Slashdot Mirror


Apple, Google and Microsoft Are Hoarding $464 Billion In Cash (cnn.com)

Apple, Google and Microsoft are sitting on a mountain of cash -- and most of it is stashed far away from the taxman. Those three tech behemoths held a total of $464 billion in cash at the end of last year, according to a Moody's report published this week. From a report: Apple alone had a stunning quarter-trillion dollars of cash thanks to years of gigantic profits and few major acquisitions. That's enough money to buy Netflix three times. It's also more cash than what's sitting on the balance sheet of every major industry except tech and health care. All told, non-financial U.S. companies studied by Moody's hoarded $1.84 trillion of cash at the end of last year. That's up 11% from 2015 and nearly two and a half times the 2008 level. Roughly $1.3 trillion -- 70% of the total -- is being held overseas, where the money isn't subject to U.S. taxes. Apple, Google owner Alphabet, Microsoft, Cisco, and Oracle hold 88% of their cash overseas. Moody's said the tower of money stashed abroad reflects the "negative tax consequences of permanently repatriating money to the U.S."

256 comments

  1. Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, These companies are based in the US, but they are global companies.

    They should not have to pay US taxes on the profits they received via a cellphone sold in Europe.

    1. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You do know that if you are a US citizen working abroad you still have to pay taxes in US, right? Why should it be different for Corps?

    2. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LOL.. Where I agree in principle.. I have to point out that there are those who believe these "evil rich mega corporations" should be taxed on repatriation of this money (bringing it back to the USA) and that they are "hiding" this money out of the 'tax man's" reach to avoid paying taxes they rightfully should.

      Personally, I believe that the issue is the USA's tax rates are too high on these companies so they are being encouraged to do business overseas instead of in their home country to shelter themselves from the tax rates in the USA. I further believe that the USA should not be doing this, but encouraging business to happen within it's borders with lower tax rates and make bringing all this cash back into the USA more advantageous for them to encourage local economic growth.

      What do YOU think?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I would agree if that was the case but these companies are using all sorts of ways to shift profits from countries they actually sell things in to low tax countries.

      Example Apple
      When you buy an iPhone, iPad or computer in a U.S. store, Apple pays licensing, manufacturing, branding and other fees and royalties to subsidiaries based in places like Ireland and Luxembourg. Those fees and royalties are so high that Apple can book a loss in the U.S., and those subsidiaries book big profits. So taxes on those “overseas” profits are “deferred” – meaning they are owed but Apple doesn’t have to pay them until they want to.

    4. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Except the money isn't from profits from cellphone sold in Europe. You can fuck off now.

    5. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting this guy got modded up but the other anonymous Coward explaining in detail got modded troll.

    6. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You do know that if you are a US citizen working abroad you still have to pay taxes in US, right? Why should it be different for Corps?

      Someone named John Galt just called.

      He's complaining about the flood of new residents the US government is causing to relocate to someplace called "Galt's Gulch".

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the point is that that shouldn't be true of US citizens either. Almost no other country has a rule that you have to pay tax at home while resident in a different country.

      I as a brit living and working in the US pay taxes in the US only, even though my UK tax rate would be higher.

    8. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that if they repatriate this money they'll do exactly the same thing financial institutes have done with their cash. Sit on it. They won't "encourage local economic growth". If anything they'll reduce local economic growth by buying up and removing competition. Growth of anyone but themselves is not in their interests.

    9. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do know that; the US is one of the few countries that require that. It's a load of crap, really.

    10. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not true.

      When you buy an iPhone or an iPod in Europe the fees and royalties transfer pretty much all revenue to Ireland.

      When you buy an iPhone or iPod in the USA, the revenue and profit stays in the USA, as evidenced by the fact that Apple sells a third of its devices in the USA, and reports a third of its revenue and profit in the USA. It pays taxes on that reported profit, hence why Apple was the USA's largest single tax payer last year.

    11. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh, yes, yes it is.

      Apple makes roughly a third of its sales in the US, and reports roughly a third of its revenue and profits in the US. The money they have hiding in Ireland absolutely is money made by selling phones and computers in Europe.

    12. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by diesalesmandie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I believe that the issue is the USA's tax rates are too high on these companies so they are being encouraged to do business overseas instead of in their home country to shelter themselves from the tax rates in the USA.

      Do you honestly believe if the USA's tax rates would be lower that they would pay US taxes? They do what they do because they can, plain and simple.

      --
      This is my sig, there are many like it but this one is mine
    13. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      No mod points today, but your probably right.

    14. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's their money. They can keep it where they like. If it made sense to keep it in the US it would. I would do the same if it was legally possible.

    15. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      You do know that if you are a US citizen working abroad you still have to pay taxes in US, right? Why should it be different for Corps?

      Minus the taxes that are paid to that foreign authority.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    16. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      I think history disagrees. For example, GE made a profit of 14B last year and has not paid any taxes to the US for the last 7 years and they are not the only ones.

    17. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I believe that the issue is the USA's tax rates are too high on these companies so they are being encouraged to do business overseas instead of in their home country to shelter themselves from the tax rates in the USA.

      The only rate not too high is 0%. And since most legal codes tax income, not "re-investment", it's in a company's best interest to "re-invest" as much money as possible. Beyond that, it's often meaingless to "do business overseas". Multi-national companies may sell in Europe, the USA, China, etc but where they claim their profits is entirely arbitrary due to wholly owned subsidiaries. Ie, it's all an accounting game and one in which no country can really do much about without wholly owning the accounting practices of all companies and dictating where transactions begin/end. And then it's a nasty mess of countries battling each other for taxes, possibly under treaties.

      I further believe that the USA should not be doing this, but encouraging business to happen within it's borders with lower tax rates and make bringing all this cash back into the USA more advantageous for them to encourage local economic growth.

      (1) Business is already happening in the US and the profits are through accounting moved to other countries, so there's unlikely to be much in the way of sales increases in the US, regardless. (2) Most "local economic growth" comes in the form of jobs and the only way to "encourage" more local economic growth is rebasing the currency so the effective power of the USD is comparable to the wage in China, India, etc-the overall net effect being much worse than the job gains. In short, no, that's not how economics work.

    18. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Personally, I believe that the issue is the USA's tax rates are too high on these companies so they are being encouraged to do business overseas instead of in their home country to shelter themselves from the tax rates in the USA.

      Do you honestly believe if the USA's tax rates would be lower that they would pay US taxes? They do what they do because they can, plain and simple.

      Yes. That's the entire point. They have paid every dollar of taxes that they are required to pay by the law. They're businesses, not charities, why would they bring that money here where it will be taxed and they will receive no benefit? If they did, the shareholders would remove any officers who was involved.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    19. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally, I believe that the issue is the USA's tax rates are too high on these companies so they are being encouraged to do business overseas instead of in their home country to shelter themselves from the tax rates in the USA.

      I entirely agree. More specifically, I would like to see a tax swap between corporations and individuals. It would work like this:

      • Reduce or eliminate corporate tax
      • Dramatically increase the tax rates on the upper most individual income tax brackets
      • Tax dividends and capital gains at the same rate as regular income

      Despite what some people want you to think, wealthy individuals are not "job creators". Corporations are! Think about it. That's why my plan would stimulate the economy and still balance the budget.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    20. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      What do you mean "sitting on cash"? You do realize that they are not just putting pallets of money in the CEO's office to stuff the couches with so he can "sit on" it, but they are keeping it on deposit someplace earning interest, right?

      Cash sitting in a US Bank is better for the US than cash sitting in off shore banks. At least the bank can loan parts of the money out to US customers... So it's still better being here. Now if they spend this money on things like factories and such, it's even more of a benefit to the USA, but I'm happy to have it on deposit in a bank if that's all they do with it..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why shouldn't they? The expenses on the balance sheet don't all take place in Europe, so you can't allocate all of the profit to Europe. If their European branches were separate companies, should they pay taxes on cellphones sold in the US to companies that transport them to Europe for sale? If so, what is the difference, really?

    22. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by psmoot · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, in normal times, financial companies don't just sit on cash. They make money by lending it out. In the last decade, I got a bit confused about whether the investment banks are actually sitting on idle assets or whether this was just a bookkeeping illusion (moving money from a Treasury account to a Fed account which somehow makes the bank's balance sheet better.) But let's put that aside for a moment.

      How much cash a company has matters less than I used to think. If a company has "cash", it's not really a huge room filled with dollar bills. There are no Scrooge McDucks. That money is being used for something. Today they've got it parked in a bank and (in normal times, see above) the bank will use that to lend to other people who do stuff with it. Tomorrow they could build a building, give it to the US Treasury, or give it to shareholders, who will turn around and also use it for something. So for the economy as a whole, that money is never idle, it's always in motion. Whether Apple, Microsoft, or Google invest it directly, give it to their shareholders, or leave it in a bank to be lent out and used by someone else kinda doesn't matter.

      As a result, all we're really discussing is who gets to do the investing, not whether the investment actually happens.

    23. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Personally, I believe that the issue is the USA's tax rates are too high on these companies so they are being encouraged to do business overseas instead of in their home country to shelter themselves from the tax rates in the USA.

      Do you honestly believe if the USA's tax rates would be lower that they would pay US taxes? They do what they do because they can, plain and simple.

      Yes, they would pay what is legally required, or the IRS goes after them.

      So are you trying to claim the tax law is unfair or that enforcement of existing tax law is not happening?

      If you think the tax laws are unfair, then I suggest you lobby to get the unfairness removed... If you think the IRS isn't enforcing the laws right, then I suggest you lobby your representatives to beef up the IRS's enforcement operations and/or prosecute those who interfere with this activity....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    24. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I think history disagrees. For example, GE made a profit of 14B last year and has not paid any taxes to the US for the last 7 years and they are not the only ones.

      And WHY is that? Hmm? Is GE breaking the law? I don't think they are. Then I suggest you bludgeon the law and those who refuse to change it, not GE.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    25. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh, yes, yes it is.

      Apple makes roughly a third of its sales in the US, and reports roughly a third of its revenue and profits in the US. The money they have hiding in Ireland absolutely is money made by selling phones and computers in Europe.

      That might be true, but they are "converting" a big chunk of this money by buying US treasuries with their foreign subsidiaries (mostly as a currency hedge, and a shelter against foreign taxation, as the yield isn't that great right now).

      So in some sense, the US govt is *paying* these companies (through treasury bond yields) to keep this money in foreign subsidiaries which then park the money in the US. Isn't that ironic... Gotta pay for that US government machine somehow... Apparently the US paid out about $1.4B in treasury interest (a mere $590M to apple alone) since 2012 to execute this financial chicanery maneuver.

      Sadly, this means these companies are incentivized to not *spend* the money which would generate growth and additional taxation... Seem like that would be a better thing than growing the government... Sigh...

    26. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I disagree.. I think the "wealthy" ARE actually the job creators when you look at who's paying income taxes.

      If you consider someone "wealthy" if they make in excess of $250K/year in income (a commonly drawn line) then the majority of those tax payers are simply small business owners who are not yet big enough to make it worth the trouble to not file as individuals. These people represent a LOT of the growth in employment because there are a lot of them. They are the small "Mom and Pop" businesses which hire a great number of people in this country.

      I think many folks misunderstand the financial realities in this country and fall for the class envy/warfare rhetoric which is driven by politics and not reality. Yea, let's "soak the rich" they don't deserve to be that wealthy! We fall for the zero sum game lie too, where because they have more wealth, somebody else has less. Wealth is not a fixed sized pie. I don't have less because Bill Gates has so much more. Remember, a rising tide (or ocean) lifts all boats...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    27. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Gabest · · Score: 1

      Oh just ban their citizens and corporations until they are compatible with the taxation laws of the rest of world.

    28. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      I don't pay any US taxes.

    29. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a $96K standard deduction. You only pay on income above that amount. The fact that they tax it is absurd, but at least it isn't incredibly punitive.

    30. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      Wealth is not a fixed sized pie. I don't have less because Bill Gates has so much more. Remember, a rising tide (or ocean) lifts all boats...

      Wealth is absolutely a fixed size pie. Scarcity of resources is the fundamental problem that economics tries to solve.

      The reason most small business owner's don't typically incorporate are:

      1. 1. Legal expenses, which are a one time cost
      1. 2. Double taxation, which my plan would eliminate

      Much more small businesses would incorporate if it wasn't for our corporate tax structure penalizing them for doing so.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    31. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Only if the foreign authority has a reciprocating tax treaty with the US.

