• dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      You could apply the law across all companies in a conglomerate, forcing either competition to be more attractive than monopolizing or forcing the tax to take effect with potential harm to lower income targeted companies within the conglomerate, allowing competition at the lowest income levels to flourish while eliminating it among higher end brands.

      I.e. either Yum Brands sells off taco bell in order to focus on higher end options like KFC, or taco bell essentially gets sold off to a new company without the same leadership.

      It’s flawed, like all attempts to keep capitalism in check, but it’s easier to sell to a brainwashed public than any left wing option that would actually improve society instead of just slowing capitalism’s journey towards the total enshittification criticality point.

    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      Many countries would consider companies that are created like this just to “get around” a rule or law to be the same company. They consider the “spirit of the law”, and sometimes even give fines for attempting to skirt it like this.

    • Wojwo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      That’s why I said full time worker. If I work for company A, but 90% of my time is dedicated to company B. My effort primarily benefits company B, therefore my compensation counts to company B. Really causes a problem for companies that employs sweatshops.