Apple and other mega-corporations and the U.S. economy

[thermal]

I read recently that Apple is sitting on about $70 billion in profits. That's pretty arrogant considering the state of the U.S. economy.

I'm wondering if Apple should give some of its money to help out the U.S. economy. A $50 billion donation would go a long way towards helping California....

 

[Stuntman]

Are you suggesting that companies who make that much money should simply donate a significant portion of their profits to the U.S.? From my understanding of the U.S., that seems to go against the culture there.

 

[mancow]

How is profiting and succeeding a negative thing? Plus, they are already being forced to make enormous donations to the Government in the form of taxes.

It doesn't necessarily go against the culture here specifically. It goes against the culture of ANY free society to suggest such a thing, Canada included.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I read recently that Apple is sitting on about $70 billion in profits. That's pretty arrogant considering the state of the U.S. economy.

I'm wondering if Apple should give some of its money to help out the U.S. economy. A $50 billion donation would go a long way towards helping California....

Apple should do what is best for Apple and their shareholders. Apple pays taxes in CA and to the feds. I hope you are not suggesting Apple be forced to pay. I ask because you seem to think they are arrogant.

 

[mikedt]

I read recently that Apple is sitting on about $70 billion in profits. That's pretty arrogant considering the state of the U.S. economy.

Maybe if some of your US corporations actually made things in the US instead of offshoring it all to China. then perhaps the US economy would not be in such a state.

I'm wondering if Apple should give some of its money to help out the U.S. economy. A $50 billion donation would go a long way towards helping California....

They already make a considerable donation, it's called tax.

 

[jroc]

Why stop at Apple? Why not mention the other profitable companies after Apple? Is Apple that far ahead of everyone else that wanting the others to give some of its money will seem crazy?

Is Apple #1 on the list for profits? I dont know where the 70 billion number came from, but why single out just Apple?

 

[Vinter]

Nope, that is silly to suggest such a thing. Though I wouldn't mind seeing Steve Jobs (who's health could be better, right?) link up with Bill Gates and donate to the amazing charity work he and his wife are doing.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Maybe if some of your US corporations actually made things in the US instead of offshoring it all to China. then perhaps the US economy would not be in such a state.

I could argue that the economy would be in a worse state if that happened because the price of goods would go up significantly. It costs way more to build something like an iPad in the States than it does in China. Are you willing to pay $400 for your phone with a subsidy and double that for an unlocked version? You'd see iPads that cost $600-700 just for the low end version and go up from there. Manufacturers are not just going to eat the additional manufacturing costs out of their profits. They're going to pass that along to consumers.

 

[sethman88]

no offense but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, even though Im not much of a apple person, donating money to the governemnt after already paying a ton of money in taxes is rediculous, and I also think that no company would ever do anything like this, no matter how bad the economy is because if they are making 70 billion, their economy is quite fine.

 

[dan330]

wow.. the OP sure stepped in it with this post / opinion.

 

[jroc]

Nope, that is silly to suggest such a thing. Though I wouldn't mind seeing Steve Jobs (who's health could be better, right?) link up with Bill Gates and donate to the amazing charity work he and his wife are doing.

I would love see this. And honestly....between them 2 I would pick Gates as the CEO I most admired.

There was a topic about Jobs vs. Ballmer and most, probably everyone posting in it picked Jobs. That was a no brainer IMO.

wow.. the OP sure stepped in it with this post / opinion.

lol.

I just thought of something....the wording is probably the problem. How about saying:

"Should Apple donate some of its money to help the U.S. economy?"

I felt like when the Katrina disaster hit, I hoped the celebrities involved with the marathons donated huge chunks of their money to the relief efforts. Pro athletes too. Basically any folks who could afford to donate large sums of money...I hope they did.

