As for taxes? Seriously? Apple (and most of huge American companies, probably many in other countries as well) evades paying them. Despite the fact they use goods and services that were provided by tax dollars, and hire people who learned from places that used tax dollars, Apple is unwilling to pay back into that.
Seriously? How does being truthful about that deserve a -1?
-QAMF
It may be true, I was responding to the 'fact' that this is standard procedure. Also for citizens. I ask my accountant to get a tax return, every single year. If there are ways to get money back, or pay less tax, doesn't everyone try this? Isn't this a standard, universally accepted MO?
And the vast majority of people who have the Kindle App, did not get it because of Apple.
They got it because they used Amazon, and they wanted to keep all there content from one provided.
Once more, doesn't make sense for Apple to take 30% from someone who they did not market the app for, that has their own transaction system that works just as well (on Kindle's and such)? I take it you are fine with Amazon's email approach then, because it gives people the option to buy it later from Amazon, or buy it right away through the app (or does the app redirect to safari? It was hard to tell)
As for taxes? Seriously? Apple (and most of huge American companies, probably many in other countries as well) evades paying them. Despite the fact they use goods and services that were provided by tax dollars, and hire people who learned from places that used tax dollars, Apple is unwilling to pay back into that.
Seriously? How does being truthful about that deserve a -1?
-QAMF
Seriously? Maybe you are being honest about your feelings about your perspective, but there's zero truth in what you posted.
Apple doesn't TAKE 30% from anyone. Apple charges a 30% retail commission for sales they make in Apple online retail storefronts. This is a bargain, most retail commissions are 50%, higher for premium storefronts. How well Amazon's stores work is irrelevant. Also you'd probably be surprised to realize that Apple puts their products in Amazon stores, and very likely pays Amazon's retail commission for any sales. If Amazon agrees to retail with Apple, then they are wrong if they are cheating paying on sales generated thru Apple's App Store. *I have no idea if Amazon is or isn't violating their agreement, but you're very off track with your reasoning and opinions.
Apple doesn't avoid paying taxes, they pay all their taxes. See my post above. "Most huge American companies" sounds like biased and bigoted opinion because it's totally detached from reality. If any huge US corporation (or individual) is cheating on their taxes, then the IRS has a massive incentive to go after them. You do know that Apple submits massive, stacks of tax documents regularly to the IRS, who pours over them for any irregularities? Even minor errors on Apple's tax returns would mean lots of penalty revenue for the IRS, and they don't really have a history of tolerance or forgiveness.
You've probably recently heard politicians talking about Apple and taxes in the news, well let this be a lesson to you: politicians often distort the truth, crave press, and never miss an opportunity to pander to any perceived or imaginary grievance. For examples, please see "entirety of human history" or the specific careers of Senators McCain and Schumer.
What goods and services are produced by tax dollars? Which of these is Apple responsible to pay for? What do taxes have to do with employees and their education? Most higher education is payed out of pocket by students, lower education is mostly paid thru local property taxes, and you'd choke on the amount of that Apple pays here and around the world.
It may be true, I was responding to the 'fact' that this is standard procedure. Also for citizens. I ask my accountant to get a tax return, every single year. If there are ways to get money back, or pay less tax, doesn't everyone try this? Isn't this a standard, universally accepted MO?
You said they "evade" taxes. That is false. Taxes either apply or they don't. Evading taxes is illegal.
Diligent and efficient filing is the polar opposite of evasion.
When you tell your account you "want to get money back" or "pay less tax", I'm guessing he translates what you're describing into "take another look at my return to see if there's any allowed deductions" that combined with your income tax rate equals your total tax bill. Your bill is not calculated until you present your filling, and generally people try to file a return that the IRS will agree with. If you're talking about "everyone" trying to bend some deductions to cover borderline stuff, then no this is not universal, and it's very risky at the big corporate level.
Apple doesn't avoid paying taxes, they pay all their taxes. See my post above. "Most huge American companies" sounds like biased and bigoted opinion because it's totally detached from reality. If any huge US corporation (or individual) is cheating on their taxes, then the IRS has a massive incentive to go after them. You do know that Apple submits massive, stacks of tax documents regularly to the IRS, who pours over them for any irregularities? Even minor errors on Apple's tax returns would mean lots of penalty revenue for the IRS, and they don't really have a history of tolerance or forgiveness.
Do you really believe the nonsense you post? Apple doesn't avoid paying taxes? BS. Like any good corporation, Apple does everything it can to avoid paying taxes and maximize profits. Yes, they may "legally" be paying all the taxes they owe, but that's becaus there are such massive and ridiculous loopholes in the tax code for corporations to exploit.
