Apple expected to repatriate $214 billion to the U.S.; expect increased buybacks and dividends, not big acquisitions

“With the new tax structure we expect Apple will bring $214 billion back to the U.S. using a 15.5% one-time repatriation tax rate,” Gene Munster writes for Loup Ventures. “We don’t expect this cash will change Apple’s M&A philosophy, which will likely continue to be focused on sub-$1 billion technology acquisitions.”

“We do anticipate Apple will increase its share buyback by $69 billion, which will be added to the $166 billion that Apple has already spent on share repurchases from Jun-2012 to Sep-2017,” Munster writes. “Additionally, we expect Apple will increase its annual dividend by 15%, higher than the 10% increase they announced in April of both 2017 and 2016.”

“We believe Apple will maintain its debt level at the $104 billion. In theory this will leave Apple with about $150B in cash, but in practice it won’t get that low,” Munster writes. “To give a sense of Apple’s current cash generation, the company generated $31 billion in cash from Sep-16 to Sep-17. If we assume $30 billion in annual cash generation for the next 4 years implies a 2022 cash ending balance of $270 billion, unchanged from the $269B today.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: To quote Carl Sagan, “Billions and billions.”

AAPL shareholders will likely be happy if this comes to pass.

We’ll be happy when that gorgeous silver cylinder of pre-Christmas Christmas beer is tapped! Posthaste, beloved interns, posthaste!

Prost, everyone!

SEE ALSO:
Apple notches big league win with U.S. Republican tax cuts, but faces snag with taxes on foreign patents – December 21, 2017
Congressional Republicans deliver epic overhaul of U.S. tax laws to President Donald Trump – December 20, 2017

116 Comments

    1. I volunteered to help man the Suicide Prevention Hotline on Christmas Eve…whenever a despairing libtard called in, we would put him on hold, smoke a cigarette…

      and laugh and laugh and laugh.

      1. I hope you never have to deal with the suicide of a family member, loved one or neighbor. It is nothing to joke about.
        Many of us have- I lost an Uncle a couple of years back who was a Vietnam Vet and a Steelworker. Great guy who battled Depression for years.

        And as to “Libtards”, I never noticed D’s or R’s in any Veteran’s Cemetery or at Arlington. Did not see them at the Battlefield Cemetery at Normandy either.

        Show some class

          1. “Trump always lies.”

            Your absolute ignorant comment aside, just look at the economic numbers since Trump took office. You won’t find FAIR praise in the Democrat controlled MSM media …

            1. Please list the legislative changes which plump has instituted to help the economy. So far he has just been riding the same horse which was already in place.

            2. Typically, I don’t respond to posts that are removed from reality and clueless. Riding the same horse? Yeah, right. That eight-year old horse was put out to pasture permanently on Nov. 2. Personally, I prefer the glue factory, but show a little kindness for a clueless animal and its rider. Fast forward to present day Thoroughbred and the masterful rider that accomplished more in the first eleven months than ever before … 🇺🇸👍🏻🇺🇸👍🏻🇺🇸

      1. “If you like your money, you can keep your money.”
        – Donald J. Trump

        You mean if I don’t want to pay the IRS and state so “The Donald” can piss it away, I don’t have to?

        The answer would be no, unless you would like to see the inside of a prison for tax evasion. Even Mnuchin, who got a box of horse shit for Christmas won’t allow that.

    1. 84% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%. A company is under no obligation to share that tax savings with its workers and historically doesn’t trickle down because: The demand for iPhones has not changed, so why hire more or build new factories? I.E.: the top 1/10 of 1% is 400 richest owns more wealth than the bottom 90% but only buys a few hundred iPhones and socks the tax savings in stock buybacks and overseas accounts that don’t help the US economy. If the middle class gets a bigger tax cut or gets a living wage then they can buy millions of iPhones and the economy and big biz does better. Economics 101.

      1. Per your last sentence, I’ll bet you’re not a business owner? You would then know that you pay according to the skill, and or, the person’s ability, not to some prescribed number un-factored to the business. Also, pay scales that are in-line with a business profitability are sustainable and that’s truly Econ 101, not someone outside the biz determining what the pay should be. Related, is the statement alluding to larger tax cuts enable greater buying power to the mid class. It is true that tax cuts increase buying power/money circulation, but tax cuts don’t produce money…jobs do and their power is real, more sustainable and more enduring. I recommend you real a good Econ 101 book titled; Econ in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt.

