Ideonek

Thanks. I heard good things as well. But I'm here becouse I'm trying to use less US companies. Open source is not nothing, and it still progress over google. But it's not what I'm looking for in that specific moment.

But I appreciate your recommendation!

Power Rangers is a patchwork work edited with footage from a few different shows. Robots from one, costume fights from others. It was not really a reboot, they just took the footage of this yellow-costumed guy fighting and use it directly.

Hope not.

I'm basic, so all I want is much better Photos.

<Tom holding a door open meme >

Whaaaaat...?

Can I interest you in the Dungeons And Daddies podcast? It's beyond amazing.

Ok. Let's take a step back

You have companies in Poland. Let's call them A, B and C.

And we have company D in USA.

One of those A,B,C is a "child" of company D. Other two simply do business with company D.

Company D in they finacial statmet - that is a 3rd party statment that you have no rights to audit in any way, in some cases it want even be avaible to you - claim that they earned $10M from each A, B and C. (This is the "hearsay" becouse it's an information form outside your bouble of control. You have no way of verifying it. US gov have, but they are 3rd party to you and company A, B and C)

A, B, and C each in their tax reports created for you claim that those $10M is their cost.

In case of one you say "no, it's not your cost, it's your profit".

What specific difference between A, B, C makes you say that? One is similarly named to D? It won't be, by next tax year. All all registered in Poland. All have polish board. All spand money at company D. What's the difference? What parameter would you choose to tax one of those but not the other?

Working theory is that you don't get to his point by having morals.

It's a one about mental and intellectual development disability.

Edit: Before you replay with a deliberately misconstrued guess, please consider that this would still be making a slur-based joke at the possible expense of people with disabilities. It may not be worth those upvotes.

I would argue "rule of law" is not relevant to American oligarchs.

I agree. But it's relevant to me.

I want my government to work within the rules. I don't want my government to be able to tax people on "strongly hold opinion"s and "everybody knows"es.

I'm not saying that taxes can't be improvement. But taxing international companies is extremely complex problem. No one found completely bulletproof solution yet, and it's almost impossible to do unilaterally without multiple sides collaborating. Everytime someone say "the should just..." it's a gross oversimplification that present reality where solution is obvious and everyone not implementing it gave bad will or lack competency or gut.

I'm thinking "rule of law". Is that their terms? You can't arbitrary tax someone with "I know how much you REALLY earned" alone.

And when you quantify it they will beat it in your own game.