Slashdot Mirror


Every US Taxpayer Has Effectively Paid Apple At Least $6 in Recent Years (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader shares an ArsTechnica report: Apple has received at least $6 per American taxpayer over the last five years in the form of interest payments on billions' worth of United States Treasury bonds, according to a report by Bloomberg. Citing Apple's regulatory filings and unnamed sources, the business publication found "the Treasury Department paid Apple at least $600 million and possibly much more over the past five years in the form of interest." By taking advantage of a provision in the American tax code, Bloomberg says that Apple has "stashed much of its foreign earnings -- tax-free -- right here in the US, in part by purchasing government bonds." As The Wall Street Journal reported in September, American companies are believed to be holding approximately $2 trillion in cash overseas that is shielded from US taxes. Under American law, companies must pay a 35-percent corporate tax rate on global profits when that money is brought home -- so there is an incentive to keep as much of that money overseas as possible.

267 comments

  1. Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    also to blame. Picking on Apple for this is really pretty silly. Every large multi-national company does this.

    1. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, does anyone have an estimate of how many dollars the US taxpayer has effectively paid to Microsoft? I won't be at all surprised if it is a substantially larger figure. Methinks the author of TFA is a bit selective in their outrage.Just sayin'.

    2. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yup.

      Make repatriating money easier and cheaper and two things will happen:
      1) money will come back into the US and help our economy
      2) whoever does it will be crucified for being easy on big business income taxes.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      Wait until Trump slaps $50 per phone tariff on their asses

      Lol, like an extra $50 would stop a die-hard Apple fanboi from buying his or her new shiny.

      -

      and tells them to keep their money overseas because it's neither wanted nor welcome here.

      He'll tell them their money isn't welcome here? Oh yeah, that'll happen. Absolutely fer sure.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They should invest in the US

      Apple has [...] over the last five years [held] billions' worth of United States Treasury bonds,

    5. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They should invest in the US by building a fucking factory here.

      Apple is building a dongle factory in the US.* That should make you happy for an hour or two.

      https://thisshouldbethenews.com/2016/11/30/apple-is-building-a-dongle-factory-in-the-united-states/

      * Fake news. But, hey, this is Slashdot.

    6. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Informative

      Part of the issue is that the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. If it were lowered, companies would probably be more willing to bring back money or not try to store it overseas because there would be no financial advantage towards doing so. Even the Nordic countries that are often regarded as having the best social safety nets (or even outright referred to as being socialist, albeit by silly people who don't know what socialism is) have lower corporate tax rates that are more in line with the rest of the world.

      We probably wouldn't be having this conversation if the U.S. had similar rates to the rest of the world.

    7. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) money will come back into the US and help our economy

      It's unproven that money being shifted from an overseas bank to a US bank will "help the economy".

      In fact, if it comes back and ends up in the hands of a few or used for one company to buy another it could very well hurt our economy.

      Further, it's not "the economy" that needs help. It's people. And for the past 35 years, there's been little proof that helping the former necessarily helps the latter.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      1) money will come back into the US and help our economy

      False. Many of those who brought money back into the U.S. cut jobs. From the U.S. Treasury itself:

      In assessing the 2004 tax holiday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports that most of the largest beneficiaries of the holiday actually cut jobs in 2005-06 - despite overall economy-wide job growth in those years - and many used the repatriated funds simply to repurchase stock or pay dividends.

      Also, as the New York Times pointed out, using the government's own reports:

      About 92 percent of it went to shareholders, mostly in the form of increased share buybacks and the rest through increased dividends.

      In other words, no help to the economy.

      2) whoever does it will be crucified for being easy on big business income taxes

      Which Bush was but then again, this was the same guy who handed over $700 billion of taxpayer money to banks and Wall Street firms so they could pay out their bonuses. Obviously he didn't care about being crucified or what the people thought. It wasn't his money.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    9. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's a much larger figure. The vast majority of .gov employees use Windows at work and not Macs, and while Microsoft provides a discount, it still isn't free. Your taxpayer dollars are Microsoft's biggest customer.

    10. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by jxander · · Score: 1

      And that's just tech.

      How much have we "effectively paid" oil, pharma, and defense contractors?

      --
      This signature is false.
    11. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ie trickle down economics has never worked.

      So shut the fuck up about Reagan.

      Every GOP dominated state has severely failing economies. See Kansas as a perfect example

    12. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can say paying out dividends to shareholders is 'no' help to the economy.

      For example, my parents live off dividends. Most of that money goes into the economy then.

    13. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Blame the laws and the legislators that pass them, not the corporations who maximize their profits by acting within them.

    14. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JoeMerchant · · Score: 0

      Wait until Trump slaps $50 per phone tariff on their asses

      Lol, like an extra $50 would stop a die-hard Apple fanboi from buying his or her new shiny.

      Which is why Trump would stop at $50 per phone, because he's relatively business savvy and it's a tariff that would work without killing the business.

      Unlike Bush's $10K+ tax on luxury boats.

    15. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your parents are either extremely well off to have lots and lots of stock or you're straight up lying. Either way, the majority of people would see no benefit. I mean the VAST majority of people since most people don't own enough stock that they could even live off dividends. More than likely you're talking about living on interest from years of investments. Living on interest is still very difficult but if someone started their 401k when they were 20 they could likely do it by age 55.

    16. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really the Byzantine tax code that's to blame, plus the ridiculous overkill infrastructure dedicated to policing that insanely complicated tax code.

      In countries where they've simplified the income tax code, like Georgia and Estonia, compliance has gone through the roof and tax revenues soared almost overnight despite the lower overall rate. Or you could keep doing it USA-style, keep the inflated IRS and its tax silliness, turn former friends into foes with FATCA bullshit, and see Apple et al flee to friendly places where they can do business unimpeded.

      If Trump comes through and incentivizes the big offshore-holders to bring the cash home, there's a chance the USA could fund its single-sided drone wars on brown people for another 5 years. Maybe even more. And you wouldn't have to bankrupt Social Security to do it.

    17. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by PackMan97 · · Score: 1

      I would hope any form of "repatriation holiday" would be linked to an investment requirement. A good proposal would be... "You may repatriate foreign profits to the US tax free, contingent on an equal investment being made in US capital projects".

    18. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Part of the issue is that the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world

      I'm not sure where this assertion comes from.

      In 2013 Microsoft had reported income of $23.2 billion, but with a federal tax liability of $3.11 billion only paid an effective federal tax rate of 13.4 percent. That's much lower than the top statutory rate of 35 percent for corporations per wikipedia.

      As someone who has made (modestly) from 50k to over 100k in my lifetime, I have only paid taxes in excess of my returns 0 times. I really don't understand how people believe corporations are treated badly in the US, given the legalized legislative bribery and SCOTUS decisions.

      Personally, I've paid the federal and state (California) in excess of my returns, maybe 2 or 3 times in decades. I just don't understand how people are in such denial of reality. Do you go the HR Block for your tax preparation?

    19. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple might respond by building iPhones in the US. These phones would only be sold in the US and would be the only iPhones sold in the US through authorized channels (why would any other country pay an inflated "nationalistic" price for a US phone due to higher cost of manufacturing in the US). The fanbois in the US would still buy them.

      Apple could control the gray market by, for example, requiring a monthly payment to Apple use a non-US phone in the US for more than four weeks in any 12 month period (some exception for usage near the Mexican and Canadian borders). Net effect -- more dead end manufacturing jobs in the US and less money for US residents to spend on other things and, in the end, no change in the US economy except that US residents would, on the average, have older and less capable iPhones and Apple might report higher revenue. Why wouldn't Apple take the money from the consumer rather than giving it to the government?

    20. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by mea2214 · · Score: 1

      Almost all Americans do this.

    21. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many middle income US residents near or in retirement have some dividend paying stock -- sometimes they don't even know it because it's buried in a fund in their 401(k) or IRA. Just because one can't live completely off of dividends doesn't mean that additional dividend money doesn't end up being spent on luxuries (or even near essentials) that would otherwise not be purchased.

      And, living off of just interest is very difficult - esp. in today's low rate regime. Most people "living off of interest" are really living off the principal because, after tax consequences, it's nearly impossible to generate enough high quality (i.e., fairly "safe") interest to keep up with inflation.

    22. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lowering? Lowering below 0.005%? Because that is what Apple is getting "in the rest of the world" (read Ireland). The way corporations work, they would never choose higher tax rates. Where is the profit in that?

    23. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      whut?

    24. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by gtall · · Score: 2, Informative

      Trump...business savvy? Errrr...3 or 4 bankruptcies, no U.S. bank will loan to that deadbeat, the word in business is to get your money up front if you deal with Trump. I think the appellation Sgt. Bilko is more apt.

    25. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by khallow · · Score: 1

      Or Texas which has been doing better than California for the last twenty years.

    26. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cause we don't need infrastructure, civility, military protection, etc... You do realize that a business can't make any money at all if not for these things existing right?

    27. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least Apple is going to pay the U.S. tax-payers back; the company is going to open a plant with _50,000_ jobs in the U.S. 50,000! And I'm sure that that will happen without any tax incentives or anything.

      Oh, wait. Foxconn is going to open that plant? Oh, so what is Apple going to do about jobs in the U.S.? oh, I see... nothing.

    28. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if the dividends are re-investing buried in an IRA or a 401(k) they are by definition not helping the economy. They are just sitting there hopefully growing so that some day they can be spent.

    29. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Keep spreading your fake news, bro.

    30. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Generally the corporations lobby, often with hard cash, for these laws that they've written. Simple free market economics. It's expensive getting elected, corporation finds it cheaper to pay off politician to pass their laws then to compete in other ways. As long as it costs large amounts of money to get elected, corporations will take advantage.
      At least in a free market, you are free to pay to get your own legislator and your own laws along with a propaganda machine to convince enough other people to vote for your interests.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    31. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is such a fucking ridiculous complaint anyway. NO ONE wants to pay more in taxes than they are required to. I mean, jezuz, how fucking stupid would you have to be?

      In other news, 10% of something is a lot more than 0% of it. Just a thought.

    32. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      yup.
      I can't live off my dividends of my stock portfolio, but it buys me a modest new car or nice used car every 7 years or so.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    33. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by colin_faber · · Score: 1, Troll

      3 or 4 bankruptcies and literally hundreds of businesses under his name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or in other words a failure rate of 0.6% to 0.8%. Or if that doesn't do it for you a success rate of 99.4% to 99.2% for his business holdings.

    34. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the relationship all out of wack as it is mutually beneficial. Apple buys the treasury bonds to keep the U.S. dollar strong. That guarantees they get the maximum materials in other currencies such as those in China and through-out Asia. This is the same reason China is fighting to keep the value of their currency low. If it rises then exports become too expensive and profits fall as people can't afford goods anymore. It is a giant circle jerk but it is the way the modern global economy works.

      In short it is MADD all over again, this time instead of nuclear weapons it economic mutually assured destruction if any party tries to change the relationship.

    35. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2

      If it were lowered, companies would probably be more willing to bring back money

      It doesn't seem to matter how low you set it, they always try to avoid paying it. Companies who moved to Ireland for their low corporate tax immediately started avoiding that too.

    36. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by swillden · · Score: 1

      Every GOP dominated state has severely failing economies. See Kansas as a perfect example.

      Define "failing". Red states, by and large, have lower economic growth because they are more rural, and urban centers generate more economic activity. That's a generality, though. If you look at a list of states by GDP per capita, some red states rank very highly. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Li....

      If you're talking about fiscal responsibility, it's pretty much exactly the opposite of what you say. The states that are on the edge of bankruptcy are nearly all blue states, while those with the healthiest governments are red states. https://www.mercatus.org/state...

      Kansas, BTW, is firmly middle of the pack on both measures. Kansas is #25 of 50 in terms of GDP per capita, and according to the Mercatus rankings, they're #27. So Kansas isn't a perfect example.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    37. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Compared to many countries, the United States has an educated and enthusiastic workforce.Productive workers offset some amount of taxation.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    38. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yum yum. Delicious

    39. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Republican dominated states (now a majority) have slightly lower unemployment than Democrat.
      http://ijr.com/2014/08/163622-connection-political-parties-unemployment-look-graph-judge/

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    40. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      No, the correct person to blame is ourselves for continuing to vote for people who spend massively on our behalf, in exchange for our votes.

      Well, they have to borrow for this habit of ours, and that means renting this money. Be happy Apple is doing this rather than more foreign powers.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    41. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by tempo36 · · Score: 1

      The U.S. only has the highest absolute corporate tax rate. It doesn't have remotely the highest effective tax rate because of the numerous deductions afforded to most corporations. Between deductions and variable schedules for depreciation, interest, benefits, investments, etc no one is paying the 39% absolute rate. Depending on the study you look at, the corporate effective tax rate averages around 27% and even lower for many corporations which puts in line with other developed countries. And that's even ignoring that many US corporations, up to 30% by some estimates, which aren't even organized as corporate entitites: they're S Corps which pay using the individual tax rate, not the corporate one.

    42. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Money in a mattress or money used for fractional reserve isn't helping the economy. Most of the money in banks is loaned out to homeowners, businesses, and governments. Only the government portion is not helping the economy.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    43. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Generally the corporations lobby, often with hard cash, for these laws that they've written

      The Lift America Coalition (including large corporations like 3M, Cisco, Intel, Walmart, etc.) has been lobbying for a territorial corporate tax system rather than a worldwide corporate tax system, which would allow trillions of dollars of profits to be repatriated back to the US, but to date they have not been successful in getting Congress to change the corporate tax regime (which the majority of OECD countries have).

    44. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      How much have we "effectively paid" oil, pharma, and defense contractors?

      Also my grandmother. She bought a lot of government bonds during WW2, so she was also "stealing" from taxpayers.

    45. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Apple buys the treasury bonds to keep the U.S. dollar strong.

      There are 3 possibilities here:

      • You are trying, and failing, to be funny.
      • You are ignorant
      • You are an enemy of the U.S.
      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    46. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Generally the corporations lobby, often with hard cash, for these laws that they've written.

      Not in this case. There is pretty much universal agreement from business and economists that our current corporate tax laws are stupid and need to be reformed, especially the extraterritorial taxation that no other country does.

      The problem is that many politician do not want to be seen as "giving in" to corporations, so they just keep the rates high, and then hand out plenty of loopholes to their donors.

      Donald says he wants to fix this, but Donald says a lot of things.

    47. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The assertion comes from the fact that we have a 35% corporate tax rate. The reasons many large corporations don't pay it is that they've bribed (lobbied and donated to ... same difference) enough politicians to get them to pass special loop holes that allow them to have a lower effective rate than 35%. That's a huge problem since your effective rate can be higher or lower depending on what industry or industries your in and who you are. There have been blatent incidents where provisions have been put into a bill that are so specific that you can tell which individual company in the US it was put in for. Mitch McConnell got caught trying to do this in a bill that came out of a last minute budget deal with Obama and it was so blatent he was forced to remove it due to the criticism before the Senate passed it. It's hardly a practice limited to Republicans. Both parties pull this crap.

      It's a system that breeds corruption so pass a law that lowers the rate for all corporations instead of playing favorites and close all of the special loopholes that exist. That puts all businesses on an even playing field and might lead to a little less corruption as a result.

    48. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government portion most certainly does help the economy. That money goes to government employees who, in the vast majority of instances, are members of the middle class who will spend it. Police officers, firefighters, teachers, office workers, etc all spend their paychecks. Government contractors also have employees they pay. My firm has a few clients that are local government entities. I can assure you that every dollar they spend with us has an economic benefit to those of us who work there. Nice try though.

    49. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you should make it easier for the US government to steal other countries taxes, is that what you are saying. Those offshore profits were earned offshore, so the taxes should always be paid where the revenue is generated. Not the US being and continuing to be a global economic and resource parasite.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    50. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or Texas which has been doing better than California for the last twenty years.

      I'm living in Houston now, so I can have an opinion on the "Texas miracle".

      It's horseshit. First, Texas is not "doing better than California". Second, one of the ways Texas has attracted businesses and jobs is by deregulating and lowering taxes. But see, those chickens are starting to come home to roost. The real economic engine of Texas is the Houston/Gulf Coast area which had a big boom when gas was $4/gallon. At $1.85 (which is what I paid to fill up earlier tonight), there are a lot of oil folks out of work, which is hurting everything from trucking to local businesses like restaurants, drug stores, groceries, etc. The big boom in Houston now (and the reason that Houston is still the economic driver for all of Texas), is health care. We have the best medical centers and medical schools around and are building more. And even though Texas is a low-tax state, the state makes up for it by loading up its citizens with fees and licenses and surcharges galore.

      By the way, Houston is a liberal city. Blue as blue can be. It's got more in common with Austin and San Antonio than it does in more backward places like Dallas-Ft Worth or the panhandle. Hell, until recently, the mayor of Houston was a lesbian. Think about that. A lesbian mayor in Texas. Up in Dallas, they'd force her into a re-education camp and treat her with electric shock and the Bible.

      Without Houston, Texas would be sucking as bad as Kansas, which has the worst economic trend in the United States thanks to one-party Republican control of Kansas state government.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    51. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      Part of the issue is that the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. If it were lowered, companies would probably be more willing to bring back money or not try to store it overseas because there would be no financial advantage towards doing so.

      This is not correct. The entire issue is that there is at least one country in the entire world that is willing to levy a lower rate. The problem isn't that the rest of the EU countries have lower tax rates than the US, it's that Ireland has a much lower rate. The rest of the EU has zero impact on the Ireland situation (other than ostensibly complaining about Ireland's low rates).

      The other issue is that there are advantages to operating in the US. If there weren't, these corporations would simply move entirely to Ireland or other tax havens. The immorality of the situation is that these companies want the benefits without paying the fees. Yes, I know that they're operating within the letter of the law, and I'm sure that the lawmakers wrote the law that way because they feel so strongly about the issue ideologically and not for any other reason ...

    52. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Republican dominated states (now a majority) have slightly lower unemployment than Democrat.

      Those numbers are almost three years old. Some red states have gone into the shitter since then.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    53. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Kansas, BTW, is firmly middle of the pack on both measures. Kansas is #25 of 50 in terms of GDP per capita, and according to the Mercatus rankings, they're #27. So Kansas isn't a perfect example.

      Kansas is a perfect example. Forget GSP (the state version of GDP) and Mercatus. Look at the trendlines. Since they've had this experiment in extreme trickle-down economics, they're rapidly heading into the shitter.

      http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ks....

      http://www.kansascity.com/opin...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    54. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 or 4 bankruptcies and literally hundreds of businesses under his name.

      Close. They have his name on it. Until somebody removes the sign out of embarrassment.

    55. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Also my grandmother. She bought a lot of government bonds during WW2, so she was also "stealing" from taxpayers.

      Was she using money she had funnelled offshore to avoid paying US tax on to purchase those bonds? Probably not, because unlike corporations, the US holds private citizens liable for tax on foreign earnings regardless of whether they repatriate the funds or not.

      The salt in the wound here is that Apple is making money from the interest on government bonds, which are issued to cover the shortfall in tax revenue caused by Apple avoiding paying their income tax.

    56. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Acting unethically but within the law is still a shity thing to do, and calling companies out for it is perfectly OK. When Apple is making money off the US national debt at the same time they are causing a shortfall in tax revenue, that is unethical, no matter how many loopholes the legislators have left open for them to do this.

    57. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should invest in the US by building a fucking factory here. Wait until Trump slaps $50 per phone tariff on their asses, and tells them to keep their money overseas because it's neither wanted nor welcome here.

      So will only Apple have to make their phones here? Or will Android phone prices in the US explode?

    58. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Make repatriating money easier and cheaper and two things will happen: 1) money will come back into the US and help our economy 2) whoever does it will be crucified for being easy on big business income taxes.

      Yeah, I think we've had enough of the carrot in American business.

      How about this for a plan: Change the tax code to tax them at 35% whether they bring the money back to the US or not. If they have been holding out like apple, add a special provision that its 45% just because fuck em.

      If trump were to actually grow a set and use the stick instead of the carrot, he might actually get re-elected in four years (Assuming they don't figure out how to impeach him first, and even then he STILL might get re-elected).

