It was legitimate as far as we know. A seizure warrant was issued under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982, 2332b(g)(5), and 2339B(a)(1). So far no court has ruled against that.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-unseals-warrant-tanker...

Thanks for this. The warrant claims this ship was involved, basically, in financing Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. So kind of bad things.

I think we need to be wary of the pattern where:

- some bad things happen but are ignored / uncontested by the "good" side

- the "bad" side comes in and does a lot of genuinely bad things of their own

- but also, perhaps selectively, contests other "bad" things that were left hanging by the "good" side, where it fits their narrative

- the "good" side is up in arms against the "bad" side following the law

Clearly this argument hinges on recognising Trump as a baddie and the Democrats, somewhat, as baddies. As a non-American, this is roughly how I see it, but I can't stir up outrage against Trump for enforcing sanctions according to his country's own laws. Bullying Venezuela, sure, but not this particular fragment.

I remember how defensive Democrats were of illegal immigration during the last election. I'll agree with anyone who wants to treat people fairly and humanely, but the Democrats were almost making out that illegal immigrants are some kind of modern day martyrs. If you think the immigration laws are not right, change them, but don't sit on and praise a system perpetuated by illegality.

It's just a hypocritical, massive own goal, and I detracts from all the genuinely bad things done by the "bad" side.

Well in some ways Iran was also a winner.

Bullshit. If a ship is legally registered with any sovereign country, including Liberia, then it is entitled to fly that country's flag. Nothing false about it.

However the M/V Skipper was not registered in Guyana. It was flying a false flag and so any country was free to seize it.

Why was the ship flying a Guyanese flag rather than a Venezuelan one in the first place?

You'll have to ask the M/T Skipper's master about why he was flying a false Guyanese flag. I understand that he has been detained so that may come out during the investigation. The vessel had never been registered in Venezuela so there would have been no reason to fly that flag.

Are we really going to obtusely pretend we can't think of a single reason on our own for them to have done that?

I can speculate as to motives for flying a false flag but so what? Any vessel flying a false flag is subject to seizure and isn't entitled to legal protection.

And what should the U.S. vessels imposing an illegal and unprovoked blockade be subject to?

If you believe in "might makes right" why not just be honest and come out and say that?

Regardless of any legal or moral issues, in practice the Venezuelan Navy has almost no capability to escort merchant vessels. It was never a very strong force and has been badly degraded by years of socialism. I doubt they will try to do anything more than a symbolic show of force near the ports.

The main purpose is probably to get American ships to fire the first shot, and thereby firmly establish that it is the U.S. empire that is the aggressor.

Prop 13 passed originally as a taxpayer revolt against uncontrolled spending increases by local governments. I agree that reform is needed but I'll only support changes if they maintain some sort of reasonable revenue limits on local governments. Otherwise the money will just be wasted giving fat raises to public employees.

The stakes are much lower on social media. If a referee makes a bad call then I might lose the game so it's worth paying for sufficient and competent officials. But when I see offensive content on social media I just block it and move on with no harm done. As a user the value of increased governance is virtually zero.

> But when I see offensive content on social media I just block it and move on with no harm done.

You may be in a minority here. Most people when they see harmful content react to it. And that reaction is perceived as engagement which further perpetuates and strengthen the signal.

Content isn't harmful.

There was never anything wrong with attending parties without masks so your low-effort ad hominem criticism is irrelevant and inaccurate.

How has it gotten easier to file patents?

The tax rate for corporations should be zero. The need to do tax accounting and associated financial engineering is a deadweight economic loss. Eliminate corporate income tax and raise taxes on the highest income employees and investors to make the change revenue neutral. Ultimately the profits flow to those individuals one way or another so better to collect all the tax revenue from them anyway. This change would increase economic growth and benefit everyone.

That would work if you were going to use VAT for everyone, but as long as you're using income tax for individuals, setting the corporate rate to zero would be an obvious tax dodge. You'd put all your assets and income into a corporation that pays no taxes and then have it loan you money when you want to spend it on something.

> That would work if you were going to use VAT for everyone, but as long as you're using income tax for individuals, setting the corporate rate to zero would be an obvious tax dodge. You'd put all your assets and income into a corporation that pays no taxes and then have it loan you money when you want to spend it on something.

Unfortunately this doesn't work for individuals: tax codes in, well, every first world jurisdiction, are very clear that any money going to an individual for their exclusive use is taxed.

I operate as a consultancy (registered tax-paying business); If I use my revenue to pay my bond or get surgery, that $amount is considered personal income even if the company pays for it.[1]

The real problem is that corporations are taxed on profit and individuals are taxed on revenue!

All the costs that a corporation has to foot just to remain in existence is tax-deductible. All the costs that an individual has to foot to remain in existence is taxed (double-taxed, in some cases).

A corporation that pays $amount for rent won't pay tax on $amount in income, while an individual who pays $amount in rent is taxed on the $amount in income.

------------------------

[1] I hear what you are saying about a loan that is paid back, and maybe that is one loophole I can explore, but the revenue services have seen all "hacks" and this is no doubt one of them. This is why the tax codes are so complex and convoluted - each time a hack is discovered, a new code is added to specifically shutdown that loophole. The only remaining "hacks" are those that are allowed anyway by the overall tax policy, like "individuals are taxed on all revenue, corporates are taxed on profits only"

That's not an actual problem. The IRS already has clear rules requiring that certain corporate expenses are treated as taxable individual income if they directly benefit a particular employee or investor.

> The IRS already has clear rules requiring that certain corporate expenses are treated as taxable individual income if they directly benefit a particular employee or investor.

I replied to GP with the same thought as you, but I think there might be some merit in the "loan" angle.

Lets look at the case that you operate as a consultant/contractor/etc. Your "startup" starts making some very large revenue, and you'd like to use that money to pay rent, go on vacation, pay for surgery, etc.

Any money (say, $amount) the business pays on your behalf (hospital, landlord, etc) is considered your personal income and taxed appropriately.

But, if the books reflect that it was given as a loan, and you are now on the books as a debtor (with the business being your creditor), then that specific $amount isn't taxed as your personal income (loans aren't considered income, as far as I know, because they are a liability).

So, as long as you are in control of the business, the business doesn't need to initiate the "pay back now or we start legal proceedings" process. What instead happens is that this loan amount in the business books just grows and grows (interest accumulates) until the business dies/ends/is sold without ever collecting on it.

As long as the business itself does not have outstanding creditors when it eventually comes to an end, that "loan" can be just written off.

What's the revenue service going to do? Claim that businesses can't write off debt anymore?

There's a simple way out of it if you just want to get rid of double taxation though: Make dividends a tax deduction to the corporation. Then if the corporation makes money and doesn't issue it as dividends, they pay tax on it. If they do, the corporation doesn't, but the investor does. And then it gets taxed once one way or another but not twice.

I think each company should pay a low rate on all money passing through. Let’s say 0.1 to 1%. Building huge pyramids of shell companies has probably no economic benefit and is mostly done to evade some regulation or taxes or liability. The ideas how to abuse this are too numerous to count so the government should not try to but simply disincentivize the use of corporations just a little bit. The cost would be borne by the individuals who have the most elaborate company architectures which is probably synonymous with the biggest tax evaders.

No that's incorrect. Now you're just lying and making things up.

No, that's incorrect. Others have provided citations demonstrating that the big tech AI facilities use more water than cities with populations of 100,000 people.

A city is not defined by its size. It is defined by its legal incorporation as a city. There are big cities, and there are small cities, and most cities are on the smaller side.

Try again.