Both of those seems very rational in term of maximazing value.

What’s /c/ here?

You’ll realy enjoy this:

https://www.boredpanda.com/worst-domain-names/

A similar case was with scans from “mobile scanners”. Since those are used on patients to sick to be transported, their cases were disproportionaly “malicious”. Model was effectively optimozed to detected if scaner was stationary or mobile.

You are describing Google Ads right now. Algorithms are better and better in reaching to poeple that are already on the purchase patch. It’s like giving a restaurant flayers to people that are waiting for a weiter to show them a table.

Aren’t our ads amazing? Look, almost everyone who saw them made the purchase!

Analytics that ignores Goodharts law ruin everything. Movies, HR, Marketing (not much to ruin left, but you get the point), performancet review, recommendations…

Alternative headline: Hospital administration getting prises from cancer.

I don’t belive it did.

<Tom holding a door open meme >

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?

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.

That’s not unreasonable. That’s a law-suit. They will get back all this money with surplus.

Imagine that you have a company A. And you legitimately licens something from 3rd party company B. That’s your cost.

And you license something else from company C… that’s your profit some how?

On paper your relationship with company B and C is identical. There is nothing tangible linking you to company C more than B.

And if you manage to find something, they will shift the structure and change it.

You probably pay higher taxes than some of those companies.

Pirates. Enemies of the human kind.

Company A is in Poland. You regulate law in Poland. Company B is in USA. You don’t regulate a law in USA.

You want to tax company A, based on company B report, that was created for 3rd party government?

If only tax-evasion was so easily solved. The are not shy of restructuring completely just to fit into any gap that law created. On paper “BigBadCorpo US” and “BigBadCorpo Irealand” could be two completely separate entities, with BBCI turning zero to no profits becouse it license brand from BBCUS.

You would think that Worner Bross is a movie making company. It’s not. On paper it’s a company that lend very overprices movie equipment. To shell companies created solely for the purpose of creating one movie…

Taxes are hard and people who employ literal armies of layers have the edge over slow law making.

I think that surprising amount of them are already located in Ireland for that and other tax related possibilities. Giant corporations are basically pirates sailing on lawless waters.

I’m just letting you know that your post reads a little off. I understand that I have only the fraction of information and I’m not clear on all the context. But I only have what you provided.

You also, jumped to calling people sheeps very quickly.

deleted by creator

Are you 100% sure, that you’re not the one who’s toxic?

Carbon tax.