Even Apple CEO admits the old system (Obama?????s) wasn?????t workin

[_Bach]

“Cook said that Apple “never thought” the old system was “good for the United States” because it kept money overseas and motivated “people to invest elsewhere instead of within the country.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/apple-ma ... d=52405662

He also gives a gives a direct assessment of our current liberal education system that could care less about pushing excellence in the skills economies need as opposed to the progressive policies of pampering w trophies for everyone:

“When asked about the biggest skills missing in job candidates today, Cook said that there is a “huge shortage” of computer and software programmers.

"Demand is far outstripping the supply of workers," he said. "It’s an area where there’s been a disconnect between the workforces being trained in education and the need by companies."

His comments go to the heart of the destruction of America’s educational systems run by liberal/progressive unions. We continue to fall to the bottom of the world wide rankings in math and science while rising to the top in protests and demands for entitlements so no one has to work - but get paid to spend all day on message boards

Pretty damn revealing!!

[_Kevin Graham]

I posted this in the other thread you started on the same subject which is why you ran over here to start a new one instead of addressing it. And by the way, the CEO doesn't mention Obama once in the interview, you just made that up. Calling the "old system" Obama's system is pretty indicative of just how stupid you really are on this issue. He said they never would have paid the tax under the "old system" and obviously so because the old system didn't force them to. Had Obama tried passing something like that you'd just use it as proof he's a socialist dictator. But when Trump does it, it can only be great Capitalism.

And we're all still waiting for you to explain how Trump made all those companies expand investments, give bonuses and increase wages during 8 years of Obama. Starting new threads isn't a response, it is only a dodge that continues to make you look dumber than you probably are.

From the Washington Post:

====================

The issue: It’s not clear how much the new tax regime contributed to Apple’s decision, if at all.

In a 1,093-word statement detailing the move, the company noted it is handing the Treasury a $38 billion one-time payment. That meets a requirement under the new law that corporations pay previously deferred taxes on their foreign profits. The law set up that provision as a sort of compromise: Companies are being forced to fork over a portion of those overseas stashes to Uncle Sam, but they are being charged a deeply discounted rate (15.5 percent for cash and 8 percent for less liquid assets.) Apple says it is counting the $38 billion it’s paying toward the $350 billion total it advertised Wednesday.

The law gives companies the flexibility to spread what they owe under the levy over five years. But the payment is mandatory — and not, as Trump suggested in his tweet, itself a vote of confidence in the brightening business climate at home.

Beyond that, the company doesn’t chalk up anything else in its announcement to the tax law. The Wall Street Journal’s Tripp Mickle does a careful job parsing the company’s statement:

The company previously said it planned $16 billion in capital expenditures world-wide in the fiscal year that ends this September, up from $14.9 billion the previous year. However, Apple doesn’t break out its spending in the U.S., making it difficult to gauge how much of the $30 billion over five years it announced Wednesday is new.

Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., said Apple’s plans are in line with Trump administration goals, but that it isn’t clear how much of the commitments are new. And he said the company could deliver on those commitments with existing cash flow — without needing to tap cash holdings.

“It’s a nice number and puts a foot forward in line with where the administration wants to go with adding jobs and building in the U.S.,” he said. But he added, “It’s not clear these investments were impacted in any way by tax reform.”

Separately, Bloomberg News's Mark Gurman reported Wednesday, the company is awarding most of its employees worldwide a $2,500 bonus in stock grants in the months ahead. For that, beneficiaries can thank the tax cuts.

But the announcement of Apple’s multibillion-dollar investments carried significantly more weight for Trump and other Republicans eager to find signs the tax package is supplying a big boost of momentum to broader economic growth. Another entrant in the parade of companies handing out bonuses may be nice. What the GOP would prefer, however, is evidence that corporate giants are plowing their windfalls into the kind of spending that will trickle down to workers.

"Certainly higher wages and bonuses are good news," Tax Foundation senior analyst Scott Greenberg says. "But if the tax bill is going to have a large economic effect, it's likely going to take some time to show up, because will take some time for companies to respond to the incentives offered by the new tax provisions." And, he cautioned, "it's difficult to separate causality from companies looking for gestures of public goodwill."

Recall that the tech titan came in for special abuse from Trump during the 2016 campaign. The candidate promised to make Apple “start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries,” at one point urged a boycott of Apple products, and said he would “come down so hard” on Cook that “his head would be spinning all of the way back to Silicon Valley.”

But Apple isn’t the only corporate giant that has been coy about pledging to use its tax gains for investments and wage hikes rather than, say, stock buybacks and dividend payments. A CNBC survey of the 100 biggest companies by market cap found only nine with “specific plans to use some of the money saved from the corporate tax cuts to boost worker pay or invest in facilities or charitable causes.”

[_Kevin Graham]

It is also worth mentioning that Obama proposed cutting corporate tax rates in 2012 and Democrats have tried to come up with ways to get corporations to bring back money from overseas for infrastructure projects, short of passing legislation that would make it mandatory (like Trump did). From what I understood, their proposals were designed to leave it up to corporations to do the deal if they wanted. Tax cuts in exchange for investment in our nation's infrastructure.

Back in 2015 the same company, Apple, was excited about a plan proposed by Chuck Shumer:

It seems like a win-win: tech firms like Apple (GOOG, -0.19%) get to bring home piles of cash parked overseas, while America gets to upgrade its infrastructure. But can it happen?

Take a listen to the short video above in which Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) describes the bipartisan tax reform he’s been working on with Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH).

“The companies make a fortune overseas. They’d rather bring the money back here,” says Schumer, explaining a proposal that would let companies temporarily avoid the high U.S. corporate tax rate.

