I don't have an easy solution to the problem. The only way I could think about it working would be as a transaction tax. In my head there would be 2 transactions when an international purchase is made. 1 is the transaction that occurs in the home country of the purchaser and the second transaction is the one where the billing institution shifts the funds from one currency to the other. In essence an international transaction would be taxed twice, once in each country. In my example I would say that the tax is collected in Australia and the US. NZ would get nothing. But while on holiday in NZ I would get the NZ tax and the AUS tax if I say went to a coffee shop.
I'm not saying it is a fair system. Just its the only thing that comes to mind that could catch the loopholes of shifting booked revenue.
It simply can't work. While you are trying to force a tax on income and that income crosses national borders it will be almost impossible to decided which tax system it should fall under.
If I purchase something from Amazon, while in New Zealand, with my UK credit card, shipped to my Aussie address. Who pays what tax where?
Realistically we need some kind of transaction layer tax system that captures at point of sale. Think VAT or GST style but on every transaction. This should be implemented and income and capital taxes removed.
You cannot take tax out of deciding which location is optimal or not. It is exactly the same as social stability & conflict risk. These all have to be taken into consideration when deciding where you will base an operation.
A particularly clear example of this is if you watch capital flows in the mining industry. There are a lot of similar deposits around the world, but why does a particular multi-national choose Australia over Canada or vice-versa. For a long time Australia won because of a favourable royalty environment plus geographical proximity to the major consuming countries. Then changes were made to the tax system around mining and capital has moved towards Canada. The mines are not as profitable as the Australian ones would have been (mainly due to distance) but they are now the better option due to tax. It is still the corporate choosing the optimal solution.
There can be no argument that they are working exactly as a private hire car does at the absolute minimum. You are organising a driver to transport you from location a to location b for a fee. Only in the most twisted world could you argue that is hitch hiking.
The audition is a 5 minute performance in front of a panel of 5 people. 1 from council, 1 from Brisbane Marketing (it is essentially the entity that does all the promotions on behalf of the businesses in the area), 1 from Performing Arts Queensland, and 2 from the Queensland Conservatory of Music. Personally I think it is a pretty good selection panel for the purpose.
Anyway, can you ever judge music in an objective, scientific way?
I have no objection to Uber or the service in principal. My objection is that they are not complying with the law, at all. The requirements for a private car service here are stricter then what uber work to. You require a different license, insurance, registration and permit. Should Uber drivers operate the same as private car services do here and follow the same laws I have ABSOLUTELY no issue with them. Their non compliance with the law is the reason they are a safety risk.
In Australia private car companies are not allowed to do street pickups, the fee must be agreed in advance, they must have Limo plates, the driver must be a certified driver (this is the same level of background and skills check as a taxi driver) their state issued ID must be on display at all times. But the biggest thing is that they MUST have a Limousine license and this is where Uber is going "nah why should I".
Basically my issue is that Uber does not comply with even the more lax rules surrounding private hire vehicles, let alone the more stringent ones surrounding taxis. Also the rules haven't changed in years around what qualifies as a private hire vehicle, uber are just saying "fuckit" we want to do it so we will. This has nothing to do with wanting the legality settled and everything to do with try to bum rush an industry and a regulator.
Also as for the term Taxi it is exactly the same as I would have an issue in you calling yourself an engineer if you did not hold an engineering qualification, or calling yourself a doctor without being certified. I know this is different between the USA and Aus but here Engineer is what is called a protected term, similar to Dietician for example. You can call yourself a Nutritionist (which isn't) here and it has absolutely no meaning, you cannot however call yourself a Dietician without certification. Calling yourself a Taxi service has specific meanings which Uber do not meet.
It depends on the regulatory environment in which you are operating.
China is continuing to open new coal fired powerplants because they are the cheapest option and they have a rapidly climbing electricity demand due to urbanisation.
If you are a developed country with a stable power demand then you are unlikely to fund a large scale coal power plant.
Sorry this isn't true. Have a look at Australia's Uranium reserves - in particular the Olympic Dam site. There is a ridiculous amount of easily accessible (ie open cut) uranium ore there. There is also a massive amount of copper and gold there to supplement the uranium operation.
If the Australian government hadn't screwed around with mining taxes over the past 6 years Olympic Dam would be being upgraded now to be one of the biggest mines in the world. But the scope of the over burden removal meant that they were no longer willing to take the investment risk because the Australian government kept changing the tax landscape.
To be allowed to play music for money in the centre of the city. Yes. It only applies to Queen Street Mall, Redacliff Place and King George Square. These are pedestrianised areas set up as commercial districts. Outside of those areas you do not require a permit. Given that the permit is free and available to all I have no problems with it what so ever.
