Name a Conservative Success Story

[SBD Gonzalez]

It’s depressingly predictable how these threads devolve almost instantly into left/right slanging matches.

What even defines a conservative now? Everything is a continuum but we persist in arguing as if everything is a dichotomy.

In my work I’ve had reason to study evolutionary psychology as it’s a really useful way to understand how our basic wiring evolved.

When humans were nomadic, lived in packs we were all socialist in a pure sense of the word.

Everyone lived in a small, interconnected & interdependent society or social group.
Everyone had a role to play & depended on others playing their roles to survive as a group.

We had hierarchy based on age, strength, intelligence and the strong & the elders/wise might have the final say but things were decided cooperatively & for the survival of the whole group.

Everyone shared everything & everyone contributed to it.
We’re wired to be cooperative & connected to our community.

when we started to use agriculture & people began to live in static communities we needed increasingly complex structures & systems of government but communities were still communities & everyone pulled together to help out if some people didn’t have enough.

Of course there’s always been leaders, Kings, Emperors, warrior leaders, whatever & whoever is on top fights to stay there. Is that what a conservative is? Someone who wants to protect the status quo because they’re ok?

And people always fight with others over land, food, resources, who is right about God etc. even my idyllic nomadic people would fight if they came across other nomadic groups competing for the same resources.

You could make an argument that the aboriginal people of Australia were the ultimate conservative’s because they somehow managed to run the country for more than 40,000 years without stuffing it up & they had very strict social structures, rules that everyone had to follow etc.
but they were the ultimate socialists too because they shared everything & no one owned anything.

The concept of private ownership, everyone for themselves, individualism has much to do with the massive sense of disconnect so many people feel in the modern world & for the increasingly complex problem of inequality we face.

We’ve gotten too big, there’s too many people in the world & where once plagues, wars, famines would have kept population sizes manageable these things happen less & less in first world countries.

Effective government like so much else has become increasingly impossible in increasingly individualized & fragmented societies.

If I think about what was conservative in my parents generation (I just buried my mum at 93) it was the belief in society, family, the church, morality, the rule of law, the community. That’s conservative Australia to me.
But my Mum’s family had come to Australia after the greatest war the world has known in Europe when a continent tore itself to pieces & millions & millions died. Over what? Some crazy man’s ego & weird ideas about nationalism. A fascist, a conservative? A national socialist?

Now we’re destroying the planet with overconsumption & conservatives are a crazy Venn diagram of anybody from Gina Reinhardt to a cooker screaming nonsense about white nationalism into a car phone (made in China) to upload to YouTube.

I grew up when my conservative family sent us to a (free) university to get a classical, liberal education including philosophy, the arts, music & my mother recycled everything & we grew food. We had feminism, eastern religions & a sexual revolution in the west.

Now nouveau riche tradies in the burbs once the class enemy of conservatives go to prosperity gospel mega churches, want to ban books, gay people and are re-embracing the sort of nationalism the crazy guy used to lay waste to Europe. Are they conservatives?

Civilizations rise & fall. The Egyptians, Romans, empires come & go. People make the same mistakes over & over.

Things that endure are ideas, philosophy, art, music, beauty, hope, idealism, kindness, the human spirit.

Conserve that s**t.

Such a good post mate, that expresses what I feel far better than I ever could.

All should read and ponder, and maybe the standard of discourse on here would improve even just a little.

And very sorry about your mum’s passing. I have no doubt she was very proud of you.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Not sure what you want. It's been explained that the law is written to avoid double taxation.

Which is how the situation stood for years.

A company, which is nothing but its shareholders, pays its tax. Why then should its shareholders pay a second tax? So fully franked dividend earnings were tax-free for the shareholder.

I get that.

But how do we justify the current situation - introduced when Costello and Howard went mad with power - where a shareholder actually gets not just a tax-free dividend, not just a tax credit, but a tax REFUND on tax that they NEVER PAID?

Regardless of the technicalities of it, you’d have to agree it’s a terrible look (and I have frequently been the beneficiary of it, I might just add.)

 

[Gough]

Nasty Australia is a conservative success story. The one embodied by Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt who for years coalesced with Liberal governments to use their profile to spread division. The No campaign for the Voice could strike up another win for it.

 

[Fire]

Has anyone named gay marriage yet?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Has anyone named gay marriage yet?

Yes, plenty.

