Non-IT News Thread
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
It is only ~12% of their profit last year.
Ha... ok give me 12% of your profit last year. I can put it to good use.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
It is only ~12% of their profit last year.
Ha... ok give me 12% of your profit last year. I can put it to good use.
Say that to me... You'd be paying me! Ha ha.
-
@DustinB3403 I am not a legal entity created to shield people from personal accountability.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 I am not a legal entity created to shield people from personal accountability.
But you could be if you were an LLC.
Don't forget that corporations act as people, and thus losing 12% of your income annually would still hurt. No matter how much money you make in a year.
-
@DustinB3403 I also am not a billionaire so my effective tax rate is over 50% in the US. My profit from last year was about 50 dollars, so ill buy you a sandwich.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
It is only ~12% of their profit last year. Not really significant IMO.
12% of profits is pretty significant.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 I also am not a billionaire so my effective tax rate is over 50% in the US. My profit from last year was about 50 dollars, so ill buy you a sandwich.
Those profits all get taxes, too.
-
@scottalanmiller Why isnt it 90%? Why isnt the fine so significant that Google would never even think about doing it again?
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Why isnt it 90%? Why isnt the fine so significant that Google would never even think about doing it again?
Hrm. . . let see close google down from servicing the entire area (because google would just leave and not pay the fine) or attempt to get google to go bankrupt. . . hrm choice choices.
Or fine them a predetermined legal amount based on existing law. Of which they agreed to before starting operations in the area.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Why isnt it 90%? Why isnt the fine so significant that Google would never even think about doing it again?
Why is 90% "never do it again" and 12% "insignificant"? 90% is only 7x 12%. If 12% is insignificant, then 90% would hardly be a "never do it again." Fines are based on what you did, not how much it hurts you. That might be liking fining Bill Gates $10bn for stealing a candy bar.
-
No, the fine should be significant enough that the shareholders would feel the pain, and get new directors in the company. 12% isnt doing that.
No google wouldnt shut down. They wouldnt lose money. They just wouldnt make as much,. -
@scottalanmiller Bill Gates wouldnt steal a candy bar. Google would use its monopoly position to shut out competition. They still will after this impotent fine.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Why isnt it 90%? Why isnt the fine so significant that Google would never even think about doing it again?
So lets flip the question. Let's say you get caught lying about something trivial, which gives you an advantage and thus make more money.
Would you think that 90% of your total annual profit should be taken from you?
-
@DustinB3403 I dont lie.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Why isnt it 90%? Why isnt the fine so significant that Google would never even think about doing it again?
Hrm. . . let see close google down from servicing the entire area (because google would just leave and not pay the fine) or attempt to get google to go bankrupt. . . hrm choice choices.
Or fine them a predetermined legal amount based on existing law. Of which they agreed to before starting operations in the area.
More importantly, not make every other company not avoid the area. If fines are capricious, the government are the criminals.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No, the fine should be significant enough that the shareholders would feel the pain, and get new directors in the company. 12% isnt doing that.
No google wouldnt shut down. They wouldnt lose money. They just wouldnt make as much,.Why should the stock holders feel the pain of what a corporate identity did? It wasn't the stock holders who were in the meeting specifically demanding the business do this.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 I dont lie.
Google doesn't do anything wrong. Did that just solve the problem?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No, the fine should be significant enough that the shareholders would feel the pain, and get new directors in the company. 12% isnt doing that.
No google wouldnt shut down. They wouldnt lose money. They just wouldnt make as much,.Why should the stock holders feel the pain of what a corporate identity did? It wasn't the stock holders who were in the meeting specifically demanding the business do this.
Well, the stock holders ARE the ones to blame. If you don't punish them, there is no punishment.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No, the fine should be significant enough that the shareholders would feel the pain, and get new directors in the company. 12% isnt doing that.
No google wouldnt shut down. They wouldnt lose money. They just wouldnt make as much,.Why should the stock holders feel the pain of what a corporate identity did? It wasn't the stock holders who were in the meeting specifically demanding the business do this.
Well, the stock holders ARE the ones to blame. If you don't punish them, there is no punishment.
But the stock holders (generally) are investment providers, not decision makers. It's why boards exist. To tell the corporation what to do.
Significant investors could be on the board, and thus should feel the pain of doing something scrupulous I agree. But the peon investors have almost no say.
-
The peon investors are the people who are hoping to have bought low and to be able to sell high.
