Apple Reportedly Shifted Billions of Dollars to Small Island of Jersey Amid Tax Crackdown [Updated]

[oneMadRssn]

I'm not sure there is such a thing. All laws ultimately come down to morality.

That's crazy, I certainly hope not.

Let's take the simplest example: Theft. We all agree it's immoral, but that's not why it is illegal. It's illegal for economic reasons, for reasons of justice, for policy that shows punishing theft results in a better society, and dozens of other reasons.

My issue with morals is they are too loose and cannot be litigated.

First, there is no one set of morals. Even people within the same religion or society have vast disagreements over morals. Are gay relationships moral? Is sex before marriage moral? Is killing an innocent animal for clothing moral? Is worshipping satan moral? There is no agreement on morals, and probably won't ever be.

Second, even if there some kind of consensus on morals, where do you go to bring challenges on moral grounds? Say there is no law against adultery, but we all agree it is immoral. If your spouse cheated on you, who can help on moral grounds? How do you fix the moral wrong?

I think morals serve very important purposes: (1) They are easy-to-understand guideposts for small children to learn to become good functioning adolescents, who can then learn more complicated rules of society. (2) They are wisdom that can be passed down from generation to generation, due to their simplicity, and thus have generally outlast any organized set of laws. (3) They are a sanity check against complicated situations, where taking a step back and considering the morals may be a good way to address something which is otherwise too large and has too many moving pieces.

So I am not arguing against the idea of morals. I just think we should be honest when making arguments. In my OP in the other thread that was quoted above, I was responding to an assertion that the estate tax is immoral. Sure, it might be to some people, but that version of morals does not override the very real and tangible socio-economic, political, and historical reasons for having an estate tax.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Dodging tax is one thing but passing on a higher price to me because they’ve ‘supposedly’ paid more tax in my country when they haven’t is quite another.

How about Apple give us US prices or absorb the 20% VAT we pay within the retail price on every purchase? Robbing so and so’s! And they wonder why British and European sales are slipping in the last 18 months.

 

[beanbaguk]

meanwhile i am being forced to pay 8 % church tax from my salary every month LOL

Do you live in Austria? Just declare yourself an atheist! No tax. Job done.

 

[SteveW928]

The same mentality that almost sank the US economy in 2008. But who cares right?

How in the world did you conclude that? High morals and long-term thinking almost sank the USA economy in 2008? Or, did you misread that?

Let's take the simplest example: Theft. We all agree it's immoral, but that's not why it is illegal. It's illegal for economic reasons, for reasons of justice, for policy that shows punishing theft results in a better society, and dozens of other reasons.

Ok, it's illegal for economic reasons why? Because it will unjustly hurt others. Thus, immoral. Justice is morality. A 'better' society... what does that mean? A more just one? Morality.

Morality - 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.'

My issue with morals is they are too loose and cannot be litigated.

That's not a problem with the morals... that's a problem failure to practice them or of the justice system to properly prosecute the breaking of them.

First, there is no one set of morals. Even people within the same religion or society have vast disagreements over morals.

We'd go way too far into the weed here discussing this one. But, isn't this like saying there is no science because scientists disagree? Just because people disagree on something doesn't mean ultimate reality or truth doesn't exist.

We could analyze all the situations you presented and show (even through disagreement) that the underlying concern, on one side or the other, are things like justice or harm.

So I am not arguing against the idea of morals. I just think we should be honest when making arguments. In my OP in the other thread that was quoted above, I was responding to an assertion that the estate tax is immoral. Sure, it might be to some people, but that version of morals does not override the very real and tangible socio-economic, political, and historical reasons for having an estate tax.

The idea of any tax is to collect money from the public/citizens to provide for the 'common good.' So, at a base level, that presupposes there is a good vs bad. It also presupposes that it's a good thing to do to try and increase the overall good, even at some cost to the individuals of the society. So, morality is involved.

Note: That DOES NOT mean that working out the details are simplistic or that there can't be competing (moral) arguments. For example, one might argue that collecting taxes to provide a safety-net and/or provide for the poor is a moral thing to do, while another will argue for the morality of keeping the taxes low for individual freedoms and prosperity of the individual or family units. Both, though, are moral concerns (they are arguing for what is good).

 

[VulchR]

In America is would be unethical NOT to find tax havens.

Remember that Trump made it a campaign topic that any entity must find as many loop holes as possible.
His "fiduciary responsibility" to pay as little taxes as possible!

