i dont even know why soft drinks are so wide spread. theyre unflavorful and not even that cheap anymore
Soda is literally an assault on your taste buds… Your tongue is completely numb 😂
Unflavourful?
There are so many things you can complain about and you pick the one things so false an entirely new genre of soft drinks had to be created to tone shit down. Eg; flavored seltzers
You may actually have a medical issue affecting your taste buds, or you’ve never drank a real soda.
Tweeted from my iPhone because I will shame any company except Apple
that’s mastodon
I think you are lost.
Coca-Cola is an evil company, so I’m not surprised. All they had to do was make cola, and be cool. Instead they operated like a criminal cartel, murdered labor activists in third world countries, exploited workers, bribed politicians, and evaded taxes. They should crumble under the weight of their crimes. If the government bails them out then we should all protest heavily.
I think it would be fair to destroy product you see in stores. something to weaken plastic on the outside of bottles, or shaking them. things that make product unsellable, or make it make a mess.
these companies are beyond evil, clearly simple “im not buying this” doesn’t work; retailers must be punished for stocking this shit.
Your motivation is honorable, but this plan would only impact innocent retail employees and would not hurt Coca-Cola at all. I like your initiative, though.
their hours will be spent cleaning rather than doing the shit they originally needed to do. stores will need to hire more workers (and maybe security. but still) to keep the same standard. is wiping up cola really worse than collecting carts at 40c+?
Just an fyi…the coke product is just one of several hundred brands Coca-Cola owns. Sure your plan could work, but to be more effective, one should target more of their brands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands?wprov=sfla1
Huh, that probably explains why Minute Maid juices have so much added sugar.
Why would making a mess at a random 7-11 hurt Coca Cola in any way? What is the logic here?
it would become a liability to stock that shit.
And small corner stores lose money?
If you want to do something, go slash the tires of Coca Cola execs. Or put some sugar in the tank of their private jet
If it’s on retail shelves, Coke already has their money. You have to aim higher.
Some retail stores now operate on a model where they essentially rent shelf space to wholesalers, who are responsible for stocking the shelves and keep all the money from sales of their product.
they have their money once. will they have it again? and again? and after this KEEPS happening?
You gotta corrupt the supply chain then. Shaking bottles in a store isn’t gonna do shit.
see, reducing demand at a retailer level is a lot easier to democratize and give kids to do so they feel empowered. plus it makes them think about OTHER products that are associated with awful shit. maybe, someday, I could even go grocery shopping without having to google every single god damn thing I put in my cart!
Did you know it doesn’t even have cocaine in it anymore? What a ripoff!
Coca Cola ensured that international drug laws grant them an exception to use real coca leaves (with the cocaine extracted from them first). Oddly enough, they could still make their cola taste the same without the leaves. The reason they still use them is because they likely wouldn’t be allowed to call it “coca” cola it it had no coca leaves. The name was so recognizable that they asked for an exception to drug laws rather than change the name of their drink.
The other reason is they make a good profit selling medical cocaine.
Sounds like an excuse to extract cocaine to me
Eh, works for me. BRB, making a new product called coca tea, for the… uh… tea.
Branding is one helluva drug
When did they quit putting cocaine it? If I’d known that then I wouldn’t have been buying it anymore!
I am sure they totally haven’t made any money off the taxes they didn’t pay. I’d love to steal a million dollars and only get fined a million dollars 10 years later!
The IRS charges interest and penalties.
With a wink and a nudge, transactions are often structured to shift profits from high-tax countries to low-tax countries to cut their tax bills. The most popular target for transfer pricing abuse is intangible property, including licenses for manufacturing, distribution, sale, marketing, and promotion of products in overseas markets. Since intangible property doesn’t really have a physical home—unlike, say, real estate—it’s easy to transfer it to countries that offer certain benefits, including more favorable tax treatment. (That’s what’s in dispute in the Coca-Cola case.)
Ugh
The intangible property for coke is a secret recipe that is preserved in some vault in the US. There’s no transfer of IP here and that’s not what’s in dispute.
The facts are centred around the profitability of concentrate producers that earn the super profits. Operating entities and the US makes a slim margin.
You can read a better informed analysis here.
The dispute centres on Coke subsidiaries in Ireland, Brazil, Eswatini and four other countries that manufacture concentrate, the syrup that gets mixed with carbonated water to make drinks such as Coca-Cola, Fanta and Sprite. The subsidiaries sit between the US parent company, which owns the brands, and the bottling companies that make the final product.
The company routinely shifted production of concentrate to countries with favourable tax rates, the US tax court found. The subsidiary in Ireland, which had a tax rate as low as 1.4 per cent, at one point shipped to bottlers in 90 countries.
Unlike independent contract manufacturers, which typically have low margins, an IRS analysis found these Coke subsidiaries were unusually profitable — earning a return on assets two-and-a-half times that of the US parent company that owns the iconic brands. By controlling how much the subsidiaries must pay other parts of the Coke network for use of the brands and marketing, and by setting the prices they can charge bottlers, Coke itself in effect decided their profitability, the court heard.
Those profit levels were “astronomical”, Judge Albert Lauber wrote in an initial ruling in 2020.
The company routinely shifted production of concentrate to countries with favourable tax rates
Manufacturing is different than IP transfers.
the US parent company that owns the iconic brands. By controlling how much the subsidiaries must pay other parts of the Coke network for use of the brands and marketing, and by setting the prices they can charge bottlers, Coke itself in effect decided their profitability, the court heard
IP is owned by the US. What they’re describing is transfer pricing. Subsidiaries are owned by coke hence by definition coke sets the prices under which the US charges for their IP. It’s tax advantageous to charge a low amount to shift profits to low tax jurisdictions.
Numbers look massive but overall not large enough. Coke is gigantic and the dispute spans multiple years. The IRS hasn’t always covered themselves in glory and they may still fumble a technical aspect on the burden of proof.
Interesting to see it unfold but coke has a history of environmental, business and humane malpractices. This is just another outcome of such business model.
And how many arrests?
You’re not going to believe this, but it turns out that no one knew this was happening - they’re all completely innocent! As long as they promise not to do anything immoral ever again, they’re fine. /s
If a government or a corporation has 16 billion dollars, is completely inconsequential to me. I don’t see anything of either
That is a valid take. It also a sign that the current system isn’t working.
The people should be in control of the government and the government should spend money on its people.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the case right now. We need to work together to fix this.
Jup. Governments are way too large for their own good, gets involved in way too many private matters and is insanely expensive. We need to drastically downsize the entire thing and have it focussed on their core job again.
I would disagree, I think governments could stand to get bigger. Tax the wealthy more to close the income gap and get single payer healthcare, so our healthcare isn’t tied to our jobs.
Did you drive anywhere on a road today? If so you’ve already been given more from public spending than you will ever get from Coca Cola.
Government money does a lot of really important things. If you want those things to better reflect your priorities then you need to get more involved in the process (especially at the municipal level, where you will see the most direct impact from government spending).
No doubt that it does. However, pretending like the world would be a perfect place if those darn corporations would just pay all their taxes is foolish.
No one did. You just invented that in your head so you could get mad about it.
Making giant corporations pay their taxes is one tiny piece of a very large puzzle. But you need every piece to finish a puzzle.
You are part of why Elon Musk et al can exist.
You do not know your enemy when you see or hear them.
Elon Musk is not my enemy. The fact that billionaires got a massive pile of money doesn’ylt affect me in the slightest.
You know what does affect me? Corrupt government officials that embezzle public funds, spend it on stupid projects that only enrich their friends and families. That affects me.
You really think that giving the government access to even more money will help you? Hell no. It’s going to end up in the same hands as now, just more of it.
Taxes are a borderline infinite money source, and if you don’t have to worry about s source drying up you start wasting it, which is exactly what’s happening in many countries now.
Said the defeatist
Good.
How many people have diabetes because of their Coca-Cola addiction? How many people are overweight and hate their bodies because of all of the non-nutritious sugars they have drank?
And they have the audacity to not only charge several dollars a pop for their sodas, but to also bottle water in the exact same plant and charge the exact same price for the water they have bottled that they do for their sodas.
Externalities with no direct impact on the company? No way! Milton Friedman assured me that capitalism was perfectly balanced with 0 exploits!
Don’t blame a soda company of you being fat and chugging 130 calories down 12 ounces at a time. Own up to your own shit. “This item tastes good. I blame it for ne being unhealthy because I won’t stop eating/drinking too much of it”
In isolation that is true, but it’s not a fair game. Own up to your own shit when They lobby against restrictions in schools to target children with their addictive substances. They have marketing budgets in the hundreds of millions to convince us one more won’t hurt. They employ psychologists to come up with the most manipulative strategys.
It’s not a level playing field.
several dollars a pop
Nice.
Thank you friend
Now do Cargill, Tyson, etc al.
Nail them to the wall.
Trust me… the astronomical amounts that they have found is nothing compared to what they didn’t find…
Mansions and yachts made of painted bill stacks
They’ll pay up… Pay up to the wealth defense industry.
So, now that the US has 16 billion more dollars than they planned for, surely they can cancel all student loan debt and build affordable housing, right? They won’t just throw it at military contractors and directly redistribute it back to the wealthy, right???
So you’re kinda right and kinda not.
Roughly what actually happens in cases of massive back-taxes likes this is that the movement of funds is tracked back through to the municipalities where they initially failed to pay. From there the actual unpaid amounts are calculated for each level, then priority weighting is assigned (if the total sum was reduced to less than the delinquent payment), then the repayment schedule is calculated for each municipality, and finally the IRS takes the cost of remediation investigation from the top (probably about 1.5 mil for this one) and begins repayment.
That ‘repayment schedule’ means that the funds not immediately disbursed can be loaned out (most often to other government agencies) (there’s a term for the specific kind of loan this is, it’s very short term but I am totally blanking on the name). Funds are usually given out at the next funding cycle unless there’s a claim made for immediate funding, and from there it’s just folded into the budget and assigned however that municipality / organization handles budget allocation.
TL;DR: Biden admin can’t have the funds directly except in emergencies, that would be constitutional overstep. It just goes back to the government at the next budget assignment. Which you can draw your own conclusions about where Congress will put that additional money.
don’t be silly
it’ll get appealed and fought over and over until it’s down to 600 million
they’ll pay back 300 and we wont hear anything else about it for years until someone mentions Clarence Thomas getting a new 300 million dollar golden calf statue around the same time
Your crazy if you think Clarence is getting $300M. Studies have shown lobbying works for shocking little sums of money. Couple of first class tickets to a resort and a month there, easily under $30K.
my sentiment remains, even if the specifics are inaccurate
