91–100 of 265 posts
That's just a scaled-up version of pink-washing - Look, apple is so great, we can't dismantle it for being a monopoly! Now run and do something bad to the real villains like Amazon!
They can start by honestly and fully paying their taxes.
Let’s run through the possible reasons Apple announced this, with various degrees of cynicism. 1. Getting some good press before Congress decides to do something in regards to the app store model. 2. Apple is reading the winds, seeing that Chinese supply chains may be politically constrained, and preparing for that future. 3. Apple is reading the winds, seeing that Chinese supply chains may be politically constrained…
4. Apple was planning to do these things anyway as part of normal operations, and is just spinning them as "investment in the country"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4. Apple was planning to do these things anyway as part of normal operations, and is just spinning them as "investment in the country"
100% this. So many of these corporate investment announcements are really "look at what we were already going to do". Amazon HQ2 anyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not attacking you, but I'm so tired of this: "...who has a duty to shareholders to, you know, not pay more taxes than they have to..." Let's make shareholders rich. It'll all trickle down from there...
You can’t expect a company (or individual) to not act in their best interests - it’s up to the Goverment to make the law and tax code fair or redistribute wealth
I kind of hate the way Apple phrases their business investments like they're performing some great charitable act. Also, I'll wait for an external audit of whether they're paying all the relevant local taxes before I would consider giving them credit for these "investments" in local infrastructure they're making.
Why investments should be like charitable act? Investments are suppose to be win-win, because they are investments, not handing out money ... Also, it is a very low level misconception that paying local taxes is how you contributing to the local community. No. Investing is already contributing to the local community. The business will build campus there, and hire people there, and also increase other local businesses…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$430B seems like more than you'd need for a good PR stunt.
I suspect they really were going to spend a significant chunk of this regardless, but they packaged it into a nice press release at a potentially fraught political moment. And…$430 billion over 5 years is a lot, but what if it influences tax or tariff rates just a bit in your direction over a 10-year period? Because that could be worth it, especially, again, if you were going to set up that new campus anyway.
Regardless of what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they're not voluntarily doing so. They don't want to be the only ones doing it.
They are lobbying to increase taxes and giving away their wealth. What more do you want from them? Are you paying more taxes than you are required to?
I think you're misreading my comment. It wasn't meant to shame buffet/gates for not paying more taxes, it was to point out that even they are going to act in their self interest in terms of paying taxes. ie. they won't pay more taxes than they need do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why do you think domestic investment is so economically useless GP never implied that it was "useless" at all. Your question (to use some more Latin) is a total non-sequitur. >there would be a twin top comment lamenting Apple's lack of domestic spending. Yes, different people have different opinions.
> GP never implied that it was "useless" at all The announcement uses the word investment 17 times. Reading that as a charity pitch requires a few logical leaps. Companies announce foreign direct investment all the time. Nobody thinks they're trying to look like a charity.
Again, a non-sequitur. Even if they read "investment" as "tea party" 17 times, they still never said or implied that it was useless.
The Apple article is obviously trying to paint the investments as acts of goodwill. Not many people would expect anything else, it's just good PR. "Charity" might be an exaggeration, but can't you see why it could rub people the wrong way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why do you think domestic investment is so economically useless that it must be a charitable act? that's not what op (the person you're responding to) is saying at all. they're simply saying that apple disguises its infrastructure spending as charity and that that's off-putting. in fact it's not charity and furthers their own goals. it'd be like me claiming to be a philanthropist because i had to a build a road conn…
> apple disguises its infrastructure spending as charity Except it doesn't. It uses the word "investment" 17 times in the announcement. If someone reads this as a charity pitch they're doing mental gymnastics. Apple is not even doing the whole "Made in the USA" schtick, where companies imply they're taking patriotic pain for the good of the country. This is fully pitched as a competitive play. An investment to yield…
This announcement makes it sound like it's something amazingly special they do. But in fact, any company throughout history has invested a certain percentage of their revenue, just like Apple is now doing.