[deleted]
Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
131–140 of 163 posts
Re: Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
#132The real issue with Apple Inc, and taxes, is about sales tax revenue. When Apple was close to bankruptcy, in the 1990's, the City of Cupertino agreed to refund Apple 50% of the sales tax revenue to which the city was entitled. This is sales tax revenue from online and phone sales on purchases shipped to addresses in California.
This arrangement continued unchanged even as Apple emerged from the dark days of John Sculley and Gil Ameilo, and became one of the most profitable companies in the world. In 2013, Apple agreed to change this agreement so that Cupertino would give Apple only 35% of the sales tax revenue to which Cupertino is entitled, rather than 50%
On the surface, this is crazy. Apple does very little for Cupertino in the way of community benefits, AND they expect Cupertino to refund sales tax revenue to them! However the alternative would be far worse for Cupertino. Apple could move online and phone sales out of California completely and then Cupertino would get no sales tax revenue at all.
What Apple is doing is not illegal. Companies pressure cities for tax concessions all the time. It may be unethical, but that is not Apple's concern.
That said, Mayor Barry Chang is widely considered a nut case. He attacks residents at City Council Meetings, creates fictional stories about those that disagree with him, is illegally running for a state assembly seat in a district where he is ineligible to run, and has gone on the radio and made disparaging comments about Mexicans. He is in the process of being recalled by residents. If I were Apple security, I'd escort him off campus too!
Re: Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh boy... a Chomsky quote. > "so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous dizz, and the wages going down and so on" Yeah, that's never in the news.
Oh, an ad-hominem and a straw man, and of course total avoidance of the core point. What a surprise.
What? There's no ad-hominem there. And what straw man? Chomsky claimed in the quoted sentence that things like huge corporate profits were not reported, your parent post says that's incorrect and they're often reported. Maybe he's right, maybe you're right, but there's no straw man.
Sometimes I feel like people have browser plugins that randomly pluck sins from the Wikipedia page for logical fallacies.
Re: Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you also notice that the way the Guardian wrote that paragraph makes it sound like Apple turned away the mayor, when in fact he was not the mayor at the time he went to Apple unannounced. I cannot read that any other way except to intentionally mislead people for a greater impact on the story. I really hate this kind of journalism. "The last time the mayor of Cupertino walked into Apple" Yes, he is the current ma…
I cannot read that any other way except to intentionally mislead people for a greater impact on the story. It was a bit careless on their part. Most likely the author simply didn't know when the uninvited visit occurred didn't think to double check. In general I don't see much benefit in imputing malicious motives to others, when far simpler explanations will suffice.
This would be a reasonable approach if we weren't talking about a piece of published journalism. That makes it both more unlikely that it was accidental (due to a higher bar of fact-checking), and more blameworthy even if it was due to negligence.
Re: Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
#135This reporter is credulous, because the Guardian is just awful. "Barry Chang barely made it into the lobby when Apple’s security team surrounded and escorted him off the property. “They said ‘you cannot come in, you’re not invited’. After that I left and have not gone back,” said an exasperated Chang." Uh huh. Yeah I bet it happened just like that. What buffoon of a reporter prints a politician's self-serving and inc…
What happened was he tried to get in and the one security guard told him he dad to be escorted by an employee, just as the sign said. Hundreds of people do this every day, thinking they will be able to see the campus on the inside. The only people that get escorted out are protestors who storm the lobby.
> Hundreds of people do this every day, thinking they will be able to see the campus on the inside.
During my time at Google, I had multiple people come up to me and ask me from where they could catch a guided tour of the campus. I always felt bad telling them there was none...
Re: Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, an ad-hominem and a straw man, and of course total avoidance of the core point. What a surprise.
What? There's no ad-hominem there. And what straw man? Chomsky claimed in the quoted sentence that things like huge corporate profits were not reported, your parent post says that's incorrect and they're often reported. Maybe he's right, maybe you're right, but there's no straw man. Sometimes I feel like people have browser plugins that randomly pluck sins from the Wikipedia page for logical fallacies.
> What? There's no ad-hominem there.
I don't like Chomsky either, but "Oh boy, a Chomsky quote" and the implication that it's somehow less valid because of its provenance is pretty much the definition of an _ad hominem_.
Re: Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try again. That "protection" you're referencing is actually the natural cooperation between rational actors that capitalism and market economies in general foster and perpetuate. Capitalism is the invisible hand, not government.
Go to school, kid: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/property_rights.asp
I've been studying economic theory for the majority of my life, have a PhD, and I am a fellow at one of the most prestigious econ think tanks in the world. I've gone to school. I do appreciate being called a kid though.
Is your point that they need a blank check to protect property rights? Because that's preposterous and would only demonstrate your own misunderstanding of property rights (or rights in general).
Re: Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try again. That "protection" you're referencing is actually the natural cooperation between rational actors that capitalism and market economies in general foster and perpetuate. Capitalism is the invisible hand, not government.
Go to school, kid: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/property_rights.asp
If you care to educate yourself on the point I was making: https://fee.org/articles/capitalism-and-cooperation/
Re: Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go to school, kid: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/property_rights.asp
I've been studying economic theory for the majority of my life, have a PhD, and I am a fellow at one of the most prestigious econ think tanks in the world. I've gone to school. I do appreciate being called a kid though. Is your point that they need a blank check to protect property rights? Because that's preposterous and would only demonstrate your own misunderstanding of property rights (or rights in general).
Let's see your dissertation then.
Re: Cupertino's mayor: Apple 'abuses us' by not paying taxes
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been studying economic theory for the majority of my life, have a PhD, and I am a fellow at one of the most prestigious econ think tanks in the world. I've gone to school. I do appreciate being called a kid though. Is your point that they need a blank check to protect property rights? Because that's preposterous and would only demonstrate your own misunderstanding of property rights (or rights in general).
Let's see your dissertation then.
for professional reason (i.e. mixing personal social media activity with links to my professional work) I can't post that here. Against our social media policy, and is generally in bad taste. Undoubtedly, you will take that as "I can't since it doesn't exist", but I couldn't really care less.