• Tim Cook on accusations of Apple tax evading: "total political crap"
    27 replies, posted
[url]http://www.macrumors.com/2015/12/18/tim-cook-apple-tax-total-political-crap/[/url] [quote=MacRumors]60 Minutes has shared a preview of Tim Cook's latest interview with journalist Charlie Rose, in which the Apple CEO emphatically counters the idea that Apple has created elaborate schemes to pay little or no U.S. corporate taxes on its overseas revenue. Cook described the tax avoidance accusations as "total political crap," and deflected blame on the U.S. tax code for being far outdated. He added that repatriating the money in the U.S. is not "a reasonable thing to do" due to high corporate tax rates.[/quote]
It is total political crap. Everything Apple did is legal when it comes to taxes. He's right to say that the tax code is outdated.
Tim Cook isn't fooling anyone. Apple is the reason [url="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement"]this[/url] exists.
Basically a diplomatic way of saying "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49346861]Basically a diplomatic way of saying "Don't hate the player, hate the game."[/QUOTE] I'd be fine with that, if Apple and other companies wouldn't lobby the fuck outta closing loopholes.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49346861]Basically a diplomatic way of saying "Don't hate the player, hate the game."[/QUOTE] I'll hate both. They don't have to play the tax evasion game, many other businesses don't.
Boy Tim Cook's making himself look like a right cunt lately.
[QUOTE=Source;49349194]Boy Tim Cook's making himself look like a right cunt lately.[/QUOTE] It's reasonable to expect the CEO of a company to speak favorably about said company.
They may not be evading tax, almost certainly avoiding it though
Doesn't get you a good image tho', just look at that Martin fella before he was busted bamboozling investors/stockholders. Should've paid the dough
[QUOTE=Ezhik;49349319]It's reasonable to expect the CEO of a company to speak favorably about said company.[/QUOTE] I imagine it's also reasonable to not run your company like a complete fuckwit.
[QUOTE=Van-man;49349332]Doesn't get you a good image tho', just look at that Martin fella before he was busted bamboozling investors/stockholders. Should've paid the dough[/QUOTE] Doesn't really matter since it's Apple. They seem to get a free pass card on most things
[QUOTE=megafat;49349338]I imagine it's also reasonable to not run your company like a complete fuckwit.[/QUOTE] Takes one hell of a fuckwit to make one of the most profitable companies on the planet.
[QUOTE=Source;49349194]Boy Tim Cook's making himself look like a right cunt lately.[/QUOTE] Part of being Apple CEO is being a giant cunt. [editline]19th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ezhik;49349357]Takes one hell of a fuckwit to make one of the most profitable companies on the planet.[/QUOTE] Except Cook didn't make Apple profitable and they are making less money under his leadership.
You can understand why Apple, and most other companies, wouldn't want to repatriate their earnings. As soon as they do, the IRS will take up to a 35% chunk of it, after tax treaties are accounted for. Then, when the money reaches shareholders as dividends, those post-tax dividends can be taxed [i]again[/i] at up to 23.8%. Effectively, up to ~51% of those earnings are lost to tax. More money would go to the IRS, who assume no risk, than the shareholders who had to assume most of the risk of investment. Something really needs to be done about the tax system in the U.S. Company tax needs to be drastically reduced to internationally competitive levels; around 20% maximum, and dividends need to either go without tax or be taxed through a dividend imputation system, to eliminate double taxation. Then, all those billions or trillions of dollars of wealth will finally be repatriated and finally face some tax.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49349521]You can understand why Apple, and most other companies, wouldn't want to repatriate their earnings. As soon as they do, the IRS will take up to a 35% chunk of it, after tax treaties are accounted for. Then, when the money reaches shareholders as dividends, those post-tax dividends can be taxed [i]again[/i] at up to 23.8%. Effectively, up to ~51% of those earnings are lost to tax. More money would go to the IRS, who assume no risk, than the shareholders who had to assume most of the risk of investment. Something really needs to be done about the tax system in the U.S. Company tax needs to be drastically reduced to internationally competitive levels; around 20% maximum, and dividends need to either go without tax or be taxed through a dividend imputation system, to eliminate double taxation. Then, all those billions or trillions of dollars of wealth will finally be repatriated and finally face some tax.[/QUOTE] How much money do massive international corporations really need? Why should their financial interests be valued over actual American individuals?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49349521]You can understand why Apple, and most other companies, wouldn't want to repatriate their earnings. As soon as they do, the IRS will take up to a 35% chunk of it, after tax treaties are accounted for. Then, when the money reaches shareholders as dividends, those post-tax dividends can be taxed [i]again[/i] at up to 23.8%. Effectively, up to ~51% of those earnings are lost to tax. More money would go to the IRS, who assume no risk, than the shareholders who had to assume most of the risk of investment. Something really needs to be done about the tax system in the U.S. Company tax needs to be drastically reduced to internationally competitive levels; around 20% maximum, and dividends need to either go without tax or be taxed through a dividend imputation system, to eliminate double taxation. Then, all those billions or trillions of dollars of wealth will finally be repatriated and finally face some tax.[/QUOTE] Uhh no. Most of that money wouldn't be going into lowering costs or even into the wages of workers. It'd go to the shareholders and the CEOs. I'm sick of this, 'lower the taxes'. That's a slippery slope argument if I've ever seen one, I remember watching a CEO talk about how they'd bring money in if it was lowered to 15%. Yes, because holding money ransom in random tax havens doing fuckall is the best idea. They've put themselves in a corner.
[QUOTE=Swilly;49354203]Uhh no. Most of that money wouldn't be going into lowering costs or even into the wages of workers. It'd go to the shareholders and the CEOs. I'm sick of this, 'lower the taxes'. That's a slippery slope argument if I've ever seen one, I remember watching a CEO talk about how they'd bring money in if it was lowered to 15%. Yes, because holding money ransom in random tax havens doing fuckall is the best idea. They've put themselves in a corner.[/QUOTE] You need to re-read what I wrote. I am acknowledging that most of that money would go to shareholders. I didn't say anything about that money being used to lower costs (???) or increase wages. But that money isn't being repatriated because it would face a tax rate of up to ~51% by the time the money reaches shareholders as dividends; 35% tax when the company repatriates it, then 23.8% tax on the remaining 65% when issued as a dividend to each shareholder. That is the entire substance of what I wrote, which somehow went over your head. It makes zero sense for the money to be repatriated if it faces up to that much tax; a tax rate higher than even the highest marginal personal income tax rate (39.6%). The current tax rules mean the most economically-sensible option is to keep that money offshore. Shareholders would be absolutely furious if their company issued a dividend when, if the company instead waits a few years for a change in government and tax policy, that the tax treatment could be much less severe. Even Obama acknowledged this, and there was talk of dropping the top corporate tax rate to 28% earlier this year. [editline]20th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;49354174]How much money do massive international corporations really need? Why should their financial interests be valued over actual American individuals?[/QUOTE] Those companies would love to release those earnings to their shareholders, but the shareholders would not want to see that money if up to 51% of it was taken by the IRS. The solution is really simple: If the IRS wants optimal revenue, the tax rates needs to be dropped to a point where companies will determine that it would be sensible to repatriate that money. Similar concept to the Laffer curve.
[QUOTE=theenemy;49348927]I'll hate both. They don't have to play the tax evasion game, many other businesses don't.[/QUOTE] Some don't, but expecting huge publicly traded multinationals to do the right thing is quite deluded in my opinion. I'm not saying there are exceptions, but it should be the government who fixes the loopholes that allow these corporations to evade paying taxes and hitting them hard if/when they are caught. Obviously this is all further complicated by the massive lobbying efforts of those corporations and I don't have an easy solution to that. But providing them with the tools to evade paying taxes and then blaming them for not paying is useless and since they are technically in the right there is very little one can do. And none of the consumers seem to care too much about these tax avoidance schemes to stop buying from Apple, Amazon, Starbucks etc... It's all well and good complaining but you have to take a step yourself too if you care that much.
[QUOTE=Fetret;49354918] And none of the consumers seem to care too much about these tax avoidance schemes to stop buying from Apple, Amazon, Starbucks etc... It's all well and good complaining but you have to take a step yourself too if you care that much.[/QUOTE] A lot of these companies are very hard to avoid conveniently For example in case of phones you have either android or iphone or windows. Pretty sure no company out of Apple, Google or Microsoft adequately pay their taxes
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49354875]You need to re-read what I wrote. I am acknowledging that most of that money would go to shareholders. I didn't say anything about that money being used to lower costs (???) or increase wages. But that money isn't being repatriated because it would face a tax rate of up to ~51% by the time the money reaches shareholders as dividends; 35% tax when the company repatriates it, then 23.8% tax on the remaining 65% when issued as a dividend to each shareholder. That is the entire substance of what I wrote, which somehow went over your head. It makes zero sense for the money to be repatriated if it faces up to that much tax; a tax rate higher than even the highest marginal personal income tax rate (39.6%). The current tax rules mean the most economically-sensible option is to keep that money offshore. Shareholders would be absolutely furious if their company issued a dividend when, if the company instead waits a few years for a change in government and tax policy, that the tax treatment could be much less severe. Even Obama acknowledged this, and there was talk of dropping the top corporate tax rate to 28% earlier this year. [editline]20th December 2015[/editline] Those companies would love to release those earnings to their shareholders, but the shareholders would not want to see that money if up to 51% of it was taken by the IRS. The solution is really simple: If the IRS wants optimal revenue, the tax rates needs to be dropped to a point where companies will determine that it would be sensible to repatriate that money. Similar concept to the Laffer curve.[/QUOTE] Dude you might wanna look at your own country and how companies avoid b your lower tax before spouting that bullshit.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;49357635]A lot of these companies are very hard to avoid conveniently For example in case of phones you have either android or iphone or windows. Pretty sure no company out of Apple, Google or Microsoft adequately pay their taxes[/QUOTE] That's not an excuse though. If you lament the death of the traditional bookstore, don't buy stuff off Amazon. If you want your local coffee shop to stay afloat don't buy from Starbucks. If you are not happy with their tax policies either show your displeasure through not buying from them (i.e directly hurting them) or make some noise and get the government to do something about it. Expecting the company to do the "honourable" thing, acting surprised and shocked when it doesn't and then continuing your purchasing habits as if nothing has happened effectively means you are making empty threats and they know it. I personally do not care if a company avoids taxes through rights granted to them through laws. If they have the right to do it, they will do it. So I have absolutely no problems buying from Starbucks, Amazon or Apple until the government takes steps to address these issues. But if you have a problem with their lawful practices you should take action not just post on a forum.
