Apple Wins Approval for $1 Billion Data Center in Ireland

Ireland's economy have had a rapid rise, and it's never been better, and it is all because of these "tax breaks" they've given to corporations. Even leftist Bono admits that.

Any honest discussion of "tax breaks" would include, but usually doesn't, an explanation that the tax funds that the government is giving a "break" on, wouldn't exist if the company in question didn't invest. For example, Apple may be given an incentive/break to build a data center in a particular country, but if Apple didn't build that factory there would be zero funds from which to give a break. I'm not arguing all incentives make sense, but unfortunately, the majority of people hear about a tax break, and assume the government is taking money out of the treasury to give to the company when that is almost never the case. Foxconn's recent investment in Wisconsin is a great example as critics are ignorantly pointing out that it is "costing" almost a hundred thousand dollars per job by the State to get the factory built when, in fact, the state is making money and creating thousands of jobs because the tax breaks are in the form of foregoing taxes that the state would never receive from Foxconn if Foxconn didn't build the factory, not from the State's general treasury of funds.

Isn't this about that forest which has to be cut while if Apple build this server farm just a few hundred meters further down 'the road' it won't need to be cut, if so then:

This is a sad day.

Quid pro quo, don’t touch my tax breaks. White collar at its highest level.

If it’s environmental concern then why Apple still preceded with the plan. I thought they’re all for environmental company. I guess if it suits them and make them looks good, they’re all over it. But if not then they don’t care and let the money work for them.

Great news for shareholders... terrible for US citizens expecting corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

I really don't have anything to prove.

Right. So I see that you're avoiding my question, asking you to backup your statement that the increase of electric cars in the Netherlands has led to an energy shortage that cannot be immediately resolved.

You see, I think I know the article you read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/electric-cars-and-the-coal-that-runs-them/2015/11/23/74869240-734b-11e5-ba14-318f8e87a2fc_story.html?utm_term=.4de0228e504f
Which doesn't say what you claim at all, it says that electric cars are not as good for the environment as consumers might think if the electricity is produced by dirty generation.

The Netherlands has had an electricity surplus: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194335/Poyry_Report_-_Coal_fired_power_generation_in_Germany.pdf

Depending on market conditions they import electricity if it's cheaper to do so https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_the_Netherlands

I'm willing to back up my post with sources. I could be wrong but without you willing to back up yours I'm going to assume you're full of it.

Quid pro quo, don’t touch my tax breaks. White collar at its highest level.

Ireland's economy have had a rapid rise, and it's never been better, and it is all because of these "tax breaks" they've given to corporations. Even leftist Bono admits that.

I already read about the Netherland's energy shortage to power electric cars. You had an immediate shortage for which there is no immediate answer.

That's twice you have said that. What is your source for this?
[doublepost=1508015909][/doublepost]

You didn't prove anything nor has what you said happened, at least not yet. I don't believe you will have enough energy. That is all based on the Paris agreement and we just pulled the rug out from under all your plans. I don't think what you say will happen in the Netherlands. You'll have to buy energy from elsewhere or not close the coal fired plant.

Mark your calendar now since you've so far not proved any of your point, only your country's plans, which you do not have the capability to do at this point in time. Proving people wrong is not an insult. I'm sorry you take it that way.

Your reasoning really doesn't stack up there.

You say 'Proving people wrong is not an insult. I'm sorry you take it that way'. Implying that you are in the right, but then spend the rest of your post explaining that the person you're replying to can't prove their point because you don't think it will happen and it's in the future. Well, by that logic neither can you.

We know that Americans don't care for the environment and the planet. It's one of the reasons why the world is in such a horrible state - and why it''s getting worse every day. You just can't be bothered with taking responsibility.

America is a leader in many environmental causes both at home and abroad. We simply won't pay for Europe's mess and boondoggle anymore. Case in point, the Netherlands. They start restricting petrol cars, then realize they have to build more coal-fire plants to supply the electricity! HAHA! That's 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

The Paris accord was not about Global Warming. Even many of its supporters admitted it wouldn't have reduced any carbon emissions at all. The only thing it did succeed in attempting is shifting the monetary burden to the US taxpayers.
And we simply said no to paying a bill we do not owe. America is largely energy independent. Making us pay for your lack of energy independence is simply not something America will do. President Obama would have paid the bill for sure, but that's water under the bridge, and that tide isn't coming back You can blame America all you want, but real scientists know that it's China and Russia that are doing virtually nothing about the environment, along with India.

Living in the northeast United States, I know that we have some of the strictest environmental laws in our country and stricter than most foreign nations.

Any honest discussion of "tax breaks" would include, but usually doesn't, an explanation that the tax funds that the government is giving a "break" on, wouldn't exist if the company in question didn't invest. For example, Apple may be given an incentive/break to build a data center in a particular country, but if Apple didn't build that factory there would be zero funds from which to give a break. I'm not arguing all incentives make sense, but unfortunately, the majority of people here about a tax break, and assume the government is taking money out of the treasury to give to the company when that is almost never the case. Foxconn's recent investment in Wisconsin is a great example as critics are ignorantly pointing out that it is "costing" almost a hundred thousand dollars per job by the State to get the factory built when, in fact, the state is making money and creating thousands of jobs because the tax breaks are in the form of foregoing taxes that the state would never receive from Foxconn if Foxconn didn't build the factory, not from the State's general treasury of funds.

I wanted to go into that detail as well, but I did not want to start a debate with the "fair share" crowd who think government deserve a cut every time money is passed between entities and borders. In the case of Apple, they pay tons of taxes on employee taxes, sales taxes, customs taxes, and other taxes that one individual would not even comprehend. That's why they have to have teams of tax experts per country just to comply.