Marvin...back to his old anti-free market competition drivel...
Competition led to the creation of the iPhone, personal computers and so many of the modern conveniences you regularly rely on. I often wonder if you take the position you've staked out just to avoid boredom, because it makes no sense to me.
You're clearly unaware that most of the basic R&D in materials and theoretical computer science comes out of academia. It's more cost effective for companies to purchase it rather than do everything in house with no certainty of fruition or usable results. Consider how much R&D Apple had to purchase to create the iphone. It was probably not feasible to solve all of those problems in house due to the potential for failure or extended timetables and known research already shown in other products (most having nothing to do with a phone).
I have absolutely no reason to believe that Apple did anything illegal in Australia, but what it has done is certainly not ethical. Nor is it good business practice because it risks a consumer and government backlash in many countries, particularly Australia. And Apple really doesn't need to take that sort of risk with its brand.
Apple would be wise to admit that these taxation policies are unethical, and make very significant payments to countries that have been 'diddled' out of taxation revenue by transfer pricing practices. It would be interesting to see how Google and Microsoft responded to this.
They will probably be very quiet and keep out of the spotlight, as there is solid chance they also have some butter on their heads, too.
I notice you didn't comment on how the free market can't prevent anti-competitive monopolies. I have nothing against the free market in its entirety, my objection is to it being applied to everything under the assumption that it's a perfect system. Ignoring instances when it fails doesn't make those failures go away.
If you had a completely unregulated market then as soon as the iPhone came out, Apple's competition would have cloned it, like this:
[VIDEO]
and they'd have been able to sell it side by side in stores with the original at a fraction of the price. As soon as you introduce any form of regulation then the results are not solely defined by competition. It's competition within a set of necessary boundaries for fair competition.
These regulations for fair competition include the tax rates. They can't be zero and they can't be fixed value. They have to be setup to promote growth in order to prevent anti-competitive/monopolistic scenarios. If a big company can get away with paying low single digit taxation, it's harder for a new company to compete in the same market. If the normal rate of profit increase was the same for both but one pays 1/5th of the tax rate, the bigger company's profits would grow faster year on year as they'd have more capital to reinvest.
This is the same issue you see with income differences between the wealthy and poor. The wealthy have no reason to be in debt, can reinvest income and they lower their tax rates too so their assets grow faster. This is a danger to liberty because it puts too much power into the hands of too few people. Just look at Samsung's level of control in Korea:
Is one family owning so much to be considered a success or failure of the free market considering the importance of competition? Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't regulate itself.
That's correct. I didn't. And, that was intentional. It wasn't my aim to enter into an unregulated, free-wheeling conversation with you or anyone else. I asked what I wanted to know and got sufficient information to satisfy my curiosity. I had no need to go further in that vein or into a wider query.
Enforcing net neutrality and education efforts are not moderation activities.
A clumsiness in terminology by me. Point being, an internet without government intervention would not have net neutrality enforced and possibly not followed, and children may receive little or no education about caution when accessing the web. So the government may have a role to play there.
A clumsiness in terminology by me. Point being, an internet without government intervention would not have net neutrality enforced and possibly not followed, and children may receive little or no education about caution when accessing the web. So the government may have a role to play there.
The rest being the criminal activity I want to be policed? Really? That's a "slippery slope"?
I'm sure I must have misunderstood, because that's bonkers.
must have misunderstood. Why? Because some countries consider simple criticisms of their government, women's faces, pictures of women driving, dissension, criticisms of religion and other activities to be illegal activities. Silly isn't it.
If that's the case then I hardly see why the "slippery slope" is a problem, you're already up to your eyeballs in problems. Countries that have hugely oppressive laws aren't really in the "moderation" conversation.
If that's the case then I hardly see why the "slippery slope" is a problem, you're already up to your eyeballs in problems. Countries that have hugely oppressive laws aren't really in the "moderation" conversation.
Really? More and more countries have shown interest in censoring the internet. There are those in Europe and America that want to as well. Moderation as you call it, particularly when a significant %age of the world's population would be negatively impacted is not only a slippery slope but a major concern as well. But, if you can sleep well knowing that a couple of billion people or so re being oppressed and receiving biased and incorrect education and information, then I guess the rest of us should as well.
Or, perhaps, you are one of those individuals who want to oppress.
Whatever and whichever, have a nice day and please understand that I think your idea of acceptable moderation is extremely dangerous.