    32. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fuck?

      Of course they would bring money back if it was taxed less, you fucking imbecile. That's literally the entire point. You think they're keeping money offshores as a fucking joke or something?

    33. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck is John Galt?

    34. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they could open a bank with their money and loan it out at fantastical-yet-perfectly-legel cash-to-debit ratios that make modern banks possible.

      At some point all successful programs grow until they read mail.

      At some point all successful for-profit-only companies grown until they become banks.

    35. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They most certainly do too. US citizens get deductions for foreign taxes paid, which makes it somewhat more fair than double taxation, but is not by any stretch complete avoidance of taxes. I can't go to Canada and work without having a work visa and being subject to Canadian taxes. I can deduct those taxes on my US tax return though, but I'll still pay some amount to the US. The same is true when I worked in Germany and Austria.

      I personally find all income taxes evil and prefer sales or consumption taxes, so I dont like anyone having to pay at the border. Take a moment and look at the Fairtax then think of what that money can do if corporations didnt hoard money abroad.

    36. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Wealth is absolutely a fixed size pie. Scarcity of resources is the fundamental problem that economics tries to solve.

      You are applying 19th century economics to the 21st century. Five of the biggest corporations in America are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook. None of them rely on coal or iron ore. They rely on human ingenuity and intellectual property, neither of which is inherently limited.

      1. Legal expenses, which are a one time cost

      I incorporated on-line for $200. I spent $0 on legal fees.

      2. Double taxation, which my plan would eliminate

      Most corps in America are S-Corps, which are not subject to double taxation.

    37. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US banks don't loan money that way. If you take out a mortgage for example, the Fed just creates money for the bank, and that money only exists digitally. When the loan is paid back, that money disappears into the ether from which it came.

      In fact, 2/3rds of the US money supply only exists on a ferrous spinning platter somewhere, and does not exist as cash.

    38. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      They rely on human ingenuity and intellectual property, neither of which is inherently limited.

      I'm going to go startup a multi-billion dollar company right now. Apparently, the things I need are abundant!

      Bullshit, human ingenuity is a finite resource. Companies have entire departments devoted to managing those resources. Human resources.

      Talented people are rare and therefore costly. The rules haven't changed.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    39. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      he lives in your local library, check him out sometime.

    40. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not really how fractional reserve banking works. The bank doesn't do much with your money when it comes to lending out to other people. They just sorta print up what they want to lend, to a certain point.

    41. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Wealth is absolutely a fixed size pie. Scarcity of resources is the fundamental problem that economics tries to solve.

      Wealth is not a fixed sized pie over time. It changes size.

      Think about it, do we have the same amount of wealth in the world now that was available in the 1700's? How about in the USA since 1776? Of course not. I dare say that it is obvious that the standard of living has greatly improved since this country's founding. Wealth has increased, we individually live better, have more food to eat, houses to live in, have more stuff than our funders even though we went from 2.5 million to 325 Million people.

      Economics may try to describe how an economy works, but it can only provide generalizations which attempt to simplify the effects of many small transactions on economic activity as a whole. They make some simplifying assumptions at times (that's pretty much what economics is to start with) but I'm sure if you talked to a economics expert they wouldn't agree that the total Wealth available never changes.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    42. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      None of them rely on coal or iron ore. They rely on human ingenuity and intellectual property, neither of which is inherently limited.

      Fundamentally, human labor is the only resource that costs money. You can't put money in the ground and extract coal, oil, or iron ore. You pay people to find it and get it out of the ground. That's why those resources cost money.

      Nothing has fundamentally changed to economics. The old laws still apply.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    43. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      i first read that as "a ferret spinning a platter" .. disappointed :(

    44. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ayn Rand is ridiculous, and yes I have read the book.

      It reads like a 12 yo Rush Limbaugh wrote it.

    45. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      ... I would like to see a tax swap between corporations and individuals. It would work like this:

      • Reduce or eliminate corporate tax
      • Dramatically increase the tax rates on the upper most individual income tax brackets
      • Tax dividends and capital gains at the same rate as regular income

      Good thoughts. End the corporate income tax and then normal income tax rate on dividends would no longer be double taxation.

      As for capital gains... I could go along with taxing long-term capital gains at the same rate **IF** the "gains" are adjusted to take inflation over the time of the investment into account. I think an inflation adjustment should be applied to all interest income, too. Not to mention those tax brackets. Give Congress a steeply progressive set of tax brackets, and the McDonald's' hamburger flipper is going to find his minimum wage inflated into the 50% bracket.

      Those "inflation" numbers need to be based on something reliable, though. If the inflation for the past 8 years has been essentially zero, as we keep getting told, how come the price of a loaf of bread has gone up 50% in that time? Somebody's been playing fast and loose with the numbers.

    46. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      Wealth is not a fixed sized pie over time. It changes size.

      That's where we have a disconnect. I am not talking about wealth over time, I'm talking about wealth right now. Wealth right now is fixed. Over time it changes, that's why we have inflation.

      So yes, you have less because Bill Gates has more. When the economy grows, everyone benefits. The problem is the wealthy benefit disproportionally more than everyone else. Their portion of tomorrow's pie is bigger.

      When people talk about taxing the wealthy, the goal is to make that growth closer to proportional on average. Otherwise we risk having a few individuals controlling the entire pie someday.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    47. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      US tax law is complicated, according to its tax code you have to report foreign assets and pay a portion of taxes on foreign income. There is however little to no framework for forcing a subsidiary or shell company to do so (hence the setup). Apple (the multinational entity) holds $x in banks but Apple Computers Inc. DBA Apple Inc. in California doesn't, it doesn't even "own" the Apple Store in your local mall for all sorts of tax, financial, liability and other reasons. It's kind of dishonest to say Apple holds x because it's not Apple Inc even though for all intents and purposes they don't.

      It's the same legal framework that protects small business owners and landlords from personal financial ruin.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    48. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Junta · · Score: 1

      But they also move US money abroad using tax exemptions.

      For example, they make themselves a wholly owned subsidiary of some Irish company. That Irish company charges the US based subsidiary a certain amount, wow look at that, it's right about 100% of what *would* have otherwise been US product! US company deducts as business expenses the amount of money they had to pay to their foreign parent company for whatever reasons (e.g. intellectual property rights, what have you).

      This is of course a gross oversimplification of it, but it's roughly one of the tricks used to make what any rational person would assume to be US based profit magically appear in a more favorable tax jurisdiction.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    49. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's very important to have inflation compensation that is reliable, accurate and not politically influenced!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    50. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up to a limit... after that limit you pay both to the country of Residence AND back to the US. It depends on the treaty that was negotiated.

    51. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly, that could be a "Whoosh" or not. Hard to tell.

    52. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's post-modern to add "the fuck."

    53. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I am not talking about wealth over time, I'm talking about wealth right now. Wealth right now is fixed.

      Of course "wealth right now" is "fixed". Anything "right now" is fixed—you've frozen it in one moment in time. This is not the same as saying that wealth is fixed in general, which would imply that wealth cannot change over time.

      Over time it changes, that's why we have inflation.

      Inflation is not due to an increase wealth, but rather an increase in money. More specifically, price inflation is due to the money supply increasing faster than the supply of goods, which may be either increasing or decreasing.

      So yes, you have less because Bill Gates has more. ... The problem is the wealthy benefit disproportionally more than everyone else. Their portion of tomorrow's pie is bigger.

      The amount you receive does not decrease just because Bill Gates's share is increasing. That is what it would mean for wealth to be fixed—more pie for anyone else means less for you, not merely relative to them but relative to what you had before. Perhaps you're getting a smaller percentage, but it's still at least as large in absolute terms.

      I do not disagree that the wealthy receive a larger portion of the increase when the "pie" gets bigger. I would not call it "disproportionate", though, since they were in large part responsible for the growth in the first place. (Just look at what has happened to less enlightened countries when they decided to penalize being wealthy if you're tempted to take continual economic growth for granted.) The wealthy get a larger share of the increase, to be sure; but what is much more notable is that all those other individuals who did not save and invest and thus contribute to the growth of the economy nonetheless received an unearned external benefit right alongside them.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    54. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      I think that since my personal, Federal tax rate is ~25%, then I have no sympathy for the corporations who whine and cry about how high their taxes are. Especially when they're allowed to hide much of their income from the Tax Man.

      They should use the whole " Corporations are People " ( see Citizens United ) argument in this case and treat them as such.

      If you want to reap the benefits, you have to accept the downsides of it as well.

    55. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      "If you think the tax laws are unfair, then I suggest you lobby to get the unfairness removed..."

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Like the average citizens tiny pile of cash and a lawyer or two are any match for the Mt. Everest sized pile and entire army of lawyers Big Corp can wield against you.

      In the sport of lobbying, were not even even playing in the same league. The same game, or even on the same fucking planet.

      So your suggestion of " go lobby to get it fixed " is amusing as hell.

    56. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by hord · · Score: 0

      They are paying Irish taxes because Ireland is the lowest bidder. I mean, how do you think it works? Corporations have a fiduciary (read: legal) responsibility to ALWAYS maximize profits and that means minimizing tax liability. So yes, if the U.S. provides tax rates that are lower than Ireland's, you can be sure money will flow in. If it doesn't, shareholders will have a right to sue the executive management and board of directors. Trust me, that isn't going to happen.

    57. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by hord · · Score: 1

      Wealth is not fixed because you aren't including labor or natural processess. Yes there is certain amount of gold in the ground. No, there really aren't a certain number of deer or beef on earth. Yes we can count them. We can also make more. There are rates of resource exchange, production, and consumption and none of it is fixed.

    58. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The worst thing about Ayn Rand is that dumb people latch onto her crazy ideas and think that they are actually rationally sound. Her prose was terrible, but I really like her as a writer, because anytime someone starts talking about Atlas Shrugged I know I can just ignore the person. It's sort of like a big sign that says, 'I am not worth talking to' hanging over their head.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    59. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      The amount you receive does not decrease just because Bill Gates's share is increasing. That is what it would mean for wealth to be fixed—more pie for anyone else means less for you, not merely relative to them but relative to what you had before. Perhaps you're getting a smaller percentage, but it's still at least as large in absolute terms.

      Thought experiment time!

      Bob and Jim both have 50% of a pie with a mass of 500g. Bob has 250g and Jim has 250g. Agree?

      Now the pie doubles to 1000g, but Bob has 70% of the pie and Jim has 30%. Bob now has 700g of pie, and Jim has 300g of pie. Did I do my math right?

      Both Bob and Jim have more pie than before, but Bob received a disproportionately larger increase in pie than Jim, almost a whole pie! This is what I'm talking about. Everyone can become wealthier, while a few can become disproportionately so.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    60. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by jpaine619 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just because you repeat something does not make it true. I have gotten so tired of hearing this oft-repeated line.

      The line that corporations are legally bound to maximize profits is complete and utter bullshit.

      This is a direct quote from the US Supreme Court: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

      Contrary to what you, and every other asshat who repeats this bullshit line, believe, the primary duty of the officers of a corporation is to the best interests of the COMPANY not the shareholders nor the bottom line.

      That's it. Don't go reading anything into the above sentence, because the sentence above is the total settled case law in most of the US. The best interests of the company. End of story. Vague.. Yes.. Don't fill in anything in an attempt to make it less vague. It's vague. The Supreme Court has upheld that "responsibility". The only people charged with deciding what to do with that vagueness are the board.

    61. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Wealth is not fixed because you aren't including labor or natural processess. Yes there is certain amount of gold in the ground. No, there really aren't a certain number of deer or beef on earth. Yes we can count them. We can also make more. There are rates of resource exchange, production, and consumption and none of it is fixed.

      Please see another comment on this thread where we discuss time versus individuals as inputs to wealth. At a fixed point in time, overall wealth is fixed, but varies from individual to individual. The total wealth of course varies with time.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    62. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      We are also the only developed country that does that, too...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    63. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I agreed with almost everything you said until you went sideways.

      Corporations create jobs, but so do rich people. Rich people (generally) have servants (maids, housekeepers, etc), assistants, drivers, perhaps a yacht that is staffed with people, (I remember reading somewhere that Larry Ellison has a MASSIVE yacht with a crew of 130).

