Give that most commentator and analysts struggle to even get yesterday right, how the hell do they think their predictions 4 years in the future are going to be anywhere close.
I am STILL waiting for Apple to go broke because they did not put Flash on the iPhone.
I stopped watching "tv" because of all the rubbish.
No, I dont want to see "the block", "married at first sight", "The bachelor", "Teen Mom" and all that sh!t, which is why we got Netflix and why 90% of our viewing is Netflix. And if you ever start putting in adverts, that is me and my money gone for good too. And no, I don't want sports, cooking shows, or survivor shows, either.
And if you do pull this kind of sh!t, well I can always of back to reading books and use the money I paid to you to help pay for new books to read.
Thus far you have got it right, don't let some dumbass who thinks an extra few $$ short term is a good thing and ruin your existing business model.
Our Judges are not elected, nor government appointed. They either put their name forward themselves or the firms they work for nominates them. However the MUST have a law degree, must have at least 7 years experience as a practicing lawyer, and they get chosen based on their work experience, character , social awareness, fairness etc etc etc by the Attorney-General's Judicial Appointments Unit.
Our civil service is also non partisan, senior appointments are not political appointments and dont change when there is a change in government.
Equally our news media is less partisan then US media, and it has been rated as far more free (as in free speech) than US media too.
New Zealand is also one of the least corrupt countries in the world, the lack of political interference in the courts, police, civil service may also account for this.
Then keep your troops, your drones, your guns, your bombs, etc etc out of other peoples countries.
Its not rocket science, when you kill people in another country, those people get pissed off and want revenge
In that regard they are no different to americans it seems
They DONT have drones or planes or missiles, so their "weapon of choice" is suicide bombers and the like, the only effective weapon available for their use.
In the period 2004-20013 3066 Americans were killed due to terrorists, 2902 were killed in 9/11
In the period 2004 -20013 over 126,000 americans were murdered by americans.
If you remove 9/11 as a statistical outlier you have are 128 time more likely to be murdered than killed by a terrorist.If you assume half the people know their murderer you are over 60 times more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a terrorist.
Now lets compare this to deaths in Iraq https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
"The key figures IBC found are:
14,705 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly caused by the US-led coalition. The report notes that
Of the 4,040 civilian victims of US-led coalition forces for whom age data was available, 1,201 (29%) were children"
And that was just for one year, over the same 9 years it could be higher than 150,000 deaths and climbing
The USA is much less a "hero" than you are led to believe.
And you wonder why people from these countries have a strong anti-US sentiment ?
Look how much hate the US has towards muslims, yet the deaths caused by them are insignificant compared to the number of muslims killed by US led forces.
Murder rate
UK 0.9/100,000
Canada 1.5/100,000
Germany 0.9/100,000
France 1.2/100,000
New Zealand 0.9/100,000
Australia 1.0/100,000
Spain 0.7/100,000
China 0.8/100,000
Japan 0.3/100,000
Italy 0.8/100,000
Sweden 0.9/100,000
Iceland 0.3/100,000
Almost half the countries in the world are safer than the USA.
And the US imprisonment rate is nearly 700/100,000
Canada 114/100,000
Germany 78/100,000
France 103/100,000
New Zealand 202/100,000
Australia 152/100,000
Spain 131/100,000
China 118/100,000
Japan 47/100,000
Italy 89/100,000
Sweden 53/100,000
Iceland 45/100,000
So yeah, most countries could indeed be safer if they kept americans out, they seem to have a high rate of crime and murder compared to other 1st world civilised countries. That wall is looking better and better, not to keep Mexicans out, but to keep Americans in, Canada should take a close look at this, who knows maybe they can get the US to pay.
And this year in America
about 17,000 americans will be murdered by americans.
about 200,000 americans will be killed by the doctor through medical mistakes
and more americans will be killed by sharks, lightening strikes, and falling coke machines than killed by terrorists.
Given that the US imprisons a higher percentage of the population than any other country, has a murder rate much higher than other 1st world countries it would make just as much sense to keep US citizens from being able to go anywhere else in the world, because those countries have a right to keep their citizens safe too.
