Apple CEO Says "Won't Bring Home Money Until Tax Rates are Fair".

[CanadaJohn]

I have no doubt that is included in Trump's agenda to bring Apple back.

Posting "Trump" at me is like swearing at me

 

[CanadaJohn]

On the flip side, surely people realize that the only "fair tax rate" to a CEO is gonna be 0. So lowering tax rates isn't going to all of a sudden make situations like this come to an end.

So, do you disagree with Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee, who advocates the elimination of both corporate taxes and income taxes, replaced by consumption taxes?

 

[cabse5]

Yeah, I'm no fan of crApple, but I get what you're saying and I have never understood other liberals love for it.

Progressives love Apple for its politics. Kinda like Progressives like Hillary even though she is an avowed capitalist. Hillary's politics are also progressive.

 

[cabse5]

So, do you disagree with Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee, who advocates the elimination of both corporate taxes and income taxes, replaced by consumption taxes?

Let me jump in. As I've examined consumption taxes, none that I know of attempts to tax the sale of used items. I believe, ultimately, the fair tax or consumption tax will lower the US's GDP as people will attempt to find ways to avoid this consumption tax by buying used items.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Let me jump in. As I've examined consumption taxes, none that I know of attempts to tax the sale of used items. I believe, ultimately, the fair tax or consumption tax will lower the US's GDP as people will attempt to find ways to avoid this consumption tax by buying used items.

That's possible - I don't know all the details of Johnson's position and proposals for implementation of such a plan. His belief, however, and that of those who prefer a flat tax by way of a consumption tax, is that consumer goods would become less expensive as corporations/manufacturers reduce costs related to taxation and that tax revenue wouldn't be adversely affected because more consumption would take place because more employment would be available and as income increases consumption also increases.

Would be a major cultural change and I'm in no position to know how that might be accepted.

 

[chuckiechan]

Posting "Trump" at me is like swearing at me

We call that "Microagression" here in the US.

What are the differences between Trump and Hillary in dealing with that?

BTW, that also illustrates that the Department of Homeland Security has gotten a bit too fat.

And consumption taxes are nice on paper, but we'd end up with both. Either way, it is a disincentive to spending and we are a consumer driven economy.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Oh, you showed me. Now I'll have to rethink everything I said.

Here's something for you to consider. When you have to ignore context and use pedantry to make a point, you don't really have a point.

I quotes you correctly: check
I don't give a crap about your agenda driven diatribe: check


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaea]

Fair means equal. Equal treatment is not biased. How is it ideological to treat everyone the same?

Let's examine the definition of ideology:
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Equal treatment is an ideal. Equal tax treatment is an economic & political policy.

 

[chuckiechan]

Yeah, I'm no fan of crApple, but I get what you're saying and I have never understood other liberals love for it.

Apple has built the world's best phone. They have led the entire industry to build better phones.

And they did it with foreign labor. The only reason Apple is still in the USA is their engineering is here. China now has the capability to build just as good a phone - except it will be the same for the next fifty years.

The issue is "profits made in overseas operations", but the underlying issue is "avoiding US taxes by using foreign countries favorable tax rates".

Same - O with corporate inversions.

Our corporate taxes are too high.

 

[reinoe]

So, do you disagree with Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee, who advocates the elimination of both corporate taxes and income taxes, replaced by consumption taxes?

No. Consumption taxes in most instances are also bad because they disproportionally hurt the poor unless you write in exemptions for consumer goods and that opens up another can of worms. It's can of worms no matter how you look at it.

 

[CanadaJohn]

No. Consumption taxes in most instances are also bad because they disproportionally hurt the poor unless you write in exemptions for consumer goods and that opens up another can of worms. It's can of worms no matter how you look at it.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Johnson's tax policy includes supports for the poor and low income in the form of monthly consumption tax subsidies of approximately $200 so that they aren't adversely affected by the policy. I'm not a big fan of such subsidies/credits but assuming a consumption tax of 10%, that $200 would supplement the first $2000 dollars of consumption.

It's true, however, that consumption taxes or any taxes on any consumer product, such as a carbon tax the environmentalists are hot for, is regressive in nature and harms lower income consumers disproportionately.

Personally, I'd love to see my government adopt a flat tax that exempts the first $25,000 in income and then taxes all additional income at a flat rate, no deductions or loopholes, no progressively increasing rates, period. Easy to get rid of the tax accountants, tax lawyers, tax bureaucrats, etc.

