Australian government announces crackdown on tax avoidance by Apple, others

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 111
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    New international sport ...



     

     

    Not dissimilar to the way Apple is targeting Spotify and other streaming supplier's free tiers. Is that how they use their tax minimisation dollars? To stop other companies from supplying a product that others want, so they themselves can charge for it and make more minimised tax dollars. Making out Apple to be a victim is risible.

  • Reply 42 of 111
    No-one is talking about fining anyone for abiding by the law in the past.

    What the proposed changes to close "loopholes" are going to do is to make Apple products more expensive for Australians. I doubt it will change the bottom line of Apple much. Australia is a very small market.
  • Reply 43 of 111
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

     

     

    Not dissimilar to the way Apple is targeting Spotify and other streaming supplier's free tiers. Is that how they use their tax minimisation dollars? To stop other companies from supplying a product that others want, so they themselves can charge for it and make more minimised tax dollars. Making out Apple to be a victim is risible.




    Yeah, now you're sounding like a banana bender.

     

    Get real. It's called competition. And corporate finances are far more complex than your naïve comment.

  • Reply 44 of 111
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Red Rogers View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

     

     

    Not dissimilar to the way Apple is targeting Spotify and other streaming supplier's free tiers. Is that how they use their tax minimisation dollars? To stop other companies from supplying a product that others want, so they themselves can charge for it and make more minimised tax dollars. Making out Apple to be a victim is risible.




    Yeah, now you're sounding like a banana bender.

     

    Get real. It's called competition. And corporate finances are far more complex than your naïve comment.


     

    Hey, I'm a reasonable guy, I'll happily change my mind with some well argued reasoning, so please explain to me how using one's financial might to pay for the ad revenue lost if they refuse to allow ad supported streaming on Spotify, is classed as 'competition', to me it's the very model of a modern major general principal of anti-competitive behaviour.

  • Reply 45 of 111
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member

    The article says that Australia is going to investigate. They have not said that Apple or anyone else has broken the law to avoid taxes, yet. I would imagine though that they must think there is something there or why would they make the effort.  Everyone is getting all defensive about our precious Apple being disrespected by this. I don't know if Apple or any other corporation has broken the law or not. It may even be what they think they could get away with. Apple probably has more lawyers on staff then the Australian government. So drag this on for a few years and everyone every where is eventually a winner. To all that are professing they are offended by this horrible act remind me of the same people who whine about the 35% tax in the U.S. Yes 35% is the max, but no one ever talks about the actual percentage paid, because it may come across as a reasonable amount in reality. Why anyone would not want a corporation to pay taxes is baffling. Unless of course they as an individual want to pick up the difference themselves. 

  • Reply 46 of 111
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

     

     

    Hey, I'm a reasonable guy, I'll happily change my mind with some well argued reasoning, so please explain to me how using one's financial might to pay for the ad revenue lost if they refuse to allow ad supported streaming on Spotify, is classed as 'competition', to me it's the very model of a modern major general principal of anti-competitive behaviour.




    There are many problems with your thinking.

     

    First, you're off-topic, and you are using this story as a segue to grind an axe about your apparent preference or affection for Spotify. Maybe you should wait for the right story.

     

    Second, don't offload your bias onto others to 'change your mind.' Again, if you want to start a bar brawl, go find the right pub.

     

    Third, and finally, Apple makes shitloads of money, but ad revenue and iTunes are a very, very small part. Implying a cause-effect relationship between Australian tax-avoidance strategies and Spotify is, well, immature.

  • Reply 47 of 111
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

     

    I find it so pathetic that these countries have to resort to extortion to try to make money. I'm willing to bet that what Apple is doing is 100% legal, but these countries are poopooed that Apple has more cash on hand than their entire economy.  If I were Apple I'd leave and shut down any retail there and let the consumer inform their own democracies.


     

    The thing is that purely local (non multinational) companies can't do fancy tax arrangements like funneling everything through their branch in Ireland or Singapore. So you end up putting local companies at a disadvantage against multinationals. 

     

    Yes, you want to let multinationals in to your economy, because some of them have great products, but you don't want to put your own companies at a disadvantage relative to them. That's just asking to have your local economy hollowed out. It needs to be, as much as possible, an even playing field.

  • Reply 48 of 111
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Red Rogers View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

     

     

    Hey, I'm a reasonable guy, I'll happily change my mind with some well argued reasoning, so please explain to me how using one's financial might to pay for the ad revenue lost if they refuse to allow ad supported streaming on Spotify, is classed as 'competition', to me it's the very model of a modern major general principal of anti-competitive behaviour.




    There are many problems with your thinking.

     

    First, you're off-topic, and you are using this story as a segue to grind an axe about your apparent preference or affection for Spotify. Maybe you should wait for the right story.