      The poor create no jobs.. Everybody else is probably at least indirectly responsible for some jobs. Even a lot of middle class folks I know (myself included) have a person who cleans house for them. It's not a company, it's a just a person. But she has a full time self-created job.

    64. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who do you think had a hand in those laws and who do you think has more clout? A few voters or multinational corporations.

    65. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Yea, let's "soak the rich" they don't deserve to be that wealthy!

      I suppose there are some people that make that argument, however that is not a compelling one. The purpose of a progressive tax structure is to compensate for the fixed costs associated with basic human existence. Individuals that have substantially more than those basic needs aren't as affected by taxation.

      Rather than thinking tax the wealthy, we should probably think of it as don't tax the poor.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    66. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So you admit that Wealth is NOT a constant, it can change over time and that MONEY is NOT the same thing as wealth as the value of money changes over time (i.e. your inflation reference). Great, then think about it like this...

      What can you have tomorrow, how much can I improve my wealth over time? Isn't that *really* the issue here? How do I get more wealth? Is it possible for me or you to have as much as Bill Gates in the future? Sure it is *possible*....(although it may be unlikely we'd both be as lucky as Bill Gates.)

      This is not a zero sum game.... You can create wealth, new wealth, regardless of what Bill Gates holds. And THAT is my point. One doesn't need to take wealth from someone else to get rich (though that sometimes happens) you can create wealth too. That's what Bill Gates did, he created a huge rich company that produces a product everybody is willing to buy. He's created wealth, lots of it, he didn't steal it or take it from someone else.

      You can have more wealth for yourself and not have to take it from others if you work to create it, if you do what Bill did.

      Think about the game of monopoly. There are a lot of things about this game which are pretty good examples of real life. The Wealth a player has during the game changes and the total wealth in play goes up over time. The bank never runs out of money so as the game progresses, wealth keeps going up (as each player passes go). Each player own part of this wealth. This is *like* how real wealth is created, there is NO LIMIT to how much wealth can be created in the future, not because each of us pass go and get our $200 for living, but because wealth CAN and DOES go up over time when hard working folks are out making new wealth with new ideas and resources, creating new markets for new products.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    67. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      The poor create no jobs.. Everybody else is probably at least indirectly responsible for some jobs. Even a lot of middle class folks I know (myself included) have a person who cleans house for them. It's not a company, it's a just a person. But she has a full time self-created job.

      If the poor created no jobs, they would be dead. There is basic economic activity that must be done to survive. That creates jobs. Larry Ellison likely spends only a small percentage of his income maintaining his personal staff, where a poor person would spend everything.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    68. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      I have an alternate suggestion: Have a flat tax on all income, with all forms of income treated the same. Make the first $10,000 tax free and take 25% of the rest. Eliminate all the tax breaks, except make payroll and benefits taxed to the recipient only.

    69. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You are 100% correct. The USA has the highest marginal corporate tax rate, and the 3rd highest effective corporate tax rate. Why should they pay more than they would pay in any EU country? Lower the marginal corporate tax rate to the OECD average around 20%, ensure the effective corporate tax rate is down near the OECD of 15%, and I bet a ton of that cash would flow back...

      In fact, if it were my choice, I'd set the corporate tax rate to 0%. And I would state that US corporations must be headquartered in the US, and at least 60% of all VP level and higher positions within the corporation or its parent corporation must reside at least 181 days within the US (making personal income taxable). My guess is a ton of companies would relocate to the US because of the tax savings, and quite a few wealthy folks would relocate as well (because of the 60% management rule) such that service and goods industries would also pick up from the increase of spending by the additional top 10% income earners...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    70. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that if you are a US citizen working abroad you still have to pay taxes in US, right? Why should it be different for Corps?

      Minus the taxes that are paid to that foreign authority.

      Except they're probably not paying tax in most of those foreign countries either. A while ago I did some back-of-envelope calculations on how much tax Apple pays in Australia and I estimated it was around 4% of profits. Thanks to cost shifting the money goes back to one of the tax havens like Ireland or Lichtenstein.

    71. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by IcyWolfy · · Score: 2

      As a citizen of almost any other country, if you work abroad, you don't have to pay taxes to your home country at all.

      As a German Citizen, I don't pay taxes back to Germany for working in the US.
      As a Canadian Citizen, I don't pay taxes back to Canada for working in the US.
      As a Japanese Citizen, I don't pay taxes back to Japan for working in the US.

      It's pretty much US only that claims the right to tax earnings on citizens that work abroad. And effectively double tax the person (dependent on specific treaties). Because taxes are there to to support the utilites you use working abroad, the infrastructure you use, the social benefits you are eligible for, all of which imply you pay taxes to the country in which you are residing. Only the US is saying: You aren't using any of our infrastructure, or otherwise being a burden on our country, but we still want you to pay taxes to us.

    72. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I see your point on wealth creation. However, you use Bill Gates as your example. Bill made this new wealth through his company, Microsoft. Although Bill was instrumental, Microsoft created the new industry and the jobs that go with it. The same goes for most wealthy people. Eliminating the corporate tax would make it easier for them to do so.

      A strongly progressive personal income tax structure would not harm Bill's ability to grow Microsoft. It would make it harder for him to extract the wealth he created, encouraging him to keep it invested and grow the company. Modest withdrawals from his portfolio would yield modest taxes. It's only when Bill tries to live extravagantly when he would have to pay a high tax rate. Effectively, a $500k Lamborghini becomes a $1M Lamborghini. It's up to him if it's worth it when he decides to sell is stock.

      For luxury items, the high price is part of its allure. Bentleys are nice, but they aren't nice enough to justify the price tag. People buy them to show off their money. People with the means, and want to buy those items would still do so.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    73. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      I don't pay taxes back to Canada at all if I leave the country to work elsewhere. I get a letter from the CRA that says "You are no longer a tax resident." and I am exempt from all tax obligations until I once again become a resident of Canada.

      It's the same for all other developed nations, emerging markets, and most the remainder.

      Pretty much only the US requires their citizens to pay taxes back to their home nation.

    74. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also many of these companies that are sitting on 'cash' is not cash. It is 'liquid assets'. Meaning they put it in stocks, short term bonds, rental property, etc. They invest it. Most companies have *VERY* little actual cash on hand. Usually enough to cover expenses for that week.

      When they said 'too big to fail' they meant it. If those banks went under companies such as Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc would actually go under. The shuffle of money going on is not seen usually. It is also highly regulated and capped. The money the companies actually hold in banks has been lent out. It is what banks do.

    75. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      If I was going to go the flat tax route, I would include universal basic income. Pay everyone $10k, and then take 25% of all other income. I'm open to higher combinations too. $20k and 50%? Things might get dicey after a 50% tax rate, but I'd be open to going slightly above it to see what happens. Figure out a combination that can would eliminate social welfare programs while balancing the budget.

      As noted by another commenter, inflation adjustments would be necessary. I think it would really reduce a lot of government bureaucracy.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    76. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not how the politicians who write the rules sell these things you know. Class Envy is how the progressive taxes are sold...

      When one specific party comes out and says "We want to cut taxes" it NEVER fails that the other trots out their spokesmen/women to say "They are giving a tax break to the RICH!"

      IN actuality, when one looks at the distribution of WHO pays taxes and how much they pay, it's CLEAR that the "rich" (usually defined as those making more than $250K/year) pay more taxes than the percentage of the total income earned by everybody each year. They do pay their share and then some and give up more of their income to taxes than the rest of us.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    77. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think this would actually work. The rich don't really have their own money as individuals and, as individuals, do not spend or receive significant amounts of money. Instead, they have financial proxies such as shell corporations to own the money on their behalf. Corporate taxes, in a practical sense, are the same as rich-person taxes.

    78. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Must be nice to make that much money to make your overall tax rate 25%.. Kudos!.... My tax rate struggles to reach about 13% overall, at least for Income Taxes at the Federal and State levels (I DO love living in Texas.)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    79. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      By the way, this has been a great discussion. Unfortunately, there have been too many threads on Slashdot lately that descend into name calling with no attempts to form a rational argument.

      Thank you.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    80. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      And YET.... We have Trump as our president, pretty much pulled himself up by his own bootstraps to get where he is... Surely if Trump can do this kind of thing, YOU and your friends can get the unfair tax laws changed...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    81. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      They most certainly do too. US citizens get deductions for foreign taxes paid, which makes it somewhat more fair than double taxation, but is not by any stretch complete avoidance of taxes.

      Yes and no:
      * The US demands that US citizens pay taxes in the US no matter what country you're in.
      * The country of residence demands that anyone at all who's resident there pays taxes in that country.
      * The US and some countries have treaties that allow you to write off tax from one country in the other.

      It's by no means guaranteed that you won't be double taxed.

    82. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      When one specific party comes out and says "We want to cut taxes" it NEVER fails that the other trots out their spokesmen/women to say "They are giving a tax break to the RICH!"

      Notice which party won control of government. As I said, it's not a compelling argument.

      Although I suppose I am more logical than most. FUD seems to persuade a lot of people...

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    83. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And YET.... We have Trump as our president, pretty much pulled himself up by his own bootstraps to get where he is... Surely if Trump can do this kind of thing, YOU and your friends can get the unfair tax laws changed...

      That is in dispute, ref. Trump Campaign and Russia Cyberattacks.

    84. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They should not have to pay US taxes on the profits they received via a cellphone sold in Europe.

      It's cute that you think the tax issue is about taxes on products sold overseas. You have drank so much of the corporate coolaid that you must be on one hell of a sugar high.

    85. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course there are people who believe such things about taxing repatriated money

      we refer to them as "idiots"

    86. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      (Just look at what has happened to less enlightened countries when they decided to penalize being wealthy if you're tempted to take continual economic growth for granted.)

      You mean like when America had a 90% top income bracket?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    87. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire reason we are talking about this is because they are taking wealth out of the system. They are increasing the limitations on the system - they are driving the screws home. Fix that problem.

    88. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony of taxation without representation is not lost on me.

    89. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you're bringing up actual reasons instead of referring to a book with stupid philosophy in it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    90. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      US banks do lend money in that way. There has to be a certain amount of reserve, so a certain quantity of money can't support an infinite number of loans.. Deposit more in US accounts and there's more money to lend in the US.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    91. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      In business, Trump started at third base and has repeatedly congratulated himself on hitting a triple. He did not pull himself up by his bootstraps.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    92. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they make that cellphone in the PRC and bring it to the US and do not pay tariffs and taxes are adjusted based on some other office in a tax haven.

    93. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      Not that anyone would know anyway. However it is one example of how much the tax system in the US is broken.

    94. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL.... Cannot bring yourself to admit that Trump is at least better than average eh? Not many real estate developers survive in New York City you know, much less make money like Trump did. Obviously he's not a stupid business man, but has made quite a bit of money in his various ventures... But hey, don't admit anything that might paint your political opponents in a good light...

      Next you are going to tell me he cheated is way to wealth.... That's how this narrative goes... 1. They inherited it, 2. Didn't earn it by working for it.. and when that fails 3. They cheated others to get it... It is this progression I call "Class Envy" which is really a vapid philosophy, only used for political gain in the USA...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    95. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      SO you don't know how GE is doing this?

      I'll give you a hint... They LOST a lot of money in the past. They are allowed by the tax law to carry over these losses into future tax years to offset their current profits. You can do this too, if you have more deductions and capital losses than income in one year, you can deduct the remainder of your losses in future years...

      They are following the law....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    96. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by whitroth · · Score: 1

      A builshit character in a very, very badly written novel by the somewhere below mediocre novelist Ayn Rand.

      Who, btw, lived the last years of her life on Medicare (SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!) and social security (SOCIALISM!)

      And the meaning of Galt & Rand comes down to "fuck society, I've got mine, screw you".

    97. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by I75BJC · · Score: 1

      Do you realize that people in the USA must have Medicare once they reach 65 years of age? Do you realize that people who work in the USA must pay taxes into the Social Security system? So why so why is Ayn Rand condemned for reaping the return on her work and wages? Your comment is quite bizarre!

    98. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Sure, These companies are based in the US, but they are global companies.

      They should not have to pay US taxes on the profits they received via a cellphone sold in Europe.

      I would say that the taxes belong to the country in which the manufacturing took place. The USA company is just a sales agency.
      Even if the design was done in the USA, that is an engineering cost against the commissions on sales.
      So, the countries doing the manufacturing should wake up and look to obtain a more fair share.

