Toyota moving to Texas

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
So the last three years ending in September Apple has had revenue of 170B, 156B and 108B, pretax Income of 50B, 56B and 34B and have paid taxes of  9B, 8B and 3B

So the effective tax rate is 18%, 14% and 9%. In fairness I'm calculating the %'s using cash paid / book pretax, not tax return pretax. But still excellent lower rates.

The standard corporate federal tax rate is 35% for Apple. And that is a flat rate applied to all profits not a marginal rate like for individuals.





 
thatOSguy said:
qwerty said:
So the last three years ending in September Apple has had revenue of 170B, 156B and 108B, pretax Income of 50B, 56B and 34B and have paid taxes of  9B, 8B and 3B

So the effective tax rate is 18%, 14% and 9%. In fairness I'm calculating the %'s using cash paid / book pretax, not tax return pretax. But still excellent lower rates.

The standard corporate federal tax rate is 35% for Apple. And that is a flat rate applied to all profits not a marginal rate like for individuals.
Click to expand...

Nice math. Except Apple didn't pay taxes.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ple-avoiding-taxes-with-stateless-income.html
Click to expand...

also, the article you mention talks about a unit that has made over 30B since 2009 that has not paid US taxes.  just in the three years above they have pretax income of $140B, so some other units must account for that other $110B

get your facts right.
 
hey how about that, apple did pay taxes in the US

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/calculating-apples-true-u-s-tax-rate/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"According to the Senate report, Apple paid $5.3 billion to the Treasury Department in the fiscal years 2009 to 2011. Its worldwide pretax book income over that period was about $65 billion. Thus, Apple?s ?true U.S. tax rate,? according to my own calculation, was 8.2 percent."
 
Texas can't always keep 'em either...

Motorola to close it's Moto X plant in Texas by end of year:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/30/motorola-texas-plant-shutdown/

Motorola became part of a growing trend when it opened a plant in Texas to build its flagship Moto X, but just a year on, its now decided to shut down its US manufacturing operations. According to The Wall Street Journal, employee numbers have plummeted from nearly 4,000 when it was in full swing to only 700, and the plan is to close the factory by the end of the year. Motorola's intention was to offset the inherently higher cost of manufacturing in the US, compared with places like China, by being able to get handsets to customers quicker, and manage the Moto Maker customization process on home turf. But, despite churning out 100,000 Moto Xs a week at one point and progressively making the handset cheaper, the 'born in the USA' vision hasn't paid dividends.
Click to expand...
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Texas can't always keep 'em either...

Motorola to close it's Moto X plant in Texas by end of year:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/30/motorola-texas-plant-shutdown/

Motorola became part of a growing trend when it opened a plant in Texas to build its flagship Moto X, but just a year on, its now decided to shut down its US manufacturing operations. According to The Wall Street Journal, employee numbers have plummeted from nearly 4,000 when it was in full swing to only 700, and the plan is to close the factory by the end of the year. Motorola's intention was to offset the inherently higher cost of manufacturing in the US, compared with places like China, by being able to get handsets to customers quicker, and manage the Moto Maker customization process on home turf. But, despite churning out 100,000 Moto Xs a week at one point and progressively making the handset cheaper, the 'born in the USA' vision hasn't paid dividends.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

yeah not quite an apples to apples comparison.
 
The point is, companies will move out of state, in to a state for a variety of reasons.

But there isn't enough movement to panic about (unless it's your own job moving).

CA loses business to TX, TX loses business to China, China buys up all the real estate in CA.

It's the circle of life.

Lk_screengrab_117.png
 
irvinehomeowner said:
The point is, companies will move out of state, in to a state for a variety of reasons.

But there isn't enough movement to panic about (unless it's your own job moving).

CA loses business to TX, TX loses business to China, China buys up all the real estate in CA.

It's the circle of life.
Click to expand...

Problem with racing to the bottom is that there is always someone or someplace more desperate.  China is losing business to India and other third world nations because labor costs are even lower there and workers in China are actually demanding decent wages and work conditions.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
The point is, companies will move out of state, in to a state for a variety of reasons.

But there isn't enough movement to panic about (unless it's your own job moving).

CA loses business to TX, TX loses business to China, China buys up all the real estate in CA.

It's the circle of life.

Lk_screengrab_117.png
Click to expand...

dont disagree with your statement but its not in the context of the original discussion of which of the two states has a friendlier business climate.
 
But it does speak to my point that it doesn't really matter who has a friendlier business climate.

Business will open, move to, stay in California for much more than just the "business climate".

CA is the Irvine of the US. :)
 
irvinehomeowner said:
But it does speak to my point that it doesn't really matter who has a friendlier business climate.

Business will open, move to, stay in California for much more than just the "business climate".

CA is the Irvine of the US. :)
Click to expand...

For corporations it's all about the bottom line - $$$ and less corporate taxes. What I don't think our federal (and CA state) govn't doesn't understand is that as they keep increasing corporate taxes these companies will just move to more favorable tax conditions. With globalization of these large corporations they don't care where headquarters are located. They'll move from CA to TX to Europe. And with that we lose jobs and take a hit on our economy.

My husband is an exec for a major corporation. They are based in NYC but they have employees from all over the world. With technology these days everyone can easily work remotely - he works from home in CA and he has teams in India, Europe etc. and you guys are right - America in general lacks the employees with the technical skills they need so they just hire them from other parts of the world for one tenth of the cost.

Toyota moving to TX is a huge concern, a trend that I think will affect all of us economically in the long run.
 
Paris167 said:
irvinehomeowner said:
But it does speak to my point that it doesn't really matter who has a friendlier business climate.

Business will open, move to, stay in California for much more than just the "business climate".

CA is the Irvine of the US. :)
Click to expand...

For corporations it's all about the bottom line - $$$ and less corporate taxes. What I don't think our federal (and CA state) govn't doesn't understand is that as they keep increasing corporate taxes these companies will just move to more favorable tax conditions. With globalization of these large corporations they don't care where headquarters are located. They'll move from CA to TX to Europe. And with that we lose jobs and take a hit on our economy.

My husband is an exec for a major corporation. They are based in NYC but they have employees from all over the world. With technology these days everyone can easily work remotely - he works from home in CA and he has teams in India, Europe etc. and you guys are right - America in general lacks the employees with the technical skills they need so they just hire them from other parts of the world for one tenth of the cost.

Toyota moving to TX is a huge concern, a trend that I think will affect all of us economically in the long run.
Click to expand...

Of course that's true of any 1st world country.  Wages, environmental regulations, and labor rules are all going to be tougher and highly enforced in a first world county rather than third world countries.  The goal of a first world economy is not to race to the bottom but to maintain its technological and intellectual superiority by creating new and innovative technology.  California is the leader in computers and green technology because it had the foresight to develop and nuture those industries. 

 
Cost is a factor... but as I said, like real estate... so is location.

People like to live in California, so there will always be employers IN California.
 
Because "California based Space Ex" could never get past all the enviro and regulatory red tape to get a facility like this up here. This isn't a poach, these are brand new jobs at a brand new facility..bye bye 300 more jobs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2716104/SpaceX-build-rocket-launch-site-South-Texas.html


SpaceX to build world's first commercial rocket launch site in South Texas - and lift off is due in 2016

SpaceX said it plans to launch 12 rockets a year from Boca Chica Beach
Locations in Florida, Puerto Rico and Georgia had also been considered
The company also launches from Vandenberg Air Force base in California

SpaceX plans to make an $85 million investment and create 300 jobs. The company already has a rocket testing facility in McGregor that employs 250 people.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top