NY Times Apple Tax Article Flawed 193
bonch writes "Forbes contributer Tim Worstall points out that the NY Times article claiming Apple pays less than 10 percent of its profit in taxes was based on a flawed assumption of the corporate tax system. The 9.8% figure came from Greenlining Institute, who compared Apple's 2011 profits to taxes calculated according to 2010 profits. In the corporate tax system, estimated quarterly tax payments are made based on the previous year's profits until actual profits are calculated at the end of the trading year, when the balance is then paid to the IRS."
Oh (Score:3, Funny)
Whoops. Well, I'm sure Slashdot's comments to the previous article were totally reasonable.
Apple tax (Score:2)
Tax on Profit vs Revenue (Score:2)
Re:Tax on Profit vs Revenue (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not unfair at all. Anyone can incorporate. Funnel your income through the corporate entity and enjoy what the Apple stockholders do - double taxation. Of course, like Apple, you can write off business expenses prior to being taxed the first time. You can also form a pass-through and only get taxed once, which is what I do as a contractor. But at no point can you deduct personal expenses... so just like Apple, you can deduct business expense rent but not your apartment. You can deduct education that is required to keep your job but not education that benefits only you. You can deduct business lunches but not food that you would have consumed anyway. You can deduct electricity used for your business, but not for your home.
Mind you, I think it is all BS and they shouldn't tax companies at all. Tax the money as it comes out - no special rates for dividends or capital gains. Not only would it make the US an attractive place to locate a corporation, it would encourage richie-riches to keep their money in their business. It might even improve politics, since it would be harder to hide corporate welfare in the tax code. Not that I have my hopes up there, since corporations have absolute free speech right now - but now we're on another topic.
Re:Tax on Profit vs Revenue (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, you! With your silly facts and rational economic concepts. This is Slashdot. You must drink from the Derp-Aide, and call for ALL the taxes to be 100%!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I should add one part that I have run into that is VERY unfair. Retirement plans. As a contractor, I can pack away about $17,000 plus 25% of my net income. If I were an employee I couldn't get anywhere near that unless my employer was extremely generous. As a practical matter, most people can only do the $17,000 if they are in a 401(k) program plus whatever employer matching they get. If they qualify for an IRA, they can pack away an "amazing" (sarcasm alert) $5000.
There really should be just a blanket
Re: (Score:2)
Call up Fidelity and ask them about naked annuities.
401ks are not the only way.
Re: (Score:2)
By "naked", do you mean a regular tax-deferred annuity that is not wrapped in a trust?
In general I'm not a big fan of annuities, and in any event they do not have the same up-front tax benefit as a 401(k) or IRA. You can't write off payments to the insurance company (unless I've missed something, I'm by no means an expert on annuities, but I did look into them). Once money is in them, they are similar to an IRA or 401(k) in that you get taxed based on the money you suck back out at regular income tax rates.
Re: (Score:2)
I read my own comments and it sounds like I insured my kids :)
My wife and I are insured and our kids are the beneficiaries...
Re: (Score:2)
Get a good accountant. You'd be surprised with what you can do.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a fine line between aggressive accounting and tax evasion. Make sure you stay on the good side.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't I pay off expenses before taxes are levied? I want to pay my rent, student loans, food, electricity, etc with pre-tax money. Regardless of what Apple pays, it still feels unfair (even if there are good reasons for it being the way it is, it FEELS unfair).
Because you can't buy enough of congress to get that put in place.
Re: (Score:2)
On one side, I don't think corporations are people so they shouldn't be taxed. On the other side the Supreme Court thinks they are people so yes they should be taxed. At some point those profits have to be paid out to an individual who will then pay taxes on it...again.
Re: (Score:2)
That would mean that [insert super rich person] could write off their million dollar homes, their giant yacht (that's a home after all), the giant bill for such, their $250/plate dinners, etc. All pre-tax!
OK, that's fine. Its a start.
Now we can set tax policy based on the assumption that everyone (even those people/corporations) get the same write-offs. Now we write rules and set rates that are applied the same across the board.
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia NY Times is a reputible source and thus is "the truth". Sorry Apple, no original research here.
Forbes Article is Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a tax accountant here, but didn't Forbes come up with the same 24.2% [forbes.com] you just came up with for Apple's 2011 effective tax rate?
I'll be honest, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying or what the article says, but is it just a case of a bad summary of the Forbes article, rather than Forbes itself being incorrect, or are their other numbers correct, even though they matched you on that one?
Re:Forbes Article is Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, do you realize that the post you replied to, from an actual tax accountant, is saying that Forbes's conclusion is correct (much higher tax rate than 9.8%: 24.2%) but that their reasoning about why the NYT made such an error is somewhat incorrect?
It seems the NYT didn't do their proper due diligence before publishing an inflammatory anti-Apple article.
Also, the "one thing" the Foxconn documentary "got wrong" was actually several utter fabrications. If a "documentary maker" lies and fabricates evidence, he SHOULD have his reputation dragged through the mud, and his documentaries ARE worthless. Daisey himself has said that the production "is theatre." http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/this-american-life-cites-fabrications-in-documentary-on-apple-suppliers/2012/03/16/gIQAsJ6sGS_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Daisey said his production "is theatre"... Maybe because it is quite literally is a show he's doing in a theatre?
Re: (Score:2)
He claimed to visit more factories than he did, and claimed he spoke with more workers than he did. So his sample size was inflated. He claimed to meet with workers who were poisoned. He probably didn't since the incident happened a long way from where he said it did. He completely fabricated a scene where he interviewed a worker. He lied to his producer about the name of his interpreter.
The author himself admits that his piece is fiction. He says "it uses a combination of fact, memoir, and dramatic l
That does it! (Score:2)
I'm sticking to pears.
Apple Tax? oh (Score:2)
At first I assume this was about people having to pay for OSX when they buy a powerbook that they are just going to run Win7 on.
Enron Accounting (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Apple's 2011 fiscal year end is September 2012. And I am sure they file extensions. So, no, we would not have the data yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Without such tactics, Apple’s federal tax bill in the United States most likely would have been $2.4 billion higher last year, according to a recent study by a former Treasury Department economist, Martin A. Sullivan. As it stands, the company paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8 percent. (Apple does not disclose what portion of those payments was in the United States, or what portion is assigned to previous or future years.) NYT [nytimes.com]
The third method, which this report uses, is what a company reports on its 10-K as “cash taxes paid.” This is how much a company actually paid in taxes in a given year. But that figure includes the company’s taxes paid everywhere, including taxes paid to states, the U.S. federal government, and to other countries. Some of that money could be paid for back taxes and some could eventually be refunded. While imperfect, this is the best estimate of how much a company actually pays in taxes in a given year. Until the government or the Financial Accounting Standards Board requires companies to report more, this is the best figure available. Greenlining [greenlining.org]
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple reports a worldwide effective tax rate of 24.2 percent. A lower effective tax rate increases a company’s reported book profits. Apple would have a lower reported effective tax rate and higher profits if it recorded its tax expense the way most other companies do. Under generally accepted accounting principles, U.S. companies do not have to book tax expense on foreign profits if the company deems them to be permanently invested overseas. To lower their reported effective tax rates and boost their reported after-tax profits, most companies assume all of their unrepatriated foreign profits are permanently reinvested offshore. If Apple asserted that all of its foreign earnings were permanently invested outside the United States, it would have booked an estimated $3.6 billion less in tax expense, and its effective tax rate would be 12.8 percent. (See the table.) When assessing Apple’s tax situation relative to that of most other companies, this adjusted rate is probably more relevant than the reported 24.2 percent rate.
Why doesn’t Apple maximize reported profit like most other companies? We can only speculate. Perhaps because it is breaking all records for profitability now, it is saving some profits for less fortunate times in the future. As the Joint Committee on Taxation recently wrote: ‘‘If the company accrues the tax expense in the year the profits are earned, it may later decide that those funds will not be repatriated after all. At that later time it may then reverse the tax expense and shift financial statement income from the prior period into the current period.’’ (See ‘‘Present Law and Background Relating to the Interaction of Federal Income Tax Rules and Financial Accounting Rules,’’ JCX-13-12, Feb. 7, 2012, Doc 2012-2443 or 2012 TNT 26-15.)
An alternative explanation is that perhaps Apple — with its young, socioeconomically elite customer base — does not want the negative publicity that a low effective tax rate could generate with groups like Citizens for Tax Justice and US Uncut.
Re: (Score:3)
You played your anti-business hand a little too soon here. The iPad operates in a very free market. Profit will be whatever the market will bear, whatever the people are willing to pay. The ultimate democracy. What is obscene is how much is consiscated from those who do create jobs and wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Found it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
which doesn't really answer the question of what they paid in 2012.....
You're not going to get that number for a few more months, mate
Re:Found it (Score:5, Informative)
You don't understand what Effective Tax Rate is. It is the tax rate they paid on income, after taking into account the tiered nature of taxes you described (which is how it works for individuals - I'm not sure about corporations but I'll take you're word for it). Their highest marginal rate therefore would have been higher than the 24% (and their lowest would have been lower).
Re: (Score:3)
I am not sure that I am following you.
The above numbers are Apple “Effective” (I would use actually) tax rates. Apple had 33.8b operating income and paid 8.3b in taxes, or 24%. So we know that.
I think you are trying to say is that we don’t know Apple’s marginal tax rate. Which is true, but I am not sure what you are trying to drive at. Tiered taxes means the more you make the higher your marginal tax should be. (I am making a generalization here. Apple works in a lot of different ta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Almost none of our taxes go to that as it is. The rate is something like 0.7%, and generally that money is targeted at the kids who are relatively innocent victims of those mothers, in the hope that they might turn things around in the next generation.
Re: (Score:3)
Almost none of our taxes go to that as it is.
Not to be too picky, but yeah, it does.
This is just a quickie list of what the impoverished get by dint of being impoverished:
--
Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP (which eats 21% of the total budget)
Non-Medicare "Safety Net" programs (which eat an additional 13% of the total budget)
--
That's over 34% of the total US tax revenue going towards the poor. By contrast, the defense budget is around 20% of the pie in spite of two simultaneous wars in progress.
Source [cbpp.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Most of that was Medicare, which goes to retired/disabled people. Good luck slave driving them.
Re: (Score:2)
That almost all goes to the elderly.
Re: (Score:2)
The US runs a defecit, 34% of the budget is not 34% of the total US tax revenue. It is 54% of the tax revenue.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd agree to that after we get the unproductive members of society off of the government teat. Get those welfare bitches in the ghettos and trailer parks to work or let their dead beat asses starve. Then we can talk about fair taxation.
If we want to talk about who's leeching off the federal government, let's start by looking at it on a state-by-state level. The states that are most heavily subsidized by the government- the states that receive more federal dollars than they pay in income taxes- are almost entirely Republican-leaning states. So we have Democratic-leaning states like California, New York, and Massachussetts subsidizing Republican-leaning states like Alabama, Alaska, and West Virginia.
In effect, the Republicans seem to have been able to engineer things so that there's a redistribution of wealth from high-earning Democratic states to low-earning Republican states. Sounds a lot like socialism to me. It seems like the Republicans are, when you get down to it, perfectly fine with receiving government handouts, they just don't like to see other people get any help.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
For why socialism is bad in general, see every socialist and communist country ever.
You are, as most Fox-watchers, confusing socialism/communism with fascism. Also, note that one reason those regimes fail is the heavy-handed way the US and other countries deal with them. For example, we've been fucking Cuba up the ass for decades.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah but does that take into cash moved to holding to wherever? which should be the main point anyhow?
it wouldn't be a story at all to report sec filings..
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Apple earned 33.8b and paid 8.3b in taxes. Not neccessarly to the US goverment however.
And I wish people would stop talking about “offshore” holdings without talking about territorial tax rates.
In most countries corporate taxes are charged on income earned in that country. Income earned from offshore subsidiaries are not – because their offshore subsidiaries were charged the local corporate tax rate.
The US is one of the few places where US companies have to pay income earned overseas
Re: (Score:2)
The US is one of the few places where US companies have to pay income earned overseas when it brought back onshore. Which means the same income is taxed twice
No it isn't. When a U.S. company repatriates foreign profits they get a U.S. tax credit equal to the amount of mandatory foreign tax they have paid:
U.S. companies pay federal tax on their worldwide profits. This would result in double taxation of foreign earnings that are also taxed by a foreign country, but foreign taxes generally can be claimed as a credit against U.S. taxes on foreign earnings. For example, a U.S. company with an Italian branch deriving $100 million of income and paying $25 million of Italian taxes would pay federal taxes of $10 million ($35 million less $25 million). Forbes [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Depends on what type of tax treaty we have signed. We have a tax treaty with Italy today, so that holds. But not with Brazil, so if the branch was located there, the company could be doubled tax. I could go on. Many different tax treaties. But it does lead to some interesting distortions.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't pay 8.3b in taxes.
8.3b is the "provision for income taxes". It's an accounting term for the estimated impact from taxes for a given year, (even if that impact doesn't happen for years, or doesn't happen at all).
3.3b is the "Cash paid for income taxes, Net" which is on the cash flow statement. That's the actual money that leaves the company and goes to taxing authorities.
Also, US doesn't tax the income twice. That is wrong. The US wants to /know the amount/ of income overseas. A heavily simplifie
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, no Congress - not Nerds,
So, prior to a company being hit with over a 100% tax rate, companies lobbied for loopholes, expections, bilateral tax treaties, etc. so the resulting system is a patchwork of loopholes. The only good thing about I can see from it is that I get a job out of it.
One of the expectations is that profits generated overseas would not be taxed if it were reinvested in the overseas operations. Which is lovely. Discourages US companies from bring back profits to reinvest in the US. Sig
Re: (Score:2)
In its own tax filings, Apple reported these tax rate figures paid in the last three years: “approximately 24.2%, 24.4% and 31.8% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.” [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you can say it is really low. What Worstall is saying is that the NY times was using 2010 tax payments (calculated on 14b of profits) on 2011 profits (of 26b).
While the odd U.S. tax rules on territorial income (We should really join how the rest of the world does it) plus special circumstances (None that I know of, but..) will make it hard to make direct comparisons.
However, NY is assuming that a 85% increase in profits would not result in a higher tax bill. I would make the assumption (which is sa
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We won't know until the actual profits are calculated at the end of the trading year, when Apple pays the remaining balance.
What?! Yes, you can. Because it was derived from 2010's, it doesn't reflect what Apple's actual tax rate will be for its 2011 profits, which were much higher than 2010's.
Re: (Score:2)
What he's saying is that if I claim Apple's tax rate was 208% because I'm assuming they paid $2.08 in taxes but only had $1 in profits you don't know that the final figure I came up with (208%) is wrong because through some obscene coincidence it could come to pass that Apple pays 208% in taxes. What you do know is that my calculation used really stupid inputs so my methodology is almost undoubtedly incorrect.
Not totally useless. (Score:2)
Very useful if you are trying to tell a story. NYT so I have no doubt this was deliberate propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying NYT made an incorrect calculation and explaining why is fine. But what was Apple's tax rate, then?
If you can't answer that, then you can't say the figure itself is incorrect, only the means used to arrive at it.
Anyone can answer that very easily. It's in the 10K.
24.2%, 24.4% and 31.8% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Even without looking that the 10K you could have said NYT was wrong. Apple is in huge growth. Their revenue for each year is far more than the year before. So unless you match revenue year and tax year correctly you're bound to get a massively wrong number.
Re: (Score:3)
those are effective taxes, not the total percent they paid based on their profits. Do you understand what an "effective" tax rate is? An effective tax rate of 24% is not 24% of their total profit.
Do you? No, you don't. [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually the definition of effective tax rate. total taxes paid / total profit. It exists specifically to clarify the actual rate of tax paid after factoring in profit shifting, exemptions, progressive rates, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, he put effective in quotes. Must mean something important. Let's see, what does effective mean - "actual; not merely potential or theoretical". So, in other words, an "effective" tax rate of 24% is ACTUALLY 24% of their profit.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell? If the means used to arrive at a figure is wrong, then the figure is wrong.
No. The figure could still very well be correct, even if it was generated randomly. A stopped watch will accurately report the time twice a day, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell? If the means used to arrive at a figure is wrong, then the figure is wrong. What kind of ass-backwards logic is this, where the figure can still be right even if the means used to calculate the figure is wrong...?
The formal logic [wikipedia.org] used by everybody that has the slightest clue? (false premises can lead to anything by correct rationing).
Re: (Score:2)
It is of-course NONSENSE that a nation without INCOME TAXES is a nation without public streets, without other infrastructure, without even laws.
That depends on the nation. There are certainly some (Somalia comes to mind) that would fit that definition. There are others (Monaco) where no income tax clearly works - but here's the important question to ask yourself: the government of Monaco does spend money on infrastructure, so where does that money come from? And could the U.S. get money in the same way? Some nations (United Arab Emirates) have no income tax, but pay for public infrastructure through social security levies, and by generating income
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the nation. There are certainly some (Somalia comes to mind) that would fit that definition.
