Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 350 posts

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#61

Post by checkyoursudo »

GCU-Empiricist wrote: post #34
komali2 wrote: post #5

If you unplugged Apple's board (or given decision-making apparatus) and plugged in a (currently nonexistent) AI with the parameter "Maximize Profit," would you see a different result? I think not. I think we'd see things far more morally horrifying, in fact, with just enough PR makeup to ensure "maximized profit." Unsure why we laud capitalism and then act horrified at the result. Here in America we've made our decis…

Isn't that a board's fiduciary duty to their stockholders? To put it differently would you buy stock in a board that doesn't act this way, would a mutual fund? Which way do you expect the mutual fund's proxies to vote when electing the board? Multi-polar coordination (competition markets) have a lot of bad Nash-equilibrium states, but they are better than any command market in history.

No, not fiduciary duty. One theoretical approach to corporate governance/management, but it's not a legal duty.

A competing theory is guaranteeing the long-term health of the company instead of short-term profits (current shareholder value). Another is being a good corporate citizen in society.

These are usually all at least in a bit of tension.

The reason shareholder value is often (almost always?) pushed at any large company is because it so often aligns with the boards' and managers' short-term goals, i.e., make lots and lots of money while the making is good.

For a long time, and perhaps even still, Amazon has been held up as an example of a company that is not especially driven by the theory of maximizing shareholder value.

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#62

Post by fleitz »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #50
fleitz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is their corporate tax law wasn't enough of a concern to them to actually read it?

This was not a law but a secret bespoke areangement.

That seems unsupported by the article, in 2015 Ireland changed its laws, Apple consulted a law firm on advice on how to proceed and sought assurances from the govts involved that it's understanding of the law was correct.

Where is this agreement you speak of?

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#63

Post by BoiledCabbage »

fredley wrote: post #23
komali2 wrote: post #5

If you unplugged Apple's board (or given decision-making apparatus) and plugged in a (currently nonexistent) AI with the parameter "Maximize Profit," would you see a different result? I think not. I think we'd see things far more morally horrifying, in fact, with just enough PR makeup to ensure "maximized profit." Unsure why we laud capitalism and then act horrified at the result. Here in America we've made our decis…

This is not the fault of Capitalism alone. In a healthy democracy, the people vote in the Government, who can impose fines, tariffs, penalties and such on companies and business practices that the people (via the people they elect) deem to be working against them. Sadly, as you point out, this creates a direct incentive to lobby or otherwise attempt to control Government by large and powerful companies. The only way…

Pure free market Capitalism is playing a game of Monopoly where after each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast.

Consolidated money is power. The only way that capitalism can work long term is if there are rules actively countering/fighting using that power to change the rules.

Money is power and capitalism consolidates money. So capitalism consolidates power. Consolidated power can change the rules in its favor to consolidate more.

The only options are prevent entities from consolidating money (which means you're risking losing capitalism), Or prevent entities from using money and power to change the rules (which, if you think of all the ways gratuitous money could be used to influence, is the social equivalent of solving the halting problem).

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#64

Post by civilian »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #26
colemannugent wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point about the bad side of capitalism, but consider that this kind of abuse is only possible because the governments allow it. No economic system can live up to its design when corrupt governments interfere with it.

governments allow it corrupt governments interfere with it Are those not in opposition? Another solution is a better breed of business that doesn't see $ as the most important thing in the world, but not sure how you change that. Capitalism can and should be a conduit for innovation without outright greed.

I was working for a tech company that liked to pride itself on being "one of the good guys". They gave us pretty lavish benefits, that often seemed kind of silly, and had a massive well-designed office. Although the office was still an open office, and suffered from those aspects.

They recently had to lay off 60 of their ~200 people.

What would have been better? Should they have been greedier, given fewer benefits, and prevented the layoffs? Or should they have given more benefits, and not had layoffs, and simply collapse in bankruptcy in a couple years?

Money gives you options, and it is the tool which enables us to provide for people. I think your anti-greed position just... misses the point.

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#65

Post by nautilus12 »

Unpopular opinion: Since did "technically" following the law matter more than a companies reputation, both with the public and with the government and society in which it resides.

If my neighbor built a giant flashing neon sign facing my bedroom window and it was somehow "technically" within the bounds of the law I would still be ticked off, even if my neighbor provided me with iCloud sync. The problem is that Apple avoiding taxes isn't as blatant and irritating as a neon sign in our window, but it SHOULD be when we go to pay our taxes. We should feel immediate outrage at anyone that isn't pulling their weight, especially when there are individuals in government trying to get us to pay even more in our taxes to make up the difference.

Get apple to pay their damn taxes first. ONLY then you can talk to me about upping my taxes to fund something like universal free college education.

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#66

Post by mrguyorama »

whatok wrote: post #15
nautilus12 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying that rather than taxing the middle class more that we should simply make large corporations like Apple actually follow the existing tax laws? Owing to its source it doesn't sound like this idea is going to be popular on hacker news, in spite of its blatant rationality.

Pretty sure Apple is following existing tax laws.

That depends if you believe tax law should be about checkboxes or about keeping to the spirit of giving back to the community that made you

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#67

Post by fleitz »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #57
fleitz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why is it greed to want to keep your own money, but not greed to want someone else's.

We have a system of taxation. I pay my share. I expect others to pay there share. But when the other has found some legal loophole (perhaps one they helped to put in place or at least to maintain) and avoid paying their share, then yes, I'm upset and I want them to pay their share. Why do you try to cast this as a matter of greed. Apple is getting billions of dollars in benefits from being a US-based company, directl…

You mean you pay what the government says you owe, just like Apple does... Or are you saying that you don't claim any deductions and pay the maximum allowable by the system?

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#68

Post by komali2 »

fleitz wrote: post #45
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Irish citizens had no idea about the extend of this.

So what you're saying is their corporate tax law wasn't enough of a concern to them to actually read it?

Come on fleitz, are you genuinely suggesting it is the responsibility of every citizen to have read through their tax code?

If you are, are you going to tell us with a straight face that you've read the US'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

It's about 3,500 pages long, written in esoteric accountant speak. Considering that in the USA "32 million adults in the U.S. can’t read. That’s 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can’t read," I think it's an unfair burden to place on a population.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_...

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#69

Post by glenstein »

slavik81 wrote: post #9
canuckintime wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the US Congress could just change the law, close the loophole and require corporations to bring the money home anyway without any tax holidays...

What's your proposed rule that would close the loophole? I don't think it's actually possible.

The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act would help:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/153...

Also, as a meta point, since I seem to see these kinds of challenges often: any time a person is put on the spot to name a specific change to a specific provision of law to enact a policy goal, it's probably going to be difficult to immediately give a specific answer. To translate policy into legislation often requires the assistance of multiple layers of paid staff and legislative analysts.

So the difficulty of answering that type of question is a function of the complexity of legislating, and not necessarily a sign that someone's preferred policy is a bad idea.

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#70

Post by mrguyorama »

RingwormOne wrote: post #24

Don't fault corporations for exploiting legal loopholes to save money... They optimize what they must optimize as operating businesses, and if we the citizens want to compel them to do something we must pass the laws necessary to do so... Stop moralizing the behavior of companies. They aren't humans. If you choose not to buy apple products in reaction to their behavior, great. If you want to convince your friends to…

Every human being in that company should be held accountable for their actions. Someone, somewhere said "Yes let's do it this way", and they committed an (arguably) immoral act by doing so.
Post reply on HN