Zuckerberg Fires Back at Cook

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Cole5 said:

Why? I quite like roads that dont fall apart and bridges that dont cave in

Weren't you complaining that you pay too much tax? 

On 4/7/2018 at 8:14 AM, Cole5 said:

But I can, and DO blame companies for not paying their fair share of taxes, Sure loopholes may not be legal, but it's still douchy to pay .05% on profit if i have to pay 34%

 

Either you have a problem with paying tax and want to find ways to lower your obligation or you don't. 

[79wjd]

7 hours ago, Cole5 said:

Why? I quite like roads that dont fall apart and bridges that dont cave in

That's why America's infrastructure is falling apart. Taxes go towards lining the pockets of politicians and those who helped them get elected, and then whatever's leftover goes towards fixing the same ten feet of road for the next fifty years.

[LAwLz]

On 2018-04-15 at 6:22 AM, mr moose said:

You have the problem with this being about ethics.  It is not an ethical situation to me. 

And I am not alone in thinking that way either. As I have already pointed out, scholars says it is too.

I don't understand how you can't think this is an "ethical situation", unless you don't understand what ethics are, and you keep refusing to define it so the conversation doesn't get anywhere.

 

On 2018-04-15 at 6:22 AM, mr moose said:

if a government wants a company to pay more tax then they change their laws in order to force that company to pay more tax (I.E making shifting profit into an offshore holding/investment no longer a deductible). 

That is not what Apple are doing though. This is why I asked you to specifically state what you believe Apple are doing in order to get a lower tax. Because it is not something you can easily change the law and get rid of.

 

On 2018-04-15 at 6:22 AM, mr moose said:

In order for this to be about ethics you would have to demonstrate some sort of moral decision that is being made that disadvantages another party against their will or beyond their power to mitigate.   

Why? Is that your definition of ethics? Because I can not find that criteria in any literature. You are the first one I can find, and believe me I have spent a long time looking for it, that mentions anything similar to that. There are a lot of ethical models, but none of them seem to define unethical behavior as something which disadvantages another party against their will or beyond their power to mitigate.

That sounds more like something related to laws, rather than ethics.

 

But yes, Apple is making the moral decision to avoid paying tax and as a result there is a heavier burden on both the other tax payers, as well as the people who has to manage the budget and might be forced to do budget cuts in some sectors.

 

On 2018-04-15 at 6:22 AM, mr moose said:

All unethical behaviour comes down to dishonesty or bullying.

According to whom?

A teacher dating a student (who is 18 years or older) is neither dishonesty nor bullying, but it is still unethical. I am fairly sure even you will agree with this. Universities and other places certainly agrees with it.

 

On 2018-04-15 at 6:22 AM, mr moose said:

Explain how is something that contains no deceit, no dishonesty and does not get its way from bullying or forcing someone into being denied something beyond their desires (in this case the tax office) can be unethical.  

Because none of those things you listed are actually criteria for being ethical/unethical.

You might as well be saying "explain to me how something can be unethical when the sky is blue". Yes the sky is blue, but that is not relevant to whether or not something is unethical, and neither are the things you listed. You will not be able to find a single definition of ethics which aligns with your definition.

 

On 2018-04-15 at 6:22 AM, mr moose said:

I believe I asked you to explain the mechanism by which you think it is unethical back on page 5, still waiting.

And I have done so, several times. You did not accept the explanations though because they do not align with your definition of ethics.

It is unethical because people do not believe tax avoidance is a virtuous thing to do. Do you believe tax avoidance is virtuous and morally good? 

 

It goes against the spirit of the spirit of the law, which is that everyone contributes to make society better. It is a companies obligation to pay taxes, but by using these type of tactics they are not properly following that obligation.

 

 

Or, as I explained here:

On 2018-04-06 at 10:20 AM, LAwLz said:

Morals - The differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions that are good or bad. In order to determine what is "good/bad", "proper/improper", "virtue/vice", philosophy, culture or religion is applied. Morals may differ from people to people. For example some might think abortion is morally wrong, while others might disagree. Morals are an individuals perception of something, a personal compass for right or wrong. It is not an objective scale that can be measured because it is based on an individuals believes and principles.

