6 ms·
> It seems like a no brainier to drop the rate when the alternative is financial skullduggery by the Apple capitals of the world. Absolutely not. Just because
by MoBattah 9y ago
> It seems like a no brainier to drop the rate when the alternative is financial skullduggery by the Apple capitals of the world.
Absolutely not. Just because an entity will try to work around your well-intentioned and globally standard laws does not mean you should give up on those laws.
In addition, it's quite an elitist and anti-democratic statement -- Apple is by far the world's most profitable public company, to give them a 'tax break' is to add icing onto their cake.
Apple is doing what it thinks is best -- taking on debt with the assurance of foreign assets, no matter if those assets are readily available or not.
The current US president has tossed around the idea of taxation amnesty for corporate asset repatriation -- if I was Apple, I'd lobby for that while continuing on their current practice.
Lastly, there's no real fear Apple won't be able to borrow at a handsome rate. Interest rates are still incredibly low (historically) and the Fed doesn't raise rates by full percentage points, they do it slowly and incrementally.
- mankash666 9y agoDisagree. Apple is one among thousands of companies avoiding tax, while Mom-and-pop companies pay exorbitant rates. No one's working around laws - they're following it diligently while maintaining their fiduciary duty to investors. US corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world - even Canada - having a reputation for being socialist - has a lower rate. You're forcing companies to pay 0% tax in the US if they can get away paying only 5% in Ireland. And Ireland is benefiting disproportionately from American innovation - because of onerous tax rates
- pjc50 9y agoThe US is the only country to apply a global income tax to its non-resident nationals. It should apply a global tax to its businesses as well.
- valuearb 9y agoThat would drive US corporations to reincorporate overseas and cost the US most of its corporate tax revenue.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoYou install tariffs on the products and services of those corporations attempting to subvert the taxing authority, utilizing payment networks if necessary to capture the tariff.
- matt_wulfeck 9y agoSo person A sells an iPhone to person B in China. The phone was manufactured there and never left the country. Can you tell me the reasoning that our federal government owns 35% of that sale? There’s a reason other (more “progressive”) countries don’t tax overseas business. It’s stupid and anticompetitive.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoThe same reason I owe the government taxes when a non US company pays me directly when I work outside of the US. That’s what I owe the US government for their services I receive as a US citizen regardless of where my business activity took place. You think it’s stupid and anti competitive. I think that it’s a race to the bottom otherwise and fully support the current model (although 35% is a tad too high; 20-25% is more reasonable IMHO).
- wbl 9y agoThere is only one other country that agrees with you: Eritria. Almost all other countries tax only residents.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 9y agoTo each country their own model. This works for us. Probably helps to be one of the largest economies in the world. You get to make your own rules at that scale.
- EliRivers 9y agowhile maintaining their fiduciary duty to investors. I'm not so convinced. That's a huge cash pile. If they brought some back and handed it out as dividends, I'd feel the benefit. I'm not inherently averse to them investing it instead of giving it to me straight away, but at some point I do want it.
- ifhd 9y agoThen lower them, but force Apple to actually pay the new rate. The problem is big companies can get around taxes.