Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Tax Controversy Explained In Cartoon Form
theodp writes "If you prefer to digest your news in a cartoon format, you'll be happy to know that the Twitter tax controversy has gotten the Next Media Animation TV treatment. In the NMAtv clip, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone cuts a tax break with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and ascends a ladder to 'Tax-Free Haven' where he's high-fived by execs from GE and Google. If you insist on reading the news, IBD has an account of the payroll tax break, which critics are calling corporate welfare."
A hilarious, but true, story. Please remember, when you see 'haven' instead of 'heaven,' that English isn't everyone's first language.
really?
How unnecessary.
admittedly it's a bad pun, but would it really be surprising that the taiwanese media have a better grasp of english than slashdot editors?
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
English audio for those who don't like reading subtitles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1evfTk58o
Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
Amazing - IBD couldn't stop fellating Big Corporate long enough to report on yet another company refusing to pay its share without getting a few kicks in at public employees.
Please remember, when you see 'haven' instead of 'heaven,' that English isn't everyone's first language.
Interestingly, the expression for "tax haven" in Spanish is "paraiso fiscal" (tax heaven), which I'm pretty sure was a mistranslation in the first place. Ok, ignore the "interestingly"..
The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
is it just me, or was that not hilarious at all? Oh, it's an animation, I see. Of course it's funny.
Anybody want a peanut?
Why dish out corporate welfare - Twitter degrades society by making it's users into even more impulsive retards than they were prior. Surely we can't be giving handouts to people degrading society...oh, nevermind.
I understand it's SOP, but I do think it is motherfucking bullshit that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than these companies. And I guarantee my net is six to seven orders of magnitude less than what they bring in, which is probably true for most Americans as well. But its the welfare state that is bankrupting us they say!
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Seriously?
What the fuck? Now you're mocking people for using the term "haven"? A perfectly acceptable word when talking about tax-free locations.
Dictionary.com definition of "haven"
Now, as a person for whom English is his 3rd language, allow me to dumb down my judgment of Roblimo's IQ and knowledge of English to a level that even he should be able to understand, despite it having three syllables: Imbecile.
You may also want to look up the term "walking on cloud nine".
What's wrong with using the word 'haven'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven
A tax haven is a state or a country or territory where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all while offering due process, good governance and a low corruption rate
Seems appropriate actually. If we continue to run the country this way, you should get used to it.
Let go of my Yugo, Twit! It has been interesting to watch how the computer scene has split up into, at first, two, then three and now headed to four distinct types of computing platforms, each a microcosm. By this, I mean we have moved from just desktop computing into desktop and laptop computing, with the laptop often substituting as a desktop. Then came the mobile smartphone platform, which evolved into a fourth platform-tablets.
While people were always hoping these things would come together in the form of some sort of super integrated machine, the fact is that they are very different, and a smart user needs all four devices. They really do not replace each other, and people are making their lives miserable by thinking that they can.
For instance, many people try to replace desktops with laptops. Laptops make for a mediocre desktop computer replacement, and it's somewhat pathetic to see people using them on desktops, especially if they do not attach a bigger screen. The desktop computer in today's world has at least 2 big monitors and all sorts of capabilities, such as copying DVD's or acting as a powerful FTP server or video editor. The desktop computer should be a powerful workstation, unlike a laptop.
The laptop is a machine for the road. I appreciate companies that think they are saving money by giving an employee a laptop and hoping that the employee takes it home and does work on it. But that's crazy. The employee should have two desktops. In today's market, you can buy two desktops for the price of many laptops. The laptop should only be a road warrior device.
From there, we discovered the pocket computer, which has had a rocky start and did not begin to flourish until the iPhone came along with a new idea for the interface. Now smartphones have become a computing platform. People also try to use it as a desktop substitute. I often see people surfing the Net on an iPhone when they have an actual computer nearby. Are they crazy? The iPhone and the newer smartphones are a genuine platform, but it doesn't eliminate either the laptop or the desktop. You need all three.
And finally there is the iPad and all the new tablets. I would include the Kindle and the Nook in this platform, too. This is another distinct platform although it has earmarks of a laptop. The fact is it isn't a laptop and it's mostly a content delivery mechanism. Thus, it is dubious for any sort of content creation, including email. Yes, it can be used in a pinch. The smartphone can be used in a pinch for just about everything. But why use the wrong tool for the job when you can have the right tool?
That's the point. They are, in fact, very distinct and provide different tools for different jobs. Smart people know this, and they use all four in the ways they are supposed to be used.
I am not going to start writing columns with my smartphone, even if I can attach a keyboard and a screen. If there was no other way, then yes I would do it. I could also do it on the laptop, but I prefer a loaded PC with a big screen, so I can access resources quickly and have a lot of screen real estate to put notes and Web pages for easy access. The PC itself is the best of all these devices, unless you want to make a phone call other than a Skype call.
All the devices do have a point of impracticality. The PCs doesn't fulfill mobility needs. For that, I need a laptop. The laptop's point of impracticality is complex editing, such as video editing-this holds true for all the other platforms, too. The phone and tablet cannot do much in the way of editing where processing power is a factor. Photoshop comes to mind.
The point is: buy all four items, but don't claim that any one of them is the greatest thing ever and that you do not need anything else, because that's just bullshit!
So you think it should say Tax Heaven? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven
There is no reference to Heaven on that wikipedia article.
So... what's unnecessary? The tax, the tax break, the cartoon news of it, or the article on it?
Overall, I like this idea. Forcing larger companies, into shitty areas, which they'll have to do up, and which will provide incentives for other businesses to move there too (such as those that will supply these other businesses).
I could see such strategies being valuable to both the businesses (as it eliminates the cost of moving, and problems of re-hiring people), and it could revitalize some run down areas.
Though doing it for just one business, might not be on a large enough scale.
Either way, quite interesting.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
When I watched this my head nearly exploded. The mayor had to do what he had to do to keep Twitter in his city. Consider this: if they had just let Twitter move somewhere else, lots of jobs would be terminated. These are all employees who live in the city, purchase things and pay sales tax, pay income taxes and a whole host of other taxes levied. All of the equipment, much of which is probably purchased locally, would be purchased elsewhere. Contractors who service their equipment would have fewer clients, their office space would be unoccupied, and so on and so on and so on. Over all, it's probably a net gain for the city. $22 million a year less in revenue. Big deal in the grand scheme of things. Twitter is big, and it's getting bigger. Kudos to the mayor for being so forward thinking.
Taiwan: quit trolling and mind your own fucking business.
Their stock charts require Microsft Silverlight and they won't officially support anything else..
I have a Firefox Extension that makes it easy to boycott sites that don't support Linux.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/webcott/
So if it's a "tax-free haven" does that mean taxes are expected?
In the old days we would have said "has received the Next Media Treatment", but it seems that even Slashdot editors have become so lazy that they cannot select a verb and so fall-back to GOTTEN.
Stop it, you lazy destroyers of language.
"maybe not paying taxes is a sign that you've made it as a company in the US."
Made me chuckle coming from China. Somebody over there must have had a good sense of humour for that one
I have seen these videos on and off for some years now but its only when I have taken a close look at Taiwan to see how a vibrant media and lead to quirky informative news briefs like this. Bit insane to think an island of twenty million has as many tv + radio feeds as is, not to mention one of the hardest wired countries.
Why should corporations pay heavy taxes in the first place? Because you need to pay them personally and you feel unfair that the rich guys don't have to pay?
How about the other direction - if billionaires can pay low taxes, then any non-billionaire should pay none. Anyone, corporations, rich people, you or me, having to pay high taxes to feed a bunch of bureaucrats is communism. You know it's idiotic when fucking red China has lower taxes.
The individual pay an INCOME tax, such as every single of us pay. The corporation ON TOP OF THAT, pay a corp tax to pay for the ADDITIONAL burden they pause on the local utility or governement services.
Btw, in most states you're supposed to pay sales/use taxes on things bought out of state -- whether you're a corporation or an individual -- it's just that few people actually do it.
Yes, but in no other state will simple inaction or bad record keeping automatically double the sales tax you are supposed to pay.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
WTF?
Lets see, google "Tax free haven" and "Tax free heaven", just over 8million for the former and just under 3 million for the latter. Maybe someone needs lay off the pills.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
Not Twitter :P
Anyhow, getting businesses to move in to bad neighborhoods sounds like a good idea.
- "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
"Ooh, I know this one! Is it Correlation or Causation? ('Cause we know they're not the same!)"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Did that video end on a "follow us on twitter" note? Seriously?
It is worth considering just WHY the blighted area they locate the company into will begin to prosper. Employees of the company itself will, by and large, still prefer to commute, at least until the slum their company is located in gets rehabbed. The rehabbing will start when the taxes the company pays begin to filter into the surrounding area's infrastructure: after all, the drug lords and gangbangers aren't going away until that part of the town begins fielding policemen. The yuppies won't come until they start building decent schools nearby.
In other words, tax money (and the occasional greased palm) makes it happen. Forcing the company to set up shop locally simply means they have to pay local property taxes. They will continue to hire qualified employees wherever they can find them, and automate or outsource their jobs when they cannot. Most of their employees will still be living in the burbs. Once the slum gets rehabbed, rents will go up, and the poor people living there will move to another old and neglected neighborhood, which will become the new slum. The company employees will get tired of commuting and move into the shiny new neighborhood and the restaurants will open and everyone will pat themselves on their backs for their civic ingenuity. The wealthy residents of the nice new neighborhood will applaud the influence of capitalism and the free market on job creation and the displaced poor people will continue to complain about rich people bleeding them dry and shoving them around.
And so it goes.
can be in facebook
"movie gallery newsmovie gallery news
From the headline on the intro, I thought at first the controversy was about a tax on twits.
Too bad it's not. Just think if we put a small tax on twitter posts, as well as facebook "likes". Just a penny a post and we'd have the national debt wiped out in no time.
And watch them go overseas _with_ their investments (i.e. our jobs). Idiots.
On the one hand, you can understand - most of the Government's spending is for war and shitty politicians that want to use 100 dollar bills as toilet paper. On the other hand, you don't want greedy corporations controlling the country.. ahm... that would be, a nightmare reality.. yeah.
>Benefits that an employee receives are given a value and will be taxed if they exceed certain numbers that are relative to all employees.
An interesting question is: what determines what benefits are "allowed"?
If the IRS had its way, giving free water to employees would be taxed, too (at maybe the rate for bottled water).
Before the rise of MS and Silicon Valley companies, businesses didn't give their employees free food & drink, pool tables, laundries, entertainment centers, daycare, petcare, and so forth.
So if some companies are giving all that stuff away, and some companies aren't (old-style corps), are "all employees" receiving the benefit so that it can be given taxfree?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog