Okay, fair enough. You're right that corporations will generally have more deductions for the same amount of expenses, though that can be explained because of the different natures of the expenses (or at least the characterization of those expenses).
On the flip side, an easy example of a situation where a company pays more taxes than an individual is for people with (relatively) low income levels, when the benefits individuals get like the standard deduction make a big difference.
Your statements are worse than uninformed, they're apparently advocating unethical activity, and loud enough to possibly mislead those who might be mistaken to think you know what you're talking about because you've apparently read a few books about this.
Also, bear in mind this is not legal advice, consult a legal professional for advice.
First off, you are conflating withholding with your deduction issue. The issue has nothing to do with who pays taxes first, and if you are over-withheld you can apply for a refund. Besides which, corporations are withheld in a sense in the form of estimated quarterly taxes.
The reason the corporation is entitled to deductions on computers and cell phone bills that individuals are not is because the corporation is presumably purchasing these for a business reason, unlike the individual who generally purchases these for fun. For better or worse, US tax policy has decided to incentivize investment in business, in order to encourage profit making activity that grows the economy. If the company is in fact purchasing these items simply for the personal entertainment of its sole shareholder, and that's what it sounds like you are suggesting, then what you are advocating is fraud, plain and simple.
This not being a problem in foreign countries with much lower rates of corporate taxation why?
Those armies of creative accountant and lawyers can't be doing that good of a job either if the corporations are fleeing the country to avoid the US corporate taxes.
You don't have to be a financial expert to know that things just ain't right because we're running out of money and those big companies are going abroad to avoid paying high corporate taxes.
Of course, some financial experts might say that the problem is we have one of the highest rates of corporate taxation in the developed world. But your heart tells you that it's the fat cats on Wall St and running corporations who are at fault, and that's all that matters.
Why should corporations be ethically constrained to stay in a place where most of the populace seems to be caught in a wave of populism where they think that corporations are evil and that we should get revenge on them and up corporate taxes?
There is no double tax, the companies get a credit for foreign taxes paid. The overall aim of the law is that the US tries to ensure there is one global level of tax that is roughly equal wherever a US citizen company is. Thus decisions on where to invest should (in theory) be mostly tax neutral, with capital flowing to where it can be used most productively.
What are you talking about? Corporations and individuals all pay tax on taxable net income, not on profit or gross income.
Anything in particular you're thinking about that is deductible for corporations but not for persons? Because conversely, there is a lot that is deductible for persons and not for corporations.
Also, the idea of operating everything through a corporation is generally not a good idea, you are exposing yourself to two levels of tax. Contrary to your implication, you do not get to call the shots on what is bought and used either, i.e. you cannot buy yourself a house with your company and call it business expense without due evidence, otherwise you're liable to get slammed.
What really strikes me as odd about the DSi is Nintendo's announcement that this will constitute a "Third Platform", not replacing the DS Lite but complementing it. How many markets are there for dual screen handhelds with one touchscreen by Nintendo? Especially since the DSi appears to be such an incremental upgrade over the DS Lite.
Wow, you sure are good at rationalizing your love for Apple. Of course Apple could never do anything wrong!
Besides proprietary GUI, FairPlay, and phones, which you all granted, how about the accessory market for iPods, which requires special licensing and fees? How about AirTunes only working on Apple wireless routers? How about everything about iTunes software, like the fact that by default it is the only thing that works with AirTunes, that it's FairPlay DRM is the only thing it supports, and that it was the only way to sync your iPod (until it was reverse engineered)? How about AppleTV and the fact that it only sync with Apple software?
How about the fact that everything Apple does is designed to lock you into their ecosystem of buying Apple products?
Heck, how about this very patent? You "Yawn" about it because everybody abuses patents, which makes Apple a saint of course, because Microsoft does it too. And then you claim that they need to protect themselves. How about the friggin fact that if they don't install DRM in their stupid sneakers, no one will be able to troll them with a "bogus patent" on DRM in sneakers?
Open your eyes man, without a doubt, Apple makes some nice products, and their CEO is extremely dreamy, but call a spade a spade. Nice products don't mean that they don't act like real dicks most of the time.
Which returns to my original point, that this thing is so huge, that it could also provide cheap commercial rent, making it no longer in the middle of nowhere, but now its own destination. The thing is basically a self-contained city of a bunch of really closely packed high-rises.
Also, high-rises in the States at least seem to cost more than similarly sized apartments in shorter, older buildings right next door to them. I think besides the location and view, people are also drawn to high-rises for their modern interiors, and the conveniencies and amenities that usually come with a high-rise.
So what you're saying then is that an architect's ego is directly proportional to the number of people living in his building. And you're making this statement as a wholly unsupported assertion. Is it ego just because we're defining it as such then?
Also, I'm really unsure on your "people rebel against machinery" hypothesis. This strikes me as a cultural bias again, and I'm not sure I even see it in the United States. Moreover, I'd love to see a cite for the fact that people living in apartments with identical floor plans are less pleased than buildings with varied floor plans. That just strikes me as untrue, as I could really give a damn about what my neighbor's floor plan is, and I've never even considered that I'd be happier if it were different than mine, nor have I ever heard anyone express such a sentiment. If you aren't talking about just floor plans, well no one is forcing everyone to decorate their interiors exactly the same as far as I can tell.
I don't think so. When I say cheap rent, I mean cheap rent relatively.
If there were a high-rise apartment that opened up in, say, New York that had relatively cheaper rent than other high rises, even though it is still very high on an absolute scale, it would fill up very quickly obviously. This thing doesn't strike me as that different from a high-rise apartment building and if you just look at each high-rise in isolation, they have a hugely higher population density than Indian slums. In fact, people generally pay more to live in high-rise apartments rather than low-rise apartments in New York and elsewhere.
The perspective you have, with the idea that this would be a "ratcage", seems heavily informed by cultural biases.
What makes this a monument to the ego of the architect? Because it treats people as identical units to be slotted into storage compartments within a big structure? How is that different from modern luxury high-rise condo's and apartments, which actually command a higher market price than apartments in smaller buildings?
I think a big part of the criticism you level, and of the similar criticisms other posters are leveling, is cultural. Americans have a particular love, or even obsession, with personal space and privacy and open space.
I would personally love it. I love big cities in their densest parts, and overwhelmingly prefer to live in downtown to the suburbs.
I think this problem is one the invisible hand would be adept at solving. Competitive rents can solve the problem of why people would want to live there.
Low rents combined with presumably modern infrastructure are all the reasons companies would need to be interested in setting up shop. Companies provide opportunity, and affordable housing combined with opportunities are all the reasons people would need to be interested in moving there.
Only issue then is whether you could build this thing cheaply enough, or have a long enough investment outlook, to make building this thing worthwhile.
From the article, the concept art shows a structure that is more of a perforated pyramid, so the surface area could be substantially longer than your napkin calculations suggest.
This is insightful in the same sense that geeks saying the clothing you wear doesn't or shouldn't matter is insightful. Theoretically, maybe it's true, but in the real world it's clearly foolhardy.
Further, if fashion applies to clothing, is there any reason to suppose it doesn't apply to everything else? Sure, a computer is a tool, but so are clothes tools to keep you warm.
Just because one takes a view that fashion doesn't matter doesn't mean anyone else will when judging you for your fashions. Fashions are simply the image you choose to project. Caring about the image you choose to project has nothing to do with insecurity, and is a very real part of real world relationship management.
I don't understand, how is this supporting what you said, and how did you get double 5 informatives? Is this a joke you're playing to point out how eager Apple fans are to mod up anything that's positive on Apple (whether or not it's true and without reading the supposed evidence)? If so, you've succeeded quite admirably.
From your article, which says nothing about Apple officially denying paying for product placements:
Marketing guru Peter Sealey, a professor at Claremont Graduate University, calls the charismatic Jobs "the best marketing CEO in the business." USA TODAY spoke to professors such as Sealey, authors and former Apple marketing executives, asking what other companies could learn from the Apple marketing manual:...
