World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I would argue "rule of law" is not relevant to American oligarchs. There is no difference between say a russian oligarch and an American oligarch with the exception that American oligarchs have a stronger preference for theatrics/PR and copytext that references terms like "freedom" and "rule of law" and "personal responsibility". Russian oligarchs just don't bother because paradoxically they are more honest than American oligarchs.
It's not a matter of knowing how much they REALLY earned. It's about telling them that they will pay this much and if they don't, they are welcome to go along with lawsuits or whatever they feel like.
They can make a statement in the UN about discrimination against the most discriminated group in the world; freedom loving American billionaires. Tell them they can get Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift and Snoop Dog to perform a modern supergroup track as a legacy to the 40th year anniversary of We are the World called "We are Silicon Valley" (or "We are Wall Street").
Just warn them that if "We are Silicon Valley" doesn't change the course of human history (let alone become #1 in every single country in the world), things might not work out for them as they would like.
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.
How is it a strongly held opinion and "everyone knows"? Various tax avoidance schemes are extremely well documented both in general media reporting, NGO reporting and even academia. Are you saying that even something as simple as the wikipedia article on the Dutch Sandwich was just made up on the spot? Did the Wikipedia editors find a local hardcore alcoholic that is known for making up crazy stories and decided to document one of his claimed escapades where he got wasted with a recently divorced senior financial accounting executive who told him about the dutch sandwich?
You say "rule of law" is relevant to you. What does this mean? Can you define this specifically.
You are acting somewhat high and mighty on this topic (just a little bit, although I will admit such a rhetorical approach is fair considering the topic), but on what basis should one take your alleged commitment to "rule of law" at face value?
What you are saying is that we must tolerate corporate criminality no matter what. We are not allowed to challenge their methods and any and all information on corporate tax avoidance is inherently hearsay.
I will admit I am being a little bit hyperbolic, but how else should once interpret "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es?
What's the gross oversimplification? Perhaps the gross oversimplification is your "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es? Have you thought about that?
Ok. Let's take a step back
You have companies in Poland. Let's call them A, B and C.
And we have company D in USA.
One of those A,B,C is a "child" of company D. Other two simply do business with company D.
Company D in they finacial statmet - that is a 3rd party statment that you have no rights to audit in any way, in some cases it want even be avaible to you - claim that they earned $10M from each A, B and C. (This is the "hearsay" becouse it's an information form outside your bouble of control. You have no way of verifying it. US gov have, but they are 3rd party to you and company A, B and C)
A, B, and C each in their tax reports created for you claim that those $10M is their cost.
In case of one you say "no, it's not your cost, it's your profit".
What specific difference between A, B, C makes you say that? One is similarly named to D? It won't be, by next tax year. All all registered in Poland. All have polish board. All spand money at company D. What's the difference? What parameter would you choose to tax one of those but not the other?
Let's go with what you are saying, even though you didn't address a single point that I mentioned. Define what you mean by "rule of law", be clear and specific, don't hide behind polemics! What is your definition of rule of law? You brought it up, define it. I never acted high and mighty and brought up "rule of law". I said the Americans need a taste of their medicine.
Back to your example.
You have 3 polish companies that interact with a US corp. One is the actual subsidiary and two other are clients.
You're saying you can audit ABC, but you can't figure out which one is the subsidiary and which ones are clients? Are you serious? I have zero professional experience in accounting and even I would be able to tell the difference between a client and subsidiary if I had access to their internal accounts (P&L, balance sheet, cash flow statement over multiple quarters).
I am not an expert on tax scamming methods, but I would argue I may have more knowledge than the average person (or not).
Why would Corp D even use the model you describe? Why would they try and hide within Polish ABC? Why not just openly say C is our subsidiary, make it a cost centre and redirect the actual money to Company E in Luxembourg or Isle of Mann. Subsidiary C always fails to make any profit. Top American brand D that everyone in the world knows, has a poor subsidiary C in Poland that is never able to make a profit. The crocodiles are crying about poor Polish subsidiary C. You ask a crocodile about subsidiary C and the crocodile says "it is such a gross oversimplification that subsidiary C's losses are a tax scam. We are trying to develop professional experience in Poland via subsidiary C. Don't you believe in the rule of law?"
This is where your lack of imagination and inability to think beyond rules set by American oligarchs comes into play.
Let's say we made a thought experiment and assumed your ABC model is viable (it is not viable because the profits will be re-directed to a tax shelter jurisdiction and Company D won't bother with local-only schemes because they are not efficient). Nevertheless, you do have a way of verifying the total sales by company D in Poland. This applies to both B2C (shipments into channel, POS data) and B2B sales (VAT calculations, government stats agency research).
What you are arguing is nothing can change, nothing should change and we should always kiss the feet of the oligarchs that run company D.
I am saying the arguments by the army of lawyers are bullshit and if you really want to, you can make their jobs redundant. It's all about gumption and willingness to rock the boat.