3 ms·
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 wh
by 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 agoI 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?