It's only passed on directly to the customers in some cases, not all.
Companies with high profits (drug companies for example), and companies selling a commodity with limited supply (oil companies for example) are selling as high as they can (what the insurance companies and various governments will pay in the first, and supply and demand in the second). It's only companies with a competitive market that are forced to sell at razor thin net margins where taxes equate a price hike (something like Walmart for example).
The real problem with a corporate income tax is that you are creating a barrier to exporting. A European company is incentivized to export to the US (no VAT), while a US company is at a disadvantage exporting to Europe (Corporate income tax). With a massive trade deficit it is a terrible strategy.
Corporate tax on multi-nationals essentially amounts to instituting a tariff on exports. It's a terrible idea for a country with a massive trade deficit.
I say this as someone that thinks we don't tax enough in the US (and don't offer enough services).
At worse there should be a tax-deduction for all corporations as a percentage of gross (something in the 8-12 percent range) allowing most companies to avoid paying it, and encouraging investing surplus profits.
I found swype to cause epic fails on certain words. Though it may have been quicker, and it was fun to use, using it accurately was a big chore in the end. And using it sloppily left messages intelligible, because very differently spelled words would have similar swypes. Also 'it' and 'out' errors were very frequent.
If politicians were smart they'd start planning for an economy of plenty now. It will be possible withing 100 years, and some pre-planning can prevent a mess like the Industrial Revolution.
An education in medicine is overpriced because existing doctors control how many stutends a meed school is allowed to take.
It's artificially restrected even though the us has less doctors per capita than any developed nation. I'm curious what the hear aid price is in say canada or france.
If they didn't have agriculture there would be a fair point I think.
Though you called them cities, and I said "allowing cities" so I think you're hypothetical counter is at best only half counter.
My point was tools aren't civiliztion, and I would argue that complex communication isn't either (but there is a case for that), it's cities that make civilization.
I agree, I am not sure that 99 percentile is working or not now, but that still allows for a bad frame every other second.
More useful would be the average of that worse 1%, or to crank it up to 99.9% (bad frame every twenty seconds), or longer, to some acceptable rate.
Even if 99 percentile works now, it's ripe for abuse by the manufacturers if it becomes a common metric (I imagine anyway there could be trade-offs in a driver where 1 frame every 2 seconds is terrible, rather tan one frame a second being OK, with all the rest great).
More likely the statistical outlier. I never said unselfish either.
It wouldn't shock if part of why he believed it is due to the fact that it's what he does many hours a week for years. Not everyone reacts to that with cynicism, plenty of people drink the kool-aid. We (as a species) have a natural tendency to think what we do is useful, even when it's not.
Also, when you deal with small picture part of things constantly it's real easy to not see the big picture. Practice of the law (and corporate more so) is so removed from the reality of the situation, that it would actually surprise me to find that most lawyers have any real concept of where they fall in the larger picture of their field. I would also say that as far as IP law goes, coming after legit trademark infringement is on the fairly noble side. If you eliminated copyright, trademarks would be the way to make sure you actually compensated the right person.
I think the stimulating effect of some socialism is greatly under-appreciated.
Socialized medicine allows for entrepreneurship to thrive, especially at the lower levels. I creates a much more even playing field, in the US system large companies get health insurance for much less than small ones, causing a drain on start-ups of every type. Additionally a safety net can have a similar effect, reducing the cost of failure for going out on ones own (and to being loyal to a single employer). In Canada GM was lobbying FOR socialized medicine, the current system in the US is part of what lead to their failure.
Most of the socialized systems also keep doctors pay less (still good though), this sucks for doctors, but helps the economy in general (eliminating some of the window breaking effect of staying healthy). In the US the doctors keep supply artificially low (limiting the allowed maximum number of students per field in each med-school), driving up prices. It's not that doctors are worth so much in the natural order, they are actively keeping prices out of reach of many by limiting supply. This is due to both government regulation (limiting people that can act as doctors to those that have been to a proper med-school), and industry regulation (making sure enough people can't go to med school to meet demand).
I'm not saying it's worse than a totally deregulated field (where I could be Dr Nick), just that the regulation we have now blows, and really we need to at least eliminate the supply shortage, by permitting schools to take as many qualified students as they like (this would also reduce the cost of the education, by allowing competition).
European socialism has the advantage of US subsidies too. How much has the German military budget been over the last 50 years? And non-negotiated drug prices in the US subsidize worldwide medical R and D.
The US has over 1/4 the number of troops in Germany and Germany does. That's a fairly big subsidy to defense right there.
Slashdot Mirror
Best comment I've ever read, thanks.
But you still couldn't sell somewhere else.
You'd need to have huge internal demand for that to work.
It's only passed on directly to the customers in some cases, not all.
Companies with high profits (drug companies for example), and companies selling a commodity with limited supply (oil companies for example) are selling as high as they can (what the insurance companies and various governments will pay in the first, and supply and demand in the second). It's only companies with a competitive market that are forced to sell at razor thin net margins where taxes equate a price hike (something like Walmart for example).
The real problem with a corporate income tax is that you are creating a barrier to exporting. A European company is incentivized to export to the US (no VAT), while a US company is at a disadvantage exporting to Europe (Corporate income tax). With a massive trade deficit it is a terrible strategy.
Corporate tax on multi-nationals essentially amounts to instituting a tariff on exports. It's a terrible idea for a country with a massive trade deficit.
I say this as someone that thinks we don't tax enough in the US (and don't offer enough services).
At worse there should be a tax-deduction for all corporations as a percentage of gross (something in the 8-12 percent range) allowing most companies to avoid paying it, and encouraging investing surplus profits.
It's not even a tax on wealth. It's a tax on income. Why not call it the high-income tax?
Actually, everything else you lose the ability to sell once you've sold it.
Wasn't dc madame changing the diapers of a republican?
I would imagine so, because it'd be all wtf, another star discovered close by.
So does Facebook
Facebook only allows one account per person.
The first planet orbiting two stars?
The exoplanet part being redundant.
Hindrance to progress is hardly irrelevant though. That was really my point. Religion is very relevant.
If you don't think other people's religion is relavant to you, you must live in a police state.
Where I live though, our republic makes the religious views of others very much a part of my life.
I found swype to cause epic fails on certain words. Though it may have been quicker, and it was fun to use, using it accurately was a big chore in the end. And using it sloppily left messages intelligible, because very differently spelled words would have similar swypes. Also 'it' and 'out' errors were very frequent.
Do you mean navigation nipple?
Yeah, but it wasn't a bigger pile of shit, it was two piles of shit connected by diarea splatter.
Things like differeng rules on field length leading to data curruption without error.
If politicians were smart they'd start planning for an economy of plenty now. It will be possible withing 100 years, and some pre-planning can prevent a mess like the Industrial Revolution.
Not intuit.
They're point of sale had massive amounts of problems integrating with quickbooks.
An education in medicine is overpriced because existing doctors control how many stutends a meed school is allowed to take.
It's artificially restrected even though the us has less doctors per capita than any developed nation. I'm curious what the hear aid price is in say canada or france.
If they didn't have agriculture there would be a fair point I think.
Though you called them cities, and I said "allowing cities" so I think you're hypothetical counter is at best only half counter.
My point was tools aren't civiliztion, and I would argue that complex communication isn't either (but there is a case for that), it's cities that make civilization.
Thus nomadic barbarians being called uncivilized.
I thought civilization had to do with agriculture and an end to being total nomads, so one could build a city.
Tool use is great and all, but not civilation I would think.
It increases or decreases collateral for loans though.
I agree, I am not sure that 99 percentile is working or not now, but that still allows for a bad frame every other second.
More useful would be the average of that worse 1%, or to crank it up to 99.9% (bad frame every twenty seconds), or longer, to some acceptable rate.
Even if 99 percentile works now, it's ripe for abuse by the manufacturers if it becomes a common metric (I imagine anyway there could be trade-offs in a driver where 1 frame every 2 seconds is terrible, rather tan one frame a second being OK, with all the rest great).
Hell, with a bluetooth ear piece that's four things, and I'm sure there's people doing all four at once.
More likely the statistical outlier. I never said unselfish either.
It wouldn't shock if part of why he believed it is due to the fact that it's what he does many hours a week for years. Not everyone reacts to that with cynicism, plenty of people drink the kool-aid. We (as a species) have a natural tendency to think what we do is useful, even when it's not.
Also, when you deal with small picture part of things constantly it's real easy to not see the big picture. Practice of the law (and corporate more so) is so removed from the reality of the situation, that it would actually surprise me to find that most lawyers have any real concept of where they fall in the larger picture of their field. I would also say that as far as IP law goes, coming after legit trademark infringement is on the fairly noble side. If you eliminated copyright, trademarks would be the way to make sure you actually compensated the right person.
I think the stimulating effect of some socialism is greatly under-appreciated.
Socialized medicine allows for entrepreneurship to thrive, especially at the lower levels. I creates a much more even playing field, in the US system large companies get health insurance for much less than small ones, causing a drain on start-ups of every type. Additionally a safety net can have a similar effect, reducing the cost of failure for going out on ones own (and to being loyal to a single employer). In Canada GM was lobbying FOR socialized medicine, the current system in the US is part of what lead to their failure.
Most of the socialized systems also keep doctors pay less (still good though), this sucks for doctors, but helps the economy in general (eliminating some of the window breaking effect of staying healthy). In the US the doctors keep supply artificially low (limiting the allowed maximum number of students per field in each med-school), driving up prices. It's not that doctors are worth so much in the natural order, they are actively keeping prices out of reach of many by limiting supply. This is due to both government regulation (limiting people that can act as doctors to those that have been to a proper med-school), and industry regulation (making sure enough people can't go to med school to meet demand).
I'm not saying it's worse than a totally deregulated field (where I could be Dr Nick), just that the regulation we have now blows, and really we need to at least eliminate the supply shortage, by permitting schools to take as many qualified students as they like (this would also reduce the cost of the education, by allowing competition).
European socialism has the advantage of US subsidies too. How much has the German military budget been over the last 50 years? And non-negotiated drug prices in the US subsidize worldwide medical R and D.
The US has over 1/4 the number of troops in Germany and Germany does. That's a fairly big subsidy to defense right there.