The notion that a company captures more than 100% of an industry's profits due to an interim loss at its competitors only makes sense in the wasteland of internet clickbaits.
I believe the reason Apple included only USB-C ports vs a mix of USB-C/A was out of a design aesthetic consistency. The only time they violate this is when it's the path of least resistance, like how not all of the ports on the newest MacBook Pro are full speed; Apple had to release a separate tech document to describe which ports aren't performance crippled. In other words, Apple likes to design things that they think are beautiful but are very lazy and cheap when it comes to engineering.
It's called the free market, which is the basis for nearly every economic advance we enjoy in today's society. Unfortunately as participants in this free market we don't get to pick and choose which benefits we want while rejecting the aspects that don't personally help us.
The IRS always goes after the corporation instead of the individual for employee/contractor misclassification, regardless of whether the individual paid his correct share of self-employment tax. First, it's much more cost effective to do so. Second, the penalties for the corporation are severe and provide an additional source of tax revenue.
The only reason the government/IRS even cares is because it's harder to enforce the payment of self-employment tax for 5,000 individuals than it is for a single corporation. They're not doing it to protect people from evil corporations and abuse - they're in it for the money. The only difference is the IRS has the power of the state behind it.
The problem is that what some people interprets as "abuse", others interpret as opportunity. Which is why it's usually best to let people decide for themselves rather a centralized government agency.
Even if what you said was true, it's the responsibility of individuals to serve as an enforcement arm of the tax collection authority of their own government?
The drivers have established a business for profit - it just happens to be someone else's business idea. If the driver's weren't making profits then they wouldn't be voluntarily choosing to drive.
Your opinion of the arrangement is that it's a lie. There are many Uber drivers who might disagree with you. What makes you or the government the arbiter of whether other people are intelligent enough to make informed decisions for themselves? How would you feel if others made decisions about what decisions you were allowed to make? I'm neither paid by someone to post nor am I an employer - I'm just a run-of-the-mill libertarian and Friedrich Hayek admirer who believes the intelligence of the masses is far greater than the intelligence of a few.
Every day there are people who make bad decisions about important aspects of their lives. If we were to take each instance as an opportunity for the government to intervene in our lives then then country would be completely devoid of freedoms.
But what if the business you establish is to provide a service to another company? What's the difference between someone devising a service idea on their own vs another company deciding they need someone to fulfill that service?
What if the "employees" (contractors) don't want the government going after the businesses they voluntarily entered into a business arrangement with? Who protects their freedoms?
Slashdot Mirror
Reply (in sexy female voice): "Because when you hold me you make me hot inside."
This article just took 5 years off my life.
The notion that a company captures more than 100% of an industry's profits due to an interim loss at its competitors only makes sense in the wasteland of internet clickbaits.
5,321 reports of jubilant female orgasims.
Bumbling, uncooridnated, impulsive, and just plain stupid. All the qualities of Fife but without the charm.
I believe the reason Apple included only USB-C ports vs a mix of USB-C/A was out of a design aesthetic consistency. The only time they violate this is when it's the path of least resistance, like how not all of the ports on the newest MacBook Pro are full speed; Apple had to release a separate tech document to describe which ports aren't performance crippled. In other words, Apple likes to design things that they think are beautiful but are very lazy and cheap when it comes to engineering.
But nothing came up in the search results.
Advance as in the overall advance of the standard of living and economic development.
So neither does the CEO of Goldman Sachs, since he's doing God's work.
Companies don't invent new things anymore? That's news to me. And to the patent office.
It's called the free market, which is the basis for nearly every economic advance we enjoy in today's society. Unfortunately as participants in this free market we don't get to pick and choose which benefits we want while rejecting the aspects that don't personally help us.
Then they wont be purchasing the new the 2016 Macbook Pro that cost $500 more than the previous generation for only a 7% gain in performance.
Well it is an IRS tax law we're talking about, so yes, the sole purpose of the law is to enforce the collection of employment taxes.
The IRS always goes after the corporation instead of the individual for employee/contractor misclassification, regardless of whether the individual paid his correct share of self-employment tax. First, it's much more cost effective to do so. Second, the penalties for the corporation are severe and provide an additional source of tax revenue.
Your freedom to not be exploited already exists - nobody is forcing you to enter into a voluntary contract with Uber.
The only reason the government/IRS even cares is because it's harder to enforce the payment of self-employment tax for 5,000 individuals than it is for a single corporation. They're not doing it to protect people from evil corporations and abuse - they're in it for the money. The only difference is the IRS has the power of the state behind it.
Pick a personal freedom that you enjoy that others may not approve of. Then imagine it gone because someone else complained about it.
The problem is that what some people interprets as "abuse", others interpret as opportunity. Which is why it's usually best to let people decide for themselves rather a centralized government agency.
What's the difference between a one-man business "keeping the profits" and him paying himself a salary out of the profits?
Even if what you said was true, it's the responsibility of individuals to serve as an enforcement arm of the tax collection authority of their own government?
The drivers have established a business for profit - it just happens to be someone else's business idea. If the driver's weren't making profits then they wouldn't be voluntarily choosing to drive.
Your opinion of the arrangement is that it's a lie. There are many Uber drivers who might disagree with you. What makes you or the government the arbiter of whether other people are intelligent enough to make informed decisions for themselves? How would you feel if others made decisions about what decisions you were allowed to make? I'm neither paid by someone to post nor am I an employer - I'm just a run-of-the-mill libertarian and Friedrich Hayek admirer who believes the intelligence of the masses is far greater than the intelligence of a few.
Every day there are people who make bad decisions about important aspects of their lives. If we were to take each instance as an opportunity for the government to intervene in our lives then then country would be completely devoid of freedoms.
But what if the business you establish is to provide a service to another company? What's the difference between someone devising a service idea on their own vs another company deciding they need someone to fulfill that service?
What if the "employees" (contractors) don't want the government going after the businesses they voluntarily entered into a business arrangement with? Who protects their freedoms?