It doesn't matter how much the corporation is taxed.
YOU are not taxed twice for same money.
By your "logic", you would never have to pay taxes on anything because someone, somewhere, at sometime had already paid taxes on every dollar in circulation.
The returns on your investment are taxed twice--once when it is counted as 'income' by the corporation, and again when it is counted as income by the individual.
Exactly as I said. Every dollar in circulation has been taxed at least once. Therefore, no one should be taxed because it would all be "double taxation" by your "logic".
Except that it is not "double taxation" because YOU are being taxed on the money YOU receive.
The money does not owe taxes. YOU owe taxes.
It doesn't matter if someone else paid taxes on that dollar when they received it.
And that's why capital gains are taxed at a (generally) much lower rate than the higher income brackets are.
No. It's because poor people have bad lobbyists. And a lack of understanding of how the tax system works.
You can take out a loan against the value of your house too. And it's not counted as income or capital gains either.
Your point is?
I thought I had made it clear enough. I guess I did not.
How long would you live off of a loan against your house? A year? Two? Five? Ten? More? How many people own a house that is worth more money than they can earn in 20 years?
With sufficient investments, you can live for a hundred years or more off of loans against them. Without paying a cent in taxes.
So saying that the loan must be repaid and that taxation will happen at that point is ignoring the reality of the situation.
i don't like the idea of a death tax, but it seems the entire solution would be to tax the assets upon death of the original owner, when they are transferred to the beneficiary, as if the original owner had sold them.
I believe that such is why certain groups use the term "death tax" instead of "inheritance tax".
Taxes are a VERY complex subject. And always will be. And every tax is SOME form of social engineering. Unless you agree with it. Then it's not. Only the taxes that you don't agree with are social engineering. And badly done at that. (sarcasm, but not aimed at you)
And the moment you commit a new tax law to paper you create an opportunity for some tax lawyer to find a way around it.
And if it is a tax on the wealthy, that can be tens of millions of dollars in incentives for that tax lawyer. Or more.
And I'm not even addressing globalization. Can assets be moved to a different country where they can be cashed in under a different tax model?
Or can I make tax-free contributions to a charity that pays for things I want that is run by my family?
Not to mention that when you get rich enough, you can hire lobbyists to help Congress Critters write the tax laws that are more favourable to specific situation.
Once the company sells the stock, as long as the company is still viable, the stock price is independent of the company.
It is all based upon the price that the person holding the stock is willing to sell it for... and whether he can find a buyer at that price.
Which is why companies that have never turned a profit and which do not appear to be have a business plan that will show a profit in the next 5 years STILL have IPO's where their total stock is valued at billions of dollars.
At some point you need to pay back that loan, won't you need to sell some stock?
Maybe. But probably not. Not if you have enough stock. You can take out another loan to pay off the first loan.
you can't just keep taking out new loans to pay off the old loans.
That's the point. If you have enough wealth, you CAN just keep taking out loans to pay off the other loans. Eventually you die and some of your assets go to the institutions that have been providing you the money over the years.
And there are a LOT of other financial tools like that that you can use to spend money that is not "income" or "capital gains". If you have the investments to support them.
Some result in no taxes being paid. Others result in tax rates 10 percentage points lower than equivalent taxes would be on income for non-wealthy people.
Even if never sell the stock, you can take out a loan against the value of that stock.
Well, you can't. You don't have enough stock to make it attractive to the institution making the loan. But if you did have enough (as was shown in TFA) then you could take out such loans.
And such loans are not taxed as "income" or "capital gains" from stock.
So he doesn't pay income tax on things that aren't income. Big deal.
That depends upon how you define "income".
He can take out a loan against his stock and buy a house in France.
Obviously he needs money ("income") to buy that house. But that money will not be taxed as "income" because it does not meet the USofA's TAX definition of "income" at this time.
This is why a flat tax will not work.
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And it is one of the reasons that our tax laws are such a mess.
But I also don't think that we can have a discussion about it without various political agendas derailing it.
For example, testimony by John Sample before the Senate Rules Committee showed that Alaska had 503,000 people on its voter rolls but only 437,000 people of voting age in the entire state.
And?
The question is NOT whether the voter rolls were 100% accurate.
The question is whether people were voting multiple times.
Isn't it funny that activists take up the cause to prevent the requirement of having some form of ID to vote, but not to cash government assistance checks?
