What I Learned From Increasing My Prices - <AUTHOR> http://www.extendslogic.com/business/what-i-learned-from-increasing-my-prices/ <comment><USER2> Great post, way to walk the walk about the scary thing called making money with your startup.

An aside, posts like this make me wish hn had a separate section/tag simply called 'results', separate from opinions.

I enjoy the variety of geek-interested content here, but this kind of a post for me is real signal.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing.

I don't think it was much the raising prices part, but the re-branding your product to resonate with the market. This is something a lot of people out there don't get. That is why you don't purchase used BMWs anymore, but certified pre-owned BMWs. The branding is very important. The awesome thing is that you went and took a structured approach to it, and then used the data to re-focus your brand to the market that will buy your focus. The money will continue to pile on if you keep using such approach. I would suggest looking into offline marketing tools to broaden your horizons.

Good luck.

<comment><USER4> I tested increasing prices without touching anything else and it resulted in significant revenue increase but I hit a local maximum as the segmenting was off and value communication needed to be improved. The right branding with the wrong pricing can actually hurt so it's extremely important to get both pricing and value messaging (including the qualitative stuff) right.

<comment><USER3> The brand and the price are not separate entities. The brand is the entity and the price is a property of the brand. If you change the price you modify the brand, but if you change the brand you completely change the price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I cannot find a clickable link to the author's product on the blog post. I think you are leaving money on the table right now!

<comment><USER4> Author here. Thanks for mentioning that; I've gone ahead and added a link.

<comment><USER6> "Create professional client proposals in minutes" on your front page is very blurry, and detracts from the otherwise nice design.

<comment><USER7> And that's, ladies and gentlemen, how you brag about having a Retina display, geek style.

<comment><USER8> I'm not on a Retina display and it is blurry for me as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really liked reading this. Giving relevant names/titles to pricing tier can be very effective. I immediately understood the diff. b/w freelancer vs studio instead of saying Basic vs Premium.

<comment><USER10> I think the naming might have yet another effect: Customers now feel an association to one of the tiers. For a studio customer to buy the 'freelancer' tier might feel unprofessional / dishonoring. I'd like to know how much effect just the naming alone has vs. the price / feature changes.

<comment><USER4> I had more people signing up for the higher tier plans when I a/b tested the plan names. Don't remember what the numbers were exactly but it was interesting to see behavior change because of the plan names.

<comment><USER11> I've wanted to a/b test my plan name but don't know of any good alternatives. I have a free WordPress plugin and have a paid-for version which adds more features so it's called generically 'Premium version'.

The people who buy it come from different backgrounds and I don't want to segment the product.

It's a recipe plugin and the premium version adds a nutrition tab to satisfy the nutritionists and category listing pages for people who want to organise their recipes more than what the free version allows.

Any thoughts on a name?

<comment><USER12> Don't take it the wrong way, but you're trying to squeeze your users into the rigid frame of your preconceived notions about who they are. Changing people is a very difficult job. I understand you put a lot of effort into your product and feel entitled to steer it as you see fit, but it's far more productive to do what the topic post suggests - ask the users who they are and what they care about. In other words, reconsider your decision not to segment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I appreciate the insight about naming the segments. It reflects on "benefits, not features" where you describe what you offer based on the context of the user, not the context of your application.

</comment><comment><USER14> Great post. One thing that wasn't clear to me - how did your pricing changes affect existing customers?

Did former "basic" accounts get automatically changed to "Freelancer" and start getting billed the extra $10 the next month? If so, how did you handle notifying users and was there much complaint about the change?

<comment><USER4> I grandfathered existing customers in so they still have their existing plans.

<comment><USER15> This is not only the right thing to do, but you may notice higher retention rates in the grandfathered group. Now they're getting a great deal and may be reluctant to cancel.

I have a forum membership grandfathered at $8/mo from when I subscribed 7 years ago, which over the years has gone up to $50/mo for new members. Even if a few months go by where I don't visit the forum, I'm not going to let that thing lapse. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A very interesting post! Thanks for sharing that!

I have one question though: Did you grandfather your old customers in? So you still charge them the old price and give them all features?

<comment><USER17> Seems like. From the post:

> All I did was change pricing for new customers in the backend and updated > the marketing site to reflect the new pricing tiers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Honest question: Is sending an e-mail just to show a sample somehow more efficient? Why not just provide a link to the sample? I tried 6 times to get an e-mail sent and finally got one on the last try. Almost gave up.

Edit: No, I still don't have an e-mail and no information as to where I can find a sample

<comment><USER4> Sorry about that. What happened when you submitted the form? Did you receive a confirmation message saying that you'll receive an email? If so, you might want to check your spam folder in case it made its way there for some reason.

Two reasons for the email: 1. Marketing purposes. So I can send additional educational (and hopefully useful) content. 2. I actually take the name and email address then dynamically create a PDF proposal using that information on the cover page.

The execution is a bit sloppy as it was an experiment and quickly put together so I'll need to work on improving that now that I'll be keeping it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interestingly, raising or lowering prices for iPhone apps have not changed my revenue in the slightest. I wonder if that tells us anything about the iOS app market?

</comment><comment><USER19> i think its simple and recurrent:

\- have clear names, not stuff that "sound trendy like blehmium"

\- price by comparing market prices and the targeted customer (hint: its the basics at business schools). Aka niche market? high prices. Large distribution? Low price. And there's many middles. Just don't start thinking you should "ask zillions" or "make it super cheap".

Think first.

</comment><comment><USER20> Raising prices a few years ago with my eCommerce site lead to an instant 30% increase in profits, so it really is powerful and is something that has the potential to do amazing things for your business. Great post, and congratulations on all your new dough!

</comment><comment><USER21> (off topic but thought others might be interested)

What is the difference between BidSketch and Quoteroller?

I ask because i tried a trial of Quoteroller and it didnt work and had never heard of your site before now.

</comment><comment><USER22> getting a timeout when I try send myself a sample.

<comment><USER4> Sorry, just restarted the service. Thanks! I need to add monitoring to that service since it's now past the experiment stage (was being tested against a video at one time).

<comment><USER23> Gateway timeout for me as well, but I love how after hitting the submit button on the form it simply redirects to the page where the samples are at. That way I don't have to wait for a link to be emailed, saving me a couple of taps. (I actually felt a little duped — I was expecting some kind of dynamically created URL; I felt silly for not have simply guessed 'samples.bidsketch.com'.)

The site looks great and the plans are very clear; if the service itself is anywhere as good, I'll be signing up for sure.

EDIT: page loaded. Turns out that I _do_ have to check my email: "Your template is on its way! Please check your email for the proposal in a few minutes." That's too bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Seems the sample is timing out- just an fyi.

<comment><USER4> Should be good now, thanks!</comment></comment>


Declare the Strand Bookstore a City Landmark? No Thanks, the Strand Says - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/nyregion/strand-bookstore-landmark.html <comment><USER2> For additional information or a hacker's perspective, give a listen to the 28NOV episode of 2600's "Off the Hook" (Podcast version of WBAI NY 99.5 FM broadcast), during which the owner of the Strand is a guest and the entire running time is dedicated to this.</comment>


Show HN: What does 100% mean in CSS? - <AUTHOR> https://wattenberger.com/blog/css-percents/? <comment><USER2> A really good tutorial with examples to fiddle around and just the right amount of text to understand. Thanks!</comment>


Delivering world-class healthcare to everyone by using blockchain - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@gliabase/using-blockchain-to-save-lives-and-deliver-world-class-healthcare-to-third-world-countries-df81c07ad21c <comment><USER2> Search Results: "FDA Approval" Missing: _glialab_

Let me know when this changes.

</comment><comment><USER3> > "Healthcare providers will be using our platform to gain access to next-gen > diagnostic algorithms"

And what is the nature of these "next-gen diagnostic algorithms"? Are they the research results of medical experts published to medical journals using limited data sets on limited populations that promise to magically cure each and every malady of any patient population, or rather, is a more realistic example of a "next-gen diagnostic algorithm" something not useless, but less grandiose, such as algorithm that tries to address the likelihood of a narrow problem like sepsis occurring in the ICU?

When there are competing algorithms/research papers around the same topic, how do you decide which algorithm is best? And how "actionable" is the algorithm's prediction?

All this reminds me a little of IBM Watson marketing and MD Anderson Cancer Center, where the hype machine generated high expectations, and the results did not match the hype.

