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

[SteveW928]

I think you both seem to have forgotten the violence and intimidation that the Nazi's inflicted on political opponents during their rise to power. The first concentration camps housed political opponents of all kinds, the Nazi's regularly attacked in the streets the leftists opposing them, and they engaged in all sorts of propaganda and false flag operations. In short many of the people were first duped and/or intimidated, but others opposed the Nazi regime from the beginning and were slaughtered for it. And by the way, Hitler's generals did try to kill him.

Finally, democracy doesn't guarantee justice in all moments of history, but it does so over longer periods of time when it becomes the culture of a society. The alternative is to have some band of elites or a dictator controlling a country, with the inevitable corruption caused by power. So yes, on average over time, government by will of the people is better than government foisted on the people by politicians ramming their world view down the throats of the citizens. This is something I fear a certain political party in the US understands less and less...

Oh, yes, that is correct also. They did shut-down or kill anyone who opposed them, so it's a mix of both.

My point is that is that there were cultural, moral, and even scientific ideas that allowed the Nazis enough power and momentum to get there and get away with it. And... (this is super important), the Nazis and their supporters believed they were doing a good thing (within their own moral belief system and worldview).

I think some people have the impression that a crazy person, or a few, got into power and then forced an evil plan into action while the citizens helplessly looked on.

I disagree about democracy though... in that I guess it's better than a bad dictator, but there have been enough bad cultures throughout history that a bad democracy could be just as evil. Most western democracies haven't been true democracy in that they are often grounded in some kind of charter, or in the case of the USA, the Constitution, which has some amount of power over the people... or at least really slows down just flowing with the culture.

It is ***supposed*** to be really hard to modify the Constitution, though yes, the democracy can do so. I suppose that is somewhat like the 'long-term' you're talking about. But, even the USA is in trouble now with judicial activism and postmodern reader-responsive interpretation. And, a pure democracy could change in major ways nearly overnight. That's quite dangerous.

 

[VulchR]

Oh, yes, that is correct also. They did shut-down or kill anyone who opposed them, so it's a mix of both.

My point is that is that there were cultural, moral, and even scientific ideas that allowed the Nazis enough power and momentum to get there and get away with it. And... (this is super important), the Nazis and their supporters believed they were doing a good thing (within their own moral belief system and worldview).

I think some people have the impression that a crazy person, or a few, got into power and then forced an evil plan into action while the citizens helplessly looked on.

I disagree about democracy though... in that I guess it's better than a bad dictator, but there have been enough bad cultures throughout history that a bad democracy could be just as evil. Most western democracies haven't been true democracy in that they are often grounded in some kind of charter, or in the case of the USA, the Constitution, which has some amount of power over the people... or at least really slows down just flowing with the culture.

It is ***supposed*** to be really hard to modify the Constitution, though yes, the democracy can do so. I suppose that is somewhat like the 'long-term' you're talking about. But, even the USA is in trouble now with judicial activism and postmodern reader-responsive interpretation. And, a pure democracy could change in major ways nearly overnight. That's quite dangerous.

I suppose my main point is that governments do more more than simply protecting rights, and that is as it should be if that is what the people want. Yet some dogma-driven politicians (and others) seem to want ignore the fact that people do generally support government services.

 

[SteveW928]

I suppose my main point is that governments do more more than simply protecting rights, and that is as it should be if that is what the people want. Yet some dogma-driven politicians (and others) seem to want ignore the fact that people do generally support government services.

Yes, some things do lend themselves to government services, or maybe a better way of saying it is social funding. As long as the government can be accountable to keep corruption reasonably low, then these services work better. That doesn't apply to everything, but to some things.

Corporations and free-markets can bring costs down and increase efficiency... but for some things, that might not be desirable, depending on what 'efficiency' means. I don't want my health care to be efficient, if that means rejecting care to keep costs down, etc.

Or, the whole mess with the Internet and net-neutrality. While I have major concerns about 'lawful content' language in the USA's FCC controls, it's quite clear that corporations have been unable (more like unwilling) to provide good and best services at reasonable prices. And, it's insanely easy to see how not having principals of net-neutrality in place could lead to built-in corruption (I'd say inevitable) when content providers and ISPs collude.

To me, it's not a pure either/or, though I strongly prefer capitalism. It just isn't the best solution to everything.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

If they aren't, then it isn't Apple you need to be complaining at... it's the EU (in your case). Or, I suppose in light of recent events, push for Brexit so you can get out of that mess and make your own laws.

Britain does have its own laws even before Brexit, especially regarding our economy. It’s not being part of the EU that was the problem here. I’m commenting from a consumer level and somebody who pays their fair share of tax. I’m well aware the government are partially to blame for allowing loopholes to exist and many within the government have profited from this too.

Companies like Apple, Amazon and Starbucks have all been shamed by being exposed for using tax avoidance measures and it does leave an impression on consumers.

 

[SteveW928]

Britain does have its own laws even before Brexit, especially regarding our economy. It’s not being part of the EU that was the problem here. I’m commenting from a consumer level and somebody who pays their fair share of tax. I’m well aware the government are partially to blame for allowing loopholes to exist and many within the government have profited from this too.

Companies like Apple, Amazon and Starbucks have all been shamed by being exposed for using tax avoidance measures and it does leave an impression on consumers.

re: Brexit, sorry I don't know all the details. I've just heard (both in the news and professionally) that the EU has introduced various complexities for working with European countries in terms of taxes. Maybe that doesn't apply here, as you say.

re: tax avoidance measures - We just have to be careful about the language used here, as it paints a certain picture. I don't know how the tax system in the UK works, but in the USA, for example, a lot of ordinary tax payers go to a company like H&R Block to have their taxes prepared. You could say that they are also using tax avoidance measures, as the H&R Block tax preparer is going to try and find every possible deduction and tax credit for their client.

Apple is doing the same (if I'm understanding correctly) just on a much bigger scale. Now, we could say to the person above... "Hey! You make $80k per year, so you shouldn't get that child tax credit." (or something like that) thinking only the person making $30k should apply for that and the "more wealthy" person should just not take it because they need it less. But, would it be fair to paint that person as a tax avoider, or cheating on their taxes? No, they just followed the law. And, possibly, did it better than some other person who did their own taxes and didn't claim it out of ignorance of the tax law, or some sense of charity.

If Apple actually did something illegal, then throw the book at them! If they did something pretty sneaky and shady, then I guess it's fair to call them out on it and put pressure on them. But, the best solution, is to petition or respective governments to fix the friggin' tax laws in the first place. Until I see even an iota of effort in that regard, I'm not going to come down too hard on companies for trying to reduce what they pay out.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

re: Brexit, sorry I don't know all the details. I've just heard (both in the news and professionally) that the EU has introduced various complexities for working with European countries in terms of taxes. Maybe that doesn't apply here, as you say.

re: tax avoidance measures - We just have to be careful about the language used here, as it paints a certain picture. I don't know how the tax system in the UK works, but in the USA, for example, a lot of ordinary tax payers go to a company like H&R Block to have their taxes prepared. You could say that they are also using tax avoidance measures, as the H&R Block tax preparer is going to try and find every possible deduction and tax credit for their client.

Apple is doing the same (if I'm understanding correctly) just on a much bigger scale. Now, we could say to the person above... "Hey! You make $80k per year, so you shouldn't get that child tax credit." (or something like that) thinking only the person making $30k should apply for that and the "more wealthy" person should just not take it because they need it less. But, would it be fair to paint that person as a tax avoider, or cheating on their taxes? No, they just followed the law. And, possibly, did it better than some other person who did their own taxes and didn't claim it out of ignorance of the tax law, or some sense of charity.

If Apple actually did something illegal, then throw the book at them! If they did something pretty sneaky and shady, then I guess it's fair to call them out on it and put pressure on them. But, the best solution, is to petition or respective governments to fix the friggin' tax laws in the first place. Until I see even an iota of effort in that regard, I'm not going to come down too hard on companies for trying to reduce what they pay out.

In the UK tax avoidance and tax evasion are considered different things. Apple like many are guilty of the previous and right now it’s not illegal. They won’t be able to do it for much longer though as the pressure is rising on our Conservative government, especially when it comes to the rich. It just takes the piss when Apple raised prices last year and claimed the weak pound forced them to issue a Brexit tax on consumers. Now we learn the are still only paying a quarter of the tax they are supposed to and it leaves a bitter taste.

Maybe Apple should suddenly put $315 on every US sold iPhone and we can see if they get continued sympathy in their own backyard.

 

[SteveW928]

In the UK tax avoidance and tax evasion are considered different things. Apple like many are guilty of the previous and right now it’s not illegal. They won’t be able to do it for much longer though as the pressure is rising on our Conservative government, especially when it comes to the rich. It just takes the piss when Apple raised prices last year and claimed the weak pound forced them to issue a Brexit tax on consumers. Now we learn the are still only paying a quarter of the tax they are supposed to and it leaves a bitter taste.

Maybe Apple should put $315 on every US sold iPhone and we can see if they get continued sympathy in their own backyard.

Oh, I get that! Our Canadian Dollarette (jk!) has been all over the place too, yet Apple holds firm with pricing that's based off worse than the worst case exchange rate. My iPhone SE cost as much or more than most USA people's iPhone 7.

And, given Apple's poor performance in bringing out great products (especially on the Mac and software sides) yet constantly pushing prices higher and higher leaves me feeling a bit abandoned and cheated by the company I've been an evangelist for for over 30 years.

