4 ms·
There is no diversion about it. Remember that people, voting individuals in the US, have decidedly different stances on what "appropriate" amount of taxes shoul
by liquidise 9y ago
There is no diversion about it. Remember that people, voting individuals in the US, have decidedly different stances on what "appropriate" amount of taxes should be. Business, particularly public ones, have a responsibility to their share holders to handle money as fiscally responsibly as they can.
From my perspective, Apple isn't "grabbing" anything. They are moving their money from Bank A to Bank B and paying a 20% fee on their balance simply for doing so. You may say this is a PR piece and a continued way to screw workers, but i see it differently. Apple had no need to repatriate this money. This is part of a conscious shift in their fiscal policy moving forward. It stands to benefit US workers a great deal more than them keeping these funds overseas.
- SapphireSun 9y agoPaying their taxes and investing in technology and scientific progress would help workers even more.
- liquidise 9y agoWould you mind clarifying what you mean? The implications i read in this comment are that Apple isn't paying taxes and do not invest in technology. Both are of course false, even before this announcement. I haven't fished through documents but i suspect Apple spends Billions on both every year.
- SapphireSun 9y agoApple lobbied for and received an incredible tax break for repatriating its money. It should be paying the full 35% corporate tax rate. Apple invests in some science and technology, that is true. However, for some reason, despite its fervent dedication to the arts and sciences, it hasn't figured out how to spend 200+ billion dollars. Weird.
- abritinthebay 9y agoAnd they did that. This is paying the extra tax the US - and only the US - requires on repatriation
- SapphireSun 9y agoYet somehow they managed to avoid paying much tax elsewhere as well. Strange.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoThey do pay taxes elsewhere. They are subject to each country's tax laws that they make income in. You are probably referring to the Irish/EU arrangement, but that has little bearing in Japan or China or wherever else China makes money.
- SapphireSun 9y agoYour reference to the double Irish arrangement completely undercuts your point. You admit that they aren't paying substantial taxes in a huge market they participate in. With respect to Japan and China, a multinational company, an effectively stateless entity (or possibly a state unto itself) can simply move to the most profitable country, thus forcing countries to compete for its tax dollars. Thus, the multinationals, unless resisted via solidarity, will cause a collapse in all nations treasuries.
- rlanday 9y agoAh, this is exactly the same reason no corporation can stay in business! (Since consumers can just buy from the one that has the lowest prices) For this reason, we should encourage corporations to form cartels to avoid getting taken advantage of by disloyal consumers.
- SapphireSun 9y agoOk, last one. :) You've really just made a mockery of the ideology of competition haven't you? In fact, that is what corporations do. There's an awful lot of highly concentrated market power lying around for exactly that reason.