Yeah, that's why NJ and NY, and CA and MA, the highest taxed states in the country, are full of the richest people and most profitable corporations in the country.
Rich people and corporations locate to where they can get the best people, and best communicate with the best paying customers, and offer the best lifestyle for the rich people's money. We have ample proof that low taxes aren't what attract rich people and corporations. Though we do have ample proof that saying what you're getting wrong gives rich people and corporations all kinds of ways to hide their income, while they stay where they can live like rich people and corporations like to.
Why didn't Google already move to Somalia, where they have no corporate income tax? Or to Dubai? Or some undeveloped country where Google could pay a fraction of its US taxes in bribes to the rulers?
Because corporations develop and operate in a country for a lot better reasons than a few points extra revenue in income tax differences.
You Republicans really don't know anything about business.
Re:Tax avoidance, Google, Warren Buffet, ...
on
IRS Auditing Google
·
· Score: 1
No, he meant that he wants every rich person's taxes to be higher. Until they are, he will reduce his taxes as part of his legal obligation to fiduciary responsibility he owes his shareholders.
You Republicans will lie about anything, no matter how stupid.
Re:Or like GE, or like a lot of other corporations
on
IRS Auditing Google
·
· Score: 1
What happened is that neither Google nor "the US government" is a single entity, that could be BFFs" with anything. Big corporations and the Federal government are a lot more complex than that.
A corporation like Google can do this shell game with its taxable income, because it can split into multiple entities at will, locating any one anywhere in the world it's more advantageous, on any short notice. Without traveling across borders and customs. Without fearing arrest or even death - because those are human fears. They're not persons, they don't have rights. And they're robbing us to death.
No, why? There are geographically overlapping networks. Any one of them fails (as happens often in the US), and the other is still almost always available.
What you're describing is available in the US. The "specified circumstances" is "roaming", which costs far more than even the robbery they charge for service on the home network. If your phone even supports the different frequencies, or entirely different technologies (CDMA, GSM, WiMAX, LTE, etc) selected by different telcos partly to keep "their" phones locked into their network.
Of course what would be awesome would be a smartphone with a real multiport expansion bus. So multiple SIMs, or other expansions that aren't simply serial connections.
The whole model, where features are locked into HW, is a strike at the heart of the openness that's always been part of the PC, and of networking. Which is what people outside the US still can expect more of in their phones.
But indeed I want the network device to use different WAN interfaces. Mid-call, or mid Internet session. If the primary network is going up and down, I don't want to power cycle the device over and again.
The global climate change we have now is more total, a bigger change, and more rapid than even the "Little Ice Age".
Your problem with the AGW argument is much more accurate a description of the way nonscientists like you search for anecdotal cherries to pick to dismiss the problem. "Maybe, just maybe" is a worthless complaint from a random, unqualified person in the face of "as probably as we get" from thousands of climatologists who compose the scientific consensus.
The climate is changing due to several causes, some of them cyclical. One cause that we can do something about is human emissions. If we do what we've been doing, the climate will change rapidly enough that it will be a disaster for humans. If we do something about our emissions, we'll probably suffer less damage.
The reasonable way to act is to accept the science I just summarized, which is even less controversial than the proportionate causes. We are faced with a future that we will influence, either constructively or destructively. We have to take responsibility for our actions now and going forward. Not look for excuses to argue about spin.
I never said anything about racism. Though it's easy to see what's racist about the fetishes for Cain on the one hand (by only 25% of Republicans) and Jindal (who, in Louisiana, is "not Black or Mexican", which is all that counts there - where I lived for several years).
What the post to which I replied said was not "maybe we don't know all there is to know about climate change". That's a statement with which I, and practically all climatologists, to say nothing of just reasonable people, agree. It's you "Conservatives" who say "we don't want to know any more". Like this week, as Rick Perry's Texas government censored the official climate change report because it published data showing Galveston Bay's sealevel is already rising and damaging Texas.
Your "racism" straw man is yet more proof of the savage illogic of the "Conservative" mind. Forcing yourselves into the government and political decisionmaking to interfere with actually running the country whenever possible. Creating the anarchy vacuum into which corporate power shoves itself.
Thanks for strutting. Now let's have another demonstration.
What we really need is the 3G/4G/++ telco cartel broken so that my phone can have accounts on two networks simultaneously, so I'm not locked into a single failurepoint - that frequently fails. Just like LANs to the Internet, which can have dual WANs without prohibitive subscription rates.
In fact a second WWAN connection that's rarely used could cost more per bandwidth than the primary WWAN, so the telcos would each make a fatter profit off the "insurance" second WWAN.
So it's obvious that the telcos care more about their cartel and its power to do whatever it wants without consequences (universal warrantless wiretapping, anyone?) rather than actual increased profit and improved service for their customers.
