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

apple0154 said:
The question is, "How much did they pay?" If there is a difference are they willing to pay the difference?
Click to expand...

why on earth should they pay the difference?.....they've already paid all the taxes they are legally required to pay......

Some countries have an agreement re:taxes. For example, if a Canadian wins a US lottery they are taxed in the US and that is deducted from any tax they may be obliged to pay in Canada. Canadian government lotteries are tax-free but foreign winnings are taxed.
Click to expand...

yes, they do, but that only comes into play if the money is brought into the country or earned by a US citizen......it wouldn't apply to funds earned by a multinational corporation overseas that isn't paid as a dividend to a US corporation........
 
Rune said:
This has been tried before and flopped as far as job creation. All it really is is another huge tax break for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

it shouldn't be that difficult to target the tax break to job creation.....certainly a nation smart enough to create a tax structure should be smart enough to tailor it to a particular need.....
 
Rune said:
You do understand that the last time this happened I got nothing right? Why is this time going to be different?
This is the same bullshit as the GOP' only economic policy being to cut taxes, to increase jobs. Didn't work last time, will not work this time.
Click to expand...

the last time there was an amnesty there was no restriction on how the funds had to be used.......it could have been done differently.....
 
Rune said:
3.NO ONE IS INSISTING ANY SUCH THING. tHEY ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO PAY THE TAXES DUE AND DO WHATEVER THEY PLEASE WITH THEIR MONEY.
Click to expand...

they are also free to not pay any more taxes and invest in new factories in Mexico or China....which would we prefer they do?.....
 
Onceler said:
It's practically criminal. I read a comment on one of the support boards that Apple's entire m.o. regarding iTunes is to treat everyone like they're just trying to steal songs.

I really can't stand it. I'm also too lazy to explore the alternatives, so bad on me for that, but it has forever changed by perception of Apple.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to respond, right now....I'm watching Hunger Games on my PC.......
 
Damocles said:
Would this change the reality of the very real disincentive that keeps the money from being invested in the US?
Click to expand...

The point is one company would pay less tax than a company that stayed and earned it's money in the US. That would be an incentive for companies to move out of the US.

The second problem is, as we all know, companies are not investing. They are sitting on their reserves.

As I previously menioned there could be stipulations imposed to ensure the money was invested. If a company wants an exception, a special deal, what's in it for the government/citizens? For example, a stipulation could be made compelling any company receiving the tax break to invest in a certain segment of the economy. Apple, with it's computer expertise, could be obliged to invest in green energy technology via computers to run solar panels or wind generators or computers designed to improve gas milage for automobiles.

Again, there has to be some return to society otherwise other companies would go off shore, make money, then bring the money back without paying the approproiate tax. It would be a disaster.
 
Rune said:
Get off the fucking goofy pills will you? No one is insisting the money stay where it is, they can bring it back any time they like. They just want to be able to do it for free or at greatly reduced rates, and that is what you are defending.

How about changing the laws so the companies are not insentived to earn their capitol elsewhere in the first place? That is an actual issue, this is not.[/QUOTE]

Exactly!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
why on earth should they pay the difference?.....they've already paid all the taxes they are legally required to pay......
Click to expand...

Legally required to pay in the foreign country.

yes, they do, but that only comes into play if the money is brought into the country or earned by a US citizen......it wouldn't apply to funds earned by a multinational corporation overseas that isn't paid as a dividend to a US corporation........
Click to expand...

That's the whole argument, bringing the money into the country. If the money stays in another country, no problem. Once it comes here some US citizen(s) owns that money.

Remember, corporations are citizens. They could use part of that money to influence elections. Why should a company that generated money overseas, brought it here without paying the same tax as corporations that were already here, use that money to support Presidential candidates? There's nothing fair about that.
 
apple0154 said:
Why should a company that generated money overseas, brought it here without paying the same tax as corporations that were already here, use that money to support Presidential candidates? There's nothing fair about that.
Click to expand...

perhaps you haven't been paying attention.....the proposal is that they can bring the money in if they use it to create jobs......now, I will be the first to admit that if we get rid of Obama it will create jobs, but I don't think that is part of the proposal..........

obviously, if there isn't a tax holiday, then the money never will come into the country, for any purpose......it will stay in the other country and be used to create new jobs there......is that what you prefer?.......
 
apple0154 said:
The point is one company would pay less tax than a company that stayed and earned it's money in the US. That would be an incentive for companies to move out of the US.
Click to expand...
Actually that would be unconstitutional, if this was done it would be for all the companies that would want to repatriate their money.

The second problem is, as we all know, companies are not investing. They are sitting on their reserves.
Click to expand...
However, you can write the law to specifically state that repatriation only applies if they do invest.

As I previously menioned there could be stipulations imposed to ensure the money was invested. If a company wants an exception, a special deal, what's in it for the government/citizens? For example, a stipulation could be made compelling any company receiving the tax break to invest in a certain segment of the economy. Apple, with it's computer expertise, could be obliged to invest in green energy technology via computers to run solar panels or wind generators or computers designed to improve gas milage for automobiles.
Click to expand...

Again, they are simply asking for the US government to consider this for everybody, not specifically for themselves. It's like you don't read the articles.

Again, there has to be some return to society otherwise other companies would go off shore, make money, then bring the money back without paying the approproiate tax. It would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Again, you ensure return by writing the legislation stipulating the types of investment that you could apply this to... Basically, right now, the money will never do anything for us at all. It will never come to the US, it will remain where it is doing nothing to help the US. It won't even be taxed because all they have to do for that to happen is nothing. The US has an opportunity to take advantage of an opportunity to have the money on our own shores, invested here (whether in the market or as research or even to make new product), spent here. This is a no-brainer IMO, only ideologues would believe that it would do the US no good to have Billions more circulating in our economy.

Now, shall we repeat all that again? We can get the Wiccan among us to believe it if we say it three times.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
perhaps you haven't been paying attention.....the proposal is that they can bring the money in if they use it to create jobs......now, I will be the first to admit that if we get rid of Obama it will create jobs, but I don't think that is part of the proposal..........

obviously, if there isn't a tax holiday, then the money never will come into the country, for any purpose......it will stay in the other country and be used to create new jobs there......is that what you prefer?.......
Click to expand...

Yes, it is and I'll tell you why. People own that money. Why should they be able to bring it here and use it in the US without having paid taxes towards social programs.

Ask yourself, "Why do they want to bring the money to the US?" Do you think it's because they're altruistic? Concerned about their fellow citizen? Or do you think it's because they want to enjoy that money in a free country?
 
Damocles said:
Actually that would be unconstitutional, if this was done it would be for all the companies that would want to repatriate their money.


However, you can write the law to specifically state that repatriation only applies if they do invest.



Again, they are simply asking for the US government to consider this for everybody, not specifically for themselves. It's like you don't read the articles.


Again, you ensure return by writing the legislation stipulating the types of investment that you could apply this to... Basically, right now, the money will never do anything for us at all. It will never come to the US, it will remain where it is doing nothing to help the US. It won't even be taxed because all they have to do for that to happen is nothing. The US has an opportunity to take advantage of an opportunity to have the money on our own shores, invested here (whether in the market or as research or even to make new product), spent here. This is a no-brainer IMO, only ideologues would believe that it would do the US no good to have Billions more circulating in our economy.

Now, shall we repeat all that again? We can get the Wiccan among us to believe it if we say it three times.
Click to expand...

How about you start by explaining why it will be any different this time than last time Lucy?
 
Damocles said:
Again, you ensure return by writing the legislation stipulating the types of investment that you could apply this to... Basically, right now, the money will never do anything for us at all. It will never come to the US, it will remain where it is doing nothing to help the US. It won't even be taxed because all they have to do for that to happen is nothing. The US has an opportunity to take advantage of an opportunity to have the money on our own shores, invested here (whether in the market or as research or even to make new product), spent here. This is a no-brainer IMO, only ideologues would believe that it would do the US no good to have Billions more circulating in our economy.

Now, shall we repeat all that again? We can get the Wiccan among us to believe it if we say it three times.
Click to expand...

It's a no-brainer, alright.

Take two companies making similar products. Say, Apple and IBM. Apple decides to move overseas, pays lower wages and enjoys lower shipping costs as a larger portion of their customers are closer (Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, etc). IBM decides to remain in the US. A few years pass and Apple wants to bring that money back to the US.

