|
GaussianCopula posted:I don't think you can argue that the number of refugees arriving is not dependent on the question of how expansive and how dangerous it is to get to Europe. You won't be able to reduce the number of arrivals to zero, but you can reduce it substantially. well i mean if you like innocent people dying i guess this is a good solution only the strongest, luckiest and most desperate will survive
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:Less people will come though, and it's pretty obvious that new routes will be closed as they appear considering that Fortress Europe is apparently the chosen path... There's a finite amount of easily accesible routes to Europe, while the will to stop them is a lot less finite. If the flow isn't stemmed there will likely be other solutions that considers human rights even less if what we've seen so far is any guide. It's not like Europe's going to be more welcoming in the near future either, looking at the political climate. Who's going to enforce human rights in Europe if Europe collectively decides not to honour them? the mediterranean route is going to get a lot more traffic, italy and spain are going to get swamped again. probably we're going to see people travelling by way of russia, which gives putin another card to play against his neighbours i guess refugees don't give much of a toss about "easily accessible", or they wouldn't risk their own lives and those of their children in dinky rubber boats over the sea. all one can do is increase the risk, which puts some people off, and kills others who were leaving anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Aren't we already seeing more coming over Russia considering the recent diplomatic tassle between Russia and Norway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
I love all the people acting like this will discourage people who were already so desperate as to try to cross the Mediterranean in a rubbery dingy while perfectly aware there was a strong chance they would drown.
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
which, say it with me, is morally indefensible because it means that we effectively murder people through our border policies oh, and those saharan people-smuggling terrorists are probably going to get a much-needed infusion of cash, which will no doubt be a huge boon for the region
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I love all the people acting like this will discourage people who were already so desperate as to try to cross the Mediterranean in a rubbery dingy while perfectly aware there was a strong change they would drown. What did Europe learn from Lampedusa? Not a god drat thing it turns out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Aren't we already seeing more coming over Russia considering the recent diplomatic tassle between Russia and Norway? the arctic route between russia and norway was closed before it really got going. in the end, the (morally and legally dubious) solution had actually been proposed by russia, and all they had to do was agree to implement it - it was a lot of people by norwegian standards, but norway is a tiny country and "a lot of people" meant several thousand. now syrians going that way are being deported back to syria lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
all this, of course, is entirely ignoring the massive thornbush that is the question of considering asylum policy primarily as immigration policy rather than on its own terms, which uh
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:which, say it with me, is morally indefensible because it means that we effectively murder people through our border policies That dude you called out posted some cold poo poo, but seeing your posts just made me think as if the entire world outside the EU is suffering a zombie apocalypse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RQc-iGG5Kk
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
When you cut out safe passages of entry for refugees you're only leaving unsafe passages for them, resulting in deaths that would have been avoided otherwise. Sure, it may not be a zombie apocalypse, but don't pretend these deaths are not the result of the border policies. So many people have died trying to cross the Aegean in rubber dingies because the land border with Turkey was fenced by the Samaras government, and the Tsipras governments have either lacked the political will or capital to reopen it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:59
|
|
YF-23 posted:When you cut out safe passages of entry for refugees you're only leaving unsafe passages for them, resulting in deaths that would have been avoided otherwise. Sure, it may not be a zombie apocalypse, but don't pretend these deaths are not the result of the border policies. So many people have died trying to cross the Aegean in rubber dingies because the land border with Turkey was fenced by the Samaras government, and the Tsipras governments have either lacked the political will or capital to reopen it. Hint: Not every human has the god given right to live in central Europe. Breaking the law involves certain risks that others are not liable for.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Hint: Not every human has the god given right to live in central Europe. Breaking the law involves certain risks that others are not liable for. That in no way means Europe can wash its hands clean of the deaths that result from its border policies. Even if the migrants are illegally trying to enter that does not mean their dying in the process is acceptable. At all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Hint: Not every human has the god given right to live in central Europe. Breaking the law involves certain risks that others are not liable for. Breaking the law or death. Such difficult choices refugees must make. Also: What a delightful little world you live in where its so easy to wipe your hands of these deaths. Pretty much all this deal does is increased the likelihood refugees with be abused or die trying to flee. That's it. Turkey is not going to offer them solace either, because Erdrogan is busy turning Turkey into a despotic poo poo hole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:13
