Maybe I'm missing something in your analogy... How about this... corporate taxes are similar to an additional sales tax on items, since (I think we can agree on this) Corporations merely pass on their tax burdens in the form of increased price of product. Sales taxes are regressive, and corporate taxes act similarly. There is no distinction on number of widgits purchased, since all corporations are taxed at the same rate.
Because if an item would cost $1 without tax, but $1.05 with tax this extra.05 represents a higher proportion of your income for low income households.
Percentage of gov't revenues from corporate income taxes have approximately halved since 1956 while revenues from individuals has remained constant.
Good, corporate taxes should be abolished, as they are quite possibly one of the dumbest "features" of the US tax system. Corporate income taxes are only passed on to the consumer ultimately, and therefore disproportionately affect those with the lowest incomes. Not to mention their contribution to the double taxation on corporate dividends.
..someone please stick transactions in it? I mean, its not even really a database without transactions... not to mention doesn't follow the SQL standard since COMMIT and ROLLBACK are not optional operations.
Well, one thing they do is manipulate inventory to make it appear as if their inventory costs are high
The only way you have make your inventory appear to be higher is if you are in a period of rising prices and you use a FIFO inventory method for accounting, but I doubt this applys in Amazon's case.
Incidentally, even as they can orchestrate a bogus negative on their income statement, this "loss" is tax deductable over time.
Tax losses are only deductable to the extent that you have profits in the future. Gratned, if you are having a particularly bad year you may jam as many additional expenses as you can into the year to maximize this credit for future years, but you don't go years at a time showwing losses as some sort of tax avoidance strategy.
However, they do have good prices on books and DVDs so I hope they hang on for quite a while:)
I'm sure they will, makes u wonder how they can keep offering such bargains given their "losses".
Well, if you look at their EDGAR filings here, you will see exactly how they do it... leverage the hell out of themselves with debt and sell as much equity as you can. I'd like to thank everyone with investments in Amazon for subsudizing my DVD and Book collection.
Look, you can go to edgar and see Amazon's financial statements. This is pretty easy to handle: revenues - expenses = profit.
I have a master's degree in accounting, and I'm not sure what "accouting tricks" you are talking about. If you are a publicly held company, you financial statements have to be in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and you are audited once a year by an outside firm to insure this.
By looking at the financial statements, unless you are an idiot, there is no way you can conclude that Amazon is anything other than a money bleeding, non-profit making business.
However, they do have good prices on books and DVDs so I hope they hang on for quite a while:)
This is one reason that we need to go ahead, bite the bullet, and implement IPv6, so that we can get applications to use QoS more than they currently do. I mean, admin types don't like Napster/Gnuella/whatever when they are using 30%+ of their available bandwidth, but if you are running at low priority and are guaranteed not to be draining bandwidth from important applications, who would care?
Fairness and Transparency are the foundations of privacy policy in the European Union. They're good ideas.
Are they good ideas just becuase they are used by the EU?
Personal information is given for a particular purpose. The notion of Fairness is an extension of the conviction that doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals hold, that information received during the rendering of a service should be held confidential.
I have a hard time see why Radio Shack (for example) asking for and knowing my mailing address needs to remain confidential.
As far as Transparency goes, do you not find it creepy that you have no right to see what personal information about you a company is holding?
No. Again, why should I have any control about this information after I give it to someone else? If I give someone something material of mine, I don't have control over what they do with it after that. Why should data be any different?
Oh I see -- you know what's best for everyone else. You will decide they should not have a convienant capability to pass their personal information automatically. People are too stupid to make that decision for themselves, so they need protection from Michael
This shouldn't surprise you, this is the typical liberal viewpoint... they are the enlightened, everyone else is a sheep, unless you disagree with their point of view, in which case you are "intolerent" or an astroturfer or such.
For people who are so concerned about freedom, people who oppose P3P are pretty damn set on making sure that no one has the freedom to use P3P.
By your so called "logic" every new language potentially "decreases overall public utility", since it reduces the number of people writing in other languages.
Hell, lets all write in one language then, if were are going to maximize overall public utility.
Re:Anonymity has caused no problems yet.
on
Pretty Poor Privacy
·
· Score: 1
I own my house, so no, you may not put live cams in my house. On the other hand on the internet, you are sending packets over number of privately and publicly owned networks using a protocol that makes to guarantees about the inscruitability of these packets. Given these conditions, again, why do you think you have a right or even an expectation of privacy under these conditions???
Answer the first: I don't have any problem with the government privitizing the road system either.
Answer the second: People who actually use the roads pay for them through gas taxes. In the Seattle example above, people who are paying car taxes are more than likely not the people using public transport, so why should they pay for it?
In Washington, the state vehicle registration tax was recently reduced to a flat $30 fee. This cut millions of dollars from bus and road funding, forcing Seattle Metro to scale back some bus routes.
Well, the answer is that Seattle Metro should be charging what it actually costs to operate the service. Privatize the damn thing and let it operate to make a profit. Why should local government be subsidizing transportation?
Sure its fair. People who make more money do not place any higher burden on government, if anything they place less. Therefore why should they pay more taxes?
Sales taxes encourage savings, not consumption, which is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm missing something in your analogy... How about this... corporate taxes are similar to an additional sales tax on items, since (I think we can agree on this) Corporations merely pass on their tax burdens in the form of increased price of product. Sales taxes are regressive, and corporate taxes act similarly. There is no distinction on number of widgits purchased, since all corporations are taxed at the same rate.
Because if an item would cost $1 without tax, but $1.05 with tax this extra .05 represents a higher proportion of your income for low income households.
Percentage of gov't revenues from corporate income taxes have approximately halved since 1956 while revenues from individuals has remained constant.
Good, corporate taxes should be abolished, as they are quite possibly one of the dumbest "features" of the US tax system. Corporate income taxes are only passed on to the consumer ultimately, and therefore disproportionately affect those with the lowest incomes. Not to mention their contribution to the double taxation on corporate dividends.
..someone please stick transactions in it? I mean, its not even really a database without transactions... not to mention doesn't follow the SQL standard since COMMIT and ROLLBACK are not optional operations.
..has an overwhelming hatred of MS, combined with some, um, quirks of character, hardly comes as a surprise to most people.
Look at WebGear for cheap wireless networking stuff. I have some of their stuff and it works great. Even has Linux drivers.
The fact it has nothing to do with Apple's overpriced crapola is an added bonus.
...but wasn't there already a HTTP-NG standard already working its way though the beast that is the IETF?
Well, one thing they do is manipulate inventory to make it appear as if their inventory costs are high
:)
The only way you have make your inventory appear to be higher is if you are in a period of rising prices and you use a FIFO inventory method for accounting, but I doubt this applys in Amazon's case.
Incidentally, even as they can orchestrate a bogus negative on their income statement, this "loss" is tax deductable over time.
Tax losses are only deductable to the extent that you have profits in the future. Gratned, if you are having a particularly bad year you may jam as many additional expenses as you can into the year to maximize this credit for future years, but you don't go years at a time showwing losses as some sort of tax avoidance strategy.
However, they do have good prices on books and DVDs so I hope they hang on for quite a while
I'm sure they will, makes u wonder how they can keep offering such bargains given their "losses".
Well, if you look at their EDGAR filings here, you will see exactly how they do it... leverage the hell out of themselves with debt and sell as much equity as you can. I'd like to thank everyone with investments in Amazon for subsudizing my DVD and Book collection.
Look, you can go to edgar and see Amazon's financial statements. This is pretty easy to handle: revenues - expenses = profit.
:)
I have a master's degree in accounting, and I'm not sure what "accouting tricks" you are talking about. If you are a publicly held company, you financial statements have to be in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and you are audited once a year by an outside firm to insure this.
