4 ms·
This business-friendly, or rather business-subservient attitude is puzzling to me. You do know that we have the right to complain about whatever we want in dem
by blub 7y ago
This business-friendly, or rather business-subservient attitude is puzzling to me.
You do know that we have the right to complain about whatever we want in democracies, and this can be one of the paths that change is enacted through, I assume. So why exactly are you trying to censor those that complain, because it makes you feel uncomfortable?
We will criticize tax evasion and even lawful-evil tax avoidance. You will have to live with it. If free speech becomes unbearable, I'm afraid the only solution right now is moving to North Korea, China or any of those countries where it's not tolerated.
- jnwatson 7y agoDisagreement and censorship are two different things. The argument is "don't hate the player, hate the game". Complaining about the companies is wrongheaded is likely not going to get anywhere. Targeting the tax system that got here, however, has at least a remote chance of affecting change.
- blub 7y agoExcept the parent post was not "disagreeing", they were basically shaming those that criticize Activision by calling them ridiculous. Your and their argument is also incorrect. It's perfectly fine to dislike the player, because the player will be motivated to be less of a player and more of a good corporate citizen if they see that everyone dislikes them for their action. The tax system is immensely complex, laws are slow to pass and change. It is faced with smart adversaries which try to use the tiniest loopholes to get an advantage, while regular Joe has to pay their taxes and they're condemned immediately when they try anything funny with their taxes (which they can't anyway, because they can't afford it). This argument that the players are innocent and should not be criticized is either naive or malicious.
- FDSGSG 7y agoI operate a small business with 3 employees, I'm certainly incentivised to fend for us. jnwatson worded my actual arguments better than I would.
- blub 7y agoYou're not fending for a small business with 3 employees, which anyway, let's be serious can't afford any fancy tax shenanigans, you're fending for a big business with several thousand employees. This company had a record revenue year and yet they decided to cut 800 jobs.
- FDSGSG 7y ago> which anyway, let's be serious can't afford any fancy tax shenanigans Dunno, I feel that as a small business it is much easier for us to minimize our tax burden than it would be for a larger business. Much easier for 4 friends working together to relocate than it is for a big business with thousands of employees. We've got far more tools at our disposal.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Fnoord 7y agoWasn't there a complete town in UK who went to offshore all of their assets? A quick search delivered me this source [1]. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town-moves-offshore-to-avoid-tax-on-local-business-a6728971.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town...
- emiliobumachar 7y agoYou are, of course, in your right. It just won't have any effect. Gp is probably on your side in wanting this sort of thing over, and just trying to redirect your energy towards a legislative solution. A legislative solution would be hard, but a moral solution enforced by shame is borderline impossible. There are too many corporations, if we damage the brand of one once a month it's still a risk worth ignoring.