|
Author
|
Topic: Corporate Tax Evasion
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 2 of 100 (681642)
11-27-2012 8:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
11-27-2012 8:24 AM
|
|
The problem with tax avoidance is the laws. They need to be changed. Big business will always do the best they can to avoid paying any more than they have too (unless there is some PR cache in paying more). As I understand the situation is that they can use the law to not pay tax on UK income as they declare profits in another country, legally. Change the law; problem solved.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2012 8:24 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2012 9:04 AM | | Larni has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 28 of 100 (681725)
11-27-2012 2:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
11-27-2012 12:06 PM
|
|
Strictly speaking it is tax avoidance. Tax evasion is illegal.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2012 12:06 PM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
think you are better than everyone else who doesn't think like you do We think that because we are better.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by foreveryoung, posted 11-27-2012 2:38 PM | | foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: Freedom of choice?
I would respond, but I cannot for fear of being permanently banned. You should risk it.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by foreveryoung, posted 11-27-2012 3:07 PM | | foreveryoung has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 39 of 100 (681750)
11-27-2012 4:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by nwr
11-27-2012 4:32 PM
|
|
Re: Freedom of choice?
Hey, Brits - can you kick out all of the Dr. A types. Please. Pretty please. Not the most attractive of deals...
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by nwr, posted 11-27-2012 4:32 PM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by nwr, posted 11-27-2012 4:52 PM | | Larni has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 41 of 100 (681754)
11-27-2012 5:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by nwr
11-27-2012 4:52 PM
|
|
Re: Freedom of choice?
Lol. No worries, I got it. Just the typical British understated, wry acknowledgment.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by nwr, posted 11-27-2012 4:52 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2