Greed defined

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

Apple pays 2.5% of all income taxes paid. Apparently, that's not good enough for the greedy bastards in the Senate.

http://www.imore.com/apple-already-pays-1-out-every-40-tax-dollars-us-collects-how-much-more-does-senate-want
http://tinyurl.com/m7xvkgw

Doug

[xyzzy]

On May 21, 2:05 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
wrote:

> Apple pays 2.5% of all income taxes paid.  Apparently, that's not good enough for the greedy bastards in the Senate.
>

> http://www.imore.com/apple-already-pays-1-out-every-40-tax-dollars-us...http://tinyurl.com/m7xvkgw
>
> Doug

Bullshit.

According to this, a not exactly liberal source, Apple paid $8 billion
in income tax in 2012.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/01/so-how-much-tax-did-apple-pay/

For this claim to be correct, the total income tax collected in the US
would have to be $320 billion.

So, to the google: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/13/150441259/what-america-pays-in-taxes

The total is actually $1.3 trillion: $1.1 trillion in individual
income taxes and $200 billion in corporate income taxes (or at least
was in 2011, it was likely higher in 2012). Hey, this claim is only
off by a factor of four!

Maybe Apple meant that they pay 1/40th of American corporate income
taxes? That's plausible.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2013-05-21, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 2:05?pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
> wrote:
>> Apple pays 2.5% of all income taxes paid. ?Apparently, that's not good enough for the greedy bastards in the Senate.

>>
>> http://www.imore.com/apple-already-pays-1-out-every-40-tax-dollars-us...http://tinyurl.com/m7xvkgw
>>
>> Doug
>
> Bullshit.
>
> According to this, a not exactly liberal source, Apple paid $8 billion
> in income tax in 2012.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/01/so-how-much-tax-did-apple-pay/
>
> For this claim to be correct, the total income tax collected in the US
> would have to be $320 billion.
>
> So, to the google: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/13/150441259/what-america-pays-in-taxes
>
> The total is actually $1.3 trillion: $1.1 trillion in individual
> income taxes and $200 billion in corporate income taxes (or at least
> was in 2011, it was likely higher in 2012). Hey, this claim is only
> off by a factor of four!
>
> Maybe Apple meant that they pay 1/40th of American corporate income
> taxes? That's plausible.

Yup, that is the cite. 1 of every 40 corporate tax dollars is pretty impressive.

Rand Paul is looking better and better to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi0m0w1kBOQ&feature=player_embedded

--
Software axiom: Lack of speed kills.

[CheeseHusker dos]

On May 21, 1:42 pm, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 2:05 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Apple pays 2.5% of all income taxes paid.  Apparently, that's not good enough for the greedy bastards in the Senate.
>
> >http://www.imore.com/apple-already-pays-1-out-every-40-tax-dollars-us...
>

> > Doug
>
> Bullshit.
>
> According to this, a not exactly liberal source, Apple paid $8 billion
> in income tax in 2012.
>

> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/01/so-how-much-tax-di...

>
> For this claim to be correct, the total income tax collected in the US
> would have to be $320 billion.
>

> So, to the google:http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/13/150441259/what-america-pays...

>
> The total is actually $1.3 trillion: $1.1 trillion in individual
> income taxes and $200 billion in corporate income taxes (or at least
> was in 2011, it was likely higher in 2012).   Hey, this claim is only
> off by a factor of four!
>
> Maybe Apple meant that they pay 1/40th of American corporate income
> taxes?  That's plausible.

Corporate income taxes

The original article says thusly

[xyzzy]

Are we reading the same article?

The headline of the cited article is:

"Apple already pays $1 out of every $40 tax dollars the U.S. collects.
How much more does the Senate want?"

The first paragraph is:

Ahead of the testimony it will be giving before the U.S. Senate
tomorrow, Apple (via The Loop) offered up a nicely detailed 17-page
PDF document with all sorts of good information inside. The most
interesting number is this: Apple pays $1 out of every $40 of income
tax collected by the US Treasury. Isn’t it incredible to think that
one company is responsible for 2.5% of all US income tax collection?

I just re-read it. Where does the author qualify it to corporate
income tax? Because I didn't see it. In fact "$1 out of every $40 of
income tax collected by the US Treasury" seems to flatly rule out
that qualification.

[xyzzy]

On May 21, 4:15 pm, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[xyzzy]

On May 21, 4:15 pm, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[CheeseHusker dos]

> that qualification.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I dunno - are we? The article from iMore

From the first paragraph

"The most interesting number is this: Apple pays $1 out of every $40

of corporate income tax collected by the US Treasury. Isn’t it

incredible to think that one company is responsible for 2.5% of all US

corporate income tax collection?"

And from the 4th to the last

"The bottom line is the US Senate Subcommittee is bitching about Apple
supposedly not paying enough taxes, despite the fact that Apple pays
$1 out of every $40 of corporate income tax collected by the US
treasury"

Seems pretty clear to me

[xyzzy]

The word corporate was inserted after I read it. My quotes above are
a cut n paste from the article and that word wasn't in there.