- not at all. Somalia had huge governments. Just in the fifties it was still a British colony and until the early nineties it was a Communist dictatorship. They fought for their freedom from being oppressed by the totalitarian regimes of the world and they are getting quite an unfair rap, yet they actually now have a growing economy and even steady money - old currency, that's because nobody is printing it.
They have no income taxes, but that is not their issue.
And could the U.S. get money in the same way?
- it was very much able of getting enough m
Re: (Score:2)
Turnpikes, community road service days, stuff like that. Also, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Property taxes, as I'm sure you're aware, kind of suck when you get older and can't earn anymore. Income taxes are actually a step up from that.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 2 objections to income taxes.
1. Most important - the moral objection.
2. Less important, but very practical - economic objection.
Moral objection is the most important one - income taxes mean that you are property of your government. The premise is most disgusting, it is that the government owns you, owns your productivity, which means it owns your life. The only question that the government is asking is whether taxing your income at a certain rate is going to maximise the revenue of the government
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Much like CNN and Fox News, it's now an opinion organ. That's the state of factual reporting in the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything not in the US is correct and factual. The US is always wrong. Even when they are right, they are wrong. Come on you should know this by now.
Re: (Score:3)
Aagh. I misread the summary. I guess I was wrong about Forbes this time.
So color me surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the Weekly World News, once in a while, they do get lucky and print a real story.
Re:Whatever Apple's paying (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? That just encourages them to move more and more of their operations overseas because they can't stay competitive if the US charges them 28% but their competitors pay a fraction of that elsewhere.
Furthermore, corporations just have to raise prices, so in the end consumers pay for it. And they pay for it in a regressive way.
And assuming you work for a corporation, those 28% that "you" paid was actually paid by your employer, because that's where all your money comes from.
Corporations should pay taxes proportional to the costs they impose on the community. Most of those are imposed through labor, and that's covered by the income tax. If they impose additional costs, they should pay for it. But just trying to milk them because you can makes no sense and only hurts people.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why make them pay taxes at all? Oh and we might as well repeal all worker safety and environmental laws so that the corporations aren't inconvenienced. Don't forget to' shutdown the SEC as well because having to try to accurately report information to investors is a terrible burden.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize you went down this slippery straw slope all by your lonesome, right?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good question, and one you should ponder for a while. Hint: the corporate tax rate should be non-zero, but it also shouldn't be picked based on the kind of naive political views you seem to have.
Those are stupid ideas.
Re:Whatever Apple's paying (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, corporations just have to raise prices, so in the end consumers pay for it. And they pay for it in a regressive way.
That's not true. There's no economic law or theory that says a corporation MUST make a certain amount of profit. Taxes are on profits, not on revenue, so the taxes reduce the amount of profit a company makes, but they don't make it any more expensive to produce and sell a product. Saying that companies "have to raise prices" is ridiculous. Companies set prices according to what the market will bear (notwithstanding monopolies and such), and profits follow based on how efficient the company is at producing and distributing its products.
And you need to stop and use your brain for a moment. How much in taxes do you think an employer pays on the salary for an employee? If your answer is anything other than zero, think some more. That salary is an expense to the employer (along with benefits, etc) and so is not part of the operating profit. As such, no taxes were collected on that money.
Perhaps you should pick up a copy of "Economics for Dummies".
Re: (Score:2)
7.2%, which is the employer share of your SS/Medicare taxes, last I looked.
And yes, I know that that 7.2% is really a hidden tax on the employee's income...
Re: (Score:3)
The profit a corporation makes is compensation for the financial and personal investments of its owners and shareholders. If these people get less profit, they'll invest their time and money elsewhere, often in countries with lowe
Re: (Score:2)
The profit a corporation makes is compensation for the financial and personal investments of its owners and shareholders. If these people get less profit, they'll invest their time and money elsewhere, often in countries with lower corporate tax rates.
That wasn't my point at all. Tax rates are obviously going to affect decision making and maybe determine how much or how quickly a business grows, but I still fail to see any direct connection (in a general sense, anyway) where tax rates can cause the cost of production to go up. You might argue that lower taxes would allow for more investment in equipment that could lower production costs, but then that investment tends not to be taxed, rendering that line of argument mostly moot.