Now let's say both Apple and IBM are working on developing a new computer that will be able to detect the real time demand on the local power company. Home owners will be able to purchase this new product and will be able to see the peak periods. People using electricity during that period would be charged a higher rate so they would avoid using things like the clothes dryer, hot water for showers, etc. until the peak subsided. This invention would generate vast profits for whichever company invented it. Apple, by not having paid the same taxes as IBM paid towards social benefits will have more money to invest in R&D and will have an unfair advantage.

Obviously, IBM and every other company will follow Apple's example. Fire employees, close plants, stop paying taxes towards US social policies and move overseas. When an opportunity arises to develop a product that is geared to the US market move the funds back to the US and outspend other companies that remained here and contributed to society.

Is that what you want to see happen?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Damocles said:
Actually that would be unconstitutional, if this was done it would be for all the companies that would want to repatriate their money.


However, you can write the law to specifically state that repatriation only applies if they do invest.



Again, they are simply asking for the US government to consider this for everybody, not specifically for themselves. It's like you don't read the articles.


Again, you ensure return by writing the legislation stipulating the types of investment that you could apply this to... Basically, right now, the money will never do anything for us at all. It will never come to the US, it will remain where it is doing nothing to help the US. It won't even be taxed because all they have to do for that to happen is nothing. The US has an opportunity to take advantage of an opportunity to have the money on our own shores, invested here (whether in the market or as research or even to make new product), spent here. This is a no-brainer IMO, only ideologues would believe that it would do the US no good to have Billions more circulating in our economy.

Now, shall we repeat all that again? We can get the Wiccan among us to believe it if we say it three times.
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
It's a no-brainer, alright.

Take two companies making similar products. Say, Apple and IBM. Apple decides to move overseas, pays lower wages and enjoys lower shipping costs as a larger portion of their customers are closer (Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, etc). IBM decides to remain in the US. A few years pass and Apple wants to bring that money back to the US.

Now let's say both Apple and IBM are working on developing a new computer that will be able to detect the real time demand on the local power company. Home owners will be able to purchase this new product and will be able to see the peak periods. People using electricity during that period would be charged a higher rate so they would avoid using things like the clothes dryer, hot water for showers, etc. until the peak subsided. This invention would generate vast profits for whichever company invented it. Apple, by not having paid the same taxes as IBM paid towards social benefits will have more money to invest in R&D and will have an unfair advantage.

Obviously, IBM and every other company will follow Apple's example. Fire employees, close plants, stop paying taxes towards US social policies and move overseas. When an opportunity arises to develop a product that is geared to the US market move the funds back to the US and outspend other companies that remained here and contributed to society.

Is that what you want to see happen?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...

It is your assertion that it is better to do nothing, and in return get nothing, than to make any effort to have literally billions circulating in our economy. I think you are an ideologue, with a heavy case of foolish.
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, it is and I'll tell you why. People own that money. Why should they be able to bring it here and use it in the US without having paid taxes towards social programs.
Click to expand...

because the alternative is they don't bring it here and they use it somewhere else without having paid taxes......
 
Damocles said:
It is your assertion that it is better to do nothing, and in return get nothing, than to make any effort to have literally billions circulating in our economy. I think you are an ideologue, with a heavy case of foolish.
Click to expand...

It is a sacrifice that is necessary to teach companies they can not run circles around the laws. If that's being an ideologue, so be it. The foolishness is in making exceptions. Every company is going to take advantage of such exceptions resulting in more of them moving overseas.

If exceptions are granted it removes any penalty for their having moved overseas. That will only encourage other companies to do the same.

Unfortunately, the big picture escapes you.
 
apple0154 said:
It is a sacrifice that is necessary to teach companies they can not run circles around the laws. If that's being an ideologue, so be it. The foolishness is in making exceptions. Every company is going to take advantage of such exceptions resulting in more of them moving overseas.

If exceptions are granted it removes any penalty for their having moved overseas. That will only encourage other companies to do the same.

Unfortunately, the big picture escapes you.
Click to expand...
Cutting off your nose to spite your face is the very definition of ideologue. You literally have "Corporations are Bad" so deeply ingrained that even when you can make them do something good through simple incentive instead you desperately want to "show them who's boss;" you want to use the stick so badly you can't bring yourself to even buy a carrot let alone understand it is easier to get people, even the ones that run corporations, to do something you want them to do by using that carrot...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top