If they get to set the tax then charging only a "percentage" of that is meaningless. They have a dollar amount they want to raise. So the tax and the percentage would simply work out to be that number, making the "percentage" a throwaway variable.
I know attention spans are more limited these days, but try to follow the conversation more than one post deep. It began as an example of what could go wrong with ad supported internet on airplanes. It wasn't simply a rant against Taco Bell. He was using that example to make a broader point.
Until they then realize censorship is porn, and ban it. But then on the way home they further realize that the banning of porn is also porn and their head explodes. (also porn).
That misses the point. How you pay taxes is far removed from the idea that everything is a form of value. Some are more convenient than others, some are more volatile than others, and some are more liquid than others, but they all "count." That is a foundational truth. Taxes and accounting comes much much later. There is no "ivory tower" involved.
You are confusing tax laws and accounting with value. Currency is very convenient in many ways, which is why it's so popular, but it obviously doesn't mean it's the only thing of value. You (and everybody else, including me) are accustomed to thinking in terms of your own currency, and everything else somehow seems "temporary."
If I take all my dollars and buy shares of a company, I have the same value as before. Of course tomorrow that may be different. But that's also true if I *didn't* buy any shares. It's just not as easily measured. All things have value, and those value constantly change in relation to each other, but at any instant in time X number of Y has the same value as A number of B. It's extraordinarily useful to measure those values in terms of a currency, but that's only a convenience.
Suppose I took a million US dollars and decided I would buy British Pounds with it. As time goes on, let's say that the Pound has increased in value, so that my million is now worth 1.1M. It's still in British Pounds, so I haven't really "realized" the profit until I convert back to dollars? Why? If I were British I would think I already have it where it "really" counts. But that's just silly, its value is its value, no matter how it's stored.
Some forms of value storage are more flexible and convenient than others. But that doesn't mean you don't have value until it's in a convenient form. These things influence the "price" of the various forms. But it's not like you're the only one who knows that. It's not a secret, and so the valuation reflects that influence. And there's a huge drawback to converting value into dollars, because that when the government has decided it can take a cut of it.
But that's not the point. Value is value, and saying someone doesn't "really" have a billion dollars in value just because *you* don't happen to like the form it's in is simply wrong.
He's not a billionaire any more than Zuckerman is. Only after he actually sells will he be one.
Value is value. US dollars is simply one way of storing it. It just so happens that because you use dollars as your "reference" value that you think it has to be converted to those dollars to truly "count." If you were British you wouldn't think it really counted until it was in Pounds. If you lived New Vegas you wouldn't think it counted until it was in bottle caps.
You might say that value is simply based on what they decided, and that could change at any time. But that's true for every form of value storage, including dollars. It's just that when your reference storage medium changes value it's not as obvious, because you still have the same number of it.
The fact that he considers stupidity not to worry about money
He doesn't even quite say that. It's perfectly acceptable under his definition for some smart people to not worry about money. He's only saying that those who do are smart, not that all smart people do. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his statement, but only discussing the logic.)
Mierde del toro. He should learn Spanish; most people in the Americas speak Spanish. It also comes in handy in California, Florida, Arizona, and Chicago.
I'm fluent in Spanish as my second language. While useful in general, it hasn't been of any practical value in programming.
credit card companies raising your rate after you borrow a lot because you're "riskier",
Well you are riskier. Anyone with a lot of credit card debt is a riskier loan. I'm not defending any practices here, but there's no question that the chance of default is higher.
Welcome to planet Earth. If your species expects competence in its dealings with humans you should have done more research before landing. Didn't you get those episodes of I Love Lucy we kept sending you?
Bottom line - everyone pays xx% of their income, no matter how poor, or how rich, no matter how many influential people they bribe or sleep with. Set it at about 27 or 28%, and I'll see no change.
That would reduce the taxes on the top 1%, not increase them.
If a company spends 100 to make 200, that's one rate, and if a company spends 100 to make 2000, that's different.
Google's current tax avoidance strategy would work quite well under your scheme. You're effectively encouraging all companies to have inflated costs. All simple solutions rely on people and businesses continuing to behave as they currently do, when what happens instead is that they modify their behavior in light of the new rules. Unintended consequences ensue.
What really annoys congressmen is that if the money isn't spent in the USA, like it's used to pay for salaries and assets elsewhere, then it'll get taxed by those other countries instead and not them, even though they feel like Google/Microsoft/whatever are "American companies".
Actually the government like it just fine that US dollars are locked away in some piggy bank somewhere. That means they can simply print them again, effectively getting 100% of it. So it's in the government's best interest that things are structured to encourage the remote squirreling of money. It's obviously not in the economy's best interest, but that's a whole different argument.
Slashdot Mirror
If they get to set the tax then charging only a "percentage" of that is meaningless. They have a dollar amount they want to raise. So the tax and the percentage would simply work out to be that number, making the "percentage" a throwaway variable.
If there's a contest for capturing the true essence of the internet in two words, I think you've just won.
Google owns a hardware company that makes negative lots of money.
The g is also missing from giant, but nobody claims he said "one eye ant leap."
I know attention spans are more limited these days, but try to follow the conversation more than one post deep. It began as an example of what could go wrong with ad supported internet on airplanes. It wasn't simply a rant against Taco Bell. He was using that example to make a broader point.
Have you read the last sentence of his post? If you have how can you say what you did?
Maybe the guy doing time is also a double, who years ago legally changed his name to Hans Reiser.
Until they then realize censorship is porn, and ban it. But then on the way home they further realize that the banning of porn is also porn and their head explodes. (also porn).
That misses the point. How you pay taxes is far removed from the idea that everything is a form of value. Some are more convenient than others, some are more volatile than others, and some are more liquid than others, but they all "count." That is a foundational truth. Taxes and accounting comes much much later. There is no "ivory tower" involved.
If I take all my dollars and buy shares of a company, I have the same value as before. Of course tomorrow that may be different. But that's also true if I *didn't* buy any shares. It's just not as easily measured. All things have value, and those value constantly change in relation to each other, but at any instant in time X number of Y has the same value as A number of B. It's extraordinarily useful to measure those values in terms of a currency, but that's only a convenience.
Suppose I took a million US dollars and decided I would buy British Pounds with it. As time goes on, let's say that the Pound has increased in value, so that my million is now worth 1.1M. It's still in British Pounds, so I haven't really "realized" the profit until I convert back to dollars? Why? If I were British I would think I already have it where it "really" counts. But that's just silly, its value is its value, no matter how it's stored.
I don't understand your point.
But that's not the point. Value is value, and saying someone doesn't "really" have a billion dollars in value just because *you* don't happen to like the form it's in is simply wrong.
You're confusing currency with money.
Value is value. US dollars is simply one way of storing it. It just so happens that because you use dollars as your "reference" value that you think it has to be converted to those dollars to truly "count." If you were British you wouldn't think it really counted until it was in Pounds. If you lived New Vegas you wouldn't think it counted until it was in bottle caps.
You might say that value is simply based on what they decided, and that could change at any time. But that's true for every form of value storage, including dollars. It's just that when your reference storage medium changes value it's not as obvious, because you still have the same number of it.
He doesn't even quite say that. It's perfectly acceptable under his definition for some smart people to not worry about money. He's only saying that those who do are smart, not that all smart people do. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his statement, but only discussing the logic.)
I'm fluent in Spanish as my second language. While useful in general, it hasn't been of any practical value in programming.
Well you are riskier. Anyone with a lot of credit card debt is a riskier loan. I'm not defending any practices here, but there's no question that the chance of default is higher.
Welcome to planet Earth. If your species expects competence in its dealings with humans you should have done more research before landing. Didn't you get those episodes of I Love Lucy we kept sending you?
Maybe you should learn what Godwin's law actually says.
That would reduce the taxes on the top 1%, not increase them.
Google's current tax avoidance strategy would work quite well under your scheme. You're effectively encouraging all companies to have inflated costs. All simple solutions rely on people and businesses continuing to behave as they currently do, when what happens instead is that they modify their behavior in light of the new rules. Unintended consequences ensue.
Actually the government like it just fine that US dollars are locked away in some piggy bank somewhere. That means they can simply print them again, effectively getting 100% of it. So it's in the government's best interest that things are structured to encourage the remote squirreling of money. It's obviously not in the economy's best interest, but that's a whole different argument.
Loosing one's memories sometimes results in an autobiography.
Fucking the shovel costs extra.
Looks like you have an off-by-one error in your post. So what is it you do at Google?