Amyz, you can hide the chat by clicking on one of the other two tabs at the top, either Who's Online or My Friends.

Done. ng, ng.

Done

Personally, I welcome discussion, even in these tiny boxes. Amazing how drwho crams in his condescension, his galloping sense of superiority. I won't join in, but did want to take the opportunity to fling a pebble at drwhateveristhepoint. Hope everyone had a fine Shabbat.

start

ding

drwho, as you like some background, The Australian Financial Review's analysis shows that while Australians have bought $27 billion worth of Apple products since 2002, the company has paid only $193 million to the Australian Tax Office (ATO) - just 0.7 per cent of its turnover.

The newspaper estimates that around $9 billion in profit has been shifted offshore to minimise taxation.

"Apple worldwide in the past four years have avoided paying tax on $US44 billion," said Antony Ting, a senior lecturer in taxation law at Sydney University.

and more recently,The Australian government last year announced it was cracking down on multinational company tax accounts, following its scrutiny on the likes of Apple, Microsoft and Google shifting profits overseas. The 2016 budget, announced in May, introduced a Diverted Profits Tax, which would impose a 40 percent penalty rate on large multinationals trying to shift their profits offshore.

In August last year, Apple was ordered by repay €13 billion (A$19.2 billion) taxes after the European Commission found its Irish tax structure "illegal under EU state aid rules".

@drwho - okay, then we agree on one point:
companies can behave unethical. But , by stating that
companies should by all means pay as little tax as possible,
you just tried to obfuscate your real argument: saying
"there is no such thing as a fair share of taxes"
and calling the reversed argument a retorical trick.

Well it is not a retorcial trick, it i stating that avoidung to pay a fair share of taxes is considered unethical. And a large part of the developed world at this moment is considering to change their tax laws because is is too easy for multinationals
to avoid taxes. See the example beow mentioned by Phil -
including the =illegal= tax construction in Ireland by Apple.

The social responsibility of companies, to be found
in the triple_P slogsn from the 1990's:
"people, planet, profit" - is still very much alive in Europe.

Done

It is still alive here too Mr.O. Blaming regulators for the financial meltdown is like blaming a baker for you eating too much cake. The regulators where lobbied to "take the chains" off of the financial regulations. The Market would solve all the unethical behavior because it was in it's own self interest. Unfortunately as Alan "Ayn Rand" Greenspan admitted 'I made a mistake' So I will accept your premise that it was the "fault" of the government regulators if you see "fault" as NOT doing their job and their agencies being gutted. Too little regulation, not too much.

But it doesn't matter what the cause of the financial meltdown was. We have had market crashes throughout our history. They have been during times of almost no regulation and during times of "excessive" regulation. It is the true nature of the market. It can be gamed. It is basically a Casino. Winners and losers. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results" That is the true market mantra. My point of having a Stock Market backed retirement plan still holds. It is much riskier than a highly regulated pension plan.

PPP How many corporations already get huge breaks on their energy usage from utilities. tax breaks from municipalities on hiring and locating there, etc. etc. etc... and yet they still cry that they need lower taxes. What exactly is the "effective" tax rate of U.S. corporations? https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/act\nual-us-corporate-tax-rates-are-in-line-with-c\nomparable-countries

If you are a true believer of "The Market" then taxes are a part of doing business and if you can't succeed with the taxes as they are then you are in the wrong business. Not use government regulation to reduce or avoid your true cost of doing business. Free Market does not mean avoiding the true cost of doing business, or is that the true meaning of Free Market? No regulation, self-regulating, allow the market to seek the lowest cost of doing business to increase profit? We know what that looks like. We fought a Civil War against it.

done