The post I originally responded to was simply wrong. You seem to agree that it was wrong. That was the point I wanted "to intimate".
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.
How Apple Minimizes its Corporate Tax Burden
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The post I originally responded to was simply wrong. You seem to agree that it was wrong. That was the point I wanted "to intimate".
No, the or means I can satisfy either condition. They are rules, therefore they qualify under the adjective of the term fair. If the definition said AND, you would be correct. It does not, you are not.
I didn't say they were.
http://www.payroll-taxes.com/state-tax/145-texas.htm
No, Texas does not collect payroll tax.
http://www.payroll-taxes.com/state-tax/1039-florida-state-tax.htm
No, Florida does not collect payroll tax.
The fair tax method is about collecting tax using a sales tax, which both states do. Thank you for playing.
And more to the point, as I mentioned earlier it is based on one idea of equality that hardly anyone shares. It thinks everyone being treated the same is fair, disregarding the differences between people and between their needs.
But since that guy can't follow people, I'll give him an analogy.
Image two people in the military are doing the exact same work, yet one guy, due to his physiology, needs two times as much food as the first. Is it fair to give him the same amount as the first guy? No, he will starve and no longer be able to work. Should then the first guy get a double ration because equality means giving everyone the same? Again no, that would be spoiling the first guy and not spoiling the second guy. The right thing to do is to give each soldier in accordance with his needs.
The problem is not with being able to distinguish the difference between legal and ethical.
The problem is the baseless assertion that Apples behavior is unethical. At least, I've read most of the posts (I think all) and have yet to see anyone support the statement that the actions are unethical.
I think you want to justify Apple's profits and lack of taxes paid however you can, actually. There is no proof at all that all of the things Apple has done wouldn't exist if they paid the taxes they "should" vs what they do via loopholes. We're talking their PROFIT. 100B in PROFIT. That's after operating expenses and everything they pay out. They would have less profits. You can argue whether Apple would still be as aggressive - but that's really just full-out conjecture not based on any factual data at all.
Apple is not living "paycheck to paycheck." And again - I don't fault Apple for taking advantage of loopholes that exists. But that doesn't mean I excuse them either or think less of them for doing so. They are operating within the legal bounds of the law. That's different than being ethical.
Further - I am all for these loopholes being closed. And as I've said earlier on this thread - that would no doubt cause a bunch of people on this forum to scream bloody murder (exaggerated) that they government shouldn't overstep their bounds.
Fact is - the loopholes won't get closes - or fully - because Apple and other corporations have incredible lobbyists and deep pockets. Even the money they pay to avoid having greater taxes alone would do a world of good for education and other programs.
I also never implied that Apple is any more or less guilty than any other company. But we're talking Apple here because that's what this story linked at the beginning is about.
Ok BaldiMac. I guess me having a newborn and my lack of sleep temporarily made me forget your vigilant need to be right - no matter what. My bad. Have a great day.
Lol...the entire galaxy is just one big unethical mess, huh? Like i said discussing ethics in a setting like this is laughable.
By your twisted logic, there simply is no ethical company in existence! Unless if course you'd like to point out a company that pays more taxes then it's legally obligated to? I can wait while you research if you'd like.
Geez, this non news story sure has people riled up!
There's also a difference between having no ethics and having some. The world is not black and white. Which is why this discussion has gone on as long as it has. That and the fact that posters tend not to read long threads and chime in with something that has already been said/refuted/etc
I am certain there are many companies that pay more taxes than they are legally obligated to because they lack the resources to discover what they can and can't get away with. They might also lack the funds and resources to set up dummy companies around the world. I don't have to give a proof point there. I think it's a pretty logical conclusion. I would bet - at the end of the day - even Apple itself - as much as they get away with - could still shave off a few more pennies. That means they are paying more than they are legally obligated to.
Again - there is a difference between legal and ethical. I really don't see why you have such a hard time either accepting this or understanding it. But that conversation can clearly go around in circles... so I'm removing myself from it.
Sorry... you still fail.
Every working citizen is still required to pay federal payroll taxes. Even those living in Texas and Florida.
State income taxes are pennies on the dollar compared to federal taxes.
I'll take my AZ state income tax ($2,100 per year) over an inflated state sales tax any day.
so when the logical conclusion that investments create jobs is presented, you require proof but don't need to give proofs for your logical assertions? Cool
Btw i think it's logical that i meant companies voluntarily paying extra...
If I was making more than enough to get by and I saw a huge portion of my fellow citizens struggling I certainly would try to help.
I'm a dirty socialist though
Yep, I do too. I put money in the bread box, donated money and time to soup kitchens, payed for gas so a family could make it the rest of the way home, instead of buying guys camera I gave him a twenty and that persuaded another gentleman to do the same. I have even payed light bills. Help them out directly
I can see it now, "You need some help ? I just slipped an extra $20 to the taxman, go ask him."
You've missed the point amongst the threads hyperbole and bad analogies.
The LENGTH at which a company will go is a contributing factor illustrating their ethics. When a company jumps through dozens of hoops, has paid lobbyists, etc to avoid paying taxes - that smart business but not necc an indication of being ethical. They are operating within the parameters of the law.
Not every company does this to the extreme that companies LIKE Apple (note that I don't put the burden solely on Apple). Just like there are shades of grey - there are levels of ethical behavior.
And I'll admit that I can be hypocritical. That doesn't make me any less accurate
You've missed the point amongst the threads hyperbole and bad analogies.
The LENGTH at which a company will go is a contributing factor illustrating their ethics. When a company jumps through dozens of hoops, has paid lobbyists, etc to avoid paying taxes - that smart business but not necc an indication of being ethical. They are operating within the parameters of the law.
Not every company does this to the extreme that companies LIKE Apple (note that I don't put the burden solely on Apple). Just like there are shades of grey - there are levels of ethical behavior.
And I'll admit that I can be hypocritical. That doesn't make me any less accurate
Provide proof that Apple is any more "unethical" then EVERY company that does this, please.
"Not every company does this to the extreme that companies LIKE Apple (note that I don't put the burden solely on Apple). "
I didn't state that Apple was the leader. Read what I wrote and stop presenting a strawman into the equation
"Not every company does this to the extreme that companies LIKE Apple (note that I don't put the burden solely on Apple). "
I didn't state that Apple was the leader. Read what I wrote and stop presenting a strawman into the equation
Do you know what a strawman is?
You said that not every company does this to apples extreme and i asked you to prove it. Asking for proof is a strawman argument?
What proof do you have that Apple is at an extreme? Have you pored over the financial statements of every company that does this and calculated that Apple does it to the extreme?
It would do you well to not dismiss things as strawman arguments simply because you have no proof sir
Do you know what a strawman is?
You said that not every company does this to apples extreme and i asked you to prove it. Asking for proof is a strawman argument?
What proof do you have that Apple is at an extreme? Have you pored over the financial statements of every company that does this and calculated that Apple does it to the extreme?
It would do you well to not dismiss things as strawman arguments simply because you have no proof sir
Have you read the opining post and the New York Times article? This entire discussion is based on the premise they fact checked what they said and we have based what we said in light of those stories. The proof you ask for here is contained in those articles.
I have not sure if you have. Reread the op with its updates. Every company does this, Apple is no more or no less ethical then any other company out there.
This is non news and forum fodder.
Do you know what a strawman is?
You said that not every company does this to apples extreme and i asked you to prove it. Asking for proof is a strawman argument?
What proof do you have that Apple is at an extreme? Have you pored over the financial statements of every company that does this and calculated that Apple does it to the extreme?
It would do you well to not dismiss things as strawman arguments simply because you have no proof sir
Strawman because I didn't say that NO company does this to Apple's extreme. Reading comprehension issue? I even bolded my part. "companies LIKE Apple." That means there is more than one company PLUS Apple. That's why your argument is strawman. And see the poster's comment below for the answer to the rest of your post.
It would do you well to read/re-read someone's post and understand it before simply hitting the reply button
Exactly. Again. Reading comprehension.
Strawman because I didn't say that NO company does this to Apple's extreme. Reading comprehension issue? I even bolded my part. "companies LIKE Apple." That means there is more than one company PLUS Apple. That's why your argument is strawman. And see the poster's comment below for the answer to the rest of your post.
It would do you well to read/re-read someone's post and understand it before simply hitting the reply button
Exactly. Again. Reading comprehension.
Reading Comprehension Pot. Meet kettle:
MacRumors said:
Of course, saying "Apple is unethical!!!" is so much more cooler, right? Again, please don't detract from the question that was asked by nitpicking something as silly as "I didn't say EVERY company". That's called avoiding the question and skirting around the issue. You guys are a funny bunch. You took this NYT article at face value, without doing any kind of independent research at all and bought the pitchforks out against apple. How unimaginably silly.
Some are in complete denial that this is completely normal business practice, and trying to turn this into a "Apple is a very bad company" discussion. Like I said, we know who owns businesses, and who most CERTAINLY does not!
Why do you make almost every conversation we have personal? You're the one that felt that need to argue with what you thought I might have intimated instead of what I actually said. Not everything is about defending Apple or criticizing Apple. Sometimes the facts have value on their own.
I won't speak for anyone other than myself. You're missing MY point. I don't care if other companies also do it and if Apple is in alignment with other companies. The loopholes that exist enable companies (and since this is an Apple forum- APPLE) to eschew paying a lot of taxes. My personal opinion is that these loopholes should either be closed - or tightened.
The article - even with its updates - doesn't state every company does this. It just says that Apple isn't any more or less guilty than the average company.
I didn't take anything at face value because for years (way before the NYT did a feature) I have known that companies - like Apple, for an EXAMPLE - play the taxes game. Jobs himself took a salary of $1. Now why do you think that is?
Old news. But relevant. And more than forum fodder. I never said Apple was a bad company. What I said - if you bothered to pay attention was that what is legal is not the same as what is ethical. That has nothing to do - whatsoever with Apple.
You speak too much in hyperbole. Pitchforks, and the like. Whatever. Enjoy your self-created drama. There's none here being created by me.
The article - even with its updates - doesn't state every company does this. It just says that Apple isn't any more or less guilty than the average company.
I didn't take anything at face value because for years (way before the NYT did a feature) I have known that companies - like Apple, for an EXAMPLE - play the taxes game. Jobs himself took a salary of $1. Now why do you think that is?
Old news. But relevant. And more than forum fodder. I never said Apple was a bad company. What I said - if you bothered to pay attention was that what is legal is not the same as what is ethical. That has nothing to do - whatsoever with Apple.
You speak too much in hyperbole. Pitchforks, and the like. Whatever. Enjoy your self-created drama. There's none here being created by me.
Reading Comprehension Pot. Meet kettle:
Of course, saying "Apple is unethical!!!" is so much more cooler, right? Again, please don't detract from the question that was asked by nitpicking something as silly as "I didn't say EVERY company". That's called avoiding the question and skirting around the issue. You guys are a funny bunch. You took this NYT article at face value, without doing any kind of independent research at all and bought the pitchforks out against apple. How unimaginably silly.
Some are in complete denial that this is completely normal business practice, and trying to turn this into a "Apple is a very bad company" discussion. Like I said, we know who owns businesses, and who most CERTAINLY does not!
ok and what i said a few posts back was that by your twisted logic there's no such thing as an ethical company unless you can point out one that pays more taxes then they owe.
You then twisted my question and gave me a nonspecific example of companies actually paying more then then owe because they know no better, as if you had no idea i meant voluntarily.
If you can agree that no ethical company exists in this world, then we have nothing more to discuss. If you don't agree, you will have to provide proof of a company that voluntarily
pays more then they are legally obligated to. Thank you, sir.
If you can agree that no ethical company exists in this world, then we have nothing more to discuss. If you don't agree, you will have to provide proof of a company that voluntarily
pays more then they are legally obligated to. Thank you, sir.
Sorry. I can't. There are varying levels of ethical behavior. Some of which are more tolerable than others. And I don't base my opinions about a company's ethical standards solely on the taxes they pay. There's a lot more to my "scorecard" if you will in determining whether or not a company is ethical (in total) or not.
Thank you, Sir.