Hacker News Reader

Comment by iofj | Hacker News Reader

We all know the answer. Because all governments feel they should spend that money instead of Apple. And they can take it, so they should.

And the more left-leaning part of the aisle has this idea that they will get to decide what that money will be spent on. So they support this. (I'm not rightist, in fact I'm probably extreme left by American standards, but I just don't believe the government is on the people's side anymore)

Of course there's a million different ways to say this, many are more polite, but it all boils down to this. They want money, they have the ability to take it.

View on HN

Yeah, or, Apple benefits handsomely from money spent on their behalf by the federal and local governments (e.g. the roads and public transit infrastructure serving their headquarters, the funding for the public universities and subsidized loans for private universities from which they draw their employees), but apparently doesn't feel any obligation for funding those benefits.

It's not about "feeling that they can spend the money better", it's that government already spent the money, and Apple (and other companies) benefited from it, and now they need to pay their share.

"Their share" is exactly what's up for debate. You make it sound like the US Government has a number and they're failing to collect because Apple is strong arming them. The US Government has the largest military in the world by a far margin and Apple has roughly zero physical might. If the US wants Apples money they can easily take Apples money. Until that point they're just talking.

> the roads and public transit infrastructure serving their headquarters, the funding for the public universities and subsidized loans for private universities from which they draw their employees

Citizens pay taxes. Citizens get infrastuctures and subsidies.

> it's that government already spent the money, and Apple (and other companies) benefited from it, and now they need to pay their share.

It does not work like that. It has to be explicitly agreed by both parties.

>Yeah, or, Apple benefits handsomely from money spent on their behalf by the federal and local governments (e.g. the roads and public transit infrastructure serving their headquarters, the funding for the public universities and subsidized loans for private universities from which they draw their employees), but apparently doesn't feel any obligation for funding those benefits.

It's hard to see any way to do the accounting such that Apple doesn't already pay for that and more.

And if you're going to start doing that kind of accounting, shouldn't governments credit Apple with the personal income taxes Apple employees pay?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com