The parent was saying that while Android is the most popular OS, many buy it on inexpensive phones with inexpensive plans which they don't intend to use for browsing the internet. If the only Android phones on the market were like the GS3 or 1X+, you'd probably see them used for internet access just as much as iPhones. Apple only makes high end phones, so you don't see people buying them just to make phone calls like you do with Android.
However, it's basic economics that the person who can afford the tax is the one who ends up paying it. Remember that the sales tax happens during a transaction between a buyer and a seller. In order to make the sale, the seller will have to reduce the price and the buyer will have to pay more. If the poor person can't afford to pay the tax, the seller will have to lower the price in order to make the sale (to the extent such a thing is possible). On the other hand, if the seller can't afford the tax, but the buyer can, the price will remain the same and the buyer will pay more in order the make the transaction take place. The real concern is the sales which won't occur due to the tax, where neither the buyer or the seller nor the two combined can afford the tax.
In both cases, I've already paid the individual income tax.
Suppose you are self employed as a seamstress. You do all work by hand, and eventually you save up enough money to buy a sewing machine, paying your taxes the whole way. The sewing machine doubles your income. Are you now going to tell me that you should not be liable for taxes on this additional income? After all, you already paid the income tax while you were saving to buy the sewing machine. This is actually the argument you are making. You believe that if you had to save money in order to invest it and earn extra income, you've already paid the taxes. This is a convoluted redefinition of the term "income" which you are using to confuse the issue. Money earned from any source should be considered income (obviously) and we even have a constitutional amendment defining the term this way (in the US).
Assuming all of a company's profits are returned in the form of dividends, and a capital gains rate of 14%, for ever dollar in gross profit, $.20 goes directly to the Fed (disregarding state/local taxes). Of the remaining $.80, you pay 14%, amounting to another $.112. So, effectively, I've paid $.312 in tax for ever $1 in profit.
I'm not sure if you read my comment, but this is exactly what I was complaining about. Many wealthy people invest in offshore companies (or companies that offshore a significant portion of their profits) in order to avoid paying the corporate tax. As a result, they will pay only the capital gains tax. And even then, there are schemes they can use to get a lower overall rate than the 15%! Essentially you have a system that nominally charges the wealthy a higer rate but in reality charges them a much lower one. There is no reason for this. Simply eliminate the corporate tax, and tax capital gains as regular income.
So, why should the capital gains rate go any higher? You'll eliminate an incentive to invest.
You won't eliminate it. If you're smart about it, you will actually encourage more investment. As it is now, the system only encourages investment outside the US.
Buying up complimentary companies doesn't reduce competition the way buying a competitor does, but it does reduce a company's agility and efficiency as the various internal groups vie politically for power.
What you see in reality is that there is a certain optimal size for a company after which it will start to decline and become unprofitable. A shrewd investor would look at a company like HP and realize that they're not going to be fiscally healthy unless they stop trying to grow and settle into their market (printers?). He'll either pull his money out, or demand they start posting a dividend.
Yet another tax policy that makes no sense at all. There is no reason capital gains and dividends shouldn't be taxed as regular income, they justify it today by saying "corporations pay taxes so taxing these things as income is double taxation." It's all just a stupid shell game. They make up a bunch of bizarre, self-reinforcing justifications for a convoluted tax scheme, then move their money through all they loopholes they've built so that is perfectly legal. It's nonsense.
I know this is crazy, but maybe the problem is the taxes. It doesn't make any sense at all tax corporate profits when you could just as easily tax the income shareholders make from the profits, or capital gains in the event a corporation doesn't post dividends.
That was imaginary money. It was just numbers moving around in computers. If you're talking about building infrastructure, you're talking about expending man-hours and equipment, that's real money.
According to the mission requirements, the Falcon Heavy must carry its payload up to an orbit of 720 km and deploy a COSMIC-2 weather- and atmospheric-monitoring satellite
In the US, it's up to the plaintiff to prove the defendant's guilt, the defendant has merely to cast doubt on the plantiff's case, so yes this is a legal argument, and no, you don't know anything about this. In the US, you are not, nominally, required to prove your innocence in any circumstances. Sensible people can see that an innocent person will not always be able to prove their innocence, so the only way to avoid punishing the innocent is to require proof guilt.
That being the case, in the US it is necessary to prove a persons statement false in order for it to be considered slander or libel.
The article is about the importance of retaining your original scientific data, rather than saying "we've analyzed it and now we're done with it forever."
No, it's not. You have to pay the taxes where the money was made, not where the products were made. So if they build them here, and sell them overseas, they'll still have to pay the US tax to repatriate the money the same way they do now.
The tax rate on repatriating money made outside of the US also makes manufacturing in the US more advantageous.
No it doesn't. You only have to pay the difference in tax rates when repatriating money. Apple has to pay the US corporate tax rate on profits made in the US, but not on profits made in other countries, unless they want to bring the money back here and spend it here. Producing the products here will have basically no effect on the tax rates they pay.
The article specifically says that these won't be "assembly only" factories, but will do other manufacturing as well. It's a short article, you should read it before commenting.
Also, a lot of companies are offering special dividends right now. When investors learned that AAPL wouldn't be, a lot of people took their money out of AAPL to capitalize on the trend. They'll likely buy it back up at the end of the year.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent was saying that while Android is the most popular OS, many buy it on inexpensive phones with inexpensive plans which they don't intend to use for browsing the internet. If the only Android phones on the market were like the GS3 or 1X+, you'd probably see them used for internet access just as much as iPhones. Apple only makes high end phones, so you don't see people buying them just to make phone calls like you do with Android.
However, it's basic economics that the person who can afford the tax is the one who ends up paying it. Remember that the sales tax happens during a transaction between a buyer and a seller. In order to make the sale, the seller will have to reduce the price and the buyer will have to pay more. If the poor person can't afford to pay the tax, the seller will have to lower the price in order to make the sale (to the extent such a thing is possible). On the other hand, if the seller can't afford the tax, but the buyer can, the price will remain the same and the buyer will pay more in order the make the transaction take place. The real concern is the sales which won't occur due to the tax, where neither the buyer or the seller nor the two combined can afford the tax.
Suppose you are self employed as a seamstress. You do all work by hand, and eventually you save up enough money to buy a sewing machine, paying your taxes the whole way. The sewing machine doubles your income. Are you now going to tell me that you should not be liable for taxes on this additional income? After all, you already paid the income tax while you were saving to buy the sewing machine. This is actually the argument you are making. You believe that if you had to save money in order to invest it and earn extra income, you've already paid the taxes. This is a convoluted redefinition of the term "income" which you are using to confuse the issue. Money earned from any source should be considered income (obviously) and we even have a constitutional amendment defining the term this way (in the US).
And usually, you do.
I'm not sure if you read my comment, but this is exactly what I was complaining about. Many wealthy people invest in offshore companies (or companies that offshore a significant portion of their profits) in order to avoid paying the corporate tax. As a result, they will pay only the capital gains tax. And even then, there are schemes they can use to get a lower overall rate than the 15%! Essentially you have a system that nominally charges the wealthy a higer rate but in reality charges them a much lower one. There is no reason for this. Simply eliminate the corporate tax, and tax capital gains as regular income.
You won't eliminate it. If you're smart about it, you will actually encourage more investment. As it is now, the system only encourages investment outside the US.
Buying up complimentary companies doesn't reduce competition the way buying a competitor does, but it does reduce a company's agility and efficiency as the various internal groups vie politically for power.
What you see in reality is that there is a certain optimal size for a company after which it will start to decline and become unprofitable. A shrewd investor would look at a company like HP and realize that they're not going to be fiscally healthy unless they stop trying to grow and settle into their market (printers?). He'll either pull his money out, or demand they start posting a dividend.
Yet another tax policy that makes no sense at all. There is no reason capital gains and dividends shouldn't be taxed as regular income, they justify it today by saying "corporations pay taxes so taxing these things as income is double taxation." It's all just a stupid shell game. They make up a bunch of bizarre, self-reinforcing justifications for a convoluted tax scheme, then move their money through all they loopholes they've built so that is perfectly legal. It's nonsense.
I know this is crazy, but maybe the problem is the taxes. It doesn't make any sense at all tax corporate profits when you could just as easily tax the income shareholders make from the profits, or capital gains in the event a corporation doesn't post dividends.
That was imaginary money. It was just numbers moving around in computers. If you're talking about building infrastructure, you're talking about expending man-hours and equipment, that's real money.
I paid that much for FIOS, and I was very happy with it.
Do you think a slashdotter could use all their bandwith browsing Slashdot? You'd have to post a lot of comments!
If Apple promised to use it to build a nationwide fiber network, I'm sure congress would pass a bill to allow them to repatriate it tax-free.
$140,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 people = $467/person. But if you go by households you're going to have to pay at least $1,000 each.
I'm sure this is the satellite's true function.
In the US, it's up to the plaintiff to prove the defendant's guilt, the defendant has merely to cast doubt on the plantiff's case, so yes this is a legal argument, and no, you don't know anything about this. In the US, you are not, nominally, required to prove your innocence in any circumstances. Sensible people can see that an innocent person will not always be able to prove their innocence, so the only way to avoid punishing the innocent is to require proof guilt.
That being the case, in the US it is necessary to prove a persons statement false in order for it to be considered slander or libel.
The article is about the importance of retaining your original scientific data, rather than saying "we've analyzed it and now we're done with it forever."
. . . if you hate free speech.
She doesn't have to! She's not the one attempting to use the force of law to get her way. You've got it totally backwards.
Actually, the person accusing slander has to prove the claims made are false. At least, this is how it is supposed to be in the US.
Can someone explain why saying something like this can get you in trouble with the SEC?
No, it's not. You have to pay the taxes where the money was made, not where the products were made. So if they build them here, and sell them overseas, they'll still have to pay the US tax to repatriate the money the same way they do now.
The US is one of the world's top producers of Aluminum. You don't know what you're talking about.
No it doesn't. You only have to pay the difference in tax rates when repatriating money. Apple has to pay the US corporate tax rate on profits made in the US, but not on profits made in other countries, unless they want to bring the money back here and spend it here. Producing the products here will have basically no effect on the tax rates they pay.
Foxconn isn't a Chinese company.
The article specifically says that these won't be "assembly only" factories, but will do other manufacturing as well. It's a short article, you should read it before commenting.
Also, a lot of companies are offering special dividends right now. When investors learned that AAPL wouldn't be, a lot of people took their money out of AAPL to capitalize on the trend. They'll likely buy it back up at the end of the year.
It depends how well samsung can move into the high end market, but they certainly have their sights set on it.