Ballot stuffing (or even voting two or more times) is very rare. So rare as to be a non-issue. Despite claims to the contrary.
Most attempts at "fixing" the "voter fraud" issue are really aimed at making it more difficult for people to vote. They have to jump through more hoops so they might not be able to afford it in time or money (or both). Meanwhile, the people with the extra time and money CAN jump through the hoops (after all, they determined what those hoops would be). So the only "legit" voters are the people who are already prosperous under the existing system.
So it is just a way to maintain the status quo.
Anyway, on to improving the system.
1. How about extending "election day" to more than a single day?
2. And how about including a national holiday in that period? Move Presidents Day so that it falls in the middle of "Voting Week". Or the end. Or the beginning. Or even on "Election Day" if you don't want to add more days. Yay! Holiday! Get out and VOTE!
1. Are you taking the additional classes to learn additional material because YOU want to? Then it does not matter how the school is viewed. You're in it for the material.
2. Are you taking the additional classes as a "stepping stone" to an additional degree / classes that you want to take? Again, you're in it for the material so don't worry.
3. Are you looking for something to build up your resume? Then look for what schools have the best reputations and work around their requirements. You're in it for the school name in that case.
But don't confuse any of those items. If it HAPPENS that your choice will fit more than one category, great. But if not, then keep your focus on your primary goal.
And to reiterate the parent post, once you have your first job your work history matters far, Far, FAR more than what courses you took (are taking) or what your GPA was (is).
And since you've already stated that you have your first engineering job...
In my experience, they'll just poke at the non-functioning systems until they do something that makes them work again. Or until they run out of ideas and blame the "network card" or something and replace the hardware.
If they don't know that they're infected by now, they don't have the expertise (basic knowledge) to monitor their own systems.
They will just say "yep, that happens to computers sometimes" and move on. Never understanding that there is a huge hole in their security practices.
Having an "end of day" meeting is only good for making sure no one is leaving early.
If you're waiting until the END OF THE WORK DAY to communicate a problem... what the fuck were you doing the rest of the day? Why didn't you communicate it before then?
It is a great way for managers to catch patterns, problems, and just generally keep a finger on the pulse of how things are running.
No. Rather it is an attempt at a safety net for those managers. They should already know where the problems are. They should spot the patterns during their daily non-meeting interactions with everyone.
Good managers understand the patterns and problems and can take pro-active measures to deal with them. That way you can keep doing your work.
Taking time away from your work (and everyone else's), on a recurring basis, to directly inform management of problems is just inefficient.
Exactly. Meetings are the PROBLEM. Avoid meetings if at all possible.
Having faddish meetings (everyone must be standing / whatever) does nothing to deal with the fact that meetings are the problem.
If you're stuck in a meeting, it is probably because management has failed to manage the project that you're working on. Probably because management does not understand the project.
And the "informal and no notes" part? WTF?!? I amazed my manager at one job simply by keeping accurate notes of what happened in the meeting and following up on the items. By the time the next weekly meeting came around, all the items had been completed. Apparently this was a new concept.
Which brings me to my original point of meetings being the problem.
It seems that meetings are held to re-establish / re-enforce the hierarchy. The more people you can force to your meeting, the more important you are. Ego-gratification does NOT result in more productive teams.
Still not convinced? Look at Linus and the Linux kernel. How often does Linus demand that the coders all show up at his house for a meeting?
Maybe they could replace the header with "medical science" - as every example the TFA deals with some issue dealing with human biology.
Exactly. Complex living systems are... complex... and living.
Science is not "failing" anything. Science is continually expanding our knowledge.
The problem is when people don't apply the correct scientific rigour to the problem at hand. As with the medical examples in TFA. Humans are complex, living systems. They change as their environment changes. Including drugs taken.
And different people are different. How one person's body responds is NOT a guarantee of how someone else's body will respond to the exact same drug.
Trying to recall the material AFTER the class means that you WILL forget things.
But it gets a bit worse. From TFA:
Note that thereâ(TM)s a trick implied by âoeprovided the retrieval succeedsâ: You should space your study sessions so that the information you learned in the first session remains just barely retrievable.
And how are you supposed to accomplish that? I'm sure that it really does work in the tests they've performed. But how would you implement that on your own?
How do you know that you're about to forget something if you don't recall it within the next 24 hours? Without recalling that you recall it right now?
Then, the more you have to work to pull it from the soup of your mind, the more this second study session will reinforce your learning.
Again as with the initial "notes after class". How do you KNOW that you have NOT forgotten something?
I can see how "discovering" this in a "memory experiment" testing situation would happen. But how to apply that information outside of such an experiment?
Let the TSA and police do their jobs without having to equally check everyone so we can pretend like terrorists don't all come from the same background.
Kaczynski. McVeigh By your "logic", the TSA was doing it correctly. They were checking white males because white males had previously engaged in terrorism.
Racial profiling might not be politically correct but it works.
No it does not.
Are the five guys with brown skin with box cutters and mace terrorists? Yes probably but let's let them get on the plane.
For day to day police operations, the system should be able to handle unencrypted traffic.
Because adding encryption means an additional layer that can go wrong and thus necessitates a 2nd channel for the support people to use to try to fix the primary (encrypted) channel.
And have encryption an option for the times when you REALLY need it. And have frequent tests of it to make sure that everyone knows how to enable it.
But I'm more in agreement with the GP post. This wasn't really about a working radio system. It was about moving public money to private businesses. The WTC attack and the fear were just the excuses used. IF a working product was delivered... wow! If not, at least your buddies collected their share of the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in this project.
Seems that in 1997, they were visiting oil company friends in Texas while Bush was governor. Discussing building a gas pipeline with USofA help/funding.
There is NOTHING good about the Taliban. They are bigoted narco-thugs who actively seek to erase any sign of civilization, law, and order in the attempt to eliminate opposition to their drug farming slavery campaigns.
Unless there is a profit to be made. Then they're friends of ours.
But the question is why were the rest of our NATO allies so conspicuously absent?
If everyone (at the time) "knew" what a "threat" Saddam was.
My position is that the politicians who claimed to "know" were making those statements for political reasons (at the time they made them) and had zero intent of acting on them.
And the other politicians of the world also knew that those statements were self-serving political posturing which is why so few of them committed their troops to the invasion.
And since the fire department burned to the ground, more home owners are contacting the fire department to help with their home fire defense.
What the? Does that make any sense to anyone?
... Coviello says, 'and they want to know in detail what happened to us, how we responded, what tools we used,
Ah, that makes sense now.
Not "dude, u r teh awesome!!! How can I get some of that awesome for myself?"
More like "dude, where were your fire extinguishers? Smoke detectors? What model were they? Did they give ANY alarm? HOW THE HELL DID YOU LET YOUR FIRE DEPARTMENT BURN DOWN? And is there any way to tell if I am in danger?"
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter how much the corporation is taxed.
YOU are not taxed twice for same money.
By your "logic", you would never have to pay taxes on anything because someone, somewhere, at sometime had already paid taxes on every dollar in circulation.
Exactly as I said. Every dollar in circulation has been taxed at least once. Therefore, no one should be taxed because it would all be "double taxation" by your "logic".
Except that it is not "double taxation" because YOU are being taxed on the money YOU receive.
The money does not owe taxes. YOU owe taxes.
It doesn't matter if someone else paid taxes on that dollar when they received it.
No. It's because poor people have bad lobbyists. And a lack of understanding of how the tax system works.
I thought I had made it clear enough. I guess I did not.
How long would you live off of a loan against your house? A year? Two? Five? Ten? More? How many people own a house that is worth more money than they can earn in 20 years?
With sufficient investments, you can live for a hundred years or more off of loans against them. Without paying a cent in taxes.
So saying that the loan must be repaid and that taxation will happen at that point is ignoring the reality of the situation.
I believe that such is why certain groups use the term "death tax" instead of "inheritance tax".
Taxes are a VERY complex subject. And always will be. And every tax is SOME form of social engineering. Unless you agree with it. Then it's not. Only the taxes that you don't agree with are social engineering. And badly done at that. (sarcasm, but not aimed at you)
And the moment you commit a new tax law to paper you create an opportunity for some tax lawyer to find a way around it.
And if it is a tax on the wealthy, that can be tens of millions of dollars in incentives for that tax lawyer. Or more.
And I'm not even addressing globalization. Can assets be moved to a different country where they can be cashed in under a different tax model?
Or can I make tax-free contributions to a charity that pays for things I want that is run by my family?
Not to mention that when you get rich enough, you can hire lobbyists to help Congress Critters write the tax laws that are more favourable to specific situation.
And so on and so forth.
Once the company sells the stock, as long as the company is still viable, the stock price is independent of the company.
It is all based upon the price that the person holding the stock is willing to sell it for ... and whether he can find a buyer at that price.
Which is why companies that have never turned a profit and which do not appear to be have a business plan that will show a profit in the next 5 years STILL have IPO's where their total stock is valued at billions of dollars.
Maybe. But probably not. Not if you have enough stock. You can take out another loan to pay off the first loan.
That's the point. If you have enough wealth, you CAN just keep taking out loans to pay off the other loans. Eventually you die and some of your assets go to the institutions that have been providing you the money over the years.
And there are a LOT of other financial tools like that that you can use to spend money that is not "income" or "capital gains". If you have the investments to support them.
Some result in no taxes being paid.
Others result in tax rates 10 percentage points lower than equivalent taxes would be on income for non-wealthy people.
Capital gains is a tax on the INCREASE in value. The BASE is not taxed a second time.
If you invest $100 and you realize a gain of $50 on that, then the $50 is taxed as capital gains but the $100 is not taxed a second time.
Even if never sell the stock, you can take out a loan against the value of that stock.
Well, you can't. You don't have enough stock to make it attractive to the institution making the loan. But if you did have enough (as was shown in TFA) then you could take out such loans.
And such loans are not taxed as "income" or "capital gains" from stock.
That depends upon how you define "income".
He can take out a loan against his stock and buy a house in France.
Obviously he needs money ("income") to buy that house.
But that money will not be taxed as "income" because it does not meet the USofA's TAX definition of "income" at this time.
And it is one of the reasons that our tax laws are such a mess.
But I also don't think that we can have a discussion about it without various political agendas derailing it.
And?
The question is NOT whether the voter rolls were 100% accurate.
The question is whether people were voting multiple times.
Nice. Thanks for showing that.
Each state can have a different voting methodology.
Don't limit yourself to approval voting.
Wikipedia has a whole list of different voting methodologies and how they'd affect the outcome of elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system
Ballot stuffing (or even voting two or more times) is very rare.
So rare as to be a non-issue. Despite claims to the contrary.
Most attempts at "fixing" the "voter fraud" issue are really aimed at making it more difficult for people to vote. They have to jump through more hoops so they might not be able to afford it in time or money (or both). Meanwhile, the people with the extra time and money CAN jump through the hoops (after all, they determined what those hoops would be). So the only "legit" voters are the people who are already prosperous under the existing system.
So it is just a way to maintain the status quo.
Anyway, on to improving the system.
1. How about extending "election day" to more than a single day?
2. And how about including a national holiday in that period? Move Presidents Day so that it falls in the middle of "Voting Week". Or the end. Or the beginning. Or even on "Election Day" if you don't want to add more days. Yay! Holiday! Get out and VOTE!
1. Are you taking the additional classes to learn additional material because YOU want to?
Then it does not matter how the school is viewed. You're in it for the material.
2. Are you taking the additional classes as a "stepping stone" to an additional degree / classes that you want to take?
Again, you're in it for the material so don't worry.
3. Are you looking for something to build up your resume?
Then look for what schools have the best reputations and work around their requirements. You're in it for the school name in that case.
But don't confuse any of those items. If it HAPPENS that your choice will fit more than one category, great. But if not, then keep your focus on your primary goal.
And to reiterate the parent post, once you have your first job your work history matters far, Far, FAR more than what courses you took (are taking) or what your GPA was (is).
And since you've already stated that you have your first engineering job ...
In my experience, they'll just poke at the non-functioning systems until they do something that makes them work again. Or until they run out of ideas and blame the "network card" or something and replace the hardware.
If they don't know that they're infected by now, they don't have the expertise (basic knowledge) to monitor their own systems.
They will just say "yep, that happens to computers sometimes" and move on. Never understanding that there is a huge hole in their security practices.
Having an "end of day" meeting is only good for making sure no one is leaving early.
If you're waiting until the END OF THE WORK DAY to communicate a problem ... what the fuck were you doing the rest of the day? Why didn't you communicate it before then?
No. Rather it is an attempt at a safety net for those managers. They should already know where the problems are. They should spot the patterns during their daily non-meeting interactions with everyone.
Good managers understand the patterns and problems and can take pro-active measures to deal with them. That way you can keep doing your work.
