4 ms·
I'm not sure why you think a big 4 accounting firm would need to do clickbait, but that's beside the point. Whether Apple left the cash in Ireland or brought it
by IBM 9y ago
I'm not sure why you think a big 4 accounting firm would need to do clickbait, but that's beside the point. Whether Apple left the cash in Ireland or brought it back to the US, they would have paid $38B in taxes. That's the mandatory part. That's what the quoted text literally says.
And since you seem to be unaware, the vast majority of Apple's cash has already been in the US for years, invested in US treasuries and other fixed income assets and held by American trust banks. It's Irish cash only in a legal sense. This is broadly true for all other American multinationals as well.
- downandout 9y agoThe point is that the tax is mandatory, not the repatriation. If they didn’t believe that the US was the best place to put that money, they could have paid the tax and left it there or moved it elsewhere. The fact that they are deploying that capital here indicates some level of belief that the American economy will thrive under this tax plan.
- threeseed 9y agoThis is pure fiction you've invented here. Apple bringing capital back to the US is solely to do with their being tax incentives to do so. Nothing more. Nothing less.
- downandout 9y agoAs you said, they are being incentivized to do so. It isn’t mandatory, which is what this whole argument is about. I don’t know how it’s “pure fiction” to point that out, when your own comment literally says what I have been saying.
- threeseed 9y ago> The fact that they are deploying that capital here indicates some level of belief that the American economy will thrive under this tax plan. This statement is fiction. There is nothing from Apple indicating this.
- downandout 9y agoThey are indicating it by doing it. That cash doesn't have to remain here; they simply have to pay taxes on it. The only reason that a rational corporation would keep it here is because they believe it's a good investment.
- m52go 9y agoSorry you keep getting hassled for such a simple point. The tax is being levied on all overseas money (mandatory) and some companies are deciding to bring that money back to the USA (voluntary). Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
- downandout 9y agoThanks, I don't get it myself. I guess simply stating what a bill actually does is going to have a hard time here on HN, if that bill has even a tangential connection to the current administration. It has become a holy war.
- threeseed 9y agoAgain. Apple has said nothing about the economy. We could be in a 1930's recession and it would still be tax-advantageous to bring the money back. Especially since Apple is tipped to use it for stock buy back.
- downandout 9y agoAgain, they don't have to bring it back - it was going to be taxed regardless. They could pay the tax and invest it somewhere else. They chose to invest it here. Analogy: Anyone can open a cryptocurrency masternode [1] and get a several percent per month ROI, paid in that currency. I don't want to do that unless I believe in a given coin, however, because I must invest in and hold a large amount of the given coin in order to operate the masternode and get the return. Yes, I am being incentivized to do so, but it still doesn't make sense unless I believe in the underlying investment. [1] https://masternodes.online/ https://masternodes.online/
- afjl 9y agoI'm not sure this is a very convincing argument to make. The underlying economic conditions have not changed drastically in the last few months or even years. The tax plan's effect on the economy is presently a projection. Apple's decision to repatriate this sum is a no-brainer: America's economic landscape hasn't changed, but the deal that was offered has changed.