I understand the history of the region my friend. The EU selectively enforces laws when it needs cash. Focus on the cancer growing from within the EU. Not Apple.
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
I understand the history of the region my friend. The EU selectively enforces laws when it needs cash. Focus on the cancer growing from within the EU. Not Apple.
That's not what he said. He was saying that Tim is conservative himself (in otherwords greedy) when it comes to money. Conservatives are not victims, you can stop.
I guess is more that extraordinary claims require for extraordinary supporting arguments. If someone claims the courts' decision is politically driven they also have to provide some very good arguments supporting such claim. So far, no such supporting argument has been provided as far as I've read.
There is no selective enforcement in the case the EU brought against the Irish tax deals with Apple: only Apple is involved because the tax deals were exclusive to Apple and didn't apply to other companies.I understand the history of the region my friend. The EU selectively enforces laws when it needs cash. Focus on the cancer growing from within the EU. Not Apple.
Other companies not being able to enjoy such favourable deals is exactly the reason why these deals have been declared illegal state aids: if the deals were available to all companies without discrimination they would not have been illegal and the EU wouldn't have a case.
Exactly, but no people will just claim Apple is being picked on..
It’s like Walmart in the US being told it doesn’t have to pay ANY tax and instead all other Americans will pay for their taxes, I’m sure Americans would be upset then no?
Not to mention Wallmart's competitors, which would effectively have to compete with a company enjoying a significantly lower taxation compared to them.
If the extent of vandalism was some spray on snow on the outside glass of a store, then surely going as far as a High Court is overkill and makes Apple look like a bully.
"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,..."
During a stunt at an Apple store in Aix-en-Provence last November, for example, activists painted "pay your taxes" on the glass windows.
...
During a stunt at an Apple store in Aix-en-Provence last November, for example, activists painted "pay your taxes" on the glass windows.
...
They didn't break anything.
I find it to be pathetic to sue for this, most Europeans just shrug this off, even the judge did, I think you call this frivolous lawsuits.
Ah yes, reminds me of sue happy America.
It's probably 0.0000001% of their profit to clean those windows, negligible.
I hate this garbage. If you don't like "tax avoidance", hound your politicians. If you think Apple, et al, are breaking a law, enforce the law. This is just hobbyist protesting.
Defense against what? Truly non-violent protests can end prematurely without violence from either side. Just wait until robots are deployed to scoop up protesters. Will they then claim that the robots were attacking them without cause?
As are, eg, paid lobbyists. What's good for goose should also be good enough for the gander.
My rationale? I don't care. Apple's got enough money. If they made a good computer at an affordable price, I'd buy it.
This is not a comment on this particular action or this particular group but a more general one:
- Sometimes lobbying your politicians is done indirectly by shining a spotlight on companies like Apple. Merely by keeping this issue in the media and thus the public's mind, politicians are under greater pressure to change the rules. It also puts pressure on Apple which can lead to them scale back their lobbying efforts on this subject.
Ireland entering into the deal with Apple only became an issue when Brussels needed revenue. It was declared illegal state aid long after it was initiated. Brussels saw a disturbing trend that threatened to diminish it's Oligarchic Rule over the EU.
The Nation States within the EU require more autonomy if it is to survive.
Seems that painting stuff on someone else's property would violate some kind of law.
[doublepost=1519519468][/doublepost]So Apple can have people paint disagreements to the EU on the windows of the European Commission?
False. Freedom of speech is severely limited in Europe. It is a farce. Try flying the swastika flag on your private property (in Germany), and you'd end up in jail. European censorship is so severe that Germany once banned an old version of the legendary PC/Mac game Castle Wolfenstein because the game (about killing Nazis) portrayed Nazi symbols and opening credits included a stanza from the Horst Wessel Lied.
In the USA, racist people can fly confederate and even nazi flags on their private property. Yes, they will be criticized for it, they will be shamed for doing so. But they cannot be arrested for a crime because the Constitution (First Amendment) protects their right.
So Walmart pays zero taxes in the US does it? None, nothing, nada. I do not believe that.
this may be a shocker for some, but corporations don't pay taxes. only people pay taxes.
corporations just offset whatever taxes are thrown into them to their prices... then people pay for those.
Ireland entering into the deal with Apple only became an issue when Brussels needed revenue. It was declared illegal state aid long after it was initiated. Brussels saw a disturbing trend that threatened to diminish it's Oligarchic Rule over the EU.
The Nation States within the EU require more autonomy if it is to survive.
The EU commission had carried out a 2 to 3 year investigation on member state sweetheart deals before its ruling to Ireland made in August 2016.
That is a far cry from the ideology that the EU picked on Apple to make a fast buck because they needed money.
[doublepost=1519522640][/doublepost]
So they DO pay taxes then, simply claiming they make the customer pay those taxes is not the same thing.
Last edited: