If an American happens to own one share of stock in some Chinese company then the US government should be able to collect corporate tax from that company?
If an American has 100% ownership of some Chinese company then the US government should be able to collect corporate tax from that company?
If an company that operated entirely in America is bought by a Chinese company does it now pay Chinese corporate taxes?
The majority of the human population that doesn't understand how automatic transmissions work also don't suggest using them as the solution to some problem they are completely unsuited for. And for those that do you should point out that they don't understand the workings and if you are being really nice a quick reason why it won't work.
You know exactly what was done when "launch it into the sun" was suggested as a solution.
Or do you prefer people just nod their heads and never mention when you display a lack of knowledge of some specialised area of knowledge?
Sure I am. If a trader wants to set his stock to automatically get sold because someone elses makes a transaction on one side of some threshold price, that's his business. He'd be an idiot of course, but that fine. Still no value is lost (you know the only claim I'm arguing against) - it's transferred to whomever bought the stock because they didn't use stock prices as the sole factor in decision making.
No value is destroyed other than for those who decide to sell their stocks because the prices changed with "no actual cause", and even that value isn't destroyed it's transferred to those who bought the stocks when they were priced way under their actual value.
The US already does that for personal income tax, but surely you can see the issues:
And you will happily pay personal income tax to the USA and the UK and France and Germany and Japan, right? When they declare you owe them for whatever reason?
Or are you expecting France to not change Microsoft any taxes on the profits it makes in France and just let the US collect all that tax?
Because being old for your grade has obvious benefits in terms of intellectual maturity for academic work and physical maturity for sports. And being young for your grade has those same obvious deficits.
Years different wouldn't have impact at all on those and hence you wouldn't expect the same differences (assuming you aren't one of those young for their grade idiots of course).
A GPS telling you to turn where there is no road to turn it completely different from a GPS giving you directions that match the roads but take you into the middle of nowhere.
The first one you deserve to die in a hollywood fireball car crash if you decide to believe the GPS that an invisible road exists, the second one you would hope to notice soon enough though if you don't know the area at all you could get far off track before realising something is wrong.
My GPS does the first thing all the time - in the middle of city areas usually when it gets confused over which of the dozen overpassing roads I'm on, but you'd have to be truly moronic to turn into the concrete divider because the GPS said to turn now.
Maybe you didn't get your science information from the news which as you state likes alarmist predictions you'd have a better understanding of what scientists have actually been saying about all those things for all those years?
I agree with that, I just also think there's the second factor that US military power is such that some other countries don't need to spend as much as they would otherwise, which magnifies the "US spends as much as everyone else combined" factor.
Of course the US spends for their own benefit. My only point, and sure the wording could have been improved, was that part of the reason for US spending be so out of whack with the rest of the world is that because US spending is so high other countries can spend less. Which further blows out the spending disparity.
Exactly, your analogy doesn't sound like America is being nice, but you began with "more like" which seems to imply that my original statements were saying that America was being nice since it has to be different from yours.
Do you really think that, say, Australia's military budget wouldn't have been higher if it wasn't under the US's nuclear umbrella?
But I already said that the US doesn't do that because it is trying to be nice - it derives benefits from it. Two paragraphs was too much for you to read?
The US also spends so much because it's allies do a fair amount of freeloading. The US spends so much on the military that countries friendly to it can spend less since they count on US power making up the difference. That means that the US military budget as a ratio to the rest of the world is even higher (not only does the US spend a lot, other parts of the world spend less than they would if the US wasn't doing so). Heck even unfriendly (to the US) nations benefit from the US military keeping things like trade churning.
Not that the US doesn't like that situation of course - there are benefits to being needed by others after all.
I mean sure a recession is just another word for deflation (it really is)
Recessions are defined by real terms, thus inflation or deflation is irrelevant.
High levels of deflation can trigger a recession, sure. So can high levels of inflation. They both cause the economy as a while to allocate resources in a fashion to minimise their losses/increase their gains from the deflation/inflation rather than to be productive. But low levels of either have very little impact.
