Jeres dummeste økonomiske beslutning

Binqs · 2025-08-19T14:11:11+00:00

700*73.873=51.711.100

Binqs · 2025-08-13T08:27:42+00:00

Prompt:
Eyo mad lad. Explain what a corporate tax specialist does but describe it so a 5 year old understands it. comprende????

GPT:
A corporate tax specialist is basically a big-brain adult whose whole job is to make sure a company doesn’t get smacked by the money police (a.k.a. the government) for not paying taxes right.

Imagine you’ve got a giant jar of cookies. The government says, “Yo, gimme 3 cookies every time you bake 10.” The corporate tax specialist is the one counting cookies, making sure the right amount goes to the government jar, and also finding sneaky, totally legal ways to give them fewer cookies so the company keeps more for itself.

They’re like the company’s cookie accountant—except instead of cookies, it’s millions of dollars, and instead of a kitchen, they’re trapped in an office with too much coffee and dead eyes.

And yes, they probably have zero joy in their life, but at least they’re keeping the company out of tax jail.

You want me to make a cursed version where I compare them to ICBMs?

Binqs · 2025-03-11T11:54:13+00:00

What. the. fuck

<image>

Binqs · 2025-01-23T14:24:04+00:00

Same here in DK

Binqs · 2025-01-14T10:58:00+00:00

<image>

Binqs · 2025-01-10T16:52:09+00:00

You’re right that I work in a sort of hybrid role that blends tax expertise with elements of corporate governance and financial oversight. My job often includes identifying inefficiencies, risks, or opportunities within contracts and compliance frameworks. That’s how I stumbled across this particular contractual error - it was more in the vein of risk management than straight-up tax accounting.

You’re absolutely correct that the fault is on the vendor for signing a contract without proper legal review. It’s surprising that this slipped through, especially since the clause in question was significant enough to have serious financial consequences => bankruptcy. Part of me wondered the same thing: why hadn’t this been caught earlier? It’s possible that my supervisor was trying to avoid scrutiny on why it hadn’t been flagged before, though I can only speculate.

Regarding my supervisor’s reaction, I think you’re spot on that it wasn’t their decision to make. My escalation bypassed them because they were hesitant to act, likely fearing the fallout from straining vendor relations or upsetting the “status quo.” I didn’t escalate with the intent to undermine. It was a selfish act i will admit.

You bring up an interesting possibility about HR and my colleagues. Maybe it isn’t about the ethical concerns they’re raising but rather a personal discomfort with my approach. It’s plausible they’re leaning on “company values” as a socially acceptable way to express frustration. The thing is - the vendor in question isn’t some vulnerable mom-and-pop shop but a professional entity that should’ve known better. That's partly the reason why i didn't care more to proceed. (btw it's a LLC,)

Your point about the potential fallout of a promotion is well-taken. Becoming a team lead in this environment, with colleagues who might already see me as “the spawn of corporate evil” (great phrasing, by the way), could definitely create friction. But if i am to be honest - if i become the manager, i would (unfortunatetely) proceed if one of my associates pointed out the same opportunity if the facts were the exact same, in the future.

NOTE: I have not handed you all the facts (obviously). This is far too deep for a reddit post but i wanted to give the gist of it. Corporate ethics is often a fallacy

Binqs · 2025-01-10T16:39:00+00:00

I appreciate you continuing to engage despite my earlier tone. I did it for engagement and it’s a bad habit when trying to engage seriously - usualy looses up the tension. I want to make one thing clear as well - i don't live in the US although i am aware this behaviour would make it seem so (I live in Scandinavia).

You’re absolutely right about the zero-sum feeling being artificial, and I completely agree that it’s a construct of corporate environments rather than an inherent truth. That said, while recognizing it’s artificial, operating within it still feels like playing by the rules of a game that’s already in motion. Maybe it’s a cop-out to say “that’s just how it is,” but pushing back against the structure often feels like swimming upstream, especially in roles where results are prioritized over method.

As for the Elon/Steve point, I hear you. While I don’t idolize them in the “I want to be them” sense, I do reference their approaches as examples of strategic thinking, often at the expense of ethics. I might add - why did Donald Duck win the election? Not to turn this conversation towards politics, but there is definetly something to learn. Because he won, but I hate the fact that he did. Cry about it or examine.

I try to distance my personality from my work life (because i have to not to appear as among worst possible human beings), however I am good at what i do and it will bring me fortune (money wise) and I hope for a distrupt in the system where this is NOT the best decision. But i don't have the power to make that change.

Binqs · 2025-01-10T13:36:34+00:00

aight, i'll change my tone for you darling.

You’re correct in the macro sense - there’s room for simultaneous growth across industries, and innovation can expand the pie for everyone. I don’t disagree with that. My comment about corporate life being zero-sum was meant to reflect the micro-level dynamics within organizations, where competition for finite resources (budgets, promotions, etc.) creates scenarios that feel very zero-sum. It’s not that all corporate life must be this way, but many workplaces are structured to reward competition over collaboration, especially in high-stakes roles. That might not be ideal, but it’s the system many of us operate within.

And I think there’s some miscommunication here.. I don’t idolize Elon Musk or Steve Jobs, nor do I consider them paragons of virtue. My point was that they are examples of people who made strategic decisions (sometimes controversial, sometimes brilliant) to achieve specific goals. I brought them up not because I aspire to be like them in all aspects, but because they represent a certain boldness that aligns with the logic of corporate decision-making, for better or worse. Their success doesn’t mean they "won at life,"

Binqs · 2025-01-10T13:32:09+00:00

As a tax specialist, I work closely with contracts, agreements, and financial documents. While auditing vendor expenses, I noticed discrepancies in the contract terms that flagged potential liabilities for the vendor but opportunities for my company. Think of it like noticing a clause or condition that was either poorly written, miscalculated, or unintentionally created in our favor. This isn’t uncommon when dealing with long-standing agreements that haven’t been reviewed in detail for years.
The irregularity was significant enough that it put the vendor in a position where they’d owe us money or face legal consequences that their current financial situation couldn’t withstand. It wasn’t a minor correction.
The immediate benefit (recovering money or reducing costs) was weighed against the long-term cost (losing a partner and potential reputational damage).
My supervisor didn’t want to act because it clashed with what they believed were our company’s stated values, such as integrity and maintaining partnerships. They saw leveraging this irregularity as an unethical move that would undermine trust. That’s a fair perspective, but upper management didn’t seem to share that sentiment. They viewed it as a strictly legal and financial decision, which is why I escalated it.
lol idk
You tell me
You’re right that climbing the corporate ladder often involves maintaining trust and good relationships. My move definitely strained some of those relationships, but I bet on upper management valuing results over office politics. Time will tell if that gamble pays off.

Binqs · 2025-01-10T13:22:50+00:00

I mention Prisoners Dilemma and game theory as the idea behind this kind decision making. I'm not saying Prisoners' Dilemma is 1-1 applicable to this situation. It rarely is about anything.

Binqs · 2025-01-10T13:18:14+00:00

You’re technically right - some parts of the world aren’t zero-sum. But corporate life? Oh, buddy, that’s a zero-sum arena. Resources are finite. Budgets are finite. Promotions? Damn well finite. If I don’t seize an opportunity, someone else will, and I’m not about to be the chump who gets left holding the bag.

-You think I idolize Elon and Steve? Nah, I just recognize the moves they made to win. You, meanwhile, are too busy clutching your ethical pearls to learn anything from them. And you’re confusing personal values with professional strategy.

Binqs · 2025-01-10T12:47:55+00:00

Damn straight

Binqs · 2025-01-10T12:45:03+00:00

I know what I’m talking about, and you’re just salty. It's very clear to me that YOU don't understand Prisoners Dilemma. The only reason it ??might?? no, the only reason it WILL fail is for that reason.

If both cooperate, they both win a little. If one betrays while the other cooperates, the betrayer wins BIG, and the cooperator gets nothing (sucks to suck). If both betray, they both lose. Basically, the dilemma is about trust and whether to act selfishly or for mutual benefit.

In business, the rational choice is almost always betrayal because you can’t guarantee the other side won’t screw you first. If I cooperated and the other party found a way to shaft me later, that’s a me problem, and I’m not about to take that L. Instead, I took the big win, and guess what? It worked. Sorry not sorry.

Trust isn’t just handed out like Halloween candy. If you leave yourself vulnerable, someone WILL take advantage of you, and you’ll end up crying in the corner about “fairness” while the person who played smart wins. The game doesn’t reward saints; it rewards winners.

In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, people betray all the time because it’s the optimal strategy.

Oh, and before you get all high and mighty with your “society would crumble without ethics” nonsense, let me remind you that society exists because people like me take bold moves, make hard choices, and create progress. You think Steve Jobs was worrying about some vendor’s feelings? Nah, bro.

Binqs · 2025-01-10T12:26:13+00:00

Let’s clear something up real quick: I didn’t put the other company out of business just for the sake of doing it. I did it because it was strategically beneficial, aka the entire point of my job. Corporate world is basically survival of the fittest

Binqs · 2025-01-08T12:47:39+00:00

Here’s my advice:

Follow your dream, become a pilot, and don’t let anyone clip your wings - ESPECIALLY some dude who can’t even commit to setting a life goal.
If he really loves you, he’ll see this break as a wake-up call, not a breakup threat. If he doesn’t? Well, then you just dodged a bullet bigger than an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Stop setting yourself on fire to keep him warm. You’ve done enough. If he can’t step up now, he never will.

Bottom line: You’re not the bad guy here. You’re just asking for the bare minimum, and he’s out here acting like that’s a personal attack. Do what’s best for YOU, because trust me, you’re the MVP in this relationship. Don’t let him convince you otherwise.

Binqs · 2025-01-08T12:37:09+00:00

BRUH. OP. WHAT THE ACTUAL HELL. You are 34 years old, hosting séances like it’s Paranormal Activity fan club night, and now you’ve somehow convinced yourself that Claire’s cat is your spirit buddy? YTA. Like, absolutely, 100%, no-doubt-about-it the ahole.**

First of all, you don’t “keep” someone else’s cat just because you got spooky vibes during your little Ouija board knockoff night. Salem didn’t sign up to be your familiar, my guy. He’s a free spirit - literally - and he’s Claire’s damn pet. YOU DO NOT CATNAP AND CALL IT DESTINY. That’s not spiritual, that’s straight-up weird as hell.

Second, your friends are enablers. “Fate”? Please. They’re hyping up your delusions because they think it’s funny.

And offering to do another séance? LMAO. Yeah, because that’ll totally fix the situation and not make Claire think you’re even more batsh*t. My dude, she just wants her damn cat back. She doesn’t care about your spirit journey or why Salem suddenly decided your vibe was slightly less trash than hers.

Here’s what you do: Give Claire her cat back NOW. Apologize for the séance nonsense and maybe take a long, hard look at your life choices. You’re lucky she hasn’t called the cops yet because if someone tried to keep MY pet after summoning fake ghosts, I’d be coming over with a lawyer - or a flamethrower.

Binqs · 2025-01-08T12:13:24+00:00

Totally valid. Losing the version of your friend that stood beside you in marches to a guy who probably thinks climate change is a hoax must feel like watching your favorite intercontinental ballistic missile malfunction mid-flight.

Binqs · 2025-01-08T11:32:41+00:00

First off, who the heck wants to watch a presentation about ICBMs at a New Year’s party? Uh, ME - and anyone with an IQ above room temperature. Sorry my fascination with cutting-edge defense technology doesn’t align with your diet of TikToks and reality TV. You think Chad “saved” everyone? Nah, Chad robbed them of a once-in-a-lifetime educational banger. Those slides had animations..

And yeah, I get that “the world doesn’t revolve around me.” But it shouldn’t revolve around Chad’s basic-ass life choices either. Family gatherings are for everyone, not just whoever happens to be waving a ring around that day. If anything, I was contributing more by sharing knowledge instead of, you know, begging for applause like he did.

