6 ms·

Apple benefits from the US court system, US copyright/trademark law (for the most part) being respected worldwide, and a US military which projects a fair amoun

Apple benefits from the US court system, US copyright/trademark law (for the most part) being respected worldwide, and a US military which projects a fair amount of hegemony around the world. So yeah, it's time for Apple to pay for its 35% share in funding the above items. In the end, Might secures your rights. Freedom against someone subjecting their rule over you and how your domestic businesses are able to operate internationally is paid for with having the biggest guns.

clarky07 11y ago
Of course. Totally makes sense that the U.S. is protecting China allowing apple to sell the phones made in China and then sold in China. Oh wait, the U.S. Military isn't protecting China? Every first world country has court systems, copyright laws, and many of them are more respected than we are. Samsung likely benefits as much as apple does for any of these things and yet they don't pay US taxes on sales in China. They only pay US taxes on sales in the U.S.
- karpodiem 11y ago
  Except it's the US military that helps decide the final outcome if China one day seizes all US' company assets within China. You don't need a military until the one day you do. And come on, you know what I'm talking about with respect to force projection and protection of assets.
  - clarky07 11y ago
    1. That is incredibly far fetched. China isn't stupid, and nobody wins in that scenario. 2. If that did happen, we'd be in a world war, and I'm guessing that would lower iPhone sales and nobody would much care about repatriation taxes. 3. Every other country in the world has the same concerns of incredibly far fetched ideas as this, and yet they don't take 35% for protection money. In your world the U.S. Govt sounds a bit like the mafia. I'm not sure that's how it's supposed to work.
    - karpodiem 11y ago
      Winners write the textbooks.
delinka 11y ago
Do they not pay tax in the US at all? You make it sound as if they just don't pay tax. As it stands, they've paid tax in any country where they've earned money. That pays for the court systems and IP laws in those countries. Any revenue in the US has been taxed in the US and the funds used similarly by the government. Now, you want to take money that's already been taxed elsewhere and return it to the US, subjecting it to further tax. Why? As I said, they've already paid taxes here in the good ol' USA.
- karpodiem 11y ago
  Because having a military that can project force in all those countries you mentioned is expensive; beyond what's paid for by Apple in taxes for revenue generated within the U.S.
  - delinka 11y ago
    The sounds like an argument for the US Government to get a better grip on spending.
- alex_young 11y ago
  First of all this double taxation thing is hogwash. US corporations (and people for that matter) only pay the difference between any foreign tax collected and our own federal tax when they move it to domestic books. Probably more importantly, the foreign profits are disproportionately gains baised on research and development conducted in the US which the foreign subsidiaries pay no royalty for at all. If, for instance, 50% of the value of an iPhone sold in China represents the value of the engineering of the device, we have a tax loss which adds up to half of the nearly $200 Billion held as foreign profits by Apple. Apple should be forced to pay these taxes. This represents a real and tangible loss to the people in the US and an unnecessary subsidy handed to the most valuable public company on earth.
  - delinka 11y ago
    I've known individuals pay the difference between foreign tax and US federal tax, but I'm not so sure that also applies to corporations. I'll need to research that. You really can't start dictating the terms of contract agreements between domestic and foreign entities with regard to "royalties" or other such payments. It would adversely affect any other companies as well that are not subsidiaries. And before you attempt to limit the rules to "subsidiaries" consider that although "Apple Ireland" is somehow affiliated with "Apple, Inc" in the US, they are wholly separate companies with a contract to behave in certain ways. Should Apple Ireland, being a separate company, decide to 'go rogue' breaking the contract and doing whatever they will with all 'their' money, they just get cut off from the Apple, Inc ecosystem and a new entity is created that will play the game correctly. So how do you force "Apple, Inc" which is a separate company from all the other "Apple $PLACE" around the world to pay tax on money that, legally, it doesn't have ... without also adversely affecting any number of smaller companies that couldn't possibly bear such a tax burden?

clarky07 11y ago

Of course. Totally makes sense that the U.S. is protecting China allowing apple to sell the phones made in China and then sold in China. Oh wait, the U.S. Military isn't protecting China? Every first world country has court systems, copyright laws, and many of them are more respected than we are. Samsung likely benefits as much as apple does for any of these things and yet they don't pay US taxes on sales in China. They only pay US taxes on sales in the U.S.

karpodiem 11y ago
Except it's the US military that helps decide the final outcome if China one day seizes all US' company assets within China. You don't need a military until the one day you do. And come on, you know what I'm talking about with respect to force projection and protection of assets.
- clarky07 11y ago
  1. That is incredibly far fetched. China isn't stupid, and nobody wins in that scenario. 2. If that did happen, we'd be in a world war, and I'm guessing that would lower iPhone sales and nobody would much care about repatriation taxes. 3. Every other country in the world has the same concerns of incredibly far fetched ideas as this, and yet they don't take 35% for protection money. In your world the U.S. Govt sounds a bit like the mafia. I'm not sure that's how it's supposed to work.
  - karpodiem 11y ago
    Winners write the textbooks.

delinka 11y ago

Do they not pay tax in the US at all? You make it sound as if they just don't pay tax. As it stands, they've paid tax in any country where they've earned money. That pays for the court systems and IP laws in those countries. Any revenue in the US has been taxed in the US and the funds used similarly by the government. Now, you want to take money that's already been taxed elsewhere and return it to the US, subjecting it to further tax. Why? As I said, they've already paid taxes here in the good ol' USA.

karpodiem 11y ago
Because having a military that can project force in all those countries you mentioned is expensive; beyond what's paid for by Apple in taxes for revenue generated within the U.S.
- delinka 11y ago
  The sounds like an argument for the US Government to get a better grip on spending.
alex_young 11y ago
First of all this double taxation thing is hogwash. US corporations (and people for that matter) only pay the difference between any foreign tax collected and our own federal tax when they move it to domestic books. Probably more importantly, the foreign profits are disproportionately gains baised on research and development conducted in the US which the foreign subsidiaries pay no royalty for at all. If, for instance, 50% of the value of an iPhone sold in China represents the value of the engineering of the device, we have a tax loss which adds up to half of the nearly $200 Billion held as foreign profits by Apple. Apple should be forced to pay these taxes. This represents a real and tangible loss to the people in the US and an unnecessary subsidy handed to the most valuable public company on earth.
- delinka 11y ago
  I've known individuals pay the difference between foreign tax and US federal tax, but I'm not so sure that also applies to corporations. I'll need to research that. You really can't start dictating the terms of contract agreements between domestic and foreign entities with regard to "royalties" or other such payments. It would adversely affect any other companies as well that are not subsidiaries. And before you attempt to limit the rules to "subsidiaries" consider that although "Apple Ireland" is somehow affiliated with "Apple, Inc" in the US, they are wholly separate companies with a contract to behave in certain ways. Should Apple Ireland, being a separate company, decide to 'go rogue' breaking the contract and doing whatever they will with all 'their' money, they just get cut off from the Apple, Inc ecosystem and a new entity is created that will play the game correctly. So how do you force "Apple, Inc" which is a separate company from all the other "Apple $PLACE" around the world to pay tax on money that, legally, it doesn't have ... without also adversely affecting any number of smaller companies that couldn't possibly bear such a tax burden?