{devil's advocate}
If it was Ireland that gave the breaks, shouldn't it be Ireland on the hook for the taxes
{/devil's advocate}

Ireland incented a lot of tech companies like this, resulting in a ton of tech jobs. This has been going on since the '90s.

Cue Irexit in 3..2..1..

While the new strategy by the EU now is to go after this as a "unfair incentives", it's actually an obscure loophole in Irish law that Apple is able to exploit for fun and (lots of) profit. It's not like the Irish government gave them special treatment per se., but the EU lawyers feel that this is there best line of attack because what Irland are doing (by not closing the loophole) amounts to that. [Basically Apple are allowed to declare their company "headquarters" to be in Ireland when the building just has maybe a half dozen accountants if that. I doubt Tim Cook has visited even once.]

XregnaR On the other hand, their effective tax rate is 0.005 percent. So while they may be bringing in some jobs, and I seriously contend your "tons", they're not contributing to the Irish society in any other meaningful way.

lol Tim Cook is not amused.

They're going to cut off Europe's vital supply of hipsterism and angry birds?

There's always hope!

Seems to be mostly an appeal to emotion.

Why not? It's how they market their products.

Yeah I wouldn't be too worried.

"As our business has grown over the years, we have become the largest taxpayer in Ireland..."

I'd love to see the math on that, since the deal with Ireland gave Apple an effective tax rate of under 1%.

This, of course, also goes for any moron who whines that corporate tax in the U.S. is over 30% without noting all the loopholes, deductions, and myriad other forms of dodging tax which still isn't enough for these greed-heads.

They're a taxpayer in Ireland and they're also larger than any other taxpayer in Ireland. Thus, logically, they're the largest taxpayer in Ireland.

Just like that guy who weighed 1200 pounds and couldn't leave his house. He was the largest property owner in the US.

They are probably counting income taxes and/or other employee based taxes. Don't know about Ireland, but in the US companies pay property taxes, unemployment benefits, and half of social security. There is also the argument that an employee's income taxes are technically part from the paid wages.

Like all corporations, they will spin statistics anyway that makes them look good. I worked for a company that acquired a local rival and later bragged about how they created a thousand new jobs for the city. They came under fire when it was pointed out that they acquired a company with 5,000 employees of which 4,000 were laid off. They didn't create 1,000 new jobs, they erased 4,000.

1% of $200B is still considerable. Not enough, but considerable.

I'm not sure that $200B is all in Europe though, they have revenue streams in many countries.

Except the way that's arrived at being "lots of TAX!!!" is the same way apologists for the wealthy in America justify cutting taxes for the 1%.

"Oh, look at the poor man, he pays six hundred million dollars in taxes a year! Six hundred million!!! Cut his taxes!"
"Isn't his income reclassified as 'capital gains,' and due to that and a bunch of other loopholes most people can't use, he's taxed at under 15% while the working classes are at over 30%, not to mention payroll taxes that he doesn't--"
"SIX HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS! CUT HIS TAXES!!!"

Agreed, I was more trying to make the point that given the huge sums involved it is not inconceivable to think they are still the nations largest taxpayer, even with it being sub 1%.
But they absolutely should be paying more, or they should just be paying taxes in the countries where the goods are sold, and not agglomerating all EU profits into a fictional company near Cork.

A few years ago, I worked for a big consulting company who had their headquarters in Bermuda and then switched it to Ireland.

I wonder if they're implicated in this as well.