Early Europeans fled Europe to evade taxes. Let that sink in for a minute
and the ones still there were not smart enough to leave.
The taxes laws are not control by France, France can only tax companies within it boarders, the issue it with the EU, and what the EU set up and how international companies are taxed when they sell product in the EU. If a company has no presents in the EU then each country can Levey a VAT on the products sold in its countries. This is why US companies set up shop in places like Ireland to avoid the local VAT. The EU sued Ireland and Apple not just Apple since the EU claim that Ireland and Apple set up a illegal tax. The EU could not go just after Apple since Apple paid all the taxes which they required.
I am curious what these people real motivations are, do they really feel they are harmed by Apple/Ireland tax deal, if so what harm had come of them.
I wouldn’t mind paying taxes as much if the social services were not so badly abused by such a large number of people. Services which of course I do not qualify for because I foolishly work a full time job, and have no children.
If there's an available legal loophole, why shouldn't Apple exploit it. It's what a lot of businesses would do.
Ethics, comes to mind as a reason why an individual or company may wish to refrain from engaging in an action that is technically legal. For example, it's legal for adults to marry children in all 50 US states, but I'd say that it's a woefully unethical practice that should be outlawed.
Your argument is a good example of “specious” thinking (def. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing.)Since every corporation on the planet has tax rules they are required to adhere to, tens of thousands across the globe, who is on the “ethics” committee to determine who and how is one being un-ethical and does that committee have the power to make tax law ‘ethical’ adjustments? Churches, say, would seem a likely source of ethics, or moral principles, yet they are virtually tax free with mega (and small ) churches unaccountable for leaders private jets, huge homes, political positioning, all supported by my tax dollars. Maybe ethics should begin at the moral center of society before attacking product manufacturers.
I just find this whole thing funny!!!! Maybe they should take a look at all the other company's that are doing the SAME THING as Apple and do their fake dying there. because why actually have a job and actually be working, instead of playing these silly games.
I just find this whole thing funny!!!! Maybe they should take a look at all the other company's that are doing the SAME THING as Apple and do their fake dying there. because why actually have a job and actually be working, instead of playing these silly games.
You think Apple is the only target of protests in France?
Oops, sorry I tripped over you. Didn’t mean to drop my MacBook Pro on your face #naturalconsequences
That was my immediate, visceral reaction as well. Seeing these people lying on the floor of an Apple store makes me angry, but at the protesters not about Apple.
And their protest is so disconnected from the problem they are complaining about, it's bizarre. If they had sat on the floor with tin cups asking for handouts, at least it would align with their message that Apple isn't paying its fair share. But Apple isn't killing anyone.
If there's an available legal loophole, why shouldn't Apple exploit it. It's what a lot of businesses would do.
Ethics, comes to mind as a reason why an individual or company may wish to refrain from engaging in an action that is technically legal. For example, it's legal for adults to marry children in all 50 US states, but I'd say that it's a woefully unethical practice that should be outlawed.
Your argument is a good example of “specious” thinking (def. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing.)Since every corporation on the planet has tax rules they are required to adhere to, tens of thousands across the globe, who is on the “ethics” committee to determine who and how is one being un-ethical and does that committee have the power to make tax law ‘ethical’ adjustments?
Do you really not believe that disallowing child marriages is an argument with no merit, or did you misspeak?
Are you saying that ethics have no place in a free market because there's no absolute about proper ethics?
Churches, say, would seem a likely source of ethics, or moral principles, yet they are virtually tax free with mega (and small ) churches unaccountable for leaders private jets, huge homes, political positioning, all supported by my tax dollars. Maybe ethics should begin at the moral center of society before attacking product manufacturers.
To me, this sounds different than the first part of your comment. It reads like you're saying that ethics should be a consideration.
Oops, sorry I tripped over you. Didn’t mean to drop my MacBook Pro on your face #naturalconsequences
That was my immediate, visceral reaction as well. Seeing these people lying on the floor of an Apple store makes me angry, but at the protesters not about Apple.
And their protest is so disconnected from the problem they are complaining about, it's bizarre. If they had sat on the floor with tin cups asking for handouts, at least it would align with their message that Apple isn't paying its fair share. But Apple isn't killing anyone.
Not disagreeing but ... and I'm just guessing perhaps they believe people could die if the French health system can't get its hands on some more of Apple's money. Hence the dying part. Coincidently a good friend of mine retired from England to France and he was just explaining the French laws of inheritance to me this morning and the way women are unbelievably discriminated against. They certainly pick and choose their priorities to protest about. Then again we all know protesters and mobs in general both here in the US and abroad are often puppets in the hands of calculating provocateurs and the real motive for protests are not always what they seem.