 

[Gough]

They neutered the renewable energy industry for a decade and they managed to swap an auto manufacturing capability for a munitions industry.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Mark McGowan

 

[Seeds]

Apple and google should pay corporate tax here as they earn billions here.

Yes they should. But why were you then claiming you wanted to get rid of corporate tax?

 

[kranky al]

Yes they should. But why were you then claiming you wanted to get rid of corporate tax?

Well there’s a huge list of australian companies not paying it either

 

[kranky al]

Which is how the situation stood for years.

A company, which is nothing but its shareholders, pays its tax. Why then should its shareholders pay a second tax? So fully franked dividend earnings were tax-free for the shareholder.

I get that.

But how do we justify the current situation - introduced when Costello and Howard went mad with power - where a shareholder actually gets not just a tax-free dividend, not just a tax credit, but a tax REFUND on tax that they NEVER PAID?

Regardless of the technicalities of it, you’d have to agree it’s a terrible look (and I have frequently been the beneficiary of it, I might just add.)

How many other countries do this?

 

[Seeds]

Well there’s a huge list of australian companies not paying it either

but then how does getting rid of corporate taxes help with any of this? It just makes things worse for the reasons Ive mentioned. Is there an alternative you are replacing corporate taxes with?

 

[Seeds]

It’s depressingly predictable how these threads devolve almost instantly into left/right slanging matches.

What even defines a conservative now? Everything is a continuum but we persist in arguing as if everything is a dichotomy.

In my work I’ve had reason to study evolutionary psychology as it’s a really useful way to understand how our basic wiring evolved.

When humans were nomadic, lived in packs we were all socialist in a pure sense of the word.

Everyone lived in a small, interconnected & interdependent society or social group.
Everyone had a role to play & depended on others playing their roles to survive as a group.

We had hierarchy based on age, strength, intelligence and the strong & the elders/wise might have the final say but things were decided cooperatively & for the survival of the whole group.

Everyone shared everything & everyone contributed to it.
We’re wired to be cooperative & connected to our community.

when we started to use agriculture & people began to live in static communities we needed increasingly complex structures & systems of government but communities were still communities & everyone pulled together to help out if some people didn’t have enough.

Of course there’s always been leaders, Kings, Emperors, warrior leaders, whatever & whoever is on top fights to stay there. Is that what a conservative is? Someone who wants to protect the status quo because they’re ok?

And people always fight with others over land, food, resources, who is right about God etc. even my idyllic nomadic people would fight if they came across other nomadic groups competing for the same resources.

You could make an argument that the aboriginal people of Australia were the ultimate conservative’s because they somehow managed to run the country for more than 40,000 years without stuffing it up & they had very strict social structures, rules that everyone had to follow etc.
but they were the ultimate socialists too because they shared everything & no one owned anything.

The concept of private ownership, everyone for themselves, individualism has much to do with the massive sense of disconnect so many people feel in the modern world & for the increasingly complex problem of inequality we face.

We’ve gotten too big, there’s too many people in the world & where once plagues, wars, famines would have kept population sizes manageable these things happen less & less in first world countries.

Effective government like so much else has become increasingly impossible in increasingly individualized & fragmented societies.

If I think about what was conservative in my parents generation (I just buried my mum at 93) it was the belief in society, family, the church, morality, the rule of law, the community. That’s conservative Australia to me.
But my Mum’s family had come to Australia after the greatest war the world has known in Europe when a continent tore itself to pieces & millions & millions died. Over what? Some crazy man’s ego & weird ideas about nationalism. A fascist, a conservative? A national socialist?

Now we’re destroying the planet with overconsumption & conservatives are a crazy Venn diagram of anybody from Gina Reinhardt to a cooker screaming nonsense about white nationalism into a car phone (made in China) to upload to YouTube.

I grew up when my conservative family sent us to a (free) university to get a classical, liberal education including philosophy, the arts, music & my mother recycled everything & we grew food. We had feminism, eastern religions & a sexual revolution in the west.

Now nouveau riche tradies in the burbs once the class enemy of conservatives go to prosperity gospel mega churches, want to ban books, gay people and are re-embracing the sort of nationalism the crazy guy used to lay waste to Europe. Are they conservatives?

Civilizations rise & fall. The Egyptians, Romans, empires come & go. People make the same mistakes over & over.

Things that endure are ideas, philosophy, art, music, beauty, hope, idealism, kindness, the human spirit.

Conserve that s**t.

