Apple Avoids Billions in Taxes

#28
#28
Regarding the Amazon state taxes issues:

How many of you complaining about that also complain when Wesley Snipes has some theory that he doesn't have to pay taxes? How many of you complain when GE uses every loophole it can find to avoid paying any corporate tax?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#29
#29
Abe Hoffman said:
"With a handful of employees in a small office in Reno, Nevade, Apple has done something central to its corporate strategy: it has avoided millions of dollars in taxes in California and 20 other states."

"By putting an office in Reno to collect and invest the company’s profits, Apple sidesteps state income taxes on some of those gains."

"Apple has also created subsidiaries in low-tax places like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands — some little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office — that help cut the taxes it pays around the world."
Click to expand...

Oh the humanity! Maybe California wants Apple to take all of their operations outside of the state?
 
#30
#30
95 Vol Alum said:
I got an email from Amazon last week stating I owe the state taxes on my purchases from them in 2011. Included a summary of what I spent.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you buy from a vendor within your state. If bought from another state, nobody can claim the sales tax.
 
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
The rate is irrelevant if they avoid paying it. Such a false concern.

I mean, if they eliminated the loopholes, and got 100 pct payment, the rate could be much lower.
Click to expand...

LMAO. If the rate weren't astronomical, they wouldn't jump through hoops to avoid it. They would just pay it.
 
#32
#32
n_huffhines said:
LMAO. If the rate weren't astronomical, they wouldn't jump through hoops to avoid it. They would just pay it.
Click to expand...

the UK had an exodus in recent years due to their rate. They are in the process of changing it so companies will return. Same will happen soon in the US
 
#33
#33
n_huffhines said:
LMAO. If the rate weren't astronomical, they wouldn't jump through hoops to avoid it. They would just pay it.
Click to expand...

It's absurd to think if there are loopholes they wouldn't try to take advantage them, regardless of the rate. Whether the rate is 10% or 50%, if there is a loophole they will utilize it.
 
#34
#34
The problem is the rate and the rules. Lower the rate and get rid of all loopholes.
 
#35
#35
rjd970 said:
It's absurd to think if there are loopholes they wouldn't try to take advantage them, regardless of the rate. Whether the rate is 10% or 50%, if there is a loophole they will utilize it.
Click to expand...

How is this such a difficult concept to understand?

The loophole in this case is they are just showing revenue in a state with a lower rate. If California had the same rate as Nevada, there would be no loophole. They would pay taxes in CA. This isn't rocket science.

They wouldn't even have to have the same rate. If Nevada has a 10% rate, CA could probably get away with 12%. It likely would not be worth it for Apple to set up shop in NV for just 2%.
 
#36
#36
n_huffhines said:
How is this such a difficult concept to understand?

The loophole in this case is they are just showing revenue in a state with a lower rate. If California had the same rate as Nevada, there would be no loophole. They would pay taxes in CA. This isn't rocket science.

They wouldn't even have to have the same rate. If Nevada has a 10% rate, CA could probably get away with 12%. It likely would not be worth it for Apple to set up shop in NV for just 2%.
Click to expand...

This all depends on how the rules are set up. If it is 12% in CA and 10% in NV, but CA has more ways to claim deductions, of course they will stay in CA.

It isn't about the rate, it is about the rules pertaining to where they are paying.
 
#37
#37
utvolpj said:
the UK had an exodus in recent years due to their rate. They are in the process of changing it so companies will return. Same will happen soon in the US
Click to expand...


1) We need to make sure we are comparing apples to apples (no pun intended). We keep bouncing back and forth between discussion of federal income tax and state taxes. This is an important distinction because states and local governments frequently give waivers and breaks to attract new HQ's, plants, etc.

2) We also need to distinguish between a real corporate move versus a simple store front move. As the article says, some of these placements are a post office box, or just a tiny two person outfit. That isn;t the same thing as moving your manufacturing plant overseas.

3) Labor costs seem to be much more significant motivator when it comes to these kinds of corporate decisions. I haven't seen any articles or news indicating that a major corporation moved the physical location of its actual, real manufacturing overseas due to taxes. On the other hand, Apple loves it some relatively cheap Chinese labor.

If you want to attract real manufacturing business to the U.S., it has to be done through lower labor costs, which seems unlikely, not because of government controls or regulations, but because the standard of living here is so much higher than elsewhere that you can;t get workers for what you would pay to be competitive with China, or Thailand, or Mexico.
 
#38
#38
There is no reason a company would 20% flat rate when they can pay 15% effective rate on 30%.
 
#39
#39
rjd970 said:
There is no reason a company would 20% flat rate when they can pay 15% effective rate on 30%.
Click to expand...


I think its certainly one factor. So are supply lines, political stability, shipping costs to markets, and a host of other things.
 
#40
#40
rjd970 said:
This all depends on how the rules are set up. If it is 12% in CA and 10% in NV, but CA has more ways to claim deductions, of course they will stay in CA.

It isn't about the rate, it is about the rules pertaining to where they are paying.
Click to expand...

What are you even saying? Is the rate not the most impactful rule?
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
1) We need to make sure we are comparing apples to apples (no pun intended). We keep bouncing back and forth between discussion of federal income tax and state taxes. This is an important distinction because states and local governments frequently give waivers and breaks to attract new HQ's, plants, etc.

2) We also need to distinguish between a real corporate move versus a simple store front move. As the article says, some of these placements are a post office box, or just a tiny two person outfit. That isn;t the same thing as moving your manufacturing plant overseas.

3) Labor costs seem to be much more significant motivator when it comes to these kinds of corporate decisions. I haven't seen any articles or news indicating that a major corporation moved the physical location of its actual, real manufacturing overseas due to taxes. On the other hand, Apple loves it some relatively cheap Chinese labor.

If you want to attract real manufacturing business to the U.S., it has to be done through lower labor costs, which seems unlikely, not because of government controls or regulations, but because the standard of living here is so much higher than elsewhere that you can;t get workers for what you would pay to be competitive with China, or Thailand, or Mexico.
Click to expand...

1) I'm well aware of the difference. Both were referenced in the OP

2) Why when discussing corp taxes? They moved specifically to avoid them

3) Eliminate the min wage and pay what the job is worth. Problem solved
 
#43
#43
utvolpj said:
1) I'm well aware of the difference. Both were referenced in the OP

2) Why when discussing corp taxes? They moved specifically to avoid them

3) Eliminate the min wage and pay what the job is worth. Problem solved
Click to expand...


You think Apple builds Ipads in China instead of California because of the U.S. minimum wage?

Laughable.
 
#44
#44
95 Vol Alum said:
• While Amazon.com LLC does not report this information directly to the state of Tennessee we are required to provide this information to you based on Tennessee Code T.C.A. § 67-6-5 (f)(3) signed into law March 23, 2012.
Click to expand...

Only part I read...
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
3) Labor costs seem to be much more significant motivator when it comes to these kinds of corporate decisions. I haven't seen any articles or news indicating that a major corporation moved the physical location of its actual, real manufacturing overseas due to taxes. On the other hand, Apple loves it some relatively cheap Chinese labor.

If you want to attract real manufacturing business to the U.S., it has to be done through lower labor costs
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
You think Apple builds Ipads in China instead of California because of the U.S. minimum wage?

Laughable.
Click to expand...

you're probably right, the wages required in the US clearly have nothing to do with the loss of manuf jobs
 
#47
#47
Apple or any corp setting up tax relief fronts is not a crime. On the other hand, the US having the highest corp tax rates in the world is a damn shame and a crime.

With the money that companies like Apple save in taxes they turn around and invest in and grow verticals/markets (ala. more jobs -- more tax payers). The government would just take this money and waste it on subsidies, obscure spending bills, and antiquated work projects, etc... There would be absolutely no return on the tax money. It would go into the spending landfill that we call the us federal government.
 
#48
#48
utvolpj said:
you're probably right, the wages required in the US clearly have nothing to do with the loss of manuf jobs
Click to expand...


The minimum wage laws in the U.S. are not what would cause a company like Apple to have its manufacturing jobs in China because the minimum wage is not a sustainable wage for the people required to do that work.



n_huffhines said:
Do you have any formal economic education? Please say no.
Click to expand...


Minimal.

But tell me, where is your proof that Apple sends its manufacturing jobs to China because of our minimum wage laws. Would you not agree that the real problem is that the living standards in the US are so high that people would simply not agree to work building Ipads when they'd get paid so little for it?
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
Minimal.

But tell me, where is your proof that Apple sends its manufacturing jobs to China because of our minimum wage laws. Would you not agree that the real problem is that the living standards in the US are so high that people would simply not agree to work building Ipads when they'd get paid so little for it?
Click to expand...

Since minimum wage + payroll taxes/SS contributions, etc. = more than what they pay workers in China, the answer to this question is a moot point.
 
#50
#50
since you keyed in on the min wage I should have also added the wages commanded by unions to do work. You don't think that would be a factor in CA either? Do you think this has a minimal effect on manufacturing jobs?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top