Not in defence of Apple, but this is cherry picking the numbers, and misrepresents the reality of the int'l tax law problem. The core is that international tax law is fundamentally incompatible with globalisation or globally spanning businesses. All countries wish to obtain tax in their markets, but simultaneously also wish to claim the tax built from the value provided by their markets - both feel valid, but it essentially means two countries are vying for the same tax dollars.
As an example, if you have an orange orchard in the USA. But sell orange juice in the UK, it's possible that all of your UK revenue will be spent on acquiring the staff, rent, utilities, local investment and local marketing, that means that despite earning revenue in the country, your tax bill is zero because all of the profits were spent on operations in the local economy. It also means that the largest component of tax paid will be in the USA, since the USA sold the oranges to the UK subsidiary. Despite this increase in UK productivity and economic function, the zero tax bill has poor optics, since the lay person believes that a company's sole contribution to the economy is via tax. (It's actually via gainful employment.)
The kerfuffle between Apple, Ireland and the EU right now is centred in this idea. Apple aren't paying less tax than they should - no - rather there is disagreement if it should be paid to Ireland or the USA. The USA is the main source of Apple's intellectual property (both their own and 3rd parties), and if those costs are fairly licensed to the Ireland subsidiary that would erode Apple's Irish profit, and thus taxable income.
In the case of the UK, it's almost certain that the taxation is being paid into Ireland, as it's the regional centre. Tax problems are way more nuanced than comparing revenue versus company tax - when you see the two being compared in conclusive terms it means that someone is trying to fool you.
"Government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem." Ronald Reagan
The more we can starve the government of income the less destructive it will be for the people. Apple should not pay one penny more in taxes than it absolutely has to. Use every loophole, every legal means to reduce one's tax bill. That should be everyone's personal motto too.
Substitute the word "democracy" for "government" in that Reagan quote and you have the real meaning for the Republican party of today.
The US isn’t a democracy, genius. It’s a representative republic.
"Government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem." Ronald Reagan
The more we can starve the government of income the less destructive it will be for the people. Apple should not pay one penny more in taxes than it absolutely has to. Use every loophole, every legal means to reduce one's tax bill. That should be everyone's personal motto too.
The ONLY money government has is from the people in taxes, hundreds of essential services including our NHS rely on those taxes to run, so using your logic they would all stop and the country would collapse because apparently that’s ‘less destructive’. That’s some strange ideology you have there and a pure example of selfishness and greed and super capitalism above all else including the people of a nation.
"Government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem." Ronald Reagan
The more we can starve the government of income the less destructive it will be for the people. Apple should not pay one penny more in taxes than it absolutely has to. Use every loophole, every legal means to reduce one's tax bill. That should be everyone's personal motto too.
The same fool that started his 1980 Presidential run with racist dog whistles in Philadelphia, MISS. The same fool that called Social Security and Medicare socialism. Oy vey!
He was against government, before he was for it:
"Throughout the years, Social Security has proven to be one of the most successful and popular programs ever established by the Federal Government."
To a racist, everything looks like racism.
Projection projection.
If one is concerned only with issues of race, that person is a racist by definition. Collectivism and all its descendants are also inherently racist.
Spam sandwich wrong as usual. Open the dictionary and read what it says.
"Government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem." Ronald Reagan
The more we can starve the government of income the less destructive it will be for the people. Apple should not pay one penny more in taxes than it absolutely has to. Use every loophole, every legal means to reduce one's tax bill. That should be everyone's personal motto
Hard sell these days. Government may be the problem, but not for what Ronnie had in mind. Totally Inept and criminally ineffective response to a national crisis.
Not "hard to sell" at all. . . If a company pays more, you end up paying more when you buy their products!
That's a myth, which any first-year economics student would learn.
Price elasticity, look it up if you aren't familiar with it. Heck I learned it in college Business classes 40 years ago. It hasn't changed.
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html
Not in defence of Apple, but this is cherry picking the numbers, and misrepresents the reality of the int'l tax law problem. The core is that international tax law is fundamentally incompatible with globalisation or globally spanning businesses. All countries wish to obtain tax in their markets, but simultaneously also wish to claim the tax built from the value provided by their markets - both feel valid, but it essentially means two countries are vying for the same tax dollars.