No, I'm very popular. Among people who aren't intolerably stupid. Because I don't call people with working brains stupid. Only stupid people hate seeing stupid people called stupid.
Or bite their tongue among the stupid because they want to be popular among them.
No environmental scientist missed any criteria. A random Slashdot poster missed something for a minute.
The scientist didn't cry "the sky is falling" - you did, in your straw man. They never do, even when the evidence is pretty strong. Because fallacious attackers like you threaten their legitimate careers to defend the polluters paying to script the "Conservative" mass media attacks you parrot.
Previous climate change, along with continental drift, continental forest fires, and the other big changes you invoked - all happened over thousands and millions of years. The current climate change you deniers no longer bother to deny is actually in progress is happening over just a few decades and centuries. Which is totally unprecedented.
No matter how much you "Conservative" climate change deniers "accidentally" not figure in criteria like that before crying "it's god's will", you're still just stupid liars.
And your scientific evidence or logic for that denial is...? Absolutely nothing.
This claim about the old climate change might or might not have some truth. But your denial needs no further investigation to prove exactly what climate change denial is made of: absolutely nothing but insistent ignorance.
The "politically correct" thinking on climate change is the denial. The polluters pay for politics to fight the science that might make them pay for the pollution. As usual, the "Conservative" agenda is to lie by attacking their opponent falsely for precisely what the "Conservatives" actually are.
Thanks for your contribution to our public demonstration.
The states have 2 senators each - direct representation. They do not lack representation, and indeed have more focused representation in their smaller chamber. The states are simply the easiest target for Congress to rob, which is just another way of robbing the people in the states.
Except that indirect election of senators by state legislatures was a fountain of corruption. As the disproportionate power that people in less populated states are given by the Senate's disproportion, and by its consequences in the Electoral College that's allocated as senators + representatives. A Wyominger has something like 3.5x the voting power for president as a Californian, and 66x their proportional representation in the Senate. A knee to the nuts of democracy.
The 17th Amendment is a tool of democracy rather than empowering the republic at democracy's expense. If you think the current crop of senators is unaccountable, just imagine if they never cared about anyone with a real life considering whether or not to vote for them.
No, the point of the Senate is merely to directly represent the state governments of each of the united states, balancing the power of the House which directly represents the people of the united states. It is designed to disproportionately represent less populated states more, and to tip the balance of the Electoral College towards those empty places, because those places are easier to control with money than the more populated places.
Each branch and chamber of the Federal government is designed to make exercising power harder, despite the departure from the rules (and self interest) that has been increasingly practiced since the government began actually operating.
The Senate is not designed to be a "break" (or "brake") on anything except democracy. The Constitution is correct on the 50%+1 rule that the Senate voluntarily discards in favor of the filibuster that has infested it especially as abused by Republican minorities. As it is correct in its inclusion of the 17th Amendment, which trusts democracy more than the original signers of the Constitution were willing to do. The decreasing democracy in our republic has been corrosive. The simple fact that the richest wasters are against the 17th Amendment, and in favor of the current deranged Senate, shows where the interests of the people's welfare really resides.
There is no "true free market". Except in terrible places like Mogadishu and Peshawar, and various other slave trading centers, now and through history.
Citicorp specifically, but Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banks all bribed Congress to legislate the system they all crashed. The deregulation, specifically of Glass-Steagal by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, was very obviously the cause of the crashes that the previous regulation had directly prevented for over a half century.
The distorted set of laws you're at least admitting are the deregulation laws forced on America by the wildest promoters of "free markets". Everything you're invoking is directly from the playbook written by these banks, their law and PR firms, for their bought reps in Congress and corrupted regulators like the SEC.
BTW, $90B is a lot of money, but not compared to the $2-10 TRILLION the banks threw at each other at the end of 2008 as their mutual scams crumbled and George Bush, Dick Cheney and Henry Paulson yanked it from the public to fund their free fall.
It's awful. But it gets worse every turn of the crank you "free market" idealists force on the country after the last "free market" turned out to be no true Scotsman yet again.
George Washington never said the US shouldn't make treaties. George Washington signed the treaty with Great Britain that ended the revolution, and eagerly signed many treaties with Indian nations we quickly, thoroughly and repeatedly broke.
Also, the 17th Amendment gives people the power to pick our representatives, instead of the effectively anonymous voters in the state legislator. You Republicans hate democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's why NJ and NY, and CA and MA, the highest taxed states in the country, are full of the richest people and most profitable corporations in the country.
Rich people and corporations locate to where they can get the best people, and best communicate with the best paying customers, and offer the best lifestyle for the rich people's money. We have ample proof that low taxes aren't what attract rich people and corporations. Though we do have ample proof that saying what you're getting wrong gives rich people and corporations all kinds of ways to hide their income, while they stay where they can live like rich people and corporations like to.
Why didn't Google already move to Somalia, where they have no corporate income tax? Or to Dubai? Or some undeveloped country where Google could pay a fraction of its US taxes in bribes to the rulers?
Because corporations develop and operate in a country for a lot better reasons than a few points extra revenue in income tax differences.
You Republicans really don't know anything about business.
No, he meant that he wants every rich person's taxes to be higher. Until they are, he will reduce his taxes as part of his legal obligation to fiduciary responsibility he owes his shareholders.
You Republicans will lie about anything, no matter how stupid.
What happened is that neither Google nor "the US government" is a single entity, that could be BFFs" with anything. Big corporations and the Federal government are a lot more complex than that.
A corporation like Google can do this shell game with its taxable income, because it can split into multiple entities at will, locating any one anywhere in the world it's more advantageous, on any short notice. Without traveling across borders and customs. Without fearing arrest or even death - because those are human fears. They're not persons, they don't have rights. And they're robbing us to death.
No, why? There are geographically overlapping networks. Any one of them fails (as happens often in the US), and the other is still almost always available.
What you're describing is available in the US. The "specified circumstances" is "roaming", which costs far more than even the robbery they charge for service on the home network. If your phone even supports the different frequencies, or entirely different technologies (CDMA, GSM, WiMAX, LTE, etc) selected by different telcos partly to keep "their" phones locked into their network.
Of course what would be awesome would be a smartphone with a real multiport expansion bus. So multiple SIMs, or other expansions that aren't simply serial connections.
The whole model, where features are locked into HW, is a strike at the heart of the openness that's always been part of the PC, and of networking. Which is what people outside the US still can expect more of in their phones.
Only AT&T uses SIMs in the US, and AT&T sucks.
But indeed I want the network device to use different WAN interfaces. Mid-call, or mid Internet session. If the primary network is going up and down, I don't want to power cycle the device over and again.
Ladies and gentlemen, that was the (nearly, but sadly not) comical presentation from the science of "duh".
The global climate change we have now is more total, a bigger change, and more rapid than even the "Little Ice Age".
Your problem with the AGW argument is much more accurate a description of the way nonscientists like you search for anecdotal cherries to pick to dismiss the problem. "Maybe, just maybe" is a worthless complaint from a random, unqualified person in the face of "as probably as we get" from thousands of climatologists who compose the scientific consensus.
The climate is changing due to several causes, some of them cyclical. One cause that we can do something about is human emissions. If we do what we've been doing, the climate will change rapidly enough that it will be a disaster for humans. If we do something about our emissions, we'll probably suffer less damage.
The reasonable way to act is to accept the science I just summarized, which is even less controversial than the proportionate causes. We are faced with a future that we will influence, either constructively or destructively. We have to take responsibility for our actions now and going forward. Not look for excuses to argue about spin.
I never said anything about racism. Though it's easy to see what's racist about the fetishes for Cain on the one hand (by only 25% of Republicans) and Jindal (who, in Louisiana, is "not Black or Mexican", which is all that counts there - where I lived for several years).
What the post to which I replied said was not "maybe we don't know all there is to know about climate change". That's a statement with which I, and practically all climatologists, to say nothing of just reasonable people, agree. It's you "Conservatives" who say "we don't want to know any more". Like this week, as Rick Perry's Texas government censored the official climate change report because it published data showing Galveston Bay's sealevel is already rising and damaging Texas.
Your "racism" straw man is yet more proof of the savage illogic of the "Conservative" mind. Forcing yourselves into the government and political decisionmaking to interfere with actually running the country whenever possible. Creating the anarchy vacuum into which corporate power shoves itself.
Thanks for strutting. Now let's have another demonstration.
What we really need is the 3G/4G/++ telco cartel broken so that my phone can have accounts on two networks simultaneously, so I'm not locked into a single failurepoint - that frequently fails. Just like LANs to the Internet, which can have dual WANs without prohibitive subscription rates.
In fact a second WWAN connection that's rarely used could cost more per bandwidth than the primary WWAN, so the telcos would each make a fatter profit off the "insurance" second WWAN.
So it's obvious that the telcos care more about their cartel and its power to do whatever it wants without consequences (universal warrantless wiretapping, anyone?) rather than actual increased profit and improved service for their customers.
No, I'm very popular. Among people who aren't intolerably stupid. Because I don't call people with working brains stupid. Only stupid people hate seeing stupid people called stupid.
Or bite their tongue among the stupid because they want to be popular among them.
No environmental scientist missed any criteria. A random Slashdot poster missed something for a minute.
The scientist didn't cry "the sky is falling" - you did, in your straw man. They never do, even when the evidence is pretty strong. Because fallacious attackers like you threaten their legitimate careers to defend the polluters paying to script the "Conservative" mass media attacks you parrot.
Previous climate change, along with continental drift, continental forest fires, and the other big changes you invoked - all happened over thousands and millions of years. The current climate change you deniers no longer bother to deny is actually in progress is happening over just a few decades and centuries. Which is totally unprecedented.
No matter how much you "Conservative" climate change deniers "accidentally" not figure in criteria like that before crying "it's god's will", you're still just stupid liars.
And your scientific evidence or logic for that denial is...? Absolutely nothing.
This claim about the old climate change might or might not have some truth. But your denial needs no further investigation to prove exactly what climate change denial is made of: absolutely nothing but insistent ignorance.
The "politically correct" thinking on climate change is the denial. The polluters pay for politics to fight the science that might make them pay for the pollution. As usual, the "Conservative" agenda is to lie by attacking their opponent falsely for precisely what the "Conservatives" actually are.
Thanks for your contribution to our public demonstration.
The states have 2 senators each - direct representation. They do not lack representation, and indeed have more focused representation in their smaller chamber. The states are simply the easiest target for Congress to rob, which is just another way of robbing the people in the states.
You are correct.
Except that indirect election of senators by state legislatures was a fountain of corruption. As the disproportionate power that people in less populated states are given by the Senate's disproportion, and by its consequences in the Electoral College that's allocated as senators + representatives. A Wyominger has something like 3.5x the voting power for president as a Californian, and 66x their proportional representation in the Senate. A knee to the nuts of democracy.
The 17th Amendment is a tool of democracy rather than empowering the republic at democracy's expense. If you think the current crop of senators is unaccountable, just imagine if they never cared about anyone with a real life considering whether or not to vote for them.
No, the point of the Senate is merely to directly represent the state governments of each of the united states, balancing the power of the House which directly represents the people of the united states. It is designed to disproportionately represent less populated states more, and to tip the balance of the Electoral College towards those empty places, because those places are easier to control with money than the more populated places.
Each branch and chamber of the Federal government is designed to make exercising power harder, despite the departure from the rules (and self interest) that has been increasingly practiced since the government began actually operating.
The Senate is not designed to be a "break" (or "brake") on anything except democracy. The Constitution is correct on the 50%+1 rule that the Senate voluntarily discards in favor of the filibuster that has infested it especially as abused by Republican minorities. As it is correct in its inclusion of the 17th Amendment, which trusts democracy more than the original signers of the Constitution were willing to do. The decreasing democracy in our republic has been corrosive. The simple fact that the richest wasters are against the 17th Amendment, and in favor of the current deranged Senate, shows where the interests of the people's welfare really resides.
There is no "true free market". Except in terrible places like Mogadishu and Peshawar, and various other slave trading centers, now and through history.
Citicorp specifically, but Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banks all bribed Congress to legislate the system they all crashed. The deregulation, specifically of Glass-Steagal by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, was very obviously the cause of the crashes that the previous regulation had directly prevented for over a half century.
The distorted set of laws you're at least admitting are the deregulation laws forced on America by the wildest promoters of "free markets". Everything you're invoking is directly from the playbook written by these banks, their law and PR firms, for their bought reps in Congress and corrupted regulators like the SEC.
BTW, $90B is a lot of money, but not compared to the $2-10 TRILLION the banks threw at each other at the end of 2008 as their mutual scams crumbled and George Bush, Dick Cheney and Henry Paulson yanked it from the public to fund their free fall.
It's awful. But it gets worse every turn of the crank you "free market" idealists force on the country after the last "free market" turned out to be no true Scotsman yet again.
No, you're nobody. And you're a Republican. And the US economy has been destroyed. Duh.
Investing in a solar tech firm was worse ignoring all the warnings about the Qaeda attacks?
Botching an arms sting to Mexican gangsters was worse than invading Iraq?
You Republicans will repeat anything blathered at you over AM radio.
I'll take that. The sooner the better.
George Washington never said the US shouldn't make treaties. George Washington signed the treaty with Great Britain that ended the revolution, and eagerly signed many treaties with Indian nations we quickly, thoroughly and repeatedly broke.
Also, the 17th Amendment gives people the power to pick our representatives, instead of the effectively anonymous voters in the state legislator. You Republicans hate democracy.
It's obvious how you were able to vote for Bush/Cheney twice. They did everything everyone told you they were going to do, and you blame Obama for it.
Now you invoke Hitler and Hank Williams Jr. You Republicans are a hopeless bunch. Think for yourself for a change.
They might.
But they certainly show that capitalism totally fails.
PS: you're a zombie. Surprise!