WarrenBuffduckh

StrangeDays said:

gatorguy said:

avon b7 said:

gatorguy said:

avon b7 said:

The obvious follow up question for Tim was:

Do you think the financial orchestration that resulted in Apple allegedly paying 0.005% for one year was 'fair', given that, in response to the demands of the EU for Apple to return billions of euros to Ireland, you defended Apple's position by stating that Apple had 'values'? How do Apple's values fit into the claim of it paying 0.005% as a result of financial orchestration?

As for changing the system, he is fully aware that the whole thing is being debated at institutional levels anyway, and has been for some time.

It really has more to do with avoiding country-by-country tax intricacies.  Apple really doesn't want to pay more taxes.

Just like the techs are pushing for "privacy rules" here in the US it's as much for selfish business reasons. Apple doesn't want to deal with Italy individually, then Japan, then Ireland, then France, then Australia. In one of those those they were found to evade taxes (Japan) by doing the same thing they do in other countries around the globe. In another they were threatened with criminal charges and the jailing of executives (Italy) for following the same tax avoidance schemes they use with success in other EU countries.  Consistent rules that apply to all countries is the goal. 

If everyone has their own rules it makes it super tough to avoid breaking someone's tax law someplace. Same goes here re:privacy where none of the techs want to deal with rules unique to California, then those unique to Nevada, and then Connecticut and followed by every other state individually. That almost guarantees that at some point even Apple would be accused of breaking the law in some state. 

One national law is so much easier to comply with, and consistent International Law on taxes is too. 

This problem has only really become relevant over the last decade although it has existed for far longer.

There have been many calls for further unification of criteria and application within the EU, and many proposals to reach a common goal, but although nothing has come up yet to the liking of all parties... It is difficult to begrudge that (it's part of his job) but my problem is with how he (and others) try to wrap things up in the 'values' bundle. 

Agreed. It has about zero to do with "values" and everything to do with business and profit. That's what corporations exist for. 

Suggesting that corporations, which are comprised of people, do not or cannot have culture and values is quite absurd. Any time you put a group of people together there will be culture, and cultures have values. Different groups of people have different values. The GOP has shared values. The Catholic Church has shared values. And Apple has shared values.

avon b7 said:

gatorguy said:

avon b7 said:

The obvious follow up question for Tim was:

Do you think the financial orchestration that resulted in Apple allegedly paying 0.005% for one year was 'fair', given that, in response to the demands of the EU for Apple to return billions of euros to Ireland, you defended Apple's position by stating that Apple had 'values'? How do Apple's values fit into the claim of it paying 0.005% as a result of financial orchestration?

As for changing the system, he is fully aware that the whole thing is being debated at institutional levels anyway, and has been for some time.

It really has more to do with avoiding country-by-country tax intricacies.  Apple really doesn't want to pay more taxes.

Just like the techs are pushing for "privacy rules" here in the US it's as much for selfish business reasons. Apple doesn't want to deal with Italy individually, then Japan, then Ireland, then France, then Australia. In one of those those they were found to evade taxes (Japan) by doing the same thing they do in other countries around the globe. In another they were threatened with criminal charges and the jailing of executives (Italy) for following the same tax avoidance schemes they use with success in other EU countries.  Consistent rules that apply to all countries is the goal. 

If everyone has their own rules it makes it super tough to avoid breaking someone's tax law someplace. Same goes here re:privacy where none of the techs want to deal with rules unique to California, then those unique to Nevada, and then Connecticut and followed by every other state individually. That almost guarantees that at some point even Apple would be accused of breaking the law in some state. 

One national law is so much easier to comply with, and consistent International Law on taxes is too. 

This problem has only really become relevant over the last decade although it has existed for far longer.

There have been many calls for further unification of criteria and application within the EU, and many proposals to reach a common goal, but although nothing has come up yet to the liking of all parties, it is very clear things are moving forward, hence Tim's call for a system which is fair to all. The definition of 'fair' will obviously depend on who you are talking to and I have the suspicion that Apple is lobbying as hard as it can for a solution that sees multinationals avoid being whacked hard.

It is difficult to begrudge that (it's part of his job) but my problem is with how he (and others) try to wrap things up in the 'values' bundle. A word that technically also open to varying interpretations.

There are times when it is better to say nothing or you risk your comments coming back at you in the worst possible way.

In this case perhaps he should remind us when he jumped on the 'fair' solution for all involved because I can't ever remember him or Apple ever seeking a solution to the 'unfairness' of the system - until, that is, Apple was taken to town for supposedly taking advantage of the system to its own multi billion dollar benefit and then also supposedly took flight to somewhere else (paradise papers).

pslice said:

Hey Apple... Just make sure you don’t infringe on others’ patents. All these lawsuits cost the customer.