# Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash



## TruthOut10

Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.

For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.

"We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.

Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.

If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.

Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash

1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?

2). How about stop buying their products?

3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.

4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale?  Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.


----------



## tjvh

Until the Tax code is changed, there really isn't anything you can do about it... Except pout.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Why all the complaining? This is the Globalism you all wanted. This is a result of all the Free Trade Agreements you all applauded.


----------



## tjvh

Yep... We should penalize companies like Apple even more, because it isn't like those penalties will ever get passed on to the consumer.


----------



## Katzndogz

Did no one imagine the implications for having an insane tax code designed to soak the last dime it could get?   Really, did not one person think there would be repercussions, ramifications?


----------



## Politico

American Communist said:


> Why all the complaining?



Jealousy.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

TruthOut10 said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the Tax code is changed, there really isn't anything you can do about it... Except pout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
> 
> 2). How about stop buying their products?
> 
> 3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
> 
> 4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale?  Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.
Click to expand...


5). How about fixing the tax code so corporations providing jobs to millions of Americans won't get raped by the government and will bring their money back from overseas?


----------



## OnePercenter

Good for Apple! It's about time.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

TruthOut10 said:


> Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
> 
> For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
> 
> "We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
> 
> Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
> 
> If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
> 
> Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash



Could that be because the US wants to tax any money that crosses an imaginary line even if it was earned in another country?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

TruthOut10 said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the Tax code is changed, there really isn't anything you can do about it... Except pout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
> 
> 2). How about stop buying their products?
> 
> 3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
> 
> 4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale?  Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.
Click to expand...


How about actually learning to think?



Politicians do not represent corporations. If they did there would be no taxes on corporations, and they would all move their offices to the US.
Feel free to set an example by throwing your computer away, not using any electricity, and relieving me of the tedium of reading your idiotic posts.
Pouting is something spoiled brats do.
The laws actually on the books prohibit the US from slapping punitive taxes on goods, which means you are actually advocating breaking the law.


----------



## AmazonTania

Apple has been borrowing to cover their operating expensive for years. I don't know why this is a sudden shock now.


----------



## rdean

Republicans love to protect companies that left so many Republican unemployed.


----------



## AmazonTania

rdean said:


> Republicans love to protect companies that left so many Republican unemployed.



So instead of examining the inherent flaws of the economy and figuring out why companies like Apple chooses not to invest in a unfriendly environment like America, you make it political when it's really not...

That's not surprising.


----------



## auditor0007

Quantum Windbag said:


> TruthOut10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
> 
> For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
> 
> "We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
> 
> Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
> 
> If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
> 
> Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that be because the US wants to tax any money that crosses an imaginary line even if it was earned in another country?
Click to expand...


I don't have much of a problem with the corporate tax rate, because corporations never pay anywhere close to that rate.  There is a big problem though with taxing companies on their foreign profits if they choose to bring them back to the US.  It doesn't even make sense.  Taxes should be paid to the countries where the profits are earned, plain and simple.  I would think this is something we could get enough support on from both parties that we could make this change, at least I would hope.


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> TruthOut10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the Tax code is changed, there really isn't anything you can do about it... Except pout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
> 
> 2). How about stop buying their products?
> 
> 3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
> 
> 4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale?  Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about actually learning to think?
> 
> 
> 
> *Politicians do not represent corporations. If they did there would be no taxes on corporations, and they would all move their offices to the US.*
> Feel free to set an example by throwing your computer away, not using any electricity, and relieving me of the tedium of reading your idiotic posts.
> Pouting is something spoiled brats do.
> The laws actually on the books prohibit the US from slapping punitive taxes on goods, which means you are actually advocating breaking the law.
Click to expand...


Really? Corporate taxes are the lowest (12.3 effective) in 42 years.


----------



## OnePercenter

auditor0007 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthOut10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
> 
> For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
> 
> "We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
> 
> Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
> 
> If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
> 
> Could that be because the US wants to tax any money that crosses an imaginary line even if it was earned in another country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much of a problem with the corporate tax rate, because corporations never pay anywhere close to that rate.  There is a big problem though with taxing companies on their foreign profits if they choose to bring them back to the US.  It doesn't even make sense.  Taxes should be paid to the countries where the profits are earned, plain and simple.  I would think this is something we could get enough support on from both parties that we could make this change, at least I would hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see any indication that Apple ever paid tax to anyone.
Click to expand...


----------



## OnePercenter

OnePercenter said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much of a problem with the corporate tax rate, because corporations never pay anywhere close to that rate.  There is a big problem though with taxing companies on their foreign profits if they choose to bring them back to the US.  It doesn't even make sense.  Taxes should be paid to the countries where the profits are earned, plain and simple.  I would think this is something we could get enough support on from both parties that we could make this change, at least I would hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any indication that Apple ever paid tax to anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well?
Click to expand...


----------



## Rozman

Sounds like Apple is making a good business decision.


----------



## Rozman

Since interest rates are so low why not borrow the money instead of taking the tax hit?


----------



## AmazonTania

OnePercenter said:


> I don't see any indication that Apple ever paid tax to anyone.



In Q1 they've paid $3 Billion in taxes on $43 Billion of revenue.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

TruthOut10 said:


> Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
> 
> For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
> 
> "We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
> 
> Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
> 
> If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
> 
> Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash
> 
> 1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
> 
> 2). How about stop buying their products?
> 
> 3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
> 
> 4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale?  Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.



Borrow at very low rates and write off the interest or pay 35% on the cash? 
Hmmmm..........


----------



## boedicca

Let's do the math.   What is the coupon % on Apple bonds...a range of 0% to 3.85%.

What's the corporate tax rate to repatriate profits?  35%.

It is much better for Apple shareholders for the company to take on debt.   And this is another glaring example of the galactic stupidity of our tax code.


----------



## tjvh

boedicca said:


> Let's do the math.   What is the coupon % on Apple bonds...a range of 0% to 3.85%.
> 
> What's the corporate tax rate to repatriate profits?  35%.
> 
> It is much better for Apple shareholders for the company to take on debt.   And this is another glaring example of the galactic stupidity of our tax code.



And the fact remains, Apple is doing nothing that any other smart business would do, as long as our Tax codes *allow* it.


----------



## AmazonTania

boedicca said:


> Let's do the math.   What is the coupon % on Apple bonds...a range of 0% to 3.85%.
> 
> What's the corporate tax rate to repatriate profits?  35%.
> 
> It is much better for Apple shareholders for the company to take on debt.   And this is another glaring example of the galactic stupidity of our tax code.



What's even funny is that they're only going into debt to pay it's shareholders...


----------



## boedicca

tjvh said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's do the math.   What is the coupon % on Apple bonds...a range of 0% to 3.85%.
> 
> What's the corporate tax rate to repatriate profits?  35%.
> 
> It is much better for Apple shareholders for the company to take on debt.   And this is another glaring example of the galactic stupidity of our tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact remains, Aple is doing nothing that any other smart business would do, as long as our Tax codes *allow* it.
Click to expand...



Our tax code ENCOURAGES it.   Other countries have far lower, flat taxes, and are not intent on taxing overseas profits.   We have the absolute worst, Byzantine, bureaucratic, misguided social engineering, big government crony benefiting tax regime ever on Earth.  It is strangling our society.


----------



## freedombecki

rdean said:


> Republicans love to protect companies that left so many Republican unemployed.


 Democrats love to assault Republican businesses and bankrupt the American government so the Republicans will be called on to do the unpopular work of expensive rehabilitation of the weakened national and international investments and U.S. Treasury so they can swoop down and repeat the same thing of over-regulation, over-taxing, and over-spending for their mutual enrichment of their voter base that depend on those government checks Republican wisdom came up with money to provide.

Gewfball.


----------



## OnePercenter

AmazonTania said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any indication that Apple ever paid tax to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Q1 they've paid $3 Billion in taxes on $43 Billion of revenue.
Click to expand...


Swell! My reference was to the subject of the thread: $100 Billion In Offshore Cash.


----------



## OnePercenter

boedicca said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's do the math.   What is the coupon % on Apple bonds...a range of 0% to 3.85%.
> 
> What's the corporate tax rate to repatriate profits?  35%.
> 
> It is much better for Apple shareholders for the company to take on debt.   And this is another glaring example of the galactic stupidity of our tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact remains, Aple is doing nothing that any other smart business would do, as long as our Tax codes *allow* it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our tax code ENCOURAGES it.   Other countries have far lower, flat taxes, and are not intent on taxing overseas profits.   We have the absolute worst, Byzantine, bureaucratic, misguided social engineering, big government crony benefiting tax regime ever on Earth.  It is strangling our society.
Click to expand...


Corporate effective tax rate in the US is 12.3%


----------



## boedicca

OnePercenter said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact remains, Aple is doing nothing that any other smart business would do, as long as our Tax codes *allow* it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our tax code ENCOURAGES it.   Other countries have far lower, flat taxes, and are not intent on taxing overseas profits.   We have the absolute worst, Byzantine, bureaucratic, misguided social engineering, big government crony benefiting tax regime ever on Earth.  It is strangling our society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporate effective tax rate in the US is 12.3%
Click to expand...



Tell me how that works out for Apple to repatriate profits from overseas?


