Ireland Government intend to appeal EU/Apples Tax Ruling

[AresKrieger]

3 minutes ago, Mister Snow said:

I would imagine that it's harder to pay off an entire EU council and court then it is to deal with a single country but that is highly speculative in the end. 

I wasn't thinking in terms of paying them off rather that the EU council would act in it's own selfish endeavors like many officials have done since the dawn of civilization, that was the idea behind the US's checks and balances system, however clearly even that has also gone awry due to the courts becoming political lackeys

[Mister Snow]

14 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

I wasn't thinking in terms of paying them off rather that the EU council would act in it's own selfish endeavors like many officials have done since the dawn of civilization, that was the idea behind the US's checks and balances system, however clearly even that has also gone awry due to the courts becoming political lackeys

That is a risk but I can only hope that they have more safety mechanisms.

In the end, every nation from EU has the right to leave the EU if they don't like it but I am still opposed to per company taxation.

 

One could say that I'm for tax neutrality. 

[226477_1454181668]

On 03/09/2016 at 2:47 PM, Master Disaster said:

Not as much as Apple do... 

But the EU should not be ruling on fiscal policy. 

[226477_1454181668]

3 hours ago, Notional said:

Ireland needs to STFU and do as they are told. Not only did EU have to bust them out of their own incompetence, as their economy failed after 2008, but then Ireland screwed EU over by essentially making something similar to a tax haven, that certainly is not done in a legal way. Apple needs to pay up and stop ripping everyone off. Pay up or take your suicide slave produced hardware out of the EU.

The EU should not rule on fiscal policy. Ireland dont want the money, the EU cant make Ireland impose a tax that benefits Irish trade.

[Sakkura]

12 minutes ago, 226477_1454181668 said:

But the EU should not be ruling on fiscal policy. 

Ireland just signed the European Fiscal Compact 4 years ago, and now the EU should have no power over its fiscal policy whatsoever?

 

I mean Ireland even signed over control over this particular policy area long before the fiscal compact, but damn... if the fiscal compact doesn't make it obvious that Ireland explicitly agreed to hand over fiscal policy powers to the EU, I don't know what would.

[226477_1454181668]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

Ireland just signed the European Fiscal Compact 4 years ago, and now the EU should have no power over its fiscal policy whatsoever?

 

I mean Ireland even signed over control over this particular policy area long before the fiscal compact, but damn... if the fiscal compact doesn't make it obvious that Ireland explicitly agreed to hand over fiscal policy powers to the EU, I don't know what would.

But you cant make a law up and expect them to pay for the last 20 years of "Missing" tax.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, 226477_1454181668 said:

But you cant make a law up and expect them to pay for the last 20 years of "Missing" tax.

They didn't make it up, it's been there all along.

 

It was probably dumb of me to even mention the fiscal compact, as that is actually new(ish) legislation. This case is covered by treaties that have been around for ages.

[patrickjp93]

10 hours ago, laminutederire said:

If it's a mathematical proof, I can handle it. So try me.

It is in the last page. Want a screenshot? 

 

Intelligence? To me, that's not what USA is the best at uncovering. I could have gotten to the MIT for a master's degree if I wanted to, intelligence wasn't an issue to go there, why haven't I? 

Because it's really expensive (Average loan is more than half of what my parents earn). I am not a genius so I wouldn't have enough scolarships to go there for free. That leaves poorer people with above average intelligence but below genius level absolutely no chance to compete. How does that promote intelligence? That quality is too often left behind to my taste. You could argue that if you're smart you can do things yourself and still do things. Sure maybe, but it's considerably harder, showing that money has a say in the selection. Money isn't natural, since it is a mind construction men base part of their society .

 

Hmm maybe you can, but how well will you be recognized with that education against someone who got out of Stanford or the MIT? You can access some sort of knowledge, but without any trust from others it doesn't matter since you won't get in the right position to use that knowledge.

Benefits of higher than bachelor degrees can't be found like that on the Internet, as you said it, leaving paid schools as an obligation anyway, which doesn't solve the problem.

You completely neglected all the free education opportunities I mentioned that are provided by MIT, Carnegie Melon, UC Davis/Berkeley, and more, and clearly your grades weren't good enough to make the cut then. That's competition.

 

You start on a lower rung and work your way up. It's exactly what I'm doing. You demonstrate the knowledge. You compete for positions. So much of the business world is dictated by actual performance. Pedigree only gets people started on a higher rung. You can leapfrog them if you're as good as you say.

 

Accrument of money is a natural process of investment and trade. It's still a natural parameter even if its existence is an abstraction above physical possessions.

[patrickjp93]

10 hours ago, Centurius said:

You realize in most global rankings the Miami University is positioned below a lot of European ones right with a pretty significant share of European universities being in the top 100?

Doesn't change the fact I'm kicking his tail in with hardly any effort. I'm the one providing the sources AND the logic and he has nothing to show for it. I went to a university I could go to for free, because where you get your degree from, overall, does not matter. And the world education rankings are complete ass kissers to the elites in Cambridge and Berlin. The U.S. is wiping the floor with China now.

[laminutederire]

4 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

You completely neglected all the free education opportunities I mentioned that are provided by MIT, Carnegie Melon, UC Davis/Berkeley, and more, and clearly your grades weren't good enough to make the cut then. That's competition.

 

You start on a lower rung and work your way up. It's exactly what I'm doing. You demonstrate the knowledge. You compete for positions. So much of the business world is dictated by actual performance. Pedigree only gets people started on a higher rung. You can leapfrog them if you're as good as you say.

 

Accrument of money is a natural process of investment and trade. It's still a natural parameter even if its existence is an abstraction above physical possessions.

And you completely neglected my point which was that knowledge need recognition, and free courses aren't seen the same way paid one are.

Ahah I got better grades than people I know who go there for a double degree. Difference is that their parents are loaded but mine aren't. Mind you I am happy to settle for the best universities in Europe. The point of my example is to show you that in the American system, money has a big place in education, and that it sometimes go against the poorer than average by denying them the same opportunities as richer ones. It disrupts equality and goes against human rights in that sense. And it's not competition, since all people don't have the same chances. With the same grades, or even with worse grades, rich people always will have the upper hand, because they can pay for the school and don't depend on banks giving loans, scholarships to be given etc.

 

First of all, you can't leapfrog anyone that easily. The point of higher education universities is to have a strong alumni network. That alone give them an advantage over you. They have connections you don't, and in a business environment that counts for something.

In some cases, it will just make it harder for you to leapfrog them, and sometimes it will be impossible.

Business isn't about performance per se, it's about economic performance. If you are influential enough to make more money than others, nobody cares if what you're doing is best. Do I have to recall you that a few years back Nvidia was producing way inferior products but still manage to hold on to their market share because of their image. That is an example where actual performance don't matter because it is superceded by economic performance based on something else than good knowledge of what you're doing with the product.

(By the way, in Europe I'm in the top ranked schools, so I won't start at the bottom, but I managed that only because the system in Europe is about intellectual competition only, since tuition fees are about 10 to 30 times less expensive.)

 

How possession is a natural process ? 

Other animal don't have that notion of physical possession. Only possession which is natural to them is their shelter and territory because it's needed to survive. Only in that survival sense, money can be as a natural attribute. Fact remains that accrument of money isn't natural, since it isn't about survival anymore. That's my first point about money. The second being that natural selection can't take money into account because it is first of all external of one's qualities. Trump is loaded and is objectively saying absurdities as much as any poor idiot, and lots of bright minds aren't paid much. Fields medal laureate aren't paid nearly as much as trump for that matter, even if they're intellectually superior. The unfairness of it all comes from the fact that wealth is transferable from parents to children without any actual possibility of it randomly going away. Wealth is then a feat of your history, and not something you necessarily deserve, breaking the essential rule of natural selection which is to favor the strongest individuals. In the system you describe to me, money is what is favored. What you are saying to me is that money is bound to be made by the strongest individuals, point on which I disagree strongly given my experience in life, but my main point is that money becomes an abstraction of what you own but also of what you're worth in the natural selection point of view, which is inherently flawed since money isn't connected directly to who you are and your potential usefulness to this world.

[laminutederire]

4 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Doesn't change the fact I'm kicking his tail in with hardly any effort. I'm the one providing the sources AND the logic and he has nothing to show for it. I went to a university I could go to for free, because where you get your degree from, overall, does not matter. And the world education rankings are complete ass kissers to the elites in Cambridge and Berlin. The U.S. is wiping the floor with China now.

They're ass kisses to whoever has the money. Why do you think best schools of some rankings are all extremely expensive?

The best school in the world for mathematics for instance is ranked 15 to 30 in all mathematics degree rankings, because it's a state school where students get paid. That gives less money to have giant labs associated with the school.

Where you get degree matters, it is about the moral values and Personnal growth input you get where you study. That's not very present in rankings though.

I have nothing yo show for it? Now you're becoming blatantly arrogant. I've been giving you example to support my logic argumentation. By a logical thinking I dissected the ideas you merely exposed me to show you why it can be logically wrong.