"IBM pitched its Watson supercomputer as a revolution in cancer care. It's nowhere close": [https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/05/watson-ibm- cancer/](https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/05/watson-ibm-cancer/)

"MD Anderson Cancer Center's IBM Watson project fails, and so did the journalism related to it": [https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/02/md- anderson-cancer-...](https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/02/md-anderson- cancer-centers-ibm-watson-project-fails-journalism-related/)

Google's DeepMind Health also seems worth mentioning in this context: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/alphabet-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/alphabet- s-deepmind-is-trying-to-transform-health-care-but-should-an-ai-company-have- your-health-records)

 _Still, DeepMind said a commercial product using AI is a ways off. Streams, the only product DeepMind has actually deployed, uses no AI. While DeepMind originally set out to use machine learning to improve an existing NHS algorithm to detect AKI, it said it never carried out that research. When DeepMind visited the Royal Free, it found the existing algorithm— which wasn't half bad— was the least of the problem. Of far more concern were antiquated technology and Byzantine workflows that meant it took too long for doctors and nurses to act on blood test results. The real problems in medicine "are much more gritty and practical," Suleyman said._

P.S. The buzzwords in the article include, among others: blockchain, artificial intelligence, token sale, revolutionize, deep learning algorithms... Maybe the only missing buzzword term is "quantum computing"?

And the St. Francis quote? A decent quote, yet if you have ever read any works on Francis such as the _Little Flowers_ , it does not sound quite like him, and googling on the origin confirms doubts about the quote source.

</comment><comment><USER4> Other than repeating phrases like AI, Deep Learning, and Blockchain, it's _really_ thin on how a public ledger is going to achieve any of this.

 _Therefore, GliaLab is proud to announce that we are building GliaBase, a global diagnostic healthcare platform utilizing AI and blockchain technology to provide users with universal and safe remote access to next-gen diagnostic tools and advice. Essentially, it is a platform powered by deep learning algorithms where users have access to top-tier diagnostic tools and healthcare information related to different diseases._

Yeeeaaaaah. How? There's a lot of back-patting, some "imagine a world..." and just a dash of "Patients will... doctors will..." and zero specifics. Weasel words like "essentially" in front of a pat and low-content description of the actual platform also raises alarm bells for me.

This reeks.

Went to their site, and it seems the magic ingredient is that this is another ICO, complete with flashy splash page, and all of the usual red flags. They're selling 30,000,000 GLIA (Gliatokens) which they assure you is a utility token. For something they haven't built yet. The SEC is not going to be amused.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do agree that there are a lot of buzz words involved, but if you actually talk to them, they have a decent team in place and they are one of a few legit startups that is doing a token sale. They are actually the only team I talked to thus far that told me to buy their tokens only if I want to use their product. Other people usually pitch me "XX returns on my investment". I might be participating in their token sale once they release more tech specs, so I talked to their CTO to learn more, and they do have a diagnostic demo with one algorithm related to breast cancer diagnosis. I am not a tech guy, so I was not able to judge the quality of the system, but their approach looks very interesting.

<comment><USER4> Bullshit. This is an ICO off the back of people's desire to fight cancer. No FDA approval, no actual system, no substance, just GLIA "utility" tokens. If they want to defend their approach with something substantial, I'll retract the "bullshit," but this looks like the usual ICO scam. I took the liberty of filling out complaints with the SEC, FDA, and FTC yesterday and hopefully they can get some real answers.</comment></comment></comment>


Zynga to Open Game Studio in Bangalore, Doubling Staff - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/asia/2011/03/11/zynga-to-open-game-studio-in-bangalore-doubling-staff/

<comment><USER2> Surprising. I heard of Zynga hiring people for development for their Bangalore office 2 months back. Which would mean they have been operational at least for 2 months here.

</comment><comment><USER3> Zynga is already active in Bangalore!

<comment><USER4> Yes, AFAIK, they have administrative office in Bangalore. Now they are starting game studio as well and doubling staff for that.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Super Samurai – Remake of Amiga Retro Classic First Samurai - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mevdinc/super-samurai-remake-of-amiga-retro-classic-first/description <comment><USER2> I wonder how many will support this just to "pay back" for enjoying their pirated Amiga/C64 copy of the game so much in their childhood?

<comment><AUTHOR> Very good point :) Btw here're some facts for the original game and pirating it. I think First Samurai was one of the most pirated Amiga game ever. Just after the game published Robert Maxwell passed away and the publisher Mirrorsoft changed hands. Because of this the game was not really available in the stores, despite the fact that it was the game of the year. So basically it got pirated quite a lot because that was the only way getting the game :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have very fond memories of First Samurai, hope this campaign will succeed :)

</comment><comment><USER3> the main character is supposed to be japanese, or not?</comment>


Data Structures Part 3: Arrays of Arrays - <AUTHOR> https://ourmachinery.com/post/data-structures-part-3-arrays-of-arrays/ <comment><USER2> A lot of the trade-offs in picking a fixed size array versus a heap allocated array can be solved with a container that supports small vector optimization!

You see this in C++'s std::string type, which leads some people to use it for storing binary data. [1] I'm not sure what common STL-ish implementations of the idea exist.

In Rust, there's SmallVec, which has configurable storage backing and spills onto the heap when there are too many elements. [2]

[1] [https://stackoverflow.com/a/21710033/802794](https://stackoverflow.com/a/21710033/802794)

[2] [https://docs.rs/smallvec/0.6.10/smallvec/struct.SmallVec.htm...](https://docs.rs/smallvec/0.6.10/smallvec/struct.SmallVec.html)

<comment><USER3> What is the difference between this "small" vector and a vector?

<comment><USER4> The small vector class contains a static array of a few bytes. And as long as your data fits in it, no extra heap allocation is needed. A vector always does heap allocation, even if you only use a few bytes.

<comment><USER3> Ok, thx!

If I use the trick Niklas calls "array with holes" in part 1, will each hole larger than the cache frame result in a cache miss?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There was a really interesting post on this topic recently where you have a circular array of circular arrays of size sqrt(n). [1]

The result is you can do O(1) access, O(sqrt(N)) insert and delete at arbitrary indices, and O(1) insert at head and tail.

In terms of big O this is strictly better than:

\- arrays: O(1) access, O(N) insert/delete in middle, O(1) insert/delete at tail.

\- circular arrays: O(1) access, O(N) insert/delete in middle, O(1) insert/delete at head and tail.

\- fixed page size chunked circular arrays such as the c++ implementation of std:deque which is still O(N) for insert and delete. [2]

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20872696](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20872696)

[2] [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6292332/what-really- is-a...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6292332/what-really-is-a-deque- in-stl)

<comment><USER6> Assuming you ignore the constant. And if you're willing to ignore the constant, you can get O(c) access, O(N^(1/c)) insert and delete at arbitrary indices, and O(c) insert at head and tail, for any constant c. The trick is to make the array into a B-tree of width N^(1/c) and depth c. Note that the insert/delete time is amortized: the worst-case time is O(cN^(1/c)).

<comment><USER5> Yea someone else also mentioned that generalization (called a tiered vector) in that thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20873110](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20873110)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm implementing cache friendly iteration on my open-source multiplayer server even though it is written in Java because I'm going to need it for my C+ client later.

So I did thread safe compacting from the end which works fine, but now I want to implement 8-neighbor sending on an array and that can easily be done with fixed over-sized boxes.

My question now is: if I use the trick Niklas calls "array with holes" in part 1, will each hole larger than the cache frame result in a cache miss?

<comment><USER7> It doesn't sound like you are mentally modeling cache misses correctly. Any access to any array (dense or holey) that isn't already in cache will result in a miss. A goal is to minimize misses by taking advantage of locality and prefetching.

Let's assume you have an array of objects that are small enough that 4 can fit in a cache line.

You take advantage of locality by densely packing them into an array so that you can process 4 adjacent (and aligned) items for the price of only 1 cache miss. The array with holes can reduce your utilization by mixing live and dead data in a single cache line. Worst case would be 1 live item followed by a hole that means the next 3 in the cache line are dead bytes. That cache line only buys you 1 item to process. But, if the hole continues for several more cache lines it's shouldn't matter because you should have a means in place to skip all of that dead data and go straight to the next live item.

You take advantage of prefetching by processing your array linearly from start to finish so that the CPU will notice and start fetching cache lines further down the array before you even try to access them. Arrays with holes can mess this up by making your access pattern irregular. If your array is very sparse you will be accessing cache lines without a repeating pattern and the CPU won't be able to figure out how to help. But, the goal is for your array to be fairly dense (or at least reasonably defragmented) so that you end up accessing long, continuous spans of cache lines that make the prefetcher happy. At a minimum, the goal is to do better than most multilevel/tree-based data structures.

Check out the writings and presentations of Martin Thompson ("mechanical sympathy" guy). He has made a career of getting good performance out of Java by coding it in the style of embedded-device C programs.

<comment><USER3> Ok, thanks, I suspected this would be the case... I actually use an int array with id's in my iterations so 16 per cacheline... I can only compact them from the start and end of each box (geographical square) on array edge enter/leave because of thread safety. I will size the boxes at what my client can render probably at ~900 per box since C+ skin mesh animation wont allow more and prune with priority (friends first, same country second etc.). But now I know how to implement it thanks to Niklas and your comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Learning arrays of arrays from Perl is easy [https://perldoc.perl.org/perldsc.html](https://perldoc.perl.org/perldsc.html)</comment>


Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook - <AUTHOR> https://projekte.sueddeutsche.de/paradisepapers/politik/dear-tim-cook-e322998/ <comment><USER3> What annoys me the most is that, as a small company, I can't evade from my country tax system. I pay the taxes. All of them, at full rate.

But there are these big companies which can afford to create offshore companies/holding just to evade some tax system, and lower their tax rate.

So, what? The tax rate of a country is now "artificial", because it will never be applied to all revenues from all companies, because the higher profiles will be able to evade a part of it.

If governments want to reclaim more, they could raise up the tax rate, considering that the biggest players will only pay a fragment of it. But the small companies, the one that can only follow the rules? They are screwed.

All companies should be considered equals regarding the tax system. It is simply not the case when such schemes are used.

Edit: exactly the same point of view as jitbit: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15651457](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15651457)

<comment><USER4> By default, big companies always get preferential treatment from governments. Open a mega-factory? They get tax cuts, cheap real estate, free utilities. Why? Those shiny new jobs look great on a politician's resume for the next election...

What does the little business guy get? A letter of "don't forget to pay your taxes in full or else"

It's time to accept the fact that governments are NOT a fair and impartial warden of the economy. Therein lies the problem. Reducing their power of meddling in the economy is the solution.

<comment><USER5> Those with wealth will always try to capture the system - whether its formal or informal. The natural state of any business is to try and become a monopoly because that maximizes rent taking ability - NOT competition.

Practically the ONLY power able to stop monopolies from forming is the government. In absence of the government's ability to "meddle", businesses can and will cut deals with big competitors and squelch smaller ones through anti competitive practices to dominate

<comment><USER4> Monopolies are granted by governments. The free market has a natural solution to monopolies, it's called competition - startups.

Big Cos will always lobby governments to add rules and regulation to raise the barrier of entry on their market and thus reduce competition.

They, in fact, buy their monopoly from the government.

Solution? Take away the government's ability to grant monopolies.

<comment><USER6> _Monopolies are granted by governments_

Sometimes, sure. But far from exclusively. Monopolies arise naturally in unregulated markets.

 _The free market has a natural solution to monopolies, it 's called competition - startups._

That's like saying that natural selection is the solution to hereditary diseases. Not so comforting for those suffering now.

<comment><USER4> You're right there, free markets take while to break monopolies. Time is a price we have to pay.

Because the alternative, govt intervention, in the long term is much more expensive: it corrupts the market and impedes the natural mechanisms from working. Interventions beget interventions.

This leads to heavily regulated markets, where the biggest players buy themselves monopolies. Exactly what we were running away from. :)

<comment><USER6> _Time is a price we have to pay._

By which you mean that time is a price _you_ think we ought to pay. I mean, we do actually have options.

 _Because the alternative, govt intervention, in the long term is much more expensive: it corrupts the market and impedes the natural mechanisms from working. Interventions beget interventions._

I struggle to come up with any example anywhere, where this is true.

 _This leads to heavily regulated markets, where the biggest players buy themselves monopolies_

I don't see how that follows from your previous paragraph. But never mind, I get what you are trying to say, and I agree that there are plenty of examples all over the world of regulation that has the effect you describe. Sometimes simply because it's bad regulation. But other times because it's a worthwhile trade off. I bet you don't mind the pharmaceutical industry being regulated. Or how about the aircraft industry. Even taxi medallions serve(d) a purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Dear Herr Krach, thank you for your letter.

I think you misunderstand how business works.

Apple is a profit seeking corporation. Profits we make, we hope to distribute to our shareholders. Paying taxes is an obligation with which we comply, both to the letter and in spirit. We meet such obligations, but not nilly-willy. Our shareholders would not look kindly upon executives who pay more taxes than necessary.

Avoidance of taxes is not illegal. We even enlist the help of tax offices in many countries, like the Netherlands, Ireland and perhaps some countries internationally deemed 'tax havens'. We pay what through mutual understanding with tax offices worldwide is necessary.

If you conclude that you find tax evasion a problem, this would be a political problem, not one of enterprise. No enterprise would knowingly pay to much and no construct of 'corporate social responsibility' could make paying too much alright. We should seek to minimize cost, and we do.

Governments should fix tax evasion, not corporations. It's not my role to point out the obvious, but if you find the VAT customers pay on our products insufficient and were hoping on a larger slice of our 'foreign income': fix your tax code.

Kind regards, TC ;)

<comment><USER8> Dear Tim,

You don't understand how shares work. Shareholders can only benefit from shares in two ways: through speculation about the share price or through dividends. I'm kind of disappointed that I'd have to explain to a man of your stature that money that Apple parks abroad will not benefit the shareholders except in the most indirect ways.

If Apple brought home their overseas funds then it would benefit the US and Apple shareholders in general in two ways:

The taxes paid would go towards infrastructure, education, health care and other items that benefit all people in our society, and by extension also to us shareholders.

Money left over could be used to pay dividends to shareholders or to do tech acquisitions or long term investments in Apple projects which would benefit the shareholders in a more direct fashion.

Having money parked abroad waiting for a tax amnesty that may never happen does not have these positive effects and essentially ties up a lot of Apple capital in ways that are not beneficial to anybody except for the banks that get to lend this money out at prime rates while not paying Apple much of anything.

best regards

<comment><USER7> Dear Jacques (i'll stop with the game now ;) - I really emphatise with the social responsibility part of the story. The game Apple is playing with stored cash abroad is abject. Nobody is profiting from that.

But we can agree that it's not the nature of a corporation to pay more taxes than necessary? If people offer you crazy deals: agree. Governments should coordinate not to make crazy offers and perhaps even tit-for-tat those that do.

<comment><USER9> _Governments should coordinate not to make crazy offers and perhaps even tit- for-tat those that do._

A preferable alternative would be for customers to consider a company's ethics in their purchasing decisions, and to encourage their peers to do the same. If it became socially unacceptable to have a new iPhone because of Apple's choice to pay such a trivial amount of tax (legal or otherwise, that's besides the point) you can be absolutely certain Apple would quickly stop funnelling money to tax havens, and they'd probably have a big marketing drive about how much they care about paying tax to fund better wages and welfare for soldiers, teachers and nurses too.

Social pressure is far more powerful than governments. It's just harder to 'control'.

<comment><USER10> no, they'd have another smear campaign about the governments interference and get the populus to vote to abolish any kind of taxes just for apple. and they'd probably succeed as well, considering how delusional and outspoken apple zealots are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> While I do agree with the point that "govs should fix taxes, not corporations"... Still.

It's a fact that (at least in the EU where I live) the majority of tax burden ends up on small companies - mom & pop shops, little bakeries etc. Who simply can't afford these global tax avoidance tricks (or can't use them because they're "local")

Not that this is wrong or right, just a fact you can't argue with. I run a small software shop in the EU (4 ppl) I know what I'm talking about.

<comment><USER12> I'd like to see some specific examples of tax avoidance tricks that Apple are using. There are a few mentions of how the "techniques aren't affordable for small business", but what are the techniques?

<comment><USER13> Basically they suck profits into Ireland, by stating in other EU countries that they will pay corporate taxes there; then in Ireland through "IP licensing fees" they paid all the money into a company that was declared not resident on the island for tax purposes, and was basically stateless - so not taxed. That company would then send this money to the various Caribbean shells they use as safes, when necessary, or just hang on it.

When the EU told Ireland to stop this behaviour, Apple was pushed to declare a location for that stateless company; they picked one of the UK Channel Islands, a crown dependency with no taxes, and started funneling money through that. In the process, they got another special deal from the Irish government to keep a chunk of "IP ownership capital" on the island, which resulted in a much lower rate of tax on that money than they would have otherwise had to pay (but ever-so-slightly higher than if they had just put everything in Guernsey, so they could save a bit of face).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have nothing against companies minimising their taxes in legal ways. I understand the various incentives at play, and it makes quite some sense - <USER2> parties concerned appear to be acting predictably.

However: I do take issue with companies minimising their tax in ways that are not legal, but appear legal unless discovered.

I haven't the time or knowledge of various countries' tax laws to discover which is the case in this round of leaks, and unfortunately it seems the above two views are conflated in all the articles on the subject I have so far read. It'd be great if this caused some illegally hidden/minimised/shuffled/moved profits to be taxed appropriately, but it is all too easy to covet the rich man's "hidden wealth" and proclaim his methods "cheating" without knowing whether they were simply the same as you claiming your dry cleaning.

p.s. The adult in me suspects that is (as with most things) isn't a black and white issue; that the line between "legal tax minimisation" and "only legal so long as you don't find out about this part you have no way of finding out about" is both bent and blurry.

<comment><USER15> In the UK, for example, you have to register any tax avoidance scheme that you're using (as an individual at least).

If the HMRC then look into that tax scheme and deem it against the rules, you pay the tax, but without penalty.

As I understand it, if you don't register the scheme and you are found to be using the previously grey-area avoidance scheme, then you get done for tax evasion.

That's how it's supposed to work at least, but companies seem to get sweetheart deals in these circumstances.

<comment><USER16> I'm super curious about how this works in practice. What's the bar something has to meet before being reported? Do decisions made about how to do accounting count? How about decisions when filling out tax forms? (US example: itemizing deductions vs taking the standard deduction).

<comment><USER15> [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-avoidance-an- introduction](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-avoidance-an-introduction)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In Mexico, people don't finish their houses and leave rebar coming out the roof to pay less tax. In Vietnam, the houses are really thin because property taxes are based on width. For an American company selling things overseas, they're going to setup in Ireland or wherever else because the laws make it advantageous. All these decisions are functions of the laws written, so if they want to complain and write open letters, it should be to lawmakers, not the heads of companies operating logically.

<comment><USER18> > In Vietnam, the houses are really thin because property taxes are based on > width.

Really? Interesting. Can anyone explain how taxing the width of the house was established?

<comment><USER19> It's similar in many places in Europe, where you see houses laid out like this:

[http://c8.alamy.com/comp/F56ABW/old-and-narrow-houses-in- str...](http://c8.alamy.com/comp/F56ABW/old-and-narrow-houses-in-street-of- gdansk-poland-europe-beautiful-F56ABW.jpg)

Your property size, and subsequent taxes were decided based on how much of the road you took up, ie the width of the house. This practice dates back surprisingly far (1500s?)

<comment><USER18> oh, that kind of "this". I was thinking the walls were thin. Width meaning taller and skinnier....lol

<comment><USER19> Haha I was thinking the same thing - until I remembered some trivia I learned on a recent trip to Germany

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The point about Apple hiring best graduates who got their education mostly free of charge cause of all the tax payers really shift my mind about the whole tax-avoidance thing.

<comment><USER21> Yes but the moral burden is not on Apple, it's on those graduates. If you got your education for free and now you make a fat salary from Apple, it's your job to give back. Not Apple's.

<comment><USER22> Why is the burden not on both? Both Apple and the graduates are profiting from the subsidised education.

<comment><USER21> Because a corporation is not a person? It's a collection of individuals, and if you are taxing all of the individuals fairly why do you need to tax the collective as well?

<comment><USER22> I feel like this is sliding towards a debate about the virtues of corporation tax full stop, which is a slightly different matter.

I actually think the idea of a moral burden could reasonably be extended to entities such as corporations, but let's put that to the side for now.

At some point in the process a decision was made - collectively, by _people_ \- to avoid paying the stipulated rate of tax in countries in which Apple had profited. These people benefit from the educational system in those countries, but they also reap rewards from tax avoidance. The moral burden lies somewhere. Tim Cook would have known about this decision if not played a role in it, in contrast to previous statements he has made. That is the hypocrisy highlighted in this article.

<comment><USER21> How is that hypocritical? Individuals try to minimize their taxes. So do companies. Except a company isn't actually benefitting because a country is just a collective.

Do you have a child? Do you not deduct that child in your taxes? What about a mortgage? Donations to charity? Etc. etc.

<comment><USER22> The hypocrisy is that he's publicly taken a principled stance about paying taxes whilst actually going against that in private.

> Individuals try to minimize their taxes.

This is an oversimplification. For example, I might vote for a party that would raise my own taxes, and happily pay those taxes if I thought good use was being made of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > "I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. > Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist."

> \- John Steinbeck

Reading some of the comments here which rationalize, justify, and even defend corporal behaviours such as Apple's nauseate me. How (and why) can you, YOU as a mere individual (or the owner of a small start-up if you'd like to think that way) who pays taxes for nearly every single transaction, can justify these kinds of "tax optimizations"?

Speaking from experience, this is how _things_ (countries, organisations, etc.) corrupt: when people start rationalising (and then justifying) the behaviour of those who are breaking the rules and sitting at the top. The corruption happens when ordinary people looks above and thinks that "I would probably do the same, why would one obey the rules where it can be evaded?". Since everyone except those at the very bottom is above some others, corruption spreads like a bushfire and everyone starts breaking the rules s/he _can_.

It would be naive to think that only top 500 companies evading tax. Those at the scale of Apple break the rules at their own scale, and smaller ones break it at a smaller scale. Whilst, here I am in the UK, have to pay 10 GBP for a pack of 20 cigarettes because of the taxes.

</comment><comment><USER24> It is so, so important to our social contract that everyone plays by the same set of rules.

Right now, I think that a lot of people (such as small business owners who will never employ an army of offshore tax lawyers) are realizing that this is not the case.

Hopefully this disillusionment will be a vehicle for positive change, but the past and present provide abundant evidence that there are tyrants and charlatans aplenty waiting to capture the popular anger and turn it to their own purposes.

It is in all of our interests - from the richest to the poorest - to keep this from happening.

We need to return to the lesson of the Progressive Era. There is an alternative to chaos, and it is to build a society in which the average person can justifiably say that the system works for them, too, and not only for the wealthiest.

</comment><comment><USER25> "Such "tax optimization" – albeit legal – is only possible because specialized law firms such as Appleby devise complex company structures inaccessible to most other firms"

Maybe governments should simplify their own tax rules. Then you wouldn't need specialised law firms and simpler tax systems are harder to bypass.

To add, there is nothing 'moral' about tax - you have no choice but to pay what you're legally obligated to pay. Given the lack of choice in the matter, since when did it become a crime to do what you need to do to stay within the law?

<comment><USER26> In these situations they always say, "everything we did was legal". But the problem is that powerful individuals and companies get to make the rules. They have lobbying power and a legal budget that allows them to influence the rules themselves. They get to decide what is legal, and use the legality as a shield.

<comment><USER4> The government makes the rules. The problem is that the government is made of politicians and they are by definition open to corruption (lobbying, contributions, etc). Those campaigns cost and administration salaries are not that big.

The solution? Reduce the government's power and you take away the incentive of the whole sick system.

<comment><USER27> Or reduce the amount of influence money can have on an election. Reducing the government's power will just enable them to continue skirting around the law. If the government has no teeth, then why would any business (or anyone for that matter) follow any rule to it's fullest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't get why people think paying more taxes is "moral". There are a lot of things the government spends on that I don't agree with...and I'm sure I'm not alone on this.

<comment><USER29> I would be happy if we were paying taxes on a level playing field - but we're not. That is the "moral" part of it for me. How that money is spent is another argument.

<comment><USER30> Why should any company pay taxes on profit?

I think that corporate taxes shouldn't exist _at all_ as they are merely an abstraction over sales taxes, income taxes, or capital gains taxes.

<comment><USER31> Why should anyone pay any taxes whatsoever?

Why should anyone contribute to the society that allowed them to make their money the first place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This sounds similar to what Amazon are doing with their latest HQ: making states compete each other over what advantages Amazon would get if it opened its HQ there [1]. I'm terrified by the power big companies have over our government.

[1] [https://youtu.be/8bl19RoR7lc?t=2m52s](https://youtu.be/8bl19RoR7lc?t=2m52s)

</comment><comment><USER33> As an Irish citizen, I feel embarrassed by the way we have dealt with Apple (and other behemoth corps). We simultaneously gave these organisations "free parking" and a "get out of jail free card".

I don't blame Apple for taking advantage though. I would.

<comment><USER34> That free parking increased Ireland's economy by nearly six fold in a mere 25 years. It took Ireland from a second tier economy, to a first tier economic power ($300b in GDP with a mere 4.7m people). From sub $15,000 GDP per capita in 1993, to surpassing the US in GDP per capita at $62,000.

You can tell it's the large foreign corporations causing it, because of the big gap between the growth in domestic income and the headline GDP figure. However those companies still employ a lot of people and pay taxes Ireland otherwise wouldn't have.

Huge companies like: Mylan, Alkermes, Medtronic, Allergan, Johnson Controls, Accenture, Intel, Google, Apple, etc. would have likely not set up shop there if not for the tax policies. One can say, in response to that: fine, let them leave, we're better off -- except the Irish economy would get cut in half if you pushed them out by raising corporate taxes significantly, poverty would increase dramatically, unemployment would skyrocket.

<comment><USER35> GDP per capita doesn't seem like the best metric to track the growth of "Ireland's Economy" if it doesn't translate into more jobs/taxes/etc. though. Would you happen to know whether these development incentives have actually befitted the Irish people?

<comment><USER36> Go to Dublin and you'll see that these are not just postboxes. Most of those companies have a significant amount of employees in Ireland. They also pay taxes to the Irish state (albeit at a low rate) which is used to further develop the country.

Not a fan of what the Irish government did but it clearly helped Ireland to become what they are now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I fear that Mr. Krach does not understand corporation tax.

Comparing profits from sales in a particular country to corporation tax paid in that country by a foreign company makes absolutely no sense.

Apple's tax avoidance schemes are in place to avoid US taxes, not German taxes or taxes elsewhere in the world outside the US.

I think Mr. Krach is right that global corporations do not pay their fair share towards global infrastructure and education. But the reason for that is not tax avoidance. The reason is that corporation tax, as it is structured today, is unfit for porpose in a globalised economy.

Corporation tax is based on the assumption that companies primarily use the public infrastructure of the country where they are incorporated. But for global corporations this assumption is incorrect.

So Mr. Krach is barking up the wrong tree, unless his main concern is US tax take. He should call on politicians to change the way in which global corporations are taxed.

<comment><USER38> Yes to this: "corporation tax, as it is structured today, is unfit for purpose in a globalised economy".

Where Apple sold its computers is well-defined, you can count each one and tax it. Where their employees work is also well-defined, they have desks, and beds.

Where they made their profits simply isn't well-defined. How much was due to the software (California), the marketing (let's say London), the assembly (China), the logistics (in between)? These question don't have sharp answers. Sure, Apple's accounting guys write down some numbers. But once you attempt to tax them, you discover that they have great freedom in what column they write those numbers in.

I increasingly think the correct corporate profit tax rate is zero. Tax the goods they sell. Tax the salaries they pay. Tax the capital gains when shareholders sell, if you must. These things all involve actual people and take place in particular countries. The rest is an abstraction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> > In Germany, Apple is estimated (you don't publish the exact figures) to have > generated revenues in the billions last year – of which it paid 25 million > euros in taxes.

I assume that Apple paid 20% German VAT on those billions, as well as paid taxes on the salaries of the Germans it employed, and probably several other taxes such as environmental tax on packaging. The article raises an important issue but it's disingenuous to focus just on the profit tax, which is a highly malleable number in the hands of an accomplished accountant.

But since they do focus on profit tax, they should have made it clear why profit on a phone designed in the US and built in China should fall to Germany, and they fail to do that.

</comment><comment><USER4> On thing I wonder about all these proponents for Apple to voluntarily pay more taxes: do they themselves pay more taxes than strictly required of them?

I mean do they not take advantage of that child exemption? Do they not deduce that mortgage? Those medical costs? That college tuition? Those business expenses? Do they decide to voluntarily add at least 1% to their income tax bracket?

Do they practice what they preach?

<comment><USER29> There is a world of difference in the moral intent of claiming tax credit that the government itself publicises in order to help the people in their society and the likes of "Double Irish" tax schemes. It saddens me that this argument is always rolled out. As a global population (not thinking about individual countries, however unrealistic) - it depresses me that people try to justify these blatant abuses of legislation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Genuine question. Are there actual large, profitable companies which are tax responsible? I.e. companies that follow ethical accounting practices to minimise their tax and none of the dodgy off-shoring stuff

</comment><comment><USER41> As the "editor-in-chief of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany's leading daily", why not do something?

I don't mean complain, that's already happening, I mean actually do something.

For example, ban all Apple products from the paper. Lobby the German government to ban all Apple products until Apple pay a sufficient amount of tax. Use the paper's influence to get people to stop using Apple's services. That sort of something.

If not, then why not? Is it possibly that you don't really care? It's just a fun story that helps circulation a bit. Or, maybe, that you don't believe that you'll get much support and having a campaign that fails is bad for circulation?

Possibly it's because this would have a direct negative effect on you and yours and, well, we wouldn't want that.

Personally, I'm fine if you don't do anything but complain as protecting your circulation and your convenience is a perfectly reasonable thing.

But don't be surprised that nothing changes.

<comment><USER36> > For example, ban all Apple products from the paper. Lobby the German > government to ban all Apple products until Apple pay a sufficient amount of > tax. Use the paper's influence to get people to stop using Apple's services. > That sort of something.

Not sure if they even issue company phones. But if, that's maybe 100 iphones. And how should they lobby a government to ban iPhones? As official phones they're not used anyway (for security reasons) and the state has no say in what people use privately. Boycotts almost never work.

<comment><USER41> > As official phones they're not used

I mean lobby for the ban on the sale of Apple products in Germany. As in, make it illegal to sell Apple products. And if you really want to put the cat amongst the pigeons, make it illegal to buy them.

> Boycotts almost never work

They absolutely can if they're popular enough. And they can in Germany too. If you don't believe me, check out the Shell boycott. And that wasn't officially sanctioned. I think it's reasonable to expect that a 40% reduction in sales in a market as important as Germany would cause Apple to think seriously about its position.

Now, I'm not suggesting for a second that a ban on Apple, or even a boycott, would occur let alone be successful. But that's kind of my point. No-one's going to call for it because it's just not important to anyone. It's posturing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I have a simple solution:

Create a business which behaves and acts the same way as Appleby but for small enterprise of lets say 30k revenues a year only. You provide the service on a almost non profitable way to attract the vast majority of enterprises in this revenue sector. Ultimately, governments will see the effect of lost taxes and act accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER43> I think the real issue is that taxing corporations is the wrong approach. Companies don't and really can't pay taxes. The burden of the tax always falls on some individual or group of individuals, not the company. When try and tax a company they can pass on the cost of that tax in one of 3 ways. They can pass it on to shareholders in the form of lower dividends. They can pass it on to customers in the form of higher prices, or they can pass it on to workers in the form of lower wages. Several CBO studies have show that it is workers who bear the primary burden of the tax. Which I think is probably the exact opposite outcome of what people who argue for corporate taxation want. However, it makes perfect sense why it is that way. The shareholders are never going to agree to pay the tax in the form of lower dividends. The company has limited ability to raise prices in many cases without losing customers, so the easiest way for them to pay the tax is to reduce the total wages that they pay out. Taxing corporations is nonsensical. Some individual is always going to end up paying the tax.

</comment><comment><USER44> > _since 2010, Apple's foreign-earned income has been taxed at a rate of > between 1 and 7 percent. Mr. Cook, do you believe this comports with the > "moral responsibility" you have advocated?_

No, he doesn't believe that. He also doesn't care about "moral responsibility". He's the CEO of a mega-corporation. He cares about world dominance, competition, and profits.

It's completely useless to appeal to CEOs' moral sense; they probably don't have one and even if they do, they don't let it run their lives.

> _Such "tax optimization" – albeit legal..._

That's the whole problem. What would be useful would be to make laws that force corporations to pay proper taxes, and then ruthlessly enforce them.

Shame can help a little, maybe, but laws first.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think we can bitch all we like and nothing will happen. International taxation is complicated and part of a multinational's business model revolves around exploiting that for shareholder gain.

What this points to is that we need a new global trade and taxation agreement for handling this. But the policy makers don't want that because they benefit from it.

Ergo, it'll always be like this.

At best you can add additional sales tax for non-resident companies at the point of sale to kill their bottom line. But no one will do that because the government will be the target of the abuse from the consumer.

<comment><USER46> Countries can unilaterally have taxes based on the share of total company profit generated in the country, rather than just profit in the country.

<comment><USER47> That doesn't prevent companies from moving all profit generation out of all countries but the lowest taxed.

