Some EU member states do, and Double Jeopardy generally extends to criminal cases over civil. In this case, are you are very well aware, the decision was appealed again to the highest court - which is what happens in the US.
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 Pay 'Total Political Crap' $14 Billion Tax Bill to EU After All
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Some EU member states do, and Double Jeopardy generally extends to criminal cases over civil. In this case, are you are very well aware, the decision was appealed again to the highest court - which is what happens in the US.
How Steve Jobs used to say "You have to look at the whole thing!".
Why did the iPhone had the very limited USB 2.0 transfer speed all these years? To drive their iCloud subscription crap, otherwise people could get the idea of comfy and faster copying Photos over to their PC/Mac and bypass the iCloud subscription alltogether.
By not moving to USB-C on iPhones earlier, many years ago, it was also to drive the sales of lightning cables and adapters and other licensed accessories.
By creating MFi cert and block working non-licensed cables with software updates, just to make customers buy MFi stuff licensed by Apple.
Instead of including an USB-A to lighting cable with the recent iPhones, they decided to include an USB-C to lightning cable without a Power Adapter (which was incompatible to all the USB-A Power Adapters people already had in their drawer). Purely to drive the their USB-C Power Adapter sales.
The recent "sales driven move" was to add USB-C forced by the EU, but limit the transfer speed to their own "very expensive" cable, just to not put the revenue of iCloud subscriptions in danger. (But this move will backfire in the EU, you'll see!)
etc.
Apple's history is full of awkward decisions to purely benefit their revenue.
Last edited:
I agree with your overall point, but ironically your example is of one of those appeals to emotion over actual results. Just because tax cuts decrease revenue less that the expected growth, doesn't mean that the revenue increased because of the tax cuts.
I’m sure the EU can’t even imagine that Apple might pull out if the market. And perhaps they’re right. But if one company of this size did so, it might give the EU the attitude adjustment it needs.
It could be different if Apple would pay the taxes, but for now Apple worth nothing, they are just leeching the EU.
The ones in our house predate us, but are over 60. My grandparents' house had push button ones that were 80-90. However, having written that, we're going to have replace our bedroom light switch because it recently broke!
siddavis said:
“Kind of like when US federal tax cuts are implemented and tax revenue actually increases. The feels are all "the sky is falling" and never care to look at the effect. Marxism is alive and well because emotions rule the day.”
Happened once under JFK in a time of economic growth. The revenues went up due to the growth, not because of the cuts.
Ever since then, the tax cut approach has failed spectacularly. Large tax cuts under Reagan, Bush, and Trump (that mostly went to the well off and corporations) have led to massive declines in government revenue and huge run ups in the federal deficit and national debt.
Economists — and real world results — have systematically and repeatedly shown that the Laffer Curve is a fiction — cut taxes and you cut government revenue. Trickle down economics simply doesn't work.
If Marxism is alive and well, something I’d dispute, it is not because “emotions rule the day”, but because the power elite and capitalism still run amok, shaping policy in the interests of the powerful and well off, immiserating people, and, globally, generating massive inequality, poverty, poor health, widespread underemployment and unemployment, and even autocracy. They are also fueling worsening global warming and the climate emergency, née climate cataclysm.
💯 % correct! ✅
In 2016 the European Commission made an order to Apple, which Apple (and Ireland) appeaedl to the General Court that overturned the order, so the E.U. appealed to the European Cour of Justice as the court of last resort.
The U.S. judicial system would have added a third step where a case would first be heard in a district court, then appealed in a court of appeals, before going to the Supreme Court as the court of last resort.
Are you saying that there should never be any right of appeal and that a ruling of a lower court could never be wrong?
Also double jeopardy prevents someone from being charged a second time for an offence where a court has reached a conclusion. But it does not prevent either party from appealing the decision of that court where there is reason to believe a decision was wrong in law or where new facts show a person was wrongly convicted. And in the U.S. it does not prevent someone being charged separately under state and federal laws for the same offence where different laws overlap.
Leave Ireland? I'm sure they could manage no problem. There are lots of other countries that would love to have Apple EU HQ in their country.
It is obviously very difficult for most people here to grasp that Apple is not on trial, Ireland is, for breaking EU law against illegal tax reduction (considered state aid).
