Exponentially? They'll just whack 10-15% on top of their prices, people will still pay. If Apple wanted more market share they'd just release cheaper phones, they want to remain a premium brand though to maintain their high end image.
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
Exponentially? They'll just whack 10-15% on top of their prices, people will still pay. If Apple wanted more market share they'd just release cheaper phones, they want to remain a premium brand though to maintain their high end image.
Not so sure that's the whole picture though - people still buy apple stuff at these prices but I think most of the decline is due to lack of innovation than pricing. Case in point: there's no need to get an iPhone 7 if you have the 6S or 6 - they're virtually identical and really, it offers nothing new or innovative - so unless you really need a new phone where it makes sense to get the latest one, you stick with what you have.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
From speaking to a lot of people in the industry when I go to Cork, it seems to be universally accepted that the favourable tax arrangements have been the primary factor in encouraging high-tech jobs into the area. The prospect of increasing corporate taxes is seen as a bad thing as it would discourage this investment and new companies into the area. Only going on what I've been told by locals working for these companies.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,682
But if they are only paying 0.05% and not the low 12.5% that supposedly enticed them to the country in the first place, what's the point?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,613
Good question.
Exactly. It wouldn't matter if Ireland charged 30% corporation tax, Apple would still pay only pay 0.05% and wouldn't move.
Now if Ireland did something to force Apple to pay the 12.5% then Apple may well move to another country where they charge only 10% say or let them get away with 0.05% again.
So basically are all the people defending Apple on here and saying "look at the 4000 jobs and the revenue that brings in" when the companies concerned are basically paying almost zero corporation tax would totally advocate the UK dropping corporation tax to zero to attract more companies like these to the uk because the employment tax revenue would more than make up for no corporation tax revenue then?
It's like her brain has ceased to function, she's just repeating the question and adding "in very clear" instead of "strong and stable"
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,682
And the employment tax revenue and benefits of having citizens employed is tiny in comparison to corporation tax receipts the government should be getting from massive corporations like that.
I would imagine Apple are sitting on more cash than a lot of small countries.
Bigger cash reserves than the UK and Canada combined in-fact...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4463472/Apple-money-UK-Canada-combined.html
Well there are only 19 countries in the world with larger GDP than Apple's worth.
http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/...er-than-all-but-19-countries-gdp/9751.article
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,613
I'm thinking that this business of not showing up for debates and just repeating "Strong and stable" and "I've been very clear" all the time is going to backfire on her. She is acting as though the election is just a formality and that she doesn't need to engage or try to win support. It comes across as extremely arrogant and if there's one thing the UK population doesn't like, it's arrogance.
Anecdotes don't prove something. What they do is disprove a sweeping statement. You can't use an anecdote to prove all immigrants work hard. You can use an anecdote to disprove a statement that they don't.
Some people seem to take the principle of an anecdote not being able to prove a general case and misapply it to thinking it has no value. What it achieves, is to challenge statements that over-reach and to illustrate that there is uncertainty in the general case.
Russia would still be interested in courting us as a trade and diplomatic partner. We import oil, they produce it. We are still (for now) a significant player in the world financial markets. Also, we have both a veto and a vote at the UN Security Council. We also have a significant voice in the English speaking world. Imagine the popularisation of Russian viewpoints in the USA if the UK news sources were aligned with Russian interests instead of USA.
You don't understand how capitalism or corporations work. If Apple were able to charge 10-15% more without loss of sales, they would. You cannot simultaneously argue that Apple is greedy and would simply up prices to compensate for higher corporation tax and also that they would not raise prices now if they were able. Corporations such as Apple have enormous marketing departments, very well-funded, who spend a lot of time working out where best on the Supply-Demand curve they should pitch their tent.
I actually feel sorry for May. I think the UK is in a bad situation and I think she believes she can't acknowledge this without committing electoral suicide. Look at Amber Rudd getting cut to pieces on the debate by responding to Corbyn's comments about welfare for the disabled with caveats about "those who most need it". Entertain the hypothesis that there actually isn't enough for everyone. In such a case Amber Rudd's mild comment about selectivity is correct, but she gets almost booed by the audience for saying it. Whereas the party not in power - Corbyn, is free to say "everything will be better with us". Theresa May is caught between saying nothing and saying "Christmas is cancelled", I think. Knowing the latter to be disastrous, she prevaricates.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,682
It's because May and Rudd both know we'll be better of in the EU, hence why they campaigned to remain.
But they are having to go along with the "will of the people" so they can't really say anything about it now other than "We'll negotiate, we are strong and stable"
Don't feel sorry for her. A true leader would take control of the situation and mould the country into something that isnt raging hatred for anything not "British", she should ignore party politics and sort all the mess the last 40 years of tripe government has achieved.
She wont, because she's a callous, vindictive, self-aggrandizing bitch with Maggie syndrome and a massive hard-on for authority like almost every other politician in this country.
Hmm, not sure if i'm allowed to say bitch, but its such a common word and not being in the censor list, ill leave it for now.
Agreed. If she was a half way decent leader she would have grabbed this situation firmly by the balls. Hiding away from public scrutiny behind sound bites of strong and stable and slinging mud at the opposition is a sign of a weak leader who has no idea how to sort this mess out.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,159
As a Conservative voter in a Conservative safe seat, I think May is perhaps the worst Prime Minister we've had for the amount of time she's been in power. I think she's actually been worse than Brown in his first year. Turning your core voter base against you in a day is rather impressive.
- Status