And in the mean time, millions of tourists are also avoiding the USA, costing billions of dollars, and thousands of jobs.
They are also campaigning against US corporations not paying taxes
Trump wants trade barriers against imports with "US first", those barriers will be mirrored by other countries , put in place on American exports, $2 Trillion worth as every other country goes "USA last".
96% of people are not US citizens and 80% of world GDP does not involved the USA.
You are not locking people out, you are locking yourselves in, which will only server to increase the rate at which the US falls.
See, when I complained how Apple was able to sort the New Zealand tax system the people from the USA were unsympathetic.
"Change the laws" they said
"It will only increase the price of Apple products" others said
"The government has no rights to Apples money" yet more people said
Well here we are now in the USA, with US workers complaining.
The same basic sentiments apply by the looks of it.
The only people entitled to make more money is "not you", and Trump is not going to change that.
Many years ago I belonged to a Union.
In its rules was the cause that we could NOT go on strike. The employer could not do a lock out.
What took it's place was that any negotiations over pay and conditions that could not be resolved in 12 weeks would be taken to an independent Arbiter.
That arbiter was a member of the judiciary, their job was not influenced by elections, employer payments, etc etc etc
Both sides put their final offer to the arbiter and defended it, justifying why their position was the most fair and reasonable. There arbiter required proof of any claims, and that could include looking at the employers books.
The arbiter could then take a further 2 weeks and choose EITHER the union OR the employer offer. No chasing bits from one and bits from another, they had toe make a choice which offer was the most reasonable. And that decision was binding on both parties
This forced both sides to start from a position of reason right from the start and most negotiations took less then 3 weeks to negotiate and ratify.
Sadly that union was consumed by a larger union and all that went away.
If that the case DONT buy the green one, you won't like it if it gets angry.
May not go up in flames, but it will rip your clothes.
(for those old enough to remember the tv series of the Hulk with Bill Bixby / Lou Ferrigno)
Because Apple DOES have a presence here in New Zealand, that is how they are able to sell into schools and to Government Departments, they MUST be registered in New Zealand as a business in order to get a Tax ID in order to collect/pay GST (sale taxes).
The volume of sales to schools (above $50,000) a year forces the issue.
So there is your answer, Apple has a tax presence in New Zealand.
They will have a registered office (be it with an accountant/lawyer).
Colgate is registered in NZ as a company, how (or why) Budweiser gets here I don't know. But I DO know Apple is selling direct into New Zealand and must have a tax ID to be able to do so.
Not at all, because the wealthy will simply leave their wealth in the corporations. The corporation will own the luxury holiday villa, the corporation will own their huge yacht, the corporation will pay expenses, etc etc etc.
This will only ensure that the 1% will pay even less while placing greater burdens on the lower income brackets
And how does a small store owner compete, we already see how Amazon has driven most bookshops out of business. The corporations will soon be able to own everything.
Tell me, what is the difference between the 1% being royalty , with them owning the land, the businesses, the wealth, and a corporation doing the same. You can't vote either of them out. The end results are the same.
All you have done is take a couple of hundred years to switch one set of masters for another by calling it a different name.
It benefits from an educated lawful society.
It benefits from the lack of corruption.
It benefits from the low friction of trade
It benefits from being able to get its products around the country easily and cheaply which keeps its products sale costs lower
It benefits in that it has the same access as Samsung, HTC, Sony, Microsoft, HP, we have a free trade agreement with China, none with the USA
It benefits from having that consumer base that allows it to negotiate deals with its suppliers and attracts developers.
It benefits from having access to the law for copyright, patent, trademark protection
It benefits from being able to sell to the government and into schools (we could go Linux / Chromebooks)
Its true laws can change, and they should.
Those new laws could see corporate America locked out of 96% of the worlds population and 80% of the worlds trade.
And there is the REAL danger, if a small country like NZ can say no more, bigger ones will quickly follow, its up to Apple to figure out if trying to negotiate with friends is better than negotiating with pissed off customers.
Because Trump is rapidly moving to a protectionist model of business and the US corporates will be on their own
the 96% of the world not in the USA, well we can carry on with free trade among ourselves , there is no legal, moral or other obligation to include the USA.
especially when US corporates have failed to pay taxes.
The difference is:
A New Zealand firm who sells a $1000 item pays $150 in sales taxes to the government and then pays the government 30% of their profits
Apple sells a $1000 item in New Zealand, pays the government $150 in sales taxes and moves the profits off shore so they pay $0 taxes
So in real terms Apple has an unfair financial advantage.
This is no different to say a Chinese Steel mill receiving huge government subsidies so they can dump cheap steel into the US market by undercutting local production.
Which is why after 30 years of buying Apple products, I am leaving their eco system.
As each product dies it will be replaced, probably with something out of China. A "Kodi box" from China works just as well for Netflix as an Apple TV.
When my MBP dies, I will shift over to Linux.
Same with my iPhone, my next phone will be an HTC , Samsung or other Android phone.
It also means I will not be buying software upgrades, BBEdit, Carbon Copy Cloner, DiskWarrior,TechToolPro, MS Office, etc etc etc etc have also seen my last $.
I will be voting this year for the party which best represents NZ needs, not US corporate interests.
Apple has taken strong stances on a number of moral issues, LGBT rights, Child labour, Green energy, etc, all at a financial cost to Apple, but the morally right thing to do. They have removed funding, cancelled events in states in the USA which have failed to meeting their moral standpoint, even though what those states have done "is legal". However they have failed to include fair taxation as one of their moral stances, and they are screwing over entire countries, and for this I find that I have to take the moral decision Apple refuses to make, and take my $ elsewhere.
Apple, you can keep 100% of my $0.
Taxing one company and not another is also bad practice.
For example if you and I had identical companies, except YOU had to pay taxes and I did not.
Which company has a financial (and unfair) advantage ?
Because that is what is happening, local companies who can not implement this profit shifting scam are forced to pay taxes, while Apple avoids them.
WORSE though, is because Apple pays no taxes other companies must pay more to make up for it
By allowing a corporation the scam the system we are disadvantaging local companies who employ local workers
No one really cares too much if a better product displaces an older product, companies come and go, but when these displacements happen because one company did not have to pay taxes, that is unfair competition.
well in New Zealand our tax system is simplified , we essentially have no tax deductions for wage/salary workers.
Our retail pricing laws are simple, prices MUST include all taxes, fees or otherwise. If something say $100 and you pay cash/eftpos then $100 is what you pay.
Its simple, its clear, its easy to understand, its cheap to administer, and its honest.
So we don't get to "minimise" our taxes, they already are.
Apple proves the law is an Ass. It also proves that corporate America has too much influence on government policy.
We can CHANGE the law, for example we could say unless you pay the same level of taxes a New Zealand firm would pay, you have no legal standing in New Zealand, you have no copyright, no patent, no trade name rights.You have no access to the law, no access to the courts.
If companies want to make compliance, transactional friction, etc low, then they must also accept that they have to behave in a similarly honourable fashion. The alternative is to make a LOT of laws to force compliance which only increases their exposure to the laws (if they break them) and increases business costs. They can NOT have it both ways.
So if we remove all IP rights that US companies have ?
No such thing then as piracy then as its legal, and corporations have no cause for complaint, after all we are only paying then what we legally have to , $0
No, they should pay the same taxes as if they were a local company.
OR, the could pay based on what they believe their intellectual property (copyright,patent,trade name) is worth to them, or better yet what NZ believes its worth to them. If they don't pay then they have no legal rights.
Just as Chinese laws don't apply to US citizens, US laws dont apply to people/companies here in New Zealand. Apple can take the stance they are 100% outside of NZ and therefore don't believe they have to pay taxes, but equally they have should have no legal protection/rights here in NZ.
Apple will quickly realise that 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Oh, and we have every open importation laws too, so if Apple ups its prices, businesses will buy from overseas and parallel import, so we will STILL get Apple products at a competitive rate. And is Apple has no presence here in NZ, they have should have no legal standing either.
New Zealand has one of the most open economies in the world.
