APPLE’S TIM COOK: THE ANTI-PROGRESSIVE
Apple CEO Tim Cook offered a blunt and searing critique of the Democratic Party’s core message for 2016 during his recent “60 Minutes” interview.
“Total political crap.”
Cook was responding specifically to allegations that Apple has been engaged in “a sophisticated scheme to pay little or no corporate taxes on $74 billion in revenues held overseas,” but the question posed by Charlie Rose fairly captured the defining anti-corporate and anti-free enterprise direction of today’s Democratic Party.
In a year that has seen a disproportionate amount of coverage of Donald Trump’s outlandish statements, scant attention has been paid to the radical leftward shift of the “modern” Democratic Party. What’s more ridiculous, Trump proposing to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, or an entire political party that wants to build a socialist utopia and make you pay for it?
Evidence for the Democratic Party’s economic extremism is mounting. Earlier this year YouGov found that socialism is as popular as capitalism among millennial Democrats. Meanwhile, the Democratic primary debates have become tedious forums of anti-corporate one-upmanship. Liberal commentators such as E.J. Dionne are applauding this onslaught of progressive pabulum, but America’s innovators and job creators aren’t impressed. In fact, when asked to respond to the substance of the Democrat’s message, CEOs like Cook sound like surrogates for Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush.
Consider this exchange between Rose and Cook:
Rose: How do you feel when you go before Congress and they say you’re a tax avoider?
Cook: What I told them and — what I’ll tell you and — and the folks watching tonight is we pay more taxes in this country than anyone.
Rose: Well, they know that. And you should because of how much money you make.
Cook: Well, I don’t deny that. We happily pay it.
Rose: But you also have more money overseas, probably, than any other —
Cook: We do.
Rose: — American company?
Cook: Because as I said before, two-thirds of our business is over there.
Rose: Yeah, but why don’t [you?] bring that home, is the question?
Cook: I’d love to bring it home.
Rose: Why don’t you?
Cook: Because it would cost me 40 percent to bring it home. And I don’t think that’s a reasonable thing to do. This is a tax code, Charlie, that was made for the industrial age, not the digital age. It’s backwards. It’s awful for America. It should have been fixed many years ago. It’s past time to get it done.
This exchange captures America’s choice in 2016. Will our next president look forward and fight to update our laws, or defend the policies of the past? Will we reward politicians who demonize innovators, or will we elect someone who sees his (or her) job as creating an environment in which the next Apple can emerge.
The bottom line is this: Apple works. Government doesn’t. Apple occupies itself with developing its next product. Government occupies itself with developing the next regulation. Ask yourself, would you rather spend an afternoon navigating the Department of Veterans Affairs or your iPad? The V.A. is so complicated not even its own employees know how to use it. My iPhone, on the other, is so simple my two-year-old knows how to use it.
The “60 Minutes” segment includes a tour of Apple’s new corporate headquarters that will be larger than the Pentagon. It’s an apt comparison. While many observers are focusing on Cook’s views on the encryption debate, his ideas about basic economics have greater implications for our national — not just economic — security.
As vital as our military efforts against ISIS may be, our markets and ideas will do more to win the multigenerational struggle against terrorism.
http://opportunitylives.com/tim-cook-the-anti-progressive/
“Total political crap.”
Cook was responding specifically to allegations that Apple has been engaged in “a sophisticated scheme to pay little or no corporate taxes on $74 billion in revenues held overseas,” but the question posed by Charlie Rose fairly captured the defining anti-corporate and anti-free enterprise direction of today’s Democratic Party.
In a year that has seen a disproportionate amount of coverage of Donald Trump’s outlandish statements, scant attention has been paid to the radical leftward shift of the “modern” Democratic Party. What’s more ridiculous, Trump proposing to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, or an entire political party that wants to build a socialist utopia and make you pay for it?
Evidence for the Democratic Party’s economic extremism is mounting. Earlier this year YouGov found that socialism is as popular as capitalism among millennial Democrats. Meanwhile, the Democratic primary debates have become tedious forums of anti-corporate one-upmanship. Liberal commentators such as E.J. Dionne are applauding this onslaught of progressive pabulum, but America’s innovators and job creators aren’t impressed. In fact, when asked to respond to the substance of the Democrat’s message, CEOs like Cook sound like surrogates for Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush.
Consider this exchange between Rose and Cook:
Rose: How do you feel when you go before Congress and they say you’re a tax avoider?
Cook: What I told them and — what I’ll tell you and — and the folks watching tonight is we pay more taxes in this country than anyone.
Rose: Well, they know that. And you should because of how much money you make.
Cook: Well, I don’t deny that. We happily pay it.
Rose: But you also have more money overseas, probably, than any other —
Cook: We do.
Rose: — American company?
Cook: Because as I said before, two-thirds of our business is over there.
Rose: Yeah, but why don’t [you?] bring that home, is the question?
Cook: I’d love to bring it home.
Rose: Why don’t you?
Cook: Because it would cost me 40 percent to bring it home. And I don’t think that’s a reasonable thing to do. This is a tax code, Charlie, that was made for the industrial age, not the digital age. It’s backwards. It’s awful for America. It should have been fixed many years ago. It’s past time to get it done.
This exchange captures America’s choice in 2016. Will our next president look forward and fight to update our laws, or defend the policies of the past? Will we reward politicians who demonize innovators, or will we elect someone who sees his (or her) job as creating an environment in which the next Apple can emerge.
The bottom line is this: Apple works. Government doesn’t. Apple occupies itself with developing its next product. Government occupies itself with developing the next regulation. Ask yourself, would you rather spend an afternoon navigating the Department of Veterans Affairs or your iPad? The V.A. is so complicated not even its own employees know how to use it. My iPhone, on the other, is so simple my two-year-old knows how to use it.
The “60 Minutes” segment includes a tour of Apple’s new corporate headquarters that will be larger than the Pentagon. It’s an apt comparison. While many observers are focusing on Cook’s views on the encryption debate, his ideas about basic economics have greater implications for our national — not just economic — security.
As vital as our military efforts against ISIS may be, our markets and ideas will do more to win the multigenerational struggle against terrorism.
http://opportunitylives.com/tim-cook-the-anti-progressive/
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
... the Democratic Party’s core message for 2016... that Apple has been engaged in “a sophisticated scheme to pay little or no corporate taxes...
The Dems' "core message" is about Apple's tax evasion?
We're supposed to take such ridiculous idea seriously??
Don't think we should feel too badly for Apple or it's management team...repurchasing Apple stock to the tune of $24 Billion in the last 6 months! I think management is pretty confident in its continued success, regulations and taxes be damned.
True.
There's something... icky... about Big Business CEOs, whose companies are raking in zillions, and are themselves raking in many many millions... playing the "poor persecuted" because somebody wants them to pay their fair share of taxes.
So the taxes they pay abroad on income earned and generated there aren't their fair share?
Taxes are not "fair". They are law.
They pay way above their fair share. Saying otherwise is just political rhetoric used to inflame the sheep.
But if we changed our corporate income tax strategy and rates, we could benefit by having tens of billions of dollars earned by American companies doing business abroad brought back here. Some like the democrats he mentioned would rather get 40% of nothing than 20% of tens of billions.
... because Big Business would suddenly cease to avoid taxes if we lowered the rate...
It is well known that when rates are lower that compliance is higher. Laugh all you want.
... because Big Business would suddenly cease to avoid taxes if we lowered the rate...
To which I can only add;
No one "avoids" taxes. They follow the tax code. How much extra do you volunteer each year?
Its a good point. Even he said he'd like to bring that money home, but it makes no fiscal sense. As to the comment for 'fair share', what is that? Who determines that? Should someone make more than someone else? What if they are an innovator? An Inventor? Again, who determines what is fair? The armchair statesmen on Newstalkers?
The laws and tax code in the U.S. and many states are anti-business. Without business, where does the money come from?
In that same documentary, Cook claims he keeps manufacturing in China because US employees aren't able to do the job. Seriously?
Excellent!
Tim Cook is a CEO. That means he is paid -- very very BIG bucks -- to maximize Apple's profits. He is NOT paid to propose tax policy that would be good for the USA; he is paid to propose tax policy that would be good for Apple.
Duh!!!
He is NOT paid to propose tax policy that would be good for the USA;
We had someone like that as a candidate not so long ago . But his reputation was "tarred & feathered" until he left the race for president . Now we have Obama who thinks his job is to turn everyone into a poor black person . Is that just revenge on white people [and middle class blacks too ] ?
Tim Cook is on point. If the left had their way we would drive all business and investment overseas. How hard is that to understand? Whenever you hear a liberal talk about "fair share" you can generally conclude that they understand nothing about taxes, investment, business or math.
I wish this incomprehension stopped at such economic matters but it doesn't . When someone "gets religion" it affects all of their thought processes ...
The progressive left would starve the economy and have no growth at all if the alternative was growth and increased revenues due to lower taxes.