I'm one of the haters. I don't use Facebook's app because I don't want to give them total control of my phone, I just use the mobile version of the website. And now messages don't work anymore unless I install their crappy app! Well, I won't. I'll just use WhatsApp instead and be free of these assholes. Oh wait.
Indeed. In Vienna they have what they call Wohnstraßen. It is illegal to cut through them, you can only use those streets if you are going to park there.
Interesting take on things? The only thing he's saying is that you're not allowed to think about how a Trump presidency would be, because people suck at thinking. ORLY? Next thing he says, learning languages is difficult, so you should not even try? And you often make mistakes when investing in the stock market, so we shouldn't invest at all? That's obscurantism, pure and simple. I, for one, will not give up on thinking.
I think the problem is that the current railway, the Gotthardbahn, is already operating at capacity, and the freight that does not fit in it goes to the lorries. A massive amount of lorries.
I would make a joke about truckers being able to litter the road even if the trucks were electric, but taking into account that these are Swiss truckers, it wouldn't work.
My specific proposal is a very close analogue to what Google does. And my point is precisely that it is bullshit, that you need to work a lot harder to avoid taxes as an individual.
And if you think it is so easy to avoid tax by changing your formal place of residence and assorted tricks, could you please explain to me why thousands of celebrities have actually moved to Switzerland for the sole purpose of avoiding tax? Mind you, these are not people who earn regular income from an employer. I'm talking about Phil Collins, David Bowie, Gérard Depardieu, Cat Stevens, Jenson Button, Felix Baumgartner, the whole fucking bands Pink Floyd and Rolling Stones... Do I need to continue?
Huh. And I got up to 5. I guess I got lucky with the mods (a shill gave me a -1, though).
But reading your post I see that you got quite lyrical, while my post is barely grammaticaly correct. I guess keeping it simple helps people understand your point.
Tell me, how are you going to avoid income tax without moving out of your country? All rich Europeans are desperate to hear your answer. I proposed a specific scheme for avoiding income tax that does not work. The tax man will skin you alive if you try that.
I'm not sure we are even disagreeing on any facts. I'm arguing that most rich Europeans do pay their income tax (in fact, the vast majority that does not live in Switzerland). A proof of this is that thousands of celebrities have moved to Switzerland to avoid paying tax.
The situation I was describing is someone setting up a trust overseas to avoid paying income tax. It does not work. The rich set up trusts to manage their fortunes overseas and avoid wealth taxes or capital gains taxes.
I see. So you are seriously advocating the murder of people who work for the French tax authorities. This is a crime in most countries, and I hope the police pays you a visit and teaches you to behave in a civilized society.
They paid 180 million pounds to the British because of the same shenanigans. That counts as admitting guilt in my book. Oh, I did nothing wrong, but I'll give you a couple hundred million pounds just to make you happy.
The question is not whether Google France committed fraud, but how much they scammed out of the tax man.
Some courtesy goes a long way in raising the level of discussion. But I'll let that pass and reply to the content of your post: yes, obviously who pays Google's corporate tax is people who pay for Google's services, in terms of higher prices (in a non-monopolistic market, that is. I'll ignore that Google is a monopoly for the sake of argument). I'm perfectly okay with people who use Google's services paying tax for that privilege. It is similar to sales tax, if you think about it. The difference is that sales tax applies only to specific goods being sold, whereas corporate tax applies to any complicated business structure the company might have.
They do this indeed, it is one of the main sources of income of Switzerland. However, this is not what I described, as they still need to actually move to Switzerland to pay tax there. The tax man does not accept you simply setting up a trust there. And it kinda sucks living in Switzerland if all your family and friends are in Spain.
I'm afraid you're missing my point. I'm arguing that Google needs to pay tax, because this is the law. Simple as that. You're arguing that Google shouldn't need to pay tax, because you think corporate taxes are evil. This is besides the point, as even if corporate taxes are abolished (good luck with that) Google did not pay the tax it owed.
Cool thanks for doing this research, the numbers seem solid.
This would make a hydrogen tank about one order of magnitude cheaper than a battery, showing that indeed EVs lose out to hydrogen in storage convenience. However, they seem to win in any other category.
Hmm why not? This is parked cash, from profits, its not the money they use in their day-to-day operations. Presumably if you bleed Apple dry off its treasure it will be royally pissed off, but it will not affect their ability to survive.
Cue the shills saying that Google doesn't need to pay any tax, that they are not doing anything illegal, that this is some conspiracy from the state to steal money from "wealth creators". How much are you being paid to repeat this nonsense?
And to those that say these companies are not doing anything illegal: try claiming to the tax man that you have to pay no income tax because you have no income, because all you earn you have to pay to a company based in Panama called John Doe, inc., as this company owns your name and lets you use it for the exact amount of taxable income that you earn each month.
The tax man will skin you alive if you try this. But this is exactly the kind of shit Google, Apple, Amazon, and your favourite megacorp get away with.
To be fair he did start the electricity chain with natural gas, which also needs to be dug out and pumped around, so it is a comparable starting point to gasoline. However, including the inefficiency in electricity generation for EV but not for H2 was just plain dishonest.
Anyway, since comparing the starting points is difficult (what if my electricity comes from solar? Should I factor in the 14% efficiency of the solar panels? Of course not!), I find this analysis meaningful only when the starting points are really just the same. This is trivial for comparing H2 and EV (the starting point of both is just electricity), but a bit trickier when comparing ICE and EV; one can, for example, use natural gas vehicles to compare the efficiency of burning the gas at a power plant and transmitting the resulting electricity, or burning the gas directly in an engine. One could use also a hypothetical gasoline-based power plant to do that. I'm too lazy to actually look for the numbers, though.
I'm interested in your claim that storing hydrogen is as bad as storing electricity; do you have price estimates for a automotive hydrogen tank?
I guess the real deal breaker is the transport, tough. This is extremely cheap for electricity (all the infrastructure is already there), but you would need to build a whole new production and distribution network for hydrogen.
Slashdot Mirror
He is a red.
Excuse me, but in which year are you living? Did you realise that the Cold War is over, and the Soviet Union fell? Like more than 20 years ago?
Why would you freeze the corpses? And how would you keep them frozen once outside?
I'm ok with your argument, but I question your wisdom in writing a detailed answer to someone who does not even read your posts.
I'm one of the haters. I don't use Facebook's app because I don't want to give them total control of my phone, I just use the mobile version of the website. And now messages don't work anymore unless I install their crappy app! Well, I won't. I'll just use WhatsApp instead and be free of these assholes. Oh wait.
Indeed. In Vienna they have what they call Wohnstraßen. It is illegal to cut through them, you can only use those streets if you are going to park there.
Interesting take on things? The only thing he's saying is that you're not allowed to think about how a Trump presidency would be, because people suck at thinking. ORLY? Next thing he says, learning languages is difficult, so you should not even try? And you often make mistakes when investing in the stock market, so we shouldn't invest at all? That's obscurantism, pure and simple. I, for one, will not give up on thinking.
I think the problem is that the current railway, the Gotthardbahn, is already operating at capacity, and the freight that does not fit in it goes to the lorries. A massive amount of lorries.
I would make a joke about truckers being able to litter the road even if the trucks were electric, but taking into account that these are Swiss truckers, it wouldn't work.
It's not like I am planning patching a hole in my airplane or spacecraft with my laptop.
Well, this kind of head-in-the-sand attitude leads to disaster.
If you ever get out of your basement and actually do something about destructing governments you are going to have a nasty surprise.
I think you need to research how Google's tax scheme works.
My specific proposal is a very close analogue to what Google does. And my point is precisely that it is bullshit, that you need to work a lot harder to avoid taxes as an individual.
And if you think it is so easy to avoid tax by changing your formal place of residence and assorted tricks, could you please explain to me why thousands of celebrities have actually moved to Switzerland for the sole purpose of avoiding tax? Mind you, these are not people who earn regular income from an employer. I'm talking about Phil Collins, David Bowie, Gérard Depardieu, Cat Stevens, Jenson Button, Felix Baumgartner, the whole fucking bands Pink Floyd and Rolling Stones... Do I need to continue?
Huh. And I got up to 5. I guess I got lucky with the mods (a shill gave me a -1, though).
But reading your post I see that you got quite lyrical, while my post is barely grammaticaly correct. I guess keeping it simple helps people understand your point.
