Apple sells bonds while sitting on a huge hoard of cash

[Mixolydian]

It's a perfectly coherent analogy. Lots of people breaking/subverting laws and not getting caught. So why bother with them?

Don't blame me when your logic is exposed as shit. I'm tired of this 'b-b-but everyone does it!' bullshit that seems to have so fully saturated this country.

Just because everyone does it, doesn't mean OK. Your post made it sound like Apple started this whole thing and they're the only ones who are dodging taxes.

 

[sdifox]

In your opinion....not most of the rest of the world.

And I don't blame them. We've already agreed it's effed.

I would like our reps to get a clue and let them bring that $$ back home without penalty.

All I am looking for is parity.

 

[Mixolydian]

All I am looking for is parity.

8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

 

[Michael]

sdifox - In general, as a Canadian, you do not owe taxes to Canada if you do not have a Canadian source for your income and are not a Canadian resident. That is different than the USA where even if you no longer are living in the USA, you still may owe taxes.

So if you move to the USA and are no longer a Canadian resident, you do not owe Canadian taxes on your USA income.

Michael

 

[sdifox]

sdifox - In general, as a Canadian, you do not owe taxes to Canada if you do not have a Canadian source for your income and are not a Canadian resident. That is different than the USA where even if you no longer are living in the USA, you still may owe taxes.

So if you move to the USA and are no longer a Canadian resident, you do not owe Canadian taxes on your USA income.

Michael

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/rprtng-ncm/lns101-170/104/frgn-eng.html
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/

You still have to file tax return even if you are not living in Canada. You actually have to declare you are non-resident to get out of it. And that means you can't own property nor bank accounts in Canada. Your whole family has to move out and become non-resident.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tax...8/f-taxseason-filing-taxes-living-abroad.html

 

[phucheneh]

Just because everyone does it, doesn't mean OK. Your post made it sound like Apple started this whole thing and they're the only ones who are dodging taxes.

Well, your post kinda made it sound like you thought just because everyone does it, it means it's okay.

I have no quarrel with you, sir. I'm just angsty today/this month/this decade and I'm not particularly fond of living under the control of corporate profits. Which is to also say, under the control of our own government, which is not 'for-profit,' but happens to be run by a lot of shady people who most certainly are.

I appreciate Fern's input; he is obviously one of the most versed on the topic, and most of us could learn stuff. But I'm not going to agree with him on a more philosophical level.

That's the root of my pissiness- I don't like expressing 'this thing here; this is shitty' and being 'refuted' with comments about how said thing is totally legal. You can go ahead and assume I'm not entirely retarded...I know that Apple and others are not advertising broken laws. But it still doesn't make them less-than-despicable.

When there's lots of :sneaky: and 😎 I feel like I have a right to be D: without having to listen to other people :whiste: and pretend said :sneaky: is ()🙂

 

[Mixolydian]

Well, your post kinda made it sound like you thought just because everyone does it, it means it's okay.

I have no quarrel with you, sir. I'm just angsty today/this month/this decade and I'm not particularly fond of living under the control of corporate profits. Which is to also say, under the control of our own government, which is not 'for-profit,' but happens to be run by a lot of shady people who most certainly are.

I appreciate Fern's input; he is obviously one of the most versed on the topic, and most of us could learn stuff. But I'm not going to agree with him on a more philosophical level.

That's the root of my pissiness- I don't like expressing 'this thing here; this is shitty' and being 'refuted' with comments about how said thing is totally legal. You can go ahead and assume I'm not entirely retarded...I know that Apple and others are not advertising broken laws. But it still doesn't make them less-than-despicable.

When there's lots of :sneaky: and 😎 I feel like I have a right to be D: without having to listen to other people :whiste: and pretend said :sneaky: is ()🙂

i agree with ya 100% bro. 's all good.

 

[Michael]

phucheneh - If you do not agree with the way the USA tax code works, then educate yourself and go talk to your local government representatives to change them.

Apple pays all the taxes it owes in the countries where it owes the taxes. It does not owe taxes in the USA until it brings the money into the USA. Then it is USA income and they will pay taxes on it.

It really is that simple. The USA Apple did not make the money yet, so there are no taxes owed.

I am not saying that there are not a ton of ways to keep income out of the USA (royalties on patents held out of the USA is a common one, double Dutch structures, Ireland, BVI, Cayman Islands, etc.) that maybe is USA income. In all cases, though, the law is being followed as it is written and intended and has been tested in court. Again, that is for the government to change if they wish to.

Michael

 

[SparkyJJO]

Some of you people act like corporate profits are horrible things.

Let me let you in on a little secret.... no corporate profits = no corporation. No corporation = no more jobs. etc etc etc

People these days are obsessed about spitting out the word "profit" like it is a horrible dirty word that is worse than the f bomb. News flash people, most companies aren't out there for charity.

 

[Attic]

We care because the $100+ billion isn't helping Apple. In fact now it is causing Apple to do unproductive moves. Buying stock at a high price is not good for Apple. Paying interest (even if low rates) isn't good for Apple (Apple should have bought Apple stock at $200/share not at $430/share if they weren't sitting on cash). Being essentally forced into paying this dividend isn't what Apple wanted. The money isn't going to hiring or new products or good investments. It is instead sitting hoping to get a sympathetic Congess and thus a tax holiday. Plus the continued concentration of wealth isn't good for society. It eventually leads to civil wars or other forms of rapid cash loss to the company. Always has in history, always will.

Global tax agreements solve the sovereignty problem. If it is sitting in a tax shelter in Ghana, then Ghana gets the tax. I said it wouldn't be easy.

Apple's money is better invested here in people for new inventions, factories for more production, buying synergistic IP or companies, etc. Sitting around liquid enough to take advantage of a tax holiday is not the ideal investment. You are correct that it is an investment. It is however a poor investment for Apple and the world, compared to what it could be doing. Heck, even if it just goes to shareholders in the firm of dividends, the shareholders can put that money in banks for that form of liquid investment. Or they can invest in startups that can really help themselves, the economy, and society.

It's critically important for Apple that they get to make the decision on what to do with money they've earned. Intentions aside, removing that freedom and placing the choice in your or another's hands through "clever" policy would more than likely lead to very bad results. People should be free to disagree with apple, but not to a point where those same folks who disagree then feel justified to run the company.

I too would like to see Apples cash brought home. If this was in the best interest of Apple it would have already been done. A tax holiday under bush in 2004 witch let overseas profits one back at 5% is likely what muddled up some of this. Apple would be foolish to bring it back at 35% now.

 

[Jeff7]

with all the backpatting going on, i couldn't help but think of this quote by Jon Stewart:

Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break you're a smart businessman, but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a moocher?

It's wrong. Using a service to keep yourself from starving isn't mooching. Living on the system with no intention of ever getting off is.

Hopefully we'll see Apple get back on their feet again, once they're out of this very rough financial mess they're in.

the problem is the tax code, not the corporations

there should be no tax breaks to take advantage of, personal or corporate

Any system will have workarounds.

"We didn't make any money this year. We instead generated great numbers of myrtlambruts, which don't qualify as taxable under the current tax code. We have a small army of mercenary lawyers who will defend that in court."

 

[dullard]

Why would Ghana want to give up their portion of the taxes to the US? Sounds like global tax agreements only help the US, and screw over countries that are "tax dodging" countries. Countries where the money is stored will never agree.

You say you're upset about that money not be brought back to the US to be invested, but at the same time you want to be sure that they only get to bring back a portion as capital and that the idiots in Washington get a massive cut, which is exactly why they don't bring it here in the first place. You've argued yourself into a stalemate.

On not to take this off topic, but I'd just like to point out that if I recall, you're the guy who believes that anyone making $100K/yr could have access to the President of the US based on their income. I daresay your understanding of finance is a little weak.

Where did I say Ghana would give anything to the US? You seriously need better reading comprehension. Ghana taxes 1%, Ghana keeps that 1%. End of story.

As for your middle paragraph, I don't know what to say. You just put a bunch of words in my mouth that certainly aren't in this thread. I never said I was upset. I never said that I want them to only bring a portion home. I have no clue what you mean about people in Washington getting cuts (are you referring to them getting credit for reducing corporate tax rates?)

As for your off-topic statement, reading comprehension failure on your part again. I said that it would take a minimum of $100k a year to be possible to save up enough to have a chance to have political contacts. I didn't state that you have "access" based on income. Someone at $100k could save enough up for a big contribution if s/he saved for enough time. That could be enough to get politicians attention. A person in the $100k+ income range would more likely be getting attention from local politicians, but that could potentially be a president (you'll just get a lot less bang for your buck if you reach that high). It isn't guaranteed. A typical fundraiser with the president is $30k per plate. Someone at $100k+ income could potentially afford that yearly (or more frequently the further the income is above $100k). That doesn't guarantee that you'll have access. But it does guarantee that you spend at least several hours in the same room with the president a year (and doing it repeatedly would certainly get attention of his fundraisers). Under $100k income it just isn't really feasible to afford those $30k events. Most people at $100k+ won't choose to go that route. But they could. Long-winded answer summary: I said those under $100k had no chance, I never said those above $100k get access based on income.

 

[phucheneh]

Some of you people act like corporate profits are horrible things.

Let me let you in on a little secret.... no corporate profits = no corporation. No corporation = no more jobs. etc etc etc

People these days are obsessed about spitting out the word "profit" like it is a horrible dirty word that is worse than the f bomb. News flash people, most companies aren't out there for charity.

I don't think 'profit' is a dirty word. I just use it a lot because it's simple and well-understood (...generally). Any negative association is put there by the reader.

But the reason said reader might think of it as a 'dirty word' is because in instances like these, we're generally talking about gluttonous excess.

We're not talking about small businesses. This is not an ingenious inventor. Or a skilled tradesman. Or a talented artisan. Ect. In general, the upper crust of a huge corporation is not full of any type of person I'm interested in fiscally supporting. Nor do I want to support the wanton waste of their huge-beyond-control company.

In a way, it's kind of like every big business we're used to dealing with is part of an interconnected oliogopoly, spanning every major industry. You have your 'options.' Walmart or Kmart? Exxon or Shell? Bluecross or United?

...whatever it is, the 'choice' part might as well be total illusion. And if there's only one option? Or, say an entire industry was up for grabs? Well, the guy grabbing it probably already owns another one. We cannot escape the profiteers (that's the 'dirty word' you might be thinking of).

And these businesses that I'm forced to deal with, either directly or via their influence on a competitor? Yeah, they're not so great. Yet they possess all the cash.

Basically, the reason I think many companies should be raked over the coals for tax money? 'Cause fuck them. Er, I mean, because...nevermind, I'll just go with 'fuck them.'

Employees are making less. It's costing more to live.

So why are corporations trying so hard to avoid putting money into the 'company store,' a.k.a. our government? I mean, obviously we know why. But how can you excuse it? Who's going to pay to fix our crumbling infrastructure so some dude can go to work at Walmart? Or what if he needs to go shopping...at Walmart? Is Walmart gonna build some roads and bridges? School his children? Maybe create the Walmart Army and Air Force?

Oh well, at least he has his health. Oh wait, I think he had to cancel that because his Walmart paycheck was barely enough to buy the bare necessities (at Walmart) so he had to quit letting Walmart take money for healthcare. :hmm:

/piece of shit socialist

 

[dullard]

It's critically important for Apple that they get to make the decision on what to do with money they've earned. Intentions aside, removing that freedom and placing the choice in your or another's hands through "clever" policy would more than likely lead to very bad results. People should be free to disagree with apple, but not to a point where those same folks who disagree then feel justified to run the company.

I too would like to see Apples cash brought home. If this was in the best interest of Apple it would have already been done. A tax holiday under bush in 2004 witch let overseas profits one back at 5% is likely what muddled up some of this. Apple would be foolish to bring it back at 35% now.

David Einhorn is doing his best to make sure Apple isn't getting to make the decisions (http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml). Sure he dropped his lawsuit, but only after he got Apple to change paths. The more these types of massive cash piles build, the less likely they are to be able to freely make decisions before lawsuits and other interventions occur.

I'm simply stating that a point the massive pile starts causing problems. I think I can safely state that Apple has crossed that line (see Einhorn issue for one example). I offered a reasonable approach that would eliminate the incentive cross that line. The tax would never come into play in the ideal world if the incentive was great enough for the behavior to change.

 

[Michael]

sdifox - as a non-resident Canadian who is a CPA, CA and who also has an American Green Card, I am very familiar with the rules.

The USA rules tax much more agressively than Canada does. Non-residents pay tax pretty much as if they were reisdents (with credit for taxes paid abroad if acceptable under the US tax code and treaties).

Michael

 

[sdifox]

sdifox - as a non-resident Canadian who is a CPA, CA and who also has an American Green Card, I am very familiar with the rules.

The USA rules tax much more agressively than Canada does. Non-residents pay tax pretty much as if they were reisdents (with credit for taxes paid abroad if acceptable under the US tax code and treaties).

Michael

Oh I do know US is more agressive on, well, everything 😎

And that is part of my point. What is good for the geese is good for the gander.

 

[NetWareHead]

Nope. You don't haveto bring themoney back to Canada. Global income means exactly that, as long as you are Canadian or Americn citizen. You owe tax. Hell, IRS is going after decendants of American citizens that have never been to America.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-...icans-in-canada/article586970/?service=mobile

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxseason/story/2012/02/27/f-tax-season-irs-fatca.html

If I were the woman in that linked story, I'd renounce my American citizenship.

 

[JTsyo]

That right there tells you that out tax system/IRS is effed up, including taxing corps that repatriate $$.

When I first saw this I thought it was unfair too to have to pay taxes twice. But in a article I read today, that points out how Apple is getting around the tax codes, they mention they only have to pay the difference between US rates and foreign rates.

 

[highland145]

When I first saw this I thought it was unfair too to have to pay taxes twice. But in a article I read today, that points out how Apple is getting around the tax codes, they mention they only have to pay the difference between US rates and foreign rates.

After I posted that, somewhere in the back of my brain, I remebered that the corps got a credit for the $$ they paid in the foreign country but that could be wrong too. We are talking about my brain and memory.🙁

Maybe congress could simplify the tax code........Nah, too much special interest $$ floating around.

 

[Jeff7]

After I posted that, somewhere in the back of my brain, I remebered that the corps got a credit for the $$ they paid in the foreign country but that could be wrong too. We are talking about my brain and memory.🙁

Maybe congress could simplify the tax code........Nah, too much special interest $$ floating around.

The are dutifully serving their meal tickets.
Voters and taxpayers are those annoying creatures which tend to chitter at Congress about various things, unimportant by comparison.



Our tax code, and most of the legal system, is like having DOS 5.0 written with 75,000,000 lines of code, half of which is the Help file (it's not very helpful either).

 

[Yreka]

When I first saw this I thought it was unfair too to have to pay taxes twice. But in a article I read today, that points out how Apple is getting around the tax codes, they mention they only have to pay the difference between US rates and foreign rates.

*not necessarily directed at you JT*

From the article,

while complying with U.S. laws, is nevertheless taking advantage of loopholes in the tax code.

Makes it very clear where the problem lies.. If the US laws allow compliance, and it is in fact a problem, then the US laws need to be changed.

Railing against the corporation for doing exactly what they should be doing is like masturbating without the big finish. What's the end game here, we expect Apple to write a bigger check because some random people say "no-fair!" ? Would you not claim your mortgage interest deduction, or child tax credit because some people say that's an unfair "loophole"?

This is the flip side of the same idiocy coin that says since Warren Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes means he should just write a bigger check to the government.

 

[Ns1]

Railing against the corporation for doing exactly what they should be doing is like masturbating without the big finish. What's the end game here, we expect Apple to write a bigger check because some random people say "no-fair!" ? Would you not claim your mortgage interest deduction, or child tax credit because some people say that's an unfair "loophole"?

this.

 

[Sonikku]

If anything the corporations are being taxed to death. If we actually cut taxes maybe some of the difference might trickle down onto everyone else perhaps at some point in the future and finally America could start heading back to prosperity.

 

[zephyrprime]

If anything the corporations are being taxed to death. If we actually cut taxes maybe some of the difference might trickle down onto everyone else perhaps at some point in the future and finally America could start heading back to prosperity.

Pfft. Corporate tax rates are at a 40 year low:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/03/418171/corporate-taxes-40-year-low/

During America's economic heyday in the 50's and 60's, corporations were paying higher taxes than now.

 

[highland145]

Pfft. Corporate tax rates are at a 40 year low:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/03/418171/corporate-taxes-40-year-low/

During America's economic heyday in the 50's and 60's, corporations were paying higher taxes than now.

"Made In America."