That rate, which is 35%, is considerably higher than other Western countries, and has created an incentive for tech companies to attempt exotic tax gimmicks like the “double Irish” and to just leave the money overseas. The amounts at stake are staggering. As Fortune reported earlier this year, Apple’s overseas cash hoard is now at $158 billion.

While Republicans support cutting the tax rate to be more in line with other countries, many Democrats balk at the idea of giving corporations a break. That is why the Schumer/Portman compromise plan, which still lacks a full set of details (a similar idea floated in May by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rand Paul (D-KY) called for a one-time 6.5% tax holiday), would use part of any tax receipts from repatriated money for upgrading infrastructure.

“So a lot of the Democrats who don’t want to lower the corporate rate will be brought on board because [the plan] will fund highways,” said Schumer, adding the tech industry is fully behind the plan. “They love this idea. I’ve talked to Tim Cook about it”

Unfortunately, just because an idea is popular and bipartisan doesn’t mean it will make it through Congress. While a New York Times report suggested the Schumer-Portman plan was gaining steam in July, the Senate is now in summer recess and, as presidential primary season heats up, it will be increasingly difficult to pass major laws of any kind.

The upshot is U.S. companies may have to wait until after the 2016 election for any progress. In the meantime, they will keep turning to controversial gimmicks like inversions or, as e-commerce marketplace Etsy just did, exploit the same old Irish loopholes.

Sen. Schumer made the remarks on July 31, when he dropped by Fortune to discuss New York tech policy, and how he is teaming up with his famous cousin, Amy (of “Trainwreck” fame), on a gun control initiative.

[_Bach]

Go Kevin Go.

No doubt you’ll convince someone other than yourself if you keep posting!!!!

LMAO

[_Analytics]

The old system that wasn't working had been in place since 1986. In what way was it "Obama's system"? Do you think in 1986, a few years before he entered law school at Harvard, that he was secretly coaching Reagan on how to change the tax code? I'm sincerely curious about what people believe in the alternate universe where you reside.

[_Bach]

The old system that wasn't working had been in place since 1986. In what way was it "Obama's system"?

PLEASE, don’t be anal Anal. Obama had the house and senate when he came into office. What he never had was the education, ability, experience and understanding of what makes an economy strong. Like all liberals he subscribed to the progressive thought and mantra that socialistic governments knew how to manage taxpayers money better than the taxpayer. Much like the Mormon church.

Why didn’t he change the system when he had the opportunity to do so. Liberals like you and most here are frustrated because Trump did it in his first year and it’s creating an explosive economy that can never be achieved under a progressive model of socialism, tax, spend, Lois Lerner and the rest of the ilk!

by the way, how’s your 401k plan and/or retirement portfolios doing these days?

[_Analytics]

Out of curiosity, why do you think Tim Cook was a major donor to both Obama and Hillary Clinton?

[_Kevin Graham]

Go Kevin Go.

No doubt you’ll convince someone other than yourself if you keep posting!!!!

LMAO

Make this the fourth time I've asked you to explain why so many companies expanded investments, increased wages and gave out record bonuses during Obama's 8 years. How did Trump manage to pull that off before he was even a candidate?

[_Bach]

Out of curiosity, why do you think Tim Cook was a major donor to both Obama and Hillary Clinton?

Again, don’t be anal Anal. Why do you speak like a liberal reporter of fake news?

Never said anything about donors.

But, as Kevin is already demonstrating, I sense your pain as well. Ignorance is a difficult disease to overcome and eventually destroys reason.

[_Kevin Graham]

The old system that wasn't working had been in place since 1986. In what way was it "Obama's system"? Do you think in 1986, a few years before he entered law school at Harvard, that he was secretly coaching Reagan on how to change the tax code? I'm sincerely curious about what people believe in the alternate universe where you reside.

Thanks for pointing this out. Here is an excellent piece discussing how Reagan's tax plan basically made all of this possible, and how it has been causing deficits ever since.

The biggest multinational corporations don’t even pay corporate income taxes. Rather they profit off them, something I exposed 13 years ago and that a three-volume study by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation later confirmed.

What makes this possible are a few seemingly innocuous words slipped into the 1986 Tax Reform Act that hardly anyone noticed at the time. Those words allow multinational corporations to evade the caps on how much cash and near-cash domestic companies can hold by simply moving their profits offshore.

Since 1909 Congress has limited cash hoarding because it damages the economy. Just as the economy would collapse if everyone cashed their paychecks and stuffed greenbacks in their mattresses, so too is economic growth damaged when corporations hoard cash instead of reinvesting.

But under the 1986 law American companies pay royalties, rents, and fees to their offshore subsidiaries, using accounting alchemy to convert profits into expenses. As long as those profits are held in so-called deferral accounts with an offshore mailing address, no taxes are due.

You would get the same deal if Congress let you take a deduction for every dollar in your right pocket that you moved to your left pocket and kept there.

The next part, though, is even more perverse: the multinationals buy the Treasury bonds that the federal government sells because it didn’t collect those corporate taxes right away. The government then pays these multinationals interest on their deferred taxes.

Do this for long enough and the magic of compound interest will result in more money than the value of the taxes owed, which are eroded by inflation. In effect Uncle Sam loans these companies their taxes at 0 percent interest and then pays them interest on the loan. If you could get a bank to do that for you when you buy a house, after three decades with no payments you would have enough money to pay the bank the deferred purchase price and enjoy three to four times the house’s price in cash.

Of course, no banker is dumb enough to give you that deal. But Congress gives it to multinationals like Apple and GE and to billionaires like Warren Buffett every day. So when their shareholder reports indicate that they paid a tiny percentage of their profits in taxes, they really made a profit and paid Uncle Sam a small fee on their profits from deferring payment.

Way to go Reagan. The GOP's hysteria over Trump's plan is basically an admission that Reagan's system was what was fuqed up.