• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Apple face HUGE tax bill

PeteEU said:
You brought up Airbus.. and that has everything to do with the US.
Click to expand...
The US didn't give Boeing federal tax breaks until AFTER Airbus became a government subsidized monopoly in Europe - after. The state of Washington didn't require Boeing to pay any taxes in 2014 which caused a stink, but Boeing had to pay over a half billion in state taxes to Washington state in 2015. There's more than just Boeing in the US. They don't have a complete monopoly like Airbus.

Yes, I brought up Airbus, because you were saying that state subsidies were illegal in the EU, and that ran contrary to the facts surrounding Airbus and some other major companies within the EU. I didn't mention the US, or discuss why Airbus is given subsidies, and I damn sure didn't ask why. You telling me why was a diversion tactic to deflect from the fact that you said subsidies were illegal and companies such as Apple that receive subsidies are illegal and evil, when the facts of reality are completely different.

That has nothing to do with the US and everything to do with the EU.



PeteEU said:
They are illegal unless approved.

Case search ? Competition - European Commission

Approval usually happens when the aid does not distort the market or is in the interest of economic and financial stability.
Click to expand...
So, I was correct - it matters which country is giving what aid to which company. Totally subjective favoritism.


PeteEU said:
With Airbus, the competition is worldwide, not within the EU.
Click to expand...
Because the EU has made them a government owned monopoly. Socialism at it's very worst.



PeteEU said:
Of course we can because it is not the same. The EU commissions job is to secure the best possible internal trading conditions within the EU, a system free of artificial barriers and such. Outside the EU, all is fair in love and war, and in your example the battle between Airbus and Boeing has been going on for decades and has been past the WTO system. The EU accuses the US of giving Boeing subsidies via its military wing and to counter this, the Airbus countries back Airbus with funding when and if needed. It does not happen so much anymore, since Airbus is profitable.
Click to expand...

And, that's just one of the reason that the British voted to leave the EU, and why if the EU doesn't change it's rules like these that it is doomed to fail over time.

I'm going to ignore the additional US bashing since I didn't bring up Boeing or the US and you only used it as a dodge and excuse to deflect from your inaccurate condemnation of Apple, which is becoming more and more clear was due to your well documented anti-US prejudices.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The US didn't give Boeing federal tax breaks until AFTER Airbus became a government subsidized monopoly in Europe - after.
Click to expand...

Where did I say tax breaks? I said subsidies.

The state of Washington didn't require Boeing to pay any taxes in 2014 which caused a stink, but Boeing had to pay over a half billion in state taxes to Washington state in 2015. There's more than just Boeing in the US. They don't have a complete monopoly like Airbus.
Click to expand...

The bolded.. horse****. Again I said subsidies, not tax breaks. Boeing and Airbus are the two biggest by far aircraft manufactures in the world. Had Airbus not been established, the Boeing would be a near monopoly.

Yes, I brought up Airbus, because you were saying that state subsidies were illegal in the EU, and that ran contrary to the facts surrounding Airbus and some other major companies within the EU. I didn't mention the US, or discuss why Airbus is given subsidies, and I damn sure didn't ask why. You telling me why was a diversion tactic to deflect from the fact that you said subsidies were illegal and companies such as Apple that receive subsidies are illegal and evil, when the facts of reality are completely different.
Click to expand...

You brought up Airbus, and when you bring up Airbus and state aid, you have to bring up Boeing and the US.. they go hand in hand.

So, I was correct - it matters which country is giving what aid to which company. Totally subjective favoritism.
Click to expand...

No. You were incorrect. Ireland has had state aid approved before. It comes down to the aid type, and if it "breaks" the competitive nature of the market.

Because the EU has made them a government owned monopoly. Socialism at it's very worst.
Click to expand...

LOL no, the EU has in fact nothing to do with Airbus. It is run by several countries and their old time aviation industrial complex companies basically. The EU has just not categorized Airbus as a problem for the internal market.

And, that's just one of the reason that the British voted to leave the EU, and why if the EU doesn't change it's rules like these that it is doomed to fail over time.
Click to expand...

