Not to a real extent. By "not ass-backwards" I mean single-payer, not Nixoncare. Also, regarding growth (a pretty stupid metric in the first place), there was that whole "global economy crashing" thing. Plus, we expanded the stupid wars that we should have gotten out of.
In other countries, Obama would be considered center-right to right. I'm talking about actually being on the left.
Take any company who is currently, as you put it, "evading taxes" (they're not...they're avoiding them because evasion is being legally obligated to pay them but refusing to)
Tax avoidance is just legal tax evasion. It's essentially the same act, just done via lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. I'm tired of indulging their distinction without a difference, because we recognize tax evasion as a criminal act, and tax avoiders should be perceived as criminals, even if the law does not reflect that.
However, if this change makes the United States a better deal for them than whatever country they're currently paying that country's IP tax in then the equation changes to X times 13.125%. I often wonder at the difficulty some have for what is, apparently, simple mathematics. 0% of something is always going to be less than any other taxation percentage greater than 0 of that same something.
There are two ways to get them to pay the taxes they should be paying, but aren't. They can either use the carrot or the stick. This approach is the carrot, which is almost always what we use for corporations in America.
I would prefer a stick approach, such as ineligibility for other tax breaks if they don't pay these taxes. Let's say we raise corporate taxes 10%, but offer a 10% "patriot" tax cut for businesses that are not holding their tax obligations hostage. The exact numbers and structure are up to debate, but the key concept is punishing noncompliance instead of rewarding compliance.
Actually, fixing the healthcare system would lower labor costs, infrastructure improvements would also increase productivity and lower costs. Education invests increase productivity, and not having a generation of debt slaves cuts a lot of costs as well. UBI is great for starting new businesses.
But no, I wouldn't actively incentivize businesses, because I don't have Alzheimer's, so I know that supply-side economics doesn't work.
Intuit specifically fought it at the state level. You are correct about the reason for the complexity for our whole tax code (although I'd argue that congress isn't the direct engineer, just the paid lackey of other powerful interests), but I'm talking about simple filing for the masses. TurboTax might still exist, but no individuals would use it, and pretty much everyone would have saved money.
1) Define "tax system for corporations". What is it? Where is it defined? How can I read up on it? Can you provide any citations for it?
Primarily, I'm talking about the US tax code, as it pertains to corporations, basically just excluding Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, although state codes are also relevant, along with the tax codes of other nations, when considering loopholes such as the "double Irish."
2) Define "corporate bribery" as it relates to somehow influencing this so-called "tax system for corporations"?
Contributions to politicians outside of the $2700 limit for individuals for presidential campaigns, and the individual limits for the jurisdictions that an individual lives in. So, for example, the Hillary Victory Fund would be corporate bribery, as would virtually all SuperPACs.
3) Once we know that both of this terms are being used to refer to something real that we all have common understanding of, you need to explicitly connect the two concepts together to substantiate your claim
For funsies, consider this, Corporation A in 1950 lobbies the federal government to get a part of the tax code changed to benefit them. The law remains unchanged to the day. Several corporations including B, C and D that had nothing do with Corporation A's actions use that part of the tax code in filing their version of "Turbo Tax" to lower their effective tax rate. Did Corporations B, C and D do anything wrong?
At the very least, they are complicit. I'm great at multitasking, so I can hate the player and the game.
Applying concepts of personal morality to things on a the scale of international corporations is pointless, so blame is far less of a concern than actually fixing the system. The overwhelming majority of our tax code should be removed, and every exception added should be subject to public scrutiny, ideally with a sunset to ensure repeated scrutiny.
Did you do anything wrong taking the child tax credit as opposed to doing your patriotic duty to pay your taxes for the benefit for everyone else?
I just take the standard deduction and have no children. I'm happy to throw a little shade towards them for their penny ante deductions, though, so long as we throw proportionate blame to the wealthy. If the appropriate punishment for them is a literal slap on the wrist, the appropriate punishment for a CEO would be punching their skull off.
Invest in infrastructure, education, a less ass-backwards healthcare system. Maybe look into a UBI, so more people have the ability to start their own businesses.
The "race to the bottom" niche is already saturated, and automation will eventually eat dirt cheap labor anyway.
Which would be a lot more relevant if he was actually a progressive/redistributionist in anything other than campaign rhetoric. His crowning achievement was passing Nixon's healthcare plan.
It is a bad thing, because it's just another tax break for companies that are already evading taxes, and it won't actually bring anything back into the US.
I'd agree that they are part of the solution, but CO2 capture is a matter of plant biomass, and trees are not the most effective method of rapidly increasing biomass.
