The CBO produced a report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX" in which it states "A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
And it goes on to say
"Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO's review of the studies yields the following conclusions:
o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.
o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.
o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of the corporate tax falls on capital in general.
o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different countries can be substituted.
o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.
Pres. Obama did not seek changes for FISA and allowed its renewal. He also oversaw renewal of PATRIOT Act, twice. Well, he signed the a last-minute 4-year extension and then 4 years later signed the USA Freedom Act, which renewed the PATRIOT Act, which had finally expired.
An entity can sell bandwidth or content, not both.
Any QoS or other throttling must be done by class of data (e.g., email, HTTP, RTP streaming) rather than by content provider favoritism. So for example Google vs Bing is a content issue, and an ISP should not be able to favor one search provider over another, but could favor streaming video over HTTP generally.
Bandwidth and data caps can apply as necessary, but need to be honestly metered and reported to customers (so as to allow, e.g., a parent to figure out their kids streamed 100GB of movies last weekend and that's how they went over their cap).
Not sure how to legally define the wiggle-room needed to reflect the real-world as others have pointed out there may be a lot of reasons why data from site A is slower than my paid-for bandwidth ought to provide. But it should be possible for someone to validate bandwidth terms of service that reasonable people can agree that the terms were met.
"From 1917 on, communists in Russia, China, and elsewhere confiscated, redistributed and collectivized private wealth, and set wages, leveling inequality on an unprecedented scale."
I'm sorry, but does anyone really think that "equality" from actions like this is a good idea? And this seems to completely ignore the fact that the populace largely was equal in their misery--when they were not being murdered by their governments--while the Politburo and Party hacks were "rich" (even if not monetarily, their lifestyles were thousands of times better than the average citizen).
So they're pikers compared to Communists and Socialists, who have worldwide under many "leaders" actively murdered millions and caused many millions more to die? Stalin alone is measured to have been responsible for 20M deaths.
I feel bad for the father, but blaming the car his daughter was driving at 0.21 BAC is a non-starter. I don't care if it was a Pinto and she was going 80MPH in reverse when she hit the tree causing it to burst into flames.
It's not even clear that she'd be alive in a different car leaving him to "yell at her". Thankfully, the only person she murdered was someone stupid enough to get in the car with her.
If this progresses to a lawsuit against Tesla (which is not a company I have a lot of positive feelings for), it'll be another example of why we can't have anything nice. Stupid people seem intent on making the rest of society pay for their stupidity and we keep letting them, instead of letting them suffer the sometimes fatal consequences on their own.
"then seeking employment specifically for the purpose of promoting unionization has the following moral components: deceiving the owner[s] of the business (or by proxy, their agents) "
My first question is this "Did the employee in question in all other respects do the job he was hired for?" If so, then I wonder if the ulterior motive is immaterial. He did an honest day's work for the agreed upon wages and benefits, as he would be indistinguishable from an employee who had no ulterior motive but decided the day after he was hired to become union devotee.
OTOH, if all he did was get hired so as to have a way to spend time agitating for a union and didn't do the job he was hired for, then his motives are material.
We've seen similar cases where people got themselves at slaughterhouses just so they could report on violations and film animal abuse. It's interesting to see who is defending whom in both cases.
RENO — The massive Tesla battery factory being built in Northern Nevada will be a thirsty resident, with some preliminary estimates saying it will require the equivalent of nearly half of the groundwater rights allocated to its Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center neighborhood.
The project, the cherry atop Gov. Brian Sandoval’s economic development agenda to date, promises high-paying jobs and a diversification from a long-sagging gambling economy to one powered by high-tech manufacturing and technology.
But the $5 billion, 5 million-square-foot facility going up just down the road from Reno-Sparks in Storey County exemplifies the challenges of balancing economic growth with the availability of natural resources needed to sustain it.
State and local economic development officials say through smart use of technology and recycling the most precious resource — water — the region is up to the task.
Skeptics, while not opposed to the huge project per se, question whether there’s as much water as projected in the basin along the Truckee River to meet demands without harming the river and downstream users.
You know "Pee Wee Herman", but not "Sheldon Cooper" from the "Big Bang Theory"? Actor Jim Parsonshas won four Primetime Emmy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, a TCA Award, and two Critics' Choice Television Awards for the role. The commercial leverages the Sheldon character without actually using it.
I suppose it's possible...just seems odd.
“BBT” – which has its season finale next week – averaged 8.4 million total viewers its first season. By the next year, that had grown to a cool 10 million. This year, in its ninth season, the show is averaging more than twice that, pulling in a whopping 20.3 million viewers per episode. (These and other numbers conform to Nielsen’s “most current” metric, which counts seven-day delayed viewing where available.)
That marks the fourth-straight year (fifth overall) “BBT” has been top comedy.
That puts “BBT” in the company of such classics as “Friends” (six seasons at No. 1 overall) and “Seinfeld” (four seasons).
It's amazing how anyone being critical of Obama must be a conservative hawk. I voted for the Libertarian candidates both times Obama ran and both times Bush ran. Libertarians are not big on bombing people or starting wars (we do make a note, though, that pretty much every single prominent Democrat voted in favor of Bush's wars).
If government provided hungry people with coupons for a "free" McDonalds combo meal up to $10, what will the cost of a combo mean almost immediately rise to?
If, say Gender Studies, graduates are unemployed to the tune of 12.5%, why on earth should we subsidize the creation of more Gender Studies grads? If they *really* want to get a degree in Gender Studies let them pay for it themselves or at least be prepared to pay through the nose at 12.5% interest.
OTOH, if you want a degree in chemical engineering, your interest rate would be below 2%. If you graduate with a chem-e degree, you are not going to be unemployed in today's market.
So there's species where there one last creature standing on the edge of a cliff ready to cast over the edge and with its own death rendering its species extinct?
No. "On the brink of going extinct" is a perfectly good idiom describing what I think you meant to describe. Adding "literally" to it makes it just silly.
Not long after it became clear that the robust winds that blow down from the Rocky Mountains and across the sea of sagebrush here could produce plenty of profit in a world that wants more renewable energy, some of the more expansive minds in the Wyoming Legislature began entertaining a lofty question:
Who owns all of that wind?
They concluded, quickly and conveniently, that Wyoming did.
Then, with great efficiency for a conservative state not traditionally tilted toward burdening the energy industry, they did something no other state has done, before or since: They taxed it.
In their view, the tax increase is more about politics — Wyoming lashing out at clean energy as payback for federal policy aimed at scaling back the coal industry on which the state has always relied.
Supporters of the tax increase say that the company is posturing — that Wyoming’s abundant winds are the renewable equivalent of its high-quality Powder River Basin coal. They point to studies showing that Wyoming eventually could provide half of the wind power in the nation, but they also emphasize that it likely will not provide anywhere near the jobs and other benefits fossil fuels have. Fully built out, the project called the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre would create fewer than 150 jobs.
They also say Wyoming doesn’t necessarily need clean energy, much less the turbines that harness it. Giant towers would line the horizon for decades to come, altering the state’s wide-open spaces more fundamentally than drilling rigs or even vast surface coal mines.
“The benefits of wind are disproportionately on the West Coast, and the costs of wind are disproportionately in Wyoming — and I mean the social costs,” said Cale Case, a state senator and economist who serves on the Legislature’s revenue committee. “This tiny reflection of the impacts back here, I think it’s just kind of a fair trade.”
Taxing the crap out of each and every industry they can. Why should wind and solar be special? You know, those are big evil corporations building those plants, and selling that electricity!
The people running wind and solar seem to think they should never be taxed on their very profitable business...
In the four years since Wyoming began taxing power generated by wind turbines, it has collected a little less than $15 million in revenue.
No, that is not much money in a resource state rocked by the simultaneous decline in the prices of coal, oil and natural gas, a state trying to close a budget gap that could reach $500 million.
But now, as one of the world’s largest wind farms is about to begin construction here on a project aimed at providing clean electricity to nearly a million homes in California and the Southwest — potentially transforming this fossil fuel state into a major player in renewables — some powerful state lawmakers are looking to raise those taxes.
And some in the wind industry, which has long benefited from incentives and subsidies, say they are worried. The company that has spent nine years trying to build the wind project says higher taxes could further delay or even halt the plan.
“Just about every legislator we’ve met with asks us, ‘You tell us how much we can tax you before we put you out of business,’” said Bill Miller, chief executive of the Power Co. of Wyoming, which is planning the wind farm. “I just shake my head and say, ‘Zero.’”
Slashdot Mirror
You can add to the list for quite a while before running out of things.
The CBO produced a report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX" in which it states "A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
And it goes on to say
"Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO's review of the studies yields the following conclusions:
o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.
o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.
o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of the corporate tax falls on capital in general.
o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different countries can be substituted.
o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.
Pres. Obama did not seek changes for FISA and allowed its renewal. He also oversaw renewal of PATRIOT Act, twice. Well, he signed the a last-minute 4-year extension and then 4 years later signed the USA Freedom Act, which renewed the PATRIOT Act, which had finally expired.
An entity can sell bandwidth or content, not both.
Any QoS or other throttling must be done by class of data (e.g., email, HTTP, RTP streaming) rather than by content provider favoritism. So for example Google vs Bing is a content issue, and an ISP should not be able to favor one search provider over another, but could favor streaming video over HTTP generally.
Bandwidth and data caps can apply as necessary, but need to be honestly metered and reported to customers (so as to allow, e.g., a parent to figure out their kids streamed 100GB of movies last weekend and that's how they went over their cap).
Not sure how to legally define the wiggle-room needed to reflect the real-world as others have pointed out there may be a lot of reasons why data from site A is slower than my paid-for bandwidth ought to provide. But it should be possible for someone to validate bandwidth terms of service that reasonable people can agree that the terms were met.
and doesn't need no stinking experiments.
"From 1917 on, communists in Russia, China, and elsewhere confiscated, redistributed and collectivized private wealth, and set wages, leveling inequality on an unprecedented scale."
I'm sorry, but does anyone really think that "equality" from actions like this is a good idea? And this seems to completely ignore the fact that the populace largely was equal in their misery--when they were not being murdered by their governments--while the Politburo and Party hacks were "rich" (even if not monetarily, their lifestyles were thousands of times better than the average citizen).
So they're pikers compared to Communists and Socialists, who have worldwide under many "leaders" actively murdered millions and caused many millions more to die? Stalin alone is measured to have been responsible for 20M deaths.
I feel bad for the father, but blaming the car his daughter was driving at 0.21 BAC is a non-starter. I don't care if it was a Pinto and she was going 80MPH in reverse when she hit the tree causing it to burst into flames.
It's not even clear that she'd be alive in a different car leaving him to "yell at her". Thankfully, the only person she murdered was someone stupid enough to get in the car with her.
If this progresses to a lawsuit against Tesla (which is not a company I have a lot of positive feelings for), it'll be another example of why we can't have anything nice. Stupid people seem intent on making the rest of society pay for their stupidity and we keep letting them, instead of letting them suffer the sometimes fatal consequences on their own.
First you have mice and rats.
Then you have chipmunks and squirrels, which are just rats with fluffy tails.
There's also Canada geese, which are just big fat flying rats.
And then you have deer, which are just rats on steroids.
"then seeking employment specifically for the purpose of promoting unionization has the following moral components: deceiving the owner[s] of the business (or by proxy, their agents) "
My first question is this "Did the employee in question in all other respects do the job he was hired for?" If so, then I wonder if the ulterior motive is immaterial. He did an honest day's work for the agreed upon wages and benefits, as he would be indistinguishable from an employee who had no ulterior motive but decided the day after he was hired to become union devotee.
OTOH, if all he did was get hired so as to have a way to spend time agitating for a union and didn't do the job he was hired for, then his motives are material.
We've seen similar cases where people got themselves at slaughterhouses just so they could report on violations and film animal abuse. It's interesting to see who is defending whom in both cases.
Forgot that assonance vowels *within( words.
nm
http://www.reviewjournal.com/n...
RENO — The massive Tesla battery factory being built in Northern Nevada will be a thirsty resident, with some preliminary estimates saying it will require the equivalent of nearly half of the groundwater rights allocated to its Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center neighborhood.
The project, the cherry atop Gov. Brian Sandoval’s economic development agenda to date, promises high-paying jobs and a diversification from a long-sagging gambling economy to one powered by high-tech manufacturing and technology.
But the $5 billion, 5 million-square-foot facility going up just down the road from Reno-Sparks in Storey County exemplifies the challenges of balancing economic growth with the availability of natural resources needed to sustain it.
State and local economic development officials say through smart use of technology and recycling the most precious resource — water — the region is up to the task.
Skeptics, while not opposed to the huge project per se, question whether there’s as much water as projected in the basin along the Truckee River to meet demands without harming the river and downstream users.
You know "Pee Wee Herman", but not "Sheldon Cooper" from the "Big Bang Theory"? Actor Jim Parsonshas won four Primetime Emmy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, a TCA Award, and two Critics' Choice Television Awards for the role. The commercial leverages the Sheldon character without actually using it.
I suppose it's possible...just seems odd.