      2. “84% of tax cuts go to the top 1%?” Because that percentage (approx–depending on the year) mimics taxes paid. If you think it’s odd that the cuts provided to the people that paid the most, please help me understand.
        A tax cut doesn’t mean it’s a time for gifts for all with no sense of proportion to what they paid. Paying more = greater cuts.

    1. and speaking of wanting some….

      assuming mdn is correct and more stock buybacks are in the offing, here are a couple of questions….

      has anyone ever computed the cumulative added value to each individual share of stock that has resulted from mr. apples buyback programs over the years ?

      and since most corporations have two different classes of stock: “preferred” corporate leadership and large investors, and “common” for the rest of us…

      has anyone tracked the relative proportion of each class of stock that has been bought back? not to seem to be of an overly suspicious turn of mind, but has preferred stock been the preferred stock to be bought back over the common? or vice versa? or at an even proportion?

      and thirdly has anyone computed the relative impact upon individual share value delivered by buybacks vs, had that same amount of money been put strictly into increasing our dividends ?

      1. “has anyone ever computed the cumulative added value to each individual share of stock”

        If Apple buys back, for example, 5% of the stock, then earnings per share go up by a bit more than 5.25%.

        Some of that buyback is to offset share granted as employee bonuses, but not all.

  1. Why aren’t analyst the richest people in the world. Apple will pay 15+% on money when it could pay 1+% in interest on bonds and incur no tax lability? Well, now, that does sound like a trump thing to do. Much like his casinos, people throwing money down at the casino and some how this trump = liar idiot goes bankrupt. trump can’t get an American bank to give him a dime cause he will not pay them back and then sues them, apparently for being stupid enough to give him money in the first place. HaHaHaHaHaHaHa Come on that is funny as hell.

    Hey folks, use Charles Swab online. Get some darts. Throw the darts at a list of publicly traded stocks.
    You now have done as well as any analyst. Now there is another method, a chicken on stock page, where she pecks, buy… LOL Hey youtube the research. You will be surprised.

    You know it, you can feel it, nobody is watching the candy store. Now I do not advocate stealing, but apparently with donald trump = liar you are invited to leave what you want on the counter top. Hey, hey, leave something.

    Good Grief.

    1. Debt is risk and as long as Apple can make more than 15% Present Value by repatriating the money and getting it to work it would seem to have a very good chance of making financial sense. When you have $262billion sitting around doing very little you can tell us all how you chose to solve the problem.

      1. For only about the fifteenth time, IT DOESN’T MATTER how much return Apple can get on the offshore cash, either here in America or where it is now! It does not matter how low its cost of borrowing money. It will owe the taxes whether it brings the money back or not. Payment is mandatory, not optional.

        This is not actually a tax on income or a repatriation tax, but a property tax on wealth currently held overseas by US taxpayers. Once the tax is paid, Apple is free to move the post-tax remainder wherever it likes. Leaving the money owed for the tax overseas and instead borrowing to pay the tax makes no sense. It will not reduce Apple’s tax liability by a penny. Why is this difficult to understand?

    1. Just so you know, I’m conservative,

      BUT I’M NO ONE’S FOOL.
      I HAVE EYES AND I CHOOSE TO SEE.
      I’M NOT ON A TEAM, THIS IS NOT BASEBALL, FOOTBALL, …

      LET THE LIE (donald trump talking) HIT YOU WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT YOU.

      Ted, open your eyes. You don’t know donald trump.
      You don’t live with him. You don’t exchange Christmas presents. He doesn’t visit you or family. Come on. At least see the man for what he is. Hell you can enjoy the show. Love the stupid crap he does, but at least see he is a butt.

