And of course you apply this equally to all groups that attempt to affect policy, right? Corporations, unions, the AFL/CIO, the NRA, the ACLU, AARP, the ASPCA, the EFF, OWS, open source advocates, etc. None of them should be allowed to state their opinion,monetarily or otherwise, as a group, right?
Huh? While I didn't state it clearly, my point is that you can't have a 'science based ethical viewpoint' if science itself has no basis for ethics. If there is a scientific basis for ethics, what is it?
Ethics is a philosphical, not science, problem. You can use ethics to guide your science. You can not use science to guide your ethics.
Exactly! Just like what friggin moron who has *ever* watched the sun rise and set can't tell you that the sun revolves around the earth.
An awful lot of science is showing that 'what every friggin moron knows' is wrong.
Anyway, what was the result? Can baby mice adapt their grooming habits or not? Seems either answer would provide some insights into the workings of the brain, and I had a hard time seeing what is wrong with that.
Did the government somehow force you to travel by commercial flight? Or do you somehow think you have some sort of 'natural right' to travel by commercial air, and anything the impedes you is impinging on your liberty? Going through security is just a condition of your taking a flight, same as buying a ticket and getting to the airport on time are. None of them are 'taking your liberties away' as they are ALL your choice.
You picked a company with a nice fat profit margin. Now look at the other end. In 2009 (picked because it came up first in a search) Walmart had $405B in revenue, made a profit of $22B on that, and paid $7.1B in taxes. Under your scheme they would owe $20B in taxes, leaving them with no real profit at all. And of course companies with a loss still have revenue, so your tax scheme is just sinking them farther into a hole, which is not good for anyone.
According to the US goverment, if you (as a single person with no children) make more than $11,670/year, then you are not in poverty (ie your basic needs can be met). If you make $11,670/year your tax would be $150, but since you are that close to the poverty line you would be eligible for earned income credit and would pay no taxes (in fact, you may have money coming to you). So, according to the government, yes, you can cover your basic expenses out of the tax-free portion of your income.
Would you be comfortable? Probably not. Would I want to live that way? No. Can you live that way? Yes.
A business can deduct the expenses it must spend to earn money. It needs a facility, it can deduct that. It needs employees, it can deduct that. It needs to puchase goods, it can deduct that.
What must an individual employee do to make money? Basically, be alive. And you can be alive for a few dollars a day, and those few dollars a day are what is covered by things like tax tables, standard deductions, and personal exceptions.
Being alive comfortably is not required for you to earn your income, so it is not deductible.
First of all, for a business, 'profit' and 'income' are the exact same thing. So that only leaves the possibility that you are talking about revenue. And taxing revenue is a really, really, dumb idea. You must be a complete idiot if you don't think those taxes will be passed directly to the purchaser, so I will assume that you do have a brain and realize that will be the case. Now, think about what you are proposing. Take for example, a car.
Iron is mined. Company gets paid. Price goes up 5% because of revenue tax. Mill makes steel. Company gets paid. Price goes up another 5% (on top of the already inflated cost of the iron) Supplier makes part from steel. Compound another 5% increase on that. Manufacturer uses part. Compound another 5%. Dealer purchases car. Compound another 5%.
How does that make any sense? You are not taxing those evil corporations, you are taxing the purchaser of the car. If you want to do that, just put a 50% sales tax on everything and be done with it.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US that is taken care of in the tax tables. No, you don't claim a deduction for food, housing, etc. However, the tax tables are set up so that you pay no tax on the first $x of income, a relatively low rate on the next $x of income, etc. Additionally, you get a deduction for yourself and each dependant. That untaxed (or low taxed) money covers your basic expenses.
Such an approach works for individuals because a person is a person, and the goverment can set (correctly or not) what they consider to be reasonable living expenses. That approach does not work at all for business, because they are all different. Therefore, businesses must go through the pain of actually accounting for all their expenses.
That is already built into the tax tables. You pay no tax at all on the first $x of income, of low rate on the next $x, etc. That untaxed (and lower taxed) money covers your basic expenses. If you have additional expenses (such as required for a job) you can also deduct those. If your additional expenses are because of your lifestyle choices, too bad, you are in effect just spending your 'profits'.
How did this get modded 'insightful'? It appears the mods, like the poster, know nothing about computing. Banks are not using 'slow legacy systems'. The only thing 'legacy' about them is that they CAN (but do not NEED to) run old programs. Banks (large ones anyway) are running the most advanced hardware out there.
Can you do the job of those people (any position)? Are you willing to do it as well as, and for less money than, the people currently in those positions? If so, why aren't you doing it?
Well, it is kind of hard to have wireless ignition (remote start) without having access to the engine controller, so they do need to be connected. And the remote start probably has connections to the body controller so it can do things like lock the doors, flash lights (for feedback) and monitor to brake pedal so it can kill the engine if the brake is touched (in order to shift into gear) without the key being present.
As for the radio, starting next year all new cars in the US must have backup cameras. The screen that shows the camera image is probably the same one that controls the radio. And the backup camera must know the gear selector position so it can change the display. And the gear position selector also must talk with transmission (obviously), which in turn talks to the engine.
Now, obviously you could do all that with separate switches and wiring, but that drives cost and complexity way up, and of course with each additional part comes an additional opportunity for failure. So no, you can't really have all those modern features with old style simple systems.
Being unable to attract customers is not a barrier to entry. Having to build your own railroad in order to sell oil is a barrier to entry.
Your own statement shows you to be incorrect. 'Google couldn't do it'? Bullshit. Google DID it. The fact that nobody used it is not Facebooks, and certainly not the governments, problem. Google did not provide a good enough reason for people to switch, too bad for Google. Before FB there was MySpace, widely used and nobody could possibly compete with them. Then FB came along with a BETTER product. Before that were BBS systems, then the web came along and BETTER products were delivered. Apparently you think FB has made the perfect product so it will be impossible to compete with it. The only people who think that are idiots with no imagination who think the goverment has to solve everything for them.
Vendor lock-in? WTF. You mean that if you stop using FB you have absolutely no means to communicate with your friends? No, what you mean is 'I really like their product, but I don't like something else about them, so the goverment should step in and allow someone else to deliver their product'.
And your initial statement 'The only reason people use FB is because that is where their friends are' has to be one of the DUMBEST things I have ever read. It is right up there with 'nobody goes there, it is too crowded.'
There is absolutely no parallel between Standard Oil and Facebook. Standard Oil did not get in trouble because it was the oil everybody used, it got in trouble because it formed trusts. These trusts made deals that made it impossible for anyone to compete with them. For instance, the trust not only controlled the oil supply, but also the transportation system used to deliver the oil. They also bought competing businesses just to shut them down. THAT is was antitrust laws are for, not stupid crap like 'you have too much business.'
Facebook does not control the internet. Facebook does not control all the Web servers. All they do is provide a service people like better than the competition.
Facebook got their 'monopoly' by providing a service that many people like. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it in no way needs to be 'prevented.'
Unfortunately the only way I see this happening is via federal regulation, and I cringe at the thought of what other nonsense the feds would stick into such a law.
It is hard to imagine something more nonsensical than the idea of such regulation. What POSSIBLE reason could there be for such regulation?
It is amazing how many peope can't figure out this simple stuff. What you said is of course true, plus the cost of the equipment, buildings, staff, etc.
It is very simple - figure out how much it costs to run an ambulance service for a year (all costs, including debt service, etc). Divide that by how many calls you expect to respond to. There is your 'per call' price (minimum). Now add in the actual costs of disposables,etc.
Nobody said buying and selling do not influence the price of the stock, that is just a strawman you created. What you can't seem to grasp is that the price of the stock has no practical effect on the COMPANY. The price of the stock only affects the SHAREHOLDERS. And companies generally don't 'own' their own stock, they buy it and then cancel it. This drives the price of the stock UP.
And again, nobody said divestiture was not useful for acheiving political and social change, another strawman you built. The problem is, 'oil' is not a political or social problem, it is an economic and technical problem.
Let's say for some unimaginable reason you are correct, that divestiture harms a company. And for some unfathomable reason, everybody divests from all oil companies (an impossibility, since in order for you to sell your shares someone has to buy them). According to your theory, this would result in the destruction of the oil companies (which I guess is what the intent of divestiture is). Now what? Is the world suddenly all rainbows and unicorns? No, 'now what' is mass starvation and basically the end of civilization as we know it. Good luck selling that to anyone.
If you actually want to make a positive change, then it would make more sense to buy MORE shares of oil companies so you can have an influence on them (get them to invest in new technologies, etc).
Well if you have that feature then there is no need to hack it, is there? The point is that having a SAFE 'automatic up' is considerably more difficult than just making it appear that the 'up' switch is held for an extended period of time.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course you apply this equally to all groups that attempt to affect policy, right? Corporations, unions, the AFL/CIO, the NRA, the ACLU, AARP, the ASPCA, the EFF, OWS, open source advocates, etc. None of them should be allowed to state their opinion ,monetarily or otherwise, as a group, right?
Huh? While I didn't state it clearly, my point is that you can't have a 'science based ethical viewpoint' if science itself has no basis for ethics. If there is a scientific basis for ethics, what is it?
Ethics is a philosphical, not science, problem. You can use ethics to guide your science. You can not use science to guide your ethics.
Exactly! Just like what friggin moron who has *ever* watched the sun rise and set can't tell you that the sun revolves around the earth.
An awful lot of science is showing that 'what every friggin moron knows' is wrong.
Anyway, what was the result? Can baby mice adapt their grooming habits or not? Seems either answer would provide some insights into the workings of the brain, and I had a hard time seeing what is wrong with that.
Did the government somehow force you to travel by commercial flight? Or do you somehow think you have some sort of 'natural right' to travel by commercial air, and anything the impedes you is impinging on your liberty? Going through security is just a condition of your taking a flight, same as buying a ticket and getting to the airport on time are. None of them are 'taking your liberties away' as they are ALL your choice.
Name a single ethics problem that you think science has any chance of solving.
You picked a company with a nice fat profit margin. Now look at the other end. In 2009 (picked because it came up first in a search) Walmart had $405B in revenue, made a profit of $22B on that, and paid $7.1B in taxes. Under your scheme they would owe $20B in taxes, leaving them with no real profit at all. And of course companies with a loss still have revenue, so your tax scheme is just sinking them farther into a hole, which is not good for anyone.
According to the US goverment, if you (as a single person with no children) make more than $11,670/year, then you are not in poverty (ie your basic needs can be met). If you make $11,670/year your tax would be $150, but since you are that close to the poverty line you would be eligible for earned income credit and would pay no taxes (in fact, you may have money coming to you). So, according to the government, yes, you can cover your basic expenses out of the tax-free portion of your income.
Would you be comfortable? Probably not. Would I want to live that way? No. Can you live that way? Yes.
A business can deduct the expenses it must spend to earn money. It needs a facility, it can deduct that. It needs employees, it can deduct that. It needs to puchase goods, it can deduct that.
What must an individual employee do to make money? Basically, be alive. And you can be alive for a few dollars a day, and those few dollars a day are what is covered by things like tax tables, standard deductions, and personal exceptions.
Being alive comfortably is not required for you to earn your income, so it is not deductible.
First of all, for a business, 'profit' and 'income' are the exact same thing. So that only leaves the possibility that you are talking about revenue. And taxing revenue is a really, really, dumb idea. You must be a complete idiot if you don't think those taxes will be passed directly to the purchaser, so I will assume that you do have a brain and realize that will be the case. Now, think about what you are proposing. Take for example, a car.
Iron is mined. Company gets paid. Price goes up 5% because of revenue tax.
Mill makes steel. Company gets paid. Price goes up another 5% (on top of the already inflated cost of the iron)
Supplier makes part from steel. Compound another 5% increase on that.
Manufacturer uses part. Compound another 5%.
Dealer purchases car. Compound another 5%.
How does that make any sense? You are not taxing those evil corporations, you are taxing the purchaser of the car. If you want to do that, just put a 50% sales tax on everything and be done with it.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US that is taken care of in the tax tables. No, you don't claim a deduction for food, housing, etc. However, the tax tables are set up so that you pay no tax on the first $x of income, a relatively low rate on the next $x of income, etc. Additionally, you get a deduction for yourself and each dependant. That untaxed (or low taxed) money covers your basic expenses.
Such an approach works for individuals because a person is a person, and the goverment can set (correctly or not) what they consider to be reasonable living expenses. That approach does not work at all for business, because they are all different. Therefore, businesses must go through the pain of actually accounting for all their expenses.
That is already built into the tax tables. You pay no tax at all on the first $x of income, of low rate on the next $x, etc. That untaxed (and lower taxed) money covers your basic expenses. If you have additional expenses (such as required for a job) you can also deduct those. If your additional expenses are because of your lifestyle choices, too bad, you are in effect just spending your 'profits'.
How did this get modded 'insightful'? It appears the mods, like the poster, know nothing about computing. Banks are not using 'slow legacy systems'. The only thing 'legacy' about them is that they CAN (but do not NEED to) run old programs. Banks (large ones anyway) are running the most advanced hardware out there.
So, in other words, you are not willing to do the job.
Who do you suppose were the first businesses to use computers? Who were some of the first businesses with online presences?
Can you do the job of those people (any position)? Are you willing to do it as well as, and for less money than, the people currently in those positions? If so, why aren't you doing it?
Well, it is kind of hard to have wireless ignition (remote start) without having access to the engine controller, so they do need to be connected. And the remote start probably has connections to the body controller so it can do things like lock the doors, flash lights (for feedback) and monitor to brake pedal so it can kill the engine if the brake is touched (in order to shift into gear) without the key being present.
As for the radio, starting next year all new cars in the US must have backup cameras. The screen that shows the camera image is probably the same one that controls the radio. And the backup camera must know the gear selector position so it can change the display. And the gear position selector also must talk with transmission (obviously), which in turn talks to the engine.
Now, obviously you could do all that with separate switches and wiring, but that drives cost and complexity way up, and of course with each additional part comes an additional opportunity for failure. So no, you can't really have all those modern features with old style simple systems.
Your traction/stability control operates the throttle and brakes, so they need to be connected at some point.
Being unable to attract customers is not a barrier to entry. Having to build your own railroad in order to sell oil is a barrier to entry.
Your own statement shows you to be incorrect. 'Google couldn't do it'? Bullshit. Google DID it. The fact that nobody used it is not Facebooks, and certainly not the governments, problem. Google did not provide a good enough reason for people to switch, too bad for Google. Before FB there was MySpace, widely used and nobody could possibly compete with them. Then FB came along with a BETTER product. Before that were BBS systems, then the web came along and BETTER products were delivered. Apparently you think FB has made the perfect product so it will be impossible to compete with it. The only people who think that are idiots with no imagination who think the goverment has to solve everything for them.
Vendor lock-in? WTF. You mean that if you stop using FB you have absolutely no means to communicate with your friends? No, what you mean is 'I really like their product, but I don't like something else about them, so the goverment should step in and allow someone else to deliver their product'.
And your initial statement 'The only reason people use FB is because that is where their friends are' has to be one of the DUMBEST things I have ever read. It is right up there with 'nobody goes there, it is too crowded.'
There is absolutely no parallel between Standard Oil and Facebook. Standard Oil did not get in trouble because it was the oil everybody used, it got in trouble because it formed trusts. These trusts made deals that made it impossible for anyone to compete with them. For instance, the trust not only controlled the oil supply, but also the transportation system used to deliver the oil. They also bought competing businesses just to shut them down. THAT is was antitrust laws are for, not stupid crap like 'you have too much business.'
Facebook does not control the internet. Facebook does not control all the Web servers. All they do is provide a service people like better than the competition.
Facebook got their 'monopoly' by providing a service that many people like. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it in no way needs to be 'prevented.'
Unfortunately the only way I see this happening is via federal regulation, and I cringe at the thought of what other nonsense the feds would stick into such a law.
It is hard to imagine something more nonsensical than the idea of such regulation. What POSSIBLE reason could there be for such regulation?
It is amazing how many peope can't figure out this simple stuff. What you said is of course true, plus the cost of the equipment, buildings, staff, etc.
It is very simple - figure out how much it costs to run an ambulance service for a year (all costs, including debt service, etc). Divide that by how many calls you expect to respond to. There is your 'per call' price (minimum). Now add in the actual costs of disposables,etc.
Nobody said buying and selling do not influence the price of the stock, that is just a strawman you created. What you can't seem to grasp is that the price of the stock has no practical effect on the COMPANY. The price of the stock only affects the SHAREHOLDERS. And companies generally don't 'own' their own stock, they buy it and then cancel it. This drives the price of the stock UP.
And again, nobody said divestiture was not useful for acheiving political and social change, another strawman you built. The problem is, 'oil' is not a political or social problem, it is an economic and technical problem.
Let's say for some unimaginable reason you are correct, that divestiture harms a company. And for some unfathomable reason, everybody divests from all oil companies (an impossibility, since in order for you to sell your shares someone has to buy them). According to your theory, this would result in the destruction of the oil companies (which I guess is what the intent of divestiture is). Now what? Is the world suddenly all rainbows and unicorns? No, 'now what' is mass starvation and basically the end of civilization as we know it. Good luck selling that to anyone.
If you actually want to make a positive change, then it would make more sense to buy MORE shares of oil companies so you can have an influence on them (get them to invest in new technologies, etc).
You do know about the 'accessory' key position, right?
Well if you have that feature then there is no need to hack it, is there? The point is that having a SAFE 'automatic up' is considerably more difficult than just making it appear that the 'up' switch is held for an extended period of time.