Apple's calls for repatriation tax holiday gain no traction with White House

apple: So, why are they interested in bringing the money here? Could it be so they can enjoy the funds without having to pay taxes on it? The CEOs can get bigger bonuses. The investors can get greater dividends. Tax-free money for the “in-crowd” and to hell with any social obligation.
Click to expand...

In what world do you live in? If the CEOs get bigger bonuses/salaries.. that money is taxed. If they pay out greater dividends, that money is taxed.
 
apple0154 said:
The government understands it very well. You're free to invest where you want. You're also obliged to pay taxes on that money if you bring it into the country.

Quite simple, really.
Click to expand...

yes it is.....on the other hand, it might be a good idea to find a way to bring some of that money back here........I wish liberals understood that.......but, since they don't we have to vote them all out of office and replace them with someone intelligent.....
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us... when they use their money to enjoy it... do ya think they are buying products and services? Or are they just burning it for shits and giggles?
Click to expand...

Sure, they're buying products and services for themselves with the money that should have gone towards the public good. Maybe they're buying camping equipment to use in Federal Parks, parks which they never paid taxes towards maintaining. Using other government services that other people's taxes have paid for and towards which they never contributed. That's stealing from the public.
 
Superfreak said:
If people receive the money here, it will either be in the form of dividends (which they will pay taxes on) or capital gains (assuming they sell stock to get at a portion of the money... which again will be taxed) So proclaiming the money won't be taxed here is blatantly false.
Click to expand...

So, using your logic if I hire a contractor to build an addition on my home and it costs $50,000 I shouldn't be taxed on earning that $50,000 because the contractor will be paying taxes on the $50,000 when I give it to him.
 
apple0154 said:
So, using your logic if I hire a contractor to build an addition on my home and it costs $50,000 I shouldn't be taxed on earning that $50,000 because the contractor will be paying taxes on the $50,000 when I give it to him.
Click to expand...

you HAVE been taxed on that $50k, and the company HAS been taxed on their earnings.....where it was earned......
 
Superfreak said:
In what world do you live in? If the CEOs get bigger bonuses/salaries.. that money is taxed. If they pay out greater dividends, that money is taxed.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about "someone" paying taxes. In that case payroll taxes should be cut to near zero. After all, people spend their paycheck at the grocery store and the gas station and give some to their landlord and all those people will pay tax on the money so why should the employee pay tax on his/her earnings?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes it is.....on the other hand, it might be a good idea to find a way to bring some of that money back here........I wish liberals understood that.......but, since they don't we have to vote them all out of office and replace them with someone intelligent.....
Click to expand...

Or maybe other companies will look at what's happening and think twice about relocating overseas.

Why do Conservatives have such difficulty thinking things through?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you HAVE been taxed on that $50k, and the company HAS been taxed on their earnings.....where it was earned......
Click to expand...

Where it was earned. They contributed nothing to the economy here.

If they are permitted to bring the money here without paying the tax here more and more companies are going to move away and do the same thing. Can't you understand that?
 
apple0154 said:
Or maybe other companies will look at what's happening and think twice about relocating overseas.

Why do Conservatives have such difficulty thinking things through?
Click to expand...

they will certainly think twice about ever coming back.......or didn't you think that through?.....
 
apple0154 said:
Where it was earned. They contributed nothing to the economy here.

If they are permitted to bring the money here without paying the tax here more and more companies are going to move away and do the same thing. Can't you understand that?
Click to expand...

lol....but continually raising the taxes on the companies here has nothing to do with it, right?......
 
apple0154 said:
Sure, they're buying products and services for themselves with the money that should have gone towards the public good. Maybe they're buying camping equipment to use in Federal Parks, parks which they never paid taxes towards maintaining. Using other government services that other people's taxes have paid for and towards which they never contributed. That's stealing from the public.
Click to expand...
As I said, you're an ideologue. It doesn't matter that it can be used to help us, it doesn't matter to you that people might be better off if we do this the right way, it only matters that they aren't "concerned" enough and aren't letting the government redistribute the money rather than directly hiring contractors, etc.

16% underemployment and Apple0154 thinks that the best way to handle that is summarily reject funds that can help if directed correctly because they aren't punished and the government isn't directly in control. Of course it isn't his economy, he just doesn't want them to take the money out of Canada.
 
