A CEO would be negligent to his shareholders were he not to grease some politicians gears and do everything he could to make money for that company.
Well, a CEO is still a person. Someone who choose that role. And business ethics states that maximizing shareholder value is not the overriding goal... for instance, a CEO who ordered hits on people would probably not get the same treatment from you.
BNesides that, you buy in fairly hard to teh myth of shareholder supremicy.
Apparently, my settings hid your other responses. But those were just to the fascism/communism/socialism comment. Never do you defend your rationale for why the companies are not to blame.
. A company that participates in chronyism isn't doing anything wrong, it's a means to an end in the companies goal of accumulating money
Self-interest/narrow pursuing of your welfare doesn't explain why they aren't doing anything wrong. In fact, most people do something wrong because it benefits them to do so. If someone does something wrong that does not benefit them, we call them insane. Otherwise, they're just criminals.
But, yes, you can absolutely make a moral and ethical case against many if not all the tactics used by "crony capitalism" are wrong. I put "crony capitalism" in quotes, because I believe you are using it to mean bribery. Possibly with a mix of regulatory capture on the side.
a fascist communist/socialist shift
You do realize that facism, communism, and socialism are all very different concepts, as far opposed from one another as they are from capitalism. Hell, capitalism is closer to facism than communism is.
An 'inefficient' answer is *just fine* if the code wouldn't be used much, and better if it's more maintainable, for example.
Hear hear!
Some code is normal. Some is called infrequently, and is complex... and therefore should opt for readability over performance. Some code is extremely time-sensitive... I hope you read the comments, because otherwise you're fucked.
And at the risk of being Godwinned, visibly marking people by categories doesn't have a very good history.
I know what you mean. As I saw a football player walk with a cheerleader past a band member (all in uniform, because of the game that night) and then past that really smart kid who never stood out, I found myself thankful that there were no external status symbols in high school.
By all means reward children for doing well, but certainly not punish those who struggle.
In some cases (ice cream and beatings) the line between the two is clear. But in other cases, where you are giving privledges, it's trickier. If the high achievers get lunch first, is that a reward for them, or a punishment for the low achievers?
It was pretty obvious what everyone was thinking. They'd all just violate the hoary old meme about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And nobody was injured. It was fairly obvious that nobody was going to be arrested for their actions. Then we all went back to watching the movie.
Because it was a movie theater. Given a theater that showed plays, one where you cannot see the whole theater, and is not built up to a modern fire-code, the situation would be more serious.
I'm confused as to what is so evil about autogenerated primary keys. I mean, I would rather have one arbitrary number be able to refer to a unique row than a much longer set of four columns.
Now, if you want to say there should be other constraints... often that's the case. But I'd be hard pressed to think of one for a Students table. I mean, students with the same name ought be allowed. I knew them.
know the people involved in writing Tor. And the EFF is involved in writing it. No, that's not what it's for.... It might be that it has been used for that purpose because of some Iranians being incautious about how they're using Tor.
The GP was talking about allowing people in Iran who wanted to communicate with the outside world to do so. It is most certainly what TOR was developed for.
Have you ever played DND 3rd or 3.5 edition (bear with me?
You can customize magic items, and calculate a market cost. The cost to make an item is one-half of it's market cost. However, there are market cost modifications that you really want.
For instance, instead of making a magic ring, my male elf mage might create a magic ring that only works for male elf mages. That ring is clearly is less valuable.
Mark-to-market accounting is based around the idea that you want to maximize, not minimize, the value of assets.
I'll also point out that the vast majority of the fraud/malfeasance at Enron was manipulating the market value of their mark-to-market assets.
Or should shops start asking customers their income, and then charge them accordingly?
They already do that, albeit it subtly.
Do you value your time enough to find and clip a piece of newspaper? Will you purchase whatever they have overstocked instead of your favorite brand if offered at a discount? Will you deal with long lines, or do you go to the other supermarket that is more expensive?
Supermarkets around me give a great discount for using a tracking number that lets them see your shopping habits. By mapping that to sales, etc. they know what discounts can entice you, and get you into the store/buying specific things. When I check out, I'm given (extensively datamined) coupons.
