What a surprise. But still we should continue to think about them as a company working to make the world a better place... Everything is fine.
There are methods for people to do this as well in the two countries in the system mentioned, but it is way more difficult in terms of effort required and gains gained and impossible if you are an employee and not an owner of a (one man) business.
This could be "solved" either by Ireland increasing its tax rate or by other countries changing their laws to no longer allow for exfiltration of money to Ireland from their economies. But they won't do these things for their own (cross-national competition) reasons. Odd to blame the company when it's the countries that don't want to change, though.
If, on the other hand, a company is actually breaking international law, as Apple has apparently done (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/technology/apple-tax-eu-i...), that's a different story altogether.
To highlight it, people highlight the hypocrisy of individuals using the law to minimize the money they pay out while criticizing corporations using the law to minimize the money they pay out. While you can argue there is a difference, doing so puts you in an ethical framework that not all people in the discourse might share.
But when those same people see a company doing the same, they get pissed off and call it unethical, "not the right thing", etc.
TL;DR: companies are fighting for their interests, just like people are.
If there was a simple consensus on what the "right" thing to do was, that would be the law.
I'm sorry this just isn't true. There is a lot of consensus in the US about things:
* legalization of pot
* legal status for DREAMERS
* bigger taxes on corporations
And yet, none of these things (all of which poll very highly) become law.
What results are you talking about? That the candidate who was for all those things won the popular vote by an unheard of 3 million votes? That fact seems to back up the consensus :)
You are vastly underestimating the number of Americans who do not think like you do. All other things aside, that's going to make politics (and the necessary work to change laws you disagree with) difficult.
I want to point out the nature of the arguments you are making here. Its either in deliberately bad faith, or you are genuinely confused about these things. The latter is ok while the former isn't.
Your comment in response to my statement about the consensus was to state that the 2016 presidential election indicated there was no consensus on these topics. Presidential elections are not a good way to gauge consensus on individual topics, and there have been many studies which have found the reason for choices weren't the issues I pointed out, but more racial fears of immigrants and minorities. I should have probably replied with this to your original comment.
Despite this, and unpopular candidates in both parties, the one that supported the issues I mention still won by 3 million votes. That is why I point to it as being "consensus".
Now, what you are doing, is to argue on the technical definition of consensus. Sure, that 2% differential does not sound like a compelling consensus if you ignore the context in which people voted. However, like I said, its still not the best way to gauge it.
A much better way to gauge consensus is by polling and here are the numbers:
* 62% for pot legalization http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-su...
* 66% support legal path for DREAMERS https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/583402634/npr-poll-2-in-3-sup...
* 75% favor larger tax on corporations https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-tax/three-quarters-of-am...
That fails to match substantially any of the definition of consensus, IMO: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
To me "consensus" requires something more like 90+% agreement if there are possibly valid arguments for the opposition. There's consensus that we stop at red lights. There's consensus that we wear coats outside on cold winter days. There's consensus that regularly smoking tobacco is harmful. There's consensus that the Earth is not flat.
IMO, there are strong arguments for a lot of things I believe in, but I don't assume/presume consensus on them and would not introduce a 48-46 or 29-28 finding as evidence of consensus.
Do you believe Brexit was a consensus in the UK then?
1. Your time scale seems very off. The law rarely changes quickly.
2. None of these things have large scale social consensus, even where there are majorities. The closest is legalization of pot, and it is in fact becoming legal where there is consensus.
But right now, surveys show only 62% of people US-wide support legalization of pot[1].
That's not social consensus of the kind that the law represents long term.
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-su...
(I chose Pew since they are very independent, and for the record, i'm pro-legalization)
Not true, especially in the US where it changes pretty quickly. Certainly quickly enough to close tax loopholes that are draining the Treasury.
> None of these things have large scale social consensus, even where there are majorities. The closest is legalization of pot, and it is in fact becoming legal where there is consensus.
Again, not true:
* 62% for pot legalization http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-su...
* 66% support legal path for DREAMERS https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/583402634/npr-poll-2-in-3-sup...
* 75% favor larger tax on corporations https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-tax/three-quarters-of-am...
2. I cited these very statistics and explicitly said they are not the kind of level of social consensus that tends to change the law.
You have provided nothing to argue otherwise. I can't tell whether you claim it is not becoming legal where there is large enough local consensus (which is definitely true, and supports my larger point).