Would the repatriation mean more US jobs as a result? Doubtful. Apple, et al. would not suddenly do on a hiring binge. They would also not suddenly start paying their employees more or provide better benefits.

This is a red herring that politicians love to try and justify huge tax rate cuts for businesses that are unnecessary but provide a good sound bite. Tax rate cuts that they already enjoy because the US government allows them to stash the cash overseas already to avoid the taxes.

A US citizen is forced to pay income tax on all income worldwide. Live in France, pay French taxes and US income tax on income over $72,000. And you only get the $72k break if you are in the country less than 30 days in a calendar year.

US corporations, on the other hand, can stash all overseas earning overseas to reduce their tax liability. Most US corporations already pay a lower effective tax rate than most US citizens.

Apple would dividend most of the profits to hundreds of thousands of investors. Those investors will often reinvest those dividends to or leave them in the bank, both of which drive capital investment in the US, higher productivity and creates better jobs.

The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world, making the US one of the most costly places to invest. Taxing investment instead of consumption is directly lowering our standard of living.

The fact that our taxe rates on individuals working overseas is stupid too doesn't mean we should fix the corporate tax rates. In fact corporate tax rates should be zero, as you don't want to tax reinvested capital, and if profits aren't reinvested they are paid as dividends, and you can tax dividends at ordinary income rates to restore progressively to our tax system.

One more quick point. US banks would love to have all that cash repatriated. It for every $1 that Apple et al. deposits into their bank they create $10 of new currency that they can loan out.

"Apple, et al. would not suddenly do on a hiring binge. They would also not suddenly start paying their employees more or provide better benefits."

Nor would they onshore a meaningful amount of manufacturing from the Far East.

There's no shortage of cash to invest now in the US, they are instead most likely to use the cash for stock buybacks and dividends.

Well if they invested it in R&D, raises, construction etc. then it wouldn't be profits and wouldn't be taxed. If they don't invest it directly it would just sit in a cloud of accounts, stocks, bonds etc. doing nothing but adding a fraction of a fraction to the liquidity of the market, but it's already doing that from whatever banks it's already in.

So, no actually, not really sure how much the benefit the US could get.

Holding money in a foreign account doesn't restrict Apple's spending on R&D in any important way. Apple holds stock in foreign accounts and issues bonds. They have plenty of cash to fund R&D anywhere and if they didn't they can issue bonds. This is like the argument: if I can balance my checkbook, why can't the government. Governments and modern corporations don't work like your checkbook account.

Allowing repatriation would bring at least $2 trillion in capital back into the U.S. These are profits earned overseas, and trapped there because you lose half of them to taxes if you try to bring them back to the U.S. Bringing it back means a tidal wave of dividends and increases in bank capital, which are reinvested and lent to US businesses to make them more productive and create better jobs.

If you really think that money sitting in bank accounts, stocks and bonds does nothing, you simply don't understand anything about the economy. Doing it the U.S. instead of Ireland or the EU is a big deal.

  These are profits earned overseas

These are profits earned worldwide which have largely been laundered overseas (e.g. the infamous "Double Irish").

Would the US not also benefit if Apple just paid the taxes?

Apple, and many other companies, are not going to "just pay" billions in taxes.

No one's going to "just pay" any amount of taxes, they have to be forced. No matter what else you think about taxes, that's how they work. Paying taxes is always painful; not paying is made to be more painful, at least for some of us.

"...at least for some of us"

it's made to be painful for most every single one of us who aren't mega-companies with an army of lawyers and accountants. This is one reason I go almost blind rolling my eyes when a CEO of such a company gets all preachy about right and wrong, and what's in the public's interest, etc.

And by a similar token, they're also not "just going to be able" to repatriate that money tax-free.

It would be foolish to pay the taxes when they can lobby the public and the government for years until they get their way.

It's foolish to tax capital investment in the U.S. It's like punishing people for working.

they don't owe more taxes (profits already taxed in countries where they were earned) unless they choose to repatriate.

Doubt it. The taxes aren't owed to the US.

Exactly. It's a highly competitive world & it's hard to imagine how long we can continue with "1970s" style government: a decade to approve new bridges, out of control public unions, confiscatory tax rates, NYC subway costs $2B per mile, F-35 now $406B, and so forth. It feels as though the gears, laden with barnacles, are grinding, grinding, grinding to an eventual halt.

At one point in this exchange the reporter says:

"So are you expressing frustration with President Trump?"

Jamie replies:

"No, I am expressing frustration with you!"

Can you please explain how this differs from trickle-down economics?

Instead of resorting to hyperbole, look at it this way:

$2 trillion is parked overseas. It is parked overseas because the opportunity cost of bringing it back here is higher than leaving it overseas, mostly due to corporate tax rates that are higher than they are overseas. We can leave tax rates as they are and gain $0, we can lower corporate tax rates and hopefully bring a (large) fraction of that back here to benefit the economy as a whole, or some other solution that increases the wealth of the nation that has not been thought of yet.

If you're considering an alternate solution, bear in mind that history has shown that imposing taxes in situations like this results in increased friction in moving the wealth back and generally less wealth for the nation imposing the taxes.

So maybe it bears some resemblance to trickle-down economics, but is there even a marginally better solution available?

I wasn't using hyperbole. It was an honest question. I'm not an economist, but I try to stay up, and this sounds - to me, a non-economist - just like trickle-down economics (with regard to the parent comment - not yours).

Is there a different phrase I should use so as to not offend?

Edited for clarification

Your identification of this as trickle-down economics comes from WkndTriathlete's assumption that bringing the money back here will benefit the economy as a whole (as opposed to the few who obviously directly benefit). I think this idea has been mostly debunked but the topic is complex and there are probably details that reasonable people can disagree over.

Appreciate the response! I agree that there is room for disagreement. I was just curious to see if there was some nuance that I am missing.

If the US lowered corporate taxes but increased personal taxes for the top gainers, would that be a more palatable solution?

If you meant "eliminate corporate income taxes", it would be a great compromise. We should never be taxing capital formation and investment, only when it's converted into consumption.

Taxes are not completely useless.

'Repatriation' is a nice doublespeak for money earned in foreign countries being coerced into US tax coffers.