What? That someone actually fights for the free market and the consumer?

I'm going to ignore the additional US bashing since I didn't bring up Boeing or the US and you only used it as a dodge and excuse to deflect from your inaccurate condemnation of Apple, which is becoming more and more clear was due to your well documented anti-US prejudices.
Click to expand...

you cant talk Airbus without talking Boeing. Airbus was set up to counter Boeing for **** sake!
 
Beaudreaux said:
Thank you for providing those documents. I read 101 and the announcement in the other link.

I have to say, that if I were Apple, I would tell the EU to get stuffed, and if it looked as though Apple would be forced to pay billions by a real court that has the jurisdiction and power to do so, then if I were Apple I would shut down all operations within the EU and get the hell out before the bill came due. There's no way in hell I would, if I were Apple, pay such an amount of money after doing business in good faith.
Click to expand...

I doubt that you would find many that would agree with "doing business in good faith" argument.. putting your profits in a company with no links to any nation just to avoid taxes is hardly doing business in good faith.

As I said, thanks for providing the documents. However, the actual 101 document didn't show how Apple would be responsible for what Ireland offered to incentivize Apple to do business within Ireland. The announcement document says the commissioner can order Ireland to recover the funds, but doesn't quote where that power comes from and 101 didn't grant that power, and the announcement doesn't say how Apple is guilty of any crime. Not that I can see at first reading, anyway.
Click to expand...

Read the rest of the document. And if you think that Ireland offered this deal, then you are .. well lets not go there. This deal was written and invented by Apple. They have been flaunting it at meetings for decades.

Apple will have to pay 13 billion to Ireland if the European court system opholds the ruling. We shall see, as the appeal process will take years.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I have to say, that if I were Apple, I would tell the EU to get stuffed, and if it looked as though Apple would be forced to pay billions by a real court that has the jurisdiction and power to do so, then if I were Apple I would shut down all operations within the EU and get the hell out before the bill came due. There's no way in hell I would, if I were Apple, pay such an amount of money after doing business in good faith.
Click to expand...

Thankfully you are not running Apple.

By the above idiocy you have just forfeited Apple's second largest market, after the US. See here.

Ireland is not some sub-rated "also noted" country in the EU. Neither is it in the "heart of Europe", nor are its people particularly multilingual. Like the UK, it offers US companies people who speak English, and can manufacture products at a cost only marginally more expensive than in the US - which means nothing to Apple that produces in China.

Some people (with blinders on) think companies should be race-horses that win races at the necessary speed. Companies, however, also have a responsibility to markets in which they make their profits.

Apple has been "riding free" in Europe ...

Beaudreaux said:
Apple would be responsible for what Ireland offered to incentivize Apple to do business within Ireland. The announcement document says the commissioner can order Ireland to recover the funds, but doesn't quote where that power comes from and 101 didn't grant that power, and the announcement doesn't say how Apple is guilty of any crime. Not that I can see at first reading, anyway.
Click to expand...

Why should any EU country "incentivize" any company to set-up operations in the world's largest market (by number of potential customers)? (The EU population is greater than the US, even if GDP per capita is lower. Meaning it has a long-term business - and therefore profit - potential that is at least that of the US.)

Apple would not be responsible for "omitted tax", unless, of course, Ireland should want to leave the EU. IREXIT, anyone? Not bloody likely. The EU has every right to pursue Ireland because, by attracting American firms by means of lower-taxation, Ireland has deprived other EU countries from said taxes, which would have been otherwise paid in those countries.

The damages are enormous, and there are probably a good deal of late-night worrying in the Irish PM's office.

Ireland should have known better. Taxes are taxes, they make governments go round.

And what the Yanks should learn is that taxation is what pays for much needed Public Services, which are otherwise too costly in the US to provide. For instance, Europe has very low-cost National Health Service as well as nearly free Tertiary Education.

Both of which cost an arm-and-a-leg in the US because they are privatized service-industries - (pun intended!) ... !
__________________________
 
Lafayette said:
Thankfully you are not running Apple.

By the above idiocy you have just forfeited Apple's second largest market, after the US. See here.

Ireland is not some sub-rated "also noted" country in the EU. Neither is it in the "heart of Europe", nor are its people particularly multilingual. Like the UK, it offers US companies people who speak English, and can manufacture products at a cost only marginally more expensive than in the US - which means nothing to Apple that produces in China.

Some people (with blinders on) think companies should be race-horses that win races at the necessary speed. Companies, however, also have a responsibility to markets in which they make their profits.

Apple has been "riding free" in Europe ...



Why should any EU country "incentivize" any company to set-up operations in the world's largest market (by number of potential customers)? (The EU population is greater than the US, even if GDP per capita is lower. Meaning it has a long-term business - and therefore profit - potential that is at least that of the US.)

Apple would not be responsible for "omitted tax", unless, of course, Ireland should want to leave the EU. IREXIT, anyone? Not bloody likely. The EU has every right to pursue Ireland because, by attracting American firms by means of lower-taxation, Ireland has deprived other EU countries from said taxes, which would have been otherwise paid in those countries.

The damages are enormous, and there are probably a good deal of late-night worrying in the Irish PM's office.

Ireland should have known better. Taxes are taxes, they make governments go round.

And what the Yanks should learn is that taxation is what pays for much needed Public Services, which are otherwise too costly in the US to provide. For instance, Europe has very low-cost National Health Service as well as nearly free Tertiary Education.

Both of which cost an arm-and-a-leg in the US because they are privatized service-industries - (pun intended!) ... !
__________________________
Click to expand...

Why would anyone respond (beyond this) to such a hate filled screed of a post?
 
Lafayette said:
Thankfully you are not running Apple.

By the above idiocy you have just forfeited Apple's second largest market, after the US. See here.

Ireland is not some sub-rated "also noted" country in the EU. Neither is it in the "heart of Europe", nor are its people particularly multilingual. Like the UK, it offers US companies people who speak English, and can manufacture products at a cost only marginally more expensive than in the US - which means nothing to Apple that produces in China.

Some people (with blinders on) think companies should be race-horses that win races at the necessary speed. Companies, however, also have a responsibility to markets in which they make their profits.

Apple has been "riding free" in Europe ...



Why should any EU country "incentivize" any company to set-up operations in the world's largest market (by number of potential customers)? (The EU population is greater than the US, even if GDP per capita is lower. Meaning it has a long-term business - and therefore profit - potential that is at least that of the US.)

Apple would not be responsible for "omitted tax", unless, of course, Ireland should want to leave the EU. IREXIT, anyone? Not bloody likely. The EU has every right to pursue Ireland because, by attracting American firms by means of lower-taxation, Ireland has deprived other EU countries from said taxes, which would have been otherwise paid in those countries.

The damages are enormous, and there are probably a good deal of late-night worrying in the Irish PM's office.

Ireland should have known better. Taxes are taxes, they make governments go round.

And what the Yanks should learn is that taxation is what pays for much needed Public Services, which are otherwise too costly in the US to provide. For instance, Europe has very low-cost National Health Service as well as nearly free Tertiary Education.

Both of which cost an arm-and-a-leg in the US because they are privatized service-industries - (pun intended!) ... !
__________________________
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it goes like this...

All things EU = Socialist = Automatically bad

All things US = Utopia = Automatically good

You can't argue nuance and balance in black and white and you can't rationally argue someone out of a position that they have reached irrationally.
 
William Rea said:
Unfortunately, it goes like this...

All things EU = Socialist = Automatically bad

All things US = Utopia = Automatically good

You can't argue nuance and balance in black and white and you can't rationally argue someone out of a position that they have reached irrationally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. For dunces who have never had an education.

Social Democracy is now practiced in a "nation" called the EU comprised of 530 million people. Social Democracy is not practiced in the US, a nation of 320 million people. The economic potential of the EU is clearly larger than the US on a population level. Moreover, the amount of income is grossly mis-distributed in the US - 10% of households obtain more than half off all income generated.

Ok, Ok, the US has a better GDP per capita - but that's about all, since that GDP is very badly apportioned in terms of personal income per capita. In terms of "life style", which accounts for other non-economic considerations, both countries are about even.

By the numbers, the Europeans are less "better off" than Americans:
GDP per capita (PPP)
- EU $37,850,
- US $55,800
Advantage USA, by 47% more.

But, by other measures - such as Health Care, Tertiary Education, etc. - the EU with much lower costs is better off. Moreover, a study conducted by the magazine US N&WR for "Best Quality of Life" showed mostly European countries in the top 15 rankings. See here. The US came in 14th.

It's all a matter of how one chooses the basis of comparison ...
_____________________________
 
Irish government is stupid. They already changed tax rules so that companies pay more, and that did not cost a single company running for the hills. Fact is, Ireland has one of the lowest corporation taxes in the EU, is within the EU and has a large educated English speaking population. Companies go there for these reasons. None of them had a similar tax arrangement as Apple, and were in fact at a massive disadvantage... and yet they chose to set up shop in Ireland. Hell if I was a company in Ireland that followed the normal tax rules, and found out that one of my competitors had such a massive tax advantage over me... and I could not get the same advantage.. time to sue!

Now the Irish government is going to appeal the decision.. lets see if it passes parliament first.. The opposition is backing it in principle, but there is a lot of rumblings from the opposition and even among the government figures.. it is hard to explain to the electorate that they dont want 13 billion euros.

Now they are not doing it to protect Apple, but to protect their reputation and their tax system. They are running a damn fine line here.. the 13 billion would fund their national health service for a year I believe... try explaining that to the electorate. On top of that, the changes to Irish tax law that happened over the last 2 years has not caused any problems with multi-nationals, so why should this single case that involved a single company give any problems? No.. I suspect this is a face saving attempt by politicians pure and simple. They got caught in illegal state aid to the richest and most profitable company in the world, and if they accept that then they lose a lot of face.. plus open themselves up to lawsuits I suspect. It would be political dynamite in a national election.. because the government cant prove that Apple has actually provided anything to Ireland over the years... because Apple keeps all this a secret and anything they do let out is basically a fairy tale as one analyst said yesterday.

In the end this will go to appeals, and we will find out if the court system sees it as a tax issue or a state aid issue. I am guessing based on the evidence and previous case history, this will fall in the EU commissions favor because of the whole "transfer to an internal entity that is based in no nation". There has been on case already on this type of situation, where the EU commission lost, and there are 2 others in the appeal system but they did not involve this kind of devious underhanded methods as Apples in Ireland. We shall see.

In the mean time, Apple is obligated to put 13 billion in esgro until the case is sorted.
 
PeteEU said:
Irish government is stupid. They already changed tax rules so that companies pay more, and that did not cost a single company running for the hills. Fact is, Ireland has one of the lowest corporation taxes in the EU, is within the EU and has a large educated English speaking population. Companies go there for these reasons.
Click to expand...

The matter is simple. It is illegal for any nation in the EU to offer a "sweetheart" deal to any specific company thus giving them preferential treatment. Which was clearly the case, since Ireland wanted badly to promote local manufacturing. Apple was not the only company. (I visited manufacturing facilities of the American IT-company I worked at numerous times in Ireland. Always enjoyable, the people are so friendly.)

But nobody suspected that Apple was given preferential taxation treatment. It is unfortunate, but the EU agreements are a formal part of the EU's Tax Law. Apple will be paying the damages ($15B), and given the total sum of profits that Apple has off shore (almost $180B), the fine is almost derisory at less than 10% of untaxed profits left offshore ...

I am an American citizen living abroad. I must pay taxes on all revenue above $95K.

Why not Apple ... ?
________________________
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
What does the US have to do with this? You said that state subsidies/tax reductions and the like are illegal in the EU. Yet now, you say that if the EU approves them, for the companies and countries which they like, then they are not illegal.
Click to expand...

You are purposefully confusing everything.