Innovation is one of the most sensible things to measure per capita, because innovation doesn't come from countries, it comes from heads, the etymological root of 'capita.' Just because yours doesn't function doesn't mean that the metric doesn't make complete sense.
Obviously not. The answer would be much more efficient and rapid-growing algae, which is then largely processed into useful materials, possibly with some preservative agents to prevent quick decay.
Granted, trees do make the 'useful materials' part simpler, and your complaint about them dying is ridiculous, because we can already treat wood, and there are plenty of trees older than our extensive usage of fossil fuels, so your entire reasoning for why trees are not the solution is wrong, but you are correct that trees are not the best solution.
Oil is buried under assholes (more accurately, economies based on oil allow assholes to retain power) . If we make oil less valuable, assholes have less money, and therefore, less power. Even if there weren't environmental concerns, which there clearly are, we should put effort into ending our oil addiction just to starve the assholes.
Assuming that, at the time, the wheel had not been invented, yes. Assuming it had been invented, that person didn't invent the wheel, they reinvented the wheel, which is not an innovation.
Patents are a poor metric of innovation, and per capita rankings are going to be more useful at evaluating the overall culture, as opposed to how much money and manhours you can throw at a problem.
Because if you want to evaluate how good a country is at fostering innovation, you should be measuring how efficient they are, not how many heads you can throw at a problem.
The problem wasn't that she just had bad luck. She carved a path to failure out of adamantium with her bare hands. Given just the criteria I used, there are 2^10 power possibilities, and 1023 of the 1024 iterations result in not having President Trump. She took a series of calculated risks, and amazingly calculated the ONLY path to losing possible. I'm not sure if there is a specific word to describe it, but her failures were definitely in her poor calculations.
And in both cases, the primary concern should be that it was close enough that Russia's penny ante meddling could tip the scales. That's blaming the straw for possibly breaking the camel's back.
Actually, independent progressives called out the risk a fair bit ahead of time, everyone knew that Bernie was a stronger candidate, and each failure I mentioned gained Clinton nothing. Hell, she was close to the margin of error before the primaries were over, and trends clearly showed that once people remembered Clinton, they remembered they fucking hated her.
Two heads are removed from the hydra, and you think it's Mission Accomplished. How cute. The establishment Dems have already denounced Manning's candidacy as "OMG TEH RUSSIANS," so the beast certainly still lives.
The point still stands. It's easier to sow division and anger when people have legitimate reasons to be angry. The best resistance against foreign propaganda is a responsible government that serves its people's interests.
Also, if the Dems are to be believed, Putin personally ordered this operation, and Russia groomed Trump over a long period.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to a real extent. By "not ass-backwards" I mean single-payer, not Nixoncare. Also, regarding growth (a pretty stupid metric in the first place), there was that whole "global economy crashing" thing. Plus, we expanded the stupid wars that we should have gotten out of.
In other countries, Obama would be considered center-right to right. I'm talking about actually being on the left.
Tax avoidance is just legal tax evasion. It's essentially the same act, just done via lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. I'm tired of indulging their distinction without a difference, because we recognize tax evasion as a criminal act, and tax avoiders should be perceived as criminals, even if the law does not reflect that.
There are two ways to get them to pay the taxes they should be paying, but aren't. They can either use the carrot or the stick. This approach is the carrot, which is almost always what we use for corporations in America.
I would prefer a stick approach, such as ineligibility for other tax breaks if they don't pay these taxes. Let's say we raise corporate taxes 10%, but offer a 10% "patriot" tax cut for businesses that are not holding their tax obligations hostage. The exact numbers and structure are up to debate, but the key concept is punishing noncompliance instead of rewarding compliance.
Actually, fixing the healthcare system would lower labor costs, infrastructure improvements would also increase productivity and lower costs. Education invests increase productivity, and not having a generation of debt slaves cuts a lot of costs as well. UBI is great for starting new businesses.
But no, I wouldn't actively incentivize businesses, because I don't have Alzheimer's, so I know that supply-side economics doesn't work.
Intuit specifically fought it at the state level. You are correct about the reason for the complexity for our whole tax code (although I'd argue that congress isn't the direct engineer, just the paid lackey of other powerful interests), but I'm talking about simple filing for the masses. TurboTax might still exist, but no individuals would use it, and pretty much everyone would have saved money.
Primarily, I'm talking about the US tax code, as it pertains to corporations, basically just excluding Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, although state codes are also relevant, along with the tax codes of other nations, when considering loopholes such as the "double Irish."
Contributions to politicians outside of the $2700 limit for individuals for presidential campaigns, and the individual limits for the jurisdictions that an individual lives in. So, for example, the Hillary Victory Fund would be corporate bribery, as would virtually all SuperPACs.
