5 ms·

This is just so wrong. From a fundamental point of principle Apple's job is to make phones. The government then taxes Apple and decides how to spend that money.

This is just so wrong. From a fundamental point of principle Apple's job is to make phones. The government then taxes Apple and decides how to spend that money. This is a direct attack on democracy - Apple has successfully lobbied to remove the taxes that would provide basic provisions like affordable housing and is now stepping in to choose which parts of the state it wants and which bits it doesn't. Yet more power transferred to Apple, and 0 accountability.

mikorym 7y ago
I think the question is: 1) are they getting tax breaks because they are giving money towards affordable housing; or 2) are they getting tax breaks anyway and then choosing to give this money towards affordable housing?
happybuy 7y ago
A failure of both democracy and capitalism. It's a very dysfunctional society to arrive at such a crisis, only to realise that the state is incapable of solving it, enough that a private corporation feels that it is necessary and appropriate to step in.
- tkyjonathan 7y ago
  > A failure of both democracy and capitalism. What are you talking about? It was the Californian governing body that isn't allowing developers to build new cheap homes and apartments, because of NIMBY. And at the same time, everyone is talking about the evil tech giants, so they are trying to look good. If they would just be left alone, they might spend their resources on - oh, I dont know - making cheaper and better phones so that more people around them world could afford them?
  - themaninthedark 7y ago
    I would argue that the Californian governing body that is obstructing new homes is a failure of democracy. Civic leadership has a responsibility to cultivate a sustainable community, not just appeal to populist ideas and short term or selfish interests. If California allow Apple and other companies to step in, take control and solve the various crises, that is a vast step backward for democracy as you loose your ability to hold the those with power accountable. For now companies are aiming to fix housing, fairly benign but in the future will they attempt to tackle education? Crime? Even without jumping straight to private police forces run by companies without accountability, think about how a large donation of grant could influence the police force. I have read stories of how Steve Jobs was an asshole and blocked handicap parking spaces because he wanted to and the reaction by the authorities was that he brings in jobs so it was acceptable. Even if the story is false it show the power the companies already wield in the area and it can be abused even further. I for one do NOT welcome corporate overlords.
    - tkyjonathan 7y ago
      Not to get into a protracted argument, but I do not see this as democracy (or capitalism). I see this as socialist top-down elements in a mixed economy. As a comparison, you have councils (or soviets) deciding for people, how they conduct their economic activity - in this case, not allowing them to build apartments on land they own. If you are hoping for a top-down control AND it be enlightened for-the-people AND democratically given this control, then you are looking at the wrong governing model. Especially, if you don't believe that top-down won't benefit at some point tiny interest groups.
angrygoat 7y ago
I agree – we're seeing a return to noblesse oblige, instead of viable social democracies with taxation that ensures a decent life for every person. We shouldn't feel grateful to philanthropists, whether individuals or corporations, we should expect them to pay their tax.
- andrewclunn 7y ago
  So people who are successful doing charity = bad. Entitled poor people with wealth transfer through wasteful beaurocracies = good. No doubt about it. You live in California.
- patrickaljord 7y ago
  A quick search shows they paid around $15 billions in 2017 on a $59 billion operating income. Not what I'd call noblesse oblige. OECD member states have an average statutory corporate tax rate of 24% which seems reasonable given that people still need to pay personal income tax, and sales tax, VAT, carbon tax etc.
mft_ 7y ago
A couple of thoughts: 1. Apple's 'job' is to do what it needs to do to ensure that its business prospers. If the housing 'crisis' in the Bay area is a risk to how it wants to conduct its business, isn't it reasonable that it invests to mitigate that risk? (This is barely different to Apple making large investments in manufacturers, to support them in turn being able to supply what Apple needs to buy from them.) 2. From what I read and see when I visit SF, and also more broadly in the US, the government (be that national, state, or city?) is doing a pretty poor job of tackling housing-related issues - from affordability to homelessness. Can you directly attribute this widespread failure to a lack of funding, due to insufficient taxation of Apple and others? 3. Isn't $2.5bn (+/- new approaches?) to try to combat these issues better than $0, irrespective of where it comes from?
- eptcyka 7y ago
  The issue is that the 2.5 billion dollars are not given to the public to spend. It's just Apple using it's stupid amount of capital to do bank-like things as far as I can see. From where I'm sitting, they'll still have to deal with the existing home-owners and speculators who want to maintain the value of their assets. I don't think waterhosing them with money will necessarily help.
  - thecopy 7y ago
    > do bank-like things Could you specify what you are implying here?
    - eptcyka 7y ago
      > $150 million Bay Area housing fund: In a public-private partnership, Apple is launching a new $150 million affordable housing fund with partners including Housing Trust Silicon Valley to support new affordable housing projects. The fund will consist of long-term forgivable loans and grants. The keyword here is _loans_.
      - thecopy 7y ago
ENGNR 7y ago
Isn't this just the same as getting tax credits for donating to a non-profit though?
cwperkins 7y ago
Why is this wrong? If you want to argue for higher corporate taxes then fight for them and make an argument that wins in the majority of people's minds. The tax cuts from last year encouraged companies to repatriate money from overseas though some of that is still sitting abroad. I think Corporate "Tithing" is a good thing and should be encouraged. The Government of California has repeatedly shown that they are slow to develop housing so why should we think this time should be any different?
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  It’s wrong when the same entity doing the “tithing” is also paying to lobby for lower taxes. I don’t know if Apple is or isn’t, but it’s frequently the case. Similar to someone that votes to decrease assistance programs from the government available to everyone in order to “donate” to their personal causes (or tribes).
- Traster 7y ago
  > If you want to argue for higher corporate taxes then fight for them and make an argument that wins in the majority of people's minds. Do you think that's an accurate description of how tax rates get set? > The tax cuts from last year You mean the set of tax cuts that have never had a positive approval rating[1]. Wouldn't they be a perfect example that actually no, you can't get higher taxes by convincing the majority of people? [1]:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_republicans_tax_reform_law-6446.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_republi...
conanbatt 7y ago
It is the state that is appropriating all of its taxes and screwing its citizens with bad housing policy.
kiba 7y ago
The problem isn't taxes. No amount of money given to the government is going to help with the housing crisis unless new homes are built and unless density is encouraged. You don't need money for that. Rather, you may even get more bang for your buck since higher density should be more efficient.
Infinitesimus 7y ago
Doesn't Apple go to great lengths to reduce their tax burden?

mikorym 7y ago

I think the question is: 1) are they getting tax breaks because they are giving money towards affordable housing; or 2) are they getting tax breaks anyway and then choosing to give this money towards affordable housing?

happybuy 7y ago

A failure of both democracy and capitalism. It's a very dysfunctional society to arrive at such a crisis, only to realise that the state is incapable of solving it, enough that a private corporation feels that it is necessary and appropriate to step in.

tkyjonathan 7y ago
> A failure of both democracy and capitalism. What are you talking about? It was the Californian governing body that isn't allowing developers to build new cheap homes and apartments, because of NIMBY. And at the same time, everyone is talking about the evil tech giants, so they are trying to look good. If they would just be left alone, they might spend their resources on - oh, I dont know - making cheaper and better phones so that more people around them world could afford them?
- themaninthedark 7y ago
  I would argue that the Californian governing body that is obstructing new homes is a failure of democracy. Civic leadership has a responsibility to cultivate a sustainable community, not just appeal to populist ideas and short term or selfish interests. If California allow Apple and other companies to step in, take control and solve the various crises, that is a vast step backward for democracy as you loose your ability to hold the those with power accountable. For now companies are aiming to fix housing, fairly benign but in the future will they attempt to tackle education? Crime? Even without jumping straight to private police forces run by companies without accountability, think about how a large donation of grant could influence the police force. I have read stories of how Steve Jobs was an asshole and blocked handicap parking spaces because he wanted to and the reaction by the authorities was that he brings in jobs so it was acceptable. Even if the story is false it show the power the companies already wield in the area and it can be abused even further. I for one do NOT welcome corporate overlords.
  - tkyjonathan 7y ago
    Not to get into a protracted argument, but I do not see this as democracy (or capitalism). I see this as socialist top-down elements in a mixed economy. As a comparison, you have councils (or soviets) deciding for people, how they conduct their economic activity - in this case, not allowing them to build apartments on land they own. If you are hoping for a top-down control AND it be enlightened for-the-people AND democratically given this control, then you are looking at the wrong governing model. Especially, if you don't believe that top-down won't benefit at some point tiny interest groups.

angrygoat 7y ago

I agree – we're seeing a return to noblesse oblige, instead of viable social democracies with taxation that ensures a decent life for every person. We shouldn't feel grateful to philanthropists, whether individuals or corporations, we should expect them to pay their tax.

andrewclunn 7y ago
So people who are successful doing charity = bad. Entitled poor people with wealth transfer through wasteful beaurocracies = good. No doubt about it. You live in California.
patrickaljord 7y ago
A quick search shows they paid around $15 billions in 2017 on a $59 billion operating income. Not what I'd call noblesse oblige. OECD member states have an average statutory corporate tax rate of 24% which seems reasonable given that people still need to pay personal income tax, and sales tax, VAT, carbon tax etc.

mft_ 7y ago

A couple of thoughts: 1. Apple's 'job' is to do what it needs to do to ensure that its business prospers. If the housing 'crisis' in the Bay area is a risk to how it wants to conduct its business, isn't it reasonable that it invests to mitigate that risk? (This is barely different to Apple making large investments in manufacturers, to support them in turn being able to supply what Apple needs to buy from them.) 2. From what I read and see when I visit SF, and also more broadly in the US, the government (be that national, state, or city?) is doing a pretty poor job of tackling housing-related issues - from affordability to homelessness. Can you directly attribute this widespread failure to a lack of funding, due to insufficient taxation of Apple and others? 3. Isn't $2.5bn (+/- new approaches?) to try to combat these issues better than $0, irrespective of where it comes from?

eptcyka 7y ago
The issue is that the 2.5 billion dollars are not given to the public to spend. It's just Apple using it's stupid amount of capital to do bank-like things as far as I can see. From where I'm sitting, they'll still have to deal with the existing home-owners and speculators who want to maintain the value of their assets. I don't think waterhosing them with money will necessarily help.
- thecopy 7y ago
  > do bank-like things Could you specify what you are implying here?
  - eptcyka 7y ago
    > $150 million Bay Area housing fund: In a public-private partnership, Apple is launching a new $150 million affordable housing fund with partners including Housing Trust Silicon Valley to support new affordable housing projects. The fund will consist of long-term forgivable loans and grants. The keyword here is _loans_.
    - thecopy 7y ago

ENGNR 7y ago

Isn't this just the same as getting tax credits for donating to a non-profit though?

cwperkins 7y ago

Why is this wrong? If you want to argue for higher corporate taxes then fight for them and make an argument that wins in the majority of people's minds. The tax cuts from last year encouraged companies to repatriate money from overseas though some of that is still sitting abroad. I think Corporate "Tithing" is a good thing and should be encouraged. The Government of California has repeatedly shown that they are slow to develop housing so why should we think this time should be any different?

lotsofpulp 7y ago
It’s wrong when the same entity doing the “tithing” is also paying to lobby for lower taxes. I don’t know if Apple is or isn’t, but it’s frequently the case. Similar to someone that votes to decrease assistance programs from the government available to everyone in order to “donate” to their personal causes (or tribes).
Traster 7y ago
> If you want to argue for higher corporate taxes then fight for them and make an argument that wins in the majority of people's minds. Do you think that's an accurate description of how tax rates get set? > The tax cuts from last year You mean the set of tax cuts that have never had a positive approval rating[1]. Wouldn't they be a perfect example that actually no, you can't get higher taxes by convincing the majority of people? [1]:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_republicans_tax_reform_law-6446.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_republi...

conanbatt 7y ago

It is the state that is appropriating all of its taxes and screwing its citizens with bad housing policy.

kiba 7y ago

The problem isn't taxes. No amount of money given to the government is going to help with the housing crisis unless new homes are built and unless density is encouraged. You don't need money for that. Rather, you may even get more bang for your buck since higher density should be more efficient.

Infinitesimus 7y ago

Doesn't Apple go to great lengths to reduce their tax burden?