FQ1 AAPL Tax Rates

  • Posted: 14 December 2010 11:08 PM #16

    Mav - 14 December 2010 11:56 PM
    DawnTreader - 14 December 2010 03:09 PM

    Roughly, it’s worth (in my calculations) close to $.075 per share. But moving above $26 billion in revenue makes any changes based on ratios of revenue or earnings significant in nominal terms.

    Hey, I haven’t gotten to my fiscal Q1 calculations yet.  With a revs/earnings base that big, the impact of one percentage point of taxes will be bigger than ever.

    Btw, you guys should check out the 10-K if you haven’t yet.  Maybe it’s because of things like COGS and added-in stuff like VAT, sales tax, levies or whatever, but in income tax terms for the previous fiscal year, Apple seemed to pay next to nothing internationally ($161 mil net foreign income tax) compared to the US ($3.826B combined current/deferred federal income tax, and $540 mil net state income tax).

    AnD people wonder why US jobs are going overseas.  Lower cost labor is nice, but that’s just icing on the cake. TAX RATES, that’s why we are uncompetitive internationaly, and are losing US jobs. We have it all backwards. We pay people not to work, and tax those that do.

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Posted: 14 December 2010 11:16 PM #17

    Gregg Thurman - 15 December 2010 03:08 AM

    AnD people wonder why US jobs are going overseas.  Lower cost labor is nice, but that’s just icing on the cake. TAX RATES, that’s why we are uncompetitive internationaly, and are losing US jobs. We have it all backwards. We pay people not to work, and tax those that do.

    I suspect the high US tax rates are what’s making it politically more feasible for the extension of the Bush-era personal tax reductions. As corporate profits are projected to rise, it does factor into the deficit projections. But this does move production and sales activity (and thus jobs) overseas.

    You’re right. It’s not just labor costs impacting employment migration. I don’t know if Congress has the political wherewithal to enact more realistic corporate tax rates.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 14 December 2010 11:47 PM #18

    Gregg Thurman - 15 December 2010 03:08 AM

    AnD people wonder why US jobs are going overseas.  Lower cost labor is nice, but that’s just icing on the cake. TAX RATES, that’s why we are uncompetitive internationaly, and are losing US jobs. We have it all backwards. We pay people not to work, and tax those that do.


    Gregg, question, do you think this just happened or was planned? Mass production facilities in the US are extremely state of the art. The company I used to work for was the most efficient in its industry. All of this was achieved by slicing jobs and buying robots. The company had no problem paying for a machine to replace a couple of humans. Robots don’t get sick, need fewer breaks and never ask for a raise. It should be very telling to people when Bush said we were moving to a service economy. Is there even such a thing as a service economy? Service/servant not much difference to me. rolleyes

    Signature

    Adversity does not just build character, it reveals it.

         
  • Posted: 15 December 2010 12:17 PM #19

    DawnTreader - 15 December 2010 03:16 AM
    Gregg Thurman - 15 December 2010 03:08 AM

    AnD people wonder why US jobs are going overseas.  Lower cost labor is nice, but that’s just icing on the cake. TAX RATES, that’s why we are uncompetitive internationaly, and are losing US jobs. We have it all backwards. We pay people not to work, and tax those that do.

    I suspect the high US tax rates are what’s making it politically more feasible for the extension of the Bush-era personal tax reductions. As corporate profits are projected to rise, it does factor into the deficit projections. But this does move production and sales activity (and thus jobs) overseas.

    You’re right. It’s not just labor costs impacting employment migration. I don’t know if Congress has the political wherewithal to enact more realistic corporate tax rates.

    No, they don’t. Corporations don’t have the vote. Even if they did there are far more people that haven’t a clue why theIr job went overseas, and wouldn’t understand if they were told. Public office is about getting re-elected. Nothing more.

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 15 December 2010 01:43 PM #20

    DawnTreader - 15 December 2010 03:16 AM
    Gregg Thurman - 15 December 2010 03:08 AM

    AnD people wonder why US jobs are going overseas.  Lower cost labor is nice, but that’s just icing on the cake. TAX RATES, that’s why we are uncompetitive internationaly, and are losing US jobs. We have it all backwards. We pay people not to work, and tax those that do.

    I suspect the high US tax rates are what’s making it politically more feasible for the extension of the Bush-era personal tax reductions. As corporate profits are projected to rise, it does factor into the deficit projections. But this does move production and sales activity (and thus jobs) overseas.

    You’re right. It’s not just labor costs impacting employment migration. I don’t know if Congress has the political wherewithal to enact more realistic corporate tax rates.

