or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by PaulMJohnson

  Why are you so convinced institutional owners aren't interested in selling stock at a 100% markup?
  Yes, but the top 10 institutional holders have ~53% of the stock. Go and offer a fund manager a 100% markup (which MStone suggested) on one of their holdings, and it's unlikely they would turn it down.   You get 50% of the voting stock, it's pretty simple to replace the management with one that would back a takeover.
  It's a tried and tested route that the political system follows.  Apple has broken no laws, but Standard Chartered Bank had broken no laws either (they never had a trial), but the political system made such a noise and caused them such reputational damage that they paid a large "fine" just to make the whole thing go away.   What's going on is little more than extortion.  "Give us more money or we'll wreck your reputation".   Politicians in this country are entirely...
Even if you didn't get into trouble, at the amount an individual makes, the cost to set it up and manage it would be more than you save.   Once you get into the billions, the running costs of doing it are insignificant in comparison to the savings.   Same reason Mitt Romney was doing nothing illegal in having a much lower effective tax rate than most of us.  Once you get to be mega-rich, the tax code can be manipulated in your favor. Hell, I pay less tax as a percentage...
The point is (and this is the crux of the problem), Apple and many other companies are recognizing revenue in Ireland that there is no way they actually generated in Ireland, and they are recognizing the revenue there purely because Ireland have a very low rate of Corporate tax.   There is no chance Apple actually did $30bn of revenue in a country of 4.6 million between 2009-2012 (especially considering the Irish economy was dying at the time), but that is what they...
  And, for that matter, they could also single out a lot of senators. I'm pretty sure they are able to lower their personal rate of tax more than I can because they are rich enough to setup investment trusts and such like.  Surely it's morally wrong that they don't pay the same effective tax rate as me?   Still, morals don't set the tax rate - the tax laws do.
  As mentioned above, Google are doing the same thing. Amazon are doing the same thing (book all their UK sales through Luxembourg).   The problem is the politicians don't stop it.   I don't think it's right that large companies can setup such circumstances to give themselves a benefit that small companies can't afford to setup (I believe the playing field should be level), but I can't blame large companies (or small companies for that matter) for doing what is perfectly...
The problem isn't that Apple is doing this, the problem is that it is legal. I think everyone and every company should pay no more than they legally have to. I do however question why the politicians allow practices that seem to wrong to be perfectly legal. Google are under investigation for the same practices as Apple are using here. In 2011, Google made GBP3bn in revenue in the UK, but only paid GBP6mn in Corporation taxes, because all the sales were booked through...
  That's rather a simplistic argument.   I manhandled my iPhone 4 and the power button broke, similarly, just after the warranty expired.  I do not believe I broke it, mostly because I hardly ever use the power button.   I don't however believe I am entitled to anything from Apple - the warranty was one year, and I consider I was unlucky.  If it happens again on my iPhone 5, I'll probably switch to a different phone manufacturer, as is my right as a consumer.   Lets not...
  You're a genius!   Or I'm an idiot.   Or both!
New Posts  All Forums: