downunderman

3 ms·

1.
by downunderman 9y ago
How does having a company that contributes effectively zero to your country make that nation better off? As an example look at the similarities of clothes and shoes donations from the west to Africa with opening up to parasitic businesses.
2.
by downunderman 9y ago
Yes you are. Look I know you want to seen the big picture but that's not how it should work. If you spend money in country A that shouldn't give you the right to write of revenue in country B. From the perspective of country B you
3.
by downunderman 9y ago
I'm not sure how serious you are. It reminds me of this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 .
4.
by downunderman 9y ago
The business is effectively a parasite. No demand for local employment and no tax revenue from the businesses profits means everyone else has to pay for the same infrastructure the parasite gets for nothing. If anything the people of countr
5.
by downunderman 9y ago
I'm not against foreign companies operating where ever they want but tax comes as a cost of business. If a company won't contribute to a nation it whether through taxes or investment it has no right to be there. It's effectiv
6.
by downunderman 9y ago
But it wasn't sold for $0 in Spain. Its not right to be able to write off revenue from expenses of another country. Taxes are a cost of business. Again I don't get why it seems reasonable that country A gains at the expense of cou
7.
by downunderman 9y ago
It would be interesting to ponder where would companies choose to go if every nation harmonised their tax system globally. Removing all tax incentive.
8.
by downunderman 9y ago
As I asked in my reply above, why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue in country B? That isn't right.
9.
by downunderman 9y ago
See this is what I don't like about these kind of tech companies. They act like they're special and deserve special treatment. They aren't and they don't. A company is fully within their right to choose how it spends mon