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

How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 215 posts

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#181

Post by chernevik »

notJim wrote: post #167
chernevik wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sheer size and complexity of government in the US has reached the point of effective opacity. It's no longer possible to really assess what the government is doing, or what the costs of those activities are. The political class has every incentive to enhance this opacity. Their poor understanding of economics and management -- they are neither selected for nor disciplined on these skills -- only add to the confus…

> At this point all we really _know_ about the government's activities is that they are overpriced, under-effective, and understated in their size. If the government is as opaque as you describe, than we know nothing at all. You're falling back to a popular assumption for lack of information. >There is no rational discussion of government's role until these conditions are resolved. Are you going to lead the revolutio…

I invite you to choose one government program and state what it does, what it costs, how well it works, and the specific individuals accountable for its success or failure.

Just one.

But don't forget to include the pension liabilities and regulatory impacts. Or to mention any other social or economic forces affecting the mission targets.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#182

Post by rmc »

RawData wrote: post #135
yequalsx wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first sentence of your last paragraph shows one of the problems with globalization. We have seen in the U.S. municipalities competing with each other to see who can give the most subsidies to large corporations. The effects have not been so desirable. Now we are seeing this played out on a grand, global scale. It's potentially a race to the bottom. I think globalization without a proper international regulating…

> Most people don't have this luxury. Why not? Seriously. What's stopping anyone from doing this exact thing? Inertia...that's really all - when you get right down to it..

Visa issues? You cant just move and work in any country you like.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#183

Post by rmc »

TheEzEzz wrote: post #25
acslater00 wrote: post #19

There is a really important lesson from all of this, and it is not that Apple is wrong for rationally exploiting global tax laws to avoid paying US taxes. The fact that California has no tax jurisdiction in Nevada, and that the US has no tax jurisdiction in Ireland, is an unassailable fact of life. Tax laws are subject to regulatory competition like many other things, and ignoring that -- insisting that this is an is…

> If the US had a globally competitive corporate tax rate (say 15%), it would make most of these tactics irrelevant. Until Ireland further lowers its taxes. Your argument leads to a race to the bottom. The problem with only taxing dividends is that corporations only pay out a small portion of their profits in dividends. I may theoretically be a billionaire in my holdings, but I only need a million in dividends per ye…

Until Ireland further lowers its taxes.

Unlikely. Ireland is currently in an IMF/ECB bailout programme, and will be for a few more years. Financial policy decisions cannot be made by the Irish government, and must be approved by the IMF/ECB. Recent budget changes (e.g. a change to VAT rate) were discussed in the German parliament before the Irish parliament.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#184

Post by rmc »

lunarscape wrote: post #35

Regarding how Ireland is mentioned in the article- Apple has had a significant presence in Ireland since the year 1980, has a workforce nearing 3000 and is expanding, announcing 500 jobs just this month [1]. Hardly "little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office " as could be misinterpreted rather easily from this article. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/20/us-apple-ireland-i...

To put it in perspective, the 80s in Ireland were very bad economically, very few jobs, lots of emigration. Apple also have their office in Cork (not Dublin) which would have fewer native industries and employment, so they probably qualify chore all kinds of 'kindness' grants.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#185

Post by abalashov »

taligent wrote: post #136
protomyth wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they repealed all the Bush era tax cuts, the deficit would still be growing at a higher rate than before. Obama has run up the deficit at a faster pace (approaching double) than Bush and those tax cuts aren't even the major part of it. The biggest problem is the lack of a passed federal budget in over a 1,000 days. This is causing a lot of budget increasing in a time when we cannot afford it. What the media and po…

Sorry but what a load of rubbish. It has been clearly demonstrated time and time again that in periods of depression you DO NOT dramatically cut government spending. All it does is hamper growth which results in less tax income. I have no idea why the US debt is being touted about as being the number one priority when surely increasing growth rates and reducing unemployment are key.

The problem is that when times are good, nobody wants to cut government spending, dramatically or otherwise.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#186

Post by yummyfajitas »

yequalsx wrote: post #173
yummyfajitas wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cheap services do indeed include a road system, which tends to be paid for by property taxes in a given locality. Apple pays for CA roads in proportion to the land they own in CA. Their works also pay for roads via gas taxes, and charge Apple commensurately. Why should Apple be taxed on profits earned in Ireland to pay for CA roads? As for protection from enemies, we should simply stop defending Ireland. Then Ire…

The first part of the article was about Apple avoiding California taxes by having a small office in Reno. You haven't shown that Apple pays its fair share of California's road system (don't ignore the federal road system), schools, sewers, police protection, or its use of American soft power for its purposes overseas. But supposing Apple does pay it's share of all these things. Given our current deficit and that a la…

Roads, sewers, police and fire are dirt cheap. Bringing them up is disingenuous.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2010USbt_1...

As for the federal road system, that's paid for by gas taxes - Apple (or fedex, or whoever delivers iPhones) pays for it whenever they fill up their gas tanks roughly in proportion to how much they use it.

It's also hardly clear that businesses are not paying their share of the burden. The services businesses require cost very little - corporate registration, police protection, roads, etc. The fact that these services are cheap is demonstrated by the fact that Nevada provides those services and charges very little for it.

Most other services are given to individuals and different individuals (usually younger ones) are charged for those services. The individuals who work for Apple raise their prices commensurately.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#187

Post by yummyfajitas »

JamesLeonis wrote: post #92
ajkessler wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? (Honest question.) We have states that have no personal income tax. Not surprisingly, these states are doing fine because they raise revenue other ways.

Income tax only accounts for some of the taxes a state can take in. Property and sales tax are also forms states use to collect income, and they happen to be regressive in most cases. If you look at the CFED chart [2], those nine states [1] with no income tax make up the top 9 slots where the bottom 20% pay many times more in taxes than the top 1% (as a percentage of income), from 3.8 times (Tennessee) to a whopping…

...states [1] with no income tax make up the top 9 slots where the bottom 20% pay many times more in taxes than the top 1%...

By itself, this statistic is meaningless. A state with a progressive tax system but lower rates of inequality will score poorly on this metric than a state with higher inequality but an identical tax system.

I.e., you might be showing Tennessee has a regressive tax system, or you might be showing Tennessee has low inequality. Without more details we cannot determine this.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#188

Post by twoodfin »

abalashov wrote: post #185
taligent wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but what a load of rubbish. It has been clearly demonstrated time and time again that in periods of depression you DO NOT dramatically cut government spending. All it does is hamper growth which results in less tax income. I have no idea why the US debt is being touted about as being the number one priority when surely increasing growth rates and reducing unemployment are key.

The problem is that when times are good, nobody wants to cut government spending, dramatically or otherwise.

Newt and Bill did it in '95-'98.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#189

Post by greedo »

notJim wrote: post #137
temphn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And this extends down to the personal level. Elizabeth Warren, a millionaire Senatorial candidate who supports the Buffet Rule, nevertheless did not voluntary pay a higher tax rate: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/20/warren_... I think a number of people reading the article have the tacit impression that if the government taxed the money from Apple, that they would somehow benefit to a grea…

> I think a number of people reading the article have the tacit impression that if the government taxed the money from Apple, that they would somehow benefit to a greater extent. But given that the US Government spends $11.5 billion more per day[1] than it receives in taxes, even seizing all of Apple's worldwide profits would just be a drop in the bucket. What about the net effect of the government going after every…

>I think it is entirely consistent and rational to support a rule for higher taxation while still striving to pay the minimum required amount.

Yes. It's called hypocrisy. Rational yes, consistent with the idea that there are rules for me and rules for thee.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#190

Post by greedo »

yequalsx wrote: post #58
protomyth wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Well Bush II lowered taxes to the point of unprofitability" The US has been running up the debt for many years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_pu...

What you say is true. What I said is true too. Both statements are true. Bush II tax cuts are a very large portion of the current deficient that we have. Taxes are currently at a 50 year low as a percent of GDP. Bush II taxes greatly increased the deficit. Other tax cuts have too. I was just giving an example of the statement that I responded to being false.

Or, one could say that increased spending despite decreased revenue has lead to an increase in the deficit.

It would be one thing if spending had been static during all the tax cuts; it's quite different in reality.

Post reply on HN