The company that got the tax reduction was Apple, hence, they will need to pay the correct amount of tax to Ireland regardless if Ireland wants the money or not.
Just the fact that it is obviously difficult to say exactly how much tax Apple paid to Ireland makes it look shady.
If Apple could easily show: this is how much we earned, this is how much tax we paid and the sum of tax being equal to Ireland's company tax of 12.5% this would be a nothingburger and would never have even been considered at a court.
Hey, just saying that when taxes are cut, tax revenue has increased. Yet when the cuts are proposed, the arguments against are based on *who* will benefit and that the proletariat should rise up and strike it down! That's an argument playing to emotions leaving out that everyone would (theoretically) benefit from the increased revenue - i.e. ignoring historical results.
I'm not sure where you get this from. Obviously, Apple's Irish tax statements would detail this information.
The real issue isn't Apple paying taxes on revenue that it books in Ireland. The EU wants a cut of the revenue that Apple is booking in the US. They are just using Irish tax laws to delay paying those taxes in the US.
Nope. This always comes up whenever Apple are hit with a financial penalty, but it's not true. Apple will already have invested heavily in identifying the maximum price the market will bear for their devices and services and will be selling them at that, knowing that any increase in price beyond that would result in reduced demand.
In other words, if Apple could sell products at a higher price without reducing sales, they would already be doing so.
Counter-intuitively, financial penalties can sometimes lead to companies having to reduce prices to increase sales volumes against reduced margins once these penalties are absorbed into unit cost. I don't see Apple needing to do this though.
Last edited:
The European Parliament - the lower house directly elected body by citizens of all member states
The Council fo the European Union - the upper house formed of relevant national ministers for the matter being discussed. So if, for example, it was meeting to deal with a matter related to trade it would be comprised of the trade secretary equivalent from the elected governments of each member state.
Which part is not democratic?
Countries choose to become a member of the European Union, and in doing so agree to abide by its regulations in return for the benefits of membership. But that membership is voluntary and any member can choose to leave, as the United Kingdom did.
This is where it is different from the U.S., where there is similarly a balance state and federal laws, because a democratically elected state government that does not like federal law does not have any unilateral right of secession, the Supreme Court ruled it would need the consent of other states in the union.
Aha, and lose a 400 million people of a wealthy market by doing so? Paying that EU fine would be peanuts to Apple in comparison.
Again, that's an appeal to emotion that ignores historical results. Tax cuts didn't cause an increase in tax revenue. They didn't under Bush. They didn't under Trump. They did cause a reduction in tax revenue. (Trump tax cuts are estimated to have added $1-2 trillion to the national debt.)
Yes my original post was poorly worded, the interesting part to me is that it was said the final tribunal usually just follows the recommendation, which appears to be directly against two previous upholding court cases.
Probably does happen in the US. Maybe it was worded strangely. Just seemed weird to me. Didn't seem to be how case law, precedent, etc works if one person can just say "no they were wrong" and the highest tribunal just says "ok whatever you say."
Thank you for an actual explanation and not just downvoting me.
I realize courts aren't democracies, and maybe this is just a naive American view, but they're supposed to still be accountable to the people in some way. Even the Supreme Court has some form of checks and balances. Maybe it just doesn't work that way there.
It just seemed counter-intuitive to me that it appears this case was decided, appealed, upheld, and now one person decides it should be stricken and a higher court than the first two seems to just go along with that.
You favorite 3 billion dollars company and best friend is under attaaaaack ! MAYDAY ! MAYDAY !!!
If you were desperately looking for a reason to be enraged and mad at stuff today, that's it !
Stop immediately whatever you were doing as you melt in rage.
If you were desperately looking for a reason to be enraged and mad at stuff today, that's it !
Stop immediately whatever you were doing as you melt in rage.
Leave the EU or..? Why does the amount of money the have dictate why they should leave? There is no one forcing you or anyone else for that matter to use their products. Maybe you should be one of the first and take up the mantel and sell your gear and move to another platform?
One could also say that Apple had saved you (in the EU) 50 euros off each iPhone. Now the EU wants its money back! So, you pay more "tax" cause you live in the EU.
You maybe
I’ll go back to android where I came from.
Check out oppo / one plus in two years