Taking time away from your work (and everyone else's), on a recurring basis, to directly inform management of problems is just inefficient.
Exactly. Meetings are the PROBLEM. Avoid meetings if at all possible.
Having faddish meetings (everyone must be standing / whatever) does nothing to deal with the fact that meetings are the problem.
If you're stuck in a meeting, it is probably because management has failed to manage the project that you're working on. Probably because management does not understand the project.
And the "informal and no notes" part? WTF?!?
I amazed my manager at one job simply by keeping accurate notes of what happened in the meeting and following up on the items. By the time the next weekly meeting came around, all the items had been completed. Apparently this was a new concept.
Which brings me to my original point of meetings being the problem.
It seems that meetings are held to re-establish / re-enforce the hierarchy. The more people you can force to your meeting, the more important you are. Ego-gratification does NOT result in more productive teams.
Still not convinced? Look at Linus and the Linux kernel. How often does Linus demand that the coders all show up at his house for a meeting?
Exactly. Complex living systems are ... complex ... and living.
Science is not "failing" anything. Science is continually expanding our knowledge.
The problem is when people don't apply the correct scientific rigour to the problem at hand. As with the medical examples in TFA. Humans are complex, living systems. They change as their environment changes. Including drugs taken.
And different people are different. How one person's body responds is NOT a guarantee of how someone else's body will respond to the exact same drug.
If there is a weakness, plan to reduce / remove / detect-&-mitigate it.
Right now I agree with the GP. They're saving money by farming the responsibility out to the vendor of whatever product they purchase / lease.
Trying to recall the material AFTER the class means that you WILL forget things.
But it gets a bit worse. From TFA:
And how are you supposed to accomplish that? I'm sure that it really does work in the tests they've performed. But how would you implement that on your own?
How do you know that you're about to forget something if you don't recall it within the next 24 hours? Without recalling that you recall it right now?
Again as with the initial "notes after class". How do you KNOW that you have NOT forgotten something?
I can see how "discovering" this in a "memory experiment" testing situation would happen. But how to apply that information outside of such an experiment?
Kaczynski.
McVeigh
By your "logic", the TSA was doing it correctly. They were checking white males because white males had previously engaged in terrorism.
No it does not.
And two people mod'ed up that post. Why?
For day to day police operations, the system should be able to handle unencrypted traffic.
Because adding encryption means an additional layer that can go wrong and thus necessitates a 2nd channel for the support people to use to try to fix the primary (encrypted) channel.
And have encryption an option for the times when you REALLY need it. And have frequent tests of it to make sure that everyone knows how to enable it.
But I'm more in agreement with the GP post. This wasn't really about a working radio system. It was about moving public money to private businesses. The WTC attack and the fear were just the excuses used. IF a working product was delivered ... wow! If not, at least your buddies collected their share of the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in this project.
Yeah, the Taliban really sucks. It's always sucked. Sucked really bad.
Which reminds me of a funny story about them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
Seems that in 1997, they were visiting oil company friends in Texas while Bush was governor. Discussing building a gas pipeline with USofA help/funding.
Unless there is a profit to be made. Then they're friends of ours.
So as long as someone is a "known combatant" ... any strikes that include (or possibly include) him are okay by you?
And since you are a reasonable person, that must mean that anyone striking at any of OUR people who would be a "known combatant" is NOT a terrorist.
Even if such a strike killed lots of civilians ... ...
In a civilian situation
Say, like the WTC attack. You claim that it was NOT terrorism.
Interesting point of view you have there.
But the question is why were the rest of our NATO allies so conspicuously absent?
If everyone (at the time) "knew" what a "threat" Saddam was.
My position is that the politicians who claimed to "know" were making those statements for political reasons (at the time they made them) and had zero intent of acting on them.
And the other politicians of the world also knew that those statements were self-serving political posturing which is why so few of them committed their troops to the invasion.
And since the fire department burned to the ground, more home owners are contacting the fire department to help with their home fire defense.
What the? Does that make any sense to anyone?
Ah, that makes sense now.
Not "dude, u r teh awesome!!! How can I get some of that awesome for myself?"
More like "dude, where were your fire extinguishers? Smoke detectors? What model were they? Did they give ANY alarm? HOW THE HELL DID YOU LET YOUR FIRE DEPARTMENT BURN DOWN? And is there any way to tell if I am in danger?"