This presidential election who you got?

[dajoka004]

Steve Jobs would be proud
Companies like Apple get to keep billions every years because of tax loopholes too.

What a generic statement. Apple records contingent tax liabilities each quarter for profits they have set aside to pay future taxes on foreign earnings when that money comes back to the states. If that money stays overseas, they'll never pay US tax on it. And rightfully so. It's not money earned in the US, and thus should not be subject to US taxes.

The US corporate tax rate is 35%, one of the highest in the developed world. There's $1.5 trillion sitting overseas that could be brought back home if that tax rate were lowered. Romney and many Republicans support a tax holiday similar to the one enacted in 2004, to get some of that money back home.

So it's up to the left: you're either never going to see that money, or you can see a little piece of it. Which is it going to be?

 

[7thave btn 31stn33rd st]

I'm voting for Jill Stein.

 

[Betonblck]

What a generic statement. Apple records contingent tax liabilities each quarter for profits they have set aside to pay future taxes on foreign earnings when that money comes back to the states. If that money stays overseas, they'll never pay US tax on it. And rightfully so. It's not money earned in the US, and thus should not be subject to US taxes.
The US corporate tax rate is 35%, one of the highest in the developed world. There's $1.5 trillion sitting overseas that could be brought back home if that tax rate were lowered. Romney and many Republicans support a tax holiday similar to the one enacted in 2004, to get some of that money back home.
So it's up to the left: you're either never going to see that money, or you can see a little piece of it. Which is it going to be?

Are you really going to play stupid? What they do is obviously legal, but don't play stupid and say that the money is earned out of these "letterboxes" in low tax areas.

Setting up an office in Reno is just one of many legal methods Apple uses to reduce its worldwide tax bill by billions of dollars each year. As it has in Nevada, Apple has created subsidiaries in low-tax places like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands — some little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office — that help cut the taxes it pays around the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/b...ow-tax-states-and-nations.html?pagewanted=all

 

[jetsetr]

Does it really matter...

 

[dajoka004]

Are you really going to play stupid? What they do is obviously legal, but don't play stupid and say that the money is earned out of these "letterboxes" in low tax areas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/b...ow-tax-states-and-nations.html?pagewanted=all

First, it's the New York Times. They write anti-Apple pieces every chance they get because it attracts readers.

Forbes contributor Tim Worstall, however, has challenged the Times’s accounting. Worstall said that the 9.8 percent figure, which reported earlier by the Greenlining Institute, uses the wrong calculations for Apple’s tax share. According to Worstall, Geenling counts the cash paid in taxes in 2011 based on Apple’s profits for that year, ending up with 9.8 percent. But annual tax bills come due after the previous year’s full profits are counted, Worstall says, meaning that Apple’s 2011 tax payment should be based on its 2010 earnings.

Worstall uses a summary of federal tax law from an About.com article to explain requirements for paying estimated quarterly taxes for corporations. He then calculates Apple’s 2011 tax bill based on its 2010 profits. His result: In 2011, Apple paid $3.3 billion on 2010 profits of about $18 billion, at a tax rate of 18 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...e-98-percent/2012/04/30/gIQArip0rT_story.html

Your quote also lumps domestic and foreign strategies for lowering taxes into one statement. Are you *****ing about Apple not paying enough foreign tax too?

 

[Betonblck]

First, it's the New York Times. They write anti-Apple pieces every chance they get because it attracts readers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...e-98-percent/2012/04/30/gIQArip0rT_story.html
Your quote also lumps domestic and foreign strategies for lowering taxes into one statement. Are you *****ing about Apple not paying enough foreign tax too?

So in the New York Times article, they did not clarify the year. The Washington Post article says the year was wrong but not the accounting in the NYT article. Also, from your own Washington Post article:

Even Apple’s reported rate is significantly less than the 35 percent federal income tax rate. The company attributes its smaller tax burden to the tactics described in the Times report -- “primarily to certain undistributed foreign earnings for which no U.S. taxes are provided because such earnings are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the U.S.”

 

[dajoka004]

FOREIGN earnings. They already pay taxes on their overseas profits to foreign governments. If the money stays over there, why should they pay US corporate tax on it too?

About the NYT accounting, I'm not sure what you're saying. Greenlining used 2011 profits to calculate the tax rate paid in 2011. That's flat out erroneous.

 

[liltank0206]

Im just curious to know how valid a lot of these statements are not saying anyone is wrong just wondering how so many of you know so much......

 

[rashi]

Im just curious to know how valid a lot of these statements are not saying anyone is wrong just wondering how so many of you know so much......

It's all semantics. None of these statements really matter, and the Corporate Media articles don't mean much either. Corporate Media takes its talking points from the government or what ever party that satisfies their particular audience.

What's funny is that all of this put in the public's face. Hollywood makes countless movies e.g. Bourne movies, Minority Report, Enemy of the State, ect. to talk more recent movies and they SHOW you how the politics and how information is delivered to the public.