How are we destroying the planet with over consumption? What even is over consumption.

you cant point to climate change but we are about to solve this issue though clean technologies. You could point to waste but how do you define too much waste? Waste is having very little impact on society aand only minor impacts on the environment outside small pockets of the planet.

how have we overpopulated the planet? You could point to lack of land to grow food but all measures now suggest that the amount of land we need for food is now shrinking globally due to dramatic agriculture efficiency improvements. And these productivity improvements are only going to further accelerate going foward. In 100 years Im guessing we will only require a qtr of the land we need today to feed the world. So how do you define overpopulation?

ps. You raise a lot of interesting points. Some are right and some I think are wrong. But the semantic definition of conservative is the least interesting of the lot. who really cares in the grand scheme of things?

 

[kranky al]

How are we destroying the planet with over consumption? What even is over consumption.

you cant point to climate change but we are about to solve this issue though clean technologies. You could point to waste but how do you define too much waste? Waste is having very little impact on society aand only minor impacts on the environment outside small pockets of the planet.

how have we overpopulated the planet? You could point to lack of land to grow food but all measures now suggest that the amount of land we need for food is now shrinking globally due to dramatic agriculture efficiency improvements. And these productivity improvements are only going to further accelerate going foward. In 100 years Im guessing we will only require a qtr of the land we need today to feed the world. So how do you define overpopulation?

ps. You raise a lot of interesting points. Some are right and some I think are wrong. But the semantic definition of conservative is the least interesting of the lot. who really cares in the grand scheme of things?

Desertification, unsustainable farming practises.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

How many other countries do this?

I don’t know. Would be interesting to learn.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

How are we destroying the planet with over consumption? What even is over consumption.

you cant point to climate change but we are about to solve this issue though clean technologies. You could point to waste but how do you define too much waste? Waste is having very little impact on society aand only minor impacts on the environment outside small pockets of the planet.

how have we overpopulated the planet? You could point to lack of land to grow food but all measures now suggest that the amount of land we need for food is now shrinking globally due to dramatic agriculture efficiency improvements. And these productivity improvements are only going to further accelerate going foward. In 100 years Im guessing we will only require a qtr of the land we need today to feed the world. So how do you define overpopulation?

ps. You raise a lot of interesting points. Some are right and some I think are wrong. But the semantic definition of conservative is the least interesting of the lot. who really cares in the grand scheme of things?

Mate I know you’re a genuine poster and not a shit stirrer but I think you need to read up a bit on the state of the environment. Species extinction, loss of habitat and biodiversity. Seem to be in some sort of Pollyannaland.
Here’s just one place you could start:

Killing the Koala and Poisoning the Prairie

Though separated by thousands of miles, the United States and Australia have much in common. Geographically both countries are expansive—the United States is the fourth largest in land mass and Australia the sixth—and both possess a vast amount of natural biodiversity. At the same time, both...

press.uchicago.edu

Things are not good, and overpopulation is a big driver of that.

 

[Captivating]

Apple and google should pay corporate tax here as they earn billions here.

Wrong. They don't earn billions. They might have sales revenue in the bilions but they also have expenses in the billions.

Apple last had taxable income of $579 million and paid $173 million in tax. Can't ask more than a company paying 30% tax on their taxable income.
Google had taxable income of $300 million and paid 77 million in tax. That's 26%, pretty close to the company rate of 30%.

All can be found here.

Search

data.gov.au

This is just income tax. They also pay GST.

LNP did introduce the MAAL and DPT to make multinationals pay tax.

 

[kranky al]

Wrong. They don't earn billions. They might have sales revenue in the bilions but they also have expenses in the billions.

Apple last had taxable income of $579 million and paid $173 million in tax. Can't ask more than a company paying 30% tax on their taxable income.
Google had taxable income of $300 million and paid 77 million in tax. That's 26%, pretty close to the company rate of 30%.

All can be found here.

Search

data.gov.au

This is just income tax. They also pay GST.

LNP did introduce the MAAL and DPT to make multinationals pay tax.

Spot the shill…

When apple Ireland sells apple australia phones for a few bucks less than what apple australia sells them for you dont end up with a lot of taxable profit.

Oh and such a surprise, apple Ireland then pay much lower tax on the real profit from apple Australia…. Thants called offshoring profits.

Apple sent billions offshore to avoid Australia tax, report says

Apple shifted billions in untaxed profits from its Australian operations to Ireland over the past decade, a report said Thursday, as the government vowed to stop global companies from dodging their fair share of tax.

phys.org

<<<

Apple sent billions offshore to avoid Australia tax, report says​

March 6, 2014


This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:
by Martin Parry
Apple shifted billions in untaxed profits from its Australian operations to Ireland over the past decade, a report said Thursday, as the government vowed to stop global companies from dodging their fair share of tax.

An investigation by the Australian Financial Review obtained 10 years worth of financial accounts for Apple Sales International—an arm of the organisation it described as the "secretive" Irish company at the heart of the group's global tax arrangements.

The newspaper said the US tech giant moved an estimated Aus$8.9 billion (US$8.1 billion) in untaxed profits from Australia to a tax haven structure in Ireland, paying just 0.7 percent of its turnover in tax.

Last year, Apple declared pre-tax earnings in Australia of only Aus$88.5 million after sending an estimated Aus$2 billion from its Australian sales to Ireland via Singapore, it reported.

Apple in Australia declined to comment to AFP, but the company has previously said it has complied with the law and done everything required by the tax office. There is no suggestion it has done anything illegal.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said in response to the report that the government was determined to recover tax that companies have inappropriately avoided and that Canberra was pursing the issue through the G20.

"Businesses operating around the world are not necessarily paying their fair share of tax where they're earning their profits," he said, without naming any firm.

"Our view is, and that is a view that's shared around the world, businesses should pay their fair share of tax where they earn profits."

Trade Minister Andrew Robb added to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "In most cases the companies are doing what is legal, but is it fair?

"Is it what they should do as companies that are benefiting greatly from the Australian commerce?

"No they're not, and we've got to look in a global sense at how to tackle this problem, that's why it's on at the G20."

Concerns are mounting that global companies, particularly those involved in the digital and Internet sectors, can reduce their tax bills by shifting profits around the world to areas where rates are lowest.

Ahead of a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Sydney last month, IMF chief Christine Lagarde said accounting for revenues from global businesses was a "big ongoing problem and process".

She urged governments to radically rethink international tax arrangements to deal with it.

The G20 meeting agreed to new measures to crack down on international tax evasion, including the automatic exchange of information between member nations.>>>

 

[Captivating]

Spot the shill…

When apple Ireland sells apple australia phones for a few bucks less than what apple australia sells them for you dont end up with a lot of taxable profit.

Oh and such a surprise, apple Ireland then pay much lower tax on the real profit from apple Australia…. Thants called offshoring profits.

Apple sent billions offshore to avoid Australia tax, report says

Apple shifted billions in untaxed profits from its Australian operations to Ireland over the past decade, a report said Thursday, as the government vowed to stop global companies from dodging their fair share of tax.

phys.org

<<<

Apple sent billions offshore to avoid Australia tax, report says​

March 6, 2014


This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:
by Martin Parry
Apple shifted billions in untaxed profits from its Australian operations to Ireland over the past decade, a report said Thursday, as the government vowed to stop global companies from dodging their fair share of tax.

An investigation by the Australian Financial Review obtained 10 years worth of financial accounts for Apple Sales International—an arm of the organisation it described as the "secretive" Irish company at the heart of the group's global tax arrangements.

The newspaper said the US tech giant moved an estimated Aus$8.9 billion (US$8.1 billion) in untaxed profits from Australia to a tax haven structure in Ireland, paying just 0.7 percent of its turnover in tax.

Last year, Apple declared pre-tax earnings in Australia of only Aus$88.5 million after sending an estimated Aus$2 billion from its Australian sales to Ireland via Singapore, it reported.

Apple in Australia declined to comment to AFP, but the company has previously said it has complied with the law and done everything required by the tax office. There is no suggestion it has done anything illegal.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said in response to the report that the government was determined to recover tax that companies have inappropriately avoided and that Canberra was pursing the issue through the G20.

"Businesses operating around the world are not necessarily paying their fair share of tax where they're earning their profits," he said, without naming any firm.

"Our view is, and that is a view that's shared around the world, businesses should pay their fair share of tax where they earn profits."

Trade Minister Andrew Robb added to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "In most cases the companies are doing what is legal, but is it fair?

"Is it what they should do as companies that are benefiting greatly from the Australian commerce?

"No they're not, and we've got to look in a global sense at how to tackle this problem, that's why it's on at the G20."