About the sources,  you still haven't given me your mathematical proof of the welfare of capitalism. Still waiting on that to be able to agree or disagree with you.

 

[HalGameGuru]

Which welfare of capitalism? The moral or utilitarian?

 

E-Peen measuring of higher education is a losing battle. Having labs versus not, rankings, its all bunk. If you are looking for bragging rights in your sheepskin power to ya, it misses the point. Some of the best schools are very expensive, some aren't. Some are very much about the alumni networks, some aren't. But anyone who would look down on someone who went to RPI because they went to MIT, or look down on someone who went to A&M because they went to RICE is massively missing the point of higher education, its almost as ridiculous as nationalism. In the end performance is going to matter a heck of a lot more than which dean signed your sheepskin.

[Hexram]

If it was anyone of us trying to avoid tax it would be gaol. There is obviously some corruption here with them being cool with it.

[laminutederire]

32 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Which welfare of capitalism? The moral or utilitarian?

 

E-Peen measuring of higher education is a losing battle. Having labs versus not, rankings, its all bunk. If you are looking for bragging rights in your sheepskin power to ya, it misses the point. Some of the best schools are very expensive, some aren't. Some are very much about the alumni networks, some aren't. But anyone who would look down on someone who went to RPI because they went to MIT, or look down on someone who went to A&M because they went to RICE is massively missing the point of higher education, its almost as ridiculous as nationalism. In the end performance is going to matter a heck of a lot more than which dean signed your sheepskin.

Look at my post, you would see I pointed out rankings were useless because of some criterion. But you can't say high ranked schools don't come with advantages.

As for performance, there are a lot of example where raw performance didn't matter. Any history of science and engineering course would tell you that. Better technologies don't necessarily prevail, and that's why performance isn't uniquely what it is about. Unless you talk about economic performance. If so, knowledge in science isn't the limiting part of the equation and then yes schools don't matter since you don't need to be one of the best to do it.

[IhazHedont]

7 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Doesn't change the fact I'm kicking his tail in with hardly any effort. I'm the one providing the sources AND the logic and he has nothing to show for it.

If you talk about me, you are just a joke. You actually proved that global warming is a thing with your links. But that's okay, it was fun to talk with an arrogant kid. Made me nostalgic of the forums flamewars when I was younger.

[BogyOne]

Shouldn't we start with fact that if we'd pay 0.5% tax every year we could buy new overpriced Apple toy each month..?

[HalGameGuru]

6 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Look at my post, you would see I pointed out rankings were useless because of some criterion. But you can't say high ranked schools don't come with advantages.

As for performance, there are a lot of example where raw performance didn't matter. Any history of science and engineering course would tell you that. Better technologies don't necessarily prevail, and that's why performance isn't uniquely what it is about. Unless you talk about economic performance. If so, knowledge in science isn't the limiting part of the equation and then yes schools don't matter since you don't need to be one of the best to do it.

Yeah, but we're not talking about technologies, we are talking about real world experiences of people. And your track record, portfolio, or past achievements wind up having a much larger impact than just where you went to school. Look at the fact that in a lot of industries working your way up for 4 years can be massively more effective than showing up 4 years older with a degree. To the point where many companies will pay to send you to school to get a degree if you prove yourself first. 

 

I'm not saying a person shouldn't be proud of going to MIT or Rice. But you don't spurn an engineer who went to A&M because someone else went to Rice.

[laminutederire]

9 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Yeah, but we're not talking about technologies, we are talking about real world experiences of people. And your track record, portfolio, or past achievements wind up having a much larger impact than just where you went to school. Look at the fact that in a lot of industries working your way up for 4 years can be massively more effective than showing up 4 years older with a degree. To the point where many companies will pay to send you to school to get a degree if you prove yourself first. 

 

I'm not saying a person shouldn't be proud of going to MIT or Rice. But you don't spurn an engineer who went to A&M because someone else went to Rice.

By the way, I have no idea of the cultural significance of schools you quoted besides the MIT  I mostly know schools in Europe.

There are places like Google or IBM where it's much harder to prove your way in without a good degree. Experiences people shared with me were that to get to places like that, a good degree makes a huge difference because you can get in much faster there, while you couldn't otherwise. Discrimination is more at the entry rather than when you're already in.

[HalGameGuru]

5 hours ago, laminutederire said:

By the way, I have no idea of the cultural significance of schools you quoted besides the MIT  I mostly know schools in Europe.

There are places like Google or IBM where it's much harder to prove your way in without a good degree. Experiences people shared with me were that to get to places like that, a good degree makes a huge difference because you can get in much faster there, while you couldn't otherwise. Discrimination is more at the entry rather than when you're already in.

And yet those are places that take great pride of grooming entry level people to higher responsibilities. If people are willing to invest the sweat very few companies won't build someone from the mail room, technical support, or clerical pool to specialized or professional positions.

 

A place like MIT or Rice is going to be more recognizable but anybody who would turn away an engineer from Texas A&M has short changed themselves someone who has earned a degree in one of the toughest and most advanced engineering programs in the country. And any place that would discount an applicant based solely on the letterhead on their sheepskin doesn't deserve those top line applicants. It's collectivist thought and it's lazy. I've never liked the idea of shoehorning yourself into a career via university, I much prefer finding what you wish to do and working into the field. There are too many worthless or useless degrees floating around. And I see too many people, especially in tech, finding their niche through experience and experimentation to support any prejudice on name dropping your university.

 

I understand many people bank on that, but its a risky gamble, and far better to show yourself to be worthy of consideration than hope your letterhead gets you in and no one notices you coast on its coattails. 

[laminutederire]

12 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

And yet those are places that take great pride of grooming entry level people to higher responsibilities. If people are willing to invest the sweat very few companies won't build someone from the mail room, technical support, or clerical pool to specialized or professional positions.

 

A place like MIT or Rice is going to be more recognizable but anybody who would turn away an engineer from Texas A&M has short changed themselves someone who has earned a degree in one of the toughest and most advanced engineering programs in the country. And any place that would discount an applicant based solely on the letterhead on their sheepskin doesn't deserve those top line applicants. It's collectivist thought and it's lazy. I've never liked the idea of shoehorning yourself into a career via university, I much prefer finding what you wish to do and working into the field. There are too many worthless or useless degrees floating around. And I see too many people, especially in tech, finding their niche through experience and experimentation to support any prejudice on name dropping your university.

 

I understand many people bank on that, but its a risky gamble, and far better to show yourself to be worthy of consideration than hope your letterhead gets you in and no one notices you coast on its coattails. 

Given a certain point in higher education you can't fake being good in science. That's why degrees are relevant still. When you have a degree from a good university, people know you aren't stupid and they know you know you stuff. That's a way of proving yourself. It may be different in the US, but for us in France,  you can experiment fields to a certain extent when you're in the school. Bachelor year is about getting an education on 30 different fields to know what fancies you,  and then the masters year are there to get good at it. We have the possibility to have a year of internships to precise exactly what we want to do as well. Difference being that we don't learn our future job by being there, we learn 90% of it in school, leaving the rest to be acquired through experience (those 10% account for how to behave in your company those sort of things).

Anyway, all that to say that top end degrees are worth it both for yourself and for your future company. You can learn things you wouldn't otherwise; you can land jobs, it would have taken 20 years to get to, and it is for them an insurance on the fact that you know your stuff. That's why top ranked schools pride themselves on their education, it's because they're hard to get through for most of their students, and they provide top level knowledge in what you're supposed to.

Of course, rankings matter less than Personnal desire and values, but they matter to a certain extent.

When you do a computer science master degree in the top 50 ranked master's, you can tackle the issues of your field the best you could.

High responsibility jobs come from the fact that we are trained for them. Simple as that. A company will prefer to have someone who is already ready to endure the pressure and work efficiently rather than someone they have to teach how to, or someone who will take a bit of time to adapt. What's the problem with that?

[HalGameGuru]

5 hours ago, laminutederire said:

-snip-

But, you miss the primary factor. Investment. A degree from anywhere proves you know the material, anyone of average IQ can get a degree in almost anything. "better" schools or harder programs wind up being noticeable, but the biggest indicator is investment. A person who has invested tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours GETTING a degree has a vested interest in making use of it and recouping their investment. Which can be sidestepped by working in the field.

 

If I can find the paper on it I will post it, I think it was from Mises.org, talking about the investment factor in higher education and the job search. Your degree from MIT or Harvard proves you put more time and resources on the line for the degree, making you a hungrier applicant than the one who went to community college and then scholarship to state. 

 

I'm not talking about post-grad courses, post-grad is almost entirely career specific. 4 year degrees incorporate core coursework and require a lot of classes unrelated to your major. The point I was making was that you could invest tens of thousands of dollars and four years getting a degree or spend that time making money and working your way into the same industry, and if you need to acquire a degree, at that time they will more often than not provide you the resources, and often still pay you for time spent in school, to get one they can use.

 

Any person can opt for whatever course they would like. But, not everyone is best served by putting themselves in debt and hoping their degree takes them to a career they will enjoy. Many people would be better served finding their profession first, or investing less in vocational or basic coursework and interning or working to find their niche before committing. There are too many people with masters working in food service or clerical pools as it is.

[laminutederire]

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

But, you miss the primary factor. Investment. A degree from anywhere proves you know the material, anyone of average IQ can get a degree in almost anything. "better" schools or harder programs wind up being noticeable, but the biggest indicator is investment. A person who has invested tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours GETTING a degree has a vested interest in making use of it and recouping their investment. Which can be sidestepped by working in the field.

 

If I can find the paper on it I will post it, I think it was from Mises.org, talking about the investment factor in higher education and the job search. Your degree from MIT or Harvard proves you put more time and resources on the line for the degree, making you a hungrier applicant than the one who went to community college and then scholarship to state. 

 

I'm not talking about post-grad courses, post-grad is almost entirely career specific. 4 year degrees incorporate core coursework and require a lot of classes unrelated to your major. The point I was making was that you could invest tens of thousands of dollars and four years getting a degree or spend that time making money and working your way into the same industry, and if you need to acquire a degree, at that time they will more often than not provide you the resources, and often still pay you for time spent in school, to get one they can use.

 

Any person can opt for whatever course they would like. But, not everyone is best served by putting themselves in debt and hoping their degree takes them to a career they will enjoy. Many people would be better served finding their profession first, or investing less in vocational or basic coursework and interning or working to find their niche before committing. There are too many people with masters working in food service or clerical pools as it is.

Your point is valid only in english minded systems. In Europe the hard degrees are given only based on the student level. It isn't an investment anymore but a reward for having performed better academically. It is a money free environment and it should remain that way in my opinion because knowledge can live separately from money. You learn things for pleasure and not for money thanks to that. And mostly, the fact it's almost free means you can change of courses to adjust yourself.

I see what you mean by having too many people with a master's degree,  in Europe it's the same with bachelor degrees. But that phenomena is to me the defeat of capitalism in the sense that it isn't a system bound to make people happy of being who they are.

 

[HalGameGuru]

2 hours ago, laminutederire said:

-snip-

 

Its more a numbers issue with bachelor's than masters, its just more egregious with masters. Although anyone who thought they would be able to find a professional career as one of 15 graduates with a masters in 19th century english poetry or gender studies in historical mesopotamia I just cannot fathom. The movie PCU comes to mind.

 

"hard" degrees? What do you mean by that? Harder programs? That is the one place I am all for institutions striking out on their own. Having a cutting edge, or stringent standards, or in-depth specialization program is one of the legitimate places I see for some kind of school recognition. Better than simply name or price, or "history."

 

Information is and should be free, education isn't and should not be. There are too many people who work too hard attempting to provide people with an education for it to be devoid of market forces. One of the reasons I do not like the government's hand involved. Half the reason so many jobs go unfilled, vocational schools are under-attended, and degree programs are so expensive is the government intervention in that market. 

 

I think you misunderstand capitalism. It's important for people to be able to weigh their options and know the value they are expected to give up and what the value is of what they are getting. And those informational impulses are drowned out by interventions of those who have no basis for deciding the value of either, yet they dictate what options and what costs the student faces.

[laminutederire]

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

 

Rankings are all about giving you the information of which degrees are best in terms of contents. Well some rankings are, not all.

High ranked institutions are ranked that high because of their history, yes. But indirectly, they are. They are considered better than other, because they have professors which teach the most up to date and cutting edge programs, giving their students objectively a better understanding of what they're doing. They have those because during history they build themselves a recognition which allowed them to have the best students and best teachers.

 

Why shouldn't education be free? Having it free guarantees both the happiness through Personnal growth and the fairness of the educational system. I genuinely don't see what you're referring to I have to admit.

 

To me government allowing schools to be free is the most capitalistic thing you could do. Why? Because you're giving everyone the same chances at the start, and the value of what you end up with is the result of what you personnally deserve. It is that fairness which ensures men are free to choose their paths. Otherwise you'd be stuck in the limited path your birth rights can give you.

Same thing applies to Apple here. If they get special treatments, it is against other companies living up to what they are really worth because they don't get the same advantages. The market wouldn't be free since all companies wouldn't be free to live up to their potentials because of unfair practices. 

[Tomsen]

Of course educations needs to be free and available to all people. That does not exclude the possibility of private schools.

Why do there need to be a possibility of free education? So all people regardless of economic status have the opportunity to get educated, and that increases the possibility of finding the next Einstein.  That doesn't mean everyone can demand every education, as often certain education has requirements to start (previous education).

 

In regards to apple and Irelands deal, a drug-dealer can also make a good deal with desperate drug-user.