      They could use that money to improve infrastructure, education, healthcare...

      Where is Trump in that Moody's list?

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    99. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. There are several things creating this situation:

      1. There are no stock/bond market investments to put your money into short-term that don't require being a Wall Street insider using HFT. In the past, the extra cash would be put into the market for short-term interest and diversity of risk. This no longer exists in the US. Yes we have the NYSE but this is one of the riskiest places to put money if you aren't a hedge fund or investment banker controlling the casino, I mean, stock/bond markets. Basically it's imprudent to put the money into the US financial market if you aren't an insider.

      2. It's generally cheaper (and 100% legal) to keep you cash overseas if you have a lot of suppliers, customers and operations overseas. This is simple common sense - why would anyone take a tax shave moving cash into the US and then take another moving the money back overseas when you need to spend it on those same operations or suppliers. The obvious answer is to keep it off-shore where you earned it and where you will be spending it eventually. What people don't understand (they are often numerically illiterate even with STEM degrees) is that far more economic activities are outside the US now - Apple seems big, and HP/Dell seems bigger (5x bigger) but the reality is that Taiwanese Acer is 10x bigger than HP/Dell combined as are assembly companies like Foxconn and Pegatron. Thus the "big pool" of money and economic activity is not the US anymore.

      3. It's NORMAL to have high margins in tech but especially if you make hardware, you absolutely require it - hardware is riskier than software and takes longer and more capital to do right. For this reason ALL historic hardware tech companies would have ultra high margins on new products and explicitly try to generate a ton of cash so they can afford the next generation of product development and actually hire highly trained engineers/programmers and pay them well between product intros. The current Dot Com "we don't need to be profitable" business model is a bizarro unsustainable way to structuring a company. Apple is doing it right in this sense as well.

      4. To achieve #3 more easily, Apple "sells on value", where you never negotiate the price but only anything else. You basically walk away from any deal where the potential customer doesn't want to pay. That requires cojones and it requires that your product quality be so good you can afford to do that and be confident doing it. When you cave on price, it signals your product is weak and you are weak. Moore's Law semiconductor companies have sold on price instead but this only works because the promise includes "even if the current generation isn't good enough, the next one will better and it arrives in 18 months".

    100. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      You're funny but no that's not it.

      According to the New York Times story, GE reported U.S. profits of $5.1 billion in 2010 (and $14.2 billion worldwide). “Its American tax bill?” asked the Times. “None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.” The company accomplished this, the story said, due to “an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”

    101. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing to admit. Trump got some early loans from his dad of more money than any of us on /. is likely to see in a lifetime. Now, if he'd simply put that money in an index fund and stayed home for the next 30 years, he'd have ended up with a higher net worth than by doing a bunch of real estate deals. That's not "pulling himself up by his bootstraps" by any stretch of the imagination. That's using a substantial advantage to ... well, get what you might call an average result.

      But hey, keep moving the goalposts. That seems to be working well for you.

    102. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't seem unreasonable.

      But if we look at real-world inequality levels, your pie sizes are off.

      Try this: The pie is 500g; Bob has 60% of it for 300g, Jim has 40% for 200g.

      Now the pie increases to 2000g. But Bob now owns 95% of the pie = 1900g. That leaves Jim 100g for his 5% stake.

      Jim's going hungry.

    103. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      . . . If wealth changes over time, that means I can make or destroy it. Meaning that if I MAKE a bunch of wealth over here, I have more but that doesn't subtract from what you have over there. That's the exact opposite of a "fixed-size pie" which I usually call a zero sum game.

      But in opposition to that guy, I'd have to say that no, the rich don't deserve to be THAT wealthy. No one does. Past a certain point it's just excess. And the concept that someone can live lavishly, from birth to death, on dividends alone.... they're just a drain on society unless they really do something with that money. Fuck the idle rich.

    104. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is demonstrably true that they keep the money offshore to reduce taxes paid. They also pay the legal bare minimum which is fine. Whether the tax burden is 1M or 100K is irrelevant. They won't pay either if they can get away with it. You are the deluded one....or one of the practice's benefactors. Stay Classy, AC.

    105. Re: Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Who the fuck is John Galt?

      The Little Red Hen

    106. Re:Wheres the source of the cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A classic example is the iron bar. It's worth $5.

      Make it into nails, it's worth $30.
      Make it into sewing needles, it's worth $3000
      Make it into watch springs, it's worth $300,000.

      The difference? Work (and energy) create that wealth, not the finite raw materials.

  2. how dare they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    hoarding it, stashing it, keeping it away from the taxman...

    good! more power to them!

    1. Re:how dare they by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      apple was the largest taxpayer in the USA last year and that STILL isnt enough for you???

      since when is saving money hoarding????

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:how dare they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definition of hoard
      : a supply or fund stored up and often hidden away a hoard of cash

  3. Just think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    what it would be like if these companies paid their fair share of taxes on this money. Schools, roads, healthcare. They want the benefits of being in this country without having to support it.

    1. Re:Just think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could confiscate all the money & assets of all those megacorps and you'd still only be able to finance the US government's expenses for a few months. Doing the same to all of the top-10% corporate & private wealth would extend that to maybe a year.

      Then what?

      Consequences and reality: They care not for feelz.

    2. Re:Just think by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think the more telling thing from these numbers is to show just how powerful these US technology companies are. Likely if you were to factor companies like Oracle and Intel into the mix, you're talking about one of the most economically potent sectors in the world. I don't really care much about the whole "repatriation" issue, seeing as by and large, with the exception of the EU, where they make the sales they pay the tax (in the EU, they are doing a bit of an avoidance scheme by moving all the profits to Ireland).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Just think by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      Who decides what they fair share is? Some anonymous shit-wads from slashdot?

    4. Re:Just think by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      They want the benefits of being in this country without having to support it.

      When a iPhone made in China is sold in Germany, which of them should pay the taxes for the benefits of being in America?

    5. Re: Just think by guruevi · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be much different. Giving the government more money seems to do the opposite. Our government spends several factors more than they did when they built the interstate highway system yet even that they can't keep repaired.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Just think by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

      And where was the hardware designed and the software written? Physically assembling the phone is the easy part.

    7. Re:Just think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like a great argument for making multinationals illegal.

    8. Re:Just think by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And where was the hardware designed and the software written?

      Irrelevant, since according to the law, that makes no difference whatsoever. Companies do not pay less income tax if they have fewer, or even no employees in America.

  4. Helicopter Theory by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Time for "helicopter money". Inflation is under par and fat cats are hoarding cash. Sufficient inflation will make sitting on cash unpleasant because its actual value shrinks quicker. It may even get T closer to the 3% GDP growth he wants as the cash is spent.

    1. Re:Helicopter Theory by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Might be wise to learn what 'cash' means to accountants. It's about liquidity. There is no Scrooge McDuck swimming pool full of currency.

      If they could find a better place than treasuries/REITs to park it, they would.

      They should pool their money and buy a small, relatively poor nation (Bulgaria?), then buy a few nukes, then just let the IRS try and tax them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Helicopter Theory by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      You might want to lookup what the term liquidity means. Hint: it means cash.

    3. Re:Helicopter Theory by PPH · · Score: 1

      Sufficient inflation will make sitting on cash unpleasant

      True. But how would we go about creating this inflation?

      We don't have a government-controlled central bank. The Federal Reserve is a quasi-government entity. But only to the extent that the gov't gets to nominate the board of directors. In reality, it is run by it's (private) member banks and the chairperson just blows smoke up Congress' collective ass periodically. Look at Greenspan's talent for obfuscation.

      The member banks are pretty much controlled by big depositors. Who are highly motivated to keep their holdings from depreciating. The rest of the economy can go fuck itself. Those 'fat cats' you refer to? That is as much CALPERS and other pension funds as it is big corporations. Pension funds for you and me. So we are collectively some of the worst fat cats.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Helicopter Theory by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Treasuries have the same "shrinkage" problem as cash, and REIT's are not considered "cash", but an investment, kind of like stock.

      Although REIT's do bring up a bigger problem: too much investment in real-estate instead of growth and employees. Perhaps we could tax investments in REIT's above a certain amount to dissuade excess.

    5. Re:Helicopter Theory by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Congress would probably have to authorize "printing". It creates too much risk/blame for the Federal Reserve (FR) to do it themselves. It's a political calculation beyond the usual role of the FR: they are not to make political decisions, but rather try to objectively balance specific factors.

      Quantitative Easing was kind of indirect "printing" of cash, and FR has already taken a lot of heat for it. It's probably not justified heat, but it's still not an area they are comfortable with. They only did it because of the unusual depth of the recession worldwide. The Chairman had said many times during the slump that any "additional" stimulus would have to come from lawmakers.

    6. Re:Helicopter Theory by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      On a company's balance sheet, anything liquid, like a publicly traded stock or REIT is 'cash equivalent'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Helicopter Theory by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are correct. You may be confusing "liquid" with cash. Stocks are liquid but they are NOT considered the same as cash. An accounting expert want to weigh in?

    8. Re:Helicopter Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to look up the difference between "lookup" (noun) and "look up" (verb). It's a lesson that can be applied in many situations.

    9. Re:Helicopter Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sufficient inflation will make sitting on cash unpleasant

      True. But how would we go about creating this inflation?

      That's easy. Inflation is measured by the price of goods normal people buy. Those things get more expensive if normal people have more money to spend on those things. Therefore, simply distribute that cash to normal people (e.g., as higher wages). Inflation will follow shortly.

    10. Re:Helicopter Theory by PPH · · Score: 1

      Quantitative Easing was kind of indirect "printing" of cash,

      But limited to buying back 'bad paper' that investors were sitting on.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:Helicopter Theory by pseudorand · · Score: 1

      And not only will the federal reserve not create inflation, Janet has been Yellen' about reversing QE (not that anyone believes anything the Fed says anymore). That would effectively take 4 Trillion (yes, with a 'T') out of the economy (though not all at once, hopefully). That would have the same effect as firms hoarding cash. Why would they do that? Because "mebbe' we need to do QE again some time". Which makes absolutely zero sense.

      The problem is that the fed keeps screwing with the money supply. Firms then put their efforts into repositioning to take advantage of the new economic conditions rather than getting shit done. I'm not so laissez faire on fiscal policy or regulation, but monetary should be left alone. Let the economy reach equilibrium. Let us plan for the future with some sort of certainty at least on the thing people can control (the amount of money in circulation).

  5. USA #1 !! by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have the biggest, most complicated tax code in the history of the universe. We are also the only country that taxes its citizens for income earned while living and working in another country... even after they pay that country's taxes.

    1. Re:USA #1 !! by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      Personal income tax earned in another country has NO relation to corporations sitting on earnings stashed in another country.

    2. Re:USA #1 !! by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't know about the biggest and most complicated but that's another subject.
      As far as US citizens working abroad, they do give you credit for any tax paid to a foreign government and they do have a rather large base exemption before tax kicks in.
      What makes you think that you can take the benefits of being a US citizen and not pay any taxes?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re:USA #1 !! by swillden · · Score: 2

      Personal income tax earned in another country has NO relation to corporations sitting on earnings stashed in another country.

      It's exactly the same thing. The US taxes both corporate and personal income earned in other countries, which is something that other countries don't do. In both cases, it encourages people/corporations to find ways to avoid paying the extra tax by keeping the money outside of the country. Corporations are better at doing it legally; individuals usually end up having to lie about their income.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re: USA #1 !! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yeah no shit. Double taxation is total bullshit, but who cares, right? You should see how the US State Department treats Americans abroad. Obviously they are all wanted criminals or they'd be living in America, the best country. It's traitorous for anyone to live anywhere else, except for State Department employees of course.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re: USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want the benefits of a US citizen, pay the taxes.

    6. Re:USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If corporations are people, it certainly SHOULD.

      I paid us tax on my earned income overseas, so should they.

    7. Re:USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only pay taxes on any income above $97,600.

    8. Re:USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have the biggest, most complicated tax code in the history of the universe. We are also the only country that taxes its citizens for income earned while living and working in another country... even after they pay that country's taxes.

      Most countries (including the USA and EU countries) have tax laws which have similar treatment. Most countries (including the USA and EU countries) have bilateral tax treaties that avoid double taxation.

