3 ms·

It's downright ridiculous to equate expressions of dissatisfaction with the current state of tax law (allowing wealthy entities to exploit all sorts of loophole

It's downright ridiculous to equate expressions of dissatisfaction with the current state of tax law (allowing wealthy entities to exploit all sorts of loopholes clearly not in the spirit of paying your taxes) with some straw-man "complaining" about such activity despite the fact that these entities are probably behaving mostly within the bounds of the law "just like everybody else". Guess what: laws change, and some people think these laws should be changed so that these entities can no longer dodge the tax burden one might naively expect them to face if no loopholes existed. That's what people are talking about when these topics come up. Reducing that to "complain about [...] perfectly legal" is either disingenuous or ignorant on your part.

ChrisLomont 7y ago
The parent didn’t create a straw man; you did. The article is not criticizing the laws. The article is criticizing Activision for following the law, exactly what the parent stated. Maybe you read a different article focused on the law, not a single actor?
- caconym_ 7y ago
  I am reading the "Conclusions and recommendations" section and I am not seeing any such criticism of "Activision for following the law". Rather, I am seeing statements like this one: > The case of Activision Blizzard is just another example demonstrating the need for governments to introduce more effective measures to deal with royalty-based tax avoidance schemes. In the UK this means changing legislation to make sure that royalty payments made to companies in jurisdictions where the UK has a tax treaty are included in the charge to income tax. That is not a criticism of Activision Blizzard. It is a straightforward statement of the fact that "more effective measures [are needed] to deal with royalty-based tax avoidance schemes". So, I don't really see what you're talking about. Let's try this: do you agree that they are "using offshore tax havens to reduce their tax burden"? If so, would you further agree that this is a "tax avoidance scheme"? Why or why not?

ChrisLomont 7y ago

The parent didn’t create a straw man; you did. The article is not criticizing the laws. The article is criticizing Activision for following the law, exactly what the parent stated. Maybe you read a different article focused on the law, not a single actor?

caconym_ 7y ago
I am reading the "Conclusions and recommendations" section and I am not seeing any such criticism of "Activision for following the law". Rather, I am seeing statements like this one: > The case of Activision Blizzard is just another example demonstrating the need for governments to introduce more effective measures to deal with royalty-based tax avoidance schemes. In the UK this means changing legislation to make sure that royalty payments made to companies in jurisdictions where the UK has a tax treaty are included in the charge to income tax. That is not a criticism of Activision Blizzard. It is a straightforward statement of the fact that "more effective measures [are needed] to deal with royalty-based tax avoidance schemes". So, I don't really see what you're talking about. Let's try this: do you agree that they are "using offshore tax havens to reduce their tax burden"? If so, would you further agree that this is a "tax avoidance scheme"? Why or why not?