more harm to our country than ANY fucking terrorist or gang member or welfare queen, and we all know this, so why the fuck are we playing this game?

    59. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you babbling about? You have the total of your paychecks for the year (roughly equivalent of corporate gross revenue) less any exemptions and deductions (roughly net profit), on which you owe some amount of taxes .. less any tax credit.

      The fact that you personally can spend your profits on food, housing, transportation, travel, or mostly what the fuck ever has about uh no relevance to the fact that your deductions and corporate deductions are roughly comparative. Why would you be shocked that corporations have more deductions? You, if you're sane, work to afford a life you enjoy. Corporations, not being emotional creatures, do nothing but business. Know any workaholics? Ask them if you can check out their tax returns sometime. I'd be wiling to bet they have way more deductions than you do because, like a business, work is most of what they do..

    60. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really have a hard time accepting this. A business sets their prices for their product/service based on what people will pay for it. If they can pass on an X% increase to the consumer without it affecting sales, they should have already done that and enjoyed the fatter margins.

      Without a monopoly, or collusion between the manufacturers of a certain product, I think it would be difficult to force something like that through. If one company tries to do that, the others should try to take their sales at a slightly reduced profit margin.

    61. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2

      Corporations are people my friend.

    62. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you think the average US household struggling to make ends meet with $50,000 per year should pay 25% of their income in taxes, but Apple computer should pay less than 10% on $34,000,000,000?

      BULLSHIT. Use a real tax calculator. married couple, no kids earns 50,000 would pay about 9% tax rate.
      http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/1040-form-tax-calculator.aspx

      And from the NYT article:
      "In Apple’s last annual disclosure, the company listed its worldwide taxes — which includes cash taxes paid as well as deferred taxes and other charges — at $8.3 billion, an effective tax rate of almost a quarter of profits. "

    63. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Ah but in theory at least lawyers can't make laws and they can't render verdicts.

    64. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not the standard deduction. The standard deduction is an estimation of the sum of deductible things, and if you enumerate, you don't get the standard deduction anymore. You don't pay on your net income, you pay on gross, with some deductions. Corporations pay on net, and still get lots of deductions.

    65. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Other countries only tax revenue in their countries. America... we tax revenue earned everywhere. Not just for corporations... check out the recent WSJ article on people renouncing their citizenship. The cost of paying taxes to the US when you work, live, and spend elsewhere has led an increasing number of people to give US citizenship up. Sad but true.

    66. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "wrong" thing here is that these loopholes are created by those who are going to exploit them.

      To use an obviously extreme example, it'd be like a murderer making murder perfectly legal for those who meet specific requirements - requirements they just happen to meet. So long as it's legal, there's nothing wrong amirite? :P

      On a more serious note, the problem is that these loopholes exist at all - it allows those with all the money to keep it, and "forces" the government to increase taxes for the majority to make ends meet.

    67. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement implies the corporations get taxed everywhere for their full revenue/earnings/gains.

      You clearly cannot read. That's not what I said. I said

      That's obviously absurd and unsustainable so you need to only tax on the income earned in that country.

      The 9.8 percent is taking the total taxes as a percentage of total profit. It's the AVERAGE over the entire world. That means that in some countries Apple paid a Higher tax rate and other countries a lower tax rate. So you CANNOT compare your 30% take rate in a SINGLE country, to the AVERAGE tax rate acres THE ENTIRE WORLD.

    68. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by caseih · · Score: 1

      You may be right. And of course there are other arguments for eliminating corporate taxes. Some good ones are in this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-should-eliminate-the-corporate-income-tax/65351/

    69. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by uolamer · · Score: 1

      I like s/©//g better myself

      --
      s/©//g
    70. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people are. I am. I owe where I am now as a resident, and in the US as a citizen. The US is one of the few countries that taxes based on citizenship, not residency, so an American who moves away still owes a lifetime of taxes.

    71. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is immoral to avoid taxation if you bribe congressmen to get those loopholes created. Do you think these are all just oversights? Big corporations routinely purchase carefully thought out changes in the wording of laws to create loopholes for themselves. They're robbing us blind -- the bought-off congressmen blow a hole in the side of the bank, the corporations waltz in and take what they want, and then they give the politicians their cut.

      If I don't like the tax code, deal with it? Fuck that. I don't have the billions of dollars necessary to purchase a law. So I'll do what I can... vote for pols who actually understand that government shouldn't be killed off, and condemn all the corporate thieves who have been robbing us blind for decades.

    72. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      Capital "gains" also comes from inflation, which is some dirty pool on the government's part. They print money which effectively taxes the population, and then they charge you a capital gains tax on the inflated value of durable goods and coporate investments.

    73. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key word here is "obliged". I meet my obligation under law. If a company want to operate with all the benefits my state provides then why is it too much to expect them to contribute to the community that supports their profitability. If they want access to great tax laws, then move. What they want though is access to great talent from one community and exploit the tax laws of another community trying to attract business and employment to theirs.

      If the law was amended so that the offices had to have a *minimum* employee count before being eligible for the tax breaks and they were made to conform to the intention of the tax laws then the story would change very quickly.

      I'll bet money that personal tax obligation is a lot higher than company tax obligation

      Corporations are paying what they are obliged to, under the law. It is the law that makes these things possible, so corporations do it. This is exactly like when you minimize your tax burden under the terms of the law.

      Government has no "right" to tax money. And, without business, would have nothing to tax. So, the business is already doing its part to support the community by furnishing the jobs (and thus.. the payroll tax revenue).

      Now.. you can bet money that your tax obligation is a lot higher than company tax obligations, although.. this is incredibly vague. Its also very likely to be wrong. Apple paid 3.3 billion in taxes. What'd you pay? Unless your answer is "3.31 billion" or more, you'd lose your bet. I'm willing to wager that you didn't pay that much in taxes. I'm also willing to wager that you're a hypocrite. How many things do you own that were manufactured in foreign jurisdictions specifically because those foreign jurisdictions are more lax in environment, safety, or living standards resulting in a cost advantage that you took? Oh, lots? Congratulations, you want to live in a state with some package of benefits, while exploiting the laws of some other jurisdiction (which.. also removes taxable events from your resident jurisdiction). If you want access to inexpensive goods, then move.

      And.. if governments required some minimum employment before they could take advantage of the tax breaks, I'd expect your jurisdiction to lose a bunch of jobs quickly. There is unlikely to be anything special about your jurisdiction that makes locating the business there a necessity. If it covered an entire country, watch the domestic corporations suddenly become subsidiaries to a foreign corporation. The domestic subsidiary will turn a minimal profit, because most of the revenues will go to the untouchable foreign parent. What possible response is there? "File comprehensive returns or ... be closed down!" "Okay.. give us a call when you're broke and starving because everybody is unemployed"

    74. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      They'll pay US taxes. But you will never, ever see their overseas revenue.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    75. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Shazback · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an individual, when I buy things, I directly fund companies, therefore keeping them and their employees in business. I also pay sales tax on these good, and payroll tax is just as much a tax on me as it is on my employer, since it affects a contract between us. I generate revenue for my employer, who pays taxes. I generate revenue for retailers of my employer's products and other businesses that work with my employer, who both also pay tax. I rent a home which provides an income for my homeowner, who in turn purchases goods and pays tax. I pay insurance for medical care (part of my contract with my employer), which funds an industry that pays tax. By having children and keeping in touch with my family and friends, I provide not only for the future of the country, I also directly improve their quality of life.

      I hope this is a good argument to stop paying income tax. If not, I'll just move to another country. I'll pay a lot less tax, but it'll be in the Cayman Islands.

      On a more serious note, Apple benefits from infrastructure and regulation provided by the federal and state governments, be they in education, in transport, in public safety, in healthcare, in environmental protection or pretty much anything else that these governments are involved in. If Apple could move their research, their product design, their product development, and as much back-office work as they can to China, they'd do it in a heartbeat. The problem is that's not possible. Apple wants the best engineers, the best designers, the best R&D teams... And those kind of people don't just want a big paycheck, they also want to live in a nice environment, where they are provided with sufficient opportunities for their spouses and children's development, where they won't fear for their life, where transport if sufficiently easy and reliable, and so forth. Apple want to become a Cayman Islands company? They'll still keep their corporate operations in the USA, because they know it's too hard to even attempt to move a dozen thousand of the best paid engineers and designers and their families off-shore.

      Apple want the benefits from the infrastructure and the regulation that the USA provides, but doesn't want to fund the cost of maintaining and improving them. That's a free rider problem, and being a knowing free rider, that's hating the driver.

    76. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Uh governments provide practically nothing. EVERY SINGLE THING that the gov't "does" comes straight out of you, me, everyone else's pocket.

      When it comes to Wallmart "robbing" society, exactly how much should they pay their "working Impoverished" aka people who only qualify for unskilled labor? $100,000 a year? Would that be fair? Are you willing to pay the kid who mows your lawn $100 for an 30 minutes worth of work? Of course you wouldn't.

      If you won't why should they?

    77. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      How much in taxes did the Apple employees pay in Federal taxes? How much in taxes did Apple share holders pay on dividens and capital gains on their stock. So on top of that Apple is supposed to pay too? How does that even remotely make any sense? The governement is supposed to get what 90% of everything we do? How is that "fair"

      Of that $34 Billion dollars they made how much is that tied up in the business itself? It's like having to pay taxes on your car, but the only way to pay it is you have to sell the car. Once the car is gone how are you going to get to work? It works the same way in the corporate world.

    78. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they want access to great tax laws, then move. What they want though is access to great talent from one community and exploit the tax laws of another community trying to attract business and employment to theirs.

      Remember that when your job gets off-shored. Although I expect you'll be crying "not fair!" when your employer gets sick your shit and does exactly that...

    79. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 1

      Corporate security that US soil provides comes at a fee, expenses of the government, the agencies, the military, the state and city level services provided to them are countless. All those things have a price tag and Apple is freeriding it all. Anybody who is cheating the system otherwise supported by millions of hardworking people is spitting in the face of the average citizen, it is offensive to me who paid the taxes, if not criminal. Now it looks like if you buy an iPhone then the money end up in China, provide dividends to some rich Saudi stock holders, and generate no taxes to be send back home. What incentive is there left to buy this already fake American product then?

    80. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If we didn't tax corps then I think it would be easier to ban political speech by corporations.

      Let me explain why that isn't a good idea. Corporations are given rights under the law, not as entities themselves, but as an extension of the collective rights of the individuals that it is composed of. A corporation is formed by a group of individuals agreeing to pool resources to achieve a goal. So let's take a look at how that can play out.

      You have a right to say "Screw the Government." So does your best friend. If you pool resources to say it (e.g. you make a sign, he drives you to city hall), you both still have that right. If you agree formally to do the same, you still have the same rights. 1,000,000 people signing an agreement that they have joined the "Screw Government Organization" to send 1,000 of them to DC to protest doesn't diminish the right. Forming a group to sell "Screw Government" bumper stickers doesn't reduce the group's rights to less than that of any individual. Forming a group that sells indy band bumpers stickers, and the occasional political bumper sticker, doesn't diminish the collective rights. Calling the group a corporation doesn't change things either. The name, size, profit motivation, etc do not change anything.

      An so on. The basic rule is the rights of individuals can be exercised collectively. One name for this phenomena is "Corporations are people." Not a person. Though for simplicity, it's treated like a person. Because the rights of a person and the rights of a group are the same. For example, a person can own property and so can a group.

      Ok, there are some exceptions. For instance, while a person can hold office, a group cannot. Same with a vote. Some rights do not scale and can't be collective. But most can.

      So now look at your suggestion. How much can you restrict the rights of a collection of people without restricting the rights of individuals? Pretty difficult. Not something to be done lightly.

    81. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Charcharodon · · Score: 0
      "Apple" did not pay 9.8%. The effective rate is much higher than that.

      First off Apple's employees paid somewhere around 25%. A cost born by the Apple corporation. The company paid tarrifs on raw materials and componenets for their gadgets. They paid fuel taxes, property taxes, regulation compliance, and all manner of fees.

      After all those costs were added up they managed to make a profit and then the govnment swooped in for the 6 or 7th time and demand another 9.8% off the top that you consider a trivial ammount.

      The reality is if they government wasn't always hitting up everyone for taxes they could easily double what they pay their employees and still sell you their services for half of what they go for now. So think about that they next time you pay $600 for a new iPad and realize that $200-300 of the price is due to taxes......haha before you even have to pay the fucking sales tax.

    82. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Apple can't even be classified as a US company at all. Their Board of Directors and design teams might maintain offices in the US but that is about it. Their control fetish allows them to dictate higher prices for their products. They monopolize foreign manufacturing resources to slow down the competition. Their App Store submission procedures control who can and can't release apps. If you want to use Apple products you are forced to use their rules. No commodity based hardware, restricted app pipeline, and even mandated phone service providers leave users with very little options. They best make most of their money now because they are losing market share as Android based phones begin to stabilize, standardize, provide the same functionality, and offer the user a wide range of options. In the US thier foreign manufacturing is also starting to come under attack. The US consumer is finally ready to pay a little more if the manufacturing products everything is done in the US and really not give a shot about any other countries concerns. The general US population is also not aware that besides the GDP the US is also still the world leader in manufacturing. Back in the day the Apple business model and competition with MS in the OS arena ended up with them getting their assess kicked so bad they had to accept a large investment from the MS to just survive as a company. Their developer support and options also suck when compared to others. Making it easier to develop applications ensures the platform adoption rate grows. Their greatest strength is not their technology but their marketing and eventually people will realize that and start asking questions.

    83. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by zidium · · Score: 1

      They do this anyway, all the time.

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    84. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      They wouldn't, people are full of shit and always blame everyone else for being the asshole.

      You can go to the US Treasury website and make a "gift to reduce the US debt" at any time, no special Bills or taxes needed. I paid $4.23 to reduce it. Which was $4.23 more than all of the members of Congress and people holding the job title of POTSUS have paid in the last 20 years. I dare say that is $4.23 more than everyone that has ever posted on /. too.

    85. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by zidium · · Score: 1

      That's how it works now, man~!

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    86. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      I don't know about socialism, but one could argue a lot of America's historic and current prosperity was brought about by things like the national highway system which allows for the transportation of goods, the telephone network, the internet built on top of that telephone network, the electricity grid, running water, etc all of which are and were paid for by public dollars. The public education system which allows a lot of its employees to gain their skills also helps them some. You might also argue that Apple has some sort of obligation to ensure that they pump at least a little money back into the US economy, if only so that their American customers can afford to keep buying their overpriced products, but that's for another day.

      With very rare exceptions every US resident has benefited in at least some way from public infrastructure, including every single person using Slashdot.

    87. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      You are full of shit my friend.

      Just to prove how full of shit you are, I'll even make it easy for you.

      The following link takes you to the US Treasury website where you can pay your "fair share" of extra taxes that will prove you "love" America.

      http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

      And just like all the other people who are full of shit in the world you will do nothing but bitch and moan but will never do anything.

    88. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by zr · · Score: 1

      corporations are proxies for (usually) groups of people, so its only natural that they get _some_ rights enjoyed by people. because there are people behind them. not ALL rights, say they can't vote for example.

    89. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any time you justify your sense of morality with legality, you've pretty much hit the bottom of the morality barrel.

    90. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't hate the player, hate the game. Apple is a public company. Maximizing profits is their duty to shareholders. If loopholes exist for minimising tax, fix the loopholes, don't blame the companies who take advantage of them.

    91. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask its shareholders.

    92. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Geese, settle down guy... so much hate...

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    93. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Corporations are entities which are supposed to represent the collective interests of their shareholders. So when Romney said "corporations are people" what he meant was that they are made up of people (their shareholders). Now, you don't have to grant people the right to form limited liability corporations, but placing restrictions on corporate rights, or the rights of corporations, violates the first amendment, which guarantees the right to freely associate. This is a precedent that was established by the supreme court, so I'm not just talking out of my ass here, and it makes a lot of sense, so it's not going to be overturned anytime soon.

    94. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by zidium · · Score: 1

      Any foreigner can obtain a U.S. trademark, copyright, and/or patent.

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    95. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Don't tax corporations, then every rich dick will stick all their income in a corporation which then pays them a token salary. The corporation the buys the investment mansion which no one ever wants to rent and tax deducts all running and management costs. The corporation buys the supercars and limos and tax deducts them, perhaps the locate the mansion on a few acres add one horse and those supercars and limos become farm vehicles.

      The mega yacht also owned by the corporation is now a marketing tool and hence tax deductible. The private jet, well that's a part time 'er' full time air charter business that loses money and is again tax deductible.

      As for you dopey fuckers that can't shift you income into corporation and convert your assets into tax deductions, well, sucked in.

      Buy into corporations not paying taxes and your either a psychopath or a gullible bloody idiot. Then the bullshit about corporations not have tax deductions, that's a be show laugh. So say a corporation sells concrete that means it can't tax deduct the gravel, sand, water, cement, concrete trucks and employees, oh yeah (you see how they make all the luxury personal items seem no different from tools and materials, have you never heard of tax attorneys and what their job really is).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    96. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Corporate taxes are not deterrent to this, companies simply make sure they pay out all the money they make as wages, and presto: no tax liability because they made no profit. It's perfectly legal, and you see small businesses doing it all the time. Of course, if you have shareholders, they will sue you for it, but if you own it yourself, or all the shareholders are employees, it's easy.

      CEO would have multiple "company cars" and live in a "company owned house" all of which might depart the company on him when he left - or just be granted to his use, depending on his exit.

      The tax code explicitly defines what can be considered a business expense. Basically the cars and houses you've hypothesized would need to serve a business purpose, and you can only write off the portion used for business (for example, if you have a home office in a rented apartment, and the office uses 300 square feet of a 1,200 square food apartment, you can only write off 25% of the rent as a business expense). It's true that people try to be sneaky and claim personal items business expenses, but like I said before, that's a problem today.

    97. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So change the rules!

      Given that corporations now dictate the law, you have just suggested violent revolution.

    98. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by MacDork · · Score: 1

      You are cherry picking numbers. Married couples pay at a much lower tax rate. Worldwide? When did that excuse Apple for shirking tax responsiblilty here at home? The corporate tax rate in the US is 35% at that income level.

      It's a legitimate question. Do you really think Apple should pay less than 10% in federal taxes on $34,000,000,000 in profits while someone struggling to get by on $50,000 pays 25%?

    99. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      The second is that if you tax corporate income, then it is in the corporation's best interest to minimize income - i.e. to not pile up wads of cash as Apple is currently doing.

      Income. Savings. I think you might want to look up the definition of each...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    100. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Find me a politician or a judge who does not have a lawyer background - very few and far between!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    101. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The government is still determined by the voters, all that's necessary is to somehow motivate enough people to kick out the incumbents who are such a big part of the machine.

      The tea party actually did a surprisingly good job of this in the last election. If only they weren't mostly a bunch of reactionary, undereducated crackpots.

    102. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " natural people " " normal people" i think they are just called people

    103. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      The fact that you personally can spend your profits on food, housing, transportation, travel, or mostly what the fuck ever has about uh no relevance to the fact that your deductions and corporate deductions are roughly comparative.

      The claim made was: "Not really. It's your income minus expenses (deductions) which is your *net income* ie. profit.".

      Companies can deduct any "operating expense". People cannot (the most obvious ones being food, shelter and transport. They're not even remotely comparable.

      Or, to put it another ways, companies are taxed on their net income. Individuals are taxed on their not-entirely-but-still-mostly gross income.

    104. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "And the way the laws are, a corporation can have its main offices in one country where all business is conducted, but be 'headquartered' in a post office box in a country where the tax rates are significantly lowered."

      Not true.

      In the US will be taxed for US sales even if you have a foreign headquarters. In other countries you will be taxed for the % of sales in that country if your management is in that country regardless of the location you claim for headquarters.

      This is why if you are a foreign (to the US) corporation and your sales people travel to the US, and work a deal with a foreign corporation in the US, depending on the amount of time spent in the US while consumating the deal you may end up with US taxes. So if you are a British company with office, manufacturing, design, engineering in the UK and your sales people come to the US to cut a deal with a Brazil company, if a significant amount of the work to accomplish the deal is done in the US, you can be liable for US taxes despite the fact that you are a UK company selling products to Brazil.

      I have read what people have written above and they completely underestimate the detail (and inconsistency) of the US tax code. Frankly, it just doesn't work like most everyone is writing about - people read one line about Apple not paying taxes in the US and assume something completely inconsistent.

      For instance, the US has tax treaties with most countries, so if you pay 30% taxes in that country, and the rate in the US is 35% you wont be double taxed, you will only pay the un-paid 5% in the US. This is contrary to an above post that 4 countries * 30% = 120% taxes (even in a non-tax treaty country the taxes paid in the other country are deductible).

      No one is addressing why a foreign company with US shareholders (it could be a subsidiary, but that is a technical question of ownership % + other items such as whether the shareholder is a corporation or an individual - much the same as if an individual owned stock in a foreign country) should be paying taxes on money which it doesnt distribute to its shareholders? Foriegn owners of US corporations aren't obliged to pay taxes on the US Companies income (assuming it is not a pass through entity) -

      imagine you invest $50,000 in your italian cousin's winery for instance - maybe you own 55% of the winery because you put up the money. The winery has a profitable year, makes $10,000. It pays $2000 in taxes to the italian government and the other $8000 goes back into the company for equipment and inventory. Ok, now what taxes should you pay as a US citizen and 55% shareholder of the foreign company? Remember, you received nothing. You might think you should be paying taxes (do you deduct the taxes paid to the italian govt? why not consider that a cost of goods and pay taxes on the $8000 in income?)

      While I see a lot of rants from some clearly smart people, take a moment to think about the logic of who should be paying taxes where. In the above example if you think you should pay taxes on the after-tax profit of the company (even though there was no distribution to shareholders) you will be paying perhaps 40% (US tax) * 55% (ownership percentage) * $8000 (profit) = $1760. Now consider that the stock value may go to zero the next year... so you will now be out not $50,000, but $51,760. Is that fair? If it is, then you also should consider that whole idea of a corporation is to shield additional liability beyond the investment... but in the above scenario you have incurred an additional liability - unknown at the time of investment. This would rock the foundations of why we have corporations (or joint stock companies going back to those who took the risk to fund Magellan and Columbus). It would also make you think twice or three times before helping your cousin start a winery because you might be hit with an unknown amount of taxes if he is successful. You then, once thinking very carefully about it would realize why the above statements alluding to - dont pay taxes for foreign op

    105. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prices are set to maximize profit.

      Taxes are an expense. Increase their costs, and they will have to adjust their prices to match the *new* point of maximum profit. Customers pay in two ways:
      1. By paying a higher price.
      2. By not getting the benefit of the goods at all.

    106. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Here's what happens when you try to start imposing some sort of "You're an American Company; pay American taxes" argument: Apple re-incorporates off-shore; its US operations are shunted to a US subsidiary, who works under contract with the main off-shore company. In the end, it pays a lot less tax, but is now a Cayman Islands company.

      Of course, finding people to work there would be a challenge.. Wouldn't all their 'official' business like exectutives and board meeting have to be there? And they would lose out on a TON of protections provided by the US government.. for example, filing for Patents in the US.. sure, their contractor could, and then lease them to the cayman company, but that gets to be an ugly legal dodge when your trying to ram your patents down someone elses throat all around the world.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    107. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      The corporation the buys the investment mansion which no one ever wants to rent and tax deducts all running and management costs. The corporation buys the supercars and limos and tax deducts them, perhaps the locate the mansion on a few acres add one horse and those supercars and limos become farm vehicles.

      So, it will be pretty much like now since most of the expenses you mention are deductible in some way. And while this company dependency may not be the norm for filthy rich dudes, it is for many many other whealthy people.

      I'm all in favor of taxing the companies, but as someone viewing from the outside, US tax law is batshit crazy. And yes, I also believe that individual taxation should be fixed, and not progressive (as it is now in many regions of the world, including my country) - why should someone who earns more pay a bigger cut of their pie? It's their work. And no, I'm not rich, not even remotely close to it.

    108. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "California, the nanny state to end all nanny states"

      You have obviously never been to Singapore.

    109. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Corporations are paying what they are obliged to, under the law. It is the law that makes these things possible, so corporations do it. This is exactly like when you minimize your tax burden under the terms of the law.

      No it is not! It is not possible for me to establish another portion of my body in another part of the world to receive taxation benefits from another part of the world. It is *possible* for companies as large as Apple to commit tax avoidance under the law. That does not make it legal. the only obligation they have to commit tax avoidance is because they are obliged to maximise shareholder return under the law. But apple hasn't paid dividends for how long?

      Government has no "right" to tax money. And, without business, would have nothing to tax. So, the business is already doing its part to support the community by furnishing the jobs (and thus.. the payroll tax revenue).

      Yes it does, under the law, because the community expect the government to provide services. There will always be businesses because there is always a desire to turn profit. Business does not support the community by providing jobs, it supports the community by being *viable*. Providing jobs is not a concern of business, it's an operational requirement. If businesses did it's part in supporting the community then slavery would never have existed, unions would have never been necessary and there would be no need for a minimum wage.

      Now.. you can bet money that your tax obligation is a lot higher than company tax obligations, although.. this is incredibly vague. Its also very likely to be wrong. Apple paid 3.3 billion in taxes. What'd you pay? Unless your answer is "3.31 billion" or more, you'd lose your bet. I'm willing to wager that you didn't pay that much in taxes.

      Absolute blatant strawman.

      I'm also willing to wager that you're a hypocrite.

      Says the Anonymous Coward who wants all of the benefits of airing an opinion with none of the commensurate responsibility.

      How many things do you own that were manufactured in foreign jurisdictions specifically because those foreign jurisdictions are more lax in environment, safety, or living standards resulting in a cost advantage that you took? Oh, lots? Congratulations, you want to live in a state with some package of benefits, while exploiting the laws of some other jurisdiction (which.. also removes taxable events from your resident jurisdiction). If you want access to inexpensive goods, then move.

      If I didn't look for alternatives then you might be right, but price is not the only factor in my purchasing decisions. The first one is "can I buy this from a local manufacturer" - Especially with large purchases.

      And.. if governments required some minimum employment before they could take advantage of the tax breaks, I'd expect your jurisdiction to lose a bunch of jobs quickly. There is unlikely to be anything special about your jurisdiction that makes locating the business there a necessity. If it covered an entire country, watch the domestic corporations suddenly become subsidiaries to a foreign corporation. The domestic subsidiary will turn a minimal profit, because most of the revenues will go to the untouchable foreign parent. What possible response is there? "File comprehensive returns or ... be closed down!" "Okay.. give us a call when you're broke and starving because everybody is unemployed"

      Complete rubbish. Your statement completely whitewashes the business *requirement* to operate these tax avoidance locations with minimal staff and overhead otherwise they would be bright shiney building with APPLE plastered all over them. That they are small, discrete and have no discernible relationship to Apple means they are completely aware that they are going against the known intention of the law according to their legal departments.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    110. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      If they want access to great tax laws, then move. What they want though is access to great talent from one community and exploit the tax laws of another community trying to attract business and employment to theirs.

      Remember that when your job gets off-shored. Although I expect you'll be crying "not fair!" when your employer gets sick your shit and does exactly that...

      Sick of what shit? Standing up for the rights of my community and the people that are in it. Fuck you, it's business lobbying for that failure anyway so as long as I have a voice I'll damn well use it. You maybe too meek and timid to be anything but a slave, but I'm not. Fuck you, fuck the consequences, fuck any employer who tries to take what little freedom I have left, fuck being modded down I'd rather be free than a fucking slave so fuck off A.Coward.

      You make me fucking sick, you spineless slime.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    111. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Since when is it their work. Reality is, it is always someone else's work, they are just parasites. Their risk, never they just gamble other peoples money. Just plotting, scheming, greed and more greed and yet more greed.

      The function of society is to provide the best possible services for the majority. Not a scam to allow a psychopathic minority to prey upon the majority and enforce it with extreme violence.

      Clearly capitalism is a societal structure designed by psychopaths for their personal benefit. Those that benefit the most by a twisted society should clearly pay the most, keep pressing the distortion and they inevitably pay the highest price (a just price considering the harm they cause) with delusions of taking it with them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    112. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Why don't you go after Samsung, HTC, or any of the other phone manufactures that make billions in sales in the US market but have all of their operations based overseas.

      Maybe because they actually manufacture all that stuff overseas? The products they sell in US, those have sales tax paid off them, which is fair. But if they don't really have any substantial design, development or production here, why should they pay taxes here (from a moral perspective, not legal - legal is a world of its own which doesn't mesh well with common sense)? Heck, Samsung doesn't even trade its stocks anywhere outside Korea.

    113. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Albinoman · · Score: 1

      "people who only qualify for unskilled labor"
      I have a few problems with this statement. First is the assumption that someone working at Walmart has no skills. Plenty of people there who just can't find work anywhere else at the moment. Second, while I don't think people deserve some huge reward simply for working, it must be remembered that an employee is literally selling a bit of their life. In that light they should be given enough money to live off (and I don't mean just enough to survive). Those unskilled workers are often doing work that you won't, and hell, I wouldn't either.

      Why should having a some mass produced college degree entitle anyone to such grossly higher pay? They already have the benefit of having a job that won't destroy their body to the point being unable to do their job. Does a CEO really bring 1000 times the benefit to the company than a laborer would?

    114. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by toriver · · Score: 1

      Microsoft does the same thing (counts profits in business-tax-free Nevada), so I gues they, too, hate America, and the other countries they trick taxes from...

    115. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by toriver · · Score: 1

      Do you expect profit-oriented companies to have morals? And far more tax money seems to get spent on blown up Afghan weddings than are spent on "infrastructure".

      And the list of companies that count their profits in Nevada to dodge taxes is very long, but I guess it is "chic" to use Apple these days, people no longer remember when Microsoft were criticized for the same thing a few years back. (Counting profits in Nevada, but using the pro-business courts in Vermont for their litigation - a true pick-and-choose on the national smörgåsbord of services.)

    116. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Simple: in other countries no company form can claim representation rights as individuals are represented and society is a pact between individuals, not other entities. Still, company pay taxes (often much higher) and individuals pay taxes also on capital gains. Companies get already a lot of things from the state to justify taxes without any further abstruse right. Just realize it: your corporation model if fundamentally flawed.

    117. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by toriver · · Score: 1

      So much hate-driven misinformation... hardly any of that is based in actual fact. Better to ignore such ranting, you would never accept any corrections anyway.

    118. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ExploHD · · Score: 1

      Wow, from minimum wage to $100,000/year is what you jump to? Nice. How about Walmart providing company healthcare. Otherwise they end up on Medicaid which we all pay for; or they walk out of the ER without paying their bill and hospital bills go up to cover the uninsured.

    119. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The difference is in the degree and the extent.

      I believe right now you need to be rich enough so that it becomes worth the hassle.

      But once you say corporations don't get taxed at all, nearly everyone that currently pays significant income tax will join/start a corporation (individually or with partners), and stop paying any tax.

      --
    120. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      The income to individuals from corps would then be taxable as ordinary income and we wouldn't have the whining about dividends being taxed twice, or the baloney about US taxes on corporations being high.

