22·
2 days agoJudging strictly by the article; it feels like this case is weak as a wet paper bag.
How do you prove that the diseases you experienced were not ones you were unknowingly predisposed to? Do they have some proof?
Something tells me that this is a paper tiger of a case. I don’t get the feeling they’re going to be able to prove it well enough. Being able to make the assertions that this case does as facts REQUIRES DECADES OF SCIENTIFIC DATA!
I shouldn’t be able to read the defendant’s statement and be able to agree with it. The fact that I can agree with it bothers me when I know how negligent these companies typically are. I hope I’m wrong; because if this case flops; it gives them an easy out.
@ #9; Whoa there. 100% is unreasonable. Still there’s room to start at a hard 90% at about 250 million and then incrementally scale until the tax is say, about 95-97% by about a billion.
Unfortunately you cannot tax anyone 100%; that would ultimately be unfair and demotivating and only motivate corruption to avoid the tax