Stiglitz Calls Apple's Profit Reporting In Ireland 'a Fraud' (bloomberg.com) 197
Jeanna Smialek, and Alex Webb, reporting for Bloomberg: Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz said U.S. tax law that allows Apple to hold a large amount of cash abroad is "obviously deficient" and called the company's attribution of significant earnings to a comparatively small overseas unit a "fraud." "Our current tax system encourages companies to keep their money abroad, opens up a vast loophole through what is called the transfer-pricing system that allows them not only to keep their money abroad but, effectively, to escape taxation," Stiglitz, who advises Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, said. Stiglitz was speaking in response to a question about whether policy makers like Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, could develop a plan to encourage companies like Apple to bring their accumulated foreign earnings back to the U.S. About $215 billion of Apple's total $232 billion in cash is held outside of the country, third-quarter earnings results showed this week.
Tarantino (Score:3)
Oh, c'mon, I couldn't have been the only one thinking about his cousin Hugo coming in to visit those who are "obviously deficient"...
Why encourage them? (Score:4, Interesting)
The time for polite talks is way past.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not very good at strategy.
Apple makes more profit outside of the US than inside.
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf... [apple.com]
If you force their hand, they might choose differently than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So., you're saying they're lying on their official report that I posted above?
Or are you just spouting nonsense that you don't really know anything about?
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when Apple just moves operations to Canada or Ireland, leaving the 13,000 employees in Cupertino out a collective $2 billion flowing into the U.S. from global sales? Do you still demand they pay taxes in America, somehow, on their Irish HQ?
Apple has hundreds of billions of dollars sitting in a bank account. It can spend $100,000 to move an employee's family from the United States to Ireland, and drop $1.3 billion. The whole workforce, up and gone. Ireland would probably outright waive ta
Re:Why encourage them? (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for making profits Ireland.
Re:Why encourage them? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
wow. and just who the hell do you think you are, you little spoiled, entitled, nasty little totalitarian? why is anyone entitled to anything others produce? your words betray your true ugliness. MAKE them?
disgusting.
I don't know about him, but I'm a taxpayer you fuckhead. Stop licking corporate asshole long enough to realize they should pay taxes TOO.
Re: (Score:2)
I AM one of the productive. I produce. Why the fuck do you think I'm paying taxes? For fun? I don't particularly hate my station in life. I make over six figures. What grants me rights to other's hard work is the same thing that grants others rights to my hard work. Being part of a society.
You might try it sometime, instead of being a misanthropic dickhead.
Re: (Score:2)
why is anyone entitled to anything others produce?
Why are you entitled to go on breathing if you have something I want and you're standing in my way? What makes you think you have the right to life, liberty, or personal property?
Re: (Score:3)
why is anyone entitled to anything others produce?
Why are you entitled to go on breathing if you have something I want and you're standing in my way? What makes you think you have the right to life, liberty, or personal property?
because I do. you can personally try and take any of those from me, but you will pay with your life.
You are such a trite and tedious brand of moron. First, let's just say you're right, and I can't possibly take any of those from you even those I have a scoped rifle in a high power caliber. (This is explicitly not a threat; we are discussing capabilities. I have no intention of killing anyone for any reason. ObDisclaimerWhee!) I and a few of my buddies clearly could do so.
which is why you cowards group together and have government do all your dirty work for you and think it's ok, "because democracy".
That's not how it works at all. In practice, you really can not keep any of your stuff without the system of law, or some other system o
Re: (Score:2)
you can personally try and take any of those from me, but you will pay with your life. which is why you cowards group together and have government do all your dirty work for you and think it's ok
Another libertarian gun-nut. Nobody wants whatever you have. Big talker, but you never killed anyone up close and personal. Gotta hide behind your guns, like any other coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, if the goose is refusing to produce eggs anyway, might as well kill it and get some benefit. It's the same with milk cows. Also, your argument would be better if it had some substance - there's no such thing as a goose that lays golden eggs, and basing economic policy on an untrue fable is not a substantive argument.
And screw you for the "dude" bit.
Which is why we need a gross receipts tax (Score:3, Interesting)
Does your real estate agent take a percentage of your profit?
Does your broker base his fees on your profit?
Does your property tax bill ask what your profit was?
Of course not, so why is the US Government that? The value you get from the government running the military, maintaining safety programs,and building and maintaining our transportation infrastructure isn't based on how much you made last year, it's a fixed cost. Change to a gross receipts tax and every dollar you receive is taxed at a fixed rate. No worries about what is deductable, or what does or doesn't qualify as pre or post tax. Plus it's more easily auditable.