      The problem with that is that people would just run their entire life as an employee of their own company.

      They work as subcontractors to their employers who pay the employees wages to his company, the company owns the house provides the food etc.

      He would pay himself minimum work wage and everything else would be owned by the company.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    121. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by rev0lt · · Score: 0

      Since when is it their work. Reality is, it is always someone else's work, they are just parasites. Their risk, never they just gamble other peoples money. Just plotting, scheming, greed and more greed and yet more greed.

      Yes, there is no way someone honest can be rich. Or that someone can become rich because of hard work. Because if you somehow have less, it's never your fault, is it? It's always someone else's. No one forces you to live in capitalism, no one forces you to be a part of what you call "twisted society". But it's funny how you spew your little rant over giant multi-billion technology infrastructure that probably woudn't exist if not for those "parasites" you hate. Hypocrisy much?

    122. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by slowLearner · · Score: 1

      How much in taxes did the Apple employees pay in Federal taxes?

      In my country employee taxes mostly come out of the employees wages, the company only gathers sum and gives it to the government. So technically the employees pay that for the bit of their life that they will never get back.

      How much in taxes did Apple share holders pay on dividens and capital gains on their stock.

      Share holders are not the same as the company, it may be that the company will hold share of itself, but are you suggesting that tax paid an another entity be counted as tax paid by Apple? If you are, could you pay my taxes for me?
      Also if Apple stock lost money would you propose that Apple inc. pay tax as the stock holders would have reduced their tax bill?
      Also there have been no Apple dividends

      So on top of that Apple is supposed to pay too? How does that even remotely make any sense?

      Well as has been pointed out before in this thread Apple and other large corporates are channelling money though third party countries to reduce, or even remove the need to pay corporation tax. Corporation tax is the price for being an American corporation and for the privilege of doing business in the USA, I am under the impression that all countries have some sort of tax like this, it is just that Apple et al don't want to pay this price. Do you think that Apple etc. should be allowed to to operate in the USA without paying their dues?

      The governement is supposed to get what 90% of everything we do? How is that "fair"

      No, as pointed out earlier in other posts, corporation tax is 35%. Not 90%! I know you think that you are cumulatively adding up all the payments, but really you are getting confused with gross and net profits and what taxes apply to where or when.

      Of that $34 Billion dollars they made how much is that tied up in the business itself? It's like having to pay taxes on your car, but the only way to pay it is you have to sell the car. Once the car is gone how are you going to get to work? It works the same way in the corporate world.

      Apple tie this money up in the business by not spending it, they are sitting on $100 Billion in cash reserves. I am not suggesting that this is wrong, they are entitled to hold as much money as they want, but it is disingenuous for you to suggest that the $34 Billion is tied up in the business.

    123. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Wal-Mart is a REALLY bad example because their policies on hourly employees. They actively encourage they part time employees to apply for medicaid and other subsidies for the poor and in general will not give them enough hours to qualify for full time benefit status even when they want to. These alone end up costing the taxpayers FAR more than the money that Wal-Mart pays in corporate tax.

    124. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Cenan · · Score: 1

      Corps do not need representation for paying tax. All their employees have representation that should be enough. They need to pay tax everywhere they do business, for the priviledge of using the infrastructure that the rest of us paid for.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    125. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If corporations are people it should be possible to send them to 'jail' also...

      Manslaughter charges could be brought to many companies (pollution that causes cancer, a company that fails to adhere to the laws regarding safety at the workplace etc)... But this should not be limited to that.. It should be for any time of crime.. Blackmail, threats, tax evasion etc..

      Jail for 10 years = 10% of the value of the company would be transferred to the state, and sold off to interested partners, while also putting the company in a 1 year probation.. All profits of the company, as reported the previous year, would be assigned to the state... 20 years would be 20% + 2 years profit and so on..
      Sure allot of companies would go bankrupt, but that would just be bad companies that are messing up society would get closed down, or sold to a more responsible owner...

      This would make companies behave since they would not want to risk reducing the value for the shareholders... And this would make them really hurt instead of paying out small settlements to specific individuals/families..

    126. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only allow X dollars profit per Y employees... Ie to make a 1M profit you would be required to have 10 fulltime employees.. And then you could remove the corporate tax.....

      Would cause companies to employ more people and that would result in more money to people that would then purchase things and that would result in a higher velocity of money...

      To make a billion dollars profit would require you to have 10000 employees..

      Some things that this could solve:
      - Lower amount of unemployed people.
      - It could even lower the amount of work the company wants a single person to do.. A company could declare that fulltime with them is 4 hours per day and then just hire twice as many people..
      - More people have money so they can buy stuff. Ie higher velocity of money.
      - Companies would actually care about it's employees because they are directly linked to their profits..
      - If there are not skilled people available a company could hire a person for lets say $50k per year and train him while allowing the company to add $50k to their possible profit payout.

    127. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Tom · · Score: 1

      why does Apple hate America?

      Because it wants to take away something they love dearly: Money.

      People, wake up. If you want to attribute ethical terms to a corporation, the first thing you need to do is change the measure applied. Replace "good" with "profit" and "bad" with "loss". That is the ethics of a corporation. Not because they are evil, but because the law mandates it.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    128. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9.8%! Apple are slacking.
      Ikea pays 3.5% on their global operation.

      On their UK business Apple pays around 4% whereas Amazon pays absolutely nothing.

      Google have told the Irish government that they're only there because of the 'financial incentives' that the government has paid them and if they start to charge them the full rate of corporation tax in Ireland they will leave.

    129. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, it's a PRIVILEGE doing a business? I thought it's a basic right....

    130. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by sjames · · Score: 2

      The individuals would naturally retain their natural rights, but only at the individual level.

      That might lead to effective rights though. For example, the right to due process before forfeiting property because (and only because) the owners of the company ultimately own the property and they have that right.

      On the other hand, a corporation would not enjoy other effective rights because of the way it shields the owners from prsonal liability.

    131. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and we'll mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics!

      The law locks up the man or woman, Who steals the goose from off the common

      But leaves the greater villain loose, Who steals the common from off the goose.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    132. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Your objection, of course, is perfectly valid. But there's an overriding issue: overall taxes are too high. If overall taxes were, say, 2%, it wouldn't be worth much effort to dodge the taxes. Further, low tax levels would provide the government with more respect, and tax dodgers would be disrespected by almost everyone. A government subsiding on low income would be limited in the damage it could do, further helping its reputation.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    133. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Don't tax corporations, then every rich dick will stick all their income in a corporation which then pays them a token salary. The corporation the buys the investment mansion which no one ever wants to rent and tax deducts all running and management costs.

      They need to invent a name for those things. Like "benefits in kind". And then make them taxable (except maybe where they're really for business use).

      Nah. That'd never fly.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    134. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Freelancers & self-employed people already exist, and they aren't allowed to get away with that. And believe me, they try!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    135. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Don't tax corporations, then every rich dick will stick all their income in a corporation which then pays them a token salary. The corporation the buys the investment mansion which no one ever wants to rent and tax deducts all running and management costs. The corporation buys the supercars and limos and tax deducts them, perhaps the locate the mansion on a few acres add one horse and those supercars and limos become farm vehicles.

      So, how will they "tax deduct" something if they're not paying taxes?

      The mega yacht also owned by the corporation is now a marketing tool and hence tax deductible. The private jet, well that's a part time 'er' full time air charter business that loses money and is again tax deductible.

      Same question - how is something tax deductible if you don't owe taxes?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    136. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The key word here is "obliged". I meet my obligation under law. If a company want to operate with all the benefits my state provides then why is it too much to expect them to contribute to the community that supports their profitability.

      Umm, when a coporation sets up an office in a tax haven, then pays taxes accordingly, they also "meet their obligation under law".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    137. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So is Soylent Green. What should that tell us?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    138. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      public infrastructure (the thing that once made America great).

      You're putting the cart before the horse. The wealth to make infrastructure comes from production, which is made possible by freedom and properly defined property rights. Freedom is poisoned by government power, and government power is made possible by taxation.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    139. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There's no such a thing as "fair share." Your fair share is whatever the tax law says it is.

      Completing the syllogism, thus there is no such thing as tax law

      Since there is tax law, we have a contradiction, and one of your assumptions must be false.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    140. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every last penny of income tax is passed on to me and you, the customers/consumers

      Price elasticity? What's that? Nevermind, prolly some unamerican concept..

    141. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why should anyone have to pay more tax than they're required to by law?

      Because the law is wrong?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    142. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Uh governments provide practically nothing. EVERY SINGLE THING that the gov't "does" comes straight out of you, me, everyone else's pocket.

      You're confusing doing and funding.

      Or did each and every American go out and lay down a couple of square yards of asphalt on the interstate highway system?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    143. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Furthermore, I can absolutely guarantee you that Apple are not the only company doing this, they're just the flavour of the month and they generate page views around here. s/Apple/Microsoft/g, s/Apple/IBM/g or s/Apple/Google/g or pretty well any other large company at all and the story will read the same.

      I can also assure slashdot that for every article which dares to be critical about Apple, at least one morally corrupted Apple fanboy comes out with the logical fallacy of pointing at Google/Samsung/MS/whoever, and saying it is therefore ok. Today, this is you.

    144. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The profits on that revenue are taxed in those places as a percentage of the revenue. If you have revenue of 20% in Great Britain, for instance, the Brits only tax that 20%.

      Wrong. If you don't believe me, ask Richard Branson.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    145. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      I thought the story was absurd until I read your comment. I thought your comment was absurd until I read the responses. I give up.

      Slashdot must avoid all stories about global finance. The only thing more moronic than the fact-free summaries are the knee jerk comments.

      The first thing most of you should remember is that Apple earns most of its income outside of the United States. Second, how many of you know wether 9.8% is a low, medium, or high level of corporate taxation for a global electronics maker? Third, do any of you bother to think before commenting (or apparently voting on stories).

      If you do think, here is the process. Read baseless story about Apple being bad. Think, "I hate Apple.". Write inane comment. Profit.

    146. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Thing is, Apple earns income all over. Not just here in the US and not in California.

    147. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Stewie241 · · Score: 2

      I don't know that I disagree with anything that you said. But I think you missed the point of what I was saying.

      Apple et al are companies that are about profit and making money. One of the side effects of these companies setting up shop in a town is there is some level of job creation and economic benefit. It is all about supply and demand, really. My main point was that taking away the possibility of tax incentives will not solve this problem because if competition is large enough and regions see it as being desirable enough they will come up with other ways to entice companies to set up shop in their area.

      I'm not in any way saying this is necessarily good or how it should be. I was just responding to the notion of not allow cities to offer tax incentives to big organizations as being a solution to this problem. I really don't think it is.

    148. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they have. The share price reflects the after-tax value of the corporation. Every shareholder is taxed at the corporate level. What's left over is distributed as dividends or retained as corporate assets. So as a shareholder, sooner or later, you are double taxed no matter what the corporation does - i.e., it distributes earnings as dividends, in which case you get hit a second time immediately, or it retains them on the corporate balance sheet, in which case you get hit when you sell the stock because its share price has increased to reflect the corporation's retained earnings.

      You may have a good idea to have corporate profits taxed as ordinary income at the individual level, if corporations withheld Federal and state income taxes for their shareholders, like employers do today. That would eliminate this whole class warfare thing that's going on these days, and Warren Buffett could stop whining that he's not paying enough.

    149. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      There are seminars accross the country packed with thousands of people every day. These people are learning how to try and do just that. Buying specific cars because they can still be deprecated. Putting their children on the payroll. Good times.

    150. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      I mentioned the seminars previously. Suffice to say there is a whole industry bent on making sure people know how to make everything a business expense.

    151. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement implies the corporations get taxed everywhere for their full revenue/earnings/gains. They don't.

      You are absolutely right that they don't for many countries, but the United States is an exception. Under US law, a US corporation is charged the corporate income tax on its full income, including overseas earnings, but then gets credits for foreign taxes paid (called foreign tax credit, and limited to the US tax liability, so effectively they pay the higher of the two tax rates). They also benefit from "tax deferral": a US corp is not required to pay taxes on foreign earnings until those earnings are "brought back" to the US (e.g. paid as dividends to US investors).

      Since the US marginal corporate income tax rate is 35%, US corps prefer to avoid bringing back those foreign earnings to invest in the US and instead they re-invest overseas, where the marginal rate lower. That is, regardless of how much US and foreign tax they ultimately currently pay, they'd prefer to earn their next dollar where it is taxed at 15-25% instead of 35%.

      By the way, if you're an American, you might like to know that there are ways to restructure the US tax system so that the overall tax revenue is unchanged, but US investment is not discouraged like this. A value-added tax (VAT), similar to a sales tax, would likely do the trick, but critics claim it is a regressive tax. A tax credit to the poorest individuals could help alleviate this concern.

    152. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do these 'good citizen's' pay more than required by law?
      Do you?

    153. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      In that case, the government should stop taxing me too, so I'd never complain about being taxed without representation.

    154. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post. I will just toss in one other item which the knee-jerkers really, really hate.

      Corporations can, to a certain extent, shift their tax liabilities across calendar years. Telling us how much they paid for last year is meaningless. We need to know how much they've paid in the past, and how much (if any) of their liability has been deferred for next year.

      But given that most of these people failed 9th grade math class, and think that a loan is the same as income, I can't say I'm too surprised.
      So to all the people who think Apple should pay more in taxes, try this. Give the IRS a call, and tell them you want to pay MORE than you are legally required to on your taxes. They'll tell you to Fuck Off. If you want to part from your money, give it to a charity or throw it in the street.

    155. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here is how to stop CEO and management from abusing it. If I were a CEO for a million dollar a year company that company could pay for housing, transportation, food, and entertainment all to keep me happy and working "hard." If it could do it tax free and spend less money on me in total then it would just leting me pay for my needs/wants, it would even make sense for investors. The real answer is to not give a shit about how much people make and tax people for buying and importing goods into the country. Want to not pay tax for your Ferrari then you can drive it in Bahamas only. No enjoying it on our roads. If some guy makes a bunch of money but keeps reinvesting it and lives moderately why should he pay huge tax dollars. Just tax the spending and importing it's much easier to define what your taxing. Because figuring out how much money you actually made is very difficult, was it those smooths at the gym that gave you the calm state of mind to work? If it was you could take off every smooth you drank since getting your job in theory.

      Obliviously, one could offer some sort of tax relief for people not making a lot money by having them send in receipts for a refund or a card they swipe at stores that removes the tax.

    156. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that the company is successful, what, they have no moral obligation to pay it fucking forward?

      Actually they only have a moral obligation to return profit to their shareholders.

    157. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Danathar · · Score: 1

      The question then becomes, what is "avoiding".

      Is avoiding using legal tax holes created by our elected officials? Or are you just saying you don't like the way the current tax law? Or both.

      To me "avoidance" would be not paying what you legally have to, instead of using what is legally available. You CAN argue that the current tax system allows for what you believe to be immoral and unfair if you want. Terms like "unfair" and "immoral", at least using the definition many people use which even if you use the dictionary is stretchable depending on who you talk to, is a difficult term to use in an argument that's convincing.

    158. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On one hand, I see your point. On the other hand, companies depend an awful lot on the rest of society for innumerable things (the legal system, for one, but even something as simple as roads for their employees to get to work). Any removal of taxation from corporations wouldn't decrease the costs to maintain any of these systems. It would inevitably mean that individual taxpayers would have to shoulder a greater proportion of the costs. It would be the biggest tax giveaway to corporate interests ever. I don't see why companies should get to reap their profits with no tax while all their employees pay more in taxes to offset the loss in revenue. It would be the biggest corporate tax giveaway ever.

      If you want the result to be that companies don't have the means to influence politics with their money, then why not ban political contributions by companies entirely? That any any other type of organization (e.g., unions). Crazy? Some democratic countries have done it. The problem with the USA is lack of political will to do so. Okay, and stupid arguments that it infringes on "free speech" (companies don't have human rights). Make a constitutional amendment if you have to. Get corporate and other organizational money out of politics and it will help with a lot of problems.

    159. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      Nope. The could certainly hold board meetings elsewhere. And, anybody, foreign or domestic, can own US patents.

    160. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by selven · · Score: 1

      It's not money per se, but the velocity of money, that moves the economy.

      The economy is not some beast that has to keep moving so that it doesn't die and if it moves faster that means we're generating more wealth and we're all happier and richer. That's completely missing the point. The function of the economy is to satisfy people's preferences. If people prefer to work more and consume more, then that's what will happen, and if people prefer to work less and lead simple lives then that's what will happen in that case. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad about either. And in the long run what satisfies people's preferences the most is capital accumulation. You have all the wealth that you have right now not because people are moving cash around really quickly and consuming a lot but because a whole bunch of people over the past ten thousand years decided that rather than producing to consume the whole product immediately they would produce things like factories, infrastructure and research for future benefit - they decided to _produce more than they consume and save the difference_. Human society is a fat cat that has been getting fatter since the dawn of civilization and you can thank that for cheap food, infrastructure, medicine and the computer you wrote your post on.

    161. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      So, change the tax code, and watch what happens.

    162. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean it's also absolutely morally OK to avoid paying tips when eating at a restaurant?

    163. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. The US people, through their elected representatives, have decided what the tax code is. Along the way, there were horse-trade made: "Well, I don't want X taxed, and you don't want Y taxed, so let's tax neither," "We want to encourage people to do Z, so let's not tax it," etc. . . It is absolutely moral to pay exactly what the country has agreed is appropriate.

      Now, it may be that there's a consensus on changing the law. If so, exercise that consensus and change the law. If your congressman stands in the way, you're in luck -- it's an election year.

    164. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So people who own shares of corporations have the right to be heard twice - once as individuals and once as members of a group? Whereas people who are not shareholders can only be heard once - as individuals?

      Bah, I say. We are a nation of individuals. Eliminate double taxation (tax corporate profits as ordinary income at the level of the individual shareholder) and eliminate corporate political speech. And union political speech. And PACs. Push influence over our politicians back down where it belongs - to the individual.

      (Yes, I do write the President and my Congress critters when I feel strongly about an issue. I hear back from only one - my Senator, Scott Brown. His responses even address my concerns, rather than dodging the issue as so many politicians prefer to do. The others? Silence. They are too busy listening to the lobbyists.)

    165. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by swalve · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't that companies are taking the incentives, it is that governments are allowed to give them. (Slightly circular, I know.) But it leads to big companies extracting tax breaks from governments because they have the bargaining power. "Hey, we'll go to Nevada if you don't cut our taxes." Meanwhile, smaller businesses are stuck paying full freight. My condo association is prohibited from giving people discounts like this, why shouldn't my government?

    166. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      A government subsiding on low income would be limited in the damage it could do, further helping its reputation.

      The good it could do would also be limited. Even Hong Kong and Singapore tax rates aren't that low (I doubt those oil nations can sustain their low tax rates when they run out of oil). Is the USA really rich enough to do run an effective Government on 2% tax? What sort of Government or country do you expect to get? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

      Are you one of those libertarians who foolishly keep obsessing over quantity instead of quality?

      As someone here already said:

      Libertarians seem to believe that the US has become a corporate dictatorship so as a solution they want to remove the middle man and go straight to a corporate dictatorship.

      Because a corporate dictatorship is what you'd get if your "2%" Government is too feeble to regulate the corporations. A weak Gov might say to the Corporations "Stop that or else", and the Corporations could ask "who is going to make us? You and WHAT army?".

      Apple and gang won't hold elections every few years to let the pesky US voters decide who gets to be the bosses.

      --
    167. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by swalve · · Score: 1

      The US GDP is something like $14 trillion. The 2011 Fed budget is something like $3.5 T. A 2% tax rate might be nice, but it won't pay the bills.

    168. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      No, most corporations are small shops owned by one or two people who actually do a lot of the work. They're totally different and should be taxed totally differently than public corporations that are owned mostly by people who are not in any way involved in the work the company does.

    169. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by webdog314 · · Score: 1

      Corporations aren't "moral" or "immoral". They are machines for profit. Always. This is why Citizens United was such an outrageous mistake. We gave corporations all the protections and benefits of "people", without the moral regulation that usually comes with them. Corporations like Apple are only doing what corporations do. It's a little like bringing a wild animal into your home and then being angry at them when they bite you. Is biting you wrong? Sure, but that's what wild animals do.

    170. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Prior to the invention of corporations people like Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan formed limited partnerships (US Steel) and trusts (Standard Oil) to do business.

      The right to freely associate has nothing to do with the formation of modern corporations. It is a 20th century legal fiction created by the states looking to gain fees associated with the charter process.

      The current 'personhood' rights of corporations is due to the current Supreme Court interpretation of the word 'person' in the 14th amendment. It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

    171. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is no way someone honest can be rich. Or that someone can become rich because of hard work. Because if you somehow have less, it's never your fault, is it? It's always someone else's. No one forces you to live in capitalism, no one forces you to be a part of what you call "twisted society". But it's funny how you spew your little rant over giant multi-billion technology infrastructure that probably woudn't exist if not for those "parasites" you hate. Hypocrisy much?

      Sure, an honest person can be rich. And an honest person can become rich in part because of his or her own hard work. But you can't become rich only because of your own hard work. You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.

      And that person, whether honest or dishonest, gets benefit from the government in proportion to the size of his operations. Everything relies on public infrastructures that have to be paid for, whether it's a rich dude sitting alone in his mansion on his private estate or a multi-billion dollar technology company
      sitting on its many corporate holdings.

    172. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While I agree that a group of people who come together for an expressed purpose should have the same rights as any individual person where expression is concerned. Corporations are not organizations such as that. I work for a corporation and it's run by a variety of individuals that hold political views that do not match those belonging to the majority of those that they employ (right wing state, liberal field.) The corporation's money comes about largely through the work preformed by the employees, so it would be wrong for the corporation to use that money to express a view for us all on our behalf that is contrary to our individual views, which often vary greatly.

    173. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that a corporation, unlike a massive grassroots protest, is largely controlled by the wealthy, and will be used in most instances to further the goals of those at the top, rather than the group as a whole. This give the impression that a company's entire workforce (10,000 people) is pushing for something, when in reality it's the C-level executives and the board (30 people) who are the ones benefiting from it. There are sure to be instances where what the 30 are pushing for is a boon to the entire company, but there's also the likelihood that a significant portion of stances taken "as a corporation" will be done in the advancement of only the 30.

    174. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to be angry at individuals and companies doing what they legally can to avoid taxation above and beyond what they're required to pay.

      Oh yes, yes there is. Being a slashdot member I'm sure you're aware of the alignment called lawful evil,correct? That alignment describes a number of these companies. They either have bought and paid for the laws they're following, or they follow the letter of the law and not the intent. It's amazing what you can get away with if you have enough money.

      But the real beauty of being lawful evil is that by law you're not doing anything illegal or wrong. Sure, you could be taking actions that will trigger a world-wide economic collapse. Sure, you're company could be dumping metric tons of toxic pollution in some third world backwater. But as long as you are operating within the law, you're right as rain.

      Being moral and being lawful are not the same thing. But who honestly expects morality from entities that exist solely to maximize profits?

      --
      ~X~
    175. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by swalve · · Score: 1

      There were some stories where businesses in Chicago, even small businesses, were "moving" their headquarters to Kankakee (less than an hour's drive) post office boxes and funneling all their sales through there, paying the much lower Kankakee city and county sales taxes. Same game.

    176. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by swalve · · Score: 2

      In terms of taxes, "tax avoidance" is figuring out legal ways to pay less tax. "Tax evasion" is doing so in illegal ways. The terms become less clear when you look at things like using your power and influence to change the laws to make something that used to be evasion mere avoidance.

    177. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is an appeal to law fallacy. The morality of something has nothing to do with the legality of something. A law-abiding citizen can be utterly unethical. So yes, it IS a straw man used to mask a failure to address the ethical question at hand.

    178. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the USA really rich enough to do run an effective Government on 2% tax? What sort of Government or country do you expect to get?

      You get what you pay for. What I'd like to see is government having to make the case to the public to fund initiatives because they can't just take the money. Maybe some sort of "stock exchange" for public programs where people can put their dollars into what they value most.

      Ideally, the people would 1) choose how much tax they want to pay and then 2) what to spend it on.

      That's the opposite of the situation we currently have, where the government decides what to spend money on, then tells the public how much tax they have to pay--and it doesn't even cover the expenditures.

    179. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot.

    180. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by rev0lt · · Score: 0

      But you can't become rich only because of your own hard work. You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.

      I'm shure you know this by your experience in trying to be rich. So, what you say is there is no way a company will pay fair salaries AND be profitable. I don't really know what else to say to you, we don't live on the same universe.

      And that person, whether honest or dishonest, gets benefit from the government in proportion to the size of his operations.

      As everyone else. Why should A pay, lets say, 20% of their income, and B pay 40%?

      Everything relies on public infrastructures that have to be paid for, whether it's a rich dude sitting alone in his mansion on his private estate or a multi-billion dollar technology company

      Where did you read otherwise? I could argue that most of those structures aren't really public in many countries, or that you are already paying the structures when you use them (tolls, fuel taxes, environment taxes, utilities, etc). Have you ever seen a cable provider bill by customer income? Of course not - and there are even laws in some countries against it. Everyone pays the same for the same service, why taxation doesn't use the same method? I actually know why - because the top 5% or 10% of "rich people" actually pay >60% of everything "public". The value, of course, varies from country to country, but the result is the same - "the parasites" as you called it are the ones that allow the government to keep the lights on.

    181. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by arisvega · · Score: 1

      Personally though I don't think corps should be taxed at all [..] The income to individuals from corps would then be taxable as ordinary income ..

      In principle this does not sound like a bad idea, but there is a number of ways by which it can be abused (read: sidestepping away from payment).

      Consider this (which already happens a lot): everything that would 'matter' in a taxing scenario that you propose, could be logged as 'a corporate expense'- car, travelling, 'per diem' allowance or even a house can be provided by the company. Since technical ownership would remain in the company and enjoy a tax-free status, the employee (or even the boss or whatever 'golden boys' are involved) could roam about living like kings, ripping all the benifits and paying zero tax -or even getting tax returns- since, technically, they wouldn't own anything.

      In such a scenario, what is supposed to (or what it should) be the prime reasoning behind the concept of taxation is being violated, since taxing will not reflect the level of consumption of goods and use of services rendered for said bodies.

      For a car analogy, in Scandinavia where taxes are generally seen as 'severe', cumulative costs for car ownership typically are of the order of $30 - $50 per day, excluding the already elevated sales tax that burdens the end customer. One can still acquire a corporate car, with its corporate status reflected on its conspicuous yellow licence plates. Though those cars are dirt cheap compared to the private ones, the rules for them are pretty strict: they are to be used only for specific purposes, no more than 2 people allowed on board etc. Point being that the letter of the law is there, and is very descriptive in order to cover loopholes, but most importantly it is being enforced.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    182. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by swalve · · Score: 1

      1) Married people filing jointly pay a lower rate, but by combining two single earners into one entity, the new entity (in theory) doubles its income, so it's a wash.

      2) As for the second question, neither is particularly fair. No taxation system is going to be fair- someone, somewhere, is going to be able to say "I'm getting screwed" by even the most fair of systems. Why do I, a single male with no dependents, pay more in taxes for the same income than someone with lots of kids? Their kids are sucking up more resources from the government, they should pay more. But I don't have all those mouths to feed, so *I* should pay more.

      The real answer is that corporations should no more have to pay income taxes on money they use to cover expenses than should an individual have to. Which is kind of how it works now, if you look at the progressive taxation system from another perspective: that the income tax rate IS 35%, and you get discounts (the lower brackets) for money used to pay living expenses. But it sure doesn't seem like that when lower income families are paying 10-25% of their incomes, and never actually profiting from anything.

      To really be fair, as I see it, the feds would need to enact something more like Herman Cain's 999 plan. (No, I'm not crazy.) Obviously, his system was terrible. But the corporate income tax is terribly inefficient, and obviously not an effective way to fund government. So, you kill than and enact a sales tax system that skims a low percentage off most transactions. That covers the "everyone should pay their fair share" aspect of taxation. Then you change the income tax to have a much higher standard deduction (like, at least the poverty rate) and eliminate the distinction between capital gains and work income. You change [something] in order to eliminate the ability of people to funnel their personal income through a corporation to avoid taxes. I'm not entirely sure how you'd do that. Maybe that's where a VAT would be useful- money can only flow out of a corp in one of three ways- as salary, taxes paid by the individual, as dividends; taxes paid by the recipients; or a "other" with a VAT attached.

    183. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are cherry picking numbers. Married couples pay at a much lower tax rate. Worldwide?

      I chose married couple because your example was "average US household" - you are the one who chose that. You were wrong.

      When did that excuse Apple for shirking tax responsiblilty here at home? The corporate tax rate in the US is 35% at that income level.

      Anyone in the IRS will tell you that you need to pay the taxes you are legally obligated to pay. I pay much higher taxes than someone with a house and kids - do I get to decide that they are shirking their tax responsibility by taking those deductions? (Sweet!)

      It's a legitimate question. Do you really think Apple should pay less than 10% in federal taxes on $34,000,000,000 in profits while someone struggling to get by on $50,000 pays 25%?

      And AGAIN from the NYT article:
      "In Apple’s last annual disclosure, the company listed its worldwide taxes — which includes cash taxes paid as well as deferred taxes and other charges — at $8.3 billion, an effective tax rate of almost a quarter of profits. "

      If you think the 10-K is false, file a complaint with the SEC.

      Couple items to think about:
      Apple pays a much higher tax rate than Cisco, Google, etc. Why the emphasis on Apple?

      Even Obama has said that a tax rate of 35% is ridiculous and should be reformed so that companies don't have to spend millions to get a reasonable tax rate.

        In general, if every company has a X% tax rate, that just means prices eventually go up X% to the consumer. It is a way to tax the consumer without being obvious about it.

    184. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by snakeplissken · · Score: 1

      Resulting in my having to choose between leaving my employer or have it speak on my behalf politically saying things i don't believe. After all the political speech that the "Screw Government Organization" makes is known beforehand to all members and is the reason the members became such. The political speech my employer makes is chosen by the ceo and I am not consulted. The ceo gets two politcal speech avenues to my one, his or her personal activities just as I have, and also the activities of the corporation, which just so happen to coincide with the interests of the ceo, and not only that but come with added money attached, which I do not have. In the end your "Screw Government Organization" equates to a political party, clearly a corporation as it is usually understood to be nominally doesn't.

      snake

    185. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to butcher the quotes, but it's just to get the point across

      GP: Corporations are paying what they are obliged to, under the law.
      P: No it is not!

      Oversimplification I know, but the basic point you are making is that this action is not legal, correct? OK.

      Now that the knowledge is out that it is happening, by publication no less, what's the problem?
      The government now knows about these illegal and likely criminal being tax related activities.

      Now that it is known, they will be punished for breaking the law. Problem solved.
      So no need to get emotional over it. Criminals that can not hide their activities will be caught and punished. Same with all the other companies the GP claimed are doing this.