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    59. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I was comparing his business savvy to that of HW Bush, the great Republican leader who passed the 10% luxury goods tax that literally gutted the luxury boat business. I wonder if they did it just to make a point that taxes which punish the rich are bad, certainly they could have punished the rich in more creative ways that wouldn't have collapsed industries, but I don't think that was their goal.

    60. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      And Calvin Klein has hundreds of thousands of clothing designs under his name... amazing how prolific a single brand can be.

      Besides, relatively business savvy isn't saying he's good, just that he's better than a lot of politician/legislators we have had in the past - which is a low bar indeed.

    61. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by geoskd · · Score: 2

      Compared to many countries, the United States has an educated and enthusiastic workforce.Productive workers offset some amount of taxation.

      Bwahahahaha,

      Haven't spent much time working outside the states have you?

      Our work ethic and quality is actually pretty typical. What has always made the US an economic powerhouse is technological superiority. As that edge is slowly eroded, other nations have surpassed us in productivity, and the US will only slide further down that list as other nations advance. Trump is right in that we should do something to "make America great again". The only trouble is he doesn't have the foggiest clue how to actually do it.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    62. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The law exists to create a predictable playing field for business, one in which they can make elaborate plans to return gains to shareholders. Without predictable rules, there's unpredictable chaos. Can you imagine the turmoil in the stock market if corporations were only able to deliver on their promises 50% of the time and couldn't predict their profits within +/- 50%?

      Successful corporations act shitty to lots of people, they screw their customers with higher than necessary prices, they screw their workers with lower than necessary wages, and when they don't do those things they're seen as screwing their shareholders. There's a reason that successful CEOs tend to be psychopaths - lacking normal levels of human empathy.

    63. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      For every "Apple" poster child, there are a hundred other corporations doing the same thing without the public attention.

      It needs to be fixed at the legislative level, and that has apparently been impossible for the last 8 years of Democratic administration and the previous 8 years of Republican administration. Even if all Trump does is make a lot of noise and fail to deliver substantial positive change, he won't actually be performing any worse than his two predecessors.

      Don't get me wrong, he looks like a buffoon already and will be an even sadder parody of a human being if he fails to deliver, but, in reality, not much worse than a well spoken highly educated man who can't get simple things done, or a "connected" nephew (benefactor of nepotism) who engages in a costly a war that greatly enriches his friends.

    64. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      also to blame. Picking on Apple for this is really pretty silly. Every large multi-national company does this.

      On top of that, who would right-leaning Bloomberg rather buy-up US Treasury bonds?

      Foreign Countries? Chinese Mega-conglomerate holding companies? Giant companies based in other countries who don't otherwise do business with the US? Iran?

      Stupid, time-wasting hit-piece.

    65. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      unlike corporations, the US holds private citizens liable for tax on foreign earnings

      There is a $90k exemption before that kicks in. Also, any citizen can avoid the tax by incorporating, which can be done on-line in about 20 minutes for about $200.

    66. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or will Android phone prices in the US explode?

      Well Samesung has the explode part working.

    67. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are putting MS's worldwide net income but then ignoring the tax they paid elsewhere. They actually paid 5.19billion in tax and remember other countries have much lower tax rates. The US portion was at a much much higher rate than 13.4%

    68. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The work ethic and quality will come back by itself.
      Once people get used to a lower standard of living they will want to work for a better life again.
      Unfortunately for average Joe the Chinese have realized that their people will eventually get too rich to produce cheap trinkets too so they are investing heavily in Africa to have a cheap source of labor in the future.
      That means that things might not turn around in the US until Africa has caught up with the rest of the world.

    69. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Crash+McBang · · Score: 1

      Here's an easy way to repatriate overseas money: Congress passes a law that states: - for every dollar declared in dividends a company can repatriate one dollar TAX FREE - this moves money from overseas banks into the economy and the govt. gets money from taxes on dividend income not bad, huh?

      --
      To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
    70. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So because everyone does it, your okay with it?

      Picking on apple and all other who do this is exactly what we should be doing. Because if you say this about one, the same logic applies to the others when they are singled out.

    71. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, we do want their money here. However I do agree with a terrif on imports of this nature. Because the current system encourages them to outsource the labor, it should be more profitable for them to keep the workforce here than to export it, with only some rare exceptions.

      Lol can you imagine how many jobs would open up if we put a stop to India's phone tech support.

    72. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you are going to need more police to subdue all the starving people rioting. People don't tend to starve to death peacefully. Ethical concerns aside that most likely won't be cheaper.

    73. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much would be raised by a tax on poor spelling?

    74. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by khallow · · Score: 1

      First, Texas is not "doing better than California".

      By "doing better" I mean higher absolute population growth, higher absolute employment growth, and higher absolute GDP growth over the period in question.

      Without Houston, Texas would be sucking as bad as Kansas

      And California would be sucking pretty badly without Silicon Valley too.

    75. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people did starve in my grandparents youth. There was a rather big war going on.

      The problem now is that automation has and is continuing to shift productivity from labour to capital. While less and less workers produce more and more the increase in profit goes only to capital owners not to the workers.
      Now big corporations even have enough cash around to loan it to the government to receive part of the taxes their workers have to pay and take an even bigger cut.

      There are just not enough jobs left where a person with no capital, or marketable skills can make a living and it's only going to get worse.

    76. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make it morally right.
      They should make it illegal to move money around in this way. No one is asking them to pay extra, just to pay the same 35% rate as every other company.
      If they did, the country would be better off.
      Or is it better to be mean and selfish?

    77. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, it doesn't count because other companies are doing it too. Right. Oh, no, that's not right. Please write a conclusion to your assertion. Quite why a blank assertion with no conclusion gets an insightful is obscure to me. Maybe everyone reads into it what they like.

      Meanwhile, I ask you, does a foreign multinational (say Samsung) get the same US taxpayer handout? I will also ask you, do Google or Motorola or Intel get the same size handout? If not, how do you know that Apple gets 6$ whilst the next highest beneficiary of capitalist handouts gets 3$? Would that make a difference? If not, then why? If it would, why don't you check up on it?

    78. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Take the money he inheritted, take his net worth today (the one he claims to have - which is almost certainly exagerated by 2 orders of magnitude). Factor in inflation.
      Had he stuck all his money way back when into an index-tracking fund he would be richer now than he is - a LOT richer.

      This is such a terrible businessman he can't even do (nearly) as well as the AVERAGE of the stock market - in a period that included 3 major recessions including the largest one since the great depression !
      And that's working with how much he CLAIMS to have, all the evidence suggests he is a LOT less rich than that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    79. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Besides, relatively business savvy isn't saying he's good, just that he's better than a lot of politician/legislators we have had in the past - which is a low bar indeed.

      But considering that government does not, never can and by god never ever SHOULD resemble a business - that's not at all a bad thing. You CAN be good at both - but nothing you learn about one is helpful to the other. Being good at both is a bit like getting a double PHD in art history and astrophysics. Sure it can be done, but it's a rare person indeed who can master such utterly disparate disciplines and they know how to keep them separate in their heads.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    80. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say they were being treated badly. He said they dodge taxes so that they get similar effective tax rates to the rest of the developed world. And then asserted that if our statutory rates were closer to the rest of the developed world then maybe American corporations would realize more of their profits here, rather then moving the money abroad.

    81. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And California would be sucking pretty badly without Silicon Valley too.

      Without Silicon Valley, California would still have Hollywood, which adds a lot to the state's economy. California would look pretty bad if you took out San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their surrounding areas, but most states would look pretty bad if you took away 75% of their population.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    82. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I don't quite get the point of the article.
      US bonds are a low return but safe investment. Most companies do some bonds on their portfolios just to make sure their money is diverse.
      Currently bond returns are under standard inflation so the government is getting money for cheap.
      Now the real question is if the government is taking advantage of this cheap money and using it to fix things that can have a greater return then what the bond price is.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    83. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Wait until Trump slaps $50 per phone tariff on their asses

      Lol, like an extra $50 would stop a die-hard Apple fanboi from buying his or her new shiny.

      Which is why Trump would stop at $50 per phone, because he's relatively business savvy and it's a tariff that would work without killing the business.

      Unlike Bush's $10K+ tax on luxury boats.

      Yeah but apple still wouldn't pay it, they'd just pass it on to the suckers, sorry, consumers who buy their crap.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    84. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by stealth_finger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trump...business savvy? Errrr...3 or 4 bankruptcies, no U.S. bank will loan to that deadbeat, the word in business is to get your money up front if you deal with Trump. I think the appellation Sgt. Bilko is more apt.

      He's gotta be pretty savvy if he can fuck up as much as he does and still be stupidly loaded enough to buy the presidency.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    85. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      the 10% luxury goods tax that literally gutted the luxury boat business.

      I bet that was wound felt all over the land with a deep and profound impact.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    86. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      They should invest in the US by building a fucking factory here.

      Apple is building a dongle factory in the US.* That should make you happy for an hour or two.

      https://thisshouldbethenews.com/2016/11/30/apple-is-building-a-dongle-factory-in-the-united-states/

      * Fake news. But, hey, this is Slashdot.

      If this were to happen I wonder how long it would take for H1b to apply to chinese kids and apple suddenly seem the think americans aren't capable of the most basic menial work.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    87. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      How much would be raised by a tax on poor spelling?

      Apply a 'Z' tax for every time you needlessly replace an 'S' and a fine for every missing 'U'. That should fill up your coffers and get Americans spelling properly in no time.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    88. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The Texas miracle is a lot like the Celtic tiger.

      Ireland attracted businesses with a lot of tax concessions (and conveniently forgetting to collect some taxes) and now the Irish workers are paying a lot of tax. It worked for a little while when the market was doing extremely well... Then the market started doing just OK and it was revealed for the complete failure it was. They're now dependent on the rest of Europe to stay afloat and Irish are flooding everywhere else in Europe to do jobs because there aren't that many jobs left in Ireland and those that are left in Ireland aren't paying very well.

      However what was being discussed by the OP was setting a flat rate for corporate tax lower than the current rate and eliminating all concessions and deductions. Companies only pay 10%... but they always pay 10%, no more or less. This approach has been demonstrated to be successful in smaller countries with high levels of tax evasion. Yet to see if it scales but its worth a try compared to our current, stupidly complex corporate taxation systems.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    89. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hollywood still generates a ton of money for California. So that is at least two major industries.