Tell me, how are you going to avoid income tax without moving out of your country? All rich Europeans are desperate to hear your answer. I proposed a specific scheme for avoiding income tax that does not work. The tax man will skin you alive if you try that.
I'm not sure we are even disagreeing on any facts. I'm arguing that most rich Europeans do pay their income tax (in fact, the vast majority that does not live in Switzerland). A proof of this is that thousands of celebrities have moved to Switzerland to avoid paying tax.
The situation I was describing is someone setting up a trust overseas to avoid paying income tax. It does not work. The rich set up trusts to manage their fortunes overseas and avoid wealth taxes or capital gains taxes.
I see. So you are seriously advocating the murder of people who work for the French tax authorities. This is a crime in most countries, and I hope the police pays you a visit and teaches you to behave in a civilized society.
They paid 180 million pounds to the British because of the same shenanigans. That counts as admitting guilt in my book. Oh, I did nothing wrong, but I'll give you a couple hundred million pounds just to make you happy.
The question is not whether Google France committed fraud, but how much they scammed out of the tax man.
My point is the more important one.
Some courtesy goes a long way in raising the level of discussion. But I'll let that pass and reply to the content of your post: yes, obviously who pays Google's corporate tax is people who pay for Google's services, in terms of higher prices (in a non-monopolistic market, that is. I'll ignore that Google is a monopoly for the sake of argument). I'm perfectly okay with people who use Google's services paying tax for that privilege. It is similar to sales tax, if you think about it. The difference is that sales tax applies only to specific goods being sold, whereas corporate tax applies to any complicated business structure the company might have.
Wow, we have got ourselves an Ayn Rand true believer here! Are you for real or are you just trolling?
They do this indeed, it is one of the main sources of income of Switzerland. However, this is not what I described, as they still need to actually move to Switzerland to pay tax there. The tax man does not accept you simply setting up a trust there. And it kinda sucks living in Switzerland if all your family and friends are in Spain.
I'm afraid you're missing my point. I'm arguing that Google needs to pay tax, because this is the law. Simple as that. You're arguing that Google shouldn't need to pay tax, because you think corporate taxes are evil. This is besides the point, as even if corporate taxes are abolished (good luck with that) Google did not pay the tax it owed.
Cool thanks for doing this research, the numbers seem solid.
This would make a hydrogen tank about one order of magnitude cheaper than a battery, showing that indeed EVs lose out to hydrogen in storage convenience. However, they seem to win in any other category.
Hmm why not? This is parked cash, from profits, its not the money they use in their day-to-day operations. Presumably if you bleed Apple dry off its treasure it will be royally pissed off, but it will not affect their ability to survive.
Cue the shills saying that Google doesn't need to pay any tax, that they are not doing anything illegal, that this is some conspiracy from the state to steal money from "wealth creators". How much are you being paid to repeat this nonsense?
And to those that say these companies are not doing anything illegal: try claiming to the tax man that you have to pay no income tax because you have no income, because all you earn you have to pay to a company based in Panama called John Doe, inc., as this company owns your name and lets you use it for the exact amount of taxable income that you earn each month.
The tax man will skin you alive if you try this. But this is exactly the kind of shit Google, Apple, Amazon, and your favourite megacorp get away with.
To be fair he did start the electricity chain with natural gas, which also needs to be dug out and pumped around, so it is a comparable starting point to gasoline. However, including the inefficiency in electricity generation for EV but not for H2 was just plain dishonest.
Anyway, since comparing the starting points is difficult (what if my electricity comes from solar? Should I factor in the 14% efficiency of the solar panels? Of course not!), I find this analysis meaningful only when the starting points are really just the same. This is trivial for comparing H2 and EV (the starting point of both is just electricity), but a bit trickier when comparing ICE and EV; one can, for example, use natural gas vehicles to compare the efficiency of burning the gas at a power plant and transmitting the resulting electricity, or burning the gas directly in an engine. One could use also a hypothetical gasoline-based power plant to do that. I'm too lazy to actually look for the numbers, though.
I'm interested in your claim that storing hydrogen is as bad as storing electricity; do you have price estimates for a automotive hydrogen tank?
I guess the real deal breaker is the transport, tough. This is extremely cheap for electricity (all the infrastructure is already there), but you would need to build a whole new production and distribution network for hydrogen.