petec Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 having a populace of an area subsidize the business It's not quite that simple, though, is it? Without a competitive tax rate, the company might not even be there in the first place. And once they are there, if it still brings many jobs and pays substantial tax, that can still be a net benefit over the alternative (which is probably that the business isn't there at all, or has a much smaller presence). The populace, as you say, is probably getting more than they're giving. I don't know what's right, but I think it's telling that Ireland isn't asking for that tax to be higher... +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 having a populace of an area subsidize the business I also love it when a local mugger decides to subsidize my family by not robbing me. You have a wonderfully euphemistic usage of "subsidize" there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJP Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 having a populace of an area subsidize the business It's not quite that simple, though, is it? Without a competitive tax rate, the company might not even be there in the first place. And once they are there, if it still brings many jobs and pays substantial tax, that can still be a net benefit over the alternative (which is probably that the business isn't there at all, or has a much smaller presence). The populace, as you say, is probably getting more than they're giving. I don't know what's right, but I think it's telling that Ireland isn't asking for that tax to be higher... This tension always exists among member states within a larger political union. Here in the US, there is an extensive body of constitutional law that governs (and significantly restricts) state efforts to favor in-state businesses versus out-of-state businesses. I believe the EU "state aid" rules being applied here were designed to address the same concern. The "state aid" rules are an odd fit for the Ireland-Apple situation, because we don't think of Apple as an Irish company getting favoritism from the Irish government vis-a-vis companies from other EU countries. And Apple and Ireland's argument is that there was no special treatment, and thus the EU decision amounts to an attack on Irish tax policy, rather than a legitimate "state aid" issue. I don't know enough about the facts to opine about who is right. The fact that Ireland likes the status quo does not mean that Ireland isn't violating the EU "state aid" rules to which it agreed. Every country would prefer that it, and it alone, be allowed to offer "state aid" while the other members of their political union unilaterally disarm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vox Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 6,000 people employed by Apple in Ireland. Separately, I hate states giving out tax breaks to lure businesses from other states... Do you hate it when building owners offer companies lower rent for office space to draw them away from other buildings in the city? Other than the fact that the commercial building owner actually owns the building, what is the difference? Do you think that if one country raises its tax rates all other countries on the planet should be required to follow? That would lead to ever increasing tax rates without end. The difference is that the rent is not being used to fund public goods. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=476799218 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petec Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Tim Cook's statement says that this was an issue of who the tax gets paid to, but does not explain the statement. I'm intrigued by that. On the broader topic, if all states charged the same tax rate there'd be nothing to stop populist politicians edging that rate up over time, which would be detrimental. Competition is key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Tim Cook's statement says that this was an issue of who the tax gets paid to, but does not explain the statement. I'm intrigued by that. I've seen something about how if Apple pays the tax there, it'll be credited in the US, so Apple's US tax bill will go down. Not sure on the details of how that works, but if it's the case, it more or less means that US Taxpayers would be getting less from Apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petec Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Tim Cook's statement says that this was an issue of who the tax gets paid to, but does not explain the statement. I'm intrigued by that. I've seen something about how if Apple pays the tax there, it'll be credited in the US, so Apple's US tax bill will go down. Not sure on the details of how that works, but if it's the case, it more or less means that US Taxpayers would be getting less from Apple. Ah, ok: I read the context of the statement more to imply that the EU wanted money, which to the best of my limited knowledge isn't legal, so your explanation makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Apple Squeezes Parts Suppliers to Protect Margins Company faces difficulties in shoring up demand for its products http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-squeezes-parts-suppliers-to-protect-margins-1472713073 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepSouth Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Tim Cook's statement says that this was an issue of who the tax gets paid to, but does not explain the statement. I'm intrigued by that. I've seen something about how if Apple pays the tax there, it'll be credited in the US, so Apple's US tax bill will go down. Not sure on the details of how that works, but if it's the case, it more or less means that US Taxpayers would be getting less from Apple. When earnings are repatriated to the US, the US levies it's corporate income tax (35-40%) net of any foreign corporate income tax. So the higher the corporate income tax overseas, the less the firm pays on its US tax bill. The US doesn't double tax overseas corporate profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiterose Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Tim Cook's statement says that this was an issue of who the tax gets paid to, but does not explain the statement. This could also refer to an issue between EU member states; who gets to collect the corporate income or sales tax from Apples business in europe. Similar to Amazon in Luxemburg and IKEA in the Netherlands with their european "HQs" / IP-Holdings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 Ireland refuses Vestager - Says "No" to receiving Apple billions . Anyone have any idea for where to provide a bank account number? I will be happy to help solve this tiny issue, by providing IBAN and SWIFT to the service account I have in a not so big regional Danish bank - what a fuss approx. DKK 100 B would generate about their deposit surplus... - second thought: I'll just buy the whole damn bank. "Bank owner" would look good on a business card, I think. This is somehow ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 It was pretty clever of Apple to start breaking ground on 100 new Irish projects in time for this tax ruling to suddenly throw their future on the island into question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiterose Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 There is still some upside-risk left for Ireland, since Google and Facebook have their EU-wide billing-departments in Dublin also. Don't know about special-tax-arrangements though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I know it's not revealed yet but is anyone planning on getting the 7? I'm using 6+ now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flesh Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I am, I've been holding out, I5 user here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I have a 128GB 6S which I bought earlier this year. I think I'm going to wait until the 2017 model to upgrade. There wasn't anything must have in the new models for me. A better camera is nice, but that isn't going to make me upgrade and I wasn't considering the plus model anyway, so going from 6S to 7 isn't that much of a camera upgrade. Water resistance is nice, but not critical. I don't care about the additional speaker, as I use either bluetooth or headphones when I listed to audio most of the time. Also I find my phone is fast enough and the screen looks nice enough that the faster/better CPU/GPU/Screen doesn't really entice me all that much right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I'll be buying the 7 (128gb, Jet Black). Solid upgrade, nice to see a couple more hours of battery life on average, and a better camera makes a huge difference since I have a small child and know these photos will be priceless later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I'll be buying the 7 (128gb, Jet Black). Solid upgrade, nice to see a couple more hours of battery life on average, and a better camera makes a huge difference since I have a small child and know these photos will be priceless later. If my kids were still small, I'd definitely be getting a 7+ for the camera with the optical zoom lense and the portrait feature. My kids are teenagers and getting them to even let you take a picture of them is like pulling teeth, but when they were small we spent a small fortune on cameras and video equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTermView Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 I've been doing more running and hiking lately. The Apple Watch Nike+ looks appealing, too bad it isn't available until late October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oreo Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Unless you're already on an Apple leasing plan OR have an iPhone 5 (or older), I don't really see 7 as a must-have purchase. The forced move of people to Bluetooth head/earphones also wont' help demand. The whole thing was 'meh' today. So you have 256GBs - so what. Who the hell needs 256GBs anyway? There's cloud storage, there's Apple music. 256GBs not the major attraction that Apple is trying to portray it as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Unless you're already on an Apple leasing plan OR have an iPhone 5 (or older), I don't really see 7 as a must-have purchase. The forced move of people to Bluetooth head/earphones also wont' help demand. The whole thing was 'meh' today. So you have 256GBs - so what. Who the hell needs 256GBs anyway? There's cloud storage, there's Apple music. 256GBs not the major attraction that Apple is trying to portray it as. The phones come with wired headphones, they're just with a lightning connector And there's an adapter in the box if you want to keep using your existing headphones. No forcing. https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/inside-iphone-7-why-apple-killed-the-headphone-jack These phones shoot 4k video. Many people don't offload to a computer anymore. Anyone with kids will like having the extra space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 But charging the phone while listening to music is impossible now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 But charging the phone while listening to music is impossible now. Impossible? Any 20$ Bluetooth headphones will allow you to do it. Also, they improved battery life by a few hours per day, which reduces the need to charge while doing something else. At some point you have to move on. Check out the Buzzfeed link above. Reminds me of this: 1984: “No command line?!” 1998: "No floppy drive?!” 2008: "No CD drive!?” 2010: “No Flash?!” 2015: "No USB!?" 2016: "No headphone jack!?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portfolio14 Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 For consumer: the camera/lenses on 7+ is a big step forward, a significant selling point. Finally we have something that is close enough to eliminate the main reason to drag along a DSLR. (Ok, it still isn't a 80-200/2.8 lens.) Big camera manufacturers like Nikon and Canon have really been sleeping all these years. Maybe "simulated" bokeh isn't on their purist radar. For strategy: my guess is W1 will become significant over time. The earpods will evolve into full-blown wearable devices packed with sensors. W=wearable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portfolio14 Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 1984: “No command line?!” 1998: "No floppy drive?!” 2008: "No CD drive!?” 2010: “No Flash?!” 2015: "No USB!?" 2016: "No headphone jack!?" 2007: No physical keyboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now