7 ms·
The solution is to enforce the laws we have, not feign powerlessness every time some crackerjack claims to have identified a profitable loophole.
by unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
The solution is to enforce the laws we have, not feign powerlessness every time some crackerjack claims to have identified a profitable loophole.
- dclowd9901 3y agoAbsolutely. The courts are supposed to be the last vestige of common sense. It’s judges dropping the ball here by letting high power lawyers steamroll their courtrooms with this nonsense.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago> It’s judges dropping the ball here by letting high power lawyers steamroll their courtrooms with this nonsense. See also: [0], sometimes it may not be judges "dropping the ball" but rather playing the ball for their own benefits. However we spin it, corruption in the US is a larger problem than we like to pretend it is. [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-cr...
- runesofdoom 3y agoWe (Americans) have normalized, often explicitly legalized, quite a lot of corrupt behavior in various positions of power.[1] We then look at how comparatively little illegal corruption there is, and the official line is that everything is fine, nothing to see here. 1. Officials failing to accurately provide financial disclosures result in a consequence of having to fill it out again. Members of Congress can legally practice insider trading, and often do. And even when there's no revolving door, post-facto bribes in the form of cushy sinecures are accepted. Money as protected speech. Etc.
- thfuran 3y agoI kind of think that everything is pretty much inevitably fucked once it becomes tacitly accepted that all politicians are liars.
- sshine 3y ago> It’s judges dropping the ball here It's also a work culture. (What can you generally expect from an employer?) I've never worked in the US. But it sounds like workers are not protected. The American Dream is a story of entrepreneurship, not of employment.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- taeric 3y agoI'd also be happy with better base level care for everyone. Would start requiring more taxes on corporations, largely because that is where the money is siphoning to. But would be far more efficient than the current efforts we do where every time a new rule is made, bypasses are found.
- snoman 3y agoAs long as the bills proposing tax increases also contain where the tax money is going to be allocated, I'd be all for it. America's track record for directing tax money towards the public good, is poor.
- taeric 3y agoNobody has a track record of using money well. Basically period. At best, you can find some examples that were short lived, but by and large, building wealth turns to either wasting it, or hoarding it. With that framing, I honestly don't like "as long as we tightly control where it is spent" arguments. They all beg the question that we know where money should be spent. Where history is a great guide that, no, we didn't. We have examples to look to, to be sure. Some decent guidelines, as it were. But they are often last year's guidelines, and that year came and went. So, I'm game to "keep our eyes open" as we increase allocation. But, by and large, I think insisting on winning bets is a fools errand that will likely cause more problems than it solves.
- yojo 3y agoNot sure why you’re getting downvoted. I disagree with the idea that everything be pre-allocated, but you make the point in a civil way. Earmarking everything is almost impossible to do right. Tax revenue streams go up or down from forces outside the legislature’s control. If there’s a bumper crop of corporate receipts, the right move might be to save them in a rainy day general fund for disasters, or when times are lean, etc. Put another way, if we can’t seem to spend money well doing it in an annual budgeting process, I don’t know how we will do any better trying to do the same thing years in advance when the tax is passed.
- themagician 3y agoOften what happens is delay, delay, delay, appeal, delay… and then you are “too big to fail” and everyone has to “think of all the jobs that will be lost”.
- deelowe 3y agoThis is why the US uses the common law system. Laws are written and the courts then interpret them. The courts should be telling these yahoos that these actions are against the intent of the law.
- AlbertCory 3y ago> courts then interpret them. correct. They interpret what the law says, not what it "intends." If the legislators really wanted it to say something else, they should have written it that way.
- deelowe 3y agoI think that's splitting hairs a bit. Laws are written fairly broadly all the time and it's left up to the courts to determine the specifics.
- AlbertCory 3y agoPatent claims are also written broadly, deliberately by the lawyers. There's a whole part of every trial where "claim construction" takes place, and I personally helped with many of those briefs when in Google Legal. The briefs never argue "what the inventor intended." They argue about what the claims and the spec says and what those words mean. That can, indeed, leave room for argument, and that's why both sides write briefs. "Courts interpreting laws" are the same way -- what legislators thought they were voting for is irrelevant, let alone what they would think today. That's what "rule of law" means: a citizen can determine what's legal and what isn't.
- deelowe 3y agoNot trying to be rude here, but I highly recommend you do a little more research on the common law system and how it works. At it's core, common law states that laws are interpreted over time and these interpretations become the official law of the land. There is no requirement that every conceivable form of infraction be enumerated within the law itself. Patents are something else entirely and not relevant to this discussion.
- romafirst3 3y agoCompletely. There are lots of laws already on the books but there is nobody actually enforcing them. Everyone from Uber to door dash to Amazon are profitably evading their responsibilities to their employees by miss categorizing them as contractors. This is bad for the employees, bad for society and bad for competitor companies who are playing by the rules. The solution is fairly obvious. Invest in bodies to proactively enforce the laws we already have.
- stale2002 3y agoThis stuff follows the law though. Its not illegal, not even close. Not even sure how you would go about making it illegal. What, paying money to another company is illegal? You can't contract out work? It doesn't make any sense.
- ROTMetro 3y agoSimple. If your contracted out work employs more than XYZ number of employees then those contractors must provide benefits/meet employment requirements/etc on the same level as a company with the (aggregate of all contract providers headcount for the contracted service type) employee headcount.
- scoofy 3y agoI think the real issue is the political problem that most people like the exploitation that is happening. When ride-sharing laws were changed in California to protect hired drivers, the counter ballot initiative passed easily.
- ffhhttt 3y agoOr maybe because proposition didn’t made a whole lot of sense and wouldn’t have improved the situation that drivers that much on average.