      I am no expert in tax law. Hell I try to avoid tax law and taxes whenever possible!
      But if you are right, then they will be punished. If the GP is right, then they will keep on doing it because it is not illegal, and we will hear another one of these stories next year just like we have every single year since Slashdot started, right?

    186. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2

      It has also been a long time since the board (which is supposed to represent the shareholders) has worked properly. Boards are just a bunch of mutual entanglements that pay the members green fees for the most part. I'll get the CEO of our biggest partner to site on our board. Wow and you'll be sure to get an objective opinion of what business the company should pursue too right?

      Next up: the vast majority of shareholder votes are not being used by the shareholders they are the institutional investors (mutual funds, ETFs, pensions etc) voting on behalf of the true shareholders. The large->majority of people that own a piece of a company have no idea who is on the board, what they do etc. Even when you do know that their is a decision going on it is usually to late to do anything other than penalize them after the fact. If your company pisses away 20M on a candidates PAC that you don't like (or just don't like the political activism in the corporate space as a matter of principle) too bad, it has already been done if you don't like it sell your shares, but your share of the 20M has already been spent.

      The previous poster is right the concept of personhood of a corporation is ridiculous and a stretch of the 14th amendment. People do form associations but that doesn't mean that everything that a group believes becomes a virtual person. Pick any topic and there will be a significant portion of the stakeholders that think differently. Companies piss away investors money on whatever pet project they chose and then hide behind a individuals right to free speech. It is ridiculous.

    187. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      A lot of companies? I think most companies. No one will renew bonds to someone that doesn't have any revenue. No one will keep their money invested in a company with no chance of a return for at least 2 years. Some people do invest long term but they still expect there to be at least some chance of making money in the next couple. CEOs and execs with compensation tied to performance would just leave. Some of them would be responsible sure, but it would be hard to make the case to blame the head of HR for the head of manufacturing deciding to "just poor that down the drain". But their compensation and job security would be out the window.

      I think there should be individual liability as much as possible. Find the manager or employee that came up with the dumb idea and throw them in jail. Fine the company if they knowingly let it happen but if they didn't know company level fines aren't really fair.

    188. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      That Charles Heston is an evil greedy corporate monster?

    189. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      But you can't become rich only because of your own hard work. You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.

      I'm shure you know this by your experience in trying to be rich. So, what you say is there is no way a company will pay fair salaries AND be profitable. I don't really know what else to say to you, we don't live on the same universe.

      Don't put YOUR words in my mouth. That may be acceptable in YOUR universe but it's not in mine. I never said a company can't pay fair salaries and be profitable. I said you can't get rich unless you pay people less then the value of their work. If that's not obvious to you, let me illustrate: If I own a ShavanoMart and I employ you, you contribute X dollars to my bottom line. If I pay you X dollars, I'd be just as well off if I didn't employ you at all. The agreement you and I make about your wages and working conditions may or may not be fair. (It's fair if you are free to not accept my offer but do it anyway.) If you're not free to reject my offer, I can get you to work at an exploitative wage.

      And that person, whether honest or dishonest, gets benefit from the government in proportion to the size of his operations.

      As everyone else. Why should A pay, lets say, 20% of their income, and B pay 40%?

      That doesn't happen in America Here, almost everybody pays close to the same fraction of their income in taxes. The top 10% pay about 48% of the total taxes and they get about 45% of total income. To me, that seems pretty fair.

      source: http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php

    190. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by J.+T.+MacLeod · · Score: 1

      Can it really be called "fat cats getting fatter" when they are stacking cash up and not paying it to individuals? If it is a business saving cash, that value is actually being used (giving the company liquidity and leverage to do business or STAY in business) or will be used. Both of which are typically good for the economy.

      Of course, when taxing corporations is the method to raise funds for the states, people have no idea how much tax they're really paying since it's hidden in the cost of what they buy.

    191. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Yes. Look it up. Too much savings (in non-investment instruments) is BAD for economy. It's counterintuitive but true.

    192. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they only have a moral obligation to return profit to their shareholders.

      This is like saying I only have a moral obligation to feed my kids.

    193. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that the Google assholes do exactly the same, right? Yet there are always plenty of fanbois ready to defend them, even if what they do is obviously wrong.

      --
      Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)

    194. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      It entirely depends on the context (country/cultural conventions, type of restaurant, quality of service, etc). Anyway, it's a false analogy, and anyone could just as easily come up with other false analogies to support the position.

      Is it morally ok to count cards in your head when playing blackjack in a casino, or bluff your opponent when playing poker? Or even, is it morally ok for the employees of a corporation pay more taxes (and thus reduce income) than necessary when the primary goal of a corporation is to maximize return for it's shareholders? Go ahead and debate these, but it's irrelevant because they aren't what we are talking about.

      The context for income tax payment is that the government has enacted literally thousands of laws explaining how you should calculate your taxes, and really left it up to the taxpayer to figure out how to sort though that giant pile of crap to pay exactly what is legally required. No more, no less, and I don't see how morality enters into it.

    195. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      That's a reasonable argument. On the other hand, business seems to be going global. And there is going to come a point were you can't legislate whatever jurisdiction you are competing against because it falls outside the scope over which you can create rules (i.e. out of state, out of country, out of trade area).

      I don't know if there is a solution to that or not.

    196. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you just mentioned is an expense and therefore would not create a tax liability. Those productive staff could work for a company located in the USA with US staff that merely bills the cost to Apple incorporated in another country. The USA division could barely run a profit and barely pay any tax. Therefore you should not be modded insightful.

      Yes I'm an AC and my point stands nevertheless.

    197. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations get political speech because their owners are citizens who get to have political speech. The corporation is just the vehicle for doing it. A vehicle for conducting affairs as a group is behind all the "corporate personhood" legal fictions, and the Supreme Court recognized that all the way back in Dartmouth v Woodard (when the state tried to seize Dartmouth College and appoint their own chancellor).

      I continue to maintain that the answer to "bad" speech is more speech, not banning the "evil" (read: Republican) corporations from campaigning.

    198. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ofcourse if the company did not know about it and it was an individual that did it then that individual would be charged for the crime... But all to often these things are known at the top, and they just ignore it because it would cost them money to do anything with it...
      Ie.. If an employee simply ignores the safety-regulations he should be held responsible.. If the CEO knows that the employees cannot follow the safety-regulations or he makes it impossible for them to be followed, like not approving things required for it, then the company should be held responsible...

      First page of a search returned for example : http://tokillcancer.com/art.php?id=50426

      All this would do is weed out all the bad companies out there... Those that are already doing bad stuff... And for people that don't want to keep their money in a company like that maybe then just freeze all trade for that company..

      The point i'm trying to make is... Making the companies more responsible for their actions will stop most of them from doing it... If there is a risk that a substance causes cancer they will do what they can to switch it out as soon as possible.. If there are a chance that people can be hurt/killed in the workplace they will try and prevent it to a higher degree than today..

    199. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Please elaborate on the misinformation. And as far as hate goes something tells me that if this was a critique of MS you would have accused me of being too nice. The plain fact is that Apple has created one of the most restrictive and closed technology platforms today and the Apple fan boys have been cheering them on every step of the way. I don't personalize software companies so any "hate" is not directed at the company providing the technology. Instead I have found it easier to base my technology choices, both personal and professional, on whether the choice serves the particular need I have at the time. After 27 years of experience therre is hardly a single computer technology I have not either used or developed for so I have no patience for morons who rally around a particular technology just because it's cool or trendy at the moment.

    200. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      many companies pick up and move all their people to a cheaper part of the US or worse, move all operations overseas, bringing only the best and brightest and outsourcing the rest.

      If you seriously think Apple could do this without sacrificing their success, you're mistaken. Apple operates in California because it makes good business sense, not because they're somehow "better" than their competitors. Good talent has a lot of leverage in a labor market, and Apple employs a lot of good talent. To think the talent they depend on will just follow them wherever they set up a cubicle sweatshop is really naive.

      It's not to say that good talent doesn't come from poorer places in the US or overseas, but that given the opportunity good talent will choose a better standard of living than that offered in the depressed labor markets you're talking about.

    201. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The government works for you. You elect the guys to run it, you provide resources (tax) and they do stuff on your behalf. At least that it is how it is supposed to work, your government seems to be working for corporations who don't pay any tax.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    202. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      I don't know if there is a solution to that or not.

      Sure there is, deny them the right to peddle their wares here. Apple wants to pull up the tent stakes and move to a tax haven like Somalia? Fine, we'll just tax your products at 100% and use the proceeds to fund businesses that hire locally and pay their taxes.

      Believe it or not, this country would survive just fine if every iDevice disappeared off store shelves tomorrow. There are other companies manufacturing tablets, MP3 players, cell phones, and computers. With the size of our consumer market (still the largest in the world), a company like Apple would never in a million years dare to write us off, and I think people forget that. They're not going to torpedo the billions in revenue they earn here. The fallout among consumers if Apple really did decide to fire all it's U.S. employees in retaliation would be extraordinary. There would be mass boycotts overnight, and their market valuation would plummet.

      Somewhere over the last 30 years we got it into our collective heads that these corporations own us and that we depend on them for our continued existence. Bullshit on that. They depend on us for their continued existence. Our consumer market is a bargaining chip that our government is either too chickenshit to invoke or too corrupt. None of these companies would dare pull out of our market completely, and even if by some miracle they found the balls to try, there would be another company right behind them that wouldn't.

    203. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hmm... When I ran my business savings was critical. It allowed me to purchase new lathes and mills and other tools to get the business growing faster, and I made a nice net profit when I sold it several years later (mainly because it was a fully-equipped manufacturing facility without any debt or lease payments). But I know, it's better to spend what you don't have than use what you do - it's the American Way!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    204. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by mxharlow · · Score: 1

      To clarify for the /dot community... For the purposes of income tax in the United States, corporations are people. They are more then just comprised of people; they are considered to be "person". Congress wrote it into the Internal Revenue Code that the definition of "person" included corporations. It also includes Partnerships, Trusts, Estates and a host of other entity types. See IRS Sec. 7701(a)(1).

    205. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by mxharlow · · Score: 1

      "...companies simply make sure they pay out all the money they make as wages, and presto: no tax liability because they made no profit."

      No income tax liability! You trade the income tax for the payroll tax.

    206. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by slowLearner · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_tax
      I could be wrong but I believe that the US position on Corporation tax is that the tax is being applied for the privilege of operating a corporation and that it would be illegal to apply a tax on profits otherwise. (IANAL)

      That said, even if you are correct and it is a basic right then surely with rights come responsibilities and one of the responsibilities of "doing" a business is to pay appropriate tax on any profits gained and to not evade taxation. The result of tax evasion is sometimes a fine and sometimes a custodial sentence, but I am pretty sure the Tax dude will have the power to stop a company from trading if it can be proved that the company evaded taxes.

    207. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by mxharlow · · Score: 1

      ... It is *possible* for companies as large as Apple to commit tax avoidance under the law. That does not make it legal.

      Ah, but it doesn't make it illegal. I think you are confusing tax avoidance with tax evasion.

    208. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by mxharlow · · Score: 1

      Yes! That is precisely correct. I have seen that confusion more than once here. It's more than semantics. The two are very different, legally speaking.

    209. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by mxharlow · · Score: 1
      The tax laws are complex and inaccuracies arrise when we generalize.

      Companies can deduct any "operating expense".

      This is certainly not the case as any qualified tax profesional will tell you. Business are generally allowed a deduction for "ordinary and necessary" expenses incurred in the pursuit of earning a profit. Not just any "operating expense" will do.

      People cannot (the most obvious ones being food, shelter and transport.

      Again, you have to be careful with these sweeping statements. In Massachusetts you can deduct two of the three!

    210. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calif. best reduce taxes to compete.

    211. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      This is certainly not the case as any qualified tax profesional will tell you. Business are generally allowed a deduction for "ordinary and necessary" expenses incurred in the pursuit of earning a profit. Not just any "operating expense" will do.

      Any "qualified tax professional" will also be able to make pretty much any cost from a CEO's car park to flying their family to Europe for a holiday as an "ordinary and necessary" business expense.

      Again, you have to be careful with these sweeping statements. In Massachusetts you can deduct two of the three!

      Really ? Any person, regardless of who they are or what they're doing, can tax-deduct (and carry forward losses) all expenses related to whichever two it is of food, shelter and transport ? Colour me sceptical.

      Even if it is true, it merely drives home the point. It's trivial for businesses to arrange their affairs to take advantage of localised tax concessions, yet nearly impossible for individuals to do the same.

    212. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by MF4218 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure lower tax levels have never garnered more respect for a Government.
      Nobody respects a girl just because it takes less effort to get her to sleep with you.

    213. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      They were critical for YOU. Sure. However, you might note that you had your business because you had customers. Who, you know, _spend_ money. Imagine that all your customers suddenly decided to stop spending on non-essential goods. As a result your company would go down quite soon. We're seeing exactly this behavior in Europe - consumers were forced (by austerity measures or by cutting credit) to spend less. And lo and behold! Europe's economy double-dipped into recession. Now, _some_ savings are OK and in fact are essential for the economy because they provide a safety blanket of liquidity.

    214. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      I never said a company can't pay fair salaries and be profitable.

      Whell, you said "You also have to take advantage of the hard work of others, pay them less than the value of their labor so you can skim off a portion of that value for yourself.", so it will get you to the same point - according to you,there is no way someone gets rich honestly.

      I said you can't get rich unless you pay people less then the value of their work.

      The value of a transformed/created product is not the sum of the value of the collective work necessary to do it. And in the cases where you pay less than the potential value of their work, there are always the perks of job stability - said person is free to go and create her own business and potentially, in time, become rich.

      That doesn't happen in America [ctj.org] Here, almost everybody pays close to the same fraction of their income in taxes. The top 10% pay about 48% of the total taxes and they get about 45% of total income. To me, that seems pretty fair.

      I wasn't mentioning a specific country, but in USA you do have taxation indexed on income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2012_income_brackets_and_tax_rates

    215. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      In the US, small business is THE engine that drives things. It's something like 20:1, small business to big business, in terms of new net jobs creation. And small, new businesses rarely can get enough credit to make major purchases - savings from cashflow was really the only option available.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    216. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It is immoral to avoid taxation if you bribe congressmen to get those loopholes created.

      - absolutely not.

      It is absolutely moral to avoid taxation by bribing WHOEVER it takes IF there are people that you can bribe to achieve this goal.

      That's the problem in the first place - you have people in positions of power who can make decisions on income/payroll/corporate/capital gains/dividend/other forms of income taxes, none of these taxes should exist, they are immoral.

      That's right - taxing people's WORK is IMMORAL.

      Taxing people's LIFE is IMMORAL.

      Taxing people for doing work is immoral.

    217. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As an individual, when I buy things, I directly fund companies,

      - wrong, you do not fund companies by buying something, you participate in equitable trade when you MAKE something.

      That's why Fed printing fake money and giving it out is wrong - they don't produce anything of value for the money they give out, so this money is pure theft.

      That's why taxing one person's work and giving subsidies to another is doubly wrong:
      1. It takes away capital from somebody who actually MADE it.
      2. It gives this capital to somebody who DID NOT work.
      3. It allows the person who didn't work and didn't produce anything to take away from those who produced something and do it with their own money too.

    218. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a natural right. All rights are dependent on the society you live in, which is another way of saying they are granted by that society,. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were completely irrelevant in 1930s Germany, 1970s Cambodia or 1990s Rwanda..

      The concept of natural rights is a quasi-religious declaration of faith.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    219. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No, limited liability corporations were invented in order to promote free enterprise, on the reasoning that if you limited the liability of investors to what they put in, they would be more likely to invest and thus provide liquidity to the system. In the UK at least the fees involved with incorporation are pretty trivial.

      Prior to that, businesses were set up like Lloyds of London, where a name could make lots of money, but also lose everything. And most people don't actually enjoy betting their house, pension, savings and children's future on an investment.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    220. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Your objection, of course, is perfectly valid. But there's an overriding issue: overall taxes are too high. If overall taxes were, say, 2%, it wouldn't be worth much effort to dodge the taxes. Further, low tax levels would provide the government with more respect, and tax dodgers would be disrespected by almost everyone. A government subsiding on low income would be limited in the damage it could do, further helping its reputation.

      Yes, if overall taxes were, say, 2% you would be most of the way towards the libertarian dream of all power being concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, forever, as even the military wouldn't be that big compared to the security services available to the rich.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    221. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by hackula · · Score: 1

      ...to commit tax avoidance under the law. That does not make it legal.

      The phrase "under the law" means it is legal. Clearly it should not be, but I am not seeing anything illegal here.

    222. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's simply more practical to deal with a single entity rather than lots of individuals.

      Obligatory car analogy: which is easier to carry, a hundred separate beans or one can?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    223. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by hackula · · Score: 1

      Why should having a some mass produced college degree entitle anyone to such grossly higher pay?

      I could not agree more. If the pay was reversed and my cushy desk job paid minimum wage and the job digging ditches paid 6 figures, I still would not switch. Sure, cerebral jobs have their own stresses, but menial jobs are hell (I have worked plenty of them in the past and you could not pay me enough to go back). I'm not complaining, and I understand why it is the way it is (finding someone to run a company, perform complex data analysis, or program a stock predictor is a lot more difficult than someone who can say hello to people at the front of a Walmart), but I feel like if everyone was on equal footing (skill, opportunity, etc.) and we had to price jobs according to difficulty, the entire pay scale would be turned on its head. CEOs would make nothing, because they just fly around, eat fancy food, and yell at people all day. Who wouldn't give up their riches to do that? It would be awesome! Being the guy who does nothing but stocks the frozen section at a grocery store from 12am to 9am? (I did it. It was terrible. Think monotonous loneliness combined with continual frostbite) Um sorry, but to get me to do that as a career it better pay a metric shit ton of cash. Coal miners should be paid an outrageous amount of money. So should strawberry pickers, telemarketers, and secretaries. I propose we adopt a model like this; we can call it the "fear factor model". You are compensated based on your willingness to do monotonous, disgusting, demeaning, or all-around shitty jobs.

    224. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by hackula · · Score: 1

      The old "if we don't pay what we want we will leave" argument. If they are not prepared to pay the appropriate taxes for the privilege of doing business in your country then why let them? This goes for Micro$oft and General Electric too!

      Good riddance!

    225. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. Yes, individual savings are OK and are essential. But if _everyone_ starts saving a bigger part of their income than usual instead of using it, then EVERYONE suffers. That's what essentially is happening in the current Great Recession. And it actually hits the small businesses the worst because they usually depend on continuous stream on consumers.

    226. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by sjames · · Score: 1

      You are conflating the existence of a right with respect for that right. A legitimate government always respects natural rights. The government of 1930s Germany did not respect those rights and so it was not a legitimate government. Same for your other examples.

      Have a look Here.

    227. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good citizens pay their fair share, so it must be asked: why does Apple hate America?

      Please define "Fair share".

    228. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That is true enough, so I would propose that the corporation be dealt with collectively and as if it's only rights are the effective rights that derive strictly from the individual rights of it's owners. One good rule of thumb is that rights transmit from individuals to the collective back along the path of liability.

    229. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good citizens pay their fair share, so it must be asked: why does Apple hate America?

      I have a feeling the millions (billions) that Apple pays for property taxes, sales taxes when they buy stuff and payroll taxes that they pay plenty. Just because they LEGALLY avoided state taxes in California does not mean they don't pay elsewhere.

    230. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxing corporations is important for two reasons. The first obvious reason is that it raises revenue for the state. The second is that if you tax corporate income, then it is in the corporation's best interest to minimize income - i.e. to not pile up wads of cash as Apple is currently doing. It's not money per se, but the velocity of money, that moves the economy. Fat cats getting fatter is bad economics - unless you're the fat cat or one of their apologists of course.

      Did you ever study economics? Why should they try to MINIMIZE income? Apple does not have stacks of bills sitting in vaults. It is invested through out the world where it helps to boost economies both local and internationally.

    231. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in the corporations best interest to minimize taxes. If you potentially owe the Fed $1 million, it makes a lot of sense to hire $400/hour attorneys to figure out the loopholes, not to mention $1000 lobbyists to create the loopholes in the first place. This is how they sell their services to companies like Apple: a simple cost/benefit analysis.

      If instead of spending that money on deadweight losses trying to avoid Uncle Sam, what would happen if there were no corporate taxes?

      1. A lot of lawyers and lobbyists would have to look elsewhere for work.
      2. Cash that would normally be spent minimizing tax burden would go to investments and/or paid out as dividendes
      3. If paid out as dividends, the investors would pay taxes on them.
      4. And since the dividends would be spread among thousands of shareholders instead of a single corporate entity, individual shareholders would have lower incentive to pay lawyers and lobbyists to change the laws in their favor.

    232. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by JBaustian · · Score: 2

      The New York Times story has already been debunked. The taxes it paid in 2011 were on income earned in 2010. Since it's income has doubled, roughly, the actual tax paid was more than 20% of 2010 income.

      As for the NY Times, every day it becomes a parody, a cross between The Nation and The Onion. No matter what the subject -- fashion, autos, technology, music, films, etc. -- one must always ask "what is the political agenda of this story?"

    233. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their fair share as determined by who? F*cking self serving vote buying politicians whose power is based on the votes they buy using largess they hand out from taxes they extract? A vicious circle jerk with the taxpayers always being the bleeding loser?

      Most of us (who pay taxes at all) are paying too much as it is. Bravo Apple for using all legal means to minimize the bloodsucking, just like so many of us search for each and every deduction and exemption to keep more of what WE earned out of the greedy grasping claws of the government.

      Fair share? My fair share is determine by the needs of the government to do exactly and only what it was founded to do. Not employ vast swarms of bureaucrats and toadies, over-subsidize massive greedy "public sector" unions (which return the favor with votes and campaign cash) and endlessly grow a dependent welfare state of reliable voters that dwarfs other expenditures almost into meaninglessness.

    234. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are conflating the existence of a right with respect for that right

      And you are conflating a theory about the universe with the truth, in a matter humanity has struggled about for thousands of years.

      Natural rights is, as in the first line of your link, a theory. It is a belief; an interpretation of the world.

      The GP and others may have a different view of the world (even if it may not be the most popular), and thus they disagree, and see the same events (the examples GP listed) differently.

    235. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The middle class does not pay taxes because they don't make enough income to pay federal taxes!!!
      Taxing corp is necessary, as a society we all have to pay for things we use, ex.. fire, police, roads, highways, our infrastructure as a whole.
      Corporations are not human beings, they are not living breathing.. they can't vote as a individual.

    236. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by toriver · · Score: 1

      Sure.
      - Not an american company: Why not, they employ 13,000 in California alone, plus many other locations in America. Yes, they do have foreign employees as well, but most large U.S. companies with an international market do.
      - It's not control fetish that dictates prices, customers are free to choose competing products, but people elect to buy Apple's good of their own free will.
      - Monopolize foreign manufacturing: In the sense that they make large orders well in advance and pay better than their competitors which try to make products "just in time". You snooze, you lose - business is not kum-ba-ya-land.
      - App store control: Yes, they have the same control that e.g. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo etc. have for their platforms. You are free to choose a product with a different model, like Google's after-the-fact-controlled anarchy.
      - "Their rules" in what sense? Only the iOS platforms are "controlled", you seem to believe that the same applies to Mac OS X? It does not.
      - "Commodity based hardware" in what sense? Apple are not going for the lower-end market, but their computer parts are standard PC components.
      - "Mandated phone service providers" is a fallacy, you are thinking of subsidized handsets, which also applies to the other smart phone platforms. You can get a non-locked iPhone if you want.
      - "Losing market share" - yes, but since the market is growing they are not losing that many sales. It is good to see that the competiton is actually starting to catch up though.
      - "foreign manufacturing under attack" - yes, the articles about Foxconn focused on Apple (and not the other 20+ U.S. companies doing their manufacturing there), even though the factories where Apple hardware is assembled have had inspections, pay raises, etc. compared to the others.
      - "The US consumer is finally ready to pay a little more" - sorry, that is your pipe dream. Not to mention there is no way you can establish something close to Foxconn in America.
      - "they had to accept a large investment from the MS to just survive as a company" - No, they got a $150 million investment at a time when they had $1.2 billion in cash, i.e. the "investment" was more of a fine for Microsoft developers having illegally copied code from Quicktime. They were doing quite nicely at the time actually.
      - "Their developer support and options also suck when compared to others." - written by someone who has never visited developer.apple.com - and XCode is free unlike the usable versions of Visual Studio.
      - "Their developer support and options also suck when compared to others. " - then why do others keep copying them? Android was turned from a Blackberry lookalike to an iOS lookalike, the "Ultrabook" is a thinly veiled copycat of the MacBook Air after that machine had been ridiculed - until it started selling like hot cakes.

      You lack patience, certainly, after all it actually takes an effort to find out something instead of just making it up as you go.

    237. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      Be careful, small business growth isn't all it's cracked up to be: http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/story/2012-02-25/small-business-as-job-creator/53227084/1

    238. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Good citizens pay their fair share, so it must be asked: why does Apple hate America?

      Because the Universities taught MBA students to think global and not of your country, think of yourself, think of your share of profits, and let the poor finance the country.

      A superior form of Capitalism where the first god is money, and the second is God. What happened to charity and tithes? Apple does not think it owes the USA anything, except jobs for Apple product distributors.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    239. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never claimed they didn't have US employees. They also received more than $150 million. The figure was closer to $350 million with a good part of it from Bill Gates as a private individual. Comparing XCode to VS is ridiculous. Even the most die hard MS hater admits that VS has been one of their better products and the free version works just fine. Most of the missing functionality in the free version is targeted at large scale applications. If you need the paid version than pay for it and get on with your work. And the US public is finally starting to return all the love and kindness most foreign countries display towards the US. Isolationist and nationalistic attitudes are gaining more support by the day. I really do not know whether that is a good or bad thing but the majority of the world will not like the results but they can hardly bitch and complain any louder than they already do. I am for a total amoral foreign policy. Let the Syrians kill each other to their hearts content. Let Israel deal with Iran using all their capabilities, and I mean all their capabilities. And get the hell out of Afghanistan and let those lunatics kill each other in peace. That entire country could disappear and nobody would ever notice and if they did they wouldn't really give a shit. No more foreign aid or debt forgiveness unless it benefits the US in a tangible way. That's the government's job. All foreign aid should be a matter for private citizen groups and not the government. If someone wants some military help they should expect an invoice and a 50% down payment upfront before the US lifts a finger. And I don't hate people from other countries, I just really don't give a damn about their situation. And before you make a stupid assumption I have visited 18 foreign countries for both personal and professional reasons so I do have some knowledge of life in other countries.

    240. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by sjames · · Score: 1

      None of that at all invalidates my point that corporations have no natural rights, they merely expand on it and maintain that nobody and nothing does. I respectfully disagree. I will expand on that and state that the legal structure of the United States is based on the concept of natural rights as expounded by Locke. For that reason, the distinction of natural rights for a natural being and none for a legal fiction (except where derived from the rights of the natural beings that own it) is important.

      The existence of existence is actually also just a theory but we have to start somewhere (see Descartes).

    241. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Look, corporations are "people" for the purposes of BUSINESS. That is all. Regardless of what any court of law may say, business is the end of the need for corporate personhood. Because it is easier to write Corp X on a legal document. And because signage is really hard to do when you have to write "Offices of Shareholder A, Shareholder B, Shareholder C ... Shareholder M901c760". You need a skyscraper just to hold the sign, even if the sign is in a uselessly small font.

      Collectives do not have rights, inherently. They have rights transitively because individuals do. So a group cannot hold office or vote. But the group cannot inherently own anything either. A corporation on the deed is, as I said above, shorthand for writing out each shareholder's ownership in the property in proportion to their shares. It is administrating thousands of individual's property rights to save a lot of people a lot of time (and save a lot of paper).

      Political speech does not need a collective. Because the result of political speech, governance, is the desired collective*. Giving corporations access to political speech gives some people two voices. Their own plus their corporate one. This is not equitable. Also.. those who would speak with a corporate voice have huge financial incentives to speak in favor of corporate friendly laws without regard to things like civil liberties. This is not desirable.

      Undesirable inequality should not be acceptable, nor one of daily reality.

      *In a government that actually represents the people. Not.. the fictional people.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    242. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Obviously you can't see the difference between making a deal that allows you to leverage somebody else's labor to earn profit and an unfair deal. I outright stated that sometimes this is fair. Why are you complaining about that? Methinks you are a troll.

      Yes, the USA has one graduated tax, and it has hundreds of regressive taxes. When you add them all up as this source did and that you refuse to acknowledge -- neocons are really good at that -- it comes out remarkably close to even across all levels of income.

      Source: Citizens for Tax Justice http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php

    243. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by hawk · · Score: 1

      Flip the coin on what you're saying: when apple builds a machine in Ireland and sells it to me in Nevada, the state of California is entitled to a piece of the action.

      We're not talking about moving taxes on CA activities out of state, but protecting its activity in the entire rest of the world from CA's greedy hands.

      Nevada does *not* give these companies a break for which they "qualify"--our tax rate is 0 regardless of size.

      hawk

    244. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      You know, you might just be on to something there. Don't tax corporations at all. At first I kind of rolled my eyes but actually I think you have a good point. Just tax income to people but tax it at a fair rate -- don't tax some stuff (like capital gains) less. Income is income.

      However, my personal favorite would be to just have a sales tax (except for food, clothes and housing), no income tax, no property tax, no other taxes except for usage fees. Of course, it would be a huge sales tax, but think of how simple our tax returns would be.

    245. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Well how much do you actually want to pay them? You want them to be able to "live" right. Two adults raising two children, relatively new cars, decent house, decent education, the occassional vacation, retirement, and health care. That ends up being about $100,000 per year.

      You are right all the other stuff we end up paying for it. Which is why the gov't feels it has the right to step in, and if it is paying the bills it does, just the same as if you were treating everyone to dinner that you get to pick the resturant.

      The real question is are they getting better results by stepping in and providing everyting and then having to regulate because people are adapting and taking advantage of the new system, then if they just left people to their own means. I say they are not.

    246. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      There are two aspect. First the job requirements. Learning how to run a register or stock the shelves takes about a day to learn the basics, and then a month to master it, and the only requirement to do it is a basicly functional body and brain, so just about anyone can do it. That is my defintion of an unskilled job.

      Now the definition of unskilled labor. "Anyone cannot or will not do more than an unskilled job, due to mental or physical defect, lack of desire or drive, and due to shear laziness."

      You can have a PHD and be in an unskilled job. That doesn't make you stupid, that was your choice (or lack of choice) that put you in that job or maybe you are stupid. A college degree after all is a symbol a of lack of ignorance, not a proof of intelligence.

      A CEO is a poor choice because there are only a few CEO jobs in the world compared to everything else. For example Bill Gates could give up every dollar he has to his name and divide it up and give every person on the planet a fair share. Each person would get a measly $4. So get overyourself on CEOs. If Walmart made all their upper management make the same as everyone else in the company the people at the bottom might see an extra 25 cents an hour in their paychecks. So now everyone is poor together that's fair right? Why would anyone goto school to learn if all they are going to get is minimum wage. Who then is going to build these companies that provide all these "shitty" jobs. That half dead elderly person that is getting a free paycheck standing at the door greating you when you come in, or that fat welfare chick with 4 kids by 4 fathers running the register #2?