 

[Moderate Right]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Johnson's tax policy includes supports for the poor and low income in the form of monthly consumption tax subsidies of approximately $200 so that they aren't adversely affected by the policy. I'm not a big fan of such subsidies/credits but assuming a consumption tax of 10%, that $200 would supplement the first $2000 dollars of consumption.

It's true, however, that consumption taxes or any taxes on any consumer product, such as a carbon tax the environmentalists are hot for, is regressive in nature and harms lower income consumers disproportionately.

Personally, I'd love to see my government adopt a flat tax that exempts the first $25,000 in income and then taxes all additional income at a flat rate, no deductions or loopholes, no progressively increasing rates, period. Easy to get rid of the tax accountants, tax lawyers, tax bureaucrats, etc.

You are right in that Johnson's proposal does have supports for the poorer. I just saw him state this today. I'm not sure how it all analyzes out. All I know is that every day I become more of a Not Hillary/Not Trump person. We need someone like Trump though that is not establishment. Too bad his flip side is a crazy person.

 

[American]

:lol: Do you really not know that a "?" categorizes it as a question?

Faux indignation doesn't cover for inability to address the point of the question.

You continue to say nothing.

 

[radcen]

You continue to say nothing.

I started chuckling when I saw you had replied before I even opened this. You don't disappoint.

 

[notquiteright]

Damn Apple - investing money where they can make a profit for their stockholders and keep their employees gainfully employed. They should all hang for that offense, right? And just as a point of clarification, you are aware that China is the primary miner/producer of rare-earth minerals that are necessary for the manufacture of all communications technology as well as most green energy technology. China is responsible for about 95% of the worlds extracted rare-earth minerals even though there are vast swaths of these minerals to be found in the American west, Colorado for example, but American environmentalists and liberal/progressives won't allow these minerals to be mined in America because it's a dirty business, so let the Chinese bespoil their land and lakes for the benefit of Americans who demand the newest and latest tech toys. Wouldn't be surprising then, would it, if China demanded that its rare-earth minerals be used in manufacturing in their own country rather than export the raw minerals to America so Americans can have the manufacturing jobs? So yes, Apple and other tech giants are heavily invested in China and for good reason. If you don't like it, start lobbying your politicians to allow for the mining of the necessities in your own back yard.

I'm not damning anyone, just pointing out this little foot stomping is just another silly poor little rich boy stunt. Apple is far more invested overseas than here. Bringing their money 'back home' is counter to making even more money and anything they 'bring back'- past the money they want for personal use- won't make them as much money as keeping it overseas.

Course, there are many ways to 'bring it back'. The money can be invested in an overseas fund that doesn't have to list it's investors as it invests 'back home'.

Was also pointing out only the taxable part of their income gets hit at 40% and that is a very small portion of their TOTAL income so the whine is as false as a hooker's smile.

But one CEO spouts off and a dozen geese repeat the lie as if Moses himself bought it to us... :roll:

 

[jonny5]

Let's examine the definition of ideology:
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Equal treatment is an ideal. Equal tax treatment is an economic & political policy.

Its not an ideal. Its math. The price McDonalds charges for a hamburger is not an ideal. Its the same for anyone who walks in, rich or poor, irregardless of family size, charitable donation, whether they have student loan or mortgage interest. Thus, its fair.

The same can be said of a sales tax. Everyone pays the same sales tax on the same item, regardless of their circumstances.

 

[jonny5]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Johnson's tax policy includes supports for the poor and low income in the form of monthly consumption tax subsidies of approximately $200 so that they aren't adversely affected by the policy. I'm not a big fan of such subsidies/credits but assuming a consumption tax of 10%, that $200 would supplement the first $2000 dollars of consumption.

It's true, however, that consumption taxes or any taxes on any consumer product, such as a carbon tax the environmentalists are hot for, is regressive in nature and harms lower income consumers disproportionately.

Personally, I'd love to see my government adopt a flat tax that exempts the first $25,000 in income and then taxes all additional income at a flat rate, no deductions or loopholes, no progressively increasing rates, period. Easy to get rid of the tax accountants, tax lawyers, tax bureaucrats, etc.

Not just for the poor. The rich get the exact same prebate. Everyone is treated exactly the same. And its not regressive, its flat.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Not just for the poor. The rich get the exact same prebate. Everyone is treated exactly the same. And its not regressive, its flat.

Thanks for that - but any consumption tax is by its very nature regressive. Regressive, as it relates to taxes, means that lower income citizens and the middle class are proportionately more negatively impacted because, presumably, far more of their income goes directly to consumption than does the income of the wealthy.