Rune said:
From http://www.appleinsider.com/article...offshore_tax_holiday_to_bring_cash_to_us.html

An attempt to replay the 2004 tax break in 2009, as part of President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus plan, was supported by a bipartisan group of senators led by California Democrat Barbara Boxer and Nevada Republican John Ensign, but it failed to get more than 42 votes.

At the time, opposition to the plan came from senators who were upset by how, as Boxer acknowledged in the report, companies had previously "abused the spirit of the requirements on how the money needed to be spent" under the previous tax holiday.

The "privately financed stimulus" plan is being looked at skeptically by both rural Democrats and by Tea Party-affiliated Republicans who see the measure as a handout to big corporations, while the new influx of relatively moderate Republicans in the House are likely to be more amicable. President Obama has shown little enthusiasm for the corporate tax holiday in the past, but is meeting with tech industry CEOs on a trip to Silicon Valley tomorrow in what the report referred to as "scouting for opportunities to burnish his relationship with big business."

This all happened before

The report noted that in a previous tax holiday, granted in 2004, companies had similarly argued that repatriating foreign funds at discounted tax rates would enable them to boost the economy through direct domestic investment.

However, even though the Treasury Department attempted to write rules at the time to ensure the money would be invested locally, most of the cash (60 to 92 percent, according to one study cited in the report) was simply returned to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks and dividends.

"A tax holiday would bring a substantial amount of cash back to the United States and paying that out to shareholders is good for the economy," said the study's co-author Kristin Forbes, who Forbes noted is an economics professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and was a member of President George W. Bush's council of economic advisers. "But if you're a politician claiming this will create a lot of jobs or new investment, it isn't supported by the data."


Apple hasn't given any indication of what exactly it might do with its vast cash reserves were the US to allow it to bring more of that money into the country with a tax break incentive. Some investors and analysts have pleaded with the company to distribute its holdings to shareholders in the form of dividends.

Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs has noted at previous shareholder meetings that such a move would be a shortsighted use of the company's buying power, and would remove a central pillar holding up the company's valuation. By holding onto the cash, Apple can be prepared to jump on new opportunities as they arise.

Gee Damo, it seems like my sentiments are shared by both dems and pubs alike.
Click to expand...
.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....but continually raising the taxes on the companies here has nothing to do with it, right?......
Click to expand...

Obviously the companies prefer to have their money in the US rather than some foreign country. Why? Stability? Possibility of devaluation? Who knows. What we do know is they want to bring the money here and that will cost them.

It's no different than companies currently sitting on large reserves and paying banks to hold/safeguard their money. What better country to hold ones savings than the super power of the world? For that security they have to pay in the form of taxes or leave their money where it is governed by foreign countries/rules. The companies knew that going in but decided they would scam the American people out of tax money and then try to weasel their way back. A sophisticated plan, maybe, but still sleazy, underhanded theft nonetheless.
 
Damocles said:
As I said, you're an ideologue. It doesn't matter that it can be used to help us, it doesn't matter to you that people might be better off if we do this the right way, it only matters that they aren't "concerned" enough and aren't letting the government redistribute the money rather than directly hiring contractors, etc.

16% underemployment and Apple0154 thinks that the best way to handle that is summarily reject funds that can help if directed correctly because they aren't punished and the government isn't directly in control. Of course it isn't his economy, he just doesn't want them to take the money out of Canada.
Click to expand...

Hey, have you never seen the AD that shows a US one hundred dollar bill makes friends wherever it goes? :)

As for doing it the right way what is the right way? Remember, this has been tried before. Who decides which companies are worthy of investment? The Repub favorites or the Dem's favorites?

It would not only punish companies that played by the rules but it would encourage other companies to do the same, namely, fire US employees, close plants and move overseas. But like so many other laws enacted they're nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to a situation and never thought through. Demanding they pay taxes is not even a punishment. All the companies here paid those taxes. Why should those companies that relocated overseas be rewarded? It is not a punishment. It is expecting the companies to follow the same rules as every other company that remained here. Why should they get special treatment after having fired US employees and moved overseas? Your argument is illogical.
 
apple0154 said:
It's no different than companies currently sitting on large reserves and paying banks to hold/safeguard their money.
Click to expand...

uh, as I recall, banks PAY people who put money in them.....it's called interest.......actually, we PAY the Chinese to keep their money here, why not let American companies do it free?.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top