Since most of the patentable tax strategies have to do with federal income tax I'll keep my comment exclusively to that tax. In 2010 a single taxpayer filing a federal Form 1040 who made $12,000 from wages would owe $266 in taxes. He or she would be entitled to a refundable making work pay tax credit of $400. The tax payer would receive a net payment from the federal government of $134. They would have a federal income tax rate of -1.12%
Which is relevent how? Most people pay far more in payroll taxes than income taxes.
Anybody that really cares about this should wonder what data is being collected with your smart phones, etc. Verizon can track you better than OnStar ever could.
I doubt that. But then again, I don't have GPS on my phone. They could triangulate me off towers, but from what I understand, that data actually doesn't persist. Which cell I was in, probably is however.
The idea situation would be to physically live somewhere with high income taxes while financially living somewhere with no income taxes.
And the ideal situation is to walk out of Best Buy with tens of thousands of dollars of home entertainment gear, but pay no money.
The fact is that people bitch about high taxes, but don't want to live places with low taxes. I'm just saying the place you want to live might have high taxes for a reason.
I get that it actually is possible legally, but most people, when asked to choose one or the other, don't want to leave.
happens every day. luckily, people dumb enough to play that game are generally too dumb to do it well enough to really fuck the market over. and various gamesters are all churning each other, so it works out as noise. and they're all small players or they wouldn't risk the SEC's wrath
You're describing one class. The other class is "does it well, and gets hired by an amalgamator of gamesters", aka Golden Sachs, etc.
Governments don't have to compete for you as a customer because you're forced to use them, and you're required by law to fund their paychecks.
Not really. Governments compete all the time, and you can just move to a different juristiction. Seriously, why not live somewhere with no income taxes?
A person who invests $28 million creates jobs, which we desperately need.
Not currently. Many large companies have more than ample cash reserves. Apple has more cash on hand than the US government. The COM (cost of money) isn't what's holding them back.
Because mathematically at least, and that means rationally or for real, taxing everybody the same percentage is fair (no quotes).
You have the loudness, but no argument. Fair could mean: Equal total dollars, Equal percentage of dollars, Equal utility derived from those dollars (what GP was talking about), or any number of other measures. It's hardly an unambiguous term. Hell, I could make the case it is fair to collect one dollar per vote on a voluntary basis, that it is fair that all dollars are collected from every person in 2020, and they get a proportional chance to be made absolute dictator for life, or other crazy schemes. Please explain why you think your way of collecting taxes is "fair".
It's hard to make a statement that it's "unfair" to charge rich people more than poor people in a commercial sense. Let alone this one. If the involuntary exchange bothers you, leave the country and go somewhere else, after all.
Look if you make more you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
You'll somehow have to defend that it was solely your labor that contributed to your fruits. It's hard, you have to prove that everyone who paid you truely earned all that money, going back forever. There's bound to have been some theft.
If you don't make much then by not having much it's supposed to be an incentive to do better.
Some inequality if obviously necessary/desireable. How much is an open question.
To play the devil's advocate here, they will pay the sales tax when they eventually use the money
Why would they ever use the money directly? They can buy a house with a whole-owned company for cash, and then rent it to themselves for at or below market rate. Or make themselves the house-sitter while waiting to rent it out as an above maket rate.
Or buy a car and advertise their company on it, so it's an advertising company.
Or simply spend that money on buying controlling interest in a company and moving it's headquarters closer to his house so when he goes to sit on the board meetings and get paid a princely sum for it, he drives a shorter distance, saving money on gas (and sales tax!).
People spouting this sort of nonsense like you have never had any money put in anything and lived with that stress, to come back and say that it deserves the same rate as regular steady income
Oh, your income is steady? Ever work in a small-business/start-up? Ever been unable to risk your capital because you don't know how long it will be between paychecks? Must be nice. Too bad I never got rewarded with a lower rate because of my increased risk.
Capital investments involve hell of a lot more risk than employment, as they bear the risk complete loss - not just the gains but the actual capital put in.
Not always. In the 80's you could make 17% and have it be entirely risk free. Nowadays it is less, but you don't have to risk it all. And even if you had your money in an index fund, bought in at the height of the market, you've only lost ~20% of your capital.
but losing a capital investment is only comparable with losing your ability to perform a job. Not nearly in the same class as losing a job.