No I have absolutely NO problem with them limiting the number of people who can busk in the main street of Brisbane city. The ABSOLUTE last thing I want is to have a busker ever 2 meters trying to drown out the person next to them.
There is NOTHING stopping you from playing music in your own home or infact in 99% of the public spaces. There is a restriction on the number of people that can "play music hoping to be paid" in the dead centre of the city.
Not at all. In Queensland it is perfectly legal to pickup hitchhikers. HOWEVER, the police strongly advise against the practice (both picking up and being a hitch hiker) as it is a risky practice - see Ivan Milat - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However hitching a ride from an unmarked vehicle should not be considered the same as ordering a taxi. The taxi is the vetted service where the expectation is that the driver is not a danger. The problem with Uber is that there is no vetting process that compares to a regulators process (at least here in Australia) so you lose that certainty. That certainty costs money to provide, so if you want to operate as a taxi service you must go through the regulated process to become a taxi driver and you must wear those costs.
No one is saying you can't hitch hike, or car pool or anything like that. What is being objected to is claiming to be a taxi service without going through the licensing and audit process of genuine taxis.
Yes the laws are different State to State. Australia is a federation. And seriously if you are talking about 1 man band taxi company what does it matter that you need a different license in Queensland and NSW? It's not like you might decide, hmmm actually today I think I will do a Sydney day and tomorrow a Brisbane one.
Taxi licenses are expensive, but they are also an asset. They are not something that expires. Many taxi drivers purchase the license knowing that it is expensive but that they can work to pay down the debt associated with it and have a sizeable capital asset in the future. It is no different to an investment property. Also the license is for a vehicle and you see a number of trusts holding the license with multiple drivers working together.
And yet net migration remains positive. In 2013 144,175 people left and 197,241 came. So a little over 50k people decided it was a better place to live overall. Helps if you get both numbers.
NBC recently tested Uber’s background checks by putting forward reformed criminal Beverly Locke, who bragged about her “three-page rap sheet”, as an UberX driver. Locke, on probation after nearly beating a woman to death, had prior convictions for burglary, drugs and assault, but was hired to be an UberX driver after filling out the online application.
But this is where regulation comes in. I have no trust in Uber. I mean my should I? There have a vested interest in approving drivers. The regulator however does not. A regulators signoff on a person is worth something to me, seeing their picture on Uber's website is now.
I obviously see it differently. Yes price is a factor. But Australia went to regulated taxis for safety reasons. Both that safety of the driver and the passenger. Here most taxi drivers are their own business and operate under the banner of the major brands.
Also I don't see how I am being taken from a government approved start to finish? Unless you mean a street address? I think you are stretching a bow here. Regulation is not inherently bad
Because in Australia, where I live, it isn't about that. I don't know what taxi services are like in the US, but here I wouldn't change them. We have a commercial drivers license and we have taxi licensing and a centralised booking and ordering system which frankly works very well.
I see no benefits to me to having an unregulated taxi operator working here.
Kanji dictionaries work based on the stroke count and each stroke must be done in a set order and in a set direction. If it wasn't for the fact they have 220000000000 characters it would make a great input method. It wouldn't be technically hard to change western alphabet to a set drawing method but be almost impossible to implement.
Couldn't agree more. There is nothing inherently good about Uber and some of their tactics are down right scummy.
Uber has been issued a cease and desist here in Brisbane, will be an interesting one to watch as taxis here is Australia are pretty damn good. They are far from perfect of course but they are clean, and reasonably timely. The real issue with them is the system creaks under the load on a Friday and Saturday night.
And frankly I think this is a good thing. Getting in a car with a stranger can be a dangerous act. Knowing that the marked taxi that you are getting in is, most likely, driven by a vetted individual, maintained to at least a minimum standard, fitted with cameras and tracking equipment, all mitigate some of that risk.
I don't care that you can drive your car on the road. Just because you do that doesn't mean you get to be a taxi. You state that being a member of a TTO of 100 or more is arbitrary. I say that it means the government has a single point of inspection and contact to manage a large number of vehicles. As for the professionalism, it is much harder to define. But if you want to be a busker in Brisbane city for example you need a license. There is absolutely no cost in getting that license but you have to do an audition. Basically it is the council deciding are your professional enough, and again no issue from me.
No I absolutely see them as non related. A related organisation, you could argue, would be Schlumberger who do the drilling for Shell on a number of their projects. Or Sinopec which they have a joint venture with in the Arrow CSG fields. If Shell runs an ad campaign in a news paper does that make the news paper a related organisation?
