They're going to go back to the lower court and (most likely) redo the trial with proper instructions to the jury. From what I know about the case, he'll probably be found guilty again as he was knowingly threatening to kill his ex. Might even get a longer sentence.
You have that exactly backwards. Taxes are all ultimately paid by people, because only people actually produce or consume.
I could be sitting here growing my food, cutting firewood by hand for heat and consuming everything I produce and (disregarding property taxes) not pay any tax. As soon as I go to work for someone or start selling my produce then I pay tax It is from business (mine or someone elses) that starts the tax process
Of course on the plus side, we can all incorporate and reduce our tax burden.
Wouldn't work. Any money you take out of the corporation to live on, or any money the corporation spends on you (housing, vehicle, food, etc.) is personal income, and would be taxed as such. About the only thing you could achieve this way is to defer taxes on savings. But they'd still get taxed eventually.
Even without being incorporated I can write off a lot of living expenses. My vehicle that is used 80% for business is a partial write off and I can still stop at the store while doing business. House also includes a home office which is also a tax write off. Could also be eating at restaurants while entertaining clients and write off a lot of food. Being a business currently means being able to pay myself less then if I was a worker and if profits were not taxable I'm sure that ways to spread out the pay could be found. eg Instead of supporting my wife and child, they could live off the dividends that I pay out from my profit putting all of us in lower tax brackets. The truth is that there are no simple answers about whether people or businesses pay tax and both people and businesses benefit from taxes, or at least what the taxes pay for.
The problem with corporate taxes is that although they are inevitably paid by the people -- in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to employees and reduced return for investors
Actually corporate taxes result in higher wages as they are a write off for the company and reducing the corporate tax to zero would mean less incentive to pay high wages as those wages can be profits instead. With lower wages and higher taxes on consumers the company is going to lose revenue as people won't have money to spend, remember that taxes on consumers is always paid by employers in one way or another. And increasing return for investors in the world of high taxes on everyone but businesses will mean that those investors end up with less money after paying the taxes the company no longer does. Of course on the plus side, we can all incorporate and reduce our tax burden.
Right now, in America, the bottom 50% pay NOTHING in the federal taxes.
I don't know much about America, probably just borrows or prints money to make up for tax shortages. In Canada the way it works is we get low income taxes but the governments , both federal and provincial, make up the tax shortages by having large other taxes and fees, eg gas tax, unemployment payments, pension plan payments and numerous fees that are mostly capped so someone making $70,000 and someone making anything higher pays the same and all the excess money brought in goes into general revenue (and unemployment benefits have been clawed right back even with the huge surplus). It actually works out to the poor paying a larger percent of their income to the government then the wealthy when federal and provincial government taxes/fees are taken into account, at least here in BC.
Every tax and fee government imposes on customers is passed on to business. Both are equally true, business passes costs onto customers and customers with high costs don't have anything left for business. There are exceptions such as costs that can be written off by business which are used to stop new not yet profitable businesses from entering the market. Taxes on employees is a good example, employee pay is a write-off for a business as long as they are profitable, if not profitable then they are a pure cost. This is why big business pushes the meme that it is better to tax people then business, slow down competition from starting. The best thing for costumers is usually more competition, the best thing for businesses is less competition.
Ultimately, the engineer is responsible for the safety of the passengers
Actually a lot of that responsibility is on the conductor and in this case possibly both. Duties of the conductor include, * Making sure the train stays on schedule * Ensuring the train follows applicable safety rules and practices * Jointly coordinate with the engineer and dispatcher the train's movement authority, and verifying this authority is not exceeded * Be alert to wayside signals, switch position, and other conditions that affect safe train movement The engineers responsibilities include * Their duties require that they control acceleration, braking and handling of the train underway. * They must know the physical characteristics of the railroad, including passenger stations, the incline and decline of the right-of-way and speed limits. (Above from wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) So two people in the cab and both responsible with the conductor managing and the engineer operating.
