On what grounds would you be confiscating it? You would first have to have some charges laid and hold a trial and find them guilty and all that.
Or, you could go the eminent domain route which has a lower threshold but sort of requires fair compensation. I know that fair compensation gets fudged quite a bit when land is being taken but it would be very difficult to take 10 T worth of stock and claim that the fair market value is anything less than 10 T.
And then there is the problem of liquidating it. I mean, how is the government going to convert all those shares into something it can give to other people. How many are going to buy it from the government or accept it as payment when the government just declared it basically worthless.
Another fine idea from a moron. I'm surprised Obama and Biden haven't already peddled this one via Matthews and Maddow.
Except that would violate international maritime treaties and basic human morals, but then you seem to be a liberal and I hear that morals are generally quite flexible in those circles (depends on the situation and all).
I can't tell from this series of posts whether you are a vet of the armed services or not. If you are, then thank you for your service.
No, I didn't serve but I've never before met a vet that has felt the need to attack those of us who didn't simply because we agree that they were protecting us. I had a neighbor shortly after the 1st Gulf war who had been a sniper with something like 30 confirmed kills. Occasionally, I could hear when his nightmares woke him up. He appreciated me asking about it and being concerned about him. I didn't pry for details and he didn't offer other than to say the nightmares were related to a couple of his missions. We talked about guns, rights, etc and he never once suggested I had no place believing I had as much right to freedom as he did. So, again, if you did serve, I thank you for your service. I also politely suggest that you find someone to talk to about your anger at those of us who haven't served.
If you haven't served, then STFU because your being a hypocrite.
Don't know whether the club officers have been in the military. I've never asked them. I do know that the the members whom I know to be vets have no issues with them.
Anyway, what does being a veteran have to do with a persons belief as to whether and to what extent individual citizens of the USA get to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?
Speaking of vets (almost anyway), have you seen the poll of currently active and retired LEO that shows something like 90% opposition to all of the current new gun legislation? 90% approval of having ordinary citizens carrying concealed. If you want to talk about leadership not honoring "the troops" or only giving lip service then start looking at all the Big City mayors, police chiefs and politicians that push for more gun restrictions in the name of safety even when their own officers would feel safer with fewer restrictions. That's right, the actual police officer out on the street generally feels safer knowing that more law abiding citizens with guns are around.
Many of the members of the shooting club I belong to are also members of the NRA and are also either military vets or LEO vets.
Personally, I could not care less how you view me and my fellow citizens who are willing to stand up for our rights. Asking why we are willing to pay for guards at many other places but not in schools is not asking for a nanny state. When people start saying that the schools will only be safe when I (me personally) don't have guns of my choice and that nothing is too unreasonable to "protect our kids" then, yes, I am glad that my paid "lobbyist" is asking why we don't then put armed guards in schools.
No, he's the nutjob who thinks that "Detroit" has been sitting on the patents to carburetors that would have been giving 1970 era cadillacs 100MPG fuel mileage.
Yeah and you call the NRA "nuts". I have yet to hear any of my friends and coworkers that are the less gun control side of the debate talk about shooting the opposition but I hear it frequently from the anti-gun crowd. Of course you think nobody should have access to guns. you think everyone is a screwed up and irresponsible as yourselves.
I will agree that anyone who thinks guns should be more limited in the USA should not be allowed to have them because they generally have proven themselves unable to handle that level of responsibility.
"Raise the speed limit, and the norm tends to shift; driving the speed limit starts to seem hazardous."
That is the most quoted falsehood in this subject area I've seen. Numerous studies show that 85% of drivers instinctively "know" the safe speed for any stretch of road they drive repeatedly. The general recommendation (form the actual engineering standpoint) for establishing the speed limit on a new road is to not post a speed limit and do a study to determine the 85th percentile speed and use that as the basis for setting the speed limit. Wisconsin law seems to require the police to recalibrate that 85th percentile every few years and aren't allowed to write tickets if the study for that area is out-of-date.
Obviously some factors such as schools also need to be considered but the reality is that the majority of ordinary people do actually know how to manage themselves in a safe and responsible manner.
It has to do with impact energy which is based on the square of the velocity. And no, the units only matter in that they must remain consistent. Just like the formula for the area of a circle is pi times the square of the radius. The formula doesn't change just because I measure the radius in feet, you measure it in millimeters and Johnny measures it in football fields. The perceived scale or range of values changes but the formula doesn't.
And there were studies that showed reducing the speed limit to 55 caused more accidents in certain parts of the country and that raising them back to 65 and higher didn't cause an increase.
According to some Google employees, that is exactly what is happening in the real world and the professor is full of shit because he is complaining that what is happening should be happening and asking the government to intervene and make it happen.
According to Google employees, you will pay the tax on those taxable benefits the same way Google employees do. Your company would include those expenses as part of your pay and then increase your gross pay to cover the tax. Kind of like is already happening for you. The only difference is that Google has decided to not give everyone an average pay increase to cover the expense of eating lunch but to only give that pay increase to those employees who choose to eat in the Google cafeterias and then only on the amount they do eat in the Google cafeteria.
And according to a Google employee that posted after you, Google employees are being taxed on their lunches. Google just increases their gross pay to cover the tax bill of the lunch and, presumably, the increased gross pay. So their is no illegal behavior and taxes not being paid.
No, its more like jealousy and envy. The other guy has more than you and you want him to have less. You don't want to be seen as a common criminal and simply steal it form him so you clamor for your government to do the taking for you.
Nope. Big fail. If a company finds a loophole that allows them to lower their tax liability, then they are not doing anything illegal by taking advantage of that loophole to lower their tax liability. They are following the law. According to an above post a non-profit (taxable) corporation is supposed to be profit seeking. Many a slashdotter has pointed out that corporations are solely interested in maximizing profit for the shareholder. Whether that is their sole purpose is not really relevant here. It is a main purpose and one way to maximize profit is to lower expenses and if the legislature has written the tax code in such a way that a corporation may deduct a portion of its income from being taxable then the corporation should be deducting that portion of its income before calculating taxes.
To say that is somehow wrong is to claim that my using the personal deductions for my dependents is wrong or deducting my mortgage interest and charitable contributions is wrong. One may argue that the tax law is immoral for having such deductions but you cannot argue that it is wrong to use them.
An entities money belongs to the entity and they are required (morally and legally) to give to the government only what the government asks for and not one penny more. Just because the government then expects another entity to make up the difference does not change anything.
I could just as easily use your logic to say that the 47% not paying any income taxes are being immoral by requiring the government to increase the amount it collects from the other 53%.
What difference does it make what Google's business model is. The question was whether we are getting a taxable benefit from Google when we get search results from Google and we didn't pay for it. Let's take our (your) anomosity towards Google out of the equation and use a different example. Your neighbor is a plumber by trade and you are remodeling a kitchen. He stops by on a Saturday and lends a hand installing the sink. He is a nice guy and doesn't charge you.
The question the GP posed is: "Did you receive a taxable benefit from the plumber and, therefore, owe taxes on it?"
Seriously?!? In a series of post discussing how can we authenticate the veracity of a publisher you propose that the government should be the final arbiter of what is true and what isn't?
Even worse, you suggest that the government should have final say as to who gets to speak publicly. Which government agency gave you permission to express that opinion?
expanding background checks won't stop the black market either because the black market "dealers" won't run the checks because they are, you know, criminals.
seems as though some of your fellow Brits agreed with me in their own responses further down the thread.
My guess is that unions have for outlived their usefulness in the "developed" world and only exist now for the purpose of enriching the upper management at the expense of the working class. Sort of what the liberals are always claiming about corporations. The big difference is that corporations generally tend to actually produce something while enriching their upper management.
"She didn't shut down the union, she made the union bosses answerable to their members, and gave people a choice if they wanted to be a union member." from the way the union heads here in the States talk about "CardCheck", she did shut down the unions.
From the union leadership standpoint, any time they become more accountable you are shutting down the union. This is because the purpose of unions nowadays is not to protect the worker, it is to enrich the leadership.
That's pretty much what any store selling ammo looks like. The county sheriff offices in Wisconsin are looking for dealers at gun shows and private reloaders to sell them ammo because they are running low.
Slashdot Mirror
On what grounds would you be confiscating it? You would first have to have some charges laid and hold a trial and find them guilty and all that.
Or, you could go the eminent domain route which has a lower threshold but sort of requires fair compensation. I know that fair compensation gets fudged quite a bit when land is being taken but it would be very difficult to take 10 T worth of stock and claim that the fair market value is anything less than 10 T.
And then there is the problem of liquidating it. I mean, how is the government going to convert all those shares into something it can give to other people. How many are going to buy it from the government or accept it as payment when the government just declared it basically worthless.
Another fine idea from a moron. I'm surprised Obama and Biden haven't already peddled this one via Matthews and Maddow.
Except that would violate international maritime treaties and basic human morals, but then you seem to be a liberal and I hear that morals are generally quite flexible in those circles (depends on the situation and all).
I can't tell from this series of posts whether you are a vet of the armed services or not. If you are, then thank you for your service.
No, I didn't serve but I've never before met a vet that has felt the need to attack those of us who didn't simply because we agree that they were protecting us. I had a neighbor shortly after the 1st Gulf war who had been a sniper with something like 30 confirmed kills. Occasionally, I could hear when his nightmares woke him up. He appreciated me asking about it and being concerned about him. I didn't pry for details and he didn't offer other than to say the nightmares were related to a couple of his missions. We talked about guns, rights, etc and he never once suggested I had no place believing I had as much right to freedom as he did. So, again, if you did serve, I thank you for your service. I also politely suggest that you find someone to talk to about your anger at those of us who haven't served.
If you haven't served, then STFU because your being a hypocrite.
Don't know whether the club officers have been in the military. I've never asked them. I do know that the the members whom I know to be vets have no issues with them.
Anyway, what does being a veteran have to do with a persons belief as to whether and to what extent individual citizens of the USA get to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?
Speaking of vets (almost anyway), have you seen the poll of currently active and retired LEO that shows something like 90% opposition to all of the current new gun legislation? 90% approval of having ordinary citizens carrying concealed. If you want to talk about leadership not honoring "the troops" or only giving lip service then start looking at all the Big City mayors, police chiefs and politicians that push for more gun restrictions in the name of safety even when their own officers would feel safer with fewer restrictions. That's right, the actual police officer out on the street generally feels safer knowing that more law abiding citizens with guns are around.
Many of the members of the shooting club I belong to are also members of the NRA and are also either military vets or LEO vets.
Personally, I could not care less how you view me and my fellow citizens who are willing to stand up for our rights. Asking why we are willing to pay for guards at many other places but not in schools is not asking for a nanny state. When people start saying that the schools will only be safe when I (me personally) don't have guns of my choice and that nothing is too unreasonable to "protect our kids" then, yes, I am glad that my paid "lobbyist" is asking why we don't then put armed guards in schools.
No, he's the nutjob who thinks that "Detroit" has been sitting on the patents to carburetors that would have been giving 1970 era cadillacs 100MPG fuel mileage.
Yeah and you call the NRA "nuts". I have yet to hear any of my friends and coworkers that are the less gun control side of the debate talk about shooting the opposition but I hear it frequently from the anti-gun crowd. Of course you think nobody should have access to guns. you think everyone is a screwed up and irresponsible as yourselves.
I will agree that anyone who thinks guns should be more limited in the USA should not be allowed to have them because they generally have proven themselves unable to handle that level of responsibility.
"Raise the speed limit, and the norm tends to shift; driving the speed limit starts to seem hazardous."
That is the most quoted falsehood in this subject area I've seen. Numerous studies show that 85% of drivers instinctively "know" the safe speed for any stretch of road they drive repeatedly. The general recommendation (form the actual engineering standpoint) for establishing the speed limit on a new road is to not post a speed limit and do a study to determine the 85th percentile speed and use that as the basis for setting the speed limit. Wisconsin law seems to require the police to recalibrate that 85th percentile every few years and aren't allowed to write tickets if the study for that area is out-of-date.
Obviously some factors such as schools also need to be considered but the reality is that the majority of ordinary people do actually know how to manage themselves in a safe and responsible manner.
It has to do with impact energy which is based on the square of the velocity. And no, the units only matter in that they must remain consistent. Just like the formula for the area of a circle is pi times the square of the radius. The formula doesn't change just because I measure the radius in feet, you measure it in millimeters and Johnny measures it in football fields. The perceived scale or range of values changes but the formula doesn't.
And there were studies that showed reducing the speed limit to 55 caused more accidents in certain parts of the country and that raising them back to 65 and higher didn't cause an increase.
According to some Google employees, that is exactly what is happening in the real world and the professor is full of shit because he is complaining that what is happening should be happening and asking the government to intervene and make it happen.
According to an acquaintance of mine working for another large software company many of his fellow employees barely qualify under those criteria.
According to Google employees, you will pay the tax on those taxable benefits the same way Google employees do. Your company would include those expenses as part of your pay and then increase your gross pay to cover the tax. Kind of like is already happening for you. The only difference is that Google has decided to not give everyone an average pay increase to cover the expense of eating lunch but to only give that pay increase to those employees who choose to eat in the Google cafeterias and then only on the amount they do eat in the Google cafeteria.
And according to a Google employee that posted after you, Google employees are being taxed on their lunches. Google just increases their gross pay to cover the tax bill of the lunch and, presumably, the increased gross pay. So their is no illegal behavior and taxes not being paid.
No, its more like jealousy and envy. The other guy has more than you and you want him to have less. You don't want to be seen as a common criminal and simply steal it form him so you clamor for your government to do the taking for you.
Nope. Big fail. If a company finds a loophole that allows them to lower their tax liability, then they are not doing anything illegal by taking advantage of that loophole to lower their tax liability. They are following the law. According to an above post a non-profit (taxable) corporation is supposed to be profit seeking. Many a slashdotter has pointed out that corporations are solely interested in maximizing profit for the shareholder. Whether that is their sole purpose is not really relevant here. It is a main purpose and one way to maximize profit is to lower expenses and if the legislature has written the tax code in such a way that a corporation may deduct a portion of its income from being taxable then the corporation should be deducting that portion of its income before calculating taxes.
To say that is somehow wrong is to claim that my using the personal deductions for my dependents is wrong or deducting my mortgage interest and charitable contributions is wrong. One may argue that the tax law is immoral for having such deductions but you cannot argue that it is wrong to use them.
An entities money belongs to the entity and they are required (morally and legally) to give to the government only what the government asks for and not one penny more. Just because the government then expects another entity to make up the difference does not change anything.
I could just as easily use your logic to say that the 47% not paying any income taxes are being immoral by requiring the government to increase the amount it collects from the other 53%.
No way. You can't treat royal hangers-on, I mean government employees, like us commoners. They are special and have special rules.
What difference does it make what Google's business model is. The question was whether we are getting a taxable benefit from Google when we get search results from Google and we didn't pay for it. Let's take our (your) anomosity towards Google out of the equation and use a different example. Your neighbor is a plumber by trade and you are remodeling a kitchen. He stops by on a Saturday and lends a hand installing the sink. He is a nice guy and doesn't charge you.
The question the GP posed is: "Did you receive a taxable benefit from the plumber and, therefore, owe taxes on it?"
Seriously?!? In a series of post discussing how can we authenticate the veracity of a publisher you propose that the government should be the final arbiter of what is true and what isn't?
Even worse, you suggest that the government should have final say as to who gets to speak publicly. Which government agency gave you permission to express that opinion?
corner? probably the whole basement.
expanding background checks won't stop the black market either because the black market "dealers" won't run the checks because they are, you know, criminals.
seems as though some of your fellow Brits agreed with me in their own responses further down the thread.
My guess is that unions have for outlived their usefulness in the "developed" world and only exist now for the purpose of enriching the upper management at the expense of the working class. Sort of what the liberals are always claiming about corporations. The big difference is that corporations generally tend to actually produce something while enriching their upper management.
"She didn't shut down the union, she made the union bosses answerable to their members, and gave people a choice if they wanted to be a union member." from the way the union heads here in the States talk about "CardCheck", she did shut down the unions.
From the union leadership standpoint, any time they become more accountable you are shutting down the union. This is because the purpose of unions nowadays is not to protect the worker, it is to enrich the leadership.
It was way better than all that hosts file crap, though. Compared to that this post almost had a valid point.
That's pretty much what any store selling ammo looks like. The county sheriff offices in Wisconsin are looking for dealers at gun shows and private reloaders to sell them ammo because they are running low.