Bollocks. First, if you have only one (risky) investment, you deserve it. (People who only have a CD/savings account obviously are choosing the safe route). Second, if you are just investing your money, and not working at the same time, well, fuck off. I'm sorry you bought a fuckton of WorldCom options at the height of the bubble and had to get a job. Be less greedy
Collection of income taxes actually violates your rights, which area also explicitly stated in the 4th and 5th amendments.
Well, see, the 16th amendment comes later. So it overrides the 4th and 5th amendments. You would be right that without the 16trh amendment it would be unconstitutional (and for more reasons than just that). Hence, they changed the constitution.
it was about power of federal government to enforce its will upon States.
Huh, no. The federal government never tried to enforce its will on the States.
The 18th amendment is very closely tied to the 16th amendment, that's because the income of federal government was coming out of excise taxes, but 50% of income was coming from saloon taxes - alcohol sales.
The 16th may have enabled the actual passage of the 18th then. Interesting, I hadn't thought about that.
t. Basically once the 18 amendment was abolished, the 16th should have been abolished automatically.
Fuck no. Why should teetotalers get a free pass. I like my booze. Not to mention the feds now let you homebrew.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, a CEO is still a person. Someone who choose that role. And business ethics states that maximizing shareholder value is not the overriding goal... for instance, a CEO who ordered hits on people would probably not get the same treatment from you.
BNesides that, you buy in fairly hard to teh myth of shareholder supremicy.
I really don't follow. We don't blame the wolf because it is an animal. We don't "not blame" cattle rustlers because that's what cattle rustlers do.
Apparently, my settings hid your other responses. But those were just to the fascism/communism/socialism comment. Never do you defend your rationale for why the companies are not to blame.
Self-interest/narrow pursuing of your welfare doesn't explain why they aren't doing anything wrong. In fact, most people do something wrong because it benefits them to do so. If someone does something wrong that does not benefit them, we call them insane. Otherwise, they're just criminals.
But, yes, you can absolutely make a moral and ethical case against many if not all the tactics used by "crony capitalism" are wrong. I put "crony capitalism" in quotes, because I believe you are using it to mean bribery. Possibly with a mix of regulatory capture on the side.
You do realize that facism, communism, and socialism are all very different concepts, as far opposed from one another as they are from capitalism. Hell, capitalism is closer to facism than communism is.
Hear hear!
Some code is normal. Some is called infrequently, and is complex... and therefore should opt for readability over performance. Some code is extremely time-sensitive... I hope you read the comments, because otherwise you're fucked.
I know what you mean. As I saw a football player walk with a cheerleader past a band member (all in uniform, because of the game that night) and then past that really smart kid who never stood out, I found myself thankful that there were no external status symbols in high school.
In some cases (ice cream and beatings) the line between the two is clear. But in other cases, where you are giving privledges, it's trickier. If the high achievers get lunch first, is that a reward for them, or a punishment for the low achievers?
Because it was a movie theater. Given a theater that showed plays, one where you cannot see the whole theater, and is not built up to a modern fire-code, the situation would be more serious.
I'm confused as to what is so evil about autogenerated primary keys. I mean, I would rather have one arbitrary number be able to refer to a unique row than a much longer set of four columns.
Now, if you want to say there should be other constraints... often that's the case. But I'd be hard pressed to think of one for a Students table. I mean, students with the same name ought be allowed. I knew them.
The GP was talking about allowing people in Iran who wanted to communicate with the outside world to do so. It is most certainly what TOR was developed for.
And the US Navy was also involved in writing it.
Wouldn't that be confiscatory of the IP?
Have you ever played DND 3rd or 3.5 edition (bear with me?
You can customize magic items, and calculate a market cost. The cost to make an item is one-half of it's market cost. However, there are market cost modifications that you really want.
For instance, instead of making a magic ring, my male elf mage might create a magic ring that only works for male elf mages. That ring is clearly is less valuable.
Mark-to-market accounting is based around the idea that you want to maximize, not minimize, the value of assets.
I'll also point out that the vast majority of the fraud/malfeasance at Enron was manipulating the market value of their mark-to-market assets.
They already do that, albeit it subtly.
Do you value your time enough to find and clip a piece of newspaper? Will you purchase whatever they have overstocked instead of your favorite brand if offered at a discount? Will you deal with long lines, or do you go to the other supermarket that is more expensive?
Supermarkets around me give a great discount for using a tracking number that lets them see your shopping habits. By mapping that to sales, etc. they know what discounts can entice you, and get you into the store/buying specific things. When I check out, I'm given (extensively datamined) coupons.
Which is relevent how? Most people pay far more in payroll taxes than income taxes.
Beyond that, the US has offered to sign the Ottawa treaty if an exemption for land mines in the Korean DMZ were allowed.
I doubt that. But then again, I don't have GPS on my phone. They could triangulate me off towers, but from what I understand, that data actually doesn't persist. Which cell I was in, probably is however.
And the ideal situation is to walk out of Best Buy with tens of thousands of dollars of home entertainment gear, but pay no money.
The fact is that people bitch about high taxes, but don't want to live places with low taxes. I'm just saying the place you want to live might have high taxes for a reason.
I get that it actually is possible legally, but most people, when asked to choose one or the other, don't want to leave.
You're describing one class. The other class is "does it well, and gets hired by an amalgamator of gamesters", aka Golden Sachs, etc.
Holding stock is non-zero sum. Trading stock is zero sum.
Not really. Governments compete all the time, and you can just move to a different juristiction. Seriously, why not live somewhere with no income taxes?
Not currently. Many large companies have more than ample cash reserves. Apple has more cash on hand than the US government. The COM (cost of money) isn't what's holding them back.
You have the loudness, but no argument. Fair could mean: Equal total dollars, Equal percentage of dollars, Equal utility derived from those dollars (what GP was talking about), or any number of other measures. It's hardly an unambiguous term. Hell, I could make the case it is fair to collect one dollar per vote on a voluntary basis, that it is fair that all dollars are collected from every person in 2020, and they get a proportional chance to be made absolute dictator for life, or other crazy schemes. Please explain why you think your way of collecting taxes is "fair".
It's hard to make a statement that it's "unfair" to charge rich people more than poor people in a commercial sense. Let alone this one. If the involuntary exchange bothers you, leave the country and go somewhere else, after all.
You'll somehow have to defend that it was solely your labor that contributed to your fruits. It's hard, you have to prove that everyone who paid you truely earned all that money, going back forever. There's bound to have been some theft.
Some inequality if obviously necessary/desireable. How much is an open question.
Why would they ever use the money directly? They can buy a house with a whole-owned company for cash, and then rent it to themselves for at or below market rate. Or make themselves the house-sitter while waiting to rent it out as an above maket rate.
Or buy a car and advertise their company on it, so it's an advertising company.
Or simply spend that money on buying controlling interest in a company and moving it's headquarters closer to his house so when he goes to sit on the board meetings and get paid a princely sum for it, he drives a shorter distance, saving money on gas (and sales tax!).
Oh, your income is steady? Ever work in a small-business/start-up? Ever been unable to risk your capital because you don't know how long it will be between paychecks? Must be nice. Too bad I never got rewarded with a lower rate because of my increased risk.
Not always. In the 80's you could make 17% and have it be entirely risk free. Nowadays it is less, but you don't have to risk it all. And even if you had your money in an index fund, bought in at the height of the market, you've only lost ~20% of your capital.
Bollocks. First, if you have only one (risky) investment, you deserve it. (People who only have a CD/savings account obviously are choosing the safe route). Second, if you are just investing your money, and not working at the same time, well, fuck off. I'm sorry you bought a fuckton of WorldCom options at the height of the bubble and had to get a job. Be less greedy
I have lived in a different state than pwizard2 where this is also true. Lower rate however.
And yes, in both states, it's on non-prepared food.
Well, see, the 16th amendment comes later. So it overrides the 4th and 5th amendments. You would be right that without the 16trh amendment it would be unconstitutional (and for more reasons than just that). Hence, they changed the constitution.
Huh, no. The federal government never tried to enforce its will on the States.
The 16th may have enabled the actual passage of the 18th then. Interesting, I hadn't thought about that.
Fuck no. Why should teetotalers get a free pass. I like my booze. Not to mention the feds now let you homebrew.