Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Aug 2016 17:00 UTC
Apple

The European Commission has concluded that Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13 billion to Apple. This is illegal under EU state aid rules, because it allowed Apple to pay substantially less tax than other businesses. Ireland must now recover the illegal aid.

That sound you hear? That's the sound of a house of cards tumbling down.

There's quite a lot of misinformation on the web about this whole thing. First and foremost, the crux of the matter here is that it's the EU's job to protect the internal market, and to ensure that there's a level playing field between its various member states, and it does this through a number of regulations, laws, and codes that member states must adhere to. Whether you, personally, agree with this goal or not is irrelevant; Ireland is part of the EU single market and signed the dotted line - and this comes with the responsibility of implementing, adhering to, and upholding said regulations, laws, and codes.

Second, the EU claims that the special deals the Irish government gave to Apple are a form of illegal state aid; something many other companies have been fined and punished for as well. It's just that with a company the size of Apple, and the extensiveness of the tax-lowering deal Ireland gave to Apple, the illegal state aid easily reaches monstrous proportions.

Third, this isn't some EU manhunt or vendetta specifically targeting American companies; European companies have been fined time and time again for shady practices as well. And, just to be pedantic - technically speaking, Apple itself (the American company) isn't paying these taxes; various European shell companies owned and created by Apple are.

Fourth, there's a distinct and clear public opinion in Europe - and in the US as well, see e.g. the rise and popularity of Bernie Sanders - that seemingly, laws do not seem to apply to the extremely rich and wealthy. The EU and various member state governments - including my own - are starting to adapt to public opinion, taking concrete steps to end these shady tax deals and tax avoidance schemes that allow large, wealthy companies to pay effectively little to no taxes, while us 'normal' people and small business owners pay our fair share.

The main sticking point here is that the EU wants to makes sure that merely being rich and large should not give a company undue benefits that competitors simply cannot compete against. Proper capitalism only works when there's a level playing field where competition is based on merit, and not on who can dangle the biggest sack of money in front of the Irish or Dutch governments.

Apple, in response, published a deeply American (i.e., overtly sappy tugging-at-the-heartstrings nonsense) and cringe-inducing open letter to European consumers, and, of course, the ruling will be appealed. I can't wait until Apple is brought to its knees and forced to pay the taxes it owes for participating in the EU single market and the use of our infrastructure.

Google, Amazon, Starbucks, and everyone else, wherever from - you're next.

Thread beginning with comment 633688
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
InterestingSmallTalk
Member since:
2016-08-31

Why should we agree to be taxed?
What value does EU or any other government add?
They get us into needless wars.
They do not protect borders.
They believe in their inherent right to read all correspondence, texts, turn on your phone microphone. Store your license plate picture/location indefinitely. Record your phone location at all times. And they share all this with foreign governments the world over (I guess they are competent on leaning on throat of tech companies).

They spend our children's money when they deficit spend and print money which destroys our savings.

They fail to protect our private information from hackers. They crack down on free speech. They crack down on children's lemonade stands.

Taxes are not free: why do you think businesses think twice before hiring?
Why are wages (after taxes) stagnant?

Pull back the curtain and be honest: these people we send >50% of earnings to are all idiots. They carry the impression of 'C-' student prevaricators, rose-colored-glasses wearers who put their OWN interests first.

Apple isn't naive (fix growing list of iTunes, maps, and Siri software disasters please), but taxes are a distraction. The EU could cut $16 Billion from their bloated budget tomorrow and return it to taxpayers if they set their priorities correctly. Government needs to have a lot smaller budget (omg balanced budget!) in line with minimal value they add to the people.

Reply Score: -2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

InterestingSmallTalk,

I can't speak for this specific case or the EU, but generally corporations in the US are extremely two-faced about government benefits and taxation. They say they don't want big government, and that's fine to the extent that our needs are being covered by employment. But therein lies the problem: companies are dropping benefits that were once provided to the working class. They have been more than happy to shift the burden of supporting families and retirees towards government programs, but at the same time they get offended when the tax bill comes in. The need for government to provide services is a *direct consequence* a corporations failing to provide them.

https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/retiree-health-benefits-facing-...

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/12/15/370937264/small...

Pretending they get nothing in return is naive and insincere. Companies once paid for academic training, health care, pensions. That has changed in a big way and today's companies have shifted these costs to government. It would be fine, except that now they don't want to pay their taxes either. They don't want to provide the benefits, they don't want to pay taxes, they don't want to raise wages...taken to it's logical conclusion it means that corporations are fine with a decreasing standard of living if it means they can increase profits, and that's not ok.

Here's the thing, corporations are just a means to and end. The goal was never for society to serve corporate interests. If corporations are becoming unwilling or unable to increase our quality of life, then maybe we should be asking if corporations, as a legal construct, have outlived their usefulness to society in their current form.

Edited 2016-08-31 05:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Pace of change on business is Darwinian. On politics, is -well- open, consented, 'democratic'...

This is how it should -surprisingly-.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

[I agree in the actual global mood toward Corporative behavior, Alfman]

Reply Parent Score: 2

dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

But, you know? A slowly evolved crocodile shouldn't be defenseless confronting a quickly evolved feline.

More disturbed I am about the apparent fragility of Governments confronting Corporative misbehaviors.

Reply Parent Score: 2

mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

InterestingSmallTalk,

I can't speak for this specific case or the EU, but generally corporations in the US are extremely two-faced about government benefits and taxation. They say they don't want big government, and that's fine to the extent that our needs are being covered by employment.


Actually, governments are extremely two-faced about taxation. Governments want to hand-out tax advantages to their chosen winners via loopholes, and complain when the businesses they didn't choose take advantage of them.

But therein lies the problem: companies are dropping benefits that were once provided to the working class. They have been more than happy to shift the burden of supporting families and retirees towards government programs, but at the same time they get offended when the tax bill comes in.


One of the reason this happens is that governments the world over prop up failing enterprises all the time on the back of the successful ones rather than use tax receipts where most companies wouldn't care one way or the other. (see how governments are trying to regulate Uber out of existence through ridiculous means, such as the requirement for Uber to have call centres in London if it wants to operate there - not in the UK, but in London proper).

The need for government to provide services is a *direct consequence* a corporations failing to provide them....

Here's the thing, corporations are just a means to and end. The goal was never for society to serve corporate interests. If corporations are becoming unwilling or unable to increase our quality of life, then maybe we should be asking if corporations, as a legal construct, have outlived their usefulness to society in their current form.


Corporations exist because they serve society's interests. If they didn't, they wouldn't have survived this long. it would be very difficult to devise something to replace corporations that wouldn't look like and behave like corporations without permanently stunting and even reversing growth. If something better existed, it would be here now.

Reply Parent Score: 1

oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

Why should we agree to be taxed?
What value does EU or any other government add?


In the EU, just off the top of my head:
(a) Police and security, so you don't have to worry about armed mobs raiding your warehouse on a regular basis;
(b) Well-maintained roads, so you can actually get your goods from one place to another;
(c) Independent courts and a strong system of private law, so you know your contracts will be enforced quickly and reliably if they are breached;
(d) Reasonably good state-funded education, giving you a good supply of literate workers to choose from without having to spend years training them;
(e) A high standard of living for workers, which is why it is considerably easier to persuade talented employees to move to Dublin than it is to persuade them to move to Bogota

Of course states aren't perfect and I'm no fan of ever-growing government, but it is utterly contrary to facts to pretend that European governments don't give companies anything for their money.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

They get us into needless wars.

Yeah....and who benefits financially from wars?

They do not protect borders.

Uh..protect them from what and who?

Record your phone location at all times.

No, that would be the telco's. You know, private enterprises.

They fail to protect our private information from hackers

You could argue that protecting your private information is the responsibility of the private entity that is storing it. In fact, that makes perfect sense.

Taxes are not free

Yes? No? WTF? This statement makes no sense.

Edited 2016-08-31 10:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

Kr1ll1n Member since:
2007-04-28

Brexit showed that EU membership hurts the local economy, if the FTSE 100 is any indication.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stoc...

Reply Parent Score: 1