Following defeat, European Commission doubles down on Apple tax critiques

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 48
    johnbearjohnbear Posts: 160member
    Ridiculous these companies pay so little tax while making enormous profits. Shame on them for exploiting these rules, and shame on Ireland for going this far to attract companies 
  • Reply 42 of 48
    uraharaurahara Posts: 532member
    johnbear said:
    Ridiculous these companies pay so little tax while making enormous profits. Shame on them for exploiting these rules, and shame on Ireland for going this far to attract companies 
    It is legal but shameful? 

    Poor people judge those who are rich. Just for the fact that some one is richer. 
    It is shameful that you can’t earn and provide your family with enormous amount of money. 
    jbdragon
  • Reply 43 of 48
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 903member
    johnbear said:
    Ridiculous these companies pay so little tax while making enormous profits. Shame on them for exploiting these rules, and shame on Ireland for going this far to attract companies 
    Do you add a little extra on your personal tax forms above and beyond what you are required to pay?  And by “exploiting these rules” do you really mean, following tax laws?
    jbdragon
  • Reply 44 of 48
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,899member
    urahara said:

    It is shameful that you can’t earn and provide your family with enormous amount of money. 
    What a snivelling, odious comment to make. Insta block on that one, you nasty piece of work.
    rundhvid
  • Reply 45 of 48
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,183member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:

    Most people do not structure their affairs to absolutely minimise tax.  Apple and other similar multinational corporations make a cottage industry out of it.
    Good for them! I'd like to see more of it.
    You'd like for more citizens of your country to take up residence in a tax haven and/or incorporate themselves in a secrecy jurisdiction so as to avoid income tax that would be spent on your local community services?

    Honestly, I think thats a sociopathic thing to want.  That, or just naive political posturing.
    Ah, someone who disagrees with you must a sociopath and/or naive.

    Pretty much reveals the abject quality of what passes off for an argument from your side, don't you think?
    I'm being honest about my thoughts on your position.  If you'd like to try to convince me otherwise, I'm open to it. 

    So tell me, why do you want to see more people do their utmost to minimise their tax burden?
    1) The fact that you feel the need to presumptively preface your post with "I'm being honest..." is odd: I was, in fact, assuming that you were being nothing less than perfectly honest (there is no reason for me to believe otherwise). I'd ask you to reflect on why you felt you had to start with that qualifier.

    2) Companies don't pay taxes, people -- customers and shareholders -- do. Companies are merely a tax collection vehicle for governments. A substantial proportion of corporate taxes is passed through to customers, it's just they don't get a separate tax bill for that. It's an insidious form of taxation. It gets reflected in higher prices, lowering demand, lowering output, lowering employment and innovation. It lowers corporate profits, which lowers market values, which lowers people's wealth: retirement wealth, the value of their savings for things such as buying a house or educating their kids, etc.

    3) The EU has a problem with lack of common corporate regulations and law: there is still no common corporate law, no common bankruptcy law, no common securities law, no common employment law, and of course, no common corporate tax law. This despite decades of integration. There is no will, no significant movement, no political pressure in the direction of getting there any time soon. Guess what then? Countries (e.g., Ireland, the Netherlands) will attempt to arbitrage that in the interests of meeting other goals such as GDP growth, employment growth, and being a magnet for the best talent/R&D/innovation. It is not a surprise that some of those countries are precisely those that are the most economically dynamic in the EU.

    4) I have no problem with directly taxing people (although I generally prefer less taxation to more, since I believe governments are more prone to inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse). People can then decide for themselves and use their votes and/or power of (peaceful) protest to decide whether that is acceptable or not. Companies cannot vote, they cannot protest in the streets. If taxes get too onerous, they'll simply up and leave for elsewhere. Employment, innovation, trade, investment, and GDP will follow.

    5) I believe everyone should pay the taxes they legally owe. No more no less. If people are paying less than the government thinks they should, then governments should change the law. To use the fiction of anti-trust to address a tax problem is duplicitous and hypocritical.
  • Reply 46 of 48
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:

    Most people do not structure their affairs to absolutely minimise tax.  Apple and other similar multinational corporations make a cottage industry out of it.
    Good for them! I'd like to see more of it.
    You'd like for more citizens of your country to take up residence in a tax haven and/or incorporate themselves in a secrecy jurisdiction so as to avoid income tax that would be spent on your local community services?

    Honestly, I think thats a sociopathic thing to want.  That, or just naive political posturing.
    Ah, someone who disagrees with you must a sociopath and/or naive.

    Pretty much reveals the abject quality of what passes off for an argument from your side, don't you think?
    I'm being honest about my thoughts on your position.  If you'd like to try to convince me otherwise, I'm open to it. 

    So tell me, why do you want to see more people do their utmost to minimise their tax burden?
    1) The fact that you feel the need to presumptively preface your post with "I'm being honest..." is odd: I was, in fact, assuming that you were being nothing less than perfectly honest (there is no reason for me to believe otherwise). I'd ask you to reflect on why you felt you had to start with that qualifier.

    2) Companies don't pay taxes, people -- customers and shareholders -- do. Companies are merely a tax collection vehicle for governments. A substantial proportion of corporate taxes is passed through to customers, it's just they don't get a separate tax bill for that. It's an insidious form of taxation. It gets reflected in higher prices, lowering demand, lowering output, lowering employment and innovation. It lowers corporate profits, which lowers market values, which lowers people's wealth: retirement wealth, the value of their savings for things such as buying a house or educating their kids, etc.

    3) The EU has a problem with lack of common corporate regulations and law: there is still no common corporate law, no common bankruptcy law, no common securities law, no common employment law, and of course, no common corporate tax law. This despite decades of integration. There is no will, no significant movement, no political pressure in the direction of getting there any time soon. Guess what then? Countries (e.g., Ireland, the Netherlands) will attempt to arbitrage that in the interests of meeting other goals such as GDP growth, employment growth, and being a magnet for the best talent/R&D/innovation. It is not a surprise that some of those countries are precisely those that are the most economically dynamic in the EU.

    4) I have no problem with directly taxing people (although I generally prefer less taxation to more, since I believe governments are more prone to inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse). People can then decide for themselves and use their votes and/or power of (peaceful) protest to decide whether that is acceptable or not. Companies cannot vote, they cannot protest in the streets. If taxes get too onerous, they'll simply up and leave for elsewhere. Employment, innovation, trade, investment, and GDP will follow.

    5) I believe everyone should pay the taxes they legally owe. No more no less. If people are paying less than the government thinks they should, then governments should change the law. To use the fiction of anti-trust to address a tax problem is duplicitous and hypocritical.
    I agree in part with both of you. I recognize the necessity of personal taxes as a means for supporting the common weal, and consider that those who duck out on them are anti-social, which is to say, anti-human, since we are very much inherently social animals. I also recognize that we don't live in an ideal world. At best we live in a world that is striving towards an ideal. That is to say, I very much recognize that anti-social behavior is hugely prevalent.

    As regards taxes, I agree that, at bottom, taxes are essentially applied to people. When Apple is taxed, I, as a stockholder, am taxed. I am then taxed again as an American citizen with taxable income.

    If we were truly sane, IMHO, we'd tax each individual, and forget about taxing corporations. OTOH, also IMHO, if we were truly sane, we'd realize that true tax fairness involves placing the burden of taxes more on those who can best bear that burden, and instate a massively bracketed tax rate tied to the rate of inflation, preferably world-wide so there would be no place for anti-social folks to hide.

    But, again IMHO, we aren't sane. The wealthier one is, the more sway one has. That's the real world.
    edited July 2020
  • Reply 47 of 48
    seanjseanj Posts: 217member
    Rayz2016 said:

    So who decides that the EU could sidestep the wishes of its members? 

    So who is running the EU?

    Are these plans just being pushed through, or are member states voting on it? 

    It seems to me that close to half the EU members don't want this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/28/12-eu-states-reject-move-to-expose-companies-tax-avoidance

    So if they introduce this veto sidestep, then that'll be 12 unhappy members. 
    The EU in previous treaties pushed through rules so that votes went from requiring unanimity to simply majority to pass in many policy areas. Plus the EU has powers to impose directives in some areas with a vote of member states being required. Also the European Court has moved from interpreting the application of law to creating case law beyond existing legislation.
    The international press portrayed Brexit as nationalistic and backwards looking, when it was in fact driven by the desire to restore democratic accountability in the U.K. once again, as in previous decades, it’s the U.K. trying to lead Europe back to freedom and democracy.

  • Reply 48 of 48
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,418member
    What's that word for doing the same thing over and over again hoping the outcome will be different the next time... wait, I know... 
    It's not "insanity" and Einstein never said it to begin with. 
    In case you missed it, I said neither "insanity" nor "Einstein."
    So what word were you alluding to, then?
Sign In or Register to comment.