The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
In the end, the customer pays for everything. That includes the blue collar workers enjoying Apple products. I'm not saying corporations shouldn't pay what they owe, I am saying that when you go after corporations as if they're golden geese, the money will come from somewhere - a corporation doesn't just suck it up.
The cool aid too many Americans drink is that endless consuming and low prices is the most important thing in life. Affordable healthcare, affordable higher eduction, paid time for new parents, low rate loans, the important stuff which really makes for a better life don't exist in the USA but cheap meaningless consumer products are everywhere.
I know this is an Apple centric website but guess what Apple products are used in Europe as well and those people have governments which provide the things I mentioned. How those governments accomplish this is with their tax laws. Corporations as well as individuals pay their fair share unlike the upside down tax laws here in the US. Some 30 years later American's still believe that by not taxing the rich we all benefit sooner or later. Guess what trickle down economics don't work. We have returned to the era of the Robber Barons circa 1900. Carnegie = Bezos, Frick = Gates and so on. Why do so many Americans take pride in huge corporations which only benefit the wealthiest?
There have been psychological tests to study why. It seems to do with people’s desire to be wealthy themselves one day, and to defend their own position. In tests where subjects could either give some of their test-issued money up to the person with more than them, or down to the person with less, they usually give it upwards. Why? Because that person can’t threaten the giver’s position in the hierarchy, while giving to the person below their standing can as it emables them to climb upward in rank.
Social-economic defensive maneuver, it seems.
Interesting.
I remember reading about some company owner who took a pay cut so he could afford to pay everyone in his company $70,000 a year.
His two top salesmen resigned, even though this didn't actually affect their own salaries in the slightest.
I think it's human nature: people don't actually enjoy being rich as much as they enjoy other people being poor.
What are you folks so obsessed about how much tax Apple has to pay? You should be concerned that you get almost nothing for the taxes you pay if you live in the US. Apple is in the top 3 richest corporations in the world, they must obey the laws of the countries they operate in.
I believe Apple has complied with all laws in counties it operates in. It just seems like that when the EU needs more money, they pick some big US Corp and slap a new tax on them. That’s the optics of it, so prove me wrong.
For one, since you haven't been following along: The issue is NOT that Apple didn't comply with the laws of Ireland. It's that Irish law was in violation of EU law, because it gave Ireland an unfair competitive advantage when vying for corporate investors. If Irish regulations were illegal under EU law, they weren't enforceable; ergo: Apple owes back taxes.
Whether it's Apple who owes, or Ireland who ought cover for it, is under dispute — which is why the money Apple has put up remains in escrow until it's been decided.
Second: Just because you personally never, ever hear about ANYTHING the EU does unless it concerns an American corporation, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Not all of these are directly tax evasion, but many are effectively that, in terms of illegal subsidies (as is Apple in Ireland): Energy company Engie. Real Madrid - 20.3 Million € (and six other Spanish football teams). Deutsche Post — somewhere between 500 Million and 1 billion €. Belgian B-Post, as well. Nürburgring GmbH (the race track operator) — half a billion. Olympic Airlines — about 150 million. and plenty, plenty more. This is just a couple of choice examples from the first page of a Google search.
I think it may be a symptom of your not being able to think of many European companies beyond Daimler and VW, full stop.
It's sort of like how most Americans seem to think that the EU must hate US corporations and hits them with massive anti-trust punishments (Microsoft, Google), when in fact, there are anti-trust rulings all the time, and the vast majority of them concern illegal pricing cartels between EU corporations. You obviously never hear about that, because it's outside of your sphere of interest.
And in fact, even we here hardly hear about it, because frankly, it's kind of not so interesting to hear that four electronics companies have been fined twenty million Euros for price-fixing the lightbulb market.
Ok, well thank you for explaining some of that. I have been following along, although your point about spheres of interest is well taken. As you point out, it does seem like the EU targets American businesses, and maybe rightly so. My original point to all of this is where are the European mega corporations that get the same treatment by the US government. If Ireland has been breaking EU law for so long, why wasn’t it addressed years ago? Anyway, good discussion.
One specific reason why the Irish situation (which is off-topic, strictly speaking, since this is about France) primarily affects US corporations is because the whole scheme (until 2014) was based upon differences between US and Irish tax law: the US considers a company taxable where it is registered, while Ireland considers it taxable where it is controlled. So if you register a US-owned subsidiary in Ireland, but put that under control of an off-shore company based in a tax haven that receives all the profits, Ireland considers your income taxable in that tax haven and collects nothing on the revenue generated in Ireland. The US government, in turn, considers your income taxable by Irish law, so you end up paying nothing.
This obviously doesn’t work for Euro corporations wanting to operate within the US, so you’re not going to see a similar issue as with Apple in Ireland crop up there with Daimler or BMW or Fiat Chrysler or whatever.
As for this French case: Europe is different from the US. While the US is comprised of 50 States and a handful of territories, those are all under centralised federal government and not independent. They are first part of the US and within that framework granted freedoms and leeway.
The EU works from the opposite direction: EU states are first and foremost independent states, and then they are also governed by EU regulations and legal requirements they’ve agreed to, but the frameworks are (apparently) much more complex, and it takes a long time for everything to get worked through every country’s individual legislature. So stuff that changes gets earmarked, watched, and once the legislature is clear, the process of going through courts and assessing the damage can begin.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
I wish some of these European countries would build big companies that we could tax. But, they never seem to. I wonder why?
I look at these dumb people and wonder WHY? I'm not sure why they CARE what taxes Apple pays or doesn't pay. They aren't the tax collectors. Ignoring that, Corporations don't pay taxes. YOU the customer pay the taxes. This is the round about pay for politicians to tax YOU. Oh look at those Evil corporations. That EVIL oil company. They aren't taxes enough or pay their fair share. Whatever that means. Ok, tax them more, prices go up, you pay more. You pay more for that Apple device. You pay more for your GAS. Whatever it is. You are in fact asking the government to tax YOU more money. What do you get out of that? Unless you're sucking off the Government teat, not a whole lot other than more Government waste.
