When you argue for higher taxes on corporations, you're actually arguing for higher taxes on yourself.
Outrageously simplistic - you assume corporations can simply push the increased tax onto the cost of their product. This isn't the case.
Car analogy:
The set up:
AmeriCars flagship model retails at $10,000, but costs $5000 to produce yielding a gross profit of $5000 for the millionaire shareholders.
Assume in addition that no American thinks that the car is worth over $12,500 (or alternatively that there's a tastier Japanese model that comes in at $12,000)
The tax rates:
Assume, at first, that there is no corporate tax so the gross profit of $5000 is actually pure net profit.
Suppose that next month corporate tax is raised to 50% and is levied on profits reducing the shareholders' profit to $2500.
The consequences:
From what I gather about your profit-maintaining position, Americars' course of action would be to raise the retail price to $15,000, so that they still get net profits of $5000.
Clearly, this isn't going to benefit AmeriCars as they will shift far fewer units - imports are cheaper, no one wants to spend $15K on a car they think is worth $12.5K when there are other domestic competitors and a decent second hand market available, not to mention the negative publicity they'd receive for hiking their prices by such an extent. Say demand drops to 10% of the previous month.
Instead they do some 'business' - they accept the fact that they are paying some tax and try to maximize profits anyway: Say, retail at $12,000 (for a net profit of $3500) which is still less than the perceived worth. Also finishing the car with an attractive stars and stripes motif will persuade people not to get the Japanese number. Say demand drops to 70% of the previous month.
For the shareholders $3500*70 is far better than $5000*10
Of course, because the tax rate is 50%, Obama gets the same amount as the shareholders, so he prefers the second scenario.
For the
individual American taxpayer
they don't really care which scenario because they're going to buy a $12K car either way. They may be pissed that car prices have gone up by $2000, but, in the first scenario, the government gets whatever revenue from the sale of the Japanese car (and for the nitpickers we can assume that the profit margin is wafer thin so there's little tax revenue). Under the second scenario, Obama goes from getting nothing per car (in the previous month) to a whopping $3500. In particular we note that the American taxpayer has only contributed $2000 of this additional money - the rest has come from the millionaire shareholders' slice. Adding some political spin - by investing an extra $2000 into the purchase of a new car you'll increase the spending power of the government by $3500
Forgive me for pandering to American protectionism, but if we also assume that the millionaire shareholders are all foreign (or terrorists, or worse) then the second scenario also slows the flow of wealth from the country.
Disclaimer:
The above is an analogy, not a model of economics. There are millions of other things left unconsidered (which is what got us into this mess in the first place). It is simply a demonstration that corporate taxation is more complicated than "Government charges corporation, corporation passes this charge onto us". In particular, it is not a claim that increasing corporation tax is necessarily a good thing. It's far more complicated than this.
No matter what they call it, the money always comes out of the same pocket: the individual American taxpayer.
it's very generous of you all to pay my BBC licensing fee. Thanks!
Elemental lithium isn't used as an anti-depressant - I don't think your body would be too pleased if you swallowed a lump of the stuff.
However, lithiums salts, such as lithium carbonate, are used as anti-depressants.
I think your point still stands, as lithium carbonate is a pretty simple probably naturally occurring molecule and this should affect whether is patent is granted. However, some of the other lithium salts used as anti-depressants are more complex, probably harder to derive and are arguably more worthy of being patentable.
My apologies for two instances of "probably" - IANAChemist
That's because, quite simply, British people do not consider owning firearms a right any more than we don't consider it a right to own nerve gas. And no, there is no qualitative difference between these examples, it really is just a question of scale.
What confuses me is the fact that the 'right' to bear arms is actually enshrined in the constitution. I'd ask what other possessions you feel the need to have constitutionally protected? The 'right to bear broccoli' perhaps? (Or slightly more interestingly, just the right to eat whatever damn food you want - try getting an Aberdeen Angus steak anywhere in America).
The whole point of outlining rights is that they are non-negotiable but they certainly shouldn't be arbitrary (would you like to see the 'right to cartwheel to church' enshrined in the constitution?). The GP's point, that guns don't prevent oppression but provide a false sense of security, means that owning a weapon doesn't make you any more free. The right has no pragmatic value, and it certainly isn't morally self-evident like the 'right to clean water'. It is entirely arbitrary .
Slashdot Mirror
Internet Service Providers
That's quite a mouthful...
(ISPs)
Ah, thank you TFA!
When you argue for higher taxes on corporations, you're actually arguing for higher taxes on yourself.
