cnocbui

rogifan_old said:

Can someone explain all the hate around this product? It's not like thousands or even hundreds of Apple engineers were pulled off of other projects to work on this. I don't see why it's so distasteful to some.

The Watch per se or the €3 worth of leather used to triple the price?

latifbp said:

gwydion said:

You clearly don't know about EU laws but you don't stop to post things like this that are totally wrong.

And no, a state aid is not only unilateral, and no, it is not a contract, and no EU is not taking anything were there is a loss.

How about Apple evacuates Ireland, taking all of their production and European sales operations to another continent. Let's see how flourishing the Irish economy will be then.

Apple pays a pittance in tax to the Irish government.  They employ just over 4000 people.  It's a valued and welcome employer but it's not propping up the economy of the country, just one city.  Even had Apple been paying the full 12.5% corporate tax, they would still be way ahead financially compared with basing their operations  almost anywhere else in the EU.  If they moved to the UK the tax rate would be 20%, for example

While I can clearly see the benefits of projecting information in a car widshilels like an aircraft HUD, I can also see that it probably isn't a great idea unless it's limited strictly to overlay parts of a cars bodywork, and not directly in front of the drivers eyes.

boltsfan17 said:

gwydion said:

Because as have been said a lot of times, they were secret agreements between Irish government and some companies.

Ireland can legally have agreements between companies and offer them tax breaks like it did for Apple. 

No they can't, because that would be in breach of EU rules against state subsidies.  While member states mostly  have autonomy concerning taxation matters, they still must comply with other non-taxation related EU rules.

The Irish government could have agreed with Apple and other companies that they would set the corporate tax rate at 2%, but only if they made that the official corporate tax rate applicable to all companies.  That would have been their legitimate prerogative and the EU wouldn't have blinked.  The minute they started setting different tax rates for different companies, Ireland stepped over a line because the effect of that move was de facto state subsidisation of the companies getting the favourable rate and it became a matter the EU could have a say about because it was no longer just a taxation matter.

ewtheckman said:

gwydion said:

Because it has nothing to do with tax laws but with allegedly ilegal state aids

Allegedly. It's also claimed that Apple has been taxed at the same rate as everyone else.

Bottom line, it sounds an awful lot like "gimme, gimme, gimme" to me.

Who has claimed Apple is being taxed at the same rate as everyone else?  Certainly not Tim Cook.  Apple has been paying less than 2%.  The corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12.5%

ewtheckman said:

cnocbui said:

No they aren't.

However, all taxes that multinational corporations dodge are eventually made up for by increases in taxes and charges levied on consumers.

Taxes paid by a company increase that company's costs. To make a profit (the only way a company can stay in business) they have to raise prices to their customers to cover the additional cost of taxes.

So yes, whether additional taxes are levied directly on consumers, or via higher product prices, consumers wind up paying all taxes in the end.

You don't seem to get it.  Even if Apple had been paying the full 12.5% Irish corporation tax they should have, they would still have been 26.5% less tax than they would have in the US, where they actually sell everything for less than they do in the EU.  So pull the other one.

No, it has nothing to do with product prices - a recent OECD report found that taxes dodged by companies get passed onto consumers in the form of increased taxes and charges.