Don't be so daft. Obviously, a company doesn't pay the employee's income tax directly to the IRS, but it pays the money that the employee uses to pay the income tax, and that money goes to the US government. In the end, the US government receives tax revenues commensurate with the number and salary of employees of that corporation.
That seems like an endle
Re: (Score:2)
Please educate me, then. If it costs me the sum total of $10 to put a widget in your hands and you pay me $15 for said widget, how is it that it becomes more expensive to make that widget if the government takes $1.50 of the $5 profit I made?
I'm not arguing that taxes don't have implications, just that there is not necessarily a direct connection between the tax rate and the price of goods sold. It would be like arguing that I should take a lesser salary in order to pay less in taxes. There may well be an a
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, corporations just have to raise prices, so in the end consumers pay for it. And they pay for it in a regressive way.
And assuming you work for a corporation, those 28% that "you" paid was actually paid by your employer, because that's where all your money comes from.
Your claims reflect a very common misconception. Basic supply/demand analysis shows how it actually works [riohondo.edu]. The relevant slides are on pages 2-3 of the handout. The question of who bears the brunt of taxes depends on the relative elasticities of supply and demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Forward to pages 4 and 5: "The burden of a tax is independent of who physically pays the tax.", "Both employer and employee contribute the same percentage of before-tax wages to the Social Security fund.", and finally "On average, labor supply tends to be less elastic than labor demand, so the Social Security tax burden is primarily on employees."
In different words, the very slides you point to support my point: even though you make the employer pay more taxes, in the end most of the tax burden ends up with
Re: (Score:2)
Why? That just encourages them to move more and more of their operations overseas because they can't stay competitive if the US charges them 28% but their competitors pay a fraction of that elsewhere.
We should pass a law that says that a corporation based in the US keeping more than N% of profits overseas is "not a US corporation" and thus ineligible for copyright or patent enforcement claims within the U.S., ineligible for H-1b or other guest worker visas, and the Departments of State and Defense will not
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant idea! Next thing, Europe and Asia are going to stop enforcing US copyrights and patents in retaliation. Then you will doubtlessly want to put import duties on any product created by people willing to work for less than you do, and in retaliation, they will do the same. We had that kind
Re: (Score:2)
I have serious doubts about whether any TEA party members have a HS diploma. Your claim to the contrary is unproven to the best of my knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
I have serious doubts about whether any TEA party members have a HS diploma. Your claim to the contrary is unproven to the best of my knowledge.
Was going to say 8th grade education, but isn't dropping out before 18 illegal or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's a significant criminal element involved there, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you like the Wal-Mart economy approach...a shattered peasant class with little money buying cheap crap, then you're on the right track. What you prefer depends on who you are. Rich and corporations and those stupid enough to be indoctrinated by corporations (Teabaggers, Ron Paul, etc) want lower taxes on the rich and corporations or the same as everyone else pays. The rest (people who aren't living off of capital gains, educated people who aren't subject to corporate propaganda) would prefer a more progressive tax system. If people had more money...like say things were manufactured in the US again, they wouldn't mind paying $65 more for an iPhone. And since 28% is capital gains, that means you don't know if I'm getting my money from my employer and paying in that bracket or capital gains. The fact that you assume to know where my income comes from, shows that you're not a real disciplined thinker, but more the Teabagger type who makes emo assumptions based on limited information. You know, like how teabaggers seem to think they know how the global political and economic system work even though they barely got a HS diploma?
Leaving aside all the immature rhetoric and petty name calling, your comment doesn't even make sense. The current system is obviously flawed, but you don't add to your credibility by rudely portraying an ill-thought out populist idealism.
In theory everything the OP said is 100% right on the money, in practice there are too many loopholes for it to function the way it should, but don't confuse the system's current disfunction with the capitalist system that has brought more wealth and more prosperity to a
Re: (Score:2)
I also think that all corproations should be worker controlled,
s/corproations/coprorations/g
There, FTFY
Grow up
Have you heard the good news about tax software? (Score:2)
Wow, you must suck at doing your taxes. If you're paying the full rate you should invest in something called "TurboTax." It's a software program that helps you file and do your taxes. It also suggests tax deductions you might want to take, etc.
What you're doing is saying "I'm dumb and other people aren't - those other people should be penalized." That's patently unfair. Why should other people get penalized for your stupidity?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you must suck at doing your taxes. If you're paying the full rate you should invest in something called "TurboTax." It's a software program that helps you file and do your taxes. It also suggests tax deductions you might want to take, etc.