 

[Vanquished]

I'm not sure where you got that $70 billion from...Looking at 2010s Fortune 500 companies, the most profitible company pulled in $30 billion, while Apple was in 8th with $14 billion:

Fortune 500 2011: Top Performers - Most Profitable Companies: Profits

Rank Company 500 Rank 2010 $(millions)
1 Exxon Mobil 2 30,460.0
2 AT&T 12 19,864.0
3 Chevron 3 19,024.0
4 Microsoft 38 18,760.0
5 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. 13 17,370.0
6 Wal-Mart Stores 1 16,389.0
7 International Business Machines 18 14,833.0
8 Apple 35 14,013.0
9 Johnson & Johnson 40 13,334.0
10 Berkshire Hathaway 7 12,967.0
11 Procter & Gamble 26 12,736.0
12 Wells Fargo 23 12,362.0
13 Coca-Cola 70 11,809.0
14 General Electric 6 11,644.0
15 Intel 56 11,464.0
16 ConocoPhillips 4 11,358.0
17 Citigroup 14 10,602.0
18 Hewlett-Packard 11 8,761.0
19 Google 92 8,505.0
20 Goldman Sachs Group 54 8,354.0
21 Pfizer 31 8,257.0
22 American International Group 17 7,786.0
23 Cisco Systems 62 7,767.0
24 Philip Morris International 94 7,259.0
25 Ford Motor 10 6,561.0
26 PepsiCo 43 6,320.0
27 General Motors 8 6,172.0
28 Oracle 96 6,135.0
29 Eli Lilly 115 5,069.5
30 McDonald's 111 4,946.3
31 Morgan Stanley 63 4,703.0
32 UnitedHealth Group 22 4,634.0
33 Amgen 163 4,627.0
34 Abbott Laboratories 69 4,626.2
35 Devon Energy 231 4,550.0
36 Occidental Petroleum 129 4,530.0
37 United Technologies 44 4,373.0
38 Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold 136 4,336.0
39 Kraft Foods 49 4,114.0
40 3M 97 4,085.0
41 American Express 91 4,057.0
42 Walt Disney 65 3,963.0
43 Altria Group 154 3,905.0
44 Comcast 66 3,635.0
45 Corning 350 3,558.0
46 United Parcel Service 48 3,488.0
47 CVS Caremark 21 3,427.0
48 PNC Financial Services Group 151 3,412.0
49 Home Depot 30 3,338.0
50 U.S. Bancorp 126 3,317.0

I agree with everyone else. It is against their constitutional rights to be forced to help the government, the economy or just people in general.

Supposing that the $70 billion you heard was what Apple's net asset value is something a little different. Even if they were making more or even worth more doesn't mean they should have to help at all. I'm not going to help my neighbors who go bankrupt and are forced to move because they bought a house, cars and boat they could not afford just because I'm sitting on $20 million. The same goes for any large corperation. It's not Apple's fault (not entirely, anyway) the economy is in the tanks. If someone were to be forced to pay a "donation" it should be the financial institutions that put us into this situation.

 

[dan330]

he might be confused.. and he is talking about revenue? not profit

 

[Bob Maxey]

I read recently that Apple is sitting on about $70 billion in profits. That's pretty arrogant considering the state of the U.S. economy.

I'm wondering if Apple should give some of its money to help out the U.S. economy. A $50 billion donation would go a long way towards helping California....

So how will the gubbermint spend such a vast sum.... Perhaps, based upon spending projections of 3.8 trillion or so for the year, the government will spend about 10.30 Billion per day. So Apple's "donations" will last about a week.

Then we go after Microsoft, Oricle, and Buffett's company. We can likely run the country for three weeks at least.

 

[lordofthereef]

Government needs to spend more wisely and businesses (all of them) need to stop getting benefits for outsourcing labor.

OPINION: I find Apple to be an arrogant company, but not for the reasons stated. I am not sure it's really fair to call a person/company/entity arrogant for the simple reason that they are making bank.

 

[Vanquished]

he might be confused.. and he is talking about revenue? not profit

Profits are all that really matter. If it is revenue that he is talking about, and Apple really did pull in $70 billion last year, they only pocketed 1/5 of that. So if they donated $50 billion as the OP suggests, they would be in the hole $36 billion.

 

[Covart]

I read recently that Apple is sitting on about $70 billion in profits. That's pretty arrogant considering the state of the U.S. economy.

I'm wondering if Apple should give some of its money to help out the U.S. economy. A $50 billion donation would go a long way towards helping California....

There was a system of government that had ideology like this. It was and is called communism. Worked well for the USSR.

But in essence you want to penalize successful entities for being successful? Yeah, that's gonna go a long way to revitalizing the economy.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Government needs to spend more wisely and businesses (all of them) need to stop getting benefits for outsourcing labor.

OPINION: I find Apple to be an arrogant company, but not for the reasons stated. I am not sure it's really fair to call a person/company/entity arrogant for the simple reason that they are making bank.

Companies outsource labor because it is cheaper for them to do so. For the record, I'm one of those guys companies outsource their labor to. For what I do, companies pay me $500-600 a month. On a month where we may spend lots of time on a particular project, they may pay me $2k. You are not going to get a quality IT person for $24,000 a year anywhere in the US and that figure doesn't even include benefits. So companies outsource their IT to me and my colleagues because it saves them money. That doesn't make them evil because they are paying less than $20k a year for something that would cost them twice as much if they had it in house.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I seem to recall a web site that looked at what happens if we took 100% of ALL PROFIT from EVERY business in this country, and called it a tax.

If we used that tax to run the government. As I recall, it would last about six months. Remember, we are now talking about trillions of dollars not billions.

Try this: "If someone spent one million dollars per day, each and every day, since Jesus was born, it would take another 731 years (beyond today) before one trillion dollars was spent."

Or . . .

One million seconds equals about 11

 

[lordofthereef]

Companies outsource labor because it is cheaper for them to do so. For the record, I'm one of those guys companies outsource their labor to. For what I do, companies pay me $500-600 a month. On a month where we may spend lots of time on a particular project, they may pay me $2k. You are not going to get a quality IT person for $24,000 a year anywhere in the US and that figure doesn't even include benefits. So companies outsource their IT to me and my colleagues because it saves them money. That doesn't make them evil because they are paying less than $20k a year for something that would cost them twice as much if they had it in house.

Did I say they were evil? No... Did I say it hurts US economy? Yes.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Did I say they were evil? No... Did I say it hurts US economy? Yes.

Would it not hurt the economy more if they didn't outsource? Products and services would all cost significantly more because they would cost more to produce and deliver.

 

[lordofthereef]

Would it not hurt the economy more if they didn't outsource? Products and services would all cost significantly more because they would cost more to produce and deliver.

I am not sure. I have thought about this, and I feel there is a balancing act. That said, it wasn't so long ago that the economy ran with virtually zero outsourcing, and it was in better shape than it is now.

Perhaps profit margins are too high. When CEOs are making millions at the expense of overworked and underpaid foreign workers, we have a problem, IMO.

EDIT: I would also like to apologize about my earlier response. Rereading it seems it came out more harsh than was intended.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I am not sure. I have thought about this, and I feel there is a balancing act. That said, it wasn't so long ago that the company ran with virtually zero outsourcing, and it was in better shape than it is now.

I think it would be worse. If goods and services cost more, then people can afford less of them. More local workers doesn't mean that people have more money overall. Salaries don't go up for local workers just because they're building things here instead of China. It's a cost of living increase for everyone basically.

 

[lordofthereef]

I think it would be worse. If goods and services cost more, then people can afford less of them. More local workers doesn't mean that people have more money overall. Salaries don't go up for local workers just because they're building things here instead of China. It's a cost of living increase for everyone basically.

You make a valid point. You may, however, have missed part of what I edited in there.

 

[hood420]

Could you be talking about their assets? Those sit at $75.18 billion.

That being said, I'd welcome Apple's donation to our country, but I think they could definitely find better ways to spend their money than to give it to the government. Personally, I'd rather burn the $75 billion than to give it to the government.