      Who exactly is supposed to create these businesses then? I'm waiting for an answer. To say "there has got to be a better way" is a cop out answer of either an ignorant child or an idiot adult. The whole point is their probably is a better way and eventually someone in business is going to come up with it, but he isn't going to put in 60 hours a week just to make minumum wage.

      I do agree with you that time is selling your life. I'd like to see people who steal millions/billions of dollars be put to death or rott in prison for life because they are effectively murdering thousands of people's entire productive lives when they commit their "victimless" crime.

    247. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Pretty funny, all CEOs do is fly around, eat fancy food, and yell at people all day. Of course you also forget that they usually put in 60-72 hours a week, rarely get weekends off, have to be available on all holidays, and are blamed when everything goes to shit. Sounds like a fun job to me.

      Jobs are paid according to difficulty. How hard is it to find someone to do this job? Stocking the freezers, special needs kids are almost over qualified to do that job. So essentially 99% of able bodied adults qualify for that pay, and conversly get paid the lowest 1% of the wage scale to do it.

      I propose we adopt a model like this; we can call it the "fear factor model". You are compensated based on your willingness to do monotonous, disgusting, demeaning, or all-around shitty jobs.

      We do. Upper level jobs are monotonous, you have to deal with stupid people all day, you have a boss too and their is nothing like getting chewed out in front of 10 other people which is not to mention demeaning, and like I said before you don't get to go home until the job is done and guess what the job is NEVER done. That is why the higher you go the more you get paid.

      You can't just shrug off the responsibilty for the minimum wage idiot who didn't listen to how he was trained and screwed up and left all the freezer doors open to long while stocking them, which results in several customers getting food poisening and ending up in the hospital, one of which ends up dying. That's why the boss gets paid the big bucks, and you the whinny little mouth breather get's paid minimum wage.

    248. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case you are the owner of a corporation. You have a corporation owned car driven by a corporate drive, live in housing owned by the corporation, eat at the corporate restaurant (or bill it as food expenses) and pay no personal taxes at all.

    249. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by hackula · · Score: 1

      Obviously, my analysis was a bit tongue in cheek. As I said, I do not work a minimum wage job; that was when I was a kid (I'm pretty sure everyone has been there at one point or another). I currently work the 60-70 hour/week job with loads of stress and deadlines. All I am saying is that I would never trade it. Even though I understand the economics of it, I think most people are still highly motivated by responsibility, power, and prestige; perhaps even to the point where they would choose those benefits over monetary compensation, if given the chance. I really disagree with you on one point though, how hard you have to work at a job has almost zero correlation to how much you get paid (with the exception of hourly part timers obviously).

    250. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Legal moral

    251. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Darn slashdot filter.

      I meant to type legal does not equal moral.

    252. Re:Why does Apple hate America? by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Apple is probably the worse possible company to choose as an example of a "tax dodge". Why don't you go after Samsung, HTC, or any of the other phone manufactures that make billions in sales in the US market but have all of their operations based overseas.

      Samsung is originally Korean. HTC is originally Taiwanese. By originally, of course, I mean founded & incorporated by Korean or Taiwanese citizens in those respective countries. For them, the US is a market which is dealt with by a US subsidiary. Legitimately. Apple on the other hand, was founded & incorporated in the US by US citizens.

      Believe it or not, this is a crucial difference in this argument, irrespective of how much the companies made in the US or even where the products they sell are manufactured.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  2. This is news? by Swampash · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Pathetic.

    Once upon a time Slashdot really was "news for nerds, stuff that matters" - now it's "any excuse to get the word APPLE into a story headline for the SEO bait to get ad impressions up".

    1. Re:This is news? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0

      Pathetic.

      Once upon a time Slashdot really was "news for nerds, stuff that matters" - now it's "any excuse to get the word APPLE into a story headline for the SEO bait to get ad impressions up".

      Corporations are now people. Slashdot is a corporation. People have Klout scores. Slashdot is just trying to improve theirs in order to get more Klout Perks.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    2. Re:This is news? by tsa · · Score: 1

      This. Besides, every big company knows the tricks mentioned in the article. Nothing new to see here. Why is this even on Slashdot?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:This is news? by enjar · · Score: 1

      It's not like it's on the front page of the New York Times or anything.

    4. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, So says the seven digit UID so it must be so

  3. So Apple paid less in taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    than the 30% they charge developers at the app store.

    1. Re:So Apple paid less in taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when you factor in these 20% Apple iTunes/AppStore gift cards Best Buy is frequently selling, it basically works out to the same 10% or so.

    2. Re:So Apple paid less in taxes by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Apple gets a tax break on those discount cards disguised as 'advertising expenses', just another 'cost of doing business'.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:So Apple paid less in taxes by toriver · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because a percentage is a size you can compare to other percentages independent of what they apply to... For instance, U.S. unemployment at 8.2% is higher than the U.S. military expenditure as fraction of GDP. But what conclusions can you expect to draw from it?

    4. Re:So Apple paid less in taxes by frisket · · Score: 1

      For instance, U.S. unemployment at 8.2% is higher than the U.S. military expenditure as fraction of GDP. But what conclusions can you expect to draw from it?

      The conclusion that you don't have a clue what real unemployment is like. Spain has 20%. Ireland has 17%. Even that is survivable. Once unemployment goes over 50%, you're headed towards social collapse; the same applies if your military budget exceeds 50% of GDP.

      8.2% is unpleasant for the country (and of course disastrous for the individuals affected), but it's not a catastrophe.

    5. Re:So Apple paid less in taxes by toriver · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point: I picked two statistics more or less at random, that one of them was unemployment is irrelevant to my point, which is that the person I responded to cannot compare the percentage numbers of Apple's tax burden and Apple's share of the content price in their store.

  4. California deserves all that money by alen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just imagine all the mandates they can fund if they had all this money

    1. Re:California deserves all that money by schwit1 · · Score: 2

      Just imagine if California didn't have all of these mandates. Dow 28,000,000: The Unbelievable Expectations of California's Pension System "

    2. Re:California deserves all that money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, California is such a horrible place that Apple still somehow prefers to put their HQ there instead of Reno. It would be a nightmare if they actually had to pay taxes for the apparent benefits they enjoy!

    3. Re:California deserves all that money by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Just imagine all the mandates they can fund if they had all this money

      The flip side is Apple employs a lot of highly paid people in California, who also pay signficant amounts of income tax and other taxes in order to work and live in California. I'm sure California would be really happy if all those people left the state. Heck, I'm sure Nevada would be more than happy to host Silicon Valley 2.0 as all the big companies move there with their employees.

  5. Disgraceful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Instead of setting up offices in the lowest tax locations, companies should be looking to create offices where tax rates are highest.

    After all, give any slashdot reader the choice between paying a lower or higher rate of tax we'd all choose more, wouldn't we?!

    We wouldn't? Oh, never mind then.

    1. Re:Disgraceful by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but the point of the summary is that they set them up in high tax locations, often times, but they set up "fake" offices in zero tax areas to avoid the taxes that they really ought to pay.

      If 99% of your workers are in a taxable location, then the corporation is benefiting from the taxable location. Therefore, the company ought to be pay taxes in a taxable location. Corporations are persons too, therefore they ought to pay taxes where they live and do business, just as we do.

    2. Re:Disgraceful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If 99% of your workers are in a taxable location, then the corporation is benefiting from the taxable location.

      And the taxable location is benefiting from the income taxes paid by those employes, the sales taxes charged on people of said company people by, the property taxes on the buildings owned by the company...

    3. Re:Disgraceful by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2

      So basically, you're saying that because the natural people who live in and benefit from the taxable location pay income taxes in that location, the corporation that lives in and benefits from the taxable location should not have to pay income taxes in that location?

      Call me when you decide to believe that corporations should acquire all of the responsibilities of people if they want to be recognized as people.

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    4. Re:Disgraceful by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that several of us don't believe in imaginary property, but we fully support imaginary persons.

    5. Re:Disgraceful by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      So, small businesses, which might not be persons, would be forced to pay local taxes, but these big persons would not be required to do it?

      Real persons pay sales property taxes, so maybe they should be able to set up mail boxes in other states and not pay state taxes.

  6. To be fair by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    These are corporate profits. Whoever actually owns the company still gets taxed on any of the value that they sell or get dividends on. So apple's rate may be 9.8%, but most people who get the remaining 90% still pay more taxes. Just not usually in the same year.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:To be fair by bhcompy · · Score: 0

      How many shares did Jobs sit on until he died and never paid taxes on(and probably still won't, since they're probably in a trust anyways)? Yea, it's a dumb and trolly question, but who cares? It's true

    2. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. It is a dumb question, because you're not taxed for owning shares of stock. That only happens to profits you make when you cash them out.

    3. Re:To be fair by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Yes, and since everyone is bitching about paying taxes here, there are plenty of people that have a problem with executives tax dodging because they have $1 salaries but multimilliondollar stock compensation packages. These are the same people that do the same thing with corporate earnings to drive their stock value higher.

    4. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if it is sold within (twelve?) months? Otherwise it is capital gains tax, which is taxed at a lower rate and can be offset against losses.

    5. Re:To be fair by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You absolutely do not need to sell stocks. You can simply borrow against their value for your expenses. The only thing you end up paying is interest on what is basically revolving credit. That interest rate will be much lower than paying yearly taxes on the same amount.

    6. Re:To be fair by Local+ID10T · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can take a loan against the value of your stock. This is not income, and is not taxable.

      In many cases, the interest paid on that loan is tax deductible. If structured correctly you may never even make a payment, the interest is simply added to the principle (it is still tax deductible). When the time comes you sign over the stock (not selling it, mind you!) to the lender, having exchanged the stock for real property and taking years of tax deductions on the supposed interest -still without paying any taxes.

      Its shady, but not illegal. Loopholes exist for the rich to take advantage of.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    7. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't comment on the law in the US, but in Australia, that loophole doesn't exist. If I own shares, I can borrow against those shares. But the key question is, what did I use those funds for? If I used them to invest - buying more shares, buying property, buying bonds - the interest is tax deductible. If I used them for personal matters, the interest is not tax deductible.

      In addition, the moment I sign a contract to hand over my shares to the lender, I trigger a capital gains tax event, and I have to pay CGT on the value of the shares at the time of the handover. The fact that money didn't change hands along with the shares is irrelevant; it's still a CGT disposal, and tax is still payable.

      In my opinion, the US needs to be broken up into the individual states, and the federal government disbanded (so the state becomes the country, and what's currently the country disappears completely.) Perhaps two or three states might band together to form a larger country, but the US as a whole is too big; it encourages cronyism and corruption.

    8. Re:To be fair by Genda · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Its not the size. Since 1980, the United States has been moving steadily towards becoming a fascist state and the transformation is nearly complete. Banks and Corporations love it, every one else is getting slaughtered. If you want to fix the problem, separate corporation and state.

    9. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a company becomes incorporated, it becomes its own owner. Owning more stock doesn't make you an owner, it gives you a controlling interest in business decisions made at stockholder meetings. So, the actual result is that the corporation pays taxes on its net income as well as corporate taxes. However, corporations are also given a large number of possibilities to claim tax credits to offset the double taxation.

      What Apple, the company, is essentially doing is re-routing its taxable income through various shelters so that it can take advantage of lower taxes in other areas (sort of like the idea behind Cayman Islands and Swiss bank accounts that the rich use to avoid paying taxes, but more legal). However, there's a limit to the returns they can get from any one area, so they spread it around to maximize the tax credit benefits.

      You'd think the solution would just be to tax the head office and have all of their subsidiaries included, but then everyone and their dog would set up a "head office" that exists as nothing more than an entry on a small office lease in the lowest taxed area.

    10. Re:To be fair by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Apple hasn't paid dividends on any of their massive profits so far (though that is changing in the future). Even when they will, it will be a TINY fraction of their net income.

      And capital gains taxes on investments has little to do with the profit of a company. Plenty of companies don't make a profit and their stock still goes up (since stock price reflects expected value, not current value). And you can make money selling a stock short when it goes down, which has even less to do with the company's profits (or at best is inversely proportional). In the end it's little more than gambling, and should be taxed as such (ie. normal income rates).

    11. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to disappoint you, but many of those loopholes require you to have a lot of money lying around to begin with. If you're living from paycheck to paycheck like an increasing percentage of the population (by necessity in most cases) then those loopholes are things you can't make use of.

    12. Re:To be fair by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      People smart enough to use the loop holes had tons of time to figure it out because they were already rich...or they could afford to hire a team of accountants to do it for them. All the other smart people that aren't rich are busy working and don't have time to read thousands of pages of tax code. I won't deny there is a lot of whining going around but you can't honestly believe that having millions of dollars isn't a huge, perpetuating advantage.

    13. Re:To be fair by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Loopholes exist for everyone, including the guy you replied to. People smart enough to use them become rich. People that are not smart enough whine about it.

      Bullshit. You have to be rich to begin with to use such "loopholes".

      Tell me, struggling to pay my rent each month with no savings, how I am supposed to use loopholes to become rich"? I don't need less tax, I need more income.

    14. Re:To be fair by iamhassi · · Score: 2

      In my opinion, the US needs to be broken up into the individual states, and the federal government disbanded (so the state becomes the country, and what's currently the country disappears completely.) Perhaps two or three states might band together to form a larger country, but the US as a whole is too big; it encourages cronyism and corruption.

      we tried that, caused the civil war, and since the federal govt won it now has overwhelming power and the states don't mean much anymore. It's caused some huge problems, like California legalized pot dispensaries but the fed government keeps coming in and arresting the operators who are running legal businesses:
      "Federal prosecutors are cracking down on some pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law."

      but don't worry, we'll do what we always do: sue until we get what we want

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    15. Re:To be fair by uncqual · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're ignoring the entire lifecycle. There is no free lunch (as those who borrowed against their homes based on inflated real estate valuations discovered).

      Eventually you owe the money you borrowed even if you got a good interest rate because you provided good collateral.

      If you had cash laying around when you originally borrowed the money, likely you would have used that instead of borrowing money. Obviously, though, if you can get, on a post tax basis, a better risk adjusted ROI on that cash than the interest rate on your loan, you should invest that cash instead -- in which case, it's not "cash" anymore available to repay the loan.

      When it comes time to pay your loan, you therefore need to liquidate some assets to make the repayment - then, if you made any gains, you owe taxes. If you lost money, you would have been better off selling that asset earlier and generated some cash so you didn't need to borrow (as much) money in the first place.

      If the stock you used as collateral goes down enough, you may need to repay the loans immediately - indeed, in some circumstances, the entity who made the loan has the right to sell the collateral to recoup what you owe if you don't come up with additional collateral on demand.That sale of course will, if the collateral has appreciated since you bought it, result in taxation.

      The "dodge" you describe is really just leverage -- which can backfire.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    16. Re:To be fair by swalve · · Score: 1

      No, you just forfeit on the loan and "settle" by turning over some of the stocks. No tax, no interest, and probably free money if the stocks had appreciated a lot since you first got them.

    17. Re:To be fair by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speaking of bitching about paying taxes, I don't understand the mantra of "higher taxes means people won't invest in job creation" etc... Lets say you're a billionaire and pay 15% tax on your investments that earn you $50M/year. If the tax rate gets raised to 30% does that mean you're going to pull out of all your investments to avoid that extra 15% of taxes...and lose out on the frikkin 70% you still would have made!?!? Bullshit. I guess there is always the "they'll just take their money off shore crap.

    18. Re:To be fair by uncqual · · Score: 4, Informative

      You typically own capital gains tax on your gain in the collateral that was forfeited - just as if you sold the collateral and used the proceeds to pay off the loan. See, for example, this (specifically, the section entitled 6. Question: “What happens if I default on the loan?” or “What are the tax consequences?”) for what happens in one case of such loans.

      If you really believe things work the way you describe, I suggest you check with qualified tax advisers before acting on those beliefs.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    19. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you never cash them. And you can use them as collateral against a loan, then, have the loan paid off in trust when you die and you saw billions in untaxable income. They have a value, even if not cashed out, and that value can be used to generate untaxable income.

    20. Re:To be fair by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      You can walk into a bank and borrow $1,000,000,000 against the stock, but a loan isn't "income". You then use that money at a grocery store. 50 years later, when you are dead, your estate covers the loan with stock that is sold, and nobody pays tax on it.

    21. Re:To be fair by aralin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You borrow money from a made up corporation and you buy their stock, by the time their stock goes down by the amount you borrowed, your loan will be deleted from the books, ensuring the corp. operates at a loss and so their stock goes down. You use the stock loss to offset your other stock gains. Now you've got free money, tax free.

      I live in a country where corporations have market in operational loss to distribute profit/loss among themselves to avoid paying taxes. There is no accounting trick in the book or not in the book that would surprise me.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    22. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are correct, *except* that laws are not static.

      What happens is,

      1. you borrow against your assets, like shares that have appreciated.

      2. you bitch and moan about taxes on capital gains and eventually there may be a law that says "to spur economic growth we will have one time exception on capital gains for next 6 months" (happened with dividents under Bush! and Bush lowered capital gains tax significantly)

      3. say PROFIT$$$

    23. Re:To be fair by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      This is the most ridiculous states rights argument I've ever heard. As if the state legislatures aren't even more corrupt and special interest influenced than the federal one.

    24. Re:To be fair by Charcharodon · · Score: 2

      You can't do that. If you turn over the stocks to settle a debt, you still end up having to pay taxes on the settled value of the stocks.

    25. Re:To be fair by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure it is the same in Canada. Whenever you trade goods for money or "goods in kind" they are deemed as being sold and need to be evaluated at current market price (so no giving your art collection to your kid for the cost you paid for it 20 years ago even though it is worth more now). If you made a profit you pay, if you made a loss you can use it to offset current or future capital gains.

      Heck you can even be considered to have "sold" a property that you've just changed uses of and have always had title on. For example if you own a house, start renting it then move back in and use it for yourself you have "sold" it twice: once on conversion to a rental property and once on the way back. You can sell your primary residence capital gains free so the first one you get away with, but on the way back your property might have increased in market value that increase is a capital gain to your "business" (even if you didn't register as one) and taxable.

      If the US really lets people get away with this it is crazy.

    26. Re:To be fair by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Doesn't your estate still have to file taxes for your final year including the closing out of your liabilities? They do in Canada and your estate can end up having to pay taxes (which of course would have to come out of any inheritance).

    27. Re:To be fair by Charcharodon · · Score: 2

      You go to school? Ride public transportation? Use public anything? Get Federal taxes back in addition of what you paid? You are using the "loop holes" too That stuff is in magically pulled out of the air, it costs alot of money.

    28. Re:To be fair by Charcharodon · · Score: 1, Informative
      Nobody pays tax on it. Untrue you pay out the nose in taxes or your heirs do. (Yep you have to pay your taxes even when you are dead, just wait till you have to wrap up your parent's estate after they die, you still have to file a 1040 for them) If you take possession of their stock either they or you are going to be paying the gains on them. Not to mention the in heritance tax.

      There is also the joy of dealing with the probate and lawyers to sort it all out. They take a big chunk of it and the State (as in the 50 states) wants a piece of the action too.

    29. Re:To be fair by Eskarel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You don't understand it because it's bullshit.

      The essence of the argument is that if millionaires had more money to spare they would use it to employ people regardless of the ROI for that employment. That if a corporation encounters another 50 grand extra cash it will hire someone with it. Never mind that money spent on starting up a new idea can already be deducted from your taxes and that Reagan dropping the highest tax rate from 70% to 35% didn't lead to any dramatic job creation. There's an argument to be made that certain activities which are currently not viable because they don't generate enough revenue to be worthwhile might cross the border into viability with a lower tax rate, but the number of those activities would be vanishingly small and would still have fairly crappy returns and high risk.

      It's essentially an argument which ignores supply and demand. So called "job creators" act on the supply side of the equation, they produce goods or services which are consumed by others. As anyone with even basic economic knowledge knows, expanding supply without commensurate demand drives down prices. Now we can presume commensurate demand does not exist because if it did tax rates wouldn't be stopping companies from meeting that demand, so we can also assume that no one is going to increase supply regardless of how much money they might have.

      There are a couple relatively obvious ways the federal government can create jobs in the private sector. The simplest is income redistribution, give money to poor people and they spend it increasing demand and creating Jobs(though not necessarily American jobs). In the US we don't like this because it's the wrong kind of socialism. It's perfectly ok to provide a moral hazard by socializing risk and privatizing gain if you're talking about rich people, but doing the same for the poor is unacceptable.

      Another involves increasing workers rights by essentially eliminating "at will" employment. This doesn't as such directly increase demand, but it would make it easier for employees to say no to doing the work of multiple people, which would mean that the false efficiencies companies are currently enjoying would disappear. This is partly unpopular for all of the above reasons, but also because while there would be a net job gain, there would probably be job losses in some sectors.

      Many other ways exist which would serve the same purpose, but they'd all be rejected in the current American political climate because in the US the wealthy have sold a bill of goods to the population convincing them either that they will one day be rich enough to be affected by the buffet rule and so should vote against it or that, and I honestly have no idea how this works, private enterprise would take care of them much better than the government does, how this meshes with the accusation that the US has become an oligarchy or the entirety of American history I do not understand. Libertarians seem to believe that the US has become a corporate dictatorship so as a solution they want to remove the middle man and go straight to a corporate dictatorship. Mind you, we are talking about the same voting population who 4 years after Wall Street caused the biggest global economic melt down in close to a century through pure greed and stupidity is objecting to the implementation of any kind of regulation of the baking and finance sector. The GFC should have thoroughly discredited neoconservatism since the ideology proved to be wrong in every respect, but 4 years later we're still having the same arguments.

    30. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Borrowed money isn't taxable income, that's the dodge. They let the creditors have the collateral and they have essentially sold the stock without paying capital gains tax.

    31. Re:To be fair by zidium · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's why you put all your assets in what's called a perpetual Family Trust.

      Those are tax free (seriously!).

      Costs all of about $1,000 (including attorney fees!) to set up, too.

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    32. Re:To be fair by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      When you up the top. You do share transfers. Simply convert your capital gains shares into dividend paying shares. It looks like your bought and sold to the smucks at the bottom but you simply made an investment conversion and woo hoo tax deducted the costs.

      Dividends are not paid a year after your buy shares but a set times. So simply convert your capital gains shares into dividend paying shares just before dividends are due to be paid. Zero capital gains tax, you only pay tax on the dividend paid.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    33. Re:To be fair by 1u3hr · · Score: 2

      You go to school? Ride public transportation? Use public anything? Get Federal taxes back in addition of what you paid? You are using the "loop holes" too That stuff is in magically pulled out of the air, it costs alot of money.

      None of those are "loopholes". Public funding of education is not a fucking loophole, unless maybe you're a libertarian.

      A loophole is the kind of thing this article is about, artificial arrangements to circumvent obligations. Not straight forward government funding for the public good.

    34. Re:To be fair by dkf · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mind you, we are talking about the same voting population who 4 years after Wall Street caused the biggest global economic melt down in close to a century through pure greed and stupidity is objecting to the implementation of any kind of regulation of the baking and finance sector.

      Now that takes the cake. Sometimes you've just got to roll with it, but I really don't want to see financiers loafing around on our dime. It's not all bun and games in the real economy.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    35. Re:To be fair by uncqual · · Score: 1

      First, you are confusing two things.

      To address your second paragraph first... Legitimate business losses that have not yet been consumed to offset taxable profits are (at least in the US) legitimate "assets" that a company can use to offset future profits for tax purpose, or (at least at one time - I've not followed tax law much recently) can sell to other entities for the tax benefits, or serve to increase the value of the corporation to a buyer (who will then use or sell the "tax credit" assets to their own benefit). This is completely reasonable - otherwise cyclical businesses would end up paying taxes on all their profits but not be able recover those taxes when they have offsetting losses. If a legitimate corporation makes $0 over a ten year period but makes a lot of money in even years and looses a lot of money in odd years, they should pay no net income taxes as they had no net income during the ten year period. You may not like this feature -- maybe no one (individuals included) should ever be able to write off losses against gains, but if you allow losses to be written off against gains, it only makes sense to allow building up a "loss account" to offset future profits.

      To address your first paragraph... First, you are describing a situation that is clearly structured ONLY for tax gain, in the absence of taxation, there is no legitimate business rational for such a structure. Yes, people get away with these often because the IRS doesn't notice or the amount involved isn't worth the effort of pursuing (the latter, as I understand it, has a lot to do with attitude of the agent assigned and/or the office and may vary widely). However, when the IRS notices it and cares about it, they send you a big tax bill which if you don't pay will result in your house, car, first-born child, wife, and goldfish being seized (although you can delay this by a few years by fighting in tax court at the cost of $50K and up in legal costs until you lose and become an object lesson for others). Generally, the Tax Court agrees with the IRS on such matters. If it quacks like only a tax dodge and not a legitimate business, it's only a tax dodge.

      I would agree that if you have a few million dollars to hire the best tax lawyers to represent you in Tax Court, you have a better chance of having a compelling argument being made on your behalf and the court finding in your favor -- that's a sad truth in civil, criminal, and tax court. (If OJ had one $175 an hour lawyer, he would have been in jail long before he finally ended up rotting there because he didn't have money anymore to fight much less serious charges in Nevada.)

      Second, how does your "made up corporation" have cash to loan you? It's a sham, it has no money. Your yacht builder, mortgage holder, and car dealer demands CASH, not shares in an illiquid corporation that has no assets, has no income, and has no profits. So, I assume you really mean to use this faux stock as collateral and will continue on that assumption.

      But, lets look at your specific example. You have a "made up corporation" - so what is that corporation? You "buy" their stock -- apparently at an absurdly inflated price (else the scheme doesn't work) when the actual value is somewhere below $0 (no legitimate business, no legitimate expectation of profits and, perhaps, no legitimate expectation of even revenue - just expenses for legal, PO boxes, and email accounts). Now, did OTHER unaffiliated legitimate and informed investors pay the same price for substantial amounts of the stock that you did? Probably not -- thereby exposing the fraud and sealing your fate. Even if you pass that hurdle and manage not to end up in a fairly pleasant "white collar" federal prison for ten years a few years hence, you have another problem -- you need to find someone (a bank perhaps) who will accept the faux stock as collateral at the face value of what you "paid" for it and put their hard cold cash on the line and give you non-recourse loan. Yes, you might get lucky and find a fool -- but after they discover that the stock was a sham, they will come after you like a 12 foot alligator who comes across a small pig frantically trying to get to shore.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    36. Re:To be fair by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Cite please? If someone forgives your debt obligations, you get something like a 1099 (I don't recall the actual form number - it may be a variant of a 1099) for the amount they forgave.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    37. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mantra is 'Higher taxes in America means people won't invest in American job creation, since they can invest in other countries with lower tax rates and make more profits'

    38. Re:To be fair by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Most of the money that goes through government is used to damage the economy and people's lives, and that's especially true of increments.

      Rich people don't necessarily use increased income to employ people. They may buy products and services, which ... increases someone else's income. They may leave it in a bank or put it in stocks or bonds ... which is invested in someone else's business.

      "Income redistribution" - stealing from the rich and giving to the poor - pretty much guarantees that the money will be used unwisely, because that's how the poor became poor in the first place: unwise, unsupervised use of money. Consider the current scandal in EBT card abuse.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    39. Re:To be fair by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Buying on margin - the commonest form of borrowing on stocks - does not result in a forced sale unless the stock price falls ("margin call"). In that case you lose money, usually almost all of it. There is no capital gains tax on a loss, only the trivially small SEC transaction fee.

      Borrowing money from a third party to buy stocks, or using stocks as collateral for a loan from a third party, is unwise financially and legally questionable.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    40. Re:To be fair by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      "loophole" is simply an insult, it means "an aspect of the law I don't like." Public education is one of the "artificial arrangements to circumvent obligations", the obligation being teaching the spawn you generated by fucking around. The "earned income tax credit", wherein a person gets net money from the government when honorable people are paying, is another of the "artificial arrangements to circumvent obligations", the obligation being to pay for the operations of the federal government which is stealing for you.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    41. Re:To be fair by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Inheritance taxes don't start until a fairly substantial amount of money passes. They're a problem for family businesses with a large nominal value, but most people aren't affected by inheritance taxes. Someone is going to have to pay capital gains tax on stocks and real estate, but it's going to be at the reduced long term rate.

      Probate need not be onerous if you're willing to do most of the work that a lawyer would normally do. Paying probate court fees is no joy, but it's not like the probate court is a major profit center for the state.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    42. Re:To be fair by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Short term capital gains (stocks held less than one year) are taxed at normal income tax rates. Long term capital gains are dependent upon a business being viable, and are truly an investment. The distinction is valid.

      There is the further factor that the government is continually making the dollar worth less. $1 spent on something in 1970 might sell for $10 now. You'd owe taxes on the $9 capital gain, even when the actual value of the item (and the dollars exchanged) was the same or less.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    43. Re:To be fair by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Enough of this levity, we all knead a little more dough.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    44. Re:To be fair by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      "loophole" is simply an insult, it means "an aspect of the law I don't like."

      It does if you just make up definitions to suit whatever point you want to make.

      Houghton Mifflin Dictionary

      A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

      I guess you are really a libertarian after all. Or just a dick.

    45. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of course the government who wastes 90 cents of every dollar it collects will do so much more good with that money than a big corporation who has remade the world with its innovation.

    46. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's double stupid. What do people think the government would do with the money. Bury it? No, they would spend it of course. And most likely in local economy too.

      I once asked a finance prof about this after he made the whole big tax argument. All I got was an "umm, but maybe private industry would spend it more efficiently".

      When I followed up with a polite enquiry as to what "spending it more efficiently" meant anyway, he couldn't give me an answer.

    47. Re:To be fair by swalve · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter, because the tax happens at the same time the cap gain is realized. They are denominated in the same inflated dollars. In other words, the inflation happens to both sides of the transaction. You might owe a lot of dollars that are worth less than they were in 1970, but you also got paid with a lot of dollars that are worth less than they were in 1970. It is meaningless, the same way this is: "damn the government! before the converted to metric, I only had to walk 2 miles to work. now I have to walk over THREE kilometers to work!"

    48. Re:To be fair by swalve · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that's true. But if you do it right, your stocks continue to appreciate (hopefully) while you get the money now. Say I own $1m of stocks, and I need $1m in cash. I could sell the stocks and end up with $850,000 after tax. Or I could borrow $1m, and in two years when the loan is due, my stocks have appreciated to $1.3m. I sell the stocks, pay the loan, interest and cap gains and net out to zero. One way, I got $850,000 after tax, the other way I got $1m after tax.

      Further, because I have control over when I sell the stocks, I can sell them in a year when I've suffered some other loss and not have to pay ANY cap gains tax. I can effectively run my life tax free, and my only "tax" is the interest I pay to the person making the loan.

