Phil Deakins

I hadn't read the rest of the thread when I wrote that not many minutes ago, and I agreed with the first few posts because 'they' is plural. In fact, when I'd posted it, I was astonished that there were already 5 pages of posts. I'd thought there were only a few - on page 1. But what I said about grammar following usage, was correct, as I later saw confirmed when I read the rest of the thread Perhaps dictionaries and such will become firm on the singular use of 'they'.

I didn't invent the 's/he' way of writing it but I do think it's useful. 'They' is plural but it is also used to refer to a single person. As some people have said, it's technically incorrect because it's plural, but the rules of language are dictated by they way people use the language - just like spelling is dicated by use and not by the dictionary. So, imo, in sentences like, "They said in the OP that they are going inworld" is a correct use of the word 'they' as far as actual usage is concerned. But if using 'they'; it would be much better to phrase it, "The OP said that they are going inworld", so that it is clearly meant as singular. It gets messy though with the word 'are' which, in this case, is the third person plural of the verb 'to be'. But we do use it in a third person singular sense, as in that sentence although not in grammar books. To be grammatically correct, the sentence would need to be something like, "He or she said that he or she is going inworld", which doesn't sound very good. Or He/she said that...." which would sound better. Grammar is not absolute. It is often correctly personal - especially puctuation.

I was thinking that you could write you thoughts about the survey not asking that question and they would get it. It may not make any difference but it's possible they could change the survey to include it. When the time comes, I will write what I think about things, of course.

I remember you making that point, but it seems like a age ago now. So there's no text box? What is the word "Other" there for then?

Meanie

It's not a game. It's a passtime. It's a system in whcih people pass time away doing all sorts of things, but it's not a game because there is no gameplay. Except for very tiny thing that Linden Lab recently introduced, Second Life does not have any way to 'play' it - no gameplay..

S/he said in the OP that s/he's going inworld, which is different to most students who are looking for information.

1974 Jean-Paul Sartre visits RAF leader Andreas Baader in prison That the Red Army Faction (a terrorist group in Germany) and not the Royal Air Force

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Oh no, I wasn't trying to stop it, I am a big fan of madness. I just wanted to hear Phil boss me around, rawr ~.:cattongue:. You like a bit of domination, eh? I'll try to remember that Now get the picture sorted out - pronto!

Greed gets you more

I'd thought that allowing others to set a Home pocation was a simple option in the About Land box but I can't see anything there. If you set or deed the land to your group, and he joins the group, you can set the Abilities of Everyone in the group to set a Home location on the land.

This thread is about a Downgrade Survey? Well, who ever woulda thought that. For a long time, it's been my intention to downgrade to a basic account as soon as I close the store. Is the word "Other" at the bottom of the graphic clickable, or is there a text box under it to enter your own reasons? I'd want to tell them what I think when I downgrade.

16 wrote: jejejejejeje (: edit i just click the link i like that it has 3 go buttons on it. dont know where its going ... yet q; (: Now, you know me, 16, and you know that I'm not a person to argue about things, but I have to say that, in this instance, you are wrong. Definitely wrong. That page has 6, repeat 6, Go buttons on it. If people are misled into believing that it only has 3 Go buttons on it, there's no telling what kind of difficulties they may get into, and all because of a simple error on your part. .

Just out of interest. Until 16 recently described a possibility as to why LL still collects VAT, there were only 2 suggestions made in this thread. One was a trade agreement and after that came a treaty. They were both suggested as possibilities - nothing more. Later on, it was shown that there is no trade agreement to cover it, which left us with the treaty suggestion. I'm certain that what you did was read that stuff and decide that, since it turned out not to be a trade agreement, it must therefore be a treaty, so you started insisting that there is a treaty. That's the reason you went wrong, imo.

Dillon Levenque wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Wow. Arguing the existence of God or aliens ain't got nothing on VAT Ain't that the truth? Yikes. Thank you for attempting (in vain, it appears) to stop the madness.:smileywink: Well, if someone hadn't kept on insisting that a treaty exists between the EU and the U.S., that forces LL to collect VAT, this silliness wouldn't have happened. And it is silly.