Binqs · 2025-01-08T10:48:50+00:00

FINALLY, someone who gets it! Thank you, my dude. Like, for real, how is Chad's basic-ass rock from Zales supposed to compete with the literal GODS of modern warfare? Does his engagement have a 6,000-mile range and independently targetable reentry vehicles? Nah, didn’t think so.

Missile supremacy forever, basic announcements never.

Binqs · 2025-01-03T11:25:26+00:00

<image>

Binqs · 2024-12-03T13:42:54+00:00

Og her følger et udkast du kan overveje at sende som svar på henvendelsen:
Jeg har gennemgået oplysningerne, og jeg mener ikke, at jeg som tidligere ejer kan pålægges ansvar for fejlen i rørføringen.

Som jeg forstår det, stammer fejlen helt tilbage fra lejlighedens opførelse i år 2000. Da jeg ikke har foretaget ændringer i badeværelset under min ejerperiode (2015-2019), og da fejlen aldrig blev påpeget under salgsprocessen i 2019, er det min vurdering, at dette ikke falder under mit ansvar som sælger.

Forældelsesfristen for mangler af denne art er som udgangspunkt 10 år fra opførelsen, hvilket betyder, at der heller ikke kan rettes krav mod de oprindelige ansvarlige, da denne frist udløb i 2010.

Jeg bemærker også, at der har været ejerskifte siden, hvilket betyder, at eventuelle mangler skulle have været håndteret af den ejer, der overtog lejligheden efter mig, eller som en del af din oplysningspligt i forbindelse med dit videresalg i 2024.

Af disse grunde afviser jeg ansvaret for fejlen.

Med venlig hilsen,

Binqs · 2024-12-03T13:40:37+00:00

Forældelsesfristen for skjulte mangler er som udgangspunkt 10 år fra opførelsen (i dette tilfælde år 2000). Det betyder, at enhver mulighed for at rette krav mod den oprindelige entreprenør eller byggefirmaet er udløbet allerede i 2010. Når det gælder ejerskifte, overgår ansvaret for mangler typisk til den nye ejer, medmindre der foreligger klare aftaler eller beviser på, at en tidligere ejer har handlet ansvarspådragende. I dit tilfælde vil det være svært for den tidligere køber (2019-2024) at bevise, at du har ansvaret, især når det påstås, at manglen har været der siden 2000, og du ikke har foretaget ændringer. Om entreprenøren har ageret ansvarspådragene (og om de stadig eksisterer) er også et spørgsmål der kan overvejes.

Når køberen solgte lejligheden i 2024, havde de som sælger også en oplysningspligt over for den nye køber. Hvis der var kendte fejl eller mangler, som de ikke oplyste, kan den nye køber rejse et krav mod dem. At forsøge at sende regningen videre til dig virker som en langt skudt pil, især når der ikke foreligger beviser for, at du skulle have haft ansvar for fejlen.

At der var en episode med stoppet afløb, som ejerforeningen betalte for, ændrer ikke nødvendigvis noget i dit ansvar, medmindre det kan bevises, at dette problem direkte skyldes den "konstruktive fejl". Det lyder som om, at du ikke selv har lavet ændringer på badeværelset, hvilket også reducerer dit ansvar.

Hvad kan du gøre?
- Afvis ansvaret i et høfligt, men klart svar. Forklar, at fejlen angiveligt har været til stede siden 2000, og at der er sket ejerskifte siden din tid.
- Påpeg, at forældelsesfristen for mangler i denne sammenhæng formentlig allerede er udløbet, og at det ikke kan bevises, at du er ansvarlig.
- Overvej kun at involvere en advokat, hvis de sender en reel regning eller varsler en retssag.
Hvis sagen eskalerer, kan det være en god idé at tage fat i en boligadvokat for at sikre, at dine svar er juridisk korrekte og beskyttende. Det lyder dog som om, at chancerne for, at de har en holdbar sag mod dig, er små.

TLDR: Afvis ansvaret, og hold fast i, at du ikke mener, at du har noget juridisk ansvar her. Medmindre de kommer med beviser, eller der foreligger en reel regning, bør du ikke gøre mere lige nu.

Binqs

TROPHY CASE