 

[cabse5]

No. Consumption taxes in most instances are also bad because they disproportionally hurt the poor unless you write in exemptions for consumer goods and that opens up another can of worms. It's can of worms no matter how you look at it.

I didn't take you as being a left-leaning libertarian. Maybe a moderate libertarian?

 

[jonny5]

Thanks for that - but any consumption tax is by its very nature regressive. Regressive, as it relates to taxes, means that lower income citizens and the middle class are proportionately more negatively impacted because, presumably, far more of their income goes directly to consumption than does the income of the wealthy.

No, regressive refers to the rate.

decreasing in rate as the base increases

A sales tax is flat. Everyone pays the same rate regardless of the base item being taxed. Income tax is progressive in that the rate increases as the thing being taxed increases. Youre redefining the meaning to get a desired optic.

 

[Opopanax]

I quotes you correctly: check
I don't give a crap about your agenda driven diatribe: check


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're just full of substantive responses. Say something worth arguing over.

 

[cpwill]

What is a fair tax rate? America already has the lowest effective rates in the world.Forbes Welcome

America has the highest corporate tax rate in the OECD. A 40% tax rate is insane, and precisely why this money will remain parked overseas.


Think about that - even if they made zero profit at all investing that money overseas, they've already made 40% ROI relative to what they would have made had they tried to bring it home. While it's unfortunate for us, Cook is making a rational decision that is in the best interest of Apple, which is his job.



So long as we have a policy approach of killing off golden gooses, we will continue to wonder why we suffer from a shortage of golden eggs.

 

[cpwill]

Personally, I'd love to see my government adopt a flat tax that exempts the first $25,000 in income and then taxes all additional income at a flat rate, no deductions or loopholes, no progressively increasing rates, period. Easy to get rid of the tax accountants, tax lawyers, tax bureaucrats, etc.

I have proposed a similar plan in the Loft. My main issue with yours is that it creates a large marriage penalty.

For example, if the flat rate is 25%, and Joe and Jane each make $25,000, then their combined tax bill is $0. But if they get married, their tax bill becomes $6,250; the system just punished them by $6,250 every year for the act of creating a more stable household, which is a socially desirable act that we want them to engage in. That's a problematic incentive structure.


To get around that, I allowed for $20K for each adult, tax free, and an additional $5K per child, in order to keep the zero-tax point at about 200% of the poverty line. I'd welcome any critiques or comments.

 

[CanadaJohn]

No, regressive refers to the rate.



A sales tax is flat. Everyone pays the same rate regardless of the base item being taxed. Income tax is progressive in that the rate increases as the thing being taxed increases. Youre redefining the meaning to get a desired optic.

Sorry - I totally disagree with you, but there's not much to be gained by arguing the point.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I have proposed a similar plan in the Loft. My main issue with yours is that it creates a large marriage penalty.

For example, if the flat rate is 25%, and Joe and Jane each make $25,000, then their combined tax bill is $0. But if they get married, their tax bill becomes $6,250; the system just punished them by $6,250 every year for the act of creating a more stable household, which is a socially desirable act that we want them to engage in. That's a problematic incentive structure.


To get around that, I allowed for $20K for each adult, tax free, and an additional $5K per child, in order to keep the zero-tax point at about 200% of the poverty line. I'd welcome any critiques or comments.

I don't have any serious disagreements with your proposal, other than my long standing abhorrence of government sanctioned marriage as a tax avoidance or benefit. I hate a government piece of paper being used to direct citizen behavior. I'd simply say that your marital status or lack thereof is totally irrelevant to the discussion. If x and y each make $25,000 or $20,000 thousand in your example, they are both exempt from income taxes because each income is below the threshold. Whether they are married or not or cohabiting a home or not, should be irrelevant to their tax position.

The issue of children inviting additional tax avoidance benefit, I could live with that considering that in both our countries an aging population is outpacing new births. In that way, rather than some form of credit, I'd be in favour of an individual being able to disperse income to dependents - as an example, if you earn $50,000 and you have a stay at home wife who looks after the kids, I'd be okay with your income being split between the two of you, provided you have children. Likewise, if you're a single parent with children, I'd have no problem with you being able to distribute income to those children for tax purposes to reflect your increased cost of living related to care of the children.

But we're starting to get too much into the weeds here with exemptions and credits which I'd hope a flat tax could avoid - but reality does get in the way of the perfect.