4 ms·

How come tax loopholes aren't as scrutinized? Mandatory age verification online is a blight imho. It should be outlawed.

by chii 5mo ago

stirkac 5mo ago
How can you define a tax loophole then? Since there isn't a thing you can do called a "Tax loophole", but rather a collection of otherwise totally legitimate practices, just used as an optimization, they are impossible to define, and as such, be scrutinized. It's a neverending whack-a-mole...
jraby3 5mo ago
Why? Isn't your age verified when you renew your drivers license? Purchase something on Amazon? When I was a kid, child programming and commercials were heavily scrutinized. Now any kid can access porn, violence, and scams on the internet. That's a blight. Not age verification.
- oneshtein 5mo ago
  > Now any kid can access porn, violence, and scams on the internet. Before Internet they used paper.
  - eloisant 5mo ago
    The ease of access, quantity and diversity of internet porn is in no common measure with magazines that existed in the 20th century.
  - bigstrat2003 5mo ago
    Before the Internet you had to work fairly hard to get a Playboy centerfold where the model just had her breasts out. Now you can effortlessly find endless depictions of anything, including the most depraved sex acts you can possibly imagine. The ease of access and breadth of content available to kids today makes it qualitatively different than when we were kids. That does not, of course, mean that age verification laws are the appropriate solution. You could even argue that it's not a problem that kids have access to all this stuff (though I don't think I would agree with that). But you can't just hand wave it away by saying "we looked at porn on paper when we were kids". The situations are not at all the same.
- zeroonetwothree 5mo ago
  I don’t understand, did broadcast TV or cable do age verification? Surely kids could watch content that was for adults very easily.
  - xg15 5mo ago
    Broadcast TV had a very simple solution to this problem: Only air the not-for-kids stuff at times of the day when the kids are already asleep, i.e. late in the evening or at night. It was still the job of the parents to set the bed times etc, but at least this was something the parents could actually control. And for pay-per-view stations with actual heavily violent or pornographic content: Yes, they were absolutely age-gated, usually via a PIN.
    - chii 5mo ago
      and who sets that pin? It's the parents, not the cable company.
      - xg15 5mo ago
        This is correct. I think the difference is that the PIN actually is an effective tool that parents can use to keep their kids from watching this stuff. It's also default-deny as the PIN is pre-set, and the parents would have to make a conscious efforts to allow viewing. Im contrast, the internet is default-permit: Everyone can access everything, unless the device is specifically set up to block it. Setting up such a block has the risk of causing massive drama with your kids, and they fill probably quickly find ways to circumvent it anyway. This is why I find the "it's the parent's responsibility" calls so hypocritical: The whole idea behind the internet is to make it as hard as possible to block things. But suddenly we expect the parents to do exactly that? How? (All that independent of the point that the current push for age verification really seems like a disguised push for control. But that doesn't mean there isn't a real problem. Both things can be true at the same time)
- tmjwid 5mo ago
  As a kid, you never found a stack of porno magazines in the woods did you?
- kaliqt 5mo ago
  That’s the job of parents. No exceptions. OP is right, it needs to be outlawed.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- pibaker 5mo ago
  And yet juvenile crime rate is down. Bullying is down. Teenage pregnancy is way down. Even underage smoking and drinking is down. Maybe porn and violence is making today's teenager behave better than those 30 years ago after all!
vkou 5mo ago
What makes you think they aren't? The Double-Irish-Dutch-Sandwich in particular was cracked down on.
- spwa4 5mo ago
  To be replaced by the Irish tax department making direct deals that are essentially the same. But ONLY for specific companies (principle: big multinationals don't pay tax at all, local companies get big tax raises. Irish companies are dying, multinationals are moving to Ireland) https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ireland/corporate/tax-credits-and-incentives https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ireland/corporate/tax-credits-a... In case anyone wonders: this means the FANG companies don't pay tax in Ireland if they hire enough people in Ireland, which has famously high income tax. It is, in other words, effectively a massive tax increase on the employees while actually reducing total tax income in the EU compared to the "double dutch sandwich". Note that Ireland signed at least 2 international treaties that they weren't going to do this (OECD minimum tax treaty, EU tax treaty). Of course, there are no consequences to this. The response to is that EU is exploring company-tax-per-transaction which is so incredibly bad in the massive administrative burden it will generate. It's not final, but it will mean that for every transaction done companies will have to keep (PER transaction) pieces (plural) of evidence for what country they happened in. Every single transaction. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/projects-and-activities/fiscal-policy-analysis/corporate-taxation_en https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/projects-and-acti...
  - nickff 5mo ago
    Lots of governments give tax exemptions to selected industries (film comes to mind) or even companies (Foxconn/TSMC); I don’t support this behavior, but I don’t see what makes Ireland special in this regard.
    - xg15 5mo ago
      Well, that was the original question of the thread: > How come tax loopholes aren't as scrutinized?
reddalo 5mo ago
I agree, age verification on the web should 100% banned. Parents should learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead.
- eloisant 5mo ago
  Governement should force companies to give parental controls tools. Gaming companies like Nintendo and Steam do that, I can create a kid account with parental controls. Social media companies (e.g. Meta, Snap) are the first that should provide that but they don't.
- otabdeveloper4 5mo ago
  So you're implying alcohol and cigarettes should be sold to children? (Not to mention all the other consent age laws.) That said, VPN is a national security issue, children are only a pretext.
  - hnlmorg 5mo ago
    Children have always found ways to access age restricted consumables. Whether that was porno mags, alcohol or cigarettes. They’d just get an older sibling, or stranger to buy it. Or they’d have a fake ID. Or they’d just steal it from a family member. But you know which kids did this the least? It was the ones where their parents / guardians took their responsibilities as a guardian properly.
    - palata 5mo ago
      > Children have always found ways to access age restricted consumables Doesn't mean that it's equivalent to giving them free access to those consumables. > But you know which kids did this the least? Source?
      - hnlmorg 5mo ago
        > Doesn't mean that it's equivalent to giving them free access to those consumables. Why do people on HN always need to look at things as a Boolean state? It’s entirely reasonable to have some preventative measures but acknowledging that there are ways to circumvent them and accept that as a reasonable conclusion. Things don’t need to be “all or nothing” ;) > Source? I grew up pre-WWW. Literally lived and breathed the points I’m making. But don’t just take my word on this. Ask anyone of a certain age and they’ll tell you the same: they either tried cigarettes or knew lots of kids in school who smoked under the age of 16. They had access to alcohol under the age of 18. And pornographic content was easy to get hold of under the age of 18. The age at which they gained access and the frequency of the usage depended greatly on their upbringing.
loeg 5mo ago
A tax "loophole" is just a deliberate policy you happen to disagree with.

How come tax loopholes aren't as scrutinized? Mandatory age verification online is a blight imho. It should be outlawed.

by chii 5mo ago

How come tax loopholes aren't as scrutinized? Mandatory age verification online is a blight imho. It should be outlawed.

stirkac 5mo ago

How can you define a tax loophole then? Since there isn't a thing you can do called a "Tax loophole", but rather a collection of otherwise totally legitimate practices, just used as an optimization, they are impossible to define, and as such, be scrutinized. It's a neverending whack-a-mole...

jraby3 5mo ago

Why? Isn't your age verified when you renew your drivers license? Purchase something on Amazon? When I was a kid, child programming and commercials were heavily scrutinized. Now any kid can access porn, violence, and scams on the internet. That's a blight. Not age verification.

oneshtein 5mo ago
> Now any kid can access porn, violence, and scams on the internet. Before Internet they used paper.
- eloisant 5mo ago
  The ease of access, quantity and diversity of internet porn is in no common measure with magazines that existed in the 20th century.
- bigstrat2003 5mo ago
  Before the Internet you had to work fairly hard to get a Playboy centerfold where the model just had her breasts out. Now you can effortlessly find endless depictions of anything, including the most depraved sex acts you can possibly imagine. The ease of access and breadth of content available to kids today makes it qualitatively different than when we were kids. That does not, of course, mean that age verification laws are the appropriate solution. You could even argue that it's not a problem that kids have access to all this stuff (though I don't think I would agree with that). But you can't just hand wave it away by saying "we looked at porn on paper when we were kids". The situations are not at all the same.
zeroonetwothree 5mo ago
I don’t understand, did broadcast TV or cable do age verification? Surely kids could watch content that was for adults very easily.
- xg15 5mo ago
  Broadcast TV had a very simple solution to this problem: Only air the not-for-kids stuff at times of the day when the kids are already asleep, i.e. late in the evening or at night. It was still the job of the parents to set the bed times etc, but at least this was something the parents could actually control. And for pay-per-view stations with actual heavily violent or pornographic content: Yes, they were absolutely age-gated, usually via a PIN.
  - chii 5mo ago
    and who sets that pin? It's the parents, not the cable company.
    - xg15 5mo ago
      This is correct. I think the difference is that the PIN actually is an effective tool that parents can use to keep their kids from watching this stuff. It's also default-deny as the PIN is pre-set, and the parents would have to make a conscious efforts to allow viewing. Im contrast, the internet is default-permit: Everyone can access everything, unless the device is specifically set up to block it. Setting up such a block has the risk of causing massive drama with your kids, and they fill probably quickly find ways to circumvent it anyway. This is why I find the "it's the parent's responsibility" calls so hypocritical: The whole idea behind the internet is to make it as hard as possible to block things. But suddenly we expect the parents to do exactly that? How? (All that independent of the point that the current push for age verification really seems like a disguised push for control. But that doesn't mean there isn't a real problem. Both things can be true at the same time)
tmjwid 5mo ago
As a kid, you never found a stack of porno magazines in the woods did you?
kaliqt 5mo ago
That’s the job of parents. No exceptions. OP is right, it needs to be outlawed.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
pibaker 5mo ago
And yet juvenile crime rate is down. Bullying is down. Teenage pregnancy is way down. Even underage smoking and drinking is down. Maybe porn and violence is making today's teenager behave better than those 30 years ago after all!

vkou 5mo ago

What makes you think they aren't? The Double-Irish-Dutch-Sandwich in particular was cracked down on.

spwa4 5mo ago
To be replaced by the Irish tax department making direct deals that are essentially the same. But ONLY for specific companies (principle: big multinationals don't pay tax at all, local companies get big tax raises. Irish companies are dying, multinationals are moving to Ireland) https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ireland/corporate/tax-credits-and-incentives https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ireland/corporate/tax-credits-a... In case anyone wonders: this means the FANG companies don't pay tax in Ireland if they hire enough people in Ireland, which has famously high income tax. It is, in other words, effectively a massive tax increase on the employees while actually reducing total tax income in the EU compared to the "double dutch sandwich". Note that Ireland signed at least 2 international treaties that they weren't going to do this (OECD minimum tax treaty, EU tax treaty). Of course, there are no consequences to this. The response to is that EU is exploring company-tax-per-transaction which is so incredibly bad in the massive administrative burden it will generate. It's not final, but it will mean that for every transaction done companies will have to keep (PER transaction) pieces (plural) of evidence for what country they happened in. Every single transaction. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/projects-and-activities/fiscal-policy-analysis/corporate-taxation_en https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/projects-and-acti...
- nickff 5mo ago
  Lots of governments give tax exemptions to selected industries (film comes to mind) or even companies (Foxconn/TSMC); I don’t support this behavior, but I don’t see what makes Ireland special in this regard.
  - xg15 5mo ago
    Well, that was the original question of the thread: > How come tax loopholes aren't as scrutinized?

reddalo 5mo ago

I agree, age verification on the web should 100% banned. Parents should learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead.

eloisant 5mo ago
Governement should force companies to give parental controls tools. Gaming companies like Nintendo and Steam do that, I can create a kid account with parental controls. Social media companies (e.g. Meta, Snap) are the first that should provide that but they don't.
otabdeveloper4 5mo ago
So you're implying alcohol and cigarettes should be sold to children? (Not to mention all the other consent age laws.) That said, VPN is a national security issue, children are only a pretext.
- hnlmorg 5mo ago
  Children have always found ways to access age restricted consumables. Whether that was porno mags, alcohol or cigarettes. They’d just get an older sibling, or stranger to buy it. Or they’d have a fake ID. Or they’d just steal it from a family member. But you know which kids did this the least? It was the ones where their parents / guardians took their responsibilities as a guardian properly.
  - palata 5mo ago
    > Children have always found ways to access age restricted consumables Doesn't mean that it's equivalent to giving them free access to those consumables. > But you know which kids did this the least? Source?
    - hnlmorg 5mo ago
      > Doesn't mean that it's equivalent to giving them free access to those consumables. Why do people on HN always need to look at things as a Boolean state? It’s entirely reasonable to have some preventative measures but acknowledging that there are ways to circumvent them and accept that as a reasonable conclusion. Things don’t need to be “all or nothing” ;) > Source? I grew up pre-WWW. Literally lived and breathed the points I’m making. But don’t just take my word on this. Ask anyone of a certain age and they’ll tell you the same: they either tried cigarettes or knew lots of kids in school who smoked under the age of 16. They had access to alcohol under the age of 18. And pornographic content was easy to get hold of under the age of 18. The age at which they gained access and the frequency of the usage depended greatly on their upbringing.

loeg 5mo ago

A tax "loophole" is just a deliberate policy you happen to disagree with.