The criticism of the Sacklers would carry more weight if any non-Jewish owned pharmaceutical companies involved in selling opiates were also criticised.
As it is, it's plainly just far right propaganda.
596 posts • joined 26 Apr 2019
"We need to move to a tax on revenue, not just for digital services but for everything."
ROFL. So all low-margin business should be abolished? Luxury goods only? Return to truly medieval inequality? Or alternatively negligible taxes on things only the rich buy? You're a nice chap.
"CGT only triggers when you liquidate assets, so you can't use that instead."
Why not? That is how we deal with growth rather than dividends. It's worked for many decades.
"LDS seems to be suggesting..."
A wealth tax, yes. As usual, it's a ridiculously terrible idea. We tax flows, not stocks in very nearly every case. (Let's ignore council tax bands. It's just a weird, weird system compared to everything else we do. Not terribly important in terms of taxing people with money, though.)
>> Because foreign people investing in our economy benefits us.
>It's not nearly that simple.
Yes, it's just that simple. Foreign direct investment raises average wages and low end wages. It is an increase in investment in productivity, and one that doesn't cost the recipient country anything. It is wholly good; end of story. (Obviously competition for investment opportunities isn't good for domestic investors' investments. But it's good for the economy as a whole. In other words, it increases the return to labour rather than capital. Was that what you intended to disparage?)
"It can be beneficial, but isn't automatically so - especially if that "investment" is of a form that means an increasing proportion of "our" funds are funnelled offshore. Trade complicates things significantly. Foreign investment into stuff we can export benefits us (as it effectively moves money into the country, despite some them moving out). Foreign investment that drives up imports though, isn't nearly as clear cut."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there's some meaning you didn't manage to put into words. I have literally no idea what you were trying to say there. I assume it's wrong, given how you started, but really I can't tell. I'm somewhat amused by the concept that people sending you money means 'your' funds being offshored. It's the exact opposite, obviously.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that exports are good. They aren't. The benefits of trade are imports, not exports. This has been well-known for over three centuries.
Please, if we're going to try and talk economics, can't you at least learn the basics? It's like discussing maths with someone who argues about whether addition is commutative.
"You're a US company, and you've recently set up a warehouse in the UK, and are making a mint shipping widgets around the country, and into the EU (or wherever)."
Yes, and you're paying property taxes, transport taxes, fuel taxes, and employment taxes. You want to argue for an increase in those, that's defensible - I have no opinion on the subject in general; a justifiable rate is, by definition, reasonable. But we're here discussing corporation tax because _it doesn't work_. So why bother? Tax business activities, but not business profits until they turn into income for someone.
Ultimately, I think you're basing your ideas on the notion that the tax system is supposed to be fair in some way or other. Lovely concept, but in fact taxes are raised wherever there is the least political problem in doing so, and the budget is based on what can be raised, rather than what needs to be raised.
"What about a store on a British high St, benefiting from British infrastructure but somehow all the products they sell out of that store are actually sold in Narnia and so the store needs to pay no tax, while their British rival next door is taxed to pay for it all ?"
Another straight-up conspiracy theory.
"Starbucks didn't pay profit tax because they were losing money on every cup having to buy $$$$ coffee beans from their Swiss subsidiary and pay Starbucks Brand Services (Bermuda) $$$$ for the rights to use the logo."
Conspiracy theory time again, huh?
That simply isn't true. Starbucks' in the UK was not profitable aside from licensing fees and international taxes. The coffee beans were literally bought at an open market price, in that many other companies bought from the same supplier. Licensing fees for the branding are a proportion of profits.
"there are plenty of companies that have a subsidiary in the UK that serve millions of customers, yet apparently make no profit at all. It kind of makes you wonder why they bother to maintain a subsidiary here when it apparently generates zero profit, doesn't it?"
This is mostly because the tax system is deliberately designed to encourage reinvestment for growth, because it's better to take less tax now and more in future. For years Amazon were reinvesting all their profits, and now they're huge and are starting to pay enormous amounts of tax.
There are also companies like Starbucks, where they've just got it wrong. Starbucks didn't pay profit tax because they were paying too much in rent in the UK. They established a big market presence here, are very prominent, but haven't actually made any money.
" A property tax on shares then?"
No, a capital gains tax. Something we already have.
"why in such situation a foreign shareholder should not pay nothing"
Because foreign people investing in our economy benefits us. We don't want to get less of it, we want to get more of it.
Foreign investment should not be taxed. This is absolutely standard orthodoxy in almost any type of economics - even the Marxist-pseudoeconomics babble agrees with this one.
"Why they should not pay their share of it too?"
Because there is no such thing as 'their share'. Either the shareholders are residents, and you can tax them on their earnings as you wish, or they aren't, and as we've established shouldn't be taxed.
People sending money to your country don't 'owe' you anything.
How about, companies don't pay tax, people do? Corporation tax used to be a convenient way of collecting tax from shareholders, back in the days of paper and adding machines. It isn't convenient any longer, so why bother?
