but back to VAT, i think conceptually i don't have a problem with it other than it's too high. it's twice as high as in the US for example

It's basically an incentive for high value market actors to work *less.*

Then, someone will take your place and will continue generating wealth.

😉

Because of sharply diminishing returns.

i wouldnt mind if they hiked income tax on the super rich (who wont notice) and cut VAT a bit

or i dunno, they could get Amazon etc to actually pay some bills

While it's perfectly arguable some CEO's and business owners are easily replaceable. Some aren't, and even for those which are, their replacements are going to be operating within that same system of disincentives.

What disincentives?

i've met CEOs

they don't have a concept of money, they don't really care that their staff have none or seem to realise why it's a problem - they're utterly driven by status. the fat bonuses - it's all status like showing off a car

Hell, restrictions and taxes put on high earnings are actually one of the reasons the stock market is so fucking cancer.

<:doubt:511986509679820843>

Basically, due to diminishing returns of regular income, many high earning corporate actors tend to take a portion of their earnings in stocks and other such things, and then focus on *boosting* the growth of these things, rather than tending to the actual health of the company.

i'm "lucky" enough to have worked in a small company which is now huge, it used to be that the CEO was a guy who said hello to you in the corridor, hes gone now, the new types are all in an ivory tower

@Miniature Menace Growth is healthy for the company..

Those things are assets for the company as well.

Which can be liquidated and used.

Even if they do that. So what?

Let them crash their company.

Actual growth is healthy. Things like becoming better at supplying the needs of their customers and employees. This is healthy. What instead happens is shenanigans, pr, and bookkeeping wizardy to make their stocks look really good, so the shareholders take home more money.

That would be fine, if that's what actually happened. Crashing the company. But they often get bailouts, and have clever ways due to corporate structure of avoiding accountability for failure.

"bookkeeping wizardry" => fire some people

pretty much

Then don't bail them out.

at least that's what it is part of the time

yeah no joke, it happened last month at our place.

"too big to fail"

They *should* be allowed to fail. They just often *aren't*

Then don't bail them out.

because unfortunately, it's all a hot mess, with people in the government administration deriving their own wealth from the stock market rates of these companies

2 weeks before the shareholder meeting 5 people i know directly lost their jobs - 3 redundancies and 2 bullshit firings, another entire team got TUPEd - that's just scratching the surface. they cleaned house before the shareholder meeting basically

It's all tied together. The establishment is rotten to the core.

the redundant people are being re-hired, in india naturally

lol

enjoy your spaghetti code

but the thing was so obviously a sudden 'adjustment' of outgoings, their management seemed to be taken by surprise by it too

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/291/561/3e6.jpg

anyway, I need to go eat

later

Hmmm... are reference to Pajeet Technocracy...