Really? More and more countries have shown interest in censoring the internet. There are those in Europe and America that want to as well. Moderation as you call it, particularly when a significant %age of the world's population would be negatively impacted is not only a slippery slope but a major concern as well. But, if you can sleep well knowing that a couple of billion people or so re being oppressed and receiving biased and incorrect education and information, then I guess the rest of us should as well.
Or, perhaps, you are one of those individuals who want to oppress.
Whatever and whichever, have a nice day and please understand that I think your idea of acceptable moderation is extremely dangerous.
In Australia (and a lot of other countries) American businesses want to trample our right to the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, requirement to show "just cause" and misinterpretation of "fair use" under OUR copyright laws, they are actively lobbying for this in the "war" against piracy.
Unfortunately our Government is quite happy to go along with this as it presents the means to control citizens' use of the Internet, for our "own good" of course.
In Australia (and a lot of other countries) American businesses want to trample our right to the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, requirement to show "just cause" and misinterpretation of "fair use" under OUR copyright laws, they are actively lobbying for this in the "war" against piracy.
Unfortunately our Government is quite happy to go along with this as it presents the means to control citizens' use of the Internet, for our "own good" of course.
If you are talking about RIAA and it's efforts with respect to copyright, then I won't argue with you. I will suggest that other countries' have organizations with similar goals in mind. It isn't just American companies. If, however, you intended your comment as an across-the-board shot, your aim is really too broad.
You comment, valid or not, has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about either. But, I think you know that.
As for the more narrow issue you refer to, I understand what you are saying. I think that the DMCA and similar laws, created and/or perpetuated by organizations like the DMCA, often go too far and put too much unfettered power into the hands of a few. But, I also think that copyright holders do need some ability to protect their financial interests in their creative works as well. Having been a victim of those who used my copyrighted material without permission and for their financial gain, the only means I have to collect fair compensation when the thief refuses to pay for their use of my material is a take-down notice or the threat of the same. Without that, I have had people refuse to compensate me for using my work. Further, failure to protect my work is to lose copyright protection on that work. I have no choice. Obviously, if people did not steal others' work, there would not be a need for the DMCA.
The primary problem of such laws is that they make it too easy to assert protections too broadly and make the potential damages asserted too high without proof of real damage or even proof of ownership. And, the restrictions on use can be construed as overly broad and vague. I have mixed feelings about such laws. However, would such laws even be needed if so many people didn't erroneously consider it their right to steal the works of others and use them in an unfair manner? Or, as some seem to think, that such use is not stealing because those materials belong to everyone.
Really? More and more countries have shown interest in censoring the internet. There are those in Europe and America that want to as well. Moderation as you call it, particularly when a significant %age of the world's population would be negatively impacted is not only a slippery slope but a major concern as well. But, if you can sleep well knowing that a couple of billion people or so re being oppressed and receiving biased and incorrect education and information, then I guess the rest of us should as well.
Or, perhaps, you are one of those individuals who want to oppress.
Whatever and whichever, have a nice day and please understand that I think your idea of acceptable moderation is extremely dangerous.
Perhaps I worded my initial post badly, but you've taken "moderation" in a different way that I intended. I wasn't saying that government should moderate the internet. I was saying that government involvement (the intention was broad, but applies to involvement in the internet) is and has been beneficial, but should be moderate, i.e. not all-encompassing or oppressive. Equally the free market has a role, but should not be all-encompassing and with regulation making it subject to common laws, and some internet-specific laws. You seem to have extrapolated what I said to sponsorship of an Orwellian intervention, but common sense should tell you that's not what I mean at all, I'm saying that sensible measures can and could be take to fend off a nightmare of a different kind - a lawless free for all. In addition my initial point was about how government had created or sponsored the creation of a lot of the technologies that led to the current state of technology industries. If government had no role we wouldn't be where we are today, and it's managed to do that in a broadly balanced and unoppressive way, up until the last 10 years where things have gone a bit wrong. Hence, moderation of activity is good, not complete abstention.
"Moderate" in the conservative adjective sense, not the censoring verb sense.
The Apple entities ARE based in Ireland. They are subsidiaries but that is of no legal consequence in this discussion.
We weren't talking specifically about legal consequence, we were talking about the conceptual model of corporation tax being paid at the place where the company is headquartered. Apple headquarters is not in Ireland, the main company is incorporated in the USA. The use of subsidiaries as profit retaining entities in a low (or no) tax jurisdiction is exploiting a loophole (i.e. a lack of internationally applied unitary taxation) to get around the normal expectation of how corporation tax works. Which is tax avoidance, by most people's reckoning; not illegal, but of a dubious business ethical practice.
We weren't talking specifically about legal consequence, we were talking about the conceptual model of corporation tax being paid at the place where the company is headquartered. Apple headquarters is not in Ireland, the main company is incorporated in the USA. The use of subsidiaries as profit retaining entities in a low (or no) tax jurisdiction is exploiting a loophole (i.e. a lack of internationally applied unitary taxation) to get around the normal expectation of how corporation tax works. Which is tax avoidance, by most people's reckoning; not illegal, but of a dubious business ethical practice.
You miss the point - which is that Apple's Irish operations ARE headquartered in Ireland, and not in the U.S. So what Apple is doing is tax minimization rather than tax avoidance. I'll grant that it is rather dubious that these operations are incorporated in Ireland yet not directed there, thereby enabling part of the "double Irish - Dutch sandwich".
OTOH, Apple Ireland has paid its proportionate share of development costs ever since 1980 - this is no recent change. So profits resulting from that development effort rightly belong there rather than being ascribed to the U.S. entity. Moving profit from a high-tax country (U.S.) to a lower-tax one (Ireland) is NOT what is happening here. The profit in Ireland was generated from development paid for by Apple Ireland.
You miss the point - which is that Apple's Irish operations ARE headquartered in Ireland, and not in the U.S. So what Apple is doing is tax minimization rather than tax avoidance. I'll grant that it is rather dubious that these operations are incorporated in Ireland yet not directed there, thereby enabling part of the "double Irish - Dutch sandwich".
OTOH, Apple Ireland has paid its proportionate share of development costs ever since 1980 - this is no recent change. So profits resulting from that development effort rightly belong there rather than being ascribed to the U.S. entity. Moving profit from a high-tax country (U.S.) to a lower-tax one (Ireland) is NOT what is happening here. The profit in Ireland was generated from development paid for by Apple Ireland.
You seem to have missed the point that altho Apple Sales International is headquartered in Ireland and thus should be paying their tax obligations to Ireland according to you, they are not. In fact they're paying them to no one at the moment.
You miss the point - which is that Apple's Irish operations ARE headquartered in Ireland, and not in the U.S.
I don't miss the point, but think calling what Apple is doing with ASI its "Irish operations" is rather dubious in any real sense. By Apple's own legal descriptions to tax authorities, ASI is not directed by any Irish executive, it is controlled by its US mother corporation. Also, very little of what it does has any tangible relationship to Ireland. And that's the point, all companies that exist as wholly owned subsidiaries of other companies in this way cannot really be said to have an effective "headquarters" in the way the corporation tax model understands it. The headquarters is the headquarters of the mother, i.e. 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California, for all of Apple's operations bar the most local sales and retail (I appreciate there is a grey area, but the majority of what we're talking about is well outside of the grey area).
I'm not denying the legal fact that ASI is based in Ireland and has the legal right to report profits as income in that jurisdiction and be subject to local tax, I'm saying that the economic reality does not line up with that legal arrangement. And it is my opinion that the tax laws should require companies to report profits in line with the economic reality of what is going on, not use gimmickry and offshore shell companies to siphon off the value add of their business into low-tax jurisdictions. And this is far from an Apple problem, this is a tax law problem that many, many multinational companies take advantage of.
And this is far from an Apple problem, this is a tax law problem that many, many multinational companies take advantage of.
And doing it rightfully so: what is the main goal for a company to do business: make money. Corporations doing this Double Irish thing is a good thing, an understandable one, and something every company should try to do if possible. Until the tax law prohibits this.
I disagree, and think that this companies vs government/taxation idea is extremely unhealthy. Companies should do what is right within the spirit of the law and community, not just what is best for them.
The idea that the law should prohibit every undesirable behaviour is shifting the responsibility for good behaviour entirely on the government. I don't think that's right or reasonable. Corporations are not immune from ethical considerations and a social obligation to behave in an honest, forthright, and responsible manner.
The fact that they don't means that a collective government clampdown with regard tax is going to become necessary, and will probably need to be excessively harsh to curb this kind of behaviour.
I did not miss that point. My comment included it quite specifically ...
>I'll grant that it is rather dubious that these operations are incorporated in Ireland >yet not directed there, thereby enabling part of the "double Irish - Dutch sandwich".
Then my question to you would be where do you believe Apple should pay the taxes due on it's profits for products sold to Australian and European customers? " No where" wouldn't seem to be an acceptable answer as that would imply you and other individual taxpayers are OK with covering for their shortfall yourself. Simply because something is not illegal doesn't make it right does it?
I disagree, and think that this companies vs government/taxation idea is extremely unhealthy. Companies should do what is right within the spirit of the law and community, not just what is best for them.
The idea that the law should prohibit every undesirable behaviour is shifting the responsibility for good behaviour entirely on the government. I don't think that's right or reasonable.
Good point. There indeed is such a thing as ethical practices.
Corporations are not immune from ethical considerations and a social obligation to behave in an honest, forthright, and responsible manner.
Still, they do what the law requires of them. Maybe I'm looking at this too Black or White, I or O, Yes or No, but 'if I were to run an international multinational' I certainly would hear my CFO out on the possibility of paying less tax.
Comments
Marvin...back to his old anti-free market competition drivel...
Competition led to the creation of the iPhone, personal computers and so many of the modern conveniences you regularly rely on. I often wonder if you take the position you've staked out just to avoid boredom, because it makes no sense to me.
You're clearly unaware that most of the basic R&D in materials and theoretical computer science comes out of academia. It's more cost effective for companies to purchase it rather than do everything in house with no certainty of fruition or usable results. Consider how much R&D Apple had to purchase to create the iphone. It was probably not feasible to solve all of those problems in house due to the potential for failure or extended timetables and known research already shown in other products (most having nothing to do with a phone).
They will probably be very quiet and keep out of the spotlight, as there is solid chance they also have some butter on their heads, too.
The rest being the criminal activity I want to be policed? Really? That's a "slippery slope"?
I'm sure I must have misunderstood, because that's bonkers.
Or, perhaps, you are one of those individuals who want to oppress.
Whatever and whichever, have a nice day and please understand that I think your idea of acceptable moderation is extremely dangerous.
Really? More and more countries have shown interest in censoring the internet. There are those in Europe and America that want to as well. Moderation as you call it, particularly when a significant %age of the world's population would be negatively impacted is not only a slippery slope but a major concern as well. But, if you can sleep well knowing that a couple of billion people or so re being oppressed and receiving biased and incorrect education and information, then I guess the rest of us should as well.
Or, perhaps, you are one of those individuals who want to oppress.
Whatever and whichever, have a nice day and please understand that I think your idea of acceptable moderation is extremely dangerous.
In Australia (and a lot of other countries) American businesses want to trample our right to the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, requirement to show "just cause" and misinterpretation of "fair use" under OUR copyright laws, they are actively lobbying for this in the "war" against piracy.
Unfortunately our Government is quite happy to go along with this as it presents the means to control citizens' use of the Internet, for our "own good" of course.
You comment, valid or not, has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about either. But, I think you know that.
As for the more narrow issue you refer to, I understand what you are saying. I think that the DMCA and similar laws, created and/or perpetuated by organizations like the DMCA, often go too far and put too much unfettered power into the hands of a few. But, I also think that copyright holders do need some ability to protect their financial interests in their creative works as well. Having been a victim of those who used my copyrighted material without permission and for their financial gain, the only means I have to collect fair compensation when the thief refuses to pay for their use of my material is a take-down notice or the threat of the same. Without that, I have had people refuse to compensate me for using my work. Further, failure to protect my work is to lose copyright protection on that work. I have no choice. Obviously, if people did not steal others' work, there would not be a need for the DMCA.
The primary problem of such laws is that they make it too easy to assert protections too broadly and make the potential damages asserted too high without proof of real damage or even proof of ownership. And, the restrictions on use can be construed as overly broad and vague. I have mixed feelings about such laws. However, would such laws even be needed if so many people didn't erroneously consider it their right to steal the works of others and use them in an unfair manner? Or, as some seem to think, that such use is not stealing because those materials belong to everyone.
"Moderate" in the conservative adjective sense, not the censoring verb sense.
Apple are not based in Ireland. They are based in the USA. They have some subsidiaries in Ireland, but that is not the same thing.
The Apple entities ARE based in Ireland. They are subsidiaries but that is of no legal consequence in this discussion.
And I believe, although I not sure, that Apple had an incorporated entity inAustralia even before it opened its own stores there.
The Apple entities ARE based in Ireland. They are subsidiaries but that is of no legal consequence in this discussion.
We weren't talking specifically about legal consequence, we were talking about the conceptual model of corporation tax being paid at the place where the company is headquartered. Apple headquarters is not in Ireland, the main company is incorporated in the USA. The use of subsidiaries as profit retaining entities in a low (or no) tax jurisdiction is exploiting a loophole (i.e. a lack of internationally applied unitary taxation) to get around the normal expectation of how corporation tax works. Which is tax avoidance, by most people's reckoning; not illegal, but of a dubious business ethical practice.
We weren't talking specifically about legal consequence, we were talking about the conceptual model of corporation tax being paid at the place where the company is headquartered. Apple headquarters is not in Ireland, the main company is incorporated in the USA. The use of subsidiaries as profit retaining entities in a low (or no) tax jurisdiction is exploiting a loophole (i.e. a lack of internationally applied unitary taxation) to get around the normal expectation of how corporation tax works. Which is tax avoidance, by most people's reckoning; not illegal, but of a dubious business ethical practice.
You miss the point - which is that Apple's Irish operations ARE headquartered in Ireland, and not in the U.S. So what Apple is doing is tax minimization rather than tax avoidance. I'll grant that it is rather dubious that these operations are incorporated in Ireland yet not directed there, thereby enabling part of the "double Irish - Dutch sandwich".
OTOH, Apple Ireland has paid its proportionate share of development costs ever since 1980 - this is no recent change. So profits resulting from that development effort rightly belong there rather than being ascribed to the U.S. entity. Moving profit from a high-tax country (U.S.) to a lower-tax one (Ireland) is NOT what is happening here. The profit in Ireland was generated from development paid for by Apple Ireland.
You seem to have missed the point that altho Apple Sales International is headquartered in Ireland and thus should be paying their tax obligations to Ireland according to you, they are not. In fact they're paying them to no one at the moment.
You miss the point - which is that Apple's Irish operations ARE headquartered in Ireland, and not in the U.S.
I don't miss the point, but think calling what Apple is doing with ASI its "Irish operations" is rather dubious in any real sense. By Apple's own legal descriptions to tax authorities, ASI is not directed by any Irish executive, it is controlled by its US mother corporation. Also, very little of what it does has any tangible relationship to Ireland. And that's the point, all companies that exist as wholly owned subsidiaries of other companies in this way cannot really be said to have an effective "headquarters" in the way the corporation tax model understands it. The headquarters is the headquarters of the mother, i.e. 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California, for all of Apple's operations bar the most local sales and retail (I appreciate there is a grey area, but the majority of what we're talking about is well outside of the grey area).
I'm not denying the legal fact that ASI is based in Ireland and has the legal right to report profits as income in that jurisdiction and be subject to local tax, I'm saying that the economic reality does not line up with that legal arrangement. And it is my opinion that the tax laws should require companies to report profits in line with the economic reality of what is going on, not use gimmickry and offshore shell companies to siphon off the value add of their business into low-tax jurisdictions. And this is far from an Apple problem, this is a tax law problem that many, many multinational companies take advantage of.
And doing it rightfully so: what is the main goal for a company to do business: make money. Corporations doing this Double Irish thing is a good thing, an understandable one, and something every company should try to do if possible. Until the tax law prohibits this.
I disagree, and think that this companies vs government/taxation idea is extremely unhealthy. Companies should do what is right within the spirit of the law and community, not just what is best for them.
The idea that the law should prohibit every undesirable behaviour is shifting the responsibility for good behaviour entirely on the government. I don't think that's right or reasonable. Corporations are not immune from ethical considerations and a social obligation to behave in an honest, forthright, and responsible manner.
The fact that they don't means that a collective government clampdown with regard tax is going to become necessary, and will probably need to be excessively harsh to curb this kind of behaviour.
You seem to have missed the point ...
I did not miss that point. My comment included it quite specifically ...
>I'll grant that it is rather dubious that these operations are incorporated in Ireland
>yet not directed there, thereby enabling part of the "double Irish - Dutch sandwich".
Then my question to you would be where do you believe Apple should pay the taxes due on it's profits for products sold to Australian and European customers? " No where" wouldn't seem to be an acceptable answer as that would imply you and other individual taxpayers are OK with covering for their shortfall yourself. Simply because something is not illegal doesn't make it right does it?
Good point. There indeed is such a thing as ethical practices.
Still, they do what the law requires of them. Maybe I'm looking at this too Black or White, I or O, Yes or No, but 'if I were to run an international multinational' I certainly would hear my CFO out on the possibility of paying less tax.