----------



## AmazonTania

OnePercenter said:


> Corporate effective tax rate in the US is 12.3%



The effective tax rate is just the average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. It's not the tax rate which all corporations pay. I'm going to assume you understand what average means. The effective rate mainly applies to small/mid cap companies, since they vastly out number large cap companies.

Also, do not forget that you are taxed at the state level as well.


----------



## OnePercenter

boedicca said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our tax code ENCOURAGES it.   Other countries have far lower, flat taxes, and are not intent on taxing overseas profits.   We have the absolute worst, Byzantine, bureaucratic, misguided social engineering, big government crony benefiting tax regime ever on Earth.  It is strangling our society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate effective tax rate in the US is 12.3%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how that works out for Apple to repatriate profits from overseas?
Click to expand...


Why would they? If I were sitting on $110M tax free I'd loan it back to myself.


----------



## GWV5903

AmazonTania said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans love to protect companies that left so many Republican unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So instead of examining the inherent flaws of the economy and figuring out why companies like Apple chooses not to invest in a unfriendly environment like America, you make it political when it's really not...
> 
> That's not surprising.
Click to expand...


Don't make it so complicated for Deany...

They will beat their heads against the wall until their last drop of blood drips out if somebody, anybody has more than they do...


----------



## OnePercenter

AmazonTania said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate effective tax rate in the US is 12.3%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The effective tax rate is just the average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. It's not the tax rate which all corporations pay. I'm going to assume you understand what average means. The effective rate mainly applies to small/mid cap companies, since they vastly out number large cap companies.
> 
> Also, do not forget that you are taxed at the state level as well.
Click to expand...


Effective is ACTUAL.

State tax? How do you know that Apple isn't a Nevada Corporation....Microsoft is.


----------



## freedombecki

Toddsterpatriot said:


> TruthOut10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
> 
> For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
> 
> "We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
> 
> Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
> 
> If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
> 
> Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash
> 
> 1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
> 
> 2). How about stop buying their products?
> 
> 3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
> 
> 4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale? Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borrow at very low rates and write off the interest or pay 35% on the cash?
> Hmmmm..........
Click to expand...

 So few words said, so many hearts changed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact remains, Aple is doing nothing that any other smart business would do, as long as our Tax codes *allow* it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our tax code ENCOURAGES it.   Other countries have far lower, flat taxes, and are not intent on taxing overseas profits.   We have the absolute worst, Byzantine, bureaucratic, misguided social engineering, big government crony benefiting tax regime ever on Earth.  It is strangling our society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporate effective tax rate in the US is 12.3%
Click to expand...


Maybe you can tell us how much extra Apple would pay if they brought back $100 billion tomorrow?
Be sure to show all your work.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our tax code ENCOURAGES it.   Other countries have far lower, flat taxes, and are not intent on taxing overseas profits.   We have the absolute worst, Byzantine, bureaucratic, misguided social engineering, big government crony benefiting tax regime ever on Earth.  It is strangling our society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate effective tax rate in the US is 12.3%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us how much extra Apple would pay if they brought back $100 billion tomorrow?
> Be sure to show all your work.
Click to expand...


Why would they bring tax free money back? They could start a dummy corporation and loan themselves what they need. Let's wait and see what 'bank' they borrow from.


----------



## freedombecki

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate effective tax rate in the US is 12.3%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us how much extra Apple would pay if they brought back $100 billion tomorrow?
> Be sure to show all your work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they bring tax free money back? They could start a dummy corporation and loan themselves what they need. Let's wait and see what 'bank' they borrow from.
Click to expand...

 OnePercenter, why are you zeroing in on taking out Apple Corp?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate effective tax rate in the US is 12.3%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us how much extra Apple would pay if they brought back $100 billion tomorrow?
> Be sure to show all your work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they bring tax free money back? They could start a dummy corporation and loan themselves what they need. Let's wait and see what 'bank' they borrow from.
Click to expand...


*Why would they bring tax free money back?*

To spend it here. Give it to shareholders here.


----------



## OnePercenter

freedombecki said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us how much extra Apple would pay if they brought back $100 billion tomorrow?
> Be sure to show all your work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they bring tax free money back? They could start a dummy corporation and loan themselves what they need. Let's wait and see what 'bank' they borrow from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OnePercenter, why are you zeroing in on taking out Apple Corp?
Click to expand...


I'm telling you how it works.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us how much extra Apple would pay if they brought back $100 billion tomorrow?
> Be sure to show all your work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they bring tax free money back? They could start a dummy corporation and loan themselves what they need. Let's wait and see what 'bank' they borrow from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why would they bring tax free money back?*
> 
> To spend it here. Give it to shareholders here.
Click to expand...