*Work the taste-makers. Out of necessity, with a tiny and then declining market share for computers, Apple had to work harder to get its products in front of the public. In the past few years, it has aggressively set up Apple retail stores in metropolitan areas. Apple has also been very PR-centric, says Cruikshank, pushing to get its products reviewed and used as product placement in movies and TV shows.
In The Apple Way, Cruikshank writes that Apple computers have appeared on screen more than 1,500 times in the past 20 years on TV shows and movies including 24, Sex and the City, Seinfeld and You've Got Mail.
"More than half of all computer product placement during this time was from Apple, at a time when its market share was just 3%," Cruikshank says.
At this point, it seems overwhelmingly apparent that the Olympics is simply big business. In your article, the IOC states: '"My clients, the sponsors and broadcasters are happy with the positive view that the Olympics is about sport and the focus is quite rightly on that," said the IOC's marketing director Timo Lumme.' Yes, that is who their clients are.
I saw a number being tossed around of $1 billion that NBC paid for exclusive broadcast rights. Visa paid hundreds of millions for exclusive credit card rights, to the detriment of the people that actually attend the games, and find they can't use their credit cards.
My question then is: Where is all the money going? 4 billion dollars is a lot to be spending just on administration, especially when the host countries are the ones paying for infrastructure.
It just doesn't seem to make any sense. It can't all be going to hookers and blow...can it?
I don't understand why this would be a good use for a stolen credit card. So that you can have a useless app on your iPhone (now free!)? So that you can use your stolen credit card to make a purchase that is linked through your cell phone account to your identity?
"Wireless carriers say early termination fees are necessary so the companies can recover the cost of mobile phones, which they subsidize when customers sign long-term service contracts.
But the judge in her ruling said the contracts were "implemented primarily as a means to discourage customers from leaving" and that the company gave little regard to the cost of broken contracts."
And remember, in the United States, just because something is clearly stated in a contract doesn't mean the contract is enforceable. For instance, a contract to make yourself a slave will not be enforced by a court.
Every time ray tracing technology is shown off, I can't help but marvel that the long held dream of games filled with reflective spheres can finally be enabled.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, fair enough. You're right that corporations will generally have more deductions for the same amount of expenses, though that can be explained because of the different natures of the expenses (or at least the characterization of those expenses).
On the flip side, an easy example of a situation where a company pays more taxes than an individual is for people with (relatively) low income levels, when the benefits individuals get like the standard deduction make a big difference.
Your statements are worse than uninformed, they're apparently advocating unethical activity, and loud enough to possibly mislead those who might be mistaken to think you know what you're talking about because you've apparently read a few books about this.
Also, bear in mind this is not legal advice, consult a legal professional for advice.
First off, you are conflating withholding with your deduction issue. The issue has nothing to do with who pays taxes first, and if you are over-withheld you can apply for a refund. Besides which, corporations are withheld in a sense in the form of estimated quarterly taxes.
The reason the corporation is entitled to deductions on computers and cell phone bills that individuals are not is because the corporation is presumably purchasing these for a business reason, unlike the individual who generally purchases these for fun. For better or worse, US tax policy has decided to incentivize investment in business, in order to encourage profit making activity that grows the economy. If the company is in fact purchasing these items simply for the personal entertainment of its sole shareholder, and that's what it sounds like you are suggesting, then what you are advocating is fraud, plain and simple.
This not being a problem in foreign countries with much lower rates of corporate taxation why?
Those armies of creative accountant and lawyers can't be doing that good of a job either if the corporations are fleeing the country to avoid the US corporate taxes.
Ahh truthiness, the Word of the Year of 2005, but just as fitting the Word of the Year of 2008.
You don't have to be a financial expert to know that things just ain't right because we're running out of money and those big companies are going abroad to avoid paying high corporate taxes.
Of course, some financial experts might say that the problem is we have one of the highest rates of corporate taxation in the developed world. But your heart tells you that it's the fat cats on Wall St and running corporations who are at fault, and that's all that matters.
Why should corporations be ethically constrained to stay in a place where most of the populace seems to be caught in a wave of populism where they think that corporations are evil and that we should get revenge on them and up corporate taxes?
There is no double tax, the companies get a credit for foreign taxes paid. The overall aim of the law is that the US tries to ensure there is one global level of tax that is roughly equal wherever a US citizen company is. Thus decisions on where to invest should (in theory) be mostly tax neutral, with capital flowing to where it can be used most productively.
What are you talking about? Corporations and individuals all pay tax on taxable net income, not on profit or gross income.
Anything in particular you're thinking about that is deductible for corporations but not for persons? Because conversely, there is a lot that is deductible for persons and not for corporations.
Also, the idea of operating everything through a corporation is generally not a good idea, you are exposing yourself to two levels of tax. Contrary to your implication, you do not get to call the shots on what is bought and used either, i.e. you cannot buy yourself a house with your company and call it business expense without due evidence, otherwise you're liable to get slammed.
What really strikes me as odd about the DSi is Nintendo's announcement that this will constitute a "Third Platform", not replacing the DS Lite but complementing it. How many markets are there for dual screen handhelds with one touchscreen by Nintendo? Especially since the DSi appears to be such an incremental upgrade over the DS Lite.
Source:
Engadget
Wow, you sure are good at rationalizing your love for Apple. Of course Apple could never do anything wrong!
Besides proprietary GUI, FairPlay, and phones, which you all granted, how about the accessory market for iPods, which requires special licensing and fees?
How about AirTunes only working on Apple wireless routers?
How about everything about iTunes software, like the fact that by default it is the only thing that works with AirTunes, that it's FairPlay DRM is the only thing it supports, and that it was the only way to sync your iPod (until it was reverse engineered)?
How about AppleTV and the fact that it only sync with Apple software?
How about the fact that everything Apple does is designed to lock you into their ecosystem of buying Apple products?
Heck, how about this very patent? You "Yawn" about it because everybody abuses patents, which makes Apple a saint of course, because Microsoft does it too. And then you claim that they need to protect themselves. How about the friggin fact that if they don't install DRM in their stupid sneakers, no one will be able to troll them with a "bogus patent" on DRM in sneakers?
Open your eyes man, without a doubt, Apple makes some nice products, and their CEO is extremely dreamy, but call a spade a spade. Nice products don't mean that they don't act like real dicks most of the time.
Unless you just want to play retail games, and don't care about all the online stuff, in which case the $199 version will suit you just fine.
Which returns to my original point, that this thing is so huge, that it could also provide cheap commercial rent, making it no longer in the middle of nowhere, but now its own destination. The thing is basically a self-contained city of a bunch of really closely packed high-rises.
Also, high-rises in the States at least seem to cost more than similarly sized apartments in shorter, older buildings right next door to them. I think besides the location and view, people are also drawn to high-rises for their modern interiors, and the conveniencies and amenities that usually come with a high-rise.
So what you're saying then is that an architect's ego is directly proportional to the number of people living in his building. And you're making this statement as a wholly unsupported assertion. Is it ego just because we're defining it as such then?
Also, I'm really unsure on your "people rebel against machinery" hypothesis. This strikes me as a cultural bias again, and I'm not sure I even see it in the United States. Moreover, I'd love to see a cite for the fact that people living in apartments with identical floor plans are less pleased than buildings with varied floor plans. That just strikes me as untrue, as I could really give a damn about what my neighbor's floor plan is, and I've never even considered that I'd be happier if it were different than mine, nor have I ever heard anyone express such a sentiment. If you aren't talking about just floor plans, well no one is forcing everyone to decorate their interiors exactly the same as far as I can tell.
I don't think so. When I say cheap rent, I mean cheap rent relatively.
If there were a high-rise apartment that opened up in, say, New York that had relatively cheaper rent than other high rises, even though it is still very high on an absolute scale, it would fill up very quickly obviously. This thing doesn't strike me as that different from a high-rise apartment building and if you just look at each high-rise in isolation, they have a hugely higher population density than Indian slums. In fact, people generally pay more to live in high-rise apartments rather than low-rise apartments in New York and elsewhere.