Who put those loopholes into place to help get businesses, etc, it was the Politicians. So on one side they're putting those loopholes into place, and on the other side talking about how evil they are for using those same loopholes. In the end, YOU are the one paying more.
I owe a business and I pay taxes my customers don't pay them for me.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Well, to be absolutely fair, according to a three year investigation by the EU into the Irish agreement, Apple not only decided how much it would make available for taxation but when it did, it paid less than 1%.
We'll see how things play out but you should at least see that doesn't look very fair at all.
Dude, it's not Apple's (or any company's or anyone's) job to pay "their fair share." Their only obligation is to pay what's legally owed. If they get get a sweet heart deal from the elected officials of some country (or state), go complain to those officials. Or should Apple have a Tax Fairness Committee of their Board decide where they should send extra money because it's the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure a majority of shareholders would vote against such a plan. But feel free to do that with your own money.
That isn't actually true.
You would imagine it would be and I could almost accept it if it were not for one HUGE problem.
When the Irish problem blew up, Tim Cook himself went on record and said what was being banded around was false because Apple had 'values'.
I suppose the logical question now is to ask TC outright what those values actually mean because on my scale of values, knowingly deciding how much you wish to make available for taxation and then paying hardly anything on it doesn't sit well at all with my own values.
Moreso, as after the fact we have learnt that TC had more than a couple of (supposedly heated) meetings with the competition commissioner and was well aware of the situation that was unfurling.
If the EU claim is upheld and Apple eventually concedes it has to pay Ireland back, TC's words will boomerang back to him like a fiery hot potato from hell.
To paraphrase Phil Schiller: 'values my ass!'
In all seriousness, we have to wait and see how things play out.
Yeah nonsense. Apple is the largest US taxpayer. Contrast this with corporations like GE, who famously applied so much creative accounting to lower their tax liability to below zero — the IRS owned them money. It was absurd, and not right. But apparently legal.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Well, to be absolutely fair, according to a three year investigation by the EU into the Irish agreement, Apple not only decided how much it would make available for taxation but when it did, it paid less than 1%.
We'll see how things play out but you should at least see that doesn't look very fair at all.
Dude, it's not Apple's (or any company's or anyone's) job to pay "their fair share." Their only obligation is to pay what's legally owed. If they get get a sweet heart deal from the elected officials of some country (or state), go complain to those officials. Or should Apple have a Tax Fairness Committee of their Board decide where they should send extra money because it's the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure a majority of shareholders would vote against such a plan. But feel free to do that with your own money.
That isn't actually true.
You would imagine it would be and I could almost accept it if it were not for one HUGE problem.
When the Irish problem blew up, Tim Cook himself went on record and said what was being banded around was false because Apple had 'values'.
I suppose the logical question now is to ask TC outright what those values actually mean because on my scale of values, knowingly deciding how much you wish to make available for taxation and then paying hardly anything on it doesn't sit well at all with my own values.
Moreso, as after the fact we have learnt that TC had more than a couple of (supposedly heated) meetings with the competition commissioner and was well aware of the situation that was unfurling.
If the EU claim is upheld and Apple eventually concedes it has to pay Ireland back, TC's words will boomerang back to him like a fiery hot potato from hell.
To paraphrase Phil Schiller: 'values my ass!'
In all seriousness, we have to wait and see how things play out.
Gee, I wonder how Huawei values compare...I'm sure you can tell us.
Is that a pure example of whataboutism?
My stance is the same no matter who is involved but as I said in the Apple case, let's see how things play out. Same applies to Huawei.
Yeah, pure.
As in, will you be as forthright with your stance should it be Huawei being gored by the DOJ? Surely it is just about values, not politics, or tax law involved.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Well, to be absolutely fair, according to a three year investigation by the EU into the Irish agreement, Apple not only decided how much it would make available for taxation but when it did, it paid less than 1%.
We'll see how things play out but you should at least see that doesn't look very fair at all.
Dude, it's not Apple's (or any company's or anyone's) job to pay "their fair share." Their only obligation is to pay what's legally owed. If they get get a sweet heart deal from the elected officials of some country (or state), go complain to those officials. Or should Apple have a Tax Fairness Committee of their Board decide where they should send extra money because it's the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure a majority of shareholders would vote against such a plan. But feel free to do that with your own money.
That isn't actually true.
You would imagine it would be and I could almost accept it if it were not for one HUGE problem.
When the Irish problem blew up, Tim Cook himself went on record and said what was being banded around was false because Apple had 'values'.
I suppose the logical question now is to ask TC outright what those values actually mean because on my scale of values, knowingly deciding how much you wish to make available for taxation and then paying hardly anything on it doesn't sit well at all with my own values.
Moreso, as after the fact we have learnt that TC had more than a couple of (supposedly heated) meetings with the competition commissioner and was well aware of the situation that was unfurling.
If the EU claim is upheld and Apple eventually concedes it has to pay Ireland back, TC's words will boomerang back to him like a fiery hot potato from hell.
To paraphrase Phil Schiller: 'values my ass!'
In all seriousness, we have to wait and see how things play out.
Gee, I wonder how Huawei values compare...I'm sure you can tell us.
Is that a pure example of whataboutism?
My stance is the same no matter who is involved but as I said in the Apple case, let's see how things play out. Same applies to Huawei.
Yeah, pure.
As in, will you be as forthright with your stance should it be Huawei being gored by the DOJ? Surely it is just about values, not politics, or tax law involved.
It wasn't me who brought 'values' into it though, was it?
It was Tim Cook himself. He forgot to flip the corporate drivel switch onto mute.
Sometimes it's better not to say anything at all. I'm sure, with hindsight, Phil feels the same way.
As for Huawei, I suggest you start looking at some basic facts [pdf]:
then wait for actual evidence to be presented/defended and then put it into the correct context and try not to forget that the government that actually gotcaught spying and had the beans spilt by Snowden on its dubious activities was the US government. Yes, the same one that pressured US companies to drop signed deals with Huawei, the same one that has systematically failed to back up its biggest claims on Huawei (going so far as to claim evidence wasn't necessary!), The same one that is pushing foreign governments to limit Huawei's progress in 5G and the same whose tech is arguably and ehem, just coincidentally, years behind on 5G.
Yes, there is no escaping that politics seeps through every page in this story but Huawei is simply a company the US fears for technological and competitive reasons.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Just Wait for when AOC starts writing tax policy.
Somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon.
I wish some of these European countries would build big companies that we could tax. But, they never seem to. I wonder why?
I look at these dumb people and wonder WHY? I'm not sure why they CARE what taxes Apple pays or doesn't pay. They aren't the tax collectors. Ignoring that, Corporations don't pay taxes. YOU the customer pay the taxes. This is the round about pay for politicians to tax YOU. Oh look at those Evil corporations. That EVIL oil company. They aren't taxes enough or pay their fair share. Whatever that means. Ok, tax them more, prices go up, you pay more. You pay more for that Apple device. You pay more for your GAS. Whatever it is. You are in fact asking the government to tax YOU more money. What do you get out of that? Unless you're sucking off the Government teat, not a whole lot other than more Government waste.
Who put those loopholes into place to help get businesses, etc, it was the Politicians. So on one side they're putting those loopholes into place, and on the other side talking about how evil they are for using those same loopholes. In the end, YOU are the one paying more.
I owe a business and I pay taxes my customers don't pay them for me.
Oh yes your customers DO pay your taxes for you! Whatever your business model is you take into account your revenue vs your margins to decide what to charge your customers for your product or service. Where do you think the money comes from for you to pay your taxes anyway?
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Well, to be absolutely fair, according to a three year investigation by the EU into the Irish agreement, Apple not only decided how much it would make available for taxation but when it did, it paid less than 1%.
We'll see how things play out but you should at least see that doesn't look very fair at all.
Dude, it's not Apple's (or any company's or anyone's) job to pay "their fair share." Their only obligation is to pay what's legally owed. If they get get a sweet heart deal from the elected officials of some country (or state), go complain to those officials. Or should Apple have a Tax Fairness Committee of their Board decide where they should send extra money because it's the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure a majority of shareholders would vote against such a plan. But feel free to do that with your own money.
That isn't actually true.
You would imagine it would be and I could almost accept it if it were not for one HUGE problem.
When the Irish problem blew up, Tim Cook himself went on record and said what was being banded around was false because Apple had 'values'.
I suppose the logical question now is to ask TC outright what those values actually mean because on my scale of values, knowingly deciding how much you wish to make available for taxation and then paying hardly anything on it doesn't sit well at all with my own values.
Moreso, as after the fact we have learnt that TC had more than a couple of (supposedly heated) meetings with the competition commissioner and was well aware of the situation that was unfurling.
If the EU claim is upheld and Apple eventually concedes it has to pay Ireland back, TC's words will boomerang back to him like a fiery hot potato from hell.
To paraphrase Phil Schiller: 'values my ass!'
In all seriousness, we have to wait and see how things play out.
Gee, I wonder how Huawei values compare...I'm sure you can tell us.
Is that a pure example of whataboutism?
My stance is the same no matter who is involved but as I said in the Apple case, let's see how things play out. Same applies to Huawei.
Yeah, pure.
As in, will you be as forthright with your stance should it be Huawei being gored by the DOJ? Surely it is just about values, not politics, or tax law involved.
It wasn't me who brought 'values' into it though, was it?
It was Tim Cook himself. He forgot to flip the corporate drivel switch onto mute.
Sometimes it's better not to say anything at all. I'm sure, with hindsight, Phil feels the same way.
As for Huawei, I suggest you start looking at some basic facts [pdf]:
then wait for actual evidence to be presented/defended and then put it into the correct context and try not to forget that the government that actually gotcaught spying and had the beans spilt by Snowden on its dubious activities was the US government. Yes, the same one that pressured US companies to drop signed deals with Huawei, the same one that has systematically failed to back up its biggest claims on Huawei (going so far as to claim evidence wasn't necessary!), The same one that is pushing foreign governments to limit Huawei's progress in 5G and the same whose tech is arguably and ehem, just coincidentally, years behind on 5G.
Yes, there is no escaping that politics seeps through every page in this story but Huawei is simply a company the US fears for technological and competitive reasons.
That ship sailed, and Huawei's PR document isn't going to change that:
"New Zealand is barring China’s Huawei on national-security grounds from supplying equipment for next-generation mobile networks, and in doing so has become the third member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance to take action against the huge Shenzen-based telecom-gear maker.
The move by New Zealand leaves Canada and Britain as the only Five Eyes members that have not banned wireless carriers from installing Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.’s 5G technology despite strong pressure from the United States. However, Britain recently did raise security concerns about Chinese-supplied telecommunications equipment from companies such as Huawei."
and;
"Mr. Hampton and New Zealand Intelligence Services Minister Andrew Little declined to discuss the specific security risk because of classified intelligence. However, Mr. Little explained that 5G technology poses a greater national-security risk than conventional mobile technology.
“The principal difference between 5G technology and the conventional 4G and 3G technology is that the conventional technology has an infrastructure core and then peripheral technology such as cellphone towers and the like, and they can in effect be kept separate, but you cannot do that with 5G technology," he said. “Every component of 5G technology, every component of the network is integrated and, therefore, access to one component can lead to access to the entire network.”
Under Chinese law, companies in China “must support, co-operate with and collaborate in national-intelligence work” as requested by Beijing, and security experts in the United States and Canada warn that equipment produced by firms such as Huawei could be compromised on behalf of China’s ruling party.