We dont have import tariffs , we dont have corporate tax subsidies or any of the other shenanigans other countries use to raise the price of imports
Sales taxes are paid ONLY by the end consumer, businesses can claim GST (sales taxes) back.
Businesses are only obligated to collect sales taxes from end consumers and pass them on.
So, the Corporate pays no taxes.
The Corporate then owns the home, and pays no taxes
The corporate effective makes zero profit , but it pays 100% of it back to the resident of the house, the sole shareholder.
That corporation is outside of US law, so it can do all sorts of things, like pay for the house occupier to inspect the other houses they may occupy, first class flights, house staff, access to a boat etc.
These people will pay HUGE election donations to what ever politicians they need to to ensure they do not meet the tax burden they should. And they will pay lawyers and accounts to hide income etc etc as best they can.
The money Apple does NOT pay (because of profit shifting) does not go to the USA anyway, so the US tax laws are irrelevant
Change the laws, remove the deductibility of "licensing". Companies the licence their trade names etc will be forced to bring these fees down to a realistic level or businesses will choose a cheaper brand to represent. And those like Apple to license from themselves will see no benefit from doing this and drop it because it costs money to implement with zero financial benefits.
Thats because you have given large corporations too many rights, and their ability to influence laws, taxes, etc for their sole benefit has also grown.
Because corporations can't vote, a lot of resources are going into voter registration acts that keep as many poor people off the roles as possible, that one man one vote gives the poor too much power over the wealthy few.
In New Zealand there are very few things you can tax deduct for wage and salary workers.
In fact for most workers there is no obligation to even do a tax return
This has allowed the government to significantly down size the IRD department, making an over all savings for the tax payer.
Slashdot Mirror
Give that most commentator and analysts struggle to even get yesterday right, how the hell do they think their predictions 4 years in the future are going to be anywhere close.
I am STILL waiting for Apple to go broke because they did not put Flash on the iPhone.
AGREE 100%
I stopped watching "tv" because of all the rubbish.
No, I dont want to see "the block", "married at first sight", "The bachelor", "Teen Mom" and all that sh!t, which is why we got Netflix and why 90% of our viewing is Netflix. And if you ever start putting in adverts, that is me and my money gone for good too. And no, I don't want sports, cooking shows, or survivor shows, either.
And if you do pull this kind of sh!t, well I can always of back to reading books and use the money I paid to you to help pay for new books to read.
Thus far you have got it right, don't let some dumbass who thinks an extra few $$ short term is a good thing and ruin your existing business model.
Not in New Zealand.
Our Judges are not elected, nor government appointed. They either put their name forward themselves or the firms they work for nominates them. However the MUST have a law degree, must have at least 7 years experience as a practicing lawyer, and they get chosen based on their work experience, character , social awareness, fairness etc etc etc by the Attorney-General's Judicial Appointments Unit.
Our civil service is also non partisan, senior appointments are not political appointments and dont change when there is a change in government.
Equally our news media is less partisan then US media, and it has been rated as far more free (as in free speech) than US media too.
New Zealand is also one of the least corrupt countries in the world, the lack of political interference in the courts, police, civil service may also account for this.
Then keep your troops, your drones, your guns, your bombs, etc etc out of other peoples countries.
Its not rocket science, when you kill people in another country, those people get pissed off and want revenge
In that regard they are no different to americans it seems
They DONT have drones or planes or missiles, so their "weapon of choice" is suicide bombers and the like, the only effective weapon available for their use.
https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs...
In the period 2004-20013 3066 Americans were killed due to terrorists, 2902 were killed in 9/11
In the period 2004 -20013 over 126,000 americans were murdered by americans.
If you remove 9/11 as a statistical outlier you have are 128 time more likely to be murdered than killed by a terrorist.If you assume half the people know their murderer you are over 60 times more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a terrorist.
Now lets compare this to deaths in Iraq
https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
"The key figures IBC found are:
14,705 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly caused by the US-led coalition. The report notes that
Of the 4,040 civilian victims of US-led coalition forces for whom age data was available, 1,201 (29%) were children"
And that was just for one year, over the same 9 years it could be higher than 150,000 deaths and climbing
The USA is much less a "hero" than you are led to believe.
And you wonder why people from these countries have a strong anti-US sentiment ?
Look how much hate the US has towards muslims, yet the deaths caused by them are insignificant compared to the number of muslims killed by US led forces.
Murder rate
UK 0.9/100,000
Canada 1.5/100,000
Germany 0.9/100,000
France 1.2/100,000
New Zealand 0.9/100,000
Australia 1.0/100,000
Spain 0.7/100,000
China 0.8/100,000
Japan 0.3/100,000
Italy 0.8/100,000
Sweden 0.9/100,000
Iceland 0.3/100,000
And the site I am looking at says the USA is 3.9/100,000 which puts it 108th out of 218 countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Almost half the countries in the world are safer than the USA.
And the US imprisonment rate is nearly 700/100,000
Canada 114/100,000
Germany 78/100,000
France 103/100,000
New Zealand 202/100,000
Australia 152/100,000
Spain 131/100,000
China 118/100,000
Japan 47/100,000
Italy 89/100,000
Sweden 53/100,000
Iceland 45/100,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So yeah, most countries could indeed be safer if they kept americans out, they seem to have a high rate of crime and murder compared to other 1st world civilised countries. That wall is looking better and better, not to keep Mexicans out, but to keep Americans in, Canada should take a close look at this, who knows maybe they can get the US to pay.
And this year in America
about 17,000 americans will be murdered by americans.
about 200,000 americans will be killed by the doctor through medical mistakes
and more americans will be killed by sharks, lightening strikes, and falling coke machines than killed by terrorists.
Given that the US imprisons a higher percentage of the population than any other country, has a murder rate much higher than other 1st world countries it would make just as much sense to keep US citizens from being able to go anywhere else in the world, because those countries have a right to keep their citizens safe too.
And in the mean time, millions of tourists are also avoiding the USA, costing billions of dollars, and thousands of jobs.
They are also campaigning against US corporations not paying taxes
Trump wants trade barriers against imports with "US first", those barriers will be mirrored by other countries , put in place on American exports, $2 Trillion worth as every other country goes "USA last".
96% of people are not US citizens and 80% of world GDP does not involved the USA.
You are not locking people out, you are locking yourselves in, which will only server to increase the rate at which the US falls.
See, when I complained how Apple was able to sort the New Zealand tax system the people from the USA were unsympathetic.
"Change the laws" they said
"It will only increase the price of Apple products" others said
"The government has no rights to Apples money" yet more people said
Well here we are now in the USA, with US workers complaining.
The same basic sentiments apply by the looks of it.
The only people entitled to make more money is "not you", and Trump is not going to change that.
Many years ago I belonged to a Union.
In its rules was the cause that we could NOT go on strike. The employer could not do a lock out.
What took it's place was that any negotiations over pay and conditions that could not be resolved in 12 weeks would be taken to an independent Arbiter. That arbiter was a member of the judiciary, their job was not influenced by elections, employer payments, etc etc etc
Both sides put their final offer to the arbiter and defended it, justifying why their position was the most fair and reasonable. There arbiter required proof of any claims, and that could include looking at the employers books.
The arbiter could then take a further 2 weeks and choose EITHER the union OR the employer offer. No chasing bits from one and bits from another, they had toe make a choice which offer was the most reasonable. And that decision was binding on both parties
This forced both sides to start from a position of reason right from the start and most negotiations took less then 3 weeks to negotiate and ratify.
Sadly that union was consumed by a larger union and all that went away.
If that the case DONT buy the green one, you won't like it if it gets angry. May not go up in flames, but it will rip your clothes. (for those old enough to remember the tv series of the Hulk with Bill Bixby / Lou Ferrigno)
Because Apple DOES have a presence here in New Zealand, that is how they are able to sell into schools and to Government Departments, they MUST be registered in New Zealand as a business in order to get a Tax ID in order to collect/pay GST (sale taxes).
The volume of sales to schools (above $50,000) a year forces the issue.
So there is your answer, Apple has a tax presence in New Zealand.
