How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes • Hacker News Board

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#211

Post by RawData » Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 5:09 AM UTC

yzhengyu wrote: post #210

RawData wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK...skilled plumber...he might not be able to move...I studied economics in college and there are examples of industries that the professors would always cite...like hair stylists...plumbers...etc. Sure. BUT...that plumber could create a company hiring local plumbers in 20 different countries, and sell plumbing services locally in each of those countries, and incorporate the overall business in a friendly tax countr…

Ah. Be careful where you are stepping. Yes, its one choice. But personally, I find that to be rather too smug / elitist and smacks of "Oh, its HIS/HER choice - there's nothing DEFICIENT or FLAWED with the current setup" rather than recognizing that the market/world is inherently complex and difficult to navigate. Arguing that it's one choice is just sophistry. Kinda like those just world people I meet who argue that…

Sure there's tons of stuff flawed with the current system...but that's the system, not Apple. Change the system if you don't like it, don't penalize companies like Apple who play by the rules of that system. You can't have it both ways...

I don't think my argument is sophistry...choice is very important. It's the cornerstone of my beliefs and it's a valid philosophy.

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#212

Post by kalleboo » Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 9:24 AM UTC

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #112

ashconnor wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a valid point. I think that there are a few reasons why this occurs. 1. Tax payers aren't as resilient as shareholders: 2. There's a psychological tendency to think that "this is not my money" leading to excessive spending. 3. The accountability isn't there. If a politician wastes taxpayer money then he's still a politician for the time being. But it's not always valid. Many government projects are carried out b…

In private industry, you promoted and seen a valuable if you make money for the company. In the government, you are promoted and seen as a power player if you spend more money. There are lots of super-competitive A-types in govt work who will spend a million dollars just to get another feather in their programs hat.

Wasteful empire-building and waste-what's-left-of-my-budget-so-I-don't-lose-it-next-quarter is so common in private businesses it's even a recurring joke in Dilbert http://dilbert.com/fast/2012-04-07/

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#213

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 9:44 AM UTC

rmc wrote: post #184

lunarscape wrote: post #35

Regarding how Ireland is mentioned in the article- Apple has had a significant presence in Ireland since the year 1980, has a workforce nearing 3000 and is expanding, announcing 500 jobs just this month [1]. Hardly "little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office " as could be misinterpreted rather easily from this article. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/20/us-apple-ireland-i...

To put it in perspective, the 80s in Ireland were very bad economically, very few jobs, lots of emigration. Apple also have their office in Cork (not Dublin) which would have fewer native industries and employment, so they probably qualify chore all kinds of 'kindness' grants.

[deleted]

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#214

Post by joesb » Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 3:02 PM UTC

AlisdairO wrote: post #178

philwelch wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it had to do with contributing to the society around you, surely it would be the same obligation regardless of the tax laws, wouldn't it? Yet no one voluntarily pays more than the tax rate, and nearly everyone takes all the deductions and tax credits they can.

Right - the difference between the two is that deductions and tax credits are explicitly entered into the law to define what someone should be paying. The corporate tax rates that Apple pays in California are instead a reflection of the law's inability to effectively extract the money that society wants to - loopholes are involuntarily, while tax deductions are intended.

> deductions and tax credits are explicitly entered into the law to define what someone should be paying.

So if a company follow the law and they gets tax deduction, it means that that's the tax the society agree that the company should be paying, right?

> loopholes are involuntarily, while tax deductions are intended.

So can the company exercise tax deduction without being called using a loophole? Is it ever intended for tax deduction to be okay for a company?

Re: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

#215

Post by AlisdairO » Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 8:43 PM UTC

joesb wrote: post #214

AlisdairO wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right - the difference between the two is that deductions and tax credits are explicitly entered into the law to define what someone should be paying. The corporate tax rates that Apple pays in California are instead a reflection of the law's inability to effectively extract the money that society wants to - loopholes are involuntarily, while tax deductions are intended.

> deductions and tax credits are explicitly entered into the law to define what someone should be paying. So if a company follow the law and they gets tax deduction, it means that that's the tax the society agree that the company should be paying, right? > loopholes are involuntarily, while tax deductions are intended. So can the company exercise tax deduction without being called using a loophole? Is it ever intende…

Of course it's often intended for a tax deduction to be okay. I'm not quite sure what the thrust of your argument is - are you trying to imply that loopholes as a concept are invalid?