Ah, but what if no one watches that European content? Best to require the streaming services to only let you watch two American shows for every European show you watch, to enforce the proper ratio.
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 TV+ Could Face Ban in Europe Unless It Meets Proposed Requirement of 30% European Content
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL You say I’m wrong and yet the first point is one of agreement. 🤣
And the second point you make you seem to have totally misread what I said and you bring in clear falsehoods.
You come across like you are so convinced about your point of view being right that you forget to read what others are actually stating.
Absolutely spot on. I’ve got lots of ties with the US, even used to be a working resident. But I’m no citizen, and haven’t resided for a long time. The IRS has no claim at all on my continued income.
And whilst working for a US bank but across Poland, Russia and UAE we happily provided services, but did report back indeed. Nothing that unusual there, many countries have such arrangements. HMRC in the UK also has reporting requirements. No big deal, well other than no being able to remain out of sight 🤣 and thus also not out of mind.
I lived in both Hamburg and a tiny town with maybe 12 houses about 50 minutes from Trier, if you were under 40 you spoke English. Don't assume I only lived in a big city. The quality of German TV reminds me of British or American TV from 20 years ago. Germany had the best roads I've ever driven on but in some areas it felt decades behind the UK, banking is stone-age, internet was overpriced and awful, cellular networks were overpriced with inferior coverage.
Which is what the next two lines I provided basically said:
"Although the corporate tax rate has been reduced, companies are still using tax loopholes to save money. This includes finding ways to shift U.S. profits to foreign subsidiaries in countries with lower tax rates, a practice known as an offshore tax-shelter."
In otherwords the US company is paying the taxes of the other country (ie paying the EU) to get out of paying the IRS.
So 7% does make the 252 billion cash mountain go away? You think having thousands of billions in profit and not paying any taxes is fair?
And you are right that tax evasion isn’t illegal, but that dienst make it morally right. But it undermines the societies just as much as a blind “defund the police” does.
But also, the IRS says:
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution directs that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens. This is the case regardless of the tax or immigration status of a person’s parents.
And:
Furthermore, a person born outside the United States may also be a U.S. citizen at birth if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen and has lived in the United States for a specified period.
U.S. citizens by birth or through a U.S. citizen parent | Internal Revenue Service
All persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens. This is the case regardless of the tax or immigration status of a persons parents. Furthermore, a person born outside the United States may also be a U.S. citizen at birth if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen and has lived in the...
being born on a us plane in international air is seen by the irs as being born on us soil.
There is no mention of needing to claim citizenship, you just are.
So your first assumption is proven wrong, therefore rendering your whole argumentation moot.
a few hundred people here have been refused a bank account this year. So it’s not some hypothetical point
No, they are paying the absolute minimum. And the 7% was just because the got a 13,5 billion fine from the EU. Which they are fighting.
They paid what they agreed with the amount the government wanted them to pay. Heck, in the situation with Ireland it was Ireland not Apple who appealed the money grab by the EU. All this antitrust talk is theater to distract from the trust like behavior of the cable companies and ISPs that censor what they deem "inappropriate" with totally BS figleaves like calling breast cancer and rape counseling/information sites "porn" (look it up - this was a real thing back in 2011 and still happens today).
Last edited:
It could only have been Ireland, Apple isn’t a party in that dispute. Apple would have to pay, but the EU commission ordered Ireland to claw back 13,5bln from Apple.
You keep saying "not paying any taxes" even in the same paragraph where you acknowledge that they paid 7% of all corporate taxes paid in Ireland. How much Apple has not spent has nothing to do with how much they have paid or should pay in taxes.
Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is not. Apple has paid all the taxes the governments involved say they owe. If you feel that they should pay more, you have every right to lobby your government to increase tax rates.
You are reading an information page from the IRS. I quoted the U.S. Code (the actual law that governs this). The 14th amendment guarantees that those born in the U.S. have the right to claim U.S. citizenship. That does not mean that they are required to claim it if they do not live here. As I also pointed out, renouncing U.S. citizenship is quite easy, especially if one does not live in the U.S.
The claim you made was that a person whose mother was born prematurely in the U.S. but did not reside there and the person never visited the U.S. was a U.S. citizen. I quoted that U.S. Code (the actual law) that specifies what that period is (6 months, 1 year or 5 years at least 2 of which were after the age of 14 depending on other factors). See this.
You are just wrong.
From the U.S Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual:
and
Not an assumption, documented from the U.S. code and the Foreign Affairs Manual.
Where is here? Are you claiming that a few hundred people who have never been to the U.S. but acquired U.S. citizenship by having a parent who was a U.S. citizen (by way of having been born in the U.S.) were refused service at all banks in your country because of this, or just that people who hold U.S. passports were refused service, or something else? Please provide some documentation for this statement.
Wrong as usual. The money for the fine has been put in escrow and is not counted as part of that 7%. They won the appeal, the EC has stated they plan to appeal, but at last count had not yet filed the paperwork to do so.
Wrong again, both Apple and Ireland filed the appeal. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-victory-eu-commission-tax-bill-a9619921.html
Actually, it does not get them out of paying U.S. taxes if they repatriate the money. The goal of paying in Ireland is to take advantage of the lower rates there, vs. other countries in Europe. Apple leaves the money overseas to prevent paying U.S. taxes on it, after already having paid taxes to the foreign governments. A successful part of the last tax reform act was to lower the tax rate on repatriated foreign earnings, to get more of that money back in to the U.S.
It was Apple's money and per Ireland welcomes Apple tax bill ruling (1:04) "even if we hadn't Apple would have taken this case and Apple would have won the case today anyway." So Apple was a party in that dispute. Ireland just beat Apple to the appeal.
"Repatriate the money" and "leaves the money overseas" are the key points here...it is perfectly legal way for Apple (or another other US company) to avoid paying money to the IRS.
Sadly this and other happy perfectly legal little accounting shell games allow the totally screwy situation where a company can make billions and get a tax credit from the US government. (Activision Blizzard didn’t pay any taxes in 2018; Americans Paid $228 Million For Activision Blizzard’s Tax Credits In 2018)
Not repatriating the money saves the tax, being taxed by Ireland does not. If they are taxed by Ireland and still repatriate the money they are still taxed, hence my statement that their goals in having the revenue taxed in Ireland have nothing to do with their U.S. tax issues. 🙃
I wish people would just understand that companies do not pay taxes, their customers, employees and shareholders do. From which of those pockets the money comes depends on the market. If there is low pricing pressure, customers will pay most of the tax, if there is higher pricing pressure, employees and shareholders will pay more of it. Just like the ”employer contribution” to Social Security. It is a fantasy to think that comes out of the employer’s pocket. Just like the employer’s health care costs, etc., these costs are all being paid by some person in the end. At least with benefits, it is clear they all come out of the employee’s pocket (it would be great if, for example, I could just get my employer’s contribution for my health care costs in cash, as I am covered by my spouse’s company’s plan).
While they are usually regressive, at least with sales taxes, who is paying is clear. They reason the EU wants a mandate like this is that it is a tax, ultimately paid by someone, that their citizens do not see as one. Their hope is that either it gets passed to citizens outside the EU or their subjects blame the streaming services for the subsequent price increase. I would be willing to bet that most people arguing for this mandate would oppose a much more clear and direct ”local content tax” that was only paid by EU residents and just went into a fund to subsidize content.
I'm against the EU on this unless of course the EU would like to spend the extra money for the content. Also I do not recall them doing this to Disney+
They plan to do this to everyone, the article only talks about AppleTV+ because it is the service about which the Irish Government Official complained first. Probably because talking about Apple generates the most headlines and since it is so small, least likely to generate negative consequences for him.
It is funny to have someone talk about a company worth US$2 trillion as "small".
Should have been more clear, even though TV+ is small complaining about it is unlikely to generate a negative reaction as first threatening Disney+ or Netflix would.It is funny to have someone talk about a company worth US$2 trillion as "small".
Ah I didn’t know that and maybe I missed reading that part. I hope it doesn’t get to the point where let’s say for example a movie or TV show films on an island off coast in Maine or Canada and uses that as a backdrop for Ireland or Wales that the EU demands payout solely based on reference to the name of the country.