By looking at the financial statements, unless you are an idiot, there is no way you can conclude that Amazon is anything other than a money bleeding, non-profit making business.
However, they do have good prices on books and DVDs so I hope they hang on for quite a while
Is it true that Amazon don't make money? I know they don't make a profit but that's just because they reinvest all the money they make.
hahahahaha... whew... here is a free clue, if you don't make any profit, there is no money to reinvest.
Amazon has never made a dime of profit. Ever.
But you sound like the kind of person I'd love to have invest in one of my companies.
More Djkstra brainwashing in action....
I'm with you. Let's just dump the whole DNS concept and use IP addresses for everything.
Yeah, that will work great with IPv6...
This is one reason that we need to go ahead, bite the bullet, and implement IPv6, so that we can get applications to use QoS more than they currently do. I mean, admin types don't like Napster/Gnuella/whatever when they are using 30%+ of their available bandwidth, but if you are running at low priority and are guaranteed not to be draining bandwidth from important applications, who would care?
But there is no reason to have languages which are designed for the sole purpose of stopping other emerging standards.
Lets see.. Java -- Controlled by one company. Never submitted to standards comittee.
C# -- Controlled by one company. Never submitted to standards comittee.
Oh, yes, now I see why you object. Because its MS doing it, therefore it must be evil.
Fairness and Transparency are the foundations of privacy policy in the European Union. They're good ideas.
Are they good ideas just becuase they are used by the EU?
Personal information is given for a particular purpose. The notion of Fairness is an extension of the conviction that doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals hold, that information received during the rendering of a service should be held confidential.
I have a hard time see why Radio Shack (for example) asking for and knowing my mailing address needs to remain confidential.
As far as Transparency goes, do you not find it creepy that you have no right to see what personal information about you a company is holding?
No. Again, why should I have any control about this information after I give it to someone else? If I give someone something material of mine, I don't have control over what they do with it after that. Why should data be any different?
Oh I see -- you know what's best for everyone else. You will decide they should not have a convienant capability to pass their personal information automatically. People are too stupid to make that decision for themselves, so they need protection from Michael
This shouldn't surprise you, this is the typical liberal viewpoint... they are the enlightened, everyone else is a sheep, unless you disagree with their point of view, in which case you are "intolerent" or an astroturfer or such.
For people who are so concerned about freedom, people who oppose P3P are pretty damn set on making sure that no one has the freedom to use P3P.
Fairness (my permission is required for any other use of my information) to be implemented here in the US? Most likely.
Why should you have control over this information after you give it up? I thought information wanted to be free, etc.. etc...
By your so called "logic" every new language potentially "decreases overall public utility", since it reduces the number of people writing in other languages.
Hell, lets all write in one language then, if were are going to maximize overall public utility.
Anonymity and privacy are two different things.
I own my house, so no, you may not put live cams in my house. On the other hand on the internet, you are sending packets over number of privately and publicly owned networks using a protocol that makes to guarantees about the inscruitability of these packets. Given these conditions, again, why do you think you have a right or even an expectation of privacy under these conditions???
Why do people think they are entitled to privacy online?
Answer the first: I don't have any problem with the government privitizing the road system either.
Answer the second: People who actually use the roads pay for them through gas taxes. In the Seattle example above, people who are paying car taxes are more than likely not the people using public transport, so why should they pay for it?
P3P is Personal Privacy Platform.
Happy to help.
In Washington, the state vehicle registration tax was recently reduced to a flat $30 fee. This cut millions of dollars from bus and road funding, forcing Seattle Metro to scale back some bus routes.
Well, the answer is that Seattle Metro should be charging what it actually costs to operate the service. Privatize the damn thing and let it operate to make a profit. Why should local government be subsidizing transportation?
Sure its fair. People who make more money do not place any higher burden on government, if anything they place less. Therefore why should they pay more taxes?
Sales taxes encourage savings, not consumption, which is a good thing.