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

Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 485 posts

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#441

Post by iguy »

Xixi wrote: post #415
iguy wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like there's a sovereignty issue here. If you negotiate a deal with the highest authority in Ireland, and they sign off on it, are you done? Why do you have to care what other deals they have made with other parties? Or is nothing Ireland does binding, until someone else with real power has counter-signed it?

If you negotiate a deal with the highest authority in Ireland to access the entirety of the EU Single Market, then yes indeed you should care about EU laws. It's not like Apple is only selling iPhones in Ireland... If you sign a deal with Nevada to sell products in the entirety of the United States, you expect federal laws to apply, don't you? Well, EU is not a federation like the Unites States, but it's half-way the…

But nobody in Nevada thinks that it is a country. And there is no pretence that its government is free to negotiate international matters (let alone run an army, have its own language, or even hold a referendum on abortion).

> hard to grasp for non-European. And to be fair, for most Europeans too

Yes, I think the degree to which this thing is a super-state (or at least claims to be one) not a trade club is not fully appreciated. Not least by the voters in whose name it was created. It's in some gray area between a federal state and a treaty, and cases like this are illuminating as to precisely what shade of gray.

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#442

Post by fidelramos »

solstice wrote: post #423
fidelramos wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, huge companies exists because large accumulations of capital put to productive uses allow for better economies of scale, producing better and cheaper services and products, which the public benefits from. Our overgrown states don't foster innovation and wealth, but hinder it.

To address only a tiny sliver of that massively one-sided view of yours: At least in many European countries, publicly-funded universities train the scientific, engineering and managerial talent these corporations need.

Of course, the states take so many taxes from its citizens that most of them cannot afford private education or healthcare, they are forced to the monopolistic public services, which are usually more expensive than their private counterparts. I'm not arguing that the states don't give us anything in return for the massive taxes they force upon us, but that what the society as a whole gets in return is much less than what they would get if the state let them had their money instead to spend as they saw fit.

There is another poison pill hidden in the public services: because they look free to the economically untrained eye people tend to overuse and overconsume them. That's why you see so many college graduates in careers that end up having no work use, thus becoming wasted human capital. If people had to pay for their education they would see the costs up front and be more efficient with their decisions.

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#443

Post by diffeomorphism »

nodamage wrote: post #342
diffeomorphism wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, as your link says it wasn't. Only part of the taxes were paid when the money was repatriated: > A provision allows for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held abroad at a lower tax rate than what would have been paid under the previous tax plan. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill...

I mean, tax rates can change over time. It seems like the goalposts have now been moved from "did they pay US tax?" to "did they pay enough US tax?". You're free to argue that 15% is not a high enough corporate tax rate, but it is factually incorrect to say Apple did not pay US tax on the money they earned overseas.

> I mean, tax rates can change over time. It seems like the goalposts have now been moved from "did they pay US tax?" to "did they pay enough US tax?".

No, that is decidedly not what we are talking about. The claim was that holding all your money away from the US does not matter because the tax will be paid eventually. As we see, no it wasn't and the tax rate was not lowered because "taxes change over time" but because otherwise companies will just not ever repatriate their money.

It is factually correct to say that apple did not pay the full US tax rate on the money they earned overseas. You are free to argue that this is fine and they at least still paid some, lower tax rate, but this is the whole topic we are talking about. Apple pays very low tax rates and the EU, Ireland and the US are arguing whether this is unfair (state aid) and should change.

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#444

Post by thu2111 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #399
sideeffffect wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This problem has a rather profound solution: Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Consolidated_Corporate_... Companies should have never been taxed based on a virtual, and fundamentally nonsensical, figure as the location of their headquarters. They should be taxed based on substantial things, like (the location of) capital, labour and sales. This is what CCCTB establishes. Stat…

> Companies should have never been taxed based on a virtual, and fundamentally nonsensical, figure as the location of their headquarters. They should be taxed based on substantial things, like (the location of) capital, labour and sales. This is fundamentally the right answer, but don't underestimate the political difficulty in getting there. Taxing "profits" in the location of the headquarters was always a seduction…

It was actually an intentional way to tax. The guy who set it up (Fritz Bolkestein apparently) did it this way deliberately, because:

1. It avoids endless arguments about where the profit is 'really' made, i.e. relative arguments about the value of labour vs capital vs equipment vs offices etc. However bad or stupid you think these arguments are, those would be far worse.

2. Corporation taxes are highly inefficient taxes to begin with. It puts countries in a form of competition that should drive corporation tax down to zero, which economists believe is a better state to be in.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/24/french-t...

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#445

Post by nickpp »

tsimionescu wrote: post #434
nickpp wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the principle and it works. I know countless examples, yes, including me. Not happy with 1 share? Save more, buy more. Want cheaper shares? Found your own company and you’ll have infinite shares for free. You’ll have to make it successful afterwards, though, to raise each share's value up from 0. That’s what "They" did.

> Save more, buy more. > Found your own company and you’ll have infinite shares for free. You seriously misunderstand how little money people at the bottom actually have, and how little access to the kind of credit you'd need to start a business. Like, saving for a car when their old one breaks down will probably take some people months or years. Saving to buy shares???? > That’s what "They" did. A minuscule handful…

You don't need a line of credit to start a business. You just need desire to work and ingenuity. People are more than happy to give you money if you are willing to do the work. There are countless rags-to-riches stories from all over the world.

But first you need to change your mind set. With self-limiting beliefs like those, you'll never get anywhere. Not only are they patently false, they don't help you in any way.

Get out of your echo chamber, hang out on same entrepreneurial forums (like this one!), read some inspirational books, learn how much is possible if you're just willing to try.

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#446

Post by heavenlyblue »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #185
m12k wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless we want international trade to be a one-way process that slowly drains the middle class dry, and triggers the next recession when demand drops to zero, then it is probably better to make sure that whenever a company makes money by selling to consumers, enough money is re-circulated back into that country to maintain the purchasing power of those consumers. (That seems to be a core part of China's strategy, pro…

The devil is in the details though. I’m sure a US capitalist and a French government bureaucrat have very different ideas as to what constitutes “enough money”.

I think that if you're not paying full taxes in my country, you should not receive any police/army/legal system support as a company (obviously while enforcing the low of companies not being allowed to be armed for different reasons).

I would love to see how that turns out for corporations.

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#447

Post by maest »

sokoloff wrote: post #268
fennecfoxen wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. The most pro-Wal-Mart economists will tell you that Wal-Mart as a firm has boosted the US economy by at least 1% of GDP, by being more efficient, and forcing its competitors to be more efficient as well. Suppose for a moment that we accept that claim uncritically -- it is still very clear to see that these gains do not accrue through the vehicle of employment. Indeed, the non-logistics savings from Wal-Mart co…

There's "good for workers as workers" and "good for workers as consumers". Walmart and Amazon are very good for workers-as-consumers, IMO.

Arguably that's a contributor to the increase in wealth gap, which is what the GGGP post was originally about.

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#448

Post by fidelramos »

allendoerfer wrote: post #413
fidelramos wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$13b seem to me an outrageous bill for those services. Could we see an itemized bill to make sure we are not overpaying the state? Or is it more like they have the monopoly of violence and we have to pay whatever they want or else?

> Or is it more like they have the monopoly of violence and we have to pay whatever they want or else? You have to switch we and they . We are not Apple, but we are the people of a state.

I too have to pay whatever taxes the state determines, so I think "we" is the right pronoun here.

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#449

Post by tsimionescu »

nickpp wrote: post #445
tsimionescu wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Save more, buy more. > Found your own company and you’ll have infinite shares for free. You seriously misunderstand how little money people at the bottom actually have, and how little access to the kind of credit you'd need to start a business. Like, saving for a car when their old one breaks down will probably take some people months or years. Saving to buy shares???? > That’s what "They" did. A minuscule handful…

You don't need a line of credit to start a business. You just need desire to work and ingenuity. People are more than happy to give you money if you are willing to do the work. There are countless rags-to-riches stories from all over the world. But first you need to change your mind set. With self-limiting beliefs like those, you'll never get anywhere. Not only are they patently false, they don't help you in any way.…

For every story of entrepreneurial success, there are countless others of failures. The vast majority of people are not just too dumb to see the opportunities, as you have arrogance to imply. They are well aware of the risks, and can't afford to take them.

Plus, an economy can't run on business founders alone. It requires workers that actually, you know, do the work, and who are willing to be paid for a less than that work is worth (you know, 'profit').

If anyone is living in an echo chamber, I assure you it is not the 99%. It's the smug 1% hoarding wealth and justifying it to themselves by thinking 'anyone could do this if they were as smart/hard working/enlightened as me!' while forgetting the luck and connections and old money that got them where they are.

Re: Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned

#450

Post by sokoloff »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #433
fennecfoxen wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. The most pro-Wal-Mart economists will tell you that Wal-Mart as a firm has boosted the US economy by at least 1% of GDP, by being more efficient, and forcing its competitors to be more efficient as well. Suppose for a moment that we accept that claim uncritically -- it is still very clear to see that these gains do not accrue through the vehicle of employment. Indeed, the non-logistics savings from Wal-Mart co…

Even the most anti-Walmart economists will concede that Walmart has had a non-trivial positive effect on combating inflation for staple goods. When everything's cheaper, it's a bit like everyone gets a raise - the only people who get screwed are the workers. As much as I support local, family-owned businesses on an individual level, I also recognize that for the vast majority of people, cheaper goods are much better…

Should only large corporations pay for benefits their workers collect? Why should medium, small, and micro businesses be exempted?

Transparently, I ask that question because I’m wary of creating a system where employers have a direct economic incentive to not hire people who would be likely to receive government benefits. Nearly the last thing someone on government support needs is employers not wanting to hire them.

If that means (as I think it does) that corporations are not individually tagged for their specific workers’ benefits, so be it.

I’m also opposed (though less strongly) to creating a taxation system where taxation levels are not reasonably predictable, given enough effort. If I don’t know whether Joe is going to cost me $30K/yr or $50K/yr and I’ve got 500K “Joes”, that’s $10 billion dollars of annual uncertainty. Even if you cap the uncertainty to between 25% and 75% of the range, it’s $5B. For $5B/yr, I can find a bunch of other arrangements that give me less exposure (most obviously using subcontractors who aren’t themselves “large companies”, but even if they are, it becomes “their problem” which is better than “my problem”).

Post reply on HN