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

131–140 of 215 posts

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#131

Post by redler »

temphn wrote: post #117
grellas wrote: post #66

The implied but never fully-articulated point of this article is that high-tax domiciles resent it when rational actors having a choice in the matter will routinely structure their business affairs to incur tax to the maximum extent possible in low-tax as opposed to high-tax domiciles. The issue becomes almost formulaic. Given (1) rational actors, (2) freedom to choose and to structure business affairs using a multip…

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…

In the press, it seems like Apple went from years of being unmentionable without the term "beleaguered" straight to being a manipulative, dominant monopolist. The company has certainly undergone a striking and highly unlikely reversal, and perhaps that's a reason for the tonally confused seas. "Beleaguered Apple Inc. now the most profitable company on Earth".

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#132

Post by drumdance »

One reason corporations are so diligent about avoiding taxes is scale. If you can save, say $1 million, byt paying lawyers & accountants $500,000, the decision is a no-brainer. I'm sure this is exactly how Apple's outside counsel sells it.

I think the best approach is just to eliminate corporate taxes. If instead you just tax the dividends, that same $1,000,000 in liability will be distributed among thousands of shareholders, who will not have nearly as strong an incentive to hire $400/hour lawyers.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#133

Post by yummyfajitas »

yequalsx wrote: post #104
yummyfajitas wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are referring to all government services and all revenue collected. I'm referring solely to services provided to corporations and revenue collected from corporations. I fully agree that the losses from the War on Iraqis/SS/medicare/etc don't outweigh the profits made by taxing Apple/etc and providing them with a few cheap services (corporate registration, enforcement of contracts, etc). That's a separate issue. R…

I fully agree that the losses from the War on Iraqis/SS/medicare/etc don't outweigh the profits made by taxing Apple/etc and providing them with a few cheap services (corporate registration, enforcement of contracts, etc). That's a separate issue. Ironic that you mention SS and Medicare. Two programs designed to help companies out (and people too). Do the cheap services include a road system? Do they include an educa…

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 Ireland will be forced to defend itself (from Iraq, I suppose) and charge corporations commensurately.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#134

Post by jakeonthemove »

starwed wrote: post #86
philwelch wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes are purely a construct of law though. The only reason it's immoral not to pay taxes is because it's immoral to break the law, at least if the law is just. But we're not talking about people breaking the law, we're talking about people obeying the law. Think of it this way: if you can get an effective tax rate of x% by doing this and y% by doing that, and x other laws that allow you to effectively lower your eff…

The reason it is immoral to pay taxes is that you are still benefiting from the existence of the government but putting the burden of supporting it on others. You personally may agree or disagree with this, but that's what someone probably means when they say it is immoral to avoid paying taxes, even if it is perfectly legal. Taxes are part of the general social contract of our society, and aggressively finding ways…

You're thinking at country level. If you expand the thought to global level, the supposed immorality disappears - in this case, the taxes are just paid in another country, at a lower rate, but it still helps a part of society...

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#135

Post by RawData »

yequalsx wrote: post #87
grellas wrote: post #66

The implied but never fully-articulated point of this article is that high-tax domiciles resent it when rational actors having a choice in the matter will routinely structure their business affairs to incur tax to the maximum extent possible in low-tax as opposed to high-tax domiciles. The issue becomes almost formulaic. Given (1) rational actors, (2) freedom to choose and to structure business affairs using a multip…

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..

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#136

Post by taligent »

protomyth wrote: post #64
yequalsx wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#137

Post by notJim »

temphn wrote: post #117
grellas wrote: post #66

The implied but never fully-articulated point of this article is that high-tax domiciles resent it when rational actors having a choice in the matter will routinely structure their business affairs to incur tax to the maximum extent possible in low-tax as opposed to high-tax domiciles. The issue becomes almost formulaic. Given (1) rational actors, (2) freedom to choose and to structure business affairs using a multip…

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 company that does this?

> 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:

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

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#138

Post by notJim »

timr wrote: post #83
grellas wrote: post #66

The implied but never fully-articulated point of this article is that high-tax domiciles resent it when rational actors having a choice in the matter will routinely structure their business affairs to incur tax to the maximum extent possible in low-tax as opposed to high-tax domiciles. The issue becomes almost formulaic. Given (1) rational actors, (2) freedom to choose and to structure business affairs using a multip…

"The implied but never fully-articulated point of this article is that high-tax domiciles resent it when rational actors having a choice in the matter will routinely structure their business affairs to incur tax to the maximum extent possible in low-tax as opposed to high-tax domiciles." No, that's the conclusion you might draw if you choose to read the article through an extremely narrow filter where you start from…

I don't think your point and the point you quoted are actually at odds.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#139

Post by notJim »

robomartin wrote: post #82
grellas wrote: post #66

The implied but never fully-articulated point of this article is that high-tax domiciles resent it when rational actors having a choice in the matter will routinely structure their business affairs to incur tax to the maximum extent possible in low-tax as opposed to high-tax domiciles. The issue becomes almost formulaic. Given (1) rational actors, (2) freedom to choose and to structure business affairs using a multip…

There's also the very real and reasonable question of where capital might be used more efficiently. Having seen first-hand how government agencies make spending decisions it is my opinion that a huge percentage of tax dollars is wasted. Private industry is almost always far more efficient in allocating resources out of necessity. I have seen cases where government agencies pay double --or more-- what a private entity…

I'm not really convinced that private industry is any better at avoiding waste than government. I must admit I haven't worked in government, but when I worked at large companies, I was shocked and appalled by how incredibly inefficient and wasteful their internal affairs were.

Furthermore, many of us [of course, you may disagree] would like for the government to provide more services, and that money has to come from somewhere. Even if it's ultimately private companies administering these services, they would need to at least be subsidized by the government to be accessible to the people who need them most.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#140

Post by notJim »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #112
ashconnor wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a valid point. I think that there are a few reasons why this occurs. 1. Tax payers aren't as resilient as shareholders: 2. There's a psychological tendency to think that "this is not my money" leading to excessive spending. 3. The accountability isn't there. If a politician wastes taxpayer money then he's still a politician for the time being. But it's not always valid. Many government projects are carried out b…

In private industry, you promoted and seen a valuable if you make money for the company. In the government, you are promoted and seen as a power player if you spend more money. There are lots of super-competitive A-types in govt work who will spend a million dollars just to get another feather in their programs hat.

This seems like you have an idealized vision of private industry. From what I've seen, politics and being friends with the right people is the determining factor in both fields.
Post reply on HN