Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

This, by the way, is not an Apple bash. The law allows them to do it
this way, and they are doing what is best for Apple.

yep.

It is a bash of nospam for attempting to mislead with "most".

there is no misleading.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

This, by the way, is not an Apple bash. The law allows them to do it
this way, and they are doing what is best for Apple.

yep.

It is a bash of nospam for attempting to mislead with "most".

there is no misleading.

You tried, but you were caught. Good job of snipping what you tried.

i was not caught at anything. what i wrote was correct.

as usual, *you* tried to twist it into something that it isn't and
failed.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
companies.

the linked article did not mention ge.

try again.

My error...I copied, but failed to paste, this;

http://theweek.com/articles/486055/w...tric-pay-taxes

yet nobody mentions that.

What do you mean "nobody"? Don't you read a newspaper, watch
television news, or read news online?

i stay current. what you clearly don't understand is that mentioning
apple gets the clicks. mentioning ge doesn't. that's why you'll hear
about apple and factories in china but never dell or sony, which use
the very same factories.

On 28/10/2015 23:28, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:51:42 +0000, sid wrote:

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

--- snip ---

the irs does *not* tell a taxpayer how much to pay unless they're
delinquent, in which case they have far bigger problems, or if they're
stupid enough to request the irs to give them an amount to pay.

not only do taxpayers take deductions to which they are entitled, but
many of them hire an accountant who understands tax law and knows what
deductions are possible. most people don't because tax law is highly
convoluted and needs to be simplified.

Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend
on tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.

of course it's comparable and there's nothing scammy about it. the only
difference is the amount paid.

Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay net
to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?

I disagree. A company is free to organise it's business in any way it
likes, subject only to the laws which govern it's behaviour.

Yes, of course it is. But most would agree that a US company *should*
pay taxes in the US. Except, of course, those likely to profit from an
offshore tax arrangement. And a few others, whose reasoning defeats me.


--
Cheers, Rob

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:38:03 +0000, RJH wrote:

On 28/10/2015 23:28, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:51:42 +0000, sid wrote:

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

--- snip ---

the irs does *not* tell a taxpayer how much to pay unless they're
delinquent, in which case they have far bigger problems, or if they're
stupid enough to request the irs to give them an amount to pay.

not only do taxpayers take deductions to which they are entitled, but
many of them hire an accountant who understands tax law and knows what
deductions are possible. most people don't because tax law is highly
convoluted and needs to be simplified.

Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend
on tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.

of course it's comparable and there's nothing scammy about it. the only
difference is the amount paid.

Yes it is scammy, moving your hq to an island on the other side of the
Atlantic to take advantage of a dodgy governments tax loop holes and pay net
to zero tax, yes that's scammy. You can't do that can you?

I disagree. A company is free to organise it's business in any way it
likes, subject only to the laws which govern it's behaviour.

Yes, of course it is. But most would agree that a US company *should*
pay taxes in the US. Except, of course, those likely to profit from an
offshore tax arrangement. And a few others, whose reasoning defeats me.

I'm afraid that's ignorance, at least when the bulk of the business
and the profits occur in other parts of the world which have tax laws
of their own.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 23:29:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

think they'd like to pay more, though, is the thinking of a demented
fool.

call tim cook and tell him that he's a demented fool.

Better still, tell Apple's shareholders.

that would be even more entertaining.

apple shareholders do not think he is a fool and anyone trying to make
that claim would be laughed at.

They might not laugh so much if he says he want's to divert more of
Apple's cash flow to the government.

some might, but others will be happy they're repatriating their assets.

Now that's a really *weird* way of looking at it.

you can't please everyone.

Certainly not nospam.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The answer is because the author is writing about GE and not other
companies.

the linked article did not mention ge.

try again.

My error...I copied, but failed to paste, this;

http://theweek.com/articles/486055/w...tric-pay-taxes

yet nobody mentions that.

What do you mean "nobody"? Don't you read a newspaper, watch
television news, or read news online?

i stay current. what you clearly don't understand is that mentioning
apple gets the clicks. mentioning ge doesn't. that's why you'll hear
about apple and factories in china but never dell or sony, which use
the very same factories.

I just trying to work with what *you* write.

no you're not. you're trying to find a way to bash. you are incapable
of having a normal discussion.

Does "nobody" mention GE and tax avoidance or not? Or, is it just
here in a photography group where GE isn't mentioned?

if you want to discuss tax avoidance, then ge is on topic.

however, the the topic is not tax avoidance, it's apple-bashing.

Is it your contention (and I'm trying to keep a straight face when
writing this) that the only reason GE is not mentioned in this
newsgroup is that nobody would click through to a link about GE?
Or, is it because nobody *here* gives ****-all attention to GE as a
photography-related company?

ge doesn't get the clicks. there is no linkbait with ge.

I fully understand why Apple is mentioned. Most of us here use some
product made by Apple in our photography pursuits whether it be a Mac,
an iPhone, or an iPad.

that's not why apple gets mentioned and you know it.

There are a GE digital cameras.

crappy ones.

Maybe you
have one.

more of your bashing and it is of course, completely wrong.

Probably this one:

http://www.fleetfarm.com/detail/GE-1...0058919?utm_so
urce=googleps&utm_medium=shopping%2Bsearch&utm_cam paign=google%2Bproduct%20sea
rch&gslfah&gclid=Cj0KEQjw5MGxBRDiuZm2icXX2-sBEiQA619bq1SENXkxaDMc6pv-GkNT7B4w3VRL3AUpE7vRZH6tJHAaAhIf8P8HAQ

learn to trim urls. anything including and beyond the ?utm is tracking
information and not needed.

all that's needed is this:
http://www.fleetfarm.com/detail/GE-12.4-MP-Digital-Camera/0000000058919

and it's junk.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

This, by the way, is not an Apple bash. The law allows them to do it
this way, and they are doing what is best for Apple.

yep.

It is a bash of nospam for attempting to mislead with "most".

there is no misleading.

You tried, but you were caught. Good job of snipping what you tried.

i was not caught at anything. what i wrote was correct.

I didn't say it was not correct. I said it was misleading.

there's nothing misleading about what i wrote and tim cook said the
very same thing, so go pester him. i gave you his phone number already.

as usual, *you* tried to twist it into something that it isn't and
failed.

Nope. Just working with what *you* wrote.

nope. you're trying to bash me at every turn.

On 10/28/2015 3:40 PM, sid wrote:
nospam wrote:

In article ,
RichA wrote:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/tech...reland/?iid=EL

I guess the rebel, anti-corporate facade is pretty much gone from Apple?

the only dickhead is you.

Who is the bigger dickhead? The one that posts the troll in the first place
or the one that follows up to the troll with another post exclaiming how
fair and just his object of adulation is?

that link is six months old and it's yet another one of your moronic
anti-apple trolls.

not only is what they're doing *completely legal*, but minimizing taxes
is *expected* and *encouraged*.

Only by the morally bankrupt and greedy.

numerous other companies do essentially the same thing, including
google, yahoo, cisco and amazon.

It's amazing how often you seem to think two wrongs make a right.

even ordinary taxpayers, including yourself, pays as little tax as
possible.

Ordinary tax payers get told how much they have to pay and that's that.
Multi national corporations have unimaginable amounts of money to spend on
tax dodgers to work the best scams they can. Not really comparable.

unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the tax
laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the money.
that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just not
the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.

If they actually gave two ****s for anything other than the amount of money
they can accumulate they would already be paying taxes at the same rate as
all the other honest companies in the countries in which they extract
exorbitant amounts of money from their customer base.


Tax laws are a judicially approved method implementing economic policy.
think retirement plans, think international trade, etc. It's easy to
criticize with a bumper sticker political slogan It's much harder to
implement in real life. There are many loopholes that perhaps shouldn't
be there, but that doesn't negate the whole system.

--
PeterN

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article ,
RichA wrote:

unlike the other companies, however, apple wants to change the the
tax
laws so that they're more fair, where they can repatriate the
money.
that means they will pay *more* taxes than they currently are, just
not
the absurd amounts that the current tax law requires.

Yeah, Warren Buffett claimed the same thing. Thing is, he could have
volunteered any time to pay more taxes, but he didn't, and neither
did Apple.

why would anyone voluntarily pay more taxes than they actually owe?

Well, a person like Warren Buffet who has made a point of saying that
his tax rate is too low, lower than his secretary's (who makes a
six-figure income), should shut up and put up if he thinks he should pay
more. It's his choice. The US government has aken in record income
year after year. For those who complain that our taxes aren't high
enough, let them pay more - there is a provision when they file their
returns to do so. I have a few friends who say we should pay more taxes
to our government. But they take every possible deduction they can to
minimize their tax burden, they just want to see others pay more.

do you pay extra? didn't think so.