If the shareholders are in your country, you can tax their income. If they aren't, then their investment is 'foreign direct investment', which is something we want as much of as possible, and therefore shouldn't be taxed.
But to people of a conspiratorial mindset, it's all a conspiracy by whoever they've picked as a proxy for 'the Jews'.
"And how much is depreciation costing you? For most people (and most people rarely keep a car longer than around 5 years), that's significantly more than the cost of the fuel."
Not judging by the average age of cars on the roads. Most people are buying cars that have already depreciated. A minority pay depreciation, and keep upgrading regularly enough to keep up the supply of depreciated cars.
If you look around, it's not hard to find cheap cars that actually appreciate. I've had a car that paid for tax, insurance, servicing, and fuel for the entire time I had it. Can't get cheaper than that :)
The Reg has a few writers who love these conspiracy theories. And it is a conspiracy theory, literally, because what it describes is an Adolph-lover's fantasy rather than anything with any basis in reality. Companies, by law and by definition, are not 'greedy'.
You know who is 'greedy', in this conspiracy theory, don't you? And what we're supposed to do with them.
You clearly know nothing about maintaining cars. Engines don't go wrong, as long as they get basic servicing. On older cars you might have to change a water pump or something, once in a blue moon. Electric cars still need similar servicing to the batteries, motors, etc, after a moderately long life.
Meanwhile, the normal service items are almost entirely connected to running gear, braking, steering, suspension, etc. You know, the stuff you still have on an electric car.
Electric cars simply do not save on maintenance, and suggesting as much is the preserve of people who don't know anything about cars.
So, Tesla fanboys it is.
You obviously haven't thought about what w mK actually represents. 3.7 or 15ish, doesn't matter, it's not milliwatts. The order of magnitude is more than sufficient to be vastly better than required. An increase doesn't mean you have better thermal transfer, it means you have more headroom - and even cheap past has plenty and enough headroom already.
Obviously OP was FUDing, but now I come to think of it, surely 'wallets' create a mountain of regulatory issues for app-stores? Apple and Google set up their own pay systems so they could meet those regs. The fines for accidentally facilitating money laundering are many orders of magnitude higher than the revenues from app stores, so I can't see them wanting to take much risk.
"Amanfrom has not mentioned Jewish bankers in any way - that connection is in your head."
I haven't mentioned them, and nor has he. You went straight there, though, proving me correct and you a full blown member of the far right.
I have no intention of legitimising your hatred by engaging with you, or anyone else from the Rapid Response Team. I'm just pointing out what you are, so no bystanders tumble down your rabbit hole by mistake.
"an interesting point about perpetual growth not necessarily being a wise path... that's not a hard-right opinion."
It isn't an interesting point unless you're a fan of Adolph. It is simply - literally - a nonsensical but key piece of far right propaganda. It sounds good to the useful idiots, but it's insane: is it better to do more with the same inputs by using them more cleverly, or to... Not do that?
As your second paragraph demonstrates, you're a fan of Adolph yourself, or one of their useful idiots. Money is not a conspiracy. Claiming it is, is a means to an end. That end is finishing the job so rudely interrupted in the 1940s.
"Bitcoin was meant to take the place of the banking system."
No, it's expressly designed to make sure it never can.
"some big current financial uncertainty issues (indefinate inflation, excluding most of the worlds population to banking)"
Far right conspiracy theories from a bitcoin loon? You don't say...
"In theory you can make clean synthetic fuel from green energy, but in practice the efficiency is horrible."
No worse than electric cars, overall. But in any case the efficiency is pretty much irrelevant, since we don't have any large scale transportable storage alternatives, and solar is cheap but in the wrong place.
Of course we're going to cover deserts with solar panels and make synthetic oil. It's a no-brainer. That we can continue using the existing infrastructure, instead of junking it and starting again, is another huge efficiency boost.
All lane running is fine, as long as you have the auto-detection equipment to instantly close the left lane when someone stops. I was genuinely shocked to find out that our so-called smart motorways don't necessarily have it installed. Without it, it's insanity.
With the technology sorted (and installed), you're not at significantly greater risk than with a hard shoulder. If that seems wrong to you, you're probably one of the vast majority who don't realise how unbelievably dangerous stopping on the hard shoulder is.
"Seems like the local investigators might have been a bit quick to come to a conclusion that the driver's seat was unoccupied at the moment of impact."
As I pointed out at the time, they weren't investigators, they were small-town cops/first-responders. They came up with their usual sensational bollocks. People have been wrongly jailed for years over other cases of the same thing, where occupants of a crashed vehicle were thrown from their seats.
What on earth are you babbling about? The NTSB is notorious for not liking to blame pilots. As with the 737-MAX, where despite the hype about systems and sensors, the fact is that the same issue happened many times, and only twice were the pilots - the particularly poorly paid and inexperienced pilots, in those cases - unable to correct it.
The simple truth is that whilst MCAS wasn't working properly, in every case where the pilots were up to the standard we would expect from airlines, it didn't cause a crash.
I would feel much safer flying if I thought that issue was being addressed as thoroughly as the MCAS issues.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021