Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 537 posts

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#331

Post by rmrfrmrf »

croon wrote: post #240
airstrike wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point. Only caveat is corporations also create jobs and pay their workers, but you and I as individuals do not. I know lots of Apple workers (directly or indirectly) are in China, but I wanted to point out why it's inappropriate to compare personal and corporate taxes.

> I get your point. Only caveat is corporations also create jobs and pay their workers, but you and I as individuals do not. That's like saying the wheat creates work for the mill to make flour. You can't have one without the other. Can we just get rid of the ridiculous notion that corporations provide more than the workers doing the actual work ?

> Can we just get rid of the ridiculous notion that corporations provide more than the workers DOING THE ACTUAL WORK?

Why is this a ridiculous notion?

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#332

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

benjaminl wrote: post #287
anilshanbhag wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

=> But if a US company earns income in Germany it pays both German taxes and US taxes. This is not portrayed accurately. If you pay German taxes, you claim exception for that amount. So if you pay more taxes than the rate in US, you owe no tax for that income in US. If the rate is less in the country than in US, you pay the difference.

Yes, that is correct but since the US had until recently the highest corporate tax in the OECD, the US corporation will would almost always pay more taxes on German income than a German corporation would on German it’s German income. Giving the US corporation a systematic disadvantage unless they kept the money out of the US. But all this has now changed.

> What is little known about this tax bill

> But all this has now changed

I live in Australia. As a casual outside observer, can you inform me as to whether this tax bill has passed in to legislation, or is likely to?

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#333

Post by Pulcinella »

crusso wrote: post #8
krebby wrote: post #5

I love it. Apple gets to avoid paying taxes for years through accounting slight of hand, and then when they finally pay for part of what they owe they want a pat on the back for doing so. Corporations, man.

they finally pay for part of what they owe You only owe the taxes that the law compels you to pay. There's no obligation whatsoever to pay a dime more. Do you personally look to pay the maximum amount of taxes that you could possibly justify through various readings of the tax code? Because I guarantee that your tax software or your tax accountant are not "taking advantage" of opportunities for you to pay more unless…

I would argue that legal obligations are different than moral obligations. You may not agree that wealthy corporations have no moral obligation to pay higher taxes, but I would say that not having a legal obligation to take some action is not the same as having no obligations period.

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#334

Post by trothamel »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #332
benjaminl wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is correct but since the US had until recently the highest corporate tax in the OECD, the US corporation will would almost always pay more taxes on German income than a German corporation would on German it’s German income. Giving the US corporation a systematic disadvantage unless they kept the money out of the US. But all this has now changed.

> What is little known about this tax bill > But all this has now changed I live in Australia. As a casual outside observer, can you inform me as to whether this tax bill has passed in to legislation, or is likely to?

It's law, as of a few weeks ago. Some provisions will go into effect over the course of this year.

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#335

Post by ceejayoz »

jdoliner wrote: post #177
adventured wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Factually, corporations do not have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize their profits. That's a myth and a very absurd one at that. If it were true, Salesforce couldn't operate its various corporate charity programs as one example. You could have researched that one pretty easily: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fidu…

I don't really see the difference between having a legal obligation to act in your shareholders best interests and an obligation to maximize profits. Given that profit is most shareholders only interest in owning the stock. Now that does mean that companies should maximize long term profit, perhaps at the cost of short term profit. But I fail to see how paying taxes you don't have to is ever in the best interests of…

> I don't really see the difference between having a legal obligation to act in your shareholders best interests and an obligation to maximize profits.

Simple. "It's in our shareholders' best interest to have a stable society with upwards mobility so more people can buy our products over time."

Or, "It's in our shareholders' best interest for us not to act so amorally as to turn public opinion against us, incurring new onerous regulations as a result."

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#336

Post by seanmcdirmid »

SapphireSun wrote: post #295
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They 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.

Your 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 multinational…

Apple must pay taxes where they make money. Apple's retail operations in China/Japan can't be moved to a less-tax country, it is physically impossible to be in China/Japan and not be in China/Japan at the same time! You simply cannot operate in a country without paying taxes, the EU rules being weird and an exception because of their one market principle.

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#337

Post by kec »

krebby wrote: post #12
crusso wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they finally pay for part of what they owe You only owe the taxes that the law compels you to pay. There's no obligation whatsoever to pay a dime more. Do you personally look to pay the maximum amount of taxes that you could possibly justify through various readings of the tax code? Because I guarantee that your tax software or your tax accountant are not "taking advantage" of opportunities for you to pay more unless…

No but I also don't set up a pretend subsidiary in Ireland that owns my intellectual property and pays me dividends for my freelance work. To pretend that they didn't go above and beyond to avoid paying taxes is lunacy.

Did apple actually do that? Do you have a source for Apple licensing tech from Ireland?

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#338

Post by seanmcdirmid »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #299
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA has moved to a territorial tax system for corporations, so any income earned abroad will no longer be subject to US tax (only taxed by the country where the income was generated), and so can be freely moved back to the USA if the companies wish. There is no longer a distinction to be made concerning where money can be spent without being US taxed.

There was little distinction before as companies could borrow against their overseas cash to invest in the US

They would still have to pay those loans back out of their US income (or any income repatriated). Bankruptcy would be weird, in that case.

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#339

Post by sjg007 »

jitix wrote: post #291
benjaminl wrote: post #253

This discussion is missing context. The whole reason that Apple has to pay taxes on foreign income is because unlike almost every other developed nation the US has a worldwide tax system. Almost every other nation has a territorial tax system. The rest of the world with their territorial system taxes income earned within that country, the US rather taxes income worldwide, regardless of where it is earned. For example…

The worldwide tax law sucks even more for an individual. And it makes absolutely no sense when you’re not even a citizen!

US corporations are citizens except that they just can't vote... but they can contribute unlimited campaign contributions.

Re: Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes

#340

Post by dguaraglia »

rdtsc wrote: post #56
southphillyman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair the bonuses I've heard about have been laughable so far and accompanied by large lay offs in two cases (Walmart and Comcast).

> I've heard about have been laughable so far Having been poor, then living on $750/month in US for many years, a $1000 bonus is not life changing but also not laughable. The companies certainly didn't have to give those and could have pocketed all of it. > large lay offs in two cases (Walmart and Comcast). Are those because of the tax incentives?

A $1000 bonus, after taxes, is not a $1000 bonus. While an extra ~$700 might be a nice windfall for someone making minimum wage, it's hardly a life-changing event that will have an durable impact in their life.

What companies are doing is exactly what they were expected to do: make some "feel good" moves for a bit to validate the tax plan as a "resounding success" until the midterm elections, then do whatever they want. I've seen these incredible displays of "corporate goodwill" after tax breaks like this to know they are always temporary and self-serving (I grew up in a country where these "booms" happened like clockwork every 8 or so years.)

Post reply on HN