I'm sure there are companies that could employ offshore schemes to reduce their tax burden and haven't. Hell, Tim Cook has made a point of saying that Apple pays its full allotment of US tax for its US operations, and the numbers bear that out. I bet they could shift some of that offshore if they wanted, but they don't, because of negative PR.
Not worth a response. Try living in the real world for a change!
When ethics and law are at cross purposes, one must follow the law. That is good corporate governance. It is a fiduciary responsibility that must be met. It is ethical behavior. And, most importantly, it supports the rule of law. If you don't like that ethics and the law are at odds, change the law to suit your ethical purpose. If you can't do that, accept that others' views of what is ethical are at odds with yours. If that is still unsettling, either change your ethical values or work to change others'.
Sorry I have to correct you. Under Australian law (tested in the courts) fiduciary duty (to shareholders) is not considered preeminent over common ethics and the good of society. If a business can be shown to have acted within the law, but with the intended PURPOSE of contravening the SPIRIT of the law than they may still be found guilty of the crime. The cases may be quiet challenging to prosecute but there is precedent in Australia and our laws are cleverly written to this effect. What you say may be true under US law but respectfully is incorrect under Australian law which you are obviously unfamiliar. It is a contravention of Australian law to knowingly circumvent the spirit of the law for the benefit of shareholders - let's be very clear about that.
Yes - where intent can be proven that they undertook actions purely from intention to circumvent the activities that the law was designed to prohibit.
Not going to bother to correct the misquoted inclusion of material I did not write.
If I read you correctly: it is against the law to obey the law when your intent is to circumvent the ethical intent of the law even when you follow the law.
No. BUT - Apple Ireland has been paying its share of R&D costs (mostly in California) since 1980. As such, Apple Ireland does have a valid claim to the revenues produced by that investment.
As it is right now, Apple Ireland contributes more to Apple's R&D expenses than Apple US, since their sales are greater.
So - Is it [OS development] done in Ireland? No.
Is it paid for from Ireland? Yes.
Next question ...
Thank you for helping me out. So it gets money from - amongst others - sales from Australia, for which it funds R&D performed mainly in the US
Thank you for helping me out. So it gets money from - amongst others - sales from Australia, for which it funds R&D performed mainly in the US
The spirit of the law... Yeah, right!
Yep, just like any of the big multinationals, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, foodstuffs, media, tech anything and everything and they all have every right under the law to do this.
If you don't like it vote for the party most likely to change the laws, the government are the only ones with the power to change the legislation.
Too bad their election campaigns are paid for by the corporations that can afford to do this stuff and the people are manipulated by media barons who also use these loopholes.
It's a legitimate point, I think, that the technology Apple has given Australia is probably worth more than those taxes. Imagine having to use Windows computers and Samsung tablets, yuck!
Yep, just like any of the big multinationals, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, foodstuffs, media, tech anything and everything and they all have every right under the law to do this.
If you don't like it vote for the party most likely to change the laws, the government are the only ones with the power to change the legislation.
Too bad their election campaigns are paid for by the corporations that can afford to do this stuff and the people are manipulated by media barons who also use these loopholes.
Interesting how the spirit of the law - Apple's argument changes into just being legal.
We all know it's legal. But is it right? According to the spirit of the law (everybody pays his fair share of taxes), clearly not.
Yep, just like any of the big multinationals, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, foodstuffs, media, tech anything and everything and they all have every right under the law to do this.
If you don't like it vote for the party most likely to change the laws, the government are the only ones with the power to change the legislation.
Too bad their election campaigns are paid for by the corporations that can afford to do this stuff and the people are manipulated by media barons who also use these loopholes.
You seem quite happy to be covering a tiny bit of what Apple and other wealthy entities would (should) have paid in taxes with your own personal hard-earned money. No doubt they appreciate it. I'm not as pleased when April inevitably rolls around each year and the rich get even richer.
Interesting how the spirit of the law - Apple's argument changes into just being legal.
We all know it's legal. But is it right? According to the spirit of the law (everybody pays his fair share of taxes), clearly not.
Who cares what the "spirit" of the law says? What matters is the letter of the law, because by the letter of the law they will try, convict and hang you. Laws are made to give the illusion that the individual is powerless against the mighty state.
So just what is the SPIRIT of the law? That no company should be able to be successful and make a profit unless the government can take whatever percentage they can get their hands on?
And as far as paying a fair share of taxes comment that was made - can you please define what a fair share is using a simple single formula that applies to every entity around the world?
Who cares what the "spirit" of the law says? What matters is the letter of the law, because by the letter of the law they will try, convict and hang you. Laws are made to give the illusion that the individual is powerless against the mighty state.
Tim Cook seemed to care (when speaking to the commission)
So just what is the SPIRIT of the law? That no company should be able to be successful and make a profit unless the government can take whatever percentage they can get their hands on?
And as far as paying a fair share of taxes comment that was made - can you please define what a fair share is using a simple single formula that applies to every entity around the world?
You're turning the tables. The law foresees a fixed percentage of taxes.
Companies engineer constructions to pay less than what the law foresees.
As to your second question, no I cannot. Neither can you.
But a generally accepted rule of thumb is that the richer pays more taxes than the poorer.
Not only in amounts but also in percentages.
0,50 USD on 1000 USD is not fair.
Should you ask yourself any question about the above: I am in the highest income category
I disagree. Apple are largely taking advantage of the EU. If Europe consisted of politically and economically independent countries, then Apple would be obliged to pay whatever tax those countries set. But because the EU treats many European countries as one state, Apple can take advantage of this.
I don't see that as a disagreement at all. I agree Apple is taking advantage of the EU (as well as Australia, the US). Perhaps if Europe consisted of politically and economically independent countries, Apple would be obliged to pay whatever taxes.... but Europe *is* the EU, and Apple is legally taking advantage of its laws, its infrastructure, and its court systems to not pay what would ethically be its share due in those respective countries.
It is the job of those countries (and the EU) to write laws that are ironclad and not based on "What would happen if people followed these according to the spirit of the law" but based on "lets assume we're dealing with money grubbing weasels who will take advantage of any possible loophole they can find" and then write a law such that it would require the weasels to actually break the law in order to gain.
I don't see that as a disagreement at all. I agree Apple is taking advantage of the EU (as well as Australia, the US). Perhaps if Europe consisted of politically and economically independent countries, Apple would be obliged to pay whatever taxes.... but Europe *is* the EU, and Apple is legally taking advantage of its laws, its infrastructure, and its court systems to not pay what would ethically be its share due in those respective countries.
It is the job of those countries (and the EU) to write laws that are ironclad and not based on "What would happen if people followed these according to the spirit of the law" but based on "lets assume we're dealing with money grubbing weasels who will take advantage of any possible loophole they can find" and then write a law such that it would require the weasels to actually break the law in order to gain.
I'm probably being overly simplistic, but as far as I can tell, Ireland has a very low tax rate in relation to the rest of the EU. Because of the nature of the EU, Apple is allowed to use that tax rate to apply to all sales made in the EU. That is due to the intrinsic design of the EU. It seems entirely reasonable that Apple would take advantage of that.
There is an ongoing debate as to whether Ireland will raise their rates to deter international companies from taking advantage of this. Problem is, Ireland benefits substantially from this. If they raise their rates, there is nothing to stop Apple from moving their base to another EU country with a low tax rate. Of course, if all EU countries had the same tax rate, it would be irrelevant.
I'm probably being overly simplistic, but as far as I can tell, Ireland has a very low tax rate in relation to the rest of the EU. Because of the nature of the EU, Apple is allowed to use that tax rate to apply to all sales made in the EU. That is due to the intrinsic design of the EU. It seems entirely reasonable that Apple would take advantage of that.