      Know also this trump guy is a traitor and a coward. You know he told Flynn to make those calls. You know his son talked to him about the Russians and you see how he sneaks off to have quiet conversions with Putin. Ever seen the movie Paton. trump has been laundering money for these criminals for a long time now. If he had any balls (excuse me ladies) he would say he told Flynn to make the calls. Hell we could almost forgive that. We know trump knows nothing about the law, well other than being a defendant in a Civil Suit. You want conservative policies, trump is not the only conservative in America. … Oh, wait… Flynn doesn’t get off that easy though. That guy is a traitor to the nation and to the uniform. Hell I’m almost willing to let trump have a pass on going to jail, to give Flynn the death penalty. Almost, but trump can’t remain President. trump is a liar, traitor, conman, sexual abuser, racist, and fool. (way stronger language is deserved, but macdailynews is kind enough to let use post here, so we can certainly be respectful enough to watch our choice of words.)

      The russians are not our friends and would love to prove America is a corrupt place, where the high vaulted democracy claim to love is a lie, and Americans are fat lazy, son of ….., that are only interested in their money.

      If you are going to join a team, try the one that doesn’t measure freedom by how much it pays or does not pay in taxes.

      Fellow, I guess I’m telling you to grow up.

      1. BGB, respectfully, you don’t sound very conservative.

        You don’t see how little “evidence” of the Russia kerfuffle has escaped side splitting derision?

        I know that I don’t know the truth, but I am willing to wait and see what a true and faire airing of the facts leads to. I have seen that a lot of things that have been said about the man have been dramatically overblown or outright lied about….so much so that he was able to win an election with over 90% of the stories written about him being negative…..so I am not the only one who thinks a lot of the things said about him don’t pass the smell test.

        Merry Christmas and Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year

        1. he doesn’t need to sound conservative, or even liberal, he and all of us just need to be bright enough to see what is happening.

          one should not let his or her political perspective blind them to the sins of their own side while condemning the same or similar sins of their opponents.

          personally i refused to vote for either hillary or trump, they are, in my opinion, both deeply dishonest and unworthy of the office.

          so while hillary is rightfully condemned for her deeply suspicious pay to play accusations about contributions to the clinton foundation, from foreign entities while she was secretary of state, nobody other than robert mueller seems interested in exploring the potential influence of russian oligarchs connected to putin who have financed trumps business interests for years. (because american banks refuse to loan him any more money )

          so if hillary had been elected i cannot imagine that conservative watch dogs would not be clamoring for an investigation of her state/foundations ties and how would they feel if she refused to release her taxes so we could figure out any possible connections.

          but where are the conservative voices calling for trump to release his taxes, and what they might reveal, after he promised during the campaign that he would do so?

          people jump all over accusations that hillary backed the sale of 20% of american uranium resources to a russian company

          but those same forks seem undisturbed that trump refuses to even recognize the efforts of the russian govt. to undermine our democracy, let alone do anything about it.

          we as a nation need to get past our current tribal approach to national policy and politics and hold both sides to the same standards.

          we can start by asking ourselves if we find certain actions of our political opponents to be unacceptable why do we over look the same or similar actions by our own side ?

          crookery is crookery no matter who does it and it should be unacceptable when done by either side.

          we need to get a grip or we may find ourselves losing our grip on our american democracy, imperfect though it may be.

          1. “we need to get a grip or we may find ourselves losing our grip on our american democracy…”

            uh, hey, Mr. Stupid, the United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Democracies cannot protect the rights of the individual, as any 7th grade American civics student would know…
            “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.”

            1. oh botty,

              back to your same old tired bag of tricks, unable to refute a previous point made by someone else, you then slide onto something unrelated and demand “oh yeah? well what about….”

              always having to try to have the last word

              neither a very convincing nor intellectually honest response.

              go take a nap, you are too cranky.

              yer pal, the good doctor

      2. Another example:

        You wonder why people call ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. and so on “Fake News?”
        This NYPOST article is a must-read.
        “Politico published a jaw-dropping, meticulously sourced investigative piece this week detailing how the Obama administration had secretly undermined US law enforcement agency efforts to shut down an international drug-trafficking ring run by the terror group Hezbollah. The effort was part of a wider push by the administration to placate Iran and ensure the signing of the nuclear deal.
        Obama protected Hezbollah drug ring to save Iran nukes deal
        Obama protected Hezbollah drug ring to save Iran nukes deal
        Now swap out “Trump” for “Obama” and “Russia” for “Iran” and imagine the eruption these revelations would generate. Because, by any conceivable journalistic standard, this scandal should’ve triggered widespread coverage and been plastered on front pages across the country. By any historic standard, the scandal should elicit outrage regarding the corrosion of governing norms from pundits and editorial boards.”

        https://nypost.com/2017/12/21/a-deafening-media-silence-on-the-obama-hezbollah-scandal/

        1. Right on, TMac.

          The media has simply lost ALL CREDIBILITY since the election of President Trump.

          MSM are 24/7 reporting every scintilla of negative reporting against Trump, while at the same time, 24/7 covering up for the corrupt Obama administration and crooked Hillary.

          Fingers crossed justice will soon prevail …

      1. the liberal mindset that she feel bad about having $$ that others don’t. Or, more correctly, she blame the other recipients of the 1k, so she can more enjoy spending.

        1. The moderate and liberal mindsets don’t worry about a $1K bonus. It’s the Trillion dollar free ride for the Billionaires Boy’s Club while the minimum wage is still well below the poverty level.

    1. Interesting fact: AT&T (like BoA) is giving a $1000 bonus to 200,000 of its employees. That sum, in total, is only eight times larger than the annual salary it pays to its CEO.

      My guess is that the bonuses for all those BoA employees will likewise be less than an order of magnitude greater than what several of its individual top executives are paid. Unlike most of the line employees, the executives are heavily vested in company stock options that will shoot up due to the planned stock buybacks. Most of that income will be taxable at the reduced capital gains rate, while the regular employees’ bonuses are taxable as ordinary income.

      Giving bonuses and pointing out the changes in withholding is a lot cheaper for these companies than actually raising employee salaries. The executives will get much richer in real terms (and be taxed less on their income) while the working stiffs, at best, just keep up with the inflation that the increased government deficits and borrowing will cause.

      All the Trump supporters on this site have criticized Apple for having a Social Justice Warrior mindset. Yet even Apple is devoting most of the money freed up by the Trump Tax Act to directly benefiting its shareholders (including its executives) in the short run, rather than to investing in infrastructure or creating jobs for the long run. Assuming that is also what less liberal companies do, where is the “trickledown” that is supposed to benefit the middle and working classes?

      1. Companies don’t create a new campus and dedicate it to new jobs, for job’s sake. They start with a reason for budgeted R&D, because it’s in their plan. To do otherwise is risky and lacking business sense. It is something govt does and govt isn’t very good with biz sense.
        Trickle down occurs when more $$ circulates. Some may bank it, some may invest. In both cases, the availability of $$ (velocity) enables/promotes individuals/companies to invest, which often translates to others experiencing the $$.
        TXUser, do you see/expect that trickle down means, Bob/Mary/John are going to mysteriously find a new wad in their pocket because some company/individual received some sort of financial windfall? Same question if the economy grows?

        I know many think trickle down is a farce and that’s a discussion for another time, but I’m curious what the more liberal/progressive expects to happen when the wealthier receive a windfall, tax credit? Are they to be castigated b/c they might be wealthy, castigated because their investment wrought them a heathy return/cap gain, castigated because their gain isn’t shared with others as a “community gain,” all the while, forgetting their gain is shared to the community via taxes? Maybe it’s expected there be another type of sharing of their wealth? Speaking of taxes, are the savvy, smart & knowledgable to be castigated/besmirched if they use the US tax laws to defer/diminish their tax owed?

        Just to give my experience of trickle down. I was hired by a company, owned by a rich man, who was once scraping and looking for capitol. His smarts and ongoing tenacious efforts made him $250 million by age 25. In addition, his efforts resurrected a dying company and his company’s stock grew more than 1000%. A low level employee saved his company stock purchases (less than $6/share–pre split) and now doesn’t need to work anymore. One man’s riches, wrought from effort & intelligence, trickled down to another (not rich) and made him rich. In my world, trickle-down worked and does work. Is this not trickle-down? If not, what am I missing?

        1. forgot to mention….with the aforementioned gains, I’ve invested in real estate that’s employed people directly and indirectly, including blue to white collar types. That doesn’t include the increased resources spent on personal matters. Trickle from person to person.

          1. Simple Econ,

            I absolutely agree with you that “trickledown” works when the people at the top invest in the economy. Your former employer is an example of that, and so are you.

            Where it does not work is if the people at the top just pocket the money without passing it on. From all indications, that is what the major recipients of these tax benefits plan to do with them. My point was that even a socially conscious firm like Apple seems to be doing that.

            If these tax cuts had been combined with cutting government spending and avoiding any increase in deficits, the net effect on the overall money supply and economic activity would have been zero. For every extra dollar that the recipients of the cuts spent, the government would spend one dollar less. What would change is that there would be less governmental redistribution of wealth from the people who pay for government services to those who provide and receive them. We could debate whether that is a good idea—most Republicans and conservatives think that it is—but it doesn’t matter in this case because that isn’t this tax cut.

            This tax cut leaves government spending essentially intact and replaces the loss of revenue with an increased issuance of government debt. Yes, that means that more money will be circulating, which will have the stimulation benefits you describe.

            You could achieve that same effect with a tax reform like the one the President and Speaker originally promised—one that substantially cut the overall tax burden on the middle class and that made the benefits for corporations and the wealthy contingent on investment in America. That promise was a very large part of Mr. Trump’s election victory.

            That isn’t this tax cut, either. Middle-class families will be paying a higher proportion of government revenue, not a smaller one. They will be contributing a larger slice to a pie that is smaller because so much more of the federal budget is going to be financed with debt. There are no additional inducements for investment in America and some of the existing ones have been reduced. This bill guarantees that the rich will get richer with no mechanism for making sure that anyone else benefits substantially as well.

            If all you want to do is increase the money supply, there also is the nakedly liberal approach: the economy-stimulating effects of having more money in circulation could be achieved simply by increasing government spending without a tax increase. The effect on the national debt would be no worse than the impact of this bill, and it would avoid the issues connected with the increasing concentration of most of America’s wealth in less than 1% of its people.

            That is clearly a bridge too far. Nevertheless, even a Republican fiscal conservative like me can see that pursuing a strategy of taxing the poor to benefit the rich might have very, very bad consequences. Ask Louis XVI or Alexander II.

            1. Oops, I meant Nicholas II (married to Alexandra). Tsar Alexander II was a liberal, assassinated by a populist. I wish you could go back to correct mistakes on this site.

              The point remains.

            2. The basic issue goes way beyond the “trickle-down” theory of economic growth, which is positively Dickensian. (It could be called the “table scraps theory”…)

              The true test of a fair & just social & economic system was described by John Rawls in his book: A Theory of Justice.

              The idea is simple and goes something like this: what society would we want to design and live in …when we cannot know in advance what our position in that society would be.

              I don’t think most wealthy people would consider themselves lucky to have been poor, unfortunate, or unhealthy in our great country. This, to me, is truly sad.

            3. No, it does not work in a mature low demand economy.

              Tax policy is and has been used to force companies and people to carry out certain behaviors, cause it is the nature of those entities to not spend money on things not needed. (redistribution that a result, maybe)

              If you want to create jobs congress is the wrong place to go work. One should start a business, then hire people, doing all the things that would create a healthy business. If you are in government and promising to create jobs, then you should be trying to figure out how to create government jobs.

              The republicans are just in congress to make money. Cutting government spending and cutting taxes is no guarantee of jobs creation. One only needs to look at societies around the world where there are no taxes, or extremely low taxation, and little to no government services or little no government regulation to see proof.

              The theory were government cuts spending there by allowing more money to be available for business is a straw man, has been ever since the research paper was written to introduce it. In order for it to be valid one would have to assume that there will always be a set amount of money allowed out or placed into society.(the central banks in place in different countries) That has not proven to be the case. One only needs to look at how many more billionaires and millionaire are in existence now compared to 30 years ago. The theory sounds good, probably due more to hearing it in Econ 100, so we got that question right on the test, mainly cause we were told that what it is. The thing is few of us continue on to Econ 600, in which many other variables are included and need to be consider if one wants to set policy for creating a growing productive policy for a society.