It’s not known what security risk New Zealand has in mind. Earlier this month, however, The Australian newspaper, citing an unidentified national-security source, reported that the Chinese government used Huawei to hack a foreign network, using the telecom-equipment maker’s access codes to do so. Which country was hacked was never identified and Huawei denied any involvement in espionage."
Huawei is done in any of the Five Eyes countries. The bigger issue is whether they have/will lose France and Germany, and after that, more NATO countries.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Well, to be absolutely fair, according to a three year investigation by the EU into the Irish agreement, Apple not only decided how much it would make available for taxation but when it did, it paid less than 1%.
We'll see how things play out but you should at least see that doesn't look very fair at all.
Dude, it's not Apple's (or any company's or anyone's) job to pay "their fair share." Their only obligation is to pay what's legally owed. If they get get a sweet heart deal from the elected officials of some country (or state), go complain to those officials. Or should Apple have a Tax Fairness Committee of their Board decide where they should send extra money because it's the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure a majority of shareholders would vote against such a plan. But feel free to do that with your own money.
That isn't actually true.
You would imagine it would be and I could almost accept it if it were not for one HUGE problem.
When the Irish problem blew up, Tim Cook himself went on record and said what was being banded around was false because Apple had 'values'.
I suppose the logical question now is to ask TC outright what those values actually mean because on my scale of values, knowingly deciding how much you wish to make available for taxation and then paying hardly anything on it doesn't sit well at all with my own values.
Moreso, as after the fact we have learnt that TC had more than a couple of (supposedly heated) meetings with the competition commissioner and was well aware of the situation that was unfurling.
If the EU claim is upheld and Apple eventually concedes it has to pay Ireland back, TC's words will boomerang back to him like a fiery hot potato from hell.
To paraphrase Phil Schiller: 'values my ass!'
In all seriousness, we have to wait and see how things play out.
Gee, I wonder how Huawei values compare...I'm sure you can tell us.
Is that a pure example of whataboutism?
My stance is the same no matter who is involved but as I said in the Apple case, let's see how things play out. Same applies to Huawei.
Yeah, pure.
As in, will you be as forthright with your stance should it be Huawei being gored by the DOJ? Surely it is just about values, not politics, or tax law involved.
It wasn't me who brought 'values' into it though, was it?
It was Tim Cook himself. He forgot to flip the corporate drivel switch onto mute.
Sometimes it's better not to say anything at all. I'm sure, with hindsight, Phil feels the same way.
As for Huawei, I suggest you start looking at some basic facts [pdf]:
then wait for actual evidence to be presented/defended and then put it into the correct context and try not to forget that the government that actually gotcaught spying and had the beans spilt by Snowden on its dubious activities was the US government. Yes, the same one that pressured US companies to drop signed deals with Huawei, the same one that has systematically failed to back up its biggest claims on Huawei (going so far as to claim evidence wasn't necessary!), The same one that is pushing foreign governments to limit Huawei's progress in 5G and the same whose tech is arguably and ehem, just coincidentally, years behind on 5G.
Yes, there is no escaping that politics seeps through every page in this story but Huawei is simply a company the US fears for technological and competitive reasons.
That ship sailed, and Huawei's PR document isn't going to change that:
"New Zealand is barring China’s Huawei on national-security grounds from supplying equipment for next-generation mobile networks, and in doing so has become the third member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance to take action against the huge Shenzen-based telecom-gear maker.
The move by New Zealand leaves Canada and Britain as the only Five Eyes members that have not banned wireless carriers from installing Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.’s 5G technology despite strong pressure from the United States. However, Britain recently did raise security concerns about Chinese-supplied telecommunications equipment from companies such as Huawei."
and;
"Mr. Hampton and New Zealand Intelligence Services Minister Andrew Little declined to discuss the specific security risk because of classified intelligence. However, Mr. Little explained that 5G technology poses a greater national-security risk than conventional mobile technology.
“The principal difference between 5G technology and the conventional 4G and 3G technology is that the conventional technology has an infrastructure core and then peripheral technology such as cellphone towers and the like, and they can in effect be kept separate, but you cannot do that with 5G technology," he said. “Every component of 5G technology, every component of the network is integrated and, therefore, access to one component can lead to access to the entire network.”
Under Chinese law, companies in China “must support, co-operate with and collaborate in national-intelligence work” as requested by Beijing, and security experts in the United States and Canada warn that equipment produced by firms such as Huawei could be compromised on behalf of China’s ruling party.
It’s not known what security risk New Zealand has in mind. Earlier this month, however, The Australian newspaper, citing an unidentified national-security source, reported that the Chinese government used Huawei to hack a foreign network, using the telecom-equipment maker’s access codes to do so. Which country was hacked was never identified and Huawei denied any involvement in espionage."
Huawei is done in any of the Five Eyes countries. The bigger issue is whether they have/will lose France and Germany, and after that, more NATO countries.
You are trying to draw the attention away from the core of the thread. I gave you a document that dismantles most of your repeated claims and it came from the horse's mouth. Now you must wait to see how things develop. In the meantime, back to Apple's tax problems.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Well, to be absolutely fair, according to a three year investigation by the EU into the Irish agreement, Apple not only decided how much it would make available for taxation but when it did, it paid less than 1%.
We'll see how things play out but you should at least see that doesn't look very fair at all.
Dude, it's not Apple's (or any company's or anyone's) job to pay "their fair share." Their only obligation is to pay what's legally owed. If they get get a sweet heart deal from the elected officials of some country (or state), go complain to those officials. Or should Apple have a Tax Fairness Committee of their Board decide where they should send extra money because it's the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure a majority of shareholders would vote against such a plan. But feel free to do that with your own money.
That isn't actually true.
You would imagine it would be and I could almost accept it if it were not for one HUGE problem.
When the Irish problem blew up, Tim Cook himself went on record and said what was being banded around was false because Apple had 'values'.
I suppose the logical question now is to ask TC outright what those values actually mean because on my scale of values, knowingly deciding how much you wish to make available for taxation and then paying hardly anything on it doesn't sit well at all with my own values.
Moreso, as after the fact we have learnt that TC had more than a couple of (supposedly heated) meetings with the competition commissioner and was well aware of the situation that was unfurling.
If the EU claim is upheld and Apple eventually concedes it has to pay Ireland back, TC's words will boomerang back to him like a fiery hot potato from hell.
To paraphrase Phil Schiller: 'values my ass!'
In all seriousness, we have to wait and see how things play out.
Gee, I wonder how Huawei values compare...I'm sure you can tell us.
Is that a pure example of whataboutism?
My stance is the same no matter who is involved but as I said in the Apple case, let's see how things play out. Same applies to Huawei.
Yeah, pure.
As in, will you be as forthright with your stance should it be Huawei being gored by the DOJ? Surely it is just about values, not politics, or tax law involved.
It wasn't me who brought 'values' into it though, was it?
It was Tim Cook himself. He forgot to flip the corporate drivel switch onto mute.
Sometimes it's better not to say anything at all. I'm sure, with hindsight, Phil feels the same way.
As for Huawei, I suggest you start looking at some basic facts [pdf]:
then wait for actual evidence to be presented/defended and then put it into the correct context and try not to forget that the government that actually gotcaught spying and had the beans spilt by Snowden on its dubious activities was the US government. Yes, the same one that pressured US companies to drop signed deals with Huawei, the same one that has systematically failed to back up its biggest claims on Huawei (going so far as to claim evidence wasn't necessary!), The same one that is pushing foreign governments to limit Huawei's progress in 5G and the same whose tech is arguably and ehem, just coincidentally, years behind on 5G.
Yes, there is no escaping that politics seeps through every page in this story but Huawei is simply a company the US fears for technological and competitive reasons.
That ship sailed, and Huawei's PR document isn't going to change that:
"New Zealand is barring China’s Huawei on national-security grounds from supplying equipment for next-generation mobile networks, and in doing so has become the third member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance to take action against the huge Shenzen-based telecom-gear maker.
The move by New Zealand leaves Canada and Britain as the only Five Eyes members that have not banned wireless carriers from installing Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.’s 5G technology despite strong pressure from the United States. However, Britain recently did raise security concerns about Chinese-supplied telecommunications equipment from companies such as Huawei."
and;
"Mr. Hampton and New Zealand Intelligence Services Minister Andrew Little declined to discuss the specific security risk because of classified intelligence. However, Mr. Little explained that 5G technology poses a greater national-security risk than conventional mobile technology.
“The principal difference between 5G technology and the conventional 4G and 3G technology is that the conventional technology has an infrastructure core and then peripheral technology such as cellphone towers and the like, and they can in effect be kept separate, but you cannot do that with 5G technology," he said. “Every component of 5G technology, every component of the network is integrated and, therefore, access to one component can lead to access to the entire network.”
Under Chinese law, companies in China “must support, co-operate with and collaborate in national-intelligence work” as requested by Beijing, and security experts in the United States and Canada warn that equipment produced by firms such as Huawei could be compromised on behalf of China’s ruling party.
It’s not known what security risk New Zealand has in mind. Earlier this month, however, The Australian newspaper, citing an unidentified national-security source, reported that the Chinese government used Huawei to hack a foreign network, using the telecom-equipment maker’s access codes to do so. Which country was hacked was never identified and Huawei denied any involvement in espionage."
Huawei is done in any of the Five Eyes countries. The bigger issue is whether they have/will lose France and Germany, and after that, more NATO countries.
You are trying to draw the attention away from the core of the thread. I gave you a document that dismantles most of your repeated claims and it came from the horse's mouth. Now you must wait to see how things develop. In the meantime, back to Apple's tax problems.
Apple doesn't have tax problems. They have tax liabilities that they are dealing with, just like any other tax payer, and part of that is paying the minimal amount due.
Your document didn't dismantle my claims, as you will surely find out in the future. National Security interests are closing off Huawei 5G opportunities.
I wish some of these European countries would build big companies that we could tax. But, they never seem to. I wonder why?
I look at these dumb people and wonder WHY? I'm not sure why they CARE what taxes Apple pays or doesn't pay. They aren't the tax collectors. Ignoring that, Corporations don't pay taxes. YOU the customer pay the taxes. This is the round about pay for politicians to tax YOU. Oh look at those Evil corporations. That EVIL oil company. They aren't taxes enough or pay their fair share. Whatever that means. Ok, tax them more, prices go up, you pay more. You pay more for that Apple device. You pay more for your GAS. Whatever it is. You are in fact asking the government to tax YOU more money. What do you get out of that? Unless you're sucking off the Government teat, not a whole lot other than more Government waste.
Who put those loopholes into place to help get businesses, etc, it was the Politicians. So on one side they're putting those loopholes into place, and on the other side talking about how evil they are for using those same loopholes. In the end, YOU are the one paying more.
I owe a business and I pay taxes my customers don't pay them for me.
Oh yes your customers DO pay your taxes for you! Whatever your business model is you take into account your revenue vs your margins to decide what to charge your customers for your product or service. Where do you think the money comes from for you to pay your taxes anyway?
Profits. I can't know until the tax year is complete what the taxes will be. There's been years I owed nothing, and years I've owed a LOT.
Every one of my business associates try to price based on "what their market will bear" all things considered, and a lot of stuff goes into it. The corporate taxes they might have to pay on the profits is not involved at ALL in computing what the optimal prices should be.
In one sentence the corporate taxes that might be due on profits from the sale of your products has zippity effect on determining what to charge for them.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Just Wait for when AOC starts writing tax policy.
Thankfully, her only real contributions during her term will be relegated to “goad” for her side. There’s no way under the sun any of her policy suggestions happen. Even progressives Mike Bloomberg and Howard Schultz have called her ideas dangerous and unworkable.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Well, to be absolutely fair, according to a three year investigation by the EU into the Irish agreement, Apple not only decided how much it would make available for taxation but when it did, it paid less than 1%.
We'll see how things play out but you should at least see that doesn't look very fair at all.
Dude, it's not Apple's (or any company's or anyone's) job to pay "their fair share." Their only obligation is to pay what's legally owed. If they get get a sweet heart deal from the elected officials of some country (or state), go complain to those officials. Or should Apple have a Tax Fairness Committee of their Board decide where they should send extra money because it's the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure a majority of shareholders would vote against such a plan. But feel free to do that with your own money.
That isn't actually true.
You would imagine it would be and I could almost accept it if it were not for one HUGE problem.
When the Irish problem blew up, Tim Cook himself went on record and said what was being banded around was false because Apple had 'values'.
I suppose the logical question now is to ask TC outright what those values actually mean because on my scale of values, knowingly deciding how much you wish to make available for taxation and then paying hardly anything on it doesn't sit well at all with my own values.
Moreso, as after the fact we have learnt that TC had more than a couple of (supposedly heated) meetings with the competition commissioner and was well aware of the situation that was unfurling.
If the EU claim is upheld and Apple eventually concedes it has to pay Ireland back, TC's words will boomerang back to him like a fiery hot potato from hell.
To paraphrase Phil Schiller: 'values my ass!'
In all seriousness, we have to wait and see how things play out.
Gee, I wonder how Huawei values compare...I'm sure you can tell us.
Is that a pure example of whataboutism?
My stance is the same no matter who is involved but as I said in the Apple case, let's see how things play out. Same applies to Huawei.
Yeah, pure.
As in, will you be as forthright with your stance should it be Huawei being gored by the DOJ? Surely it is just about values, not politics, or tax law involved.
It wasn't me who brought 'values' into it though, was it?
It was Tim Cook himself. He forgot to flip the corporate drivel switch onto mute.
Sometimes it's better not to say anything at all. I'm sure, with hindsight, Phil feels the same way.
As for Huawei, I suggest you start looking at some basic facts [pdf]:
then wait for actual evidence to be presented/defended and then put it into the correct context and try not to forget that the government that actually gotcaught spying and had the beans spilt by Snowden on its dubious activities was the US government. Yes, the same one that pressured US companies to drop signed deals with Huawei, the same one that has systematically failed to back up its biggest claims on Huawei (going so far as to claim evidence wasn't necessary!), The same one that is pushing foreign governments to limit Huawei's progress in 5G and the same whose tech is arguably and ehem, just coincidentally, years behind on 5G.
Yes, there is no escaping that politics seeps through every page in this story but Huawei is simply a company the US fears for technological and competitive reasons.
That ship sailed, and Huawei's PR document isn't going to change that:
"New Zealand is barring China’s Huawei on national-security grounds from supplying equipment for next-generation mobile networks, and in doing so has become the third member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance to take action against the huge Shenzen-based telecom-gear maker.
The move by New Zealand leaves Canada and Britain as the only Five Eyes members that have not banned wireless carriers from installing Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.’s 5G technology despite strong pressure from the United States. However, Britain recently did raise security concerns about Chinese-supplied telecommunications equipment from companies such as Huawei."
and;
"Mr. Hampton and New Zealand Intelligence Services Minister Andrew Little declined to discuss the specific security risk because of classified intelligence. However, Mr. Little explained that 5G technology poses a greater national-security risk than conventional mobile technology.
“The principal difference between 5G technology and the conventional 4G and 3G technology is that the conventional technology has an infrastructure core and then peripheral technology such as cellphone towers and the like, and they can in effect be kept separate, but you cannot do that with 5G technology," he said. “Every component of 5G technology, every component of the network is integrated and, therefore, access to one component can lead to access to the entire network.”
Under Chinese law, companies in China “must support, co-operate with and collaborate in national-intelligence work” as requested by Beijing, and security experts in the United States and Canada warn that equipment produced by firms such as Huawei could be compromised on behalf of China’s ruling party.
It’s not known what security risk New Zealand has in mind. Earlier this month, however, The Australian newspaper, citing an unidentified national-security source, reported that the Chinese government used Huawei to hack a foreign network, using the telecom-equipment maker’s access codes to do so. Which country was hacked was never identified and Huawei denied any involvement in espionage."
Huawei is done in any of the Five Eyes countries. The bigger issue is whether they have/will lose France and Germany, and after that, more NATO countries.
You are trying to draw the attention away from the core of the thread. I gave you a document that dismantles most of your repeated claims and it came from the horse's mouth. Now you must wait to see how things develop. In the meantime, back to Apple's tax problems.
Apple doesn't have tax problems. They have tax liabilities that they are dealing with, just like any other tax payer, and part of that is paying the minimal amount due.
Your document didn't dismantle my claims, as you will surely find out in the future. National Security interests are closing off Huawei 5G opportunities.
$571 million dollars in taxes payable after an investigation is a tax problem. There is no other way to look at it.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Well, to be absolutely fair, according to a three year investigation by the EU into the Irish agreement, Apple not only decided how much it would make available for taxation but when it did, it paid less than 1%.
We'll see how things play out but you should at least see that doesn't look very fair at all.
Dude, it's not Apple's (or any company's or anyone's) job to pay "their fair share." Their only obligation is to pay what's legally owed. If they get get a sweet heart deal from the elected officials of some country (or state), go complain to those officials. Or should Apple have a Tax Fairness Committee of their Board decide where they should send extra money because it's the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure a majority of shareholders would vote against such a plan. But feel free to do that with your own money.
That isn't actually true.
You would imagine it would be and I could almost accept it if it were not for one HUGE problem.
When the Irish problem blew up, Tim Cook himself went on record and said what was being banded around was false because Apple had 'values'.
I suppose the logical question now is to ask TC outright what those values actually mean because on my scale of values, knowingly deciding how much you wish to make available for taxation and then paying hardly anything on it doesn't sit well at all with my own values.
Moreso, as after the fact we have learnt that TC had more than a couple of (supposedly heated) meetings with the competition commissioner and was well aware of the situation that was unfurling.
If the EU claim is upheld and Apple eventually concedes it has to pay Ireland back, TC's words will boomerang back to him like a fiery hot potato from hell.
To paraphrase Phil Schiller: 'values my ass!'
In all seriousness, we have to wait and see how things play out.
Gee, I wonder how Huawei values compare...I'm sure you can tell us.
Is that a pure example of whataboutism?
My stance is the same no matter who is involved but as I said in the Apple case, let's see how things play out. Same applies to Huawei.
Yeah, pure.
As in, will you be as forthright with your stance should it be Huawei being gored by the DOJ? Surely it is just about values, not politics, or tax law involved.
It wasn't me who brought 'values' into it though, was it?
It was Tim Cook himself. He forgot to flip the corporate drivel switch onto mute.
Sometimes it's better not to say anything at all. I'm sure, with hindsight, Phil feels the same way.
As for Huawei, I suggest you start looking at some basic facts [pdf]:
then wait for actual evidence to be presented/defended and then put it into the correct context and try not to forget that the government that actually gotcaught spying and had the beans spilt by Snowden on its dubious activities was the US government. Yes, the same one that pressured US companies to drop signed deals with Huawei, the same one that has systematically failed to back up its biggest claims on Huawei (going so far as to claim evidence wasn't necessary!), The same one that is pushing foreign governments to limit Huawei's progress in 5G and the same whose tech is arguably and ehem, just coincidentally, years behind on 5G.
Yes, there is no escaping that politics seeps through every page in this story but Huawei is simply a company the US fears for technological and competitive reasons.
That ship sailed, and Huawei's PR document isn't going to change that:
"New Zealand is barring China’s Huawei on national-security grounds from supplying equipment for next-generation mobile networks, and in doing so has become the third member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance to take action against the huge Shenzen-based telecom-gear maker.
The move by New Zealand leaves Canada and Britain as the only Five Eyes members that have not banned wireless carriers from installing Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.’s 5G technology despite strong pressure from the United States. However, Britain recently did raise security concerns about Chinese-supplied telecommunications equipment from companies such as Huawei."
and;
"Mr. Hampton and New Zealand Intelligence Services Minister Andrew Little declined to discuss the specific security risk because of classified intelligence. However, Mr. Little explained that 5G technology poses a greater national-security risk than conventional mobile technology.
“The principal difference between 5G technology and the conventional 4G and 3G technology is that the conventional technology has an infrastructure core and then peripheral technology such as cellphone towers and the like, and they can in effect be kept separate, but you cannot do that with 5G technology," he said. “Every component of 5G technology, every component of the network is integrated and, therefore, access to one component can lead to access to the entire network.”
Under Chinese law, companies in China “must support, co-operate with and collaborate in national-intelligence work” as requested by Beijing, and security experts in the United States and Canada warn that equipment produced by firms such as Huawei could be compromised on behalf of China’s ruling party.
It’s not known what security risk New Zealand has in mind. Earlier this month, however, The Australian newspaper, citing an unidentified national-security source, reported that the Chinese government used Huawei to hack a foreign network, using the telecom-equipment maker’s access codes to do so. Which country was hacked was never identified and Huawei denied any involvement in espionage."
Huawei is done in any of the Five Eyes countries. The bigger issue is whether they have/will lose France and Germany, and after that, more NATO countries.
You are trying to draw the attention away from the core of the thread. I gave you a document that dismantles most of your repeated claims and it came from the horse's mouth. Now you must wait to see how things develop. In the meantime, back to Apple's tax problems.
Apple doesn't have tax problems. They have tax liabilities that they are dealing with, just like any other tax payer, and part of that is paying the minimal amount due.
Your document didn't dismantle my claims, as you will surely find out in the future. National Security interests are closing off Huawei 5G opportunities.
$571 million dollars in taxes payable after an investigation is a tax problem. There is no other way to look at it.
It's still just a tax liability, nothing more. France isn't accusing Apple of any criminal activity.
The blue collar worker pays their due taxes, and so should the biggest corporations.
Typical simplistic response. Apple DOES pay its taxes, just not enough in the opinion of some. It’s the tired old argument about “fair share”. Apple negotiated a tax agreement with Ireland for example, but the EU wants Ireland to back out of it to get more money out of Apple.
When’s the last time you voluntarily sent some extra money to your government just because you wanted to be fair?
Just Wait for when AOC starts writing tax policy.
Thankfully, her only real contributions during her term will be relegated to “goad” for her side. There’s no way under the sun any of her policy suggestions happen. Even progressives Mike Bloomberg and Howard Schultz have called her ideas dangerous and unworkable.
Neither Mike Bloomberg, nor Howard Schultz, are in any way, shape, or form, progressive on anything beyond a few social issues.
That first link looks to provide enough evidence to keep Huawei out of any commerce at all in the U.S.
From that first link:
"Huawei has denied the charges"
From that first link:
"Khan was more surprised when the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation drafted him and Akhan’s chief operations officer, Carl Shurboff, as participants in its investigation of Huawei"
In another news piece (supplied by Bloomberg, no less) it was Akhan himself that contacted the authorities.
It was Akhan himself that agreed to send Huawei the sample knowing full well all the accusations surrounding Huawei. Strange.
He was surprised it got destroyed? Why? It had to be tested which necessarily would mean taking the sample to breaking point. Strange.
Bloomberg speaks of a 'sting' but other reports claim the FBI didn't get anything from the tapped conversations. Strange.
It seems a little like Keystone Cops at this point.
Comments
Interesting.
I remember reading about some company owner who took a pay cut so he could afford to pay everyone in his company $70,000 a year.
His two top salesmen resigned, even though this didn't actually affect their own salaries in the slightest.
I think it's human nature: people don't actually enjoy being rich as much as they enjoy other people being poor.
This obviously doesn’t work for Euro corporations wanting to operate within the US, so you’re not going to see a similar issue as with Apple in Ireland crop up there with Daimler or BMW or Fiat Chrysler or whatever.
As for this French case: Europe is different from the US. While the US is comprised of 50 States and a handful of territories, those are all under centralised federal government and not independent. They are first part of the US and within that framework granted freedoms and leeway.
The EU works from the opposite direction: EU states are first and foremost independent states, and then they are also governed by EU regulations and legal requirements they’ve agreed to, but the frameworks are (apparently) much more complex, and it takes a long time for everything to get worked through every country’s individual legislature. So stuff that changes gets earmarked, watched, and once the legislature is clear, the process of going through courts and assessing the damage can begin.
At least, that’s my layman’s understanding.
How much Apple pays (in terms of paying more in absolute numbers) in taxes is irrelevant. That isn't the point.
Attempting to sway attention to other companies is yet another example of whataboutism in this thread.
As in, will you be as forthright with your stance should it be Huawei being gored by the DOJ? Surely it is just about values, not politics, or tax law involved.
It was Tim Cook himself. He forgot to flip the corporate drivel switch onto mute.
Sometimes it's better not to say anything at all. I'm sure, with hindsight, Phil feels the same way.
As for Huawei, I suggest you start looking at some basic facts [pdf]:
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/science-technology/Correspondence/190129-Correspondence-from-Huawei.pdf
then wait for actual evidence to be presented/defended and then put it into the correct context and try not to forget that the government that actually got caught spying and had the beans spilt by Snowden on its dubious activities was the US government. Yes, the same one that pressured US companies to drop signed deals with Huawei, the same one that has systematically failed to back up its biggest claims on Huawei (going so far as to claim evidence wasn't necessary!), The same one that is pushing foreign governments to limit Huawei's progress in 5G and the same whose tech is arguably and ehem, just coincidentally, years behind on 5G.
Yes, there is no escaping that politics seeps through every page in this story but Huawei is simply a company the US fears for technological and competitive reasons.
Oh yes your customers DO pay your taxes for you! Whatever your business model is you take into account your revenue vs your margins to decide what to charge your customers for your product or service. Where do you think the money comes from for you to pay your taxes anyway?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-majority-of-five-eyes-intelligence-alliance-bans-huawei-equipment/
"New Zealand is barring China’s Huawei on national-security grounds from supplying equipment for next-generation mobile networks, and in doing so has become the third member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance to take action against the huge Shenzen-based telecom-gear maker.
The move by New Zealand leaves Canada and Britain as the only Five Eyes members that have not banned wireless carriers from installing Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.’s 5G technology despite strong pressure from the United States. However, Britain recently did raise security concerns about Chinese-supplied telecommunications equipment from companies such as Huawei."
and;
"Mr. Hampton and New Zealand Intelligence Services Minister Andrew Little declined to discuss the specific security risk because of classified intelligence. However, Mr. Little explained that 5G technology poses a greater national-security risk than conventional mobile technology.
“The principal difference between 5G technology and the conventional 4G and 3G technology is that the conventional technology has an infrastructure core and then peripheral technology such as cellphone towers and the like, and they can in effect be kept separate, but you cannot do that with 5G technology," he said. “Every component of 5G technology, every component of the network is integrated and, therefore, access to one component can lead to access to the entire network.”
Under Chinese law, companies in China “must support, co-operate with and collaborate in national-intelligence work” as requested by Beijing, and security experts in the United States and Canada warn that equipment produced by firms such as Huawei could be compromised on behalf of China’s ruling party.
It’s not known what security risk New Zealand has in mind. Earlier this month, however, The Australian newspaper, citing an unidentified national-security source, reported that the Chinese government used Huawei to hack a foreign network, using the telecom-equipment maker’s access codes to do so. Which country was hacked was never identified and Huawei denied any involvement in espionage."
Huawei is done in any of the Five Eyes countries. The bigger issue is whether they have/will lose France and Germany, and after that, more NATO countries.These guys?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-04/huawei-sting-offers-rare-glimpse-of-u-s-targeting-chinese-giant
These here?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/us-indicts-huawei-for-stealing-t-mobile-robot-selling-us-tech-to-iran/
Oh, okay.
Values, huh.
Your document didn't dismantle my claims, as you will surely find out in the future. National Security interests are closing off Huawei 5G opportunities.
Every one of my business associates try to price based on "what their market will bear" all things considered, and a lot of stuff goes into it. The corporate taxes they might have to pay on the profits is not involved at ALL in computing what the optimal prices should be.
In one sentence the corporate taxes that might be due on profits from the sale of your products has zippity effect on determining what to charge for them.
It's still just a tax liability, nothing more. France isn't accusing Apple of any criminal activity.
"Huawei has denied the charges"
From that first link:
"Khan was more surprised when the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation drafted him and Akhan’s chief operations officer, Carl Shurboff, as participants in its investigation of Huawei"
In another news piece (supplied by Bloomberg, no less) it was Akhan himself that contacted the authorities.
It was Akhan himself that agreed to send Huawei the sample knowing full well all the accusations surrounding Huawei. Strange.
He was surprised it got destroyed? Why? It had to be tested which necessarily would mean taking the sample to breaking point. Strange.
Bloomberg speaks of a 'sting' but other reports claim the FBI didn't get anything from the tapped conversations. Strange.
It seems a little like Keystone Cops at this point.
Now back to Apple's tax problems.