Not any different than what any other large corporation based in any country does.  Pretty much business as usual for them, for us, it's 'Oh I see Mr. Smith that you failed to report your total income for the last tax year.'   

Nothing immoral or wrong with legal tax-avoidance.  It's just different in scale compared to what you and I do every day without thinking twice about it.  No more 'bastards' than you or I... maybe less so in my case.

No one is 'entitled' to their profits except their shareholders/investors.  Certainly not any government.

If the law permits them to do what they've done, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize returns by doing so.  I'd be pissed as a shareholder if they didn't take advantage of legal tax-avoidance to the maximum extent allowed.  Laws broken - different story.  But it admittedly gets a bit murky with multinationals & various countries competing for various slices of a company's pie.

I'm sure Gina Rinehart had a chat with Palmer and made sure a fellow 'mining mate' would vote to repeal the Carbon Tax......God forbid she's taxed on her PERSONAL income currently rated at....$1,077,054.00 ..... every 30 minutes....

I'd offer to temp for her for a few minutes, and collect her salary during that time, but I'm not sure it'd be worth it for having to deal with her...

Damn good work, if you can get it.

Well, there's nothing illegal about it.

As for 'immoral or wrong'? That might be argued, depending on one's moral values...

I agree with Doc. There's a big difference between the two. Unfortunately morality, like everything else, takes a distant second when it comes to money.

I agree 'it might be argued' and we are all entitled to our opinion in that regard.  All Chick-fil-A's are closed on Sunday.  But one can't force one's 'morality' on someone else except through laws.

Forcing one group's norms on another implies violence whereas respect, moderation and tolerance are the hallmarks of America.

Our government is expressly forbidden from espousing or favoring one religion and its values (morals) over another, or over a lack of religion (not to imply a lack of morality). There are areas of 'Morality' in which various religions differ. When legislating, these areas should be avoided or should regard the behavior involved independently of religion.

So, 'Norms' might be a better term/concept to use. Thus, the 'Blue Laws' regarding mandatory business closure on Sunday were modified to include other closure days.

Apple's taxes go up = Apple's costs go up = Apple's prices go up = the consumer pays for it.  The consumer always pays (assuming the company stays in business).

Apple doesn't pay taxes = budget deficit grows = consumer pays anyway

Or why don't we all stop paying taxes. That way prices will be very low and there won't be any government. No police, no military, no public schools, no healthcare, no legal system*. Yeah, Apple really doing us a favor by not paying taxes.

*(okay, some of those things may still exist as private corporations)

Yep

I'm open to that.

Apple for the last 15 years or so has been rotten to the core, nothing new here. Trash company making trash products with unspeakable labor practices in foreign countries, all for the sake of huge profits!

Or have a simple tax system where companies won't be overtaxed so they don't have to move money around. 

That's not limited to Apple.  

That's because we humans are the virus.........we need to let the machines take over! 

The Miller test (product of a Supreme Court decision) is used to determine "obscene" material in the US...the first condition is:

"Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest"

This is just one example, but I think it is fair to say that much of our law is exactly forcing one group's norms on another...

Why is rape, murder, and theft illegal?  When you get down to it, it is simply the law expressing the morality of the majority -- most people find those things wrong and thus support legislation that condemns such acts...the moral standards of a people are intensely reflected in their legal system, and thus obeying the law is submitting to the "moral norms"...

Seleuceia: Those acts of violence you enumerated violate the norms of EVERY sane person. Therefore, no one is being forced at all. Therefore there is no violence.

My point exactly.  Fortunately, our society contains few who consider murder, rape and theft morally acceptable (except for the latter, in the form of taxes, natch) so most are not being 'forced to submit' to anything in obeying laws against them.

Tom. I've had an iphone and ipad for years and also a Macbook Pro Retina for awhile. They are all top notch products that put many of the competition to utter shame. Tell me, what hands on, significant experience do you have with Apple that gives validity to that statement?