Counter to you claim though, deflation is an indicator of economic growth - if economic production is growing then you have deflation unless the money supply is being grown as well. Deflation and economic growth will go hand in hand in a fixed money supply (or slowly growing for low enough values of slow) system.
And if the Fed had Staples print the physical money you would claim that Staples is the money printer, right?
Is non-literal terminology really that complicated for you? When the Fed increases the number in an account balance in exchange for the ownership of, say, some treasuries we call that money printing. This is Economics 101, heck it might be in Economics 001.
If CoH was bringing in profit, however small it was, then there was no good reason to shut it down, no matter what "strategy" they're trying to go for
There's risk and opportunity costs though.
Capital invested in it might be able to generate more profit doing something else. Large cash flows relative to profits make for a large risk if the income side of the stream drops for some reason and the costs reductions lag.
So lets assume that this hasn't seriously changed (prices per unit storage tend to drop pretty reliably). ~$3M for a machine to store every text by every person in the US, assuming the average person sends less than 16 messages per day (I am pretty sure its way less than that)....not too shabby really....but still a bit pricey....
Your 16 messages a day was actually slightly too low (though it's spot on for an estimate) so no it isn't "way less than that".
Sure and if push comes to shove you get to say you didn't click it under oath in court.. And since it'll be a civil court the judge or jury decides whether it's more likely you did or didn't.
Why not just mail them a check? You'll only do it if the amount of work is exactly writing a number on your tax return?
They are one of the government agencies authorized by congress (42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(4)) to accept unconditional donations, but they aren't allowed to ask for them. So mail them a check, and they'll handle it per http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=1210&s=1G
Yes it does. For the reason you then went on to state.
I didn't say it was alikely scenario - in fact I implied it wasn't by giving a "mire likely" - but as you went on to state anyway it's an example of a situation in which a higher share price can result in cash being transferred to the company itself.
Slashdot Mirror
If an American happens to own one share of stock in some Chinese company then the US government should be able to collect corporate tax from that company?
If an American has 100% ownership of some Chinese company then the US government should be able to collect corporate tax from that company?
If an company that operated entirely in America is bought by a Chinese company does it now pay Chinese corporate taxes?
The majority of the human population that doesn't understand how automatic transmissions work also don't suggest using them as the solution to some problem they are completely unsuited for. And for those that do you should point out that they don't understand the workings and if you are being really nice a quick reason why it won't work.
You know exactly what was done when "launch it into the sun" was suggested as a solution.
Or do you prefer people just nod their heads and never mention when you display a lack of knowledge of some specialised area of knowledge?
Sure I am. If a trader wants to set his stock to automatically get sold because someone elses makes a transaction on one side of some threshold price, that's his business. He'd be an idiot of course, but that fine. Still no value is lost (you know the only claim I'm arguing against) - it's transferred to whomever bought the stock because they didn't use stock prices as the sole factor in decision making.
What do you think light is?
No she doesn't, she's simply likes to lie and you didn't bother doing the trivial "does that make sense" check before repeating those lies.
Or you're doing the initial lying, of course.
No value is destroyed other than for those who decide to sell their stocks because the prices changed with "no actual cause", and even that value isn't destroyed it's transferred to those who bought the stocks when they were priced way under their actual value.
The US already does that for personal income tax, but surely you can see the issues:
And you will happily pay personal income tax to the USA and the UK and France and Germany and Japan, right? When they declare you owe them for whatever reason?
Or are you expecting France to not change Microsoft any taxes on the profits it makes in France and just let the US collect all that tax?
Because being old for your grade has obvious benefits in terms of intellectual maturity for academic work and physical maturity for sports. And being young for your grade has those same obvious deficits.
Years different wouldn't have impact at all on those and hence you wouldn't expect the same differences (assuming you aren't one of those young for their grade idiots of course).
A GPS telling you to turn where there is no road to turn it completely different from a GPS giving you directions that match the roads but take you into the middle of nowhere.
The first one you deserve to die in a hollywood fireball car crash if you decide to believe the GPS that an invisible road exists, the second one you would hope to notice soon enough though if you don't know the area at all you could get far off track before realising something is wrong.
My GPS does the first thing all the time - in the middle of city areas usually when it gets confused over which of the dozen overpassing roads I'm on, but you'd have to be truly moronic to turn into the concrete divider because the GPS said to turn now.
Maybe you didn't get your science information from the news which as you state likes alarmist predictions you'd have a better understanding of what scientists have actually been saying about all those things for all those years?
I agree with that, I just also think there's the second factor that US military power is such that some other countries don't need to spend as much as they would otherwise, which magnifies the "US spends as much as everyone else combined" factor.
Of course the US spends for their own benefit. My only point, and sure the wording could have been improved, was that part of the reason for US spending be so out of whack with the rest of the world is that because US spending is so high other countries can spend less. Which further blows out the spending disparity.
Exactly, your analogy doesn't sound like America is being nice, but you began with "more like" which seems to imply that my original statements were saying that America was being nice since it has to be different from yours.
Do you really think that, say, Australia's military budget wouldn't have been higher if it wasn't under the US's nuclear umbrella?
But I already said that the US doesn't do that because it is trying to be nice - it derives benefits from it. Two paragraphs was too much for you to read?
Maybe try reading for comprehension next time.
The US also spends so much because it's allies do a fair amount of freeloading. The US spends so much on the military that countries friendly to it can spend less since they count on US power making up the difference. That means that the US military budget as a ratio to the rest of the world is even higher (not only does the US spend a lot, other parts of the world spend less than they would if the US wasn't doing so). Heck even unfriendly (to the US) nations benefit from the US military keeping things like trade churning.
Not that the US doesn't like that situation of course - there are benefits to being needed by others after all.
Recessions are defined by real terms, thus inflation or deflation is irrelevant.
High levels of deflation can trigger a recession, sure. So can high levels of inflation. They both cause the economy as a while to allocate resources in a fashion to minimise their losses/increase their gains from the deflation/inflation rather than to be productive. But low levels of either have very little impact.
Counter to you claim though, deflation is an indicator of economic growth - if economic production is growing then you have deflation unless the money supply is being grown as well. Deflation and economic growth will go hand in hand in a fixed money supply (or slowly growing for low enough values of slow) system.
And if the Fed had Staples print the physical money you would claim that Staples is the money printer, right?
Is non-literal terminology really that complicated for you? When the Fed increases the number in an account balance in exchange for the ownership of, say, some treasuries we call that money printing. This is Economics 101, heck it might be in Economics 001.
There's risk and opportunity costs though.
Capital invested in it might be able to generate more profit doing something else. Large cash flows relative to profits make for a large risk if the income side of the stream drops for some reason and the costs reductions lag.
But not as much as the guy who was hungry enough to first eat an oyster.
Your 16 messages a day was actually slightly too low (though it's spot on for an estimate) so no it isn't "way less than that".
Page 7 of http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_MY_2012_Graphics-_final.pdf says that 2.273 trillion text messages were sent from July 2011 to June 2012, which is 20 per day each for a population of 310 million.
how much time is spent doing a shit each and every day according to your pointless calculations.
Sure and if push comes to shove you get to say you didn't click it under oath in court.. And since it'll be a civil court the judge or jury decides whether it's more likely you did or didn't.
Why not just mail them a check? You'll only do it if the amount of work is exactly writing a number on your tax return?
They are one of the government agencies authorized by congress (42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(4)) to accept unconditional donations, but they aren't allowed to ask for them. So mail them a check, and they'll handle it per http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=1210&s=1G
Yes it does. For the reason you then went on to state.
I didn't say it was alikely scenario - in fact I implied it wasn't by giving a "mire likely" - but as you went on to state anyway it's an example of a situation in which a higher share price can result in cash being transferred to the company itself.