yeah an obvious way to improve the program is to require the applicant to have much more added value than the average American worker. I would argue that salary is the best but still a very poor indicator. What about fields where the average salary is low like agriculture or areas like North Dakota where the cost of living is low and therefore salaries are low? I think the USCIS should start to calculate these numbers per industry and geographical area
Some background, this is regarding the intermediate status once you have maxed out your 2 H1b visas for 3 years, and have applied for a green card. There are queues per country, with the one for India being the longest at 12 year (1).
Not allowing green card petitioners to stick around will hit hundred of thousands of foreigners that are almost certain eligible for a green card, but just have the bad luck of being stuck in a queue. They will have to leave the USA and many will abandon their green card efforts.
I'm sure a lot of employers will not like this, so the chance of this happening would seem slim. However with the current government one never knows.
Finally! I love Apple but taxes should be paid. There is a difference between legal and ethical and US companies should begin to understand that. So hopefully others will follow suit.
The difference between legal and ethical is irrelevant in this case. Both Apple and Ireland had an agreement regarding Apple's taxes which was deemed illegal by the EU.
Apple and Ireland can count themselves lucky not to be additionally fined, since the likelihood that Apple's or Ireland's lawyers were unaware of the existing EU state aid laws are very slim.
I used to think this -- but then I heard the argument that if Apple was to behave "ethically" and pay the taxes that technically the law requires that they dont, then the shareholders can sue the company for not acting in their best interest.
Even if the above isn't true (not a lawyer) we cannot rely on ethics alone, it will have to be enforced by law, otherwise nobody will do it
> if Apple was to behave "ethically" and pay the taxes that technically the law requires that they dont, then the shareholders can sue the company
Well yes, but you know there's a shade of gray between engaging in complex, aggressive tax planning schemes and handing out unsolicited donations to the IRS.
A company's board is perfectly within its mandate to say it pays tax for its profits where it is incorporated, when the profits are made (and not delaying foreign profits in a tax havens). Because this is the very normal thing that almost all normal corporations do. The board is just as well within its mandate to say they do it for PR reasons to demonstrate corporate social responsibility.
For example, Nokia during its heyday happily paid a fair share of its taxes in Finland, eventhough they definitely had access and capability for all the tax dodging schemes in the world.
If Nokia had instead gone to the lengths Apple does to cut taxes and invested that money back in the company they might still be thriving as an independent entity today...ultimately generating far more benefit for the Finnish economy over the long run than being a shrinking Microsoft division.
I admit to the irony, but sadly they could have never saved enough profits to turn around the company. They could have at best delayed the inevitable further down the road..
There's another way to twist that: cheating the people out of their government's revenue is a fine way to build up negative goodwill. That has a longer term cost.
There was a recent incident in France in which people protested outside an Apple store for them to "pay their taxes."
Apple wasn't explicitly breaking the law, however customers are entitled to vote with their wallets, and showing their vote will likely have some effect on the company.
I'm not saying that one protest will have a massive impact on Apple's bottom line; just that:
1. protesting is a sign that the tax issue is an area customers care about, and those out protesting are likely a very small minority of those who feel that way.
2. the act of companies' feigned goodwill for a net profit could extend to any area customers care about, including legal vs ethical tax practices.
this is not exactly true, no[0]. The law's intent is to give shareholders a means of legal action if the leadership at a company destroys shareholder value for their own gain.
That's a great argument in theory, but that isn't the way those laws work. The thought experiment is trotted out frequently to justify any type of corporate race to the bottom.
It isn't anything more than a misleading misreading of corporate law.
This supposed legal responsibility to be cut-throat capitalists is somewhat mythical. You can't just give money away without justification. But management has extremely wide discretion in their decision-making. Almost all companies donate to non-profits, for example. Yes, you can argue that it is good for PR. But that argument also works for anything else that someone, somewhere, would consider "ethical behaviour".
Specifically for this case: there is no obligation to establish a super-complicated tax structure to lower your tax rate to 0.5%. Otherwise, 498 of the Fortune 500 would run afoul of it.
We probably can't rely on ethics, or, to use the term I prefer, "integrity" (doing the right thing even when nobody is looking). But that doesn't mean that we cannot fault companies for behaving unethically. If we expect people not to always exploit each others weaknesses in the pursuit of money, why not expect the same from companies? Corporations are people, after all.
> but then I heard the argument that if Apple was to behave "ethically" and pay the taxes that technically the law requires that they dont, then the shareholders can sue the company for not acting in their best interest.
I've never considered central banks printing money to acquire majority interests in public companies in order to compel them to pay their taxes while preventing shareholder actions against them for doing so until this comment.
If Apple wanted to prioritize benefits to its home country (America) by avoiding use of ex-U.S. tax minimization schemes, it need only ask its owners (shareholders) for permission to do that.
I think Apple has enough market power to put shareholder return and tax benefits to its nation of origin at similar priorities. It would be interesting to see what Apple's shareholders would say, if asked.
That’s not really true, if it ever was. These days, officers and directors are quite insulated from law suits like that. The decision to pay more than you have to has to reach a level of just lighting money on fire, not taking less conservative tax positions.
Activist shareholders are the bigger source of risk.
> then the shareholders can sue the company for not acting in their best interest.
Sure, this COULD happen, but it is so rare to happen that it is incredibly unlikely. And has there even been a case of shareholders suing for a company not evading taxes enough? I doubt it, since all companies DO NOT do this.
We cannot rely on corporate ethics, that much is obvious.
But we can still make damn sure we expect ethical behaviour, and lobby for change where we can, and make our displeasure known through our purchasing habits and more direct communication.
I don't see this as an ethical issue on the part of Apple (or, for that matter, any other taxpayer). I don't think anyone does any soul-searching about their tax deductions, nor should they. The soul-searching happens when we decide what the taxes and deductions are in the first place.
US corporations will finally be more competitive on their effective income tax rates, with such nations as: Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, China, Switzerland, Czech, Taiwan, Egypt, Estonia, Iceland, Israel, Italy, South Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Vietnam, Thailand and so on.
All of those nations have significantly lower effective rates.
That's not accurate. Considering the enormous loopholes, corporations in the US actually pay something comparable to these other developed countries. The average company pays something between 12% [1] and 22% [2] -- much less than the ostensible tax rate. (See also [3,4].) Now we have nearly all the same loopholes and a lower base rate: a simple recipe for disaster.
This is ignorant and misleading, the only reason effective rates are lower than 35% is because of tax deferral, specifically for foreign earnings. Taxes on those foreign earnings are still owed when repatriated, but it would be foolish to repatriate them when companies would have to pay over 40% in both state and federal taxes, and their shareholders an additional 20%+ on any dividends.
Most countries don't tax their companies foreign earnings at all, so the rates don't even compare.
The real corporate income tax rate should be zero. There is no reason to tax investment, it's hugely counterproductive. Raise the capital gains and dividend tax rates to personal income tax rates, and eliminate corporate income taxes, you've eliminated double taxation and restored progressively to our tax system.
There is zero reason an 80 year old retiree living on a fixed income should be paying over 60% in taxes on her Apple dividends.
A lower tax rate is a boon to small and mid sized US companies that make up the majority of the economy and don't have the financial scale or international presence needed to take advantage of those loopholes. These companies compete daily against foreign firms, and against US conglomerates. I don't see how your comment counters the parent's argument that this a good thing for international competitiveness.
Corporate income taxes are a double layer of taxes on investment. Investment is good, and lower taxes means more investment.
Apple's shareholders are currently subject to 40%+ total tax rates on dividends paid from US profits, and 60%+ total tax rates on dividends paid from foreign profits. Lowering the portion that's corporate income tax rates makes these rates far more reasonable.
Investments that companies make aren't an expense per se. It's almost always "capitalized" as an asset and can't be expensed, only expenses can.
