Apple Nearly Worth 1 Trillion Dollars

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Blade of Grass said:

Why? Because Apple has a legal obligation to act in the best (financial) interest of their shareholders, which means that they should work to reduce their tax burden through legal means (loopholes are legal means). Whether or not it's morally justifiable is a different question, but from the perspective of whhy are they expected to? Because the people who give them money and own them expect them too (like any corporation)

That's another huge problem. Apple does not have the legal obligation to to make ALL the money, it's not black and white like that. They dont have the legal obligation to offshore money from the US government...

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

So part of the government doesn't want loopholes; the majority does (for one reason or another) -- in either case, the majority of the government -- and therefore the government as a whole -- allows tax exemptions. 

Where did you get "the majority" from? Do you think they just sit in a room and congress votes "hey lets close the loopholes" and then whichever side gets 51% of the vote wins? That's not how it works, it's much much more nuanced than that

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Swatson said:

Where did you get "the majority" from? Do you think they just sit in a room and congress votes "hey lets close the loopholes" and then whichever side gets 51% of the vote wins? That's not how it works, it's much much more nuanced than that

It's only more nuanced since politicians tend to bundle dozens/hundreds of often completely different and irrelevant elements into the same discussion; but again that is a choice. 

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

It's only more nuanced since politicians tend to bundle dozens/hundreds of often completely different elements into the same discussion; but again that is a choice. 

No it's not just that, they don't even hold votes to close loopholes like that afaik. It takes a lot of work to change the tax code.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Swatson said:

No it's not just that, they don't even hold votes to close loopholes like that afaik. It takes a lot of work to change the tax code.

(Some of) These loopholes have existed for decades. Again, the ONLY way they can exist is if they're allowed to exist.

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

(Some of) These loopholes have existed for decades. Again, the ONLY way they can exist is if they're allowed to exist.

They are allowed to exist because the US government is the most complex body of government in the world and it turns out that it's hard to get everyone to agree on shit especially when one side of the argument is being paid to keep it in place.

[DrMacintosh]

8 minutes ago, Swatson said:

Apple does not have the legal obligation to to make ALL the money

They are obligated to make all the money they can. That's how capitalism works. 

8 minutes ago, Swatson said:

They dont have the legal obligation to offshore money from the US government...

If its a legal loophole they can jump through, yes they are obligated to store money in offshore accounts to avoid massive taxes every year. 

 

I know where you are coming from. The morality of acting like that is questionable, but its the reality of the world. 

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Swatson said:

They are allowed to exist because the US government is the most complex body of government in the world and it turns out that it's hard to get everyone to agree on shit especially when one side of the argument is being paid to keep it in place.

Again, it's still legal and there to be taken advantage of; political hoops don't change anything. It is not Apple depriving the government of taxes anymore than the government is depriving themselves of the taxes. 

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

They are obligated to make all the money they can. That's how capitalism works. 

If its a legal loophole they can jump through, yes they are obligated to store money in offshore accounts to avoid massive taxes every year. 

 

I know where you are coming from. The morality of acting like that is questionable, but its the reality of the world. 

I'm actually pretty sure they cannot be legally obligated to move money to an offshore account to avoid taxes even if the particular loophole they are using is legal. It would take a court case to decide that but I have a strong feeling that wouldn't fly. Acting in the best financial interest of the company doesn't mean you get free reign.

[S w a t s o n]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Again, it's still legal and there to be taken advantage of. It is not Apple depriving the government of taxes anymore than the government is depriving themselves of the taxes. 

Alright, I'm done with you

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Swatson said:

I'm actually pretty sure they cannot be legally obligated to move money to an offshore account to avoid taxes even if the particular loophole they are using is legal. It would take a court case to decide that but I have a strong feeling that wouldn't fly. Acting in the best financial interest of the company doesn't mean you get free reign.

So in other words, you only have your feelings to backup your objections to how Apple makes money. 

 

You could just have said that and it would have been a perfectly legitimate point. But as it stands right now, Apples actions are legal enough. 

[S w a t s o n]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

So in other words, you only have your feelings to backup your objections to how Apple makes money. 

 

You could just have said that and it would have been a perfectly legitimate point. But as it stands right now, Apples actions are legal enough. 

No that's not the case at all. I'm saying it would have be taken to court. The whole legal obligation for financial interest in the company is so that a company can't fuck it's shareholders. I don't think any company has actually had the situation where shareholders were angry and threatening legal action because a company did not evade taxes.

 

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's legal or that they have that legal obligation

[handymanshandle]

man so much bitching about Apple lol

 

This is a case of capitalism working very well, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

 

Millions of people find their products and services to be good.

 

As @djdwosk97 said, it's disadvantageous to offer hundreds of products.

With their phones, they sell tons of them annually. A lot of people love iPhones, they had bad experiences with Android and/or just want a simple experience of a phone and software that "just works" and has far better support than Samsung or any other Android OEM.

 

I will throw Samsung under the fucking bus (being that my last phone and current phone are from them) when it comes to support, yeah there's like Samsung centers in Best Buy stores now at least in my area. I dunno if any other retailer has a Samsung thing like Best Buy. However OS and software support is horrid and this is partially Samsung's fault, partially the carriers fault.

My old S6, I doubt will get any more OS updates. It'll still get security patches here and there, but it likely won't get Oreo (It came with Lollipop, and it's only gotten Marshmallow and Nougat). My S8+, I want to hope that it'd get more than Android P or Q (it started with Nougat, it currently has Oreo)

 

Ramblings

Spoiler

 

See, I love Android. My past 3 (including current one) phones have ran Android. Before those 3 phones, I had a couple different Tracphone/Straight Talk phones. One iPhone 3GS, a Samsung Reclaim, a HTC Droid Incredible II, and while I don't recall having service on it I did use a Hauwei Ascend II a fair bit. While the HTC and Hauwei ran Android, some tracphone/straight talk phones were in between them.

 

My past 3 phones: Moto G2 (late 2014-late 2015), Samsung Galaxy S6 (late 2015-mid 2017), Samsung Galaxy S8+ (mid 2017-present)

 

Odds are though, my next phone will be an iPhone. Unless there's something out later this year/early next that catches my attention.

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Swatson said:

I'm saying it would have be taken to court.

Then we can talk about it if it gets taken to court. 

 

Until then, that’s really the end of it. 

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Then we can talk about it if it gets taken to court. 

 

Until then, that’s really the end of it. 

yes, the end of it being, neither of us is objectively correct about apple having a legal obligation to evade taxes

[Guest]

1 hour ago, captain_to_fire said:

I guess this is due to the fact that they have very good sales of the iPhone. In fact, Apple sells more iPhones than Macs. 

I usually go through a few generation of iPhones before buying a new Mac. Longevity would be the reason, but also iPhones are a better product overall imo.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Swatson said:

yes, the end of it being, neither of us is objectively correct about apple having a legal obligation to evade taxes

As far as the law goes, if you can’t definitely prove it’s illegal, it’s legal. 

 

So if shareholders of any company start demanding said company move money to offshore accounts, then it’s legal and they are obligated to do it. They can say no, but there will likely be consequences and possibly a hostile takeover. 

[aezakmi]

1 hour ago, themaniac said:

what... the... fuck...

I mean it is apple so its not a huge surprise that they are worth a shit ton, but nearly 1 trillion seriously!?!?!?!?!!?!

they charge you $50 for a f*cking usb cable that china manufactures for $1 what do you expect, their profit is unbelievable

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, RorzNZ said:

I usually go through a few generation of iPhones before buying a new Mac. Longevity would be the reason, but also iPhones are a better product overall imo.

Macs are like any other computer and don’t age poorly. 10+ year old PCs can run just fine today if they were high end and got a few modern upgrades. 

[S w a t s o n]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

As far as the law goes, if you can’t definitely prove it’s illegal, it’s legal. 

 

So if shareholders of any company start demanding said company move money to offshore accounts, then it’s legal and they are obligated to do it. They can say no, but there will likely be consequences and possibly a hostile takeover. 

What? It's not that I can't prove it's illegal. The fact is no company has been taken to task by their shareholders for paying the owed taxes. That's doesnt mean it's legal or illegal it means it hasn't been definitively decided. In this situation, it's not even an issue of legal or illegal. It's an issue of is apple OBLIGATED to do so.

 

If you think that just because the shareholders wanted them to do that,they could shit on the board of directors if the board said no is indicative of how you think business works

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, aezakmi said:

they charge you $50 for a f*cking usb cable that china manufactures for $1 what do you expect, their profit is unbelievable

https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/mobile-accessories/tablets/micro-usb---usb-c-combo-cable-ep-dg930dweguj/

$20 for a USB-C to Micro-B

 

Same as Apple's $20 lightning to USB-C cable.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Swatson said:

That's doesnt mean it's legal or illegal it means it hasn't been definitively decided

So it’s legal. 

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

So it’s legal. 

No. I'm sorry you don't understand how the legal system works

[S w a t s o n]

Again, it's not legal vs illegal. It's "Is apple legally obligated to offshore money to avoid paying taxes if the loophole used is legal"

 

Obligated vs not obligated, that's the answer we're looking for

[Clanscorpia]

24 minutes ago, Swatson said:

Again, it's not legal vs illegal. It's "Is apple legally obligated to offshore money to avoid paying taxes if the loophole used is legal"

 

Obligated vs not obligated, that's the answer we're looking for

If the majority of the shareholders want them to do it, they legally have to do it. That is the law, law is still law even in theoretical situations. You dont seem to understand how a publicly traded company works, they have to act as their shareholders say they want to. Its how Steve Jobs got fired, then rehired. A public company isnt just the company, its also all the people who own shares in it, and if the company doesnt act in the way their shareholders want to then they can be in big big trouble, and the board of directors who made the decision not to listen to the shareholders would almost certainly be kicked out of their positions by the shareholders.