[CheeseHusker dos]

> a cut n paste from the article and that word wasn't in there.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

And the second quote I pulled?

It is quite possible that it was added to both by the time I read just
to clear up any confusion. Seemed pretty straight forward to me since
the article was about corporate taxes, but I can see where the absence
of "corporate" might lead to a lack of claity.

[michael anderson]

without the word there most people wouldn't even be thinking about the distinction. You have to consider that you think about this stuff all the time and most people don't. Heck most people couldn't speak for 5 seconds about the difference between corporate and individual income taxes

[Jim Brown]

Indeed...I had figured it out without reading the article, by just
reading a sentence into X's reply. X: Is 2.5% of the CORPORATE not
impressive enough for you?

[xyzzy]

On May 22, 8:48 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  X: Is 2.5% of the CORPORATE not
> impressive enough for you?

Not without the context of what % of corporate profilts Apple makes.

[CheeseHusker dos]

> impressive enough for you?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

From a philosophical standpoint - it doesn't matter actually - if they
make 50% of the profits, 50% of the tax burden would be reasonable,
etc etc etc

But this case is about a lot more than this - it's about crossborder
tax jurisdictions and tax code complexity - much less how much tax
should a US company pay on foreign earnings.v US earnings.

[Futbol Phan]

I don't think it is if through Apple Operations International -- a company without an actual building or a single employee -- they managed to put $74 billion in revenues into a netherworld where they have no tax liability in any country. If this is true-- and Apple has essentially confirmed it (while stating that it was legally done via some very complicated legal manipulations)-- then I think every American who pays taxes should be concerned.

Don't forget-- corporations are people too.

[Dennis J]

no, because a few years ago Buffet said that if 18 or so companies
paid their taxes at the rate Berkshire did, they could eliminate
personal Income taxes...
--

"Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex!!" D.D.E
"iPOD -- I Prefer Other Devices"
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.

[Jim Brown]

From the guy who was fighting tooth and nail NOT to pay taxes?
Right...

[CheeseHusker dos]

On May 23, 5:28 am, Dennis J <drjud...@frontier.SCRAPE.COM> wrote:

Not this hoary trope again

According to the figures Mike noted above, we'd have to collect 1.1
trillion in additional taxes to replace individual taxes

Here's the Fortune 500 sorted by profits

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/full_list/index.html?iid=F500_sp_full

The top 18 combined had $329 billion in profits - AFTER taxes

Berkshire Hathaway paid an effective income taxe of 6.9 billion on
$22b of Income Before Taxes or ~31%

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BRK-A&annual

Now - by the time you're down to the twentieth spot in the FF500,
you're below 10b in profits and sliding.- Boeing for example, is 50 at
$4b, so adding companies won't buy us all that much - but I'll add 32
more and call it $8 billion per on average for those and that gets us
the top 50 companies by profits - and let's assume that the top 50 in
profits make 50% of the corporate profits overall (which is prolly low
I'm guessing)

8 x 32 = $256 billion in profits added to our existing 329 for a total
of say 600 billion of profits for the top 50 companies - by profits
mind you - and again, after taxes.

Obviously a 100% tax rate on profits after taxes does the trick.

Or to reverse engineer this....if we assume a 30% tax rate and these
guys (top 50 by profits) pay roughly half the taxes, they'd see
profits of 600b/.3 = 2 trillion dollars

I'd be down with that of course - but that's gonna take a while.

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

You'd be down with what exactly?

Doug

[CheeseHusker dos]

On May 23, 5:00 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>

> >http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/full_list/inde...

>
> > The top 18 combined had $329 billion in profits - AFTER taxes
>
> > Berkshire Hathaway paid an effective income taxe of 6.9 billion on
>
> > $22b of Income Before Taxes or ~31%
>
> >http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BRK-A&annual
>
> > Now - by the time you're down to the twentieth spot in the FF500,
>
> > you're below 10b in profits and sliding.- Boeing for example, is 50 at
>
> > $4b, so adding companies won't buy us all that much - but I'll add 32
>
> > more and call it $8 billion per on average for those and that gets us
>
> > the top 50 companies by profits - and let's assume that the top 50 in
>
> > profits make 50% of the corporate profits overall (which is prolly low
>
> > I'm guessing)
>
> > 8 x 32 = $256 billion in profits added to our existing 329 for a total
>
> > of say 600 billion of profits for the top 50 companies - by profits
>
> > mind you - and again, after taxes.
>
> > Obviously a 100% tax rate on profits after taxes does the trick.
>
> > Or to reverse engineer this....if we assume a 30% tax rate and these
>
> > guys (top 50 by profits) pay roughly half the taxes, they'd see
>
> > profits of 600b/.3 = 2 trillion dollars
>
> > I'd be down with that of course - but that's gonna take a while.
>
> You'd be down with what exactly?
>

> Doug- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The top 50 with income before taxes of 2 trillion

[Dennis J]

Isn't that kinda similar to taxes when Ike was President?

[CheeseHusker dos]

Pretty sure we're never had a 100% tax rate

[Dennis J]

well THEN we could bitch about socialism!