Not really... if Mac prices reaches the sky, consumers will buy from other brands. That is, profit margins will decrease, resulting on less social inequality. Shareholders don't have any moral. That's why governments exist.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Italian Regulators Conclude Corporate Tax Investigation Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not really... if Mac prices reaches the sky, consumers will buy from other brands. That is, profit margins will decrease, resulting on less social inequality. Shareholders don't have any moral. That's why governments exist.
And we are glad that Italy is the only country in the world where corruption exists. All the documentaries about other counties (*cough*, the USA) are based on pure lies! How dare they....
What, so you put people on your ignore list who say things that you don't agree with? Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it...?
Actually, not a bad idea. When your exploding in Asia who the hell needs Italy? Europe is dying a slow death.
It does, but I'm sure it's what most of the heavy ignore list abusers use it for. You know, to protect yourself from the ever present, always nebulous "Apple Haters" and "Samsung Astroturfers" that, according to some, make up 96% of the user demographic around here.
Well I'm sure Apple is a religion to many of those ignore list abusers. Which ironically should put every Apple announcement in the religion/politics/social-issues forum.
"I don't care what you say about controversial political and social topics, but darned if you will be allowed to comment on an Apple article without at least 100 posts behind you", is what they would say.
It all comes down to one thing: some people have a hard time handling a contrary opinion. Sometimes, offering up anything less than gushing adoration can be taken as a sign of being one of the haters or astroturfers.
Which, now that I think about it, comes down to another thing: some people are a little too emotionally invested in the brands they buy. It's okay to like your stuff, and like the company that makes it, but there comes a point...
Agreed about the overly emotionally invested aspect - to the point where it also becomes part of someones identity. So slur against Apple translates in their mind to a personal insult. It shouldnt be that way.
I'll keep primarily using iDevices, MBP's and OSX over the other choices for now. But I'll also continue being cynical where I see Apple diverging their designs from what I peronsally find useful (yep, I'm being selfish). In the end its the end users choice what they use, its nothing to take "personally".
I come here to find people who thinks different than me. This doesn't mean that I must drive through childish uninformed zealots who have such strong beliefs on almost every argument in this forums.
By the way, show me where I was talking of people disagreeing with me
Your original statement said that Apple is a beggar, whereas it is you who are begging for their rightful money - having paid all legally due taxes.
As for the wellies .... Iron Duke.
Last edited:
How many wars have Italy started to secure oil. I ask out of curiosity, for a friend.
I'm not a lawyer either, or an American, but I'd be surprised to hear that the prosecutors don't have the right to appeal a verdict. Can anyone confirm that?
American judicial officers are generally loathe to overturn factual findings of a jury. I think in most American jurisdictions prosecutors can effectively only appeal not guilty findings only in special conditions (e.g., jury corruption, bribes, etc.) The vast, vast majority of criminal cases end up with plea bargains or settlements anyway.
You can't normally appeal a verdict in a criminal case. Double jeopardy, &etc. The jury is assumed to have determined the facts, so, unless there is new evidence, or the process was demonstrably flawed, then, no.
In some countries, you can appeal to (presumably) smarter people at a higher level, but, in the U.S., that first jury verdict is crucial.
Very true. Also these corporations only exist because of the consumers buying their products. Informed consumers can pick and choose the least morally repugnant vendor. In Apple's case that isn't so because their products are unique.
Other multinationals however are vulnerable and you can boycott the worst offenders. I buy my morning coffee and pastry from Pret. They are the most ethical in terms of their suppliers and pay the most tax. It also helps that they have the best coffee and that their food is freshly baked and prepared and the other chains just have some dried up crap that was probably mass produced in a factory and packaged days before.
Assuming it results in declaration of a mistrial, this should be correct. Otherwise they cannot appeal such a thing due the 5th amendment.
Last edited:
They can appeal if they can prove mistrial, or substantial new evidence. Otherwise a verified innocent (for the law) would end up being under trial for the same alleged crime for which he has been declared innocent by the judicial system itself.
Precisely, and more to the point the Apple board has a legal obligation to maximise value to their share holders, even if this means looking for somewhat dubious loopholes.
----------
'My old man used to say "When in Rome do as the Romans do..."
That was just before he got locked up in an Italian prison for murdering 20,000 Christians.' - Lee Mack
I don't think most people find a company avoiding paying taxes to be morally repugnant though. Maybe they'd be boycotted if they were touturing kittens or keeping children as slaves, but I'd be surprised if it happens over this to any significant degree.