 

Ethics - A collection of morals which are imposed from an external source, such as society. If society as a whole believes something is improper behavior then it is unethical. Sometimes your moral compass does not align with societies ethics. You might think something is morally correct, but it is still deemed unethical, or vice versa. This often happens in professions like lawyers or doctors. It would be unethical for a lawyer to not defend their client just because the lawyer believes the client to be guilty. However, they might think it is morally wrong to do so, because they are protecting a criminal.

 

Another example would be a doctor not euthanizing a patient, despite the patients request. The ethical standards of doctors is that they do heal people, not harm. However, the doctors own morals might say that the patient has the right to die.

 

 

[LAwLz]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

Weren't you complaining that you pay too much tax? 

 

Either you have a problem with paying tax and want to find ways to lower your obligation or you don't. 

There is no third option that someone believes the tax rate is alright but want everyone to pay the same amount? For example, if he pays 34% tax wouldn't it be reasonable of him to want everyone to pay that? 

[mr moose]

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And I am not alone in thinking that way either. As I have already pointed out, scholars says it is too.

I don't understand how you can't think this is an "ethical situation", unless you don't understand what ethics are, and you keep refusing to define it so the conversation doesn't get anywhere.

 

Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't understand. 

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That is not what Apple are doing though. This is why I asked you to specifically state what you believe Apple are doing in order to get a lower tax. Because it is not something you can easily change the law and get rid of.

It is exactly what they are doing. The government knows exactly how much profit each company makes in it's own country.  They are very well audited on that. They could simply say "if you made $200M in profit in my country you can pay X% tax on that and I don't care where you put it or what you spend it on".  The tax law can be changed, but you have to understand there is a difference between not being able to change it and not wanting to change it. 

 

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Why? Is that your definition of ethics? Because I can not find that criteria in any literature. You are the first one I can find, and believe me I have spent a long time looking for it, that mentions anything similar to that. There are a lot of ethical models, but none of them seem to define unethical behavior as something which disadvantages another party against their will or beyond their power to mitigate.

That sounds more like something related to laws, rather than ethics.

Show me an unethical action that does not involve another person. Show me a single unethical action that does not disadvantage another person against their will.

 

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But yes, Apple is making the moral decision to avoid paying tax and as a result there is a heavier burden on both the other tax payers, as well as the people who has to manage the budget and might be forced to do budget cuts in some sectors.

No, it is the government who has to balance how much they charge in tax and how much they put into each sector. not the taxpayers.  The tax payer has simply paid the tax asked of it, that is neither a moral decision nor an ethical one. It is straight up a financial one. 

 

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

According to whom?

A teacher dating a student (who is 18 years or older) is neither dishonesty nor bullying, but it is still unethical. I am fairly sure even you will agree with this. Universities and other places certainly agrees with it.

When apple starts dating the tax office we'll use your example, until then lets keep it about finances and laws as that is what this is about.

 

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Because none of those things you listed are actually criteria for being ethical/unethical.

You might as well be saying "explain to me how something can be unethical when the sky is blue". Yes the sky is blue, but that is not relevant to whether or not something is unethical, and neither are the things you listed. You will not be able to find a single definition of ethics which aligns with your definition.

No that is your domain.  Again explain to me how something can be unethical without being dishonest in some way.  Like your teacher example if no one is getting hurt against their will and no one is being dishonest then it isn't unethical.   

 

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And I have done so, several times. You did not accept the explanations though because they do not align with your definition of ethics.

It is unethical because people do not believe tax avoidance is a virtuous thing to do. Do you believe tax avoidance is virtuous and morally good? 

No you haven't, you just keep saying it's unethical and everyone believes it therefore you must too.   That is not an explanation.  Claiming it hurts government funding is not a direct result of tax avoidance because it is not the company that decides how much tax to pay.

 

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It goes against the spirit of the spirit of the law, which is that everyone contributes to make society better. It is a companies obligation to pay taxes, but by using these type of tactics they are not properly following that obligation.

 

Ahh, the "spirit" of the law,  so what you interpret it to mean as an arbitrary understanding rather than black and white law that sets out the rules for what should be paid.

 

I thought you said the law != ethical? but what you really mean is, the interpretation of the spirit of the law makes it unethical but the actual legal definition cannot. 

Gotchya.