    90. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      However what was being discussed by the OP was setting a flat rate for corporate tax lower than the current rate and eliminating all concessions and deductions. Companies only pay 10%... but they always pay 10%, no more or less.

      That will never happen. The only way government can keep influence with companies is by exercising those concessions and deductions.

      Trump's deal with Carrier was nothing BUT concessions and deductions. The fact that he chose to use his very first public act in that manner does not indicate someone who's going to want to cede the power of the "deal".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    91. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Part of the issue is that the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world

      I'm not sure where this assertion comes from.

      In 2013 Microsoft had reported income of $23.2 billion, but with a federal tax liability of $3.11 billion only paid an effective federal tax rate of 13.4 percent. That's much lower than the top statutory rate of 35 percent for corporations per wikipedia.

      As someone who has made (modestly) from 50k to over 100k in my lifetime, I have only paid taxes in excess of my returns 0 times. I really don't understand how people believe corporations are treated badly in the US, given the legalized legislative bribery and SCOTUS decisions.

      Personally, I've paid the federal and state (California) in excess of my returns, maybe 2 or 3 times in decades. I just don't understand how people are in such denial of reality. Do you go the HR Block for your tax preparation?

      Careful what kind of income you're talking about. Taxes with businesses work completely differently than your personal taxes, they don't pay tax on all income if they can offset income with expenses. You don't get that option but you do get other deductions instead. It's really hard to compare the two beyond general analogies. Also, geographically speaking, *WHERE* was the income reported. On quarterly results a business will report all of their income because that's pertinent to their performance what shareholders want to hear. How much of that money is being reported as income on US soil, in their US operations, and subject to US income tax... now that's another story.

    92. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by trg83 · · Score: 1

      I have lived in Kansas for about 27 years, so I guess that makes my opinion at least as valid as the opinion piece from a Kansas City, MISSOURI newspaper whose editorial staff clearly demonstrates their loathing for Kansas and its administration in even their non-opinion pieces. Things aren't that bad, and they seem to be getting better. Your BLS citation, in isolation, is pretty much worthless. I would encourage you to click through to "back data" as well as to compare it to the glorious state of California. 2016 shows an uptick in unemployment for both states around the same time. The unemployment rate in Kansas has been below 5% since mid-2013, a feat which California has not managed to achieve since mid-2006. Economies are cyclical. It's of no inherent value to show that a state economy is down in some metric without comparing it to other states. Ultimately what we're doing is evaluating competing philosophies against each other to see which one merits consideration at election time. I know plenty of people in government and education jobs who loathe Brownback and his associates. Interestingly enough, those politicians are largely being sent back to Topeka and Washington. Those who have been defeated were due to enormous amounts of outside money and influence being poured into Kansas elections.

    93. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I have lived in Kansas for about 27 years, so I guess that makes my opinion at least as valid as the opinion piece from a Kansas City, MISSOURI newspaper

      No, not really. The Kansas City, MISSOURI newspaper actually included evidence.

      As for the other, you're just flat out wrong. Did you know that since Brownback and company took over in 2012, Kansas GDP (GSP) has grown half as fast as the national GDP?

      http://www.cbpp.org/research/f...

      Second, did you know that you can't trust any of the economic numbers that have been coming out of the Brownback administration? Here's why:

      https://www.bloomberg.com/view...

      http://www.rawstory.com/2016/0...

      And since you seemed offended that I would cite a MISSOURI newspaper that is all of about 15 feet from the Kansas border, here's some fact-checking from a Wichita, KANSAS newspaper that you might find illuminating. Oh never mind, you're from Kansas. You wouldn't find anything illuminating. What's the matter with Kansas, anyway?

      http://www.kansas.com/news/pol...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    94. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by khallow · · Score: 1

      Without Silicon Valley, California would still have Hollywood, which adds a lot to the state's economy.

      Silicon Valley is a lot bigger. There's a reason I picked that instead of the LA area.

    95. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your proof of this is where?

    96. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      In Florida, and other coastal areas, yes, literally thousands were put out of work as a direct result of decreased sales that were directly attributable to the tax. Boats above the $100K cutoff basically stopped selling. Businesses that had thrived for decades were shut down, or dramatically scaled back.

      Like I said, I think it was an intentional consequence of the tax, anything else doesn't fit the party profile.

    97. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by johnhydejr · · Score: 1

      It's it illegal to put a tariff on a specific company, if he going to do that all telephones or their components would be hit with $50. And Congress has to do it if its long-term. Just like everything Trump says, hell is in the details.

    98. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Bookworm09 · · Score: 1

      What's the matter with Kansas, anyway?

      Ha. Well done.

    99. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are real world examples of your looney beliefs ... look at countries with virtually no government, no social safety nets, etc. and check out their standard of living and GDPs. People need to stop spouting extremist ideologies and look at real world examples for what works and what doesn't.

    100. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Just like everything Trump says, hell is in the details.

      Just like everything Trump says, it's all bullshit with no basis in reality.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    101. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read as "also to blame. Picking an Apple" and was very confused.

    102. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly...

      The USA having the highest corporate tax rates in the world is such Faux New / right wing radio/ Republican BS. First of all, there are tons and tons of ways to get out of paying taxes.. like what Apple and Microsoft do. What you want to look at is "effective corporate tax rates" which as this article states... depends on the industry.

      http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/

    103. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that is rewarding bad behavior and also factually incorrect.

      While America has officially the highest tax rates, after you take into account deductions and stuff, we actually have among the lowest effective tax rates of about 12.6% which is what the companies actually end up paying.

      If you want to have them bring it back, you don't bend over and spread your butt for them and force the people to pick up their slack for them. Doing it that way actually rewards them for fucking you over and encourages them to do it again or push it further. A better option would be to actually set it up where they are caught doing this, they are fined double what they would have been taxed with interest for how long it has been.

      Making it easier I can understand, making it cheaper is the wrong way to go about it. Most people use the "Make it cheaper" approach don't realize just how much differently their income is taxed then a normal persons.

      And they aren't just taking it overseas to avoid US taxes, they are taking overseas to avoid ALL taxes on it. As it stands Apple is on the hook for over 14 BILLION in back taxes in Europe do to them making an illegal agreement that allowed them to pay between 1% and 0.005% taxes on all income it routed through Ireland, regardless of where they made it in the US or Europe so long as they could shift it there. Many other companies are trying to do similar to avoid paying what they owe.

      The fact of the matter is a lot of places are actually starting to clamp down on tax evasion and havens overseas making it harder for companies to do it finally with America dragging our asses and our soon to be Commander and Chump Trump trying to turn us into the next big tax haven for them while selling out the American people and dismantling the government appointing people into agencies they are firmly against having to begin with with policies that sell out the people and their children to the highest bidders.

    104. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      People pick on Apple mostly because it has a boatload of cash... much more than anybody else does. Other companies tend to invest their money in buyouts or business expansion. Apple already dominates its market niche (computing and mobile devices as luxury items), hasn't found a lot of suitable companies to buy out (compared to its assets), and doesn't choose to expand into other markets.

    105. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      A lot of the businesses that bear his name are licencing deals. Not much risk for Trump there. The ones he is directly involved in operating have a pretty bad record, especially the casinos and Trump University.

    106. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Seriously? People who could afford a $100,000 boat were put off by a 10% tax? Perhaps it should have been a 10% tax on the amount over $100,000 so the threshold effect wouldn't be so strong...

    107. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      If we lower the corporate tax rate we will have to raise taxes on individuals. That would not be a politically popular move. It's probably the right thing to do anyway because of the problems caused by our misalignment with the tax structure of other developed nations.

    108. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      If companies repatriate those foreign earnings they'll get hit with the full 35% rate on that money. They won't have losses or other tax credits to offset them.

    109. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      Totally agree with this action long-term. In the short-term I'm a little bit worried about suddenly increasing the monetary supply by repatriating the billions (trillions?) of foreign held US corporate money. With all the "quantitative easing," debt, and money printing, a sudden increase in money supply could cause rapid inflation and develop into a fiscal crisis. Maybe money needs to be repatriated slowly.

    110. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing really wrong here, since the money is interest paid on U.S. bonds that just happened to be purchased from an entity outside the U.S.

    111. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      It was like a light switch - boats affected by the tax just stopped selling. As the law implied, they were luxury items, optional purchases. You were planning on spending $250K on a new shiny? Now the IRS wants to tack on a $25K tax... guess what, not a single one of those boat purchasers needed that boat, and they were pissed off and pouty, so they put their check books away and looked at ways they could buy the same thing cheaper in another country - for the million+ yachts that's pretty much what happened, they moved the construction contracts offshore. Apparently the guys in the middle just decided to do without.

    112. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by garote · · Score: 1

      It's more ideological than you think.

      If a US-educated, US-residing workforce designs a product, and that product is then sourced, manufactured, shipped, sold, serviced, and recycled, ENTIRELY overseas, how much of that profit is actually owed to the US government at all?

      One could make a case that those US-educated US-residing employees are already paying the "fair burden" of tax dollars simply by raking in a boatload of cash from foreign shores and then paying a large hunk of that in income tax. Why call them dodgers, when you could call them heroes, because they are pulling money into the US economy without creating any wear on the local public infrastructure to source, manufacture, sell, service, or recycle anything.

    113. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by garote · · Score: 1

      The only way to win is not to play.

      Why the hell would ANY government impose a "repatriation tax", on funds that a company or individual wants to bring in from foreign shores, no matter how or where it was made? Money brought in here is money spent here. It stands a chance of going into the pockets of the working and middle class. (Or at the VERY least, the reverse is incontrovertible: Money that never comes back, is NEVER spent here, GUARANTEED.) Want more money for government projects? Raise taxes on high earners. A repatriation tax is effectively just butting in line to leech money directly out of the economy before the less-powerful can even get a chance at earning it. It feeds the government _at_the_expense_ of economic growth, and _at_the_expense_ of the enrichment of its workforce with money from foreign shores. It's straight-up illogical. If you think it's about "fairness" to make companies pay this money, it just shows your head isn't on straight.

      There are many things a government can tax. Some have better effects than others. Quit haggling over the percentage of a repatriation tax, when, for your own sake and everyone else's in this country, it should be ZERO.

    114. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      It's more ideological than you think.

      If a US-educated, US-residing workforce designs a product, and that product is then sourced, manufactured, shipped, sold, serviced, and recycled, ENTIRELY overseas, how much of that profit is actually owed to the US government at all?

      One could make a case that those US-educated US-residing employees are already paying the "fair burden" of tax dollars simply by raking in a boatload of cash from foreign shores and then paying a large hunk of that in income tax. Why call them dodgers, when you could call them heroes, because they are pulling money into the US economy without creating any wear on the local public infrastructure to source, manufacture, sell, service, or recycle anything.

      But this is an entirely different issue about the fairness of tax policies. I was simply commenting about the economic incentives of the current reality. Apple dodges taxes because it can do so legally, not because it thinks the US scheme is unfair. If the US scheme were somehow fairer in Apple's eyes, would they abrogate their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to maximize corporate value and voluntarily decline to avail themselves of the Irish tax haven?

    115. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nice try"? You've just filled in the other half of the picture, pointing out that re-invested dividends AND government taxes help the economy. You've chopped the legs out from under your original argument.

      Sorry, but the police and firefighters are not somehow a magically superior driver of the economy than the actual - you know - economy is. And government pencil-pushers make money and spend it - like everyone else - but by and large, since their jobs are not under any particular threat and their work is not held to a perform-or-die standard, the work they do COMPLETELY SUCKS.

    116. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by garote · · Score: 1

      Well, you made the claim that lawmakers wrote the law because of an ideological preference, and then implied that their ideology was irrelevant because it had secondary effects that the lawmakers did not (likely) anticipate. But that implication doesn't stand, because as you say, a company will tend to do exactly what maximizes its return for its stockholders. You call it "wanting the benefits without paying the fees", and label it immoral. But there are no fees to be paid - they are acting legally - and that is their expected behavior. What compels you to call it immoral? The same ideology that inspired the laws.

      Ideology is at the very core of this argument. Change the law to fit a different ideology - do away with the tax, for the sake of american workers - and by lucky coincidence, corporations will find it in their interest to repatriate a _massive_ amount of money.

      Everybody wins but the politicians, who would rather drum up taxes by any other means than raising taxes on their constituents.

    117. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Talk about something you know. Trickle down economics isn't it. It wasn't "trickle down", it was trickle everywhere. Everyone benefited from his policies and the US enjoyed the largest economic expansion the world had ever seen. I lived it, it was great. The US enjoys a lot to this day from all of that. Obama said Reagan was a minor setback to destroying the country. He's certainly done a lot to destroy it.

      So shut the fuck up yourself.

      Maryland is a good example. When we have Democrats, we're in big trouble. Spend thrifts. We have a Republican governor right now, we have a surplus, roads are being fixed, etc. It's so predictable, like clockwork. Same with Florida. Same with California.

    118. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Yea, you're right. Let's just keep all of our money out of the US. That'll help the economy.... Foreign banks/governments have our interest at heart.
      Where do you live? I think I found your town's idiot.

    119. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      Well, you made the claim that lawmakers wrote the law because of an ideological preference, and then implied that their ideology was irrelevant because it had secondary effects that the lawmakers did not (likely) anticipate.

      I made no declarations about the intention of lawmakers, because they are irrelevant to my point. Additionally, the intention of lawmakers is also irrelevant, either directly or tangentially, for the companies. Companies based their decision on laws, regardless of the intention or motivation behind those laws.

      Change the law to fit a different ideology - do away with the tax, for the sake of american workers - and by lucky coincidence, corporations will find it in their interest to repatriate a _massive_ amount of money.

      Everybody wins but the politicians, who would rather drum up taxes by any other means than raising taxes on their constituents.

      My main point was that companies will do what is in their best interests, and those interests are significantly affected by the relative tax offerings of all possible countries. The US could reduce its tax rate to zero, but if Ireland had a negative tax rate (i.e., a subsidy), the money would remain in Ireland. In fact, many cities, states, and countries compete on the basis of offering the highest negative tax rate.

    120. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by garote · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, as long as you discontinue your use of the word "immorality" to describe their behavior.

      Also, yes, you did make a declaration about the intention of the lawmakers. I quote: "The lawmakers wrote the law that way because they feel so strongly about the issue ideologically and not for any other reason."

      Own your words.

    121. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Irrational behavior on the part of the buyers. If they wanted a boat, the tax shouldn't have been a significant deterrent; at worst it might lead them to buy a boat that was 10% less expensive. But human behavior is frequently not rational, and this appears to be a prime example.

      If wealthy Americans really are that tax averse, it means serious problems for any attempts to raise taxes on the rich. Or perhaps you just have to make them harder to avoid...

    122. Re: Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure your name's not (ex)BoatMerchant?

    123. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good posts, thanks!

    124. Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      They really are that tax averse... there are Americans, wealthy and otherwise, who avoid earning income because they might have to pay tax on it - beyond irrational, but there it is.

      The boats really are luxury items, and much more costly than the price tag. I wouldn't be surprised if the tax pissed them off, then they thought about all the other expenses a little harder.

      And, yes, it's hard to raise taxes on the rich, especially when they own the legislators.

  2. Um, so? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh, this is the most uninteresting news ever. So, you're saying that Apple has put a lot of its spare cash into government bonds, which pay out the usual government bond interest; which are actually historically relatively low rates compared to other interest rates. This is interesting why, exactly?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy demanding we give them more money than they give us, they are stealing from us. It's the same with how those damn banks work. They give us X then demand more than X! It's just crooked capitalism. Already Trump is destroying the country by pushing these sort of scams. Our country has been destroyed.

    2. Re:Um, so? by phayes · · Score: 1

      It's not interesting but msmash is attempting to paint Apple buying bonds which the U.S emits to pay for it's deficit as being "bad".

      The depths of confusion that these Apple haters have is astounding.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    3. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta rouse the rabble! Rabble rabble rabble!

    4. Re:Um, so? by tempo36 · · Score: 2

      Exactly. The government is paying Apple interest, but it's using the money that purchased the bonds to, ya know, do things. Just like regular folks who purchase treasury bonds as investments.

    5. Re:Um, so? by fermion · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think the point is that major corporations are using US bonds as a tax shelter, and if they had paid taxes instead of investing in US debt, the US debt might not be at it's present level of 100% of GDP.

      OTOH, this is kind of good news. If Trump pisses off China so that it begins to dump US public debt, it will be nice that US corporations have significant incentive to pick up the debt.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you please go on Tucker Carlson's show and explain that to him. Would love to see him take another scalp. Hell even Jon Stewart would scalp you with that 'argument'.

    7. Re: Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, Tucker Carlson should stop booking sandbaggers and get people who can give a real fight. If I wanted to watch somebody pound a hunk of meat, I'd go to Smash burger.

    8. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy demanding we give them more money than they give us, they are stealing from us

      The fuck? Do you not know basic math and how to which of two numbers is larger than the other?

      We 'gave' Apple $600 million dollars, as interest.
      Apple gave 'us' Billions of dollars to buy the bonds in the first place.

      Your claim that 600 million is more than even one billion, let alone many billions, is fucking retarded.

    9. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BECAUSE IT'S APPLE! Because they have money, which is evil. Why should they have money, just for being successful? What about the rest of us, who are also trying to make money but not doing as well? This is capitalism, the American Dream, where are our handouts to ensure we succeed too? Where is the punishment of those who succeed?

      Yes, it's evil for a company to keep earnings made overseas, overseas. But it's even worse for a company to invest in America! If regular Americans invest in treasury bonds, they're helping the country by investing in it while being paid out for their investment. If a successful corporation invests in America (while still keeping much cash overseas, doing both evils at once!), it is being paid out of America's pocket for the privilege of being able to invest.

      I'm all for Capitalism, but not if it involves accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

    10. Re:Um, so? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Because some people want to spend money other people earned. Apple earned a lot. So time to imply Apple "unfairly" keeps their own money. You should support ending this "unfairness" by taking away Apple's money -- so the anointed people can spend it on themselves without the inconvenience of working and earning it.

    11. Re:Um, so? by macwhiz · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't quite have it right.

      The National Deficit is the difference between the money the government raises each year in taxes, and the money it spends each year. Reducing the deficit requires increasing income or reducing spending.

      The National Debt is the money that the U.S. Government has borrowed to cover each year's Deficit.

      And the U.S. Treasury Bond is a physical manifestation of the National Debt. It is an IOU. You give the government money now, and they give you a Bond that promises to pay you back with interest in the future.

      But you're right that the story is hate-bait. Apple, having followed all applicable laws, has money overseas. It is legally using that money to help fund the country's national deficit. In exchange for offering that credit to the United States, Apple receives an interest payment, just like any other bond purchaser. Apple is not extorting $6 per taxpayer from the Government; Apple is loaning the government its money, money the U.S. Government is not legally entitled to have, and the government is willing to borrow enough from Apple that the interest payments come out to $6 per taxpayer.

      Buried in the original Bloomberg article, you'll find that Apple has to send the money back overseas when they sell the bond; if they keep it in the U.S., it becomes taxable. And the interest they make on the bond is taxable. So by doing this, Apple is helping keep the government afloat by financing the Debt, and is paying income tax on the interest they earn. They could just invest it overseas, where it would do nothing for America.

      Funny how the answer isn't to eliminate the deficit and pay down the Debt so it isn't necessary to sell billions of dollars of Treasury Bonds that Apple and others can buy with foreign capital—it's to tell companies that they should pay U.S. taxes on money that wasn't earned in the U.S., hasn't been brought to the U.S., and to date won't be spent in the U.S.

    12. Re:Um, so? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that major corporations are using US bonds as a tax shelter, and if they had paid taxes instead of investing in US debt, the US debt might not be at it's present level of 100% of GDP.

      Well, if the US Federal Govt. didn't keep spending so fscking much.....more than it takes in, we'd not have the debt in the first place.

      If they learned to live more within their means, they'd be much better off.

      The Feds get PLENTY of tax revenue coming in each year already.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The level of public and private debt in the US has nothing to do with companies not repatriating overseas profits and having them taxed.

      We are talking nearly $20 trillion - in no way would taxes from overseas profits have covered it.

    14. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this sounded a lot like, "how DARE apple invest in the US government!"

    15. Re: Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my goodness you are so right! Those dirty thieving scumbags!

      Why isn't the Feds throwing them into the dungeons? Is the country without laws?!???

