Apple getting spanked

[Job]

You mean the EU are meddling beyond their remit?!

As usual, they are playing the old trick that Merkel plays, keep telling everyone what to do and soon everyone believes you are in charge.
I watch this process opened mouthed so many times, I constantly have to pull people up for assuming peoples authority based on how loud they talk in meetings.
Bodhi is correct though, they use perfectly legitimate means to offset tax, everyone does it, it is part of the economy and this is just bullshit fluff from the spin doctors, they won't pay a penny.

 

[Gwadien]

So if the EU largely stops (I am aware that they currently aren't doing this) having ridiculously low tax-countries within the EU, forcing companies to operate normally within the EU, I don't really see the harm?

Tax Havens are practically a race to the bottom; not allowing fair taxation across the country - and what do Ireland truly get in return? - Maybe a couple of hundred more people employed?

I would suspect that the EU is attempting to stop countries from racing to the bottom in order for pitiful bonuses in comparison to the ridiculous amounts of tax income that they potentially could receive, I don't really care if Ireland doesn't like it, I'm sure the people of Ireland aren't complaining.

As others have said, what's the likelihood of Apple turning around and saying 'nah, we're not going to operate within the EU anymore, because we're being told to pay our fair share of tax.'

The EU has done something which is socialist to its core, not even a big S socialist, just the -right- thing to do, and people are complaining about it?

I do love it how the super-rich and big businesses have some how implemented their beliefs and point of views into the poor masses.

But fuck, if someone claims disability benefits when technically they could work, there would be a few complaints over that £10-20k loss p/a.

Oh, and my points are more targeted at @DaGaffer (bar the last point, that was aimed at our Rupert Murdoch devotee) than anyone else, I appreciate that for some people, even if the EU managed to establish world peace and cured AIDS and Cancer in one blow, they'd still be a deeply evil establishment.

 

[Job]

Can't we just stick a 100 quid idiot tax on Ipoons.
They'll pay up if they call it the iTax upgrade

 

[DaGaffer]

So if the EU largely stops (I am aware that they currently aren't doing this) having ridiculously low tax-countries within the EU, forcing companies to operate normally within the EU, I don't really see the harm?

Tax Havens are practically a race to the bottom; not allowing fair taxation across the country - and what do Ireland truly get in return? - Maybe a couple of hundred more people employed?

I would suspect that the EU is attempting to stop countries from racing to the bottom in order for pitiful bonuses in comparison to the ridiculous amounts of tax income that they potentially could receive, I don't really care if Ireland doesn't like it, I'm sure the people of Ireland aren't complaining.

As others have said, what's the likelihood of Apple turning around and saying 'nah, we're not going to operate within the EU anymore, because we're being told to pay our fair share of tax.'

The EU has done something which is socialist to its core, not even a big S socialist, just the -right- thing to do, and people are complaining about it?

I do love it how the super-rich and big businesses have some how implemented their beliefs and point of views into the poor masses.

But fuck, if someone claims disability benefits when technically they could work, there would be a few complaints over that £10-20k loss p/a.

Oh, and my points are more targeted at @DaGaffer (bar the last point, that was aimed at our Rupert Murdoch devotee) than anyone else, I appreciate that for some people, even if the EU managed to establish world peace and cured AIDS and Cancer in one blow, they'd still be a deeply evil establishment.

Like I said in the last post; nothing wrong with changing the law (as long as everyone agrees) and in fact the double Irish was ruled out in 2015 and will be gone by 2020, but that's not what the EU are trying to do. The second issue is that much as the Commission would like it, the EU is not a harmonised tax zone and member states are free to set their own tax levels. They're trying to claim Ireland are subsidising Apple, because its the only card they've got to play, not because that's what's actually happening. The EU has tried to get Ireland to raise corporate tax levels a number of times, not least during the bailout, and Ireland told them to fuck off. This is payback.

 

[Scouse]

I think the argument that Ireland is providing state aid to apple has legs.

Everyone seems to be avoiding this: 0.0001-1% tax.

Whichever way you spin it, legal/illegal, that's a disgrace. Well done EU for putting a shot across the bows.

 

[ECA]

Agreed, this is one of the better things the EU has done - if they'd started aggressively going after corporate tax avoidance earlier I might've voted to remain!

 

[SilverHood]

I think the argument that Ireland is providing state aid to apple has legs.

Everyone seems to be avoiding this: 0.0001-1% tax.

Whichever way you spin it, legal/illegal, that's a disgrace. Well done EU for putting a shot across the bows.

The actual rate of tax is immaterial, the issue is that Apple got preferential treatment. Oh, and they convinced the Americans that they were paying tax in Ireland, and the Irish that they were paying tax in America, and then did neither.

 

[Bodhi]

You are correct, Ireland hardly benefitted from Apple being there at all.

So if the EU largely stops (I am aware that they currently aren't doing this) having ridiculously low tax-countries within the EU, forcing companies to operate normally within the EU, I don't really see the harm?

Tax Havens are practically a race to the bottom; not allowing fair taxation across the country - and what do Ireland truly get in return? - Maybe a couple of hundred more people employed?

I would suspect that the EU is attempting to stop countries from racing to the bottom in order for pitiful bonuses in comparison to the ridiculous amounts of tax income that they potentially could receive, I don't really care if Ireland doesn't like it, I'm sure the people of Ireland aren't complaining.

As others have said, what's the likelihood of Apple turning around and saying 'nah, we're not going to operate within the EU anymore, because we're being told to pay our fair share of tax.'

The EU has done something which is socialist to its core, not even a big S socialist, just the -right- thing to do, and people are complaining about it?

I do love it how the super-rich and big businesses have some how implemented their beliefs and point of views into the poor masses.

But fuck, if someone claims disability benefits when technically they could work, there would be a few complaints over that £10-20k loss p/a.

Oh, and my points are more targeted at @DaGaffer (bar the last point, that was aimed at our Rupert Murdoch devotee) than anyone else, I appreciate that for some people, even if the EU managed to establish world peace and cured AIDS and Cancer in one blow, they'd still be a deeply evil establishment.

Let me see, what do Ireland get in return? Well apart from:

- Around 5,500 jobs
- €4billion a year in income tax
- All the tax and jobs that come from Apple's Supply Chain
- The biggest corporate contributor to Ireland's coffers
- All the other Multinationals that are headquartered in Ireland (some of whom get a similar deal) - who then pay tax to the Irish government they wouldn't otherwise have done
- A good chance for a small country such as Ireland to compete with the big boys when it comes to Corporate Interest (A strategy also used by the Netherlands and set up in Luxembourg - on Junckers watch)

Well apart from that? Nothing, nothing at all.

Must admit I'm still not entirely sure if I see the problem. Ireland were happy with Apple's arrangement (which they offered to other multi-nationals as well), Apple weren't too unhappy, and had broken no laws in the words of the EU. Just our old friends in Brussels decided they didn't like small countries making decisions for themselves, with a little bit of added retribution for how the EPA (fairly) treated Volkswagen.

 

[Scouse]

Who gives a fuck. Companies need to pay their fair share.

We shouldn't be beggars scrabbling around for their scraps, thankful for them setting up in our country whilst our services fall down around our ears.

Apple is allegedly sitting on 200bn+ in reserves. They can afford it and STILL provide the above.

And they should.

 

[Bodhi]

Who gives a fuck. Companies need to pay their fair share.

We shouldn't be beggars scrabbling around for their scraps, thankful for them setting up in our country whilst our services fall down around our ears.

Apple is allegedly sitting on 200bn+ in reserves. They can afford it and STILL provide the above.

And they should.

Lol. Considering your own personal tax affairs I find this one of the funniest posts ever.

Levels of hypocrisy unseen since The Guardian, this morning.

 

[Scouse]

Lol. Considering your own personal tax affairs I find this one of the funniest posts ever.

Cheap (and weak) shot. But coming from you, completely to be expected. I've said for a long time that I support a change in the law.

And that's where the EU says Apple falls down. In law.

Either way - it's interesting to see you coming out to bat for a company that pays tax of about five thousanths of one percent.

 

[Bodhi]

Is it a cheap shot to point out you're upset at Apple gaming a system you freely admit you game yourself?

However strange that you say the EU have said that Apples approach falls down in law, when they've also said that no laws were broken, and appear to have no proof that illegal state aid was provided. Interesting position to argue, but then it wouldn't be unlike the EU to just make stuff up as they go along now would it?

Please note I have no skin in this game, I dislike Apple products immensely and am not a massive fan of the people who lap them up. However if a country such as Ireland wants to offer a similar deal for companies to locate there, and Ireland and the population of Ireland are OK with that, then I see no issue. By the same token if a country wants to tax the rich until their pips squeak, I have no real issue with that either - I just wouldn't live in such a place.

 

[Scouse]

Is it a cheap shot to point out you're upset at Apple gaming a system you freely admit you game yourself?

In no way do I "game" any system. Couldn't afford to and wouldn't even if I could. Apple, however, certainly fits that description. (And once again you're playing the man, not the ball.)

The question I've clearly posed you is this: Is it OK for big corporations to pay taxes mesaured in thousanths of a percent?

Come on Bodhi. Instead of playing your usual pissing game, play the ball straight for once.

 

[Bodhi]

Maybe i wasn't paying attention in English lessons, but typically when someone clearly poses a question, there tends to be some sort of punctuation mark suggesting a question is being asked. I think it's called a question mark but I may be wrong.

But anyway, just to fuel your most righteous indignation, no I wouldn't be too bothered if a company was paying 0.0005% Corporation Tax. I tend to look at total tax take, not rates. If that super low percentage returns a bigger amount of tax - which would be straightforward to argue in this case - fill your boots. If they're bleeding the country dry, then that's not OK. However with Apple and Ireland, there is absolutely no way you can argue that this is the case.

Of course when I run the world Corporation Tax would be scrapped altogether, being an extra tax on that organisations customers and staff.

 

[Raven]

Two entities helping each other out. Both saw huge benefit, and so did the people of Ireland.

The EU trying to play the big boy after they got kicked in the knackers

 

[Scouse]

I wouldn't be too bothered if a company was paying 0.0005% Corporation Tax. I tend to look at total tax take, not rates. If that super low percentage returns a bigger amount of tax - which would be straightforward to argue in this case

I'd love to see that argument just to see if I could keep a straight face.

What actually is happening is that we've got an economic system that's ultimately supposed to be run in the interests of the human race (or why do we run it?) and it's incredibly good at making huge sums of money. And I don't have a problem with that...

However it simply gets hoarded by individuals and corporations and doesn't do any social good. 200bn in Apple's case. That 13bn wouldn't even make ripples in their share price - but would, in the fair taxation of a single corporation, do untold levels of social good.

 

[Job]

Anyway, they are going to get it all back now the Note7 has started exploding

 

[Bodhi]

I'd love to see that argument just to see if I could keep a straight face.

What actually is happening is that we've got an economic system that's ultimately supposed to be run in the interests of the human race (or why do we run it?) and it's incredibly good at making huge sums of money. And I don't have a problem with that...

However it simply gets hoarded by individuals and corporations and doesn't do any social good. 200bn in Apple's case. That 13bn wouldn't even make ripples in their share price - but would, in the fair taxation of a single corporation, do untold levels of social good.

Well if Apple were, as alleged, offered a sweetheart deal to locate their European HQ there, it's not a massive leap of logic to suggest that if they hadn't been offered that deal, Apple would have gone elsewhere - leaving Ireland with 0.

As far as doing social good is concerned - compare Dublin before Apple turned up, and what it looks like now. If you can't see a benefit there, well....

 

[old.user4556]

Aren't Apple in Cork?

 

[Bodhi]

All the same innit?

 

[soze]

I'm no economist but isn't there a lot more too having Apple in Ireland than just tax? Ignoring the moral issue which this is, if you as a company with shareholders are offered a deal to pay 1% tax and not 50% and you turn it down you will be sacked in a second, Apple exist to make money and will do it any way they can.

But I thought the whole argument for not taxing the super rich is we don't want them taking their money out of the banking system and weakening the Economy? Isn't that why they always say they can't afford to piss off the Super Rich as 1% off a lot is better than 50% of nothing if they take it elsewhere?

So with Apple it would be the same. It is better to take 1% of the billions they move through the banking system than 50% of nothing if they pick up and move somewhere else. With £12b at stake they can afford to up sticks and move every where.

 

[Gwadien]

You're almost implying that if they didn't have really low taxes, then they wouldn't operate within Europe, which is totally bullshit.

The problem that I have with this isn't a 'grr everyone should pay their fair share of tax' (well, that plays a role) but it's also the logical economic theory.

Small businesses make up a fair chunk of the UK economy as far as I am aware, yet they're straddled with corporation tax, however if you're big enough, you can pretty much avoid tax, and how can a small business such as I don't know - Wileyfox for instance, compete with behemoths such as Apple, sure there's an element of established size and such, but frankly, Wileyfox would be able to be more of a competition to Apple if they paid the same amount of tax as Apple.

To me, it's a monopoly, not in the sense of sheer dominance of a particular market, but by Governments effectively punishing smaller businesses for not having that direct line to HMRC to sort out their taxation.

Sure, @Bodhi suggests a removal of taxation, but as far as I can recall he's largely pro-private health care and largely wants a 'small' Government, which is fine when you're well paid and have no kids, but in reality if you lowered corporation tax for all businesses, then clamped down on tax avoidance (yeah, possibly through the EU - flat rate corporation tax across the EU and you can't operate whilst having your headquarters outside of the EU) I'm pretty sure that you'd make more money as a Government, and you'd also encourage businesses to grow - at all sizes, not just the ones that can afford to avoid tax.

I'm pretty sure if you compared the amount of large businesses (minus the .com boomers) growing 60 years ago compared to now, you'd see a relative drop per population (although this is largely a guess) and I don't simply understand how this is progressive in any sense, apart from making the share of wealth wider and wider (I'm sure you could directly relate my theory with the share of money across the world.)

 

[DaGaffer]

You're almost implying that if they didn't have really low taxes, then they wouldn't operate within Europe, which is totally bullshit.

The problem that I have with this isn't a 'grr everyone should pay their fair share of tax' (well, that plays a role) but it's also the logical economic theory.

Small businesses make up a fair chunk of the UK economy as far as I am aware, yet they're straddled with corporation tax, however if you're big enough, you can pretty much avoid tax, and how can a small business such as I don't know - Wileyfox for instance, compete with behemoths such as Apple, sure there's an element of established size and such, but frankly, Wileyfox would be able to be more of a competition to Apple if they paid the same amount of tax as Apple.

To me, it's a monopoly, not in the sense of sheer dominance of a particular market, but by Governments effectively punishing smaller businesses for not having that direct line to HMRC to sort out their taxation.

Sure, @Bodhi suggests a removal of taxation, but as far as I can recall he's largely pro-private health care and largely wants a 'small' Government, which is fine when you're well paid and have no kids, but in reality if you lowered corporation tax for all businesses, then clamped down on tax avoidance (yeah, possibly through the EU - flat rate corporation tax across the EU and you can't operate whilst having your headquarters outside of the EU) I'm pretty sure that you'd make more money as a Government, and you'd also encourage businesses to grow - at all sizes, not just the ones that can afford to avoid tax.

I'm pretty sure if you compared the amount of large businesses (minus the .com boomers) growing 60 years ago compared to now, you'd see a relative drop per population (although this is largely a guess) and I don't simply understand how this is progressive in any sense, apart from making the share of wealth wider and wider (I'm sure you could directly relate my theory with the share of money across the world.)

What happens if you harmonise corporate tax rates across Europe (which is the end game here)? FDI all ends up in Germany, because what's the point in sticking your business out on the periphery of Europe if there's no real benefit? You can see this effect inside countries all over the world, and especially in the UK; the money flows to the centre, which is why the north of England looks like Mad Max and it costs a billion quid to buy an outhouse in London.

Ireland is using tax to make itself worthwhile for investors and it works (20% of Irish workers work for a foreign multinational), and its the solution for small countries all over the place; from offshore gambling in Malta to tax havens in the Caribbean, because what's the alternative? Tourism? Picturesque poverty?

 

[soze]

You're almost implying that if they didn't have really low taxes, then they wouldn't operate within Europe, which is totally bullshit.

Is it really though. Why have your Corporate Office in Europe and pay even 20% tax on everything if you can run from a tax Haven somewhere else and pay 1% what do Apple lose by pulling out of Europe they do not make anything here anyway.

 

[Scouse]

Is it really though. Why have your Corporate Office in Europe and pay even 20% tax on everything if you can run from a tax Haven somewhere else and pay 1% what do Apple lose by pulling out of Europe they do not make anything here anyway.

They'd lose all the profit that they'd still make. Which is shitloads.

If you currently pay 1%, taking 99% home, but end up paying 20%, taking 80% home, you still take 80% home. No company is going to give that up. It's utter idiocy to think otherwise.


In other news. Amazon and Starbucks pay less tax than a sausage stall, says Austrian Chancellor.

 

[soze]

They'd lose all the profit that they'd still make. Which is shitloads.

If you currently pay 1%, taking 99% home, but end up paying 20%, taking 80% home, you still take 80% home. No company is going to give that up. It's utter idiocy to think otherwise.


In other news. Amazon and Starbucks pay less tax than a sausage stall, says Austrian Chancellor.

Why would they lose any profit they can still sell iPhones and devices in the UK but you just buy them from Apple in what ever country they pay no tax in. They can still import the phones the same as they do now.

 

[Scouse]

Why would they lose any profit they can still sell iPhones and devices in the UK but you just buy them from Apple in what ever country they pay no tax in. They can still import the phones the same as they do now.

I was adding to the argument you were having with @Gwadien - that went "You're almost implying that if they didn't have really low taxes, then they wouldn't operate within Europe" - as in up sticks and leave. But I see your point - just move the corporate office headquarters and pay tax there.

It's simple to answer tho - collect tax where the purchase is made. Doesn't matter where they're headquartered then. Profit made in that country gets paid in that country.

Refusal to pay = no licence to operate. And all companies would pay, 'cause there's still a shitton of money to be made.

 

[soze]

I was adding to the argument you were having with @Gwadien - that went "You're almost implying that if they didn't have really low taxes, then they wouldn't operate within Europe" - as in up sticks and leave. But I see your point - just move the corporate office headquarters and pay tax there.

It's simple to answer tho - collect tax where the purchase is made. Doesn't matter where they're headquartered then. Profit made in that country gets paid in that country.

Refusal to pay = no licence to operate. And all companies would pay, 'cause there's still a shitton of money to be made.

I don't think what they are doing is right, morally like all tax avoidance it is wrong.

But for that to work you would need your single world government and economy. Because Apple could still set up in a Tax Haven and only sell online. Then you would have to pay the vat when you bring it in and they still get no tax. Dropping 20% off the price to allow for that still saves them 29% on paying 50% tax in Europe. Bring on the Federation tbh.

 

[Scouse]

Apple could still set up in a Tax Haven and only sell online.

Even easier to collect. Bank regulation - you'd be collecting directly via visa / whatever online method of payment.

If governments want to collect tax it's easy for them to do so. If apple wants to sell Iphones in this country then the phones also have to work - and it'd be fairly straightforward for government to say to telco operators to disable iphones on their networks if apple did manage to squirm their way out (which they couldn't).

Nope. Companies pay no tax because governments are spineless / owned...

 

[Bodhi]

I don't think what they are doing is right, morally like all tax avoidance it is wrong.

But for that to work you would need your single world government and economy. Because Apple could still set up in a Tax Haven and only sell online. Then you would have to pay the vat when you bring it in and they still get no tax. Dropping 20% off the price to allow for that still saves them 29% on paying 50% tax in Europe. Bring on the Federation tbh.

All tax avoidance is wrong is it? So like Duty Free, ISAs etc, all wrong are they?

K...