Okay, so Cook is implying here that Apple's maneuvers are not only restricted by rule of law, but by some underlying ethical principles. This model is bolstered by similar pronouncements he's made on privacy.
Apple is a company that benefits enormously from the intellectual and physical infrastructure of the United States. From this, many onlookers derive the ethical principle that Apple should pay its "fair share of tax".
So Cook's Apple must also have a meta-ethics that somehow judges this is not an important ethical principle.
Part of me wonders if this meta-ethics involves a cost-benefit analysis. And wonders when the rubber hits the road whether Apple's ethical principles actually go beyond the default corporate ethics of maximizing shareholder value within the rule of law.
On the other hand, anyone saying bad things about PACs, and good things about privacy, is fine and dandy with me.
Which means this ad must be made for people like me.
On what basis do you decide that Apple doesn't pay it's 'fair share'? On the face of it they seem to pay a fair bit. They are the largest single tax payer in the world, with a global effective tax rate of 24.6%.
I'm sure there are some ways they minimise their tax bills, but it's not as though they don't pay tax or even pay very little tax overall.
Apple paid taxes on all of those funds, in the jurisdictions in which the money was earned just like any other company. The US is the only country I'm aware of that charges tax on income earned abroad.
The US system is ludicrous. A few years ago a British politician, who has never resided long term in the US but who's mother was a US citizen, renounced his dual US nationality because the US tried to tax him on his sale of his house here in the UK.
>Here’s how Apple avoids paying nearly all taxes in Europe:
That's blatant click-bait. It actually only applies to iTunes revenue which is a sliver of Apple's overall tax bill, most of which is paid on physical products taxed like any other manufacturer.
The basic fact is Apple pays a huge tranche of taxes to governments all over the world, more than any other single tax payer. Picking at little threads round the edges of their tax practices doesn't change that fact.
> The basic fact is Apple pays a huge tranche of taxes to governments all over the world, more than any other single tax payer.
Source please? And more than any single tax payer where? Are you claiming Apple is the largest tax payer in every tax regime of the world?
> Picking at little threads round the edges of their tax practices doesn't change that fact.
OK Mr. Fanboy, nice work diminishing a tax avoidance as "picking at little threads". Sorry I insulted your idol.
Getting fined by the EC doesn't make it sound like what they did were legal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_State_aid_case_agai... . Of course, if the government says it's legal it might as well be legal, it doesn't mean it's morally correct, no wonder the populists hate the technocratic governments who are in bed with the corporations.
I guess in your books "they paid enough" is good enough to make them the good guys.
Why would it be cheap if it is effective? It’s a zero sum game and there are intensely competing corporate interests. If it were highly effective, the price would be bid up.
Paying politicians (through their campaign funds) because they hold certain views is quite different from trying to persuade politicians of a certain view without giving them a financial incentive.
Furthermore with lobbying the activity is largely in public, while it can be unclear on what basis or understandings direct campaign donations are made.
> Furthermore with lobbying the activity is largely in public
Disregarding popular movements that's not how lobbying works at all. No private special interest group is going to be advertising the many ways in which it is trying to influence a person holding public office. You subscribe to a service providing you with personal data, you attend the same events, you help them. For example by commenting on or even drafting legislative texts.
"Apple CEO Tim Cook will host a fundraiser with House Speaker Paul Ryan next week as the iPhone maker tries to strengthen its relationships with key Republicans" (2016)
> Cook is hosting the fundraiser on his own accord, as Apple does not have a corporate political action committee like Facebook, Google and other tech giants in Silicon Valley
>So much for privacy/environmental sustainability I guess
Do you think Republicans have a mind control ray so powerful it'll convince Cook/Apple to forsake their privacy and environmental commitments? What are you trying to say here?
I just found this website by googling and thus I'm not sure of its credibility, but if I'm reading it correctly, Apple contributed $1,677,466 and spent $6,620,000 on lobbying in 2018. Seems like that could qualify as a "political donation."
Those are from employees of Apple. And I have no problem with Apple lobbying if they're going to lobby for federal privacy legislation that is as strong as GDPR. The ad-tech giants are certainly lobbying to defang it.
It does say "All contributions to candidates from Apple Inc came from individuals" at the bottom but you need to open up the "VIEW ALL CANDIDATE RECEIPTS" before you get "The organizations themselves did not donate" in red.
- Apple, as a company, does not donate any money to political candidates, CEO Tim Cook
said on Tuesday.
- He also said he doesn't believe that political action committee (PACs) should exist.
PACs allow corporations and others to secretly donate large sums to campaigns.
- While Apple doesn't try to get particular politicians elected, it still spend
millions annually on lobbying, records show.
- Cook explained, 'We focus on policies, not politics.'
I think this is an excellent stance, admirable and more companies (e.g. Google) should follow suit.
I read that as "As long as you vote for what we want, we'll ignore anything else you may be doing". They can't escape politics if they want to influence (inter)national policies.
"As long as you're giving us tax breaks and not regulating us, we don't care about your politics when it comes to LGBT/Environment or whatever else politics is about"
> Apple, as a company, does not donate any money to political candidates, CEO Tim Cook said on Tuesday.
Corporate donations to political candidates are bright-line illegal, a (potentially criminal) campaign finance violation, so it would be surprising if Cook said anything else.
> He also said he doesn't believe that political action committee (PACs) should exist.
> PACs allow corporations and others to secretly donate large sums to campaigns.
This part has the facts all wrong which makes it harder to tell what is actually opposed; PAC donations are sharply limited and disclosed publicly by law, and while corporations can sponsor PACs they can only subsidize their administrative expenses, actual campaign donations cannot come from corporate funds, either directly or through PACs; PACs don't allow corporations to donate, and the donations PACs do make are neither secret nor large sums.)
Independent political expenditures as allowed by Citizens United (either directly by interested entities or by entities that collect donations specifically for that purpose, the latter of which are sometimes referred to as “SuperPACs”) allow secret, unlimited spending to promote or oppose candidates or measures, but cannot donate to campaigns or even legally coordinate with them.
It's not clear if Cook actually opposes PACs or SuperPACs, neither one of which actually matches the description of what the “PACs” he opposes are, or if he opposes some mythical thing which combines some features of PACs (donation to campaigns) with some of superPACs (unlimited quantity, secrecy, ability to use corporate funds for non-administrative functions).
It’s illegal for companies to donate to political candidates. What’s listed as company contributions in that list is contributions by company employees. Lobbying spending is also not political donations. It goes to lobbyists who represent the company.
What Apple is saying is that it doesn’t have a PAC that raises money from its employees, which is legal.
Our of all the tech companies that lobby, I wish Apple did more. They are the only major privacy concerned tech-giant and they produce the least environmentally damaging hardware.
I agree it shouldn’t happen, but if politicians have to listen to money, at least listen to the lesser evil.
I want to create a lobby group / PAC that will promote the idea and lobby US lawmakers to make lobbying illegal. Once it is successful enough to be unable to do it's job, it will dissolve, distributing its money to pre-appointed charities.
52 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadDoesnt run a PAC
Doesnt NOT donate to PAC, which can be for any cause or even a political candidate and also anonymous
Cheeseburgers shouldnt exist either, I still eat them
Apple is a company that benefits enormously from the intellectual and physical infrastructure of the United States. From this, many onlookers derive the ethical principle that Apple should pay its "fair share of tax".
So Cook's Apple must also have a meta-ethics that somehow judges this is not an important ethical principle.
Part of me wonders if this meta-ethics involves a cost-benefit analysis. And wonders when the rubber hits the road whether Apple's ethical principles actually go beyond the default corporate ethics of maximizing shareholder value within the rule of law.
On the other hand, anyone saying bad things about PACs, and good things about privacy, is fine and dandy with me.
Which means this ad must be made for people like me.
I'm sure there are some ways they minimise their tax bills, but it's not as though they don't pay tax or even pay very little tax overall.
The US system is ludicrous. A few years ago a British politician, who has never resided long term in the US but who's mother was a US citizen, renounced his dual US nationality because the US tried to tax him on his sale of his house here in the UK.
Snort! https://www.cultofmac.com/302651/apple-avoids-paying-taxes-i... , no they pay taxes in Luxembourg and say they have little profit in other European countries. But can we blame them, I would also try to optimize my taxes, and even the guy who set up this tax scheme to benefit Luxembourg is now... the president of the European Commission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks
>Here’s how Apple avoids paying nearly all taxes in Europe:
That's blatant click-bait. It actually only applies to iTunes revenue which is a sliver of Apple's overall tax bill, most of which is paid on physical products taxed like any other manufacturer.
The basic fact is Apple pays a huge tranche of taxes to governments all over the world, more than any other single tax payer. Picking at little threads round the edges of their tax practices doesn't change that fact.
Source please? And more than any single tax payer where? Are you claiming Apple is the largest tax payer in every tax regime of the world?
> Picking at little threads round the edges of their tax practices doesn't change that fact.
OK Mr. Fanboy, nice work diminishing a tax avoidance as "picking at little threads". Sorry I insulted your idol.
Getting fined by the EC doesn't make it sound like what they did were legal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_State_aid_case_agai... . Of course, if the government says it's legal it might as well be legal, it doesn't mean it's morally correct, no wonder the populists hate the technocratic governments who are in bed with the corporations.
I guess in your books "they paid enough" is good enough to make them the good guys.
Few millions a year for companies doing 10s or 100s billions in revenue, that's really rounding error.
And they would spend more if ROI is there but obviously it is not.
It says more on US politicians being cheap and essentially easy to indirectly bribe.
The revolving door between Google and the government suggests otherwise.
Furthermore with lobbying the activity is largely in public, while it can be unclear on what basis or understandings direct campaign donations are made.
Disregarding popular movements that's not how lobbying works at all. No private special interest group is going to be advertising the many ways in which it is trying to influence a person holding public office. You subscribe to a service providing you with personal data, you attend the same events, you help them. For example by commenting on or even drafting legislative texts.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/tim-cook-apple-paul-r...
So much for privacy/environmental sustainability I guess
Sure American politics is corrupt but it would be utterly asinine for a big company like Apple not to engage with politicians.
> So much for privacy/environmental sustainability I guess
Quite, it seems like weasel words.
Do you think Republicans have a mind control ray so powerful it'll convince Cook/Apple to forsake their privacy and environmental commitments? What are you trying to say here?
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021754
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-cal-p...
I read that as "As long as you vote for what we want, we'll ignore anything else you may be doing". They can't escape politics if they want to influence (inter)national policies.
Corporate donations to political candidates are bright-line illegal, a (potentially criminal) campaign finance violation, so it would be surprising if Cook said anything else.
> He also said he doesn't believe that political action committee (PACs) should exist.
> PACs allow corporations and others to secretly donate large sums to campaigns.
This part has the facts all wrong which makes it harder to tell what is actually opposed; PAC donations are sharply limited and disclosed publicly by law, and while corporations can sponsor PACs they can only subsidize their administrative expenses, actual campaign donations cannot come from corporate funds, either directly or through PACs; PACs don't allow corporations to donate, and the donations PACs do make are neither secret nor large sums.)
Independent political expenditures as allowed by Citizens United (either directly by interested entities or by entities that collect donations specifically for that purpose, the latter of which are sometimes referred to as “SuperPACs”) allow secret, unlimited spending to promote or oppose candidates or measures, but cannot donate to campaigns or even legally coordinate with them.
It's not clear if Cook actually opposes PACs or SuperPACs, neither one of which actually matches the description of what the “PACs” he opposes are, or if he opposes some mythical thing which combines some features of PACs (donation to campaigns) with some of superPACs (unlimited quantity, secrecy, ability to use corporate funds for non-administrative functions).
What Apple is saying is that it doesn’t have a PAC that raises money from its employees, which is legal.
I agree it shouldn’t happen, but if politicians have to listen to money, at least listen to the lesser evil.
https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1120320958382755840