Eh, it's not that linear.
Remember when Michael Bloomberg spent 500 million dollars to be on the Democratic debate, and Elizabeth Warren burned that money down with a single zinger?
3,509 karma · joined November 5, 2013
Remember when Michael Bloomberg spent 500 million dollars to be on the Democratic debate, and Elizabeth Warren burned that money down with a single zinger?
A private founder-owner-CEO combination (like Steam) might be the least vulnerable organization to many of those ills, short of a cooperative (not sure it counts as private ownership).
A private company is not a corporate raider.
> not contribute anything, and reap all the profit
Yeah, it's called capitalism. What's their stance on Lina Khan breaking up the monopolies? Have they written letters criticising Reid Hoffman for pressuring Kamala?
Remember when Microsoft was able to fight off the Web with piss-poor Internet Explorer? Until it didn't.
Well the embassy is complaining about this arrest, so maybe that's just counter-intelligence.
Just another guy to be traded to Russia in the next prisoner swap.
His stack of photocopies protects him from any whistleblowing...
Like storming the US Capitol, or blocking Canadian roads, these kinds of "political views"?
I'm a laptop worker and wouldn't want to live in some rural area, I left for the big city on purpose!
If the immigrant comes for a rural area, the adaptation would be simpler, I guess. That would require supporting people with brown skin, so it won't happen.
But why is it capped? Are they refugees? Do they need help? Do they have families?
The income tax law is clear, we have progressive taxes. From each according to its ability. The party that proposed flat taxes ammended it's program to remove it when it would result on a tax increase on workers earning less than 1000€. It's immoral and violates the constitution.
> It's not limited to "expats" or "wealthy" or "immigrants" or "non-immigrants" some limited class of people.
> And besides, again, they have paid already more in absolute terms, than an average citizen.
It's both an incentive and they pay more, a magical elastic number, both high and low.
Can a Uber driver claim that? Or a guy delivering food for Uber Eats? Or a dude working on a grocery store? Because those immigrants are already here, contributing to the economy even when treated like criminals, some have their families even. They don't get any tax breaks because they barely pay income tax, their wages are not high enough (bit still better than their native countries).
This is embedded on the proposal, it's for relatively rich people only, because it affects income tax.
I don't see any justification other than tautology "it's legal because the government decreed it". I'm not contesting the legality, just show the receipts. This was implemented before, and it only increased the housing prices.
> Anyone with a profession in demand could have gotten the status.
And work for a foreign company, interacting professionally with zero natives? How does this improve the local economy? Unless their jobs are barista, barman, chef.
I could even accept getting tax breaks for opening a company employing humans, even though it is unfair to existing companies. But it's not even that, it's tax breaks for living in a resort.
> I don't know historically why this has been decided
I do: a minority government flush with cash from the previous government (another faction of neoliberals) will be voted out at the end of the year, so they are pissing away that money to remain in power. There's no time to evaluate the proposals, they just repeat what was done before and reverted for good reasons.
There's no population outflow, we have positive net migration. The outflow was during the austerity years, that's why there are less doctors, nurses.
The aging population cannot afford medicine, they are not leaving either. These kind of policies drive the young people away, why subsidise some rich expat to live in my own country? It's better to move to a high CoL area, pay more taxes, but earn much more money anyway. Why don't these countries implement NHR schemes too, don't they want those coveted high earners.
> Who's going to pay the taxes needed to sustain aging population?
Not the expats, if they have tax breaks. They will cost money!
Every film is technically a company, it's easier to account for expenses that way.
Portugal's previous economic successes have always been state-adjacent, as every single other place on Earth: CUF had state monopolies, EDP, PT (state monopolies), TAP (state owned). Just like Silicon Valley, there's nothing private about takin money or privileges from the state and selling it as "hard work".
It's the Danegeld, why should we want to attract those people?
Singapure is a dictatorship fuled by Chinese money, should a NATO country be supported by them? Will the US invade if we sold them the abandoned American base in the Azores?
That's a bold face lie, unless by majority you mean less that 50%.
https://info.portaldasfinancas.gov.pt/pt/dgci/divulgacao/est...
For 2020, IRS+IRC 13B+4B IVA 16B.
---
30% of working people don't pay income tax because they are on the first income bracket (minimum wage or less), but they still pay VAT, 23% in the highest rate. The deductions don't come into play if you don't pay tax at all.
The injustice is simple: "digital nomad" earning pays VAT and minimum income tax, but leeches off roads, socialized healthcare, our nice climate. A citizen earning the same wages for the same job pays VAT and income tax, subsidizing the tax leech. Meanwhile, the immigrants with low wages are treated like criminals, but they don't even get that special tax rate, because they don't pay income tax!
Why should a poor country like Portugal subsidize immigrants from rich countries, but punish those from poor countries? The Americans that want socialized medicine and maintained roads can spend the money on their own country, our pay their fair share like other people living here.
It's not enough to move the needle on the dollar value, it's barely more than a buck per person om earth.