HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » How Apple Sidesteps Billi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:11 AM

How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes (3,830 words)

Source: New York Times

RENO, Nev. — Apple, the world’s most profitable technology company, doesn’t design iPhones here. It doesn’t run AppleCare customer service from this city. And it doesn’t manufacture MacBooks or iPads anywhere nearby.

Yet, with a handful of employees in a small office here in Reno, Apple has done something central to its corporate strategy: it has avoided millions of dollars in taxes in California and 20 other states.

Apple’s headquarters are in Cupertino, Calif. By putting an office in Reno, just 200 miles away, to collect and invest the company’s profits, Apple sidesteps state income taxes on some of those gains.

California’s corporate tax rate is 8.84 percent. Nevada’s? Zero.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all

15 replies, 1973 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:15 AM

1. They mean how ALL tech companies sidestep billions in global taxes.

Apple is the top dog, so mediocre tech companies (all the rest) are less interesting in headlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 02:15 PM

15. Also other companies don't have a marketing strategy to constantly paint themselves as the good guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)


Response to Tesha (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:23 AM

3. It's illegal for Apple not to dodge taxes?

Please point us the legal statue stipulating that.

Thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #3)


Response to Tesha (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 07:24 PM

8. Just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #8)


Response to Tesha (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:58 AM

4. Yea! The old "Apple needs to get paid" argument...

You know, Tesha, that argument doesn't fly when Halliburton does it. It doesn't fly when Walmart does it.

It doesn't fly when Apple does it.

If that is truly what corporations are about then let's get to the point -- they need to end.

It doesn't matter what shiny i-doo-dad you worship, it's just wrong if that's the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tesha (Reply #2)


Response to marble falls (Reply #5)


Response to Tesha (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 07:40 AM

11. Even funnier. You and Apple want the state to do it without Apple's tax contribution!

I accused you of nothing. I asked you a question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tesha (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 03:09 AM

10. Oh man, that made me laugh.

That would make virtually all Corporate Social Responsibility policies and programmes unlawful.

Good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prometheus Bound (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 08:13 AM

12. Brilliant point! Expect silence in return.

That's the usual response from this one when the advertising jingle gets skewered by cold, hard logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prometheus Bound (Reply #10)


Response to Tesha (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:46 PM

14. I read LOTS of Ayn Rand in your definition...

Your description of the "responsibilities" of corporations and how those responsibilities do not extend to the society that gave the corporation "life" sounds like the gushing praise that Rand heaped on William Hickmann the serial killer. In short, your claims that corporations should only exist to do the bidding of the shareholders make them sound rather sociopathic. I don't like sociopaths -- their self interest is at odds with my continued health and well being.

A corporation in your view, like a shark, is merely a force of nature meant to make money and return it to a small group of investors. If it stole MY tax dollars to get started and then ran overseas before paying back the coffers or it gouges me with monopolistic practices or pollutes the gulf or becomes a band of mercenaries or exploits workers or screws people out of their retirements it's okay right? It's all because they exist to make a profit and nothing else.

You are forgetting the laws of society. Sadly, megacorporations seem to be able to buy those. After reading your collected works I understand that you do seem to consider the Corporation to be the replacement for the state -- a Phillip K. Dick future for us all I guess. You have often times waxed poetic about Apple going global and becoming a true transnational -- moving its manufacturing to its "new market" as "American exceptionalism" declines.

Sociopathic to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread