Wow, you wrote really cool software if it automatically created shell corporations based in the Bermudas and implemented tactics such as the Double Irish
1. Wrong! Doesn't reduce your tax rate. ISAs aren't taxed, but the income you use to create an ISA isn't magically exempt from tax 2. Taxed at the other end, ie when it pays out 3. Gift Aid increases what the charity gets but doesn't reduce your tax liability one iota, unless you pay a huge amount and claim it via a tax return, which most people in the uk certainly don't do, because they don't earn enough for it to be worth their while
Of course it's a fake charge! It's one part of Starbucks charging another part of Starbucks for the use of Starbucks branding. It's smoke and mirrors and has no purpose than cutting tax liabilities.
I thought you had to be bright to work for Google? How come you're so fucking dumb that you don't even understand that road infrastructure is a tiny fraction of all associated costs of road use and that fuel duty doesn't come close to covering the externalities?
There are many sources of waste in the nhs, but focusing on a line item of one hundredth of a percent of the budget is stupid. And you should see how much money is dangerously wasted on antibiotics for viral upper resp tract infections in the US, because the incentives are screwy....that's just as inefficient
Ooh, a real live Randian! You wanna see an actual example of earnings appropriated under threat of violence, I suggest you move to a country without a functioning government, like Somalia. Then you can report back to us about what works better, social contract or no social contract
1. We Britons have decided we want to purchase education through collective taxation as a society. If we're going to buy education, it makes sense for our legislature to have some say over the content of what we buy, just as other purchasers would. Blah blah slippery slope doesn't really cut it, ya know. Not when you don't acknowledge that there are downsides to the *non*involvement of government in education, including lack of access, no standards guarantor, costs going through the roof, the private biases of proprietors affecting the content of what is taught, etc etc.
2. Science teachers don't merely teach pupils to accept evolution as fact. They explain how it's been tested and why it stands. That said, you wouldn't be able to do very much science teaching (or science) if you have to explain the tests applied to absolutely every aspect of science.
I prefer to live in a world of facts. You should do the same and learn to leave your misogyny behind. Take a look at the statistics and you'll see, if you have eyes to look, that you're flat out wrong.
Couldn't agree more. Expectations are really at an absurd level when Apple is getting flak for not developing an entirely new *market category* every year.
I think it's fair to say that it's been a loooong time since anyone heard the bipartisanship from the GOP. Comments about tea-tards did not strike the fatal blow to bipartisanship: a toxic mess of ideologies inside the GOP did.
No, I'm saying you've misunderstood the thread. Robert Hansen was a double-agent for the *other side*. He didn't get a security clearance because he was a Soviet spy we'd turned. He got a clearance because he was a Soviet spy we hadn't uncovered.
Sheesh, this stuff is basic to every bloody spy novel out there.
How this crap gets modded insightful, I do not know. "We" may *debrief* double agents or "converted" terrorists, but "we" don't tend to give them security clearances, and "we" therefore don't tend to make them privy to new sensitive information except under very carefully controlled circumstances. Because "we" are not "gibbering fuckwits without a braincell".
Well.... you get a very *different* picture from inside compared to outside an organisation (true of small, as well as large). I'm not sure it's possible to say that one is *inherently* closer to the truth than the other. Of course there's the possibility of an insider being blinded by groupthink, but there's also the possibility of an outsider misinterpreting due to not knowing the relevant facts. The latter is at least as common as the former.
Erm. I'm not sure we're *quite* ready to know yet that the iPad mini's pricing is too high and that the product is consequently a failure. You may be right. But you may also be wrong. And I'm preeeety sure that Apple might have run the odd NVP calculation and that you, erm, haven't. Similarly, I'm not sure you've totally demonstrated that fixed resolution is a top priority problem; you've just asserted it. Non-fixed resolutions bring their own set of tradeoffs and Apple has been thoroughly exploiting the benefits of fixed resolution for five years now.
Hum. You're kind of assuming that the bank holding the savings is in the same economy, rather than being in say Bermuda. And given that banks operate on a fractional reserve basis and have done forever, I'm not sure that there's much benefit to the economy in you lending another 30k to a bank. Spending the money is a much more direct method of stimulating economic activity.
There's a more fundamental reason why giving a tax break to a rich person doesn't result in money entering the economy in the way it does if you give the money to poor people: - If I earn $250k a year and have say $400k in the bank, then an additional say $30k from a tax break makes no material difference to my life. I could *already afford everything I needed* - If I earn $25k a year and have say $4k in the bank, then an additional say $3k from a tax break makes a huge material difference to my life. I can now afford things I really need -- more food, better housing, more clothes, etc etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you only count school shootings?
Wow, you wrote really cool software if it automatically created shell corporations based in the Bermudas and implemented tactics such as the Double Irish
1. Wrong! Doesn't reduce your tax rate. ISAs aren't taxed, but the income you use to create an ISA isn't magically exempt from tax
2. Taxed at the other end, ie when it pays out
3. Gift Aid increases what the charity gets but doesn't reduce your tax liability one iota, unless you pay a huge amount and claim it via a tax return, which most people in the uk certainly don't do, because they don't earn enough for it to be worth their while
Of course it's a fake charge! It's one part of Starbucks charging another part of Starbucks for the use of Starbucks branding. It's smoke and mirrors and has no purpose than cutting tax liabilities.
I thought you had to be bright to work for Google? How come you're so fucking dumb that you don't even understand that road infrastructure is a tiny fraction of all associated costs of road use and that fuel duty doesn't come close to covering the externalities?
There are many sources of waste in the nhs, but focusing on a line item of one hundredth of a percent of the budget is stupid. And you should see how much money is dangerously wasted on antibiotics for viral upper resp tract infections in the US, because the incentives are screwy....that's just as inefficient
Nope, they're things like housing, car & drivers, pension etc
Sadly, I think the answer might be "no" in all those cases. People are capable of being pricks in many many ways
Corporations have fuelled, funded and enabled many mass killings. IG Farben's name will live in infamy for a reason
Ooh, a real live Randian! You wanna see an actual example of earnings appropriated under threat of violence, I suggest you move to a country without a functioning government, like Somalia. Then you can report back to us about what works better, social contract or no social contract
70k?! That's an MP's salary. The pm earns more like 140k and has benefits worth another 500k.
1. We Britons have decided we want to purchase education through collective taxation as a society. If we're going to buy education, it makes sense for our legislature to have some say over the content of what we buy, just as other purchasers would. Blah blah slippery slope doesn't really cut it, ya know. Not when you don't acknowledge that there are downsides to the *non*involvement of government in education, including lack of access, no standards guarantor, costs going through the roof, the private biases of proprietors affecting the content of what is taught, etc etc.
2. Science teachers don't merely teach pupils to accept evolution as fact. They explain how it's been tested and why it stands. That said, you wouldn't be able to do very much science teaching (or science) if you have to explain the tests applied to absolutely every aspect of science.
Fabulous cartoon
I prefer to live in a world of facts. You should do the same and learn to leave your misogyny behind. Take a look at the statistics and you'll see, if you have eyes to look, that you're flat out wrong.
Couldn't agree more. Expectations are really at an absurd level when Apple is getting flak for not developing an entirely new *market category* every year.
As opposed to: "don't like a woman? If you rape her, you'll almost certainly get away with it, given the pathetic conviction rates in the US and UK".
I think it's fair to say that it's been a loooong time since anyone heard the bipartisanship from the GOP. Comments about tea-tards did not strike the fatal blow to bipartisanship: a toxic mess of ideologies inside the GOP did.
No, I'm saying you've misunderstood the thread. Robert Hansen was a double-agent for the *other side*. He didn't get a security clearance because he was a Soviet spy we'd turned. He got a clearance because he was a Soviet spy we hadn't uncovered.
Sheesh, this stuff is basic to every bloody spy novel out there.
No, the article is about how someone who thinks the rules aren't working *claims* that the US government is struggling to find competent IT personnel.
How this crap gets modded insightful, I do not know. "We" may *debrief* double agents or "converted" terrorists, but "we" don't tend to give them security clearances, and "we" therefore don't tend to make them privy to new sensitive information except under very carefully controlled circumstances. Because "we" are not "gibbering fuckwits without a braincell".
Well.... you get a very *different* picture from inside compared to outside an organisation (true of small, as well as large). I'm not sure it's possible to say that one is *inherently* closer to the truth than the other. Of course there's the possibility of an insider being blinded by groupthink, but there's also the possibility of an outsider misinterpreting due to not knowing the relevant facts. The latter is at least as common as the former.
Devolving does not mean what you think it means. You mean degenerating.
Erm. I'm not sure we're *quite* ready to know yet that the iPad mini's pricing is too high and that the product is consequently a failure. You may be right. But you may also be wrong. And I'm preeeety sure that Apple might have run the odd NVP calculation and that you, erm, haven't. Similarly, I'm not sure you've totally demonstrated that fixed resolution is a top priority problem; you've just asserted it. Non-fixed resolutions bring their own set of tradeoffs and Apple has been thoroughly exploiting the benefits of fixed resolution for five years now.
Hum. You're kind of assuming that the bank holding the savings is in the same economy, rather than being in say Bermuda. And given that banks operate on a fractional reserve basis and have done forever, I'm not sure that there's much benefit to the economy in you lending another 30k to a bank. Spending the money is a much more direct method of stimulating economic activity.
There's a more fundamental reason why giving a tax break to a rich person doesn't result in money entering the economy in the way it does if you give the money to poor people:
- If I earn $250k a year and have say $400k in the bank, then an additional say $30k from a tax break makes no material difference to my life. I could *already afford everything I needed*
- If I earn $25k a year and have say $4k in the bank, then an additional say $3k from a tax break makes a huge material difference to my life. I can now afford things I really need -- more food, better housing, more clothes, etc etc.