There is an ongoing debate as to whether Ireland will raise their rates to deter international companies from taking advantage of this. Problem is, Ireland benefits substantially from this. If they raise their rates, there is nothing to stop Apple from moving their base to another EU country with a low tax rate. Of course, if all EU countries had the same tax rate, it would be irrelevant.
Benjamin, Apple isn't paying the taxes thru Ireland either, tho they do have a lower rate at just 12.5%. Some of the uintaxed money even sits in banks here in the US. The Apple subsidiary who controls the money doesn't have a tax home at all and thus pays no taxes on the bulk of the profits. Supposedly Ireland is in the process of creating new law that would remove Apple's (and presumably others) ability to avoid answering to any taxing authority.
Benjamin, Apple isn't paying the taxes thru Ireland either. Some of the money even sits in banks here in the US. The Apple subsidiary who controls the money doesn't have a tax home at all and thus pays no taxes.
Apple pays no tax on sales in the EU? I don't think so.
Apple pays no tax on sales in the EU? I don't think so.
For the most part they do not if reports are accurate.
As an example that Irish subsidiary claimed profits of $7.1B on sales of $29B between 2004 and 2008. That was before the big iPhone revenues started hitting the books. Rather than the approx. $900M in taxes that should have flowed to the Irish govt Apple paid only $34M, claiming a mysterious and still unexplained "lower tax rate" in statements. The Irish government says they didn't reduce Apple's tax rate. Since then Apple has done even better by claiming they have no tax home at all which Ireland says they're going to put an end to. Eventually.
Comments
I'm sure there are companies that could employ offshore schemes to reduce their tax burden and haven't. Hell, Tim Cook has made a point of saying that Apple pays its full allotment of US tax for its US operations, and the numbers bear that out. I bet they could shift some of that offshore if they wanted, but they don't, because of negative PR.
Not worth a response. Try living in the real world for a change!
So my Apple example is incorrect? Tim Cook lied to Congress?
If I read you correctly: it is against the law to obey the law when your intent is to circumvent the ethical intent of the law even when you follow the law.
That is screwed up.
Thank you for helping me out. So it gets money from - amongst others - sales from Australia, for which it funds R&D performed mainly in the US
The spirit of the law... Yeah, right!
Thank you for helping me out. So it gets money from - amongst others - sales from Australia, for which it funds R&D performed mainly in the US
The spirit of the law... Yeah, right!
Yep, just like any of the big multinationals, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, foodstuffs, media, tech anything and everything and they all have every right under the law to do this.
If you don't like it vote for the party most likely to change the laws, the government are the only ones with the power to change the legislation.
Too bad their election campaigns are paid for by the corporations that can afford to do this stuff and the people are manipulated by media barons who also use these loopholes.
It's a legitimate point, I think, that the technology Apple has given Australia is probably worth more than those taxes. Imagine having to use Windows computers and Samsung tablets, yuck!
Yep, just like any of the big multinationals, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, foodstuffs, media, tech anything and everything and they all have every right under the law to do this.
If you don't like it vote for the party most likely to change the laws, the government are the only ones with the power to change the legislation.
Too bad their election campaigns are paid for by the corporations that can afford to do this stuff and the people are manipulated by media barons who also use these loopholes.
Interesting how the spirit of the law - Apple's argument changes into just being legal.
We all know it's legal. But is it right? According to the spirit of the law (everybody pays his fair share of taxes), clearly not.
You seem quite happy to be covering a tiny bit of what Apple and other wealthy entities would (should) have paid in taxes with your own personal hard-earned money. No doubt they appreciate it. I'm not as pleased when April inevitably rolls around each year and the rich get even richer.
Who cares what the "spirit" of the law says? What matters is the letter of the law, because by the letter of the law they will try, convict and hang you. Laws are made to give the illusion that the individual is powerless against the mighty state.
