Ideonek

joined 2 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

It's a one about mental and intellectual development disability.

Edit: Before you replay with a deliberately misconstrued guess, please consider that this would still be making a slur-based joke at the possible expense of people with disabilities. It may not be worth those upvotes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I would argue "rule of law" is not relevant to American oligarchs.

I agree. But it's relevant to me.

I want my government to work within the rules. I don't want my government to be able to tax people on "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es.

I'm not saying that taxes can't be improvement. But taxing international companies is extremely complex problem. No one found completely bulletproof solution yet, and it's almost impossible to do unilaterally without multiple sides collaborating. Everytime someone say "the should just..." it's a gross oversimplification that present reality where solution is obvious and everyone not implementing it gave bad will or lack competency or gut.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I'm thinking "rule of law". Is that their terms? You can't arbitrary tax someone with "I know how much you REALLY earned" alone.

And when you quantify it they will beat it in your own game.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (7 children)

That's not unreasonable. That's a law-suit. They will get back all this money with surplus.

Imagine that you have a company A. And you legitimately licens something from 3rd party company B. That's your cost.

And you license something else from company C... that's your profit some how?

On paper your relationship with company B and C is identical. There is nothing tangible linking you to company C more than B.

And if you manage to find something, they will shift the structure and change it.

You probably pay higher taxes than some of those companies.

Pirates. Enemies of the human kind.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Company A is in Poland. You regulate law in Poland. Company B is in USA. You don't regulate a law in USA.

You want to tax company A, based on company B report, that was created for 3rd party government?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (12 children)

If only tax-evasion was so easily solved. The are not shy of restructuring completely just to fit into any gap that law created. On paper "BigBadCorpo US" and "BigBadCorpo Irealand" could be two completely separate entities, with BBCI turning zero to no profits becouse it license brand from BBCUS.

You would think that Worner Bross is a movie making company. It's not. On paper it's a company that lend very overprices movie equipment. To shell companies created solely for the purpose of creating one movie...

Taxes are hard and people who employ literal armies of layers have the edge over slow law making.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, becouse quality girls famously hate guys with sense of humor.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (14 children)

I think that surprising amount of them are already located in Ireland for that and other tax related possibilities. Giant corporations are basically pirates sailing on lawless waters.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Why? It's not like shortage of bourbon, is much more than inconvenience.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

I'm just letting you know that your post reads a little off. I understand that I have only the fraction of information and I'm not clear on all the context. But I only have what you provided.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You also, jumped to calling people sheeps very quickly.

view more: ‹ prev next ›