As a shareholder I agree....TYVM


----------



## P@triot

TruthOut10 said:


> Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
> 
> For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
> 
> "We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
> 
> Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
> 
> If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
> 
> Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash
> 
> 1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
> 
> 2). How about stop buying their products?
> 
> 3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
> 
> 4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale?  Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.



How about having a tax code that doesn't punish success and make it more expensive to pay taxes than to borrow $17 billion and pay it back with interest?!?

The fact that the point of this article went over your head that profoundly is simply amazing....


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> Really? Corporate taxes are the lowest (12.3 effective) in 42 years.



Really? We have the highest corporate tax rate in the *world*.

Perhaps you should have a clue what you are talking about before commenting? Just a thought...


----------



## Steelplate

tjvh said:


> Yep... We should penalize companies like Apple even more, because it isn't like those penalties will ever get passed on to the consumer.



Paying what they fucking OWE is penalizing them? Turn the channel.


----------



## Steelplate

Rottweiler said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Corporate taxes are the lowest (12.3 effective) in 42 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? We have the highest corporate tax rate in the *world*.
> 
> Perhaps you should have a clue what you are talking about before commenting? Just a thought...
Click to expand...


That WOULD be true if they actually PAID that rate...which we all know they don't....so why don't you put your Strawman to bed?


----------



## Steelplate

Rottweiler said:


> TruthOut10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
> 
> For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
> 
> "We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
> 
> Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
> 
> If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
> 
> Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash
> 
> 1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
> 
> 2). How about stop buying their products?
> 
> 3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
> 
> 4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale?  Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about having a tax code that doesn't punish success and make it more expensive to pay taxes than to borrow $17 billion and pay it back with interest?!?
> 
> The fact that the point of this article went over your head that profoundly is simply amazing....
Click to expand...


So you're saying you want a tax code that punishes the most vulnerable?  How feudalistic of you...


----------



## P@triot

Steelplate said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Corporate taxes are the lowest (12.3 effective) in 42 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? We have the highest corporate tax rate in the *world*.
> 
> Perhaps you should have a clue what you are talking about before commenting? Just a thought...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That WOULD be true if they actually PAID that rate...which we all know they don't....so why don't you put your Strawman to bed?
Click to expand...


Really? So the IRS just lets them pay whatever rate they want?


----------



## OnePercenter

Who cares what the tax rate is, it's the effective (actual) rate that counts. I paid $496,500.00 in Federal taxes for 2012. That's a 3% effective rate.


----------



## P@triot

Steelplate said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... We should penalize companies like Apple even more, because it isn't like those penalties will ever get passed on to the consumer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying what they fucking OWE is penalizing them? Turn the channel.
Click to expand...


Yes - because you fucking parasites think they "owe" any where from 50% (beyond outrageous) to 100% (just plain fucking stupid communism).

So yes - the ideology of you libtards is to punish success. I know, sounds absurd when you actually see it outside of your own libtard heads, doesn't it?


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> Who cares what the tax rate is, it's the effective (actual) rate that counts. I paid $496,500.00 in Federal taxes for 2012. That's a 3% effective rate.



Keep telling yourself that libtard...


----------



## P@triot

Steelplate said:


> So you're saying you want a tax code that punishes the most vulnerable?  How feudalistic of you...



No - I'm saying I want a tax code that doesn't punish anyone. Because taxes were not intended to be a punishment (unfortunately you libtard parasites got a hold of them and turned them into a punishment).

Our tax rate should be a flat 10% across the board with no deductions or loopholes. Period. End of story.

Unfortunately though, parasites like you want to mooch off the hard work of others.


----------



## Steelplate

OnePercenter said:


> Who cares what the tax rate is, it's the effective (actual) rate that counts. I paid $496,500.00 in Federal taxes for 2012. That's a 3% effective rate.



Tell that to rottweiler.


----------



## Steelplate

Rottweiler said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying you want a tax code that punishes the most vulnerable?  How feudalistic of you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - I'm saying I want a tax code that doesn't punish anyone. Because taxes were not intended to be a punishment (unfortunately you libtard parasites got a hold of them and turned them into a punishment).
> 
> Our tax rate should be a flat 10% across the board with no deductions or loopholes. Period. End of story.
> 
> Unfortunately though, parasites like you want to mooch off the hard work of others.
Click to expand...


Tax codes don't punish anyone...they keep government running...it's the cost of doing business and earning money here, as well as around the globe.

I bet I pay in more as a household than you do...so you might want to rethink the parasite thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Steelplate said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... We should penalize companies like Apple even more, because it isn't like those penalties will ever get passed on to the consumer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying what they fucking OWE is penalizing them? Turn the channel.
Click to expand...


They don't pay what they owe?
You should tell the IRS. If you have proof, you can get a big reward.
Let me know how that goes for you.