      Further, further, I can take out the loan from a friendly entity, and they can forgive the accrued interest. They can write off the loss (which helps them offset some gain). Sure, I'll owe income taxes on the forgiven interest, but 2% on $1m is only $20k in income. Even at the top marginal rate of 35%, I only owe the feds $7000, rather than the $150,000 I would have owed them if I had paid cap gains on the $1m in stocks.

    49. Re:To be fair by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      "Income redistribution" - stealing from the rich and giving to the poor - pretty much guarantees that the money will be used unwisely, because that's how the poor became poor in the first place: unwise, unsupervised use of money.

      I like how you left out the possibility that they didn't have any money to begin with, which is the reality in the vast majority of cases. The only time it's not true is when someone falls from the upper or middle class into a lower class by their own doing - which isn't the most common way by a long shot...

    50. Re:To be fair by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Short term capital gains (stocks held less than one year) are taxed at normal income tax rates. Long term capital gains are dependent upon a business being viable, and are truly an investment. The distinction is valid.

      No it's not valid, since - short or long - it STILL has little to do with a company's net income. Short term even LESS so than long. The rate is irrelevant to the point. And capital gains don't require a stock to go up in the first place, as in a short sale. That can still be long term if you already held the shares you shorted and used them to cover after 12 months.

      There is the further factor that the government is continually making the dollar worth less. $1 spent on something in 1970 might sell for $10 now. You'd owe taxes on the $9 capital gain, even when the actual value of the item (and the dollars exchanged) was the same or less.

      Inflation is equally irrelevant to the OP (did you read it? It claimed that individual capital gains from stock sold was already taxed as corporate income, which is patently incorrect). Besides, understanding inflation is a part of investing, if you didn't cover it in your gains you didn't invest well...

    51. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government handouts don't create jobs. They create consumption. Once the money stops, the bought jobs vanish.

      You could tax every dime any person or corporation makes over $100,000 and it isn't remotely enough to feed the machine we've created. We don't even call this machine "socialism." I can hardly grasp the monster we'd create if we deliberately tried to construct a socialist state, though I suspect the EU will enlighten us soon/

      Get a grip on reality.

    52. Re:To be fair by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      how I am supposed to use loopholes to become rich"?

      Struggling to pay rent. - Good God Man! Get together with a few of your friends and buy a freaking house. Buy a big house and rent out the extra rooms to people who are not reading this response. Do it now while the foreclosure backlog still allows you to own a house cheaper than renting it. And take advantage of the biggest loophole ever invented.
      No Savings - There is no excuse for this, no matter how little money you make, you must accumulate wealth. And you should put some of it in an IRA. - (ANOTHER LOOPHOLE) I started with a paper route when I was 12 years old. Study the time value of money calculations. You will get rich.
      Need more income - You and me both. Get a second job. Or better yet start your own business -even part time -, guess what ? - ANOTHER LOOPHOLE. If you think you don't have enough income now, wait till your seventy and can't work anymore. You had better have saved a crapload of money by then or you are screwed. Break your ass while you still can. Nobody said this is easy. If this doesn't work for you in your lifetime, it'll certainly give your kids a good head start with the adjusted cost basis (ANOTHER LOOPHOLE) on your house, business, inheritance you leave them. And that is probably the biggest "secret" of all. Everyone likes to complain about the people that are born with silver spoons in their mouths. - Where DID that small percentage of people get their money?
      From their one ancestor that wised up.

    53. Re:To be fair by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      start your own business -even part time -, guess what ? - ANOTHER LOOPHOLE

      For fuck's sake that isn't a "loophole" in any sense of the word. Neither are any of the other schemes you describe. And as I don't live in the USA, most of them don't exist or are impossible here regardless.

      I wasn't whining about my economic problems and asking you to tell me how to run my life. I'm sure you're well intentioned, but you're not talking about "loopholes".

    54. Re:To be fair by Xest · · Score: 1

      Another problem with that argument is that it assumes those billionaires are uniquely irreplaceable and got where they were through exploitation of their unique abilities, rather than the actual reality of the situation which is that they were either born, or otherwise received through no work of their own the pre-requisite wealth required to make more wealth for themselves, or that they were fortunate enough to be in the right place, at the right time.

      The fact is, should these people dissapear there would be many millions willing and capable of replacing them, even for the reduced amounts of wealth available under higher taxation or more sensible levels of pay, however, as you say, these people wont go anywhere despite their threats because the fact is they simply know they're on to a good thing.

    55. Re:To be fair by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      Tell me, struggling to pay my rent each month with no savings, how I am supposed to use loopholes to become rich"? I don't need less tax, I need more income.

      I must have misunderstood you.

    56. Re:To be fair by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Tell me, struggling to pay my rent each month with no savings, how I am supposed to use loopholes to become rich"? I don't need less tax, I need more income.

      I must have misunderstood you.

      Yeah, maybe if you had bothered to read the complete first sentence you might have a clue.

  7. Juat think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we get rid of those tax-and-spend Democrats, we can lower corporate tax rates EVEN MORE, and thus create MORE JOBS....at Foxconn...in China.

  8. So?? by DreadfulGrape · · Score: 3

    Good for Apple.

    --
    sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
  9. Doesn't every big company do this? by sam_paris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, I know it's the fashion to bag Apple now they're the biggest company in the world, but I thought it was common knowledge that virtually all big companies do everything they can to avoid taxes. In fact, I don't see how it's much different from pretty much every individual in the USA trying to pay as little tax as possible either. If an accountant said, "Oh hi there, I can help you avoid $3000 bucks in taxes and it's all legal" what would you say, no?

    1. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, this is such a big loophole, even the little guys can use it. I live in NYC but I'm applying for an LLC in Delaware because it's just cheaper.

    2. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because everybody does it, doesn't mean it's good.

      And for those who argue that they should attack the other people first, I would imagine that everyone who could be attacked on this would also throw the "why are you picking on US" card meaning no one could be called out on it.

    3. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Just because everybody does it, doesn't mean it's good.

      And yet that doesn't stop you from doing it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      AC's got a good point.

    5. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't live in a state we don't actually live in to avoid taxes, that's how it's different.

      And, more importantly, when we start a business to compete with them we have to locate where the talent is and likely can't afford to just have a second tax cheating office. So it's damaging to the market.

    6. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      People are essentially pissed off because the more money someone (or something, in the case of companies) has, the more options they have.

      Ordinary people, by-and-large, do not have the money to take advantage of loopholes designed to protect a lot of money since the upfront costs outweigh what they'd save. However, they also rarely even bother exercising the options they have in front of them to stop paying taxes almost completely (charitable donations, medical savings accounts, educational savings accounts, retirement savings, etc).

    7. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by mellon · · Score: 1

      Charitable donations can be deducted from your net income, up to a certain percentage (7.5%?). Same thing with MSAs and 401ks. Plus, when you give away or sock away money, you can't spend it. So in practice, the extent to which these tax deductions are available to you is a function of the amount of your income that is surplus for you. IOW, you have to be relatively wealthy to take advantage of these opportunities, and even if you do, your available cash goes down, not up, as a result.

    8. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by sl149q · · Score: 2

      In point of fact Apple would find itself sued by shareholders if they did not use any and all methods to reduce tax and increase shareholder wealth.

      Adjusting ones affairs to avoid taxes (tax avoidance) is legal.

      Evading taxes that are due (tax evasion) is not.

      Sometimes its a fine line and thats why corporations like Apple spends mega bucks on tax accountants and lawyers specializing it this.

    9. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by khipu · · Score: 2

      As a US citizen, you can not reduce your income tax by moving abroad. Furthermore, individuals generally impose fewer costs on the government as they become richer, but companies impose higher costs as they get bigger.

      And just because it is legal doesn't mean it is ethical, and the point of these kinds of examples is usually not to ask an entity to voluntarily pay more, it is to talk about raising taxes on it in the future.

    10. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      As a US citizen, you can reduce your US income tax by the amount of income taxes you pay abroad (or some portion thereof). Otherwise the combined tax rate could exceed 100%.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    11. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by khipu · · Score: 1

      Yes. Hence, as I was saying: you cannot reduce your income tax by moving abroad; there are no tax benefits to moving abroad. Companies, in contrast, can shop around for lower corporate taxes abroad and benefit from them.

    12. Re:Doesn't every big company do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A scarecrow riding the bandwagon. Two fallacies in one post. Good job!

  10. Bullshit. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Without such tactics, Apple's federal tax bill in the United States most likely would have been $2.4 billion higher last year

    No, it would be the same as it is now, they'd just locate their facilities elsewhere. Whoever wrote this is an idiot who doesn't know anything about how businesses make decisions.

    1. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which nicely illustrates the problem, doesn't it? What do you think would happen if I set up a bank account and drop box in the Caymans, and just had my employer send my checks there without withholding any taxes?

      Perhaps anything imported into this country manufactured by a company not based in the US should be subject to a 'use tariff', similar to the use tax that I have to pay on things I buy over the internet or out of state.

    2. Re:Bullshit. by mellon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yup, because Apple in no way benefits from access to the Silicon Valley job market. They could hire all those programmers in Bangalore instead, but they choose to support the Silicon Valley economy out of a sense of generosity and community spirit.

    3. Re:Bullshit. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      They don't have to move them to Bangalore, the office they use to dodge CA's absurd corporate tax is in LasVegas.

    4. Re:Bullshit. by mellon · · Score: 1

      Right, have you ever _been_ to Las Vegas? It's just about antithetical to the geek ethic. More to the point, it's _completely_ antithetical to the Apple aesthetic.

    5. Re:Bullshit. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Las Vegas is a big tech city. It is 100% compatible with the "geek ethic." The reason Apple is in Silicon Valley is that's where Steve Jobs grew up.

    6. Re:Bullshit. by mellon · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of any of the companies listed in the Wikipedia article you cite. And it only lists a few companies. If you made a similar list for Silicon Valley, it would fill several pages. The bell curve is a magical thing, so of course there are a few tech companies in any big city. But Las Vegas is several standard deviations out from Silicon Valley.

  11. Don't hate the player, hate the game by sycomonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to avoid as much taxes as legally possible. This is more indicative that the laws are not written correctly, rather than that Apple is doing something "wrong". Of course, congresscritters might be hesitant to fix these loopholes, since a lot of their sponsors directly benefit from them. In fact, that may or may not be why they are there in the first place, but the saying "don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence" probably holds here.

    --
    --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
    1. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is more indicative that the laws are not written correctly, ...

      We the people could do something about that. Except that half of us are G.E.'s so there probably isn't the momentum to. So SMB's and people in the upper economic half will continue to pay to their fair share while no one else does.

    2. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by happyhamster · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There are little things called ethics and morality. One would find entire paragraphs in corporate employee handbooks about how an employee is supposed to act ethically at all times. Whether Apple's tactics are illegal is up to court to decide, but their employees who set up the whole scheme definitely act unethically, and, by my standards, immorally.

    3. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gov't taxes are theft not only of your money, but of your LIFE, because you have to spend your life making that money.

      It's forced labour, it is slave labour. The government is using you as slaves.

      AFAIC Apple should fund an army and take the government down.

      Actually, real slave labour is entirely different and much, much worse. If there was a way to opt out of the various infrastructure, security, legal protections and other benefits from belonging to a nation, I'd say you might have a point... but there isn't, aside from moving to Somalia, and it turns out that kind of Anarchy isn't what people want. What you're proposing is getting something for nothing; it's popular when you're the one getting something, and never popular when you're the one giving it, and always an illusion.

    4. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, please. Quit with the taxes=theft thing. Sane adults understand that we need governments and taxes. Ayn Rand/Tea Party silliness isn't based in reality. You'll understand when you grow up and interact with the world a bit more.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hate the game indeed. The whole system is rigged to favor the fat cats. Obama's "job czar"??? Jeff Immelt, as CEO of General Electric, has orchestrated a situation where one of the largest employers in the US and generator of billions in profits pays a pittance (if anything at all) in US corporate taxes.

      Republican...Democrat....they're all for sale to the highest bidder. And people just wink at that while the media waves their hands about who Kim Kardashian is blowing this week. zzzzzzzzzz.....

    6. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are basing your claims on the assumption that taxation is moral and avoiding taxation by legal means is immoral. I don't subscribe to that newsletter.

      If the taxation is moral and Apple is using that system of taxation to pay the amount of taxes required by Apple under that system I don't see how this could be called immoral.

      If, on the other hand, Apple, who has obligations to shareholders, employees, and customers, were to pay more than the minimum required taxes, that would mean they were not upholding their obligations to their shareholders (who would get less profits), employees (who would have fewer raises, perks), and customers (who would have to pay higher prices). That strikes me as immoral.

      The other problem with your point of view is that those who have the *least* stake in Apple ought to be paid not what they *say* they ought to be paid (via the tax code with threat of force to back it up) but by what *you personally* feel they should morally be ponying up.

    7. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by ankhank · · Score: 1

      "No one wants unnecessary regulation. And rules ought to be clear and simple. But let's be real. Most of the complexity and verbiage that finds its way into the Code of Federal Regulations is the result of industry lawyers and lobbyists who exploit every potential ambiguity to avoid doing what lawmakers intend -- thereby necessitating ever-more detailed and picayune rules to close the loopholes. It's an endless cat-and-mouse game that runs from regulatory agencies through the courts and then back again." -- Robert Reich

      There's your big government problem. We'd have a smaller government -- if we got rid of the loopholes and the large staffs needed to keep track of all the fine distinctions that create them, enforce them, and watch for the new ones coming out every year.

    8. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by subreality · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many disagree with that ethic. In fact, in the landmark case for tax avoidance, here's what they had to say:

      "[A]nyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.

      Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: Taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions.

      To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."

    9. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      What you're proposing is getting something for nothing; it's popular when you're the one getting something, and never popular when you're the one giving it, and always an illusion.

      That's the state of most societies. The argument is always who should be the group giving and who should be the group receiving. You can't say the US doesn't already have a lot of people living in it doing much more giving than they receive and an enormous contingent of people who receive all those same benefits (and frequently many more) while giving almost nothing.

    10. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody should quit saying it, because it's true. However, most people realize that there are overall benefits to such systematic theft. As long as it's pointed out, we may have some restraint on how much is taken because the ends should be justifiable given the means. If they are not justifiable, the means should not be employed in that area and there should be a great deal of protest if they are employed in such a manner anyway.

    11. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The founding fathers and mothers of this country saw taxation, and even the very existence of a government, as a necessary evil. It is completely realistic to see taxation as both evil and necessary to avoid the greater evil of anarchy. But like a powerful medicine, too much is poison to the system and causes a collapse. Without the hyperbole or exaggeration that you have assigned to them, this is something that both Ayn Rand and the Tea Party understand.

    12. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You think it's theft because you think that property is a natural right. Property is no more a natural right than copyright. Property is a right that exists by consent of every person who does not own it, or else by force. If by consent, then consent can be withheld. If by force, then you initiated force, and you no longer hold the moral high ground. In neither case is taxation theft.

    13. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The implications of what you are saying are scary. If I work to build something, you're saying the only reason I own the result of my work is because the masses say I do. So you have no moral argument with the masses saying they own what I produced. In your world, with a simple majority vote, everything that a person or group of persons have earned can be confiscated for the greater good, with no moral qualms. Scary.

    14. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fiduciary responsibility is a reference to what one must do as a director or officer of a company, avoiding tax is not one of these and is in fact illegal.

      minimizing tax is legal.

      however all these big blue chips that spend millions if not more on complex structures are one of the reasons the USA is in such dire straights at the moment as well as quite a few other countries, just look at greece, they have a very long ingrained history of tax avoidance, to the point where its crippled them.

      How much money is enough?

    15. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by waltlaw · · Score: 1

      Nuts. If I don't have a natural right to my property then a state has no natural right to tax it. Back to square one.

    16. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      You don't need a right to do a thing that infringes on no one's rights.

    17. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by khipu · · Score: 1

      Pointing this out is not about whether Apple did anything wrong, it's about whether we should change laws so that they can't keep behaving this way.

      Furthermore, Apple likes to project a particular kind of image, and their customers should know what the company is really doing: they are a profit maximizing entity, nothing more. All the shiny packaging, talk of innovation, and fancy stores is just a facade to extract the maximum amount of money from your pocket. That's alright, but people need to be reminded of it periodically.

    18. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incapability of dealing with the complexities of reality is part of why the notion of "taxation is theft" is infantile, yes. So reality is scary? No shit. Grow up and deal with it, denying reality will not get you anywhere.

    19. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There is property and then there is property. Few would deny you the property rights you hold to the shirt on your back, or whatever you produce with your own hands, or the house that you live in. Those are obviously yours - by virtue of making them or using them.

      On the other hand, when you own shares, that's also property - a property that you've never probably even seen in your life, and the one that you don't actually meaningfully use. It's a purely abstract concept - the one that exists solely because the rest of us also willingly agree to pretend that it's real, and respect your rights. Same goes for property rights on e.g. land beyond what a single person can reasonably use - you can buy hundreds of square miles of land if you have enough money, but they are only meaningfully yours because everyone else agrees to treat them as they were.

      That point is where what GP said comes in. When your property rights are abstract and hinging on the society's recognition of them to be effective, said rights can and do come with strings attached, such as property tax.

    20. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by ExploHD · · Score: 1

      Think about it this way, you are able to build wealth (money, land, property) because the laws allows it to happen.

    21. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Property is no more a natural right than copyright.

      Hear, hear. In particular, "ownership" or "property" is the idea that one individual or entity happens to be assigned most, though not all, rights associated with some object. We've found as a society that tends to work best in practice. However, we've also found that in practice you cannot assign all rights to an object e.g. As a home owner there's a laundry list of government officials who can enter your property at will or as a gun owner you can only shoot it in approved locations and situations. We've also found in other situations shared ownership works better (e.g. company shareholders or rights-of-way for highways or utilities). Not to mention the far more complex worlds of loans, derivatives and promises.

      Personally, I'm quite happy that the government taxes me as long as the services provided by those taxes are equitable and reasonable. One person, one vote (government/citizen) works better than one dollar, one vote (company/shareholder) sometimes. Life is complicated.

    22. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A person has property rights to things like stocks because they are honestly traded for things he more obviously owns. Denying that right or stealing those stocks is fully equivalent to denying the right to or stealing the product of his own labor.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    23. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You don't need a right to do a thing that infringes on no one's rights.

      That's a confused statement. You automatically have such a right, but it may be necessary that the right be recognized, and formalized in law.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    24. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Taxes = Theft. What is unclear about it?

      Taxes = Theft. There are no buts and ifs about it.

      Taxes = Theft. Theft of life. It's forced labour.

    25. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if we are going to play that game, then you have only one natural right--to die.

    26. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, some taxes are necessary - but not the huge amount confiscated now. I'm actually old enough to remember such a time. That's right, I predate Medicare, Medicaid, Public housing, Food Stamps, massive government regulations and all the rest. We still had schools, police departments, hospitals, running water, sewer systems and all - they were mostly run on the county level, and they usually (but not always) worked BETTER than what we have now!

      We also had much lower taxes (hint, marginal tax rate != real tax rate). We also had much more control of how things were run. I can remember running into our county commissioner in the grocery store, and it was "Hi John, what's new?". We had control in other ways too - if there was something wrong in our county and we had tried and failed to fix it, it was pretty easy to move to the next county. It's a lot harder to move to another country.

      As a tax example, when my mother-in-law died, we cleaned out her apartment and found tax returns dating back to the 1940s. In 1943, my father-in-law made $311,560 (inflation adjusted) and paid $9, 472 (inflation adjusted) in income taxes. That's right, just 3.04% real tax rate. I make roughly a third of that, but I pay double the amount in taxes, an effective income tax rate of 18.1% - plus 15.3% in self-employment taxes. (very low overhead, essentially no deductions).

    27. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A person has property rights to things like stocks because they are honestly traded for things he more obviously owns.

      You can only trade such rights from someone else who already has them, at which point the same question arises - how does that person got to own them?

    28. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by mellon · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is scary. The world is not a happy, comfortable place. Many people have in fact suffered exactly the woe you describe here. This has come as often at the hands of corporations as governments, but it can definitely come at the hands of governments. If you don't want this to happen, the last thing you should be doing is destabilizing a democracy.

    29. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by mellon · · Score: 1

      No, sorry, this is just equivocating. There is no difference between a share and a house. The fact that you own your house (if you do!) is purely a social construct. If all the people who would like to live in your house decided to take it from you, there is nothing that you could do to stop them. The reason this doesn't happen is that (1) they couldn't all have it, and (2) they also want to own a house without using force to defend it.

      Indeed, in a sense your ownership of a share is less subject to common agreement than your ownership of your house, because your ownership of your house really is an agreement between you and the rest of the population. Your ownership of a stock is an agreement between you and the next person to whom you try to sell it, and the company that issued it. As long as all these parties agree that you own the stock, you own the stock.

    30. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by mellon · · Score: 1

      The state doesn't have a natural right to your property. No-one has a natural right to your property, or to any property. To the extent that property ownership exists, it exists through common consent, not by nature. This is actually true of all rights that are enforceable. E.g., if you accept the notion of natural rights at all, it's hard to claim that two people have a natural right to marry, and two other people do not; if that were so, the right wouldn't be natural. The right that matters is the one granted by common consent, because you can actually exercise it. So it's important to understand the distinction between these two concepts, both of which can be referred to by the word "right."

      So back to your point, the state doesn't have a natural right to your property, but you don't either. Taxation is simply the exchange you make with the rest of the people who might dispute your right to your property, that results in them agreeing not to dispute it.

    31. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by mellon · · Score: 1

      No, you don't even have a natural right to die. In the sense of enforceable rights, you have no rights at all, unless they are granted or unless you are able to exercise them without interference because nobody is trying to stop you from doing so. In the sense of natural rights, you have whatever natural rights you think you have, but the fact that you have them has no force.

    32. Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I said nothing about natural rights. The concept of property and theft both stem, ultimately, from the conventions on use of force and/or coercion. The disagreement is merely word choice and semantics.

  12. just like every other global company by pbjones · · Score: 1

    Yawn.. lets examine MS or IBM, or any major global company. about 10% tax? sounds a little high, there are business execs who pay 5%.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
    1. Re:just like every other global company by NoMaster · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  13. So... Apple is a corporation then? by Kenja · · Score: 1

    this is truly shocking news, I must warn the masses!

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  14. Lets make a deal... by faazshift · · Score: 1

    I would be happy to overlook this if they forwarded just a low 0.01% of that 2.4 billion to me!

    --
    http://faazshift.blogspot.com/
  15. it's called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    smart business, you dumbshits - try starting your own company and working for a living

  16. And this is a story? by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

    Why exactly is this a story. Replace Apple in the headline with a * where * means any major corporation. I mean Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Sony, and all of them do it.

  17. Oh Look... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh look, another story that is actually about virtually every major company in existence but it's turned into a story by replacing "every company" with "Apple" to make it sensational and generate page views. *yawn*

    1. Re:Oh Look... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, Apple, the company that bills itself as a maverick that makes its own way, that does things 'right', is shown to be rather run-of-the-mill money-grubbers like those it decries? Yeah, nothing newsworthy there.

    2. Re:Oh Look... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      You're right, the issue is far broader and more significant than is implied by the headline.

    3. Re:Oh Look... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, Google, the company that bills itself as a maverick that makes its own way, that does things 'right', is shown to be rather run-of-the-mill money-grubbers like those it decries? Yeah, nothing newsworthy there.

      FTFY

  18. Ah, the obvious tax troll by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

    So is the implication that there is tax evasion, fraud, or perhaps some other unsavory conspiracy afoot? I'm betting that Martin A. Sullivan has resorted to such tactics as itemized deductions and other writeoffs, and perhaps... well, I don't want to make any accusations here, all I'm saying is Mr. Sullivan really doesn't *have* to employ such tactics, and he could give up more of his (hard?) earned money to his state and federal governments. In the same way he implies that an evil corporation (my words, not his) is dodging taxes, I think he may probably, almost definitely, be involved in that kind of activity as well. Why would he want to deprive , say, the IRS of his money using legal means to limit his tax bill? Does he hate America?

    Remember, the IRS happily accepts donations, as I'm sure other state run tax collection/enforcement agencies do as well. So, please, feel free to donate! They do accept donations. Feel free to give 'em more of YOUR money. Or you could, I don't know, use every available legal means at your disposal to limit your tax liability, seeing it's YOUR money, and YOU earned it.

  19. Dear lefties by Scareduck · · Score: 0

    Just because you think every penny spent or earned is yours does not make it so, or a good idea.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:Dear lefties by tftp · · Score: 1

      Just because you think every penny spent or earned is yours does not make it so, or a good idea.

      What? You mean that if I work whole day digging a ditch, that labor does not belong to me? You are saying I'm a slave?

      My labor belongs to me; it is mine. (A simple test: I can choose to not work.) For the good of the society we choose to donate some of that money to the state, to be wisely used for specific purposes that are defined by law [*] We call this money "taxes."

      [*] Unfortunately, for some reason that also includes $500K vacations of members of Emperor's family.

    2. Re:Dear lefties by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I believe that line was actually referring to people who had done none of the work to earn those pennies, but instead believe it to be theirs to do with as they please despite having nothing to do with its production.

    3. Re:Dear lefties by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean Congress. I get it.

      Carry on.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    4. Re:Dear lefties by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Who would that be? We've almost all contributed (in the form of taxes and withholding) to the growth of Apple (and other huge corporations) by funding the government which gives them a favorable environment in which to profit. While it would certainly be better to just end corporate welfare, in the meantime we are definitely entitled to a portion of the gains we helped promote.

    5. Re:Dear lefties by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Don't ask me, ask the person who said it what they mean. I was simply interpreting.

  20. New Branding? by GeneralTurgidson · · Score: 1

    Similar to organic food, the US Treasury could offer companies a stamp for their products indicating they pay their share of taxes. It could be a picture of people dumping te--cash into a harbor.

  21. Oh no, battle ahead by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Cue the red/blue cultural war in 3...2...1...

    One thing that makes me nervous about too much concentrated wealth is that orgs and zillionaires use it to buy political influence such that we no longer are a democracy. This is one reason why a larger portion of our GDP has been gradually shifting toward the wealthy since WW2.

    If one can find a way to put a check on this, then I wouldn't be so nervous about it. The Citizen's United ruling didn't help.

  22. Paying Almost 10%? by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 1

    Looks like they need to try harder, they must be paying one of the highest rates for a multinational corporation.

    OT Why can't I log in via the drop down box at the top right, does it not support user names with spaces?

  23. Please run this story again next week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change the title to How Microsoft Sidesteps Billions In Global Taxes.

    I want to compare the responses to determine:
    The % of Slashdotters that hate Apple.
    The % of Slashdotters that hate Microsoft.
    The % of Slashdotters that live in California but are too dumb to move.
    The % of Slashdotters that wont stop till they take every freakin dime I have.
     
    Well, Ok, I don't really care about the first three.

  24. Wait, what?!?! by Rytr23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wait.. Apple paid ~10% in federal taxes? But I thought 'Merica had the one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world and companies were fleeing to banana republics to avoid them!!

    --
    So many injustices..so little time..
    1. Re:Wait, what?!?! by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why they only paid that much, because they have offshore subsidiaries in low tax locations where a great deal of their profits are held. They pay more than many other companies because they have physical product. If you sell only software, it's easier to move more of your money into low-tax jurisdictions while still being able to use it to continue your business. "Fleeing" is not the right word, because they still maintain their primary presence in the markets they serve. They just don't maintain the same financial structure, which makes all the difference in the world from a tax standpoint.

      If the US lowered their tax rate to be roughly equal with the jurisdictions companies are allowed to shift profits to, they would have no reason to shift those profits. The only way companies will pay more US taxes is if they are barred by law from creating such subsidiaries (something hideously difficult to realistically do) or if they have no reason to work through such subsidiaries.

      It only sounds counter-intuitive if you don't understand how the economics of multinational corporations work.

    2. Re:Wait, what?!?! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      We do have the highest tax rates in the world, and they did shift their tax burden overseas through a process called transfer pricing (google that term.)

      That 10% didn't actually go to the federal government.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    3. Re:Wait, what?!?! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Except it turns out that the number in the article is bogus. According to this article the reason that Apple's tax rate appears so low is because they based their quarterly estimated taxes in the U.S.2011 on their 2010 profits (as the law requires) and saw a major increase in their profits in 2011. They will pay a balancing payment in 2012 for the amount that there quarterly tax payments in 2011 fell short of meeting their tax obligation. It will be a pretty hefty payment as well, since their profits approximately doubled from 2010 to 2011.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  25. DOesn't seem that low, considering... by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

    Look at what certain other companies pay and 9.8% seems quite high (the example that springs to mind is Vodafone who pay close to 0% in the UK despite taking in a fair amount of income over here, though I'm not sure what their global aggregate tax rate is).

    High paid individuals too. The best known example there being Bono who is now essentially Dutch, at least for tax purposes. I suggest he take the next step like Hotblack Desiato and be dead for tax purposes! (I can't promise it'll be quick and painless, but I've got a perfectly serviceable bat I'd be willing to help him out with)

    This really isn't "news". It happens all the time, it has done for as long as there has been corporate tax, and you could no doubt find far better (or worse) examples than Apple with little effort.

  26. Re:Dear righties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because you live in a vacuum of moral relativism doesn't mean we all do. Some of us believe in paying our fair share, and this ranges the entire scope from not making fraudulent deductions to not using shell corporations and loopholes to hide shift profit from legal and rightful taxation required to sustain the country. Profit is not derived without responsibility.

  27. The difference between innovation and whining by fermion · · Score: 1

    Microsoft complains that the US laws and taxes were too stifling, so whined that if the laws were not changed they would take their toys and move to a playground in Canada. Apple works within the rules and innovates methods to minimize the impact.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:The difference between innovation and whining by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, Apple sells a physical product, which limits their ability to minimize their taxes through holding companies in other jurisdictions. That is the one and only reason they pay more taxes.

      Microsoft's product is all intellectual property which, even when licensed, has no physical manifestation in higher-tax jurisdictions. That means it can be held (and thus profit generated from it based) in low-tax jurisdictions. The company in the US then licenses its own technology, thus incurring a tax loss in the US.

      You can't do that the same way with a physical product.

  28. I fucking hate apple. by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 1

    But I can't hate them for this -- every single corporation in existence does this, and until the laws are changed to better handle it, I don't fault companies for doing whatever they can to take advantage of them.

    1. Re:I fucking hate apple. by jcr · · Score: 0

      every single corporation in existence does this,

      Every corporation with competent accountants and tax attorneys, you mean. Any company that fails to do this is wasting their shareholders' money.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:I fucking hate apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jcr falling all over himself to defend Apple? That's shocking.

      Don't you ever get tired of shilling?

  29. I make $77K and am taxed 30% in New York City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck that, I'm going AWOL now.

    1. Re:I make $77K and am taxed 30% in New York City by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2

      fuck that, I'm going AWOL now.

