4 ms·

> In the end, that kind of policy would hurt the US at a time when America needs more winners like Apple How does it hurt the US if the policy is changed to re

by vacri 9y ago

> In the end, that kind of policy would hurt the US at a time when America needs more winners like Apple How does it hurt the US if the policy is changed to remove tax on foreign earnings? Total change on inbound money = $0. Frankly, screw Apple. They play fast and loose with tax law, and so what if other companies do it, it's not an excuse. Particularly given their target demographic. And here in Australia, Apple makes us pay proportionately more anyway; I'd rather that extra money go to the US citizens than Apple's $250B "let' not do anything with this" money. The US budget is in dire straits, and Apple could take a 35% haircut on its ready cash and not change its behaviour a jot. They could be doing so much with that money, from tangible Gates-style global philanthropy to re-investment a la Amazon. Nope, just throw it in a bucket and crowd around saying "ooh, that's a lot!" The other big American 'winner' of this kind is Wal-mart. Amazingly explosive growth and armloads of cash, yet plenty of their employees rely on government food stamps to make ends meet. The US needs fewer of these kinds of 'winners', not more.

brigade 9y ago
Eh, if the US somehow forced Apple to repatriate all its international revenue, the US still wouldn't benefit from that because then there's much less incentive for Apple to reduce how much they pay in local foreign taxes. So the US would get less tax revenue from that than a repatriation holiday every decade or so. Really, the only winners would be foreign countries. I don't see why the US should change its policies to benefit Australia; aren't your own politicians capable of closing loopholes in your own laws?
- vacri 9y ago
  > I don't see why the US should change its policies to benefit Australia How on earth did you get that out of what I wrote?
ubernostrum 9y ago
Generally what people propose is some type of VAT or border-adjustment tax, which taxes on the value of goods sold in a jurisdiction rather than on profits realized from the sale. The problem is many companies have gotten too used to being able to avoid taxation essentially at will, and would not take kindly to either having their products get more expensive (if they pass the entire cost on to the customer), which decreases their profits through reduced sales, or having their profits directly reduced by paying tax on sales. The tax rate they want is zero, and they've shown they'll go to extraordinary lengths trying to achieve it.
nihonde 9y ago
I tried to follow your logic but I got lost. My point was that forcing global enterprises to pay tax in the US on revenues raised elsewhere creates a long term drag on US-based businesses, gives foreign-based businesses a huge competitive advantage, and at the end of the day, AAPL shareholders lose value, the US economy is depositioned relative to those who don't have to discount their profits by N%. You seem upset but you also seem to believe that successful businesses should pay up just because they can afford it. To quote Bill Gates as portrayed on The Simpsons: "I didn't get rich by writing checks".

by vacri 9y ago

brigade 9y ago

Eh, if the US somehow forced Apple to repatriate all its international revenue, the US still wouldn't benefit from that because then there's much less incentive for Apple to reduce how much they pay in local foreign taxes. So the US would get less tax revenue from that than a repatriation holiday every decade or so. Really, the only winners would be foreign countries. I don't see why the US should change its policies to benefit Australia; aren't your own politicians capable of closing loopholes in your own laws?

vacri 9y ago
> I don't see why the US should change its policies to benefit Australia How on earth did you get that out of what I wrote?

ubernostrum 9y ago

Generally what people propose is some type of VAT or border-adjustment tax, which taxes on the value of goods sold in a jurisdiction rather than on profits realized from the sale. The problem is many companies have gotten too used to being able to avoid taxation essentially at will, and would not take kindly to either having their products get more expensive (if they pass the entire cost on to the customer), which decreases their profits through reduced sales, or having their profits directly reduced by paying tax on sales. The tax rate they want is zero, and they've shown they'll go to extraordinary lengths trying to achieve it.

nihonde 9y ago

I tried to follow your logic but I got lost. My point was that forcing global enterprises to pay tax in the US on revenues raised elsewhere creates a long term drag on US-based businesses, gives foreign-based businesses a huge competitive advantage, and at the end of the day, AAPL shareholders lose value, the US economy is depositioned relative to those who don't have to discount their profits by N%. You seem upset but you also seem to believe that successful businesses should pay up just because they can afford it. To quote Bill Gates as portrayed on The Simpsons: "I didn't get rich by writing checks".