More New York Times Apple bashing

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, May 3, 2013.

  1. macrumors G5

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    In the morning a hit piece blaming Apple for not doing enough to prevent cellphone theft; in the afternoon for legally avoiding additional taxes.

    MacDailyNews does a great job shredding them over their shoddy article on Apple's perfectly legal tax avoidance.

    http://macdailynews.com/2013/05/02/apple-corporate-taxes-and-the-new-york-slimes/

    Oh and be the way, Apple paid $6B in taxes in fiscal 2012. How much did the New York Times pay?
     
  2. Shrink, May 3, 2013
    Last edited: May 3, 2013

    macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #2
    Could you possibly post the Times link?

    Thanks...

    Edit: I found the link and read the primary source material. As I do not wish to get into any arguments about this, let me just suggest macdailynews' carefully excerpted, creatively edited, and interesting interpretations of the major thrust of the article lead me to suggest that one read the original article before reading OP's link.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors G5

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #3
    I stopped after the first paragraph which essentially compared Apple to a fraudulent company. But for those who want to give the New York Times page views here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...-corporations-move-profit-to-avoid-taxes.html
     
  4. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #4
    So, if I understand correctly, you decided that one paragraph was enough to understand the thrust of the entire article, and decided to let a slightly biased secondary source do the analysis and interpretation of the article for you.

    Wouldn't want to waste your time actually reading the primary source and drawing your own conclusions...better to let someone else do it for you.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #5
    The article on cellphone theft was superficial, which glossed over issues of privacy, but hardly could be called a hit piece against Apple in particular, as it was critical of the industry as a whole.

    The second piece was an article on tax policy, which also pointed out that Apple is no different from other similar companies.

    So, unless you are arguing that Apple should be above all criticism, like the Queen, I don't get your point.

    Now, as to the question of corporate income taxes -- I would just as soon abolish corporate income taxes and sales taxes and move the burden to personal income and property taxes.
     
  6. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #6
    Ah, someone who actually read the original article. OP didn't feel that was necessary, read the first paragraph of the article, and then depended on a secondary source to tell him what the article said.

    As you point out, the article had nothing to do with Apple bashing, it had to do with tax law. Unfortunately, to know that fact...one had to actually read the original article.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    vrDrew

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    Apple is one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world. Its products are in the pockets and homes of a very large percentage of the population, and pretty much everyone reading an article is familiar with what they do.

    For that reason it seems more than reasonable that the New York Times, or indeed any reputable journalistic institution, should cite Apple as an example of a troubling or controversial topic.

    In regards to Apple's hoard of offshore cash - that story says, to me, that we need to press our legislators to revise our national corporate tax laws in such a way that successful companies, like Apple, have an incentive to repatriate their foreign earnings. Repatriated earnings that were used for either dividends, investment, or hiring could be subject to a reduced corporate income tax rate - or indeed given special tax credits. (Cash paid out as dividends would result in increased Federal revenue from the shareholders' individual tax returns. Investment and hiring would lead similarly to increased revenues.)

    As someone who has great admiration for both the New York Times and Apple - I don't see those stories as unfair examples of "bashing." Its just a newspaper doing its job. Just as Apple's tax strategists are doing their job by planning to keep offshore earnings overseas. If you don't like that - write your Congressperson and get them to change the laws.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors G5

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #8
    Hmm...I'm assuming by "slightly biased" you mean something you don't agree with. And yes one paragraph was enough considering they were comparing Apple to a fraudulent company. It's pretty easy to know when something is just click bait designed to get page views, or in this case create some false sense of outrage that Apple's not paying their fair share when they probably pay more in taxes than just about any other US corporation.
     
  9. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #9
    Still haven't read the original article...right?

    Since you haven't read it, you apparently are unaware that it was not Apple bashing, but an article about tax law...the reference to Apple was one of many companies referenced in the article in describing international tax issues. However, since you already knew what was in the article (remarkable!) there was no need to find out what it was really about.

    Not reading the primary source certainly allows one to comment without benefit of any knowledge about the referenced article...quite convenient, if totally inaccurate.

    As far as "slightly biased"...would you say a site totally devoted to a single company's product might be just a tad less than totally objective?

    BTW: First paragraph is below...no mention of "fraud"...

    Second paragraph below...still looking for "fraud"....

    Enough...:rolleyes:
     
  10. macrumors 603

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #10
    Wasting your breath (keystrokes?), my friend....
    ;)
     
  11. Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    Kite flying
    #11
    Oh, dear. Oh, dear.

    I have taken the time (because, today I have the time to do so) to read the entire thread, and both of the articles under discussion.

    The second is an intelligent carefully argued piece on US tax policy, which refers to Apple as one company which engages in this practice, increasingly disliked (as pointed out by the article) by Europeans. The first purports to analyse this, but instead, by careful selection of quotes seeks to dismiss the main argument while seeking to distract attention by arguing that this is an attempt to attack Apple, an icon in the US, and compounding matters, using sneers rather than analysis to make its point, an old and tedious tactic.

    As a European, I'm one of those old style social democrats who does not think that 'reducing Government spending' should be the sole function of Government policy. Indeed, I am struck by the frothing tone - hatred is not too strong a word to describe it - that I note occasionally on these fora when discussing the role of Government and the concept of central authority, central funding, and thus, central taxation.

    Guys and gals on the right, the Revolution was two hundred and fifty years ago. You beat the Brits. These days, you have your own Government, and, in order to govern in the name of the common weal, the common good, it needs to have the right and authority to raise monies; that includes taxing companies, especially large and profitable ones.

    Back to the thread topic, itself: I would argue with the very title of the thread. Nothing in the original article strikes me as 'Apple bashing'; rather, ithe article is discussing US Tax policy (an aside: the comment about the contrast with how - and how much - revenue was raised in Eishenhower's time is instructive and disturbing), and merely observing that successful companies such as Apple tend to use what are perfectly legal (but quite amoral) tax avoidance policies. I, for one, old style European social democrat that I am, would like to see some of that tax paid in either, the countries where Apple (and others) do business, or else, repatriated to the US, where taxes can most certainly be usefully used to address some rather glaring social problems. Indeed, personally, I would prefer that this 'perfectly legal' form of tax avoidance be made less easily available to such companies.

    Now, I get it. On a forum such as this, attacks on Apple tend to be taken negatively, and reacted to, with a frisson of horror and occasionally, fury. Most of us who are members here like the company's products - indeed, I am actually writing this on one - and admire the technical virtuosity and innovative brilliance, that fusion of form and function afforded by the best examples of modern design - that Apple at its best has produced.

    But, and it is a big but, admiring the design of the products should not blind us to the sometimes distasteful and occasionally disgraceful (if quite legal) short-cuts pursued by the company in pursuit of higher profits. I feel it is perfectly possible to admire Apple's products while deploring their practice tax avoidance, and the disgraceful employment conditions in some of the Chinese factories where some of their products wee made. Great design does not excuse corporate greed or civic irresponsibility.
     
  12. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #12
    You are, of course, right! I've made my point, obvious though it may be...and I'm done.;)

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Happybunny

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Location:
    's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
    #13
    I think this a good case of never let facts, get in the way of a good RANT:D
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    Tsuchiya

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    #14
    For those in two minds whether to read that MacDailyNews article, just don't.

    You can almost imagine the writer frothing at the mouth while writing it. Childish, knee-jerk article.
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #15
    Indeed, MacDailyNews is a old to avoid, it reeks of 40 year old fat guy in his moms basement.

    The NYT artical is actually very good, mac daily news carefully edits their quotes and responses, avoid them.
     
  16. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #16
    I do believe our OP has abandoned the thread, for some unexplainable reason.:rolleyes:
     
  17. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    It uses the Starbucks example later on where Starbucks played with their transfer pricing in order to to force the UK subsidiary to operate at a loss. The blather from macdailynews doesn't really add anything to it. It's just projected anger with no additional insight.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #18
    LOL Shrink, you always have the right words to give me a good laugh.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    That would be one way. However, I'd like to see a system that doesn't require earnings to be repatriated, where a percentage of earnings are kept within the location they are generated.

    The example of Britain and Stabucks shows that this is a worldwide problem,and I believe it requires a worldwide solution.
     
  20. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #20
    There's probably more to it, but the article suggests it was primarily based on transfer pricing where one subsidiary would sell the other coffee at a greatly inflated price that is basically decoupled from their actual cost or fair market value. Of course it's technically legal. It could be difficult to completely track the real cost at the parent company level, but those are the issues that come up.
     

Share This Page