What Apple could look like under President Trump

“The dust is still settling from the surprising election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency,” Chris Neiger reports for The Motley Fool. “Investors are wondering what Trump’s policies could mean for their investments, and that’s particularly true for companies Trump singled out specifically during his campaign.”

“Apple took several jabs from Trump over the past year, and there are a few policies that could directly affect the company. It’s worth noting that Trump reportedly holds millions of Apple shares, so any of the following proposals would directly impact his portfolio as well,” Neiger reports. “Let’s take a look at two key proposals and why Apple is likely to remain steady under President-elect Trump.”

President-elect of the United States Donald trump and First Lady of the United States Designate Melania Trump
President-elect of the United States Donald trump and First Lady of the United States Designate Melania Trump
“Trump said, ‘I want to see the day when Apple makes its products on our land. We’re going to bring our jobs back to this country.’ That’s not all that unique of a proposal,” Neiger reports. “Apple jobs were actually brought up in the 2012 campaign election as well. And when President Obama met with Silicon Valley leaders in 2011, he asked the late Steve Jobs what it would take to bring iPhone manufacturing jobs back the U.S. Jobs simply replied, ‘Those jobs aren’t coming back.’ So, while U.S. presidents love to pitch the idea of Apple bringing most of its manufacturing back to the states, it’s not likely to happen.”

“President-elect Trump has said about overseas profits, ‘We’ll bring it back, and it’ll be taxed only at the rate of 10% instead of 35%. And who would bring it back at 35%? Obviously nobody, because nobody’s doing it… Apple, unsurprisingly, wants this as well. The company has lobbied for tax reforms in the past, namely because it has about $200 billion in cash overseas. Apple CEO Tim Cook said that the company hasn’t brought foreign profits back into the U.S. because the tax rate is simply too high,” Neiger reports. “Apple, unsurprisingly, wants this as well. The company has lobbied for tax reforms in the past, namely because it has about $200 billion in cash overseas.. With Republicans gaining control of the House, Senate, and the White House this time around, it seems very possible for them to implement it if they really want to. That would clearly be a good thing for Apple and its investors.

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As we’ve stated many times: Obviously, U.S. corporate taxes are too high.

Under the current U.S. corporate tax system, it would be very expensive to repatriate that cash. Unfortunately, the tax code has not kept up with the digital age. The tax system handicaps American corporations in relation to our foreign competitors who don’t have such constraints on the free flow of capital… Apple has always believed in the simple, not the complex. You can see it in our products and the way we conduct ourselves. It is in this spirit that we recommend a dramatic simplification of the corporate tax code. This reform should be revenue neutral, eliminate all corporate tax expenditures, lower corporate income tax rates and implement a reasonable tax on foreign earnings that allows the free flow of capital back to the U.S. We make this recommendation with our eyes wide open, realizing this would likely increase Apple’s U.S. taxes. But we strongly believe such comprehensive reform would be fair to all taxpayers, would keep America globally competitive and would promote U.S. economic growth.Apple CEO Tim Cook, May 21, 2013

President-elect Trump on repatriation taxes on September 15, 2016:

SEE ALSO:
Apple could be able to pay just 10% tax to repatriate overseas profits under President Trump’s plan – November 9, 2016
Apple may repatriate billions of dollars next year after new U.S. President takes office – September 1, 2016
With next U.S. President, Apple’s cash may soon be on its way home – August 25, 2016
Apple CEO Tim Cook presses for U.S. corporate tax reform, says no repatriation without fair rate – August 15, 2016
Donald Trump plan calls for cuts in corporate taxes, personal income tax rates – August 9, 2016
Apple CEO Tim Cook has billions of reasons to raise money for the GOP – June 29, 2016
Debt-free Apple to take on debt to avoid huge U.S. repatriation tax hit – April 26, 2013

61 Comments

  1. I hope Trump and the congress make corporate taxes modernization are reality ASAP! Obama has been stifling job creation for nearly a decade now. I can’t wait to see the end of that fraud Obama and his failed administration!!!

  2. Obama Completely Destroyed His Presidency With Liberal Overreach and Eviscerated the Democrat Party

    This is the demolition of eight years. This is a guy who saw himself as a Reagan who would revolutionize the zeitgeist the way that Reagan inaugurated three decades of conservatism. He was going to inaugurate a new liberal era. And it is falling apart. It isn’t only the policies but the discrediting of his ideology. The fact it was so widely rejected. Also the fact that he decimated his party…

    He said, I will take it as a personal insult if you don’t turn out and support me and have our side win. Well, he was personally insulted.

    Historians will see him as a textbook definition of a guy who won on hope and change, who won with a wave of good will and who completely destroyed his presidency with liberal overreach. Beginning with Obamacare. And this is a rejection of ideology. Unless the Democrats understand that, if they go left to a Sanders or a Warren in the future, they are not going to survive as a party. — Charles Krauthammer, Nov. 14, 2016

    I must confess, I truly do love these videos from the Javits Center when reality finally sets in for Crooked Hillary’s deluded followers:

    As the video shows so well at the end, for the Dem/Lib/Prog hypocrites: HATE trumps love, after all.

    Please let me know of any and all links to videos and photos of Hillary’s aborted celebration at the Javits Center. I cannot get enough of them!

    1. Since the election, the libtard meltdown is like winning the Super Bowl AND the World Series every day…

      the latest morsel is The Clot got shitfaced last Tuesday night and went into a psychotic episode, screaming at Podesta to go tell her supporters to go home. “You do it!,” screamed The Clot according an unnamed CNN reporter.

      1. This shows clearly how BROKEN the mainstream media has become:

        The few honest MSM reporters have been reduced to leaking info to new media people because their corporate bosses won’t let them report it.

        A friend at CNN says Clintonland reports Hillary was in a “psychotic, drunken rage” election night; needed hardcore meds to speak Wednesday.CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.

        The doctor helped restrain Hillary when she violently attacked Mook and Podesta at midnight. Gave sedatives, then amphetamines next morning. CNN reporter says Hillary needed so many amphetamines Wed morning she had unexpected nosebleeds all day. Fear was she’d bleed at concession.

        Note to MSM morons: The Clintons are DONE. FINISHED. They can’t hurt you now. So, how about some honest reporting for a change? Think you can manage it now that you’ve fully blown your cover & totally obliterated your reputations?

        https://twitter.com/NorthCrane/status/798323927848288257

    2. Shades of George Bush…in a few years many of you dullards will probably be claiming that you never voted for Trump. You can bet the rural voters in the rustbelt will be upset when those promised jobs don’t magically appear.

      Trump, the guy who says everything two or three times, but never means it unless he decides that he did later. He has two faces, and both of them are topped by that ridiculous hair.

      Trump is somehow an “outsider” and not one of the “elite.” Yet he is:

      1) An elderly white male
      2) A billionaire
      3) Married to a much younger trophy model wife

      Sounds like a perfect stereotype for old school American elitism at its best.

      Enjoy your four years. By the end of it, you will likely rue the day that Trump ever got involved in politics. I hope that you maintain the same critical eye on Trump that you did on Obama – track every promise and publicize every mistake and flaw, real or perceived.

        1. They won’t (maintain the critical eye), but no doubt you are right. Trump ran for the presidency because for him, it was a game show which he wanted to win. Now that he won, he doesn’t really care much for the actual prize.

          We’ll have to wait and see where this goes, but the conventional republicans will likely simply take this win and take it in their usual direction. This may be fine for all those conventional republican voters (who voted for Trump with pinched noses), but the “rust belt” Obama voters who voted for Trump, hoping for jobs will be deeply disappointed.

          1. CBS News posted that Trump wants his kids to have top secret clearance.

            They are in his transition team, running the Trump business and most likely will be unofficial advisors to him personally.

            I really hope the conservative MDN commenters understand they didn’t vote for just Trump. They voted for an equvelant to a royal family, and the Alt-Right taking leadership roles in the executive branch.

            Trump is not taking to the tradition of leaving his wealth in a blind trust to reduce risk of conflict of interest. But ramping up, unpresidented nepotism.

            This trend is reminiscent – the likes of pre-war Iraq and North Korea. You don’t see Putin’s family getting involved in Russian politics, for example.

            This is third world behavior.

            1. The news story has been refuted, although Conway did admit that the idea (of kids getting security clearance) has been debated in the transition team. According to the American laws, while kids (and other family members) can be on the transition team (which technically isn’t a government body), they are no allowed to be a part of the actual administration. Ethic laws prohibit Trump from hiring any relatives, so none of the children will be working for the government in the near future. And for their current positions (transition team), they don’t need (nor are allowed to have) any special security clearance.

              As for the other ethical questions related to Trump Inc. corporation(s) and the brand itself, it is difficult to imagine how would he and his family extricate themselves from that colossal conflict-of-interest.

              And it has already started. All you have to do is look at today’s NY Post cover (a conservative tabloid):

              In all fairness, Trump has yet to take office, so he now has two months to divest himself (and all of his family) from all of his holdings, and there is still a chance he would actually do it (is there really, though…?)

            2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

              Non-citizen or not, I seem to know a lot more about your own country than you do.

              According to the 5 U.S.C. 3110, which deals with nepotism, says:

              “A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.”

              So, no, Trump may NOT appoint his children to any position in his government.

              JFK did NOT appoint RFK. Senate does that (appoints attorneys-general); JFK simply nominated him (which he was allowed to do).

              So, no lies yet from this non-citizen. Which can’t be said for you, citizen.

            3. Although, since JFK nominated RFK for that position, that particular section of the law has changed a bit, and now, as it is clear from the above quote, the president can not even advocate for appointment anymore.

              So, again, NO, Trump can NOT put his kids in his administration.

            4. You stated that Trump cannot appoint relatives to his administration…that is patently false as John Kennedy appointed his brother Robert to be his attorney general. ALL cabinet appointments are contingent on congressional approval you moron. Trump can appoint anyone he wants “THAT’S AN AMERICAN CITIZEN” to any fucking post he wants.

              Yet another Predrag lie exposed…it’s getting tiresome.

            5. I quoted you the relevant text from your own laws. I explained it in a simple, 5th-grade language (so that you can understand). And you still don’t understand it!

              Once again (it seems that I always have to say things twice for you to properly understand):

              A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.

              What part of that US Code did you not understand?

            6. Wouldn’t it be totally ironic that an Iraqi immigrant knew so much more about your country than you, pure white American?

              What’s really inexcusable is that the information is 15 seconds away and anyone can find it. To think that you can simply get away with such made-up stories is absurd.

              And when you look back, every time you posted something like that, it took (literally) 30 seconds to refute it, complete with proper, foolproof sources.

              You should really give up, it is truly pointless — you aren’t convincing anyone here (probably not even yourself).

  3. Betteridge’s Law of Headlines:
    “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”

    But what if it’s not a yes/no question? Then the first corollary to Betteridge’s Law applies.
    “If it’s a question regarding what Apple will look like, the answer is a pear”

    But hey, we’re all fans here (not that it absolves us from objectivity).
    In that spirit…

    Thought the curse of the Billy Goat was over? Think again.
    “What would the country look like if the Chicago Cubs won the World Series…?”
    Oh, crap… 🙁

  4. Trump likes to make deals, so here is a great opportunity. The government lowers the corporate tax rate in exchange for Apple making it computers, besides the MacPro, in US factories. Then the US government allows Apple to bring back it overseas money at a 10 or 15% tax rate in exchange for Apple starting to build a significant number of its mobile devices in the US.