So, not moral to pay taxes, but very ethical to use every legal option to not play taxes.
Welcome to Murica!

The strange thing is that, yes, one state court has stated that 'fiduciary responsibility' is a common understanding. However, so far as I know, and I have been asking all sorts of people for years, there is no law requiring companies to put the interests of stockholders above workers, customers, or the society in which the company operates. 'Fiduciary responsibility' is a fad created only a few decades ago that has become business urban myth, and yet that's all you here about from managers. Of course, the fact that managers and stockholders conspire use 'fiduciary responsibility' to rub each other's backs (the most polite way I can put it), at the expense of everybody else, just might have something to do with it.

You'd think the average person would have cottoned on by now that if a stockholder does not like the performance of a company, she/he can simply sell their stock in it, losing very little typically in comparison to a worker losing their job or a customer being exploited or a government being starved of tax funds....
[doublepost=1510088918][/doublepost]

The same mentality that almost sank the US economy in 2008. But who cares right?

In all honesty I fear for the future. Not so much mine, by my children's generation. We've seen peace and prosperity for a long time relatively, but now I worry we have entered the age of the Unenlightenment....

 

[SteveW928]

In all honesty I fear for the future. Not so much mine, by my children's generation. We've seen peace and prosperity for a long time relatively, but now I worry we have entered the age of the Unenlightenment....

Same here... though it has been accelerating more quickly than I could have imagined. So, unless you're pretty old, it probably will be here within our time, too.

Yea, it's even like, "We're unenlightened... and proud of it!"

 

[alias99]

As long as a foreign country has lower tax rates, even by .0001%, companies will be incentives to go there. There is no way to incentive them to stay unless the domestic tax rates are lower than foreign tax rates. This makes absolutely no sense because larger countries, that require larger govt., require higher taxes.

The key is to get it close enough for the morality factor to play in. If it was 0.0001% difference they can justify from a publicity point of view to do it so they would choose to pay taxes in their home country. Its all about a balance. This is exactly why they are lobbying for a tax holiday so they can bring their cash back and use it and pay taxes at the same time. Either way if they take the current approach they will carry on seeing 0% from companies like apple. Its better to get something than something of nothing.

 

[Solomani]

The Queen is just as guilty as Apple. Offshore money hiding. LOL

 

[SteveW928]

The key is to get it close enough for the morality factor to play in. If it was 0.0001% difference they can justify from a publicity point of view to do it so they would choose to pay taxes in their home country. Its all about a balance. This is exactly why they are lobbying for a tax holiday so they can bring their cash back and use it and pay taxes at the same time. Either way if they take the current approach they will carry on seeing 0% from companies like apple. Its better to get something than something of nothing.

Good points... but just remember that most of the people here seem to be looking at this from a USA-centric vantage point. Other countries are competing for Apple's tax dollars too, and I wonder what % of Apple's income is really from the USA.

But, I totally agree that in reality, they'll run a PR filter on it to see if they think it's worth it to get some good PR, even if they lose some profit.

 

[tgara]

That's crazy, I certainly hope not.

So I am not arguing against the idea of morals. I just think we should be honest when making arguments. In my OP in the other thread that was quoted above, I was responding to an assertion that the estate tax is immoral. Sure, it might be to some people, but that version of morals does not override the very real and tangible socio-economic, political, and historical reasons for having an estate tax.

Ridiculous. Yes it does. You have to stop thinking like a trial lawyer and start thinking like a citizen in a civil society. Morality is the cornerstone of public policy and hence laws in a civil society. Whether they can be litigated or not is completely irrelevant. Laws and policies are based largely on moral constructs in society. Arguing otherwise is absurd. Just look at issues such as abortion funding or funding for human embryotic research for example. Society draws a line on these based largely on morality. Maybe human embryonic stem cell research can cure a disease, but we limit research on that because of the moral component of working on human embryos.

 

[SteveW928]

Ridiculous. Yes it does. You have to stop thinking like a trial lawyer and start thinking like a citizen in a civil society. Morality is the cornerstone of public policy and hence laws in a civil society. Whether they can be litigated or not is completely irrelevant.

Exactly. Turning that around puts the cart before the horse. Law is based on morality, not morality on law. For example, what the Germans were doing in WWII was legal and encouraged in Germany. That doesn't make it moral. They even had a line of scientific argumentation to back up their position... it just happened to be bad(false)-science.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Ridiculous. Yes it does. You have to stop thinking like a trial lawyer and start thinking like a citizen in a civil society. Morality is the cornerstone of public policy and hence laws in a civil society. Whether they can be litigated or not is completely irrelevant. Laws and policies are based largely on moral constructs in society. Arguing otherwise is absurd. Just look at issues such as abortion funding or funding for human embryotic research for example. Society draws a line on these based largely on morality. Maybe human embryonic stem cell research can cure a disease, but we limit research on that because of the moral component of working on human embryos.

Your examples are exactly why morality shouldn't ever be cited in law or legislation. Abortion should be funded. Embryonic stem cell research should continue. Your morals =/= everyone's morals.

 

[SteveW928]

Your examples are exactly why morality shouldn't ever be cited in law or legislation. Abortion should be funded. Embryonic stem cell research should continue. Your morals =/= everyone's morals.

Nice reply... see above. Step 1, dehumanize. Step 2, irradiate and/or conduct experiments on.
It's not the morality that's in question, it's whether you recognize it.

 

[joueboy]

They are. Cook is right that they aren't doing anything illegal. Whether it's a so-called 'fair share' is a whole other discussion. And, fair-share for who, the USA gov't? The USA gov't doesn't really deserve another penny.

If you think the US government doesn’t deserve another penny then bring your business somewhere else. Guess what they’re not doing that because they’re going to lose more money. Some business would rather bring their business and pay taxes because they make a lot of money in this country. The problem is that when they get bigger like Apple and start seeing the figures all of the sudden their greediness shows off. If I pay my income tax fair and square then they better pay what is due. Stop looking at the figures just follow the law and they set certain percentage. They already getting some tax breaks here and there every now and then. SMH!

 

[ToroidalZeus]

The key is to get it close enough for the morality factor to play in. If it was 0.0001% difference they can justify from a publicity point of view to do it so they would choose to pay taxes in their home country. Its all about a balance. This is exactly why they are lobbying for a tax holiday so they can bring their cash back and use it and pay taxes at the same time. Either way if they take the current approach they will carry on seeing 0% from companies like apple. Its better to get something than something of nothing.

What exactly is that morality rate? how close to 3rd world do we need to get? I'm sorry but your argument is ideological non sense.

 

[SteveW928]

If you think the US government doesn’t deserve another penny then bring your business somewhere else. Guess what they’re not doing that because they’re going to lose more money. Some business would rather bring their business and pay taxes because they make a lot of money in this country. The problem is that when they get bigger like Apple and start seeing the figures all of the sudden their greediness shows off. If I pay my income tax fair and square then they better pay what is due. Stop looking at the figures just follow the law and they set certain percentage. They already getting some tax breaks here and there every now and then. SMH!

Just for clarification, I said the government doesn't deserve another penny... what the taxes get used for, if properly used, is another matter.

But, they are paying what is due. We're arguing over whether what they are paying, legally, is enough or not. And/or if they should be made to pay more of what they hold outside the USA back to the USA (remembering that their income only comes in some percent, from the USA).

Also, tax breaks are what governments use as incentives to bring businesses to their location, so that it creates jobs and revenue, etc. into their local economies.

That's all sound in principal. The problem is the corruption, as well as possibly the legitimate options this opens up when considered internationally.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Nice reply... see above. Step 1, dehumanize. Step 2, irradiate and/or conduct experiments on.
It's not the morality that's in question, it's whether you recognize it.

I don't need to dehumanize single-cell organisms. They're already not human.

 

[AZ63]

Am I understanding this issue correctly?
Apple sells Apple products to people in, say, France in their Apple stores. Apple makes a profit on those sales. Apple pays the government of France the going corporate tax rate in France on the profits they made in France. Now, with the remaining left over profit Apple wants to send the money home to the USA, but in doing so it will have to pay an additional 30% in US taxes even though Apple paid taxes on that money already to France. Why does that make sense? If I moved my family to, say, Japan and worked for 20 years earning and paying taxes in Japan and in doing so I saved 300,000 yen. Then move back to the US with my family and when I went to transfer the profit I generated (my savings) you think the US government should now get 30% of all the money I worked for and saved and already paid taxes on in Japan? Why does that make sense? Why wouldn't I leave my money in Japan and pay all my US bills from my Japanese bank. That seems to be what Apple is kind of doing, at least that is the way I read the story. Why is everyone in favor of a double tax? Would you be okay with being double taxed? You move from NY to California and now all the money you have saved in the bank is subjected to a one time 30% transfer tax to bring it to a California bank. Is that not absurd? Governments seem to look to double tax money so they have more money to buy power and influence. The death tax is another example of the double tax. Try to pass on your savings to your family for which you already paid tax on when you earned it but the government says, oh not so fast, we need a third of that money. Don't get me wrong, governments need money to help a society function but stop with the double taxing already. At least, that is the way I see it.