So, I'm not exactly happy with Apple right now, but I guess I expect they'd do what they could to reduce their taxes.

 

[weckart]

It's like this. It would not be illegal for Apple to state that anyone using PC stuff over Apple stuff is either a cheapskate or a fool. It would be very bad PR to be seen to be doing so, so Apple keeps any statements like that strictly private.
Similarly, it is not illegal (pending appeals) for Apple to squeeze its tax to the minimum in a way that is not open to 99% of the world but it would be disastrous PR for Apple to be seen to be doing so, while others on lower incomes have to pay their full share and, in effect, subsidise Apple. So Apple keeps its tax affairs strictly private.

A wise person might opine that Apple should not indulge in either lest it get caught doing so. Apple has been caught.

 

[Z400Racer37]

I think you both seem to have forgotten the violence and intimidation that the Nazi's inflicted on political opponents during their rise to power. The first concentration camps housed political opponents of all kinds, the Nazi's regularly attacked in the streets the leftists opposing them, and they engaged in all sorts of propaganda and false flag operations. In short many of the people were first duped and/or intimidated, but others opposed the Nazi regime from the beginning and were slaughtered for it. And by the way, Hitler's generals did try to kill him.

The Nazis in the military were citizens of the country, who were acting on their views, and in accordance with the way they voted. Is the only problem with the way they acted that they didn't have at least 51% of people agreeing with them? Also, to ignore the very obvious violent threat this organization was, even before they gained political power, if a rather large omission, and any proper government would have put a stop to them on the grounds of individual rights violations, long before they ever had chance to take hold politically.

Finally, democracy doesn't guarantee justice in all moments of history, but it does so over longer periods of time when it becomes the culture of a society.

It certainly does not guarantee justice, in fact, it guarantees the opposite. It guarantees that the average of the public's desires and whims will be concretized into law, and enforced at gunpoint, ultimately. I mean, your position can't possibly be "the 'good' is whatever the majority of people happen to feel, for however long they happen to feel it," can it?

The alternative is to have some band of elites or a dictator controlling a country, with the inevitable corruption caused by power. So yes, on average over time, government by will of the people is better than government foisted on the people by politicians ramming their world view down the throats of the citizens. This is something I fear a certain political party in the US understands less and less...

The proper alternative is a constitutional republic, which concretizes into law, the proper principles required for human life, and thereby restrains the function of government only to the task of protecting individual rights. And what difference does it make to me, if a dictator, or a majority are ramming their views down my throat? No one, in any number, has a right to ram anything down my throat.

If we live in a place where a majority can do their will to anyone, what makes that inherently good? The whole purpose of a government is to protect me from the whims of a majority. There are specific types of conditions which are necessary for human life to exist, and it's the purpose of government to concretize and secure those conditions under law, and insulate me from the whims of any majority. The whole premise of your view rests on the notion that human life can and should adopt to any condition which a majority of people feels is favorable, for however long it feels that it's favorable, until the next moment when they feel the exact opposite is now favorable, and should be the law of the land. Now. how could you realistically expect yourself to be able even to buy a house, or land to put it on for that matter, if, ay any moment, a majority could vote to take it away from you for the public good? Now. Observe the fact that we live in a world where people, through their companies make multi billion dollar investments in plants, properties, equipment, and people, over periods of time which span decades, or engage in contracts which last a century or longer. How could it be possible for them to operate productively in a world where anything they do can be seized from them at any moment?

There is no possible justification for the enshrinement of public whim in the form of law.

 

[weckart]

The proper alternative is a constitutional republic, which concretizes into law, the proper principles required for human life, and thereby restrains the function of government only to the task of protecting individual rights.

The whole purpose of a government is to protect me from the whims of a majority. There are specific types of conditions which are necessary for human life to exist, and it's the purpose of government to concretize and secure those conditions under law, and insulate me from the whims of any majority.

This libertarian nonsense really will not do.

Who exactly decides what these principles and conditions are? If everyone cannot agree on those then where does the ramming down people’s throats stop or does everything have to begin with the tyranny of the majority?

 

[VulchR]

...
It certainly does not guarantee justice, in fact, it guarantees the opposite. It guarantees that the average of the public's desires and whims will be concretized into law, and enforced at gunpoint, ultimately. I mean, your position can't possibly be "the 'good' is whatever the majority of people happen to feel, for however long they happen to feel it," can it?

The proper alternative is a constitutional republic, which concretizes into law, the proper principles required for human life, and thereby restrains the function of government only to the task of protecting individual rights. And what difference does it make to me, if a dictator, or a majority are ramming their views down my throat? No one, in any number, has a right to ram anything down my throat.

If we live in a place where a majority can do their will to anyone, what makes that inherently good? The whole purpose of a government is to protect me from the whims of a majority. There are specific types of conditions which are necessary for human life to exist, and it's the purpose of government to concretize and secure those conditions under law, and insulate me from the whims of any majority. The whole premise of your view rests on the notion that human life can and should adopt to any condition which a majority of people feels is favorable, for however long it feels that it's favorable, until the next moment when they feel the exact opposite is now favorable, and should be the law of the land. Now. how could you realistically expect yourself to be able even to buy a house, or land to put it on for that matter, if, ay any moment, a majority could vote to take it away from you for the public good? Now. Observe the fact that we live in a world where people, through their companies make multi billion dollar investments in plants, properties, equipment, and people, over periods of time which span decades, or engage in contracts which last a century or longer. How could it be possible for them to operate productively in a world where anything they do can be seized from them at any moment?

There is no possible justification for the enshrinement of public whim in the form of law.

You seem to have a model of human collective behaviour that is very pessimistic, based on the notion that humans can and should only act out of self-interest (or at least your post seems to imply this), and probably not well justified. The guarantees of liberty spelled out in the US Constitution were brought about by the wishes of the majority of the people - the republic you speak of is what people wanted. Most people continue to want the government to guarantee basic freedoms, and this hasn't change much since the country's founding, and to the extent it has, it has been an improvement by expanding guarantees to all people. Finally, any business that assumes static conditions over decades will fail, billions invested or not, as indeed most business do fail within years of being established.

Indeed, the surest way of damaging businesses, destroying wealth, and curtailing personal freedoms is to make conditions so bad that the people start violent revolutions. The flexibility of democracy, particularity with regard to providing government services popular with the people, is the pressure valve that prevents revolutions from occurring. Honestly I wonder why our current crop of oligarchs fail to understand this. The subjective well-being of Americans just fell in 2017 (see link). For country founded on the American Dream, this is not a good sign.

 

[SteveW928]

Odd, I don't seem to be getting notifications from MacRumors threads consistently any longer....

Who exactly decides what these principles and conditions are? If everyone cannot agree on those then where does the ramming down people’s throats stop or does everything have to begin with the tyranny of the majority?

Looks like we're down to the core of the problem...

So, you have a few choices:
- dictators/kings decide
- mob rule
- or an actual source of morality.

Take your pick. The founders of the USA chose the latter, which is why there is no king or pure democracy. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution codify their rational and results into a system that's purposely very difficult to change and sets out higher-order principals under which all the laws have to adhere (well, at least until corruption takes hold, postmodern 'interpretations' enter, etc.)

And, the founders of the USA made it quite clear that the system wouldn't work any longer if we went the way we're now going. It's almost like they were prophetic...

You seem to have a model of human collective behaviour that is very pessimistic...

Yes, I do. I present history as evidence. Star-Trek is sci-fi.

The guarantees of liberty spelled out in the US Constitution were brought about by the wishes of the majority of the people - the republic you speak of is what people wanted. Most people continue to want the government to guarantee basic freedoms...

That's not where the freedoms came from though. And, how do we determine basic freedoms? Who do they apply to?

The Nazis had freedoms, they just didn't believe they applied to the Jews because the Jews weren't seen to be as human, and in fact a danger to the prosperity of the human race. (Kind of like pre-born babies aren't recognized as humans, or Iceland is bragging it has nearly eliminated Downs Syndrome... by killing off people with Downs Syndrome. Same book, different chapter.) And, then there was 'Lebensunwertes Leben' - life unworthy of life for those that didn't fit the concept of race clearly enough.

Indeed, the surest way of damaging businesses, destroying wealth, and curtailing personal freedoms is to make conditions so bad that the people start violent revolutions. The flexibility of democracy, particularity with regard to providing government services popular with the people, is the pressure valve that prevents revolutions from occurring. Honestly I wonder why our current crop of oligarchs fail to understand this. The subjective well-being of Americans just fell in 2017 (see link). For country founded on the American Dream, this is not a good sign.

Yes, but the opposite is also true. Communism, in the extreme form is an example. But, a lesser example is happens when people can vote themselves benefits in various forms too, and then you get the kind of victimhood, identity politics, welfare-state, etc. kind of stuff that is plaguing us as well.

If the system is running properly (which it isn't), you'll have a proper balance on both sides, which would be called justice. It's unjust if you have runaway capitalism which produces a corporate oligarchy, but also unjust if a bunch of programs are setup keep a huge class of poor just on the edge of revolt so they leave the wealthy corrupt alone.

There are systems that do work better when implemented by the government (or, I suppose private with government oversight *might* be possible)... but that assumes a relatively well run government. And, the only way to have that is with a relatively moral populace with integrity. Which takes us back to the above...