Slashdot Mirror


Apple Is Moving Its Entire International iTunes Business To Ireland (billboard.com)

Starting February 5th, Apple will be moving its entire international iTunes business from Luxembourg to its European headquarters in Cork, Ireland, according to a note sent to developers this week. The non-U.S. iTunes business consists of Apple Music and the individual stores for iTunes, iBooks and Apps. Internationally, iTunes is available in over 140 countries, while Apple Music is streaming in roughly 115 territories. Billboard reports: Apple announced its intentions to move its iTunes biz to Ireland in September when it transferred an estimated $9 billion of iTunes assets. At that time it also shuffled all existing developer contracts to Ireland-based Apple Distribution International. Like Luxembourg, Ireland is known for being a low-tax haven for international businesses. Last month, both Apple and Ireland announced they would appeal a record $14 billion tax bill from the European Commission, which earlier found it had been underpaying tax on profits across the European bloc from 2003 to 2014. Apple today is the biggest private employer in Cork, the Irish Republic's second-largest city, with a workforce exceeding 5,500. Economists estimate Apple's Cork operation pumps around $17 billion annually in salaries, tax and investment into the Irish economy.

114 comments

  1. So that's, what by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two guys and a duck? They're moving one tax dodge to another tax dodge. Probably to pressure Ireland to fight the EU off. They'll win out in the end, and the loser will be their taxpayers...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:So that's, what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the duck have a kinky vagina.

    2. Re:So that's, what by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They'll win out in the end, and the loser will be their taxpayers...

      From the summary:

      Apple today is the biggest private employer in Cork, the Irish Republic's second-largest city, with a workforce exceeding 5,500. Economists estimate Apple's Cork operation pumps around $17 billion annually in salaries, tax and investment into the Irish economy.

      $17,000,000 annually divided by 5,500 employees is over $3,000,000 per employee per annum of economic impact. If that's what it means to be a loser, then please sign me up! I'll talk to my city council and I am relatively certain I can get them on board.

    3. Re:So that's, what by mars-nl · · Score: 1

      And what do these 5500 millionaires actually *do* there exactly? Isn't iTunes like a webshop of digital products?

    4. Re:So that's, what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even fictional constructs I don't think get to consider the taxes paid by their employees, taxes paid by the corporation, -and- assets simply owned by the construct ("corporation") as an altruistic contribution to the country they do business in.

      $3,000,000 per employee? Your own calculation should tell you this is implausible.

      In any case, it doesn't matter. You're isolating the economic impact to specifically where Apple would like you to--Ireland. The reality is that the money "gained" by Ireland is money lost to the U.S., which still requires taxes for operations. Those taxes will then be borne by other corporations and individuals, which will result in, you guessed it, higher prices for other goods, paid by companies world-wide. Gaming the system to play one country against another does not result in a magical cost-free gain to the "winning" country, or to the public at large. It just benefits Apple, creating a race to the bottom among "bidders"--which ultimately means each country's taxpayers, who "bid" with or without their assent, backed by their government's force.

    5. Re:So that's, what by gravewax · · Score: 1

      yep these will be economists paid for by Apple or Ireland to try and make the deal look like an economic benefit for the country rather than the intended tax dodge that it is.

    6. Re:So that's, what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $3,000,000 per employee? Your own calculation should tell you this is implausible.

      If you're not even going to read to the end of the sentence, why would anyone bother to read your entire post?

    7. Re:So that's, what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      $3,000,000 per employee? Your own calculation should tell you this is implausible.

      If you're not even going to read to the end of the sentence, why would anyone bother to read your entire post?

      If the parent can't even annotate $17,000,000,000 properly, and holds the idiotic fucking assumption that a claim is $17 billion of economic impact is even remotely true for a tax haven, why should I bother listening any further?

      This is a financial smokescreen to "create" one tax haven to dodge another. Nothing more. It's pretty obvious that Cork, Ireland is not comprised of millionaires living in a city of gold.

    8. Re:So that's, what by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Good grief, is there really anyone really that bad at grade school math on this science-based web page? $17,000,000 divided by 5,500 is $3,090.91. Thousands, not millions. Geeeezzzz...

    9. Re:So that's, what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good grief, is there really anyone really that bad at grade school math on this science-based web page? $17,000,000 divided by 5,500 is $3,090.91. Thousands, not millions. Geeeezzzz...

      Good grief, is there really anyone really that bad at grade school reading on this science-based web page? The summary says $17 billion. Therefore it would be millions, not thousands, per employee. Idiot.

    10. Re:So that's, what by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      Good grief, is there really anyone really that bad at grade school math on this science-based web page? $17,000,000 divided by 5,500 is $3,090.91. Thousands, not millions. Geeeezzzz...

      Good grief, is there really anyone really that bad at grade school reading on this science-based web page? The summary says $17 billion. Therefore it would be millions, not thousands, per employee. Idiot.

      He was quoting the figure used by El Cubano in the following paragraph :

      $17,000,000 annually divided by 5,500 employees is over $3,000,000 per employee per annum of economic impact. If that's what it means to be a loser, then please sign me up! I'll talk to my city council and I am relatively certain I can get them on board.

    11. Re:So that's, what by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      So that's, what... two guys and a duck?

      Don't be ridiculous, they wouldn't disrespect the duck like that... the guys on the other hand...

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    12. Re: So that's, what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I would guess 99% of the employees make less than $30000 a year, and the remaining 100s of millions going to one person... Probably the CEO.

    13. Re:So that's, what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can call them tax dodges but Apple isn't doing anything illegal, unethical or immoral. Tax rates are a legitimate reason to base operations in one country instead of another. If I was an Apple shareholder I'd be pissed if they didn't take tax impact into account when locating international business units, because that would be my money they'd be wasting.

    14. Re:So that's, what by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Yep. Don't use 'em. Don't use their products. Don't care. Go away and die.

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    15. Re:So that's, what by RandyHill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yea, money gained in Ireland is not money "lost to the U.S.". These are profits from international operations, Apple already paid taxes on them in the countries where they were earned. We don't get to tax businesses in other countries because they don't generate costs in the US.

      Imagine your US company opens a subsidiary in France. That subsidiary pays 33% in corporate income taxes. If your subsidiary was forced to also pay taxes in the US (California), then your total tax rate is 33% France, 9% California, and 35% federal, giving you about a 60% total tax rate. How well do you think your subsidiary is going to do competing against French companies when it has nearly double the tax rate, and barely is able to reinvest a third of it's profits?

      US companies are only successful internationally because they don't have to bring profits back and can park them in low tax havens like Ireland. If that was ever taken away it wouldn't generate more taxes, it would decimate the ability of US companies to expand internationally. There would be a huge incentive to re-incorporate overseas to escape what would be the worst corporate tax system ever devised.

      Remember, corporate income taxes are a tax on new capital, it's like eating our seed corn. Corporate income taxes are the dumbest possible way to tax, they are a tax on investment, new business formation, etc, leading people to invest less, create fewer jobs, etc. This year it's likely to pass a tax holiday that will allow repatriation of foreign profits at low rates, and at least $2 trillion dollar in capital will come back in the US. The question we should ask is, why a holiday, why not just abolish it?

      Federal corporate income taxes accounted for only 9% of all federal tax receipts. Abolish it, and increase dividend and capital gains rates to regular income tax rates, and it would generate more tax revenues. Now you'd have a system where investment was no longer taxed, just when it was consumed, leading to more investment, more jobs and a higher standard of living.

    16. Re:So that's, what by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      The loser will be the taxpayer, as the share of wealth divided by employees is NOT 17 billion, but 17 Billion minus the ROI and financialization gains
      Think "falling wages" and "Less tax paid out".
      Someone will make up the loss
      And that person won't be a 0.001% er

    17. Re:So that's, what by Luthair · · Score: 1

      One imagines they are support, so probably mostly minimum wage drones.

    18. Re:So that's, what by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      I made an error there. I definitely meant $17,000,000,000 / 5,500 with the $17,000,000,000 from the article. It would have been better to just use $17B.

  2. Trump's not gonna be happy... by surfdaddy · · Score: 1

    I expect a Twitter storm within hours on this one. Something about taxes and jobs.

    1. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would Trump be upset? He's the one who said paying taxes is for losers. Apple's just following in his footsteps.

    2. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I expect a Twitter storm within hours on this one. Something about taxes and jobs.

      These jobs are moving from Luxembourg to Ireland. Trump only cares about jobs moving out of America. An obvious remedy is to avoid creating jobs in America in the first place.

    3. Re: Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Yrump, you can convince him that Luxembourg is part of the US by mentioning waffles, and soon the Twitstorm will hit the fan.

    4. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1, Troll

      The Pussy Grabber in Chief is going to lower corporate tax from 35% to 15% so America can become tax-friendly like Ireland.

      Except the admitted Sexual Predator in Chief already says he doesn't pay any taxes and he knows full well corporations don't pay taxes, either.

      We've been hearing a lot about Ireland lately, like how Microsoft's cloud service business is booming ever since Microsoft told American 3-letters to fuck off on grabbing people's data from Ireland.

      Recall Trump's visit(s) to Ireland re: golf course?

      That's where that tax-dodging coke head keeps his money, too.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re: Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your alternative facts are far fetched

    6. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      but I don't see compelling evidence that he committed rape.

      Except for that little fact that his first wife accused him of raping her.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We specifically elected the least sexual predatory person between the two. Hillary is a straight up rapist enabler. Trump maybe did a few less than savory things, but I don't see compelling evidence that he committed rape.

      I'm just going to leave this right here.

    8. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen people on slashdot accuse you of rape too. Does that make it a fact? Watch, I'll add another: PopeRatzo raped me. Boom! Fact.

    9. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have seen people on slashdot accuse you of rape too. Does that make it a fact? Watch, I'll add another: PopeRatzo raped me. Boom! Fact.

      Funny thing about the internet. You can check whether stuff has been reported before.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
      http://fusion.net/story/328522...
      http://gawker.com/the-time-don...
      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
      http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
      http://www.inquisitr.com/36114...
      http://time.com/4572925/megyn-...
      http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
      http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/1...

      There. That oughtta do it.

      Now, where is the evidence that PopeRatzo raped you?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    10. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least you gave him a golden shower, right?

    11. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far left wing sites all agree on an attack vector. And this is what /. has sunk to..

    12. Re: Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those are just blogs and tabloids.

    13. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You quoted the rollingstone on rape. That's... cute. Bonus points for gawker.
      Now to support the other AC I'll make a blog saying an AC accuses Ratzo of rape, link to this, and have a second post repeat it as fact. That should have as much merit as your cites.

    14. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by jcr · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Pussy Grabber in Chief is going to lower corporate tax from 35% to 15% so America can become tax-friendly like Ireland.

      You should know that presidents don't get to set tax rates. That's up to the congress.

      corporations don't pay taxes,

      Corporations don't pay taxes, they only collect them. People pay taxes.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    15. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      The Pussy Grabber in Chief is going to lower corporate tax from 35% to 15% so America can become tax-friendly like Ireland.

      Except the admitted Sexual Predator in Chief already says he doesn't pay any taxes and he knows full well corporations don't pay taxes, either.

      We've been hearing a lot about Ireland lately, like how Microsoft's cloud service business is booming ever since Microsoft told American 3-letters to fuck off on grabbing people's data from Ireland.

      Recall Trump's visit(s) to Ireland re: golf course?

      That's where that tax-dodging coke head keeps his money, too.

      Hey, I'm fine with them lowing the tax rate from 35% to 15% as long as there isn't any loopholes, deductions, or any way out of paying the 15% tax rate. After all, most corporations probably end up paying a lot less with the financial games they play.

    16. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I don't see compelling evidence that he committed rape.

      Except for that little fact that his first wife accused him of raping her.

      GP here. I will admit. That is the one rape allegation I might believe. But, it's quite possible his then-wife was embellishing a big fight they had to get a better deal out of the divorce. She doesn't behave toward him like a woman does someone who raped her. She has even disavowed that story. If he did do that act as the court record states, that's really horrible. We've all done some bad things once or twice in our lives. I don't doubt he was a huge asshole to his first wife at all. These things are, unfortunately, not that horrible as presidents go.

    17. Re: Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meet the new boss
      Same as the old boss.
      Well at least Obama was great at lying.

    18. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you've got Chelsea Clinton's Daily Beast, the Rolling Stone that faked that fraternity rape and Gawker reporting this? Lovely. Let's actually read your own damned source, going to the statement by the actual person who was allegedly 'raped':

      “During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

      Funny how it ends up being something hyperbolic said during a divorce trial in the end.

    19. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by KeensMustard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We specifically elected the least sexual predatory person between the two. Hillary is a straight up rapist enabler.

      Number of people Hillary has raped:0. Number of people Donald has raped: probably more than 1. Number of people Donald has molested, by his own admission: many.

      Trump maybe did a few less than savory things, but I don't see compelling evidence that he committed rape.

      So essentially, your evidence that he is not a molester/rapist is that you personally can't believe it. Well, that's powerful testimony indeed.

    20. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Corporations don't pay taxes, they only collect them. People pay taxes.

      Why do you say this?
      Is this because you think corporations do not have their "own" money?

      With that logic, I do not pay taxes either, I am just forwarding some part of my income to the state. If that part becomes large, I move. (Or not :-))

      To me, the difference here is mainly that I (as most of the small buisnesses) do not have the resources for tax optimization.
      Large corporations/wealthy individuals will always pay close to 0 tax, while the smaller ones will pay the full tax.

    21. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might believe it, but you're not going to because she could be looking for more cash? How about the accusation is believable because it's a fucking good reason to divorce some shitstain, when they rape you.

      Assange is "accused" (because it's not even those who are claimed to have been raped making this accusation) of being a rapist, yet you've never accepted that this could be a sting operation by the CIA, considering it "far fetched" at best, a conspiracy theory of "tin foil hat" proportions "most likely".

    22. Re: Trump's not gonna be happy... by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 3

      Yeah, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Obama, all were smoother liars...Well maybe not Nixon, he was just an asshole. And Carter was way too honest for politics...
      But with Trump, We had to create an entirely new brand of lie! Alternative Facts.

