Yes, they earned things. Fraudulently. You’re getting up in arms over some terminology that doesn’t quite mesh with your preferences. We’re clearly on the same wavelength - stop organizations from acquiring (does that keep you happy? Getting? Taking? Whatever fucking word you want) money through illegal or unethical methodology.
You’re like the worst part of the left. Up in arms because someone dares to have a “different” opinion from you, when if you actually stopped to understand the words they’re saying, you’d realize you’re on the same fucking page.
Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re the one refusing to move past the fact that I chose to refer to your idea of a refund as part of the fine. Get back to me when you make an effort to understand the actual points I’m making. Actually, don’t bother, you’re not worth my time any longer.
Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That’s the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you’ll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you’ll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that’s REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It’s the same in the end.
Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.
Do you think 10% on top of the “refund” is not enough? I think that’s got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over “refund” versus “fine” and “earnings” versus “acquisitions” or whatever terminology bugbear you have.
You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.
Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you’re attacking me as if I’m thinking it’s all well and good they’re doing this shit. It’s not. We’re on the same page philosophically, you just really don’t like the specific terminology I’m using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.
10% is not a fine, it is a sales tax.
Reminder that it’s all revenue PLUS 10%. So it effectively makes whatever bullshit money making scheme they want to use, cost money instead.
Good to know you dont mind the profiteering off fraud.
Fine is a penalty, not a cost of business, not a sales tax. A penalty.
100k fine on 1 mill refund is nothing. 1 mill fine on 1 mill refund is a fine.
My guy. Reading comprehension. I did not say 10%. I said 10% ON TOP OF ANY EARNINGS.
As in, if a corp earns 1 million, the fine levied would be 1.1 million.
Christ, go back to 2nd grade.
Stop conflating refund as earnings and a fine. Its not. They didn’t earn shit, they committed fraud and stole money. Forced refunds are not fines
Yes, they earned things. Fraudulently. You’re getting up in arms over some terminology that doesn’t quite mesh with your preferences. We’re clearly on the same wavelength - stop organizations from acquiring (does that keep you happy? Getting? Taking? Whatever fucking word you want) money through illegal or unethical methodology.
You’re like the worst part of the left. Up in arms because someone dares to have a “different” opinion from you, when if you actually stopped to understand the words they’re saying, you’d realize you’re on the same fucking page.
You’re perpetuating it as a win. Its not. Its not close to bare minimum. The cost of this should have been:
Cool story bro
Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re the one refusing to move past the fact that I chose to refer to your idea of a refund as part of the fine. Get back to me when you make an effort to understand the actual points I’m making. Actually, don’t bother, you’re not worth my time any longer.
Still no coherent point.
It’s 110%, not 10%.
Its a 100% refund with a 10% fine. Dont conflate the refunded fraudulent sales with the fine.
Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That’s the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you’ll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you’ll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that’s REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It’s the same in the end.
Don’t conflate refunds from fine. Its not an earnings, its a refund.
Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.
Do you think 10% on top of the “refund” is not enough? I think that’s got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over “refund” versus “fine” and “earnings” versus “acquisitions” or whatever terminology bugbear you have.
And here in lies the problem.
You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.
Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you’re attacking me as if I’m thinking it’s all well and good they’re doing this shit. It’s not. We’re on the same page philosophically, you just really don’t like the specific terminology I’m using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.
How delicate do you have to be to believe disagreement as an attack . Comical gold.