So just what is the SPIRIT of the law? That no company should be able to be successful and make a profit unless the government can take whatever percentage they can get their hands on?
And as far as paying a fair share of taxes comment that was made - can you please define what a fair share is using a simple single formula that applies to every entity around the world?
Who cares what the "spirit" of the law says? What matters is the letter of the law, because by the letter of the law they will try, convict and hang you. Laws are made to give the illusion that the individual is powerless against the mighty state.
Tim Cook seemed to care (when speaking to the commission)
So just what is the SPIRIT of the law? That no company should be able to be successful and make a profit unless the government can take whatever percentage they can get their hands on?
And as far as paying a fair share of taxes comment that was made - can you please define what a fair share is using a simple single formula that applies to every entity around the world?
You're turning the tables. The law foresees a fixed percentage of taxes.
Companies engineer constructions to pay less than what the law foresees.
As to your second question, no I cannot. Neither can you.
But a generally accepted rule of thumb is that the richer pays more taxes than the poorer.
Not only in amounts but also in percentages.
0,50 USD on 1000 USD is not fair.
Should you ask yourself any question about the above: I am in the highest income category
and tax rate.
Thank you for helping me out. So it gets money from - amongst others - sales from Australia, for which it funds R&D performed mainly in the US
The spirit of the law... Yeah, right!
So if you want to set up design + build for "Australia's Own Phone" - go right ahead.
I hear that there's a site in Fisherman's Bend and another in SA that'll be available soon.
So if you want to set up design + build for "Australia's Own Phone" - go right ahead.
I hear that there's a site in Fisherman's Bend and another in SA that'll be available soon.
Actually it's no-one's phone... except for the Irish as they fund its development.
On the back, it should read "Designed by Apple in Ireland, Assembled in China"
I disagree. Apple are largely taking advantage of the EU. If Europe consisted of politically and economically independent countries, then Apple would be obliged to pay whatever tax those countries set. But because the EU treats many European countries as one state, Apple can take advantage of this.
I don't see that as a disagreement at all. I agree Apple is taking advantage of the EU (as well as Australia, the US). Perhaps if Europe consisted of politically and economically independent countries, Apple would be obliged to pay whatever taxes.... but Europe *is* the EU, and Apple is legally taking advantage of its laws, its infrastructure, and its court systems to not pay what would ethically be its share due in those respective countries.
It is the job of those countries (and the EU) to write laws that are ironclad and not based on "What would happen if people followed these according to the spirit of the law" but based on "lets assume we're dealing with money grubbing weasels who will take advantage of any possible loophole they can find" and then write a law such that it would require the weasels to actually break the law in order to gain.
I'm probably being overly simplistic, but as far as I can tell, Ireland has a very low tax rate in relation to the rest of the EU. Because of the nature of the EU, Apple is allowed to use that tax rate to apply to all sales made in the EU. That is due to the intrinsic design of the EU. It seems entirely reasonable that Apple would take advantage of that.
There is an ongoing debate as to whether Ireland will raise their rates to deter international companies from taking advantage of this. Problem is, Ireland benefits substantially from this. If they raise their rates, there is nothing to stop Apple from moving their base to another EU country with a low tax rate. Of course, if all EU countries had the same tax rate, it would be irrelevant.
Apple pays no tax on sales in the EU? I don't think so.
For the most part they do not if reports are accurate.
As an example that Irish subsidiary claimed profits of $7.1B on sales of $29B between 2004 and 2008. That was before the big iPhone revenues started hitting the books. Rather than the approx. $900M in taxes that should have flowed to the Irish govt Apple paid only $34M, claiming a mysterious and still unexplained "lower tax rate" in statements. The Irish government says they didn't reduce Apple's tax rate. Since then Apple has done even better by claiming they have no tax home at all which Ireland says they're going to put an end to. Eventually.
Next stop Singapore?
They pay sales tax. It's corporation tax that they avoid through transfers to Ireland.