On that note, if you didnt pay tax would you not be using, (read - taking), services that youd not paid for?
You know, ones paid for by others like cleaned water, street lighting etc etc?
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 Targeted by EU Probe into Irish Tax Policies as U.S. Considers Tax Holiday for Cash Repatriation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On that note, if you didnt pay tax would you not be using, (read - taking), services that youd not paid for?
You know, ones paid for by others like cleaned water, street lighting etc etc?
US law says they can subtract any taxes already paid to another country. So it's still only double taxation.
----------
Are you a very tall, strong person? I ask because I've never understood anarchists, all they ask for is: bigger = winner.
Absence of govt doesn't mean absence of people trying to run your life. Just no rules to stop them.
Not at all. I don't equate "user pays" with taxation. I have no problem with Rates, Duties, Customs, Utility Charges, Licenses, fees, etc - just taking money from me, to fund someone else. In short, I resent the Welfare State.
----------
"Bigger = winner" is not anarchistic - it's "might is right" - Ochlocracy.
As for people trying to run my life, a fact of life - the fewer and more responsible the better. You don't get that with Democracy/Ochlocracy.
Which indirectly is what it all is surely? Rates, duties etc all go to fund someone else, even if that someone else is the collective.
Anyways Apple have received selective unfair treatment here and I think thats what the argument is. Whether its legal I dont think is the only question being asked, Joe Public wants also a moral accountability.
First, there is a difference between a common usage fund (eg: Rates), and funds taken to benefit someone outside of said fund.
Second, I disagree with the "unfair" part. A two-bit company cannot expect the same level of official patronage that a major player can expect. It simply isn't in the interests of the patrons.
Well have to agree to disagree then.
Im sure there will be plenty of times you benefit from something youve not paid for and are therefore outside of said fund.
As to being fair, thats one of the reasons that the little guy is kept down. Invariably they dont have the money to buy politicians and the like reducing their tax burdens in immoral and illegal ways.
What point? Where is the point in saying that the concept of society is a leftish meme?
----------
Ein? I think you're not understanding what the thing is about.
Sure they can. Many out there. Earned income tax credit, Personal exemption dozens of tax breaks for individuals. Just because private citizens can legally take them would we call it evading taxes?
The problems are the laws, not the corporations taking advantage of them. If private citizens can take advantage of them, why not corporations? If the tax laws are unfair, it needs to be changed, not blaming corperations that make use of them.
"evading" taxes is illegal whether done by individuals or companies; "avoiding" taxes is perfectly legal for both.
But you're right about the problem being the laws. Greatly as a result of corporate lobbying, the tax structure (in the US certainly) provides great incentives and facilitates "avoiding" taxes, much to the disadvantage of the country as a whole
To an extent of course everyone takes the deductions they are entitled to, however not everyone sells all their stuff from a shell company in Luxembourg, as say Amazon, iTunes, Netflix etc do.
Individuals don't actually have to lawyer up and find the most obscure loopholes to avoid tax and it seems perfectly reasonable to call someone immoral for doing so.
Of course the main issue here is the law and not the companies in question.
----------
Source?
----------
I'm sure most of the budget is spent on people costs.
That's kind of what irritates me about the lobbying for tax holidays. There was one in the last decade that was ineffective relative to its explicitly stated purpose. If one is passed, any talk of reform or changes to tax code or how to deal with those issues will be passed over. In that sense it becomes a matter of triage until funds once again build up overseas.
If scrutinized they can technically write off their minimum owed liability in that country, meaning they may not be able to claim an amount overpaid if they declined to file for a refund of that amount in the foreign country. I don't know how much that is actually invoked in practice though.
I doubt you could come up with any way to express that without relying on the use of opinionated language. You're relying on the label to prove a point, when it doesn't prove anything at all.
Last edited:
The sooner Governments stop whining about about how little tax large Corporations pay and actually look at more efficient ways of taxing them so increasing the reciepts the better. Also here in the UK the Government needs to be less scared of the larger companies pulling out. It might be somewhat bad for 10 years whilst things rebalance but in the long term you would get something closer to the fairness that small companies here in the UK clamour for. I also doubt many of the large Corps would pull out, and to be honest if say Amazon and Starbucks (who are the ones constantly being singled out it seems) pulled out a competitor or home grown replacement would spring up double quick time.
I apologise with all my Britishness for the mini rant. But it really is a problem for politicians not Companies, who would be in my view negligent not trying to keep the cost of tax down.
I apologise with all my Britishness for the mini rant. But it really is a problem for politicians not Companies, who would be in my view negligent not trying to keep the cost of tax down.
You mean like people justifying their decision to live under the largesse of the Welfare State is fine - in their opinion?
The definition of theft that I posted is what the cops will say to a car thief, when asking them if they had permission to take the car. What's the difference between my car and my money?
The issue is they don't pay much tax in China or in Europe where the phone get's sold. All the profits are routed through Ireland.
The EU needs to change the law, companies like Apple should be paying the correct amount of corporate tax on profits so that's 20%-35% depending on which country the devices are sold.
I am just surprised that it took the EU this long to act.
This problem has grown from a few companies using the Netherlands, to well over 3,000 companies who have an office in WTC Amsterdam for tax purposes.
Two of rocks biggest names the Rolling Stones and U2 used Dutch holding companies to evade tax in rest of Europe.
Successive governments in the Netherlands talked about reform, but of course never did anything, first because the Dutch sided with Ireland Luxembourg and the UK in the name of free trade and light touch management of all things financial. This all lead to the banking crisis of 2008-20014, but the days of castles in the air are gone.
The bottom line is going to be if you as a company want to do business in the EU, you are going to pay a fair tax rate.
Either this is all hot air and angry words, because in the cold hard reality you pay your taxes, just like all the rest of us do.
Or you are a freedom fighter living on the edge, off the grid, a true maverick.
But there is a very good reason why in all of recorded history there has never been a true Libertarian state, it is because they dont work.
This problem has grown from a few companies using the Netherlands, to well over 3,000 companies who have an office in WTC Amsterdam for tax purposes.
Two of rocks biggest names the Rolling Stones and U2 used Dutch holding companies to evade tax in rest of Europe.
Successive governments in the Netherlands talked about reform, but of course never did anything, first because the Dutch sided with Ireland Luxembourg and the UK in the name of free trade and light touch management of all things financial. This all lead to the banking crisis of 2008-20014, but the days of castles in the air are gone.
The bottom line is going to be if you as a company want to do business in the EU, you are going to pay a fair tax rate.
Either this is all hot air and angry words, because in the cold hard reality you pay your taxes, just like all the rest of us do.
Or you are a freedom fighter living on the edge, off the grid, a true maverick.
But there is a very good reason why in all of recorded history there has never been a true Libertarian state, it is because they dont work.
Without the taxes you abhor, there would be no money for you to own nor the ability to generate any.
Existing in splendid isolation is wonderful until you understand that in such social constructs the devil takes the hindmost. You would most likely own nothing and be subject to the whims of the most powerful, which would be more painful for you than paying taxes to prop up the welfare state.
There is a reason humanity progressed beyond cavemen/hunter societies.
Except of course the wealth is created in China and other Asian countries where the work of creating the products is actually done.
Its easier to make yourself happy if you live in a well run country, otherwise we may as well go off to Somalia.
Ireland would be worse off? The world doesn't revolve around US interests you know.
----------
Easy for a westerner to say to a working class African family. Governments are people yes, but you can't just claim superiority over all the people in earth who are born into immensely less privileged lives than you are.
Being happy is more difficult for them.
I'm not American, I'm Spanish.
And yes, perhaps Ireland would be worse off, but the rest of the EU will be better.
So, and?