 

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There is no third option that someone believes the tax rate is alright but want everyone to pay the same amount? For example, if he pays 34% tax wouldn't it be reasonable of him to want everyone to pay that? 

He's paying 34% by choice, there is no unreasonable expectation of him to pay more than anyone else.  If he thinks everyone should pay more tax then his issue should be with the government who sets the tax laws, not the corporations who refuse to voluntarily pay more.

[Cole5]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There is no third option that someone believes the tax rate is alright but want everyone to pay the same amount? For example, if he pays 34% tax wouldn't it be reasonable of him to want everyone to pay that? 

I'de rather it be if they can afford to pay it they should, someone making 20 grand a year paying 34% could ruin them, someone making 100 million a year wouldn't even notice 43%

[Cole5]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

Weren't you complaining that you pay too much tax? 

 

Either you have a problem with paying tax and want to find ways to lower your obligation or you don't. 

I have no problems paying 34%, I have a problem with people making more money in a day than i do in a year skirting around their civic duty claiming the victim 

[Maticks]

Every time you like, comment, share, friend someone what do you think happens.. of course we are data mined. Our whole lives are mind from credit rating scores. Right to where we travel and when. Unless you don’t have a mobile phone, pay with cash everywhere and have no online profile. You have no privacy. Just because apple is giving soft hugs... they mine it you just can’t see it. Your a consumer of course they have it on their servers. People get arrested for leaking a new colour iPhone is coming out. No one who knows is going to talk. It’s not the 90’s anymore, what is privacy?

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Cole5 said:

I have no problems paying 34%, I have a problem with people making more money in a day than i do in a year skirting around their civic duty claiming the victim 

They're not claiming to be the victim.  If you have a problem with the amount of tax they pay then blame the government.   Kudos to you for wanting to make the world a better place, but your blaming the wrong people for lack of tax control.

[Cole5]

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They're not claiming to be the victim.  If you have a problem with the amount of tax they pay then blame the government.   Kudos to you for wanting to make the world a better place, but your blaming the wrong people for lack of tax control.

I'de say the blame is equal TBH, as Yahtzee says its a 2 cunt system

Government for letting it happen but companies for doing it in the first place 

[mr moose]

Just now, Cole5 said:

I'de say the blame is equal TBH, as Yahtzee says its a 2 cunt system

Government for letting it happen but companies for doing it in the first place 

I always ask myself why does the government let it happen, and usually the answer lies in sacrificing corporate tax in favor of the boost to employment and economy due to said companies ability to invest untaxed profit in other developments.

[LAwLz]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

It is exactly what they are doing. The government knows exactly how much profit each company makes in it's own country.  They are very well audited on that. They could simply say "if you made $200M in profit in my country you can pay X% tax on that and I don't care where you put it or what you spend it on".  The tax law can be changed, but you have to understand there is a difference between not being able to change it and not wanting to change it. 

The problem is that Apple are paying a shell company located in another country "patent fees", so technically it never shows up as profits.

The way I see it, there are only two ways this could be solved.

1) Enforce US taxes on non-US companies. This wouldn't work for obvious reasons. I mean, why should a company in Ireland have to pay taxes to the US government?

2) Get rid of patent fees, and thus close the loophole. I would be happy with this, but I doubt many others would be. Like it or not, patent fees has to exist.

3) Tax based on revenue rather than profits. This would be terrible for new and growing companies which are investing their profits back into the company. Imagine having to pay tax on money you lost.

 

Because of Apple's money shuffling structure, they are not technically making their money in the US. This is why I asked you to explain what you believe Apple are doing, because it seems like you don't fully understand it.

Apple has set up shell companies in other countries, to which they are paying "patent fees". If Apple makes 100 dollars in the US, they can pay their shell company 90 dollars in patents fees, and as a result their actual profit in the US is a mere 10 dollars, and the remaining 90 dollars counts as the shell companies profits in the country they operate in.

How do you suggest the US solves that?

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Show me an unethical action that does not involve another person. Show me a single unethical action that does not disadvantage another person against their will.

I don't see your point. Tax avoidance most certainly involves other people, and it puts a heavier burden on everyone who does not do it, against their will.

Are you really trying to argue that tax avoidance doesn't affect others? That's as absurd. Would you say the same about tax evasion? The effects on society are exactly the same from tax evasion and tax avoidance. The result being that there is less money that could be used for things such as infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other tax funded projects.

If you don't think tax avoidance has a negative impact on society, then you can't argue that tax evasion has either.

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

No, it is the government who has to balance how much they charge in tax and how much they put into each sector. not the taxpayers.  The tax payer has simply paid the tax asked of it, that is neither a moral decision nor an ethical one. It is straight up a financial one. 

Apple are using loopholes to not pay the tax asked from them though. That is the entire reason they have such a massive cash reserve located outside of the US. As soon as they bring those profits into the US they will be taxed, and Apple don't want that.

Apple wants to avoid paying taxes so badly, that they would rather not be able to use the money at all.

They would rather have 100 dollars they can't spend on anything, than 70 dollars they can spend.

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

When apple starts dating the tax office we'll use your example, until then lets keep it about finances and laws as that is what this is about.

Ethics is neither about finances nor laws. I find it amazing that you still seem to believe that lawful = ethical.

Something can be lawful and make financial sense, but still be unethical. You would know this if you knew what ethics was.

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

No that is your domain.  Again explain to me how something can be unethical without being dishonest in some way.  Like your teacher example if no one is getting hurt against their will and no one is being dishonest then it isn't unethical.   

Yes, dating a student is unethical. Not only does several universities believe this (and has banned it), but

Again, you have absolutely no clue about what ethics are. Ethicist Randy Cohen also says it is. And before you go "just because he says so doesn't mean it is true", I can find several more if you want.
 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

No you haven't, you just keep saying it's unethical and everyone believes it therefore you must too.   That is not an explanation.  Claiming it hurts government funding is not a direct result of tax avoidance because it is not the company that decides how much tax to pay.

I don't just "keep saying is it unethical". I have linked several studies and sources all agreeing that it is. How much evidence do you want before you admit that you don't understand what ethics are? Why do you keep refusing to define ethics with your own words?

It feels like I am talking to a global warming denier here. "You keep saying it is happening and linking studies, but you haven't explained how it is cold outside right now!".

 

And yes, Apple do in fact have control over how much tax they pay. Again, do you even understand what Apple are doing on a more detailed level than "they are avoiding taxes"? They can in fact control how much they pay in taxes by changing the fees they charge themselves.

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Ahh, the "spirit" of the law,  so what you interpret it to mean as an arbitrary understanding rather than black and white law that sets out the rules for what should be paid.

Yes. Welcome to philosophy, where things aren't always black and white.

But I should also add that Apple are not paying what they are required to pay. The reason they are not bringing their money into the US is because they want to avoid paying the tax. Again, they would rather have 100 dollars they can't spend, than 70 dollars they can spend.

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

I thought you said the law != ethical? but what you really mean is, the interpretation of the spirit of the law makes it unethical but the actual legal definition cannot. 

Gotchya.

I actually said that lawful != ethical, not law != ethical.

 

Paying taxes is more than just following the law though. People shouldn't pay taxes because the law says so. They should pay it because it helps contribute to society. It is mutually beneficial.

And yes, one of the main reasons why people believe it is immoral for companies to avoid paying taxes is because it goes against the spirit of the taxation system, and thus the spirit of the law.

 

The system is suppose to work by everyone chipping in a bit, and as a result we can create things that everyone benefits from. That system would not work if everyone did what Apple does however, and because of that they can be compared to a parasite benefiting off the contributions from others even though they could help if they wanted to, and they have made an active choice to be that way.

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

He's paying 34% by choice, there is no unreasonable expectation of him to pay more than anyone else.  If he thinks everyone should pay more tax then his issue should be with the government who sets the tax laws, not the corporations who refuse to voluntarily pay more.

He is not paying that by choice. He could most likely not do the same type of things Apple does.

 

I also find the wording "refuse to voluntarily pay more" very misleading. Apple isn't refusing to pay more than they have to. They are choosing to pay less than what is expected of them.

They are choosing to collect their money in an untouchable off-shore bank account rather than have it at their disposal in the US.

 

 

I will ask you again, because I think this conversation won't end until you answer these questions.

1) Please define ethics and morals for me, using your own words and preferably some examples. I did so a few pages ago and it seems like our definitions differ, but I don't know how since you haven't explained your definition yet. Please note that I have linked maybe 4 or so sources to back up my definition. I would prefer if you did that too.

2) Explain what you believe Apple is doing. Not "they are using loopholes to avoid paying taxes", but rather as detailed of an explanation you can, including how you think the loopholes work and how the money flows in order to avoid taxes. This is important because you keep shifting the blame to the US government but that is based on the assumption that they could actually fix it easily.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The problem is that Apple are paying a shell company located in another country "patent fees", so technically it never shows up as profits.

The way I see it, there are only two ways this could be solved.

1) Enforce US taxes on non-US companies. This wouldn't work for obvious reasons. I mean, why should a company in Ireland have to pay taxes to the US government?

2) Get rid of patent fees, and thus close the loophole. I would be happy with this, but I doubt many others would be. Like it or not, patent fees has to exist.

3) Tax based on revenue rather than profits. This would be terrible for new and growing companies which are investing their profits back into the company. Imagine having to pay tax on money you lost.

 

Because of Apple's money shuffling structure, they are not technically making their money in the US. This is why I asked you to explain what you believe Apple are doing, because it seems like you don't fully understand it.

Apple has set up shell companies in other countries, to which they are paying "patent fees". If Apple makes 100 dollars in the US, they can pay their shell company 90 dollars in patents fees, and as a result their actual profit in the US is a mere 10 dollars, and the remaining 90 dollars counts as the shell companies profits in the country they operate in.

How do you suggest the US solves that?

 

 

I don't see your point. Tax avoidance most certainly involves other people, and it puts a heavier burden on everyone who does not do it, against their will.

Are you really trying to argue that tax avoidance doesn't affect others? That's as absurd. Would you say the same about tax evasion? The effects on society are exactly the same from tax evasion and tax avoidance. The result being that there is less money that could be used for things such as infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other tax funded projects.

If you don't think tax avoidance has a negative impact on society, then you can't argue that tax evasion has either.

 

 

Apple are using loopholes to not pay the tax asked from them though. That is the entire reason they have such a massive cash reserve located outside of the US. As soon as they bring those profits into the US they will be taxed, and Apple don't want that.

Apple wants to avoid paying taxes so badly, that they would rather not be able to use the money at all.

They would rather have 100 dollars they can't spend on anything, than 70 dollars they can spend.

 

 

Ethics is neither about finances nor laws. I find it amazing that you still seem to believe that lawful = ethical.

Something can be lawful and make financial sense, but still be unethical. You would know this if you knew what ethics was.

 

 

Yes, dating a student is unethical. Not only does several universities believe this (and has banned it), but

Again, you have absolutely no clue about what ethics are. Ethicist Randy Cohen also says it is. And before you go "just because he says so doesn't mean it is true", I can find several more if you want.
 

 

I don't just "keep saying is it unethical". I have linked several studies and sources all agreeing that it is. How much evidence do you want before you admit that you don't understand what ethics are? Why do you keep refusing to define ethics with your own words?

It feels like I am talking to a global warming denier here. "You keep saying it is happening and linking studies, but you haven't explained how it is cold outside right now!".

 

And yes, Apple do in fact have control over how much tax they pay. Again, do you even understand what Apple are doing on a more detailed level than "they are avoiding taxes"? They can in fact control how much they pay in taxes by changing the fees they charge themselves.

 

 

Yes. Welcome to philosophy, where things aren't always black and white.

But I should also add that Apple are not paying what they are required to pay. The reason they are not bringing their money into the US is because they want to avoid paying the tax. Again, they would rather have 100 dollars they can't spend, than 70 dollars they can spend.

 

 

I actually said that lawful != ethical, not law != ethical.

 

Paying taxes is more than just following the law though. People shouldn't pay taxes because the law says so. They should pay it because it helps contribute to society. It is mutually beneficial.

And yes, one of the main reasons why people believe it is immoral for companies to avoid paying taxes is because it goes against the spirit of the taxation system, and thus the spirit of the law.

 

The system is suppose to work by everyone chipping in a bit, and as a result we can create things that everyone benefits from. That system would not work if everyone did what Apple does however, and because of that they can be compared to a parasite benefiting off the contributions from others even though they could help if they wanted to, and they have made an active choice to be that way.

