Oh yes, I'll take her over Jeremy Corbyn or any politician any day! :-)

And Lech Walesa?
was
The name that would spool in my mind before Gauck, as a European Statesman, except that the former had to implode it, the latter helped reconcile it.

I still stand by my arguably harsh ("babbling") patriotism - us Finns have a solid universal education. I also think quite well of us that game. So I take it that you must know that Stasi was a cruel, totalitarian implement - and you would not care about Gauck?

Just think about it.

Corbyn is the Leader of the Opposition in the UK, for your info. And a politician that I genuinely think that the European electorate has been hankering for. I quite respect his politics of greater enfranchisement, of hope, of choice.

Are you asking if Rammstein was shooting "down" or "up" in "Feuer Frei!"

Not down, I think.

What if they shot like, you know, kinda horizontal like?

Also Paul Kaba Thieba the prime minister of Burkina Faso, is a pretty swell dude, I guess.

I do not believe in purely materialistic world-views, so I do not think that neither 20th century communism nor the current neo-liberalism are sustainable.

If you have not read about the UK Google tax deal, let me tell you: Google seemingly had a 3% effective tax margin.

If a non-multinational in UK, or anywhere else in Europe. tried to move a similar business, their tax rate would not be 3%. It would be more coherent.

So when likes of google are given unfair tax deals - fair competition and tax cohesion are broken in one go.

What I would like to recall to your memory is the fact that market theory research papers are generally based on the assumption on "perfect market" - or symmetrical information - that all market participants are equally well informed at all times; and equally powerful.

It is not true, obviously.

In my mind, socialism means taxing google like anyone else - not at 3%, but as all those other businesses, big or small - in exchange of uncorrupted corporate environment and reasonably well to do consumers.

Public university - and high standard polytechnics - to educate all to best they can be, and to the best job love and earnings, labour input and innovation. Economy would do rather well from this, I think.

If I would like to see some restrictions - such as Europe taking a hard stance on cruel nations.


That would be the ethics. Not pure materialism. Will you hold this against me, I wonder, and why?


I think world would be more just if googles (or amazons etc etc) would pay a tax at par with other companies (fair for competition). And that cost of educating people would be recovered in their future taxation, because they would be educated to do what they love to do, to innovate, and hopefully love their country.

And short-dropping minors, as in hanging, can never be fine. Short-dropping, mind you. It is super cruel, I find. Do you judge me ill when I would rather have my country stay out such trading partners?

OK, there's so much ignorance here but I'm only going to try and correct 1 point because my keyboard is sticking and typing takes forever.

Established vs Effective Tax Rate

Effective tax rate is tax rate after exceptions, etc are applied. Making more complicated tax laws, which is what you seem to be advocating, makes the problem of a low effective tax rate worse, not better. How this happens:

1) Tax rate is established - 15%, 50%, whatever.
2) Companies hire lawyers and accountants to analyze tax law.
3) Tax lawyers find ways for companies to take deductions or get rebates, usually by donating to charitable enterprises or hiring local workers, etc. THIS IS GOOD. Tax law is working properly, providing incentive for businesses to fall in line with the nation's political goals.
4) Someone writes outraged rant about the low effective tax rate and how companies are 'not following tax law' or 'it's not fair', not understanding that the effective rate is so low because the company is following the law explicitly and donating lots of money to charities, etc.
5) Someone calls for more specific tax laws to be written to raise taxes on that specific business or class of businesses.
6) Tax law becomes more complicated.
7) Company hires more lawyers.
8) The process repeats.

The only way to address this is to stop having tax deductions and incentives for businesses and people to act in a certain way, ex remove deductions for using local workers or donating to charity. You can see why people don't want to do that.

Adding more specific tax laws has, and will continue, to backfire horribly.

It has not worked every time it had been tried.

It is a a flawed idea, based on ignorance and blind faith in politicians' ability to get the result you want and not based on actual data and real-world economics.

Your reasoning is exactly the same reasoning that produced the problem you are campaigning against. It is BAD ETHICS, a good intention (fairness) mixed with ignorance and naivety that is actually a paving stone on the road to the current messy, impossible tax hell that we live with now.

TL;DR
The only way to avoid companies having a low effective tax rate is to not have deductions from the established tax rate. They will always hire people to try and minimize their tax burden. The more complicated tax law is, the more loopholes their highly trained specialist will find and lower their tax burden will be. Trying to build special tax laws for specific circumstances or companies has and will only backfire.

P.S. "In my mind, socialism means taxing google like anyone else - not at 3%, but as all those other businesses, big or small - in exchange of uncorrupted corporate environment and reasonably well to do consumers. "

That is not socialism. That is a flat-tax combined with a regulated market economy.

Truly, spend more time studying political history and theory so that you understand which labels are appropriate for your beliefs. Otherwise, people who talk with you will just be confused. A lot of the reason you are getting so many downvotes is that you are very unclear and don't seem to understand the terms you are using.

I am for a progressive taxation system, and for the record, have never felt badly about paying income tax, US included.

I do perso think that googles of this world should pay between 18 to 28 % of corporate tax in the normal world. Normal world means educated work force, little corruption, simple public processes; and a well educated and purchase power
rich customer base.

In China or Saudi Arabia 3% might be fine.

But Europe is neither China nor Saudi Arabia.