      Vote with your feet. America is a country with 49 other options for you besides NY/NYC. Quit griping and show them that they and their unions simply aren't worth the price any longer.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    2. Re:I make $77K and am taxed 30% in New York City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You work in NYC and you only make $77K? What do you do, blow guys in the bus station toilet for 5 bucks a throw?

      I live in Philadelphia and make a measley $130K, but that's because I'm lazy and unambitious.

  30. Meanwhile... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Apple gets to leverage our legal protections and infrastructure for free. This is why corporations should be paying taxes and not just written off because they hire people. We have to hire armies of accountants to deconstruct their obfuscated tax returns, stretch out our infrastructure to support their sprawling campuses, and accommodate all of the lawsuits they fling back and forth between each other.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  31. This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG! Apple does what other companies do! Don't tell anyone - but I've even heard .... shhhhhhhh ... that they make computers!

    Holy motherfucking shit on a cocksucking mime sucking jesus christ's cock cuntlips fag! THIS IS NEWS that will GET ADD IMPRESSIONS! Get this flamebait bullshit on the interwebs STAT!

    Slashdot is for fags. MMMMmmmmmmm cock!

  32. I See a Stupid Point, and a Thoughtful Point by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

    Stupid point: Apple is choosing to incorporate where the taxes and laws are most favorable

    Thoughtful point: Apple is using multilayer international tax law in order to reduce the lion's share of their taxes.

  33. Liberals Talk The Talk by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rich Liberals (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, GE, Apple) talk a good line about how we all need to pay our fair share (i.e. always more than we're paying now), and they become Good Liberals for saying so, but they never walk the walk. Buffet has been fighting a full billion $ that he owes for the last decade. Gates doesn't write checks for above his minimum tax, but instead employs highly paid accountants to minimize his taxes. GE hides profits overseas and you just read all the twists, turns, and contortions that Apple goes through to avoid US taxes -- yet we celebrate them as a company and continue to buy their overpriced trinkets manufactured by outsourced overseas jobs.

    But do we ever hear about all of that? Hell No! We only hear that ROMNEY (who is paying his lawful rate) DOESN'T PAY ENOUGH TAXES!

    We are clueless as a society overall. In Pogo terms: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Liberals Talk The Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes , it's always those liberals dodging taxes. Romney doesn't have any offshore subsidiaries dodging taxes for him.

      Idiot.

    2. Re:Liberals Talk The Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess your point is that Romney pays so little taxes because, like those librul companies, he gets a lot of income from foreign sources.

  34. Why youi need taxes by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    the government sees you and your earnings as its own property. They are only asking themselves one question: how to maximise the government revenue, while the only question they should be allowed to ask is this: what is the bare minimum that gov't is allowed to do and how much should it cost.

    And the answer is: it depends. capitalism helps rich people increasing their wealth, while the poor get poorer. Democracy is an antidote, since the many poor can force some wealth redistribution through taxes. And we should be glad this mechanism exists, since when the poor gets too poor to buy what is produced, the economy collapse.

    Telling that taxes should be low is not a natural truth, it is a political opinion, and depending on the economical situation, following that route may be harmful for everyone

    1. Re:Why youi need taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see, capitalism is the poison and democracy is the antidote, by which we can force wealth redistribution through confiscation and administration by government. Thanks for the insight.

    2. Re:Why youi need taxes by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "The poor" in the US is a small portion of the population, and economically insignificant. Excepting only those who live exclusively off inherited wealth, of all economic groups, the poor contribute the least in comparison to the burden they place on others. If they were to instantly disappear, the economy would experience a substantial boost as a brake on productivity is removed.

      Simply put, ending a small and ineffective group will not cause the economy to collapse

      If the labor of "the poor" were worth more, they could charge more for their labor and they wouldn't be poor.

      Telling that taxes should be low is not a natural truth, it is a political opinion...

      "Should" always implies "to reach this goal". If the goal is the economic wellbeing of the populace, taxes should be low. If the goal is to establish tyranny and impoverish the populace, taxes should be high.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:Why youi need taxes by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      "The poor" in the US is a small portion of the population, and economically insignificant

      What is your definition of a "poor"?

    4. Re:Why youi need taxes by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      And the answer is: it depends. capitalism helps rich people increasing their wealth, while the poor get poorer.

      - wrong.

      Capitalism allows people to increase their productivity by reusing their own investment capital.

      If you produce something and don't consume all of it, you are now a capitalist, because you are accruing capital investment. Now you can do with it as you wish - you can reuse it in your own business to grow it, you can loan it out for somebody else to use to build their own business and you can rightfully expect a return on that investment based on your contract with the debtor.

      You can burn it.

      Democracy is an antidote, since the many poor can force some wealth redistribution through taxes.

      - capitalism is the tool that decreases poverty. Never in history of humanity has poverty been decreased so much as during capitalism. Capitalism provides the people in the market with the goods and services that are overproduced when a capitalist tries to increase his own wealth.

      Wealth of all people is increased by a capitalist, who is underconsuming what he is overproducing and in he is using the savings that are underconsumed as investment to build more products and services.

      Poor people are served best by capitalists looking for profit, not by any government of the world.

      By the way, democracy is a gateway to tyranny, as the mob is only too happy to give away its freedoms to the government via quite democratic means - voting for bread and circuses totalitarian government means taking steps towards tyranny and it's done very democratically. USA was started as a representative republic so that the mob wouldn't be in a position to vote the individual freedoms away for a promise of bread and circuses taxation based tyranny.

      And we should be glad this mechanism exists, since when the poor gets too poor to buy what is produced, the economy collapse.

      - if the poor are NOT participating in the production process but are sustained by the taxes applied to those, who produce, then this argument is the most ignorant, the stupidest argument in the world.

      So a person works and produces goods, then he is taxed so that some people can be given that tax money and buy his product?

      So he is robbed TWICE. First time is when he is taxed and second time when he is paid HIS OWN MONEY for HIS OWN PRODUCTS, so now he gets TWICE THE WORK for no benefit!

      And this is the basics of modern economics - Keynesian cretinism.

      Telling that taxes should be low is not a natural truth, it is a political opinion, and depending on the economical situation, following that route may be harmful for everyone

      - the USA became the world biggest producer and creditor in the world with 0 income taxes.

      0 income taxes.
      0 payroll taxes.
      0 corporate taxes.
      0 capital gains taxes.
      0 dividend taxes.

      0 FED, 0 FDIC, 0 EPA, 0 FDA, 0 FHA, 0 HUD, 0 FBI, 0 minimum wage, 0 entitlement and obligation of the so called 'civil rights', 0 dep't of energy, 0 dep't of education, 0 dep't of commerce, 0 dep't of transportation, 0 dep't of interior, 0 SS, 0 Medicare, 0 undeclared wars.

    5. Re:Why youi need taxes by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Wealth of all people is increased by a capitalist, who is underconsuming what he is overproducing and in he is using the savings that are underconsumed as investment to build more products and services..

      Ok, this is the theory. How do you explain surproduction crisis, such as 1929?

    6. Re:Why youi need taxes by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Ok, this is the theory. How do you explain surproduction crisis, such as 1929?

      - how do you explain that you don't understand what the recession of 1929 was actually all about? I explain it by your lack of knowledge and purposeful distortion of history by your education system.

      The recession resulted from the Federal reserve of USA printing USD to support bad UK debt. Due to this intervention a bubble was inflated in the agriculture stocks and in this comment I showed the history of Hoover and then FDR stepping in with huge bail outs and stimulus packages, which turned the recession into the Great Depression.

  35. Ohh oohh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it like IKEA? They set up a fake "charity" in Holland ???

  36. how USA manages to remain an union? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    In the UE we are just discovering how harmful is mandatory free capital movement across states with different tax rates. What surprises me is that the USA managed to remain an union for so long with such a system.

    1. Re:how USA manages to remain an union? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Freedom. It does not surprise me in the slightest that a European, with to world wars under its belt and a quit work of Socialist economies, does not understand this.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:how USA manages to remain an union? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFL Yeah, we see exactly which kind of freedom is left there. You sir, are an idiot.

    3. Re:how USA manages to remain an union? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to taste USA freedom, but the terrible TSA stories scare me out and I do not dare taking a journey there.

    4. Re:how USA manages to remain an union? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      The Union fought a devastating and horrific war to avoid dissolution. That history coupled with its unsavory moral context drastically inflates the barriers around considering a dissolution. For icing on the cake there is the propaganda which paints anyone who questions anything about the US as "anti-American" (as if that means anything), and at this point there's also quite a lot of inertia.

      The US as a union will almost certainly collapse eventually, but it may be an even uglier chapter of history than the US Civil War.

  37. Don't wish higher taxes on Apple by Boawk · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that every company has to recoup its costs which includes taxes. If a wand could be waved to ensure all computer manufacturers paid higher taxes, you would see higher computer prices, not lower profits. Those higher taxes come out of your pocket, not the company's. Apple's prices are set according to what the market will bear relative to their competitors. If taxes on all computer manufacturers increase, so will prices.

    1. Re:Don't wish higher taxes on Apple by Relayman · · Score: 2
      Mod parent up. This is the point that most people miss:

      Every company has to recoup its costs which includes taxes.

      You can tax corporations as much as you want and they will just pass the tax on to their customers. In Ohio, we have a Corporate Activity Tax that is, by law, not to be passed on to customers but some companies do it anyway (no, I can't prove it so I won't name names).

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    2. Re:Don't wish higher taxes on Apple by mellon · · Score: 1

      This is true in a commodity market with low margins. In Apple's market, recouping their costs is a non-problem. This is why they have, and are sitting on, a humongous cash surplus. They probably can't raise their prices—if they did, their sales would drop. They have chosen the price point they have because it is what the market will bear. So no, if their taxes went up, they would simply make less money. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is an open question, but the notion that an increase in taxes is always passed along to the customer, while it seems to make sense, is actually wrong.

    3. Re:Don't wish higher taxes on Apple by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "no, I can't prove it"

      Then why did you make the claim?

    4. Re:Don't wish higher taxes on Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is exactly nothing you can do to prevent the taxes from being passed on to real people. It passes to shareholders, or employees, or customers (or some combination of). You can sort of pick which category of people you want to impose it on, but you can't pick to not impose it on any.

      So.. Ohio is dumb for trying. Because the result is likely to be fewer employees or lower salaries, as that would be the easiest way to not pass it on to customers and not eat the tax directly.

    5. Re:Don't wish higher taxes on Apple by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      yea then maybe apple could be competitive on price / performance, and if not? die

      the majority of people are not buying 1600$ imac's when a 699pc out sells it, make them even more expensive then maybe apple will quit living in 1990's price land

    6. Re:Don't wish higher taxes on Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you not pass liabilities to customers? The only answer would be to pay the tax out of profit. But who is to decide how much profit is allowed? If I make 7% profit one year, am I excluded from making more profit next year? Who determines if the tax payment was passed on to customers/and how is it determined?

    7. Re:Don't wish higher taxes on Apple by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yeah because apples profit margin is mandated by some another law? it's not and there's limits on what people are willing to pay for an apple product(obviously, if there wasn't, their profit margin would be even higher).

      that's the thing. they could have done just as well, would still have a lot of money to think where to dump it-.. even if they had undercut all their prices by 10% for the past decade - or if that money had gone to taxes.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Don't wish higher taxes on Apple by Relayman · · Score: 1

      To illustrate that companies will pass corporate taxes on to their customers even when they are specially banned from doing so.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  38. low tax places by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 1

    Huh? Since when is Netherlands a low tax place?
    I suspect a journalistic error here. Maybe the author meant to say Netherlands Antilles, the Caribean island nation?
    The Netherlands though, has some of the highest taxes in the world.
    Try 21 percent sales tax, 52% income tax and US$9.28 per gallon gas (most of which is tax).
    Corporate taxes are not much lower.

    --
    Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
    1. Re:low tax places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      39.2% versus 25.5% is not that much in your mind? No wonder you didn't bother to quote the numbers.

    2. Re:low tax places by Zappy · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same; as a Dutch person I don't consider The Netherlands a 'low tax' place. If they manage to bend the rules to make it 'low tax' I would like to know how they did that...

    3. Re:low tax places by rve · · Score: 1

      The Netherlands are a notorious corporate tax haven. You are looking at income tax. The 52% is just the highest tax bracket, not a lot of people make enough money to have a significant portion of their income taxed at that level (I get to keep about 70% of my income). But corporations don't pay income tax. Corporate taxes are on the low side (lower than in the US), and multinationals in particular have a loophole they can use to pay even less.

  39. This calls for the Judge Learned Hand quote... by jejones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."

    Now, you may think the law should demand more. I would disagree with you. I don't resent Apple their ability to avoid taxation, any more than I would resent a friend who managed to escape a thief or mugger with minimal damage or loss.

    1. Re:This calls for the Judge Learned Hand quote... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      No, not everyone does it. When was the last time you saw a blue collar worker use a tax loophole to get their effective tax rate to 10%?

      Actually, forget that. You're equating taxes to thievery which already shows you don't have a good grip on reality.

      --
      ~X~
  40. If we want to raise revenue by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

    We should just lower taxes. Sounds counter intuitive, but it's true. A lot of companies move their administrative operations overseas because it is cheaper to do so. Not because the labor is cheaper, but because other countries have a lower tax rate. Our statutory tax rate is the highest in the world.

    If we made our tax rate more competitive, you'd probably see those operations heading back. Not only that, but you'd see companies in foreign countries end up incorporating over here, and we'd be the ones collecting that tax revenue. In my opinion, 10% would bring a ton of corporate interest in our direction. Let's not stop there though, let's remove all possible exemptions. All of them, including green subsidies (remember, this is part of the reason GE pays no taxes, not only that but green subsidies haven't done a damn thing to improve green tech, and let's not even get into Solyndra.)

    As it is right now for the large corporations, we collect virtually zero income tax. Instead Ireland and Bermuda collect that money.

    The only alternative to this is forbid transfer pricing. Obama tried to do that, and a bunch of companies said they would just move their entire operations overseas in order to remain competitive. When that happens, the jobs go bye-bye and you lose even more tax revenue, not to mention piss off your constituents. So naturally he backed down.

    If you don't believe that raising taxes can lower revenue, think again:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501010_2.html

    France's opposition Socialist Party leader Francois Hollande said recently that his party's -- and his country's -- opposition to proposals to lower high-income taxes has nothing to do with disdain for the wealthy. "I don't have anything against rich people, as such," Hollande said in a recent political debate. "They have the right to be rich. But I can't accept that the richest can have their taxes lowered."

    "This tendency to take from the rich and give to the poor which is supposed to solve all the problems in France is ruining the country," said Alain Marchand, who left France six years ago and now has a London-based consulting business that helps relocate French business leaders and entrepreneurs in England and other countries. "That's an incredibly stupid and narrow-minded vision of economic life."

    Eric Pinchet, author of a French tax guide, estimates the wealth tax earns the government about $2.6 billion a year but has cost the country more than $125 billion in capital flight since 1998.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    1. Re:If we want to raise revenue by JosephTX · · Score: 1

      You're proposing that the US becomes a giant tax haven. That only works on a micro scale. City-states like Singapore or Luxembourg can get away with it because they have minimal infrastructure costs and steal taxable revenue from all around the globe--and STILL just support their single cities. Even small countries like Ireland and Iceland--who tried lowering taxes and deregulating businesses exactly as you're talking about--couldn't sustain it.

      It's one thing to suggest lowering tax rates to a level similar to Japan's (which still only has an 11:1 CEO/employee pay ratio, compared to our 325:1 ratio) or England's (22:1, the SECOND-HIGHEST after the US) while closing loopholes, but it's another thing entirely to buy into this corporate propaganda.

    2. Re:If we want to raise revenue by JosephTX · · Score: 1

      Also, those operations are going to China because they can pay people $10 a day there. Even so, that's not the cause of most of the missing revenue. A business might be MAKING things in another country (although the 20% of the US' GDP is still manufacturing--remarkably average for advanced economies), they're still SELLING all the same stuff here, and they're still providing all the same services here. Unless we start taxing a company for over 100% of the profits they're making from doing business in the country, they're still going to have an incentive to do business in the country.

      That's why pharmaceutical companies can sell medicine in Mexico for $5, while charging you $200 for it here. Mexico doesn't subsidize it; they can just still make a profit from selling the medicine to Mexicans for $5, and they make an additional $195 from selling it to you.

    3. Re:If we want to raise revenue by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Even small countries like Ireland and Iceland--who tried lowering taxes and deregulating businesses exactly as you're talking about--couldn't sustain it.

      That's not true, when Ireland lowered their corporate tax rate, they saw HUGE economic boom as many businesses decided to move their operations over there.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-256404.html

      The only reason they are having problems now is because their banking system collapsed a few years later due to unrelated issues.

      If Ireland raised their tax rates to what they were before, they'd only stand to lose revenue. In other words, there's no question that their tax rate is sustainable.

      Besides, if you pay attention, corporations don't pay taxes anyways. They just pass those tax expenses on to their customers. If you raise their taxes, they'll simply raise their prices on goods and services. Eventually it would get to the point that it is simply no longer profitable to run a business here, and you'll end up in a situation France is in.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    4. Re:If we want to raise revenue by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Also, those operations are going to China because they can pay people $10 a day there. Even so, that's not the cause of most of the missing revenue.

      You're confusing administrative operations with manufacturing operations. Transfer pricing is only effective when you move from a country with a high tax liability to a country with a low tax liability. China's taxes, while better than the US, are a lot higher than places like Ireland. This is why apple, google, and microsoft all use transfer pricing, and do so in Ireland.

      Yes, they'll move manufacturing to China, however they aren't paying income taxes in China.

      If you're going to lecture me on taxes, you'd probably want to at least take a basic accounting course or at least economics first.

      That's why pharmaceutical companies can sell medicine in Mexico for $5, while charging you $200 for it here. Mexico doesn't subsidize it; they can just still make a profit from selling the medicine to Mexicans for $5, and they make an additional $195 from selling it to you.

      That has nothing to do with it. They charge more here than in mexico because they know you'll pay more here. It would make no sense to charge $200 in mexico when nobody would buy because they can't even afford it. The same thing happens in Canada, even they pay less for meds than we do. The reason why there's such a difference in price is because US government regulations make it possible. Have you ever wondered why you can't simply order that $5 medication in mexico and have it shipped here? Because the USDA says you can't. You can thank left wing politicians for that because they're too afraid that foreign drugs might hurt you, just like how they want to ban trans fats, MSG, and salt.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    5. Re:If we want to raise revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason they are having problems now is because their banking system collapsed a few years later due to unrelated issues.

      Right, right. Completely unrelated to deregulation. How's the koolaid?

  41. Wipe them out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of them. If corporations are people, can we just genocide them? Please?

    1. Re:Wipe them out. by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Yeah that'll raise revenue real fast.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  42. Good for them!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing illegal. PERFECTLY LEGAL and SMART. Only fools give money away for no benefit. Even people give money to charity know that they are helping people. Giving money away to the government is an ugly, evil sin that must be avoided.

  43. Legal != moral by denzacar · · Score: 0

    It used to be perfectly legal to buy and sell other human beings, yet we gave up that highly profitable practice on account of it being amoral.

    Corporations operating at high tax location A, having 99% of their workforce and assets at location A, using resources of the location A, but avoid paying dues and taxes at location A, paying them instead at low tax location B - that's borderline illegal AND morally corrupt.

    The only reason it is not outright illegal is the fact that corporations can afford a different kind of "justice" than the ordinary, flesh and blood persons.
    Particularly those flesh and blood persons who have to work for a living.

    And that is the source and reason for amorality of such an act.
    Assuring themselves preferential treatment based on possession of monetary and other resources, in an environment (legal) which exists solely for the reason of assuring equal treatment of all parties regarding their rights, obligations and grievances.

    In short, they are exploiting the rules in a way which allows them to play a game within a game, unavailable to "ordinary" players - but whose score carries into the original game.
    And they are cheating while playing the game within the game.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Legal != moral by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that's borderline illegal AND morally corrupt.

      No, the moral issue is the taxation. Your diatribe above presumes that a company's revenues belong to the state.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Legal != moral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxation is necessary for social services. You don't get a functional capitalist society for very long without those.

    3. Re:Legal != moral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your talking point presumes companies should be allowed to benefit from public goods and services without contributing to the public fund.

    4. Re:Legal != moral by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Amoral and immoral are different.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Legal != moral by denzacar · · Score: 1

      No, the moral issue is the taxation. Your diatribe above presumes that a company's revenues belong to the state.

      No, THAT is not the moral issue.
      Nor does my "diatribe" presume that the entire company's revenue belongs to the state - what you seem to be implying there.
      Also, sorry for the typos in the original post. It was almost 4 AM here, so my "immoral" came out as "amoral".
      Thrust naught the spell checkered at fore 'ey am.

      Company (just like the state) exists first and foremost in order to provide a service. That is their REASON for existence.
      While the state exists solely for the reason of providing services to its CITIZENS, as it is an extension of those citizens who all have a right (and a duty) to take part in its work and in benefiting from that work and the said services - a company, be it a two-men operation or a corporation, has a different GOAL.

      Note the difference there. State's reason for existence AND its goal are service to its citizens.
      Company's reason for existence is the ability to provide a service to its consumers, but its goal is making a profit.

      Now, for a "human machine" like a state or a company to function it needs resources.
      Raw goods, money, time, people. All of that belongs to only one species on this planet - humans.

      In case of the state, those humans are called citizens.
      They voluntarily join together, equally investing their trust (through voting) and their time/money through taxes in order for the state to exist so that it could provide services TO EVERYONE, far beyond the means and ability of every single one of those humans.

      Paying taxes, just like voting, is not a burden or immoral.
      It is a duty and a privilege of functioning members of the society willing to contribute their part for the good of ALL.
      Now... If the state becomes immoral, contributing to such a state would by extension be immoral.
      BUT... citizens still have that other tool for taking a part in the workings of the state - voting.
      So, if you find the state going immoral on you - vote for it to change. Or roll up your sleeves and join public service.
      Or even break your contract with it, but then you're on your own and it still posses the mandate given to it by everyone else.

      In case of a company, there is no such thing as citizens.
      Companies deal with CONSUMERS. People buying company's products and services.
      And no, shareholders are not "citizens" either. They are also consumers - only they are buying profit instead of products.
      And they don't have an equal share in the dealings of the company. They don't get to vote the way citizens do with the state. More shares, more influence/votes.
      Nor can they "join the service" of the company and be "elected" in order to change the course the company is taking if they find it amoral.
      Their only way of influence on a company is through money - that is the language the companies speak.
      Which is by definition amoral. Money has no morals. It's neutral.

      But, as companies still exist in the real world, they are forced to use the resources of the state, which is to say resources of the PEOPLE making the state.
      Be it simply roads, protection by the army and police, legal framework, education etc. or more direct resources which belong to everyone - raw materials like ore, water, air etc.
      The only way for companies to pay for the use of those resources is through taxes.

      And no, they can't build their own road and hire their own police/army. The land the road is built on belongs to ALL those future generations - i.e. the people.
      And private police/army is illegal and immoral in so many ways I don't know even where to start.

      When a company chooses to break the contract it has with the society, by avoiding payment for the resources it uses - that's immoral.
      No question about it. It can't be on moral grounds - companies don't have morals. They run on money. Amoral.
      Company breaks a contract - it's because of greed. Which is immoral.

      States, being extension of their citizens, can be both moral and immoral.
      Citizen breaking a contract with the state can have both moral and immoral reasons for doing so.
      Perks of being a human.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    6. Re:Legal != moral by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I know... Sorry about that... It was 4 AM here.

      I did catch those "flash and blood" typos I made though.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    7. Re:Legal != moral by Danathar · · Score: 1

      "that's borderline illegal AND morally corrupt."

      That's practically speaking redundant. "borderline illegal? Something is legal or not (as determined by court). The term implies immoral already.

      Why don't you say "The tax law is immoral" because that is what you are ACTUALLY saying. Of course it's easier to dump on people doing what their elected officials purposely design the tax law to allow them to do then the actual elected officials.

    8. Re:Legal != moral by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      No one's assets belong to the state, but entities which thrive because of state policy absolutely morally owe compensation to the society which helped them thrive, and other state programs are often the mechanism in our society for that sort of compensation. Are there better ways? Absolutely. But crying "taxation is theft!" rings hollow when the state is creating policies in your favor.

    9. Re:Legal != moral by jcr · · Score: 1

      Company (just like the state) exists first and foremost in order to provide a service. That is their REASON for existence.

      Nope. A company exists to make a profit and distribute that profit to its shareholders. Providing a service is a means to that end. Your confusion on this basic point makes the rest of your rant rather ridiculous.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  44. You are wrong. by khasim · · Score: 4, Informative

    Loopholes exist for everyone, including the guy you replied to. People smart enough to use them become rich. People that are not smart enough whine about it.

    Most of the loopholes require a lot of money or assets.

    It's kind of hard to live off of cash you borrowed against your stock holdings if your stock holdings are worth less than your living expenses.

    And moving your money to an off-shore tax haven only makes sense if your tax savings would be larger than the accountant's fees you'd have to pay to do so, plus the amount of the risk of any changes in the tax code here or there.

  45. A better question. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Instead of just looking for loopholes how about LOBBYING to get new loopholes added specifically for your company or situation?

    The average middle-class citizen does not have the money to lobby Congress for changes to the tax law that will help him.

    So why do corporations and the wealthy get to do so?

    1. Re:A better question. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      it's that pesky first amendment, that prohibits congress from abridging your right to petition government to address your grievances. I don't think the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, or mortgage interest deduction are "fair", but maybe if I bought a house, had children, and my income dropped, I would care quite a bit.

      you may not think it is fair for a corporation to be able to take a research and development tax break, but if your job existed because that tax break has made research teams larger, you might think it's a pretty fair allowance.

      But either way, we are allowed to petition congress to address these grievances.

    2. Re:A better question. by rodarson2k · · Score: 1

      The average middle-class citizen does not have the money to lobby Congress for changes to the tax law that will help him.

      But the average middle-class citizen DOES have a staggering number of unemployed friends... Since they're not doing anything at all right now, why don't we get them organized to lobby congress? Can numbers make up for dollars?

    3. Re:A better question. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      Actually the average middle-class citizen has more than enough money to lobby Congress. Just exactly who do you think works in all those evil corporations that lobbists to Congress to tilt the system in their favor?

    4. Re:A better question. by hackula · · Score: 1

      But either way, we are allowed to petition congress to address these grievances.

      I am pretty sure I cannot walk into any congress member's office without being tased. I am fairly certain Balmer, Jobs, or Brin could. When they petition congress it involves a private dinner and a $50,000 donation. When most people do it goes something like this:

      Dear Senator Palpatine,

      As a constituent and a [business owner, tax payer, informed person, etc.] in your district I urge you to reconsider your position on [SOPA, CISPA, Ban Evolution Act, Fuck Science and Reason Act, Kill the Poor Act, etc.]. It would have a serious detrimental effect on our [freedom, progress, science, education, poor, etc.].

      Sincerely,

      [John Doe]

      Dear Sir/Madam,

      Thank you for your support! Please join us with a contribution to my campaign. With your help, we can make [SOPA, CISPA, Ban Evolution Act, Fuck Science and Reason Act, Kill the Poor Act, etc.] a reality and make [freedom, progress, science, education, poor, etc.] a thing of the past!

      Sincerely,

      Emperor Palpatine

    5. Re:A better question. by hackula · · Score: 1
      That is clearly besides the point. The whole lobbying process should have no connection to money at all. Our lobbying system is so close to bribery that it has become a total joke and nobody with half a brain takes it seriously at all. A lobbyist can legally say the following, which is why the system is screwed up in a nutshell:

      "Ok, so we are in agreement that you will vote yes on CISPA? Great, here is a check for $100,000."

      Things will not get better until this is illegal.

  46. So, the story is... by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple's legal and finance departments know their stuff, and the company is fulfilling its fiduciary duty to the shareholders (like me). I don't see why the legacy media dregs at the NYT have any issue with that, but who cares what they say?

    Every dollar that Apple can keep out of government's hands is a dollar that won't be spent on killing people I have no quarrel with, paying goons to grope old ladies, or harassing terminally ill patients who need pain relief.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:So, the story is... by JosephTX · · Score: 2

      Or building your roads. Or educating kids. Or paying people to make sure Johnson & Johnson don't leave metal shards in your tylenol. Or making sure that insurance companies pay you when they owe you money. Or employing cops to keep your neighborhood safe. Or keeping companies (such as Apple) from dumping toxic byproducts into your drinking water. Or making sure water-bottling companies sold clean water if a company DID poison your local water. Or maintaining airports and coordinating their traffic.

      But every dollar Apple keeps WILL go toward pushing impoverished Chinese people toward suicide from making their products. Or poisoning those people from making their products. Or poisoning other people for dumping their byproducts into THEIR local water sources, or air.

      Oh, and of course it'll go toward filling your precious bank account with fractions of the profits.

      Go troll somewhere else.

    2. Re:So, the story is... by jcr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Or building your roads.

      Wow, it took an entire half hour for someone to toss off that canard? Read and learn.

      Or educating kids.

      Oh, you're funny. Have you set foot in an American starter-prison lately? Don't confuse indoctrination with education.

      paying people to make sure Johnson & Johnson don't leave metal shards in your tylenol

      Did some idiot teacher at a government school give you this asinine fantasy that vendors can make more money by killing their customers?

      every dollar Apple keeps WILL go toward pushing impoverished Chinese people toward suicide

      How, by giving them far better pay that they can get at other jobs in China? Do a bit of research: Foxconn workers have a lower suicide rate than every single state in the USA.

      Go troll somewhere else.

      That's advice you should take. Try educating yourself a bit before you do though, so you won't embarrass yourself like this again.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:So, the story is... by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everything the GP said is correct.

      1) Roads. Did you read that article you posted? I encourage everyone to do so, so that they can see the pure, unadulterated crazy that right-wing think tanks like the von Mises Institute churn out. "Thousands of people die in traffic accidents, therefore we should privatize the roads." Because unregulated private industry does such a great job at promoting safety. That's why organizations like the FDA and OSHA never needed to be created.

      Learn some goddamn history. Corporations were quite happy to let people die to boost their bottom lines until the government stepped in and made such behavior unprofitable.

      2) Schools are just, in your own words, "starter-prisons" that "indoctrinate" the youth. Corporate controlled schools, I suppose, would be beacons of free thought. That's why ITT Tech grads are so much better than UC Berkeley grads. Oh, wait, that's backwards. American education needs work, but suggesting it would be better if it was fully privatized is stupid.

      Without public funds, it's not profitable to educate most people. Far better to keep them stupid and set them to work in a factory, while only providing education to the rich kids whose parents can afford it.

      3) Product safety. I swear, have you ever even seen a history book? Product safety before the government got involved was nothing short of abysmal.

      I notice you didn't even address his other points:

      4) Regulating insurance companies and the like. Without government courts you can take them to, they could simply refuse to pay out one claim in every ten, and there'd be no downside. If they get a bad reputation, they just change their name.

      5) Cops to keep you safe. I suppose you think that should be privatized as well? I'm sure they wouldn't spend all their resources defending the homes and offices of the 1%.