 

 

He is not paying that by choice. He could most likely not do the same type of things Apple does.

 

I also find the wording "refuse to voluntarily pay more" very misleading. Apple isn't refusing to pay more than they have to. They are choosing to pay less than what is expected of them.

They are choosing to collect their money in an untouchable off-shore bank account rather than have it at their disposal in the US.

I can't believe you cant see how many time you contradict yourself in all this.

 

1. Any government can close any loophole they want at any time.  It's not like there is some magic barrier to taxing profits made in a country.  As i said ALL money is accounted for, A government can simply rukle out offshore investment as a deduxtable n locally earned profit. Not that hard. 

 

As I said before, you are confusing can do something with willing to do something.

 

Bit in bold is very hypocritical, you accuse me of using misleading words then you do it. 

 

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I can't believe you cant see how many time you contradict yourself in all this.

I genuinely can't see any place where I am contradicting myself.

 

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

1. Any government can close any loophole they want at any time.  It's not like there is some magic barrier to taxing profits made in a country.  As i said ALL money is accounted for, A government can simply rukle out offshore investment as a deduxtable n locally earned profit. Not that hard. 

Please explain how the US could close the loophole.

Remember, the money Apple are transferring off-shores are not investments, they go under cost of goods.

Like I said, I can only think of three ways of closing that loophole, and all of them have very unpleasant consequences such as the possibility of paying more in tax than you make. For example if you earn 100 dollars you might have to pay 300 dollars in taxes, which doesn't make sense.

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Bit in bold is very hypocritical, you accuse me of using misleading words then you do it. 

How is that misleading?

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I genuinely can't see any place where I am contradicting myself.

 

Please explain how the US could close the loophole.

Remember, the money Apple are transferring off-shores are not investments, they go under cost of goods.

Like I said, I can only think of three ways of closing that loophole, and all of them have very unpleasant consequences such as the possibility of paying more in tax than you make. For example if you earn 100 dollars you might have to pay 300 dollars in taxes, which doesn't make sense.

 

How is that misleading?

Playing semantics with regard to law versus lawful and how it only makes something unethical but not ethcial. '

 

I already explained:

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I can't believe you cant see how many time you contradict yourself in all this.

 

1. Any government can close any loophole they want at any time.  It's not like there is some magic barrier to taxing profits made in a country.  As i said ALL money is accounted for, A government can simply rule out offshore investment as a deductible on locally earned profit. Not that hard. 

 

 

You seem to get stuck on the word investment, but I can assure you it is very generic and means moving money into any activity which returns some benefit. Even if they call it "cost of goods", they still ave to prove the goods came into the country in course to earn profit, you can make said goods not a tax deduction because they don't relate to the profit. I guarantee you most of the confusion surrounding how they get they deductions are not arbitrary or ambiguous interpretations of law. They are very intentional. The concept that there are "expectations" not being met in law is an artificial construct to bolster an ethical argument.

 

The weird part is you are asking me to remember concepts that are only relevant to your ideals.

[Guest]

On 4/5/2018 at 3:35 PM, mr moose said:

No it doesn't. Not in any sense of reality.   How can you even think that?  Having a degree form a uni simply means you can successfully regurgitate information in a specified format.   Having a degree is no indicator of dedication, the mere suggestion of which is preposterous.

And you thinking he doesn't is a mere assumption based on nothing but your desire for tim to be better at something.

Absolutely not,   not only is that statement wrong in its intent,  but it is a self defeating statement.

So, he decided not to, he didn't need to, there is absolutely no benefit to him wasting his time to get a piece of paper that will have zero impact on his ability to do his job.

 

Lets see yours then, come back when you are worth $62Bn.

 

 Tim got the job after steve already built the company.  Mark started from scratch.  Clearly Tim is in the wrong industry if he works so hard for so little in return by your logic.

Sorry for the delay needed to work on university stuff. Lots of new developments in this case but I think I will sit back and watch. I think this is fairly off-topic anyway and there are arguments for both sides. 

 

I think these are both extraordinary people and so its harder to discern where and how they got there, especially in this day and age where companies and rocket off like Facebook did. 

