3 ms·

>Apple wouldn't be playing the games it plays with the US if we didn't have the 2nd highest or so corporate tax rate in the world How low do you think that tax

>Apple wouldn't be playing the games it plays with the US if we didn't have the 2nd highest or so corporate tax rate in the world How low do you think that tax rate would have to be? Ireland's corporation tax rate is just 12.5%, but Apple didn't pay that either. They had a special deal under which their effective tax rate was as low as 0.005% to 1%. This is the deal that the EU has now ruled against under furious protests from Tim Cook personally and the US government. So yes, if the US lowers its corporation tax rate to effectively 0% then Apple will stop playing games.

nickff 10y ago
Apple's latest report said that they paid a little over 6% in taxes, whereas the 0.005% number came from someone looking to score political points (without any evidence); do you have a trustworthy source for either the 0.005% or 1% numbers?
- Marazan 10y ago
  It's in the EU documents.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickff 10y ago
    My understanding is that EU documents estimate that number for the Irish tax take as percentage of total global revenue, it isn't their total effective tax rate (on profits as is common for corporations). The parent used a meaningless number in a misleading fashion.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      I think it was completely obvious in the context that I wasn't talking about Apple's global effective tax rate but only about the taxes they pay in Ireland where all of their European sales are booked. My understanding is that the numbers I quoted (in good faith) are derived from the profits Apple would have made in Europe had they not been allowed by the Irish government to use unrealistic transfer pricing. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm The numbers are certainly not meaningless, but whether or not they are misleading is for a court to decide. It was certainly not my intention to mislead and I do not have all the information to come up with more reliable estimates of Apple's real profits in Europe. Also, as someone who is liable to pay personal taxes on top of profits already taxed through corporation tax I don't feel particularly biased or inclined to score political points in favor of higher taxes. It is simply my opinion that shifting government income from one tax to another isn't necessarily going to improve avoidance overall. It is also my opinion that taxes always have to be compared to what they buy us, in terms of actual services and also in terms of being humane.
- eleumik 10y ago
  bullock says 2% https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/771351793284571137 https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/77135179328457113...
hga 10y ago
Echoing nickff, obviously they're going to seek out the lowest tax rate they can find for the greatest amount of money they can put there. But surely you can see that 35% is so high a rate they'll focus more on tax avoidance than is healthy for any of these parties, including themselves? The item I saw about regions indicated Europe was at around 18%. The nickff cited 6%, 12%, 18%, all those are reasonable, as well as 0%, since the taxes they pay by definition eventually get passed on to others. Some wags had commented WRT to the Christian duty to tithe, "If 10% is good enough for God, why isn't is good enough for the Federal government?" That they and so many other US based companies have accumulated such huge offshore pots of money is one of those distortions I go into in my rather long post you're replying to. I submit to you it wouldn't be so huge if repatriating it to the US wouldn't automatically cost them 35% of it. By policy endorsed by no less a moral authority than the US Supreme Court, it's their right, if not their duty, to avoid as much tax as they can.
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  >But surely you can see that 35% is so high a rate they'll focus more on tax avoidance than is healthy for any of these parties, including themselves? I don't want to defend the US corporation tax structure, but I don't think corporation tax should be considered in isolation. Other countries have a low corporation tax and make up for it by high employer contributions to social security or other taxes.

nickff 10y ago

Apple's latest report said that they paid a little over 6% in taxes, whereas the 0.005% number came from someone looking to score political points (without any evidence); do you have a trustworthy source for either the 0.005% or 1% numbers?

Marazan 10y ago
It's in the EU documents.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nickff 10y ago
  My understanding is that EU documents estimate that number for the Irish tax take as percentage of total global revenue, it isn't their total effective tax rate (on profits as is common for corporations). The parent used a meaningless number in a misleading fashion.
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    I think it was completely obvious in the context that I wasn't talking about Apple's global effective tax rate but only about the taxes they pay in Ireland where all of their European sales are booked. My understanding is that the numbers I quoted (in good faith) are derived from the profits Apple would have made in Europe had they not been allowed by the Irish government to use unrealistic transfer pricing. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm The numbers are certainly not meaningless, but whether or not they are misleading is for a court to decide. It was certainly not my intention to mislead and I do not have all the information to come up with more reliable estimates of Apple's real profits in Europe. Also, as someone who is liable to pay personal taxes on top of profits already taxed through corporation tax I don't feel particularly biased or inclined to score political points in favor of higher taxes. It is simply my opinion that shifting government income from one tax to another isn't necessarily going to improve avoidance overall. It is also my opinion that taxes always have to be compared to what they buy us, in terms of actual services and also in terms of being humane.
eleumik 10y ago
bullock says 2% https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/771351793284571137 https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/77135179328457113...

hga 10y ago

Echoing nickff, obviously they're going to seek out the lowest tax rate they can find for the greatest amount of money they can put there. But surely you can see that 35% is so high a rate they'll focus more on tax avoidance than is healthy for any of these parties, including themselves? The item I saw about regions indicated Europe was at around 18%. The nickff cited 6%, 12%, 18%, all those are reasonable, as well as 0%, since the taxes they pay by definition eventually get passed on to others. Some wags had commented WRT to the Christian duty to tithe, "If 10% is good enough for God, why isn't is good enough for the Federal government?" That they and so many other US based companies have accumulated such huge offshore pots of money is one of those distortions I go into in my rather long post you're replying to. I submit to you it wouldn't be so huge if repatriating it to the US wouldn't automatically cost them 35% of it. By policy endorsed by no less a moral authority than the US Supreme Court, it's their right, if not their duty, to avoid as much tax as they can.

fauigerzigerk 10y ago
>But surely you can see that 35% is so high a rate they'll focus more on tax avoidance than is healthy for any of these parties, including themselves? I don't want to defend the US corporation tax structure, but I don't think corporation tax should be considered in isolation. Other countries have a low corporation tax and make up for it by high employer contributions to social security or other taxes.