The perspective you have, with the idea that this would be a "ratcage", seems heavily informed by cultural biases.
What makes this a monument to the ego of the architect? Because it treats people as identical units to be slotted into storage compartments within a big structure? How is that different from modern luxury high-rise condo's and apartments, which actually command a higher market price than apartments in smaller buildings?
I think a big part of the criticism you level, and of the similar criticisms other posters are leveling, is cultural. Americans have a particular love, or even obsession, with personal space and privacy and open space.
I would personally love it. I love big cities in their densest parts, and overwhelmingly prefer to live in downtown to the suburbs.
I think this problem is one the invisible hand would be adept at solving. Competitive rents can solve the problem of why people would want to live there.
Low rents combined with presumably modern infrastructure are all the reasons companies would need to be interested in setting up shop. Companies provide opportunity, and affordable housing combined with opportunities are all the reasons people would need to be interested in moving there.
Only issue then is whether you could build this thing cheaply enough, or have a long enough investment outlook, to make building this thing worthwhile.
From the article, the concept art shows a structure that is more of a perforated pyramid, so the surface area could be substantially longer than your napkin calculations suggest.
Strange that all the ordinary free with sign-up 3G phones are working fine then.
This is insightful in the same sense that geeks saying the clothing you wear doesn't or shouldn't matter is insightful. Theoretically, maybe it's true, but in the real world it's clearly foolhardy.
Further, if fashion applies to clothing, is there any reason to suppose it doesn't apply to everything else? Sure, a computer is a tool, but so are clothes tools to keep you warm.
Just because one takes a view that fashion doesn't matter doesn't mean anyone else will when judging you for your fashions. Fashions are simply the image you choose to project. Caring about the image you choose to project has nothing to do with insecurity, and is a very real part of real world relationship management.
I don't understand, how is this supporting what you said, and how did you get double 5 informatives? Is this a joke you're playing to point out how eager Apple fans are to mod up anything that's positive on Apple (whether or not it's true and without reading the supposed evidence)? If so, you've succeeded quite admirably.
From your article, which says nothing about Apple officially denying paying for product placements:
At this point, it seems overwhelmingly apparent that the Olympics is simply big business. In your article, the IOC states:
'"My clients, the sponsors and broadcasters are happy with the positive view that the Olympics is about sport and the focus is quite rightly on that," said the IOC's marketing director Timo Lumme.' Yes, that is who their clients are.
I saw a number being tossed around of $1 billion that NBC paid for exclusive broadcast rights. Visa paid hundreds of millions for exclusive credit card rights, to the detriment of the people that actually attend the games, and find they can't use their credit cards.
According to Wikipedia, they made 4 billion from the last Olympics, and they distribute the money throughout the Olympic Movement. As best as I can tell from Google, these are all non-profits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Olympic_Committee#Olympic_marketingAs
My question then is: Where is all the money going? 4 billion dollars is a lot to be spending just on administration, especially when the host countries are the ones paying for infrastructure.
It just doesn't seem to make any sense. It can't all be going to hookers and blow...can it?
I don't understand why this would be a good use for a stolen credit card. So that you can have a useless app on your iPhone (now free!)? So that you can use your stolen credit card to make a purchase that is linked through your cell phone account to your identity?
According to this article, it was a violation of California's unfair business practices act:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.sprint30jul30,0,2416808.story
"Wireless carriers say early termination fees are necessary so the companies can recover the cost of mobile phones, which they subsidize when customers sign long-term service contracts.
But the judge in her ruling said the contracts were "implemented primarily as a means to discourage customers from leaving" and that the company gave little regard to the cost of broken contracts."
And remember, in the United States, just because something is clearly stated in a contract doesn't mean the contract is enforceable. For instance, a contract to make yourself a slave will not be enforced by a court.
This guy was actually at a really expensive private school, one of the best from an academic standpoint in the country.
Another post above this claims he was a student at Tesoro High School, a public school in California, albeit probably a pretty decent one.Every time ray tracing technology is shown off, I can't help but marvel that the long held dream of games filled with reflective spheres can finally be enabled.