I only use one phone; why does it matter if what I write for myself only runs on the one phone I have.
Only if you have a pretty odd ethical code, IMHO.
No, it's pretty sound. Pay some taxes but not more than is reasonable.
Why does that strike a moral pang in your heart?
If the taxes were 100% of all earnings would you claim they should be paid?
There obviously is some value for which taxes are too high. It's too grey a line to claim anyone is crossing it unless they pay zero, and sometimes not even then (but, Apple does not pay zero taxes anywhere).
Some of us believe that corporations (like citizens) should have an ethical obligation to pay tax to the country they use the infrastructure of.
Apple does pay taxes in every country. They pay taxes in the U.S. They pay taxes in Australia. They pay taxes in Ireland. They just move where some of the income is declared in a way that the countries involved agree is correct. So how is Apple shorting Australia when they pay more in taxes than they consume in services?
In any worldwide company, it can make a lot of sense to shift where income is declared. If a device is assembled in a different country with parts made by still other countries, why does it make sense that 100% of the profit from every device sold in Australia is declared in Australia?
IMHO, this is as unethical as using the WIFI connection of your 80-year old neighbor cause she didn't know how to set up the security correctly.
That's unethical because you are literally stealing from her bandwidth cap, outbound connection speed, and potentially getting her in trouble if you are using any illegal torrents. But Apple is stealing from no-one. If even the Australia tax people don't think Apple is, what gives YOU the right to claim Apple is stealing just by shifting where some income is declared?
I was going to say something similar; it makes a lot of sense to take advantage of his skill in educating people on technical topics. That's the angle I would use to try and find a job, because if nothing else the job would be more interesting than the average help desk or entry level IT job.
I wouldn't call that being bitter. It's being realistic, especially for IT staff who are more prone than most to sudden cuts (and woe to he who is least senior at the company).
Really it's a positive message that shows a way out - contract.
however it seems that you are saying that apple has no assets in the country that would need protecting...
I did not say that at all. I said, does Apple's share o fthe assets in Aus. really cost more than $8 million AUS to protect or otherwise assist. I really doubt that it does. That's how much Apple is paying in taxes, so it seems reasonable to me.
There are plenty of companies that actually have their own facilities in China (and elsewhere) and I assure you that doing that costs FAR more than what Apple pays to "inspect" their suppliers.
Name one. You work for one of the slavers.
Apple sending over a few inspectors
It's a lot more than a few, and it's constant. AND it's published. Where can I look at Emerson's reports? Thought so.
The old stupid saw that all taxes are just wasted money.
What's more stupid is to realize how true it's become.
Taxes are useful - up to a point. But we long ago crossed the point where they are NOT useful, they are just feeding large political systems that produce nothing of value. Schools are suffering not from lack of money, but lack of people who care or have to care.
Have you seen the size of the US debt?
Yes, made far worse by large bloated government organizations that spend 2x whatever you give them. Raising taxes will only INCREASE debt the way the current system is organized. I know you can't see that, you remain so willfully ignorant to the reality of what money and power do - but that is the truth.
I'll let you have the last response since this is not a debate, just you laying out the groundwork for having to disclaim any connection with your Slashdot userID in years to come...
What I want to know is why isn't Apple liable for US taxes here?
They are, they pay a lot of U.S. taxes.
If I leave the country and go work in another one, all money I make is still taxable by the US federal government
No, only after a certain amount (almost $100k) is it taxable.
He talks about social responsibility but he only means it if someone else has to pay for it.
No, Apple pays plenty (far more than any other company) for monitoring and reports on suppliers, for bonus to overseas workers that only Apple gives, for higher labor costs because they will not allow workers to be over-worked.
What does not make any sense is to pour MORE money into a giant engine of inefficiency that just wastes it. Why would anyone but a handful of government workers be better off if Apple paid more taxes? Instead Apple is in fact putting that money to good use in bringing production to the U.S. and other worker quality of life improvements - again, benefits to workers that every other company is utterly ignoring.
How exactly is the Australian military protecting Apple, and does Apple's portion of protection rack... er, money come to more than the 8+ Million AUS that Apple DOES pay in taxes already?
so just because they were able to cheat
By definition what they are doing is not "cheating" if the tax department says it is legal.
As much as you and people like you want to paint Apple with the Evil brush, what Apple is doing is sound AND ethical . There's nothing wrong with shifting profits around in the way Apple is doing it, not legally OR morally.
True, but when the "authority" is a Nobel Prize winning physicist specializing in the exact area being discussed it means something. Further, "appeals to authority" invite the reader to investigate the claim, including detailed arguments made by the authority.
So, while not conclusive, an "appeal to authority" in this case is of interest.
"laser based" is irrelevant, except as a way to get the quantum effects.
And even if those effects are real, I'm guessing that 'quantum' is not able to provide stronger encryption, only to make it easier to *break* encryption.
Tell your boss to spend the money on a new yacht instead.
This study basically says that people get pissy when you prove them wrong
70% were willing to get vaccinations - so the study was proving them RIGHT. Yet a large number of them changed course AFTER they were told they were right...
So it has zero to do with being "corrected". I think it has more to do with he messenger - scientists in general are now nearly despised, because of how they have misled people over decades now. From nutritional advice to the AGW cult, pretty much if a "scientist" tells you something now the population has learned there's an angle, and that angle is not meant for them. So who can blame them from shying away when the thing the scientists are saying is actually true for once?
This is a huge problem because we really need scientists to be trusted in general for the good of the population, to make intelligent choices. But science is now so intertwined in politics now I don't know how you begin untangling anything.
I'll bet you oppose Fracking... even though it means far less oil shipped across oceans.
Consequences. Consider them, fully.
"nobody forces you to take student loan" is a common false choice
1) Going to college at all is a choice, and lots of people could go without.
2) I did go to college - but I worked all through college EXACTLY so that I could keep student loans small. I left with just 11k of debt.
3) Pick your college with a consideration of costs in mind as well as what you want to study. When choosing a school I found that made a pretty large difference.