    Some clarity is needed on the subject though - it’s not as simple as Apple’s tax payments make it out to be.

    What about the impact of higher Apple prices elsewhere in the world?  VAT?  Stuff like that?

    Lower taxes are probably a good thing, but is there a way we can get to a kind of “equivalence” between the top tax brackets paid by companies in different countries?

    Signature

    The Summer of AAPL is here.  Enjoy it (responsibly) while it lasts.
    AFB Night Owl Teamâ„¢
    Thanks, Steve.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 15 December 2010 02:06 PM #21

    Mav - 15 December 2010 05:43 PM

    Some clarity is needed on the subject though - it’s not as simple as Apple’s tax payments make it out to be.

    What about the impact of higher Apple prices elsewhere in the world?  VAT?  Stuff like that?

    Lower taxes are probably a good thing, but is there a way we can get to a kind of “equivalence” between the top tax brackets paid by companies in different countries?

    Yeah, do what Google does. :-x Mav, there are to many incentives for corporations to move overseas. Between the taxes, cheaper labor and the ability to break a union, it is no wonder companies have flown to coop. None of us will live to see the day when there is one currency around the world, coupled with a tax system that is the same for everyone. Thankfully I will be dust by then. rolleyes

    Signature

    Adversity does not just build character, it reveals it.

         
  • Posted: 15 December 2010 02:41 PM #22

    Mav - 15 December 2010 05:43 PM
    Gregg Thurman - 15 December 2010 03:08 AM

    AnD people wonder why US jobs are going overseas.  Lower cost labor is nice, but that’s just icing on the cake. TAX RATES, that’s why we are uncompetitive internationaly, and are losing US jobs. We have it all backwards. We pay people not to work, and tax those that do.

    Some clarity is needed on the subject though - it’s not as simple as Apple’s tax payments make it out to be.

    What about the impact of higher Apple prices elsewhere in the world?  VAT?  Stuff like that?

    Lower taxes are probably a good thing, but is there a way we can get to a kind of “equivalence” between the top tax brackets paid by companies in different countries?

    The United States taxes production (income taxes).  Our trading partners tax consumption (VAT/Sales tax).  They add taxes ON TOP of the taxes we export (embedded in cost of product).  We don’t add taxes (other than regional) to foreign products because they aren’t manufactured here.

    The rest of the world can afford the higher prices because they keep everything they earn.  Imagine your buying power if you paid no income/SSI taxes, and the US made product cost 25% less (no embedded taxes) even after adding a national sales tax of 25% to ALL products (including foreign made).  That’s called a level playing field.

    Apple used to manufacture its computers in company owned plants in Sacramento, CAL (the highest taxed State in the Union).

    Think of the increase in GDP if all those US jobs came back to the US (or at the very least stopped leaving).

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Posted: 15 December 2010 02:47 PM #23

    mbeauch - 15 December 2010 06:06 PM
    Mav - 15 December 2010 05:43 PM

    Some clarity is needed on the subject though - it’s not as simple as Apple’s tax payments make it out to be.

    What about the impact of higher Apple prices elsewhere in the world?  VAT?  Stuff like that?

    Lower taxes are probably a good thing, but is there a way we can get to a kind of “equivalence” between the top tax brackets paid by companies in different countries?

    Yeah, do what Google does. :-x Mav, there are to many incentives for corporations to move overseas. Between the taxes, cheaper labor and the ability to break a union, it is no wonder companies have flown to coop. None of us will live to see the day when there is one currency around the world, coupled with a tax system that is the same for everyone. Thankfully I will be dust by then. rolleyes

    This thread is getting way off track, although the issue was revealed by the taxes paid by Apple.  That said a one world currency would deny all governments the ability to print money and force fiscal responsibility.

    Go to Fairtax.org.  There is a bill before Congress (with a growing number of co-sponsors) now.

    With that I’m out of this thread.

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Posted: 15 December 2010 05:13 PM #24

    DawnTreader - 12 December 2010 03:17 AM

    If there’s one unheralded factor in Apple’s meteoric 67% gain in eps in FY2010 it’s the dramatic reduction in tax rates. FQ4’s 21.1% tax rate propelled eps much higher considering the more than $20 billion in revenue. My eight quarter data tables indicate an FY2010 average tax rate (averaging the tax rate reported for the four quarters) of 24.5% and an 8-quarter average of 28.1%. In the year-ago quarter the tax rate was 29%. Apple’s guidance for the quarter is 25.5%.

    I’m currently at 24% tax rate for the quarter.

    What say the members of the AFB?

    Let’s get back on topic.  grin