>More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes.
I'm not so sure about this as I'd question that it's possible for a single government to close loopholes on its own. Arguably yes, governments should be pressured into closing "certain loopholes", but not because this necessarily leads to a better outcome.
>Apple is a public company with an obligation to its shareholders to make money
Not everyone agrees that companies ought to maximise only shareholder value.
> More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes.
If such a loophole exists, and it's blatantly obvious that you're a dick for using that loophole, yes, that loophole should be fixed. But that doesn't mean you're not a dick for using it in the first place.
To put it in another perspective: If there was a loophole that allowed me to kill someone without facing any consequences, yes, that loophole should be fixed. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a dick for using it.
It’s relatively easy to argue that murder is immoral even if there was a legal loophole. It’s much more difficult to argue that employing legal methods to reduce your tax burden is immoral.
> It’s much more difficult to argue that employing legal methods to reduce your tax burden is immoral.
I mostly don't care, but for the sake of argument, setting up shell corporations and then saying they made this purchase or that deal for tax reasons isn't exactly being honest.
It reminds me of the "characters" Bunbury and Ernest from Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest":
"""
You have invented a very useful younger brother called Ernest, in order that you may be able to come up to town as often as you like. I have invented an invaluable permanent invalid called Bunbury, in order that I may be able to go down into the country whenever I choose. Bunbury is perfectly invaluable. If it wasn't for Bunbury's extraordinary bad health, for instance, I wouldn't be able to dine with you at Willis's to-night, for I have been really engaged to Aunt Augusta for more than a week.
Seems as dead simple to me as to argue about murder. If you're a company that's present in a certain geographic area, you're expected to pay taxes in that area. If you don't pay taxes and you actively work on not paying taxes, you're immoral. Done.
Yes, but the precise amount of taxes you should pay is not some moral principle. If the current tax laws were the “correct” amount, then the government passed a tax cut, are you morally obligated to keep paying the higher amount?
Western Europe consists of modern welfare states. This is the model that we, Europeans, chose democratically over the span of decades or even centuries. In a welfare state, people and companies that are better off pay (more) taxes to support welfare, education, infrastructure, etc.
Apple doesn't get to decide for us what our collective moral values are. If they don't like them, they should stop doing business in Europe. Otherwise, they should just pay their dues like nearly every person and small/midsize company in Europe does. Since Europe is a hugely profitable market, this is the better option for them.
This comment comes off as extremely offensive. You are basically saying that you, European people, democratically and unilaterally chose that you can extort people at gunpoint to make better living for yourself, parasiting on other peoples work.
Taxation is the price of living (or participating in a market) in a developed country and benefiting from shared infrastructure. Apple needs somewhere for their distribution planes to land, their users need affordable electricity, no-one will buy new phones if they can’t afford to eat. Maybe we can obsolete airports, national energy grids and food distribution networks one day but until then, taxes need to be paid?
I'm not so sure about this as I'd question that it's possible for a single government to close loopholes on its own. Arguably yes, governments should be pressured into closing "certain loopholes", but not because this necessarily leads to a better outcome.
>Apple is a public company with an obligation to its shareholders to make money
Not everyone agrees that companies ought to maximise only shareholder value.