Concerns are mounting that global companies, particularly those involved in the digital and Internet sectors, can reduce their tax bills by shifting profits around the world to areas where rates are lowest.

Ahead of a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Sydney last month, IMF chief Christine Lagarde said accounting for revenues from global businesses was a "big ongoing problem and process".

She urged governments to radically rethink international tax arrangements to deal with it.

The G20 meeting agreed to new measures to crack down on international tax evasion, including the automatic exchange of information between member nations.>>>

You're quoting an article from 2014. Law has been introduced to stop this from happening. MAAL, DPT, auto exchange of information have all become legislation.

 

[kranky al]

You're quoting an article from 2014. Law has been introduced to stop this from happening. MAAL, DPT, auto exchange of information have all become legislation.

Yes yes yes

More: Why Google, Facebook and Apple aren’t worried about the new 15pc tax

Why Google, Facebook and Apple aren’t worried about the new 15pc tax​

It’s likely to be four years before the ATO sees any revenue, and the US may still put the whole OECD tax project on ice. Otherwise, what could go wrong?​

Neil ChenowethMay 16, 2023 – 4.42pm

Treasurer Jim Chalmers: The budget forecasts the global tax will raise $370 million over two years ... but getting it might take a while. Rhett Wymannone

The sparkly new tax the government revealed in last week’s budget to set a global minimum 15 per cent tax rate will cost $111 million to set up – and it will likely be at least four years before the Tax Office can expect any revenue.
In fact, the whole project might be put on ice. What the past decade has shown unequivocally is that international collaboration to stop tax avoidance is hard.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers: The budget forecasts the global tax will raise $370 million over two years ... but getting it might take a while. Rhett Wymannone
Budget papers show the ATO will spend $79.1 million in the next two financial years as the government introduces a domestic minimum tax for the 2024 fiscal year (which will not raise any money). It will then cost $20 million a year after a 15 per cent global minimum tax kicks in for fiscal 2026.
Any actual tax receipts are unlikely to arrive until well after that. Perhaps it is as well that the ATO is well funded because the legal battles in extracting those tax receipts promise to be challenging.
The government had no choice – it was obliged to introduce the new measures as part of its 2021 commitment to support what the OECD calls its Pillar 2 measures to fight the use of tax havens.
While the OECD forecasts the Pillar Two measures will raise $US220 billion ($330 billion), the expected tax take in Australia is relatively modest, says Deloitte tax partner David Watkins.

“It is hoped that the Australian approach to design and compliance is commensurate with the forecast tax revenues,” Mr Watkins said.

“Time is short for development of the relevant legislation before the start of next year, especially given that we are currently awaiting finalisation of laws for a number of key multinational measures due to commence from July.”

Australian subsidiary​

Treasury says it will raise $160 million from the new taxes in fiscal 2026 and $210 million in 2027, but the lengthy period of companies filing tax returns in multiple countries, the process of tracing where Australian profits go, and finally extracting payments cast doubt on the timing of any payments.

The Pillar Two system aims to make sure all companies pay at least 15 per cent tax. But do not expect that to be in Australia.

As an example, a US tech company sells products or services through an Australian subsidiary which pays tax here on Australian income. That taxable income is low because the Australian subsidiary pays licensing fees to an associated company in Singapore, which pays 5 per cent tax on a slice of the funds but sends most of the licensing fees to tax-free Bermuda. Or Ireland.

If the US parent ends up paying less than 15 per cent tax over all its sales, then under Pillar Two Australia could charge a top-up tax to the Australian subsidiary, to ensure the overall tax rate is 15 per cent. But Singapore might want to do that as well, charging a top-up tax on the same funds, which makes the process cumbersome, time-consuming and a lawyer’s delight.

Then there is the US. It is expected to refuse to sign up for Pillar Two, which will send the whole tax reform process into deep freeze.

Australia’s track record for cracking down on multinational taxpayers is modest. The centrepiece of this effort last decade, the 2016 multinational anti-avoidance law (MAAL), targeted 44 companies and raised just $100 million in the income tax year, second commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn told Senate Estimates in February. It also raised $80 million of net GST.

In 2014, at the start of the reform process, firms like Apple, Alphabet-Google, Microsoft and Facebook were being audited by the ATO amid widespread concern that the four firms were making huge profits from Australian clients on which little to no tax was paid in Bermuda, Ireland and elsewhere.