Yea, my memory and posting when drinking. it was actually 14yr old so old enough for consent (at the time), the case was in the BC Supreme court and was more of a reference case on the Constitutionality of Canada's polygamy laws. The real problem is/was getting enough evidence to prosecute for sexual abuse. To quote the special prosecutor,
On August 1, 2007, Richard Peck concluded that there isn't enough evidence to charge the group with sexual abuse or exploitation charges as it has been extraordinarily difficult to find victims willing to testify and the defendants are likely to claim "religious freedom" as a defence.
And yet the really dangerous jobs (logging, farming, fishing, construction, being a pilot are all way more dangerous) mostly don't come with a pension. Subtract driving accidents and being a cop is a very safe job and the number of military deaths have been very low since Vietnam.
While officially inflation is very low, unofficially, at least here in Canada, food is projected to increase another 12% (produce 22%) and has been going up steadily for a while. Gas is almost back to the same price as before the oil crash. Housing is also going up very fast, electricity doubling, even my cell phone just went up 50%. Bank fees are also going up with fees to pay the mortgage recently introduced. Toys and things that only the well off can buy are going down.
Aren't you being backwards? Personal taxes often come from corporations, if the personal tax rate goes up, then corporations will need to pay more to employees to maintain the same take home pay and not only that but startups, smaller businesses and such will be hit harder as payroll has to be paid whether a company is profitable or not while taxes on profit only has to be paid if the corporation is successful. The idea that it is better to not tax corporate profits is a lie pushed by big corporations to stop competition from forming and lack of competition leads to higher prices and worse product. If Amazon one day was the only online seller of goods, they could jack up their prices secure in the knowledge that no-one else can afford to enter their business due to payrolls being so high as only personal taxes would have to pay for everything including the infrastructure that Amazon depends on to do business.
If it is tax on profits, it'll allow more competition as new companies will reinvest in their company rather then pay the tax leading to growth for the new small company. Free market works best with lots of competition.
What to do about corporations wanting "Yhay Free Stuff funded by Taxes" when they don't want to pay? Do you think that you should pay for the infrastructure to make Amazon more profitable?
I know that my government is not that representative, as an example the ruling party won with 38% of the vote, not including those who didn't vote. So 62% of voters voted for others. This government has consistently tried to override basic rights and keeps getting smacked down by the courts. An example is that they are talking about prosecuting people who call for boycotting Israel due to the Israelis targeting civilians. In a democratic society I believe that people should be able to peacefully organize a boycott and probably the courts will agree. In countries such as America, due to the influence of money in the election process, choices are limited to the ones that big industry wants rather then the choices that are most in agreement with the people. Democracy is flawed, just seems better then the other choices as long as there are some checks and balances.
So true. Just because someone was booted into the ground does not mean that they should be helped up. It's their fault that they got booted, should have picked better parents.
Single people have the right not to have to support other people just because they married or parented someone. As a married father, I have to ask, why do single people have more rights? Too much of my meager income goes to supporting others and I get supreme shit if I go out partying or even if I work late without reporting in.
Quebec? OK not English speaking or common law. And in Canada a priest etc can be certified to do legal marriages and can't be forced to do a marriage against their religious beliefs unlike a government employee.
I happily ran OS/2 v3 on a 386/33 with 4MBs of ram for quite a while. Had to use an alternative shell to the WPS and be careful about your config.sys and how many sessions you opened, at the time I ran a lot of DOS and Win16 apps but it worked pretty well though I was sure happy when I upped the ram to 8MBs. The big difference between Windows and OS/2, OS/2 was more modular and you didn't need to load everything and could even have a simple full screen text session much like DOS On the other hand, my brother bought Warp v3 and installed everything on a 4MB system. It was unusable so he gave it to me.
However, as noted above, churches do NOT marry people. They perform a religious ceremony that some people call a wedding. That's very different to an actual "marriage".
Probably depends on country but here in Canada a priest etc can be legally certified to perform marriages and further when our Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage has to be allowed, they specifically said that priests etc can't be forced to perform a gay marriage while government employees such as marriage commissioners (how I got married) can be forced (actually fired for refusing).
When the mother of my child was in hospital giving birth, I was allowed to visit at anytime. Others were limited to certain times. In that case marriage didn't matter but would have made it simpler for my claim as the father. If my now wife was in hospital, I'd probably be allowed to visit at most any time and the marriage would make it easier but if only common law I'd expect it to be similar though the marriage documents make it easier to prove that you're extra close family. Really it was the hospital that decided with the government only formalizing the relationship. For a gay couple the marriage document would probably help more to prove that they had more of a right to visit at inconvenient times. Your visitors were probably visiting during visiting hours.
The Canadian Supreme Court considered this and decided the negatives of allowing polygamy outweighed the benefits. Having lived close to Bountiful BC where the polygamists who brought the suite are based, I have to agree at least in that case. The negatives included that the standard practice was to force 13yr old girls into marriage with 50+ yr old men and what it did to the other single males in their society, eg kicked out so they didn't compete for the young girls. Quite a few of the witnesses in the case were victims of the Mormon breakaway sect. If the case had been about equals agreeing to a multiple marriage the result likely would have been different. As for the tax breaks part you brought up up the page, traditionally it was based on dependents. Is it fair that I pay the same taxes as you if I'm supporting two other people and you're only supporting yourself? I do agree that basing it purely on marriage isn't optimal though and if you had to support a younger sibling as an example should allow you to have tax benefits as well.
When the Judges are appointed by a democratic process such as the elected legislature appointing them. In common law based societies (most countries descended from England) the judiciary has always had the power to make law in the absence of legislation. The legislature and/or crown/people can always override the judiciary as well, though sometimes it is hard. eg, in America if enough people agree it is possible to even get rid of free speech. Someones got to decide what things like "equal" mean. And there are always edge cases.
Slashdot Mirror
They're going to go back to the lower court and (most likely) redo the trial with proper instructions to the jury. From what I know about the case, he'll probably be found guilty again as he was knowingly threatening to kill his ex. Might even get a longer sentence.
You have that exactly backwards. Taxes are all ultimately paid by people, because only people actually produce or consume.
I could be sitting here growing my food, cutting firewood by hand for heat and consuming everything I produce and (disregarding property taxes) not pay any tax.
As soon as I go to work for someone or start selling my produce then I pay tax It is from business (mine or someone elses) that starts the tax process
Of course on the plus side, we can all incorporate and reduce our tax burden.
Wouldn't work. Any money you take out of the corporation to live on, or any money the corporation spends on you (housing, vehicle, food, etc.) is personal income, and would be taxed as such. About the only thing you could achieve this way is to defer taxes on savings. But they'd still get taxed eventually.
Even without being incorporated I can write off a lot of living expenses. My vehicle that is used 80% for business is a partial write off and I can still stop at the store while doing business. House also includes a home office which is also a tax write off. Could also be eating at restaurants while entertaining clients and write off a lot of food. Being a business currently means being able to pay myself less then if I was a worker and if profits were not taxable I'm sure that ways to spread out the pay could be found. eg Instead of supporting my wife and child, they could live off the dividends that I pay out from my profit putting all of us in lower tax brackets.
The truth is that there are no simple answers about whether people or businesses pay tax and both people and businesses benefit from taxes, or at least what the taxes pay for.
The problem with corporate taxes is that although they are inevitably paid by the people -- in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to employees and reduced return for investors
Actually corporate taxes result in higher wages as they are a write off for the company and reducing the corporate tax to zero would mean less incentive to pay high wages as those wages can be profits instead.
With lower wages and higher taxes on consumers the company is going to lose revenue as people won't have money to spend, remember that taxes on consumers is always paid by employers in one way or another.
And increasing return for investors in the world of high taxes on everyone but businesses will mean that those investors end up with less money after paying the taxes the company no longer does.
Of course on the plus side, we can all incorporate and reduce our tax burden.
Right now, in America, the bottom 50% pay NOTHING in the federal taxes.
I don't know much about America, probably just borrows or prints money to make up for tax shortages. In Canada the way it works is we get low income taxes but the governments , both federal and provincial, make up the tax shortages by having large other taxes and fees, eg gas tax, unemployment payments, pension plan payments and numerous fees that are mostly capped so someone making $70,000 and someone making anything higher pays the same and all the excess money brought in goes into general revenue (and unemployment benefits have been clawed right back even with the huge surplus). It actually works out to the poor paying a larger percent of their income to the government then the wealthy when federal and provincial government taxes/fees are taken into account, at least here in BC.
Perhaps he lives in somewhere like Vancouver and bought a house. $200,000 a year is hardly enough to live on, little well save money.
Every tax and fee government imposes on customers is passed on to business.
Both are equally true, business passes costs onto customers and customers with high costs don't have anything left for business.
There are exceptions such as costs that can be written off by business which are used to stop new not yet profitable businesses from entering the market. Taxes on employees is a good example, employee pay is a write-off for a business as long as they are profitable, if not profitable then they are a pure cost. This is why big business pushes the meme that it is better to tax people then business, slow down competition from starting.
The best thing for costumers is usually more competition, the best thing for businesses is less competition.
Ultimately, the engineer is responsible for the safety of the passengers
Actually a lot of that responsibility is on the conductor and in this case possibly both. Duties of the conductor include,
* Making sure the train stays on schedule
* Ensuring the train follows applicable safety rules and practices
* Jointly coordinate with the engineer and dispatcher the train's movement authority, and verifying this authority is not exceeded
* Be alert to wayside signals, switch position, and other conditions that affect safe train movement
The engineers responsibilities include
* Their duties require that they control acceleration, braking and handling of the train underway.
* They must know the physical characteristics of the railroad, including passenger stations, the incline and decline of the right-of-way and speed limits.
(Above from wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
So two people in the cab and both responsible with the conductor managing and the engineer operating.
Yea, my memory and posting when drinking. it was actually 14yr old so old enough for consent (at the time), the case was in the BC Supreme court and was more of a reference case on the Constitutionality of Canada's polygamy laws.
The real problem is/was getting enough evidence to prosecute for sexual abuse. To quote the special prosecutor,
On August 1, 2007, Richard Peck concluded that there isn't enough evidence to charge the group with sexual abuse or exploitation charges as it has been extraordinarily difficult to find victims willing to testify and the defendants are likely to claim "religious freedom" as a defence.
And yet the really dangerous jobs (logging, farming, fishing, construction, being a pilot are all way more dangerous) mostly don't come with a pension.
Subtract driving accidents and being a cop is a very safe job and the number of military deaths have been very low since Vietnam.
While officially inflation is very low, unofficially, at least here in Canada, food is projected to increase another 12% (produce 22%) and has been going up steadily for a while. Gas is almost back to the same price as before the oil crash. Housing is also going up very fast, electricity doubling, even my cell phone just went up 50%. Bank fees are also going up with fees to pay the mortgage recently introduced. Toys and things that only the well off can buy are going down.
Probably be like the high seas. Pirates are usually dealt with harshly even if they're in international waters.
Aren't you being backwards? Personal taxes often come from corporations, if the personal tax rate goes up, then corporations will need to pay more to employees to maintain the same take home pay and not only that but startups, smaller businesses and such will be hit harder as payroll has to be paid whether a company is profitable or not while taxes on profit only has to be paid if the corporation is successful.
The idea that it is better to not tax corporate profits is a lie pushed by big corporations to stop competition from forming and lack of competition leads to higher prices and worse product. If Amazon one day was the only online seller of goods, they could jack up their prices secure in the knowledge that no-one else can afford to enter their business due to payrolls being so high as only personal taxes would have to pay for everything including the infrastructure that Amazon depends on to do business.
If it is tax on profits, it'll allow more competition as new companies will reinvest in their company rather then pay the tax leading to growth for the new small company.
Free market works best with lots of competition.
What to do about corporations wanting "Yhay Free Stuff funded by Taxes" when they don't want to pay? Do you think that you should pay for the infrastructure to make Amazon more profitable?
Not if it is good PR or if it is too avoid a law that would mean paying even more taxes.
I know that my government is not that representative, as an example the ruling party won with 38% of the vote, not including those who didn't vote. So 62% of voters voted for others. This government has consistently tried to override basic rights and keeps getting smacked down by the courts.
An example is that they are talking about prosecuting people who call for boycotting Israel due to the Israelis targeting civilians. In a democratic society I believe that people should be able to peacefully organize a boycott and probably the courts will agree.
In countries such as America, due to the influence of money in the election process, choices are limited to the ones that big industry wants rather then the choices that are most in agreement with the people.
Democracy is flawed, just seems better then the other choices as long as there are some checks and balances.
So true. Just because someone was booted into the ground does not mean that they should be helped up. It's their fault that they got booted, should have picked better parents.
Single people have the right not to have to support other people just because they married or parented someone. As a married father, I have to ask, why do single people have more rights? Too much of my meager income goes to supporting others and I get supreme shit if I go out partying or even if I work late without reporting in.
Quebec? OK not English speaking or common law. And in Canada a priest etc can be certified to do legal marriages and can't be forced to do a marriage against their religious beliefs unlike a government employee.
I happily ran OS/2 v3 on a 386/33 with 4MBs of ram for quite a while. Had to use an alternative shell to the WPS and be careful about your config.sys and how many sessions you opened, at the time I ran a lot of DOS and Win16 apps but it worked pretty well though I was sure happy when I upped the ram to 8MBs. The big difference between Windows and OS/2, OS/2 was more modular and you didn't need to load everything and could even have a simple full screen text session much like DOS
On the other hand, my brother bought Warp v3 and installed everything on a 4MB system. It was unusable so he gave it to me.
I think that a representative democracy needs parts that can't be simply fired so they have some independence from the mob.
However, as noted above, churches do NOT marry people. They perform a religious ceremony that some people call a wedding. That's very different to an actual "marriage".
Probably depends on country but here in Canada a priest etc can be legally certified to perform marriages and further when our Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage has to be allowed, they specifically said that priests etc can't be forced to perform a gay marriage while government employees such as marriage commissioners (how I got married) can be forced (actually fired for refusing).
When the mother of my child was in hospital giving birth, I was allowed to visit at anytime. Others were limited to certain times. In that case marriage didn't matter but would have made it simpler for my claim as the father.
If my now wife was in hospital, I'd probably be allowed to visit at most any time and the marriage would make it easier but if only common law I'd expect it to be similar though the marriage documents make it easier to prove that you're extra close family.
Really it was the hospital that decided with the government only formalizing the relationship. For a gay couple the marriage document would probably help more to prove that they had more of a right to visit at inconvenient times. Your visitors were probably visiting during visiting hours.
The Canadian Supreme Court considered this and decided the negatives of allowing polygamy outweighed the benefits.
Having lived close to Bountiful BC where the polygamists who brought the suite are based, I have to agree at least in that case.
The negatives included that the standard practice was to force 13yr old girls into marriage with 50+ yr old men and what it did to the other single males in their society, eg kicked out so they didn't compete for the young girls. Quite a few of the witnesses in the case were victims of the Mormon breakaway sect.
If the case had been about equals agreeing to a multiple marriage the result likely would have been different.
As for the tax breaks part you brought up up the page, traditionally it was based on dependents. Is it fair that I pay the same taxes as you if I'm supporting two other people and you're only supporting yourself? I do agree that basing it purely on marriage isn't optimal though and if you had to support a younger sibling as an example should allow you to have tax benefits as well.
When the Judges are appointed by a democratic process such as the elected legislature appointing them.
In common law based societies (most countries descended from England) the judiciary has always had the power to make law in the absence of legislation. The legislature and/or crown/people can always override the judiciary as well, though sometimes it is hard. eg, in America if enough people agree it is possible to even get rid of free speech.
Someones got to decide what things like "equal" mean. And there are always edge cases.