What you're doing is saying "I'm dumb and other people aren't - those other people should be penalized." That's patently unfair. Why should other people get penalized for your stupidity?
I shouldn't have mentioned my tax rate. The point was, your insults aside, corporations should pay as much as people, since they are people, asshole. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Is 24% close enough? http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2842145&cid=39958777 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Is 24% close enough? http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2842145&cid=39958777 [slashdot.org]
Truthfully, I was expecting it to be about half that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not nearly enough. These people (er i mean corporations) should be paying taxes just like other people. Last year I paid 28%. Sound good, Apple?
And GE paid ZERO taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Cause you're stupid and don't know how to shelter money (and refuse to learn). Apple - not so much!!!
When I say Apple, I mean ANY corporation and when I say you, I mean ANY of the unwashed masses that just wanna drink beer, eat cheetos, watch porn and then wonder why their wang is orange.
Yeah, the person named Apple has billions in cash, teams of accountants and lawyers. Other "people", not so much. And btw, I can tell from your post that you're part of the "unwashed masses". Self hate much?
Re:Whatever Apple's paying (Score:4, Insightful)
Cause you're stupid and don't know how to shelter money (and refuse to learn). Apple - not so much!!!
When I say Apple, I mean ANY corporation and when I say you, I mean ANY of the unwashed masses that just wanna drink beer, eat cheetos, watch porn and then wonder why their wang is orange.
Yeah, the person named Apple has billions in cash, teams of accountants and lawyers. Other "people", not so much. And btw, I can tell from your post that you're part of the "unwashed masses". Self hate much?
I am not part of the "unwashed masses" however, if the supreme court wants to rule that corporations are people and have the same rights, then why not tax them like people? People can deduct interest paid on their primary residence from taxes. Why not only allow corporations to deduct interest on their primary headquarters? People are limited on most deductions to a percentage of AGI. Why not the same thing for corporations?
If I am a small business, employing 150 people, why should I pay more in income tax as a sole proprietor or a partnership, where business income flows through and is taxed as personal income, than if I run the same business but structure it as a corporation? (I know all the reasons to form a corporation, so please don't respond in that way).
Corporations in America get far more state and federal "welfare" than people get. We just don't call it that. Maybe it's about time they pay their fare share, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Cause you're stupid and don't know how to shelter money (and refuse to learn). Apple - not so much!!!
When I say Apple, I mean ANY corporation and when I say you, I mean ANY of the unwashed masses that just wanna drink beer, eat cheetos, watch porn and then wonder why their wang is orange.
Yeah, the person named Apple has billions in cash, teams of accountants and lawyers. Other "people", not so much. And btw, I can tell from your post that you're part of the "unwashed masses". Self hate much?
I am not part of the "unwashed masses" however, if the supreme court wants to rule that corporations are people and have the same rights, then why not tax them like people? People can deduct interest paid on their primary residence from taxes. Why not only allow corporations to deduct interest on their primary headquarters? People are limited on most deductions to a percentage of AGI. Why not the same thing for corporations?
If I am a small business, employing 150 people, why should I pay more in income tax as a sole proprietor or a partnership, where business income flows through and is taxed as personal income, than if I run the same business but structure it as a corporation? (I know all the reasons to form a corporation, so please don't respond in that way).
Corporations in America get far more state and federal "welfare" than people get. We just don't call it that. Maybe it's about time they pay their fare share, too.
The whole discussion's stupid for me, because I don't agree with the supreme court ruling on corporations being people, so why should i bother getting into a serious discussion on how they should be allowed further advantage? My original post was not a serious invitation to discuss how best to work within the confines of an incalculably stupid decision by the right wing supreme court.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's about time they pay their fare share, too.
Yeah, Apple! Next time we take a cab together you better chip in!
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you didn't. I bet your marginal tax rate was 28%, and I bet you paid an effective tax rate of 18-19%, which is about what you'd expect for a software engineer making about 110k per year.
Unless you actually made the ~$422,000 (single) or 575-600k (married/joint) required for you to have actually paid 28% *effective* tax rate.
What's that, you say? Effective income taxes are far lower than top marginal rate?! NO WAY!
At least you "bet" and don't claim to know. Kudos for that.
Re: (Score:2)