Do you really believe the nonsense you post? Apple doesn't avoid paying taxes? BS. Like any good corporation, Apple does everything it can to avoid paying taxes and maximize profits. Yes, they may "legally" be paying all the taxes they owe, but that's because there are such massive and ridiculous loopholes in the tax code for corporations to exploit.
I'm certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you don't know what the words "legal", "avoid", "ridiculous", and "exploit" mean.
By some peoples logic, if I install some trial software on my laptop then click a link inside the app to pay for it, Microsoft should get 30% or some percentage. Yeah, right.
Also, the 30% only applies to digital goods. Apple takes no cut from purchasing physicals good through an app.
Do you really believe the nonsense you post? Apple doesn't avoid paying taxes? BS. Like any good corporation, Apple does everything it can to avoid paying taxes and maximize profits. Yes, they may "legally" be paying all the taxes they owe, but that's becaus there are such massive and ridiculous loopholes in the tax code for corporations to exploit.
What other kinds of taxes do you pay besides the legal ones? Religious ones? Rainbow sunshine happiness taxes? I think you might be confused and directing outrage towards imaginary constructs. Are there some other secret, special tax laws they should follow?
If Apple were to *avoid* taxes, they would quickly find themselves in deep trouble with the IRS. They are just good at preparing their returns and being aware of all tax laws. Are you mad at them (and possibly any random *corporation*) because they follow the law?
Clearly they feel Apples tax rate of 30% is too high. If they can claim the sale is via the internet and not Apple's ecosystem they just found a great way not to pay the Apple tax. They benefit from Apples ecosystem and users and don't pay to support it. Leave that to the suckers in the ecosystem. Brilliant!
I also think this is quite a clever idea of circumventing the rules. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Apple thinks that is violating the spirit of the corresponding rule. And since there is no court which would have to decide on that, but just Apple itself, enforcing it is easy.
Quote:
Apple claims much of its IP is not generated in the US, but in Ireland. Instead of paying the 35% tax rate in the US, by claiming the income is generated in Ireland rather than the US, they avoid the taxes in the US. Never mind the expensive school systems they benefit from, or the incredible amount of taxpayer resources they use in tying up the legal system. Let the suckers within the US pay for that and they can get the benefits for free. Brilliant!
One reason why states have created tax systems that allow this is that generally both states (the seller's and the purchaser's country) would like to tax things. They thus compete and competition drives the prices down and a company will funnel its profits to the country which offers the lowest tax rate. This is a case where competition really is a race to the bottom.
And this question where things should be taxed has very ingrained positions that a compromise requires some real political will. In the US, both politicians the general population instinctively feel that all those profits Apple makes with its products are due to value added inside the US (ie, the design of hardware and software). Whereas in Europe, the general opinion is that it is Europeans which buy Apple's products, that Apple only makes money because the customers are buying their products and thus the profits should be taxed in Europe.
And the vast majority of people who have the Kindle App, did not get it because of Apple.
I did. I did not buy any eBooks before I got my iPad.
Quote:
They got it because they used Amazon, and they wanted to keep all there content from one provided.
Once more, doesn't make sense for Apple to take 30% from someone who they did not market the app for, that has their own transaction system that works just as well (on Kindle's and such)? I take it you are fine with Amazon's email approach then, because it gives people the option to buy it later from Amazon, or buy it right away through the app (or does the app redirect to safari? It was hard to tell)
Again the question is, did people start reading eBooks because Amazon was selling them or because somebody made a device that made reading eBooks enjoyable (as, eg, compared to reading them on a computer). Of course it takes both but one can ask which part needed more innovation and design effort and for which part there are lots of provides one could choose from. I'd say designing a large screen mobile device that has great capabilities that it sells in millions is the harder part.
By some peoples logic, if I install some trial software on my laptop then click a link inside the app to pay for it, Microsoft should get 30% or some percentage.
In principle yes, if you are willing to pay a higher price to use this app on Windows instead of another OS, then Microsoft has the 'pricing power' to run such a scheme. The problem is naturally that there isn't really an easy alternative to use the app on another OS, which would make Microsoft's 30% fee an exploitation of its monopolistic position (and it is not that Microsoft doesn't charge any developer fees, they get something from the third-party developers).
The problem is that the difference between a 'pricing power' because one is producing a highly valuable product (eg, Windows or the iPhone) and an exploitation of a monopolistic position is not a very clear one.
Quote:
Also, the 30% only applies to digital goods. Apple takes no cut from purchasing physicals good through an app.
And it only applies to goods that are consumed on the device, which I think is fair way of looking at things. The problem starts when the digital goods can be used both on the device and elsewhere. But again, the rule is simple here, if bought by means that required an iOS device (ie, through an app that runs on the device), Apple gets a cut. If bought through a web browser which does not require an iOS device, no percentage is paid. The problem is how do you treat the discovery process of finding a good one then buys through means that don't require an iOS device. Take Shazam, if you get the name of a song by using Shazam in a location where you wouldn't have been able to get it with a computer because using a computer would be unwieldy and then you buy the song, should Apple get a percentage? Apple's rule here is if pressing a button in the app directly starts a purchasing action, it has to be an in-app purchase which pays a percentage to Apple.
Sending an email with a link is truly an edge case here.
Comments
It may be true, I was responding to the 'fact' that this is standard procedure. Also for citizens. I ask my accountant to get a tax return, every single year. If there are ways to get money back, or pay less tax, doesn't everyone try this? Isn't this a standard, universally accepted MO?
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF
And the vast majority of people who have the Kindle App, did not get it because of Apple.
They got it because they used Amazon, and they wanted to keep all there content from one provided.
Once more, doesn't make sense for Apple to take 30% from someone who they did not market the app for, that has their own transaction system that works just as well (on Kindle's and such)? I take it you are fine with Amazon's email approach then, because it gives people the option to buy it later from Amazon, or buy it right away through the app (or does the app redirect to safari? It was hard to tell)
As for taxes? Seriously? Apple (and most of huge American companies, probably many in other countries as well) evades paying them. Despite the fact they use goods and services that were provided by tax dollars, and hire people who learned from places that used tax dollars, Apple is unwilling to pay back into that.
Seriously? How does being truthful about that deserve a -1?
-QAMF
Seriously? Maybe you are being honest about your feelings about your perspective, but there's zero truth in what you posted.
Apple doesn't TAKE 30% from anyone. Apple charges a 30% retail commission for sales they make in Apple online retail storefronts. This is a bargain, most retail commissions are 50%, higher for premium storefronts. How well Amazon's stores work is irrelevant. Also you'd probably be surprised to realize that Apple puts their products in Amazon stores, and very likely pays Amazon's retail commission for any sales. If Amazon agrees to retail with Apple, then they are wrong if they are cheating paying on sales generated thru Apple's App Store. *I have no idea if Amazon is or isn't violating their agreement, but you're very off track with your reasoning and opinions.
Apple doesn't avoid paying taxes, they pay all their taxes. See my post above. "Most huge American companies" sounds like biased and bigoted opinion because it's totally detached from reality. If any huge US corporation (or individual) is cheating on their taxes, then the IRS has a massive incentive to go after them. You do know that Apple submits massive, stacks of tax documents regularly to the IRS, who pours over them for any irregularities? Even minor errors on Apple's tax returns would mean lots of penalty revenue for the IRS, and they don't really have a history of tolerance or forgiveness.
You've probably recently heard politicians talking about Apple and taxes in the news, well let this be a lesson to you: politicians often distort the truth, crave press, and never miss an opportunity to pander to any perceived or imaginary grievance. For examples, please see "entirety of human history" or the specific careers of Senators McCain and Schumer.
What goods and services are produced by tax dollars? Which of these is Apple responsible to pay for? What do taxes have to do with employees and their education? Most higher education is payed out of pocket by students, lower education is mostly paid thru local property taxes, and you'd choke on the amount of that Apple pays here and around the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
It may be true, I was responding to the 'fact' that this is standard procedure. Also for citizens. I ask my accountant to get a tax return, every single year. If there are ways to get money back, or pay less tax, doesn't everyone try this? Isn't this a standard, universally accepted MO?
You said they "evade" taxes. That is false. Taxes either apply or they don't. Evading taxes is illegal.
Diligent and efficient filing is the polar opposite of evasion.
When you tell your account you "want to get money back" or "pay less tax", I'm guessing he translates what you're describing into "take another look at my return to see if there's any allowed deductions" that combined with your income tax rate equals your total tax bill. Your bill is not calculated until you present your filling, and generally people try to file a return that the IRS will agree with. If you're talking about "everyone" trying to bend some deductions to cover borderline stuff, then no this is not universal, and it's very risky at the big corporate level.
Do you really believe the nonsense you post? Apple doesn't avoid paying taxes? BS. Like any good corporation, Apple does everything it can to avoid paying taxes and maximize profits. Yes, they may "legally" be paying all the taxes they owe, but that's becaus there are such massive and ridiculous loopholes in the tax code for corporations to exploit.
I'm certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you don't know what the words "legal", "avoid", "ridiculous", and "exploit" mean.
This makes it difficult to agree with you.
By some peoples logic, if I install some trial software on my laptop then click a link inside the app to pay for it, Microsoft should get 30% or some percentage. Yeah, right.
Also, the 30% only applies to digital goods. Apple takes no cut from purchasing physicals good through an app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Do you really believe the nonsense you post? Apple doesn't avoid paying taxes? BS. Like any good corporation, Apple does everything it can to avoid paying taxes and maximize profits. Yes, they may "legally" be paying all the taxes they owe, but that's becaus there are such massive and ridiculous loopholes in the tax code for corporations to exploit.
What other kinds of taxes do you pay besides the legal ones? Religious ones? Rainbow sunshine happiness taxes? I think you might be confused and directing outrage towards imaginary constructs. Are there some other secret, special tax laws they should follow?
If Apple were to *avoid* taxes, they would quickly find themselves in deep trouble with the IRS. They are just good at preparing their returns and being aware of all tax laws. Are you mad at them (and possibly any random *corporation*) because they follow the law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you don't know what the words "legal", "avoid", "ridiculous", and "exploit" mean.
This makes it difficult to agree with you.
BS TS, clouded in wisdom, again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
Clearly they feel Apples tax rate of 30% is too high. If they can claim the sale is via the internet and not Apple's ecosystem they just found a great way not to pay the Apple tax. They benefit from Apples ecosystem and users and don't pay to support it. Leave that to the suckers in the ecosystem. Brilliant!
I also think this is quite a clever idea of circumventing the rules. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Apple thinks that is violating the spirit of the corresponding rule. And since there is no court which would have to decide on that, but just Apple itself, enforcing it is easy.
Quote:
Apple claims much of its IP is not generated in the US, but in Ireland. Instead of paying the 35% tax rate in the US, by claiming the income is generated in Ireland rather than the US, they avoid the taxes in the US. Never mind the expensive school systems they benefit from, or the incredible amount of taxpayer resources they use in tying up the legal system. Let the suckers within the US pay for that and they can get the benefits for free. Brilliant!
One reason why states have created tax systems that allow this is that generally both states (the seller's and the purchaser's country) would like to tax things. They thus compete and competition drives the prices down and a company will funnel its profits to the country which offers the lowest tax rate. This is a case where competition really is a race to the bottom.
And this question where things should be taxed has very ingrained positions that a compromise requires some real political will. In the US, both politicians the general population instinctively feel that all those profits Apple makes with its products are due to value added inside the US (ie, the design of hardware and software). Whereas in Europe, the general opinion is that it is Europeans which buy Apple's products, that Apple only makes money because the customers are buying their products and thus the profits should be taxed in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF
And the vast majority of people who have the Kindle App, did not get it because of Apple.
I did. I did not buy any eBooks before I got my iPad.
Quote:
They got it because they used Amazon, and they wanted to keep all there content from one provided.
Once more, doesn't make sense for Apple to take 30% from someone who they did not market the app for, that has their own transaction system that works just as well (on Kindle's and such)? I take it you are fine with Amazon's email approach then, because it gives people the option to buy it later from Amazon, or buy it right away through the app (or does the app redirect to safari? It was hard to tell)
Again the question is, did people start reading eBooks because Amazon was selling them or because somebody made a device that made reading eBooks enjoyable (as, eg, compared to reading them on a computer). Of course it takes both but one can ask which part needed more innovation and design effort and for which part there are lots of provides one could choose from. I'd say designing a large screen mobile device that has great capabilities that it sells in millions is the harder part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
By some peoples logic, if I install some trial software on my laptop then click a link inside the app to pay for it, Microsoft should get 30% or some percentage.
In principle yes, if you are willing to pay a higher price to use this app on Windows instead of another OS, then Microsoft has the 'pricing power' to run such a scheme. The problem is naturally that there isn't really an easy alternative to use the app on another OS, which would make Microsoft's 30% fee an exploitation of its monopolistic position (and it is not that Microsoft doesn't charge any developer fees, they get something from the third-party developers).
The problem is that the difference between a 'pricing power' because one is producing a highly valuable product (eg, Windows or the iPhone) and an exploitation of a monopolistic position is not a very clear one.
Quote:
Also, the 30% only applies to digital goods. Apple takes no cut from purchasing physicals good through an app.
And it only applies to goods that are consumed on the device, which I think is fair way of looking at things. The problem starts when the digital goods can be used both on the device and elsewhere. But again, the rule is simple here, if bought by means that required an iOS device (ie, through an app that runs on the device), Apple gets a cut. If bought through a web browser which does not require an iOS device, no percentage is paid. The problem is how do you treat the discovery process of finding a good one then buys through means that don't require an iOS device. Take Shazam, if you get the name of a song by using Shazam in a location where you wouldn't have been able to get it with a computer because using a computer would be unwieldy and then you buy the song, should Apple get a percentage? Apple's rule here is if pressing a button in the app directly starts a purchasing action, it has to be an in-app purchase which pays a percentage to Apple.
Sending an email with a link is truly an edge case here.