I think the law is crystal clear that you are not supposed to kill people, yet there are thousands of murders every year and many go to court. So your logic seems to be a bit off somewhere.
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
From the picture is pretty obvious they are vandalizing Apple's property, so far for 'freedom of speech'.
Right but that is how a free and open society works -- people, associations, can petition the government on behalf of their personal cause. But ultimately it's up to the legislature to study a given policy and potential outcomes and then enact what it deems most effective. Lobbying does not equal enacting law though it's true many lobbying groups do write legislation for legislators which often becomes law. But it's the legislator that has the vote, not the lobbyist. If the legislator is crooked, "in the pocket,", well, that is a separate matter entirely. The fact remains the legislator has the voting card.
It seems the U.S. is the only place with guaranteed freedom of speech, as given by the first amendment.
Most European countries and Canada don't quite have that, so new laws are slowly eroding away what speech is allowable, generally under the guise of nebulous 'hate speech' laws.
Vandalism as well as impeding the rights of others is absolutely unacceptable, though, so I disagree with this ruling.
In most countries government and judicial system are independent. As they should be. Exceptions were Germany 1933-1945 for example.
[doublepost=1519486204][/doublepost]
You pay the amount of tax that is determined by the local tax office, not a penny more, not a penny less. It seems that's what Apple has done.
I don't feel sorry for them i'm just making a point that those people protesting are being somewhat hypocritical because given the same opportunity they would also avoid paying tax, not only that but they are disrupting business and people who go into those Apple stores, not to mention criminal damage and or vandalism by drawing on the Apple store windows!
As for the EU i'm just glad that we in the UK are actually leaving when our government can actually get on with it that is. What made me laugh about the whole thing was that Ireland didn't want Apple to pay it the EU are the one's that are making Apple Pay Ireland the money
I think we safely assume that it was clear that the spirit of my post was in regard to 'tax law' and public companies.
[doublepost=1519486542][/doublepost]
Sure, because modern trade agreements never have clauses about state aid.
If you want to do business with others, you have to agree on a common set of rules for businesses. Even the WTO has rules about state aid.
If another country is doing 'dumping' (as in selling products at low prices only made possible by state aid), you cry foul. If your country is doing it, and other countries cry foul, you complain about them interfering in your internal affairs.
It's called a double standard.
Last edited:
But it can be problematic. Let's say I find something in a store that I would be willing to pay $150 for. And the cashier says it's $100. Im very happy with that, I pay $100 and take it home. A week later the boss says it should have been $200. And the boss may even be right; everyone else who bought it paid $200. But I wouldn't have bought it for $200. So what now?
Being opposed to setting up a shell company whose profits aren't taxable in any jurisdiction is hardly 'hatred for companies'.
Companies do tons of things they don't have to. You do far more things that you don't have to (legally). Like it or not, we treat people as well as companies according to a lot of (legally) voluntary things they do.
Are you actually accusing a French court to be ruling for political reasons instead of ruling based on the facts of the case? That's a pretty harsh accusation.
And criticising Apple here is just that, people petitioning the government indirectly via social media/press.
You just described applelogetics on this forum.
[doublepost=1519487853][/doublepost]
This is the thing I don’t agree from this protest. Maybe they clean it up after their protest ends daily? I don’t think so but probably one of those easy to wash paints. Nevertheless that is considered vandalism in my book. They could hold signs and get the same effect.
"The order states that the mere presence of protesters at Apple's stores in France, without violence, vandalism, or customers being blocked from entering the premises, is not enough to justify limiting the group's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly protected by human rights laws in Europe."
I don't know French law, so would painting someone else's storefront i.e. defacing a storefront, constitute as "vandalism"? Or is it considered just freedom of expression? What action would constitute as vandalism if not painting over someone else's property or rented space without permission? If this group did that to a government building or the glass pyramid of the Louvre would it be considered freedom of expression?
I don't know French law, so would painting someone else's storefront i.e. defacing a storefront, constitute as "vandalism"? Or is it considered just freedom of expression? What action would constitute as vandalism if not painting over someone else's property or rented space without permission? If this group did that to a government building or the glass pyramid of the Louvre would it be considered freedom of expression?
That's your opinion. Certainly you are entitled to hold it. I disagree. People who talk about "shell companies" do so because they believe they are inherently evil being done by "greed" entities. Everyone else doesn't really mention them at all. It's not on their radar.
[doublepost=1519489104][/doublepost]
Well no. The government is not the media. In fact, at least in the U.S. the media is designed as a watchdog over the government -- not that it always works out that way. Petitioning the government means direct contact with government representatives.
But beside that I'm not sure of your overall point. No one is trying to censor you -- just disagree with your points. You are free -- subject to MR rules -- to share any opinion you like.
Last edited:
It's definitely vandalism, but as explained time and again Apple presented woefully inadequate evidence to support their case.
[doublepost=1519490484][/doublepost]
In the case of a purchase typically once the money is exchanged and the good delivered, the deal is done and cannot be rectified.
This is not typically the case with taxes: usually the tax authority has the right to rectify previous taxations within some time limits in case of mistakes or discrepancies.
