Someone in an Apple related discussion forum is complaining about sheeps! Baa, baa!
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 Denied Request to Ban Tax Protestors From Its Stores in France
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1. You know they haven't intimidated employees or customers?
2. I agree with you about Apple and their dealings, it's wrong and they take the moral high ground in so many areas while ignoring the log in their own eye
3. Your logic would equate to it being ok to turn up to a garbage collector and harass him, or go to the DMV and cover the place in paint because the government they work for is corrupt
4. It's not bread Apple sell, if the prices are nuts which they are, people get to choose whether to buy those things or not
Even if Apple loses, that doesn't mean they were wrong... they used loopholes to minimize taxes (perfectly legal and we all do it) and now the EU wants to change the way they collect taxes and expect Apple to pay retroactively. They're dealing with a legalized form of Mafia, after all.
So protest again Ireland who allowed this to happen
Besides it is very normal to arrange for specific tax arrangement with companies, and there is also the double taxation treaty. If Ireland wants a small percentage of a lot instead of following the French example where they over tax companies and individuals then good on them in my opinion.
They didn't use any loophole... the issue is not about tax-avoidance, it's about Apple receiving special deals from Ireland which granted Apple a much lower tax rate compared to the standard tax rate in the country. These kinds of special deals are a form of state aid and thus illegal under EU law. The EU told Ireland the special deals are illegal and the standard tax rate has to be applied instead.
Not dummies, just that no European country actually has “free speech.”
Many do have universal healthcare and free college though, so maybe it’s a good trade.
Nah, it's more complicated than that. EU claims the loopholes were illegal to begin with. Apple was complying with Ireland's national laws, but Ireland may have been operating illegally wrt international laws. International law generally speaking is unsupervised, unclear, selectively enforced, and only really enforced in ugly ways.
I like the idea of the EU. Not a fan of its socialist reality, but IMO Ireland is mooching, deserves a penalty, and will get a penalty. I have no idea whether Apple is supposed to be responsible for this, but I don't think "is supposed to" really matters here as it's just going to be a question of political strength.
Last edited:
Generally, if you at least attempt to to speak French you'll get a far better experience, than if you just spoke in English.
1. NO. How do YOU know there was? It's not my responsibility to disprove your wild theories, but for you to find evidence of your initial claim.
2. First let me make a point of how meaningless your Bible references are to a French person and a European at large. But the good thing about it, we don't use it so much that we forget their meanings. Here they are not merely hypocrits, but cynics and liars. It's also illegal to publicly contradict or criticise a court's ruling, btw. This is the truth now. The Attac were using their right to demonstrate.
3. Forget about the paint. Was there paint at the specific location the lawsuit cited? Was the paint even raised as an issue in the lawsuit? First answer that. Next, let it go anyway. Apple is free to sue again for the damage done. They will most likely fail now. Most probably, they did not specify that this was done to their store OR they chose to sue matters of the demonstration, libel and vandalism as one case. Justice doesn't care about nitpicking, it decides according to the way the case is presented, with the arguments presented. You can sue all you want, if your only complaint is that this is damaging to the company's profitability and reputation, well, you're right, it is and it's called a demonstration. Your point? And no, it's not libel, because Ireland's already been condemned, so Attac is telling the truth about Ireland, not Apple per se. You lose your main argument, you lose it all. And it's the same everywhere the rule of law applies. Let. It. Go.
4. The fact that they update their firmware to break their phones has nothing to do with my choices as a customer. Nor does it have anything to do with them not paying their taxes. Well tried. I still want to buy Apple, but that does not mean I'm willing to turn a blind eye to them robbing me. And yes, when they break my phone with a firmware update, AND not pay their taxes, don't expect me or a judge to shed a tear for a whitened window. But this is not even an issue or a point that was necessary to dismiss their claim against Attac.
Probably true, but maybe I got lucky when I visited with my family 6 years ago. Didn't encounter any hostility speaking English only, including in small towns where we just couldn't talk at all because nobody spoke English.
Saw one thing recently that said even if the Earth was flat nobody would ever be able to reach the edge because gravity's pull would be so strong it would be akin to climbing a nearly vertical mountain
I really wish that somebody would protect a multibillion dollar business spending as much money as possible to skirt the laws, or influence their development, to enable as little taxation as possible, so they can profit from society but not contribute, because those poor businesses need our help as much as possible.
C'est vrai ! Americans are seen as loud and obnoxious, and some of them are. But if you're loud and speaking broken French, we're more likely to take pity on you and sympathise. Since "we" are terrible at English, in turn.
Ah, "Fake news", the rallying cry of those who don't care about facts. Your points don't even make sense. It's the EU that was claiming its rules were violated, it's not Apple that created the situation (surely they asked for it, but it took the government to create the rules), and it's not a settled case as there are expected to be years of appeals.
And won't somebody screw the children in the cobalt mines and Foxconn factories ?
Hate speech? Who says what 'hate speech' is? Who defines what goes under that rule, and what doesn't? You? Or people who agree with your opinion?
Labelling something is easy. Anyone can do it.
And you are right, we don't learn from history. Some people burned down books they didn't like, torn down monuments they didn't like, and banned some speech they didn't approve. Now some people are trying to do that all over again.
EOD from my side, no point in this conversation since we all know that you won't change my mind, neither I will yours. But one thing you simply can't take away from me is free speech, since I don't live in Germany, neither can German government
No. You are a troll. The EU did not claim ITS rules were violated. The EU OBSERVED that Apple and the Irish state were in violation OF IRISH LAW.
IRISH LAW. Get it ? IRISH. LAW.
And there are no written rules mirroring the decision tho give apple a sweetheat deal, anywhere. Soooo. The rule does not exist. It's illegal.
And it's NOT EU rules. And the EU Commission only referred the case to the European Court, it did not make the ruling. And guess what, everybody has to answer the EU court, just like nobody is above the Supreme Court in the USA, if that can help you understand what's what.
You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. Get it ? You are wrong.
Facts and reality are against you. Rulings are against you. The legal system and its functionning are for... just kidding, against you. The true an immutable sequence of events contradicts your falsehood.
The universe bent itself 124 billion years ago to blast your illusion into nothingness.
This is the incontrovertible power and magnificence of the One and Only Reality against your measly falsehood.
I could go on. Whew, that was fun.
Please elaborate: what exactly is "happening behind the scenes" that justifies massive tax evasion schemes?
Why is painting on walls and doors not considered vandalism?
Also, while they may not be blocking customers from entering, many would probably feel at least uncomfortable if not scared and refrain from entering nevertheless.
Also, while they may not be blocking customers from entering, many would probably feel at least uncomfortable if not scared and refrain from entering nevertheless.