Outrageously simplistic - you assume corporations can simply push the increased tax onto the cost of their product. This isn't the case.
Car analogy:
The set up:
AmeriCars flagship model retails at $10,000, but costs $5000 to produce yielding a gross profit of $5000 for the millionaire shareholders.
Assume in addition that no American thinks that the car is worth over $12,500 (or alternatively that there's a tastier Japanese model that comes in at $12,000)
The tax rates:
Assume, at first, that there is no corporate tax so the gross profit of $5000 is actually pure net profit.
Suppose that next month corporate tax is raised to 50% and is levied on profits reducing the shareholders' profit to $2500.
The consequences:
From what I gather about your profit-maintaining position, Americars' course of action would be to raise the retail price to $15,000, so that they still get net profits of $5000.
Clearly, this isn't going to benefit AmeriCars as they will shift far fewer units - imports are cheaper, no one wants to spend $15K on a car they think is worth $12.5K when there are other domestic competitors and a decent second hand market available, not to mention the negative publicity they'd receive for hiking their prices by such an extent. Say demand drops to 10% of the previous month.
Instead they do some 'business' - they accept the fact that they are paying some tax and try to maximize profits anyway: Say, retail at $12,000 (for a net profit of $3500) which is still less than the perceived worth. Also finishing the car with an attractive stars and stripes motif will persuade people not to get the Japanese number.
Say demand drops to 70% of the previous month.
For the shareholders $3500*70 is far better than $5000*10
Of course, because the tax rate is 50%, Obama gets the same amount as the shareholders, so he prefers the second scenario.
For the
individual American taxpayer
they don't really care which scenario because they're going to buy a $12K car either way. They may be pissed that car prices have gone up by $2000, but, in the first scenario, the government gets whatever revenue from the sale of the Japanese car (and for the nitpickers we can assume that the profit margin is wafer thin so there's little tax revenue). Under the second scenario, Obama goes from getting nothing per car (in the previous month) to a whopping $3500. In particular we note that the American taxpayer has only contributed $2000 of this additional money - the rest has come from the millionaire shareholders' slice. Adding some political spin - by investing an extra $2000 into the purchase of a new car you'll increase the spending power of the government by $3500
Forgive me for pandering to American protectionism, but if we also assume that the millionaire shareholders are all foreign (or terrorists, or worse) then the second scenario also slows the flow of wealth from the country.
Disclaimer: The above is an analogy, not a model of economics. There are millions of other things left unconsidered (which is what got us into this mess in the first place). It is simply a demonstration that corporate taxation is more complicated than "Government charges corporation, corporation passes this charge onto us". In particular, it is not a claim that increasing corporation tax is necessarily a good thing. It's far more complicated than this.
No matter what they call it, the money always comes out of the same pocket: the individual American taxpayer.
it's very generous of you all to pay my BBC licensing fee. Thanks!
Elemental lithium isn't used as an anti-depressant - I don't think your body would be too pleased if you swallowed a lump of the stuff. However, lithiums salts, such as lithium carbonate, are used as anti-depressants.
I think your point still stands, as lithium carbonate is a pretty simple probably naturally occurring molecule and this should affect whether is patent is granted. However, some of the other lithium salts used as anti-depressants are more complex, probably harder to derive and are arguably more worthy of being patentable.
My apologies for two instances of "probably" - IANAChemist
That's because, quite simply, British people do not consider owning firearms a right any more than we don't consider it a right to own nerve gas. And no, there is no qualitative difference between these examples, it really is just a question of scale.
What confuses me is the fact that the 'right' to bear arms is actually enshrined in the constitution. I'd ask what other possessions you feel the need to have constitutionally protected? The 'right to bear broccoli' perhaps? (Or slightly more interestingly, just the right to eat whatever damn food you want - try getting an Aberdeen Angus steak anywhere in America).
The whole point of outlining rights is that they are non-negotiable but they certainly shouldn't be arbitrary (would you like to see the 'right to cartwheel to church' enshrined in the constitution?). The GP's point, that guns don't prevent oppression but provide a false sense of security, means that owning a weapon doesn't make you any more free. The right has no pragmatic value, and it certainly isn't morally self-evident like the 'right to clean water'. It is entirely arbitrary
.
So, for example, a soldier violently killing another soldier to further his country's political agenda.
Does that make all wars acts of terrorism? Where does that leave the war on terror?
Violence shouldn't be a necessary requirement to define an act as an act of terrorism.
One isn't prime