4 ms·
well, the state is bankrupt. partly because companies that embody its dreams are not chipping in with the bills.
by dot 16y ago
well, the state is bankrupt. partly because companies that embody its dreams are not chipping in with the bills.
- jrockway 16y agoThe state just needs to pass a better law. Apple is obligated by its contract to its shareholders to avoid taxes as much as possible; they are just avoiding a lawsuit. (I don't like this, but I understand it. The law just needs to catch up with the market, then everyone will be paying their fair share again.)
- starkfist 16y agoHas there ever been a lawsuit where the shareholders sued a company for not evading taxes?
- jbooth 16y agoSure, but whenever anyone proposes that, 40% of the country, suckers that actually pay their taxes, stand up and beat their chests and wail about the inequities of making a corporation pay taxes. Last I heard, Exxon-Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the entire world, doesn't pay a dime in US taxes. Meanwhile, I pay every other week. This is BS.
- orangecat 16y agoLast I heard, Exxon-Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the entire world, doesn't pay a dime in US taxes. You heard wrong: http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/ http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-i...
- jbooth 16y agoThanks. So at least there's that. Meanwhile, google for "exxon subsidies us" brings up a 3 billion subsidy last year and who knows how much over the last 10. But at least we're probably not in the red. Although I'd say Exxon is getting a better-than-fair deal with all that the State Dept and US Military do for them.
- orangecat 16y agoAlthough I'd say Exxon is getting a better-than-fair deal with all that the State Dept and US Military do for them. No doubt. I'm always amused by claims that nuclear power or alternative energy is "too expensive", when they ignore the huge explicit and implicit subsidies that oil gets.
- neilc 16y agoApple is obligated by its contract to its shareholders to avoid taxes as much as possible; they are just avoiding a lawsuit. To which contract/obligation are you referring? Per http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 : "Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co ... U.S. corporate law does not and never has imposed a legal obligation on directors to maximize shareholder wealth."
- towndrunk 16y agoI hardly think the states issues with money are Apples problem to solve. The state is bankrupt because its congress spends more than it takes in.
- fletchowns 16y agoYeah, might be eBay's problem soon though.
- eli 16y agoCongress? That doesn't really explain why the state is bankrupt. Don't you think Sacramento deserves just a wee bit of blame? That and California's ridiculous constitution that has voters deciding on complex matters of state finance instead of legislators.
- jsz0 16y agoI can see both sides of it. These companies do provide jobs (income taxes) to people who can then buy homes (property taxes) and consume local goods & services (sales taxes, creation of more jobs, etc) but it's really unfortunate the tax system seems to be setup to put the biggest burden on individuals and small businesses that can't find creative ways out of paying taxes. There should probably be some sort of minimum tax for these companies posting billions in profits even if it only exists to break even and take some of the tax burden off small businesses. It certainly doesn't help that the state has been cooking the books for years. If the state can't even be honest with the people about budgets there's no hope of having a fair tax system.
- dedward 16y agoWhere do you draw the line? The bigger businesses create more jobs and do more for the economy, and even with the lower percentage they leverage in return for this, they are responsible for the majority of actual tax dollars taken in. If individual income tax were eliminated, while it sounds good, it would be one less thing for people to get riled up about and take an interest in politics.
- nradov 16y agoThe state is "bankrupt" because it cranked up spending during the boom years, giving ridiculous pay and benefits to public employees instead of saving for a rainy day. Fighting the war on (some) drugs and passing out free services to illegal aliens hasn't helped much either. Of course there is currently no legal way for the state government to file for bankruptcy. But I except that within the next 10 years it will default on its sovereign debt.
- anamax 16y ago> partly because companies that embody its dreams are not chipping in with the bills. Nope. CA has a spending problem. CA is taking in about what it spent in 2008. Unless you think that 2008 was a disaster, spending that amount now should be perfectly acceptable. CA has a deficit because it is spending far more than it spent in 2008. As to my "spending plan", it's rewind the spending until the budget is balanced. If the legislature and governor want to keep any specific new spending, they get to cut an equivalent amount of old spending.
- kelnos 16y agoThe state is bankrupt because it mismanages money and spends more than it takes in. It's certainly not Apple's problem to solve.