The Other meaning of expertise

 Experts are good at what they do, if you zoom out to the long term, seasoned experts would be those who appreciate things related to their expertise best.

The increase in entropy would mess with one's relevance, it'd mess with one's agility, but proper appreciation is a divine prize

Tax Exempt on Insurance payment return

National Health insurance is a blessing but its also a big burden for the whole society. So in order to ease the burden consider this:

Upon coverage of past treatment, a then successful person could decide to return the cost to the insurance company. The insurance company then returned to him/her all the premiums before that. 

This coverage then would be recorded in the books as cost / tax deductible.

-----------

The cost of human resources should include their health right? So it is only logical to include their health costs against their revenue. However we don't pile up everything at once because its too expensive of a cost that way, but in truth it is always there lingering. 

It is not a bad thing, not putting in the equation all of the health costs of a worker or a revenue receiver, only those immidiately associated with the context of the revenue. On the other side of the coin, wouldn't it be an objective assessment to acknowledge the rest of the costs as contributive too when a point has already been reached?

Sunshine

If you can own then you can share
If you can not own then you can't share

If you're regulated to "share" that's not sharing cause that's not yours
If you want to improve sharing, you got to reduce tax and increase LOVE

------------

I'm not saying that the share of tax is not owned by government workers ok, but those are not "yours" to begin with, therefore those were not "shared", those were allocated. If you wanted to improve "sharing" then to increase tax is an idiot solution.

Title pending... (edited2)

 A conversation rose between a guest and some other guests at a news talk show. 

A: Why would they be accusing you of being a sell out?

B: Well because they're drunk that's why

C: You see, who's accusing who?

B: Oh come on. Look it is only natural that one would hire a lawyer to do such scheme of business, but they were accusing me, keep in mind that such things just don't usually happen blatantly

C: In other words you're accusing without evidence

B: The evidence is in the difference its going to make to the difficulties of my personal commerce

A: Go on 

B: It is only natural if you were to set up a business that would help tourists made the most of their time overseas while taking advantages of the VAT return facilities, you would have some legislative preparation undergone. The problem is, wait a minute let me finish, the problem is some people wanted to take advantage of the "arbitrage" that being the lack of regulatory supervision.

C: So what is this? Isn't this a prove of what they said about you, and furthermore it is not me who said it it is just you. We are talking about a strawman debating of an accusation made by the strawman of concerns risen hypothetically of which Mr. B being the victim of such the thing he made up himself... he's making us all look embarassingly insane

B: So you're saying the problem that I'm dealing with is imaginary?

C: Let's stop talking with this lunatic

B: Then why we are here in the first place. So lets not waste time playing a social standing game and actually elaborate the potential issue here. 

C: You're crazy

B: If one were to build upon this so called "arbitrage" and you let this go on for years, the way it would be conducted were that the people that were bidding and buying were out of the supervision of the "receipts" lets say, unusual compared to regular transaction that was built upon a regulation. This is not a family exchange of services, nor neighbours borrowing and returning tools, this is an international law dealing. The "arbitrage" here is that the intricate and high stake nature of the commerce were producing economic advantages for a party in it, by relying on underhanded unofficially verifiable dealings between the stakeholders. So now, if you guys follow me let me present you with the point, thank you for bearing with me by the way, 

C: Oh get over it 

A: Please Mr. C, Go on...

B: It would be easy for the future regulators to shut the setup down

C: I just couldn't contain my irritation and anger for this fool! Future regulators? and so many foolishness I'm dumbfounded! You're so stupid

B: Well you're not considering the other side of the coin, ok. Because if you believed me then what would be the implication? 

C:... shut up you idiot

B: The implication would be there wouldn't be the slight "arbitrage" due to it being a commerce of receipt. 

A: Mr. B please finish your point

B: Say I'm a country like Japan, say I'm Japan, would I change my regulation to the direction of less facility? Assuming the policies that they've beein doing until now were indeed as they are.

C: This is crazy person talking

A: Mr. C please refrain from insult and slander, 

C: I'm getting out of this idiot show, and you'd just wait for you'd be out of business pretty soon. All of you, will lose your jobs, all of you

A: Please continue Mr. B, it seems like we wouldn't had any productive response from the opposite side, for that I apologize

(Mr. C went out)

B: Alright, so, why would a person wanted to rely on making a living that would encourage him/her from investing in a "real job", that's what I'm saying, the participator of the scheme would suddenly be changed for any correction made by the regulators, this is too fragile.

A: Well you are here putting this issue forward still, despite the heat you've been getting, quoting yourself

B: I'm just putting this on the public eyes so that people like me could start to build something that we would rely on for good, if that's possible. 

D: Am I getting this wrong I thought you're an activist of the anti going concern movement

B: Corporate going concern yes

D: Yet here you are talking about going concern 

B: I'm talking about regulatory infrastructure, there's no need for it to be a monopolistic entity, with the base, multiple buildings could be built on it and tore down

D: So what's the point of your previous explanation then... given it would be build and tore down anyway

B: Well that is the point, that is the point

D: Huh? Excuse me I'm starting to consider what he was saying before was true here, right? I mean please if you had something in mind please explain it better cause we've been listening all this time

B: Well that is the point you see, if I weren't to came out and speak of these things, there would be little predictability of the lines, therefore little could be planned in order to break apart or to rebuild anew

D:... I get it, fair enough

A: Alright panelists I guess that's it for this session we will resume the talk after the sponsorship messages coming up, NEXT.

A: Welcome back we're back and the topic of today is still on the distinction between foreigners and residents, should there be any in terms of business transactions? Now lets get in to Mrs E, you've been quiet the whole conversation, what can you take out of those points given you've been in the tourism business for decades.

E: Thank you, well I can see the point that Mr. B was saying and to add to the point he was making that was cut by the heated temper, which by the way I could also relate to maybe even more than him, however if I were a country like Japan who's trying to have this policy of inviting tourists as means to regulate the fiscal and monetary aspects of the economy, yes this would not be too much of a consideration

A; What do you mean by that?

E: Well for start if a country like Australia were to implement constrictive policies, higher barrier to entry on the tourists or the international customers than before, then it would be further setting aside of such huge potential that we have, why would we wanted to do that? While our position is not much different or should I say we are head to head competing for tourists with Japan and Korea as one of the destination that offered well diversed balance between quote unquote "exotic" tourism and "modern" tourism. 

A: So basically what you're saying is we are not going to see significant changes in the way countries deal with visitor taxation going forward?

D: She's saying there's no point in accusing Mr. B here for being a blabbermouth, reckless in conducting campaigns that might influence aspects of commerce throughout the public, just for his own popularity. I do think this setup right here would do better with scrutiny and is potentially dangerous otherwise, or rather would eventually be upsetting to a lot of people, not in a good way (otherwise). 

B: Thank you, that's highly accurate

A: Alright so now its time for some questions from the audience, anyone?

An audience member stood up, a man appeared to be in his 50's with rather chubby disposition with t-shirt and jeans trousers. 

Audience 1: What would this regulation look like, you're saying that there would be no significant changes, but would there be changes?

Mr. B: Yes, in a way. So the market had its way to balance things out, we would not impose further tax on those who tried to make the most out of our current policy. In turn we should open up transportation facilities to areas that's lacking of visitors.

Audience 1: Right, I think that's a good idea really. What's the use of all these bare ass and wide ass land if everything were centered only around the cities

(Mr D: Bare ass? Wide ass?)

A: (*chuckle) alright the next question?

Audience 2: Well I do agree with what you're saying however I don't think that our land is bare, yes it is wide, but it has plenty of vegetations, I wouldn't call it bare

A: Is that it? Alright

D: Right, there are plenty of bushes here and there

Audience 2: Right right mate it could be pretty bushy down here, not bare, it could be pretty hot though

D: Oh yeah, it is, hot ass of the world

Audience 1: Depends on where you look at it from the world is round north is not always up, the way we look at it, it might as very well be up, up here

D: Right... 