      6) Toxic waste being dumped in public watersupplies. Are you gonna try to deny that this one happened over and over and over again? Are you going to try to deny that without government oversight, corporations have no reason not to exploit public resources for private gain?

      Privatization is the mantra of the robber barons, seeking absolute authority over every aspect of our lives. They've been winning so far, taking more and more from us and giving us nothing in return. They don't need idiots cheerleading for them from the sidelines.

    4. Re:So, the story is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why don't both you and Apple get the fuck out if it is so fucking bad? Answer: you actually both enjoy the benefits you claim aren't real.

    5. Re:So, the story is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did some idiot teacher at a government school give you this asinine fantasy that vendors can make more money by killing their customers?

      Oh come on. It's not about deliberately and instantaneously killing customers, it's about shifting a cost-benefit analysis away from taking "acceptable risks" to minimize impact to profit, and "acceptable risks" absolutely happen -- everyone's favourite example is the tobacco industry.

      That's advice you should take. Try educating yourself a bit before you do though, so you won't embarrass yourself like this again.

      You equate disagreeing with you to being uneducated and embarrassing. Stop being an arrogant asshole so you don't embarrass everybody like this again.

      This is an economics argument, not a math argument. You aren't right just because you followed through some thought experiment about homo economicus and extrapolated using a few of your own principles that more than likely don't line up perfectly with everybody else's.

      I actually agree with most of your actual points. Not all, and from the tone I suspect I'm less anti-government than you overall but not in many of the issues you raised here. But you're intellectually dishonest and patronizing, responding to strawman arguments that can be read into the GP post by assuming he's a total moron rather than giving the benefit of a doubt for one second and trying to see his argument before trying to eviscerate it.

    6. Re:So, the story is... by jcr · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      First of all, private organizations would have no incentive to build roads to nowhere. Secondly, "Learn some goddamn history" yourself. It's goverments, not corporations, that kill people by the tens of millions. Third, I know you want to believe that government keeps us all from just tilting our heads back and drowning in the rain like turkeys, but did you know that RIGHT NOW, the FDA is prohibiting beef producers from testing every single animal for mad cow disease? Do you know how many people the FDA kills every year by keeping drugs off the market that are saving lives in other countries?

      Now, on to a few of your other canards:

      Regulating insurance companies and the like. Insurance is one of the most regulated industries we have, that's why it's so insanely expensive. Every regulation raises the barrier to new competition, and drives up the cost of insurance policies. It wasn't always this way, google for "lodge doctors" if you want to learn how we once had medicine within just about everybody's reach, until government intervened to make it as expensive as possible.

      Cops to keep you safe.

          It's not the cops' job to keep us safe, and it would be impossible for them to even try to do so. Their job is to collect taxes and force displays of obedience to the state. If you want to be safe, carry a weapon. If you want to get tazed until you die from cardiac arrest, call a cop.

      Privatization is the mantra of the robber barons

      Umm, no. Regulation is the mantra of the robber barons, because it's regulation that protects them from competition.

      They don't need idiots cheerleading for them from the sidelines.

      Why does government have so many of you people doing exactly that?
      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:So, the story is... by frisket · · Score: 1

      First of all, private organizations would have no incentive to build roads to nowhere.

      Bullshit. Private corporations are no better at making decisions than are the institutions of government; they can just do it in secrecy, and cover up its after-effects better. The history of corporations is littered with the evidence of crassly stupid decisions taken by people whose heads are so far up their asses they might just as will climb up in after them and disappear. Just like government institutions.

      It's goverments, not corporations, that kill people by the tens of millions.

      Only war between governments kills on the 10,000,000 scale, but industrial accidents, corporate carelessness, stupidity, and arrogance would easily kill at the 1,000,000 scale. Government accidents, carelessness, stupidity, and arrogance would probably kill at the 1,000 level.

      ...the FDA is prohibiting beef producers from testing every single animal for mad cow disease

      And just whose pockets is the FDA in? The meat producers'. They're laughing all the way to the bank.

      Do you know how many people the FDA kills every year by keeping drugs off the market that are saving lives in other countries?

      The same applies. Big Pharma likes it this way because it increases profits.

      Insurance is one of the most regulated industries we have, that's why it's so insanely expensive.

      It's so regulated because without the regulations, hardly anyone would get insurance for anything, and those who did would never have any claim allowed, just like it was in the good old days before regulation. It's so insanely expensive because the judges keep awarding insanely large sums as "compensation". The solution isn't to withdraw regulation, it's to replace the judges with some who have some common sense.

      Every regulation raises the barrier to new competition, and drives up the cost of insurance policies.

      No, every regulation blocks another insurance company from shafting another customer. Left alone, they will repudiate every claim and hang you out to dry.

      It wasn't always this way, google for "lodge doctors" if you want to learn how we once had medicine within just about everybody's reach,

      In the days when the medical fraternity still had some shreds of decency and humanity left, they did indeed provide healthcare at affordable prices. But once they started being paid 10x or 100x the average, they became too used to the extra money to be bothred their ass about caring for the poor and needy. (There are of course some notable exceptions, I'm happy to say; doctors who still regard the Hippocratic Oath with some degree of reverence.)

      until government intervened to make it as expensive as possible.

      And who voted in the governments who did this? The US population. And who paid for the campaigns of the politicians thereby elected? Good ol' American industry.

      It's not the cops' job to keep us safe

      Actually, in a civilised country, it is. The United States is an exception in that regard. In some countries they are called civic guards, and their job is to protect the people from the government.

      Regulation is the mantra of the robber barons, because it's regulation that protects them from competition.

      Right. Corporations love to pay politicians to regulate in favor of Business. Privatization is the mantra of extreme right-wing fascist fundamentalist nutcases and crackpots who believe corporations inherently do a job better than the state. Privatizing prisons or the police, for example, is utter lunacy because the corporations' objectives are profit, not the control of offenders or the protection of society.

    8. Re:So, the story is... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Cal Tech are all better, overall, than any state college, including Berserkley.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:So, the story is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's look at just one of the issues: insurance regulation. Two axioms:

      - the easiest way to make money as an insurance company is to not pay claims.

      - as a claimant, you have almost no leverage to force the insurance company to do anything.

      Therefore, insurance is one of the most highly regulated industries around; otherwise no claims would ever be paid. If you think it should be otherwise, which of my axioms do you disagree with?

  47. They aren't the only ones by JosephTX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not like Apple's the only corporation guilty of evading criminal amounts of taxes. Google never pays higher than 5%, News Corp never pays more than 2% (the same guys who use Fox News to complain about taxes being too high on the rich), General Electric paid nothing and got $3 billion in tax credits, oil companies receive stupid amounts of subsidies, Amazon still ignores most sales taxes, Microsoft always pays in the single digits as well; the list goes on and on and on. Over 2/3 of major US corporations have NO tax liabilities.

    Yet these same corporations still pay MOST of the taxes they owe in other OECD countries. The difference between the US and the rest of the developed world is that we're the only country with a tax system that considers GLOBAL business activities liable to taxation (obviously there are exceptions in other countries, such as INCREASED taxes for foreign employment or pollution). Other OECD countries only tax businesses based on DOMESTIC business activities. But in order to avoid having our global taxing system cause foreign business activities from having negative net profits from piled tax rates, Congress throws in a bunch of loopholes to negate the whole thing. Only it ends up negating almost all taxes on domestic activities too. This isn't an accident.

    1. Re:They aren't the only ones by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Google never pays higher than 5%

      Google's effective tax rate has ranged between 19% to 28% over the last five years, with an average rate of 23.4%.
      http://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/effective_tax_rate

    2. Re:They aren't the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like Apple's the only corporation guilty of evading criminal amounts of taxes.

      Apple is the most valuable corporation in the world. It is perfectly valid to use them as the benchmark for pointing out how "corporate" persons are consistently treated so much better than plain old "human" persons.

  48. By being a large company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they do it by being a large company? I hear that's how most companies do it. By being big and powerful.

  49. Stand on the back of civilization by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

    and have the arrogance to think you don't owe anything to anyone.

    Sums up a lot of what's wrong with things, ATM.

    1. Re:Stand on the back of civilization by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Stand on the backs of the workers, demanding that they fruit of their labors be taken away and given to others... this is also known as slavery.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:Stand on the back of civilization by frisket · · Score: 1

      Stand on the backs of the workers, demanding that they fruit of their labors be taken away and given to others... this is also known as slavery.

      No, it's called Capitalism.

    3. Re:Stand on the back of civilization by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Just what do you think civilization consists of, other than me, other people, our parents, and our works? Do you think we stand on our own backs? The concept of "owing" applies only in exchange for things received in fully voluntary and explicit trade, or in compensation for damages that are caused to others.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Stand on the back of civilization by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how your family operates, but mine pays taxes. If we can pay taxes, so can multi-billion dollar companies.

  50. NO Corporation pays taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cannot tax a fictional entity like a corporation. No corporation, anywhere, pays taxes. Only *people* pay taxes. Sure corporations write checks to the government, but that money comes from higher costs to the corp's customers, lower wages to the corp's employees, and smaller dividends to the corp's owners.

    Corporate taxation is just a convenient political fiction.

  51. Mark Fiore has something to say about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.markfiore.com/political-cartoons/watch-new-ipad-iphone-apple-dividends-tax-holiday-tim-cook-animated-video-mark-fiore

  52. US has the highest corporate taxes in the world. by Karmashock · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Higher then Japan.

    So if you actually made Apple and Google pay US taxes... they'd leave the country. And then instead of getting whatever they were paying plus employing all those people at fairly good wages and taxes those wages... You'd get nothing.

    Choose. Stop attacking companies for finding ways to do business in the US. Instead, try to find out why so many companies have left or are leaving and try to help them come back and stay.

    We need employers. Companies provide the jobs. If you want a job... you want companies. Stop attacking the companies. It's just going to make unemployment go higher.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  53. Stupid Amerocentric Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    However, Apple's accountants have found legal ways to allocate about 70 percent of its profits overseas, where tax rates are often much lower, according to corporate filings.

    That's because 70% of their sales are not in America. The USA is only a hair over 300mil persons, versus over 1bil for the EU, and let's not even start on the Chinese middle class. It's exceedingly dumb to think that Apple somehow only sells products in America, or to think that they should pay American taxes as opposed to taxes in the location the item was sold.

    1. Re:Stupid Amerocentric Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What countries are you including for EU to come up with over 1bil?
      Estimates for all of Europe is around 731 million.

  54. Only if corporations are people. by khasim · · Score: 1

    it's that pesky first amendment, that prohibits congress from abridging your right to petition government to address your grievances.

    And that only applies:
    1. If corporations are people
    and
    2. If money is speech

    I disagree with both of those.
    I don't care what the SCOTUS says.
    They have been wrong before and they are wrong on those issues.

  55. When did Apple say that? by Brannon · · Score: 0

    You hate Apple because someone with a better haircut than you likes Apple--stop pretending it is any more noble than that.

    1. Re:When did Apple say that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hate Apple because someone with a better haircut than you likes Apple

      Go back to bed bonch.

  56. Why should california get it? by fitteschleiker · · Score: 2

    Why should california get a share of profits not made in california? Apple already supllies a large number of high earning employees that pay a high income tax rate, and if california has waived any other sort of taxes in order to have them headquarter there, then california has already worked out they will be better off with all that income tax minus the land and property taxes they waive, than without any of it at all. But why should california get to tax the profits earned in nevada? This is why states having corporate taxes is dumb, there should be a federal tax that is distributed to the states, in a fair and equitable way.

    Not like it is done here in Australia. Here the government takes the taxes paid by some states and gives it to others. There might be a justification to give a better share to poorer states, but here it is taken from the big earning states that don't have great infrastructure and given to the ones that are the most developed! apparently they can't pay for the upkeep of all the nice stuff they have bought.

  57. Backwards Anger by drainbramage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wanted to mod you up, I enjoyed your passion, but I so want you to look at your reasoing.
    I am not defending Apple, it is about time you all noticed that Apple is given a pass by the media for using the legal loopholes that other companise are villified for.
    --
    Where do you git off blamming Apple or any other corporation for the disgusting acts of congress and the senate?
    Those insane loopholes were mostly created years ago and are constantly polished by your elected officials to continually encourage donations to those self same public officials.
    --
    You want to blame the person responsible?
    Look in the mirror, then start voting like the future matters.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
    1. Re:Backwards Anger by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, believe me, I know that Congress and the Senate voted for these fucking loopholes, but that's not a valid excuse for this crap. You don't think that Steve Jobs knew that he was paying an effective tax rate well below the entry-level guys he had working 70 hour weeks? This is a guy that parked in handicapped spaces looooooong before he actually got sick we're talking about here. He rationalized it as "Horray for me, fuck everyone else", and that's a trait you see a lot among these 'Master of the Universe' types. People all over the world metaphorically polish his knob every time the subject of Apple comes up, but rarely do people talk about what an unbelievable prick he was, and I don't just mean the way he treated his employees, he treated everyone that way.

      Yes, congress passed laws allowing these companies to do this shit. Congress didn't make them move their "offices" to tax havens all over the world. They didn't make them send all that money to banks in the Caribbean to hide it from the IRS. Nobody forced them to be leeches, sucking in subsidies while raking in billions. Apple's sucking up $30 million in Texan taxpayer dollars despite the fact that they are literally the most valuable corporation in the fucking world. They've got $10 Billion (with a b) in cash in the bank, and they still need Texans to cough up a little extra to build that fucking plant? Come the hell on. That's the extortion bullshit I'm talking about. They're taking $30 million from who knows how many social programs, schools, infrastructure...and in exchange we get what? The privilege of working for them so they can earn more money off of our labors?

      I mean, an unemployed mother looking for food stamps, she's a fucking leech on society, but the most valuable corporation on earth gleefully taking huge transfers of wealth from public coffers into their private accounts is what? A goddamn pillar of the community? A company to admire? Please. They're the real leeches. Let these mother fuckers move their corporate offices to fucking China, or better yet, let them take their shit and go to Africa, far from these pesky taxes and everything else. I don't really much give a shit, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and subsidize their goddamn profit margin while half the houses in my neighborhood are sitting fucking vacant because the families that lived in them lost their jobs and then lost their homes, and then, when they hit the lowest point and have to go get some sort of assistance to make sure their kids eat decent food, get called "parasites". Fuck that shit. You want to see the real parasites, go fucking read Forbes.

    2. Re:Backwards Anger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They've got $10 Billion (with a b) in cash in the bank

      No they don't.
      Apple has over 100 Billion or "point one trillion" (with a T) in the bank.

    3. Re:Backwards Anger by loufoque · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is nonsense. Why shouldn't profitable companies be able to benefit from government programs and subsidies?
      Those programs exist because the government wants to develop new technologies, invest in specific sectors, or create a new economical hub in a certain area. The only thing that matters is whether the company will be able to succeed on their project or not, and a profitable company is more likely to.

    4. Re:Backwards Anger by Wovel · · Score: 1

      His entry level guys are corporations paying corporate taxes? Wtf does any of this have to do with Steve Jobs tax rate?

    5. Re:Backwards Anger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They're taking $30 million from who knows how many social programs, schools, infrastructure...and in exchange we get what?"

      Agree with your angry position in general, but USD30Mil. doesnt seem to be much money for infrastructure these days, as you can read here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003469356_highways09m.html (from 2006 I'm afraid)

      That stuff seems really expensive: "a three-mile extension of Highway 509 — to create a trucking corridor from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to Interstate 5, plus more lanes on I-5 nearby — is now expected to cost $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion". Foly huck!

    6. Re:Backwards Anger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      spoken like a true american. double standards. lot of pointless rage. words by the dozen. and zero intelligent logic.

      frigging sense of entitlement. either the govt should provide, and if they waste it all in some hellhole like Afghanistan going over there with zero sense of history and lose their money, tax everyone to give them even more money.

      Moron,
      something tells me you are also the type who will gladly switch sides the money *you* have anything to your name.

    7. Re:Backwards Anger by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      GP's point is that they're not just benefiting from the programs, but taking taxpayer dollars to build a plant. Those taxpayer dollars could be going to fund some of the programs, but instead are diverted to Apple's expansion - even though they have billions in cash that they "don't know what to do with".

    8. Re:Backwards Anger by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      30 whole million dollars. That's what, 40 GSA Conferences ?
      (sorry, couldn't resist. . . )

      But seriously, the question is, what does Texas get for that 30 million ?? How many new jobs? How much in construction? And, just how large a part of Texas's budget IS 30 million dollars. A single number in a vacuum is a lovely argument, but outside of the greater picture, pretty much meaningless. . .

    9. Re:Backwards Anger by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1
      "You want to see the real parasites, go fucking read Forbes."

      Billionaires don' like taxes. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812904577291450562940874.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Texas Billionaire Doles Out Election's Biggest Checks

      How many billions can one person hoard? Thats enough money to wipe their ass with a million or so dollars a day for life. Poor people are a waste of profit, so it is encouraged to push it all into big bank accounts to keep it safe from the poor. Thank the gods the rich keep making money, to keep it away from people like me, who take food stamps, and scroung for meds.

      After the first billion the rich should pay taxes at 100% just to get bragging rights! Its just about ego masturbation after the first Billion anyway. How about they pay their share and quit milking us for profit, and let us keep our own money in the first place. If your company has more than a billion dollars in profits, you need to double your workers pay (rinse and repeat).

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    10. Re:Backwards Anger by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Where do you git off blamming Apple or any other corporation for the disgusting acts of congress and the senate?

      They (not just Apple, all of them) own Congress. That's like asking where we get off blaming the mob when someone takes a bribe from the mob and then does what the mob bribed them to do.

      Look in the mirror, then start voting like the future matters.

      Until the campaigns aren't run (or run into the ground) by corporate America, this is a pointless demand. I can vote for candidates that represent my values until I'm blue in the face, but they still won't be on the ballot.

    11. Re:Backwards Anger by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Yeah? And how much money are those new jobs going to earn Apple? Did I miss something about them opening a charity center where every employee was a complete liability and contributed nothing to Apple's profit margin?

      Subsidies are meant to give start-ups and small business the ability to compete in order to prevent a few large players from simply shutting them out of a given market. They're not meant to subsidize the fucking profit margins of the most profitable corporations on the planet.

      This is the moral turpitude I'm talking about. Cutting all the bullshit about job creators, it comes down to one simple fact: Apple doesn't need this money in any way, shape or form. They could build ten of those plants and pay cash for every single one and not even feel a pinch in their operational budget, yet they approach local, state, and even the federal government greedily licking their lips as they ask what we're willing to hand over for the privilege of having Apple hire the locals? Are you kidding me? If they didn't need the work done, they wouldn't fucking hire the people to do it, and if they didn't need the plant, they wouldn't build it. They're not a charity, right? They're going to profit off of this plant, obviously. We can all agree that's a reasonable assumption to make, right? Given that assumption, why the fuck do the citizens of Texas need to take money away from people and programs that actually fucking need it to bribe a corporation that's got more capitalization potential than many countries around the world?

      According to the estimate of Apple's market capitalization at $460 billion, that puts them at 27th of 182 countries by GDP according to IMF rankings in 2011. That's just under Taiwan and just above Argentina. Apple is now worth more than the entire yearly output of 155 countries.

      Yeah, it's totally reasonable that we should have to kick in a little extra to sweeten the deal on their end. Sure it is.

      If it wasn't for the fucking tax dollars our country put into tech research during the cold war, Apple wouldn't even fucking exist today. Who paid for the equipment that Wozniak learned on? Taxpayers. Who paid for the fucking schools that they went to all their lives? Taxpayers. Who paid for the environment that afforded them the ability to even do what they did? Taxpayers. Think not? Think Steve Jobs would have become what he became if he'd been born in fucking Mogadishu? Get real...

      I'm so sick and fucking tired of this meme where we pretend successful people just magically became successful all of their own volition with no outside help from anyone. The nanny state that so many people in this country bitch and complain about subsidized all of their lives just the same as everyone else's that grew up in this country. Even if they are "self-made", they stood on the shoulders of those that came before, they benefited from a nurturing environment...even something as simple as the 40-hour work week, imposed by that evil nanny state, not to mention the minimum wage, imposed by that evil nanny state, afforded them the spare time and the spare change to develop their hobbies and dreams into the lucrative, multinational corporations they are today.

      We don't owe Apple any fucking thing. They owe us, because without the American taxpayer, they would not fucking exist.

    12. Re:Backwards Anger by ghostdoc · · Score: 1, Informative

      Steve Jobs, in fact any director of a limited company, had/has a legal obligation to maximise shareholder value. Paying taxes is not maximising shareholder value.

      It's unlikely, but possible, that a failure by Apple's board to put in place appropriate tax management strategies in accordance with the normal practice of the tech industry could be grounds for a lawsuit by an Apple shareholder.
      Certainly the accountants involved in Apple's financial management would be considered negligent if they failed to alert the board of the possible strategies for reducing tax liabilities. And then the board could be considered negligent if they failed to implement those strategies.

      Companies are not required to be good citizens. Companies are required to make as much money as possible for their shareholders.

      --
      Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
    13. Re:Backwards Anger by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      "Apple doesn't need this money in any way"

      Congratulations. You've just justified strong-arm robbery via force majure of the State. Apple has broken no laws: they negotiated an agreement. They EARNED their profits by developing, marketing, and selling devices, services, and digital products that apparently have done quite well in the free market. The only moral imperative they have is to their investors, i.e., the stockholders, to return a profit on their investment.

      If you have a problem with Apple, or any other company, making agreements with a State, take it up with their elected officials. . .

    14. Re:Backwards Anger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, Apple is horrible, however corporations don't exist to be moral. Corporations are supposed to do whatever they can to maximize profits for shareholders, by whatever legal means possible. Corporate law is written such that they are compelled to do so. Sometimes you have "crunchy-granola" corporations that are set up to "give back" or "pay it forward" (like Tom's or Ben and Jerry's) however that is part of their corporate charter and bylaws. In general, most publicly traded institutions have only one goal - maximum profit.

    15. Re:Backwards Anger by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

      "Those programs exist because the government wants to develop new technologies, invest in specific sectors, or create a new economical hub in a certain area." Then why are the subsidies going to companies that are already established, rather than to companies that are starting up and endeavoring to create new and actually innovative products and technologies? The government is mostly giving money to companies that don't need it at the expense of education, health care, and transit, but it's not to support innovation. It's stifling innovation and lining the pockets of the government instead.

    16. Re:Backwards Anger by loufoque · · Score: 1

      What makes you think a start-up is best able to do innovation than an established company?

    17. Re:Backwards Anger by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

      Most established companies don't, but if you pay attention you'll see that it's also besides the point. Subsidizing an established company building a plant with taxpayer money at the expense of education, infrastructure, health care, and supporting a start-up that's doing R&D is obviously working against innovation. First, by misusing the subsidy system in the first place, because the established company shouldn't need it if it's well run, and second by preventing the new company from doing the R&D. Third by compromising the education and standard of living. Fourth by not returning the tax payers' investment in the now-established company. Any way you look at it, whether or not the established company is doing anything innovative or not is immaterial. That said, most established corporations in the US prefer to dedicate their resources to buying politicians and evading taxes rather than doing R&D, because the corporate culture stifles change and innovation because they're risky, and corporations are designed to be risk-averse, even though a well-run corporation could handle risk a lot better than a start up. That's precisely the reason that a start up with a good plan should be a candidate for subsidies, and an established company should be paying taxes to repay the taxpayers for helping it get started.

    18. Re:Backwards Anger by loufoque · · Score: 1

      That money is not being diverted, it's just that it's been allocated to funding innovation.
      What does it change for the taxpayer whether that money goes to a start-up or an established company? Not much. It not going to Apple doesn't mean it would be going to save the children or the needy. And if it were going to a start-up, no one would be shocked of it.

      the established company shouldn't need it if it's well run

      R&D is extremely costly and a long-term investment, regardless of company size. Subsidies exist to reduce the risks associated with R&D, so as to encourage more companies to do R&D. Also note that most subsidies require the company to spend at least as much as the grant in the subsided project; that is done in order to enforce that the money is only used to reduce costs and to accompany real investments the company is making.
      Even if a company has a lot of money, why would they choose to invest it in something risky rather than in things with guaranteed returns? It's because government subsidies make those less risky and tolerable.
      Remove those subsidies, and all you get is less investment in R&D.

      There are types of subsidies which are reserved for start-ups and small companies, but there are some which work regardless of company size. Being European myself, I don't know the details in the US, but I'm pretty sure start-ups have access to a lot more things and tax cuts than corporations, this doesn't mean corporations shouldn't get anything at all when they're willing to take on risky projects.

    19. Re:Backwards Anger by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

      "That money is not being diverted, it's just that it's been allocated to funding innovation." In the US, it's rarely funding innovation. "What does it change for the taxpayer whether that money goes to a start-up or an established company? Not much. " Potentially a lot. One example is the massive subsidies that the big oil companies receive, and they mostly spend their "R&D" budgets trying to stifle renewable energy startups and spew propaganda. They are actively and blatantly attempting to prevent rather than support innovation. They're receiving subsidies because they're bribing politicians with those subsidies. "It not going to Apple doesn't mean it would be going to save the children or the needy. And if it were going to a start-up, no one would be shocked of it." Both are true, and people would be much less annoyed with Apple if Apple weren't also evading taxes while simultaneously collecting taxpayer subsidies. "R&D is extremely costly and a long-term investment, regardless of company size. Subsidies exist to reduce the risks associated with R&D, so as to encourage more companies to do R&D." That is true, yet rarely does any large corporation in the US do significant R&D... "Even if a company has a lot of money, why would they choose to invest it in something risky rather than in things with guaranteed returns? It's because government subsidies make those less risky and tolerable." There's this thing called "the future" to consider... "Being European myself, I don't know the details in the US, but I'm pretty sure start-ups have access to a lot more things and tax cuts than corporations," No, not in reality. There are subsidies for small startup, but for the most part, they're loans and they aren't government provided. "this doesn't mean corporations shouldn't get anything at all when they're willing to take on risky projects." It those came corporations don't pay their own taxes, then yes it does.

    20. Re:Backwards Anger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't falt any company for taking advantage of the tax laws. The tax laws are a joke, do away with all that garbage and pass the fair tax.

    21. Re:Backwards Anger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wanted to mod you up, I enjoyed your passion, but I so want you to look at your reasoing.
      I am not defending Apple, it is about time you all noticed that Apple is given a pass by the media for using the legal loopholes that other companise are villified for.
      --
      Where do you git off blamming Apple or any other corporation for the disgusting acts of congress and the senate?
      Those insane loopholes were mostly created years ago and are constantly polished by your elected officials to continually encourage donations to those self same public officials.
      --
      You want to blame the person responsible?
      Look in the mirror, then start voting like the future matters.

      Given that it's well understood that any elected Government acts increasingly on behalf of the corporations in which its officials have shares and not in the interests of those members of the general public, and least of all those who are not shareholders, voting will not make this problem go away.

  58. Re:US has the highest corporate taxes in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

    All that's happening is that the mega-corporation has found a sneaky way to avoid paying its rightful dues.

    The solution should be pro-active.

    If you want to dodge taxes by basing your company outside the country, then your taxes will be worked out by our tax agents, and you will get a bill sent to your international headquarters. Pay it, and your product is allowed into the country. Don't pay it, then fuck you; you don't get to have access to 300 million potential customers. This practice should be enforced by all nations.

    Any nation which fails to agree to control its corporate livestock gets put on the shit list, embargoed and fucking bombed if necessary.

    The elite need to be held accountable. Why? Because I don't want to live in a psychopathic dung-heap world just because the mega-rich take all the money and refuse to pay their dues at the end of the day.

    Their freedom allowed them to make billions. Freedom ain't free, as they say. You pay for it with your fucking taxes.

  59. Does this surprise anyone? by Osgeld · · Score: 2

    Really? Apple is not the only company who does this to leech every single cent it possibly can without "playing fair", but besides that this is the company who's douche in chief would buy a new car every 6 months just to avoid whee taxes, or denied claim for years on his own daughter living in pretty poor conditions even going as far as saying

    "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child."

    partly to not pay up, partly because he had zero responsibility to anyone but himself. You think he gave a shit about federal taxes, or what corporate culture that grew into?

    Why bother changing now, nothing has been done, nothing will be done, apparently it works, and the second anyone suggest's that they pay up it gets spun into "killing American companies/jobs with the ternary of socialism"

    now get off my lawn

  60. What about New Zealand? by Mistakill · · Score: 1

    Anyone got the stats for what Taxes they pay here? Id really like to know

  61. Not doing this would be a breach of fiduciary duty by melted · · Score: 2

    Not doing this would be a breach of fiduciary duty. As a shareholder, I would not approve them putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by not using tax optimization permitted by law. As a citizen, I want the loopholes closed, however, so that everyone plays by the same rules.

  62. government=cholesterol by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    Government exists to promote business and commerce. Commerce doesn't exist to promote government.

    I like to use the following analogy. I need cholesterol to live. That doesn't mean I should eat a Big Mac every day. Governments get plenty of money to do their core responsibilities already.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  63. Re:Dear righties by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    How much money is needed to sustain the country? 40% of GDP? 50%? What's the number?

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  64. It's legal STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sigh, did Apple do ANYTHING illegal?

    If , we the people, don't like corporations doing such as this then change the law.

    Until then we just need to shut the fuck up.

  65. Re:US has the highest corporate taxes in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (1) eliminate the loopholes
    (2) reduce the tax level

    sort of like
    (1) deport the illegal aliens
    (2) punish employers who choose illegal aliens over Americans

    Partisan gridlock and corruption: destroying America since the the dawn of the 20th century

  66. Re:Not doing this would be a breach of fiduciary d by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    you are a hypocrite, you want tax loopholes closed, but only if it doesn't effect your personal investments.

    that, right there, is the fucking problem.

  67. While on the subject... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone tell us how much taxes does Exxon-Mobil, the world's biggest company, pays? As an oil company, favored by Republican and Democrat alike, it pays ZERO taxes on record profits that dwarf Apple's. In contrast to this so-called "tax dodger" that DID pay several BILLION dollars worth of taxes.

  68. If you like bubbles. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    This is the exact line of reasoning that caused the .com bubble.

    1. Re:If you like bubbles. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The .com bubble was caused by ignoant investors/speculators chucking ridiculous amounts of money at "businesses" which had one cute idea, a plausible geek in charge, and no realistic way of ever making any money.

      Whatever the arguments about Apple's valuation, at least they make and sell stuff for a profit.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  69. Im curious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly would happen if all the people who work for apple tried to dodge taxes and pay next to nothing or nothing at all? IRS would crawl up their ass with a microscope.

    But at the end of the day you know what? Nothing will happen because apple is a rich and powerful company, no one will do shit to them because they have money and pull. Thats all you need in this world. Everyone else that isnt rich or powerful has to play the rules "everyone is expected to".

    This article is pointless, all of our complaints are pointless, all of these posts are pointless because nothing will change. The rich will always be rich and powerful and everyone else is just a varying degree of unimportant.

    The only people who could change this is us, the normal folks. But we wont ever do anything about it. Sure we will bitch but thats it. Nothing will ever get changed unless we do something about but 99% of us wont ever do anything, we will still get screwed, bitch about it and get screwed some more till the day we die because we lie down and take it.

  70. Re:Not doing this would be a breach of fiduciary d by melted · · Score: 1

    Where did I say anything about my personal investments not getting affected? Closing loopholes would certainly affect them in the short term. Depending on which loopholes are closed, they might even decide to bring more manufacturing back to the US. I would gladly pay a few extra bucks for that.

    If Apple broke the law, sue them. If they didn't—STFU and call your congresscritter and tell them to close the loopholes. If law allows this, they aren't doing anything wrong. Moreover, they'd be doing wrong if they did not do this, because all of their competitors are doing this, some (Amazon, anyone?) even more aggressively, and I don't see a reason why they should pay a dime over what the law requires. Heck, some companies pay _negative_ taxes in this country. That is, IRS pays them for the privilege of their doing business here.

    Speaking of hypocrisy, when you filed taxes this year, did you take all the deductions? How about paying a little more in this difficult time? IRS lets you do it, after all.

  71. Re:US has the highest corporate taxes in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait, the US has the highest corporate taxes... but corporations don't have to pay them?

    I'm not clear what point you're making.

  72. voting isn't enough by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Vote? Even if there were real, viable choices, have to do more than vote. The Democrats are only slightly better than the Republicans. Democrats are merely corrupt. Republicans are corrupt and crazy. Don't think voting is enough to excuse you from being reflected in that mirror. Politicians can't afford to be honest if we won't back honest players.

    I see people still banking at Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citi. Still buying from Apple, Microsoft, MAFIAA members, GE, BP, AT&T, Comcast. Still gambling that health insurance won't deny and drop us the minute we need it. We could destroy these companies astonishingly fast if we'd all just quit doing business with them. They wouldn't be so stupid as to push it that far. In mere days, they'd crawl on their bellies begging us for forgiveness, and they would quickly do all those things that they claim are so difficult to do, such as paying taxes, resisting the temptation to buy legislation, reducing executive compensation, treating customers fairly, and making up for mistakes. They do appalling things, and people shrug it off, or bend over and take it.

    I'm in a little battle with a local city. They're operating one of those red light cameras programs. Naturally, they have rigged things to cause lucrative violations, rather than reduce them. They carefully chose intersections for which the yellow was already too short so they could truthfully claim they didn't shorten any yellows. How can I make them wish they hadn't done it? I went to a hearing with evidence that their yellow lights were too short, but no joy. Judge told me I could take up the matter at a later date in municipal court, as if going to a hearing scheduled at their pleasure wasn't already enough of an imposition on me. I declined. Now I don't shop in that city anymore. How many people have joined me in this boycott? Zero of course. I've tried to persuade others, but all that does is get them thinking I'm crazy for making such a big deal out of a petty traffic violation. A few concede that I've got a point, but still won't do anything. I should pay up, shut up and stop annoying others with my whining, and get on with life. Then some turn around and mutter about their cell phone contracts, or the cost of cable TV. Even the ones who also have been burned by these red light cameras still won't fight. Some even rationalize it, convincing themselves the system is fair.

    An effective approach to clean up bad neighborhoods is a zero tolerance enforcement and clean up operation. Litter, graffiti, broken windows, and burned out lights no matter how trivial are all cleaned up and repaired as fast as possible. Serves notice that petty crime is not going be overlooked. The same would work against these corporations and governments. Don't let a red light camera ticket go because it's only a little money, and too much trouble to fight. We blow off even the most insane EULAs because we feel pretty good that most of the nonsense in there can not be enforced. We should instead make software companies clean that crap up. No EULA at all. At least we fight back against DRM.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:voting isn't enough by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Still gambling that health insurance won't deny and drop us the minute we need it.

      <sarcasm> The solution, of course, is to force everyone to buy health insurance </sarcasm>

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:voting isn't enough by todd10k · · Score: 1

      i think you rock man. fight the good fight.

    3. Re:voting isn't enough by swalve · · Score: 0

      So, zero tolerance is ok for bad neighborhoods, but not ok when you run a yellow? Other people should put their ass on the line for what is right, but you couldn't be bothered to go to a court date for something you claim you would win? Good lessons.

    4. Re:voting isn't enough by boorack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I only partially agree with this. Starving big corps was possible few years ago. Then 2008 meltdown came and it became apparent that if they won't get money from you voluntarily paying for some goods/services, they'll get it anyway from you taxes (eg. bailouts), lucrative taxpayer-funded contracts (army) or by forcing bills for phony services down your throat (eg. Obama's healthcare 'reform').

      Add ever-rising intimidation of citizens to this (TSA, so called "war on terror", militarization and brutalization of police forces, ever-rising incarcerated population), add dual-standard when it comes to law enforcement (Corzine/MF Global fiasco etc.) and what you get at the end is corporate fascist state. So much for freedoms and constitution.

      If those corporate fucks won't get what they want from you voluntarily, they'll get it by other means. I'm not sure there is a good way to get out of this trap - peaceful civil disobedience is propably the only thing left.

    5. Re:voting isn't enough by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      No, that was a compromise that when combined with forcing insurance companies to maintain a smaller profit margin or reduce rates is supposed to lead to reform of what is already a broken system... The majority of people who already have medical insurance, never use it.. just as the majority of those now forced to get insurance will never use it.. This same type of reform was done in the auto insurance industry, and it did lead to reduced rates.. The alternatives are to leave things as they are, or go even further and take over the whole thing to make it manageable.. Medical Insurance used to be almost a given when you got a job, but it has gotten so expensive it is hard to find a job that offers it without you paying in 80 percent.. perhaps if the reforms lead to reasonable rates we will get back to those "good ol' days",, but I'm not holding my breath.. Still if I end up having to pay for it, I'd much rather it be reasonable.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  73. Morality =/= Legality by Albinoman · · Score: 1

    Morality and legality, while often related, should never be equated. One example is marijuana. Illegal, but you'd be hard pressed to make a negative morality statement regarding its consumption. How about speeding? Pick any victimless crime. It's not moral for Apple to avoid paying into the government, whose benefits they've enjoyed for a long time, forcing everyone else to make up the difference. It's essentially stealing from everyone else, legal or not. Besides, if not for the government, Microsoft or IBM would have crushed them two decades ago.

  74. Why not have reasonable taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and allow companies to bring cash back to the US? We encourage keeping money in overseas markets by having an onerous tax burden. Lower taxes, balance the budget. It's the same advice your grandmother would give you.

  75. Re:More anti-Apple bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are new here. /. was once famous as an anti-Microsoft Apple shilling site now Apple attracts the same hostility and I am loving it.

  76. Low tax places like the Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be fucking kidding me. Explain to me again why the rich Dutch migrate to the tax haven that is Belgium?

  77. Good for Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am glad Apple is doing everything they can to keep their money. Better for them to use it to make us excellent new products, hire new employees and research new technology than to give it to the buffoons in Washington, who will undoubtedly waste the money as they always do.

  78. Re:US has the highest corporate taxes in the world by Tom · · Score: 2

    Do you know what makes taxes rise and rise and rise?

    Exceptions. Tax breaks, deals, whatever you call them. For everyone who doesn't pay his share, everyone else has to pay more to get the same total.

    Some economist in Switzerland - certainly not a country you could accuse of socialism - made a study years ago that we could cut both corporate and personal income tax to a flat 25% if everyone paid them in full. Right now, the highest income tax bracket in my country is 49%. But the more money you make, the less you actually pay, because there are more and more ways to dodge it.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  79. Apple is not the only one doing this by ibic00 · · Score: 2

    Microsoft, Xerox, Amazon AND Google all do something similar.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/apple-corporate-income-tax-rate_n_1429955.html

    "Apple paid a top tax rate of just 9.8 percent in 2011, the report says. Google paid a rate of 11.9 percent, while Yahoo paid 11.6 percent and Microsoft paid 18.9 percent. Xerox paid 7.3 percent of its income in taxes, while Amazon paid only 3.5 percent, according to the report."

    As far as I know, Google has been doing this for a long time (somewhere short after it's founded I presume?)

    It is just how the corporation world goes with the current laws and regulations, nothing immoral. You can't stop companies from moving their manufacture to the low-labor-cost countries, similarly, you can't prevent the companies doing this to reduce the tax bill. As long as it can keep the company strong (by cutting cost) and is legal, they will (have to) do this to stay competitive and (more) profitable. It's like water will eventually settle to the lowest spot they can flow to.

  80. Do the math by frisket · · Score: 1

    $2.4 billion higher last year, [...]. As it stands, the company paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8 percent."

    Actually 9.6%. But if it had paid that additional US tax, it would have paid $5.7Bn on profits of $34.2Bn, which is 16.7%

    Personally, I think about 10% is a fair and reasonable corporate tax rate, and 16.7% is too high.

    But then, I think 10% is a fair and reasonable personal income tax rate...

  81. It's time for a major income tax overhaul. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's the simple reason why corporations engage in the behavior outlined in the New York Times article: _our income tax system based on Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, encourages such activity_.

    Thanks to all those complicated loopholes in the Internal Revenue Code and all the additional rulings that add up to around 70,000 pages of tax code, this is why you have millions of jobs, thousands of factories, hundreds of corporate headquarters, and possibly as high as US$15 TRILLION (!!!) in American-owned liquid assets out of the USA for tax avoidance reasons. Maybe it's time to gut the entire tax code and start all over again in one of two ways:

    1) A 17% flat-rate no-loophole income tax, where the only loophole is a very generous initial earned income (wages and pensions) exemption to protect lower-income taxpayers (e.g., as high as US$46,000 for a two-adult/two legal dependent family), and get rid of the alternate minimum tax, estate tax, maybe the FICA tax, gift tax, marriage penalty, self-employment tax and taxation on bank account interest, capital gains and stock dividend payments. This is what Steve Forbes proposed back in 1996.

    2) Completely phase out the income tax in favor of a 23% national consumption tax on all new goods and services sales, where business-to-business sales, used good sales, and college tuition are exempt from the tax. To help lower-income people, any legal household will get a monthly payment to cover the cost of the tax up to the Federally-defined poverty level (US$580 per month payment for the family I mentioned earlier). This is the FairTax proposal, H.R. 25/S. 13.

    Under both of these proposals, American companies have all the incentive to keep as much of their liquid assets and operations in the USA as possible, since it is tax-advantageous to do so. An it also means vastly lower yearly tax compliance costs, meaning hundreds of billions of dollars spent per year in tax compliance are now freed up for more productive activities. In short, such a change will result in the next American economic boom.

    1. Re:It's time for a major income tax overhaul. by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      People don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars in tax compliance per year.]

      However, I do agree that this plan would keep jobs here. You'd effectively have the majority of the country as a working poor slave class. A national consumption tax ALWAYS impacts the middle class and lower case proportionately more than the rich. Always.

      It's also naive to think that there aren't any loopholes in that scheme. I can think of several ways companies could avoid taxes entirely under that scheme, and I'm not even a taxexpert.

      --
      ~X~
    2. Re:It's time for a major income tax overhaul. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      >Steve Forbes proposed back in 1996.

      yeah right, what he proposed is a system where he pays NO tax (that 17% is on wages). Rich people get their income from other sources besides wages.

      Whenever I hear or read "tax overhaul" or "reform" it always seems like another scheme for the rich to pay less and/or no taxes.

      If you want to continue fighting wars, running a civilization, etc. then you gotta pay for it. I say rich should pay more taxes because they are the ones that got us into these wars. And running a civilization, well if you say why have to pay for something all these poor people get free services (use of roads, schools, etc.) then go to some of these dumpy countries where the rich pay no taxes. Of course they have to use bodyguards with machine guns to escort whenever they leave their compounds. Of course with all these tax cuts over past years seemed to result in more investment in China.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  82. The industrious pay more by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    The US tax system is truly progressive. If you live on a coast (high tax area), make low to mid six figures, expect to lost 40% of that to income tax, if you can't shelter anything or run it through a corporate entity. If you have a really good year, expect to hit AMT, a tax device designed to hit the Romneys in 1970 but left unindexed so it now hits the upper income professionals. Once you break through (think warp threshold) from merely well off to truly rich, THEN you get the 15% tax rates of the plutocrat. It is almost as if they don't want you to break that barrier, from the top 10% to the top .5%. Until then, between income tax, obscene property/school taxes, etc, about half of your income will be tossed right out of the airlock into the vacuum. Oh, and if you choose to live somewhere (on the coasts) with cheap property taxes, you will have to do private school for the children, as we've de funded the concept of good education for all, and must choose housing based on school ratings. So, when a mega corp, of any stripe, legally evades taxes, those of us with less ability to work in the Cayman Islands and offshore our household expenses to Ireland will be unhappy-or envious.

  83. America hates everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More than their fair share. They're taxed on income. Then they're taxed when they spend the income. Then the store is taxed when they collect income and when they give it to their employees as salary or spend it on more inventory, those are taxed again. It never ends, the government is constantly siphoning off money at every opportunity.

  84. Corporations get the tax dollars from... by lightenergy · · Score: 0

    their customers via higher prices, their employees via reduced salaries, and their stock holders via reduced equity and/or dividends. Since a corporation is not a person and since corporations must get the money to pay taxes from people then corporate taxation, for people who pay income tax, is double taxation. The bottom line is that taxing both personal income or corporate profit is double taxation. The politicians who try to tell a different story are simply trying to buy votes by demonizing corporations so that the real blame for our national debt crisis isn't properly assigned and to increase the tax burden on working people by getting them to vote for increased corporate taxation. Working Americans are brutalized by taxes. The average federal income tax paid by a working person is 25%. The average state and local tax paid by a working person is 7.5%. Added to this a working person pays 7.5% directly in social security tax. Then there is the not so hidden additional 7.5% of social security tax that corporations pay on behalf their employees. This second 7.5% of the social security is actually paid by the employee in the form of reduced income (the corporation includes this in their evaluate not the cost of an employee) and also by working people as consumers in increased cost of the products and services that the company pays. Again, since the company is not a person and since it must in the final analysis get the money from the production of working people, it is working people who pay that last 7.5% of the social security tax. If you are self employed then this last 7.5% of the social security tax comes directly out of your pocket and there is no way to rationalize away the fact the you, like everyone else, pays a full 15% of their real income in social security. This puts the average direct total tax payment of the average working person at 47.5% (25% income tax + 7.5% state and local tax + 15% social security) of the fruits of their labor. The notion that you will get back a significant percentage of your social security payments is just more sucker bait from politicians buying votes. But that isn't the whole story. Because corporations must get the money for their entire corporate tax payments from reduced salaries, increased prices, and reduced dividends then you have to add the indirect cost of corporate tax to whatever tax burden you pay in direct taxes. The total direct and indirect tax burden on the average working American is probably well in excess of 60% of the fruits of their labor. It's ok with me if our government wants to tax wealthy people more but only on the condition that the total taxation on working people is proportionately reduced and our government makes a bonafide commitment to reduce spending by a significant amount. The assertion that most Americans don't pay any tax is a blatant lie. It's an even bigger lie if the assertion is intended to refer to working Americans. If you are an American citizen who works for a living then you are getting screwed into the dirt by taxes and it's not because corporations don't pay a "fair share", a very complex and convenient lie. The real reason is that the government wastes a huge chunk of the money it collects in taxes through simple gross inefficiency and because it spends money on things that there is no significant consensus support for like stupid wars promoted by the right and moronic and failed socialist agendas promoted by the left.

  85. yet another example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of the evil continually perpetrated by Apple..

  86. Re:US has the highest corporate taxes in the world by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    That's fine, Tom.

    That's why we had tax rates in the 70s around 70 percent.

    The tax rates came down when the exceptions went away.

    Today we have people saying our tax rates should go back up to where they were in the 70s. And that's fine, that means we have to add the exceptions back in again.

    See, it's a two way street. It's a chicken and egg situation. If you raise taxes, then more exceptions are going to be put into the tax code.

    If you want exceptions removed, you're going to have to lower taxes.

    So if you want to do a straight swap of a lower tax rate for fewer exceptions then you have a deal.

    However, what we've seen is that deal is rarely offered. generally, the government wants to raise taxes and remove exceptions. Simply, No.

    As to Switzerland, it is a socialist country. They have as much socialism in Switzerland as they do in Sweden.

    As to everyone paying their taxes in full, half the country pays no taxes at all. If you force EVERYONE to pay a flat 20 percent with no exceptions then you'd actually make MORE money then what you're making now. The US government is currently pulling in about 17 percent of GDP.

    This said, if you're taking our exceptions away which we use to protect ourselves from bad government policies, you would need to sign in blood that you aren't raising the rates and that you're not going to except anyone from the taxes for any reason.

    If a guy has ten cents total... he owes two cents. That doesn't mean we can't give him assistance so he can be comfortable. It means he owes two cents.

    If everyone pays their share the system is sustainable. But this includes EVERYONE including the poor which currently pay no taxes at all.

    What I'm offering is a flat tax. People would agree to it. People will not agree to more games from money grubbing government officials that just want more money to waste. A flat tax would be fair. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income... no exceptions.

    As to corporate taxes, here you might want to really consider not even having them. We'd make more money by taxing employee income then we'd make by taxing the corporations directly. A lot of corporations will just leave. It's just smarter to attract them to your country so they provide jobs.

    Look at Ireland versus Greece as an example. Ireland has lots of major fortune 500 companies to say nothing of investment from Japan and china. Greece has none of that. Why? Basically no corporate taxes in Ireland.

    Are these companies escaping their obligation to the Irish people? No. They're providing hundreds of thousands of jobs. That's more then compensation.

    Look, corporate stock is already taxed... so corporate taxes are a double tax on the same profit. The system would make more sense if stocks weren't taxed or corporations weren't taxed. They're taxed twice. So playing some games to avoid taxes in that circumstance is reasonable.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  87. handicap parking by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    He had another thing he did. Not only did he park in the handicap spot, ever notice that most of the cars he drove had temporary window decals? No permanent license plates? He worked a deal with a car dealer to "sell" him a new car every 60 days. He would trade in the "old" one, and get temp stickers for the vehicle. He never registered it, and so the tickets never went anywhere. Not to mention never having to register the vehicle with California. For all the "love" the fanboi's have of Apple Steve (blow) Jobs, he was what you might call the "typical" corporate asshat. Would do anything to squeeze a penny out of something and treated most employees like dirt.

  88. Right next to Microsoft's office .... by Jerry · · Score: 1

    and for the same reason, tax evasion.

    To pile insult upon injury, during a campaign for a bond issue Gates and Ballmer chastised Washington voters to "pay their fair share".

    Read the disgusting news: http://realwashingtonstatebudget.info/

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  89. You mean every corporation by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    Apple does indeed avoid as much tax as possible just like every other corporation and most, if not all, rich people. I understand you want to grab attention for this submission but it's completely stupid.It shouldn't have made it on the site.

  90. Odd.. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    I hate apple very very much, but this doesn't bother me. I guess the headline should be "Apple uses legal means to save money" instead of the claptrap it is now.

  91. Yah, and here in Austin... by bored · · Score: 1

    There is a raging debate about why city console rolled over and gave the richest corp in the US huge tax incentives to expand their campus here.

    Its just more of the race to the tax bottom. Easily fixed if we just instituted minimum national tax rates for fortune 1000 corps, and figured out a way to actually have tarifs (to avoid having the whole company offshore everything) again.

    We actually, know how to do this, because we did it in the past, and it made the US the most economically powerful country on the planet. The problem is the fools proclaiming free trade for all, and the politicians that base everything on dogma rather than trying to determine what has actually worked in the past, and repeat it. Sort of like the idea that trickle down economics actually works. It keeps being done, and every time the excuse why it failed is because we didn't have enough of it.

  92. Less Than Zero by meehawl · · Score: 1

    If the US lowered their tax rate to be roughly equal with the jurisdictions companies are allowed to shift profits to, they would have no reason to shift those profits.

    That's a nice idea in theory, but in practice the only tax rate any corporation is happy with is basically zero. Take Google in Ireland for example. Ireland's corporate tax rate is 12.5%. But Google doesn't want to pay that. So it uses the Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich to dodge several billions owed, bringing Google's effective tax rate down to 2.4% (ie, only ~20% of the theoretical value). You really think that if the US lowered its above-the-line corporate tax rate to 12.5%, mega-corporations such as Apple wouldn't still be trying to think of ways to get out of paying the full rate?

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Less Than Zero by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Zero is also usually theoretical. The rate equivalent of the lowest legal taxable jurisdiction is practical, because that's what happens in the real world.

      They'll always be trying to lower it. The point is to not give them incentive to pay what little they already do to other jurisdictions. They'll still dodge taxes, but current loopholes which require funneling of property to other jurisdictions won't be as attractive because they will no longer enable net tax savings.

  93. Re:US has the highest corporate taxes in the world by Tom · · Score: 1

    As to Switzerland, it is a socialist country. They have as much socialism in Switzerland as they do in Sweden.

    Yeah, right. I tell you what they do have that America (and lots of Europe) doesn't anymore: Democracy. And that means - shocking, I know - that the government is for the people. Sorry that it looks socialistic to americans if the government actually cares about the citizen.

    As to corporate taxes, here you might want to really consider not even having them.

    The minute corporations give their personhood and all their other rights back, and make a binding, if-we-break-it-we-get-automatically-dissolved guarantee to never ever take any influence on politics again. Otherwise, the rule is that if you want to play with the adults, you pay your taxes.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  94. Re:US has the highest corporate taxes in the world by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Well, first off, you're admitting that switzerland is socialist where you were initially claiming that no one would say that. So... did you lie or what? Because you seem to have known all along they were pretty socialist.

    As to having democracy while the US doesn't... back that argument up please. What does that mean? Explain to me why they have democracy and we don't? I think you'll have a very hard time making that argument and not looking foolish.

    As to corporate personhood, I don't think you know what that means. Corporate personhood refers to investors not taking responsibility for what the company did. So for example, if I'm an old person, and I put my pension into a an oil company... am I personally responsible if the oil company pollutes a wetland? No. What happens is that the value of my investment goes down. But personally, I'm not responsible for that.

    That is what corporate personhood means. Whenever people attack the concept it merely displays ignorance. The economy would collapse without it. Where as the corporate taxes you seem to think are so important are almost irrelevant to national revenue. Many countries have no corporate taxes at all and benifit from that fact. Ireland for example has attracted a lot of business to their country that would otherwise skip it entirely simply by offering very reasonable taxes.

    That's the difference between Ireland and Greece. Ireland is hurting but will be okay since they have a healthy tax base. But Greece doesn't. The regulation and taxes in greece drive business out of the country.

    So let me ask you point blank. Do you want to be unemployed? And if you choose to be unemployed, why is it my responsibility to take care of you? You chose to live on the street and eat garbage. You had the option to do otherwise. Why are you making bad decisions and then demanding that other people bail you out for them?

    Either be rational or man up and accept the consequences.... which may or may not include starving to death.

    This infantile anti corporate attitude is beyond ignorant. Your values and ideas are the sort that make countries poor and keep them poor.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  95. When all you have is a hammer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from believing the world should be a thumb, the NYT misses a pretty obvious point: America runs on a taxation system designed for, and largely unchanged since, the 18th century. The answer isn't to make the 21st century look like the 18th. The answer is update your taxation system so it's relevant to the world people live in now.

  96. Re:US has the highest corporate taxes in the world by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    No one is ever going to do that.

    It won't happen.

    It would be more rational to put a tin foil hat on your head and try to find unicorns in your under pants drawer.

    I swear... how are so many raving loonies on the internet? Is it just homeless people at libraries writing angry letters or are you guys 15 year olds that know nothing?

    I really don't get it. The level of ignorance on this subject from so many people is inexplicable. It's like running into a lot of people that think Tomatoes are poisonous.

    What factory is farting out these fruitcakes?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  97. an oldie but goodie by burdickjp · · Score: 1

    Another reason why Georgism looks more appealing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

  98. Update: Forbes says the NYT is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/30/apples-9-8-tax-rate-new-york-times-ignorance-again/

    I'm no Apple zealot, but I do think this is a whole lot of silliness.

    If a [sS]tate wants to make itself a tax shelter for business then that's its prerogative. Apple is selling products worldwide and doing business out of each of those countries where required. If Apple wants to incorporate in Ireland where it is advantageous, how on earth is that different from say
    all the credit card companies who all operate out of Wilmington Delaware?

  99. Newman salad dressing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs, in fact any director of a limited company, had/has a legal obligation to maximise shareholder value.

    No doubt you can provide a link to this statute?

    See, I'd be interested to know what the exceptions are. Loads of companies make donations & grants to all kinds of causes, and while they might get some tax write-offs I doubt they gain are over 100% of the money paid out. But the directors don't seem to get hauled off to jail for it.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Newman salad dressing by ghostdoc · · Score: 1

      couldn't be arsed wading through the law sites...so I just looked it up on wikipedia:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors'_duties

      and in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule

      I'm currently a director of companies in both the UK and Australia, and the 'elevator summary' given to me in both occasions is 'act in the best interests of the shareholders'.
      I notice that the wikipedia article phrases it as 'act in the best interest of the company' but one of the cases quoted there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. ) specifically states:

      ...a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees. It is often cited as embodying the principle of "shareholder value" in companies.

      Is that good enough as a citation?

      I think it entirely depends on the reason behind the actions. If you're genuinely donating money to a good cause in order to promote the company's position in the community and raise sales in future, then you're OK. If you're donating company money to a cause (good or otherwise) that you are involved in or feel should be promoted, but that money is not benefitting the company, then you're in potential trouble.

      --
      Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
  100. Moronic geeks abound here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, something like this and everyone pretends they are all extremely moral being, always donating money to government more than the taxes.

    The problem with US govt is NOT the shortage of tax revenue. It's stupid-ass policies, sense of entitlement of its Citizens, and most importantly, spending that's gone out of control with no real benefit and corruption. Iraq war (what was that fro again????), needless expenditure in Afghanistan (who are more than happy to fleece US for collect aid again, and again, and again) corruption (Halliburton?), what not. And add to that a govt which acts as if the printing press is endless.

    Learn to use what you have efficiently, and 90% of the problems will be solved.

  101. Bravo Apple! by TonyXL · · Score: 1

    Would you rather Apple keep the money to pay workers and invest in R&D, or give it to the government and have it disappear into the black hole of special interests and lobbyists?

  102. Re:US has the highest corporate taxes in the world by Tom · · Score: 1

    Well, first off, you're admitting that switzerland is socialist where you were initially claiming that no one would say that. So... did you lie or what? Because you seem to have known all along they were pretty socialist.

    What I wrote was "looks socialistic", not "is socialist". Are you insulting on purpose or do you not grasp the difference?

    As to having democracy while the US doesn't... back that argument up please. What does that mean? Explain to me why they have democracy and we don't? I think you'll have a very hard time making that argument and not looking foolish.

    The swiss vote on everything importan themselves, thus, from greek demos + kratia = government by the people. The US never was a democracy, it has always been a republic - from latin res publica = public issue. The difference is important, but vital. In a democracy, the people govern themselves, for good or ill. In a republic, a governing body or class rules in the interest of the people.
    The republic is the nanny state concept, not the democracy. In fact, it is by definition a nanny state, because it treats its people as if they were kids and need to be ruled for their own benefit.

    And that's the spirit that has come to dominance in most western democracies. Open your eyes and look at how politicians treat their people. Like children or imbeciles.

    But personally, I'm not responsible for that.

    This lack of responsibility is exactly why corporations act like psychopaths. Because that is what psychopaths are - humans with a mental defect that causes total lack of responsibility. Not my words, there's been an actual study of psychologists comparing corporate and (human) psychopath behaviour patterns.

    The regulation and taxes in greece drive business out of the country.

    You have no idea about what's going on in greece. I don't have much myself, but what I have shows that things are more complicated than that. Not a surprise for anyone who's been watching things for a while. Wherever the IWF got involved, things quickly went from bad to worse.

    So let me ask you point blank. Do you want to be unemployed? And if you choose to be unemployed, why is it my responsibility to take care of you? You chose to live on the street and eat garbage. You had the option to do otherwise. Why are you making bad decisions and then demanding that other people bail you out for them?

    Again, you make too many assumptions and your ignorance should shame you. If you care, I do in fact own a small company. And I personally (i.e. me, not my company) paid more in income taxes last year than most people have in yearly salary. Before founding my own company, I worked as a direct report to the CFO of a company with a revenue of over a billion. So I think I do have a bit of qualification to speak about taxes.

    Also, you might want to re-think that sentence with "anti corporate attitude". This isn't about corporations pro or contra. It's about equality and fairness. Every buck the large corporations don't pay in taxes, the small corporations (like mine) have to shoulder. I'm a strong believer in everyone contributing his fair share. I do. Why doesn't Microsoft, why doesn't Apple, why doesn't Google? Do you realize that their record profits are massively subsidised by the general public?

    If you had actually read and understood anything I wrote, you'd have realized I am not asking for special, extra or especially high taxes for corporations or large corporations. What I am asking is that they pay their taxes just like everyone else. This competition of districts, counties and even entire nations is just pathetic.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  103. Corruption by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with apple and everything to do with government corruption.

    Any corporation, particularly those with share holders, are going to do this if they possibly can legally. If they didn't for example, they would get sued by their shareholders, or fired, or what have you. What are they going to do? Take some moral stance to pay more taxes and make less money?

    This is about politicians creating and/or maintaining loopholes like this for corporate friends for personal profit (in one way or another). Nothing else.

  104. Corporate Incomes Taxes are BS! by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

    Corporate income taxes are part of the fraud that corporations are people. Eliminate corporate income taxes entirely, bring back the 90% top tier personal income tax rate we enjoyed in the late 50s and early 60s, and save the middle class.

    --
    Social Credit would solve everything...
  105. Jobs & Taxes by NewYork · · Score: 1

    I think breaking Apple into smaller companies will create new jobs in the economy and will fetch more taxes to Govt.

  106. Americans are funny by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - W. Churchill

    Income earned by Americans in Foreign nations is taxable in America.
      Income earned by American Companies in Foreign nations is NOT taxable in America.

  107. Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop Taxing Revenue - Brilliant

    Throw out our current horribly complex and corrupt tax system. Politicians love it because its a vehicle for handing out political favors.

    Why do we want a tax on our productive capacity - can they tax me for work I do in my household? I could have hired someone who may have been able to do it better and/or cheaper than I could. Am I not denying that person a wage when I do it myself? Wouldn't that also fall under the overreaching commerce clause?

    If we tax production (anything) we get less of it. We need (as a country) to produce more, and consume less - this is the only way to pay down debt that I'm aware of.

    We should be taxing consumption not production (but that antithetical to Keynesian theory).

    We need less Gov. with simple rules to protect individual freedoms. We don't need to send more bureaucrats to Washington to 'fix' the system they've been screwing up for decades.

    -----
    “If we are to build a better world, we must remember that the guiding principle is this — a policy of freedom for the individual is the only true progressive policy.”
    Friedrich Hayek