----------



## OnePercenter

Rottweiler said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... We should penalize companies like Apple even more, because it isn't like those penalties will ever get passed on to the consumer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying what they fucking OWE is penalizing them? Turn the channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - because you fucking parasites think they "owe" any where from 50% (beyond outrageous) to 100% (just plain fucking stupid communism).
> 
> So yes - the ideology of you libtards is to punish success. I know, sounds absurd when you actually see it outside of your own libtard heads, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


So you have any information that Apple paid ANY tax on the money they off-shored?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

tjvh said:


> Yep... We should penalize companies like Apple even more, because it isn't like those penalties will ever get passed on to the consumer.



We shouldn't have taxes. Someone has to pay them. That's not fair. Bwaah.


----------



## OnePercenter

Rottweiler said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying you want a tax code that punishes the most vulnerable?  How feudalistic of you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - I'm saying I want a tax code that doesn't punish anyone. Because taxes were not intended to be a punishment (unfortunately you libtard parasites got a hold of them and turned them into a punishment).
> 
> Our tax rate should be a flat 10% across the board with no deductions or loopholes. Period. End of story.
> 
> Unfortunately though, parasites like you want to mooch off the hard work of others.
Click to expand...


A flat 10% tax would be unfair to the majority of one-percenters, most married couples, and poor people.


----------



## OnePercenter

Steelplate said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying you want a tax code that punishes the most vulnerable?  How feudalistic of you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - I'm saying I want a tax code that doesn't punish anyone. Because taxes were not intended to be a punishment (unfortunately you libtard parasites got a hold of them and turned them into a punishment).
> 
> Our tax rate should be a flat 10% across the board with no deductions or loopholes. Period. End of story.
> 
> Unfortunately though, parasites like you want to mooch off the hard work of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax codes don't punish anyone...they keep government running...it's the cost of doing business and earning money here, as well as around the globe.
> 
> *I bet I pay in more as a household than you do...so you might want to rethink the parasite thing.*
Click to expand...


Which State do you live?

Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones


----------



## Steelplate

OnePercenter said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No - I'm saying I want a tax code that doesn't punish anyone. Because taxes were not intended to be a punishment (unfortunately you libtard parasites got a hold of them and turned them into a punishment).
> 
> Our tax rate should be a flat 10% across the board with no deductions or loopholes. Period. End of story.
> 
> Unfortunately though, parasites like you want to mooch off the hard work of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax codes don't punish anyone...they keep government running...it's the cost of doing business and earning money here, as well as around the globe.
> 
> *I bet I pay in more as a household than you do...so you might want to rethink the parasite thing.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which State do you live?
> 
> Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones
Click to expand...


Pennsylvania.


----------



## OnePercenter

A ratio of 2.9. The rich Thank You!


----------



## editec

It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.

Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?

One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> A flat 10% tax would be unfair to the majority of one-percenters, most married couples, and poor people.



What?!?! *How* is paying a flat rate of 10% unfair to "poor people"?!?

Are you incapable of math?!?

Poor person pays 10% of $20,000 it equals $2,000

Rich person pays 10% of $2,000,000 it equals $200,000

$200,000 is a fuck-load more than $2,000. In fact, it's a fuck-load more than the entire salary of the poor person.

Please, go back to school and get some kind of an education....


----------



## P@triot

editec said:


> It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
> 
> Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
> 
> One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?



I'm a die-hard conservative, and I support that 100%.

Liberals don't understand that they have run jobs (through inflated union wages) and money (through absurd tax rates) right out of this country.

They created the problem - and then they cry the loudest about it


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Why are companies even allowed to make more than their fair share in the first place?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

editec said:


> It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
> 
> Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
> 
> One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?



Or stop adding hoops for companies to jump through, if they want to bring money into America?


----------



## OnePercenter

Rottweiler said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A flat 10% tax would be unfair to the majority of one-percenters, most married couples, and poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?!?! *How* is paying a flat rate of 10% unfair to "poor people"?!?
> 
> Are you incapable of math?!?
> 
> Poor person pays 10% of $20,000 it equals $2,000
> 
> Rich person pays 10% of $2,000,000 it equals $200,000
> 
> $200,000 is a fuck-load more than $2,000. In fact, it's a fuck-load more than the entire salary of the poor person.
> 
> Please, go back to school and get some kind of an education....
Click to expand...


It's not as cut-and-dry as you think it is. Since you seem to have glossed over it, you really need to go back and read the following link:

Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones

Also, what would prevent a person making $100k/yr or more from forming a contract employee situation. This is done completely on the employee's end, which no 10% tax scenario covers.


----------



## OnePercenter

Rottweiler said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
> 
> Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
> 
> One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm a die-hard conservative*, and I support that 100%.
> 
> Liberals don't understand that they have run jobs (through inflated union wages) and money (through absurd tax rates) right out of this country.
> 
> They created the problem - and then they cry the loudest about it
Click to expand...


A true conservative is a rich person that votes Republican to reduce their tax liability.

A middle-class conservative is someone who is cheap.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A flat 10% tax would be unfair to the majority of one-percenters, most married couples, and poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?!?! *How* is paying a flat rate of 10% unfair to "poor people"?!?
> 
> Are you incapable of math?!?
> 
> Poor person pays 10% of $20,000 it equals $2,000
> 
> Rich person pays 10% of $2,000,000 it equals $200,000
> 
> $200,000 is a fuck-load more than $2,000. In fact, it's a fuck-load more than the entire salary of the poor person.
> 
> Please, go back to school and get some kind of an education....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not as cut-and-dry as you think it is. Since you seem to have glossed over it, you really need to go back and read the following link:
> 
> Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones
> 
> Also, what would prevent a person making $100k/yr or more from forming a contract employee situation. This is done completely on the employee's end, which no 10% tax scenario covers.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link.

*Payroll taxes aren't progressive, for example. In fact, they're actively regressive, with the poor and middle classes paying higher rates than the rich.*

What a silly claim. Of course they all pay the same rate, up to the statutory income cap.

*That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the poorest 20 percent pay twice the tax rate of the top 1 percent.*

I'd love to see the proof behind this claim.

http://www.itep.org/pdf/ms.pdf

The above link gives some numbers that don't make any sense. Maybe you can explain them?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?!?! *How* is paying a flat rate of 10% unfair to "poor people"?!?
> 
> Are you incapable of math?!?
> 
> Poor person pays 10% of $20,000 it equals $2,000
> 
> Rich person pays 10% of $2,000,000 it equals $200,000
> 
> $200,000 is a fuck-load more than $2,000. In fact, it's a fuck-load more than the entire salary of the poor person.
> 
> Please, go back to school and get some kind of an education....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not as cut-and-dry as you think it is. Since you seem to have glossed over it, you really need to go back and read the following link:
> 
> Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones
> 
> Also, what would prevent a person making $100k/yr or more from forming a contract employee situation. This is done completely on the employee's end, which no 10% tax scenario covers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> *Payroll taxes aren't progressive, for example. In fact, they're actively regressive, with the poor and middle classes paying higher rates than the rich.*
> 
> What a silly claim. Of course they all pay the same rate, up to the statutory income cap.
> 
> *That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the poorest 20 percent pay twice the tax rate of the top 1 percent.*
> 
> I'd love to see the proof behind this claim.
> 
> http://www.itep.org/pdf/ms.pdf
> 
> The above link gives some numbers that don't make any sense. Maybe you can explain them?
Click to expand...


Your problem is that you can't put your head around tax rates vs. effective (actual) tax rates.

In regard to the link:

The blue graph shows higher subsidies to the right. The more money you make, the higher the subsidies and less taxes you effectively pay.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not as cut-and-dry as you think it is. Since you seem to have glossed over it, you really need to go back and read the following link:
> 
> Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones
> 
> Also, what would prevent a person making $100k/yr or more from forming a contract employee situation. This is done completely on the employee's end, which no 10% tax scenario covers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> *Payroll taxes aren't progressive, for example. In fact, they're actively regressive, with the poor and middle classes paying higher rates than the rich.*
> 
> What a silly claim. Of course they all pay the same rate, up to the statutory income cap.
> 
> *That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the poorest 20 percent pay twice the tax rate of the top 1 percent.*
> 
> I'd love to see the proof behind this claim.
> 
> http://www.itep.org/pdf/ms.pdf
> 
> The above link gives some numbers that don't make any sense. Maybe you can explain them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is that you can't put your head around tax rates vs. effective (actual) tax rates.
> 
> In regard to the link:
> 
> The blue graph shows higher subsidies to the right. The more money you make, the higher the subsidies and less taxes you effectively pay.
Click to expand...


*The blue graph shows higher subsidies to the right.*

Yes, that's the claim. Where is the proof?
For instance, the lowest 20% pay 2.4% of income as property tax. The top 1% pay 2%.
I may be wrong, but wouldn't most of the lowest 20% be renters? 

I don't see anything about welfare/income transfers. 
If the average income person in the bottom 20% makes $8,000 and spends $832 on taxes, that's the 10.4% claimed, but what if they also receive $5,000 in transfer payments?
Now their $832 is only 6.4%.


----------



## boedicca

Rottweiler said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
> 
> Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
> 
> One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a die-hard conservative, and I support that 100%.
> 
> Liberals don't understand that they have run jobs (through inflated union wages) and money (through absurd tax rates) right out of this country.
> 
> They created the problem - and then they cry the loudest about it
Click to expand...



Here are the issues impeding "getting on board with that":

- unless there is a viable market for whatever the investment in additional labor and production facilities, it's  waste of money.

- with the excessive regulatory burdens, including ObamaCare in the present day U.S., the overseas capital can likely be better used expanding foreign markets.

Apple isn't going to bring $$$ back to the U.S. for make work defacto welfare.  Nor should they.  Any repatriated cash (which has already been taxed in the country in which it was earned) belongs to Apple's shareholders.


----------



## sitarro

TruthOut10 said:


> Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
> 
> For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
> 
> "We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
> 
> Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
> 
> If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
> 
> Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash
> 
> 1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
> 
> 2). How about stop buying their products?
> 
> 3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
> 
> 4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale?  Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.




Let me guess asshole, you're writing this on a fucking sammysung ripoff while driving a kia ripoff and bitching about the real creative companies. Fuck off! I don't blame Apple for not wanting to be ripped off by the American government. Apple employs 50,250 people in the U.S. directly. Another 257,000 more are jobs to service the company. They have employees in every state including Texas where processors are manufactured for iOS products and Corning employees in New York and Kentucky that produce most of the glass for iPhone. Over 290,000 jobs involved in their iOS apps on top of that so there is an estimated 600,000 jobs that exist partly because of Apple. Osama wishes he could get that kind of employment numbers and you want to hurt them........ Why don't you get the asshole in DC to park our 747 if you are so worried about money.....we pay over 180,000 dollars an hour to run that thing.......... that is just Air Force One, there are numerous other gas hogs that g with him. he went to Hawaii, back to Washinton back to Hawaii then back to Washington for his Christmas vacation. That didn't count the she monster's entourage.


----------



## editec

OnePercenter said:


> Who cares what the tax rate is, it's the effective (actual) rate that counts. I paid $496,500.00 in Federal taxes for 2012. That's a 3% effective rate.




You only made $16,550,0000, last year?

Slow year, was it?

Well, don't let it get you down One%.

There's always next year to catch up, I suppose.


----------



## freedombecki

sitarro said:


> TruthOut10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
> 
> For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
> 
> "We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
> 
> Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
> 
> If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
> 
> Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash
> 
> 1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
> 
> 2). How about stop buying their products?
> 
> 3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
> 
> 4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale? Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess asshole, you're writing this on a fucking sammysung ripoff while driving a kia ripoff and bitching about the real creative companies. Fuck off! I don't blame Apple for not wanting to be ripped off by the American government. Apple employs 50,250 people in the U.S. directly. Another 257,000 more are jobs to service the company. They have employees in every state including Texas where processors are manufactured for iOS products and Corning employees in New York and Kentucky that produce most of the glass for iPhone. Over 290,000 jobs involved in their iOS apps on top of that so there is an estimated 600,000 jobs that exist partly because of Apple. Osama wishes he could get that kind of employment numbers and you want to hurt them........ Why don't you get the asshole in DC to park our 747 if you are so worried about money.....we pay over 180,000 dollars an hour to run that thing.......... that is just Air Force One, there are numerous other gas hogs that g with him. he went to Hawaii, back to Washinton back to Hawaii then back to Washington for his Christmas vacation. That didn't count the she monster's entourage.
Click to expand...

 Thank you for showing that Apple Computer feeds a lot of mouths in this country. 600,000 people altogether? I bet another few hundred thousand earn wages at the docks and post office, not to mention transportation to get products out to the market. 

Oh, the forum nanny said <you are out of rep for 24 hours. Try again later>

*sigh* or some would be coming your way.


----------



## OnePercenter

boedicca said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
> 
> Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
> 
> One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a die-hard conservative, and I support that 100%.
> 
> Liberals don't understand that they have run jobs (through inflated union wages) and money (through absurd tax rates) right out of this country.
> 
> They created the problem - and then they cry the loudest about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the issues impeding "getting on board with that":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - unless there is a viable market for whatever the investment in additional labor and production facilities, it's  waste of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then create one. The zipper, pagers, cell phones, and smart phones at one time had no market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - with the excessive regulatory burdens, including ObamaCare in the present day U.S., the overseas capital can likely be better used expanding foreign markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just think, with all of the 'excessive regulatory burdens', American business is making TRILLION in net profit (that cash take-home). Don't believe it? Look at the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apple isn't going to bring $$$ back to the U.S. for make work defacto welfare.  Nor should they.  Any repatriated cash (which has already been taxed in the country in which it was earned) belongs to Apple's shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have any information that Apple paid any tax I'd like to see it. How do you know that the money wasn't made in one of the eight countries that has no corporate taxes.
Click to expand...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a die-hard conservative, and I support that 100%.
> 
> Liberals don't understand that they have run jobs (through inflated union wages) and money (through absurd tax rates) right out of this country.
> 
> They created the problem - and then they cry the loudest about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the issues impeding "getting on board with that":
> 
> 
> 
> Then create one. The zipper, pagers, cell phones, and smart phones at one time had no market.
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, with all of the 'excessive regulatory burdens', American business is making TRILLION in net profit (that cash take-home). Don't believe it? Look at the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apple isn't going to bring $$$ back to the U.S. for make work defacto welfare.  Nor should they.  Any repatriated cash (which has already been taxed in the country in which it was earned) belongs to Apple's shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have any information that Apple paid any tax I'd like to see it. How do you know that the money wasn't made in one of the eight countries that has no corporate taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
Click to expand...


----------



## OnePercenter

editec said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what the tax rate is, it's the effective (actual) rate that counts. I paid $496,500.00 in Federal taxes for 2012. That's a 3% effective rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You only made $16,550,0000, last year?
> 
> Slow year, was it?
> 
> Well, don't let it get you down One%.
> 
> There's always next year to catch up, I suppose.
Click to expand...


And unlike Apple, I paid tax on what I made.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the issues impeding "getting on board with that":
> 
> 
> 
> Then create one. The zipper, pagers, cell phones, and smart phones at one time had no market.
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, with all of the 'excessive regulatory burdens', American business is making TRILLION in net profit (that cash take-home). Don't believe it? Look at the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have any information that Apple paid any tax I'd like to see it. How do you know that the money wasn't made in one of the eight countries that has no corporate taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they made the money, paid tax on the money, then why would they off-shore the money?
Click to expand...


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the issues impeding "getting on board with that":
> 
> 
> 
> Then create one. The zipper, pagers, cell phones, and smart phones at one time had no market.
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, with all of the 'excessive regulatory burdens', American business is making TRILLION in net profit (that cash take-home). Don't believe it? Look at the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have any information that Apple paid any tax I'd like to see it. How do you know that the money wasn't made in one of the eight countries that has no corporate taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they paid 11% effective? What was your effective rate?
Click to expand...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they made the money, paid tax on the money, then why would they off-shore the money?
Click to expand...


They made money offshore and paid taxes on it in the country where they earned it.
Why should they bring it home and pay taxes on it again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they paid 11% effective? What was your effective rate?
Click to expand...


They paid 25% on their income. What did you pay on yours?


----------



## boedicca

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they paid 11% effective? What was your effective rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They paid 25% on their income. What did you pay on yours?
Click to expand...



I'm guessing he's one of those people who scammed the Earned Income Tax Credit.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they made the money, paid tax on the money, then why would they off-shore the money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They made money offshore and paid taxes on it in the country where they earned it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making money off-shore means you made the money in one of the eight countries that have no corporate taxes such as Bermuda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they bring it home and pay taxes on it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me any proof that they paid any taxes, anywhere.
Click to expand...


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they paid 11% effective? What was your effective rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They paid 25% on their income. What did you pay on yours?
Click to expand...


156b/14b=25%? What color is the sky in your world?

I paid 3% on 16m.


----------



## OnePercenter

boedicca said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they paid 11% effective? What was your effective rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They paid 25% on their income. What did you pay on yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing he's one of those people who scammed the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Click to expand...


Guess again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Making money off-shore means you made the money in one of the eight countries that have no corporate taxes such as Bermuda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they bring it home and pay taxes on it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me any proof that they paid any taxes, anywhere.
Click to expand...


*Making money off-shore means you made the money in one of the eight countries that have no corporate taxes such as Bermuda.*

Making money anywhere but the US makes them offshore money.
If they made money in France, they paid tax in France.
If they bring those French profits home to the US, they'd pay additional US taxes.

*Show me any proof that they paid any taxes, anywhere.*

We've been over this.
I gave you a link that showed they paid $14 billion in taxes last year.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they paid 11% effective? What was your effective rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They paid 25% on their income. What did you pay on yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 156b/14b=25%? What color is the sky in your world?
> 
> I paid 3% on 16m.
Click to expand...


My sky is the color where you don't pay income taxes on your revenue.

Try again?

Maybe use some of your money to learn how to read an income statement?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They paid 25% on their income. What did you pay on yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 156b/14b=25%? What color is the sky in your world?
> 
> I paid 3% on 16m.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My sky is the color where you don't pay income taxes on your revenue.
> 
> Try again?
> 
> Maybe use some of your money to learn how to read an income statement?
Click to expand...


156b/14b=25%?


----------