    The only problem is that any factories Apple creates in the US will be primarily manned by robots and a few engineers. So Jobs was right, those lost jobs are not coming back, even if the factories do.

  5. It ain’t happening. Apple has no manufacturing facilities overseas. It does not have the expertise and does not want to spend the investment to get into manufacturing, especially in the US. It would take years to acquire land, get the permits and environmental approvals, build and outfit a factory and find and train 500,000 employees. The space ship HQ has taken nearly 10 years from concept to occupancy and they don’t even have to hire and train employees.

    1. The “Yes, We Can’t” days end January 20th…your mentality would have laughed at JFK when he proposed to send a man to the moon and back safely, you would have laughed at Teddy Roosevelt when he proposed the Panama Canal, you would have even laughed at Jobs when he took on the cell phone industry. Donald Trump cannot make America great again, but he CAN and WILL get this goddamned corrupt government out of the way so we can.

  6. Let us get one thing out of the way first: I got this one wrong (for the first time in over twenty years), and was surprised as almost everyone. Still, 600,000 more Americans voted for Hillary, so I wasn’t actually completely wrong. Interesting fact: no republican president entered the White House with the majority of popular votes since papa Bush (28 years ago). The only time a republican won the popular vote was Bush Jr, who was already in the White House, fending off Kerry. Anyway, Trump won, Hillary lost, and Trump will be the president.

    With that out of the way, here are some interesting observations from a foreigner without a horse in the fight. There is no doubt that the Republicans will take advantage of the next two years to quickly push through as much for their agenda as possible. Chances like this are rare (house, senate, the White House, in one hands), and there is no doubt, they’ll go for it.

    Now, this last presidential election has shown that America has no taste for any compromise. Neither side wants to find common ground. Obama pushed as much of the liberal agenda through as he possibly could. Trump will do the same while in office. And in either case, the losing side sees those moves as the destruction of the country. The entire Trump campaign was essentially based on the narrative that the country has been destroyed by the liberals (moral erosion with gay marriage and abortion, government encroachment on gun rights, job losses to illegal immigrants and foreign lands, etc). And the entire narrative on the liberal side is now that the country is turning to dark ages (women’s right, civil rights for immigrants, blacks, gays, loss of universal health care mandate, etc).

    The way I see it, America simply cannot exist with all Americans living happy lives. Only half can be happy at any given time; the other half will be miserable until their side is in power. It seems that only partitioning it into two halves (liberal and conservative) would make everyone happy (obviously, an absurd idea from a practical standpoint).

    What makes it worse is that neither side even bothers to listen to the other. This is very clearly on display on these pages, and it is much the same elsewhere in America. The interned gave you an echo-chamber and a filter: you listen only to the things that are inline with your thinking, and simply block stuff that you don’t like to hear. Well, I can tell you one thing: I grew up in a country where there only was one party, everyone looked and thought the same and there was only one way to butter the bread (to use figure of speech); all other ways were simply wrong and stupid. It wasn’t until I came to America that I realised that different people butter their bread in different ways, and none are by definition better than others. America used to be a place where two sides did actually listen to each other, and there were times when they came to solutions together. Long gone are the times of landslide election victory for one or the other side. Even the most vile candidate of a party will still get half of the vote, since people no longer care about the actual platforms — they simply vote for their guy. This election perfectly illustrates this: Trump was hated by majority of republicans during the primaries, yet he got the nomination, and ultimately, all the conservative votes. Hillary was reviled by very many democrats (and it is quite likely that Sanders would have received the nomination, had there not been some artificial obstacles put in his way), and yet, all the liberals voted for her.

    As for the incoming president, the most ironic thing about him is that for him, this election, as well as the presidency itself, was simply an investment in his own brand. Throughout the campaign, the Trump companies were handsomely paid by the republican campaign for various services (flying Trump and the press, staying at his hotels and resorts, etc). In a way, taxpayers have already been paying Trump Inc. for Trump’s candidacy, and there is no indication that he intends to divest himself completely from his businesses (he plans to give them to the children, who are currently working for his presidential transition team). This is a colossal tangle of conflict-of-interest that will be extremely difficult to untangle without trump simply completely selling (or giving to an unknown third party) all corporate assets. With the Trump brand already benefiting from the presidential campaign (although FourSquare and Yelp claim bookings are down, Trump declares that they are never better), and Ivanka’s clothing line getting a nice boost from this, how can anyone expect that any decision that he makes would be completely divested from Trump Inc. interests, at home or abroad?

      1. You seem to be the only one who thinks I’m deriding your country here.

        For the record (for those clueless enough not to see it form my posts so far): I have great respect for America and everything it stands for. I will not tell you what country I’m from (you don’t deserve the answer from me), your voice needn’t be added to the existing chorus of my compatriots who voice their displeasure with many thing that are wrong back home.

            1. Wouldn’t you just love that! Well, to quote someone above, “suck it!” I’m staying, and there ain’t nothing you (or Trump) can do about it. And on top of that, I’m an immigrant! Yes, I wasn’t born here, I came here and stayed, and you are free to believe that I took a job away from a qualified American (I didn’t), if that will make you fume more with anger!

            2. You got them all wrong. Again, you certainly don’t deserve an answer from me; suffice it to say, I feed a family of four (kids are in private school) and we live in Manhattan. You can do your own math and draw your own conclusions.

            3. You are not an American citizen and you continually deride this country, yet you have the audacity to take your piece of the American dream…go the fück home and raise your four kids and fix your own country, you despicable piece of shit.

            4. You are still so completely clueless.

              Once again, for those completely clueless: I have great respect for your country (otherwise, I wouldn’t be living here). And no, I am not American citizen, which is one of the reasons why you will never find anything in any of my own posts that is derisive of America or Americans. Individual ones, such as yourself, or Donald Trump, may occasionally be an exception, and even that only when they act in most stupid ways. But otherwise, my general philosophy is: deride your own country (when you’re at home).

    1. Regarding the popular vote thing: That wasn’t, and isn’t, the way to win the game. All campaigns are structured to win at least 270 electoral votes. Period. Full stop.

      Clinton racked up huge vote totals – meaningless vote totals – in NYC and California. Neither candidate campaigned in either state.

      If the way to win the game were to get the most individual votes, the campaigns would have done different things. Trump and Clinton would have campaigned in all 50 states. This, of course, is not how the presidency is won. You win by getting to 270 or more and so, you play the game with that objective. The rules were crystal clear to all participants.

      Those who claim Clinton “won” due to popular votes are fools. It’s akin to claiming that even though the Red Sox beat the Yankees 7-5, they actually lost because the Yankees happened to get 2 more hits than the Sox in that game.

      The way you win are runs (electoral votes), not by amassing hits (individual votes). The hits are merely statistical noise, the totals of which do not affect the outcome of the game. Only runs are important when determining the winner and therefore the game is played to achieve that goal.

      Trying to change the rules of the game after you’ve lost is what a three-year-old tries to do. Once. Until they immediately wise up. I suggest the idiots marching in the streets do the same.

      1. Yes, those are the rules of the game, and the game was won fair and square.

        You do have to admit, though, that those rules do sound quite weird. It took a lot of googling for me to discover what was the reasoning behind such rules, as it is very far from obvious. And I’m still struggling to understand why those rules still need to be put in place. Most foreigners, and quite many Americans, are completely clueless with respect to your electoral system. When the presidential election is won with both the electoral and popular vote, people don’t care; however, when it goes opposite ways, as it did sixteen years ago (and last week), people simply don’t understand what just took place.

