Apple Computer has more cash than the U.S. Government

[mnealtx 0]

Hyperbole and 'give them a break' change the fact that they do not pay income tax *how*, exactly?

Care to argue against what I *have* stated, instead of the 'you think they should be paying income taxes' issue that you've made up as my position?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

What is that tax rate for employees of US Corporations working outside the US for more than 330 days again???

The same as it is if in-country.

Quote

I know you will never answer... because you are part of the problem.

Since I answered....wrong again.

Oh really.... so the first 82k is not exempt huh..... interesting...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Oh really.... so the first 82k is not exempt huh..... interesting...

I pay the same tax rate regardless of the amount of exclusion.

Nice try.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Oh really.... so the first 82k is not exempt huh..... interesting...

I pay the same tax rate regardless of the amount of exclusion.

Nice try.

So... you dont have to pay taxes.... got it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh really.... so the first 82k is not exempt huh..... interesting...

I pay the same tax rate regardless of the amount of exclusion.

Nice try.

So... you dont have to pay taxes.... got it.

Wrong again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Oh really.... so the first 82k is not exempt huh..... interesting...

I think you are thinking of something else. People working in a combat zone get paid tax free up to the amount that the highest enlisted rank in the military would earn in a year. This year that would be $89,877.60.

This exemption only counts for money earned in a combat zone. Once you exit the 5th fleet area, (Iraq, Afghanistan, ect...) you are paying taxes again.

If you work in france, bahamas, switzerland, or the cayman islands, you are supposed to pay taxes, unless you are close friends with the president.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Quote

If you work in france, bahamas, switzerland, or the cayman islands, you are supposed to pay taxes, unless you are close friends with the president.

I know a few Americans who work full time in Japan, UK, France and other nice places for American companies working on U.S. contracts, embassies, etc.. that don't pay taxes on the first 90-ish grand.

However, U.S. Military stantioned overseas still must pay taxes on that first (as if there's a second) 90-ish grand.

Yes, I understand the whole combat zone = tax free. I'm all for that for both Military and civilians.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Hyperbole and 'give them a break' change the fact that they do not pay income tax *how*, exactly?

Care to argue against what I *have* stated, instead of the 'you think they should be paying income taxes' issue that you've made up as my position?

It's written into the tax code. Evidently, congress thought it was fair, many years ago.

Why do you find it unfair that a 90 year old person in a nursing home gets a tax break?

When you become of age to enjoy the break that the elderly enjoy will you complain that it is not fair that you do not pay federal income tax? I really doubt it.

Mike, I find it somewhat puzzling that on some issues you preach an Anti-federalist agenda against the central government. At times, you oppose the federal government and their ever grabbing hands. On issues concerning guns, you balk at any type of control. Yet, on an issues, such as tax breaks for the elderly and the working poor, you sound like a Federalist reaching further under the blanket to grab even more.
So, which are you, Anti-federalist or Pro-federalist?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[riddler 0]

Not sure how this turned into a big thread on taxes. The cash that Apple has has been accumulated over several decades, and taxes are based on yearly income

But taxes aside, doesn't anyone else think it's absurd that a single company has more available cash than the "most powerful nation on earth" ??

How long will it be before Apple get the U.S. to go to war in Taiwan to protect their interests?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[dks13827 2]

do the libs want to take it from Apple ? at gunpoint ? you know, for equality, social justice, and all that stuff.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Oh really.... so the first 82k is not exempt huh..... interesting...

I think you are thinking of something else. People working in a combat zone get paid tax free up to the amount that the highest enlisted rank in the military would earn in a year. This year that would be $89,877.60.

This exemption only counts for money earned in a combat zone. Once you exit the 5th fleet area, (Iraq, Afghanistan, ect...) you are paying taxes again.

If you work in france, bahamas, switzerland, or the cayman islands, you are supposed to pay taxes, unless you are close friends with the president.

N one of those apply in this particular case.. try again.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

The cash that Apple has has been accumulated over several decades, and taxes are based on yearly income

$65.2B was earned in one year. Not accumulated over several decades.

Apple Inc. had revenues for the full year 2010 of $65.2B. This was 78.5% above the prior year's results.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=AAPL:US

Apple is now the worlds largest supplier of Smartphones Along with the Ipad, as well as their computers, and all being manufactured in China, it is easy to see how they grew so fast over years time.
Should they be allowed to enjoy enormous tax breaks if they manufacture nothing in America?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

The cash that Apple has has been accumulated over several decades, and taxes are based on yearly income

$65.2B was earned in one year. Not accumulated over several decades.

Apple Inc. had revenues for the full year 2010 of $65.2B.

Dude, just barely a day ago, in this very thread, you acknowledged there's a difference between revenue and taxable profits. You seem to have already forgotten that revenue doesn't just immediately become cash on hand.

/edited to add: This whole thread is ridiculous, and I hate (yes, hate) idiotic comparisons like how much cash Apple has on hand vs. how much the US treasury has on hand. Who cares? Why Apple would have cash and what they do with it has nothing to do with the federal government's finances. The federal government isn't supposed to have tons of cash on hand. In fact, I'd be pissed if they did.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The cash that Apple has has been accumulated over several decades, and taxes are based on yearly income

$65.2B was earned in one year. Not accumulated over several decades.

Apple Inc. had revenues for the full year 2010 of $65.2B.

Dude, just barely a day ago, in this very thread, you acknowledged there's a difference between revenue and taxable profits. You seem to have already forgotten that revenue doesn't just immediately become cash on hand.

/edited to add: This whole thread is ridiculous, and I hate (yes, hate) idiotic comparisons like how much cash Apple has on hand vs. how much the US treasury has on hand. Who cares? Why Apple would have cash and what they do with it has nothing to do with the federal government's finances. The federal government isn't supposed to have tons of cash on hand. In fact, I'd be pissed if they did.

You are correct. My mistake.
So, I did a search to see how Apple Inc. became so successful in such a short time.

The first link is a year old. Good stuff, however. As of this article, Apple had $41B in the bank. That is impressive.
The second link (taken from the first) is more in-depth on where the money comes from.
Maybe the U.S. government should had bought Apple stock, instead of borrowing from China.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/12/how-apple-maintains-explosive-earnings-growth/

http://bullishcross.com/2010/06/2010-apples-63-5-billion-revenue-year/

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[champu 1]

Quote

6.0% are exclusions for cash transfers.
I'm sure the poor are not claiming this one.

This sticks out to me as one of those little pieces of evidence that you didn't actually read the article you linked to. "Other Cash Transfers" is largely referring to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) which means the category applies almost exclusively to the poor. You have some other screwed up assumptions too, see Chart 3 in your article.

That aside...

I think you're too focused on Chart 2 in the article which just talks about how people that pull off not paying taxes manage it. I don't care why people are able to get away with not paying taxes, I care whether they should be able to based on how much they are actually making. Go back to Chart 1 for a moment and look at the size of the green bars in the rows for, say, 40K and above. How do you explain that to the people at those income levels and below that do pay taxes? I think it's completely unreasonable to be making double the "poverty line" (about $22K for a family of four) or more and not have any federal income tax liability.

/edited to add: the Apple links are a good read, thanks.

[freethefly 6]

I misinterpret this and did take it the wrong way. Thanks for pointing that out:
(cash transfer benefits other than Social Security and unemployment, such as TANF and SSI)

I tend to speed read, and at times, missing key points.

Quote

You have some other screwed up assumptions too, see Chart 3 in your article.

You are right. From misinterpreting the above I failed to recognize the relationship in the chart. The $0-10,000 income range are the cash transfer group. I should had paid greater attention to what I was reading. Thanks for pointing that out.

Chart one is disturbing as it is obvious that some people do not deserve the credit (at least, that is my assumption, yet on an individuals particular case, I have no idea.)

These standard income tax provisions include personal exemptions for taxpayers and dependents and the standard deduction. These provisions are part of the basic progressive income tax structure that intend to exempt subsistence levels of income from tax and to adjust for differences in ability to pay based on family size.

So is the answer 'do away with the progressive tax structure'?

Of all nontaxable units, half would still owe no tax in 2011 if all tax expenditures were repealed and only these standard income tax provisions applied. The other half owes no tax because of tax expenditures. Those proportions vary across income categories. Virtually all nontaxable units in the lowest income group pay no tax because of the standard income tax provisions alone, but this share diminishes rapidly with income and nearly all nontaxable units with incomes above $30,000 pay no tax because of tax expenditures (see chart 1 and table 1).