      The US is the most aggressive against people stashing money away in "swiss/bermuda" bank accounts so the problem is that many tax-haven countries do *not* have a tax treaty with the US that prevents taxation of US citizens at net US tax-rates mostly because the US wants to prevent it's citizens from using those countries as tax havens... In most tax-haven countries like this citizens must *gross-up* to US tax rates (taking a deduction for taxes already paid to a foreign government), so you still aren't double-paying.

      For most "socialist" countries with high-tax rates, this isn't a problem. Of course if there is *no* tax treaty with the country in question, a US citizen will be liable for all US taxes w/o deductions.

      Your politics will likely dictate whether you think this is a "good" thing or not for a country to do...

    9. Re:USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if it is outside the country, it is still owned by that company. So it should be taxed, just as my Swiss bank accounts would be.

    10. Re:USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What benefits are those if your outside the US? Besides being an appealing target for terrorists or being kidnapped for ransom I am not sure what those benefits are.

      The only other country to tax earnings from a citizen living in another country is Eritrea, a one party state that is rated as one of the worst human rights violators by Human Rights Watch. Good company to be in.

    11. Re:USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As far as US citizens working abroad, they do give you credit for any tax paid to a foreign government and they do have a rather large base exemption before tax kicks in.

      Doesn't make it any less wrong. The US has no business taxing income not earned in the US by a person or a company not in the US.

      What makes you think that you can take the benefits of being a US citizen and not pay any taxes?

      What benefits does a citizen of a country enjoy if he does not live in said country?

    12. Re:USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The US is one of the very few countries that taxes its citizens on income earned abroad while living abroad. No civilised country does such a thing.

    13. Re:USA #1 !! by swillden · · Score: 1

      But if it is outside the country, it is still owned by that company. So it should be taxed, just as my Swiss bank accounts would be.

      "Should" is an interesting word here. You're assuming that Congress' decision to tax foreign earnings is a good one. That might be a reasonable position, but the fact that no other country does this is a pretty strong indicator that Congress has done something dumb.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re: USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's expensive to give up US citizenship too - $2500 to renounce + taxation on all assets as if you had died. Nice country you have there.

    15. Re: USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I keep the benefits and dispose of the burdens? That might be worth real money.

    16. Re: USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROMAN! We've missed you bloviating about stuff you don't understand.

      Welcome back you POS troll. :)

    17. Re:USA #1 !! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      As far as US citizens working abroad, they do give you credit for any tax paid to a foreign government

      That's only if the U.S. has a tax treaty with that country. If there is no treaty, you're double-taxed. And even with countries with tax treaties, the treaty doesn't cover everything. I (U.S. citizen) worked in Canada for a couple years. The tax treaty meant I just paid the higher income tax rate (Canadian), and applied those paid taxes as a credit to my U.S. income taxes. But the treaty didn't cover unearned income. My Canadian bank interest was double-taxed. If I'd owned any Canadian stock, the dividends would've been double-taxed. (U.S. stock was OK since the Canadian government isn't stupid enough to try to tax stuff you own outside of Canada if you're not living in Canada.)

      Interesting aside, I had to rent a house in Washington state and commute across the border every day because I used to be a California resident. Californina's tax policies are as tenacious as the IRS'. I initially moved from California to British Columbia to work. But when I spoke with an international tax attorney, he pointed out that for the purposes of tax domicile, California only recognizes moves to other states. Because I moved straight to Canada, California still considered me a California citizen, and they would try to make me pay California income taxes on everything I earned in Canada. So I had to move to Washington and live there long enough to shed my California residency in the eyes of the California government. I talked with someone who ran into the same problem when they moved from California to the UK. California was trying to tax their UK income.

      What makes you think that you can take the benefits of being a US citizen and not pay any taxes?

      The U.S. and Eritrea are the only countries which tax based on citizenship. Most countries tax based on location. If you earned the money outside the country, they don't touch it. Others tax based on residency. If you earned the money while residing outside the country, they don't touch it. That's why Canadians working in the U.S. have to be careful about how much time they spend visiting Canada. Canada taxes based on residency, and if they spend more than a cumulative 182 days (half year) in Canada, the Canadian government reclassifies them as residing in Canada, and the money they earned in the U.S. becomes subject to the much higher Canadian taxes.

      This can catch people holding dual U.S. citizenship hard if they're living outside the U.S. They can grow up all their lives in a foreign country blissfully unaware of this tax bomb, then they sell their house and the IRS demands a part of the profit.

    18. Re:USA #1 !! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      We are also the only country that taxes its citizens for income earned while living and working in another country... even after they pay that country's taxes.

      No you're not. But you are the only country that taxes them even if they are already paying a *higher* tax rate in the other country.

    19. Re:USA #1 !! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that you can take the benefits of being a US citizen and not pay any taxes?

      What benefits? The lovely benefit of not being able to integrate into the local environment due to your status? The uncertainty of your job due to your visa? Or the fact that everyone hates you?

      I'm waiting for someone to mention something about consular assistance which I remind you wouldn't be needed at all if you were treated like a local person rather than a second class USA foreigner with all the "benefits" that brings.

    20. Re:USA #1 !! by mspohr · · Score: 1

      If you don't find anything of value, then renounce your US citizenship and adopt a new country (preferably one with more lenient tax policies)... that's what corporations do and they don't even have to leave the country.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    21. Re:USA #1 !! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      then renounce your US citizenship and adopt a new country

      Yep, because that's an over-nighter.

    22. Re:USA #1 !! by ausekilis · · Score: 2

      I knew someone that was trying to work at least 300 days of a year overseas so he wouldn't have to pay U.S. taxes at all (he missed it by a few days). If I remember what he told me (neither of us is a tax lawyer), the U.S. takes some proportional tax based on how many days you worked in the U.S.

    23. Re:USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's exactly the same thing.

      Yes, exactly the same if you want to ignore the fact that corporations are taxed based on their profits while US citizens are taxed based on their revenue (income). I'd love to be able subtract my mortgage, transportation, food, and utilities costs from my taxable income as operating costs and only be taxed based on what's left.

    24. Re:USA #1 !! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My US citizenship is useful when I'm in the US. It isn't very useful when I'm not. Moreover, I can't adopt a new country without that country's permission.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:USA #1 !! by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's exactly the same thing.

      Yes, exactly the same if you want to ignore the fact that corporations are taxed based on their profits while US citizens are taxed based on their revenue (income). I'd love to be able subtract my mortgage, transportation, food, and utilities costs from my taxable income as operating costs and only be taxed based on what's left.

      You don't actually understand your own taxes, I see. You do get to subtract all that stuff, effectively. You absolutely get to subtract your mortgage interest, which is the expense part. The principle payment is net income; it directly increases your net worth. As for the rest of the stuff, that's what standard deductions are for, to account for the basic cost of living, so you pay taxes only on your "extra". And that's actually also part of the justification behind the progressive scale; the less you make the more of your income must go to non-luxury expenses.

      What you can't do is decrease your taxable income by choosing to buy more expensive stuff. Corporations can do this, but they have strong motivation not to, because their reason for existence is to generate value for shareholders. Being wasteful, whether it's to reduce tax liability or just to keep employees in unnecessary luxury, is contrary to the shareholders' goals and they'll eventually force the corporation to get more efficient and generate more income.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    26. Re:USA #1 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We have the biggest, most complicated tax code in the history of the universe."

      No the USA does not, not by a country mile. In 2015 Vinicios Leoncio decided to print out the Brazilian tax code. In small print, it took 41200 pages of A2 paper, weighed several tons and stood over 6 feet high. His copy went out of date in one week, such is the rate of constant changes.

      If you wish to open a company and trade across Brazil the first thing you have to do is set up your head offices and then subsidiaries in every single state. In each state you are required to hire one full-time employee, one lawyer and an accountant. You will be required to pay your taxes monthly. You will not be allowed to move stock between states unless you are shutting down operations in the state the stock is leaving. You will be required to pay importation taxes as you cross state lines. You will be required to stop at each state border and have your papers and goods inspected.

      The strangest thing about Trump's economic plan is that much of it looks a lot like the Getulio Vargas plan for Brazil, from the early 1920s, that was implemented in the early 1930s and is still in place. It's a plan that pretends to care about workers while implementing protectionism for the very wealthy. It destroys growth but when you're that rich your concern is dynasty control.

  6. An by cash we mean not cash but stocks and stuff by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    N/T

  7. Effect on Economy by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't really get finance. That's... not good for the economy right?

    It's money that's "Not being put to work". Just rotting in a bank account. Extrapolate this, and it's essentially a giant black hole in the economy where money goes in but it doesn't come out. Today we've got a money cycle of farmers buying oil to run their combines and oil-well workers buying food to eat. Today there's a trillion dollars moving back and forth (and being pissed away on recreation) but tomorrow Apple hoards half of that and now the cycle is moving just $500B. So... It's essentially deflation? If they ever dump it back into the markets, that'd be a big wave of inflation, ya? Suddenly there's just more cash in the system. Is half a trillion even enough? How much money is needed to have a noticeable impact on the value of the US dollar?

    So it's outside of the USA. Couldn't they go invest it in... China or something? Buy all of Foxconn. Do they have problem bringing it elsewhere? Would they have to pay China income tax if they went there? If it's all Irish money... Buy Guinness. ...I guess that just shifts the fat bank account from the owners of apple to the ex-owners of Guinness... Yeah, to actually make that money work, they'd have to actually launch a new business or expand their business or buy a business that needs expansion.

    Inflation is the sort of thing that's supposed to encourage people (or business, in this case) to go DO SOMETHING with their money rather than hoarding it. We should DEFINITELY NOT give them some sort of tax-free day to slip it in. Fuck you, pay me.

    1. Re:Effect on Economy by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      >It's money that's "Not being put to work". Just rotting in a bank account.

      Not quite. To be removed from the economy, you'd have to have cash or some other deflationary instrument in storage.

      Cash 'in the bank' isn''t really in the bank, but is being invested by the bank.

    2. Re:Effect on Economy by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In this case it's almost certainly being invested by the companies themselves. Apple's "cash" reserves are mostly in the form of long-term marketable securities.

    3. Re:Effect on Economy by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's money that's "Not being put to work". Just rotting in a bank account.

      No. The companies do invest it outside of the US because it would be dumb not to.

      It's not being invested inside the US because our country's unique and bizarre tax laws would cause a big chunk of it to be taken by Uncle Sam if the companies were to try to use it here. So, our tax laws are doing a great job of encouraging investment in other countries!

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Effect on Economy by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Honestly, by the time you have these kind of cash reserves, you should set up a new corporate division as a bank, cut out all the middlemen.

      Can you imagine having a Google Mortgage? And they'd already know everything about you to help them set your credit limit and interest rate!

    5. Re:Effect on Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they can take out very low interest loans, this issue is basically irrelevant.

    6. Re:Effect on Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money is not sitting under the mattress. It's already invested in the US and elsewhere. It just happens to be owned by entities that are based outside the US.

    7. Re:Effect on Economy by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      The money is being put to work exactly as you say - by investing into assets in the countries it is located in. Much of it is probably making it back to the USA as well through lending schemes facilitated by investment banks - Apple 'invests' a billion in bonds issued by Goldman Sachs' EU branch, and Goldman Sachs' USA branch buys up the latest billion dollar corporate bond issue from Apple. Note that the money isn't being repatriated so US tax is not triggered. GS has been around for 148 years, so the loan never needs to be paid back in anyone's lifetime.

      What the investment bank then does with the money is up to them, but it won't sit in bank accounts (though with investment banks, it could end up in unmarked suitcases...). This is indeed where they get their funding for schemes such as cornering the global coffee market, or the GS Aluminium market rigging. In all seriousness though, a lot will just go into buying mortgages, or personal loans. Essentially, the investment bank lends money to a local finance company, which lends it to a local consumer who uses it to buy an Apple product, the profits of which then go to Apple, who lend it to the local investment bank, who lends it to a local finance company....

      The problem with all this is that much of these investments is private unsecured debt, or mortgages, which are really not much different these days. There are simply not enough productive investments around, such as new plant and machinery, or viable startups, so the money just goes into funding consumer debt instead. This is why we have huge debt bubbles everywhere right now, and why you can basically correlate private debt growth with GDP and recessions (see the work of Steve Keen - he is a nutcase on a lot of things, but on this he is correct).

