|
|
|
|
|
|
by WarmWash
38 days ago
|
|
|
I explicitly stated (twice) they would (and should) pay more then their exact share. The real cost would likely be in the neighborhood of $500k too (20 SWEs traveling to work doesn't incur much cost, plus the 21/population cost of mainstay services (police, fire, government misc/infra)), never mind the workers are paying taxes on their income too. So $50m would cover their true societal cost (I'll multiply it by 10 for you, call it $5m) 10x over. Its extremely difficult to build a clearly logical structure where a company that made a wildly successful product needs to hand half the value to the government. It's very easy to do if we hand wave with ambiguous terms like "right thing to do" and "morally obligated". |
|
|
I think it's rather simple. If they don't do that, does the house of cards that we call a society collapse?
> It's very easy to do if we hand wave with ambiguous terms...
It's equally easy to be dismissive about the cost of running a stable society. If you want poor people to pick up your 5 billion euro tab then you're never going to make those 10 billion to begin with because people won't have the money to afford whatever it is that you're selling.
I've yet to hear a coherent argument on how you think you can pay 99% less in taxes and achieve the same outcomes? It's nothing but magical thinking. You want to pay 99% less and you want poor people to pay (a lot) more.
Do you think poor people can afford to pay more? Do you not care? Don't you see that if you do that they'll violently overthrow the entire system that allowed you to become a multi-billionaire?