My town uses it and it's pretty fucking straight forward. You put down what you grossed, and you multiply that by between 0.10% and 0.37%. Yes, you read that correctly - our local business tax is ten to thirty-four CENTS for every One Hundred DOLLARS you gross. And, aside from lying on your tax forms, there's no way around it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct. The value you get from the government protecting your money is proportional to your net worth, not how much you made last year.
Re: (Score:2)
The value you get from the government running the military, maintaining safety programs,and building and maintaining our transportation infrastructure isn't based on how much you made last year,
You're right. It's based on your net worth at any given time. So arguably, what we should do is tax everyone on their net worth every year, because the more stuff you have the more the nation is effectively spending to protect it, the more it cost the nation to enable the commerce that led to it, and so on. Forget how much you made this year; what've you got?
Oh, you don't want fair? Well then, you'd better settle for the deal you've got now, which is better.
Actually, I'm fibbing a bit. I don't think that i
Designed in California, Made in China... (Score:5, Insightful)
And Taxed in Ireland.
They should add this to all product labels.
Fraud? (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think I need to quote Inigo Montoya on this one. Because if something is legal, how can it be fraudulent?
Re: (Score:2)
But you did stumble into the real issue. There is no governing body with any authority to pass a law making it illegal. Nor is there a single governing body for the taxes to be payed to, just a bunch of national governments that want an effectively incalculable cut of profits another nation already claimed.
The only solution is an international governing body with the authority to tax and regulate mult
Let's not forget... (Score:2)
Apple also funnels U.S. profits through a Nevada corporation to avoid paying taxes in California and other states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html [nytimes.com]
"Stiglitz, who advises Hillary Clinton's..." (Score:2, Insightful)
"...Presidential campaign..."
And that's where I stopped reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful what you wish for (Score:2)
could develop (Score:2)
Emphasis on *could*. Sure, she *could*. *Will* she? Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Current U.S. corporate tax equally fraudulent (Score:5, Insightful)
They knew what the tax rate was in the country whose laws and protections they chose to work in. So now you're saying they should just be able to say "well that's not fair, I want to pay less"?
Apple hasn't moved head office to any of those other countries with less tax for many reasons, not a few of them are based on benefits derived from what that tax pays for. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
Well (Score:5, Funny)
They can't have their cake and eat it too.
Actually Apple and most other massive companies in the US have been doing exactly that.
The average person however, gets fed a strict diet of cake of a different kind.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
y knew what the tax rate was in the country whose laws and protections they chose to work in
Ah, so your argument is that one of the Big 5 software companies in the US should close it's US operations and hire somewhere cheaper. I don't like your plan. In fact, your plan is fucking awful.
I want Apple to spend more of that money on projects in the US - more software job demand, thanks. We'll benefit far more from Apple spending that money on something useful, than from the government taxing it and giving it to their banker friends.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're simple mindedly begging the question. It's not just cost, it's also benefits. There's a reason Apple is building a new headquarters in the US and not in India or Ireland, where it could have been built cheaper.
And since when is Apple a "software company?" The majority of their revenue is from selling hardware, and scraping the cream off of third-party media and app
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't build hardware - that's done by Chinese slave labor. They do a bit of hardware design, but mostly it's software: iOS, any custom firmware, all the Apple-provided apps, all the back-end infrastructure for all their cloud stuff (or at least the stuff that's not run on Azure),m their commerce system, their auth system, etc, etc. They're one of the Big 5 software companies (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft), and the only one of those that still sells software directly is Microsoft. Doe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do Amazon, Apple, Facebook, or Google sell software directly? No. But they're all software companies, nevertheless. Their value (well, the AWS part of Amazon) comes from the software they write.
Shrink-wrapped software is very 20th century, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
American Revolution was fought over a puny tax, what was it 3 or 4%? The modern tax... theft system is completely out of control compared to those times.
Well, yes, the modern state infrastructure is also out of control compared to those times. Get rid of the highways and the standing military and national intelligence services and the space programme etc. etc. and you can lower the taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was fought over taxation without representation. The modern US has voted themselves a dole, which costs taxpayer dollars, and more (debt for our children). Of course, the military budget is a large part (as much as the next 12 countries' budgets combined), but taxpayers continue to support the US being the world's policeman. I'm all for reducing federal taxes to 3-4%, but the other voters want their "entitlements", pork and securi
Re: (Score:2)
If 39% is theft, I'd hate to see what you would have called the 91% tax rate we had in the 50s.
Re: (Score:2)
No one paid the 91% rate, it was largely meaningless.
Or do you think you'd like to earn an extra $100,000 and give me $91,000 of it?
Re:Current U.S. corporate tax equally fraudulent (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, Ireland has a 48% personal income tax rate and only a 12.5% corporate tax rate. While Japan is sitting at near 51% personal and 32% corporate tax rates. While Canada is 26% and 29%. Chad has a 60% personal income tax rate.
The U.S. has a higher value on personal wealth than common wealth, while many developed countries do the opposite.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
if you want to take more of other peoples money you are the one who can fuck off
Re: (Score:2)
we used to have the best cars
When was that?
great electronics
Yeah, but...
now we dont even make electronics anymore (we "design" them)
What happened is that we were surpassed. The Japanese made better electronics than we did. Remember when Sony was a watchword for quality? Ah, those were the days. Which days? The days when we stopped making electronics because nobody wanted them any more, so they weren't selling. Sony, because Caucasians are just too damn tall.
How many of those companies left specifically due to taxes? None in an industry you've given an example of.
Re: (Score:3)
Look up the 1957 Federal revenues per capita, and adjust for inflation. You'll find the revenues per capita today is a little over twice as much as that in 1957. While the nominal tax rates are lower - the effective tax rates now are considerably higher.
Note too that the last time the Federal Government actually ran a real surplus (meaning - no new debt because we paid for everything, didn't borrow to buy) was in 1957 with half the effective tax rate. Spending has gotten insanely out-of-hand, and the cal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At that rate it is simply theft
Do you know where those corporate taxes go? Because if our corporation oligarchs think they're funding the US Armed Forces excessively, they certainly haven't given any indication of it...
Re: (Score:2)
In contrast to a company which has a gross margin of 39%? [apple.com] Funny how those numbers match exactly, isn't it? People buy Apple products at a premium. It costs a premium to live in and operate a company in the US. You deserve what you sign up for.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a fraud to charge taxes. Those taxes paid, provide the economic venue to generate that income. To put it bluntly, go fuck off and try to make that money inside those tax havens where the money is hidden. Instead of allowing corrupt foreign countries to steal the social services that create the economic opportunities to generate the actual fucking income, they should brutally and forcefully crack down on those tax havens and bankrupt them, done and finished. They are economic terrorists (seriously
Re: (Score:2)
go fuck off and try to make that money inside those tax havens where the money is hidden
Actually most of the investment funds do exactly that. Your claims are obviously baseless.
Instead of allowing corrupt foreign countries to steal the social services that create the economic opportunities to generate the actual fucking income
Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Djibouti, Brazil are getting military umbrella services from the US military bases over there (the spendings in the hundreds of billions dollars, the life of American soldiers priceless). Yet you're calling British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg... corrupt foreign countries? Your claims are obviously baseless.
they should brutally and forcefully crack down on those tax havens and bankrupt them, done and finished.
Because...reasons? And who exactly a
Read again - reality is fixed for transfer (Score:2, Insightful)
The reality as always is that corporations pay nothing in tax.
Apple paid seven BILLION dollars in U.S. taxes for just six months ending in March 2015 for example.
As I stated, whatever money Apple moved back to the U.S. would be taxed at the maximum corporate rate and not subject to deductions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Read again - reality is fixed for transfer (Score:5, Informative)
In 2014, corporations paid income tax accounting for under 10% of all taxes and 20% of all income taxes (Excluding OASDI). If you include OASDI payroll and wage taxes, corporations paid 23% of all taxes and 38% of all income+OASDI taxes.
Sales taxes, payroll taxes, and wages are paid by the consumer. These through some manner increase the cost of products directly. Income taxes skim the top: a business barely-getting-by doesn't pay income taxes. That is to say: If I pay $250,000 to employee wages, have $50,000 of other expenses, and have $310,000 of revenue, I pay income taxes on $10,000; if my operations grow 10x in size, I have $3,100,000 and pay taxes on $100,000. If I'm paying 10% on payroll, I've suddenly got to pay taxes on $250,000--and $25,000 of taxes! To compensate, I'll need more revenue; and to make more of whatever I'm supplying, I'll need more employee work time, meaning more wages, and more taxes on those wages. Basically, it means my prices have to go up by $15,000 for me to break even.
