Comments by "Steve Parker" (@steveparker8065) on "G7 nations finalise historic deal to end tax abuse by global companies - BBC News" video.

Tax multinational companies... That would be nice considering we pay for the infrastructure they exploit for their profits.
50
@UC9UPeXNsrCfLoUDQjezwU4w So, still no rebuttal just a more elaborate ad-hominem with broken English... Taxing corporations is essential when most people are dealing with working poverty, zero-hour contracts and using food banks despite being employed. The tax gap in the UK is anywhere from £40 billion to £120 billion per annum. On top of those losses, we pay over £97 billion per annum to those tax-dodging corporations in corporate welfare and subsidies. That's more than the budget for the NHS lost to corporate greed... As for your observation regarding putting prices up, they can't if they want to compete, the smaller corporations will outprice them when forced to pay proper taxation. Monopolies are antithetical to a free market. Not that I'm naive enough to believe in a free market...
3
@DNAOrion Outta the G7, Seriously? Amazon, Ebay, Apple etc are going to cut themselves off from the most lucrative markets in the world? A large percentage of their income? sure buddy. Here's the thing, probably better to do a little research before typing bolx on social media... G7 = Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
2
@DNAOrion You mean you only have an ad-hominem to offer in rebuttal to the many valid points I made that prove your naive assertion pointless? Keep digging sweetstuff. Feel free to explain how corporations like Starbucks and McDonalds are going to move their offices? How can they avoid taxation being forced on them? Will building a McDonalds in Sweden to serve customers in London work? A Starbucks in the US supplying customers in Cardiff?
2
@DNAOrion You deleted your previous reply, but have basically stated the same thing. You have no rebuttal just a lame ad-hom and understand little of the points I made. Your bravado is commendable but your ignorance is damning.
2
@DNAOrion You should research the loss of the gold standard, Fractional Reserve Banking, Global Debt of $280 trillion (over 3x global GDP) and the rise of central banks from 1913 on. Just to get the basics in global economics. Then maybe you'd realise that corporate greed is directly responsible for global debts and the poverty of the billions of workers. Then maybe understand the very simple point that workers provide many dual roles in society which is predominantly responsible for global profits. Workers are producer and consumer, worker and taxpayer, service provider and service user. We are the 'golden goose', governments and corporations exploit for their profits...
2
@DNAOrion I'm not sure that any of those last two comments are considered a rebuttal of any of my points. Robots can't deliver without consumers and consumers need jobs to pay for products. As for legal issues and the big corporations dodging tax, you seem to have missed the point, the small corporations are losing out because the big global corporations aren't paying legally required taxation. The digital billionaires are morally and legally corrupt. While they may have a lot of power now, the world is changing. Lobbyists and corporate power won't keep people in check forever as this new legislation proves. People are sick of billionaires doubling their assets during a pandemic and having to foot the bill via national debt. However all that aside, the G7 controls a large percentage of global GDP, no big company is going to leave that behind. They may tax dodge, litigate, evade and avoid but the bill has to paid eventually!
2
@DNAOrion You haven't made any new points, just more ad-hominems. I've had a wonderful, enlightening, engaging debate... But this wasn't it! PS I'm qualified to lead audit your corporation for compliance with ISO9001 standards...
2
@DNAOrion You certainly are a banker, full of bull and bore... You've exposed your ignorance on several points and ducked under many others, or should I say many other points have simply gone over your head. PS I made the first comment, you are the one replying to me. Simply stop replying and your humiliation will end.
2
@UC9UPeXNsrCfLoUDQjezwU4w Seriously? now you think having no presence in a country won't hit the bottom line? What about PR, Legal representation, Staff offices etc? Ship it all to Ireland? You have to market and sell your product, and taxation is the bottom line dimwit. Not sure what kind of two-bit company you run, but we are talking about multinationals with hundreds of subsidiaries. Taking the small cost of office space out of the equation is a minuscule buffer to the losses from no national presence and a hostile government. No matter where your offices are you still have to pay tax on the products you sell in a country. Most of the reason for the new taxes is the tax avoidance predominantly facilitated globally by the UK through the UK's off-shore territories. If transparency were forced on the crown, estates and off-shore territories companies would have to look elsewhere to dodge their legally required taxation. I'm sure you're also aware that the corporations we are talking about are predominantly digital retailers, I'm not sure how they can avoid paying the extra taxation if they wish to continue to do business with G7 countries, despite where they are headquartered...
1
@DNAOrion I'm happy to leave them there to educate those less intransigent than yourself. :)
1
@DNAOrion "Are there any ISO standards that apply to banking? A common misconception people have is that ISO standards only apply to manufacturing. On the contrary, service-centric industries, the banking industry in particular, are also concerned with issues like quality, environment and information security, for example. So, yes, ISO standards do apply to banking." I had assumed in my naivety that risk management may be useful to investment banks. PS that's how sarcasm works...
1
@anangrycat86 In the US in 2014 Shi Zhengli collaborated on additional gain-of-function experiments led by Ralph S. Baric of the University of North Carolina, which showed that two critical mutations that the MERS coronavirus possesses allow it to bind to the human ACE2 receptor... PS gain-of-function studies only exist to enhance a virus, to give it new properties, like making it more deadly or allowing it to infect a different species. Obama put a moratorium on gain-of-function studies later in the year of 2014, but the US still paid over $3.7 million to a lab in Wuhan, presumably to continue research. I have no idea where the virus was manufactured, leaked etc. But considering there were confirmed cases of Coronavirus elsewhere, before the outbreak in Wuhan, it's unlikely it started there.
1
@anangrycat86 I've already pointed out that the WHO have documented cases outside Wuhan before the outbreak in Wuhan started, which negates your argument. Not to mention you neglected to reply to the information I provided regarding the study performed in the US in 2014 which found how the coronavirus could be altered to infect humans. Which also seems to be the crux of the argument. I only offer facts, I have my own opinions about the origins but prefer to keep them to myself until more definitive answers are found.
1