Zuckerberg Fires Back at Cook

[Sauron]

As if Apple cared about their customers... they may be better than Facebook in terms of privacy but they have consistently shown utter contempt for whoever buys their products. Timmy ought to shut up or someone might bring up the clusterfuck that the last few major iOS releases were on launch, the passwordless root login, antennagate, the device bricking touch id design flaw on the iphone 6 and many more.

[Cole5]

4 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Can't do that if the money is not in a certain jurisdiction there is nothing a country can do.

 

Also if they pay taxes over seas and show that they did, its completely legit.  That is in our tax codes.  which is probably what they are doing.  So if you are going to blame someone blame IRS

Congress writes tax codes not the IRS, they are just the poor bastards tasked with enforcing somethign that changes usually daily

[Razor01]

23 minutes ago, Cole5 said:

Congress writes tax codes not the IRS, they are just the poor bastards tasked with enforcing somethign that changes usually daily

it doesn't change daily usually big changes happen with newly elected presidents or when reform is need which is where the IRS input is very important.   So gotta blame the decades of our own elected officials?

 

And the tax law loop hole for paying corporate taxes (even personal income from outside the US is there too) in other countries and not paying US taxes has been their for decades now.  Why Apple didn't do it was because Ireland didn't enforce the EU laws.  EU pushed Ireland to do it, and they did, Apple paid, or must pay the EU taxes now which are much lower than here.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Because it is?

 

Again how so?

Quote

No, I genuinely did not believe you wouldn't see how this isn't related to ethics. It was actually a bit of a shock to me because I thought your response would be "fair enough" to my first response.

 

I actually keep trying to get away from the entire law discussion because laws are unrelated to ethics. That has been my point in all of my replies.

Again, just because something is lawful does not mean it is ethical.

Then stop saying the bit in bold. If you don;t want to link law and ethics stop talking about law.  My argument is that a company does not write laws, it does not enforce the laws it does not break or bend the laws. The codes of practice are determined by another body altogether.  So how can a company that abides by an authorities commands be unethical in doing so?

 

Quote

Well first of all, avoiding taxes most certainly has an adversely effect on people.

No, governments not mandating higher taxes or allowing companies to pay less has adverse effects.

Quote

Secondly, things can be unethical even without such effect. One example would be copying something for school work and taking credit for it. It is not against any law (at least not outside of possibly uni), it does not have an adversely effect on someone else because they might not be aware of it, or maybe they are even allowing it, but it is still unethical to cheat.

 

It undermines the value of said education.   It is unethical because you do not learn, hence when you leave school and people see your qualification they expect you have earnt it through taking part in the education not just copying someone else.  

 

Quote

 

Another example would be a teacher dating a student. It is legal in a lot of areas, but it is still unethical because there might be a conflict of interest. It does not have an adversely effect on anyone either. If anything, it might be beneficial to the people involved.

Now you moving into a territory where we have to consider maturity, psychology, age of consent (exists for a reason) and conflict of interest.  Not going there suffice to say I disagree. 

 

Quote

 

It is unethical because it takes advantage of loopholes in the system.

You say loopholes like they are some sort of grey area that has to exist but shouldn't be used.  The term loophole is very erroneous if that's your understanding.   A loophole that the government will not close is actually called a clause.  All loopholes are known and considered.  No company gets away with using "loopholes",  they are simply abiding by each clause in the law to account for their earnings in relation to payable tax.

 

Quote

Our entire economy would collapse if everyone took advantage of these loopholes,

Nearly everyone does.  Because as I said before if the loophole was not good for the government they would close it.  It is not a grey condition. 

 

Quote

and because of that, Apple are leeching off the work of everyone else without contributing their share.

Here is a research paper from George Washington university about it. Here is an quote from it:

 

If you want even more reading, I recommend this article from Philippa Foster Back, who is he director of the institute of business ethics.

I don't think you understood what he was referencing there, like many many people who cry unethical, they are trying to impose some sort of philosophical or deontalogical attribute that goes beyond determined responsibility.  He is literally trying to apply an ethical condition by claiming a perceived government use of said tax revenue to be an outcome not serving in the public interest.    It is not up to the any tax payer to determine how much tax is to be paid nor where it should be spent. therefore the only thing a tax payer can do is arrange their financials in a way that limits their debts according to stipulations set out by the government.    This is not unethical behaviour, everyone does it from deciding which shop to buy from all the way up to whether they invest profits offshore or in managed funds locally.   If society suffers because tax revenue is down then it is the governments job to tighten tax law and raise the tax liabilities for said companies.  There is literally no way around this basic concept.     It's really like people are trying to blame companies because there is an "implied" ethical condition that requires they pay more than a government demands.    It's not the companies job to consider the out come of government expenditure, and as soon as someone claims it is they are not only putting the cart before the horse but they are crying that the cart is broken because of it. 

 

EDIT: also you haven't answered my question, am I being unethical because I arrange my financials such that I pay the least amount of tax possible?

[LoganTNZ]

Like apple's overpriced-as-hell products or not, theyre smart. They dont buy into this cult that would rather turn the world into 1984 than to stand by their policy. They also evade tax

 

I also deleted by facebook account. They record everything but the actual words you were saying during a call. Its scary

[Razor01]

@LAwLz

 

Using loop holes to drop taxes should always be done,  loops holes are there for a reason, usually to reduce taxable amounts so that business can spend that money in reinvesting in what ever they are doing.  Now for individuals below a certain point think its around 75k, those loops holes are limited for them.  The reasoning for this is because people who are making less money are likely not doing the same things as people with more money. 

 

Its wise to use the loop holes they are open to everyone based on their needs. 

 

Warren Buffet only paid 20% taxes a few years back right?  But that 20% is still much more than lets say the average billionaire or multi millionaire pays lol.

 

You can't say using loop holes are unethical either.  They were put there to be used.  Just because most people don't know about them doesn't make them evil.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, LoganTNZ said:

Like apple's overpriced-as-hell products or not, theyre smart. They dont buy into this cult that would rather turn the world into 1984 than to stand by their policy. They also evade avoid tax

 

I also deleted by facebook account. They record everything but the actual words you were saying during a call. Its scary

Whilst I agree I had to fix that, there is a distinct difference between evasion and avoidance. One being illegal the other being culturally controversial.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

loops holes are there for a reason

They're oversights. Nothing more.

 

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

You can't say using loop holes are unethical either.  They were put there to be used.  Just because most people don't know about them doesn't make them evil.

Using loop holes is extremely unethical. They're mistakes. They're not there intentionally, they're not there to be used.

[Razor01]

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

They're oversights. Nothing more.

 

Using loop holes is extremely unethical. They're mistakes. They're not there intentionally, they're not there to be used.

 

No they are not, they are put in place usually by the tax break laws and deductions.

 

When I was consulting, when I bought business cloths, I put that down as a business expenditure, that is a loophole.  The 150 bucks I spent to set up a LLC for that was pennies compared to the money I saved just from deductions let alone the loopholes.  If I had to drive to get to where my business meeting was, I would put down my cars mileage, and food, and my gas down as a deduction.  These are loopholes.  I can't buy all my cloths or if my car was leased use it for personal things and say it was business.  You can't overly abuse them because that will cause the IRS to audit you but you use them in good measure based on what you are doing.  Tax audits usually don't happen to people making less than 1 million bucks, and people making more than that most likely they are doing it through a holding company or businesses they own so tax audits aren't that prevalent if its going through a company.

 

Lets say a person buys a Ferrari and says its for business reasons, things like that is abuse of a loophole unless that car is part of the business he is doing.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Razor01 said:

 

No they are not, they are put in place usually by the tax break laws and deductions.

 

Some loopholes are there unintentionally, but if the Government leaves them there after discovering them,  then they are no longer unintentional.  Others are there due to the nature of economics, again though, the government know they are there and if they don't want to change the rules or put some sort of cap on their use,  then they are intentionally there to be used.  

 

9 hours ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Lets say a person buys a Ferrari and says its for business reasons, things like that is abuse of a loophole unless that car is part of the business he is doing.

That used to be a loophole in the Aussie system, but the tax office worked out what was happening and the government changed the tax laws to have an upper limit on the purchase value of the car.  Regardless of what car you buy for your business you cannot make any claims that exceed this value.  They effectively closed a loophole.

[asus killer]

For all that Apple represents i see no possible comparison to what Facebook did and allowed to be done. People are mixing their hate for Apple with facts. 

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again how so?

Explained in both of my links I posted earlier.

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Then stop saying the bit in bold. If you don;t want to link law and ethics stop talking about law.  My argument is that a company does not write laws, it does not enforce the laws it does not break or bend the laws. The codes of practice are determined by another body altogether.  So how can a company that abides by an authorities commands be unethical in doing so?

OK, let's both of us drop everything regarding laws from the conversation then. I won't say "lawful != ethical", and you can not justify Apple's behavior with "they are just following the laws".

OK? Oh wait, even in this paragraph you once again went back to "they are just doing what is allowed by the authorities, so how is that unethical?". This is why I can't stop saying "lawful != unethical", because you keep going back to it.

 

What the governments allows or doesn't allow Apple to do is completely, 100%, irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical or not. "Well, it is not against the law" is not an argument for it being ethical. Lots of things are "allowed", but unethical. Just look at some examples given earlier. All of the things I have mentioned, including buying child prostitutes in countries with weak protection laws, is 100% legal, but they are unethical.

So on, it does not matter one bit what is technically allowed or "just following the rules imposed on them". It is still unethical.

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

No, governments not mandating higher taxes or allowing companies to pay less has adverse effects.

Now you're just shifting the blame. This is not Apple working like a normal company, earning money and paying tax like normal.

This is Apple setting up multiple shadow companies in multiple different parts of the world, and transferring money around them in a deliberate attempt to avoid paying tax.

Apple can't even use most of the money they got, because bringing the money into the US would subject them to all the normal taxes. They are just waiting for something like a one-time tax holiday (which the Trump administration is actually considering granting them), and then they will transfer the money into the US again.

So no, this is completely different from what normal people do when they file for tax deductibles. These are not deductibles. 

 

Here is a video explaining the system Apple has set up. It should make it pretty obvious why this is different from just selling something for 6 dollars instead of 5, or applying for a tax deductible.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

It undermines the value of said education.   It is unethical because you do not learn, hence when you leave school and people see your qualification they expect you have earnt it through taking part in the education not just copying someone else.  

Now you're just picking and choosing when to apply logic and when not to.

You don't think avoiding taxes undermines the entire tax system, and robs countries from the money they actually should have?

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Now you moving into a territory where we have to consider maturity, psychology, age of consent (exists for a reason) and conflict of interest.  Not going there suffice to say I disagree. 

Oh I wasn't thinking of an adult dating a child. I was actually thinking of a high school or university student dating a teacher. That is above the age of consent.

Anyway, you think it is unethical right? Why? The government allows it to happen, and it's not breaking any laws. Are you going to say it is unethical even though there is no victim and no laws broken? It's just smart business, right?

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

You say loopholes like they are some sort of grey area that has to exist but shouldn't be used.  The term loophole is very erroneous if that's your understanding.   A loophole that the government will not close is actually called a clause.  All loopholes are known and considered.  No company gets away with using "loopholes",  they are simply abiding by each clause in the law to account for their earnings in relation to payable tax.

No, Apple are getting away with loopholes here. They can't use the money they make, and are currently waiting for special exceptions for tax laws because the issue has grown so big it can no longer be ignored.

 

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Nearly everyone does.  Because as I said before if the loophole was not good for the government they would close it.  It is not a grey condition. 

The US government can't close the loophole. Only Ireland can, and EU is currently pushing for them to do so. This loophole is not good for the US, but they can't enforce taxes on money located in Ireland. They can enforce them once the money gets transferred into the US, but that is exactly why Apple haven't done so yet.

Right now it's just a massive mountain of cash that can't be used. That does not benefit anyone (until a tax holiday is granted for Apple, at which point they will have successfully avoided millions if not billions of dollars in taxes.

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

like many many people who cry unethical, they are trying to impose some sort of philosophical or deontalogical attribute that goes beyond determined responsibility. 

Yes? That is what ethics are.

Ethics aren't about determining responsibility. It is about judging if something is OK based on principles. This is what I mean when I said you don't understand what morals or ethics are. It is not about determining if someone is guilty of something, or who is responsible.

Ethics is philosophy. It is the philosophy of determining what we, as a society, believe are rightful or wrongful conducts.

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: also you haven't answered my question, am I being unethical because I arrange my financials such that I pay the least amount of tax possible?

No, but if you were transferring the money offshore into a shell company, and paying yourself for products you yourself own in a complicated system, all to avoid taxes then I would say yes, and so would most people.

Just look at what happened when Jimmy Carr was caught transferring money to a company in a different country, which then transferred the money back to him as a "loan" that was not subject to the same tax laws. It resulted in him paying 1% income tax (and unlike Apple, he could actually use the money). And yes, that was deemed morally and ethically wrong by almost everyone. There was a massive backlash from it.

Jimmy stopped doing it.

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Razor01 said:

loops holes are there for a reason

You might want to look up the definition of loophole.

Here, I'll do it for you:

Quote

a small mistake in an agreement or law that gives someone the chance to avoid having to do something:

tax loopholes

The company employed lawyers to find loopholes in environmental protection laws.

 

9 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Its wise to use the loop holes they are open to everyone based on their needs. 

I absolutely agree. That does not mean it is ethically correct though.

 

9 hours ago, Razor01 said:

You can't say using loop holes are unethical either.  They were put there to be used.  Just because most people don't know about them doesn't make them evil.

Oh boy... Another person who don't know what ethics are.

Countries with weak or no protection against child prostitution might be set up that way on purpose too. Does that mean it is not evil to travel there and hire child prostitutes? The rules and regulations could be argued to have been put there in place specifically to allow it, so clearly that means people who travel there are completely immune to criticism and have no responsibility for their actions.

Right? Remember, I am just applying the exact same logic you are using, but to a different scenario.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Whilst I agree I had to fix that, there is a distinct difference between evasion and avoidance. One being illegal the other being culturally controversial.

Oh so you agree that tax avoidance is culturally controversial? If you argue that it is ethical then why do you think it is controversial? Is it because people believe it to be wrong on principle? 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Explained in both of my links I posted earlier.

No you haven;t, you just keep saying it is.  How is it unethical.  By which mechanism makes it a morally bankrupt activity?

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

OK, let's both of us drop everything regarding laws from the conversation then. I won't say "lawful != ethical", and you can not justify Apple's behavior with "they are just following the laws".

OK? Oh wait, even in this paragraph you once again went back to "they are just doing what is allowed by the authorities, so how is that unethical?". This is why I can't stop saying "lawful != unethical", because you keep going back to it.

What else is there to say then, you can't accept the basic fact that all tax law is written by the government, apple do not write the rules, they can't even bend them, if the rules allow them to set up shop in various countries so it doesn't have to pay taxes in the US, then that is how the US allows apple to operate.   Ethics, being the actionable part of a moral ideal and given that nearly every single definition of an unethical action comes back to lying, cheating. stealing, or misrepresenting, then to claim they are being unethical means you would have to show they have done one of these.  But they haven't, they haven't lied, they haven't cheated or misrepresented anything.  It is all plainly set out in all the relevant tax lodgements.  

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What the governments allows or doesn't allow Apple to do is completely, 100%, irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical or not. "Well, it is not against the law" is not an argument for it being ethical. Lots of things are "allowed", but unethical. Just look at some examples given earlier. All of the things I have mentioned, including buying child prostitutes in countries with weak protection laws, is 100% legal, but they are unethical.

So on, it does not matter one bit what is technically allowed or "just following the rules imposed on them". It is still unethical.

 

So you are equate tax avoidance with child prostitutes now?

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Now you're just shifting the blame. This is not Apple working like a normal company, earning money and paying tax like normal.

Yes it is

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This is Apple setting up multiple shadow companies in multiple different parts of the world, and transferring money around them in a deliberate attempt to avoid paying tax.

Like normal and as the relevant state laws request.

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Apple can't even use most of the money they got, because bringing the money into the US would subject them to all the normal taxes. They are just waiting for something like a one-time tax holiday (which the Trump administration is actually considering granting them), and then they will transfer the money into the US again.

 

Then the US has an issue.  Ireland had the right idea, they offered Apple an almost zero tax rate if they setr up shop there.  They got the benfits of employment and a kick tot he economy all for the cost of corporate tax they never had in the first place, but some people kicked up a stink about that being unethical and tried to punish Ireland for doing that.  What is truly unethical here, apple doing a deal with Ireland or the  EU taking a country to court for an internal deal? 

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Now you're just picking and choosing when to apply logic and when not to.

Nope, I showed you how plagiarism has an effect on others and how it can be unethical becasue it is in effect lying and misleading.

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You don't think avoiding taxes undermines the entire tax system, and robs countries from the money they actually should have?

No, if the country needs more tax revenue then they can tighten down on the tax laws and prevent companies from taking their profits elsewhere. I will not blame a company for simply taking the cheaper offer.

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

Oh I wasn't thinking of an adult dating a child. I was actually thinking of a high school or university student dating a teacher. That is above the age of consent.

That's different.  Conflict of interest can still occur, but if everything is in the open and above board then I wouldn't consider that unethical.

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Anyway, you think it is unethical right? Why? The government allows it to happen, and it's not breaking any laws. Are you going to say it is unethical even though there is no victim and no laws broken? It's just smart business, right?

If it is a transparent relationship and doesn't present a conflict of interest, then it is not unethical in my mind.

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

No, Apple are getting away with loopholes here. They can't use the money they make, and are currently waiting for special exceptions for tax laws because the issue has grown so big it can no longer be ignored.

 

So there is a downside to doing business the way they do,  That doesn't make it unethical.

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

The US government can't close the loophole. Only Ireland can, and EU is currently pushing for them to do so. This loophole is not good for the US, but they can't enforce taxes on money located in Ireland. They can enforce them once the money gets transferred into the US, but that is exactly why Apple haven't done so yet.

Right now it's just a massive mountain of cash that can't be used. That does not benefit anyone (until a tax holiday is granted for Apple, at which point they will have successfully avoided millions if not billions of dollars in taxes.

As I said above, it is not a loophole, it was an intentional deal Ireland made with apple.  It is not unethical to do business with someone in this regard, Thee US or any other country could have made the same deal.   It is the governments who make the tax laws not apple, the fact they aren't being forced to pay taxes still comes back to the government.  In Australia many companies (almost 1300 at last look) don't pay corporate tax.   Our revenue was falling a bit so they changed the law to make them pay on earnings made in Australia.  Having a balanced tax system that encourages companies into the country is just as important tax revenue itself.  They are not loopholes, it is intentionally set up that way.  

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes? That is what ethics are.

Ethics aren't about determining responsibility. It is about judging if something is OK based on principles. This is what I mean when I said you don't understand what morals or ethics are. It is not about determining if someone is guilty of something, or who is responsible.

Ethics is philosophy. It is the philosophy of determining what we, as a society, believe are rightful or wrongful conducts.

So if it's not o.k then change the law, but I put it to you that the reasons the laws don't change is becasue  it is simply part of a larger system that works in everyone's favour.

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, but if you were transferring the money offshore into a shell company, and paying yourself for products you yourself own in a complicated system, all to avoid taxes then I would say yes, and so would most people.

There is no difference,  in both situations I am reducing the amount of tax I pay.

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Just look at what happened when Jimmy Carr was caught transferring money to a company in a different country, which then transferred the money back to him as a "loan" that was not subject to the same tax laws. It resulted in him paying 1% income tax (and unlike Apple, he could actually use the money). And yes, that was deemed morally and ethically wrong by almost everyone. There was a massive backlash from it.

Jimmy stopped doing it.

Good for him.    Curtailing to public ignorance is not the same as being unethical.  

 

[LAwLz]

I think this has gone on long enough.

Since several people in this thread does not seem to know what morals and ethics are, let me explain it to you.

 

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.

 

Our morals are often shaped by the ethics of the society we live in, but not always.

 

Ethics also often steer the laws, but not always. I have already given several examples where laws and ethics collide. For example cheating on your spouse is not illegal, but it is unethical.

It is also fairly common for different cultures to have different ethics, and that can cause conflicts both in terms of opinions but also laws.

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Oh so you agree that tax avoidance is culturally controversial? If you argue that it is ethical then why do you think it is controversial? Is it because people believe it to be wrong on principle? 

That just isn't even logical, I also understand that equality is controversial and that majority of the population think the only way to achieve equality of outcome is to only employ woman (to the fucking point of changing laws to avoid discrimination), but that doesn't mean I agree it is right or only on principal.   It is absolutely wrong.  Same here, just because every man and his dog thinks tax avoidance is unethical doesn't actually make it so.

[mr moose]

40 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think this has gone on long enough.

Since several people in this thread does not seem to know what morals and ethics are, let me explain it to you.

 

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.

 

Our morals are often shaped by the ethics of the society we live in, but not always.

 

Ethics also often steer the laws, but not always. I have already given several examples where laws and ethics collide. For example cheating on your spouse is not illegal, but it is unethical.

It is also fairly common for different cultures to have different ethics, and that can cause conflicts both in terms of opinions but also laws.

I think you need to look at the definitions of those again.  Way to complicated.

 

ethics, - moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

 

Not intrinsically external forces, they can be purely internal as well. 

 

EDIT: also there is a huge difference between someone understand morals and ethics and someone having a different opinion.  The very concept that you think others don't understand something just because they disagree with you is very short sighted.

[asus killer]

Apple should pay more taxes that it is legally allowed? That makes sense

No one pays more taxes than his legally allowed, if anyone does it he/she is not very intelligent.

If law makers are idiots and/or allow this than its their fault and the ones that elect them.

How is this in any way comparable to breaking privacy laws and reading personal messages or selling private information without disclosing it?

[LAwLz]

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I also understand that equality is controversial and that majority of the population think the only way to achieve equality of outcome is to only employ woman (to the fucking point of changing laws to avoid discrimination), but that doesn't mean I agree it is right or only on principal.   It is absolutely wrong. 

Some people think it is the morally right thing to do (to employ women based on gender), some people disagree (like you and I). I don't think there has been any ethical consensus on that particular issue so it's hard to say whether or not is is the ethical thing to do.

 

 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

just because every man and his dog thinks tax avoidance is unethical doesn't actually make it so.

That is literally what ethics is.

 

If everyone believes something is unethical, then it is. If everyone believes something is ethical, then it is.

 

 

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think you need to look at the definitions of those again.  Way to complicated.

 

ethics, - moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

 

Not intrinsically external forces, they can be purely internal as well. 

 

Dr Arturo Perez:

Quote

Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.

 

Diffen:

Quote

Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

 

Britannica:

Quote

Many people think of morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting.

 

For example, your local community may think adultery is immoral, and you personally may agree with that. However, the distinction can be useful if your local community has no strong feelings about adultery, but you consider adultery immoral on a personal level. By these definitions of the terms, your morality would contradict the ethics of your community.

 

Merriam-Webster:

Quote

The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

 

a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values 

the present-day materialistic ethic

an old-fashioned work ethic - often used in plural but singular or plural in construction 

an elaborate ethics

Christian ethics

It is defined as your moral duty and obligations. Duties and obligations are external.

Duty - Something that one is expected to required to do.

Obligation - Something by which a person is bound to do, which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.

 

Both of these are external morals being applied on an individual, and the duties and obligations are based on morals, what is considered good/bad based on things such as religion or other values.

[mr moose]

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Some people think it is the morally right thing to do (to employ women based on gender), some people disagree (like you and I). I don't think there has been any ethical consensus on that particular issue so it's hard to say whether or not is is the ethical thing to do.

 

That doesn't change the fact it is controversial and understanding that it is controversial does not imply a propensity to agreement.

 

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That is literally what ethics is.

No, ethics and morals are not majority rule., if they were it would be ethical to endorse woman only employment inn STEM.

 

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If everyone believes something is unethical, then it is. If everyone believes something is ethical, then it is.

Again no.

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

Dr Arturo Perez:

 

Diffen:

 

Britannica:

 

Merriam-Webster:

from your own quote:

Quote

ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, ...Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.

Note the rules are from an external source and morals a re individual principals.

 

where you said:

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

Ethics - A collection of morals which are imposed from an external source,

You see the difference? when ethics a RULE's from an external source, you can consider that the rules are the laws of the land (which you previously pointed out are largely based on ethics) and the laws of tax. Because said rules aren't mutually exclusive of written law.  If your moral position is obeying the rules then it is not unethical to follow those laws.  

 

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

It is defined as your moral duty and obligations. Duties and obligations are external.

Duty - Something that one is expected to required to do.

Obligation - Something by which a person is bound to do, which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.

Both of these are external morals being applied on an individual, and the duties and obligations are based on morals, what is considered good/bad based on things such as religion or other values.

 

The duty is to pay tax

the obligation is not to try and evade said duty.  Remember the difference between evading and avoiding?  This is why evading is unethical and avoiding is not.  

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

No, ethics and morals are not majority rule., if they were it would be ethical to endorse woman only employment inn STEM.

1) Maybe it is ethical to do so?

2) There is a very big difference between "majority rule" and "everyone". You changed that wording subtly but it matters a lot. If a subject is fairly divisive then the ethics of it are not cut and dry. However, if let's say 99.99% of people agree on something then there is no ambiguity or controversy.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

No, ethics and morals are not majority rule., if they were it would be ethical to endorse woman only employment inn STEM.

Ethics are (although it is more about a consensus rather than just having a majority).

Morals aren't (since they are your personal compass).

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

from your own quote:

Quote

ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, ...Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.

Note the rules are from an external source and morals a re individual principals.

where you said:

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Ethics - A collection of morals which are imposed from an external source, such as society.

You see the difference? when ethics a RULE's from an external source, you can consider that the rules are the laws of the land (which you previously pointed out are largely based on ethics) and the laws of tax. Because said rules aren't mutually exclusive of written law.  If your moral position is obeying the rules then it is not unethical to follow those laws.  

You do realize that "rules" are not synonyms "laws", right? Rules can be things such as CoC, religious traditions, perceived moral obligations and so on. That is exactly what I have been saying. There are several sets of rules we have to abide by. Laws are just one set of rules, and so are religious or social rules. The last two mentioned are not necessarily laws, but not following them can be unethical, such as having a relationship with a student.

 

You do not have to break laws (way to drag laws into this again by the way) in order to break rules. That is the reason why the definition of ethics is not "the laws provided by an external source". It says rules rather than laws for a reason.

All laws are rules, but not all rules are laws. It is very important to understand the difference.

Like with my teacher and student example. Dating a student is unethical, but not illegal. It does not go against the laws (which are rules), but it does go against the rules society has agreed on (even if they are not written down, aka unspoken rules).

 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The duty is to pay tax

the obligation is not to try and evade said duty.  Remember the difference between evading and avoiding?  This is why evading is unethical and avoiding is not.  

Do you or do you not agree that society by and large agrees that avoiding taxes, especially at this case, is a bad thing to do?

if your answer is yes, then it is unethical, because society decides what is and isn't ethical. It is the social rules that defines it.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

1) Maybe it is ethical to do so?

2) There is a very big difference between "majority rule" and "everyone". You changed that wording subtly but it matters a lot. If a subject is fairly divisive then the ethics of it are not cut and dry. However, if let's say 99.99% of people agree on something then there is no ambiguity or controversy.

I used the term "everyone" to indicate the vocal majority, I was not specifically claiming 1000% of people.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Ethics are (although it is more about a consensus rather than just having a majority).

Morals aren't (since they are your personal compass).

 

You do realize that "rules" are not synonyms "laws", right? Rules can be things such as CoC, religious traditions, perceived moral obligations and so on. That is exactly what I have been saying.

Yes, very much so, I was just highlighting the facts that laws are rules that are generally created by consensus of ethics.   Therefore the concept that abiding inn them can be considered unethical is somewhat contradictory, unless you propose that the laws of tax are the result of dictatorship or some other undemocratic societal rule. 

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You do not have to break laws (way to drag laws into this again by the way) in order to break rules. That is the reason why the definition of ethics is not "the laws provided by an external source". It says rules rather than laws for a reason.

All laws are rules, but not all rules are laws. It is very important to understand the difference.

Clearly you missed the point.

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Like with my teacher and student example. Dating a student is unethical, but not illegal. It does not go against the laws (which are rules), but it does go against the rules society has agreed on (even if they are not written down, aka unspoken rules).

Actually no, we already did that one.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

Do you or do you not agree that society by and large agrees that avoiding taxes, especially at this case, is a bad thing to do?

if your answer is yes, then it is unethical, because society decides what is and isn't ethical. It is the social rules that defines it.

I am not sure whether society by and large agrees or not, I know there is a lot of support for the notion that tax avoidance is unethical and thus it is controversial; but I disagree with ethics being a majority rule and I strongly disagree that societal consensus is any measure of morality. I disagree that tax avoidance is unethical and I strongly contend that governing morals can be bad or good regardless of the societies desires.      

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I used the term "everyone" to indicate the vocal majority, I was not specifically claiming 1000% of people.

When you said "every man and their dog" I assumed you actually mean everyone, especially since it was just a hypothetical example you gave.

 

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yes, very much so, I was just highlighting the facts that laws are rules that are generally created by consensus of ethics.   Therefore the concept that abiding inn them can be considered unethical is somewhat contradictory, unless you propose that the laws of tax are the result of dictatorship or some other undemocratic societal rule. 

Again, you are incorrectly saying that as long as something is lawful, it is also ethical. This is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

I have given you several examples of this being the case, and linked you several definitions as well as research papers and professors all which disagrees with you. Why are you so hellbent on thinking that lawful == ethical?

It just isn't. The rules the definition of ethics refers to is not exclusively the laws of a country. It is also the rules dictated by things such as religion and society. All these different systems with rules do not have a 100% overlap with the laws (you're once again bringing up laws by the way).

 

All laws are rules, but not all rules are laws. OK?

 

They are "generally" created based on ethics, but not always. Not all social obligations have rules which enforce them. Not cheating on your spouse is one example of this. Tax avoidance on this scale is another. Or are you saying that cheating on your wife would be completely ethical and you should be immune to criticism if you did? Because please remember that this whole conversation started with you saying Apple could not be criticized for avoiding taxes. By the same logic, you can not be criticized for cheating on your wife. There is no law saying it is illegal, right? Clearly you can't be criticized as long as you follow the law... 

 

 

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Clearly you missed the point.

Can you please elaborate then?

 

 

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Actually no, we already did that one.

No we didn't. You refused to answer is. Probably because it highlights how little sense your (incorrect) definition and view of ethics are. But I'll switch to using cheating on your spouse as an example instead, if that makes you more comfortable.

 

 

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

but I disagree with ethics being a majority rule

That's because it isn't. If 49% of people believe something is good, and 51% believe something is bad then it doesn't become unethical. However, if the scales are let's say 5% vs 95% then it is.

What is required is a consensus within whichever group you are talking about. Ethics is not one universal yardstick. The ethics can differ from one group to another (such as Christian ethics vs Islamic ethics).

However, right now I am talking about the general ethics regarding taxes in a western society, which I believe strongly leans towards tax avoidance being frowned upon and seemed as bad. Therefore it is unethical. Again, consensus agrees on what is unethical.

 

And just so that we are clear to everyone reading this.

Consensus and majority are not the same thing. 51% is a majority, where 49% disagrees with the decision being decided on.

In a consensus decision making process, the group members agrees to support a decision as a whole.

 

That is why some things don't have clear cut ethics. Because no consensus has been agreed on (and I don't mean agreed on by sitting down and talking about it, but rather that there are several large groups of conflicting morals and a middle-ground has not appeared naturally).

 

 

25 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I strongly disagree that societal consensus is any measure of morality.

Again, that's because it isn't. I recommend you go back and read the definitions I posted earlier. I explicitly said several times, in several different ways, that morals is not based on societal consensuses. Morals are your own personal beliefs and your compass for what is right or wrong.

 

Morals = what you believe is right or wrong.

Ethics = what a group has a general consensus of is right or wrong.

 

Ethics often shape our morals though. The environments we are raised in enforces certain ethics on us, and as a result our morals often naturally align with them. Not always, but very often.

That is why a lot of immigrants from the same cultures exhibits the same struggles when trying to integrate into a new society. Their moral compasses align a lot more with the ethics of the country they came from. People from countries with similar ethics as the countries they migrate to has a much easier time integrating, because their moral compasses are more aligned with the ethics of the place they arrive at.

 

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I disagree that tax avoidance is unethical and I strongly contend that governing morals can be bad or good regardless of the societies desires.      

No morals are being governed. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Ethics are not being governed either. They naturally form from consensus within their groups.

 

What is ethical might not always be what you believe is the best course of action either.

When societies desires (ethics) don't match your ideas (morals) then there is an ethical and moral conflict. I've already given several examples of this, and it happens all the time.

You don't always have to agree that something unethical is bad, because you might think it is morally correct.

 

Ethics is not an objective measurement of if something is indisputably good or bad.

 

See, this part from diffen which I linked earlier:

Quote

A person strictly following Ethical Principles may not have any Morals at all. Likewise, one could violate Ethical Principles within a given system of rules in order to maintain Moral integrity.

 

[Razor01]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You might want to look up the definition of loophole.

Here, I'll do it for you:

 

I absolutely agree. That does not mean it is ethically correct though.

 

Oh boy... Another person who don't know what ethics are.

Countries with weak or no protection against child prostitution might be set up that way on purpose too. Does that mean it is not evil to travel there and hire child prostitutes? The rules and regulations could be argued to have been put there in place specifically to allow it, so clearly that means people who travel there are completely immune to criticism and have no responsibility for their actions.

Right? Remember, I am just applying the exact same logic you are using, but to a different scenario.

 

 

 

Oh so you agree that tax avoidance is culturally controversial? If you argue that it is ethical then why do you think it is controversial? Is it because people believe it to be wrong on principle? 

 

 

Ok you want to draw conclusions based on definitions from random website sites there is problem

 

https://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tax+Loophole

 

This is the financial definition.

 

 

Quote

A deliberate or accidental provision in tax law that allows an individual or corporation to be exempt from some provision. Most loopholes are deliberate and are created to ensure that the law is not draconian, to please a lobbyist, or for some other reason. For example, a country may pass a law requiring most companies to pay taxes on their net assets each year. However, it may contain a loophole allowing the exemption of companies that would find this tax too difficult or expensive. Occasionally, the government may close a loophole, which means that it takes away the exemption.

 

 

Most loop holes are put in place on purpose

 

the accidental loop holes most people never even know about those even billionaire accountants lol.  And when they are found they are closed off pretty quickly.

 

If you are referring to those types of loop holes, I am not referring to those because those are rarely used.

 

Like the one that Apple used to not pay taxes in the US, that was purposefully put in US tax code laws.  It has been there for many years, decades, multiple decades!  And that was what we were talking about.  We were talking about Apple's ability to not pay taxes and why.  Since Ireland wasn't enforcing the EU laws to pay taxes Apple didn't pay, when they finally did, well Apple has to pay now.  They can complain about it but they must pay it now.

 

On morals and ethics:

 

Morals can shape laws and laws can shape morals.  But they are never the same as laws and aren't governed by laws in the ridged sense.

 

Went into this with GPP. 

 

Morals are too wide of base to be used.  Ethics are even wider

 

Laws are narrower in scope. 

 

The scope size matters, if morals or ethics were governed everything most people will do will be illegal or sue-able.  Sad but true.

[AngryBeaver]

On 4/4/2018 at 5:06 PM, RorzNZ said:

Facebook's Zuckerberg fires back at Apple's Tim Cook

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43619410

 

Tim Cook is dead right for sure - and I'm glad Apple isn't heading in the same way as FaceBook, Twitter and Google etc. Like Apple or not, they have the best privacy policy around now.

 

Mark's response was (implicitly to Apple):

 

In my view, Zuckerberg is still a very young and naive CEO and doesn't understand this world as much as Cook - he could learn a lot. Such as sniffing into peoples messages and personal data - and selling them off is not a good idea. Moreso lying about it .

Tim Cook's statement is pretty spot-on, especially as these online services can only grow. There is still a strong future for these services but only if people arent put off. 

Social media is just that though.. SOCIAL. It is public information that you are willing submitting to these sites/services.

 

People are using social media to dig in to people before hiring them, we are using it to keep track of peoples lives or stay in touch. So by the very nature of what social media does parts of your personal life will be shared with complete strangers. You can make your profile completely private if you want, but there are still ways you can be exposed when commenting or visiting other peoples pages.

 

I guess my point is that if you knowingly put information on your facebook page or allow it to say handle all your text messaging via messenger.. then there is no real expectation of privacy. Yes, a lot of people didn't know that allowing messenger to handle text messages too could pose an issue, but that being said the information gathered wasn't used maliciously or outside of what most would consider common practice.

 

Almost everything you do these days will put some of your information out there, it is on most of the documents you agree to these days. "Your information can be sold or shared with blah blah blah partners."

 

I mean apple making these comments is pretty stupid. We are starting to see more and more malicious stuff target apple os's. So it is only a matter of time until they suffer a massive data breach and their whole argument that apple is more secure will go out the window. The truth was that apple market share was just too low to become a major priority for most hackers.