How many people reading this have any significant ability to adjust their 'nothing we did was other than legal' tax rate to be substantially different from their 'time to fill out the tax forms' tax rate?
Probably most of the UK readers: 1. Start saving in an ISA 2. Start putting money into your pension 3. Donate to charity and tick the "Gift Aid" box
Not as effective as Google's arrangement, I grant you, but it can make a significant difference.
RTFA. It's on independent.co.uk, and fairly early on says "In an interview in New York Eric Schmidt, Google’s Chairman, confirmed the company had no intention of paying more to the UK exchequer."
It's a shame the blink tag is no longer supported. It would be ideal in this situation!
the problem is that companies are creating fake deductions to ensure there is nothing left for corporation tax to be paid on, in Starbucks' case for example, they make up a fake intercompany "royalty" charge to a low tax area so that they shift off all remaining revenue to other low tax areas before corporation tax is paid on it.
Except that there's a pretty good argument that this isn't a "fake" charge. It's benchmarked to the royalty they get from non-subsidiary companies using their logo and IP.
And it's all done with the blessing of HMRC.
As to their profits coming down, maybe people have finally realised that their coffee is atrocious?
Aussie here, similar tax bracket, similar government services, similar attitude towards taxes. I too forgo the $500 "high earners" rebate for private insurance. I would much rather the public insurance fund got that money than give it to people who encourage you to spend it on "alternative medicine" insurance. I don't think that is an efficient use of my health dollars.
The NHS funds homeopathic "treatment". That is not an efficient use of health dollars (or pounds).
It's also probably one of the smaller wastes of money within the NHS.
Are you serious? So you think paying taxes is "a waste of money"?
Look at how your tax money is actually spent. An awful lot of it is, indeed, wasted.
1) paying more taxes than absolutely necessary is NOT a waste of money, is a donation to a good greater than just your personal benefit.
I give to charities that are far more effective and efficient in alleviating suffering than the government I pay taxes to.
2) Saving in taxes by doing legal tricks that allow you to pay them in a given country, while your profit is obtained in another country ACTUALLY IS unethical. The whole point of taxes is to return part of your benefit to the society that allowed it in first place. So yes, tax evasion is against the aim of tax laws, whether their written form permits it or not.
Tax evasion is illegal. This is tax avoidance.
So would it be unethical for me to give presents to my children while I'm alive to reduce the amount of inheritance tax they have to pay when I die? Is it, in your opinion, unethical to use tax efficient savings and retirement plans?
If my government is doing unethical things (good luck trying to find one that doesn't!), is it not the ethical thing to reduce their funding?
It's not as clear cut as you think it is. You may also find that your ethical standards don't match other people's.
Prostitution - two consenting adults Adultery - two consenting adults Necophilia - one consenting adult, but frankly, if you're dead, you might not enjoy it, but how are you harmed? Bestiallity - so you can kill them, and eat them, but fucking them is out of the question?
Please do tell me what's better (for the goat) - killing them (legal) or fucking them?# Paedophilia - it boils down to consent. Can a 9 year old give consent? Clearly not. Can a 15 year old?
i think key point is this:.All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced.
So he's socially inept. Wow. That's news. Like saying Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom.
This is a guy who's clearly detached himself from a lot of normal human intercourse because he champions, singlemindedly, one idea. A good idea, which has done a lot of good, on the whole.
And there are good reasons why one would advocate having fewer children. From an ecological perspective it's clear - the more children you have, the more resources they will use.
Now, as a father myself, I sympathise more with the natural instinct to procreate, but I can also understand how someone who's so focused on one idea (FFS, it's his life's work) might not be so understanding,
RMS has some good points to make. But if you expect him to be the kind of person who sends Hallmark cards for new babies you'll obviously be disappointed
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
The age of consent does not necessarily coincide with the age of sexual maturity. Heck, I would have loved to have sex when I was 13 - the age of consent was 16.
Is it right to label a 16 year old "paedophile" for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
Why do people insist on technological solutions for problems that don't need them?
Voting machines - pointless; the number of volunteers or local government workers that can be drafted for a day scales with the size of the population.
RFID badges for students to track attendance? Don't kid these days spend their lesson in front of a teacher, who could check attendance manually in about 30 seconds....like they have always done. I mean, what problems are they trying to solve?
I know in New Orleans, for a LARGE part of the year...it is easily 95F or greater with humidity close to 100%...I dunno how you do it biking to work, but if I was to bike to work in that, I"d be a stinky, sweat soaked mess, not looking professional at all for work, which just isn't going to work
I know this is a radical idea on/., but you could.. you know... shower at work?
I'm guessing you must live quite close to work? I live closer than most I work with to my worksite....and even speeding on non too busy roads (avg 50mph )..it takes me 7-10 minutes. On a bicycle, it would take me 45 minutes or an hour each way....why would I want to do that to myself?
I don't have enough hours n the day to do MY stuff as it is....why waste that much extra time in transit if I don't have to.
So you live (assuming your average speed is accurate) 5-8 miles from the office. That'd take you 20-30 minutes on a bike, once you're reasonably fit.
And unlike the driving time, which is wasted, you'd rack up an hour of good quality aerobic exercise a day. For free. Not to mention saving money on gas.
Why don't we solve the main problem...that non-motorized traffic does NOT belong on the same road as motorized traffic....an exception being that if there is a special bike lane there.
That's a great solution. Given the logistics in cities, which are you going to ban from the roads - cars, or people?
well, it worked for the London Eye. IIRC that was supposed to be a one year thing at the millennium, and, last I checked, people are still queuing up for it now.
As long as the views are good, I can see this being a success.
The problem with glass is that it requires more energy to make than a can
Not sure about that. Aluminium is very energy intensive to produce, and of course the cost of the glass bottle is amortized over tens (or hundreds) of uses.
AND more energy and water to wash a bottle before reuse than to make a can.
I think anyone who has ever washed dishes would disagree with that.
The big problem with glass bottles is that they are heavy. That increases transport costs, reduces stock density, and reduces sales. People can pick up a two litre plastic bottle quite comfortably - a two litre glass bottle would be a lot heavier.
Who said that I want to "destroy HFT"? Where does that come out of? It is a market decision what to do with HFT, the reason that the HFT are taking over though, is a response to the free money that is provided by the gov't to the banks and thus various 'investor' firms to gamble with. The reason people gamble with money is because it's not real, it's fake. You don't gamble, you don't take crazy risks with your actual savings. Also you don't gamble if you don't expect to be bailed out
All the people who've gone to 'Vegas and lost their shirt (or at least lost money they couldn't afford to lose) disprove your point.
There are also a large number of Irish people, a significant fraction of which used to sympathise with the the IRA......and we managed to resolve that issue without panopticon surveillance and giving up our human rights.
Slashdot Mirror
A very, very small step in roughly the right direction.
How many people reading this have any significant ability to adjust their 'nothing we did was other than legal' tax rate to be substantially different from their 'time to fill out the tax forms' tax rate?
Probably most of the UK readers:
1. Start saving in an ISA
2. Start putting money into your pension
3. Donate to charity and tick the "Gift Aid" box
Not as effective as Google's arrangement, I grant you, but it can make a significant difference.
RTFA. It's on independent.co.uk, and fairly early on says "In an interview in New York Eric Schmidt, Google’s Chairman, confirmed the company had no intention of paying more to the UK exchequer."
It's a shame the blink tag is no longer supported. It would be ideal in this situation!
the problem is that companies are creating fake deductions to ensure there is nothing left for corporation tax to be paid on, in Starbucks' case for example, they make up a fake intercompany "royalty" charge to a low tax area so that they shift off all remaining revenue to other low tax areas before corporation tax is paid on it.
Except that there's a pretty good argument that this isn't a "fake" charge. It's benchmarked to the royalty they get from non-subsidiary companies using their logo and IP.
And it's all done with the blessing of HMRC.
As to their profits coming down, maybe people have finally realised that their coffee is atrocious?
Aussie here, similar tax bracket, similar government services, similar attitude towards taxes. I too forgo the $500 "high earners" rebate for private insurance. I would much rather the public insurance fund got that money than give it to people who encourage you to spend it on "alternative medicine" insurance. I don't think that is an efficient use of my health dollars.
The NHS funds homeopathic "treatment". That is not an efficient use of health dollars (or pounds).
It's also probably one of the smaller wastes of money within the NHS.
Yes and Amen.
Are you serious? So you think paying taxes is "a waste of money"?
Look at how your tax money is actually spent. An awful lot of it is, indeed, wasted.
1) paying more taxes than absolutely necessary is NOT a waste of money, is a donation to a good greater than just your personal benefit.
I give to charities that are far more effective and efficient in alleviating suffering than the government I pay taxes to.
2) Saving in taxes by doing legal tricks that allow you to pay them in a given country, while your profit is obtained in another country ACTUALLY IS unethical. The whole point of taxes is to return part of your benefit to the society that allowed it in first place. So yes, tax evasion is against the aim of tax laws, whether their written form permits it or not.
Tax evasion is illegal. This is tax avoidance.
So would it be unethical for me to give presents to my children while I'm alive to reduce the amount of inheritance tax they have to pay when I die? Is it, in your opinion, unethical to use tax efficient savings and retirement plans?
If my government is doing unethical things (good luck trying to find one that doesn't!), is it not the ethical thing to reduce their funding?
It's not as clear cut as you think it is. You may also find that your ethical standards don't match other people's.
A good percentage don't vote Democratic or Republican. Problem is they don't make it to the poles either.
That would be because the North and the South Pole are a long way away, and very very cold.
Spelling, people, spelling. Now get off my lawn!
Prostitution - two consenting adults
Adultery - two consenting adults
Necophilia - one consenting adult, but frankly, if you're dead, you might not enjoy it, but how are you harmed?
Bestiallity - so you can kill them, and eat them, but fucking them is out of the question?
Please do tell me what's better (for the goat) - killing them (legal) or fucking them?#
Paedophilia - it boils down to consent. Can a 9 year old give consent? Clearly not. Can a 15 year old?
i think key point is this: .All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced.
So he's socially inept. Wow. That's news. Like saying Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom.
This is a guy who's clearly detached himself from a lot of normal human intercourse because he champions, singlemindedly, one idea. A good idea, which has done a lot of good, on the whole.
And there are good reasons why one would advocate having fewer children. From an ecological perspective it's clear - the more children you have, the more resources they will use.
Now, as a father myself, I sympathise more with the natural instinct to procreate, but I can also understand how someone who's so focused on one idea (FFS, it's his life's work) might not be so understanding,
RMS has some good points to make. But if you expect him to be the kind of person who sends Hallmark cards for new babies you'll obviously be disappointed
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
The age of consent does not necessarily coincide with the age of sexual maturity. Heck, I would have loved to have sex when I was 13 - the age of consent was 16.
Is it right to label a 16 year old "paedophile" for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
Why do people insist on technological solutions for problems that don't need them?
Voting machines - pointless; the number of volunteers or local government workers that can be drafted for a day scales with the size of the population.
RFID badges for students to track attendance? Don't kid these days spend their lesson in front of a teacher, who could check attendance manually in about 30 seconds....like they have always done. I mean, what problems are they trying to solve?
Useful speech is the kind of stuff we see on the floor of Congress
Really?
That's what I'm constantly telling people who talk about "how when they were kids they could play in the street without worry." .
Exactly - but there are a lot more cars on the road now than when i was growing up...
If you get dirty doing dressage, you're not doing it right.
And by the looks of it those things don't have the ground clearance for serious off roading.
which would have been hard to miss for anyone in the UK, given the saturation coverage this has been receiving.
Yeah, it's a sick joke. But being offensive shouldn't be a crime.
There's no god-given right to overtake. If you can't overtake safely and legally, just don't.
I know in New Orleans, for a LARGE part of the year...it is easily 95F or greater with humidity close to 100%...I dunno how you do it biking to work, but if I was to bike to work in that, I"d be a stinky, sweat soaked mess, not looking professional at all for work, which just isn't going to work
I know this is a radical idea on /., but you could.. you know... shower at work?
I'm guessing you must live quite close to work? I live closer than most I work with to my worksite....and even speeding on non too busy roads (avg 50mph )..it takes me 7-10 minutes. On a bicycle, it would take me 45 minutes or an hour each way....why would I want to do that to myself?
I don't have enough hours n the day to do MY stuff as it is....why waste that much extra time in transit if I don't have to.
So you live (assuming your average speed is accurate) 5-8 miles from the office. That'd take you 20-30 minutes on a bike, once you're reasonably fit.
And unlike the driving time, which is wasted, you'd rack up an hour of good quality aerobic exercise a day. For free. Not to mention saving money on gas.
Why don't we solve the main problem...that non-motorized traffic does NOT belong on the same road as motorized traffic....an exception being that if there is a special bike lane there.
That's a great solution. Given the logistics in cities, which are you going to ban from the roads - cars, or people?
well, it worked for the London Eye. IIRC that was supposed to be a one year thing at the millennium, and, last I checked, people are still queuing up for it now.
As long as the views are good, I can see this being a success.
The ones with you will be fine, it's the passengers underneath you that you should worry about ;)
So this is going to be like the London Eye, but 1/3 bigger? Neat, but hardly "unlike anything else" then.
No, they have an absurd system where the car needs to pass an inspection every 2 year
Outrageous. In Europe, cars get inspected every year (with a two year exemption for new cars) [YMMW, haven't checked all countries, etc pp., E&OE]
throw in compulsory auto insurance
compulsory insurance? The devils!
What this also insures is that there is never an unsafe or rust bucket type car on the road.
And that's a bad thing why?
Bottles can also be reused (not only recycled).
Indeed. That's the whole point.
The problem with glass is that it requires more energy to make than a can
Not sure about that. Aluminium is very energy intensive to produce, and of course the cost of the glass bottle is amortized over tens (or hundreds) of uses.
AND more energy and water to wash a bottle before reuse than to make a can.
I think anyone who has ever washed dishes would disagree with that.
The big problem with glass bottles is that they are heavy. That increases transport costs, reduces stock density, and reduces sales. People can pick up a two litre plastic bottle quite comfortably - a two litre glass bottle would be a lot heavier.
Who said that I want to "destroy HFT"? Where does that come out of? It is a market decision what to do with HFT, the reason that the HFT are taking over though, is a response to the free money that is provided by the gov't to the banks and thus various 'investor' firms to gamble with. The reason people gamble with money is because it's not real, it's fake. You don't gamble, you don't take crazy risks with your actual savings. Also you don't gamble if you don't expect to be bailed out
All the people who've gone to 'Vegas and lost their shirt (or at least lost money they couldn't afford to lose) disprove your point.
There are also a large number of Irish people, a significant fraction of which used to sympathise with the the IRA..... .and we managed to resolve that issue without panopticon surveillance and giving up our human rights.