        So, according to Hamilton and his “Federalist Papers”, the electoral college was to prevent a “mob democracy”, where a large group of people with common interest would end up voting for changes that would be harmful to others, or to the nation as a whole. The Electoral College was inserted between the voters and the presidency to ensure that intelligent, competent and qualified people reviewed the will of the people and adjusted it, if necessary, making sure it doesn’t damage the country. Today, those electors are simply rubber stamps for the will of the people. However, it is still quite theoretically possible that Hillary Clinton may end up winning this election if enough electors in two states (Ex: FL, plus OH or PA) voted the other way (not going to happen, as we know, but it is still technically a possibility).

        Clearly the system doesn’t do much harm to the American democracy, but every four years, a lively discussion springs up about its purpose and reason for existence. I wonder what would it take for it to be completely eliminated.

        1. If you think majority rule is so good, ask blacks if they feel that the white majority has their best interests at heart. Preventing tyranny of the majority, and most importantly, increasing the political might of low population rural areas, relative to urban areas with their own self interest, is what the founder’s were after. It’s a well thought out, fabulous system.

      2. I shouldn’t have stooped to botvinnik’s level above. I apologize.

        The fact is that Mr. Trump will be taking the oath on January 20 to “faithfully execute the duties of the office of President of the United States, and to the best of [his] ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.” He will then be our President and is entitled to the respect owed that office.

        That does not mean that any of us has a duty to support any of his policies, particularly those that in our opinion would violate the said Constitution and laws. Under our system of division of powers, changing the law is the job of Congress, not the President. Each of us, as an American, has the same right as Mr. Trump to advocate for our views to be enshrined in legislation, just as each of us has the same right to petition the third branch of government (the judiciary) to protect the rights guaranteed under the constitution and laws.

        The President-Elect clearly has a right to the office, but it is a bit of a stretch to argue that he has a mandate for his policies. He received a minority of the popular votes cast. Millions of additional registered electors chose not to vote for anybody. Even some of his own voters (perhaps as many as 20-30%) disagreed with Mr. Trump’s qualifications and policies but found Ms. Clinton even more unpalatable.

        Each of us has the right—indeed, the duty—to argue against bad public policy, particularly policies that would bend or break the constitutional right of U.S. residents to receive due process and equal protection of the laws. It is not unreasonable or unpatriotic to do so. I am not worried by Trump because I am a liberal, but precisely because I am a Republican conservative who takes the Constitution seriously.

        Some of Mr. Trump’s policies, such as a significant temporary or permanent reduction in the repatriation tax, will benefit Apple significantly. I think most of us here support that. Others of his proposed policies, such as mandating electronic equipment manufacturers to provide law enforcement with easy access to their customers’ data, would hurt Apple and are opposed by most of us.

        I suspect that most of us agree more with Steve Jobs than with Mr. Trump on whether U.S. industrial employment is ever coming back to pre-automation levels. I also suspect that most of us (perhaps not the Bernie Sanders liberals, but certainly the Reagan conservatives and Paul libertarians) feel that government interference in corporate decision-making is a bad idea. Forcing Apple to bring its manufacturing home would likely force it out of business, and it would certainly not boost blue-collar employment significantly in the long run. Automated factories hire engineers, not tool operators.

        As Jobs pointed out, where in America could you find 300,000 qualified employees (within commuting distance) to staff an iPhone factory? To attract a workforce that size, how much would you have to pay them? How much flexibility would you lose by doing your own manufacturing rather than contracting it out? How long would it take to train the workforce and build the plants to replace what is already in place in China?

        So, as always, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. That is as true now as it has ever been.

  7. Americans really deserve that fake orange fake billionaire yo-yo shit as their president. That shit will really hit the fan repeatedly next 4 years. We must hope that he gets another 4 years because that is the right punishment.

    On the other news President of the Mexico and Prime Minister of the Canada will hold a summit about the walls. One in the Canadian border and one in the Mexican border. Both wants to keep the idiots inside.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.