[RingwormOne]

Don't fault corporations for exploiting legal loopholes to save money... They optimize what they must optimize as operating businesses, and if we the citizens want to compel them to do something we must pass the laws necessary to do so...

Stop moralizing the behavior of companies. They aren't humans.

If you choose not to buy apple products in reaction to their behavior, great. If you want to convince your friends to do the same, great. But legal repercussions are reserved for law breaking entities. Loophole exploitation is not law breaking.

[nautilus12]

I disagree with this whole heartedly. Laws like this are not deterministic procedures, they are more like best practices. Can you seriously argue that Apple is not a functioning member of society? For many its a daily companion.

It should be held accountable to behave like a good citizen within society like everyone else and not find ways to sidestep the law.

If society can oust an individual like Weinstein and hold them accountable for their actions why not a company? A company consists simply of a group of individuals making decisions with moral implications no different than an individual. Demoralizing companies is the most irrational proposal I've ever heard. Capitalism is not a computer program, it is a set of guiding principles meant to operate within a society of well intentioned and reasonable individuals that are held accountable for their actions.

[RingwormOne]

But they are doing what's best for them without breaking the law. You cannot reasonably expect anything more from any actor in a society. In personal relationships we expect more (lying is legal but frowned upon), or else we break off that relationship, but the functioning of a business in society does not amount to a personal relationship.

This is why we have laws. Expecting people to be 'nice' is naive. They must be coerced.

If you choose not to buy apple products as a result of their behavior, fine. If you want to convince your friends to do the same, fine. But legal repercussions are reserved for law breaking entities. Loophole exploitation is not law breaking.

[DigitalJack]

The entire and only purpose of laws and regulations is to dictate behaviors and punishments in a theoretically fair manner.

If a law is not broken, then any punishment would very likely be unfair as it would not be evenhanded in application.

I feel American political problems are rooted in having a professional political class, and a system in which politicians can enrich themselves by legislating.

If I were king, I would enact short term limits and regulation preventing any politician from increasing their networth while in office and for a period thereafter. Not applicable to myself of course.

[tomxor]

> If I were king, I would enact short term limits and regulation preventing any politician from increasing their networth while in office and for a period thereafter

As an aside... I can't see this ever working, it wouldn't prevent monetary bribery, it would just arbitrarily defer it. I suppose it would at least make it less attractive, but that is subjective.

[evilduck]

Would you accept that everyone in a community be sent a speeding ticket for prior behavior if a road's speed limit was reduced from 45MPH to 35MPH? In spirit, the first speed limit was set for a safety reason right? Clearly everyone disobeyed the spirit of that limit by going faster than 35MPH and necessitating the limit be reduced. Pay up.

[tomxor]

Law is not just a set of confining rules like a programming language, exploiting loop holes has moral consequences.

Corporations are run by humans, some of those humans must ultimately answer for crimes of tax evasion. Just like the VW executive who is currently doing prison time for other corporate crimes (technically their vehicles passed the required tests).

Some people would prefer more than this to prevent scapegoating. i.e corporate death penalty... liquidation selling off the assets to the competition, dividing the result between the parties (government, citizens etc) defrauded or harmed. Unfortunately this will never happen with this size of company due to the impact it would have on the economy. The best we can hope for is government intervention, i.e impede company freedoms in proportion to it's crimes, much like a criminal record hurts an individual's job prospects. This would also make strategically immoral profit less attractive (Think of the Fight Club car recall equation).

[anigbrowl]

Stop moralizing the behavior of companies. They aren't humans.

OK, then they don't get to participate in politics by lobbying or making political donations of any kind, or buying political advertising.

[icc97]

> A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

> Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.

How human do you want them to be? They're a group of humans with human rights.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

[HellDunkel]

Agree. But that should not stop us from beeing upset. We must of course focus on the law an closing loopholes. However, this discussion is much broader. A year ago i read a piece by tim cook lamenting about the eu demanding tax. He adressed the public and pointed out that most of the revenue is generated by apples devs in california not the people in irland therefore apples revenues should not be taxed in ireland. This is outrageous- tax is to be paid where money is made.

[ionised]

> Don't fault corporations for exploiting legal loopholes to save money...

No, sorry, I'm going to keep faulting them.

> Stop moralizing the behavior of companies. They aren't humans.

Repeal Citizen's United then.

[mrguyorama]

Every human being in that company should be held accountable for their actions. Someone, somewhere said "Yes let's do it this way", and they committed an (arguably) immoral act by doing so.

[RingwormOne]

Be careful, you're rejecting the rule of law if you advocate for legal repercussions. What you judge to be immoral may not be judged to be immoral by others. When outrage of the masses is the sufficient condition for legal punishment, we have mob rule.

Apple should be held accountable by whom? The government? The consumer? Apple did not break a law, so law enforcement cannot hold them accountable. The consumer can decide not to buy Apple products though, that is a reasonable response.

[aqsalose]

> Apple did not break a law, so law enforcement cannot hold them accountable.

I thought the unstated assumption was that the law should be changed, which is certainly within both the letter and spirit of rule of law.

[tomxor]

[EDIT] My incorrect interpretation of parent comment who means accountability on an individual basis (see children).

---

I know where you are coming from but this level of extremely inclusive accountability would result in either: Everyone from the janitors to the legal team being held accountable for corporate tax evasion or: a company wide democracy on every decision that could potentially result in legally or morally grey outcomes.

IMO, in addition to individual accountability investigations, the company should be impeded somehow to make scapegoating a less attractive route (the hidden decision makers pushing other peoples buttons still get hurt by proxy).

[mrguyorama]

Why would it be extremely inclusive? The janitor didn't choose to place the money in Ireland. As you go up in management, you typically see pay scale up, and the normal justification for this is that they hold more accountability. You expect more pay to offset the higher risk that a mistake or poor choice will hurt you. If the CFO approves the choice to do X, Y, and Z with the company's money, he should be held accountable on a moral level.

Why are we not allowed to have a minimum level of moral expectations for people just because they paid a small fee and registered under an LLC?

[tomxor]

Hmm, I think I've misinterpreted your meaning of "Every human being in that company should be held accountable for their actions" I mistakenly related "their" to the company in the context of the article, but in light of your followup you clearly mean the individual. Anyway, we appear to agree :)

[maus42]

>Stop moralizing the behavior of companies. They aren't humans.

That is true. Companies, however, consist of humans. Make the people making the decisions to be held responsible for those decisions.

[vixen99]

Be interesting to have a head count of those who following current tax rules, do not seek to minimize their tax bill. Tax authorities whereever, are certainly vigilant in maximizing it.

[nautilus12]

Be interested to see a head count of those who's income rivals that of a small country. In fact, id wager that the average middle income individual is held to a greater level of scrutiny and is called out on its attempts to minimize their tax bill than most mega large corporations like Apple due to its ability to hire lobbyists and lawyers to make the problem go away.