That is an increase in assets, not growth of an asset (this is well over the border of pedantry, but it is useful to make the distinction in this particular conversation).
There is quite a lot of upshot when you consider that increases in assets generally come from running your business profitably, rather than otherwise.
It is hefty, but it isn't really additional (at least, if you are talking about the federal self employment tax in the United States).
Each worker pays that tax; the fact that it is never listed on employee pay stubs doesn't really change how an employer views the situation (it is all part of 'cost of employing X').
I can see where land might grow in value, or an interest in another business, or some intellectual property, but the only one of those that is going to be really painful is the land (because the other two are only going to grow in value if they actually grow...).
What's excessive? If everyone in the world were living at 1/2 of current U.S. energy consumption (this would result in cuts for much of the developed world), global energy production would need to be 50% higher than it is today.
Personally, I don't want to give up the things that I am getting from that energy use, so I am pretty sure that those things are going to stay relevant for a long time to come.
(and I, as an American, am closer to 50% of the per capita American energy use than I am to the per capita number; much of that is a result of factors that are only loosely subject to my control and likely to change, not extreme conservation on my part).
Busy? There are laws about truth in advertising, so anything that sounds like a fact has some chance of being true. Wikipedia says it contains some hormones, so it might even do something (I guess, especially if the person taking the pill has a deficiency).
I don't think it does anything, just to make that clear, but I do have an inordinate interest/fascination with semi-scams (that is, scams that are apparently not prevented by law). I even sent Matt Lauer mocking hate mail when he gave Kevin Trudeau a free pass on the Today show (this was back when Kevin the douche had just been banned by the FTC, for life, from marketing products and services on television and so decided to become an author and market something protected by the First Amendment, which I am happy to note he did poorly and is thus further banned from television).
I don't see why you need to tax corporate income in order to institute regulatory taxes. It seems like the regulatory tax could be based directly on the activity that you want to regulate. In fact, that seems like a better way to do it.
Getting the government to treat those moneys as revenue neutral is the next step in my grand plan.
You've worded your comment oddly. Earning in the top 80% could be like earning in the bottom 20% and might not carry a particularly high tax burden under our progressive tax system.
Yeah, that is a mistake on my part, I meant income (profits are what is left over after taxes and other things). I guess the idea of the question is still pretty much there, even if it isn't asked particularly well.
People engage in all sorts of antics to protect their wealth. It wouldn't really impact what I am proposing, as they would be doing it with money that they paid personal income taxes on in some way.
In my fantasy, passing control of a corporation would result in income for someone (either cash for the one giving up control, or a percentage of the value of the corporation for the person gaining control), so there wouldn't be any benefit to having a corporation hold wealth that it could not utilize.
Most over the air signals are probably using no more than 11 Mbps for a given video stream. The maximum is 19.4, but, for example, all of the transmitters that I can pick up are broadcasting at least two subchannels, which means that the 19.4 Mbps is split between them:
That isn't particularly problematic; without changing any other current tax laws, the heirs of any significant holder of a corporation end up paying a nice large amount of tax on those holdings.
There would need to be some enforcement to make sure that 'perks' were properly treated as personal income, but most people who work to create wealth end up wanting to do something with it, not tie it up in a legal entity.
Is there some compelling reason to tax corporate profits? How about we adjust the personal income taxes on dividends and capital gains and just do away with corporate taxes altogether?
Slashdot Mirror
That is an increase in assets, not growth of an asset (this is well over the border of pedantry, but it is useful to make the distinction in this particular conversation).
There is quite a lot of upshot when you consider that increases in assets generally come from running your business profitably, rather than otherwise.
Limited support? Lack of drivers?
If Dell won't sell me the Mini 9 without a Windows license and I don't otherwise use OSX or Ubuntu?
It doesn't sound like you should.
Someone else may have some oddball requirement that leads them to continue buying Vista though.
It is hefty, but it isn't really additional (at least, if you are talking about the federal self employment tax in the United States).
Each worker pays that tax; the fact that it is never listed on employee pay stubs doesn't really change how an employer views the situation (it is all part of 'cost of employing X').
Also, the GP did mention payroll taxes.