 

[SteveW928]

I don't need to dehumanize single-cell organisms. They're already not human.

I see you flunked biology... but this probably isn't the place for this debate (as we're wildly OT). If you'd like to continue along these lines, you're welcome to contact me (the info is on my profile page), and I'll be happy to setup some kind of post of discussion on this on one of my websites.

Why does that make sense? If I moved my family to, say, Japan and worked for 20 years earning and paying taxes in Japan and in doing so I saved 300,000 yen. Then move back to the US with my family and when I went to transfer the profit I generated (my savings) you think the US government should now get 30% of all the money I worked for and saved and already paid taxes on in Japan?

Because the USA gov't has so mismanaged and squandered the citizens' tax contributions that they are beyond broke and desperate to collect anything they possibly can, any way they possibly can.

Here's a quote (though old so the numbers would be much worse today) that puts it into perspective:

"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey

 

[jonnyb098]

How in the world did you conclude that? High morals and long-term thinking almost sank the USA economy in 2008? Or, did you misread that?

No you misread it in the context. I was referring to corporate greed and immorality that almost destroyed the US economy, from many sides.

 

[SteveW928]

No you misread it in the context. I was referring to corporate greed and immorality that almost destroyed the US economy, from many sides.

Ahh, no worries. Sorry, I just couldn't believe what I thought I was reading.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Am I understanding this issue correctly?
Apple sells Apple products to people in, say, France in their Apple stores. Apple makes a profit on those sales. Apple pays the government of France the going corporate tax rate in France on the profits they made in France. Now, with the remaining left over profit Apple wants to send the money home to the USA, but in doing so it will have to pay an additional 30% in US taxes even though Apple paid taxes on that money already to France. Why does that make sense? If I moved my family to, say, Japan and worked for 20 years earning and paying taxes in Japan and in doing so I saved 300,000 yen. Then move back to the US with my family and when I went to transfer the profit I generated (my savings) you think the US government should now get 30% of all the money I worked for and saved and already paid taxes on in Japan? Why does that make sense? Why wouldn't I leave my money in Japan and pay all my US bills from my Japanese bank. That seems to be what Apple is kind of doing, at least that is the way I read the story. Why is everyone in favor of a double tax? Would you be okay with being double taxed? You move from NY to California and now all the money you have saved in the bank is subjected to a one time 30% transfer tax to bring it to a California bank. Is that not absurd? Governments seem to look to double tax money so they have more money to buy power and influence. The death tax is another example of the double tax. Try to pass on your savings to your family for which you already paid tax on when you earned it but the government says, oh not so fast, we need a third of that money. Don't get me wrong, governments need money to help a society function but stop with the double taxing already. At least, that is the way I see it.

Because the technology for the iPhone was developed in America so their France operation isn't a truly 100% foreign operation.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

Right now things are manageable because we're in the top of the economic cycle (or is it another fraud-driven bubble?). There is very little ammunition left for central banks and government to fight the next recession/depression, which will come inevitably as night follows day. The upheaval that started in 2007 and resulted in riots in the UK, Trump, Brexit, and independence movements in Europe isn't over.

For you and @SteveW928 and @Naaaaak ...

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/25/another-housing-bubble/

 

[alias99]

What exactly is that morality rate? how close to 3rd world do we need to get? I'm sorry but your argument is ideological non sense.

Sure keep carrying on with the current sensible ideological structure thats currently in place and receive no tax dollars from a few of the largest corporations in the world.

 

[Olganech]

It is no different for individuals say you are a UK citizen and you go work in the USA for 5 years.

You pay your taxes in the USA and make pension contributions.

When you retire you get a pension in the UK and a small pension from the USA.

You have to declare that pension income from the USA on you tax return each year.

The rich people like the Queen and others are getting around this and that is what is annoying people.

If Apple bring that stockpile of cash back to the USA the IRS will want a cut even though the money was earnt in another country.