That doesn't mean a 40% business income tax is desirable. Business income taxes were $274 billion in 2013, SOMEHOW. Taxable business income was $2,090 billion, and wages were $7,633 billion. Wages would have about $1,700 billion of standard deductions, and total is $12,427 billion, so businesses would have under $1,100 billion in deductions in total.
Because it's so little, I typically ignore it as an accounting smudge. Business tax reform patently doesn't matter [wordpress.com], and I am more interested in knocking down payroll taxes to produce the effect of lowering wages without lowering the amount of money that people actually take home. Sales taxes (and any form of VAT) also need to go away.
Re: Read again - reality is fixed for transfer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sales taxes have been proposed and supported as a way to "make the rich pay their fair share". They use the argument that food is excluded, thus it's a progressive tax because poor people have little luxury. Many states and even some cities have sales taxes.
The proponents are, frankly, delusional. It has been shown that people with higher incomes save more; unless you want to charge sales tax on capital gains or on mutual funds and savings accounts, there is a large chunk of money not being spent on s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stieglitz wanted to have the numbers for us, but his Windows spreadsheet keeps crashing.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple paid seven BILLION dollars in U.S. taxes for just six months ending in March 2015 for example.
Is all relative isn't it? They paid $7B in taxes, how much have they earned?
It's not like Apple sprang from the barren rock of some isolated island. Apple exists because yours, mine, and everyone else's tax dollars built an infrastructure that allowed them to do so.
As I stated, whatever money Apple moved back to the U.S. would be taxed at the maximum corporate rate and not subject to deductions.
Maybe if they wouldn't have hid it in the first place?
Re:Read again - reality is fixed for transfer (Score:5, Informative)
"The corporation merely figures taxes as one of the costs of selling a product and rolls the cost of the taxes INTO the product that people then pay for."
No. No no no. No a thousand times NO.
This stupid argument needs to die. Economics 101: The price of an item is what the market will bear. The price of a iPhone is not (Cost of manufacturing + amount of profit we want) * (100%+Tax rate). The price of an iPhone is what the analysts at Apple have worked out is the amount that maximizes the profits that they can make.
Have you ever noticed how electronic goods cost different amounts in different countries, and this correlation bears no resemblance to the tax rates in those countries? Try the steam store for hints if you haven't. The prices of those products are set by how much money companies think they can sell their products for.
If I make a widget, and I know I can get people to pay $400 for it, I don't go "Well, it costs me 100 to make, so 150+tax = 180 is what I'll charge". I say "It costs 100 to make, people will pay 400, so my profit is 400-(tax+100). That's how I make the most profit. If tax goes up, people will still only pay 400 for it, so my profits may go down. If they go up high enough, it may make sense for me to charge more and sell fewer widgets, but the base price is set by what I know I can sell the item for.
This stupid stupid stupid argument that people always raise about "passing the tax on" needs to go in the heap of half-brained misunderstandings of economics where it belongs. Stop it now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true but misleading. In a competitive market "what the market will bear" is in part a function of what it costs producers to produce the item.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is also stupid because it ignores completely the primary reason we all want corporations to pay taxes. If they don't, then we all (taxpayers) subsidize their operation. If they do, then only the people who use those products do so. Let's just say that Apple actually would increase the price of an iPhone by $100 to maintain their profit margin if they were taxed properly; the corollary to that is that for every iPhone now sold, the taxpayers of this nation are having to eat $100 to protect Apple
The case against tax on company profits (Score:2)
'If corporations are legal 'persons' making profit'
But they aren't. They are a legal entity owned by shareholders who have invested money in the hope of getting a return. When shareholder receive dividends they pay tax on those dividends. Therefore potentially a company pays tax twice on its income - as itself and as its shareholders.
This matters because companies can be financed by their shareholders - whose income stream is variable, dependent on a company's profits - or by bonds or bank loans, which do n
Re: (Score:2)
You need a better con.
After all flow dynamics doesn't work does it? (Score:2)
And that can be explained so easily?
The idea that an idea in accounting can be explained simply is part of the reason why Trump gets taken seriously by the stupid. They've been told they have a right to understand. No - a lot of them are too stupid to understand a complex line of logic. So they dismiss it. And sulk.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that financials is overly complex and only understood by elites is why trickle-down seemed like good policy for so long, it's why elites get away with lower taxes on capital gains. It's responsible for much evil. Let me be more specific about why your argument is bullshit and how even someone less educated than I should easily spot it.
Point one, it is designed to enrich one group, at the expense of others. This is the classic, "I should get to keep what's mine" ar
Re: (Score:3)
The reality as always is that corporations pay nothing in tax.
That's wrong. It depends on the price elasticity of the demand. In the end it's likely that Apple is paying part of that corporate tax, and passing another part to the consumers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they funnel it into Ireland is because of the US tax rate. Why else would they do it? If taxes were the same here they would obviously have no need to funnel it to Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect (Score:2)
Apple has stated in the past [theguardian.com] that if the tax rate were reduced they would pay the tax to bring the cash back to the U.S. - they just consider (rightfully) the current rate to be exorbitant. Note that in the article the amount they want the tax rate reduced to for re-patriation is higher than they pay for taxes in Ireland.
People (and companies) will do the right thing as long as it does not hurt TOO BADLY to do so. Currently moving the money back to the U.S. would be negligent on their part and invite a sh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why dont you just fuck off already? Why should a company be charged anything to bring its money home?
Umm, let's see. Because the USA provided the infrastructure that allowed them to exist in the first place let alone making billions upon billions of dollars. People, and corporations like to put out this idea that their earnings sprung from barren rock on an island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Corporations can make money because nations (actually the tax payers in those nations) allowed them to.
Re: (Score:2)
For the sake of argument, let's take everything you said as fact (both literally and morally). The status quo has all of that money (that our infrastructure enabled them to earn) leaving our nation to go elsewhere, and enrich other economies, so we're not benefiting from it at all (but we're still out the cost of the infrastructure).
I'm NOT suggestion that the tax rate here should be 0, but if it were, that money would be in our economy and working, thus a net benefit to us.
To put it another way, half an a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm NOT suggestion that the tax rate here should be 0, but if it were, that money would be in our economy and working, thus a net benefit to us.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Without taxes, the wealthy and corporations mostly transfer wealth among themselves, and very little of it ever actually manages to trickle down. Perhaps you missed the memo, but "trickle down" economics doesn't work, and never has done.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Without taxes, the wealthy and corporations mostly transfer wealth among themselves, and very little of it ever actually manages to trickle down. Perhaps you missed the memo, but "trickle down" economics doesn't work, and never has done.
I'm not supporting trickle down economics here, I'm just saying that Apple's $250B in cash would probably not be stuffed under a mattress. It would be doing SOMETHING in our economy (whether that benefits everyone or just the 1% is an open question) rather than doing something in someone else's economy, which is the current state.
IOW, this is a false dichotomy. "We need to tax that money to realize a return on society's investment" is all well and good, except for the fact that we're not actually taxing th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple pays taxes on profits made in the US. They pay property taxes for their campus and all their Apple Stores (probably indirectly, through the lease). The roads their employees travel on (Apple has no private corporate trucking) were not made for their exclusive use, and those still in gas vehicles pay via gas taxes. Could you explain what infrastructure Apple uses in the US that they don't pay for?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever heard of a "hedge fund"? `Cause it really doesn't seem like you know anything about them.
Re: (Score:3)
they just consider (rightfully) the current rate to be exorbitant.
Oh really? They think they should pay less taxes? Shocking I say. Just shocking.
People (and companies) will do the right thing as long as it does not hurt TOO BADLY to do so
Are you serious? Corporations aren't people. Concepts like the "right thing" are absolutely meaningless. People (and companies especially) will pay as little as absolutely possible including NOTHING if they can find a way to get away with it. How do you think that conversation is going to go?
"Hey Apple, you owe $200B, but we will let you pay only $100B. For that $100B, you get a T-shirt that says 'I did the right thing!'. Or yo
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, something being simply theft is when you do not provide services in exchange, but since the government is providing services for corporations such as Apple,
Really now, what does the government do that deserves seven billion dollars over six months? That is the actual amount Apple paid in 2015.
If I gave you a ten-minute lift in my car and then demanded you pay me $100 for it you would rightfully claim that was theft.
Actually, knowing that the actual rate differs from the top rate is very important,
Re
Re: (Score:2)
Err...I dunno where YOU LIVE but those things are quite deductible here in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're good at buying your politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Just use a little logic would you. If you tax corporations on money they keep here but let them keep it overseas then what the hell do you think they will do? If you fix it so US corporations have to pay no matter where the money is but foreign corporations can get away with it then what the hell do you think will happen. Finally, if you fix it so all money made here is taxed here what will happen? Think about it.
Re: Look for a vast increase in donations to Clint (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, that money would benefit America greatly IF it was used domestically to create more facilities, hire more labor, or encourage R&D spending by acquisitions or investment in US companies, or organic R&D spending, etc... etc... so I would propose making the cash import taxable, but giving a write off for spending it domestically, bolstering domestic investment. Paying dividiends or share buyback not included, since the majority of these companies shares are foreign owned.
As far as Apple specifically is concerned, they have had their fare share of bad press on these issues. They do have a valid argument as to why they operate this way: local competition.
When a company in Japan sells goods in Japan, it pays Japanese sales tax. It then pays Japanese income tax on its profits. When Apple does it, it pays Japanese Sales Tax, Japanese income tax (for that entity ( the local Apple subsidiary)), and then American income tax on top of that, three taxes. It minimizes this third tax by diverting the income to Ireland and holding it there. They and everyone else knows that this third tax creates an unfair playing field against global or international companies because domestic ones don't have to pay that transfer costs. If you feel that this tax is fair, every company will eventually build it's headquarters in China, since long term that's where the majority of their income will be generated.
Stiglitz is wrong here.
Re: Look for a vast increase in donations to Clint (Score:5, Insightful)
When Apple does it, it pays Japanese Sales Tax, Japanese income tax (for that entity ( the local Apple subsidiary)), and then American income tax on top of that, three taxes.
The reason they pay American income tax is because the USA provides the infrastructure that allows them to exist in the first place. By "USA", I mean mine, and yours, and everyone else's tax dollars.
If you are suggesting that we should provide the infrastructure for Apple and it's execs to make billions of dollars and not expect them to kick back, you are nuts.
Re: Look for a vast increase in donations to Clin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea Apple doesn't pay enough US taxes to cover any possible use of US infrastructure beggars belief - the company paid over eight billion in 2014 alone. Apple pays US taxes on all US sales - what Stiglitz is saying is somehow Apple should pay US taxes on profits from European sales.
When a device is made in China and shipped to and sold in Germany, what US infrastructure is Apple using that needs to be supported with additional billions of dollars every year? Yes, there are some companies that do sh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
companies shouldn't have to pay domestic tax on foreign, developed, manufactured, and sold goods
Well, maybe. Does this apply to Apple? Did Apple wholly design and manufacture this product overseas using no resources in the USA? Of course not. Not even close. Almost all of Apple's engineering is in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
If an American company designs a product in France
Apple didn't design a product overseas. They designed it here. All of the R&D happened in the USA. All of their staff lives and works in the USA (and all of their staff uses the USA's infrastructure).
Re: (Score:2)
Apple didn't design a product overseas. They designed it here.
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter where the work was done. The tax due to America is the same.
(and all of their staff uses the USA's infrastructure).
That is irrelevant. The tax is the same.
Stop assuming that the tax laws make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple et. al. create the production which generates revenues to let the government (which has lawlessly taken-over functions it has no business performing so terribly and inefficiently for local back-scratching) build that infrastructure.
What came first? Apple or the US Government and the infrastructure? Are we to believe that Cupertino was a barren rock before Apple got here? It was Apple's taxes that allowed Silicon Valley to grow from a desert? The employees of Apple? Did Apple go back in time and fund the institutions that educated them?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple, Google, Microsoft etc won't let this heinous idea get loose.
Actually, all these companies, and many others, are strong advocates of corporate tax reform, even though they would almost certainly pay more tax. Our current system is idiotic. We incentivise companies to keep profits outside America, and to move jobs overseas. We need to stop the extraterritorial taxation (which no other country demands), and we need to align taxes on domestic profits with other countries so companies invest here.
But there is too much pandering and populism from both parties for these
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Invent some shitty cell phone nobody cares about.
Step 2: Sell shitty cellphone design to Apple Ireland for $1.
Step 3: Lease back shitty cellphone design for 99.9% of the revenue.
Step 4: Design not so shitty, sells a billion phones, pays 99.9% of the revenue to Apple Ireland.
Step 5: No profit after licenses and other expenses.
You lost me between step 3 and 4, how did the design go from shitty to not so shitty, sells a billion? You appear to be saying that the mere act of leasing it from Ireland transforms shit to gold.
I think you need to check your assumptions, but if you're right then you really should figure out if your steps for going from shitty to sells a billion can be applied to anything other than phones.