A big deal

A Congressional committee invited Apple executives to tell them about their overseas money being kept out of the US offshore. The committee was concerned about corporations keeping money offshore because the corporate income tax would be 35% of profits that would be brought into the US. That's about the percentage an executive or other upper middle class worker would pay every year.

.

The Apple executive said he was proud to pay all the taxes due. However, he's willling to wait for Congress to give him welfare by lowering the tax rate to half that of a low-paid worker. McCain and others want to help them out by only taxing them less than 10%. That leaves good lobby money for Congressmen and moves the market up or down so their managed assets are made profitable in hedge funds. That also makes it worthwhile to continue using cheap labor overseas. If Congress made a law, as some suggest, that the difference between the 35% rate and the 10% rate must be used to hire workers inside the US, that could make sense.

.

The facts are more like Apple is a Chinese manufacturer that sends goods from China to be distributed and sold around the world, including the US. They are actually a foreign manufacturer. If they indeed sent their profits into the US, that would make it expensive enough to hire US workers in US plants to make those goods; which would help solve the unemployment problem in the US. As a foreign manufacturer, they shouldn't be permitted to influence politics.

.

What incentive is there for Apple to send their profits to the US? Do the distribution and sales executives need bigger bonuses, so they can invest in the Chinese market that Apple is influencing? What possible motive can there be for foreign manufacturers to send any profits into the US? They'd be much better off investing in new overseas facilities so there's no profit to send to the US to be taxed. ANY profit on the books to be taxed by a nation is a waste of profit, unless stock market investments are spurred by it. Those stocks can be better sold overseas.

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments

  1. williamemills41

    That’s called irony, I believe. Congress invited Apple to explain about their following tax laws that were made and passed by the federal government…which would be them. Sadly the rest of your post is not relevent since the congressional committee is only posturing to make it look like they care for anything more than their own personal investments in the companies that are profiting from the tax laws.

    May 21, 2013
  2. livelonger

    I guess you feel that having a company act as a foreign entity to pretend they’re doing mostly US business and then wanting to not pay the same rate as workers by getting welfare as a tax break – isn’t relevant. The relevance is that as most of their business transactions are overseas, they aren’t primarily a US company. Thus they don’t need to be taxed as a US company. Congressmen are willing to let them skate.

    May 22, 2013
    1. williamemills41

      You missed my point…it’s not relevent because the congress that fielded this committee made the laws that these corporations are using to avoid paying taxes, and are profiting from it via stock shares or in some cases actual board membership, so to expect anything more than an occasional headline to garner votes is not realistic. Real relevence would be a lawsuit brought forth by “The People” against the Congress and each of these companies and the IRS to change the tax laws, limit business factions from undue influence on the laws, and restrict legislators from profiteering from these laws and what was supposed to be their duty. It’s obvious that voting for somebody to make that change is either pointless or the results will be coming far too late to benefit anybody currently living. It’s really amazing that with all of the liberal law schools that somebody can’t remember what real change is and start pushing an agenda like this, straight from the newly minted lawyers still trying to change the world. I guess their law professors lost too many brain cells in the 60’s.

      May 22, 2013
      1. livelonger

        Liberal law schools use open debate as part of learning. Unfortunately, lawyers, as are most of Congress, lose sight of morality and truth as limits to allowing all and everything, especially when it enhances their short stay in life.
        .
        One ready example is Issa, who has no problem with making accusations without getting facts that prove the assertion. That same inclination carries through to and from Fox and Breitbart which some here follow.

        May 22, 2013