16 wrote: another one is say you got a brandname. you sell it to another company you own in another country where the tax laws more favorable to you.. then you make a contract between the two companies to use the brandname under license and charge yourself millions annually to use it. and everytime you set up other subsidiaries in other countries then license it to them ones as well That sounds quite similar to the little trick I did with the VAT here

Solar Legion wrote: Now you're really starting to piss me the heck off Phil. I'm not telling you to disprove anything. I'm telling you to do your own frelling homework. You haven't grasped it yet, Solar. I haven't said whether or not there is a treaty. What I have said is that I don't know. I'll add that I don't care. I have a preference that there is a treaty but that's all. So I don't have any homework to do. You want to know which specific documents affect international commerce of a specific type? Go. Look. It. Up. Yourself. See above. I have done nothing but restate what others have said and added into the mix, another component of how the real frelling world works. But that's not true. Nobody has said that a treaty exists except you. You're the only one. You stand alone. Your belief would cause 90% of all international trade to cease. No country is going to do business with another or allow its own businesses to do so within another country if they cannot enforce their own laws there to some degree. They will not allow businesses from outside countries to do business with their citizens without being able to enforce their home laws either. That is how it works - deal with it. That may be true, but it doesn't say that a treaty exists. 16 described how the U.S. deals with taxes in countries where they have no agreed arrangements to cover taxes. You've been insisting that there is a treaty between the EU and the U.S. that forces companies like LL to collect VAT. You now appear to be backing off. I can't say that I blame you. Better late than never, eh? Note that I haven't said that no treaty exists. I've said several times that it may exist and that I'll believe it when I see it - if anyone cares to show it to me. It seems that you'll do anything to avoid finding it, but you won't persuade anyone of its existance unless you do find it. have you tried? Until you just started to back away from what you've been insisting, it was your ascertation that was on the line - not mine. Demanding to be presented with the exact documents which show how these things work is frelling insane. You want the exact documentation, you can go after it yourself. See above. And just once, stop being so thick when you're told: I asserted no such thing, I simply added in another mechanic for how these things work and mirrored what others have said. No. You been insisting that it's a treaty. If you hadn't been insisting on that, we wouldn't have had this disagreement. I have no issues with people disagreeing with me - I do have issues with simple minded buffoons that demand information they can just as easily track down on their own concerning the day to day workings of the bloody world. I stop being polite when someone is being willfully obtuse. I'm a "simple-minded buffoon", eh? Not just impolite but insulting too lol. Well, I'd much rather be a simple-minded buffoon who writes the posts that I've written in this thread, than whatever description could be used for someone who writes what you've been writing No, I'm not going to respond to you further on this as I do not have the time to waste on someone who wants information handed to them on a silver frelling platter. You've been insisting that it's a treaty. Prove it or do what you just said - shut up. That doesn't really apply now that you're backing off from your own insistence. You didn't answer my question which was, what caused you to arrive at the conclusion that a treaty exists? Don't you even know that? Forget that. You're changing your tune a bit so the question no longer applies.

16 wrote: they can make it really difficult for rogue companies. like USA not only tell their banks to stop dealing with you in USA. they tell the USA banks that they not alowed to deal with them anywhere else in the world either. like in other countries USA banks companies and citizens even are all bound by USA laws anywhere in the world. if you not observe this then can even lose your US citizenship. is same for quite a lot of other countries as well. dunno how far UK laws extend tho other countries sometimes say USA cant do that. like Swiss banks always saying USA cant. USA say back to them if you dont tell us about tax dodgers hiding our tax money in your bank then we will put your bank on our chitlist as well then the banks say but Swiss law says we cant tell you. and the USA says thats your problem. you made them laws not us. we want our money and we will do whatever we have to to get it I don't suppose I can criticise them for doing it. I suppose it's a good opportunity to highlight the idea that Solar imagines - that countries really can make laws that people in other countries have to comply with. They can't of course. In your example, if a Swiss banks doesn't do what U.S. asks them to do, the U.S. fulfills it's threat and the bank probably loses out, but they don't have to comply with the U.S. They can simply say no. In the case of LL, the EU cannot make laws that LL has to comply with, but, if LL doesn't comply, then the EU can make it illegal for the financial outfits (banks, credit cards) to transfer money to LL. Because of that, LL may feel that it's wiser to collect VAT so they don't risk losing all EU customers. As chance would have it, the lead story on the BBC's news just now is that the UK government is going after some big U.S. companies for not paying the amount of tax they ought to have paid. The companies mentioned are Google, Starbucks and Amazon. Apparently, they transfer their profits overseas, so they only pay taxes on the profits they leave here, which is a pittance compared to the profits they actually make here. What they do is perfectly legal - tax avoidance rather than the illegal tax evasion. It's nothing to do with VAT, but it's about taxes, so I thought I'd mention it

Solar Legion wrote: And no one here has to come up with a single ting for you Phil - that's for you to do. Good grief. Coming up with the thing, instead of imagining that it exists, is for you to do - not for me. It's you who wants people to believe that it exists, not me. I don't know one way or the other and I'm happy with that. You want me to believe that it exists, so you show me. Let me say it again, although I'm doubtful that it will help you... It is not possible to prove that it does not exist. It is only possible to prove that it does exist. If it doesn't exist, I can't prove it - nobody can. You are the only one who insists that it exists. I am not going to prove it for you. That's for you to do if you want to be believed. And if you're not bothered whether or not it's believed, why on earth are you going on and on about it? No one here is "keen" on anythjing - we've simply been explaining to you how the real world works (started doing so shortly after you claimed that no country can enforce its laws across international borders ... that alone is a false statement and has already proven to be such). There is no "we" about it. You are the only one who insists on its existance - and without any evidence. Nobody else here does. Apart from you, the very few people who have even mentioned it in this thread - maybe just one or two - have suggested it as a possibility. You're alone in believing that it actually exists. It may exist, but you're alone in actually believing it. Oh, and no country can create laws that people in other countries have to abide by. That's always been true, and nothing has been proven against that. You are making the simple mistake that, just because a country can do what 16 described, it forces people in another country to comply. That's absolutely untrue. I'd be gobsmacked if you can't understand that simple fact. Actually, in your case, I don't think I would be gobsmacked because you've very clearly shown the ability to get things wrong. Are such things the only way? Nope! Is anyone here required to go tracking down every little shred of law and present it to you until you understand? No. I said before, it's not for me. It's you who wants it to be accepted, so it's you who needs to find and show it. You're the only one in this thread who actually believes it exists and you seem to want people to believe it too, so it's up to you to show it. I'm perfectly happy to sit on the fence and only believe it when I see it. If you want me to believe, show it. If you don't want me to believe, shut up about it. But as long as you keep on about it the way you have been, I'll keep on shooting your arguments down in flames - unless you can show that exists, of course. Better things to do - one of the reasons I've stopped being s polite. Naa. The reason you stopped being polite is because you can't handle someone disagreeing with you. That's my opinion, anyway. You can further waste everyone's time ... or, if you truly want to know, you can do the homework yourself. I'm happy the way things are. It's you who is standing alone in your belief, and who wants to change my mind, but you're not doing anything about it, except saying words to the effect of, "believe it because I say it's true". Sorry, but nobody in their right mind would swallow that.. I do have a question for you though. How did you arrive at your conclusion that there really is a treaty for it? There's been nothing in this thread that would cause such a conclusion, so I'm curious as to how you arrived at it.

Actually, only one person has argued that there is a treaty. Anyone else who mentioned it only offered it as a possibility - the same as a trade agreement was offered as a possibility. And nobody has presented any evidence for a treaty. What you described is a real eye-opener for me. I've never heard of such a thing. And the U.S. does it? If they do, it's probable that others do it too, including the EU, since the EU is keen on getting the VAT. Maybe that's why LL feel the need to collect VAT without the existance of a law that they are subject to. At this point, I'm leaning towards the idea that no treaty exists, simply because nobody here has come up with one, even though one person is very keen on its existance.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Darn, I knew you'd ask for that .. I'm working on it I'm getting predictable, am I? lol Work on it faster then

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Wow. Arguing the existence of God or aliens ain't got nothing on VAT LOL! (and where's that pic? )

16 wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I won't quote your long post, 16. It's on the previous page if anyone wants to refer to it. Sections 22 and 23 of the document you pointed to state that it "should be taxed at the place of establishment of the customer." I am the customer. LL is the supplier, not the customer. What you then wrote about it being the UK law is no doubt correct, but that's UK law and not U.S. law. Near the end you wrote, "so while is true that linden can get away with not paying VAT they will break UK law when they do". That's UK law that LL would break, and you are right. But LL isn't under the juresdiction of UK law, so they wouldn't be breaking the law of the juresdiction they are in. about the location. customer vs supplier the old VAT laws specify that the location of the supplier determine if VAT was to be charged on the e-service. it got changed in 2003 to the location of the customer. for the reason given it have nothing to do with taxing the supplier really. and everything to do with taxing the supply from trade bov this in line with the international convention of imports and carriage of goods. every country can tax imports that landed/delivered into their lands. has been the convention since forever this in the olden days before rapid transport quite often the foreign trader would never go to the land. not have any presence there either. just sell their stuff to the customers(s). the tax man collect taxes at the border this the reason why EU have no problem collecting VAT off foreign suppliers of e-services. is just another tax on goods/services. same as since forever + about the should all EU Driectives say should. the EU Comiission cant make/force the countries do anything is up to each country to choose to implement or not however should a EU country choose not to implement a EU Directive then they have to show good cause. if they cant then they in breach of the EU Treaty and can get kicked out of the European Union each countrty also represented on the Comission so before the directives issued then they all pretty much agree with it anyway + about jurisdiction is the Convention between nations that they can regulate/legisalte trade/exchange of goods/services landed on their territory. is the same convention that allows taxes to be put on them is still up to each country to collect it tho. and the Convention is now that you cant pursue the collection of taxes in another country it used to be that way tho. like English kings would go into France to get their tax money. most times tho they would have to take their armies to help them get it. was the Convention that way for a long time the tax doesnt go away just bc the suppllier is not present. the goods/services are. they are real and present on the lands of the country making the tax I agree with all of that. The EU's problem (which is the same for all countries), is how to get tax from e-services that EU people buy from other countries. Obviously they can't unilaterally make laws that compel overseas suppliers to collect tax for them, but they can make rules and hope that some overseas suppliers will collect it for them. If they have made a treaty for it with another country, then suppliers in that country would be compelled by their own country's law, to collect the tax for the EU. Suppliers in countries that don't have such a treaty, do not need to collect VAT for the EU. They can do it voluntarily though. The EU has systems for exactly that. The one circumstance that would force a supplier in a non-EU country, that doesn't have an inter-country agreement with the EU, to collect VAT for the EU is when the supplier has a business presence within the EU. (That was the circumstance that initially caused LL to collect VAT.) All that is self-evident. In a nutshell, we first considered the possibility of there being a trade agreement between the EU and the U.S. to cover the collection of VAT in the U.S., and we found that there is no trade agreement. Now we are considering the possibility of there being a treaty of some sort that covers it, and there is one person who even insists that it exists, which it may do. But, even though such a treaty must surely be available online, nobody has come up with it, so it's not known in this thread whether or not a treaty exists. It can't be classified because businesses are supposed to comply with it if it exists. So I must be available for the public to see. If it does exist, then LL is forced by U.S. law to collect VAT for the EU. If it doesn't exist, then LL collects VAT for the EU on a voluntary basis. I'd personally prefer that a treaty does exist, but, until it is shown, it would be silly to have an absolute belief that it exists. Without such a treaty, no U.S. supplier is compelled to collect taxes for the EU - unless they have a business presence within the EU, of course. ETA: I can't imagine why an agreement between the EU and the U.S., that compels U.S. suppliers of e-services to collect VAT from EU people, would require an actual treaty and not just a trade agreement. I'm not up on these things but I would have thought that a trade agreement would be the way to go, and we know that there is no such trade agreement.

Solar Legion wrote: Get over it Phil - reality does not work the way you want it to - period. It's been explained countless times to you, and each time it is, you stick your fingers in your ears and demand that everyone do legwork that they have no reason to do. The facts have been laid out on the table for you. Enough is well and truly enough. Being utterly daft is not an excuse to cling to an opinion that has already been proven to be utterly wrong by the mere fact that this is how international businesses operate. You want the exact agreements and treaties? Find them yourself. It is enough that everyone else knows they bloody well exist. There is nothing for me to get over. I haven't complained about LL collecting VAT from me. Perhaps you imagine I have lol. I'm merely discussing it, so there's nothing to get over. But on the idea of getting over it, it's not me who's been showing emotions in this discussion. It's you. It's you who needs to get over it. Nobody has explained how it actually is. Some people have explained how they imagine it may be, but that's different. I have no idea why you insist that it works in a particular way when there has been no evidence whatsoever posted in this thread. If you know of some evidence to support your thinking/imagination, please show it. If you have no evidence at all and you can't show it, why are you bothering with this discussion? Until evidence is shown, it's just wishul thinking, or pure imagination, or even blind faith, on your part. You said, "You want the exact agreements and treaties? Find them yourself." And "It is enough that everyone else knows they bloody well exist." No. I'm not the one who says they exist. It's you who say they exist (others have said that they may exist), so it's up to you to prove it. If they exist, they should be easy enough to find on the web. But you can't show it, can you? By all means, continue in blind faith, but that's all you've got. So contrary to what you said, nobody in this thread knows they exist - including you. You said, "Being utterly daft is not an excuse to cling to an opinion that has already been proven to be utterly wrong by the mere fact that this is how international businesses operate." To be perfectly honest, I would have thought that the word, "daft" would apply to someone who faithfully believes that something exists when they have no evidence for its existance. I wouldn't use the word against someone who refuses to believe that something exists without any evidence for its existance. But that's me, I suppose. Perhaps some people are "daft" enough to think otherwise You've criticised me for not reading when I have read, so now I'll criticise you for not reading. I already pointed out that international businesses are 'international' because they have business presences in countries other than their own, so, if they have a presence in the EU, the way they deal with VAT is irrelevant to this discussion. Even it were relevant, which it's not, the way that such companies deal with VAT is no proof whatsoever of the existance of a treaty. For proof, you need absolute evidence, and that isn't it. I'm not surprised that you keep saying that "enough is enough". I'd feel the same way too if my attempts at making points were being shown to be clearly wrong all the time. I really don't know why you keep on coming back for more. ETA: If a treaty exists, it must be in the public domain for businesses to be able to find out about it. Therefore, these days it must be on the web. It's up to the person who claims it exists to find and show it. It isn't possible to prove that it doesn't exist. It's only possible to prove that it does exist. I imagine that you've tried to find it by searching the web, but that's just my imagination. However, someone who insists that it exists, and finds that view to be not widely accepted, to the extent that 'enough is enough', must surely try to find it and prove his/her case, wouldn't you say? So I challenge you to find it, and provide proof of what you expect others to believe in blind faith. If it exists, it must be easy enough to find, so you can prove it.

At least the imagined trade agreement has been kicked into touch, and now we are on with treaties, which I believe was mentioned in the thread too, but nowhere near as much as the idea of a trade agreement was suggested. The trade agreement idea has been shown to be mere imagination and, until a treaty is shown, that's mere imagination too as far as this discussion is concerned. The point is in your own post, Celestall. You only mentioned scenarios where the U.S. has treaties with the other countries, so they don't count as a reason as to why LL must legally collect VAT. Nobody has shown that the U.S. has a treaty with the EU regarding the collection of VAT. If it can be shown, I'll agree that LL has a legal requirement to collect VAT. Until that happens, I'll disagree. Surely these treaties are online so those who want to cite them should be able to find them. Until a treaty between the EU and the U.S., that makes the collecting of VAT by LL a legal requirement, is shown, the idea that such a treaty exists is mere imagination, and definitely not something that can be believed. You wrote: "Phil, I'm not a lawyer or expert on international business law. But, I've worked long enough for a large successful international electronics and computer company to know, that there are laws in other countries that our US businesses must adhere to, in order to continue doing business in those countries. If you choose to ignore this bit of reality, that is your choice." We are not discussing international businesses. Linden Lab is not an international business. International businesses have a presence in countries other than their own, and of course they must abide by the laws of the countries where they have a presence. LL had to collect VAT because they had a presence in the EU. That's never been disputed here. In fact, it was me who said it a number of times. So show a treaty, otherwise it's just a guess and I'd rather not take other people's guesses as being fact.