They will have a registered office (be it with an accountant/lawyer).
Colgate is registered in NZ as a company, how (or why) Budweiser gets here I don't know. But I DO know Apple is selling direct into New Zealand and must have a tax ID to be able to do so.
Not at all, because the wealthy will simply leave their wealth in the corporations. The corporation will own the luxury holiday villa, the corporation will own their huge yacht, the corporation will pay expenses, etc etc etc.
This will only ensure that the 1% will pay even less while placing greater burdens on the lower income brackets
And how does a small store owner compete, we already see how Amazon has driven most bookshops out of business. The corporations will soon be able to own everything.
Tell me, what is the difference between the 1% being royalty , with them owning the land, the businesses, the wealth, and a corporation doing the same. You can't vote either of them out. The end results are the same.
All you have done is take a couple of hundred years to switch one set of masters for another by calling it a different name.
It benefits from an educated lawful society.
It benefits from the lack of corruption.
It benefits from the low friction of trade
It benefits from being able to get its products around the country easily and cheaply which keeps its products sale costs lower
It benefits in that it has the same access as Samsung, HTC, Sony, Microsoft, HP, we have a free trade agreement with China, none with the USA
It benefits from having that consumer base that allows it to negotiate deals with its suppliers and attracts developers.
It benefits from having access to the law for copyright, patent, trademark protection
It benefits from being able to sell to the government and into schools (we could go Linux / Chromebooks)
Its true laws can change, and they should.
Those new laws could see corporate America locked out of 96% of the worlds population and 80% of the worlds trade.
And there is the REAL danger, if a small country like NZ can say no more, bigger ones will quickly follow, its up to Apple to figure out if trying to negotiate with friends is better than negotiating with pissed off customers.
Because Trump is rapidly moving to a protectionist model of business and the US corporates will be on their own
the 96% of the world not in the USA, well we can carry on with free trade among ourselves , there is no legal, moral or other obligation to include the USA.
especially when US corporates have failed to pay taxes.
The difference is:
.
A New Zealand firm who sells a $1000 item pays $150 in sales taxes to the government and then pays the government 30% of their profits
Apple sells a $1000 item in New Zealand, pays the government $150 in sales taxes and moves the profits off shore so they pay $0 taxes
So in real terms Apple has an unfair financial advantage
This is no different to say a Chinese Steel mill receiving huge government subsidies so they can dump cheap steel into the US market by undercutting local production.
For example, in Russia it looks like it is legal to bash Gays, criminalise them and so on.
Does Tim Cook go "Thats OK, its legal" or does he rightfully campaign against it ?
THAT is the difference between "legal" and "Moral"
Which is why after 30 years of buying Apple products, I am leaving their eco system.
As each product dies it will be replaced, probably with something out of China. A "Kodi box" from China works just as well for Netflix as an Apple TV.
When my MBP dies, I will shift over to Linux.
Same with my iPhone, my next phone will be an HTC , Samsung or other Android phone.
It also means I will not be buying software upgrades, BBEdit, Carbon Copy Cloner, DiskWarrior,TechToolPro, MS Office, etc etc etc etc have also seen my last $.
I will be voting this year for the party which best represents NZ needs, not US corporate interests.
Apple has taken strong stances on a number of moral issues, LGBT rights, Child labour, Green energy, etc, all at a financial cost to Apple, but the morally right thing to do. They have removed funding, cancelled events in states in the USA which have failed to meeting their moral standpoint, even though what those states have done "is legal". However they have failed to include fair taxation as one of their moral stances, and they are screwing over entire countries, and for this I find that I have to take the moral decision Apple refuses to make, and take my $ elsewhere.
Apple, you can keep 100% of my $0.
Taxing one company and not another is also bad practice.
For example if you and I had identical companies, except YOU had to pay taxes and I did not.
Which company has a financial (and unfair) advantage ?
Because that is what is happening, local companies who can not implement this profit shifting scam are forced to pay taxes, while Apple avoids them.