    16. Re:Um, so? by Megane · · Score: 1

      TFA should have come up with a clickbait name for the bonds to keep up the Filthy Rich Evil Apple hating theme, like maybe iNotes. They could even say that they're printed on aluminum paper or something.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    17. Re:Um, so? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      It could be using the money that Apple pays in tax instead, and the debt would not be spiralling out of control so quickly.

    18. Re: Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US government spent significantly yes the economy might be in recession. In that sense we are currently in the deficit spending part of the Keynesian cycle, but the counter cyclical element of having a surplus rarely occurs as it is politically difficult to run a surplus without calls to reduce taxes.

    19. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddam followed the laws. You invaded the country and hunted him down for it. So if breaking the law were required, what the fuck were you doing in Iraq???

    20. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China can't fucking dump the debt. Stop repeating that idea, it's completely moronic.

    21. Re:Um, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not interesting but if you take the pains to look, our fine "editor" here (msmash) is staunchly anti-Apple and seemingly a pro-MS shill.

      and Slashdork continues down the decline to clickbaity insignificance.

    22. Re:Um, so? by fermion · · Score: 1

      A moron is someone who can't differentiate what might happen from wishful thinking. This link does not say China can't dump the debt, just that some wishful analyst think it won't. Just like some wishful morons think climate change is natural and won't really hurt anything.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  3. bonds? really? bonds? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oh good grief. That's how bonds work. That's Apple investing in the US.

  4. I'm furious!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apple deserves a lot more than that!!!

  5. Yawn by mccrew · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And probably more to the communist government of China, another major holder of US Treasury securities.

    So other than "the rich keep getting richer", is there a point here?

    --
    Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    1. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is not a major holder. They hold 10% or less of the total US debt.

    2. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is also not communist.

    3. Re:Yawn by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Biggest debt holders:
      Social Security 2.786 trillion ___________ this is bogus, because it's internal to the federal government
      Federal Reserve 2.461 trillion ___________ this is bogus because it's internal to the federal government
      China 1.157 trillion
      Japan 1.136 trillion
      Mutual funds: 1.056 trillion
      Office of Personnel Management Retirement 0.873 trillion __________ this is bogus because it's internal to the federal government
      State and local gov'ts 0.803 trillion
      Military Retirement 0.601 trillion _________ this is bogus because it's internal to the federal government
      Banks 0.515 trillion
      Private pension funds 0.403 trillion
      Ireland 0.270 trillion
      Medicare 0.267 trillion _________ this is bogus because it's internal to the federal government

      China's government is the largest single entity holding US debt that is not a part of the federal government

      https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  6. Apple lent $20,000 to every taxpayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hey, you can spin a financial operation both ways. Apple _lent_ money to the US gov by buying bonds. The US Gov paid interest in return.

    1. Re:Apple lent $20,000 to every taxpayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I used my $20K from Apple to get a CS degree, but when I applied for a developer job in Cupertino, they were only interested in my H-1B status.

  7. MAGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump wanting to repatriation on American companies is wrong how?

  8. Is there a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They own the bonds. Just like grandma.

  9. You know who else we are paying? Nazis. by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Far worse than Apple being given our hard-earned money, is the fact that somewhere, sometime, a real life Illinois Nazi has bought a government bond. Who knows how many DECADES we taxpayers have been paying these loathsome groups?

    Clearly what the government needs to do to cut off the funds to monsters like Apple and Nazis is default on all government bonds today and declare no more will we be paying anyone these ill-gotten gains labeled with the seemingly innocent moniker "interest".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You know who else we are paying? Nazis. by sh00z · · Score: 2

      I hate Illinois Nazis.

    2. Re:You know who else we are paying? Nazis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean Nazis in the state of Illinois, or Nazis belonging to the Illinois tribe?

    3. Re:You know who else we are paying? Nazis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean Nazis in the state of Illinois, or Nazis belonging to the Illinois tribe?

      Is there a difference?

    4. Re:You know who else we are paying? Nazis. by magarity · · Score: 1

      or Nazis belonging to the Illinois tribe?

      Are you referring to that politically motivated twist of logic known as the "Red Aryans"?

    5. Re:You know who else we are paying? Nazis. by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Are there really that many people who have never seen "The Blues Brothers?"

    6. Re:You know who else we are paying? Nazis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't. The TV channels here have only shown the sequel. I loved it.

      (I later learnt that the public opinion on the sequel is low.)

  10. Decide what we are discussing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Treasury Bonds are tax free, fine; APPL chose to use an method incentivized by tax law way to store their wealth, they followed the spirit and intent of the law. If you don't like that fight at the local level to get the changes you want, no matter how badly the system disenfranchises the local individual vs party insiders.
    Using treasury instruments as investments though has little to do with laundering money in Ireland and elsewhere. But you Americans have chosen to allow this type of antisocial behavior in your tax laws, assuming that free speech campaign donation bribery allows your voice to be heard.

  11. Trying to make something out of nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, is the point of this to try to make it look like Apple is taking government subsidies or something? They bought treasury notes. They get paid interest on that investment just like everyone else.

    How does this nonsense make it on Slashdot?

    1. Re:Trying to make something out of nothing? by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      This was misfiled - it should be in funfacts.slashdot.org.

  12. Problem is not liberal vs conservative by anthony_greer · · Score: 1, Informative

    the real problem is crony "capitalism", and it happens on both sides, its not a republican or democrat exclusive. Its not a free market when the government picks winners and losers. Say what you will about the Libertarian party but they have been talking about this issue for as long as I can remember, I just hope next time we get an opportunity to shine with two deplorable major party candidates we don't nominate a total stoner!.

    1. Re:Problem is not liberal vs conservative by anthony_greer · · Score: 1

      to clarify my comment, I don't think Apple getting tax free interest is wrong because thats how bonds work, but it seems that if im reading correctly, they are buying the bonds with pre tax dollars. Thats the genesis of my comment.

    2. Re:Problem is not liberal vs conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real problem is crony "capitalism", and it happens on both sides, its not a republican or democrat exclusive. Its not a free market when the government picks winners and losers. Say what you will about the Libertarian party but they have been talking about this issue for as long as I can remember, I just hope next time we get an opportunity to shine with two deplorable major party candidates we don't nominate a total stoner!.

      Great comment. Totally agree. The Libertarian Party has had weak candidates for the past several elections. Their other problem is that when your platform is so different from what we currently have, priorities are more important than the platform as a whole. Even Ron Paul hinted that he probably voted for Jill Stein this year. That should tell you something about the missing priorities of the Libertarian Party. Simply put: their foreign policy plans are always extremely weak.

    3. Re:Problem is not liberal vs conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gary Johnson was their one chance, and he blew it by dicking around instead of taking it seriously. The Libertarians absolutely should have run as the "not fucking insane Republicans, oh and we're socially liberal" and had they gotten that message out they'd have cut Hillary's social agenda off at the knees (I'm sure the batshit #KillAllMen squad would have kept voting for her, along with the diehard communists) and left Trump to sink in his own cesspit/swamp.

    4. Re: Problem is not liberal vs conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real problem is crony "capitalism", and it happens on both sides, its not a republican or democrat exclusive.

      Some day, I'll find whoever invented this crony capitalism phrasing and give them a good slap.

      Nothing personal, but it is such a useless hand-wringing blather that I can't even pay attention to it.

      Its not a free market when the government picks winners and losers.

      You'd have a better argument if people didn't use that line to cover their own maledictions.

      Say what you will about the Libertarian party but they have been talking about this issue for as long as I can remember, I just hope next time we get an opportunity to shine with two deplorable major party candidates we don't nominate a total stoner!.

      Nope, never going to happen. You'd need a Teddy Roosevelt to shine, even H Ross Perot didn't want you. The libertarian party is as useless as the Christian left.

      If you want impact, you need to come at it from a useful direction.

    5. Re:Problem is not liberal vs conservative by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "if im reading correctly, they are buying the bonds with pre tax dollars."

      Foreign earnings are only taxed by the US worldwide tax regime if they are repatriated to the US. Foreign earnings are, of course, taxed by the country where they are earned (generally by a territorial tax regime).

    6. Re:Problem is not liberal vs conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gary Johnson was their one chance, and he blew it by dicking around instead of taking it seriously. The Libertarians absolutely should have run as the "not fucking insane Republicans, oh and we're socially liberal" and had they gotten that message out they'd have cut Hillary's social agenda off at the knees (I'm sure the batshit #KillAllMen squad would have kept voting for her, along with the diehard communists) and left Trump to sink in his own cesspit/swamp.

      Totally agree. I almost voted for Gary Johnson this last election but what really turned me off and scared me away was when he showed himself to be so absolutely clueless about foreign affairs. (Anyone remember his "What's Aleppo" question?) Look, I get that you Libertarians are not big on getting the USA involved in pointless wars on the other side of the planet--and I actually have some sympathy for that point of view--but, like it or not, the POTUS will have to address issues that arise around the world; it just comes with the territory. And one of the enumerated powers of the President, as specified by the Constitution, is Commander in Chief. If I know more about what is going in various flashpoints outside of the borders of this nation then, I'm sorry, but you are just not ready to be either Commander in Chief or POTUS, at least not yet. It's a damn shame too. Considering what absolute dogs the major parties ran this last election cycle, Libertarians should have easily picked up at least 3 or 4 states this time around; it could have literally had a seismic effect on the nation's politics for the next couple of decades. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity and they just plain blew it. So, if any Libertarians are reading this, take careful note: you have four years to study up and prepare yourselves for the next Presidential election so that you don't look like total doofuses. I suggest you use your time wisely. Whatever you do, just don't fuck up so monumentally next time.

  13. #applegate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets get some more of that 'news that matters'

  14. And? by Merlisk · · Score: 2

    And?

    The real news is that we in the US can’t control our spending, and we’re issuing bonds like toilet paper to fuel our entitled attitude. And, oh, if Apple didn’t buy these bonds, who would?

    --
    Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. -- Ferenc Mantfeld
    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like toilet paper after Taco bell night

  15. Ummm $6 per person? by RCourtney · · Score: 0

    $600,000,000 / 325,000,000 US population estimate = $1.85 per person.

    How did they come to $6 per?

    1. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Informative

      It says $6 per taxpayer.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $6 per TAXPAYER.

    3. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      By count of filers? And we'd rather the government default on its debt than to have buyers of bonds? It's a non-issue.

    4. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says tax payers not population. Beef up on your reading comprehension, then focus on arithmetic. Also don't worry, the 3rd grade is going to be a blast.

    5. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      It was taxpayers not citizens. A quick look up show that in 2013 (the latest year I can find data for) there were 138.3 million taxpayers. So that gives us $600,000,000/138,300,000 people so ~ $4.34 per tax payer, still not $6/taxpayer but much closer than the $1.85/person.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by jlf278 · · Score: 1

      $600,000,000 / 325,000,000 US population estimate = $1.85 per person. How did they come to $6 per?

      The key word is "taxpayer." If you don't pay taxes, you are not really a person.

    7. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      No no... that's the manufacturing cost. When you add in the "Apple Tax" it becomes $6 per person. /s

    8. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by NarcolepticPenguin · · Score: 1

      Not all of the population pays federal taxes. Presumably, it's closer to an average closer to 100 million taxpayers for the past 5 years.

    9. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The key word is "taxpayer." If you don't pay taxes, you are not really a person.

      *cough* Trump! *cough*

    10. Re:Ummm $6 per person? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      If you don't pay taxes, you are not really a person.

      You are a JOB CREATOR!

  16. Re:bonds? really? bonds? by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

    That's Apple financing US deficits.

    FTFY

  17. Not overseas at all by ant-1 · · Score: 1

    The "oversea" profits are in fact, as the article said, invested right here in the US. That's because the foreign subsidiaries are perfectly entitled to make investments here. That's called free flow of capital. So why paying taxes when you're a global mega-corp? Because of an historical "community responsability" to provide jobs and pay a fair share of tax to the government? That died long ago under the heels of Reagan/Thatcher/Rubin etc.

  18. Apple lovers are happy to pay $700 for a phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $1,500 for a tiny laptop, $500 for a tablet, what's another $6?

  19. Politely disagree by s.petry · · Score: 2

    I think it's a rather interesting article, but not from the slant given. Apple buys US Treasury bonds, like many companies do. The US Debt is massive, and at least this is one way we get to see the actual impact of paying this debt.

    I would find it more interesting to see this tackled as a "Fix the debt" problem. The fact is, this is not a "US Tax Payers give Apple money" issue. The US pays out money to ALL treasury bond purchasers at the same rate. People with more money to pool will obviously get more in payments.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Politely disagree by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's interesting to hear just how much money Apple has loaned the people of the United States at very low interest rates.

  20. $6? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    I've paid them a heck of a lot more than that...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  21. It wasn't tax free money being stashed by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    By taking advantage of a provision in the American tax code, Bloomberg says that Apple has "stashed much of its foreign earnings -- tax-free -- right here in the US, in part by purchasing government bonds."

    The interest on government bonds is tax-free. The money used to buy them is what's left after paying taxes on it. I.e., the earnings were not exempt from taxes because they were used to buy bonds.

    And "yawn."

    1. Re:It wasn't tax free money being stashed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, federal bonds (government bonds) are taxable at the federal level, but not at the state or local level.

      Municipal bonds are not taxable at any level if you live in the municipality the bonds are from.

    2. Re:It wasn't tax free money being stashed by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Wrong, federal bonds (government bonds) are taxable at the federal level, but not at the state or local level.

      The point was that the foreign earnings were not being tax sheltered by the purchase of government bonds, which is what the summary alleged. But thank you for the correction.

  22. Statistics don't work that way by s.petry · · Score: 1

    600,000,000 / (estimated number of people working and paying into the tax system)

    Retired, too young to work, disabled, etc.. don't pay into the tax system. I would agree if you said that the summary was wrong, because it is.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  23. But that's the why the bonds even sell. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Government bonds don't give a very good return, and honestly at this point I start to question their stability a little bit.

    So what reasons would anyone have to purchase such bonds? The fact that you could buy them pre-tax s the key, and the reason why the bonds do not have to have much of a yield to find a lot of buyers.

    If you "fixed" this problem you would pretty much have to have the government start paying a much higher yield on bonds which would create an immediate cash-flow disaster for the government.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  24. Fake news by slapout · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Headline should read: "Apple loans U.S. Government money"

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank You Apple, seriously. I would much rather America be indebted to American companies that to China.

    2. Re:Fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Headline should read: "Apple loans U.S. Government money"

      And in an even more sane, less fake world, it would read:

      "Government borrows money from Apple"

    3. Re:Fake news by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Why?

    4. Re:Fake news by PPH · · Score: 1

      I would much rather America be indebted to American companies

      The company that is the subject of this discussion is Irish.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Fake news by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Or even more correctly, "Government borrows money. Apple buys some of that debt."

      I own some of the same kinds of bonds Apple does, but the government didn't borrow that money from me. It borrowed it from someone, somewhere, at some point, who then sold that debt on the open market where it traded many hands over time and eventually some of it ended up with me. Actually some of it ended up with a bond index fund that owns and trades many kinds of bonds, and some of that fund, through a similar process, eventually ended up with me. That's how bonds work. That's how ordinary people save up for retirement.

      If you have a few hundred bucks lying around you can "make the government borrow money from you" too.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  25. That's okay by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    That's okay, with all the iPads and iPhones I've stolen I figure I'm way ahead of the curve.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  26. Dumb by galabar · · Score: 2

    I've never actually bought an Apple product and I certainly don't consider myself an Apple "fanboy." However, this article is just dumb.

  27. Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and Wars by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The actual headline should be: USA government is still able to run the ponzi scams such as SS, Medicare, all other Welfare payments as well as waging its wars thanks to Apple and others who are *STILL* purchasing and holding their bonds.

    Apple is getting $6 from each individual in interest rates over *YEARS*? Think about it: over *YEARS* Apple has gained *ONLY* $6 per person while buying insane amount of US debt.

    Apple is losing money in this transaction, it could have used that money much more effectively in many other ways and instead they are buying US Treasury debt.

    Apple and the rest of the bond holders: what are you going to do when there is a mass exodus from the US debt? Will you be the first in line to dump it? I think you are not going to be the preferred seller.

  28. There are a lot of good reason to hate on Apple's by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    tax evasion schemes. This is not one of them. I often wonder if these sorts of stories are an attempt by mainstream media to go after 'safe' financial targets. They can't do real journalism against our corporate overlords because, well, those are their bosses. Hell, look what happened to Gawker when they went after a member of the ruling class (Thiel, not that jerk Hogan). Dead before they hit the ground, I tell ya.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  29. Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is losing money in this transaction, it could have used that money much more effectively in many other ways and instead they are buying US Treasury debt.

    If that is true, then Tim Cook is incompetent.

  30. Who cares? by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Any US taxpayer and corporation that buys US Treasury bonds has the same exemption in the US. Also, in most US states the interest from bonds issued by the state are also tax exempt. Who cares?

    What I would like to know is how much of the US debt would be offset by Apple not paying corporate taxes. What is the interest paid on that amount? This is part of the real damage that Apple is inflicting on US citizens.

    1. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple pays more federal taxes than practically any company. What they choose not to do is return money to the US that was made on external sales. Apple also has not moved its patents or headquarters offshore to minimize their tax burden.

      So a good question for those hating on apple due to not paying enough taxes but already paying more than any other company, what are your thoughts that there is probably zero tax revenue realized by the US government for any Android phones?

  31. Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    retard - government bonds are the risk free interest for when all other options are maxed out for their risk

  32. Great price! BS article. by Darkness+Of+Course · · Score: 0

    I got two OS upgrades without W10 for that $6. I would love to know how much other companies 'charged' me.

  33. T-bond hav tax free cupon, what's the news? by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

    Oh yes apple has big oproffits and theair well paid accoubants/loyers minimce the tax bill, boho. I know it's kind of populare to atack Apple but as long as the have followed the law, the criricisem shuld be pointed at dc

  34. People don't like it =/= illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legally avoiding taxes is not the same thing as tax exasion. If you don't like it take it up with Congress and the tax code. Apple would be stupid not to take advantage of a perfectly legal financial situation.

  35. So they shouldn't buy bonds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you understand how buying bonds works? You do know it is an investment in our country, right? Apple gave our country an incredibly large loan at a great interest rate.

    And as far as the money overseas - they made that on overseas sales and have already paid huge taxes on it. They don't want to pay it twice, would you? It is the same thing that every other corporation does, so why are you singling out Apple? They at least offered to bring their foreign earnings into the country if they could pay a reduced rate, but the US government doesn't want to do that. You really need to quit whining about Apple. You are making yourself look silly.

  36. Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W by roman_mir · · Score: 2

    retard - government bonds are the risk free interest for when all other options are maxed out for their risk

    - retard is he, who believes that government bonds are risk free rather than being most risky assets today, in a country that lives on borrowed time.

  37. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, what is going on /.?

    I come here to read my tech news because it's always been less political and less troll-y than other sites. But.... over the past year some of these clearly biased/uninteresting/weird things have been posted and... I'm just so confused.

    Quick look over at HN and I see a story about how patents are getting limited (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/supreme-court-curbs-excessive-design-patent-damages) or maybe Windows 10 coming to ARM chips (http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13881930/microsoft-turn-a-phone-into-a-pc-arm-continuum)

    That is nerd news.

    What the hell is this shit?

  38. Pay YOUR fair share! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Obama was spineless, maybe Trump can do something here.

  39. Sideways repatriation by swb · · Score: 1

    I think the point is that Apple has effectively repatriated their earnings into the next best thing to US dollars, and done it without paying taxes.

    It was one thing when they hoarded cash overseas without repatriating it, at least in some ways they were exposed to some kind of foreign currency risk. But since they've bought Treasuries with it I think to a lot of people it feels like they're beating the system even further.

    1. Re:Sideways repatriation by psmoot · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that Apple has effectively repatriated their earnings into the next best thing to US dollars, and done it without paying taxes.

      Buying bonds is a lot less good than having bags of cash in Cupertino. If they repatriated and paid the taxes, they could buy buildings, companies, politicians, all sorts of goodies. As it is now, the money is parked and unavailable.

      I wonder if they could use the bonds as collateral for a loan. That would essentially repatriate and probably be cheaper than paying the tax.

    2. Re:Sideways repatriation by swb · · Score: 1

      I'd have to believe that would be illegal, I'm sure someone's tried to use the domestic company as a borrower and then repay using assets held overseas.

    3. Re:Sideways repatriation by psmoot · · Score: 1

      Ah. Yes, you're probably right. IANAL but I think the bonds are owned by an overseas holding company so they can't be uses as collateral for the parent company's loan. There are probably also rules about the overseas subsidiary buying an office building in the US and leasing it back to the parent.

      The one thing I've learned about tax law is a zillion clever lawyers, legislators, and accountants have thought of every loophole I can and plugged them all. That's why I'm no good at writing security software either, I'm not devious enough.

  40. China anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For comparison purposes how much interest has been paid to Chinese bond holders? In any case if the public tax burden is too onerous the US can always print more dollars - apparently Trump's position.

  41. So...??? by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    I love the way people try to insinuate that a multi-national company who earns money overseas but didn't pay US taxes on that money is cheating somehow. What is next? Apple sold an iPhone in California and DIDN"T pay New York sales tax on it???? That must be criminal, right?

  42. Added Bonus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US government repays the bonds with money that it creates out of thin air. The US taxypayer is out nothing except the dilution of their dollar caused by inflation.

    1. Re:Added Bonus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they're out of nothing except the things they are out by. Way to go, tautology man!

  43. That's Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Site your source.

    1. Re:That's Bull by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Like, from a newspaper or a webcite?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  44. The answer isn't begging for money owed. by waspleg · · Score: 1

    All of these are American companies benefiting from our infrastructure, workers, consumers, defense, etc.

    Why aren't they simply being made to pay? Close bullshit loopholes. They want to move all their shit somewhere else? Great. Let them be a parasite on some other country.

    1. Re: The answer isn't begging for money owed. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      If you closed the loopholes, the corporations that actually paid for them would get upset. The only reason people are in a tizzy about Apple, Google, Amazon, and company is that they were clever enough to realize that, once on the books, the tax laws are available for anyone to use. If they'd paid their Danegeld to the appropriate politicos like Halliburton, Bechtel, Accenture (Arthur Anderson under their new name), and the like have done, there would be no issues raised.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    2. Re:The answer isn't begging for money owed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of these are American companies benefiting from our infrastructure, workers, consumers, defense, etc.

      Why aren't they simply being made to pay? Close bullshit loopholes. They want to move all their shit somewhere else? Great. Let them be a parasite on some other country.

      These companies are already paying higher US taxes than most corporations around the world pay - and these companies also pay substantial overseas taxes.

      Don't confuse the theoretical rates, with the actual rates. In most (all?) political systems, the theoretical rate is much, much higher than what people or organizations actually pay. Even Sweden has billionaires.

      Hence, in practice, these companies aren't parasites - claims to the contrary are simply myth. These companies actually do a lot of good for society - though there's a need to recognize that certain fundamental rights do apply to businesses (such as the right to ethics in business, and the right to ethical practice of law), and for penalties that actually mean something. This would better address situations when some of the company executives or lawyers get out of line (which happens a lot).

      IMHO, there should be zero taxes on corporations: the whole idea is a scam. It's the old con man's game, played by modern day blue politicians, to convince people they can get something for nothing - a clever vote buying scheme. There is no free lunch: charge higher taxes on businesses and you do all kinds of harm, in lots of different ways - and most of that harm lands on the heads of the poorest members of society, the very people the blue politicians claim to support.

      A rational society would replace corporate taxes with a genuinely progressive (but simple) individual income tax, taking into account both yearly income and cumulative income (gifts, inheritance, whatever) - and a separate tax on money transfers overseas.

      Without a simple progressive system, you inevitably lose a lot of ability to tax the rich. In general, complex tax laws provide cover for loopholes, and they also create artificial demand for the services of lawyers - both of which are really bad things for a society (think about it).

      Without taxing overseas transfers, you lose the ability to tax foreign investors (who also benefit from our infrastructure, but don't currently have to pay for it), as well as the wealthy who try to take advantage of foreign loopholes.

      Property and sales taxes are both regressive, and hence a really bad idea for that reason (and others). They should go away entirely - let local jurisdictions get a reasonable share of state income taxes.

  45. Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um no. US bonds define safe investment. To not get paid you'd have to believe that the US government would default on its debt and not have assets to cover the loss. The US National debt is a very small % of US GDP, so they have the money through taxation fairly minimally. The US federal government also owns about 1/3 of the land inside the country which would easily has more value than its debt. That's not counting all the other assets the US government has or has rights to that could be sold off.

  46. Re:bonds? really? bonds? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    Oh good grief. That's how bonds work.

    Amen. That's exactly what I thought when I read the details of this (non-) "story".

    The US government has chosen to offer these bonds for its own reasons. One might argue whether the government should be raising money this way, but they (presumably) chose to do that and offer enough of a payout to make it worth investors' time and money.

    As you said, that's how it bloody works! Apple just happens to be one of the companies that has taken them up on that.

    There's plenty to criticise about Apple, both with their overpriced, walled garden devices, and how they manage their tax (dodging) affairs, but to contrive their investment- and ignore everyone else's- in government bonds that are specifically *meant* to work like this as a "story" is obvious clickbait BS.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  47. Where's snopes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would be called false.

    what a stretch. That's like saying Apple stole breathable air from everybody in the USA.

    Who cares?

    And by the way, they still need to fire Tim Cook.

  48. Apple invested in US Treasry Bonds by mschuyler · · Score: 1

    They pay interest. It's not much interest, but it is some. So basically Apple is propping up the finances of the US Government. And it's their fault.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
  49. Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    No, US bonds are the definition of ponzi scam that even Madoff would be awed by. U S A cannot return the borrowed VALUE of the money, that is what the Fed and the rest of the central banks are involved in, global inflation, writing off the debt without admitting the technicality of the default. The actual USA debt is all of the federal, state, municipal, corporate and personal borrowing that exceeds 221 trillion dollars and cannot be repaid under any circumstances.

  50. OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article headline is complete Clickbait trash. How about a title that points out the American taxpayer is probably paying around $50 a year per person to the Chinese government. When you buy US treasury bills you get paid interest. Last I read the Chinese have about $1 trillion worth.

  51. Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W by tonywestonuk · · Score: 1

    US government bonds are 100%, totally, risk free. The US fed can create $ from thin air, and are the only body in the universe that can do this. So, there is zero risk.

  52. Isn't this normal? by tsotha · · Score: 1

    Don't you normally pay interest on money you loan to people? I don't see any there there.

    1. Re:Isn't this normal? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Eh... "borrow from"

  53. If it were lowered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I say! Race to the bottom! What the fuck we do need taxes for anyway? On the contrary, the government's job is NEGATIVE taxing: squeeze from the poor (they're dumber and should be evolved-out anyway) and give to the rich (they're smarter and deserve to survive and procreate).

    Or something like that.

    Now excuse me while I go to the restroom to have a barf.

  54. I haven't. by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    I have never paid Apple a single dollar.

    1. Re:I haven't. by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      you probably voted for hillary too. if you pay taxes you pay apple. but so what. we pay the Chinese too, whoever owns bonds that finance our deficit spending.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
  55. purify post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a pleasant exchange and I like the way you make this post. It discovers useful for the general population the things that are making issues with the goal that they will have an impeccable arrangement. I am grateful for the article but i am not read properly this post due to my study assignment help i will read after my assignment. i bookmarked this post. thank you so much.

  56. comparisons would be much better by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    how much taxpayer money went to fund: solyndra and other clean energy companies that went to waste? aig gm fiat/Chrysler etc

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
  57. Thank you! by dhaen · · Score: 1

    If it's true then US taxpayers effectively subsidised my iPhone. Thanks guys!

  58. Apple Shouldn't Benefit While Owing Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple owes BILLIONS of dollars in unpaid and illegally avoided taxes to the US. They should not be allowed to collect interest on the treasuries they hold while they owe this money.

    Any American who owes back taxes is garnished any federal payouts until their back taxes are paid. The same should be true of megacorporations who evade US income taxes through illegal tax avoidance schemes.

  59. We can STOP this! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    If we just stop spending more money than we collect.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  60. if you give apple 6 bucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you dont get a product that makes you look like a faggot from a faggot sect, its not really that bad

    just saying

  61. Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    So, there is zero risk.

    - :) You are being sarcastic I hope, I had a great chuckle (for real) reading this, hopefully you were smiling while writing that, yes?

    The only 0 risk in buying government bonds is this: risk of getting back the value of the money you bought the bonds with.

  62. Right on by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    are there really that many people who have never seen "The Blues Brothers?"

    Seriously. I was also despairing as I read the responses to your post!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  63. No, blame the government and crazy tax policies by scatbomb · · Score: 1

    Apple deserves no blame for earning interest on bonds that they purchased. The problem is the unethical profit offshoring to hide from the equally unethical 35% corporate tax rate, which is really just a tax for small businesses since large businesses do exactly what Apple is doing. Tangentially, if the U.S. didn't need to sell so many bonds to pay for their deficit spending this wouldn't be happening in the first place.

    TLDR: The problems here are 1) the government's additiction to debt and 2) offshoring profits to protect them from the 35% corporate tax rate, among the highest in the world. Earning interest from purchased bonds is totally fine.

  64. The story was poorly framed, here's my take... by scatbomb · · Score: 1

    I think the story was pretty poorly framed. The interesting part is that the bonds are being purchased with profits that were held offshore to avoid paying corporate income tax. This scheme is possible because of the government's deficit spending and all of the bonds that they must sell off to create the new debt.

  65. Re:bonds? really? bonds? by scatbomb · · Score: 1

    Yes, you are right. The story goes a bit deeper though. Apple is buying government bonds to repatriate the profits that they held offshore to protect them from the US corporate tax rate (35%). Overall it's bad for the government since if Apple just paid the taxes it would increase the government's tax revenue and they wouldn't have to issue so many bonds in the first place. Still, it's better than just keeping the profits offshore since at least they are keeping the government solvent by buying their crappy bonds.

  66. FTWY by garote · · Score: 1

    That's US deficits financing Apple.

    Ergo, the solution is PAY DOWN THE F*#@*$ DEBT.