Slightly old news but still relevant today: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/ Also, from the article, “companies can value the stock options as a "cost" of doing business even though it doesn't cost them anything. "Tech companies like Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple rely heavily on this," Gardner said.” No wonder all these high TCs (cash + stock) at the tax payer’s expense. How can the startups and small/medium businesses even compete ?
Go to a socialist country if you dont like capitalism
I know we pay negative tax. IRS pays money to keep us up and running !
The employees pay income tax for stock options. The money is accounted. Why do you have to force corp to pay tax on that again ?
Stock options don't cost the company anything? Shit why aren't they giving me 10x more?
How is it at the taxpayers expense. That doesn’t make any sense
Stock definitely does cost them something.
Taxes will be paid in the form of capital gains and/or income tax on every dollar these corporations make. Further, a large portion of these companies are owned by the middle or lower class in their retirement and pension funds. Double taxation is BS and I am glad when any company I hold finds a way for me to avoid it.
LOL the lower class don't have 401ks or pensions. So out of touch.
If you read that article what it actually says is these companies dont have any taxable income hence they dont owe taxes. That means they have deductions that offset operating income. Not sure what is wrong with this. Accelerated depreciation, expense associated with stock options (which is a real cost even if not an immediate cash cost) and tax loss carry forward are all real things... it's not specific to these companies though their size makes the magnitude of the impact seem bigger..and it makes no sense to say it's at the taxpayers expense....unless there was something illegal about what they were doing. Should a company purposefully pay more than their legal obligation? Then one could correctly argue it was at the stockholders expense and that would be wrong.
Of course it makes sense to say it's at the taxpayers' expense. Who do you think makes up the budget shortfall? The government doesn't just decide to spend less money. Nobody is arguing companies should purposely pay money than they legally owe. You seem to be purposefully missing the point.
Well no, not true. Directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders but they also have a duty to employees and the community. These duties are often in opposition and must be balanced. The whole shareholder value mantra is a new thing invented in the 80s. There isn't any legal weight behind it and corporations used to behave very differently. I don't think the shareholder value movement will survive much longer. Sadly, we now have an entire generation of Americans who actually have no idea what legal obligation officers have. Case in point. Almost nothing you said is actually true, but you honestly believe it is.
Uhh, you claimed it's the law and that criminal and personal penalties could result. That is completely false. The shareholder value movement is a cultural movement, nothing more, and it never spread too far outside of North America. There is absolutely no risk of civil lawsuits that could bankrupt their families, let alone criminal proceedings There is no truth to your claim. This isn't semantics, it's you having no idea what you're talking about.
Apple isn't on this list...