Wow, that’s crazy

Oof interesting.

I own a patriotic .ca myself.

That simply isn’t true. All it takes is one good cop to nullify the statement.

So ACAB is true, when you look at the philosophy of it and you separate the identity of the individuals from the job they do.

An individual can commit good acts, that’s not in dispute. An individual police officer can be fair to people and do a good job. That doesn’t make them a good cop, because of the things they aid and abbett through inaction. Holding bad actors accountable is required for justice, and those acts are impossible to perform or are penalized within the structure of policing. An individual officer can’t decline mandatory training that supports a militarization mindset. An individual officer is punished by leadership and the organization if they do try to create internal accountability.

So the structure of it means the only way to be good, is to decline to aid and abbett, which means stop being a cop. If the only way to be good is to not be a cop, that means all cops are bad.

For other absolutes I agree with you, just not this specific one I think it’s a bad example.

Legitimate reasons could be contrived. The question isn’t what it takes to get a PI to investigate, the question should be what it would take for them to spill unrelated tea.

The first step in opening an investigation is investigate your client. Their relationship to the subject and the validity of the harms that they might have suffered or the validity of whatever narrative of criminality.

If you manage to pass that smell test, the information you get from the investigation would be severely limited to the scope of validating and proving that the harms occurred.

Again, you could get them to do stuff for you. You might not be able to get any useful information past that.

So do you know what a PI is generally hired for?

There’s a narrow swatch of misbehavior that the “skeletons” would need to be, for a PI to take the case and get involved. The client would have to have some vested interest or harm done to them, or some idea that the target is doing some harm to somebody before taking the case.

If the idea was get dirt to be vindictive, the PI would not take the case.

If they did take the case and there was evidence that things were clearly criminal, (quid pro quo, malfeasance, etc) they would refer the case to actual police. They would only continue investigating if the police declined to investigate, and their purpose would be privately prosecuting the person. ( Basically filing a suit to whatever court, like you were suing the person but you prove the criminal acts and they get sentenced potentially)

If the skeleton was more of a civil harm like a breach of duty or breach of contract, the PI would gather evidence relevant to the harm, and not provide their client with irrelevant information like who their favorite callgirl is or whatever bathhouse they frequent. They would also not share info about infidelity unless their client was the spouse that was being cheated on.

Still, what you think a legitimate reason could or couldn’t be probably doesn’t match up with what actually would be the basis of some surveillance.

This comment is super cliff notes, and based on some PI training in Ontario Canada that I couldn’t make myself complete after I realised that it would be more of the same bullshit shiftwork that I was trying to get away from 10 years ago.

OP might have a good time calling some PI firms local to them and asking to pay for a consult and fact check his narrative.

This is a brain-dead take when the USA has prosecuted people for intentionally spreading diseases.

Are you a bot or something?

Please answer in ASCII semaphore or French if you don’t know semaphore.

Yup. And then credit it against standard deduction rates so that 🤡s owning multiple unoccupied homes pay real amounts while your grandmother pays pennies

Like a normal tax system, you doink

Zero cashflow retirees are not a thing.

ALL states have property tax.

You don’t know what you are talking about if you don’t understand how taxes are offset and credited. You are just whining about not wanting to participate in society.

Taxes pay for things, go get educated.

Why not

Taxes bad?

You don’t pay… This is a solved problem, wealth gain/loss would work the same way as capital gain/loss

You can use a net capital loss to reduce your taxable capital gain in any of the 3 preceding years or in any future year.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/capital-losses-deductions/you-use-a-capital-loss.html

It feels like people that don’t like this don’t actually know how to whole system is supposed to work.

https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/revenues_annual

For reference

Yes, but how much cashflow did it have, and how much in dividends did the individual stakeholders receive.

It never didn’t pay it’s taxes afaik

Edit: I’m fact checking myself, Amazon’s strategy is reinvesting all profits to support further growth. They were never in a position like the other poster is describing.

If the startup made no profit it would never be worth 1000000. You would only have a capital gain if value was realizable.

If you never made a dime from your initial 100000 investment you would sell off the asset at that point instead of paying taxes.

If you were too dumb to sell parts of your assets, and instead chose to be cash negative or fail to pay your taxes, you kind of deserve to lose everything because you were too stubborn to receive advice from anybody.

People do this exact thing all the time. Taking on debts to keep cashflow or avoid taxes is normal.

If you are just sitting on unproductive assets instead of realising their value in some way, you are doing the wrong thing.

You should be able to gain revenue from the asset or it wouldn’t have appreciating value.

All your comments don’t make sense, it’s like you just want to take from the economy without giving anything back.

Yeah dude. The value of these corporations in inflated or neutral at best. Corporations pop up that are solely created to shelter or exploit to expand wealth.

Nah

Question is, do you know how much the tax revenue is in your area

Is that tax revenue transaction based or wealth based

Would taxing in your paradigm be reasonable or sustainable in the context of the government expenditures in your area?

Yeah dude it’s all a game :/

That doesn’t take into account non federal tax.

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2024/

This says it more explicitly.

using a more realistic definition of income that includes unrealized capital gains, they found that the same 25 Americans paid just 3.4 percent of their income in taxes during that period. If unrealized capital gains were included in these estimates, ITEP, too, would calculate a much lower effective tax rate for the rich

The top 10% as a whole pays 71.22%, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers account for only 2.89% of all income taxes.

This is misinformation, because it paints a picture of the rich being hard done by.

The bottom 50% pays an actual tax rate that is a higher percentage of their earnings than the top 50%. The richer you are, the more opportunity you have to reduce your tax burden. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-much-poor-actually-pay-taxes-probably-think

Your own numbers are an indicator of massive income disparity.