<comment><USER48> Good luck Apple selling iPhones in Jersey. They'll need to sell everyone hundreds of iPhone X's there to keep profits up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Australia taxes shareholders instead of companies. Companies pay tax on paper, but it gets refunded to their shareholders when they pay dividends, and those dividends are taxed like any other income.

If other developed countries did the same, these problems might be easier to manage. Investors could still get bigger dividends from these transfer pricing rorts, but they would have to hand them back as income tax at home, and the rorts might stop being worthwhile.

</comment><comment><USER50> It seems like a lot of people here are looking for "the" root of the problem, as though there is one person or small group of people or laws that could fix the whole mess. The truth is that we are pretty much all complicit in small ways that add up, and that complicity generally takes the same form: I want a little more for myself, and have a convenient blind spot when it comes to ways in which systems and processes help bias things in my favor.

Elsewhere it's been pointed out that there's no (non-arbitrary) way to distinguish a "tax loophole" from a "tax code." It's sort of an "I know it when I see it" thing. But how many of us have the courage to stand up and say "hey, this is unfair for others" vs "hey, this is unfair for me"?

Until that happens, this kind of thing will continue in a variety of forms that may seem unrelated but profoundly aren't. But something inside us is scared of giving up any ground.

So what's the solution?

Well, meditation and psychedelics are showing tremendous promise in awakening the sort of "universal empathy" and profound sense of fundamental safety and security that can shift the balance.

We can't get on that train fast enough.

</comment><comment><USER51> There is a question in that letter which I wonder if it is intended as a threat. I might just be misguided. But asking about the questions asked about 'credible opposition party' and 'movement that may replace the current government'... I think Tim Cook (and others in his tax bracket) might see such a question coming from a media outlet as a bit of a threat. The general public think of the rich as simply normal people with way more money and power. They have no concept of how differently they relate to the world, governments, etc. They've got no idea that once you get beyond a few million dollars, once you've surpassed whatever an individual would reasonably ever need... you start planning for your family. When you get to a billion? Then you start planning for your legacy. You don't think "what will make me some money this week" or "month" or "year". You think on the scale of centuries. And you fully intend your dynasty (for some reason all rich come to fetishize bloodlines and draw irrational conclusions about the superiority of their genetics, likely a psychological defense mechanism against a sort of survivors guilt born out of all their compatriots they've seen fall/destroyed) to outlast flimsy flash-in- the-pan happenings of history like the rise and fall of currencies or redrawing of national boundaries.

When people talk about things like a large movement to automation, or things like Apple having a value greater than the GDP of nations, and things like that... they don't tend to follow through and consider things like... people have fought very, very large wars and killed many, many people over sums smaller. Those who think it isn't a game are only those expendable enough to be fodder for it.

</comment><comment><USER52> "The iPhone not only changed the world, it did so faster than virtually any other technological innovation in history."

This seems a little over the top.

</comment><comment><USER53> OK could someone explain to me why people in US would be complaining about evil Apple or any other major US company ? It's not owned by some evil rich dude largest Apple shareholder is Vanguard second Blackrock and so on. It's owned by you it creates value for your pension I'd rather trust Tim Cook than Donald Trump with my pension $.

</comment><comment><USER54> >> Did you want to make zero-tax status a precondition for establishing tax residency there? What gives you the right to do so?

This is a pretty twisted way of publicly shaming someone for just asking. They have all the right to put whatever condition on any country they want. Any country has the right to not accept their conditions.

If the intent of the author is to publicly shame Apple and paint them as being somehow culpable for the poor conditions of the said countries, then its not working. There are jobs that Apple bring to these countries that kick start their economies. Again, its not for nothing that countries _agree_ with their pre-conditions.

The other argument presented here is that smaller companies don't get to play by these rules. Again, they can. Just that there is no incentive for a country to not tax smaller companies.

Bottom line: Apple brings more to the countries than just its taxes, and that's why the countries are fine with their special tax status.

</comment><comment><USER55> For people talking about how the solution is to fix the tax code: the problem is not the tax code or the rates. Even if the tax rate was 2%, these people wouldn't pay it.

I feel the problem is much deeper than that - the fact that Tim Cook, and others, do not see it as "fair" to pay for the use of public facilities and services. That they fail to grasp the notion that by helping a nation create better, more educated, healthier citizens will effectively improve their bottom line in the future. That levelling the playing field creates more customers for their businesses. Unfortunately you can't put that on a quarterly profit report, so let's just make more and more money and screw everything else. That's not success. That's a virus in economical form, slowly killing the host.

</comment><comment><USER56> At the core of many of these tax avoidance schemes is wholly owned subsidiaries making intra-group loans that are treated differently in different tax jurisdictions.

Imagne there is subsidiary X & Y in jurisdiction. In jurisdiction A the parent company declares those two subsidiaries should be considered a single entity, in jurisdiction C the parent company declares they should be considered separate.

This allows intra-group loans between those two subsidiaries (and other subsidiaries outside jurisdiction C) to appear and disappear from the accounting as necessary for the purpose of tax avaoidance.

Whilst the declared company structures are perfectly legal in jurisdiction A and C the fact that the parent company has declared different corporate structure for the same entities is deeply suspicious as an activity.

</comment><comment><USER57> At the end of the article "Apple bills itself as a transparent company." . This is news to me. The Apple is famously (infamously) secretive.

Tim Cook is doing the job shareholders hired him for. Most boards would replace him if he made no effort to minimize taxes. It's the fault of the system that collects taxes, not Apple. If a system wants to govern and collect taxes it shouldn't rely on companies to donate more than they're legally obliged. Fix your laws, Germany, EU.

</comment><comment><USER58> I cannot count the number of times I've heard the word "Legal" in the news in the last few days. As in "everything we do is legal". What's implied is therefore ... I can do it. What I understand is : therefore... change the 'fing law. And make it very public who is blocking this change of laws. Any country such as isle of Man or Ireland can have its own laws. My country has a system where infrastructure is build from transactions. You don't want it, you cannot have access to its customers. simple on principle. Some laws can be bent to avoid it ? change them. Have issues changing them ? Please explain them clearly. Act on those & iterate.

</comment><comment><USER59> I don't care about a lot of political subject, would it be inequality, welfare, immigration, racism, etc.

But tax havens seem like a huge threat, and my favorite subject of opinion of all, and they are a big source of problem in how the economy is unfair and how any country's budget is unbalanced. Weirdly, libertarians will defend the existence of tax havens.

I'm really happy to see that some political actors are finally advancing on that subject. Even in terms of geopolitics, it will be delicate, but I don't care, this is the largest abscess to burst, and it's crazy it's not a bigger issue and that it took such a long time. It's really time that this gets fixed.

</comment><comment><USER60> Is there a sort of international tax agency (hopefully with the proverbial teeth) like there is the World Trade Organization [0] (WTO) for trade or Interpol [1] for policing?

With my colloquial/urban-legend-style understanding of the fear of being audited for taxes in both Canada and the US, I would be mildly entertained if I ever heard that the "Global IRS" was auditing a multinational corporation.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol)

</comment><comment><USER61> ELI5: why Wolfgang Krach needed the paradise papers to write this letter? Are paradise papers just an information leak that don't contribute to solving any problem? Except obviously when you can find plain corruption based on these papers.

<comment><USER62> Perhaps you missed these parts towards the end of this letter:

"But what unsettles me the most is the way in which Apple instructed a law firm to obtain an "official assurance of tax exemption" from the government of a country."

and

"And what understanding of democracy are we supposed to discern from the question you had this law firm ask? The one about whether the country had a "credible opposition party" or "movement that may replace the current government?" Were you trying to ensure that you would be able to retain tax- free status even after elections or a change in government?"

<comment><USER61> I don't find this strange when you are looking for a long term tax strategy and trying to reduce the involved risks.

For example, when Intel invests in chip plants there are big discussions about tax privileges [1]. I know this is different because it doesn't involve a big R&D but it is natural to big company plans.

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-intel- plant/israel...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-intel-plant/israel- approves-intels-6-billion-investment-in-chip-plant-idUSKCN0HH1F720140922)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Let people protect their finance in peace.

If I earn money by creating a good product that consumers love I have the right to do whatever I wish with this money.

Socialism is evil. Let people be free to use their wealth for the benefit of society by producing more, donating, and so on. Why the hell would I want to give money to politicians to generate war and tragedy? It is a shame so many socialists try to destroy California and whatever is left of free-market in America.

</comment><comment><USER64> Apple and the like are just being "smart businessmen" as our current tax evading president once said. I never really minded paying taxes. Sure, I was upset sometimes when I learned how some of it is spent. After Trump said that, I made it my duty to pay as little taxes as possible to the federal gov't. The US election taught me that a total morally banktrupt asshole can win the presidency of the United States and flaunt his disgraceful behavior, I might as else enjoy what he enjoys.

</comment><comment><USER65> Whose torch are these media co's carrying? I'm not so quick to swallow a newspaper editor's moral indignation about taxes. Much ado about symptoms, not so much a cause.

Our governments waste so much money, even Apple's lost taxes are a drop in the bucket. Should we all join in crying about that loss? We know 90% of it would go to military and corrupt, partisan, spending.

I say spank the news media along with the government, for being partners in the inertia. At least Apple innovates.

</comment><comment><USER66> > Many of these institutions of higher education are entirely or partially > funded with taxpayer money.

This is a _tell_. I should have seen it coming. Another "you didn't build the ROADS!" guilt trip. As if a big part of the rationale behind all government- funded activities (wealth redistribution) was to promote the importance and preservation of the state, not what the citizens couldn't do for themselves. The same goes for the "freedom isn't free" bullshit. A "security" argument could have just as easily been substituted for the "education" argument. Citizens all around the world are paying double for this self-aggrandizing propaganda, some with a mountain of subsidized student loans, others with their lives.

The fundamental goals of government (that I think that most people could get on board with) are to provide law and order, and if it has the resources, promote the general welfare. If the welfare is being promoted and increasing by other means, why do we need the state to continue that role? The pie is growing in the form of a piece of technology that is improving your life, and the private sector doing more, more efficiently. Just because the guy next door struck it rich in some risky investment or startup doesn't mean you were made worse off or will be made worse off. The sooner we can stop flirting with that flawed, quick-fix socialist thinking, the better off we'll all be.

</comment><comment><USER67> Great letter that is part of a great movement right now. It's not just Apple, but they're an easy target and rightly so. It has to start somewhere.

I'm confident they're doing their usual 'wait for a week' until we get a reply.

And then I hope, just like with the ecological issues after the Greenpeace accusations, Apple will finally start doing the right thing and pay rather than trying to escape.

\- A happy Apple user

</comment><comment><USER68> There are a sea of lawyers, accountants, investment bankers et al., using the best intelligence the marketplace has to offer, to move money around the world for corporations in a game of (don't) whack-a-mole. Until these guys get a kick in the teeth and some semblance of honor, the game will go on because it pays top tier compensation. Scoundrels.

</comment><comment><USER69> Not to be a jerk, but I do not agree that Apple makes outstanding products any longer.

In particular the quality of UX has decline rapidly since jobs' decline. Have you looked at the stopwatch app for example? Where did the seconds go? Milliseconds?

There are many many more things like this that have changed for the worse. And their hardware has always been sub par afaik.

</comment><comment><USER70> Tim Cook could be sued by Apple shareholders if he _didn't_ pursue the most efficient organization for tax purposes. It's actually his legal responsibility - not some evil thing he's doing because he is a heartless capitalist.

If you don't like what Apple is doing, don't blame Apple. Blame government, and use the power you do have to make change happen.

</comment><comment><USER71> Y'all should hate the game not the players, c'mon. -50 Cent

(ie. Pass bad laws/tolerate bad governments, get bad results.)

</comment><comment><USER72> The article is mis-addressed. If the goal is to change something and not just pointlessly grandstand, it should be addressed to the lawmakers who wrote the laws that make this legal. Nobody should be required to pay more taxes than the laws tell them to. Anything else is frivolous and arbitrary.

</comment><comment><USER73> You can't blame the people taking advantage of the loops holes, you have to blame the countries which allow it, and then stop them, thus putting all business owners on a level playing field. They are driven by capitalism and money, they aren't going to not do it for moral reasons.

</comment><comment><USER74> This guys seem to know nothing about economics. A company can be enticed with tax exemptions to setup shop there and in return help the count in many ways. The tip of the iceberg is employment, talent generation and the surrounding areas where the office is placed.

</comment><comment><USER53> I am a bit confused what does sales in a given jurisdiction have to do with amount of taxes payed on profits in that jurisdiction? Apple does same thing every german company in US is doing e.g. shifting money flows in such a way as to optimize profits.

</comment><comment><USER53> There is significant trade imbalance between US and Germany as in Germany exports 2X more goods to US so if laws would be passed that make you pay taxes on profits proportional to sales in a given jurisdiction Germany would suffer greatly.

</comment><comment><USER75> It is funny to see that here in Dublin there are so many homeless people. Almost one in every street. This tax evasion is not the direct responsible but it is another symptom of this 2-speed society in which inequality separates citizens.

</comment><comment><USER76> Would it be possible to create a "Tax evasion as a service" where one can buy shares, and said company will offshore the pool of money allowing individuals to get benefits of big corporate tax?

</comment><comment><USER77> A lot of the responses here are missing the point. It's not that Apple _must_ behave morally with regards to taxes, and not just legally.

It's that Apple _claims_ to behave morally, and doesn't.

</comment><comment><USER78> here is what the average American does not know...read?

US collects $2.5 trillion in corp taxes...guess how much revenue is earned by US corps? $27Trillion...US corp effective tax rate tan is exactly 10%...contrasty that with China where the effective tax rate for corps counting corruption is at somewhat 45%...

Somewhere there is something wrong with US corp claiming they need lower taxes when they cannot increase the number of those hired..at leas that was the former social contract they were operating under when getting those lobbyist tax breaks in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER79> David Mitchell on Tax Avoidance: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk- ktc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc)

Makes some good points.

<comment><USER80> Working link in the UK: [https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY](https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY)

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> If we want the rich to pay more taxes, it would be simpler to just raise taxes on the rich individuals. Things get more complicated when you try to tax an abstraction (a corporation).

<comment><USER34> Everybody else has already long since figured that out of course and are cutting their corporate income tax rates significantly, while half the political sphere in the US is still arguing about taxing corporations more.

Meanwhile, in Sweden: 22% statutory corporate income tax rate; Finland: 20%; Denmark: 24.5%; Norway 27%. Those horrible socialists!

<comment><USER82> But you have to look at the effective rate after deductions, which are very significant in the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)

</comment><comment><USER84> people avoid tax all the time, when VAT goes up do you buy that new TV or do you wait for the next budget. of if it's a laptop do you wait to buy it at duty free?

</comment><comment><USER85> Even though I don't believe that articles like this would make the slightest bit of difference, I sincerely admire the sentiment of people who write them.

</comment><comment><USER86> Want to prevent this ? Use your ultimate weapon, your wallet. Start boycotting Apple products (all other companies that appeared in the leak such as Nike).

</comment><comment><USER87> Income tax is hard to collect. Sales tax is regressive.

Solution: sales tax with lump-sum redistribution to make it progressive. Forget income tax.

<comment><USER88> But then you just buy from overseas. Or if you have many land-borders like Germany, you just drive across a border.

<comment><USER87> Import tariffs are possible, set to equal the sales tax. Enforcement for large corporations will be relatively easy. I'm not worried about individuals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> By how much would the country's tax income increase, percentage wise, if all these companies started paying full tax?

</comment><comment><USER90> What is Apple's effective tax-rate, world-wide (for, e.g., 2016)? I've not seen this spelled out anywhere, yet.

</comment><comment><USER91> Hacker News Staff: can you please publish stats on how many of the comments on this thread are posted from Apple devices?

</comment><comment><USER74> This paper seem to be made to stir stuff up amongst people who thinks this is a simple matter

</comment><comment><USER92> Apple is, by US law, required to maximize their profits for its investors.

I'm not religious, but I agree with the sentiment: "Thou shalt not covet." Rather than drag on Apple maybe we should be figuring out how everyone can lower their taxes.

</comment><comment><USER93> i think pressure should also come from apple ( and google and amazon..) employees. They work for an objectively "bad behaving" company, they should tell their management that they're not ok with it.

</comment><comment><USER94> > Apple bills itself as a transparent company.

lolwut? Secretiveness is kind of their thing.

</comment><comment><USER95> All I want is a world with a single flat tax, is that too much to ask?

</comment><comment><USER96> Is there anyone here who is enough of an expert to propose changes to the U.S. tax code that would actually get rid of all of the tricks that multinationals play to avoid taxes? Or knows of where to find such a thing. I have responded in subthreads to at least 3 people who think they are but curious if there is anyone out there with actual expertise on the topic.