WORSE though, is because Apple pays no taxes other companies must pay more to make up for it
By allowing a corporation the scam the system we are disadvantaging local companies who employ local workers
No one really cares too much if a better product displaces an older product, companies come and go, but when these displacements happen because one company did not have to pay taxes, that is unfair competition.
well in New Zealand our tax system is simplified , we essentially have no tax deductions for wage/salary workers.
Our retail pricing laws are simple, prices MUST include all taxes, fees or otherwise. If something say $100 and you pay cash/eftpos then $100 is what you pay.
Its simple, its clear, its easy to understand, its cheap to administer, and its honest.
So we don't get to "minimise" our taxes, they already are.
Apple proves the law is an Ass. It also proves that corporate America has too much influence on government policy.
We can CHANGE the law, for example we could say unless you pay the same level of taxes a New Zealand firm would pay, you have no legal standing in New Zealand, you have no copyright, no patent, no trade name rights.You have no access to the law, no access to the courts.
If companies want to make compliance, transactional friction, etc low, then they must also accept that they have to behave in a similarly honourable fashion. The alternative is to make a LOT of laws to force compliance which only increases their exposure to the laws (if they break them) and increases business costs. They can NOT have it both ways.
"Seriously, if it's legal, what of it"
So if we remove all IP rights that US companies have ?
No such thing then as piracy then as its legal, and corporations have no cause for complaint, after all we are only paying then what we legally have to , $0
No, because that store worker is a citizen and they are protected by the law.
But Final Cut Pro and all the other Apple software, THAT would have no protection
And here is the funny part "We would pay Apple as much as we legally have to", $0.
If the "legally have to" is all that is important, then corporations should have no complaints, after all thats their stance.
No, they should pay the same taxes as if they were a local company.
OR, the could pay based on what they believe their intellectual property (copyright,patent,trade name) is worth to them, or better yet what NZ believes its worth to them. If they don't pay then they have no legal rights.
Just as Chinese laws don't apply to US citizens, US laws dont apply to people/companies here in New Zealand. Apple can take the stance they are 100% outside of NZ and therefore don't believe they have to pay taxes, but equally they have should have no legal protection/rights here in NZ.
Apple will quickly realise that 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Oh, and we have every open importation laws too, so if Apple ups its prices, businesses will buy from overseas and parallel import, so we will STILL get Apple products at a competitive rate. And is Apple has no presence here in NZ, they have should have no legal standing either.
Its pay your taxes or bugger off
$0.
New Zealand has one of the most open economies in the world.
We dont have import tariffs , we dont have corporate tax subsidies or any of the other shenanigans other countries use to raise the price of imports
Sales taxes are paid ONLY by the end consumer, businesses can claim GST (sales taxes) back.
Businesses are only obligated to collect sales taxes from end consumers and pass them on.
So, the Corporate pays no taxes.
The Corporate then owns the home, and pays no taxes
The corporate effective makes zero profit , but it pays 100% of it back to the resident of the house, the sole shareholder.
That corporation is outside of US law, so it can do all sorts of things, like pay for the house occupier to inspect the other houses they may occupy, first class flights, house staff, access to a boat etc.
These people will pay HUGE election donations to what ever politicians they need to to ensure they do not meet the tax burden they should. And they will pay lawyers and accounts to hide income etc etc as best they can.
The money Apple does NOT pay (because of profit shifting) does not go to the USA anyway, so the US tax laws are irrelevant
Change the laws, remove the deductibility of "licensing". Companies the licence their trade names etc will be forced to bring these fees down to a realistic level or businesses will choose a cheaper brand to represent. And those like Apple to license from themselves will see no benefit from doing this and drop it because it costs money to implement with zero financial benefits.
Thats because you have given large corporations too many rights, and their ability to influence laws, taxes, etc for their sole benefit has also grown.
Because corporations can't vote, a lot of resources are going into voter registration acts that keep as many poor people off the roles as possible, that one man one vote gives the poor too much power over the wealthy few.
In New Zealand there are very few things you can tax deduct for wage and salary workers.
In fact for most workers there is no obligation to even do a tax return
This has allowed the government to significantly down size the IRD department, making an over all savings for the tax payer.