Why do liberals think Apple is bad for evading taxes in a perfectly legal way?

'If it wasn't for those tax loopholes quite a few middle class Americans wouldn't have jobs or would be making quite a bit less.'

So why not cancel taxes for all companies

Those people would just be working for different companies and we all would pay less taxes

Apple supports a tiny # of jobs in this country in contrast to previous large corporations, which would support millions of jobs. And it is not because they cannot afford it or that they do not require larger #'s to make their products. But they are certainly not the only culprit here.

Why do people think the IRS is bad for looking to increase revenue in a perfectly legal way?

So what if they investigate certain groups they feel are more likely to be tax evaders? They're just looking out for their own interest.

It's all legal.

While it might not be illegal, it's certainly NOT ethical. Apple fails miserably to support local, national, and regional governments who desperately need those tax dollars that they are dodging.

Apple and other tech companies are begging the govt to let them hire more indian and chinese immigrants because "there is not enough US talent." While that really means they can hire immigrants cheaper and make them work harder, the US education system would be able to develop more talented engineers if companies such as Apple didn't dodge BILLIONS in taxes that could be going to those schools.

Good Job Apple.

That is total BS. Seriously, the only reason people believe that "corporations create jobs" is because corporations collectively want Americans to believe it. It is said it a million times on corporate owned media. Then people take it as truth. Yet if you give any objective thought at all to it you immediately see the absurdity to it.

Doclove wrote:

'If it wasn't for those tax loopholes quite a few middle class Americans wouldn't have jobs or would be making quite a bit less.'

So why not cancel taxes for all companies

Those people would just be working for different companies and we all would pay less taxes

Corporations can create more jobs and lower their tax burden at the same time.

Take all that cash and use it to hire more people to help their current workers who are being stretched thin.

This increases their expenses and lowers their taxes.

Apple can also choose to increase wages for the slave-like conditions they have many of their workers in and that would decrease their tax liability as well.

It seems their sole purpose is to pay their workers as little as possible, use any method necessary to pay less taxes, all so they can just pile up more cash that isn't being used.

They have over $120 billion dollars in cash laying around. That's after paying salaries, bonuses, distributions, etc.

Spend the damn money if you don't like taxes!

pean wrote:

Corporations can create more jobs and lower their tax burden at the same time.

Take all that cash and use it to hire more people to help their current workers who are being stretched thin.

This increases their expenses and lowers their taxes.

Apple can also choose to increase wages for the slave-like conditions they have many of their workers in and that would decrease their tax liability as well.

It seems their sole purpose is to pay their workers as little as possible, use any method necessary to pay less taxes, all so they can just pile up more cash that isn't being used.

They have over $120 billion dollars in cash laying around. That's after paying salaries, bonuses, distributions, etc.

Spend the damn money if you don't like taxes!

Hey thanks! Awesome that you would take time out of your busy schedule to come on here and tell me how to do my job. Totally appreciated.

(and to think that all this time I had been thinking that my mandate was to maximize shareholder value while obeying the law)

That's the whole issue with corporations.

They lose sight of the original purpose of the company which is about the product and the people that make it.

It becomes a mandate to maximize shareholder value.

Sometimes that is at the cost of long term development over short term gain. Or at the cost of layoffs or harsh working conditions.

Pay bigger dividends if you have all of that cash. The shareholders would love that.

And haven't we seen their stock price drop the last 6 months or so?

Shareholder value swings on a number of elements that aren't always reflective of profits, cash and taxes.

Their priorities of people loyalty is all screwed up.

pean wrote:

Pay bigger dividends if you have all of that cash. The shareholders would love that.

They are doing that, but they are going to borrow the money instead of using their hoard of cash, because the Fed and fiscal policy of this country has created disincentive and malinvestment. All the Fed has done has bloated its balance sheet without spurring lending or increasing the velocity of money. Companies like Apple have to compete in a GLOBAL marketplace, and tax and wage arbitrage is not going to go away. Perhaps we should have a repatriation holiday, and then you would see an influx of capital.

This is tantamount to saying that retirees shouldn't be allowed to retire overseas where the cost of living and medical expenses are so much cheaper, while continuing to collect their pensions and social security from the US. Why don't we just tax an ex-pat at 50% of their income if they are not going to spend it at home? They did benefit more than any other generation after all, didn't they? It's tantamount to saying we should tax remittances to Mexico at 50% to keep some of that money home to pay for entitlements. Is this the direction we should go in?

It is true that job creators are generally small businesses, not huge corporations, and small businesses are feeling the pinch of bureaucratic excess. The one hope we have is taking a Manhattan Project approach to developing domestic natural resources while gradually cutting spending, or, at the very least, not backfilling government positions when people retire, as well as tackling entitlement reform.

Someone posted the following chart, arguing that producible and service well bores on federal lands have increased during the last three years, but the increase is miniscule compared to the jump between 200-2008, and it says nothing about total production from those wells. Most of the ramp up in production is despite our Federal government.

2000-2008

pean wrote:

That's the whole issue with corporations.

They lose sight of the original purpose of the company which is about the product and the people that make it.

It becomes a mandate to maximize shareholder value.

Sometimes that is at the cost of long term development over short term gain. Or at the cost of layoffs or harsh working conditions.

Pay bigger dividends if you have all of that cash. The shareholders would love that.

And haven't we seen their stock price drop the last 6 months or so?

Shareholder value swings on a number of elements that aren't always reflective of profits, cash and taxes.

Their priorities of people loyalty is all screwed up.

Sorry, but you are mistaken on just about every count.

The original purpose of the company is to make money for its owners. You may not like this but there is no denying that that's the way it is and always has been.

Long term development vs short term gain? Seriously? You think that little peanut gallery commenters have a better sense of what will maximize shareholder value than those on the BOD and executive team? Sorry, but it is truly hilarious that you fall for such cheap throwaway rhetoric.

Don't like layoffs? Too bad. If the company can figure out how to have people provide more value than they are costing then they will. Otherwise it makes sense to let them go. This is called capitalism.

Harsh working conditions? It is the responsibility of governments to define laws for working conditions. It is the job of the company to obey such laws.

Pay bigger dividend? Seriously? You think that you know better than the company what it should be doing with its money? It is difficult to believe that anyone over the age of 20 could be so naive.

Stock price dropped? Ummm...yeah. Stock prices sometimes rise. At other times they fall. My guess is that while they were rising for Apple you held all of the same views and the laws of the universe were the same. And yet you probably did not point out at the time that the rising stock price was proof that Apple's management was doing exactly what they should be doing, did you? Yet here you are at simply a different phase of these market cycles citing this as evidence that Apple management should be doing something differently. Nice try at integrity.

Come on folks, grow up just a little bit. Apple is trying to make money. Plain and simple. And as long as they are obeying the law there is no issue except with the law itself if you think that something aint right.

Please don't refer to "tax collection" as "revenue." I know that is what you hear people/media call it in the vernacular but it really is a mistake of phrase.Revenue = Product sold x PriceA state does not concern itself with either piece of this equation and calling it "revenue" gives the impression that something productive is occurring.Unless you have the economic understanding of a liberal/social-worker, you are better off not making such mistakes of nomenclature.

Hoo wrote:

Why do people think the IRS is bad for looking to increase revenue in a perfectly legal way?

krispy kremlin wrote:

A state does not concern itself with either piece of this equation and calling it "revenue" gives the impression that something productive is occurring.

Ok, I chuckled. Thanks for sending me into the unofficial start of summer with a laugh.

Tax collection IS revenue for the IRS.

IRS stands for Internal REVENUE Service,

In case you didn't get that the "R" is for REVENUE.

krispy kremlin wrote:

Please don't refer to "tax collection" as "revenue." I know that is what you hear people/media call it in the vernacular but it really is a mistake of phrase.

Revenue = Product sold x Price

A state does not concern itself with either piece of this equation and calling it "revenue" gives the impression that something productive is occurring.

Unless you have the economic understanding of a liberal/social-worker, you are better off not making such mistakes of nomenclature.

revenue: (noun) a state's annual income

Oh yeah, you also forgot to use "libtard". I don't think that your post is valid unless you use the word, libtard.

Well Now That You Mention It wrote:

[quote]krispy kremlin wrote:

Please don't refer to "tax collection" as "revenue." I know that is what you hear people/media call it in the vernacular but it really is a mistake of phrase.

Revenue = Product sold x Price

A state does not concern itself with either piece of this equation and calling it "revenue" gives the impression that something productive is occurring.

Unless you have the economic understanding of a liberal/social-worker, you are better off not making such mistakes of nomenclature.

revenue: (noun) a state's annual income

Oh yeah, you also forgot to use "libtard". I don't think that your post is valid unless you use the word, libtard.

No, I certainly looked up the definition before posting and realize that "state taxation" is part of the official definition but let's call a spade a spade here: Companies/Entrepeneurs create "revenue" while States levy "taxes."

"IRS" might as well be "ITS." They are tax collectors; revenue, in the spirit of the word, is not at all involved in its activities.

Using "revenue" gives politicians a politically-feasible alternative to saying "raise taxes."

krispy kremlin wrote:

No, I certainly looked up the definition before posting and realize that "state taxation" is part of the official definition but let's call a spade a spade here: Companies/Entrepeneurs create "revenue" while States levy "taxes."

"IRS" might as well be "ITS." They are tax collectors; revenue, in the spirit of the word, is not at all involved in its activities.

Using "revenue" gives politicians a politically-feasible alternative to saying "raise taxes."

I see.

So, you, the Mighty Krispy Kremlin are the official arbiter of what words really should mean.

OK, I get that part.

Oh yeah, and the use of the word "revenue" rather than "taxes" completely changes our political system and outcomes.

Got it.

But you still forgot to use the word libtard. I'm not sure that I can take your posts very seriously until you at least get that detail straightened out.

Yes, the Mighty Krispy Kremlin; I like how that sounds.

Instead of libtard, I just reference social worker, they are practically the same thing.

Liberals expect successful people to pay their dues to

"charities" they approve of.