              Regulations are an important job creator. Take water for example. A government places demands on what is considered to be clean water, fit for consumption by its public, and demands water sold to its public must meet those standards. Take a look at the job creation that occurs from that regulation. White collar and blue collar jobs are created, engineers like, chemical, electrical, mechanical, environmental, scientist, like chemist, biologist, labors like electricians, plumbers, carpenters, earth movers, concrete worker, steelworker, wire worker, plastic workers, … I hope you are getting the idea, cause I left out the miners and producers of the raw materials. There are other regulations that are create by government because of people’s bad behavior that create jobs. An example would be regulation on the stock market. Insider trading is an easy way to get rich, and one may argue in a free market what’s the problem. People should be free to give tips to each other, hide information to maximize one’s profits. Well, ok, but after a while the public gets hip. hahaha. The public would make a decision that participating in such a market is a waste for them because they are always at a disadvantage. The public would want a party that would be impartial to make sure information is not shared in such a fashion and that any information is given to the public freely and without preference. Jobs: yes paper pushers, but jobs, people at those companies that compile that information. Designers, computer managers, marketers, personnel managers, not the mention architects, steel works, concrete works, … you see those jobs right? A place for those people to work, a building or at least more space.

              So, regulations are not the job killers the republicans scream they are. Nor is trickle down the end all be all solution to growing an economy. Dependence on the guy at the top letting the crumbs fall through is no way to run an economy. The war on the rich, please. The rich have big money to spend on this War on them, great marketing. Well, with their money what should one expect. That’s right, the best marketing money can buy.

              yeah, yeah i’m off work, plenty of time…

            4. “Where it does not work is if the people at the top just pocket the money without passing it on. From all indications, that is what the major recipients of these tax benefits plan to do with them.”

              DEFINE “all indications.” Of course you cannot and simply your leftist opinion.

              “This tax cut leaves government spending essentially intact and replaces the loss of revenue with an increased issuance of government debt.”

              Well, unlike under Obama which issued RECORD 10 trillion in debt over eight years and returned ZERO tax money to U.S. citizens. — 1.5 trillion is a pittance by comparison.

              Once the economy roars and dynamic scoring kicks in the debt number will greatly reduce if not eliminated entirely. Either way, this time debt is spent on ALL the people and not just the Democrat special interests we saw with Obama’s failed and politically targeted “stimulus” spending.

              “Middle-class families will be paying a higher proportion of government revenue, not a smaller one.”

              Middle-class families will be getting more money in their pay checks come February. That is a lower proportion of tax money to the Feds, not a higher one.

              “This bill guarantees that the rich will get richer with no mechanism for making sure that anyone else benefits substantially as well.”

              Unless I’m wrong, your point is you have a problem with successful companies (the dreaded evil rich) given tax breaks to grow their companies on their OWN, without government STRINGS. How mighty conservative of you. Well, we shall see if they all pocket the money or MAGA.

              “If all you want to do is increase the money supply, there also is the nakedly liberal approach: the economy-stimulating effects of having more money in circulation could be achieved simply by increasing government spending without a tax increase.”

              Advocating the “nakedly liberal approach.” Let me ponder that for a moment self-described straight, white male conservative. Ummm, NOT!

              More specifically, you continue the liberal big spending government meme as the ONLY SOLUTION. Yeah, 10 trillion in new debt over eight years and please tell the rest of the class how more of the failed Democrat policies will work this time around.

              Whether the tax cuts will work better than debt incurred government spending remains to be seen. If you remember history, it certainly worked under presidents JFK and Reagan.

              “Nevertheless, even a Republican fiscal conservative like me …”

              I’m in stitches rolling on the floor laughing. TWO WORDS: YOU LIE …

        2. Simple — you are giving an example of a brilliant entrepreneur building up a company in response to demand for some product. But that is not an example of supposed trickle down.

          Say the government gave him a huge tax break — $50million.
          The demand is the same. So he has no reason to build another factory. Who’s going to buying the product? Not the workers with their $18 tax break per week? Where such money overwhelmingly goes is into the offshore bank accounts.

          Now let’s say the goverment gave him a $25mil break and gave the other $25mil break to his workers. Let’s pretend that is 1000 people getting $25,000 each. Can you imagine the tsunami of economic activity that would unleash!? 1000 people with an extra $25,000 per year plus an owner with $25,000,000 to invest to expand to meet the demand.

          Throwing nearly all the money at the ultrarich is not going to work. Just look at other countries where the split between the rich and poor is even more obscene than in the US. The money is not trickling down. If any of the conservative readers are here are “working joes”… you are so fucked. Let’s talk in a year or two.

      2. “Interesting fact: AT&T (like BoA) is giving a $1000 bonus to 200,000 of its employees.”

        Great news!

        “That sum, in total, is only eight times larger than the annual salary it pays to its CEO.”

        Awh, not good news and not good enough for you. Those greedy CEOS.

        “My guess is that the bonuses for all those BoA employees will likewise be less than an order of magnitude greater than what several of its individual top executives are paid.”

        “My guess?” Doctor IF is back!

        “Giving bonuses and pointing out the changes in withholding is a lot cheaper for these companies than actually raising employee salaries.”

        Correct, so what exactly do you not like in this GOOD NEWS story?

        “The executives will get much richer in real terms (and be taxed less on their income) while the working stiffs, at best, just keep up with the inflation that the increased government deficits and borrowing will cause.”

        That is a projection opinion, NOT FACT. Only time will tell.

        “All the Trump supporters on this site have criticized Apple for having a Social Justice Warrior mindset.”

        Yeah, include me many times. And your point exactly is?

        “Yet even Apple is devoting most of the money freed up by the Trump Tax Act to directly benefiting its shareholders (including its executives) in the short run, rather than to investing in infrastructure or creating jobs for the long run.”

        Wow! Talk about CLUELESS! The tax act was signed yesterday and today you know ALL ABOUT what Apple will do. Unbelievable.

        “Assuming that is also what less liberal companies do, where is the “trickledown” that is supposed to benefit the middle and working classes?”

        “Assuming,” more Doctor IF.

        “…where is the “trickledown…”

        Hey FAKE conservative, you just LOVE those denigrating Democrat labels and can’t help yourself. They mean NOTHING. Like I said above, the act was signed yesterday. Putting aside your impatience the so called “trickledown” will play out and when the positives kick in down the road, you will be eating a big fresh pie of crow …

        1. AT&T is firing over 1000 people, too. It will pay for most of the the $1000 bonus ‘blood money’ to others. You don’t brag about that, do you ?

          1. I don’t work for AT&T, so no bragging here. Simply acknowledgement of a good corporate move, RARE the last eight years when big business and profit was under siege daily. Sorry to hear about the layoffs. But I guarantee not one spec of blood will be on the money …

    1. I don’t think lack of money had much to do with Apple not updating their computers more often. Just to update CPUs, GPUs and memory each year wouldn’t add up to very much money. Look at struggling HP, a company always short on cash. They don’t have much of a problem updating their consumer computers on a yearly basis. Apple just seems to be too focused on the iPhone more than anything else. How much could it cost to update the MacMini each year. There’s almost nothing to that computer. A processor with integrated graphics. I bet it wouldn’t even cost $50 per unit to swap older with newer components on base models. I’m pretty certain Apple just doesn’t give a fig about low-end products.

      1. I was being facetious. They’ve always had plenty of money just not plenty of will or situational awareness of what customers want and expect from a premium device maker. Apple must think if the year to year improvements in components aren’t big enough they choose to ignore them failing to appreciate the value of at least appearing to be up to date or “cutting edge.” Every Mac should be upgraded yearly like they used to be. It not only makes great perceptual sense it makes sense for stimulating sales.

    2. Exactly what I was thinking, PB.

      The billion dollar APPLE behemoth monster corporation of all time with thousands of employees and the most sophisticated artful modern workplace digs, also of all time — and they cannot keep a handful of products updated, fresh, cutting edge and the best computers the world has ever seen. No excuse!!!

      Whoopsie, well they do have myopic beancounter Cook, unfortunately …

  2. History has a way of repeating itself. Past massive tax cuts have led to significant economic downturns. And yet here we are again. Politicians on the right once again assuring us it will somehow be different this time, i.e. companies will invest in expansion rather than self-profiting; economic growth will be spurred to never before seen heights. Yet, trickle down economics is just that: a mere trickle of what would result if business put country first rather than their own insideous greed.

    1. What do you do with a pay increase, tax refund, or a financial gift? If you don’t spend it now, it’s spent at some point, no? One can’t spend $$ that’s not in your possession. Assuming yes for an individual, same for a business, no?
      Could you please explain how your the ideal re: your last sentence would be lived? How does a business that puts “country first” contrast to those with “insidious greed? Do they do it at the expense of security/survival of their business?
      Maybe you could give comment on “Simple econ” above as it’s related?

Reader Feedback

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