A: Ok so that concludes our talk show tonight, thank you all for watching, thank you for our panelists, our audiences, good bye.

 

---------------------------------------

 

 

When reputation was measured in more rich manners

Reputation has a spectrum, it could come from achievements, popular presentation of one's self, being audited or scrutinized, being on a court, etc. 

What I envision the future would be if people would want to improve on how they measure reputation is:

The favor of consumers over a company would not only be from the prices of their products, or the qualities, or how fancy and dandy were their situations, but it should be more fluid. A company would be measured not only from its size and prevalence but people would look at the "golden stickers" or the history of achievements of their management for example. When the management changes how the public would view the company would also changes, scientists would be able to influence this as well for example by pointing out the statistic of how the change of management influence company policies and achievements, how sensitive a company is to change of management. Something like that

Another point that should also be in the spectrum is scrutiny. Like now we often were scrutinized by the tax office, that's how we and the government came in good terms. Those who had undergone high scrutiny would probably be trusted more by the government. Strangely now people who were cancelled received no extra points for being scrutinized, the consumers quickly move on to the next new thing while ignoring the advantages that their network already build with people like Pewdiepie, Joe Rogan, Johnny Depp etc (some names are controversial but rightly mentioned; Mr. Beast, Logan Paul, Dr. Disrespect, Will Smith, and more). Not saying that they are better than the other people, but the fact that they've been under scrutiny should be an extra merit, which is unfortunately the public in general is not doing that in my opinion. 

So of course an obvious possible way of how this improvement would happen would likely be from an app or an extention to social media. Golden Sticker for example is something that I've proposed for more than a decade, is a system of putting stickers in your profile page that's an aggregation of your receipts, such electronic sticker could be filtered and zoomed in through various dimensions such as period, type of industries, magnitudes, etc. Now in this case, one might incorporate a display of how many times he/she/it had been audited, by what parties. Each communities would do well also to have a forum where they could chip in information that would make up these "badge" or these electronic favors. 

These favors are important for each individuals because we want to be in a circuit and we don't want to have our community or our circuit to not be reciprocal to us.  Also other reasons such as altruism, honesty, devotion, Justice, and fairness. What I'm saying here is hardly new, we already knew of the term "blood diamond", "black companies", "child labor sweatshops", and these people have actually in my opinion started something big. This is an easy way to look at it but of course it is more than that, to have an online electronic reputation system would help people to recognize the entities better, and the entities should not be encouraged to be a giant, but to be fluid where they wouldn't mind to disband and regroup, they would not lose their achievements. Entities would also not encouraged to manipulate speech or public images or to adopt hostile PR policies that attacked honesty, because people value courage more than touches of "make up". 

Tax discount chores idea

The municipalities could announce seasonal or occassional requests for goods and services in exchange for cash (of course, tax coupons, or tax discounts)

The god v.06

When social condemnation is your god, you'd need the social to condemn

However you knew that the society is blind, so you'd need the society to conform to esteemed figures

However you knew that the revered figures are corruptible (especially those who gave assurance that they're uncorruptible), so you need auditors

However you knew that the revered figures will attack the auditors, but somehow you didn't know what to do...

Lets increase the punishments instead

--------------------------

fyi : that post was sarcastic... -_-

why make punishment harder and harder for public sentiment? Evil politicians! Like, these persecutions only empowers them to intimidate others who are checking on them or wanted to do better than them. Reduce the punishments so that audit can be done with less stakes and anyone can audit. If you said audit is a market then the opposite is logical! we need people to realize what audit is and how expensive it is... if they never do that because of "culture" which is trash and satanic (that aspect of it), how could they understand and appreciate what it is and what it costs?

Cheap audit is cheap and its beautiful

Expensive audit is expensive and its beautiful