Apple Inc

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you pay more than you have to? Why should the Apple shareholders? Thanks to the tax incentives, the irs will get 38 billion they otherwise would it have. That’s a good thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are missing the point. The only good thing about the 38 bil. to the IRS is that it is happening now. Much of that should never have been offshore and taxes should have been paid in the years it accrued. The Government is allowing them to pay a discount and pay late. There are two sets of books.... We will never know exactly how much was stashed offshore. This was their window of opportunity to settle for less, possibly much less than they would have owed, and to have a clean slate going forward. So my question back to you is why couldn't I do that???? Can I go back and amend my past twenty years of taxes and pay them at this years' lower rates???? Think they will cut me a big check for the difference????

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

There isn't a prayer in hell that Apple considers doing this unless the door was open for them to avoid paying taxes on a portion of this offshore war chest. They have kept funds off shore for years to avoid accounting for how much they have as well as paying taxes to the IRS. So they get a sweetheart deal and are going to pay $38 billion in taxes on that amount (pick a number, or let's use $252 billion) at a much lower rate than when they earned all this money, going back to company's founding. Who is to say that there isn't more than the 252 billion that will be repatriated and should have been taxed all along? This would not be the largest single tax payment if the debt had been rightfully paid when it should have been instead of being steered to an Irish bank. $38 billion is but a fraction of what they really should be paying, yet it is being spun as they are doing such great things by investing in the US economy..... yes. after t#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g it up our arses for years.....

exactly

[wdmso]

re election money $5 million Ryan received in the 4th quarter of 2017, more than $330,000 arrived in the two days after the House passed the tax bill.

but he did it for the people

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

re election money $5 million Ryan received in the 4th quarter of 2017, more than $330,000 arrived in the two days after the House passed the tax bill.

but he did it for the people

Whereas Obama chose not to fundraise.

[wdmso]

The economy likes having him as POTUS. I'm not sure that can be denied.

I agree in the short term .but only time will tell how much the economy will like him

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim in CT detbuch clearly dont understand Empirical evidence its clear data points exist for 8 years under obama

The two times I mentioned empirical evidence I said "It has been empirically demonstrated that flying babies have zero impact on the stroller industry." And "Is there actually empirical evidence that economic theories work other than when tried they do or don't?"
What do you disagree with in those statements?

They are no such long term data points for Trump regarding his overall impact in the economy over time and some see 1 time offers from Companys as Empirical evidence of the benefits of a certain action.. thats not how it works

Data points, apparently, are not empirical to some, as observed by those who say that Trump's policies are not the cause for the highly improved data points existing under his administration. Rather, we are told, they are data points which belong to the Obama administration. If the relevances of data points are disputed, what are they empirical evidence of? That there is disagreement? And how long in "long term" is relevant for you. Apparently 100 years, for you, is a "time machine" and is too long ago to be relevant. The fact that when administrations in the past, even 50, 30, or 15 years ago, lowered taxes which was accompanied by positive "data points," that also" must have been too long ago to be relevant for today. The fact that when several other countries lowered their corporate tax rates, their economy improved substantially and they drew businesses away from higher corporate tax countries like the U.S. also is not a set of relevant data points for you. Apparently, only the last eight years under Obama and the future 3 or 7 years under Trump will be relevant data points. But if they are disputed, which one party will do, will they be relevant?

I am not suggesting Trumps hasn't had an impact on the US economy(its effect are founded only on speculation)

Political speculation is what determines the relevance of economic data points. Speculative partisan conjectures and theories regarding data becomes the reason for dismissal of opposition success, the meat for further opposing policies, and the grist that feeds election propaganda.

And speculation in the market has a profound effect on the market.

And creating confidence and optimism, whether in war, or politics, or in economies, or even in personal life, is an important component for success.

but their is no Empirical evidence any of his legislation he has passed (aka tax cut) or just repealing every this with Obamas name on it . will have the promised out come ... we'll see in the coming years how it shakes out ... and who wins and who looses

A great deal of the current business optimism has been created by his policies. The empirical evidence is that the greater optimism and more expansive forecasts occurred after his promises were made and policies began being put into place as evidence that the promises would be kept. The time period may be too short for you (one year instead of four) but evidence gathered from observation does not require a specific period of time (e.g., not too long as in not more than eight years, and not too short as in more than one year) to be empirical. Time may produce more evidence. But, in the immediate now, the evidence, for the time being, is in.

And your use of the "time machine" contradicts itself and other things you've said. As in when I proposed that if past administrations had reduced the corporate tax rates over the past 24 years, the Federal government, during that period, would have collected hundreds of millions, even trillions of revenue more than they got with the high tax rates, you rejected that as being in the past, that I was in my time machine again. Yet you then went on your own time machine into the future, the gathering of "hard data" that will have occurred after Trump's first term is over, to be compared to the past time machine of Obama's eight years and the "hard data" it produced.

First, the data is softer than you portray. The data gets "interpreted" by politically opposing reporters. We're still arguing about the data from the Reagan years or the Kennedy years or the Roosevelt years, and all the data before, in between and after them.

Nor, as in my "what if" conjecture about economic decisions that could have been made in the past, is your sally forth into the future an actual future that is assured to happen. We don't know if Trump will survive the through the rest of this year. We don't know if some cataclysmic event or war will happen. And all of the data that is gathered will be subject to interpretation and will not confirm anything for those who wish it not to. You validate your time machine conjecture merely by expressing it. And pooh-pooh mine, again, merely by saying so.

So far, human nature has not changed since antiquity. And you don't get to limit how far back or how far into the future one may go to find evidence or to speculate on how humans will act under given circumstances. You certainly cannot dismiss how they acted under those circumstances in the past as being too long ago to matter. At least, not without "hard data" to suggest they would act differently today than in the past under the same circumstances.