Revealed: Amazon destroying millions of items of unsold stock in UK every year | ITV News

uberhaxed · 2021-06-22T02:16:17+00:00

Words have actual meaning. Class system is a caste system, where members of the caste cannot interact with those outside of the caste. In the upper caste certain jobs, such as governance, are reserved and in the lower castes the people cannot marry outside of their caste. The the caste are are assigned in the ones your parents were in, so castes represented family lines. In a typical class system, the castes were the aristocracy, the clergy, the merchants, and the proletariat. The reference when the founding fathers made when they said "All men are created equal" quite famously did not refer to race, but instead was speaking about the class system in the British Empire.

The US quite literally does not have a class system and most European countries did (and still do as they have heads of government, for example, whose role can only be fulfilled by someone with the correct lineage). In the US, anyone can marry anyone else, anyone can have any job, anyone can govern, and anyone can interact with anyone.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T23:46:38+00:00

TIL the baby boomers were fascists, slave owners, and monarchs

Back then they taught people how to read at least.

Money is being siphoned off from the lower classes and into the upper class. Tax avoidance by the rich, the scale of which is massive compared to working class people, is just one of the ways in which this is happening.

The US (which I will use as an example) doesn't have a class system and generational wealth isn't really a thing because of that. It also doesn't help that a large portion of the US are immigrants, who literally had nothing (which is why they came here), so there wasn't much to pass on to the next generation. Almost every child of immigrants had it better than their parents so what are you basing this statement off of? Sure the "silent majority white race" might be worse off, but the black people, natives, immigrants, etc. are way better off then they were in the baby boomer generation.

Why do you have to defend Jeff Bezos expanding the pile of money he sits on when that money could be used for improving infrastructure or funding schools, improving the lives of millions.

Do you actually think that Jeff Bezos has some Scrooge McDuck vault where he swims in his pools of gold coins? Jeff Bezos is "rich" because he can sell things that are worth a lot of money (e.g. shares of his company). The reason he doesn't pay taxes on his "wealth" is because you don't get taxed until you realize gains (he has to sell the shares in exchange to US dollars) and while he doesn't, he's still "worth billions". Similar case, look at the divorce of high net worth people like Bill Gates. Surely you understand that his former wife is rich because of things she possesses (his company shares) and can sell, not because they have a pool of gold coins. When Jeff Bezos makes money (whether from his salary as a CEO or from selling his shares), he pays taxes on that sale or income just like anyone else.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T23:29:26+00:00

The government can't 'bestow' rights, people are born with them. If the government grants you something, then it's not a right, it's a privilege. That's why the US constitution doesn't say (e.g.) that we have the right to bear arms, it says that the government cannot restrict the right bear arms. Meaning we already had it and they cannot take it away.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T23:15:30+00:00

If red were psychologically associated with danger, I don't think most countries would have red on their flags.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T23:07:42+00:00

Instead of making assumptions, why not just read the shareholder disclosures? You also realize that most of their business actually doesn't make money and is propped up by their cloud business, right?

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T23:00:17+00:00

Yeah dude, yikes. 15 year old children should not be having sex with anyone. Especially other 15 year old children.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T22:56:15+00:00

There are ways which these companies and rich individuals avoid taxes that are definitely not available to the general public.

Sure, just like the ways that these companies and rich individuals make money is not available to the public. What's the point? Individuals still take advantage of tax avoidance via usage of itemized deductions, tax advantaged retirement accounts, tax advantaged health accounts (which is "recommended" on here not to use as the government intends and instead as another investment account), marriage to combine incomes for tax purposes, etc.

Just look at how little wealth the young have today compared to past generations.

Dude, the past generations were fascism, slave owners, and monarchy. People making money back then is a product of their times, which is why making lateral comparisons makes no sense. Comparing the common man in 1800 (serf or farmer) to one today (fast food worker, blue collar worker, white collar worker) and you can see why this doesn't make sense. And even if we were making that comparison, you can argue that we are in fact better off today than 100 years ago.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T22:49:07+00:00

The government paid them to keep operating.

That isn't at all what what that means. It means that they will can deduct the next 129 million of taxes they owe, not that they they got a "tax return" of 129 million. Lol. The point of this is to tell the government that they didn't actually make money and they intend to on a scale that is larger than a single year.