[QUOTE=DuCT;49346755]It is total political crap. Everything Apple did is legal when it comes to taxes. He's right to say that the tax code is outdated.[/QUOTE] He says it is outdated but then says repatriating the funds is unreasonable because our corporate tax rate is too high, so at the end of the day he just doesn't want to pay any more.
[QUOTE=Swilly;49357734]Dude you might wanna look at your own country and how companies avoid b your lower tax before spouting that bullshit.[/QUOTE] Or maybe you could have actually read that other thread and you would have realised the ATO emphasised the reason in which some companies paid little or no tax is because they had a low or negative taxable income, a loss, or they used credits from previous losses to offset current tax liabilities. But in the end it doesn't matter, because any dividend released by those companies would be taxed at up to each shareholder's marginal tax rate. I don't see how I'm the one sprouting bullshit when I'm actually taking the time to explain my arguments derived from my knowledge of tax systems, arguments which you do not even retort, and instead result to childish insults. [editline]21st December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Funcoot;49357814]He says it is outdated but then says repatriating the funds is unreasonable because our corporate tax rate is too high, so at the end of the day he just doesn't want to pay any more.[/QUOTE] Your tax system is outdated and corporate tax rates are too high. He's not wrong about either.
Apple products are already luxury here with unreasonable prices due to our excessive taxes. If they increased even more due to U.S taxes, Apple wouldn't be able to sell a sticker here.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;49358232]Apple products are already luxury here with unreasonable prices due to our excessive taxes. If they increased even more due to U.S taxes, Apple wouldn't be able to sell a sticker here.[/QUOTE] Their profit margins are so high they could handle tax increases with no trouble. Maybe they would have just 150 billion spare dollars, instead of 200 billion, but it's not like they know what to do with it anymore.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49358132]Or maybe you could have actually read that other thread and you would have realised the ATO emphasised the reason in which some companies paid little or no tax is because they had a low or negative taxable income, a loss, or they used credits from previous losses to offset current tax liabilities. But in the end it doesn't matter, because any dividend released by those companies would be taxed at up to each shareholder's marginal tax rate. I don't see how I'm the one sprouting bullshit when I'm actually taking the time to explain my arguments derived from my knowledge of tax systems, arguments which you do not even retort, and instead result to childish insults. [/QUOTE] Question: How can multibillion dollar companies take losses when they're profiting?
[QUOTE=Swilly;49360034]Question: How can multibillion dollar companies take losses when they're profiting?[/QUOTE] A) Except many aren't. You know how you mentioned my own country? Qantas paid no income tax last tax year but that's because their taxable income was a loss, not a profit (and they didn't make a net profit either). It's a similar story for many other companies. Just because a company is valued in the billions, it doesn't guarantee them a profit. Then there's the matter of what kind of profits? In direct answer to your question, a company can be 'profiting' by making a gross profit, and yet not make a net profit, so overall they would be running at a loss. Then there's of course the matter of; B) Taxable income is different from accounting net profits. Taxable income is assessable income less allowable deductions, while accounting net profits are accounting gross profits less operating expenses, tax etc. Already you can see that a taxable income is not necessarily a 'profit', and to separate them further, accounting profits are derived from accrual-based accounting, while taxable income is derived from cash-based accounting. Then, tax systems often allow further separation between the two through things such as separate rates of asset depreciation for the calculation of taxable income and accounting profits. All of these things considered, it wouldn't be impossible for a company to make even a net profit, yet not realise a taxable income. You make this too easy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.