If there's an available legal loophole, why shouldn't Apple exploit it. It's what a lot of businesses would do.
Ethics, comes to mind as a reason why an individual or company may wish to refrain from engaging in an action that is technically legal. For example, it's legal for adults to marry children in all 50 US states, but I'd say that it's a woefully unethical practice that should be outlawed.
Your argument is a good example of “specious” thinking (def. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing.)Since every corporation on the planet has tax rules they are required to adhere to, tens of thousands across the globe, who is on the “ethics” committee to determine who and how is one being un-ethical and does that committee have the power to make tax law ‘ethical’ adjustments?
Do you really not believe that disallowing child marriages is an argument with no merit, or did you misspeak?
Just referencing your first line here (and not disagreeing with your post) ... I actually wrote the same reply but then reread his post several times. I think it was badly worded but he is really just saying he thinks you used a misleading example, not that he thinks adults marrying children is ok.
If there's an available legal loophole, why shouldn't Apple exploit it. It's what a lot of businesses would do.
Ethics, comes to mind as a reason why an individual or company may wish to refrain from engaging in an action that is technically legal. For example, it's legal for adults to marry children in all 50 US states, but I'd say that it's a woefully unethical practice that should be outlawed.
Your argument is a good example of “specious” thinking (def. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing.)Since every corporation on the planet has tax rules they are required to adhere to, tens of thousands across the globe, who is on the “ethics” committee to determine who and how is one being un-ethical and does that committee have the power to make tax law ‘ethical’ adjustments?
Do you really not believe that disallowing child marriages is an argument with no merit, or did you misspeak?
Just referencing your first line here (and not disagreeing with your post) ... I actually wrote the same reply but then reread his post several times. I think it was badly worded but he is really just saying he thinks you used a misleading example, not that he thinks adults marrying children is ok.
It's a disgusting example, which is why I chose it, but it's right in the ballpark of things are legal and yet considered unethical by most. Why do we have people here saying that Apple (and others) aren't paying their fair share of taxes and should pay more based on some personal system despite working within the law allows, while very real unethical practices that are legal, and yet shouldn't have any lobbyists or partisan support are still active in every US states.
Even though it's not even on my continent or in place I can imagine, I care more about the labor practices of African mining for components that will end up in an iPhone than I do about some clever accountants using tax loopholes as they were designed to be taken advantage of. In an ideal world they should all be stopped, but I think one of these examples is much lower on the list than others.
It's the same thing with these major corporations fight. People are so quick to take sides—I do it, too—and yet the results are almost meaningless. Apple and Google fighting over Android's design or Apple and Samsung fighting over Samsung HW design is considerably less important than the tax loopholes, IMO. I ultimately don't care because both companies will be just fine in the end, regardless of whatever penalties are eventually lobbed.
This is news to me! Has Apple been avoiding taxes? I thought Apple paid no more in taxes than it was legally obliged to do so! Are these moochers expecting people to pay more than they are supposed to?
Sounds to me like they should be protesting their government and demand whatever changes they need in tax laws.
It was legal under Irish Law but illegal under EU law. A bit like, the state of Texas for example allowing someone to do or buy something which is prohibited at national level. The blame lies primarily with the Irish government but also the money-men at Apple and other companies who for decades have been doing similar tax-shifting practices. These guys are WELL paid and will have known full well the deal brokered would have contravened EU law. Just like EBT schemes for multi-millionaire footballers, they were assumed to be legal and above board as simply a "tax avoidance loophole" till the HMRC successfully started winning the cases in court.
The problem with the EU law is it is poorly codified. It is "You get to make up your own tax laws but we can decide on a whim if we don't like them." As a result, it does not match your example very well and making your "These guys are WELL paid and will have known full well the deal brokered would have contravened EU law" statement unequivocally false .
Apple has shareholders to answer to. If Tim Cook starts doing things that are not aligned with shareholders, such as paying more taxes than is agreed to with a government tax authority, he would have to face his shareholders. Would shareholders vote him out? Probably not at this time. If protestors want to actually have a voice in this scenario, they should buy stock and present at the shareholder’s meeting regarding why Apple should pay more taxes to France and give less back in shareholder value.
now, the question comes up as to who are the people that Apple answers to. The answer is shareholders, employees, customers, and to people in general. I’m definitely not from the Monty Burns view of capitalism, I hate these giveaways and sweetheart deals. I’m also not for foolishly giving money away either. If you entered into an agreement, then you entered into an agreement. They could also take their case to the EU and France.
If there's an available legal loophole, why shouldn't Apple exploit it. It's what a lot of businesses would do.
Ethics, comes to mind as a reason why an individual or company may wish to refrain from engaging in an action that is technically legal. For example, it's legal for adults to marry children in all 50 US states, but I'd say that it's a woefully unethical practice that should be outlawed.
Your argument is a good example of “specious” thinking (def. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing.)Since every corporation on the planet has tax rules they are required to adhere to, tens of thousands across the globe, who is on the “ethics” committee to determine who and how is one being un-ethical and does that committee have the power to make tax law ‘ethical’ adjustments?
Do you really not believe that disallowing child marriages is an argument with no merit, or did you misspeak?
Just referencing your first line here (and not disagreeing with your post) ... I actually wrote the same reply but then reread his post several times. I think it was badly worded but he is really just saying he thinks you used a misleading example, not that he thinks adults marrying children is ok.
It's a disgusting example, which is why I chose it, but it's right in the ballpark of things are legal and yet considered unethical by most. Why do we have people here saying that Apple (and others) aren't paying their fair share of taxes and should pay more based on some personal system despite working within the law allows, while very real unethical practices that are legal, and yet shouldn't have any lobbyists or partisan support are still active in every US states.
Even though it's not even on my continent or in place I can imagine, I care more about the labor practices of African mining for components that will end up in an iPhone than I do about some clever accountants using tax loopholes as they were designed to be taken advantage of. In an ideal world they should all be stopped, but I think one of these examples is much lower on the list than others.
It's the same thing with these major corporations fight. People are so quick to take sides—I do it, too—and yet the results are almost meaningless. Apple and Google fighting over Android's design or Apple and Samsung fighting over Samsung HW design is considerably less important than the tax loopholes, IMO. I ultimately don't care because both companies will be just find in the end regardless of whatever penalties are eventually lobbed.
Early Europeans fled Europe to evade taxes. Let that sink in for a minute
Not really. Most were fleeing religious or ethnic persecution.
The majority were leaving for someplace with better opportunity for them and their families. The persecuted were a minority in most cases, along with a few transportees modulo various criminal convictions.
Comments
The taxes laws are not control by France, France can only tax companies within it boarders, the issue it with the EU, and what the EU set up and how international companies are taxed when they sell product in the EU. If a company has no presents in the EU then each country can Levey a VAT on the products sold in its countries. This is why US companies set up shop in places like Ireland to avoid the local VAT. The EU sued Ireland and Apple not just Apple since the EU claim that Ireland and Apple set up a illegal tax. The EU could not go just after Apple since Apple paid all the taxes which they required.
I am curious what these people real motivations are, do they really feel they are harmed by Apple/Ireland tax deal, if so what harm had come of them.
Churches, say, would seem a likely source of ethics, or moral principles, yet they are virtually tax free with mega (and small ) churches unaccountable for leaders private jets, huge homes, political positioning, all supported by my tax dollars.
Maybe ethics should begin at the moral center of society before attacking product manufacturers.
And their protest is so disconnected from the problem they are complaining about, it's bizarre. If they had sat on the floor with tin cups asking for handouts, at least it would align with their message that Apple isn't paying its fair share. But Apple isn't killing anyone.
Are you saying that ethics have no place in a free market because there's no absolute about proper ethics?
To me, this sounds different than the first part of your comment. It reads like you're saying that ethics should be a consideration.
These guys take it a step further than just surrendering; they preemptively die!
They are practicing for the next war with Germany. I call it efficiency!
Even though it's not even on my continent or in place I can imagine, I care more about the labor practices of African mining for components that will end up in an iPhone than I do about some clever accountants using tax loopholes as they were designed to be taken advantage of. In an ideal world they should all be stopped, but I think one of these examples is much lower on the list than others.
It's the same thing with these major corporations fight. People are so quick to take sides—I do it, too—and yet the results are almost meaningless. Apple and Google fighting over Android's design or Apple and Samsung fighting over Samsung HW design is considerably less important than the tax loopholes, IMO. I ultimately don't care because both companies will be just fine in the end, regardless of whatever penalties are eventually lobbed.
now, the question comes up as to who are the people that Apple answers to. The answer is shareholders, employees, customers, and to people in general. I’m definitely not from the Monty Burns view of capitalism, I hate these giveaways and sweetheart deals. I’m also not for foolishly giving money away either. If you entered into an agreement, then you entered into an agreement. They could also take their case to the EU and France.
Hopefully someone rounded up the "dead bodies" a la "Bring out your dead!" And dumped them in a ditch.