So, do away with expenditures for those above $30K? I would give leeway for the $30-40K group, depending on children, type of home (hey, if you want to carry a $250K mortgage, don't expect the taxpayer to foot your bill. Buy a $50K home and live within your means.)

I'm fine with the elderly (minus those who can afford a very comfortable life) and the working poor receiving the cut. It's the rest that I see as the problem. Those who can easily jump through the loop holes.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

/edited to add: This whole thread is ridiculous, and I hate (yes, hate) idiotic comparisons like how much cash Apple has on hand vs. how much the US treasury has on hand. Who cares? Why Apple would have cash and what they do with it has nothing to do with the federal government's finances. The federal government isn't supposed to have tons of cash on hand. In fact, I'd be pissed if they did.

Indeed, this is a non story, other than I think Apple does its shareholders a disservice hoarding this much cash. Apple is not known for growing via acquisition - who would they buy? Apple has made this cash by selling very well designed (appearance, interaction) products at a high margin. Buying someone else's product line goes against their process.

And you're right - the Feds shouldn't have a giant amount of money sitting idle, out of the economy. If they did, they should be selling fewer treasuries, retiring some debt.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It is insane that a company that makes such a huge amount of money pays less (24.4%, if this figure is correct) , percentage wise, than a person making $34,500 at 25%.
Apple could easily pay a higher percent without harm to their company. It does amount to corporate greed in it's worst form.

man, you couldn't be more wrong here, confusing that person's marginal tax rate with his effective tax rate.

The 25% bracket STARTS at 34,500. He doesn't pay a single dollar at that rate. Most of this income falls under the 15% bracket, from 8500-34500. The first 8500 get taxed at 10%. However, you can't forget about the standard deduction of 9350.

So here's how it really breaks down:
0-9350: 0$ paid
9350-17850 850$ paid @ 10%
17850-34500 2498$ paid @ 15%
total taxes 3348$ paid - effective tax rate = 9.7%.

Not remotely close to 25%, or Apple's 24.4%, which btw is much higher than a lot of corporations are paying. It's a typical rate for people in the higher side of $150k.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

/edited to add: This whole thread is ridiculous, and I hate (yes, hate) idiotic comparisons like how much cash Apple has on hand vs. how much the US treasury has on hand. Who cares? Why Apple would have cash and what they do with it has nothing to do with the federal government's finances. The federal government isn't supposed to have tons of cash on hand. In fact, I'd be pissed if they did.

Indeed, this is a non story, other than I think Apple does its shareholders a disservice hoarding this much cash. Apple is not known for growing via acquisition - who would they buy? Apple has made this cash by selling very well designed (appearance, interaction) products at a high margin. Buying someone else's product line goes against their process.

Apple hangs its hat on product engineering and HMI development, so you're correct they're not going after large companies/mergers, but they do buy quite a few small technology houses to get ahold of features for their products. Like facial recognition, voice recognition, and system-on-a-chip architectures.

All those little gestures and widgets add up at a few $10Ms a pop.

[champu 1]

Quote

Chart one is disturbing as it is obvious that some people do not deserve the credit (at least, that is my assumption, yet on an individuals particular case, I have no idea.)

These standard income tax provisions include personal exemptions for taxpayers and dependents and the standard deduction. These provisions are part of the basic progressive income tax structure that intend to exempt subsistence levels of income from tax and to adjust for differences in ability to pay based on family size.

So is the answer 'do away with the progressive tax structure'?

Calling these "part of the basic progressive tax structure" is a little misleading on their part. These are "tax expenditures" just like any of the other things they talk about, they've just been a part of the tax code longer. These shouldn't cause people too much heartburn though because, as noted, the levels of income these apply to are pretty low. There is a slight dilemma regarding "encouraging having children as a tax break" vs "it's not about helping the parent it's about helping the kid" but again the dollar amounts are small so there's not much heartburn to be had here.

Quote

Of all nontaxable units, half would still owe no tax in 2011 if all tax expenditures were repealed and only these standard income tax provisions applied. The other half owes no tax because of tax expenditures. Those proportions vary across income categories. Virtually all nontaxable units in the lowest income group pay no tax because of the standard income tax provisions alone, but this share diminishes rapidly with income and nearly all nontaxable units with incomes above $30,000 pay no tax because of tax expenditures (see chart 1 and table 1).

So, do away with expenditures for those above $30K? I would give leeway for the $30-40K group, depending on children, type of home (hey, if you want to carry a $250K mortgage, don't expect the taxpayer to foot your bill. Buy a $50K home and live within your means.)

I'm fine with the elderly (minus those who can afford a very comfortable life) and the working poor receiving the cut. It's the rest that I see as the problem. Those who can easily jump through the loop holes.

I think the problem is the sheer number of goofy tax credits that have sprung up in the last 10-15 years or so. You end up with this patchwork of nonsense that makes it very difficult to ensure that people in roughly the same situation pay about the same thing in taxes and that not too many people get a free ride. That's kinda goal number one. As it stands having a kid, for instance, counts for you above the line, below the line, rolls off two different ways... it's a complete mess. And these days you don't need an expensive tax attorney to game the system, you need a $10 subscription to Tax Slayer or something similar.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mike, I find it somewhat puzzling that on some issues you preach an Anti-federalist agenda against the central government. At times, you oppose the federal government and their ever grabbing hands. On issues concerning guns, you balk at any type of control. Yet, on an issues, such as tax breaks for the elderly and the working poor, you sound like a Federalist reaching further under the blanket to grab even more.
So, which are you, Anti-federalist or Pro-federalist?

First, you need to show where I've said that the elderly and working poor should pay more taxes. I have not.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If you work in france, bahamas, switzerland, or the cayman islands, you are supposed to pay taxes, unless you are close friends with the president.

I know a few Americans who work full time in Japan, UK, France and other nice places for American companies working on U.S. contracts, embassies, etc.. that don't pay taxes on the first 90-ish grand.

However, U.S. Military stantioned overseas still must pay taxes on that first (as if there's a second) 90-ish grand.

Yes, I understand the whole combat zone = tax free. I'm all for that for both Military and civilians.

Gov't employees (GS) and military are tax-exempt in war zones. All others can exempt up to a certain amount as foreign earned income.

The tax rate is the same as if the exemption does not exist. The exemption does not drop the person into a lower tax bracket.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Quote

Gov't employees (GS) and military are tax-exempt in war zones. All others can exempt up to a certain amount as foreign earned income.

The tax rate is the same as if the exemption does not exist. The exemption does not drop the person into a lower tax bracket.

I was referring to non-war zones. Civilians in non-war zones are exempt for the first 90-something grand; however, military must still pay taxes on that 90-something grand.

Say there's 2 people, same income of 90k. One of them is military and the other is a civilian (lets say a contractor) and are both working in London on the same project or contract. The military dude pays taxes, the civilian guy does not.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Gov't employees (GS) and military are tax-exempt in war zones. All others can exempt up to a certain amount as foreign earned income.

The tax rate is the same as if the exemption does not exist. The exemption does not drop the person into a lower tax bracket.

I was referring to non-war zones. Civilians in non-war zones are exempt for the first 90-something grand; however, military must still pay taxes on that 90-something grand.

Say there's 2 people, same income of 90k. One of them is military and the other is a civilian (lets say a contractor) and are both working in London on the same project or contract. The military dude pays taxes, the civilian guy does not.

Military and Gov't pay are not considered foreign earned income.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gov't employees (GS) and military are tax-exempt in war zones. All others can exempt up to a certain amount as foreign earned income.

The tax rate is the same as if the exemption does not exist. The exemption does not drop the person into a lower tax bracket.

I was referring to non-war zones. Civilians in non-war zones are exempt for the first 90-something grand; however, military must still pay taxes on that 90-something grand.

Say there's 2 people, same income of 90k. One of them is military and the other is a civilian (lets say a contractor) and are both working in London on the same project or contract. The military dude pays taxes, the civilian guy does not.

Military and Gov't pay are not considered foreign earned income.

You're missing the point. U.S. contractors on U.S. projects/contracts working for U.S. companies can exempt that 90-or-so grand. Their income earned is no more foreign that that of the military. I'm familiar with the status of military/gov't income not being "foreign".

What constitutes foreign earned income?