Seriously how are you modded Informative? I assume that every advertising company is a related entity then? Google must be hell in bed with all those big nasty companies then.
Is Slashdot related to Microsoft because I get Mircosoft ads here? No.
Is Greenpeace related to the Oil & Gas companies that manufacture the fuels for their vehicles related? No.
If you have a bone to pick with an organisation target that organisation. Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong. The end does not justify the means. Where I work we have had death threats directed at us because some of our clients are in the mining and oil & gas space. There is nothing that can justify that type of action.
Call it a privilege if you want. Without liabilities limited to the value of the corporation business as we know if would cease. The risk profile goes through the roof and people would simply not invest their money. Everything would collapse over night.
Secondly on the argument of privilege vs right. There are no rights. Everything you claim as a right, be it the right to assembly, right to free speech or whatever is something that is given to you as a privilege of living in a society that holds those values. If you change societies or the society around you changes these "rights" can cease.
. Start by dissolving the ability of a corporation to have liability. The liability is shared by the stockholders or executive officers, prior to stock issuance.
And instantly you have destroyed your economy and way of life. What you have just described is the sole and singular reason corporations were formed in the first place. That is to limit the risk to an investor to the amount of money they have put into it. ie the value of the stocks they hold. If liability is held by the stockholders you make it an incredibly risky venture to be involved in a business. You buy $5 of stock in McDonalds, as a result of a law suit for activities outside of your control McDonalds is subject to a lawsuit judgement that exceeds its net worth. In the current setup you lose your $5, in your proposal you just lost your house, all your assets and your life savings - it just doesn't work.
It gets better , when you realize most rooms only need one jack or none at all.
I would argue false economy on this. Cable is cheap and labour is expensive (even if it is your own time) if you are pulling a single cable to a room, pull at least 2. You DO NOT want to do this job twice and while you are crawling around your roof cavity you may as well hit every room that is possible.
2 per bedroom is probably enough. Main lounge I would argue at least 4. It is easy to fill those ports if you own consoles or media centres. Then there are the usages you didn't think of. I have a young child so I have a baby monitor, instead of buying a crap rf based one I got an old camcorder for free and take its video out and run it over cat 5 to my bedroom where it is plugged into a TV and a small PC speaker - instant HD baby monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have an easy solution to the problem. The only way I could think about it working would be as a transaction tax. In my head there would be 2 transactions when an international purchase is made. 1 is the transaction that occurs in the home country of the purchaser and the second transaction is the one where the billing institution shifts the funds from one currency to the other. In essence an international transaction would be taxed twice, once in each country. In my example I would say that the tax is collected in Australia and the US. NZ would get nothing. But while on holiday in NZ I would get the NZ tax and the AUS tax if I say went to a coffee shop.
I'm not saying it is a fair system. Just its the only thing that comes to mind that could catch the loopholes of shifting booked revenue.
It simply can't work. While you are trying to force a tax on income and that income crosses national borders it will be almost impossible to decided which tax system it should fall under.
If I purchase something from Amazon, while in New Zealand, with my UK credit card, shipped to my Aussie address. Who pays what tax where?
Realistically we need some kind of transaction layer tax system that captures at point of sale. Think VAT or GST style but on every transaction. This should be implemented and income and capital taxes removed.
You cannot take tax out of deciding which location is optimal or not. It is exactly the same as social stability & conflict risk. These all have to be taken into consideration when deciding where you will base an operation.
A particularly clear example of this is if you watch capital flows in the mining industry. There are a lot of similar deposits around the world, but why does a particular multi-national choose Australia over Canada or vice-versa. For a long time Australia won because of a favourable royalty environment plus geographical proximity to the major consuming countries. Then changes were made to the tax system around mining and capital has moved towards Canada. The mines are not as profitable as the Australian ones would have been (mainly due to distance) but they are now the better option due to tax. It is still the corporate choosing the optimal solution.
There can be no argument that they are working exactly as a private hire car does at the absolute minimum. You are organising a driver to transport you from location a to location b for a fee. Only in the most twisted world could you argue that is hitch hiking.
The audition is a 5 minute performance in front of a panel of 5 people. 1 from council, 1 from Brisbane Marketing (it is essentially the entity that does all the promotions on behalf of the businesses in the area), 1 from Performing Arts Queensland, and 2 from the Queensland Conservatory of Music. Personally I think it is a pretty good selection panel for the purpose.
Anyway, can you ever judge music in an objective, scientific way?
I have no objection to Uber or the service in principal. My objection is that they are not complying with the law, at all. The requirements for a private car service here are stricter then what uber work to. You require a different license, insurance, registration and permit. Should Uber drivers operate the same as private car services do here and follow the same laws I have ABSOLUTELY no issue with them. Their non compliance with the law is the reason they are a safety risk.
