Because the world is changing and it's no longer socially acceptable to just pay what's legal, it's considered inappropriate to pay less than what people would consider to be a fair amount. If you're paying $1 of tax on $1000 of earnings because you've cleverly nested your business assets overseas in a complex web of tax avoidance schemes, then most people would consider that unfair, even if it is legal.
A company is doing its shareholders a dis-service if they pay more tax than legally required.
If you don't like the amount of tax a corporation pays, due to their corporate structure, petition your government to close the loophole.
The people who work in the corporation pay their own taxes - and what they do with regards to minimizing their tax is their own choice. The money the corporation makes is owned by the shareholders - throwing that money away needlessly is not in the best interests of the shareholders.
Yes, apple are being targeted. In australia, we have a term for this. It is called "tall poppy syndrome".
Yes, other companies do it. Any company that does NOT do everything within the law to minimize their tax burden is both not doing the right thing by their shareholders, and handing their competitors a competitive advantage.
If apple have been avoiding tax like this, and you disagree with it, petition your government to get the loopholes tightened. If it is possible to structure their business to minimize the amount of tax they pay, then why shouldn't they?
If Tim Cook or whoever wants to donate their own money to charity or pay more tax than they need to that is their decision. However the money apple makes isn't owned by apple. It is owned by the company shareholders - who will pay tax on any dividends or capital gains from sold shares in any case.
If it is legal, and apple DIDN'T do it, then they are not doing what is in the best interest of their sharheolders.
Don't like it? Get the law changed. Corporations exploiting the rules for profit is just what they do. I'm sure every single person here tries to ensure they get the biggest tax refund / avoids paying as much tax as they legally can.
If you think you need to switch to a different distribution to get a different desktop environment on log in, you my friend are the "dumbass". I've been using linux likely since shortly after you were born and have seen distributions come and go - as far as Linux desktops go it does the job. Eventually you grow up and realise the desktop environment is pretty irrelevant, so long as it has basic window management, a file manager and the ability to fire up an xterm. Anything else is a bonus.
Furthermore, whilst it may not be to everyone's taste, ubuntu is quite usable out of the box. It has a terminal, it has a browser and installing a few network admin tools is not rocket science.
Exactly. People seem to forget that google is, first and foremost an ad company. If you don't want ads, google is not the company for you to rally behind.
Have only had a brief play with unity and don't get why so much hate? Yes it is dumbed down significantly. I still have a shell, it worked out of the box, and i haven't had to touch a configuration file yet? Things don't have to be hard to use to be powerful. Besides, if you don't like it, switch to another desktop environment?
Pretty much same here. For all the IE hate we have, its easy to forget what the alternatives were back in the day. Another reason IE was so popular was the IEAK which made it easy for ISPs to pre-configure dial up settings for their users and bundle a browser all pre-configured out of the box. This was FREE, I'm pretty sure back in the Netscape days, that sort of thing required a license.
No, IE dominated because of a few reasons - dialup - it was "good enough" (from an end user perspective) and a browser was several hours to download over dialup. It was needed for Windows update to work. And, like it or not, many corporate web apps were built with it. Also, it was configurable via group policy, so enterprises like it as it enables them to ensure end user browsers are configured in a sane state (security zones, proxy settings, etc.).
The network, compared to most of the other alternatives is a lot more available. And by that i mean both in terms of SLAs and actually having connectivity options in remote areas.:)
More likely, he's a spy. You think the US doesn't spy on other countries? The country who spent up big on things like the U2, SR71, Satellites, drones, etc?
Slashdot Mirror
A company is doing its shareholders a dis-service if they pay more tax than legally required.
If you don't like the amount of tax a corporation pays, due to their corporate structure, petition your government to close the loophole.
The people who work in the corporation pay their own taxes - and what they do with regards to minimizing their tax is their own choice. The money the corporation makes is owned by the shareholders - throwing that money away needlessly is not in the best interests of the shareholders.
Yes, apple are being targeted. In australia, we have a term for this. It is called "tall poppy syndrome".
Yes, other companies do it. Any company that does NOT do everything within the law to minimize their tax burden is both not doing the right thing by their shareholders, and handing their competitors a competitive advantage.
If apple have been avoiding tax like this, and you disagree with it, petition your government to get the loopholes tightened. If it is possible to structure their business to minimize the amount of tax they pay, then why shouldn't they?
If Tim Cook or whoever wants to donate their own money to charity or pay more tax than they need to that is their decision. However the money apple makes isn't owned by apple. It is owned by the company shareholders - who will pay tax on any dividends or capital gains from sold shares in any case.
Corporations aren't people with morals, etc. And unless you voluntarily pay taxes you don't legally need to, you are a hyprocrite.
If it is legal, and apple DIDN'T do it, then they are not doing what is in the best interest of their sharheolders.
Don't like it? Get the law changed. Corporations exploiting the rules for profit is just what they do. I'm sure every single person here tries to ensure they get the biggest tax refund / avoids paying as much tax as they legally can.
If you think you need to switch to a different distribution to get a different desktop environment on log in, you my friend are the "dumbass". I've been using linux likely since shortly after you were born and have seen distributions come and go - as far as Linux desktops go it does the job. Eventually you grow up and realise the desktop environment is pretty irrelevant, so long as it has basic window management, a file manager and the ability to fire up an xterm. Anything else is a bonus.
Furthermore, whilst it may not be to everyone's taste, ubuntu is quite usable out of the box. It has a terminal, it has a browser and installing a few network admin tools is not rocket science.
Other than of course default to HTML web based rendering and let Google put out an app if appropriate (ala Apple).
Exactly. People seem to forget that google is, first and foremost an ad company. If you don't want ads, google is not the company for you to rally behind.
No, it means MS is a competitor who is violating the youtube TOS in a product that competes with Android.
Others are monetizing it. Whlst technically they are breaking the TOS they aren't big enough to warranty going after. MS is.
Certainly MS saw this coming
Have only had a brief play with unity and don't get why so much hate? Yes it is dumbed down significantly. I still have a shell, it worked out of the box, and i haven't had to touch a configuration file yet? Things don't have to be hard to use to be powerful. Besides, if you don't like it, switch to another desktop environment?
Pretty much same here. For all the IE hate we have, its easy to forget what the alternatives were back in the day. Another reason IE was so popular was the IEAK which made it easy for ISPs to pre-configure dial up settings for their users and bundle a browser all pre-configured out of the box. This was FREE, I'm pretty sure back in the Netscape days, that sort of thing required a license.
No, IE dominated because of a few reasons - dialup - it was "good enough" (from an end user perspective) and a browser was several hours to download over dialup. It was needed for Windows update to work. And, like it or not, many corporate web apps were built with it. Also, it was configurable via group policy, so enterprises like it as it enables them to ensure end user browsers are configured in a sane state (security zones, proxy settings, etc.).
Chrome != Chromium
Oh, and you can tunnel through putty...
Never said putty was a replacement. Merely that to maintain a business environment I can't do it without a Windows license.
The network, compared to most of the other alternatives is a lot more available. And by that i mean both in terms of SLAs and actually having connectivity options in remote areas. :)
Nothing wrong with telstra's network, othert than cost.
And service. But the network itself is fine :)
You already have DMCA take-downs, and they spread to other countries.
Pretty much what he said.
Doesn't the war have to be legal for POW regulations to actually be in effect? Iraq was illegal. Not sure on afghanistan.
Take GITMO out of it and you still have more of your population in jail than any other country on the planet.
More likely, he's a spy. You think the US doesn't spy on other countries? The country who spent up big on things like the U2, SR71, Satellites, drones, etc?