What business asset of yours grew in value?
I can see where land might grow in value, or an interest in another business, or some intellectual property, but the only one of those that is going to be really painful is the land (because the other two are only going to grow in value if they actually grow...).
I'm mostly just curious.
I recommend 5 ram and an excellent Graphis card.
What's excessive? If everyone in the world were living at 1/2 of current U.S. energy consumption (this would result in cuts for much of the developed world), global energy production would need to be 50% higher than it is today.
Personally, I don't want to give up the things that I am getting from that energy use, so I am pretty sure that those things are going to stay relevant for a long time to come.
(and I, as an American, am closer to 50% of the per capita American energy use than I am to the per capita number; much of that is a result of factors that are only loosely subject to my control and likely to change, not extreme conservation on my part).
AC commented that Google should cease doing business in/with the UK, that seems like a suggestion that they should act offended to me.
Busy? There are laws about truth in advertising, so anything that sounds like a fact has some chance of being true. Wikipedia says it contains some hormones, so it might even do something (I guess, especially if the person taking the pill has a deficiency).
I don't think it does anything, just to make that clear, but I do have an inordinate interest/fascination with semi-scams (that is, scams that are apparently not prevented by law). I even sent Matt Lauer mocking hate mail when he gave Kevin Trudeau a free pass on the Today show (this was back when Kevin the douche had just been banned by the FTC, for life, from marketing products and services on television and so decided to become an author and market something protected by the First Amendment, which I am happy to note he did poorly and is thus further banned from television).
In my fantasy, you tax the person based on the benefit they receive from those things.
(this is most of the income that Daschle didn't report, he was getting a car service from some company and didn't report it)
I don't see why you need to tax corporate income in order to institute regulatory taxes. It seems like the regulatory tax could be based directly on the activity that you want to regulate. In fact, that seems like a better way to do it.
Getting the government to treat those moneys as revenue neutral is the next step in my grand plan.
You've worded your comment oddly. Earning in the top 80% could be like earning in the bottom 20% and might not carry a particularly high tax burden under our progressive tax system.
Perhaps you meant in the top 20%?
Do those taxes need to be levied on the corporation, or can they simply be levied on the owners of the corporation?
Successful investment is going to tend to make the corporation worth more, so it seems like taxing the owners would be perfectly workable.
Yeah, that is a mistake on my part, I meant income (profits are what is left over after taxes and other things). I guess the idea of the question is still pretty much there, even if it isn't asked particularly well.
Given that I am pretty much arguing that the owners of a corporation should be responsible for the corporation, I don't find that very compelling.
People engage in all sorts of antics to protect their wealth. It wouldn't really impact what I am proposing, as they would be doing it with money that they paid personal income taxes on in some way.
In my fantasy, passing control of a corporation would result in income for someone (either cash for the one giving up control, or a percentage of the value of the corporation for the person gaining control), so there wouldn't be any benefit to having a corporation hold wealth that it could not utilize.
I don't find your apology very abusive.
Most over the air signals are probably using no more than 11 Mbps for a given video stream. The maximum is 19.4, but, for example, all of the transmitters that I can pick up are broadcasting at least two subchannels, which means that the 19.4 Mbps is split between them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subchannel#Technical_considerations
Cable companies can apparently fit twice as much data into the same bandwidth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_Standards#Modulation_and_transmission
As you say, I don't think they are using the original compression.
As yes, The Cult of Loose.
Their won cult that never should of ben allowed.
That isn't particularly problematic; without changing any other current tax laws, the heirs of any significant holder of a corporation end up paying a nice large amount of tax on those holdings.
There would need to be some enforcement to make sure that 'perks' were properly treated as personal income, but most people who work to create wealth end up wanting to do something with it, not tie it up in a legal entity.
Is there some compelling reason to tax corporate profits? How about we adjust the personal income taxes on dividends and capital gains and just do away with corporate taxes altogether?
Have you done anything resembling such, so that you have some idea what you would be getting into?
Until the farmer next door to the farmer that these goats were rented from increases the size of his heard so that he can rent out his goats too.
Of course, they are probably brought in and taken out by a truck.