What corporate filings show is that tax payments jumped around 2018 as firms made tax settlements after ATO audits covering multiple years, but once that effect passed, the tax increase was relatively minor.

In the past 10 years Australians have paid $84 billion for Apple products. Apple reported $3 billion taxable income during that time and paid $1.17 billion in Australian tax.

Apple’s 2022 results were for just nine months. “Normalising” that up to a full year, it is equivalent to $12.4 billion of sales, $521 million pre-tax income and $159 million tax. Apple Inc’s global gross margin was 43.3 per cent last year, so on an annualised basis its Australian gross profit was more than $5 billion, and the ATO got 3 per cent of that.

Comparisons over time​

It is more complicated than that. But compare 2014, before the MAAL, the diverted profits tax and other measures, when Apple’s Australian sales were $6.1 billion, its pre-tax profit $252 million and its tax $80 million.

Apple’s sales have doubled since then and so has the tax it pays here. So what has the past decade achieved? Apple’s global effective tax rate has dropped from above 25 per cent to hover now around 15 per cent – high enough that it won’t be troubled by Pillar Two.

It does not work to compare sales directly with income tax. But it is telling to compare these high margin firms over time.

Elsewhere, Facebook Australia has gone from paying $681,000 tax in 2014 on $26 million revenue to $33.7 million last year (excluding previous years’ adjustments) on sales of $1.4 billion.

Similarly, Microsoft Australia’s tax went from $439,000 in 2014 to $23.2 million.

The change is most pronounced at Google Australia, where tax went from $9.5 million in 2014 to $92.6 million last year, as Australian revenue rose from $438.7 million to $1.95 billion (another $6.5 billion booked offshore is not taxable here).

The true total for what Apple, Google, Facebook and Microsoft extracted from Australia in 2022 is probably more than $25 billion, less costs, on which they paid $317 million tax.

If they are concerned about Pillar Two, they have a terrific poker face.

 

[Captivating]

Article says "It does not work to compare sales directly with income tax." and then proceed to compare sales with income tax. sigh

 

[kranky al]

Article says "It does not work to compare sales directly with income tax." and then proceed to compare sales with income tax. sigh

Yeas we understand.

Apple is domiciled in Ireland and does the double Dutch accounting thing as it make no difference to the tax they would pay.

Also if you say “gullible” reeeeeeeaaalllyy slowly it sounds like you are saying oranges.

 

[jannissary]

Has anyone named gay marriage yet?

Tony Abbott warns colleagues not to vote for same-sex marriage

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has warned his ministerial colleagues they would have to resign from the frontbench if they were to vote in support of same-sex marriage and said he would be disappointed in any backbenchers who vote to support change.

www.smh.com.au

considering this was their (former) leader before he got beheaded by his party it's a shock they even put it forward for a referendum

 

[Captivating]

Yeas we understand.

Apple is domiciled in Ireland and does the double Dutch accounting thing as it make no difference to the tax they would pay.

Also if you say “gullible” reeeeeeeaaalllyy slowly it sounds like you are saying oranges.

Apple Pay 30% tax on their taxable income. Apple au is not and will never have the same profit margins as Apple US. The US parent assumes all of the risk and is rewarded for that. Apple au simply on sells products made by someone else. If Apple had an independent sales arm they would only be making a very small profit based on the simple functions done in Australia. Apple US would not share its profits with an independent sales arm. Therefore it does not share its profits with Apple au

 

[kranky al]

Apple Pay 30% tax on their taxable income. Apple au is not and will never have the same profit margins as Apple US. The US parent assumes all of the risk and is rewarded for that. Apple au simply on sells products made by someone else. If Apple had an independent sales arm they would only be making a very small profit based on the simple functions done in Australia. Apple US would not share its profits with an independent sales arm. Therefore it does not share its profits with Apple au

It’s amazing to me that you can find out all the information you want to know about this, have forensic accountants explain in detail how the Irish / Dutch tax scam works. They then print this information in conservative newspapers - and you still have people deep throating corporate chode trying to pretend it’s not a tax scam.

 

[Captivating]

It’s amazing to me that you can find out all the information you want to know about this, have forensic accountants explain in detail how the Irish / Dutch tax scam works. They then print this information in conservative newspapers - and you still have people deep throating corporate chode trying to pretend it’s not a tax scam.

You’re living in the past. It’s no longer legal to have the double Irish Dutch sandwich. You just have a view that big corporates pay no tax despite any evidence presented to the contrary.