“BBT” – which has its season finale next week – averaged 8.4 million total viewers its first season. By the next year, that had grown to a cool 10 million. This year, in its ninth season, the show is averaging more than twice that, pulling in a whopping 20.3 million viewers per episode. (These and other numbers conform to Nielsen’s “most current” metric, which counts seven-day delayed viewing where available.)
That marks the fourth-straight year (fifth overall) “BBT” has been top comedy.
That puts “BBT” in the company of such classics as “Friends” (six seasons at No. 1 overall) and “Seinfeld” (four seasons).
[http://www.thewrap.com/big-bang-theory-tv-ratings-season-9-finale-cbs/]
aays the oaid shill... as he reprats the loe...and mimsy were the borogoves
Or is it
aays the oaid shill
as he reprats the loe
We twa hae run about the braes,
and pou'd the gowans fine;
It's amazing how anyone being critical of Obama must be a conservative hawk. I voted for the Libertarian candidates both times Obama ran and both times Bush ran. Libertarians are not big on bombing people or starting wars (we do make a note, though, that pretty much every single prominent Democrat voted in favor of Bush's wars).
On them.
it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!
If government provided hungry people with coupons for a "free" McDonalds combo meal up to $10, what will the cost of a combo mean almost immediately rise to?
If, say Gender Studies, graduates are unemployed to the tune of 12.5%, why on earth should we subsidize the creation of more Gender Studies grads? If they *really* want to get a degree in Gender Studies let them pay for it themselves or at least be prepared to pay through the nose at 12.5% interest.
OTOH, if you want a degree in chemical engineering, your interest rate would be below 2%. If you graduate with a chem-e degree, you are not going to be unemployed in today's market.
Make that "where there's"...
So there's species where there one last creature standing on the edge of a cliff ready to cast over the edge and with its own death rendering its species extinct?
No. "On the brink of going extinct" is a perfectly good idiom describing what I think you meant to describe. Adding "literally" to it makes it just silly.
Not long after it became clear that the robust winds that blow down from the Rocky Mountains and across the sea of sagebrush here could produce plenty of profit in a world that wants more renewable energy, some of the more expansive minds in the Wyoming Legislature began entertaining a lofty question:
Who owns all of that wind?
They concluded, quickly and conveniently, that Wyoming did.
Then, with great efficiency for a conservative state not traditionally tilted toward burdening the energy industry, they did something no other state has done, before or since: They taxed it.
In their view, the tax increase is more about politics — Wyoming lashing out at clean energy as payback for federal policy aimed at scaling back the coal industry on which the state has always relied.
Supporters of the tax increase say that the company is posturing — that Wyoming’s abundant winds are the renewable equivalent of its high-quality Powder River Basin coal. They point to studies showing that Wyoming eventually could provide half of the wind power in the nation, but they also emphasize that it likely will not provide anywhere near the jobs and other benefits fossil fuels have. Fully built out, the project called the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre would create fewer than 150 jobs.
They also say Wyoming doesn’t necessarily need clean energy, much less the turbines that harness it. Giant towers would line the horizon for decades to come, altering the state’s wide-open spaces more fundamentally than drilling rigs or even vast surface coal mines.
“The benefits of wind are disproportionately on the West Coast, and the costs of wind are disproportionately in Wyoming — and I mean the social costs,” said Cale Case, a state senator and economist who serves on the Legislature’s revenue committee. “This tiny reflection of the impacts back here, I think it’s just kind of a fair trade.”
Taxing the crap out of each and every industry they can. Why should wind and solar be special? You know, those are big evil corporations building those plants, and selling that electricity!
The people running wind and solar seem to think they should never be taxed on their very profitable business...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/...
In the four years since Wyoming began taxing power generated by wind turbines, it has collected a little less than $15 million in revenue.
No, that is not much money in a resource state rocked by the simultaneous decline in the prices of coal, oil and natural gas, a state trying to close a budget gap that could reach $500 million.
But now, as one of the world’s largest wind farms is about to begin construction here on a project aimed at providing clean electricity to nearly a million homes in California and the Southwest — potentially transforming this fossil fuel state into a major player in renewables — some powerful state lawmakers are looking to raise those taxes.
And some in the wind industry, which has long benefited from incentives and subsidies, say they are worried. The company that has spent nine years trying to build the wind project says higher taxes could further delay or even halt the plan.
“Just about every legislator we’ve met with asks us, ‘You tell us how much we can tax you before we put you out of business,’” said Bill Miller, chief executive of the Power Co. of Wyoming, which is planning the wind farm. “I just shake my head and say, ‘Zero.’”