      There is really no solution while wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated (meaning that consumer demand is only sustained through ever growing private debt) and private banks are largely unconstrained in their ability to create debt.

    8. Re:Effect on Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they'd also know when you (and anyone you could depend on) was out of cash and couldn't pay your rent for everything you use next month.

      Off to the welfare prison for you, citizen. There are people better than you, that you are bothering.....

      *Same thing would apply to a Facebook Mortgage.

    9. Re:Effect on Economy by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Easier to just buy an actual bank. Or, since you like to have "phat cash reserves" on your balance sheet, just buy enough stock for a controlling interest in one.

      Maybe it's different in the US, but this is pretty much already done. I do most of my banking through the financial services arm of what used to be a grocer. One of my relatives works as an analyst for the financial services arm of a national chain of hardware and automotive stores.

    10. Re:Effect on Economy by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >Maybe it's different in the US, but this is pretty much already done. I do most of my banking through the financial services arm of what used to be a grocer.

      1st: I am in Canada, so I can't speak to the US.

      2nd: I know the car companies have had their own finance divisions handling car loans for at least my entire life.

      3rd: Oh yeah. I haven't seen one in a while, but I do recall at least one my the local grocery chains starting to offer banking services.

    11. Re:Effect on Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, as of 1.5 years ago they had $16.7 billion in cash and equivalents on hand. Let that sink in. That's not far from the GDP of Iceland and that's just Apple.

    12. Re:Effect on Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most large American companies have finance wings. Did you know IBM is a bank too?

    13. Re:Effect on Economy by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      It's money that's "Not being put to work". Just rotting in a bank account.

      No. The companies do invest it outside of the US because it would be dumb not to.

      It's not being invested inside the US because our country's unique and bizarre tax laws would cause a big chunk of it to be taken by Uncle Sam if the companies were to try to use it here. So, our tax laws are doing a great job of encouraging investment in other countries!

      But that only happens because you have politicians promising tax holidays, or lowering the tax on already earned money. If they weren't with the stupid idea all the time, there would be point in delaying repatriating the money. So this is entirely caused by corporate whores promising things that hurt the country, not just when introduced, but now...

    14. Re:Effect on Economy by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's money that's "Not being put to work". Just rotting in a bank account.

      No. The companies do invest it outside of the US because it would be dumb not to.

      It's not being invested inside the US because our country's unique and bizarre tax laws would cause a big chunk of it to be taken by Uncle Sam if the companies were to try to use it here. So, our tax laws are doing a great job of encouraging investment in other countries!

      But that only happens because you have politicians promising tax holidays, or lowering the tax on already earned money. If they weren't with the stupid idea all the time, there would be point in delaying repatriating the money. So this is entirely caused by corporate whores promising things that hurt the country, not just when introduced, but now...

      Not true. Companies would still be motivated to avoid paying taxes until they actually need the money in the US, and maybe even then. Opportunities for using the money to expand overseas might appear. Also, even with the cash held overseas, they can borrow against it. When the alternative is throwing 35% of it away, clever CFOs will find lots of alternatives.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:Effect on Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really get finance. That's... not good for the economy right?

      It's money that's "Not being put to work". Just rotting in a bank account.

      I have it on the highest authority that once billionaires and multinational corporations have enough money they will begin hiring employees to increase the supply of their goods which will drive demand and that previously idle money will trickle down to the rest of the economy.

  8. It's just money by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This really just demonstrates the stupidity of our current economic system, where money, which is a made-up human construct meant to facilitate the trade in real goods and services, has become more important than said real goods and services. We have a 'market' that pays our best and brightest far more to come up with these pointless number shuffling schemes than to become a doctor, scientist or teacher. We then wonder why, despite all the GDP we have supposedly magiced up in the last decade, many of our doctors, scientists and teachers can no longer afford basic shelter and services for them and their families.

    At a government level, we have treasuries slashing public sector spending to provide corporate tax breaks because politicians seem to believe that they can save for the care worker jobs that will be required by the ageing boomers in the future, by putting the young out of work today. Again, all driven by this belief that money is more important than the underlying economy it is meant to facilitate.

    And to add to the complete disconnected stupidity, we have central banks busy abusing the monetary system by printing trillions of dollars in an attempt to stop all this warped cash hoarding by the rich from deflating the real economy.

    It is really sad, and it is all going to come to a head at some point. Unfortunately I don't think anyone has a clear idea of how to fix it, and there is a great risk that we lurch too far to either the left or right, as has been the pattern throughout history.

    1. Re:It's just money by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actual they have http://prospect.org/article/pr... it's called stopping profit shifting, and adopt “sales factor apportionment.”

    2. Re:It's just money by richardanthonyday · · Score: 1

      Pyschologically the heads of these industries need it just this way to be involved, Needs to be some way to make them think they are the really doing all this, while sharing the money with the more mentally evolved workers who in turn would buy the products...

    3. Re:It's just money by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      where money, which is a made-up human construct meant to facilitate the trade in real goods and services, has become more important than said real goods and services.

      Not even. It just demonstrates that sensationalist news can reach out to people who don't understand monetary systems.

      Economies are demand driven. You know where jobs come from? We have people buying 20,000 tables a week, and each 1 person can make 1 tables per week. We have 19,500 people making tables. ... we can't do it. Welp, we better hire 500 more people.

      To supply those jobs, you pay wages. $10/hr and 40 hours of total human time to make a table? Table costs $400. If you don't charge at least $400 for that table, there's no way you can pay your workers. If the consumers can't pay at least $400 for a table, there's no way we're producing that many tables and providing the jobs unless we find a way to make tables with less total human time (or, really, wage-labor cost, which means just reduce wage x time--hence why replacing 100 hours at $10/hr with 30 hours at $20/hr makes sense, thus computers and machines and such).

      So what's money backed by? Well, not gold. Money is backed by production, eventually. All the money spent represents all the stuff produced. If you produce 100 pounds of grain, sell 80, and 20 go to rot, you expended all the labor to make 100 pounds of rice; you just have to charge 25% more per pound to cover the wages, and now all that money represents 80 pounds of rice. Your production methods are wasteful; learn to avoid an undersupply of rice by better-predicting the market or storing rice in ways which allow a longer shelf life.

      What's that got to do with hoards of money?

      Our central bank--here in the US--tries to achieve a 2% inflation benchmark. We measure a certain basket of goods to benchmark inflation, because "inflation" is a concept and not a real thing: technology, profit margins, and prices vary between not just different goods, but different producers, stores, regions. 10% inflation does not mean that every single price tag on every good everywhere went up by 10% simultaneously because that never happens.

      We have a fractional reserve system. The Fed issues $1, the banks can loan $10. That means every $11 out there roughly correlates to $1 of issued currency and $10 of loaned money. With credit cards and business accounts, most of the money is in banks, and buying things moves it from account to account.

      So what happens when you stockpile money?

      Money stockpiled here sits in banks, where it ceases to participate in the economy. The banks still loan out $10, but that $1 doesn't move from account to account as it's used for purchases. Hoarding $1 billion removes $1 billion from the money supply; the Fed has to issue an additional $0.1 billion when it pushes for that 2% inflation, or else it will fall short of inflation goals.

      What if you stockpile it in Ireland?

      Money stockpiled in Ireland is theoretically out of the U.S. banking system. All $11 of it--the cash and the fractional loans--are gone. Hide $1Bn in Ireland and the Fed has to issue $1Bn here.

      But wait, there's more!

      Ireland also has a Fractional Reserve Banking system. Money stockpiled in Ireland participates in the global economy, and so may in part make its way back to the United States via our export market. This is true even if Ireland buys something from Germany and Germany buys from the U.S., because the German economy is spending a portion of its income--of which a part is derived from Irish loans.

      The model eventually flattens out to say that money moves all over the world just like it moves all over town, and money stored in any fractional-reserve state in the global economy still boosts the global money supply in roughly the same way. It just starts somewhere else (physically) and spreads out from there as trade occurs. The ability to buy

    4. Re:It's just money by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Money became a 'construct' when it was no longer linked to any actual hard asset of any kind. It is a construct because it is not real, it is not a real thing but it should be a real thing.

      Money is time and effort that people put into something and it is not some ephemeral concept, it really is time and effort subtracted from our lives, the time we could spend doing anything else instead of working, it has value to us, to individuals who spend this time and effort.

      Money is exactly the same as human lives, there is no difference except this: money is a store of time that we create for ourselves.

    5. Re:It's just money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money is exactly the same as human lives

      Indeed comrade! Which is why it's inevitable that government will take control over most if not all the money.

      They have the guns see. Government can enslave and control money the same way they do with people. Then they can abuse and waste that money, just like they do with people.

      Actually, money is better than people. Money won't talk back and make slashdot posts that speaks badly of government. Money won't start revolutions to overthrow government.

      It is in every collectivist and every statist interest to equate money to be exactly the same as people. It dehumanizes them so it's easier for government to exploit them later. No, you are not an individual. You are Benjamin #1938785876. Now bend over, fold yourself up, and crawl back into your master's wallet!

      Thank you, comrade, for furthering the socialist statist collectivist cause by making this post!

  9. Offshore Consequences by Herkum01 · · Score: 2

    The US has been very generous at allowing shell companies and off-shore earnings to be store in other countries. Once a corporation gets a handout, they expect it into perpetuity and they want all the market access and its protections of the legal system while avoiding contributing to it.

    This basically shows that this is the consequence of letting companies sit on cash to avoid taxes. Another commenter said the US tax system is too complicated. It is, but the benefits from it go to corporations who use it to avoid taxes, not to increase them.

    1. Re:Offshore Consequences by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Plus, that's a *lot* of money. Why isn't it a theft target?

    2. Re:Offshore Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why isn't it a theft target?

      Because it's not in physical form sitting in Scrooge McDuck's money bin.

      How is this even a question?

    3. Re:Offshore Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you repatriate that cash, and let's say they get charged a fair tax on it, you're still only getting MAYBE $100 billion. Once. It's not like they are going to keep paying that over and over.

      By way of reference, the US spends 60 times that much EACH YEAR at all levels of government.

      The problem is not stashes of cash, the problem is the fucking insane levels of government spending. But until the goddamn thing crashes nothing will get done.

    4. Re:Offshore Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has been very generous at allowing shell companies and off-shore earnings to be store in other countries. Once a corporation gets a handout, they expect it into perpetuity and they want all the market access and its protections of the legal system while avoiding contributing to it.

      This basically shows that this is the consequence of letting companies sit on cash to avoid taxes. Another commenter said the US tax system is too complicated. It is, but the benefits from it go to corporations who use it to avoid taxes, not to increase them.

      If these companies want to do this, then let them. However, they should be declared as non-American companies, and have no American patents nor copyrights.

  10. Re:An by cash we mean not cash but stocks and stuf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, you are trying to claim that all liquid assets are cash. No, it's another way round, cash is one type of liquid asset.

  11. What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just capitalism working as expected. Should we try communism now? I thought we fought that off back during the Cold War?

  12. Economics by WhatsGoodman · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work in Private Equity and have experience with this type of stuff. Honestly in my opinion, there's nothing to see here other than a great case for why the US corporate tax rate should be lower. There are two separate concepts worth discussing. One is money that was MADE offshore and remained offshore, which I don't think anyone should take issue with. That money is used to fund international operations and international acquisitions (and is invested--I recall reading that Apple runs the world's largest hedge fund via its balance sheet cash). No big-wig executive or shareholder benefits from this cash being offshore - in order for them to see any of it, it has to be repatriated, at which point it is subject to US tax. The other concept is money that was made in the US, but is treated as if it was made offshore. The way this works is generally via IP transfer. If a US company transfers its IP to a subsidiary in another country (Ireland is popular, for example), then that US company has to pay royalties to the international subsidiary as it does business. So US Co. makes $100 in search revenue, but has to pay $90 to Ireland Co. for the right to license the IP (oversimplified but that's the gist). $10 gets taxed in the US, and $90 gets taxed in Ireland, the profits remain in those respective countries. Note that when the IP is transferred to the other country, that transaction is taxable - the Irish subsidiary has to "purchase" the IP from the US, which is a taxable event that the US government receives tax income from. However, after the IP is transferred and once operations commence, this becomes frustrating for the US government (and citizens) because money that was made in the US becomes taxed in Ireland. However, even in this case, in order for US executives or shareholders to ever get this cash, the money must be repatriated, at which point it is subject to US tax. So the money ends up just staying offshore, until the company can either negotiate with the US government for more favorable tax treatment, or until it gets used for an offshore purpose. Long story short, if the US corporate tax rate was lower, we would not have this problem. Companies would not transfer IP offshore to achieve more favorable tax structures, they would just keep the money in the US. My personal opinion is that the corporate tax rate that maximizes revenue for the US is much lower than the current 35%.