     

    Second, don't offload your bias onto others to 'change your mind.' Again, if you want to start a bar brawl, go find the right pub.

     

    Third, and finally, Apple makes shitloads of money, but ad revenue and iTunes are a very, very small part. Implying a cause-effect relationship between Australian tax-avoidance strategies and Spotify is, well, immature.


     

    Just as I suspected, you are the one who was happy to challenge my Spotify comment by saying that that is what competition is, but when I politely ask you to explain the reasoning, you back slide and weasel your way out.

  • Reply 49 of 111
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,811member
    magman1979 wrote: »
    SolipsismY is the real person, the others are fakes (impersonators)

    Thanks. I've flagged his posts for moderators to review.
  • Reply 50 of 111
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 662member
    solipsismz wrote: »
    Vultures just looking for a payday. Leave Australia's market. Or cut jobs and close stores. Australia will have no corporate taxes from Apple, no sales taxes on their products sold, no property taxes on their stores and offices, and no payroll taxes nor income taxes from Apple employees. Teach them some respect.

    Please do explain why exactly should these firms be allowed to avoid corporate taxes? Do other companies not employ people, rent properties, pay sales tax, etc? Is it because you own shares, or because, well, they are Apple and they make such nice phones?

    Or are you against corporate taxes in general?
  • Reply 51 of 111
    mrrodriguezmrrodriguez Posts: 215member
    I don't understand why people get mad when they call out corporations for using loopholes but when average Joes use loopholes they call them a leech.

    For example people on welfare. The way welfare defines poverty is based on income. Well there are forms of payment that you can receive that are not considered income in the governments eye. So these people use that loophole to get free money from the government basically (and free housing). Everybody knows it's messed up what they're doing but it's legal.

    But when a company exploits loopholes it's somehow not messed up?
  • Reply 52 of 111
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member

    Good luck

  • Reply 53 of 111
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    In addition, the Australian government is looking to pass new laws that will aim to close tax loopholes used by corporations, and could fine those companies up to 100 percent

    Fine companies for following the laws created by that government?

  • Reply 54 of 111
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post

    Please do explain why exactly should these firms be allowed to avoid corporate taxes?

    Because they follow the laws of that country which allow them pay what they are supposed to.

     

    Are you suggesting Apple and other companies have broken some law to avoid taxes?

  • Reply 55 of 111
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

    The article says that Australia is going to investigate. They have not said that Apple or anyone else has broken the law to avoid taxes, yet. I would imagine though that they must think there is something there or why would they make the effort. 


    Because the governments want businesses in their country so they make tax loopholes to draw them there.

    Then after the businesses are successful, the governments see all that money and decide they want a larger cut.

  • Reply 56 of 111
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Nothing will happen.

     

    Our current government are a bunch of lying sleaze bags who are just throwing out a few feel good stories to keep the fools who voted for them happy as they continue to pillage OUR wealth for the rich and corporations who make up the majority of their party donors.

     

    "Eleventy" Joe Hockey is the most incompetent idiot, this country or any other country has ever had as a treasurer.

  • Reply 57 of 111
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

     

    Because the governments want businesses in their country so they make tax loopholes to draw them there.

    Then after the businesses are successful, the governments see all that money and decide they want a larger cut.




    Don't forget the influence of party donors and lobbyists supported by biased media.

     

    Return democracy to the people.

  • Reply 58 of 111
    valmadvalmad Posts: 49member
    What has been going on is this, The companies make the product in China they then send the product to Australia ( Or US or Europe ) BUT the invoice for the goods that is sent to Apple Australia or the EU is sent from Ireland. Apple Ireland pays the real price to the Chinese company and then marks up the products to a point where Apple Australia ( Of Apple EU ) makes no profit. Apple Ireland make a huge profit and pays very little tax because of a sweetheart deal with Irish tax office. Apple Ireland ad charges for IP and management and any thing else they can dream up that make this arrangement look a little legit. YET the goods never go near Ireland, the company selling the product is Apple Australia, the customer is in Australia and Apple Australia is directed and receives instruction from Cupertino. No one from Apple Australia reports to Apple Ireland. Its called transfer pricing and is a device purely designed to avoid tax. NOW, Apple and the others are doing nothing illegal at the moment. ALSO note. This is not just American companies. There are Australian companies doing similar things. BHP use a sales office in Singapore where they invoice there Chinese customers from and pay an inflated price for the product back to the head office in Melbourne, thus shifting the profit out of Australia.
  • Reply 59 of 111
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    But Steve Jobs would've...  /s

  • Reply 60 of 111
    nightskynightsky Posts: 43member
    Excellent news. It's about time Apple paid their fair share in local taxes.
Sign In or Register to comment.