gwydion

sog35 said:

Talk about a one trick pony. Looks like all of Google's future revenue growth is dependent of iPhone.

Android grow has stalled.
Desktop search is shrinking every year.
Only iOS is growing.

Yet Wall Street gives Google a PE of 30 while giving Apple a PE of sub 7 sans cash.

So what is worse?

Apple who Wall Street says is a one trick pony with iPhone?
Or a company like Google who relies on a company like Apple who is a so called one-trick pony?

If Apple ever pulls the plug on iOS Google search its over. Google would instantly lose 80% of their revenue growth. So how the HELL does Wall Street view Google as 4x more safe of an investment than Apple?

latifbp said:

singularity said:

sorry for any misunderstanding, its trying to reply to multiple comments via mobile and it's very hard to link multiple comments. Previous commenter said about moving sales out of the EU.
There is nothing wrong legally about minimising tax liability but it has to be within the rules. You can have production or headquarters where ever you like. But in an apocalyptic scenario, someone else mentioned Apple would be liable in each and every member state in the EU which would increase massively its liability because of the countries that almost certainly have the biggest sales. Apple chose Ireland because it has one of the lowest corporation taxes, other measures then reduced the tax burden even more. The one in question is the deal Apple had with Ireland which is questioned by the EU commission.

I am not going to comment on Samsung as at the moment this is about Apples POTENTIAL liability.

This is all about having a standard rule on what constitutes allowable state aid and what doesn't.

To now drive up taxes risking other Irish locals losing out on income and investments they've come to depend on

tenly said:

State aid would be like a gift of some sort.  A unilateral handout either in cash or perhaps as a discount in taxes owed - however the key word is unilateral.  If the agreement - secret or not - contains obligations from Apple in order to qualify for the discount in taxes, it becomes a contract.  So, in essence, Ireland has contracted with Apple to bring jobs and offices to the country...and Apple has done so.  There were obligations and deliverables on both sides, so it's clearly not "state aid".  It's a business agreement which Ireland decided to fund out of future tax revenue.  

It doesn't matter if the value of Apples presence exactly equals the discount in tax that Apple received.  Somebody in the Irish government clearly thought that it was a good agreement to enter into.  There may be an EU law that makes it illegal for Ireland to provide state aid to companies - but I seriously doubt there is a law that prohibits them from entering into mutually beneficial contracts with companies.  If it is determined that Apple received more benefit from the contract than Ireland did, that just means Ireland miscalculated.  It may have been a bad contract to enter into - but the EU can't just take every contract that Ireland "lost" on and declare the loss as state aid and then go after the other party to the contract for reimbursement - but that is exactly what's happening!  Hell - if that's the way things work - the Ireland government should just buy up all the shares in any stock IPO's - and if the stocks drop in value - declare the loss to be "state aid" and go after the company for reimbursement!  That's a ridiculous example - but it's also ridiculous what the EU is doing here.  They are the same as the patent trolls and class action lawyers.  They see how much money Apple has in the bank and they'll try anything to get a piece of it.

So...like I said above.  Ireland and Apple entered into a mutually beneficial contract.  Ireland asked Apple to set up shop in Ireland and create x number of jobs, lease x thousand square feet of office/factory space, etc, etc.  Apple - knowing that doing so has value, demanded compensation.  Ireland decided the best way to fund it was out of future tax revenue.  Maybe that's a legal funding move and maybe it's not - but it's clearly an issue between the EU and Ireland.  The only thing Apple is guilty of is negotiating a good contract!

maciekskontakt said:

Socialist leaders yet again want to make law working in the past. It does not work this way. Change the law and loopholes and then pursue offenders... after it was chenaged to be effective.

latifbp said:

gwydion said:

Then you'll be glad to know that this is not what this case is about

jmgregory1 said: Then you'll be glad to know that this is not what this case is about


This case is about allegedly ilegal state aids to some companies in Ireland, not about taxation in the EU

This perspective doesn't appreciate the complexities of this issue and has become such a Liberal pitchfork pounding cliche that it is moving me away from being a Liberal. Apple by all means doesn't have to stay in Ireland and help aid the Irish economy by providing Irish citizens jobs or allowing Ireland to be the de facto country that collects taxes from Apples extensive European profits. Apple does more social good than any other large company and is a great example of what responsible corporate citizenship can bring to the table. Yet everybody wants all that for free. Sorry that does not equate with reality buddy. On top of it I'm sure Apple could hunker down somewhere else like Samsung and reduce their tax liabilities even more, but they don't... yet, until they get run out, and we'll be clamor for them to return. If you're an Apple fan or want AAPL then you don't get the mutually beneficial relationship that exists between citizen and corporation- mutual good. Get on board or go hang with MoveOn.org.