      Nixon would of loved that phrase!

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    23. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And the only reason he wasn't busted for it is that in the state in question you couldn't legally rape your own wife. He ripped out some of her hair and then had sex with her against her will, then delayed her alimony payments when she said something about it in public later. What a shitbag.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by p0p0 · · Score: 1

      If all you need is an accusation to condemn someone then tell me this:
      When did you stop beating your wife?

    25. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by jcr · · Score: 0

      Why do you say this?

      Because people like you don't understand it. When you see a corporation you see a big target for looting, and you don't even think about the thousands or millions of shareholders, customers, and employees who will pay the price.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    26. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by gtall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What makes you think Trump gives a flying rat's ass about what he can use to pressure companies? No ranking official in a country or company should ever have a conversation with el Presidente Tweety, he'll only twist it.

      The past is replete with examples. Two of them are when Clapper called him to explain no one in intelligence agencies leaked the Russian hacking probe. Trump turned that into Clapper agrees with Trump on is view that Russian hacking had nothing to do with the election. He had a public tiff with Mexico's president, realized he stepped on his own crank, gives him a call, and then announces they had a very happy and fruitful discussion. I note the Mexican president hasn't asked for new meeting, agreed to pay for Trump's Wall of Ego, or promised to renegotiate NAFTA.

    27. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Actually, the number for Trump is about to go up if you count the miserable refugees the U.S. will no longer be accepting (excepting any lawsuits over Trump's latest ego-gasm).

      We were told he was a baby Christian. Oh? A real Christian would have given most of his wealth to the poor and opened Trump tower to Muslim refugees. The Prosperity Evangelicals supporting that jerk believe that Jesus wants them to be rich. The idea is that they like money, Jesus wants them to be happy, ergo Jesus wants them to be rich. It rather turns Christianity on its head, but that's no problem for Trump. Ethics? He's heard of them but has no personal experience.

    28. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If all you need is an accusation to condemn someone then tell me this:
      When did you stop beating your wife?

      Do you understand that you accusing me of beating my wife is a very different thing from my wife accusing me of beating her?

      When did you stop using basic human reason?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    29. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      evidence that he is not a molester/rapist

      Enlightened moral philosophy you have there. I presume you also think that witches float?

      Also, nice twisting of words, it is not what was said and obviously no even implied.

    30. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      You left out the CEOs. With that and the shareholders, you identified the destructive source of greed.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    31. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      After completion of your first math course, you will learn that avoiding 35% is precisely equivalent to avoiding 15%.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    32. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Clapper. The under oath liar. Right, like you can trust anything coming from that source. What did he say? No one in intelligence leaked Russian hacking probe?

      How does he not understand that everyone stopped trusting him that day?

      I'm not angry about the leaks. Clapper just needs to retire.

    33. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by KeensMustard · · Score: 2

      Enlightened moral philosophy you have there.

      Post enlightenment I should think. Whereas Trump's supporters have a worldview similiar to Mugabe's Zanu PF, or the Hutu militia. Doesn't matter who dies, or what lies we have to believe, as long as we can find some way to GET the other tribe for their imagined ills, everything it is the fault of other tribes and nations, we ourselves are oppressed and nothing we do is wrong etc etc.

      I presume you also think that witches float?

      No. But if a A guy says "hey, I molested these women" and then later the women say "yep, he molested me" before being silenced by the formers lawyers, I tend to think that people who come along and say the story is not true *with no evidence to back their assertions* are probably talking out of their arses, particularly when they have demonstrated the sort of undying loyalty that trump's supporters do to his moronic, venal, paranoid delusional ravings, as we've seen here.

    34. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, for fun, let's count up the number of people Killery has killed?

    35. Re: Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know .. People just sayn'. Maybe is right maybe not.
      But PopeRatzo didn't show up on our radar

    36. Re:Trump's not gonna be happy... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Are you uncomfortable talking about Trump?

    37. Re: Trump's not gonna be happy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nixon would of loved that phrase!

      It's "Nixon would have loved that phrase!"-- Why would anyone mod up this illiterate fool as though what he had to say was interesting?

    38. Re: Trump's not gonna be happy... by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      Ah, a grammar Nazi. So cute, so incredibly anal. This is a perfectly acceptable variable. Language evolves even if you don't.
      Pull the corncob out of your ass. You'll feel better.

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  3. Self-made... something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad my tax money went into creating that "Internet" thing... though, to be fair, it is pretty irrelevant to the profits generated by iTunes.

    1. Re: Self-made... something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that this is just their international business, right? Just like whenever these stories come out, it always has to be said that Apple still pays corporate tax on every dollar they make in the Americas to the US government.

      This is about EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) and Asia sales.

      Did your tax dollars pay for their infrastructure too?

    2. Re: Self-made... something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's kinda the point isn't, with these tax dodges Apple makes far less money in the US, on which they pay taxes, than they otherwise would.

    3. Re: Self-made... something by thesupraman · · Score: 2

      No. No it's not. I suspect you know that and are just shilling.

      What actually happens is the IP rights reside in Ireland. Therefore iTunes in the us will be paying licensing rates ( at pretty much any rate Apple decided.. As this is licensing from Apple to Apple.. What a scan!) To Ireland. Therefore transferring profit.
      So no. They don't pay tax on the us profit either.. they use this scam to move the profit away..

    4. Re: Self-made... something by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      What about the transaction under which the IP rights were transferred? What payment did Apple Ireland make to now own those rights?

      If there wasn't a payment, then it's a sham arrangement, designed with the sole purpose of saving tax and no actual business purpose. Those types of transactions are often treated by the law as tax evasion, not tax avoidance.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re: Self-made... something by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      "Did your tax dollars pay for their infrastructure too?"

      Probably, we give foreign aid to many of those countries, I hope at least some of it goes to infrastructure.

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  4. it's the Lucky Charms by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers.

    1. Re:it's the Lucky Charms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers.

      Tim Cook, is that you?

    2. Re:it's the Lucky Charms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers.

      Those are American. Don't think I've ever seen them in an Irish shop.

  5. Quick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets blame Brexit.. Thatll do.

  6. In other words, our tax laws suck ass by Snotnose · · Score: 1, Interesting

    First, they're too complex. Second, after all is said and done they're too high.

    Hey Head Cheeto! Fix the damned tax laws that let this shit happen before figuring out who builds the damned fence!

    1. Re:In other words, our tax laws suck ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, they're too complex. Second, after all is said and done they're too high.

      Uh, they are too high because of corporations abusing the shit out of loopholes to hide trillions in income to dodge paying taxes.

      Hey Head Cheeto! Fix the damned tax laws that let this shit happen before figuring out who builds the damned fence!

      That "cheeto" is a billionaire business owner, and probably a prime abuser of tax loopholes. Fat chance.

    2. Re:In other words, our tax laws suck ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this a joke? He'll get it to it after blowing the lid on Area 51 and government mind control

    3. Re:In other words, our tax laws suck ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, after all is said and done they're too high.

      No matter how low the taxes, you won't stop big corporations from tax shopping.

      Some country's tax rate is going to be 0.1 percent less than the others and that's where big corps are going to go, because that 0.1 percent can be worth millions or billions to companies like Apple.

    4. Re:In other words, our tax laws suck ass by RandyHill · · Score: 1

      Yea, this isn't true. It's not a loophole to have a foreign subsidiary, it's a necessary part of doing business internationally. Apple has to pay taxes in every jurisdiction it does business in. It doesn't have to base iTunes in a high tax country or Luxembourg. It doesn't have to pay taxes on profits made by overseas subsidiaries until it repatriates to the US, that's not a "loophole". And if the US closed that "loophole" it would make our terrible corporate tax system many times worse. Imagine you have a business and open a subsidiary in France. It's profitable so it pays around 33% of it's profits to the French government. Let say you are forced to take the 67% remaining of the profits back to the US to pay out to shareholders. You are in California so you pay roughly 10% corporate income tax, and have about 61% left, then you have to pay federal corporate income tax, so now you have about 40% left. You can either re-invest it in growing your business (and hire more employees) or mail it out to shareholders as dividend checks. If you dividend it to shareholders, they pay state income tax on it, and 20-25% federal tax rate, so they will end up with about 30% of the original profits made. Can you imagine how well any economies will do if you take 60% of it's new capital and set it on fire before they can be invested again? Imagine how hard it will be for US companies to open international businesses and compete with local businesses if the local business pays 33% in taxes and the US based one has to pay nearly twice as much? Let's assume your subsidiary is a chain of restaurants. Any local french restaurant chain can ape what you do and make nearly double the net profit. Fixing this "loophole" would devastate US businesses and make it really hard to grow new businesses beyond the US borders. We need to stop calling them loopholes and recognize how the system works. None of these companies is doing anything wrong, just trying to ameliorate the effects of a horrible US Corporate tax system.

  7. February 5 is a Sunday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bloody Sunday...

  8. Probably they did not fit in Luxembourg by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    The duchy is full.

  9. Another sign they have no ideas left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All they can do is move money around on paper to play a shell game of avoiding taxes. They won't know how to respond when somebody hits them across the eyes with a baseball bat.

  10. Apple tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People do know Apple pays a shit ton of taxes in the U.S. right?

    1. Re:Apple tax by jcr · · Score: 1

      Apple pays a shit ton of taxes in the U.S.

      Yes they do, and as a shareholder I'd like to see them get far more creative in reducing their tax bill. If they fully adopted the methods used by GE (for example), there are billions of dollars that can be kept in the productive side of the economy instead of being pissed away on bloody mayhem.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Apple tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They not only pay a lot of taxes in the US they also pay taxes in every country they have a presence in. Apple's move to Ireland is a message for the bureaucrats in Brussels running their corporate shakedown operations. The EU claims that Apple owes billions of tax dollars to Ireland even though Ireland doesn't. The EU is trying to change the wording of the tax rules for EU member countries and applying penalties retroactively. I think the EU actually wants to breakup the EU based on their actions over the years.

    3. Re: Apple tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there is no reason for being in Ireland/Luxembourg?

  11. Not bad to be Ireland right now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/gdp-per-capita

  12. Cheaper to buy in the long run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what they really want to do is buy Ireland.

  13. jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steve Jobs is dead, please let him rest in peace...

  14. More government welfare for Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What, exactly, do Ireland get out of this? Nothing. The ruling GIVES them money. The EU isn't asking for the tax revenue, they're asking Ireland to collect the taxes that Apple owe the Eire government. So the government is spending money to protect Apple and ensure they get less money in the future.

    And don't give me the "But the employees pay taxes", because the tax payments the employees pay get almost none of the efforts of law enforcement, the justice system or the road system, not to mention the access to government facilities like their law department fighting on your behalf. And Apple as a corporation will still take advantage of the things that they're not paying for, and refuse it to their employees.

    E.g. anyone remember the number of employees of corporations who invented something and were given bugger all while the corporation owns that legal entitlement? That's stealing from the empoyee and getting something that the employee is paying for in their taxes and their employer is getting without paying taxes: the ownership of some government enforced artificial property rights.

    The only explanation is that some Irish government employees are going to get a fat non-executive directorship job from Apple.

    1. Re:More government welfare for Apple by RandyHill · · Score: 1

      Actually Ireland gets to tax of all Apple profits on business based in Ireland. iTunes is super profitable so this is going to transfer a hella amount of taxes from Luxumberg to Ireland. Since Apple doesn't have a ton of actual employees in Ireland, Ireland doesn't really have much in the way of additional expenses from these massive free tax revenues. Whoever negotiated the Apple agreement for Ireland should have been knighted, made a saint and nominated for the nobel prize. The EU isn't claiming Apple owes the EU more in taxes, it's claiming Apple's Ireland tax rate is too low and it needs to be higher, so it's essentially claiming Ireland needs to (retroactively) raise Apple's tax rate. The reason Ireland can serve as a tax haven in the first place is the USA's awful corporate tax system. Every year when a company makes a profit, it owes income tax to the federal and state governments, on average it's around 40% combined. Then it can either re-invest the remainder, or pay it to shareholders. If it is paid to shareholders they owe federal dividend taxes and state income taxes. So more than 50% of profits are taxed away. Apple has paid taxes on it's international profits in the countries they are earned. But if it repatriates the remainder back to the US, it will owe about 42% in state (CA) and federal taxes, and shareholders after dividend/state income taxes get about 45%. So instead it keeps as much business in ireland and saves all it's international profits into Ireland, that minimizes the tax rates on the business it does from ireland, and saves them from US taxes on repatriation. That means they have nearly twice as much money to invest. Obviously this is all not only ethical and moral, but they are obligated to minimize tax rates for thier shareholders. Likely this year the US will either fix the corporate tax system or pass a repatriation bill that will dramatically lower the rate on overseas profits returning to the US (last time they did it was 12% IIRC), and Apple will return everything at once, and the US will get dramatically more capital to invest (since at least $2 Trillion in overseas profits are trapped overseas by our tax system). Patents and patent laws are indeed awful but have nothing to do with this.

    2. Re:More government welfare for Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . Since Apple doesn't have a ton of actual employees in Ireland,

      That depends on how you measure it. In terms of population size, Apple employs nearly 6 times as many people in Ireland as in America.

  15. Interesting thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now that they've elected AND ARE ECSTATIC over a president who is an admitted rapist (by the definition of sexual misconduct of the same level as Assange is being accused of outside the courts), will they now be cheering him on and berating Sweden et al for trying o demonise him. After all, they KNOW that if you're famous, then they'll let you do whatever you want to them. Orangina said so, and that was, for them, a reason to vote for the fake tan.

    Or is it going to be right for the people they like and a heinous act for those they don't like?

  16. Want to Fix This? by rally2xs · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ireland's main claim to fame is a 12.5% corporate income tax. That's why myriad American companies are there at all.

    Want to fix that? Pass the Fair Tax. Among the Fair Taxes' many beneficial changes would be the complete lifting of corporate income taxes. That would make the USA the newest, bestest corporate tax haven on the planet. Corporate executives would injure themselves in the stampede to build factories and move corporate headquarters to the USA. Our financial problems would be a thing of the past. We would be the richest, most prosperous nation on the planet by a wide margin. The reason we're not achieving our full potential right now is that the 2nd worst mistake this country has ever made, right behind slavery, is the income taxes. The Fair Tax abolishes _all_ the income taxes - individual, corporate, payroll, gift, estate, self-employment, capital gains, etc. etc. The IRS, and any tax based on income, is abolished. Only NEW items sold at retail, and services sold at retail are taxed. Tuition is exempt because it is really an investment. The Fair Tax may not make you rich - you still have to do that yourself - but doing it will get a lot easier under the Fair Tax as compared to under the income taxes.

    1. Re:Want to Fix This? by tranquilidad · · Score: 2

      The Fair Tax isn't fair to everyone. It's really only helpful to those with income. In my case, for example, while I'm "retired" I don't actually get a pension. My retirement consists of a bank account full of the savings I accumulated over years of working. All that cash is what's left over after I paid income taxes on my earnings. That money I have was taxed on the way into my savings accounts.

      If a Fair Tax comes along then all savers like me will be taxed again when our money reverses direction and leaves our savings accounts. Then again, what else should I expect. Savers have been indirectly taxed to hell and back through monetary policies.

    2. Re:Want to Fix This? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Nothing's perfect, but your method of saving for retirement, with after-tax money in a bank, is rare. Most people save with pre-tax money in some vehicle like a tax-exempt retirement account. Those get taxed as the money is withdrawn. Under the Fair Tax, if you have a 401K with a million or 3 in it, you can withdraw money from it with no tax taken out, no matter if you withdraw a little or a lot.

      As for savings accounts, the Fair Tax does not tax the interest on them. If you have a million or 3 in the bank, and you've got the right bank so you're making 5% - 10%, then right now, that $$$ is taxed by the income taxes. The Fair Tax does not tax that money. My buddy has a savings account with, if I remember right, a 5% interest rate. If you have $3M in the bank for retirement, you'd be pulling all $150K / yr out at 5%, without the gov't dinging you 30% of the $150K for income taxes.

      PLUS, in the environment of a booming economy like the Fair Tax would create, the interest rates on your savings would increase. Remember when ordinary bank accounts had interest rates of 4% - 5%? I do. Those days would come back under the Fair Tax. CD's and other savings instruments would be higher interest rates. That's because with all the building of factories and money moving freely, more people will be borrowing money for everything from new cars to home improvements. That money has to come from somewhere, and the banks will get it from your savings account. They will be able to lend more money and pay you some of the interest they collect. Win-win. I think you'll do OK under the Fair Tax with your savings account.

    3. Re:Want to Fix This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the Fair Tax could be put into place, then one simple rider on some legislation that just HAS to pass can cut the prebate percentages and render the whole thing into a regressive tax. In that case, the less money someone makes (down to some threshold), the higher the percent of their income is spent on retail items. Sure there will be some rich people that spend like crazy, but anyone who just wants to sit back and earn money hand over fist in investments and live frugally wouldn't contribute hardly anything at all.

      It just seems like a perfect setup for a bait-and-switch. Of course, the US already has a tax code filled with loopholes to benefit the wealthy, so I suppose there isn't much to lose.

    4. Re:Want to Fix This? by PPH · · Score: 1

      but anyone who just wants to sit back and earn money hand over fist in investments and live frugally wouldn't contribute hardly anything at all.

      And that's bad because?

      If someone with a lot of wealth or a high income wants to live a middle class life (Warren Buffett comes to mind), then the rest of his money is being reinvested. This is good for the economy. In fact, it's better than handing the money to the government and having them make questionable allocation decisions.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Want to Fix This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Among the Fair Taxes' many beneficial changes would be the complete lifting of corporate income taxes. That would make the USA the newest, bestest corporate tax haven on the planet.

      Awesome! Woot!

      We would win the race to the bottom!

    6. Re:Want to Fix This? by Solandri · · Score: 1
      All taxes come from people's income. Let me repeat that - all taxes comes from people's income.
      • A corporate income tax gets passed on as cuts to the wages of the corporation's employees (i.e. their income), reduction in dividends given to shareholders (i.e. their income), and as higher prices (i.e. your income). If you are employed by a corporation or own stocks or collect interest on a savings account, "their income" in the previous sentence is also "your income."
      • A sales tax gets paid out of your pocket (i.e. your income).
      • A tariff on imports gets paid out of your pocket (i.e. your income).
      • An excise tax on your property gets paid out of your pocket (i.e. your income). An excise tax on corporate property gets passed on to you as with corporate income taxes.

