If you think that corporations are going to volunteer to pay for the roads, parks, police, fire service etc etc you have your head in the clouds. Probably the iCloud.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Could Owe More Than $8 Billion in European Tax Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm aware of VAT. I just thought you meant something else that isn't quite as transparent. States and counties can assign sales tax in the US, similar to VAT. We don't have anything comparable at the national level though.
Government has a track record of failures, but it also has a track record, that you easily dismiss, of successes. There are many roads, railways, bus routes, gas and electricity lines, broadband connections, and even water lines that would not have been built because private endeavour did not deem them commercially viable.
You need to source your assertion that "very little" goes to the services mentioned in the quoted post. From what I can gather, almost all federal funds are spent on those services, not for profit, but for public use.
I don't view taxes as confiscation, nor do I view money that I earn as belonging to me in its entirety, given that the only reason I received it is because of the various government services that I, and everybody else, depend on.
Cooperation through mutual agreement sounds good, but unfortunately we've yet to see it work outside of theoretical discussions. For sure taxes could be used more efficiently but they still fund all aspects of public service that everyone -big corporations included- use on a daily basis.
Yep.
Although large enough companies often get special treatment, particularly from weaker/poorer government entities. I don't think Apple has built anything in the last decade without getting tax breaks no small business can dream of.
It's ironic that smaller businesses rarely get any of the tax or regulatory breaks that large corporations get.
We dont have the internal facts from Apple to show they are breaking the law, but I'll bet you they are. Corporations break the all the time. They just know that they'd have to be proven to break the law to receive any punishment, and they know that the punishment is nothing compared to the benefits they already got. Why did you think Apple settled the previous case when there was going to be a UE probe into Apple? Come on, naive people!
As a centre left person, indeed I assume most people on the centre right (which I assume you are) are not in favour of companies not paying their fair share of tax, especially when it is as low as 12.5%. Such a rate is very pro business. But I support it even as a social democrat.
Best for our sides to stick together on a lot of issues. We might disagree on many things, but we both argue sanely for the most part. We can both stand up to over zealous socialism and total capitalist anarchy. The best for the people is somewhere in the middle. We can argue forever about where that may be!
(For the record, I'm a member of the Irish Labour Party, currently in government with Fine Gael. Elections are in February, but I'm hopeful the same government will be returned.)
Cooperation through mutual agreement isn't just a theory...it works in practice as evidence by the successes of competitive free markets. Seems like an odd assertion to say that confiscation of assets is needed to fund all of the things that the government funds.
Your example is flawed. The free market works because everyone involved agrees with two things, 1) Money has value and 2) Everyone wants more of it. That kind of system does not translate to providing service that would be uneconomic, less attractive than other opportunities, or have a payback time that is too long for the investor (time value of money and all that). The free market has a place and it's just as crucial as Government services for ensuring prosperity, but it is not a panacea, unless you're happy to live in a society where the poor are denied healthcare, education, access to clean water and all the other building blocks of social mobility.
I see you have yet to give an example of where your "mutual co-operation system with no taxes" has actually been employed at any analogous level to what is currently provided by the State? Actually there is one, it's called Somalia. Yep a country with virtually no Government and hence taxes, the mantra of development via mutual co-operation isn't working out too well there.
Another problem with this is that free markets are built upon the principle of failing companies going bust. This is essential to ensure efficiency and competitiveness. But what happens when the service being provided is education, healthcare, law and order or defence? Do we just write off the sick and uneducated, allow a segment of society to exists without a police force? All until a new company moves in, if it ever does? We can't do this, because whether we like it or not the well-being of our neighbour impacts on us. So what happens, well the State will move in to provide services where the free market won't, requiring taxes. The system you're proposing will allow privately run companies to cherry pick where they want to provide services, leaving the State and taxpayer to pick up the bill for the rest.
Last edited:
Almost nothing, EU budget is quite low (150 billion). It gets that from a GNI based tax on every EU country. Its something like 1% .
[doublepost=1453195467][/doublepost]
You do realise ireland is in the EU? And that the EU laws go above irish law?
Compare this to when a company in new york doesnt follow federal law. Doesnt matter it has a deal with the state of new york, if there is a federal law thats applicable it has to follow that as well.
Apple cant pick and choose which law to follow . Nothing about hate just about a deal ireland and apple made that wasnt correct and apple now possilbly has to pay back what it owns in taxes.
Ah but the 12.5 corporate tax rate is for everyone else not for Apple. From what I understand they pay less than 2 percent.
But that is strictly an Irish problem the main issue here is that the income from all over Europe is being channelled through Ireland as if its local income. So there is a double dip going on here with two separate problems.
while at the same time more of the tax money on military purposes, especially the military power to invade.
"I don't know the details of this case to come to a conclusive decision." - 2 cents
Actually, after that 35 years you actually owe a lot more than $100,000, not to your employer, but to EU, because your employer have been offering you free meal, free fruit, free coffee, free water, free office, while neither of you ever reported them in your income tax return. 35 years later, you now worth over 4 million, EU believes over 1.5 million in that are the income tax (plus interests and penalty) you owed it.
Actually, that's a good example of the problem here. For the longest time, in the US, benefits weren't considered income. So you could get health care coverage, use of a company car, and none of those things ever got mentioned on a 1040. Then the law changed (and I'll admit I'm not sure if it was an IRS ruling or legislation that went through Congress) and suddenly workers did have to declare them - but only some. And they DIDN'T go back and say "everyone owes taxes on that stuff before the rule was changed. Meanwhile, free coffee, free water, on-site cafeteria aren't taxed.
I'm not an EU law expert. If the EU law is "no tax incentives allowed", then yeah, the case is cut and dried, Apple and Ireland are in the wrong and back payment may be reasonable. If it's a lot fuzzier, "can't be too good", so there's a judgement call whether it's a "subsidy" - the EU has the authority to make the judgement call that this condition is "too good" and stop it going forward. But unless there are specific guidelines that were clearly broken, trying to enforce that judgement retroactively and require back payment is unreasonable.
It is not up to you to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable, it's always the biggest power's privilege. Was it reasonable for the US to forbid immigrants? Was it reasonable for Indian tribes to forbid the then-immigrants-from-England to invade the valleys they lived for hundreds of years?
So the EU can do that because they've got the guns. Except in the Western World, at least, they're supposed to act reasonably when it comes to enforcing and making judgements about laws. Not saying it always happens, but supposed. And one of the cornerstones of reasonableness is not making laws and regulations take effect before they were passed.
They dont, they had laws and regulations and apple broke them . Its that simple.
That apple had a deal with ireland doesnt matter they also have to follow eu laws and they didnt.
If it was cut and dried that Apple's deal with Ireland was against the rules, it wouldn't have taken so long for the Tax Probe.
Again, it's reasonable to make a judgement now, that deal isn't allowed and going forward it must be stopped. That's a reasonable use of judgement. Unreasonable is to say "we've decided that our interpretation of these rules that cover the general level of allowed deals is that it was not allowed - so you've got to pay for the taxes you didn't pay. (And if it's a fine, the money goes to the EU not the countries that didn't get the revenues they should have gotten).
No that isn't the case. Eu works slow very slow.
No that's not true . If its found that apple was in breach those years for not paying enough taxes. Just like any citizen . they have to pay .
Apple isn't something special they should be outside the law.
You seem to think this is a newly created law: it isn't.
).
Its not A fine its backtaxes perhaps with a fine on top. This will go to Ireland for the most part not EU. And even if it would go to the EU: doesn't change a thing.
If there is an explicit law, no tax advantages allowed, or minimum tax rate must be 10%, where it isn't a judgement call whether Apple's deal is too good - then sure, they broke the law and back taxes are reasonable. And Apple wouldn't be stating it'll go to court about it, because facts would be facts.
If the laws involved are more vague, advantages cannot be "excessive" or "large enough they fall into subsidy" (which I'm guessing is the case which is why Apple is saying it can fight this in court), then an ex post facto judgement is not reasonable.
Apple is not run by stupid people. If they were breaking an explicit law, where there's no arguing that they didn't, the action needed would be to start getting in alignment with the law and negotiate a smaller settlement. Not keep on going, firmly state the rightness of its case and threaten legal action.
This is the case. EU deemed that whatever apple paid wasn't fair too other companies.
The situation just has to be corrected and that means apple should taxed at the normal irish tax rate.
No fine or such as the EU has said to never set fines for such cases.
Apple can say whatever it wants, the fact remains that ireland can set its taxes on whatever level it wants BUT the EU has the right to see that this is done fair in ireland.
In this case it stating that the very low rate apple had to pay compared to the actual tax rate that the very vast majority of irish companies paid wasn't fair and does fall under the illegal subsidies .
They have every right to appeal and get whatever they have to pay reduced, the problem is that this still can be considered subsidies .
Apple probably just figured the EU would never call them out on it, or they didn't realize the EU had this law when negotiation with ireland.
It's much wider than just ireland, the funnelling via or through ireland is deliberate to avoid higher tax rates in other countries. The UK has already agreed with google back payments and all futures tax will be on sales in the UK regardless of where they happen to be banked. Amazon, Starbucks and Apple are next 8Bn is only the tip, id wager the real bill will be higher than that in the end and rightly so IMO. They have earned it, time to do the right thing. I don't want to pay tax either - be that sales or wages but i have to, thats my moral obligation and unfortunately is also a legal one as a individual.
This is not the case, there are those in power in the EU who believe that to be so but the probe is ongoing. And again, I said explicit law, where there is a set standard for "wasn't fair to other companies" which doesn't seem to be the case.
And again, I fully agree the EU has the right to tell Ireland and Apple, you can't do that any more. It being too good is a judgement call and the EU gets to make the judgement call. What I say the EU shouldn't have the right to do, and shouldn't do, is say "We've made our judgement now and it applies to all those past years so pay up."