My sense is that it's easy to feel that the solution to the problem is simple (like this xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/793/](https://xkcd.com/793/)) when in fact it is tremendously complicated: perhaps even intractable. It may be that it there is a sort of Godelian way of always finding a loophole given the emergent complexity of the interactions between the tax codes of ~200 different countries, many of which are incentivized to have a lax tax code to promote local job growth.

</comment><comment><USER97> I wonder, does the author pay more taxes than he legally owes to.

</comment><comment><USER79> 70% downvotes on /r/apple, posted 17h ago.

</comment><comment><USER83> Tax revenues, not profits on all listed companies

</comment><comment><USER98> John Oliver did a piece on this last Sunday: [https://youtu.be/8bl19RoR7lc](https://youtu.be/8bl19RoR7lc)

</comment><comment><USER99> No comment. - Best regards, Tim Cook

</comment><comment><USER100> Why do we expect Apple to be altruistic instead of expecting governments to have sensible tax policy?

</comment><comment><USER101> apparently that xtra $ isnt quiete reaching their IOS 11 team in constructive ways.

</comment><comment><USER102> As Long as tax's remain high, they will be avoided. Raising taxes on the 1% or raising corporate taxes on businesses it only going to make the issue worse.

America probably wouldn't need such high tax if it didn't have such a terrible government system.

</comment><comment><USER103> That really hurt to read. What I get from this article is: "I use apple products every day and now I feel bad for using them. But I won't stop anyways because who cares really. Please do anything to make your company less profitable so I can feel better again."

<comment><USER104> You obviously misread it. Try again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> Got to chuckle when articles like this appear. Essentially it means this:

I paid my taxes, you haven't. Translated it means ( in my opinion): I got robbed, but you didn't get robbed, and I feel envious of you.

Taxes are an extortion by the government and it is fair game that anyone should try and evade it legally or otherwise. Extortion cannot be justified even if some of the money is used to deliver useful services to the people who have to part with the money.

Summary: people get the government that they deserve.

<comment><USER106> Let me guess. You're in favour of private healthcare, private security, private education, and no social safety net. In short, nothing to aid social mobility, and nothing to restrain powerful people who have gained the upper hand.

You know, to some of us, that libertarian utopia sounds like a fucking nightmare.

<comment><USER105> >You know, to some of us, that libertarian utopia sounds like a fucking nightmare.

Correct, nobody is obliged to help you. What a sense of entitlement!

So your only option is go ahead ask your government to arm twist rich people into funding your healthcare etc. ( and the rich includes the ones that have both legitimately and illegitimately obtained wealth).

<comment><USER31> > Correct, nobody is obliged to help you. What a sense of entitlement!

Actually, they are.

It's an innate instinctual behaviour inherent in all healthy human beings and we are social creatures that have succeeded through co-operation. If you have never felt the urge to help someone, prevent abuses and exploitation you might actually be a sociopath.

In the wild, members of social species that don't conform to this become outcasts and eventually die off as they cannot contribute to the group. It's an evolutionary weakness.

People like you try to wax philosophical about self-reliance and pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, but it's simple greed masquerading as some kind of stoicism and self-reliance.

The simple fact is, neither you nor Apple nor anyone else in this vein has made their living without the benefits and support that a tax-paying society has afforded you. Considering especially that it is people like you that espouse this naive view of the world and your support for companies like this engaging in these socially-damaging practices, it is interesting that it also happens to be these very same 'captains of industry' that receive all manner of corporate welfare, bailouts and handouts.

Privatise the profits, socialise the losses. Capitalism when you are winning, socialism when you are losing.

It's interesting how that works isn't it? Almost like it isn't some kind of profound personal philosophy, but rather just simple greed.

<comment><USER105> >Actually, they are. >It's an innate instinctual behaviour inherent in all healthy human beings and we are social creatures that have succeeded through co-operation. If you have never felt the urge to help someone, prevent abuses and exploitation you might actually be a sociopath.

Agreed it's all innate as you said. But think of it for a moment. If a poor man forces me to part with my money, I sure won't be happy. I would tell him to f __k off. But if I voluntarily donate, that is another story. No one should be allowed to calibrate my urge of having to have to help someone though force(taxes), it 's my decision entirely.

>People like you try to wax philosophical about self-reliance and pulling yourself up by the bootstraps,

You are putting words in my mouth. Stop that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why the U.S. Should Never Repay the National Debt - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/01/perpetual_bonds_a_clever_way_to_manage_the_national_debt_in_a_time_of_low.html

<comment><USER2> I don't think US intends to anyway. The lobbying in Washington is too strong to allow dramatic cuts in the programs that use the biggest part of the budget.

I'm honestly surprised many countries are naive enough to lend to US anymore. At this point US debt is a ponzi scheme. Some of them might get their money back, or only a part of it, or only after its value dropped significantly, but that's about it.</comment>


Smell PGH lets you report weird smells in Pittsburgh - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/22/smellpgh-lets-you-report-weird-smells-in-pittsburgh <comment><USER2> Admittedly it's been a while since I was in Pittsburgh, but to the best of my recollection, it'd have been easier to report places where the air _didn 't_ smell bad...

<comment><USER3> The city has changed a lot over the last decade. You'd be surprised.

There are very few dirty areas around the greater Pittsburgh region. Is it perfect? No, but its hands-down cleaner than a lot of major US metro areas.

<comment><USER4> Not for long...

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/03/why- tr...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/03/why-trump-pit- pittsburgh-against-paris-is-absurd)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Huh this is interesting. For those who might know... do we have odor sensors? Is that even possible to have? I guess it would need to be a chemical sensor that detects the chemicals in the odor right?

<comment><USER6> I guess that would be a system like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chromatography%E2%80%93mas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chromatography%E2%80%93mass_spectrometry) ?

<comment><USER5> Right, I guess I should have made my question more concise...are there electronic odor sensors? i.e. stuff small enough that can be e.g. put inside my cellphone.

<comment><USER7> Pretty small, but not cell-phone sized. [https://www.amazon.com/MicrOptix- VSA-100-Analyzing-Spectroph...](https://www.amazon.com/MicrOptix- VSA-100-Analyzing-Spectrophotometer-Wavelength/dp/B00440CZ00)

Ones that detect particular contaminants can be a lot smaller, especially if they are single-use.

<comment><USER8> That's a spectrophotometer, not a GC/MS... Can you detect smelly airborne chemicals with this as well?

<comment><USER7> Reading the description, it might be for liquids instead. Anyway it won't give as much information about the molecular components as a mass spectrometer, but you can still get a good idea if there are contaminants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why the hell does the header image show people sniffing their mobile phones?

TechCrunch may not know how "Using a smartphone to send a message over the Internet" works. Surprising for a tech-journalism-focused organization, I know. ;)

</comment><comment><USER10> > Considering Pittsburgh once had awful air quality thanks to coal and steel > industry, it's no wonder folks are still worried about stinky air.

This implies that it no longer has awful air quality, but that's not true. It's still quite bad.

[http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/msas/pittsburgh-new- castle...](http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/msas/pittsburgh-new-castle- weirton-pa-oh-wv.html#pm24)

<comment><USER11> SF has much worse air quality than Pittsburgh though, actually

[https://qz.com/963089/california-is-home-to-eight-of- the-10-...](https://qz.com/963089/california-is-home-to-eight-of- the-10-cities-in-america-where-air-pollution-is-worst/)

Preemptive plea: Please don't shoot the messenger by downvoting me for sharing this demonstrably factual information with you (I know it's coming, I know how this site works now).

<comment><USER12> You're being downvoted for at least two reasons. One, you are off topic, and trying very hard to be inflammatory, and two, because whining about downvotes is, itself, pollution.

<comment><USER11> I _am_ on topic, we are discussing air pollution, and most people I talk to around here are mistakenly under the impression that SF is this paragon of air quality, so mine is a pretty high entropy post sharing an interesting and not commonly known fact that often surprises people.

Meanwhile, you're attaching unfounded emotion to my post through projection (I've been sitting here the whole time with a perfectly chillaxed and even slightly amused attitude); my post has had a non-negative score its entire lifetime -- only one person downvoted it (you?), so I'm more inclined to believe that somebody else that is not me is the problem here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd love to see a heatmap of this in New York.

<comment><USER14> All of Manhattan would just be labeled "Garbage water smell" for the summer months.

<comment><USER15> All part of the carefully crafted ambiance, my friend</comment></comment></comment>


Open source builds are now free on CircleCI - <AUTHOR> http://blog.circleci.com/a-step-into-open-source/

<comment><AUTHOR> Let us know if you have any questions!

<comment><USER2> Supporting docker caching would be huge.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is planned pretty soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thanks!</comment>