[joytimmermans]

On 4/5/2018 at 12:22 AM, Razor01 said:

Look I can see what Cook is saying but people that put their personal shit online, should only blame themselves.  Everyone that uses facebook is an adult or close to it.  Use it responsibly and to what the user feels its OK to share. 

 

Its stupid to put things online that people don't want others to use that info. 

 

Lets take this a step further.  All those people that have this incessant need to share on Facebook, why? Are they so alone they must share with the world what they are up to, or their view points on things that probably don't even affect them in a day to day life?

 

Social media is not the next great thing in life.  If anything it can create more harm than good because of the mass of people that really don't know much.  Ya know we need a working class but that's like 90% of the population and if they are all sharing and like minds gather, its not that great of thing.......  So in summation if these masses of people want to give out info about themselves and what they are doing, go for it!  Because they probably don't even care or can't even think about the ramification of doing such things in the long run.

 

On 4/5/2018 at 12:22 AM, Razor01 said:

Look I can see what Cook is saying but people that put their personal shit online, should only blame themselves.  Everyone that uses facebook is an adult or close to it.  Use it responsibly and to what the user feels its OK to share. 

 

Its stupid to put things online that people don't want others to use that info. 

 

Lets take this a step further.  All those people that have this incessant need to share on Facebook, why? Are they so alone they must share with the world what they are up to, or their view points on things that probably don't even affect them in a day to day life?

 

Social media is not the next great thing in life.  If anything it can create more harm than good because of the mass of people that really don't know much.  Ya know we need a working class but that's like 90% of the population and if they are all sharing and like minds gather, its not that great of thing.......  So in summation if these masses of people want to give out info about themselves and what they are doing, go for it!  Because they probably don't even care or can't even think about the ramification of doing such things in the long run.

A lot of people also just use social media as a blog or diary or just to share the stuff they did with family. Its like when you Send out pictures in the mail to your family and in the post office they open the evelopes to look whats in them to see what you like to give you some better flyers next time you get your fysical mail. But then 10x worse online. And you want to say that the people who share that stuff are the once to blame? Sure there are people who have nothing better to do then sit on social media the whole day. But why would that make it suddenly ok to try and make a ad profile on them. Even further even if you dont post any thing on social media and only use it to comunicate or to get the latest updates from brades you like, they can still scrape a lot of data from your profile. 

[Guest]

Oh dear i’ve kicked off the thread again. Sorry.

[LAwLz]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Playing semantics with regard to law versus lawful and how it only makes something unethical but not ethcial. '

 

I already explained:

You seem to get stuck on the word investment, but I can assure you it is very generic and means moving money into any activity which returns some benefit. Even if they call it "cost of goods", they still ave to prove the goods came into the country in course to earn profit, you can make said goods not a tax deduction because they don't relate to the profit. I guarantee you most of the confusion surrounding how they get they deductions are not arbitrary or ambiguous interpretations of law. They are very intentional. The concept that there are "expectations" not being met in law is an artificial construct to bolster an ethical argument.

 

The weird part is you are asking me to remember concepts that are only relevant to your ideals.

Please answer this, or else I won't keep going with this conversation:

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I will ask you again, because I think this conversation won't end until you answer these questions.

1) Please define ethics and morals for me, using your own words and preferably some examples. I did so a few pages ago and it seems like our definitions differ, but I don't know how since you haven't explained your definition yet. Please note that I have linked maybe 4 or so sources to back up my definition. I would prefer if you did that too.

2) Explain what you believe Apple is doing. Not "they are using loopholes to avoid paying taxes", but rather as detailed of an explanation you can, including how you think the loopholes work and how the money flows in order to avoid taxes. This is important because you keep shifting the blame to the US government but that is based on the assumption that they could actually fix it easily.

 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Please answer this, or else I won't keep going with this conversation:

 

 I already have, several times. I also asked you to give me an example of how my definition is wrong, but you haven't done that either. I am not sure why you are ignoring it though other than it is inconvenient.  Again I asked on page 5 for you to explain the mechanism by which this tax avoidance is unethical, so far all you have said is that it goes "against the spirit of the law".  Whatever you think the "spirit of the law" is does not seem to matter as instead of answering it you are insisting I explain corporate tax law to you instead.