PTPR (Provincial/Territorial Proportional Representation)

Une des raisons, pourquoi le peuple a de moins en moins de confiance face à notre démocratie est l’utilisation d’un mode de scrutin totalement périmé. Une majorité relative de voix suffit pour gagner une élection, c'est-à-dire qu'il est possible que le candidat élu recueille moins de la moitié des voix exprimées.

Il est grand temps qu’on change le mode de scrutin pour rétablir un minimum de démocratie établissant une véritable corrélation entre le choix du peuple et le nombre de députés.

«Canadians for Justice» a rédigé cinq documents pour changer le mode de scrutin des élections canadiennes, les vieux partis vont tous faire pour ignorer ou canarder un tel rapport, par contre, la venue du NPD comme partis d’opposition peut changer la donne.

Le scrutin majoritaire uninominal à un tour :

Le mode de scrutin majoritaire à un tour est un mode de scrutin reconnu pour sa grande simplicité. Le candidat ayant rassemblé le plus de voix sur un territoire donné est élu en toutes circonstances.

Une majorité relative de voix suffit pour gagner une élection, c'est-à-dire qu'il est possible que le candidat élu recueille moins de la moitié des voix exprimées.

Seuls 4 pays démocratiques ont encore ce type de scrutin des démocraties anglo-saxonnes, notamment le Royaume-Uni, le Canada, l’Inde et les États-Unis, l'utilisent abondamment, en particulier pour l'élection de leurs parlementaires.

Quatre phénomènes peuvent être régulièrement observés :

1.      Le scrutin majoritaire uninominal à un tour est caractérisé par une très forte tendance à mal traduire en nombre d'élus le poids réel d'une formation politique au sein de l'électorat.

2.      Il amplifie souvent de manière considérable la victoire de la formation politique arrivée en tête, lui attribuant une part des sièges bien supérieure à sa part des voix.

3.      La représentation en termes de sièges d'une formation politique dépend grandement de la répartition géographique de ses suffrages.

4.      Les petits partis sont presque constamment laissés pour compte, à moins que leurs appuis se concentrent dans des circonscriptions électorales particulières.

Canadians for Justice Releases Electoral Reform Proposal

Canadians for Justice is pleased to release our first policy paper, the subject of which is electoral reform.

Canada’s electoral system does a poor job of allocating seats in the House of Commons relative to the popular vote.

In the last federal election, the electoral system awarded 53.9% of the seats to a party that won only 39.6% of the votes cast, and allowed that party to form the Government. All told, the present electoral system resulted in a distortion of 22.2% in terms of seat allocation as compared to the parties’ shares of the popular vote. According to Ekos Research, roughy two thirds of Canadian voters are “progressive” yet the electoral system produced a conservative government.

A system that distorts the results by more than 22% cannot be said to meet the standards for a functioning democracy.

There are many challenges facing Canadian society. Solutions consistent with our collective views cannot be implemented by a government that has not earned our collective support and does not share our collective views. Canada needs a new electoral system, one that allocates seats in the House of Commons in proportion to the popular vote in each province and territory, rather than at the riding level. Our democracy has to be fixed before our challenges can be addressed in the manner of our choosing. This is why Canadians for Justice chose electoral reform as our first project.

Canadians for Justice has designed a new electoral system.

This system, called PTPR (Provincial/Territorial Proportional Representation), allocates seats based on the percentage of the parties’ popular vote in each province/territory. Candidates are ranked and elected based on the percentage of the popular vote they earned in their respective ridings. This system is far more accurate than Canada’s present electoral system. When applying the system to the results of the past election, the distortion factor is reduced from 22.2% to just 1.6%.

Canadians for Justice has also designed a path to achieve electoral reform.

·         The New Democratic Party and the Green Party both advocate the adoption of a form of proportional representation.

·         The Liberals have yet to make this commitment.


Vous devez avoir un compte Live ID, pour accéder au 5 documents.

If they do, then the three parties should cooperate in a limited number of ridings in the next election with the goal of displacing the present government and implementing electoral reform.

Once electoral reform is passed, a new election should be called and the seats allocated based on the new electoral system. This would restore legitimacy to Canada’s democratic institutions and give Canadians future governments that reflect their aspirations.

The specifics of the electoral system and the path to achieve electoral reform are outlined in our policy paper which can be found at the Electoral Reform link below. This paper, together with the supporting research documents, can also be found here.

In the coming weeks and months, Canadians for Justice will reach out to interested parties to secure support for our electoral reform proposals. If you would like to help in this effort, please e-mail


Spare the old, burden the young : the protests point to a real and true problem

 Sans commentaire !

Extrait de: Quebec Students Should Be Protesting the Elderly, Huff Post, David Frum, 04/27/2012

The rioting students of Quebec got scant sympathy even before they started smashing windows and detonating smoke bombs.

Polls suggest that Quebecers generally support Jean Charest government's plan to raise tuitions in small increments over the next five (and now possibly seven) years. Even when all the increases are phased in, Quebec students will still pay less than students anywhere else in Canada, only 17% of the cost of their own education.

So what have these kids got to complain about?

Unfortunately, more than their elders care to admit.

The Canadian fiscal system, like those of all developed countries, tilts heavily toward the elderly.

·         It's not just that pensions and health-care spending outweigh education and college spending (although of course they do).

·         In addition, the cohorts born before 1960 have received a better deal from government at every phase of life than will, in all likelihood, the cohorts born after 1990.

Members of the pre-1960 cohort paid less tax when young.

More of that tax was used to buy things they themselves consumed; less to support the retirement of the (smaller and shorter-lived) cohorts before them.

As they age, the pre-1960 cohorts will enjoy more benefits from government than they themselves ever paid for. They will draw more support from the post-1990 cohorts than they themselves paid toward their elders. And because so many of the benefits for the pre-1960 cohorts have been (and will be) financed by debt, the pre-1960 cohorts will be drawing support from the post-1990 cohorts for years to come.

In the past, this redistribution from young to old could be justified by economic growth.

When we taxed the young to support the old, we could assume we were taxing the (richer) future to support a (poorer) past.

This point carried great force so long as we were taxing the cohorts born before 1960 to support the cohorts born before 1930. The pre-1930 cohorts really were dealt a hard hand: depression and war.

·         But the people born between 1930 and 1960 were history¹s big winners.

·         They enjoyed booming prosperity in the first half of their lives, and are now looking forward to generous governmental support in the second half.

But the mechanism for delivering the support expected by pre-1960 cohorts is breaking down.

On the present trajectory, the post-1990 cohorts will not gain anything like the huge increase of wealth over their elders as did the pre-1960 cohorts. If anything, many of the individual members of the post-1990 cohort will be poorer than their counterparts born before 1960.

The people born before 1960 came of age in a society where the proceeds of economic growth were broadly shared. If the country got richer, everybody in the country got richer.

But in today's more globalized economy, the proceeds of growth are shared less broadly. The United States is an extreme case: By one estimate, in the year 2010, 93% of the benefits of economic growth were captured by the top 1% of the population. But similar trends can be seen in every advanced democracy, including Canada.

Back in the 1970s, the most important wealth gap was the gap between countries: Almost everybody in a country such as Canada was richer than almost everybody in a country such as China. Now we are moving toward a world in which the gap is widening within countries.

Which means that even when the world economy again resumes growing, many of the younger people in the post-1990 cohorts will never equal the average incomes of the pre-1960 cohorts, even as they face decades of heavy taxation over the remainder of their working lives to support the retirements (and pay the debts) of the cohorts before them.

None of this is to say that the Quebec protesters deserve any sympathy. They are a radical fringe. And besides, they are part of the problem: a richer-than-average tranche of their own cohort demanding support from the taxes of less affluent people.

But whatever we think of the protesters, the protests point to a real and true problem. Throughout the Western world, politicians are confronting the question: Who will bear how much of the burden of adjusting budgets to grim new post-2008 realities? Canadian politicians have been more responsible and more concerned with fairness than most. But even in Canada, and much more in Japan, Europe and the United States, the answer being heard louder and louder is:

Spare the old, burden the young.


Aucun bout de papier ne peut créer de la richesse

Extrait de : Les élections et la crise : Français si vous saviez...., Par Philippe Simonnot, Institut Turgot,  28 avril 2012

L’origine de la crise de 2008 était à trouver non dans des « défaillances d’un marché dérégulé », comme l’ont dit et répété les politiques et les médias, mais dans les excès de la Puissance publique.

De deux choses l’une :

·         Ou bien les gouvernements prennent des mesures pour réduire le fardeau d’une dette qui n’est pas soutenable quand les taux d’intérêt sont supérieurs au taux de croissance de l’économie, et ces mesures briseront la « relance » annoncée.

·         Ou bien les États poursuivent leur fuite en avant, les taux d’intérêt remonteront, le poids de la dette s’alourdira un peu plus, et la relance sera tout aussi molle.

La Grèce a été le premier exemple de cette course à l’abîme.

Aujourd’hui, l’Espagne s’engouffre dans cette voie calamiteuse quand elle doit payer pour sa dette des taux d’intérêt qui sont de nouveau en hausse.

L’Italie est derechef entraînée par la spirale, et on ne voit pas comment la France pourrait lui échapper. Le « spread » – écart de taux entre les emprunts de Berlin et de Paris – est remonté à son plus haut niveau depuis deux mois.

La rumeur d’une nouvelle dégradation de la note de crédit de la France s’est d’ailleurs propagée la semaine dernière, par le biais d’une note de la banque américaine Citigroup.

Voilà maintenant que les Pays-Bas sont entrés dans cette danse infernale après la chute du gouvernement Rutte. L’agence de notation Moody’s se tient prête, si le besoin s’en fait sentir, à dégrader la note néerlandaise. « Si nous venions à observer un engagement plus faible dans la discipline fiscale ou une abrogation répétée des règles fiscales du pays, cela pourrait exercer une pression négative sur la note du pays », explique l’agence. Cet avertissement vaut autant sinon plus pour la France, beaucoup moins vertueuse que les Pays-Bas.

Il s’agit bien d’une spirale infernale.

Ce n’est pas la dette en valeur absolue qui compte mais le rapport entre produit national brut et dette, intérêts compris.

La capacité de remboursement d’un État n’est rien d’autre que son économie, sa richesse, sa croissance.

La spirale infernale commence lorsque, pour rembourser la dette, les gouvernements augmentent les impôts et diminuent les dépenses, ce qui impacte la croissance…

Pour s’en sortir, notre Napoléon comptait sur le Grouchy de la croissance économique. C’est le Blücher de la stagnation qui est arrivé – avec un chômage record qui – sauf un miracle de dernière minute – le condamne à perdre l’élection présidentielle. Du côté Hollande, ce n’est pas en travestissant les récents propos du président de la Banque Centrale Européenne que l’on sortira la France de cette ornière.

Plus grave, si l’on ose dire, mais ni Hollande ni Sarkozy n’en parlent – pas même une allusion du bout des lèvres -, la crise actuelle est, en fait, l’ultime accès d’une fièvre qui s’est emparé du système monétaire international depuis qu’a été fermée la fenêtre d’or (golden window) le 15 août 1971 par Richard Nixon, alors président des États-Unis.

La mémoire des politiciens et des économistes à leur service ou au service des banques qui les paient grassement est si courte qu’on est obligé de leur rappeler que, ce jour-là, le dernier lien qui existait entre le métal jaune et une monnaie (et pas n’importe laquelle puisqu’il s’agissait du dollar) a été rompu.

À gauche comme à droite, on parle beaucoup, pas toujours à bon escient et non sans démagogie, d’une coupure voire d’une opposition entre l’économie réelle et l’économie financière. S’il fallait trouver un sens contemporain à ces expressions, on le trouverait dans le renoncement des États-Unis à respecter leur propre engagement de fonder leur monnaie sur l’or, générant du même coup le « non système » des changes flottants, de la balkanisation monétaire et du mercantilisme déguisé des politiques monétaires nationales. Les banques et les entreprises ont dû alors inventer tout un système de couverture, toute une ingénierie financière très compliquée avec un système d’assurances complexes, qui font le bonheur des traders.

Exemple : Les produits dérivés, tel que les CDS
pour sécuriser les prêts des États.

Le peuple a raison de se révolter. Marine Le Pen et Jean-Luc Mélenchon sont les vecteurs de cette colère légitime.

Sont soupçonnées à juste titre les banques de profiter de ce faux-monnayage généralisé. A l’abri de banques centrales qui jouent le rôle de prêteur en dernier ressort, elles produisent de la monnaie dite fiduciaire, créée ex nihilo. Autrement dit, des titres de propriété sont créés qui ne correspondent à aucune richesse réelle et perçus comme des propriétés alors qu’ils ne sont que des titres en papier. De rien ne peut rien sortir.

Aucun bout de papier ne peut créer de la richesse.

Il faut le rappeler sans cesse tant cela est méconnu ou nié – récemment encore par un célèbre Nobel américain. La monnaie de banque, dans ces conditions, est une fausse monnaie validée par la banque centrale et imposée par l’État, qu’elle soit libellée en dollar, en euro ou en yuan, et elle finance de faux investissements.

Evidemment, le premier bénéficiaire de cette fraude est le créateur de la monnaie fiduciaire, c’est-à-dire le banquier lui-même.

1.      D’où des privilèges éhontés, dignes de l’Ancien Régime : les institutions proches du pouvoir de l’État comme la haute fonction publique, le Trésor, la banque centrale, l’aristocratie bancaire et les petits malins du trading s’en mettent plein les poches.

2.      Les grandes banques s’enrichissent d’autant plus aisément qu’elles seront toujours sauvées de la faillite par les banques centrales ou l’État.

Loin d’être dérégulées comme on l’a tant dit, les banques restent en général corporatistes, hyper-réglementées, cartellisées ; elles refusent instinctivement toute authentique concurrence et essaient de conserver cette rente. C’est particulièrement le cas dans notre pays qui pousse l’art du concubinage entre l’État et la finance à un haut niveau de baroquisme.

Vous n’êtres pas des cas d’exceptions : (US : Wall Street, Canada : Bay Street, Royaume-Unis : Londres)

D’où, aussi, des inégalités de revenu et de patrimoine de plus en plus criantes, au profit des protagonistes de la sphère financière et au détriment des autres acteurs de l’économie – inégalités qui rendent impossibles des réformes pourtant indispensables.

Ainsi, grâce à nos néo-keynésiens patentés, bien en cour au gouvernement comme dans les médias, l’État a plongé mains jointes dans le piège que lui tendaient ceux qui tiennent la « pompe à Phynance ».

Sous prétexte de risque systémique, la banque centrale à sa dévotion, aux États-Unis comme en Europe, a sauvé de la faillite des banques et des institutions financières qui ne méritaient pas de survivre à leurs erreurs et à leurs fautes, et il a permis aux cavaliers de la finance de faire un tour de piste supplémentaire. Ubu n’aurait pas fait mieux.

Quel banquier peut rester vertueux quand le vice
est systématiquement récompensé et oublié ?

De cette socialisation des pertes, correspondant à une privatisation de super-profits scandaleux de monopole, le contribuable est invité maintenant à solder les frais. Le peuple a raison de se révolter. Marine Le Pen et Jean-Luc Mélenchon sont les vecteurs de cette colère légitime.

La seule manière de sortir de cette gigantesque ornière est de mettre fin au faux monnayage issu de la coucherie incestueuse de la banque et de l’État et de rétablir une monnaie ancrée dans la réalité économique. L’obstacle est seulement politique : les princes qui nous gouvernent aujourd’hui n’y ont pas intérêt.

Le 6 mai, les élections grecques vont-elles influer sur l'euro?

Extrait de : Les élections grecques vont-elles influer sur l'euro?, Laurent Pinsolle, Marianne 2, 30 Avril 2012

Le 6 mai, d'autres élections se dérouleront à l'autre bout de l'Europe. La Grèce choisira son nouveau gouvernement et implicitement son destin économique, peut-être funeste pour la monnaie unique.

Naturellement, ce n’est pas le résultat du second tour de l’élection présidentielle française qui risque d’accélérer la fin de la monnaie unique. Mais les Grecs votent pour leurs élections législatives le même jour et le résultat pourrait provoquer le début du démontage de l’euro…


Les nouvelles statistiques du chômage sont purement effrayantes  :

·         21.8% de la population est sans emploi (contre 11.3% en janvier 2010).

·         Pire, plus de 50% des jeunes sont également sans emploi.

·         A la fin de l’année, le PIB aura reculé de près de 20%. Plus d’un quart des capitaux du pays sont partis depuis 2009.

Bref, la Grèce traverse une crise économique encore plus violente que celle de l’Argentine, comparable à la Grande Dépression des Etats-Unis.

Tout le problème vient du fait que le pays aurait besoin de dévaluer pour sortir de la crise et relancer sa production. Les potions amères qu’il accepte de prendre depuis deux ans ne font qu’aggraver le mal. Et le dernier plan européen va à nouveau infliger des souffrances inutiles car les baisses de salaires vont accentuer la récession et alourdir le poids relatif de la dette. Bref, la Grèce est aujourd’hui saignée pour rien, ce qui est une véritable honte pour l’Europe.

Patrick Artus a récemment publié une note qui étudiait les deux options pour sortir d’une crise de la balance des paiements  : la dévaluation de la monnaie ou la dévaluation interne (baisse des salaires). Pour lui, « il semble bien nettement moins coûteux en emplois de réaliser une dépréciation réelle du change (…) que par une baisse des salaires ». Bref, comme je le soutiens depuis plus de deux ans, avec d’autres et NDA, la Grèce (et sa Banque Centrale ) prend la mauvaise voie.


Mais ces élections législatives vont donner l’occasion au peuple grec de s’exprimer sur les politiques menées depuis deux ans. Le blog Greek crisis permet de suivre l’actualité du pays en français, un moyen de mieux saisir la crise qu’il traverse. Les premiers sondages indiquent qu’une majorité n’est pas totalement acquise pour les partis favorables au plan européen. Nouvelle Démocratie est donnée à 21%, le Pasok à 15,5% et la Gauche Démocratique à 9,5%. 

Mais les partis opposés progressent : Syriza (gauche) est donné à 11,5%, comme le parti communiste KKE et le nouveau parti de droite Grecs Indépendants à 9,5%. A l’extrême droite, le Laos s’est effondré du fait de sa participation au gouvernement (3%), permettant l’émergence de l’Aube dorée, à 5%. Pour l’instant, les partis favorables au plan du gouvernement restent majoritaires (d’autant plus qu’il y a une prime pour le premier), mais les urnes pourraient réserver une surprise.

Le démontage de l’euro pourrait s’accélérer si jamais les Grecs votaient en majorité pour des partis opposés au plan européen. Le climat est très tendu : dans Ta Nea, Giannis Pretenderis affirme que « selon le rapport sur la Grèce présenté hier par Monsieur Barroso, il faudra réduire de 15% le coût unitaire du travail en Grèce au cours de la période 2012-2014. Je suis désolé mais si cela s’appelle la voie vers la croissance, alors le camp de Dachau était une cité de vacances » !

Fin 2009, j’avais évoqué que la fin de l’euro pourrait commencer en Grèce. Le 6 mai, le destin funeste de la monnaie unique pourrait s’accélérer dans les urnes. Mais si cela ne venait pas à se produire, cela ne ferait que repousser une issue totalement inéluctable…


La stratégie fiscale Irlandaise accompagnée d’un sandwich hollandais

Ce qui est hallucinant on demande au peuple de se serrer la ceinture, et les multinationales utilisent toutes les astuces fiscales mondiales pour sauver des impôts.
Deux graphiques, qui expliquent les mécanismes du "double irlandais" ou du "sandwich hollandais", des tactiques qui ont quasiment permis à des sociétés les plus rentables au monde d'échapper à l'impôt.
Nous allons utiliser le cas de Google, comme cas type.

Google Inc.

Malgré l’explosion de son chiffre d’affaire et de ses bénéfices, Google Inc, la maison mère de Google, a réduit son niveau d’imposition de près de 3,1 milliards de dollars au cours des trois dernières années en recourant à des techniques agressives d’optimisation fiscale à l'international.

Google taux d’imposition international record 2,4 %

Les techniques d’optimisation mises en oeuvre par Google portent des noms évocateurs (en tout cas pour ceux qui connaissent les largesses fiscales de ces pays) tels que le «Double Irish» (le double irlandais) ou le «Dutch sandwich» (le sandwich hollandais). Elles ont permis à Google de réduire son taux d’imposition à l’international à un taux record de 2,4%. La plupart des grands pays européens ont pourtant des taux d’impôt sur les sociétés de 21% à 33,3 % et même la très libérale Irlande (en tout cas sur ce sujet) a un taux de 12,5%.

Manipulation fiscale choquante par les géants de IT

Les manipulations fiscales de Google (et de la plupart des géants de l’IT) sont d’autant plus choquantes qu’elles interviennent alors que le déficit du gouvernement américain est attendu à 1400 milliards de dollars et celui de l’ensemble des pays européens à 868 milliards d’euros. Pour sa défense, Jane Penner, une porte parole de la firme qui a fait de «Do no evil» son slogan, explique que Google ne fait qu’opérer dans un cadre très semblable à celui d’autre entreprises mondiales et qu’il ne viole pas les lois fiscales.

Comment Google échappe à l’impôt

Grâce à une manœuvre fiscale qu’on appelle le "double Irish" ou le "Dutch sandwich".
Pour bien comprendre cette manœuvre complexe mais tout à fait légale, voici une infographie qui vous aidera à comprendre de quoi il retourne.

·         Google cède ses droits de propriété intellectuelle à une société irlandaise, elle-même basée aux Bermudes, Google Ireland Holdings. En contrepartie, cette société paie une redevance à Google, dont le prix est fixé le plus bas possible pour limiter les bénéfices, et donc la charge fiscale aux Etats-Unis.
·         Google Ireland Holdings, étant basée aux Bermudes, ne paie pas d’impôts sur le bénéfice en Irlande. Toutefois cette société a une société mère implantée à Dublin, Google Ireland Ltd, qui réalise l’ensemble du chiffre d’affaires pour l’Europe, le Moyen-orient et l’Afrique, soit 11 milliards de dollars.
·         Pour éviter d’être imposé en Irlande, Google Ireland Ltd verse à la société basée aux Bermudes une redevance la plus élevée possible, 5,4 milliards de dollars, soit la moitié de son chiffre d’affaires. Cette redevance passe pour des frais de fonctionnement, non taxables. Cette redevance, ce sont en fait des bénéfices pour Google.
·         Google utilise un autre artifice pour échapper à l’impôt irlandais. Si la redevance de 5,4 milliards passe directement de l’Irlande aux Bermudes, il faut payer une taxe. Pour échapper à l’impôt, il faut que l’argent transite par un autre pays européen. Google a donc créé une société néerlandaise, qui est une coquille juridique. La redevance passe ainsi de l’Irlande aux Pays-Bas, avant de partir aux Bermudes. Et Google ne paie pas d’impôt en Europe. Au total, 99,8 % des bénéfices de Google sont perçus par Google Bermudes.
Est-ce légal ? Absolument, Google exploite toutes les ficelles fiscales européennes. Mais c’est du siphonnage.

2000 milliards le montant des profits US

On estime aujourd’hui à plus de 2000 milliards le montant des profits US qui dorment hors du pays pour échapper aux taxes sur le rapatriement des bénéfices. Ironiquement une large partie du cash de Microsoft dort ainsi hors des USA, ce qui a amené l’éditeur à annoncer son intention de s’endetter pour pouvoir payer à ses actionnaires un plus gros dividende. Il lui est en effet moins coûteux de payer des intérêts que de rapatrier ses bénéfices en payant des impôts.
On pourrait disserter à l’envie sur la moralité de tels comportements de la part de sociétés parmi les plus rentables au monde (tous les géants de l’IT ont des pratiques similaires à celles de Google et Microsoft), mais aussi sur l'absurdité des législations fiscales qui aboutissent à ces excès.

Sources :
1.       Bloomberg démonte les mécanismes d'optimisation fiscale de Google, par Christophe Bardy, Le MagIT, Le 22 octobre 2010
2.       Comment faire payer des taxes aux opérateurs de commerce en ligne ?, Par Jean Arthuis, Le Nouvel Observateur, 07-06-2011
3.       ‘Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich’, The New York Times, April 28, 2012

Apple, les maîtres de l’évasion fiscale

La mondialisation a eu des effets pervers, nos multinationales en a bien profité, le cas d’Apple est un exemple flagrant comment on peut abuser du système.

L’avantage de la mondialisation pour les multinationales

1.      Bétail humain

Utilisent le bétail humain le moins cher dans le monde, ex : le cas d’Apple, on utilise des Chinois à travailler 12 heures/jours, 6 jours semaine, pour leur donner 300 $ à la fin du mois.

2.      Chantage salarial

On fait du chantage salarial dans les pays industriels, exemple dans le secteur manufacturier de l’automobile, on oblige à travailler à 14 $, sous peine de délocaliser.

3.      Chantage fiscal

On fait du chantage fiscal au pays, disant si tu as des impôts trop élevés on délocalise.

4.      Évasion fiscale

Depuis, que l’argent circule librement, les multinationales utilisent tous les trucs pour payer moins d’impôts.

Les conséquences :

1.      Impôts régressifs pour le peuple

Donc, l’État recevant moins de recettes de l’entreprise et une baisse notable des recettes individuelles due à la baisse générale de la masse salariale doit compenser par des impôts encore plus régressifs sur le dos du peuple, qui malheureusement devient de plus en plus pauvres et a de plus en plus de difficulté à battre l’inflation.

2.      Profits faramineux pour les multinationales

Le cas d’Apple est exemple flagrant comment on peut abuser du système, l’art de maximiser le profit pour satisfaire des actionnaires avides, mais au détriment de l’ensemble de la population. L’exemple, de cette semaine, 11,62 milliards de dollars de bénéfice net sur 39,19 milliards de dollars de vente, donnant un rapport de 30 % de bénéfice net, 10 % n’est même plus une norme acceptable, mais à quel prix ?, une pauvreté grandissante dans les pays industriels.

Les techniques de l’évasion fiscale

Les journalistes du New York Times ont publié un article fort intéressant, comment Apple réussis à payer le moins d’impôts possible en utilisant toutes sortes de trucs, tel que transférer leurs centres financiers dans les paradis fiscaux, ces techniques sont aussi utilisés pour toutes les multinationales qui se respectent (Microsoft, Google, Caterpillar …).

Le texte est assez long, je vais faire un résumé sur les points forts, commençons par trois graphiques :

Shrinking Corporate Tax Rates

Shrinking Corporate Tax Rates

Sources: Shrinking Corporate Tax Rates

·         Depuis, la mondialisation les multinationales transfèrent leurs productions vers les pays ayant des impôts les plus favorables.

·         On remarque depuis 20 ans, les compagnies font de plus en plus de profits sans payer plus d’impôts, ils utilisent la faiblesse de la mondialisation pour profiter du chantage fiscale pour transférer leurs productions.

Profits offshore

Profits offshore

Sources: Shrinking Corporate Tax Rates

·         On remarque, plus de 70 % des profits d’Apple sont faits à l’étranger avec une moyenne 8.7 % d’impôts à payer.

·         Et dîtes-vous ce n’est pas un cas unique, nos banques canadiennes font exactement la même chose en transférant leurs ‘hedges funds’ ou leurs ‘shadows banks’ dans les paradis fiscaux.

Apple : Profit before taxes

Applr profit before taxes

Source : Apple : Profit before taxes

·         Souvent on dit une image vaut mille mots, le graphique est assez révélateur, les profits augmentent drastiquement, mais les impôts progressent très lentement.

Résumé de l’article:

1.      Transférer les profits dans un État n’ayant pas de taxes coopératives (ex : Nevada)

2.      Crée des filiales dans des pays ayant un faible taux de taxation, Irlande, Pays-Bas, Luxembourg, Iles Vierges.

3.      «Technology giants have taken advantage of tax codes written for an industrial age and ill suited to today’s digital economy.»

4.      «The 71 technology companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index — including Apple, Google, Yahoo and Dell — reported paying worldwide cash taxes at a rate that, on average, was a third less than other S.& P.»

5.      Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. (Voir le prochain carnet).

6.      Without such tactics, Apple’s federal tax bill in the United States most likely would have been $2.4 billion higher last year.

7.      By comparison, Wal-Mart last year paid worldwide cash taxes of $5.9 billion on its booked profits of $24.4 billion, a tax rate of 24 percent, which is about average for non-tech companies.

8.      Apple’s accountants have found legal ways to allocate about 70 percent of its profits overseas, where tax rates are often much lower, according to corporate filings.

9.      Escaping State Taxes, Reno (Nevada) and established a subsidiary named Braeburn Capital, and then invested in stocks, bonds or other financial instruments. But in Nevada there is no state corporate income tax and no capital gains tax.

10.  Dozens of other companies, including Cisco, Harley-Davidson and Microsoft, have also set up Nevada subsidiaries that bypass taxes in other states. Hundreds of other corporations reap similar savings by locating offices in Delaware.

11.  Apple’s subsidiaries in Luxembourg, named iTunes S.A.R.L., has just a few dozen employees, download a song, television show or app, the sale is recorded in this small country, revenue exceeded $1 billion, the country has promised to tax at low rates.

12.  Apple, has been particularly talented at identifying legal tax loopholes and hiring accountants who, as much as iPhone designers, are known for their innovation.

13.  In the late 1980s, Apple was among the pioneers in creating a tax structure — known as the Double Irish, that allowed the company to move profits into tax havens around the world.

14.  Ireland, Apple to send royalties on patents developed in California to Ireland , but as a result, some profits were taxed at the Irish rate of approximately 12.5 percent, rather than at the American statutory rate of 35 percent. In 2004, Ireland, a nation of less than 5 million, was home to more than one-third of Apple’s worldwide revenues.

15.  Irish subsidiary, allowed other profits to flow to tax-free companies in the Caribbean.

16.  Apple has managed to keep its international taxes to 3.2 percent of foreign profits last year, to 2.2 percent in 2010.

17.  Apple, like many other multinationals, is using perfectly legal methods to keep a significant portion of their profits out of the hands of the I.R.S.

18.  Apple, which holds $74 billion offshore, last year aligned itself with more than four dozen companies and organizations urging Congress for a “repatriation holiday” that would permit American businesses to bring money home without owing large taxes.

La mondialisation

Une autre lacune des idéologies prônant la mondialisation, c'est leur grande difficulté a arrimer les régimes d'imposition a cette nouvelle réalité économique. Dans un monde li­bre d'entraves économiques, les multinationales peuvent magasiner leur régime d'imposition et choisir le pays qui leur offre les taux d'imposition les plus avantageux.

Au fil des ans, cette dynamique a plongé les pays dans une concurrence féroce et a engendré une chute dramatique des taux d'imposi­tion applicables aux multinationales.

Que faire?

Les pays industrialisés n’auront pas le choix. Mondialisation oblige, ils devront trouver ensemble des mécanismes pour imposer les grandes entreprises multinationales.

« Les ministres des Finances dans nos provinces et nos pays n’ont plus vraiment de pouvoir. Ils ne peuvent plus décider de grand chose. On est rendu dans une situation où les États ne peuvent plus rien faire tout seuls de leur côté », fait-elle remarquer.

L’une des solutions, selon elle, serait que les 34 pays de l’OCDE (Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques) s’entendent sur un taux d’imposition minimum pour les grandes entreprises.

Brigitte Alepin (1)

Il s’accorde même pas au G20, alors, imaginé l’OCDE, donc, ça va prendre de sérieux conflits sociaux ou les têtes des politiciens vont tomber s’ils ne veulent pas changer les choses, car c’est le peuple en dernier ressort, qui vont dire, ça suffit.

Extrait de: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes, By CHARLES DUHIGG and DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI, New York Times, April 28, 201

RENO, Nev. — Apple, the world’s most profitable technology company, doesn’t design iPhones here. It doesn’t run AppleCare customer service from this city. And it doesn’t manufacture MacBooks or iPads anywhere nearby.

Brian Murphy, center, head of De Anza College in Cupertino, Calif., says the big tech firms are “philosophically antitax, and it’s decimating the state.”

Yet, with a handful of employees in a small office here in Reno, Apple has done something central to its corporate strategy: it has avoided millions of dollars in taxes in California and 20 other states.

Apple’s headquarters are in Cupertino, Calif. By putting an office in Reno, just 200 miles away, to collect and invest the company’s profits, Apple sidesteps state income taxes on some of those gains.

California’s corporate tax rate is 8.84 percent. Nevada’s? Zero.

Setting up an office in Reno is just one of many legal methods Apple uses to reduce its worldwide tax bill by billions of dollars each year. As it has in Nevada, Apple has created subsidiaries in low-tax places like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islandssome little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office — that help cut the taxes it pays around the world.

Almost every major corporation tries to minimize its taxes, of course. For Apple, the savings are especially alluring because the company’s profits are so high. Wall Street analysts predict Apple could earn up to $45.6 billion in its current fiscal year — which would be a record for any American business.

Apple serves as a window on how technology giants have taken advantage of tax codes written for an industrial age and ill suited to today’s digital economy. Some profits at companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft derive not from physical goods but from royalties on intellectual property, like the patents on software that makes devices work. Other times, the products themselves are digital, like downloaded songs. It is much easier for businesses with royalties and digital products to move profits to low-tax countries than it is, say, for grocery stores or automakers. A downloaded application, unlike a car, can be sold from anywhere.

The growing digital economy presents a conundrum for lawmakers overseeing corporate taxation: although technology is now one of the nation’s largest and most valued industries, many tech companies are among the least taxed, according to government and corporate data. Over the last two years, the 71 technology companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index — including Apple, Google, Yahoo and Dell — reported paying worldwide cash taxes at a rate that, on average, was a third less than other S.& P. companies’. (Cash taxes may include payments for multiple years.)

Even among tech companies, Apple’s rates are low. And while the company has remade industries, ignited economic growth and delighted customers, it has also devised corporate strategies that take advantage of gaps in the tax code, according to former executives who helped create those strategies.

Apple, for instance, was among the first tech companies to designate overseas salespeople in high-tax countries in a manner that allowed them to sell on behalf of low-tax subsidiaries on other continents, sidestepping income taxes, according to former executives. Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. Today, that tactic is used by hundreds of other corporations — some of which directly imitated Apple’s methods, say accountants at those companies.

Without such tactics, Apple’s federal tax bill in the United States most likely would have been $2.4 billion higher last year, according to a recent study by a former Treasury Department economist, Martin A. Sullivan. As it stands, the company paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8 percent. (Apple does not disclose what portion of those payments was in the United States, or what portion is assigned to previous or future years.)

By comparison, Wal-Mart last year paid worldwide cash taxes of $5.9 billion on its booked profits of $24.4 billion, a tax rate of 24 percent, which is about average for non-tech companies

Apple’s domestic tax bill has piqued particular curiosity among corporate tax experts because although the company is based in the United States, its profits — on paper, at least — are largely foreign. While Apple contracts out much of the manufacturing and assembly of its products to other companies overseas, the majority of Apple’s executives, product designers, marketers, employees, research and development, and retail stores are in the United States. Tax experts say it is therefore reasonable to expect that most of Apple’s profits would be American as well. The nation’s tax code is based on the concept that a company “earns” income where value is created, rather than where products are sold.

However, Apple’s accountants have found legal ways to allocate about 70 percent of its profits overseas, where tax rates are often much lower, according to corporate filings.

Neither the government nor corporations make tax returns public, and a company’s taxable income often differs from the profits disclosed in annual reports. Companies report their cash outlays for income taxes in their annual Form 10-K, but it is impossible from those numbers to determine precisely how much, in total, corporations pay to governments. In Apple’s last annual disclosure, the company listed its worldwide taxes — which includes cash taxes paid as well as deferred taxes and other charges — at $8.3 billion, an effective tax rate of almost a quarter of profits.

However, tax analysts and scholars said that figure most likely overstated how much the company would hand to governments because it included sums that might never be paid. “The information on 10-Ks is fiction for most companies,” said Kimberly Clausing, an economist at Reed College who specializes in multinational taxation. “But for tech companies it goes from fiction to farcical.”

Apple, in a statement, said it “has conducted all of its business with the highest of ethical standards, complying with applicable laws and accounting rules.” It added, “We are incredibly proud of all of Apple’s contributions.”

Apple “pays an enormous amount of taxes, which help our local, state and federal governments,” the statement also said. “In the first half of fiscal year 2012, our U.S. operations have generated almost $5 billion in federal and state income taxes, including income taxes withheld on employee stock gains, making us among the top payers of U.S. income tax.”

The statement did not specify how it arrived at $5 billion, nor did it address the issue of deferred taxes, which the company may pay in future years or decide to defer indefinitely. The $5 billion figure appears to include taxes ultimately owed by Apple employees.

The sums paid by Apple and other tech corporations is a point of contention in the company’s backyard.

A mile and a half from Apple’s Cupertino headquarters is De Anza College, a community college that Steve Wozniak, one of Apple’s founders, attended from 1969 to 1974. Because of California’s state budget crisis, De Anza has cut more than a thousand courses and 8 percent of its faculty since 2008.

Now, De Anza faces a budget gap so large that it is confronting a “death spiral,” the school’s president, Brian Murphy, wrote to the faculty in January. Apple, of course, is not responsible for the state’s financial shortfall, which has numerous causes. But the company’s tax policies are seen by officials like Mr. Murphy as symptomatic of why the crisis exists.

“I just don’t understand it,” he said in an interview. “I’ll bet every person at Apple has a connection to De Anza. Their kids swim in our pool. Their cousins take classes here. They drive past it every day, for Pete’s sake.

“But then they do everything they can to pay as few taxes as possible.”

Escaping State Taxes

In 2006, as Apple’s bank accounts and stock price were rising, company executives came here to Reno and established a subsidiary named Braeburn Capital to manage and invest the company’s cash. Braeburn is a variety of apple that is simultaneously sweet and tart.

Today, Braeburn’s offices are down a narrow hallway inside a bland building that sits across from an abandoned restaurant. Inside, there are posters of candy-colored iPods and a large Apple insignia, as well as a handful of desks and computer terminals.

When someone in the United States buys an iPhone, iPad or other Apple product, a portion of the profits from that sale is often deposited into accounts controlled by Braeburn, and then invested in stocks, bonds or other financial instruments, say company executives. Then, when those investments turn a profit, some of it is shielded from tax authorities in California by virtue of Braeburn’s Nevada address.

Since founding Braeburn, Apple has earned more than $2.5 billion in interest and dividend income on its cash reserves and investments around the globe. If Braeburn were located in Cupertino, where Apple’s top executives work, a portion of the domestic income would be taxed at California’s 8.84 percent corporate income tax rate.

But in Nevada there is no state corporate income tax and no capital gains tax.

What’s more, Braeburn allows Apple to lower its taxes in other states — including Florida, New Jersey and New Mexico — because many of those jurisdictions use formulas that reduce what is owed when a company’s financial management occurs elsewhere. Apple does not disclose what portion of cash taxes is paid to states, but the company reported that it owed $762 million in state income taxes nationwide last year. That effective state tax rate is higher than the rate of many other tech companies, but as Ms. Clausing and other tax analysts have noted, such figures are often not reliable guides to what is actually paid.

Dozens of other companies, including Cisco, Harley-Davidson and Microsoft, have also set up Nevada subsidiaries that bypass taxes in other states. Hundreds of other corporations reap similar savings by locating offices in Delaware.

But some in California are unhappy that Apple and other California-based companies have moved financial operations to tax-free states — particularly since lawmakers have offered them tax breaks to keep them in the state.

Évidemment, il supporte les dépenses de ces corporations et les résidents,
mais ils n’ont pas les revenus.

In 1996, 1999 and 2000, for instance, the California Legislature increased the state’s research and development tax credit, permitting hundreds of companies, including Apple, to avoid billions in state taxes, according to legislative analysts. Apple has reported tax savings of $412 million from research and development credits of all sorts since 1996.

Then, in 2009, after an intense lobbying campaign led by Apple, Cisco, Oracle, Intel and other companies, the California Legislature reduced taxes for corporations based in California but operating in other states or nations. Legislative analysts say the change will eventually cost the state government about $1.5 billion a year.

Évidemment, ils font du chantage entre les États pour ne payer pas de taxes.

Such lost revenue is one reason California now faces a budget crisis, with a shortfall of more than $9.2 billion in the coming fiscal year alone. The state has cut some health care programs, significantly raised tuition at state universities, cut services to the disabled and proposed a $4.8 billion reduction in spending on kindergarten and other grades.

Apple declined to comment on its Nevada operations. Privately, some executives said it was unfair to criticize the company for reducing its tax bill when thousands of other companies acted similarly. If Apple volunteered to pay more in taxes, it would put itself at a competitive disadvantage, they argued, and do a disservice to its shareholders.

Donc, on doit couper les services, parce que leurs politiciens couchent avec les gros industriels en favorisant une diminution de taxe.

Donc, la baisse de revenus, doit être compensé par une baisse de services ou une augmentation d’impôt sur le peuple, tout cela parce que les politiciens magouillent avec les oligarques.

Indeed, Apple’s decisions have yielded benefits. After announcing one of the best quarters in its history last week, the company said it had net profits of $24.7 billion on revenues of $85.5 billion in the first half of the fiscal year, and more than $110 billion in the bank, according to company filings.

A Global Tax Strategy

Every second of every hour, millions of times each day, in living rooms and at cash registers, consumers click the “Buy” button on iTunes or hand over payment for an Apple product.

And with that, an international financial engine kicks into gear, moving money across continents in the blink of an eye. While Apple’s Reno office helps the company avoid state taxes, its international subsidiaries — particularly the company’s assignment of sales and patent royalties to other nations — help reduce taxes owed to the American and other governments.

For instance, one of Apple’s subsidiaries in Luxembourg, named iTunes S.à r.l., has just a few dozen employees, according to corporate documents filed in that nation and a current executive. The only indication of the subsidiary’s presence outside is a letterbox with a lopsided slip of paper reading “ITUNES SARL.”

Luxembourg has just half a million residents. But when customers across Europe, Africa or the Middle East — and potentially elsewhere — download a song, television show or app, the sale is recorded in this small country, according to current and former executives. In 2011, iTunes S.à r.l.’s revenue exceeded $1 billion, according to an Apple executive, representing roughly 20 percent of iTunes’s worldwide sales.

The advantages of Luxembourg are simple, say Apple executives. The country has promised to tax the payments collected by Apple and numerous other tech corporations at low rates if they route transactions through Luxembourg. Taxes that would have otherwise gone to the governments of Britain, France, the United States and dozens of other nations go to Luxembourg instead, at discounted rates.

“We set up in Luxembourg because of the favorable taxes,” said Robert Hatta, who helped oversee Apple’s iTunes retail marketing and sales for European markets until 2007. “Downloads are different from tractors or steel because there’s nothing you can touch, so it doesn’t matter if your computer is in France or England. If you’re buying from Luxembourg, it’s a relationship with Luxembourg.”

An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the Luxembourg operations.

Downloadable goods illustrate how modern tax systems have become increasingly ill equipped for an economy dominated by electronic commerce. Apple, say former executives, has been particularly talented at identifying legal tax loopholes and hiring accountants who, as much as iPhone designers, are known for their innovation. In the 1980s, for instance, Apple was among the first major corporations to designate overseas distributors as “commissionaires,” rather than retailers, said Michael Rashkin, Apple’s first director of tax policy, who helped set up the system before leaving in 1999.

To customers the designation was virtually unnoticeable. But because commissionaires never technically take possession of inventory — which would require them to recognize taxes — the structure allowed a salesman in high-tax Germany, for example, to sell computers on behalf of a subsidiary in low-tax Singapore. Hence, most of those profits would be taxed at Singaporean, rather than German, rates.

The Double Irish

In the late 1980s, Apple was among the pioneers in creating a tax structure — known as the Double Irish — that allowed the company to move profits into tax havens around the world, said Tim Jenkins, who helped set up the system as an Apple European finance manager until 1994.

Apple created two Irish subsidiaries — today named Apple Operations International and Apple Sales International — and built a glass-encased factory amid the green fields of Cork. The Irish government offered Apple tax breaks in exchange for jobs, according to former executives with knowledge of the relationship.

But the bigger advantage was that the arrangement allowed Apple to send royalties on patents developed in California to Ireland. The transfer was internal, and simply moved funds from one part of the company to a subsidiary overseas. But as a result, some profits were taxed at the Irish rate of approximately 12.5 percent, rather than at the American statutory rate of 35 percent. In 2004, Ireland, a nation of less than 5 million, was home to more than one-third of Apple’s worldwide revenues, according to company filings. (Apple has not released more recent estimates.)

Moreover, the second Irish subsidiary — the “Double” — allowed other profits to flow to tax-free companies in the Caribbean. Apple has assigned partial ownership of its Irish subsidiaries to Baldwin Holdings Unlimited in the British Virgin Islands, a tax haven, according to documents filed there and in Ireland. Baldwin Holdings has no listed offices or telephone number, and its only listed director is Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s chief financial officer, who lives and works in Cupertino. Baldwin apples are known for their hardiness while traveling.

Finally, because of Ireland’s treaties with European nations, some of Apple’s profits could travel virtually tax-free through the Netherlands — the Dutch Sandwich — which made them essentially invisible to outside observers and tax authorities.

Robert Promm, Apple’s controller in the mid-1990s, called the strategy “the worst-kept secret in Europe.”

It is unclear precisely how Apple’s overseas finances now function. In 2006, the company reorganized its Irish divisions as unlimited corporations, which have few requirements to disclose financial information.

However, tax experts say that strategies like the Double Irish help explain how Apple has managed to keep its international taxes to 3.2 percent of foreign profits last year, to 2.2 percent in 2010, and in the single digits for the last half-decade, according to the company’s corporate filings.

Apple declined to comment on its operations in Ireland, the Netherlands and the British Virgin Islands.

Apple reported in its last annual disclosures that $24 billion — or 70 percent — of its total $34.2 billion in pretax profits were earned abroad, and 30 percent were earned in the United States. But Mr. Sullivan, the former Treasury Department economist who today writes for the trade publication Tax Analysts, said that “given that all of the marketing and products are designed here, and the patents were created in California, that number should probably be at least 50 percent.”

If profits were evenly divided between the United States and foreign countries, Apple’s federal tax bill would have increased by about $2.4 billion last year, he said, because a larger amount of its profits would have been subject to the United States’ higher corporate income tax rate.

“Apple, like many other multinationals, is using perfectly legal methods to keep a significant portion of their profits out of the hands of the I.R.S.,” Mr. Sullivan said. “And when America’s most profitable companies pay less, the general public has to pay more.”

Other tax experts, like Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, have reached similar conclusions.

“This tax avoidance strategy used by Apple and other multinationals doesn’t just minimize the companies’ U.S. taxes,” said Mr. Kleinbard, now a professor of tax law at the University of Southern California. “It’s German tax and French tax and tax in the U.K. and elsewhere.”

One downside for companies using such strategies is that when money is sent overseas, it cannot be returned to the United States without incurring a new tax bill.

However, that might change. Apple, which holds $74 billion offshore, last year aligned itself with more than four dozen companies and organizations urging Congress for a “repatriation holiday” that would permit American businesses to bring money home without owing large taxes. The coalition, which includes Google, Microsoft and Pfizer, has hired dozens of lobbyists to push for the measure, which has not yet come up for vote. The tax break would cost the federal government $79 billion over the next decade, according to a Congressional report.

Fallout in California

In one of his last public appearances before his death, Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s chief executive, addressed Cupertino’s City Council last June, seeking approval to build a new headquarters.

Most of the Council was effusive in its praise of the proposal. But one councilwoman, Kris Wang, had questions.

How will residents benefit? she asked. Perhaps Apple could provide free wireless Internet to Cupertino, she suggested, something Google had done in neighboring Mountain View.

“See, I’m a simpleton; I’ve always had this view that we pay taxes, and the city should do those things,” Mr. Jobs replied, according to a video of the meeting. “That’s why we pay taxes. Now, if we can get out of paying taxes, I’ll be glad to put up Wi-Fi.”

He suggested that, if the City Council were unhappy, perhaps Apple could move. The company is Cupertino’s largest taxpayer, with more than $8 million in property taxes assessed by local officials last year.

Ms. Wang dropped her suggestion.

Cupertino, Ms. Wang said in an interview, has real financial problems. “We’re proud to have Apple here,” said Ms. Wang, who has since left the Council. “But how do you get them to feel more connected?”

Other residents argue that Apple does enough as Cupertino’s largest employer and that tech companies, in general, have buoyed California’s economy. Apple’s workers eat in local restaurants, serve on local boards and donate to local causes. Silicon Valley’s many millionaires pay personal state income taxes. In its statement, Apple said its “international growth is creating jobs domestically, since we oversee most of our operations from California.”

“The vast majority of our global work force remains in the U.S.,” the statement continued, “with more than 47,000 full-time employees in all 50 states.”

Moreover, Apple has given nearby Stanford University more than $50 million in the last two years. The company has also donated $50 million to an African aid organization. In its statement, Apple said: “We have contributed to many charitable causes but have never sought publicity for doing so. Our focus has been on doing the right thing, not getting credit for it. In 2011, we dramatically expanded the number of deserving organizations we support by initiating a matching gift program for our employees.”

Still, some, including De Anza College’s president, Mr. Murphy, say the philanthropy and job creation do not offset Apple’s and other companies’ decisions to circumvent taxes. Within 20 minutes of the financially ailing school are the global headquarters of Google, Facebook, Intel, Hewlett-Packard and Cisco.

“When it comes time for all these companies — Google and Apple and Facebook and the rest — to pay their fair share, there’s a knee-jerk resistance,” Mr. Murphy said. “They’re philosophically antitax, and it’s decimating the state.”

“But I’m not complaining,” he added. “We can’t afford to upset these guys. We need every dollar we can get.