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."

34 of 256 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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".
    6. 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
    7. 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
    8. 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".
    9. 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".
    10. 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".
    11. 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!
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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".
    16. 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
    17. 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
  2. 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 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?
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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?