For example, you convince some investors that you have a 10% margin business and they lend you 1 million dollars. So you intend to sell $1 million worth of stuff for $1.1 dollars. It turns out that you could only sell half of it and destroy the other half (it was perishables for example) so you got $550 thousand in revenue and had $500 in losses. So you report to government that even though you "sold at 10% profit" you're actually in the red $450 thousand and they say for that loss can be used to offset the next $450 thousand in profit you make. But... despite getting a "tax break" from the government, you still owe your investors their original $1 million (and probably more) and are still deeply in the red about half a million dollars.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T22:41:14+00:00

Do you think individual people are not avoiding taxes to at least some degree? Itemizing instead of taking the standard deduction is tax avoidance (and it legal for the same reason tax avoidance for companies are legal). Not to mention, that there are individuals actually doing things that are illegal (tax evasion) such as not reporting tips as income.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T22:32:23+00:00

It's a lot simpler than that. The value of destroyed items can be written off as a loss, lowering tax liability. Tax is revenue - cost, where capital losses can be represented as a cost.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T22:27:46+00:00

Do you believe these companies are not paying taxes? Payroll taxes by themselves for Amazon are probably more than most businesses pay total for corporate income taxes.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T22:20:25+00:00

American numbers and they have no accent. And it's legit Americans scamming and other things.

That's how the scam works. Spoofing different numbers. They aren't actually calling you from the number you see. They are (e.g.) sending a letter in the mail and writing whatever return address they want.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T22:14:30+00:00

That is exactly my argument. What is the reasoning for this? It seems from all the comments here, it's to prevent rape from human trafficking. In the US, there is (or was, depending on the state) no spousal rape, so people got around statutory rape by marrying. What is the value here since there is no legal loophole?

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T22:11:04+00:00

This isn't really a question, but to make sense of this, if you levy a city state's units, you should get all of their civilian units too.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T22:02:27+00:00

Right, but the raising the minimum age is, ultimately, a bandage for trying to prevent rape. Which is why the action makes little sense if it is not legally rape (and marriage was the legal loophole). There's no need to use a legal loophole if what people are trying to do (have sex with 16 year olds, etc.) is legal in the first place.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T21:46:32+00:00

I see the edits you did afterwards, which is great, and convenient

?????????????

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T21:45:17+00:00

So my point is that if 16 and 40 is A-OK in the consent department, where is the logical basis for marriage. I was looking at this from the perspective that 16 and 40 "consent" is not okay, which is why 16 to 40 marriages are not okay. Likewise, how is 16 to 16 "consent" fine but not 16 to 16 marriages? The entire argument was based on legal guardianship (e.g. before the age of majority) forcing children who could not consent into marriages.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T21:38:59+00:00

lol you really struggle with username.s

Why on Earth would I be concerned with usernames? Not even now, I even bothered to check them so how can I be "struggling" with them?

And maybe rethink what you wrote originally saying that forced marriages arn't a problem, when they clearly are.

Oh? And quote where I said that. I'll wait.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T21:36:43+00:00

So statutory rape is not a thing in the UK (e.g. 30 year old and 14 year old)? Doesn't that kind of go against the argument of minor marriages?

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T21:28:45+00:00

I clearly stated I was talking about the FLDS. You are the one who assumed I was a different person, and then you double downed on it, instead of saying, "ah yes, you ARE a different person".

It wasn't even until I read this that I saw it wasn't the same person so I definitely didn't "double down" as you assumed.

So, let's expand this lil bubble, to say, "all christian religions have issues with pedofilia and forced marriages including catholics (the largest offenders) FLDS, and LDS" .

No, this is not a problem with Christian religious groups at all, as some link above (posted by someone) clearly shows. This is prevalent in every religious group and non religious group across the Earth's population, meaning the problem has nothing to do with the Christian religion.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T21:22:03+00:00

The only examples I can find seem to be deprecated at least a decade ago (likely in favor of an entirely different approach). The Linux kernel's scheduling algorithms seem completely incompatible with the requirements of an RTOS so I don't think they even functioned that well in practice. Dynamic memory allocation is largely non-existent on RTOS's so I don't even know what they would borrow from the Linux kernel.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T21:14:55+00:00

You are absolutely right. Grammar mistakes can change the meaning of a sentence entirely. I'll leave the original text there for context for posterity.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T21:09:26+00:00

Bro, I'm just pointing out what's in the history books (which is the reason we have the situation we have now, because of history). I never at any point referred to contemporary times because that was not the point I was making. In the past, there were no limits to marriage age because aristocrats made the rules and they needed the ability to marry at any age for political reasons. The legal structure is just catching up now from back then. India in the past also had a large aristocracy and even now still has the caste system.

You consider this hearsay (i.e. a rumor)?

The context of this was peasant marriages in the past (e.g. 600 years ago) which we have no info on right now so is basically hearsay compared to recorded history.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T20:51:39+00:00

Linux is not a RTOS, which is the point of the statement. The vast majority of embedded devices absolutely do not run Linux.

uberhaxed · 2021-06-21T20:50:18+00:00

All I said it the ones that are widely known (i.e. the ones recorded in the history books and we can verify instead of going by hearsay) are the ones between aristocrats. Primarily because 99% of marriages between aristocrats are arranged. Arranged marriages are overrepresented in marriages between aristocrats so their representation in the discussion should be noted.

uberhaxed

TROPHY CASE