In Australia private car companies are not allowed to do street pickups, the fee must be agreed in advance, they must have Limo plates, the driver must be a certified driver (this is the same level of background and skills check as a taxi driver) their state issued ID must be on display at all times. But the biggest thing is that they MUST have a Limousine license and this is where Uber is going "nah why should I".
Basically my issue is that Uber does not comply with even the more lax rules surrounding private hire vehicles, let alone the more stringent ones surrounding taxis. Also the rules haven't changed in years around what qualifies as a private hire vehicle, uber are just saying "fuckit" we want to do it so we will. This has nothing to do with wanting the legality settled and everything to do with try to bum rush an industry and a regulator.
Also as for the term Taxi it is exactly the same as I would have an issue in you calling yourself an engineer if you did not hold an engineering qualification, or calling yourself a doctor without being certified. I know this is different between the USA and Aus but here Engineer is what is called a protected term, similar to Dietician for example. You can call yourself a Nutritionist (which isn't) here and it has absolutely no meaning, you cannot however call yourself a Dietician without certification. Calling yourself a Taxi service has specific meanings which Uber do not meet.
It depends on the regulatory environment in which you are operating.
China is continuing to open new coal fired powerplants because they are the cheapest option and they have a rapidly climbing electricity demand due to urbanisation.
If you are a developed country with a stable power demand then you are unlikely to fund a large scale coal power plant.
Sorry this isn't true. Have a look at Australia's Uranium reserves - in particular the Olympic Dam site. There is a ridiculous amount of easily accessible (ie open cut) uranium ore there. There is also a massive amount of copper and gold there to supplement the uranium operation.
If the Australian government hadn't screwed around with mining taxes over the past 6 years Olympic Dam would be being upgraded now to be one of the biggest mines in the world. But the scope of the over burden removal meant that they were no longer willing to take the investment risk because the Australian government kept changing the tax landscape.
To be allowed to play music for money in the centre of the city. Yes. It only applies to Queen Street Mall, Redacliff Place and King George Square. These are pedestrianised areas set up as commercial districts. Outside of those areas you do not require a permit. Given that the permit is free and available to all I have no problems with it what so ever.
No I have absolutely NO problem with them limiting the number of people who can busk in the main street of Brisbane city. The ABSOLUTE last thing I want is to have a busker ever 2 meters trying to drown out the person next to them.
There is NOTHING stopping you from playing music in your own home or infact in 99% of the public spaces. There is a restriction on the number of people that can "play music hoping to be paid" in the dead centre of the city.
Not at all. In Queensland it is perfectly legal to pickup hitchhikers. HOWEVER, the police strongly advise against the practice (both picking up and being a hitch hiker) as it is a risky practice - see Ivan Milat - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However hitching a ride from an unmarked vehicle should not be considered the same as ordering a taxi. The taxi is the vetted service where the expectation is that the driver is not a danger. The problem with Uber is that there is no vetting process that compares to a regulators process (at least here in Australia) so you lose that certainty. That certainty costs money to provide, so if you want to operate as a taxi service you must go through the regulated process to become a taxi driver and you must wear those costs.
No one is saying you can't hitch hike, or car pool or anything like that. What is being objected to is claiming to be a taxi service without going through the licensing and audit process of genuine taxis.
Yes the laws are different State to State. Australia is a federation. And seriously if you are talking about 1 man band taxi company what does it matter that you need a different license in Queensland and NSW? It's not like you might decide, hmmm actually today I think I will do a Sydney day and tomorrow a Brisbane one.
Taxi licenses are expensive, but they are also an asset. They are not something that expires. Many taxi drivers purchase the license knowing that it is expensive but that they can work to pay down the debt associated with it and have a sizeable capital asset in the future. It is no different to an investment property. Also the license is for a vehicle and you see a number of trusts holding the license with multiple drivers working together.
This isn't a product, it is a service. So ergo the only way to regulate the service is to regulate the person doing the selling.
And yet net migration remains positive. In 2013 144,175 people left and 197,241 came. So a little over 50k people decided it was a better place to live overall. Helps if you get both numbers.
Uh huh...
NBC recently tested Uber’s background checks by putting forward reformed criminal Beverly Locke, who bragged about her “three-page rap sheet”, as an UberX driver. Locke, on probation after nearly beating a woman to death, had prior convictions for burglary, drugs and assault, but was hired to be an UberX driver after filling out the online application.
But this is where regulation comes in. I have no trust in Uber. I mean my should I? There have a vested interest in approving drivers. The regulator however does not. A regulators signoff on a person is worth something to me, seeing their picture on Uber's website is now.
I obviously see it differently. Yes price is a factor. But Australia went to regulated taxis for safety reasons. Both that safety of the driver and the passenger. Here most taxi drivers are their own business and operate under the banner of the major brands.
Also I don't see how I am being taken from a government approved start to finish? Unless you mean a street address? I think you are stretching a bow here. Regulation is not inherently bad
Because in Australia, where I live, it isn't about that. I don't know what taxi services are like in the US, but here I wouldn't change them. We have a commercial drivers license and we have taxi licensing and a centralised booking and ordering system which frankly works very well.
I see no benefits to me to having an unregulated taxi operator working here.
Kanji dictionaries work based on the stroke count and each stroke must be done in a set order and in a set direction. If it wasn't for the fact they have 220000000000 characters it would make a great input method. It wouldn't be technically hard to change western alphabet to a set drawing method but be almost impossible to implement.
Couldn't agree more. There is nothing inherently good about Uber and some of their tactics are down right scummy.
Uber has been issued a cease and desist here in Brisbane, will be an interesting one to watch as taxis here is Australia are pretty damn good. They are far from perfect of course but they are clean, and reasonably timely. The real issue with them is the system creaks under the load on a Friday and Saturday night.
And frankly I think this is a good thing. Getting in a car with a stranger can be a dangerous act. Knowing that the marked taxi that you are getting in is, most likely, driven by a vetted individual, maintained to at least a minimum standard, fitted with cameras and tracking equipment, all mitigate some of that risk.
I don't care that you can drive your car on the road. Just because you do that doesn't mean you get to be a taxi. You state that being a member of a TTO of 100 or more is arbitrary. I say that it means the government has a single point of inspection and contact to manage a large number of vehicles. As for the professionalism, it is much harder to define. But if you want to be a busker in Brisbane city for example you need a license. There is absolutely no cost in getting that license but you have to do an audition. Basically it is the council deciding are your professional enough, and again no issue from me.
No I absolutely see them as non related. A related organisation, you could argue, would be Schlumberger who do the drilling for Shell on a number of their projects. Or Sinopec which they have a joint venture with in the Arrow CSG fields. If Shell runs an ad campaign in a news paper does that make the news paper a related organisation?
Seriously how are you modded Informative? I assume that every advertising company is a related entity then? Google must be hell in bed with all those big nasty companies then.
Is Slashdot related to Microsoft because I get Mircosoft ads here? No.
Is Greenpeace related to the Oil & Gas companies that manufacture the fuels for their vehicles related? No.
This. 100 times this.
If you have a bone to pick with an organisation target that organisation. Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong. The end does not justify the means. Where I work we have had death threats directed at us because some of our clients are in the mining and oil & gas space. There is nothing that can justify that type of action.
Call it a privilege if you want. Without liabilities limited to the value of the corporation business as we know if would cease. The risk profile goes through the roof and people would simply not invest their money. Everything would collapse over night.
Secondly on the argument of privilege vs right. There are no rights. Everything you claim as a right, be it the right to assembly, right to free speech or whatever is something that is given to you as a privilege of living in a society that holds those values. If you change societies or the society around you changes these "rights" can cease.
. Start by dissolving the ability of a corporation to have liability. The liability is shared by the stockholders or executive officers, prior to stock issuance.
And instantly you have destroyed your economy and way of life. What you have just described is the sole and singular reason corporations were formed in the first place. That is to limit the risk to an investor to the amount of money they have put into it. ie the value of the stocks they hold. If liability is held by the stockholders you make it an incredibly risky venture to be involved in a business. You buy $5 of stock in McDonalds, as a result of a law suit for activities outside of your control McDonalds is subject to a lawsuit judgement that exceeds its net worth. In the current setup you lose your $5, in your proposal you just lost your house, all your assets and your life savings - it just doesn't work.
It gets better , when you realize most rooms only need one jack or none at all.
I would argue false economy on this. Cable is cheap and labour is expensive (even if it is your own time) if you are pulling a single cable to a room, pull at least 2. You DO NOT want to do this job twice and while you are crawling around your roof cavity you may as well hit every room that is possible.
2 per bedroom is probably enough. Main lounge I would argue at least 4. It is easy to fill those ports if you own consoles or media centres. Then there are the usages you didn't think of. I have a young child so I have a baby monitor, instead of buying a crap rf based one I got an old camcorder for free and take its video out and run it over cat 5 to my bedroom where it is plugged into a TV and a small PC speaker - instant HD baby monitor.