Note that I'm not talking of retroactively applying new tax regulations, but of re-calculating old taxes once it's found out the original calculation was incorrect according to the tax regulation at the time.
As example, IIRC in my country they can go back as far as 10 years with such rectifications.
I do know all the facts, it’s been published in the media enough, Ireland is a member of the EU, as such it applied for EU state aid, I.E. money from the tax payers of the other 26 EU nations, as a law for that it cannot give corporations ‘special’ tax arrangements that it doesn’t offer other companies, this is what Ireland did, in fact I think Apple recieved aid also reading the reports. Yet it paid 0.005% on its entire global earnings bar the US that it piped through Ireland, it’s a straight up clear breach of European laws, if they don’t like it they know what they can do..
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/30/apple-pay-back-taxes-eu-ruling-ireland-state-aid
A year after the EU commissions rullinf Apple and Ireland had made no effort to make arrangements to pay the money, so last October the commission took Ireland to court:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-taxavoidance-court/eu-takes-ireland-to-court-for-not-claiming-apple-tax-windfall-idUSKCN1C913I
See the story above, Apple is refusing to pay back taxes to Ireland after it ruled Ireland breached EU laws with plenty of evidence to back it up, it was not a tax loophole, it was illegal.
As for the other loopholes, they are being closed and the EU is going after them, although I suspect that has more to do with the public outcry their has been since these reports emerged, as I said, who do you think picks up this tax bills that corporations don’t pay?
Ah I found a story about the EU commission taking on Luxembourg over its arrangement with Amazon also:
http://www.ft.com/content/fac76fd1-7cf6-3abb-8fad-5cebfd6d96bd
Again the arrangement was found to be illegal under state aid rules.
It’s not propaganda when European tax payers and indeed companies pay more tax then US giant corps, Apple though so far I believe, through Ireland, are the only ones to have broken EU law, although I could be wrong and others may have too.
I don’t think European tax payers are happy to pick up Apples tax bill as they have been, the money has to come from somewhere.
Last edited:
They are not. However it is from the growing instability within the EU not Apple. The EU only exists as long as everyone is getting the same amount of milk from the bosom. That is no longer the case for a myriad of reasons. Apple is a nice fat target that creates headlines. The EU should be far more concerned with S&P removing Russia's Bonds from junk status this week. Russia has it together now. The ruble has been very stable. A far more powerful Russia in Global Trade will make like hell for the EU. I look forward to it.
It's still defacing private property (permanent or temporary damage) which defeats the whole "peaceful protest from the sidewalk" concept, don't you think? I'm all in favour of peaceful protest but if you want to be respected for your viewpoint and be taken seriously, don't go breaking the other guy's $h!t...
They are not. However it is from the growing instability within the EU not Apple. The EU only exists as long as everyone is getting the same amount of milk from the bosom. That is no longer the case for a myriad of reasons. Apple is a nice fat target that creates headlines. The EU should be far more concerned with S&P removing Russia's Bonds from junk status this week. Russia has it together now. The ruble has been very stable. A far more powerful Russia in Global Trade will make like hell for the EU. I look forward to it.
You show little understanding of the EU, how it works, and make an excuse for Apple and Ireland to breach its laws. You go on accusing them of picking on Apple and ignore the fact Ireland and ergo Apple breached EU laws. Yes why should the EU collect billions in taxes it’s owed eh? Just make all the Europeans pay it.. so long as greedy Apple is protected at all costs, are you a share holder or something?
Coming from someone completely comfortable with stealing Apple IP for his "hackintosh." But that's OK, right? It's not greed if you want to steel someone else's hard work via using their intellectual property the way you see fit? Rationalize away...
[doublepost=1519494580][/doublepost]
He didn't phrase it well but he was being sarcastic due to the poster he was responding to having twisted their interpretation of French law. I expect he's well aware that US citizens must be (at least) 18 to purchase a firearm and can drive well before 21.
Last edited:
Antifa needs to get involved. Have the left eat itself, etc. Fun!
Light them trashcans on fire bruh!
Light them trashcans on fire bruh!
Those cases are very rarely about the definition of what constitutes murder but rather to determine whether or not the accused committed the crime in question (in contrast to everyone understanding that Apple complied with Irish tax law as it existed but deciding on whether those favorable Irish tax rates constituted state aid - illegal under EU treaties - or sovereign tax law - which is perfectly fine). And regardless there is variation between jurisdictions as to what constitutes murder and there can be cases where it comes down to interpretation of the statute in question.
[doublepost=1519497438][/doublepost]
Even in the US freedom of speech is not absolute. Like most constitutional rights, freedom of speech is judged under strict scrutiny standards but laws can be written that restrict speech provided they are narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means to satisfy what is a compelling government interest. This is why things like libel laws are valid or the classic example that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
Regardless - those protesters are controlled opposition.
[doublepost=1519501194][/doublepost]
Apparently it is above your head.
[doublepost=1519501246][/doublepost]
LOL - you have a lot of faith in the court system - LOL!!!