Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A flat 10% tax would be unfair to the majority of one-percenters, most married couples, and poor people.
It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?
It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?
A flat 10% tax would be unfair to the majority of one-percenters, most married couples, and poor people.
What?!?! How is paying a flat rate of 10% unfair to "poor people"?!?
Are you incapable of math?!?
Poor person pays 10% of $20,000 it equals $2,000
Rich person pays 10% of $2,000,000 it equals $200,000
$200,000 is a fuck-load more than $2,000. In fact, it's a fuck-load more than the entire salary of the poor person.
Please, go back to school and get some kind of an education....
It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?
I'm a die-hard conservative, and I support that 100%.
Liberals don't understand that they have run jobs (through inflated union wages) and money (through absurd tax rates) right out of this country.
They created the problem - and then they cry the loudest about it
A flat 10% tax would be unfair to the majority of one-percenters, most married couples, and poor people.
What?!?! How is paying a flat rate of 10% unfair to "poor people"?!?
Are you incapable of math?!?
Poor person pays 10% of $20,000 it equals $2,000
Rich person pays 10% of $2,000,000 it equals $200,000
$200,000 is a fuck-load more than $2,000. In fact, it's a fuck-load more than the entire salary of the poor person.
Please, go back to school and get some kind of an education....
It's not as cut-and-dry as you think it is. Since you seem to have glossed over it, you really need to go back and read the following link:
Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones
Also, what would prevent a person making $100k/yr or more from forming a contract employee situation. This is done completely on the employee's end, which no 10% tax scenario covers.
What?!?! How is paying a flat rate of 10% unfair to "poor people"?!?
Are you incapable of math?!?
Poor person pays 10% of $20,000 it equals $2,000
Rich person pays 10% of $2,000,000 it equals $200,000
$200,000 is a fuck-load more than $2,000. In fact, it's a fuck-load more than the entire salary of the poor person.
Please, go back to school and get some kind of an education....
It's not as cut-and-dry as you think it is. Since you seem to have glossed over it, you really need to go back and read the following link:
Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones
Also, what would prevent a person making $100k/yr or more from forming a contract employee situation. This is done completely on the employee's end, which no 10% tax scenario covers.
Thanks for the link.
Payroll taxes aren't progressive, for example. In fact, they're actively regressive, with the poor and middle classes paying higher rates than the rich.
What a silly claim. Of course they all pay the same rate, up to the statutory income cap.
That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the poorest 20 percent pay twice the tax rate of the top 1 percent.
I'd love to see the proof behind this claim.
http://www.itep.org/pdf/ms.pdf
The above link gives some numbers that don't make any sense. Maybe you can explain them?
It's not as cut-and-dry as you think it is. Since you seem to have glossed over it, you really need to go back and read the following link:
Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones
Also, what would prevent a person making $100k/yr or more from forming a contract employee situation. This is done completely on the employee's end, which no 10% tax scenario covers.
Thanks for the link.
Payroll taxes aren't progressive, for example. In fact, they're actively regressive, with the poor and middle classes paying higher rates than the rich.
What a silly claim. Of course they all pay the same rate, up to the statutory income cap.
That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the poorest 20 percent pay twice the tax rate of the top 1 percent.
I'd love to see the proof behind this claim.
http://www.itep.org/pdf/ms.pdf
The above link gives some numbers that don't make any sense. Maybe you can explain them?
Your problem is that you can't put your head around tax rates vs. effective (actual) tax rates.
In regard to the link:
The blue graph shows higher subsidies to the right. The more money you make, the higher the subsidies and less taxes you effectively pay.
It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?
I'm a die-hard conservative, and I support that 100%.
Liberals don't understand that they have run jobs (through inflated union wages) and money (through absurd tax rates) right out of this country.
They created the problem - and then they cry the loudest about it
Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
"We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash
1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
2). How about stop buying their products?
3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale? Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.
Who cares what the tax rate is, it's the effective (actual) rate that counts. I paid $496,500.00 in Federal taxes for 2012. That's a 3% effective rate.
Thank you for showing that Apple Computer feeds a lot of mouths in this country. 600,000 people altogether? I bet another few hundred thousand earn wages at the docks and post office, not to mention transportation to get products out to the market.Pay attention, Simpson and Bowles: There are some things in life worse than going into debt.
For Apple Inc., that worse thing is paying taxes: The company announced plans Tuesday evening to borrow money for the first time ever, despite having nearly $145 billion in cash. The problem is that $102 billion of that cash is parked overseas and would be taxed if Apple tried to use it in its plan to give money back to shareholders.
"We are continuing to generate significant cash offshore, and repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law," Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said on a conference call discussing Apple's earnings for the quarter that ended in March.
Apple's earnings haven't exactly been setting the world on fire quite enough lately to satisfy finicky shareholders. So the company is under increasing pressure to give its shareholders a taste of its cash. It finally succumbed on Tuesday, saying it plans to pay out $100 billion by the end of 2015, in the form of stock buybacks and a higher dividend. That will amount to about $30 billion per year, according to Oppenheimer, which would just about take up all of Apple's "tax-free" cash flow, as he put it.