Perfect example is this thread. Look how people on both sides are defending their team and at the end of the day it doesn't even matter because both of the candidates and their VPs supported the EXACT SAME THING, but some how it's national debate because one gang wears Blue and the other wears Red. Bailouts, TARP, increased military spending, NDAA, SOPA,increased federal spending, ect. Nothing is going to change. Wages will continue to be driven down because of increasing private jails and increasing incarceration rate that pay 80 cents a day that take away jobs from people who aren't incarcerated. Deficits will continue to rise because the Pentagon and the CIA are the people that actually drive policy and direct military spending. Raising taxes do squat. The Grace Commission back in the 1980's found that that two-thirds of the Federal Income taxes collected go to waste and inefficient policy, while the other one-third that is collected go towards to pay interest on US government debt and "transfer" payments. So no actual collected monies go towards the National Debt. You wouldn't know this because it isn't politically convenient for any political party to tell you this.



So go on, sheep. Keep debating worthless policy, gay marriage, Mormonism, abortion, and taxes . The more you are distracted, and the more rights get continued to be taken away from you under your nose. But it is all good, your team won, while you still lose.

 

[Betonblck]

FOREIGN earnings. They already pay taxes on their overseas profits to foreign governments. If the money stays over there, why should they pay US corporate tax on it too?
About the NYT accounting, I'm not sure what you're saying. Greenlining used 2011 profits to calculate the tax rate paid in 2011. That's flat out erroneous.

Your first question here is off topic because we are not debating what's right and wrong or why they should pay taxes or whatever, the point has already been proven that they use tax shelters.

Regarding the NYT accounting, it actually is the tax paid for the year of 2011 Furthermore, the tax is actually paid in 2011, the forms are just not filed until March of 2012. Personal taxes are due in April, corporate tax payments have to be made at least quarterly in the same year. Corporations don't wait until the following March to pay their taxes for the prior year like people. It's laughable that they even tried to pull a fast one on people like as if there aren't accountants out here.


I'm surprised they let foolishness like that Washington Post article pass for real journalism when the people doing the research don't even have a simple understanding of the basics of corporate taxes and when they are paid.

 

[gottabeem21]

Look how people on both sides are defending their team and at the end of the day it doesn't even matter because both of the candidates and their VPs supported the EXACT SAME THING, but some how it's national debate because one gang wears Blue and the other wears Red.

this is my feeling on the situation.

as i said before, gary johnson has my vote as of now.

 

[hugheyfreeman]

Burracckk OBAMA...all day.
 

 

[dajoka004]

Your first question here is off topic because we are not debating what's right and wrong or why they should pay taxes or whatever, the point has already been proven that they use tax shelters.
Regarding the NYT accounting, it actually is the tax paid for the year of 2011 Furthermore, the tax is actually paid in 2011, the forms are just not filed until March of 2012. Personal taxes are due in April, corporate tax payments have to be made at least quarterly in the same year. Corporations don't wait until the following March to pay their taxes for the prior year like people. It's laughable that they even tried to pull a fast one on people like as if there aren't accountants out here.
I'm surprised they let foolishness like that Washington Post article pass for real journalism when the people doing the research don't even have a simple understanding of the basics of corporate taxes and when they are paid.

I was definitely wrong. The discrepancy between Greenlining's report and Apple's own income statements is that Greenlining doesn't consider the cash set aside (roughly $5B) for future taxes when the money is brought back to the US. Apple's tax rate appears lower because the only taxes they pay to the US are taxes on their domestic profits. Greenlining's argument just doesn't make any sense. Unless they think the income from a product produced in China and sold in Germany should be subject to US taxes...

 

[futuremd]

Look how people on both sides are defending their team and at the end of the day it doesn't even matter because both of the candidates and their VPs supported the EXACT SAME THING, but some how it's national debate because one gang wears Blue and the other wears Red.

this is my feeling on the situation.

as i said before, gary johnson has my vote as of now.

gary johnson is a LITTLE too conservative for my tastes. 

Interesting fella though. 

 

[Betonblck]

Gary Johnson. You better off writing in Magic Johnson.

 

[tony3di]

Thousands of 12-year-olds probably agree.

sarcasm? smh..conservatives

 

[luckyp824]

Obama is smart, seems like a good guy, and is charismatic. It's hard not to support him. I like his take on a lot of issues, but hate some of the things he's done too. The fact that our debt has gone up 5 trill is 

. I don't believe in some of our domestic spending. I wish they changed how our financial aid system works. Kids at low tuition colleges like cc's are getting paid to go to school. That's not right. That money isn't coming out of thin air.

 

[Betonblck]

Obama is smart, seems like a good guy, and is charismatic. It's hard not to support him. I like his take on a lot of issues, but hate some of the things he's done too. The fact that our debt has gone up 5 trill is  . I don't believe in some of our domestic spending. I wish they changed how our financial aid system works. Kids at low tuition colleges like cc's are getting paid to go to school. That's not right. That money isn't coming out of thin air.

Most of that debt is from the hole Bush put the country in. Bush took a car that was running fine, didn't change the oil for 8 years and then handed over the keys to Obama. Now, you are blaming Obama for having to pay to rebuild the engine.

 

[cj863]

Obama is smart, seems like a good guy, and is charismatic. It's hard not to support him. I like his take on a lot of issues, but hate some of the things he's done too. The fact that our debt has gone up 5 trill is  . I don't believe in some of our domestic spending. I wish they changed how our financial aid system works. Kids at low tuition colleges like cc's are getting paid to go to school. That's not right. That money isn't coming out of thin air.

Most of that debt is from the hole Bush put the country in. Bush took a car that was running fine, didn't change the oil for 8 years and then handed over the keys to Obama. Now, you are blaming Obama for having to pay to rebuild the engine.

True but if I'm not mistaken over half of our debt is from entitlements alone. We can't sustain entitlements forever and I don't think it's a good idea to try. I think The next biggest contributor to our national debt is defense, if we scale back our government entitlements responsibly instead of just pulling the plug like conservatives want and stop just printing money and sending it towards winless senseless wars maybe we'd have a shot at lasting as a nation

 

[pig love]

It's all semantics. None of these statements really matter, and the Corporate Media articles don't mean much either. Corporate Media takes its talking points from the government or what ever party that satisfies their particular audience.
What's funny is that all of this put in the public's face. Hollywood makes countless movies e.g. Bourne movies, Minority Report, Enemy of the State, ect. to talk more recent movies and they SHOW you how the politics and how information is delivered to the public.
Perfect example is this thread. Look how people on both sides are defending their team and at the end of the day it doesn't even matter because both of the candidates and their VPs supported the EXACT SAME THING, but some how it's national debate because one gang wears Blue and the other wears Red. Bailouts, TARP, increased military spending, NDAA, SOPA,increased federal spending, ect. Nothing is going to change. Wages will continue to be driven down because of increasing private jails and increasing incarceration rate that pay 80 cents a day that take away jobs from people who aren't incarcerated. Deficits will continue to rise because the Pentagon and the CIA are the people that actually drive policy and direct military spending. Raising taxes do squat. The Grace Commission back in the 1980's found that that two-thirds of the Federal Income taxes collected go to waste and inefficient policy, while the other one-third that is collected go towards to pay interest on US government debt and "transfer" payments. So no actual collected monies go towards the National Debt. You wouldn't know this because it isn't politically convenient for any political party to tell you this.
So go on, sheep. Keep debating worthless policy, gay marriage, Mormonism, abortion, and taxes . The more you are distracted, and the more rights get continued to be taken away from you under your nose. But it is all good, your team won, while you still lose.

Thank you so much Rashi

Your team wins, you still lose!! The similarities are listed on page #1

 

[deuce king]

Thank you so much Rashi
Your team wins, you still lose!! The similarities are listed on page #1

LOL. Bless your heart.

 

[importfan90000]

I'm voting for Obama because he dapped up Kevin Durant (Hook Em \m/) lol

But seriously I am voting for Obama for the following reasons:

I believe in universal health care, ending the wars, and growing our economy from the middle, I rather pay taxes to help those that in need than to line the pockets of the rich. In order to grow our economy you have to spend money. Republican deficits to increase the wealth of the rich by giving them tax cuts have not worked to increase jobs, but give them more incentive to invest elsewhere.

Mitt Romney created few jobs while in office as Governor of Massachusetts, favors cutting the corporate tax rate to 25%, has flip flopped on numerous issues to appease a more radical conservative base, and he favors military action in both Syria and Iran over diplomatic solutions. All of his advisors would be from both Bush Sr and Jr's administration.

Paul Ryan's budget cuts deeply into low income programs for the poor and account for 62% of the total cuts being proposed in his plan (Tax Policy Center), favors privatized health care, and also supports more defense spending (feeding the military industrial complex at the expense of the middle class and poor).  Supports giving the rich (those making a 1,000,000) or more an extra 267,000 in after-tax revenue on top of the Bush era cuts resulting in the rich increasing their after-tax income to 394,000. At the same time the poor those making less then 10,000 would see their after-tax income decrease by 2%. The Ryan budget would also leave federal pell grant funding  shortfall of 161 billion while increasing defense funding by 54 billion. The plan has been found by the tax center to also not be able to balance the budget until 2040 and produce a deficit of 287 billion in 2022, geeze so much for we need to lower debt and balance the budget now smh. 

Even if Romney who was in favor of Paul Ryan's budget were to enact lesser cuts, it would still have a heavy impact on the poor while favoring the rich, Romney is in favor of 25 percent corporate tax rates, and lower rates for the top 25%.

Get educated people elections have results. I can't wait to see debates it is a night and day difference between where the Mitt and Obama wants to take this country. You cannot grow the economy if you do create consumers, give a middle class family the equivalent of a 394,000 tax break and see if that doesn't increase demand, which ultimately leads to hiring.   

Obama 2012 the Definition of Swagger