      People need to get over this nonsensical "us vs them" mentality with taxes, where they try their damnedest to make "someone else" pay for taxes, when in the end it still comes out of their pocketbook. Income is a representation of productivity, and taxes are a diversion of part of that productivity to government functions. Only people generate productivity, so all taxes eventually end up coming out of people's income.

      Once you realize this, you realize the most efficient means of tax collection is to simply extract it all from one place. Having a hundred different taxes is tantamount to trying to fill a water bottle with a hundred different eyedroppers collecting water from a hundred different places in the sink, instead of just sticking the water bottle under the spigot and collecting all the water from one location. If you support progressive taxation, the easiest spigot to tax then is income - you can extract a higher tax rate from people with higher incomes. All other taxes should be eliminated as redundant and a waste of time and energy.

    7. Re:Want to Fix This? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      A corporation having a post box in a lawyers office in your country doesn't benefitsociet. The real answer is that we start taxing corporations for money earned in a country and costs should be based on (country revenue / global revenue) * global expenses.

    8. Re:Want to Fix This? by rally2xs · · Score: 0

      You can pretend to tax corporations all you want, but no business has ever, or will ever, pay a penny of tax. They COLLECT taxes. The gov't demands a tax, and the business raises their prices, lowers or fails to raise the wages of employees, and curtails stock dividends to pay the tax. In each case - customers, employees, or stockholders, all those people taxed are US, and not the corporation. The corporation, or business, doesn't pay a penny of tax. We do. Until we wake up and see the truth of this sort of taxation, our politicians will continue to harm our corporations and we will not prosper.

    9. Re:Want to Fix This? by RandyHill · · Score: 1

      A corporation paying taxes in a country with only post box in a lawyers offices is a huge benefit to that country.

      In reality, corporations should not have to pay any income taxes. It's a tax on the creation of jobs and capital. Eliminating it would increase both.

  17. Oh no, more U2? by c10 · · Score: 1

    I hope Mr. The Edge doesn't dump another free album on my iWhatsit. Yuck.

    1. Re:Oh no, more U2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like U2 very much, but they have cashed in for profit. To get any chance of buying concert tickets you have to become a member through their website. It's like trying to get tickets to ComiCon, no chance unless you're filthy rich or in the loop. Or pay $1000 to the ticket Nazis.

  18. Makes sense - next is IrExit by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    It makes sense for a business, or a person, to utilize the regulations and laws to their best advantage. Ireland purposefully has lower taxes to attract businesses which means more revenue for them, more jobs for their people, etc. What the EU is going to achieve is forcing Ireland to do their own Brexit. The EU is being greedy and this sort of behavior will hurt the EU in the long run as it crumbles.

    1. Re:Makes sense - next is IrExit by itamihn · · Score: 1

      I don't think Ireland will leave the EU in my lifetime. Irish people are very pro-EU in general.

  19. People still use iTunes? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    I haven't used that in over 5 years.

  20. Why no hate for Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mainstream media in general and the liberals in particular just HATE IT when rich people and corporations don't "pay their fair share" when it comes to taxes, so why is Apple not hated? Because Libs love their iProducts and will wait in line every six months for the latest version of the product? Where's the hate for Apple, Huh?

  21. More Liberal Hypocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like John Kerry moving his yacht. Paying taxes is good for peons, not so much for elites.

  22. $9 billion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That musicians were screwed out of.

  23. There is no reason to stay in Luxemburg any more.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Earlier in the EU the VAT of services like software could be paid to the country of the seller, and Luxemburg happens to have really low VAT. So how Apple dealt with this was that they routed their whole iTunes sales through Luxemburg and paid only the very low VAT from all their sales, then took 30% commission of the price without VAT and gave the rest of the money to developers by "buying service from an EU company with 0% VAT". This was a win-win for both developers and Apple, but mostly for Apple because they could higher commissions from the billions in sales yearly through iTunes, but a huge loss for most EU countries.

    The EU finally closed the loophole and now services (just like physical products already before) need to pay the VAT to the country of the buyer after certain amount of yearly revenue. Apple has had its EU headquarters in Ireland for a long time because Ireland has very low corporate tax rate, they only had presence in Luxemburg because of the VAT loophole. Now they don't have use for Luxemburg so it only makes sense to move their iTunes business to Ireland and streamline their accounting.

  24. N/C by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 1

    Bad moderation.

    --
    For hire.
  25. Why not America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    companies will leave the US if Trump imposes penalties in them

  26. fuck these assole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a level 1 service technician in the 70's and my life revolved around the apple II

    this shit they are doing now is so anti american that I will never contriibute to the apple ecosphere again

    fuck you Apple

  27. There you go using logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But with all the jobs this would create, how would the politicians declare everything to be unfair and control the angry voters?

  28. Countries competition by locococo · · Score: 1

    More and more countries will have to be more efficient and competitive when determining their tax structure