If Apple didn't borrow money, then it would have to, gasp, bring cash back home to help pay for its shareholder-greasing. And bringing Apple's offshore cash back home could result in a tax hit of up to $35 billion, assuming it pays the full statutory corporate tax rate (which doesn't happen very often). Analysts for months have been prodding Apple to borrow money to avoid the hit, and Apple has been listening, apparently.
Apple Would Rather Go Into Debt Than Bring Home $100 Billion In Offshore Cash
1). How about electing politicians who actually represent the people vs corporations?
2). How about stop buying their products?
3). So pouting is the least one can do, but any Nd everyone can do something to enact change and force Congress to correct this.
4). How about enforcing some laws that already on the books, like slapping an embargo tax on their products once they arrive into the U.S. for sale? Yes it would make their more expensive than it is already and less people would buy their product, thus losing that same amount or more in sales, thus forcing them to actually build their damn products here.
Let me guess asshole, you're writing this on a fucking sammysung ripoff while driving a kia ripoff and bitching about the real creative companies. Fuck off! I don't blame Apple for not wanting to be ripped off by the American government. Apple employs 50,250 people in the U.S. directly. Another 257,000 more are jobs to service the company. They have employees in every state including Texas where processors are manufactured for iOS products and Corning employees in New York and Kentucky that produce most of the glass for iPhone. Over 290,000 jobs involved in their iOS apps on top of that so there is an estimated 600,000 jobs that exist partly because of Apple. Osama wishes he could get that kind of employment numbers and you want to hurt them........ Why don't you get the asshole in DC to park our 747 if you are so worried about money.....we pay over 180,000 dollars an hour to run that thing.......... that is just Air Force One, there are numerous other gas hogs that g with him. he went to Hawaii, back to Washinton back to Hawaii then back to Washington for his Christmas vacation. That didn't count the she monster's entourage.
It is cheaper to borrow (interest paid is tax deductable, after all) than it is to put that foreign-banked cash back to the USA to suffer the US tax consequences.
Now how hard would it be to pass a law that eschews those tax consequences IF every cent went into either new hires or building new production facilities?
One would think both parties would be on board with that tax relief, no?
I'm a die-hard conservative, and I support that 100%.
Liberals don't understand that they have run jobs (through inflated union wages) and money (through absurd tax rates) right out of this country.
They created the problem - and then they cry the loudest about it
Here are the issues impeding "getting on board with that":
- unless there is a viable market for whatever the investment in additional labor and production facilities, it's waste of money.
Then create one. The zipper, pagers, cell phones, and smart phones at one time had no market.
- with the excessive regulatory burdens, including ObamaCare in the present day U.S., the overseas capital can likely be better used expanding foreign markets.
Just think, with all of the 'excessive regulatory burdens', American business is making TRILLION in net profit (that cash take-home). Don't believe it? Look at the stock market.
Apple isn't going to bring $$$ back to the U.S. for make work defacto welfare. Nor should they. Any repatriated cash (which has already been taxed in the country in which it was earned) belongs to Apple's shareholders.
If you have any information that Apple paid any tax I'd like to see it. How do you know that the money wasn't made in one of the eight countries that has no corporate taxes.
I'm a die-hard conservative, and I support that 100%.
Liberals don't understand that they have run jobs (through inflated union wages) and money (through absurd tax rates) right out of this country.
They created the problem - and then they cry the loudest about it
Here are the issues impeding "getting on board with that":
Then create one. The zipper, pagers, cell phones, and smart phones at one time had no market.
Just think, with all of the 'excessive regulatory burdens', American business is making TRILLION in net profit (that cash take-home). Don't believe it? Look at the stock market.
Apple isn't going to bring $$$ back to the U.S. for make work defacto welfare. Nor should they. Any repatriated cash (which has already been taxed in the country in which it was earned) belongs to Apple's shareholders.
If you have any information that Apple paid any tax I'd like to see it. How do you know that the money wasn't made in one of the eight countries that has no corporate taxes.
AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
Who cares what the tax rate is, it's the effective (actual) rate that counts. I paid $496,500.00 in Federal taxes for 2012. That's a 3% effective rate.
You only made $16,550,0000, last year?
Slow year, was it?
Well, don't let it get you down One%.
There's always next year to catch up, I suppose.
Here are the issues impeding "getting on board with that":
Then create one. The zipper, pagers, cell phones, and smart phones at one time had no market.
Just think, with all of the 'excessive regulatory burdens', American business is making TRILLION in net profit (that cash take-home). Don't believe it? Look at the stock market.
If you have any information that Apple paid any tax I'd like to see it. How do you know that the money wasn't made in one of the eight countries that has no corporate taxes.
AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
So if they made the money, paid tax on the money, then why would they off-shore the money?
Here are the issues impeding "getting on board with that":
Then create one. The zipper, pagers, cell phones, and smart phones at one time had no market.
Just think, with all of the 'excessive regulatory burdens', American business is making TRILLION in net profit (that cash take-home). Don't believe it? Look at the stock market.
If you have any information that Apple paid any tax I'd like to see it. How do you know that the money wasn't made in one of the eight countries that has no corporate taxes.
AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
So they paid 11% effective? What was your effective rate?
AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
So if they made the money, paid tax on the money, then why would they off-shore the money?
AAPL Income Statement | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
According to the above link, they paid $14 billion in taxes in FY 2012.
So they paid 11% effective? What was your effective rate?
