Made In America

[Chaz]

Isn't that a fact and why corporate profits are higher than ever.

That is a pretty broad statement. Which corporations? You mean like the oil companies? They make less off their gas than the government does per gallon.

 

[Rob Croson]

You are wrong, all it takes is one company who makes a product to lower it's price and the others will follow suit. Why then does the price of gas go down when the cost of a barrel of oil go down?

Because gasoline is a cheap commodity that is available everywhere. If there is any difference between brands, then no one notices or cares. (Unless one brand makes their car act funny. (I had one of those once...)) Comparison shopping for gas is as easy as looking across the street to see what the other store has on their sign. Stores can't keep the prices too artificially high, because it's just too easy for people to go anywhere else, and brand loyalty is very weak.

In your scenario the cost would remain high no matter what. It would not take long for a company to figure out that lowering their price would cause an uptick in their sales while still making the same profit on each item. Thus making more money by selling more items.

You would think. But it usually doesn't happen. Like, for example, the various tax holidays that states often declare. "Hey honey, the gas prices were $0.20 lower today!" "Yeah, the state dropped the $0.40 cent gas tax for the rest of the year." And then over the course of the next month, gas prices go back up to what they were anyway.

When you add taxes, the cost of that tax is passed straight on to the consumer. You're not making the evil corporations make less money in any meaningful sense. When you cut taxes, then *some* of that benefit may find it's way down to the consumer.

 

[Rob Croson]

Their tiny little office employs about 4,000 people, and why would a company want to pay more taxes?

How about pay the taxes they rightly owe? They owe profits/dividends to their US stock holders. To do that they need money in the US. But rather than bring the money back to the US and pay taxes on it, they store it overseas, reporting it as income in one specific location that has extremely favorable tax laws for that behavior. And not reporting just a small portion of those earnings in that locale, but the vast majority of it, regardless of where it was earned, thus avoiding paying the taxes on it they should be paying. And lest we forget, Ireland has already been asked by the EU to change those tax laws, which are out of line with the rest of the EU, and no tin keeping with EU guidelines.

Yet Appple still has to pay those profits/dividends on that foreign earned money back to their shareholders. But they can't do that unless they actually have cash in the country. So they got the bright idea to just *borrow* money to pay out to their shareholders, allowing them to, at least temporarily, avoid paying taxes on all of that money. So they stash the cash overseas, and use it as collateral to borrow money to enjoy the benefit of that business, without paying their dues. In the meantime, Apple thumbs their noses at the government, and actually tells the government they will keep doing this, and avoid paying any taxes at all on their foreign earnings, until the US changes their tax laws to be more favorable to Apple. Can you say extortion?

Why should they pay double taxes on money earned outside our country? Would you like to earn money in more than one state but have to pay taxes in each state on your total earnings? Or would you rather pay taxes on only the money you earned in each state to that state? It is the same thing, if they earn money outside the U.S. they should be able to bring it back here without having to pay taxes on it again.

And now you're arguing that Apple shouldn't have to things I never said they should. Focus back on the issue, and not wonky accusations.

 

[Marshall]

You know what would be an even bigger benefit for the American worker? Keeping the old production line here in the US, *and* building the new one in the US, too.

This may be skirting the politics line, but this article is a blatant political propaganda piece by Wired. The intent is to slam one particular candidate. Wired has endorsed one candidate, and is using their platform to engage in a smear campaign against the other. Regardless of your political leanings, this is dishonest, yellow journalism on the part of Wired. Typical of most news outlets this year. Highly disappointing.

This place only considers statements I make to be political. Opposition statements are not somehow. Nothing new here.

 

[Marshall]

Ok, Mr. Literal , a Representative Democracy.

Try a Representative REPUBLIC.

 

[NSTG8R]

Try a Representative REPUBLIC.

Hmmmm....I thought we were a Federal Republic.

 

[DigitalDan]

Companies that move production overseas and the people who purchase products from those companies are actively supporting modern day slavery.

These "slaves" are are paid very little and a literally jumping from rooftops and committing suicide to escape their life of slave labor.

Buy American.

 

[Jeff H]

Try a Representative REPUBLIC.

Representative Republic == Representative Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

 

[Chaz]

How about pay the taxes they rightly owe? They owe profits/dividends to their US stock holders. To do that they need money in the US. But rather than bring the money back to the US and pay taxes on it, they store it overseas, reporting it as income in one specific location that has extremely favorable tax laws for that behavior. And not reporting just a small portion of those earnings in that locale, but the vast majority of it, regardless of where it was earned, thus avoiding paying the taxes on it they should be paying. And lest we forget, Ireland has already been asked by the EU to change those tax laws, which are out of line with the rest of the EU, and no tin keeping with EU guidelines.

Yet Appple still has to pay those profits/dividends on that foreign earned money back to their shareholders. But they can't do that unless they actually have cash in the country. So they got the bright idea to just *borrow* money to pay out to their shareholders, allowing them to, at least temporarily, avoid paying taxes on all of that money. So they stash the cash overseas, and use it as collateral to borrow money to enjoy the benefit of that business, without paying their dues. In the meantime, Apple thumbs their noses at the government, and actually tells the government they will keep doing this, and avoid paying any taxes at all on their foreign earnings, until the US changes their tax laws to be more favorable to Apple. Can you say extortion?


And now you're arguing that Apple shouldn't have to things I never said they should. Focus back on the issue, and not wonky accusations.

Apple is paying the taxes they owe. They made a deal with Ireland to pay a certain amount which they paid. Which is no different than states make to entice companies to move to their state. Ireland saw a company that would employ 4,000 or more workers. As far as shareholders go they get what Apple gives them they are not owed anything more or less. If Apple tanks like it did in the past their stock will go down much like it was when I purchased it for $7 in 2003. They are paying taxes on their foreign earnings in the countries they earned it in. Why would a company pay a repatriation tax too? That is stupid, the U.S. is stupid for asking them to pay this. Why not let them bring money earned overseas back to invest in this country for free?

 

[Rickb]

That is a pretty broad statement. Which corporations? You mean like the oil companies? They make less off their gas than the government does per gallon.

It was a broad statement covering all of Corporate America.