Sure, US policy does not follow public opinion, outside of the very wealthy and corporate interests.
At the very least, they are complicit. I'm great at multitasking, so I can hate the player and the game.
Applying concepts of personal morality to things on a the scale of international corporations is pointless, so blame is far less of a concern than actually fixing the system. The overwhelming majority of our tax code should be removed, and every exception added should be subject to public scrutiny, ideally with a sunset to ensure repeated scrutiny.
I just take the standard deduction and have no children. I'm happy to throw a little shade towards them for their penny ante deductions, though, so long as we throw proportionate blame to the wealthy. If the appropriate punishment for them is a literal slap on the wrist, the appropriate punishment for a CEO would be punching their skull off.
Invest in infrastructure, education, a less ass-backwards healthcare system. Maybe look into a UBI, so more people have the ability to start their own businesses.
The "race to the bottom" niche is already saturated, and automation will eventually eat dirt cheap labor anyway.
Ironically, it appears you did make a typo, which ruined an otherwise clever post.
Which would be a lot more relevant if he was actually a progressive/redistributionist in anything other than campaign rhetoric. His crowning achievement was passing Nixon's healthcare plan.
TurboTax mostly exists because our Intuit and similar companies fought against having it be simple to file your personal taxes. There is a corollary here, in that the tax system for corporations is similarly the result of bribery.
They are evading taxes. That they've bought off our politicians to do it legally doesn't change that.
We don't need to suck off corporations in order to get companies to do business here.
It is a bad thing, because it's just another tax break for companies that are already evading taxes, and it won't actually bring anything back into the US.
I'd agree that they are part of the solution, but CO2 capture is a matter of plant biomass, and trees are not the most effective method of rapidly increasing biomass.
Innovation is one of the most sensible things to measure per capita, because innovation doesn't come from countries, it comes from heads, the etymological root of 'capita.' Just because yours doesn't function doesn't mean that the metric doesn't make complete sense.
Obviously not. The answer would be much more efficient and rapid-growing algae, which is then largely processed into useful materials, possibly with some preservative agents to prevent quick decay.
Granted, trees do make the 'useful materials' part simpler, and your complaint about them dying is ridiculous, because we can already treat wood, and there are plenty of trees older than our extensive usage of fossil fuels, so your entire reasoning for why trees are not the solution is wrong, but you are correct that trees are not the best solution.
Oil is buried under assholes (more accurately, economies based on oil allow assholes to retain power) . If we make oil less valuable, assholes have less money, and therefore, less power. Even if there weren't environmental concerns, which there clearly are, we should put effort into ending our oil addiction just to starve the assholes.
Assuming that, at the time, the wheel had not been invented, yes. Assuming it had been invented, that person didn't invent the wheel, they reinvented the wheel, which is not an innovation.
Patents are a poor metric of innovation, and per capita rankings are going to be more useful at evaluating the overall culture, as opposed to how much money and manhours you can throw at a problem.
Because if you want to evaluate how good a country is at fostering innovation, you should be measuring how efficient they are, not how many heads you can throw at a problem.
The problem wasn't that she just had bad luck. She carved a path to failure out of adamantium with her bare hands. Given just the criteria I used, there are 2^10 power possibilities, and 1023 of the 1024 iterations result in not having President Trump. She took a series of calculated risks, and amazingly calculated the ONLY path to losing possible. I'm not sure if there is a specific word to describe it, but her failures were definitely in her poor calculations.
And in both cases, the primary concern should be that it was close enough that Russia's penny ante meddling could tip the scales. That's blaming the straw for possibly breaking the camel's back.
Actually, independent progressives called out the risk a fair bit ahead of time, everyone knew that Bernie was a stronger candidate, and each failure I mentioned gained Clinton nothing. Hell, she was close to the margin of error before the primaries were over, and trends clearly showed that once people remembered Clinton, they remembered they fucking hated her.
Two heads are removed from the hydra, and you think it's Mission Accomplished. How cute. The establishment Dems have already denounced Manning's candidacy as "OMG TEH RUSSIANS," so the beast certainly still lives.
You're right. As a Southerner, it's nearly blasphemous to call myself a Yankee, but I was trying to accommodate the Brits.
Yeah, I got the memo on that. s/May/Cameron/g
Sorry, it's hard for a Yank like me to tell the pig fuckers apart.
The point still stands. It's easier to sow division and anger when people have legitimate reasons to be angry. The best resistance against foreign propaganda is a responsible government that serves its people's interests.
Also, if the Dems are to be believed, Putin personally ordered this operation, and Russia groomed Trump over a long period.