That sounds backwards to me. If companies are paying all the taxes, why would you insert a second company into the chain? Then both companies would be paying a tax portion, and your salary would be that much less than if you just had a job.

Or were you thinking that you could bamboozle the government out of the tax revenue by saying “Oops, no profit! Salaries cost too much!”? I don’t think that would work unless the entire structure was built with one directive in mind: “Reward Hollywood accounting”

🤣

I want to argue, but I have to admit that your English is far better than my German.

Look at it this way, I’ll eat the stuff you don’t like so there’s more of the stuff you DO like!

Is it the name or the people that creeps you out?

Ok, but I’m an idiot with happy taste buds.

Oof, that’s a sobering realization.

This post is starting to make me think people say “strict” strictly as a euphemism.

What I think it means: The parents never bend the rules for their kids.

What it apparently means: The parents have anger problems.

I also think a collage of bumper stickers looks tacky. I wouldn’t condemn it in such strong terms as you used, however.

his gun

Is that a fact? Are you sure? Will you recant if it comes out that the police did, in fact, plant it?

Nitpick the lawyer’s phrasing all you like; it won’t actually change any of the facts of the case, whatever they may be. Myself, I’m not going to jump to “why bother having a trial? The police arrested him; he’s clearly guilty as sin” based on a Lemmy comment!

Almost like the lawyer thinks “they didn’t follow procedure” is an easier legal argument than “the police dept is trying to frame my client”.

I don’t think this post is a good fit. The name of the community is “mildly infuriating”, not “absolutely enraging”!