Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Straw man argument (fantasy argument) (Score 1) 307

If socialism is going to work, it must be built atop a free market.

Entirely wrong, that is exactly the opposite of reality, the exact opposite of what works.

Socialism works quite a lot better if it tolerates well-regulated markets in luxuries, non-essential goods and services....as long as they don't make life worse for everyone and aren't corrosive to society, human well-being, or the environment.

You can't patch up laissez-faire capitalism by layering a few welfare programs on top, we've got decades of evidence proving that. They're inherently just band-aids, not solutions, because the solution is antithetical to capitalism.

By contrast, we've got decades worth of experience in northern europe and (in, more limited form, many other places around the world) showing that democratic socialism with well-regulated markets alongside DOES work extremely well...at least, it does until the international finance industry (aka Wall Street, american business) gets big and powerful enough to fuck it up.

Also, there's no such thing as a free market. It's a fictional ideal, a thought experiment, not a reality (and never has been)...and, without regulations preventing it, markets always tend towards monopoly capture.

a rising tide lifts all boats;

You're quoting trickle-down bullshit? and you somehow expect to be taken seriously?

Comment Re:Renters won't use it if doesn't offer them valu (Score 2) 307

Renters will only use this new platform if it provides them done benefit, some value. If it doesn't, renters will continue to use other existing services that do create some value for them.

You're ignoring network effects, which is the reason why facebook is dominant and will remain so for at least the foreseeable future.

The choice does not like with the renter, it lies with the landlord. As soon as a significant percentage of landlords list their properties on this site, renters will have no choice but to use it, no matter what the terms of service are. This will entice even more landlords to list their properties here (because that's where all the tenants are, and they'll get sucked in to a bidding war just like on ebay), forcing even more tenants to have to sign up if they want somewhere to live.

That's the business model of this company: to exploit network effects to bootstrap themselves into a monopoly, and then enjoy the benefits of economic rent (aka unearned income) ever after.

Comment Re: Anyone else remember when the Internet (Score 1) 307

Easily solved by simply NOT having punitive exit clauses. They're not mandatory, there's no law requiring a landlord to be a vindictive cunt to tenants. It's even (gasp!) legal to have explicitly fair and reasonable exit clauses.

That doesn't blame the government for everything that's wrong with the world, so doesn't fit with the libertarian mantra "biznis gud, gubmint bad" but it's a fact.

Comment Re:Anyone else remember when the Internet (Score 2) 307

This is not human nature, this is American business ethics (an oxymoron but, in short, "fuck you, fuck everyone")...which also infests American culture. The internet was working just fine until corporations got involved, until they turned it into just another place to do business and exploit people.

The fact that you think it's human nature is a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome.

Comment Re:So now we need warning labels on jobs??? (Score 1) 476

He's a Libertarian(*). Libertarians believe that coercion only comes at the point of a gun or other direct violence. They don't see exploiting people by saying "work for fuck all or starve/watch your children starve to death" as being anything even remotely similar to coercion. They believe that it's a "choice", freely entered into. They don't even see it as coercion when it's completely fucking obvious that the conditions enabling that exploitation have been deliberately engineered and maintained.

that's because they're fucking stupid selfish cunts.

(*) American-style Libertarianism. The word originally meant socialist, but was stolen by Rand-lovers, anarcho-capitalists ("regulations are evil!!!") and property worshippers suckered into believing that whatever is good for business and corporations is good for freedom, even as they're being driven into slavery by those corporations. Most of them are just deluded losers holding onto the dream that one day they'll be the one holding the whip. The word is tainted now, so non-american libertarians refer to themselves as libertarian socialists or left-libertarians.

Comment Re: It's not about morality, it's about the law (Score 1) 448

A few words of advice for you: to get away with arrogance, it has to be justifiable, you have to be able to back it up with competence. And you just don't have what it takes.

You may think that you're smart but you're a fuckwit. Maybe you were considered to be smart in the outer-suburban shithole school you came from but that's not actually smart in the real world. You reason like a fuckwit, you deduce like a fuckwit, you misuse words and grammatical constructs like a fuckwit, and you do a piss-poor imitation of an arrogant takedown just like a fuckwit.

I suggest that you go back to Upper Bumfuck West or whatever inbred hick shithole you came from where you can lord it over people who ARE actually dumber than you. But interacting in the wider world? That's just going to be a never-ending series of depressing embarrassments for you.

Comment Re:If it's legal... (Score 2) 448

> Is "legalistic shenanigans" a really twisted way of saying "legal"?

no. it means breaking the law with yet another version of the same old dodgy accounting scams, and getting away with it until somebody notices and points out that what you are doing is, in fact, breaking the fucking law.

because bullshit accounting practices that have the sole purpose of evading tax are fucking illegal in pretty much every jurisdiction in the world, including NZ and even in the corporate-arse-licking US.

so, no, "haven't been caught yet" is not the same as "legal". "legalistic" is also not the same as "legal", it's a shoddy simulacrum of "legal" that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

BTW, you know why specific kinds of tax evasion get made explicitly illegal even though they're already covered by existing general-purpose legislation? it's because slimy corporate cunts and their even slimier fucking lawyers are always trying it on.

shitty things get made illegal because people do them, or because it's easy to predict that they will do them, not just for the sake of making new laws.

Comment Re:It's not about morality, it's about the law (Score 0) 448

Like most countries, NZ has laws against bullshit accounting schemes that amount to tax evasion. because every fucking tax evasion scheme that has ever existed has relied on bullshit accounting practices in one way or another.

Apple thinks they've found a clever loophole to side-step those laws. They haven't.

Comment Re:It's not about morality, it's about the law (Score 1) 448

The NZ government does NOT have laws that allow this.

Apple lies and says that they make no profit in NZ because they buy their own products at artificially inflated prices from themselves in Ireland.

NZ wants to close this lying fucking bullshit loophole.

and fuckwits like you support Apple when they whinge about the prospect of not being able to evade taxes any more.

Comment Re:This is the problem with corporate income tax. (Score 4, Interesting) 448

Corporate taxation is double-taxation because their employees and customers pay taxes. Really? Do you have any idea how fucking stupid this line of argument is?

it's no different to saying "i shouldn't pay tax because the shopkeepers i buy shit from will pay tax", who then say "no tax for me because my employees pay tax", who then claim tax-exemption by pointing back to the fact that the shops THEY buy shit from pay tax.

and sure, if you're a properly brainwashed American, you'll think you're "clever" by saying something like "Yeah, exactly! Tax is theft". but tax is how civilisation is paid for. It's why you're not a slave in some shit-poor stone-age (or bronze-age at best) economy. It's why you can read, it's why you can do at least basic arithmetic (and can hopefully count your change when you buy shit). It's why countless things that you take for granted in your life exist and are maintained.

Every fucking cent has passed through multiple hands and has been taxed multiple times as it cycles through the economy. Exempting corporations from paying tax because of that is just fucking cretinous.

The problem with corporate income tax is that it is always possible for a mutlinational corporation to shift its profits to whichever country offers the lowest tax rate, unfairly enriching that one country. The best solution is probably to get rid of corporate income tax altogether

yeah. just like the best solution to burglary is for everyone to put all their possessions on the front lawn to make it easier for thieves. fucking idiot!

This isn't the first time corporate taxes have caused problems: remember the court battle in which the E.U. argued that Apple owed more taxes to the Irish government, despite the fact that the Irish government didn't even want those revenues

That happened because Apple was using Ireland to evade paying taxes in the countries where they sold their products. Unsurprisingly, those countries were pissed off by that tax-evading loophole, so took court action to force Apple pay the same tax regardless of where they claimed to be making the profit, making the whole profit-shifting bullshit pointless. Or worse than pointless because the administrative overhead in creating and maintaining that bullshit also has a monetary cost.

Also, the government of Ireland had a responsibility to the **PEOPLE** of Ireland to collect that tax, regardless of how many kickbacks and bribes the MPs took not to collect it.

Comment Re: sorry, no (Score 1) 448

Apple isn't paying income tax because they aren't turning a profit on sales of the phones in NZ.

That's exactly the problem, the loophole that they have set up and are exploiting.

With fancy (i.e. bullshit) accounting practices, they pretend that they make no profit in NZ (so why the fuck are they bothering to sell anything there. or in Australia. or anywhere else they pull the same bullshit scam), that all profit is made by their Irish subsidiary.

Comment Re:If it's legal... (Score 5, Insightful) 448

Nope. Tax evasion definitely falls into the former category, wrong regardless of "legality". Especially if achieved via legalistic shenanigans. And doubly so if those shenanigans are only possible due to favourable tax laws and interpretations obtained via corrupt political lobbying and campaign financing.

Corporations benefit from all the things that taxes provide - roads, police, education, and thousands more - so they should contribute to them as well.

hate to break it to you, but you're NOT a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. These tax scams you're championing (out of some brainwashed mindless fantasy that one day you'll "make it" and be part of the exploiter classes rather than the exploited) are NEVER going to benefit you. They're stealing from you, and from everyone else.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...