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

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:35:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I'm responding to the word *you* used.

in other words, you're playing word games.

Do you know how silly that makes you sound?

i'm not the one arguing over word usage. that makes you the silly one

I am not arguing word usage. I'm pointing out that you chose the
wrong word to describe what you now claim is your point. If you had
chosen the word that you now claim you meant, there would not have
been any disagreement.

i didn't choose the wrong word. you don't understand what's being said
and you're trying to blame me for your own stupidity.


If you had used "linkbait" in your original statement that started
this line of argument (and it takes two to do that, you know) I
wouldn't have responded.

bull****. if i said linkbait rather than gets the clicks, you'd have
found something else to argue about. it's all you do.

you're trying to weasel out of not understanding things, as you
normally do. you ain't fooling anyone.

"Weaseling" is just a slang term for revisionism. That's your game.

Why not, for a change, just be honest and say "i meant 'linkbait', not
just 'clicks'. Sorry to have erred."?

linkbait generates clicks.

why don't *you* say that *you* erred in not understanding the topic.

You should have tried writing in English.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:06:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

Nope. it's Apple's tax avoidance. More to the point it's the
extraordinary statement made by Tim Cook.

what extraordinary statement?

About wanting to pay more tax.

he wants tax reform so that it's fair, which may result in more tax.

Aah yes. Now I have found it, not some journalists paraphrase of what
Tim Cook said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/conniegu...e-testimony/2/
or http://tinyurl.com/pyqrcvf

"It is in this spirit that we recommend a dramatic simplification of
the corporate tax code. This reform should be revenue neutral,
eliminate all corporate tax expenditures, lower corporate income
tax rates and implement a reasonable tax on foreign earnings that
allows the free flow of capital back to the U.S. We make this
recommendation with our eyes wide open, realizing this would likely
increase Apple’s U.S. taxes. But we strongly believe such
comprehensive reform would be fair to all taxpayers, would keep
America globally competitive and would promote U.S. economic
growth."

But he also said:

"Our foreign subsidiaries hold 70% of our cash because of the rapid
growth of our international business. We use these earnings to fund
our foreign operations, such as spending billions of dollars to
acquire new equipment to make Apple products, and to finance
construction of Apple retail stores around the world.

Under the current U.S. corporate tax system, it would be very
expensive to repatriate that cash. Unfortunately, the tax code has
not kept up with the digital age. The tax system handicaps American
corporations in relation to our foreign competitors who don’t have
such constraints on the free flow of capital."

In other words, 'we have kept 70% of our profits overseas to avoid the
US taxman'.

I don't blame Apple for doing that, and there is nothing illegal about
doing it, but that is what has upset people who think Apple is a pure
bred US company through and through and don't realise the consequences
of it's activities now being global in extent.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , PeterN
wrote:

it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
purpose of offshoring money.

doing that without a valid business purpose is also known as fraudulent
tax evasion. You obviously don't understand the difference between tax
avoidance and tax evasion. Hint: one is legal.

if you think that apple or any other company is engaged in fraudulent
tax evasion, by all means file a lawsuit.

people much smarter than you'll ever be do not consider what apple has
not done to be illegal.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.

The notion of a flat tax in inherently unfair to lower income people.

a flat tax is as fair as it gets. the more you make the more you pay.

it's also simple. a tax return can be done in a minute or two, versus
needing to hire an accountant or tax preparer, which poor people can't
afford either.

Wallow in your ignorance.

will you say the same to the other peter, or everyone else who
advocates tax reform? doubt it.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

And he obviously didn't read the link that would back up our statement.

i've read plenty of links about tax reform. like everything, there are
advantages and disadvantages to various ways. the point is that a flat
tax is much better than what exits now, but northing is perfect.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

If you had used "linkbait" in your original statement that started
this line of argument (and it takes two to do that, you know) I
wouldn't have responded.

bull****. if i said linkbait rather than gets the clicks, you'd have
found something else to argue about. it's all you do.

you're trying to weasel out of not understanding things, as you
normally do. you ain't fooling anyone.

"Weaseling" is just a slang term for revisionism. That's your game.

Why not, for a change, just be honest and say "i meant 'linkbait', not
just 'clicks'. Sorry to have erred."?

linkbait generates clicks.

If that's your position, then the posting of a link to a photograph is
"linkbait" because it generates a click.

you clearly don't understand what linkbait is and you're digging
yourself a deeper hole.

Of course I understand what "linkbait" is.

not based on anything you've written.

If you had used that term
I would have known exactly what you meant. But you didn't.

You made a mistake.

Now you're adding to your mistake in covering it up and implying that
only linkbait generates clicks.

linkbait gets the clicks. it's two ways to say the same thing.

the fact that you think they're different is proof you *don't*
understand what it is.

tl;dr you're wrong.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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?

apple does not pay net zero tax. you're wrong yet again. in fact, they
are among the companies who pay the *most* taxes of any usa
corporation, if not the most.

That should be "next to zero." I'm not in USA, they don't pay their fair
share here either. And you didn't even answer the question.

it's not next to zero and i did.

2% is next to zero when you compare it to the 35% they should be paying in
the US. You'll have to remind me of your answer to the question as you
appear to have written it in invisible ink.

But why should they be paying tax in the US? They didn't make their
products in the US. They didn't make their profits in the US. They
haven't moved their profits to the US. As for the 2%, Ireland is free
to set whatever tax rate they like.

exactly the point.

most of apple's sales are *outside* the usa.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...en%20Shot%2020
13-01-23%20at%205.09.22%20PM.png

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 03:33:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , says...

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
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.

Tax laws are also used for social engineering. It's time for a flat
tax, no deductions. Everyone pays the same rate, including the bottom
50% of earners who pay virtually no income tax at all and some of them
still get tax credits. As Joe Biden said, paying your taxes "is the
patriotic thing to do". Everyone should have some skin in the game.

"A flat tax" is very appealing to people who have never been poor.

I'd like to see "a flat tax" along with a Constitutional provision that
the government may not tax any person into poverty.

First, define poverty.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:

2% is next to zero when you compare it to the 35% they should be paying in
the US. You'll have to remind me of your answer to the question as you
appear to have written it in invisible ink.

But why should they be paying tax in the US?

Do they not make any profits in the US?

They didn't make their products in the US.

There are no Apple factories in the US?

They didn't make their profits in the US.

What, none of them?

They haven't moved their profits to the US. As for the 2%, Ireland is free
to set whatever tax rate they like.

Well there's the thing, Ireland are not free to to give state aid to
companies, it's against the law.

--
sid

On 10/30/2015 11:34 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

it's rather different than opening up a shell company for the sole
purpose of offshoring money.

doing that without a valid business purpose is also known as fraudulent
tax evasion. You obviously don't understand the difference between tax
avoidance and tax evasion. Hint: one is legal.

if you think that apple or any other company is engaged in fraudulent
tax evasion, by all means file a lawsuit.

people much smarter than you'll ever be do not consider what apple has
not done to be illegal.


And just where did I accuse Apple of fraudulent activity.
I accused you of no knowing the difference between tax
avoidance,(legal,) and tax evasion,(legal.)

--
PeterN