As an example, if you have an orange orchard in the USA. But sell orange juice in the UK, it's possible that all of your UK revenue will be spent on acquiring the staff, rent, utilities, local investment and local marketing, that means that despite earning revenue in the country, your tax bill is zero because all of the profits were spent on operations in the local economy. It also means that the largest component of tax paid will be in the USA, since the USA sold the oranges to the UK subsidiary. Despite this increase in UK productivity and economic function, the zero tax bill has poor optics, since the lay person believes that a company's sole contribution to the economy is via tax. (It's actually via gainful employment.)
The kerfuffle between Apple, Ireland and the EU right now is centred in this idea. Apple aren't paying less tax than they should - no - rather there is disagreement if it should be paid to Ireland or the USA. The USA is the main source of Apple's intellectual property (both their own and 3rd parties), and if those costs are fairly licensed to the Ireland subsidiary that would erode Apple's Irish profit, and thus taxable income.
In the case of the UK, it's almost certain that the taxation is being paid into Ireland, as it's the regional centre. Tax problems are way more nuanced than comparing revenue versus company tax - when you see the two being compared in conclusive terms it means that someone is trying to fool you.
Wow! Signs of intelligent life DO exist at AppleInsider forums!
Well said! Of course, since the new US business tax law came to be, it gets even more confusing. I had it all worked out once, but the bottom line is the new tax law made sure the US wasn't going to get totally screwed over by tax increases elsewhere. Unfortunately, as I recall, it meant Apple would end up picking up the bill to some degree.
Bottom line: This is incredibly wonky stuff, and those who haven't done the required legwork should STFU.
Geez, this again. Apple is following the rules. If the rules are bad, those that make the rules should make better rules.
Also, what EsquireCats said.
Rules are rules. Laws are laws. Values are values.
When the Irish State Aid investigation blew up, Tim Cook defended Apple by saying Apple had values, complied with rules and regulations and paid more taxes than anyone.
That set alarm bells ringing in me at least, because what kind of 'values' make you sleep well at night paying a rumoured 0,005% tax rate for one year.
Paying more taxes is irrelevant, too! As is giving employment to thousands of people.
Those people were nurtured, educated, protected etc by a system supported by taxes.
I would rather he just say nothing or say what we already know. "We have, and will continue to, pay as little tax as we get away with even if it negatively affects competition through having practices and mechanisms available to us which some others do not have available to them".
He connected 'taxes' and 'values'. Perhaps someone should push him on exactly what he means and, if the 0,005% is correct, whether that sits well with those values.
Until he clears that one up, everything rings shallow.
Comments
Spam sandwich wrong as usual. Open the dictionary and read what it says.
Price elasticity, look it up if you aren't familiar with it. Heck I learned it in college Business classes 40 years ago. It hasn't changed. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html
Well said! Of course, since the new US business tax law came to be, it gets even more confusing. I had it all worked out once, but the bottom line is the new tax law made sure the US wasn't going to get totally screwed over by tax increases elsewhere. Unfortunately, as I recall, it meant Apple would end up picking up the bill to some degree.
Bottom line: This is incredibly wonky stuff, and those who haven't done the required legwork should STFU.
Laws are laws.
Values are values.
When the Irish State Aid investigation blew up, Tim Cook defended Apple by saying Apple had values, complied with rules and regulations and paid more taxes than anyone.
That set alarm bells ringing in me at least, because what kind of 'values' make you sleep well at night paying a rumoured 0,005% tax rate for one year.
Paying more taxes is irrelevant, too! As is giving employment to thousands of people.
Those people were nurtured, educated, protected etc by a system supported by taxes.
I would rather he just say nothing or say what we already know. "We have, and will continue to, pay as little tax as we get away with even if it negatively affects competition through having practices and mechanisms available to us which some others do not have available to them".
He connected 'taxes' and 'values'. Perhaps someone should push him on exactly what he means and, if the 0,005% is correct, whether that sits well with those values.
Until he clears that one up, everything rings shallow.