... or simple stop whinging like an entitled free-loader and learn to do with-out, find an alternative, or write your own.
610 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Oct 2007
Both Apple and the Government of the Irish Republic are challenging the judgement - Ireland because of the risk of a precedent being set by which Ireland - and all other EU Member States - lose control over its corporate tax rate which leads to the "levelling of the playing field" that will see its rates go from 12.5% to closer to the French 34%.
"Well that's what they voted for when they joined the EU."
No, it is not what they voted for; Ireland joined the Common Market in 1973 - a trading block, not a sovereign state. Ireland voted for the Lisbon Treaty the second time around but that did not cover the EU taking control of taxation matters in sovereign member states.
"I see, you're obviously being a little thick, this is about 'fair competition' between member states, something the EU28 agreed would be policed by the EU."
Except that it is not; the arrangement was legal under Irish and International Tax law, taxation is outside the remit of the EU, Member States have not pooled their sovereignty over taxation, the EU is arguing that Ireland should have considered the earnings of Apple businesses not domiciled in Ireland not the actual offer, and the EU is attempting to apply a judgement retrospectively.
Ireland did not do anything illegal, and it complied with international tax law. Apple did not do anything illegal by taking advantage of what was on offer.
The EU is interfering in the matter of taxation which is outside of its remit and applying judgement retrospectively.
Add to that the Netherlands, Cyprus, much of the Nordic members, etc.
The issue is not English - that is widely spoken, the issues are technical expertise, corporate law, taxation, other costs of investment/operations, attitudes and get-up & go.
Except that there is no evidence for the political agenda you mention - that is just hard-left agenda narrative.
Switzerland has voted twice to reject the EUs interference.
Others are reforming tax policy - but mainly due to changes in the USA. The main issue here is that the EU is seeking to extend its remit into matters of tax via the back door - an area that teh Federalists see as their remit.
Except that there was no subsidy - the tax applied to the revenue passed through the Irish businesses which is lawful under international laws.
If the EU continues down this route there is no reason why the USA and others can not impose sanctions on EU businesses.
Nope, sorry: it is not about a subsidy, it is the EU trying to force Ireland to change it's tax policy to include taxation of non-resident business income.
So in short - it is the EU interfering in a sovereign tax matter - that is why Ireland is appealing the judgement.
As far as Ireland is concerned, the EUR 13 Billion will be beneficial as it would allow it to avoid or at least cover the cost of the EUR 4 Billion bailout that has been lined-up for it, but the problem is that allowing the EU to interfere in it's sovereign tax laws means that it's competitiveness and attractiveness to both USA and other non-EU domiciled firms that trade in the EU is on the line. That would not go down well in a country that has still not recovered from the last financial collapse.
That would be regressive, and selective. It would no doubt bring sanctions on EU businesses - possibly quite severe - such as blocking sales of microprocessor technology or restrictions on what businesses are allowed to export to the EU - especially given that Apple has not broken international taxation laws.
Who said that Apple was doing anything illegal?
Ireland 's taxes are within it's remit and Apple has done nothing more than taken advantage of what is on offer. The fault instead lies with the EU for entering an area that is outside of it's remit.
You seem very confident of the predictions regarding the future.
The same can be said of your expectations of the impact the proposed initiatives would have on the supposed problem.
There is little that can be done for the younger generations while points of view are repressed for the sake of conformance to the narrow dogma of the few.