View Single Post
  #97  
Old April 4th 18, 02:40 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.apps,rec.photo.digital
RJH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default Can Mac Adobe Illustrator read in a Microsoft PowerPoint withfonts?

On 03/04/2018 19:53, nospam wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

Exxon/Mobil has to drill oil wells, run tankers, clean
up spills.... how is it that Exxon/Mobil and Apple are
both near the top in profits? How is it that Apple
managed to collect a $215B tax evasion stash offshore
in the space of 7 years? *Billion!* That's about $30B/year.
And that's only the money they're hiding to cheat on taxes.

apple has not evaded paying *any* taxes. apple pays every tax dollar
they owe.


I think s/he meant tax *avoidance*. And Apple most certainly does avoid tax.


no they don't. apple does *not* evade or avoid paying taxes. period.


They avoid paying tax. Period. Why did they shift off-shoring tax from
Ireland to Jersey? Partly to save face. But to save face over avoiding
$14B in tax. By avoiding it in a more obscure way.

apple, like other companies as well as individuals, pay the taxes they
owe, however, they *minimize* it to the extent that the tax code
allows. in fact, as a public company, they're legally *obligated* to do
so.


Nonsense. There is no law that says a company cannot pay tax at a full
and fair local rate.

judge learned hand,
http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_b...x-quotes-4-5.h
tml
Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low
as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best
pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase
one's taxes.
Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)


May? Why not must, if it's 'the law'
?
Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.
Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes
any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced
exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of
morals is mere cant.
Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) - dissenting
opinion


Tax *is* a moral construct. There is nothing intrinsic or innate about
tax, and law is a feeble attempt to uphold an ethical position - that
tax is paid on a proportion of profit (in this case).

And using a legal case to underpin a legal argument is hardly the point
at issue. Avoidance is legal. Avoidance is also about moral and ethical
issues. Rationality, if you like.

I'd happily revise my opinion in the light of a coherent moral or
ethical position on Apple's behaviour.

I would argue, quite successfully, that Apple pays nothing like every
tax dollar they should.


you would fail incredibly hard at such an argument.


Just internet search "apple tax avoidance" (in quotes if you want - 30k+
hits). It really isn't my argument.

apple might not pay what *you* think they should but that's very
different.


Again, it's not just me. I may well be in a minority, but I don't think
I am.

*you* didn't write the tax code, so what *you* think apple or any other
company should pay is completely irrelevant.

and why single out apple? amazon, who paid nothing compared to the ~11b
that apple paid in fy'17, along with microsoft, facebook, google, cisco
and the rest, all use the tax code to their advantage.


Agreed. They all avoid tax. I'm singling out Apple because they're the
object of discussion. I don't consider them to be the worst by a long chalk.

I avoid tax sometimes, and it's wrong.

I really do have a problem with Cook on this, and it's one of the few
occasions where he gets aggressive because he knows he's wrong. There's
no need. Apple is a business whose prime aim is the accumulation of
money and shareholder return. Like a lot of business. Other concerns -
such as workers' protection, tax paid in the spirit of community,
sourcing raw materials sustainably - are secondary. Just say so. People
will still buy Apple.

I know all this and I do.


--
Cheers, Rob