But we are talking about investment in businesses by investors/owners. Imagine a successful US (California) company called Shmapple approaches you about funding a joint venture. You invest $10M for half of the shares in a subsidiary that will build a factory for a new product they've designed, they sell the resulting goods and split all profits with you.
So you ask, what will my share of the profits be? The company gives you very reasonable financial forecasts showing the factory should generate $3M a year in profit on average, grossing you $1.5M a year on your $10 million dollar investment, or 15%.
But wait, you say. I don't care about gross profits, only net profits after taxes. So you calculate it. First they have to pay California corporate income taxes (8.84%), about $260,000. Then they have to pay 35% federal corporate income taxes on what's left, or $1,180 more, leaving $1.78M (59%) left or $900k to you. But that's just the corporate level, you still haven't paid your taxes yet.
When the company pays you your share of the profits, you now owe income tax in your state, and dividend tax to the federal government. Lets say you also live in California, in the top bracket you average around 11%, or another $100k. And 20% for federal dividend tax, or another $160k. So you will net a little less than $640k, or a 6.5% after tax return on your investment.
But wait, it gets worse. Shmapple tells you that their business model is highly international. About 60% of the profits will actually be earned overseas, so they will also be forced to pay income taxes in every country products are sold in. So that's another 10% off the top. So you redo the math again, and now you only get $600,000 a year, or a 6% after tax profit (and you've lost $900k, or 60%, of your profits to taxes!).
So you say, hell no, I'm not funding that factory! I can make nearly that much risk free in treasury bonds, taking the huge risk on a new business for only an extra 1-2% a year would be colossally dumb.
So Schmapple says to you, okay, we've got a way to lower everyones taxes. Turns out we can defer the taxes on our foreign earnings if we don't bring them back to the U.S. We'll find a friendly country with an extremely low tax rate and deposit the profits there. And we'll wait for the US government to wake up and realize how awful their corporate tax system is, and pay the taxes then at a lower tax rate. In the mean time we can borrow against the foreign bank deposits and pay you dividends from that.
So you say, yea, even with all that hard work, my effective tax rate is still going to be close to 50%. You are just deferring, not avoiding, taxes, and when we pay them the future US corporate rate is still going to be pretty high, 20% or more.
So you make a counter-offer. Let's build the factory and incorporate the joint venture in Shmireland, a fair country across the sea. Sure the Shmirish might not be quite as good as workers as Californians are (maybe, maybe not, but they ain't much worse), but look at the tax savings.
Building in Schmireland means paying a 12.5% corporate income tax rate. Schmireland also doesn't tax world-wide income, just the income earned in Schmireland. We'll account for our profits being the same 60% rest of world (at an average 10% income tax rates), and 40% in Schmireland where we make the products. So our average tax rate is 11% TOTAL!. Now the net corporate profits are nearly $2.7M, and your share is $1.35M. After your California income and Federal dividend taxes, you will have around $960,000 left, or nearly 10% after tax. Now you tell Schmapple, do it in Schmireland and we have a deal!
This is what's happening in real life. If the U.S. tries to close it's "loopholes", say by no longer letting companies defer earnings in their foreign subsidiaries, they'll just make it even more attractive to invest overseas. It's already insanely more attractive now, how much do you think Samsung pays in taxes compared to Apple? It's Samnsungs biggest advantage!
Well you certainly do make the US system sound bad, and heavily taxed.
In most cases though, as a non-US person it's the avoidance of taxes in the overseas countries that concerns me. It seems that many multinationals are finding creative ways to pay no tax in the UK. Starbucks, famously, but also amazon and others. Apple have this sweetheart deal in Ireland which amounts to a way to operate in the whole EU with no corporation tax owed. That's why both Apple and Ireland are in trouble here.
If you need to look at it in pro-business terms - it's skewed the playing market and left other companies less able to compete.
First of all, nothing has been settled. This is just escrow, both Apple and Ireland are appealing.
Second, what Apple did was both legal and ethical. It had $200B in cash that it had already paid taxes on to the countries where it was earned. Ireland offered them a near zero tax rate on the interest it would earn if they deposited it in Irish banks. That was a great deal for Ireland, and a good deal for Apple, and hurt no one.
It hurt whatever country didn't participate in Ireland's race to the bottom, and would have been Apple's preferred base of operations when ignoring tax issues.
It hurts because it adds to the already big amount of inequality in this country (Ireland). Me, as a software engineer, I am pretty much accommodated economically but you should see the amount of junkies and homeless people in this town. It is shocking.
It may be but probably not that soon since there are a lot of countries not on smartphones, some industries have multiple dominant players, and users may not want to deal with an app from each player, e.g., car dealers, etc.
Don't do the drugs. Tech companies are marathons not sprints. It is not about one week, it is about years of innovation. You need to be healthy, creative and on top of your game. In our industry it is about being smart, not lots of hours of work. Being mentally healthy will pay off in the long run.
> You need to be healthy, creative and on top of your game
If I don't take drugs I can't be on top of my game because I have no energy or focus or motivation to program without them.
> In our industry it is about being smart, not lots of hours of work
You don't get hired because someone thought you were "smart". You get hired because you're experienced in stack X or because you worked at prestigious company Y or graduated with a great GPA from prestigious university Z. X won't happen for me without drugs. I can't focus without them. Y won't happen without X. Z I can't afford and even if I could I would need drugs to get me through it. I feel like I have no choice.
I hope you will believe me when I say that you will probably be able to get what you want out of an Adderall scrip a few times... But I suspect you won't get much more out of it than some code, and it will not get the move out of your current situation you want. I don't know from personal experience; I know adderral works, but if you want to be hired by a good team, it's often not just code that's being hired for, it's the person who's joining the team that is what we really want.
If you are feeling like shit after work and you want to move up and out you should consider that when most of us interview a person, we can't recommend hiring someone who is trapped. It sucks, but it has horrible effects on how a person interviews.
There is probably a way out though. I highly recommend that if you want to find some motivation for coding and for interviewing, you should use the job you have to pay for trying out some group physical activities that are not gender specific (e.g. pickup basketball is almost all male, but usually rock climbing is not) and learn to relax and enjoy your companions, and your activity. This will give you the head space to think about what you need for your personal project. It should provide positive feedback about you that is unrelated to your self-imate in tech. It should let you exercise your social skills, and give you the energy you need to do your project (albeit with less time, but with more focus and a clearer head) and interview comfortably.
And hopefully it'll give you a peer group that has little to do with tech who can know you on normal human level and give you important feedback to let you know you're valuable for who you are.
And here's the key: it's sustainable. Engineering, tech, etc. is a career that you may continue in for the next 40+ years. If you don't wind up working for facebook or google in your 20s, you may well end up working for their successors in your 30s when you're ready. Or you may work for someone else, which would be great too, as long as you're happy and doing what you enjoy with people you like.
as a former founder, I can tell you that much that you cannot work for the company you founded on an H1B visa. You can found the company, but not be employed by it. You will need another visa like the O1 or E2 investor visa.
For an H1B you need to be fireable, i.e. have a board of directors that can fire you as a CEO. Otherwise USCIS will argue that you started the company to get yourself an H1b visa
In the absence of a startup option, the O-1 and the E-2 tend to be the best options. The H-1B, as correctly noted, requires the existence of an employee-relationship, which can be tough to demonstrate for the founder of a new/small company.
I feel the pain of the underprivileged americans, in particular our African-American brothers and sisters. However, there is a difference however between the top leadership of our country making explicit decisions to pass legislation to exclude groups of people that is at odds with the constitution and established legislation, and local government and law enforcement running cities in an unfair way.
ACLU is valuable in both situations, but in particular to fight the current executive branch that requires massive manpower, knowledge and dedication.