|
|
YF-23 posted:That in no way means Europe can wash its hands clean of the deaths that result from its border policies. Even if the migrants are illegally trying to enter that does not mean their dying in the process is acceptable. At all. While that is true, the solution can not be to open all borders and let everyone in, because not only would it lead to a very fast collapse of the welfare state but moreover it would give rise to nationalistic movements, as in the end, the demos of most (all?) European nations will decide that they would rather keep their welfare state, even if that means a few humans have to die. Therefore we should all celebrate the deal that was made today, which allows legal immigration but disincentivises illegal (and dangerous) migration.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:While that is true, the solution can not be to open all borders and let everyone in, because not only would it lead to a very fast collapse of the welfare state but moreover it would give rise to nationalistic movements, as in the end, the demos of most (all?) European nations will decide that they would rather keep their welfare state, even if that means a few humans have to die. You can call it that, if you like. I call it just passing the buck to Turkey, who's now become a glorified despotic bouncer for all of Europe, and potentially gets to shake it down in the future, to save their poll ratings. I'd say more, but I don't feel like being indirectly called a murderer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Therefore we should all celebrate the deal that was made today, which allows legal immigration but disincentivises illegal (and dangerous) migration. No, it actually incentives it more. You really don't grasp how being a refugee works outside of an actual political process, do you? What you've done is given smugglers more incentives, refugees more desperation, and increased the likelihood the bodycount will sky rocket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Actually, come to think of it I'd sooner disagree on that point, at least if one considers the Turkey/Balkans direction. I see this deal, in a lot of ways, as functionally evolving into something similar to the role that Gadaffi played in preventing smugglers/illegal immigration to Europe, before the Arab Spring and his demise. So from the eastern direction, at least (unless Turkey decides to go completely nutso, blatantly tries gaming this deal, which would prompt the EU to likely finally tell him to gently caress off), I do think that illegal immigration will go down substantially in that region after this and all those 'unenforcable' areas will suddenly become enforced, thanks (sadly) to how Erdogan does things. Though I suppose we'll all see in several months' time or a year. Problem is, even if this does turn out to be the case, as was said, that means smugglers/illegal immigration will just make a bigass return to the central Mediterranian area, for as long as the war keeps going along those coasts. And soon enough Italy will go back to all the problems it had before all this again. So yeah...again, far too much stick for those in need and too much carrot for assholes like Erdogan who really don't need nor deserve it, until they shape up themselves. CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:While that is true, the solution can not be to open all borders and let everyone in, because not only would it lead to a very fast collapse of the welfare state but moreover it would give rise to nationalistic movements, as in the end, the demos of most (all?) European nations will decide that they would rather keep their welfare state, even if that means a few humans have to die. I might have agreed if 1. I thought Turkey is a trustworthy party in this arrangement, 2. if the scheme didn't include lovely provisions like the quote for legal entry being tied to the number of illegal entries, 3. if the whole arrangement didn't mean the more dangerous boat ride to Lampedusa becomes more viable. Even if those things weren't an issue it would still be a supremely lovely deal that includes most probably illegal returns to Turkey and does not actually address the EU's inability to handle the influx of refugees in the first place. It might "help" by making things somewhat less of a logistical nightmare, which I will grant you will smooth down the way things are handled a bit, but it does dick-all about the insufficiencies that meant the problem is a logistical nightmare, and it manages to treat the refugees even worse than they've been treated so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It's specifically that tampons are more expensive because they're legally classed as a 'luxury' item, which anyone who's ever spoken to someone on their period would know is patronising bullshit. Cameron got a lot of grief over this considering our economy's in the shitter and the price of something needed regularly matters. Is this a classification as a luxury by the EU or by the UK?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:When you cut out safe passages of entry for refugees you're only leaving unsafe passages for them, resulting in deaths that would have been avoided otherwise. Sure, it may not be a zombie apocalypse, but don't pretend these deaths are not the result of the border policies. So many people have died trying to cross the Aegean in rubber dingies because the land border with Turkey was fenced by the Samaras government, and the Tsipras governments have either lacked the political will or capital to reopen it. Greece could start by reopening its land border with Turkey instead of forcing asylum seekers to take a boat to Lesbos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Greece could start by reopening its land border with Turkey instead of forcing asylum seekers to take a boat to Lesbos. Yes, it could, but either the government is keeping pro-migrant talk to rhetoric only because they don't actually care, or because opening the land border would open up a gigantic can of worms from the rest of the EU countries who want migrant flows to be reduced. It's probably a mix of both, and I think it's more the latter than the former, but it's still horrible and there's intellectual dishonesty involved in it either way. I think there's also some legal issues obfuscating things (I think the border control on the Evros river where the fence is is a Frontex project and so not purely Greece's thing? not 100% sure). But boy if the Visegrad countries are throwing a fit because of the sea border and trying to close the Balkan route, imagine how much they'd react if Greece opened the border.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
I think the dishonesty is fading. The current plan of "meh, gently caress 'em" seems to have wide acceptance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Randler posted:Is this a classification as a luxury by the EU or by the UK? EU, apparently. I'd always assumed it was a UK thing until this now years-long complaint. Also good to see after weeks of reasonable posts Guassian Copula is back on the Lebenunwertes Leben take on the refugees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Freezer posted:I think the dishonesty is fading. The current plan of "meh, gently caress 'em" seems to have wide acceptance. A lot of this. Eventually, indifference settles in and fucks most things up rather than any kind of actual malice or hate. Still haven't decided if that's better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I love all the people acting like this will discourage people who were already so desperate as to try to cross the Mediterranean in a rubbery dingy while perfectly aware there was a strong chance they would drown. What on earth. The chance of drowning is 0,35% or so. UNHCR estimates more than a million migrants arrived by sea in 2015. 3700 are missing, presumed dead. 1 000 000. 3 700. Most people will look at the odds, and rightfully come to the conclusion that the chance of kicking the bucket is vanishingly small compared to possible rewards, and hop in the rubber dinghy anyway. V. Illych L. posted:innocent people dying etc. You often talk about killing, murdering, innocents dying etc. Ok and well, but can you explain to us under what mechanisms and causes people who are not allowed to come to Europe and get a residence permit on asylum or secondary protection basis actually drop dead? "They come from a warzone!" Is not true. They come from refugee camps, South-Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and so on. Are they having fun there? No. But neither do the poor in Rio or the kids who live in a refuse dump in Manila. Under the original refugee conventions living in a country under war was not considered grounds for asylum. The rules were very strict. The idea adopted by Germany, Sweden and some of the European left that everyone from a country that suffers from internal ethnic conflict should be given asylum is completely novel. After that, not directed at V. Illych L. only, in Finland 40% by some math of the handled Iraqi asylum applicants during 2016, mostly young men who had heard wonderful tales about apartments, money, cars, girlfriends and whatnot have pulled their asylum request. And all of them have said they will be killed or tortured due to some very personal threat. One of the reasons for they cite for pulling is bad weather, the other one is they thought they'd get their new apartment and relatives into Europe in a jiffy, many say they return to take care of their relatives, or that they thought they could finish their education here easily. Look, a person who is escaping a torturous regime and certain death is not going to act like that. Another thing that should catch an eye is the fact almost all asylum seekers intentionally lose their identification. A few months ago there was a piece from a mainstream German paper in which the police told they have been unable to determine the real identities of 90% of 2015 asylum seekers. There's some really shady stuff going on, but what does the left do? They turn a blind eye, turn into sentimentality and talk about morally indefensible/defensible this or that, or blow everything out of proportion claiming the sea route is ultra dangerous to prove how "desperate" these people must be (which it isn't) or that not receiving asylum seekers directly causes death and so on. People who try to talk sense by using statistics or numbers are accused of doing so "because of the wrong motives" and dismissed outright, even if they have their facts in place. I suppose someone will dismiss this with a hyperbole like "ligur said all asylum seekers lie!!1" but I didn't say that. I don't want anyone to die either. All the exaggeration is just unnecessary, and untrue. Bonus points if anyone can responed to this post by responding to this post without hurling insults or attacking the supposed views of "right-wingers" or whatever. Ligur fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Unless Paris is turning into Baghdad anytime soon the second-hand smoke will kill more people than any terror attack ever would. It's just such a weird policy decision. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:the emergency state laws don't allow people to form group of more than 3 people in the streets 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Technicaly, it just mean a policeman seeing a group of more than a "few people" in the street is justified to go see what's going on. So lot of young people don't want to go outside to smoke in group because the gendarmerie is technically allowed to come see if they are smoking or carrying marijuana. Think of it as super expanded justifiable cause.
Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:EU, apparently. I'd always assumed it was a UK thing until this now years-long complaint. And where I might find this EU classification? Because there is no distinction regarding luxury items in directive 2006/112/EC and from what I gathered during my last cup of coffee, zero-rates for indirect taxes predate UK entry into the EU. The latter being grandfathered into the VAT regime post-EU membership. Looks more likely that it is an UK classification that Cameron blames on the EU in order to rally up support back on Chav Island. Oh, and just in case, even your state-controlled broadcasting accidentally reveals that it is in fact a classification amde by the UK in the full knowledge that later revisions were generally not possible. 
Randler fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
So as a terrible American leftist college educated waste I have to ask, how is Denmark's "seize all refugee property" working out. I know it was a proposal along with increasing pork production by 200%, but when compared to the German elections, how has the Danish proposal to migrants been met. This is just a general question as to how Denmark's position has been accepted by other Euro-Nations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
It was just two weeks into the state of emergency when the minister of the Interior had to remind local police authorities that "the state of emergency does not suspend the rule of law" when it came to conducting raids on businesses and homes. The land of human rights  In more recent news, there's this video of cops showing up with riot guns during a trade union meeting in a post office warehouse (in French, obviously): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riv8wN7zQ3U&t=520s Big up on the trade union guy for walking up to the cops and telling them to get the hell out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
It looks like there was at least passive support for the ISIS terrorists in Molenbeek https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/711139844001546240 https://twitter.com/james_morgan/status/710919262647525377 Gaj posted:So as a terrible American leftist college educated waste I have to ask, how is Denmark's "seize all refugee property" working out. I know it was a proposal along with increasing pork production by 200%, but when compared to the German elections, how has the Danish proposal to migrants been met. This is just a general question as to how Denmark's position has been accepted by other Euro-Nations. It was already standard operating procedure in many other European nations to seize all valuables over a certain limit (~1000€ usually) as the state can't be expected to pay for peoples living, who have enough money/valuables on their own. GaussianCopula fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Gaj posted:So as a terrible American leftist college educated waste I have to ask, how is Denmark's "seize all refugee property" working out. I know it was a proposal along with increasing pork production by 200%, but when compared to the German elections, how has the Danish proposal to migrants been met. This is just a general question as to how Denmark's position has been accepted by other Euro-Nations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It looks like there was at least passive support for the ISIS terrorists in Molenbeek I'd like to think the primary motivation here is fear rather than support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Randler posted:And where I might find this EU classification? I don't really understand this part: quote:"There is an argument to make them [tampons] exempt on the provision that healthcare is exempt," he says. But he adds that there are drawbacks to removing VAT because it's a positive rate. "By that I mean that when a business makes an item that is zero-rated it can recover the VAT of some of the associated costs of production. So, a tampon maker could recover the VAT on their supplies, but the supply maker couldn't do the same with their own supplies? Why would the costs for consumers go up because of this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 12:23
|
|
waitwhatno posted:So, a tampon maker could recover the VAT on their supplies, but the supply maker couldn't do the same with their own supplies? Why would the costs for consumers go up because of this? Basically businesses don't pay VAT on their inputs, because they can subtract the output VAT (VAT payed by the consumer) from it. In the case of zero rated products, there is no output VAT and therefore the producer has to pay full VAT on their (not VAT exempt) inputs. This can result in higher pre-tax consumer prices, because the producer has to increase the price to compensate for it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Basically businesses don't pay VAT on their inputs, because they can subtract the output VAT (VAT payed by the consumer) from it. In the case of zero rated products, there is no output VAT and therefore the producer has to pay full VAT on their (not VAT exempt) inputs. This can result in higher pre-tax consumer prices, because the producer has to increase the price to compensate for it. Yeah, that's how I always imagined the system to work, but the text seems to say the exact opposite: "By that I mean that when a business makes an item that is zero-rated it can recover the VAT of some of the associated costs of production." And I still don't see how it could actually increase consumer prices. The manufacturing costs go up, but the product price is also lowered by the tax exemption at the same time. I mean, the manufacturer could never recover more money from his suppliers, than the consumers paid in taxes. That's the whole idea of VAT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 13:09
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Yeah, that's how I always imagined the system to work, but the text seems to say the exact opposite: Probably a typo, because in the next sentence they say the exact opposite. As for the consumer price, it would go up only before taxes, not if you include VAT. In the end debating the classification of singular items in a tiered VAT system does not get you anywhere, because there will always be cases where you can make an argument that this or that should be taxed higher/lower. Getting rid of a tiered VAT system and charging the mainline rate on everything would solve this problem though.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Generally, you can't deduct input VAT as far as they relate to VAT exempt outputs. Maybe that's where they're coming from?  Edit: For clarification, it makes a different whether a transaction is taxable and but tax-exempt, or whether it is taxable and not tax-exempt but taxed at the historical zero-rate. Randler fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
A manufacturer (M) makes tampons. For one shipment of tampons he requires supplies, which he purchases from his supplier (S) for 500 CU before tax. M then takes these supplies and fashions them into one shipment of tampons. He then this one shipment of tampons to his buyer (B). To determine the sales price before tax M looks at the costs for the materials he used an adds a 10 percent charge for labour costs and his profit margin. The applicable general VAT rate is 20 percent unless stated otherwise. Variant A: Tampon are VAT taxable, non-exempt and taxed at a zero-rate M has an order for another shipment of tampons. He calls S and orders the necessary supplies. S invoices M for a total of 600 CU (500 CU net price supplies, 100 CU VAT). M pays S 600 CU in cash. M's accountant recognizes for the following changes in assets: ./. 600 CU cash + 500 CU goods + 100 CU Input VAT reimbursement claims As the changes in assets equal out to 0, M does not run a profit or loss from this transaction. M now does his manufacturing magic and delivers one tampon shipment to B. M invocies B for a total of 550 CU (550 CU for the tampon shipment (goods + 10 %), 0 CU for VAT, due to zero-rate) M's acountant recognizes for the following changes in assets: ./. 500 CU goods (the goods originally recognized are now gone) + 550 CU Accounts Receivable As the changes in assets equal out to +50, M has now run a profit of 50 CU from his sale of the tampon shipment. Variant B: Tampon are VAT taxable but tax-exempt M has an order for another shipment of tampons. He calls S and orders the necessary supplies. S invoices M for 600 CU (500 CU net price supplies, 100 CU VAT) M pays S 600 CU in cash. M's accountant recognizes for the following changes in assets: ./. 600 CU cash + 0 CU input VAT reimbursement claim (no deduction of input VAT used for tax-exempt outputs) + 600 goods (Purchased goods to be recognized at purchase price, where VAT has to be included if it's non-deductible) As the changes in assets equal out to 0, M has not run a profit or loss from this transaction. M does his manufacturing magic. M now does his manufacturing magic and delivers one tampon shipment to B. M invoices B for a total of 550 CU, because he wants to keep his prices steady and Cameron promised him to watch out for him. M's accountant opens his liquor cabinet and recognizes for the following changes in assets: ./. 600 goods ((the goods originally recognized are now gone) + 550 CU accounts receivable As the changes in assets come out at ./. 50, M has now incurred a loss of 50 CU from the sale of this tampon shipments. His wife will leave him and he will become a destitute beggar on the streets of London. Edit: Or I guess he might raise his price to 650, which leaves him with a 50 CU profit but lowers his relative margin. Randler fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:01
|
|