    1. Re:Economics by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Yet it seems to make logical sense that if there is less money floating around for an individual like me floating around, then it is harder to obtain and makes things more difficult to afford. I have retirement savings but not enough for this to make a difference. If we lower taxes on corporations then society is losing any way.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Economics by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      However, after the IP is transferred and once operations commence, this becomes frustrating for the US government (and citizens) because money that was made in the US becomes taxed in Ireland.

      But was the money made in the US? Pretending for a moment that the concept of IP has any legitimacy at all, why shouldn't the profit accrue primarily to the IP holder in Ireland, and not the licensee in the US? Isn't that how IP is supposed to work, rewarding IP holders at the expense of "makers"? You can't really support the principle of IP while simultaneously condemning US companies for paying IP licencing fees to foreign IP holders. The IP portion of a business is simply more mobile than, say, a physical manufacturing plant. Unlike actual property, IP per se has no location, and it doesn't matter where the IP holder is physically located.

      The entire point of copyrights and patents is to circumvent the normal rules of the market and basically give companies what amounts to a legal right to print money in the form of permission to copy existing works. The fact that profits attributable to some sort of IP can be easily transferred to a subsidiary in a favorable tax jurisdiction is a natural consequence of buying into the fiction that ideas should be treated like property. Any attempt to change this result, short of doing away with IP altogether, will result in unintended consequences.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    3. Re:Economics by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet it seems to make logical sense that if there is less money floating around for an individual like me floating around, then it is harder to obtain and makes things more difficult to afford.

      More money floating around can also cause inflation, making things more difficult to afford.

      If we lower taxes on corporations then society is losing any way.

      This is an illusion. Corporate taxes are an illusion. An evil one.

      Corporations never really pay taxes. The cost is always ultimately borne by people. Those people may be employees, if the corporation pays lower wages to offset its tax bill. They may be shareholders, if the corporation generates lower dividends or less increase in share price due to less growth. They may be customers, if the corporation chooses to pass the costs on in higher prices.

      At the end of they possibly-long chain of buck passing, though, the taxes are always ultimately paid by individuals. The legislature could get exactly the same effect if instead of taxing the corporations it taxed the individuals directly. Except that by taxing the corporation the legislature loses the ability to control what kind of people pay the bills. I think the ideal for most proponents of corporate taxes would be to levy them on the shareholders exclusively. But that's not only not guaranteed to happen, it's almost never what happens, due to the fact that the markets seek a given rate of return for an industry. All players in that industry (assuming they're all subject to the same taxes) will shift the tax costs elsewhere in order to maintain the rate of return, so they can attract capital when they need it.

      This makes taxing corporations dumb. What makes it evil is the very reason that legislators like it in spite of the fact that it takes away their ability to control who gets taxed. They like it because they can tell voters that someone other than the voters is paying the bill. This isn't true. It seems true, to people who don't understand what corporations really are or how they work. Voters who don't look at it very closely believe they're getting government services and big, faceless corporations are paying for it. But the fact is that although it's extremely hard to tell who is paying the bill, the one thing we know is that the corporations are not.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck 'em. If they think letting the money rot in anticipation of a tax cut or amnesty is going to be worth the amount of money lost to opportunity costs just sitting on it, then let them dig their own graves.

    5. Re:Economics by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      IIRC, corporate income taxes are paid on profits. (This deliberately doesn't include corporate property taxes and the like, which are a cost of having such things as fire and police protection, and which are collected locally.)

      This means that corporations don't pay income tax on payroll, since profit is what's left after expenses like payroll. Passing costs on to the customer is impossible here, since if the company could make more money by raising prices they would have. The price point that maximizes profit also maximizes profit*0.60. Profit is what goes to the shareholders, in the form of dividends or increased value of the company, and so if you were going to tax individuals you'd have to tax shareholders. Of course, many shareholders aren't individuals, but rather mutual funds and other companies. Taxing the ultimate recipients gets difficult.

      There's nothing evil or deceptive about corporate income tax. It's a tax on corporate income, which obviously means on direct and indirect shareholders.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Economics by swillden · · Score: 1

      IIRC, corporate income taxes are paid on profits.

      Correct. And note that it applies only to C corporations, not S corps, LLCs, etc.

      Passing costs on to the customer is impossible here, since if the company could make more money by raising prices they would have.

      This would be true if all of their competitors weren't subject to the same costs. An individual company can't impose its own costs on customers at will, but when the cost is imposed on the entire industry, competition doesn't prevent it. Foreign competition has an entirely different structure, of course, but countries balance those differences with tariffs.

      I'll grant that most economists believe there is enough variation in corporate structure to prevent costs from being pushed on consumers. I'm not sure that's true in all industries, though, especially the capital-intensive industries where C corps are really the only ones able to play.

      Exactly the same argument explains how the cost can land on employees. Competition for wages, etc., doesn't prevent it because it applies to the entire industry. There's another anti-labor dynamic as well; if corporate taxes do hit owners of capital, reducing their rate of return, they will move the capital to other industries or other countries, reducing investment in the relevant domestic industries, which eventually reduces competition for workers in those industries, lowering wages.

      Profit is what goes to the shareholders, in the form of dividends or increased value of the company, and so if you were going to tax individuals you'd have to tax shareholders. Of course, many shareholders aren't individuals, but rather mutual funds and other companies. Taxing the ultimate recipients gets difficult.

      Mutual funds and other companies just push it back a level. At the end of the chain there are always individual people. There is absolutely no disagreement on this among economists. You won't find anyone who seriously argues that corporations ultimately pay taxes.

      There's nothing evil or deceptive about corporate income tax. It's a tax on corporate income, which obviously means on direct and indirect shareholders.

      Even if it were a tax on shareholders, it would be more transparent and honest to collect it via capital gains taxes. But it's not a tax only on shareholders. It's difficult to tease out where corporate taxes actually land, but the general consensus among economists is that it's primarily split between shareholders and employees; capital and labor. The most common view is that capital bears 80% of the cost and labor 20%, but there are also good models that show that labor bears 70+%.

      The bottom line to me is that there's really no point in trying to figure out who actually pays corporate taxes. Just figure out who you actually want to tax, and tax them. If you want it all to land on owners of capital, tax capital gains. If you want to apportion 80% to capital and 20% to labor, do that. If you want to put it all on consumers, do that, via sales taxes.

      Corporate taxes are evil because they appear to voters to be taxes on no one, free money, but this is patently false.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At the end of they possibly-long chain of buck passing, though, the taxes are always ultimately paid by individuals."

      While this argument is true it misses a trick: in a zero % corporation tax environment a private corporation can hold onto its wealth and never release the vast majority to be taxed. All the while that corporation is a burden on the state: requiring policing, infrastructure and governance. It sits accumulating and growing in size.

      If no wealth tax is imposed, and Trump does not propose one, then the very rich can simply pay out enough to cover their life costs; a tiny proportion of their annual earnings.

      Thus, the function of corporation tax is to prevent the very rich from hoarding wealth within corporations while transferring the costs of their operations to the middle class (income tax + sales taxes + importation taxes) and poor (sales taxes).

  13. Save the sodding planet then! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With this kind of cash, it amazes me why one of these companies doesn't use it to really create a longstanding legacy for itself. Nevermind there current achievements. In 2000 years, Apple are not going to be remembered for the ipod, Google for search. Maybe Microsoft might keep a footnote in history over their revolution of the PC but in a few thousand or 30 thousand years no one will care. After all, how many successful businessmen really created a legacy during the Roman Empire? The people that did were the leaders who made a mark on the world (for good or ill) - Julius Caeser, Augustus, Claudius, Nero ...

    If Google were to take there stash of cash and use it to cure cancer or African poverty. Maybe, turn the Sahara into a rainforest then surely that would be something worth marking down in history. After all, you can't take money with you so why not REALLY use it to do something inspirational?

  14. Misinformation by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

    If the writer of the article honestly thinks that any of these companies are just sitting on piles of cash, they're insane. Not even Warren Buffet is doing so. That cash is IN the economy. It's being invested, it's a bond here or a loan there, but it's never just sitting idle.

    1. Re:Misinformation by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure as a common IT worker, this hurts me more than it helps me.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Misinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure as a common IT worker, this hurts me more than it helps me.

      Talk about PRIVILEGED SPEAK

      It sounds to me like you have a job. Consider that a benefit TO YOU when so many people in this world do not have jobs or any income to speak of.

  15. Hoarding is bad, let's confiscate it by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Saving" is good, "hoarding" is bad. The choice of words implies the author's desire to confiscate all or part of the monies...

    To all those coveting other people's dabloons: they are not yours!.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Hoarding is bad, let's confiscate it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course, the line between "saving" and "hoarding" is in the eye of the beholder.

    2. Re:Hoarding is bad, let's confiscate it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To all you fools who think corporations should be able to pass their risks off to taxpayers and not pay their proper taxes due to loopsholse, FUCK YOU! These entities are sucking the life out of the US economy yet we still have apologists treating corporations as holy leaders of all that is good, and the general public as pirates our to pillage and destroy.

      Morons make the same argument as you. Morons.

  16. So nothing secret about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are not hoarding money, this would imply they are doing something illegal. Yes, we can all be mad because a company makes too much money, or accuse them of not paying enough taxes. But ask yourself, do YOU pay more taxes then you have too? If you had enough brains to avoid paying some taxes you most likely would or should. Its just good business practice to not pay government which we know spends our money poorly and inefficiently. My only question to Apple, Microsoft, and Google is why aren't you helping out in ways that benefit when in fact you have the money to do so? We live in a society that still lives by money and to constantly have a reserve is something to be admired by a company. Unfortunately individuals see little positive about saving money so they see companies are hoarding it when they don't spend it. Frankly its a healthy company to have money in reserve just as it is a individual to have built up a savings. This real bad condition for a company to be in is debt and completely reliant on existence with debt. Now that would be news.

  17. Negative tax consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moody's said the tower of money stashed abroad reflects the "negative tax consequences of permanently repatriating money to the U.S."

    Translation: "We're too rich to have to cough up our share, like the peons who can't afford it but have to pay anyway."

  18. Repeal the 16th amendment by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    Replace it with a fair/flat tax and watch most of that money, come back to the USA, where it can be put to work. I don't understand why, "the poor" don't understand why they oppose it since they will see the biggest benefit. It also takes the power of government (congress, senate) to tax out of their hands.

  19. Countries need to protectionist... by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    If you earn money in a country then you should be required to pay a special tax to remove it from that country. New laws need to be adopted such that shifting money tax free through IP licensing and other such loop holes are closed.

    Simple. That requires a business presence. I do have issue with countries declaring a business presence and imposing their regulations were non exists. For example an advertising agency taking money for ads in the German language does does not give the country of Germany domain over such a company.

    Countries are free to sensor the internet from their citizens and to fine (regulate) client companies in their own country and according to their own laws to the best of their ability. By example US punitive restrictions on trade with certain countries.

    1. Re:Countries need to protectionist... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      New laws need to be adopted such that shifting money tax free through IP licensing and other such loop holes are closed.

      Easier said than done. These "loopholes" are a perfectly natural consequence of enforcing IP "rights" as if they were actual property rights. If IP is a legitimate concept, the majority of the profits derived from the use of that IP should accrue to the IP holder, not the user of the IP. After all, so long as the business cannot legally operate without licensing that IP, the foreign IP holder is providing the majority of the value (despite not doing any of the work).

      The only real way to close the "loophole" is to do away with the concept of IP altogether.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  20. They are out of ideas. by dccase · · Score: 1

    They are out of ideas. They can't think of a single thing to do with the money that's better than sitting on it.

    I guess if they wasted it on product development there would be less left to pay out as dividends once the tax laws change to their liking. Shareholders would scream.

    1. Re:They are out of ideas. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As a shareholder, I generally approve of product development. I don't require the maximum possible dividend now so much as continued growth.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Money Bin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should charge money to allow people to swim around in their money bins.
    Perhaps they could partner with Disney and make them look like Scrouge McDuck's too for the full effect.

    What? No Money bin? But the article said... It's electronic only and invested in the stock market that fuels the economy? Nonsense! The article said it was in cash, so there must be a money bin somewhere.

  22. Maybe dividends by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Corporations sit on this much cash because execs get paid in stock and the dividends have lower taxes. "Qualified dividends" and long-term capital gains benefit from a lower rate. Qualified dividends are those paid by domestic or qualifying foreign companies that have been held for at least 61 days out of the 121-day period beginning 60 days prior to the ex-dividend date.

  23. Modern Money Theory.. by tonywestonuk · · Score: 0

    Money is all digital now. No gold backs it, or anything else. Just figures in a database....Ironically probably running Oracle.

    The numbers can never run out.... We should not care., its just the same as some gamer scoring high points at pacman...

    Well done to those companies.

    INSTEAD, we should be turning our eyes to governments who are NOT creating enough debt to fund this. Public debt, the big scary 20 trillion figure, is where the money came from. We just need to add more to it to free up the economy and get people working again.

    Its that easy.

    1. Re:Modern Money Theory.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Its that easy." Sure it is...

  24. Debt vs. Savings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the country is 20-ish trillion in debt, but the problem is that company's are hoarding money. Perhaps those in government could have a look at those companies and see what they're doing - creating wealth by providing service instead of destroying wealth by...providing service?

  25. 30% of all cash in circulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's 30% of all tangible cash in circulation in the United States.

  26. WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WRONG. They use the money as collateral for a loan at a cheap rate (since there is zero risk), and the payments are made tax deductible. They do NOT spend that money, they use it to loan cash below market and take tax breaks on it.

    1. Re: WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is entirely true. The cash is leveraged several times over as collateral for loans with the assumption that only so many loans would fail simultaneously, leaving a very low risk. Not really fair with what a person can do, but still creates economic movement. At least it isnt just parked in a saving account.

    2. Re:WRONG! by gwills · · Score: 1

      Exactly, wish I had mod points for your AC comment. Pete is drinking the Koolaid. The money sits idle and is leveraged as collateral. This is modern capital management/MBA thinking 101.

    3. Re:WRONG! by psmoot · · Score: 1

      The money sits idle and is leveraged as collateral.

      If it's being used as collateral, it's not idle. It's collateral. It's freeing up other money to be lent.

    4. Re:WRONG! by psmoot · · Score: 1

      WRONG. They use the money as collateral for a loan at a cheap rate (since there is zero risk), and the payments are made tax deductible.

      I'm lost. Which "they" are you talking about? I was talking about on Apple, Google, and Microsoft. I'm not aware any of these are in the business of making and servicing loans, at least, not to any major extent.

      (That's not exactly true, though. The tech giants probably have some of their money in bonds. Those are essentially a loan to someone else: a company, city, state, or country.)

      What banks do with their deposits is another topic and it quite complicated. I have my perception of banks, sorta like out of It's A Wonderful Life. I know banking is a lot more complicated than that now so I don't pretend to understand what exactly they do with deposits.

  27. another view by fche · · Score: 2

    Saving money is not "hoarding". Keeping it from the "taxman" is not only financially proper but morally ethical. Y'all fawning over the possible tax bill are just weaponizing your envy for the fruits of someone else's labour.

    1. Re:another view by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Keeping it from the "taxman" is not only financially proper but morally ethical.

      Yep, it's totally ethical to benefit from all of the structures that the little people pay for out of their taxes but not contribute at all.

      If you don't think taxes are ethical, try moving to the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo. See how enjoyable life without taxation really is.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:another view by fche · · Score: 1

      I know, I know, "muh roads".

      If you construe taxes as payment for services, please identify the specific US services that were used by the foreign operations of these companies that you wish them to pay for.

    3. Re:another view by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      The US Navy and its protection of trade routes globally. The US negotiation of trade treaties that permit the sales of their goods globally. Usage of US Customs and US IP law, without which they would be undercut by clones globally.

    4. Re:another view by fche · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like we all owe for Pax Americana.

  28. do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, if you do the math, that's enough to give every person that's me 464 billion dollars!

  29. Not rotting and not a blackhole! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cash sitting in a bank isn't rotting, its being lent out into the economy to invest. That's literally the business of a bank.

    In the case of Apple, that vast majority of the "cash" is actually short term corporate and government bonds... not bank deposits. Aka investments! Why don't they make tangible investments in new products instead? Because finding an investment for that cash that returns 30%/year is insanely difficult compared to buying back shares of Apple with a 30-40% ROE.

      Keep in mind Apple also has $90B of debt, for which they will (continue) to hold foreign bonds as collateral

    1. Re:Not rotting and not a blackhole! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      In the case of Apple, that vast majority of the "cash" is actually short term corporate and government bonds... not bank deposits. Aka investments!

      Heeeeey, that sounds a lot better.

      So... Apple has a banking gig on the side? Loaning out money. Which is essentially what buying a bond is... sorta.

      Because finding an investment for that cash that returns 30%/year is insanely difficult compared to buying back shares of Apple with a 30-40% ROE.

      So why don't they do that? Unless they're getting 30%/year on.... bonds.

  30. Dollars as the new speculative cyber currency? by Cyberpunk+Reality · · Score: 1

    Seriously. That's insane. Three companies sitting on five percent of M2!

    --
    Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
  31. $464 Billion In Cash & Netflix subscriptions. by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    ...That's enough money to buy Netflix three times.

    Well yes, Netflix subscriptions have become a little on the pricey side these days.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  32. Of course cash is not magical... by Junta · · Score: 1

    Note that while this is bad, generally speaking the economy works around value that pretty much gets sequestered out of circulation. So the result of injecting this money into the economy long term would pretty much be no change and a touch of inflation. Short term some people close to major influx of cash will be very happy and elevated, but it's like a pyramid scheme, barely moving the needle as it moves outward.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  33. Netfilx market cap?! How bout a useful comparison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple's cash is enough to buy ~625GW worth of solar panels at market price. The US has a fossil fuel generating power capacity of 785GW. If any of these companies are listening and are done trying to change the world and instead would like to preserve it, I have an idea...

  34. Give it to us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have Trump sign and executive order requiring them to give every man, woman, and child in the U.S. $1500.

  35. A Rebel's Idea by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    I propose a retro active tax on any company that initializes or in any degree controls a company with offshore earnings. When we repatriate that money it will be taxed again unless proof of investment in new or existing, unrelated companies is quickly made. That will put a dead end to off shoring American companies and money. See ! problem solved with no big fuss at all. The people must become aware that the power belongs to the people and not to government or corporations. Think of me as a rebel with a darned good cause.

    1. Re:A Rebel's Idea by PPH · · Score: 1

      Define 'controls'. Define 'a company with offshore earnings'. Define 'proof of investment in new or existing, unrelated companies'.

      You just created the biggest job security program for tax attorneys and accounting firms.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Not quite by Pollux · · Score: 1

    Living in a foreign country does not exempt any citizen from paying taxes on stocks, business profits, or revenue generated within their home nation. Say you're a Canadian citizen who owns a McDonalds franchise in Canada. If you move to the United States, you still have to pay the Canadian government for the profits from your franchise in Canada. You just don't have to pay them for the franchise you own in the United States. The United States is the only country that taxes its citizens for income earned from living and working in another country.

    Even that being said, I lived and worked as a US citizen abroad for a year. US Citizens still don't have to pay taxes on the first $85,000 they earn abroad, which is a pretty generous amount.

  37. You make simplistic assumptions and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You make simplistic assumptions about prices, marginal costs, and whatever you mean by a market seeking a given rate of return.

    Rates of return are determined by many factors, and the real market (non-free, since that is only useful as a theoretical construct but does not reflect reality) is only one of those.

    You also, as almost everyone does, ignore the critical issue of externalities, especially negative ones. Taxing (or fining) directly those in a position to deal with those negative externalities is critical to pricing and markets that actually reflect the real costs of production, including costs born by society, government, and every single person in the world by way of environmental costs.

    1. Re:You make simplistic assumptions and by swillden · · Score: 1

      You make simplistic assumptions about...

      I note that you offer no alternative analysis.

      You also, as almost everyone does, ignore the critical issue of externalities, especially negative ones.

      I'm not ignoring those issues at all; they're completely separate from questions about taxing corporate income. Unless you see income as a negative externality, I'm at a loss to see how you think taxing it helps. If you want to tax corporations for their carbon emissions, for example, that's an entirely different situation.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  38. How about stingy Google pay a dividend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...instead of wasting it all on some stupid acquisitions that they will later sell off at a loss.

  39. Asset forfeiture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions just broadened the scope of asset forfeiture. Here's how the government gets its hands on the money.
    1. Declare that Apple, Google and Microsoft have committed felonies (we all commit 3/day so it can't be too hard to find something here)
    2. Apple, Google and Microsoft fork over those assets to the US Treasury.
    3. Government now has enough cash to fund itself for 6 more weeks.

    C'mon Progressives, lets get creative here.

  40. Need to drive the inflation rate up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to drive the inflation rate up to at least 5% to make holding on to cash expensive.

  41. Most other countries aren't stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't buy more than 49 percent of a company in China, Thailand and many other places without domestic ownership being at least 51 percent (meaning you can't just have two foreign owners each with 49 percent and a token 1-2 percent of domestic ownership.)

    The US on the other hand allows selling of both its land and its companies 100 percent to foreign investors, meaning that American is 100 percent the Capitalist who will sell the rope you would hang him with. As has been going on for the 20-30 years of heavy outsourcing now.

  42. 6 aircraft carriers by mmdurrant · · Score: 1

    That's only 6 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers.

    --
    I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
  43. Amazon? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Apple, Google owner Alphabet, Microsoft, Cisco, and Oracle hold 88%

    Weird, I would have expected to see Amazon in that list. Where does its money go?

  44. Or... by DMJC · · Score: 1

    All I'm seeing here are arguments as to why the USA/Australia/Britain/Europe/Korea and Japan should push hard to harmonise taxation laws and pass a blanket 35% global tax on all businesses worldwide applied in all countries. This would stop tax avoidance as all nations would be expecting the same tax rate on all companies. Hard to implement sure, but not too hard to sell to the populations of most of these countries. The major powers could even use their military/diplomatic muscle to threaten/coerce it into happening.

  45. Is that a lot of money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that supposed to be a lot of money? The US Government spends that much in about 6 weeks... most of it on welfare.

  46. The Invisible Hand of the Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The invisible hand of the market are equity firms that want to buy large parts of a company, force the company to pay dividends or buy back their shares while cutting investment and jobs and increasing debt, then dumping the artificially inflated stocks. As long as the CEO is able to resist this, the corporation can run in a sustainable way. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before the seed cord is consumed by Wall Street.

    So practically speaking, the officers end up beholden to the shareholders that own the company, and forced to make decisions for the shareholders. It's just that many shareholders of today are not interested in a long term return, they are merely interested in volatility, which allows them to make money by moving money.

  47. Who says they want to spend any of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are globalist corporations, and globalists want to remove cash from the system so that one day they can shut off all electronic currency and let us destroy each other in chaos. Plus they have such a fucking hard-on for H-1Bs that everyone knows they wouldn't spend the money on anything but dumb shit like LinkedIn anyway. Let the money go, and build your own success!

  48. Where the money goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are not these three also big (BIG) contributers to Democrat political campaigns?

  49. Re:Not surprising by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

    I think the problem is they can't think of anything to do with the money.

    There are a few ideas that might work out and make a ton of money and get the race out of the CO2 box. StratoSolar is the small change one, power satellites are the one that could take that much investment. There is a 2016 video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... It's exactly not the current scheme, but close. Takes about nine and a half years before you see any return, but, if it works, the return is in the tens of trillions.

    --
    End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
  50. Shit, you're stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, if those fucking corporations hadn't taken the fruits of its employees' labour and systematically funneled it to the 1%, we wouldn't have the fucking problem in the first place. The corporation NEVER did a fucking day's work.
    Keeping tax from the taxman is morally unethical, because tax forms the very base of our communal existence, it's the groundrock of our democracies.
    Well, what we have left of them after the 1% thieves have fucked them over with corruption.
    Sorry, maybe you're not stupid.
    Just an asshole.

  51. And by NewYork · · Score: 1

    They're running Pyramid schemes in disguise of Business