Consider the recent KCX air-tanker competition for which the DoD chose (of course) Boeing. EADS (Airbus) conjoint with Northrup had proposed a model that the DoD finally refused, opting for Boeing.

I am mentioning this because, though the competition was fierce, the Boeing model chosen was not necessarily "better" in any respect from the Airbus model - since both offerings were based upon currently produced models. Both airplanes proposed were to be built in the US. (Meaning that, for the Northrup option, new jobs would have been created. Whereas for Boeing, the aircraft coming of the production line would be refitted as air-tankers.)

And America gets all hot 'n bothered when an American company plays low-ball to avoid taxes in Ireland?

You and Tim Cook should come off your high-horses ...
__________________________
 
Lafayette said:
You are purposefully confusing everything.

Consider the recent KCX air-tanker competition for which the DoD chose (of course) Boeing. EADS (Airbus) conjoint with Northrup had proposed a model that the DoD finally refused, opting for Boeing.

I am mentioning this because, though the competition was fierce, the Boeing model chosen was not necessarily "better" in any respect from the Airbus model - since both offerings were based upon currently produced models. Both airplanes proposed were to be built in the US. (Meaning that, for the Northrup option, new jobs would have been created. Whereas for Boeing, the aircraft coming of the production line would be refitted as air-tankers.)

And America gets all hot 'n bothered when an American company plays low-ball to avoid taxes in Ireland?

You and Tim Cook should come off your high-horses ...
__________________________
Click to expand...

Actually Airbus won the bid.. the first time. Congress meddled and after 2 more rounds finally forced a Boeing win. It took like a decade of political meddling before Boeing got the contract it never should have had.
 
PeteEU said:
Actually Airbus won the bid.. the first time. Congress meddled and after 2 more rounds finally forced a Boeing win. It took like a decade of political meddling before Boeing got the contract it never should have had.
Click to expand...

The VP of sales of Airbus (here in France) is a Yank. Guess whose brother is also a Senator from Vermont.

And yet, not even that was enough.

So, ask yourself: How much did Boeing Management have to pay Congressionals to overturn the original decision and give the contract to them?

There WILL be a tanker version from Airbus. And they will sell it throughout Europe.

And Boeing can go eat grass. Some people have to learn the hard way ...
___________________________
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
The VP of sales of Airbus (here in France) is a Yank. Guess whose brother is also a Senator from Vermont.

And yet, not even that was enough ...
______________________________
Click to expand...

Of course not.. Boeing has far more people in Congress.
 
PeteEU said:
Of course not.. Boeing has far more people in Congress.
Click to expand...

Dontcha just luv the way business is SO COMPETITIVE in the US?

And how only the "best" company wins based upon its merits? And, of course, so do the stock-options go to management personnel who merit them the most!

I wasn't there, of course, but historically all this reminds me of Rome before its fall ...
___________________________________________
 
Lafayette said:
Not in the European legislature they don't ...
________________
Click to expand...

Nope because we have very specific rules on such things so politicians cant meddle. Hence the French military now buying German guns... or the British paying the French to build their nuclear plants..
 
PeteEU said:
Nope because we have very specific rules on such things so politicians cant meddle. Hence the French military now buying German guns... or the British paying the French to build their nuclear plants..
Click to expand...

Good examples, but hardly significant. Especially the nuclear plant in the UK, which just might not get built at all.

Still, the French have done very well to export their expertise in nuclear-energy, particularly in China. It's amongst the world's best, and Uncle Sam could indeed use the technology to unplug itself from highly-polluting carbon-based fuels.

The problem is twofold:
*The European Greens, particularly in Germany, who have convinced everybody that all they need is a windmill in their back yard and photovoltaic cells on the roof. Which, in Germany, will not even suffice for half the electricity necessary in large conglomerations where nearly half the population lives,
*And BigCarbon in the US (coal and oil) that just wont let go, and nobody in the present Replicant Congress will force them to let go.

It is difficult to imagine why we Yanks do not understand that an obstinate Replicant Party (bought and manipulated by BigMoney) is almost solely responsible for the present plight of the nation ...
_________________
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom