Well, there is no way to deduct based on a future price, and you must deduct an expense when you incurr it, I think tax law is pretty concise in this area, at least it is in the US. From the article, it appears Amazon is deducting the expense at market price the time it is given. Which is fair. They are paying less taxes because they are paying their employees more.
I re-read some of it and agree. They are paying their employees more by giving them an additional stock 'bonus' each year, therefore showing less profit and paying less taxes.
The compensation relevant for taxes is the 1000 GBP the stock is worth when Amazon gives it and not its value at the end, right?
all speculation here....Its possible that it does not count as income until the employee actually sells it, which would simply be a deferral. Taxes received would be higher or lower as well according to the stock price at the time of sale. It would get complicated if the employee could claim it as capital gains, but I don't think that would be allowed (don't have a clue about UK capital gains rules though)
I have never seen anybody using one of these spinners.
Just this week, I have now seen them for sale. I was actually thinking this was a 4chan joke or something.
Heck, I thought they were some kind of sex toy, which made all this talk of kids collecting them and explosions quite disturbing.
If we're talking about a government program (and if needed, money) to ensure that infrastructure is created to bring a minimum of bandwidth to areas that have none, count me in.
If we're talking about what an ISP has to provide at least to see some government money, don't count on me supporting it.
Many economists would disagree. If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another. The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks, so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.
An interesting possibility. I don't know the region in question, but if there hasn't been anyone else showing interest for a long time that would be an indicator those alternate jobs might not materialize, and would be less likely to if you don't also compete with other states by offering tax breaks.
Also, a tax break is not an investment, it is simply fore-going funds they wouldn't get otherwise. There can be great return to the state outside of those taxes, including the employment of workers, their income taxes, and taxes on their spending. If they don't have the factory, they never get any tax revenue of course.
Why do you think it is too low? My concerns are more that wireless cell plans cost a lot and have data caps and poor latency , and vary in speed. I think many who have no options now would be OK with 10 mbps if it were affordable. At least it would meet their basic needs.
The bitrate is fine. A delivery source with a small cap is not. And neither are the unreasonable prices of mobile broadband.
I agree 100%. Those are the key issues. Unfortunately the intent for the article author to characterize the policy as something entirely different causes these really concerns to be buried and lost in rhetoric.
I think its a bit low as an absolute minimum, but it depends on what minimum means. The idea is that everyone have internet access, and I do think a 10 mbps connection covers the basic needs of access and productivity. I personally use much more, so as as a minimum of what would satisfy all my wants, its too low, but of course that is not the purpose of this policy.
My only real point is don't twist the purpose when critcizing the policy, it has nothing to do with interenet speed for the average consumer or what speeds are offered to existing customers. It only impacts those that presently have no broadband access, and a lot of them might be ok with the minimum.
Manifesto does have different connotations, I admit. In this case I hope it was clear that it meant a detailed document professing ones beliefs/opinions on matters one considers of social import. A manifesto doesn't have positive or negative connotations to me. In fact, from some of the snippets I read, I agree with a lot of what the employee wrote. So you are off track in your insinuation that I used it in terms of agreeing with the content.
And that minimum speed is pitifully low by Western country standards, and now lowered even further, at prices people cannot afford.
What is the minimum speed requirement in other countries to be counted as broadband? I agree the big concern is affordability, and data caps as well, when it comes to wireless.
The intent of the FCC policy in the article is not for improving speeds, but rather increasing access to broadband at at defined minimum speed.
But achieving that goal by redefining the minimum speed is simply cheating. And lying.
That speed used to be lower at one time. Do you believe that 10 mbps is not enough as an absolute minimum to be counted as broadband? That's the fundamental question you should be arguing.
You can't guarantee everyone some kind of minimum speed. Some people like to live way out in the sticks to get away from everyone else. That's fine, that's their decision, but as a consequence of that, they might not have as many options for high speed internet, but if they really want it they can pay their own hard earned money for someone to run the cable and supply service.
Agree to some extent, but sometimes that itself is not a realistic option. All this FCC requirement says is the home must have 10mpbs available to be counted having broadband available.
Exactly how is it (only) for the benefit of Verizon,? I agree in some ways, but I also think it might not make sense to require hard wired ISP access everywhere.
Maybe mobile would be a solution if we didn't have such horrendous internet on our cell phones or the data caps / throttling of most providers.
That's they key concern. 10mpbs up/down isn't really that bad if you have no other options. It lets you handle just about any productivity task a normal person would need, it falls short for entertainment. But is it accessible for a reasonable cost compared to other home access costs like for cable? No. That is the problem with cell wireless plans.
If you wanted to improve broadband speeds in the U.S. the best solution would be to make it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to various cable companies or other entities and to allow for cities to form their own municipal providers or networks if they want to.
The intent of the FCC policy in the article is not for improving speeds, but rather increasing access to broadband at at defined minimum speed.
However, on the other topic of improving broadband speed, I agree that better methods to set up competition such as municipal or common infrastructure would be nice to see.
When the FCC decides that mobile data speeds are all the bandwidth anyone needs, they're basically saying large parts of the United States are fine with the same level of bandwidth to be found in large portions of India.
All they are saying is that it is the minimum acceptable speed. If that's the minimum acceptable speed in India as well, so bit it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is no way to deduct based on a future price, and you must deduct an expense when you incurr it, I think tax law is pretty concise in this area, at least it is in the US. From the article, it appears Amazon is deducting the expense at market price the time it is given. Which is fair. They are paying less taxes because they are paying their employees more.
I re-read some of it and agree. They are paying their employees more by giving them an additional stock 'bonus' each year, therefore showing less profit and paying less taxes.
The compensation relevant for taxes is the 1000 GBP the stock is worth when Amazon gives it and not its value at the end, right?
all speculation here....Its possible that it does not count as income until the employee actually sells it, which would simply be a deferral. Taxes received would be higher or lower as well according to the stock price at the time of sale. It would get complicated if the employee could claim it as capital gains, but I don't think that would be allowed (don't have a clue about UK capital gains rules though)
I have never seen anybody using one of these spinners. Just this week, I have now seen them for sale. I was actually thinking this was a 4chan joke or something.
Heck, I thought they were some kind of sex toy, which made all this talk of kids collecting them and explosions quite disturbing.
If we're talking about a government program (and if needed, money) to ensure that infrastructure is created to bring a minimum of bandwidth to areas that have none, count me in.
If we're talking about what an ISP has to provide at least to see some government money, don't count on me supporting it.
100% agree
Many economists would disagree. If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another. The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks, so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.
An interesting possibility. I don't know the region in question, but if there hasn't been anyone else showing interest for a long time that would be an indicator those alternate jobs might not materialize, and would be less likely to if you don't also compete with other states by offering tax breaks.
I see now these may be tax credits and not tax breaks, so the terms of redemption might make part of my comment above wrong.
Also, a tax break is not an investment, it is simply fore-going funds they wouldn't get otherwise. There can be great return to the state outside of those taxes, including the employment of workers, their income taxes, and taxes on their spending. If they don't have the factory, they never get any tax revenue of course.
"Platoon" sounds cooler than "lined up".
Why do you think it is too low? My concerns are more that wireless cell plans cost a lot and have data caps and poor latency , and vary in speed. I think many who have no options now would be OK with 10 mbps if it were affordable. At least it would meet their basic needs.
The bitrate is fine. A delivery source with a small cap is not. And neither are the unreasonable prices of mobile broadband.
I agree 100%. Those are the key issues. Unfortunately the intent for the article author to characterize the policy as something entirely different causes these really concerns to be buried and lost in rhetoric.
I think its a bit low as an absolute minimum, but it depends on what minimum means. The idea is that everyone have internet access, and I do think a 10 mbps connection covers the basic needs of access and productivity. I personally use much more, so as as a minimum of what would satisfy all my wants, its too low, but of course that is not the purpose of this policy.
My only real point is don't twist the purpose when critcizing the policy, it has nothing to do with interenet speed for the average consumer or what speeds are offered to existing customers. It only impacts those that presently have no broadband access, and a lot of them might be ok with the minimum.
Manifesto does have different connotations, I admit. In this case I hope it was clear that it meant a detailed document professing ones beliefs/opinions on matters one considers of social import. A manifesto doesn't have positive or negative connotations to me. In fact, from some of the snippets I read, I agree with a lot of what the employee wrote. So you are off track in your insinuation that I used it in terms of agreeing with the content.
And that minimum speed is pitifully low by Western country standards, and now lowered even further, at prices people cannot afford.
What is the minimum speed requirement in other countries to be counted as broadband? I agree the big concern is affordability, and data caps as well, when it comes to wireless.
The intent of the FCC policy in the article is not for improving speeds, but rather increasing access to broadband at at defined minimum speed.
But achieving that goal by redefining the minimum speed is simply cheating. And lying.
That speed used to be lower at one time. Do you believe that 10 mbps is not enough as an absolute minimum to be counted as broadband? That's the fundamental question you should be arguing.
You can't guarantee everyone some kind of minimum speed. Some people like to live way out in the sticks to get away from everyone else. That's fine, that's their decision, but as a consequence of that, they might not have as many options for high speed internet, but if they really want it they can pay their own hard earned money for someone to run the cable and supply service.
Agree to some extent, but sometimes that itself is not a realistic option. All this FCC requirement says is the home must have 10mpbs available to be counted having broadband available.
Exactly how is it (only) for the benefit of Verizon,? I agree in some ways, but I also think it might not make sense to require hard wired ISP access everywhere.
Acceptable to whom? The ISPs? You betcha. Their customers? Want to discuss it with them or do you enjoy retaining your body parts?
No, acceptable as a minimal FCC requirement to claim there is broadband access available.
Saying we are good enough is meaning we as a society are ready to stagnate.
Who is saying that?
Maybe mobile would be a solution if we didn't have such horrendous internet on our cell phones or the data caps / throttling of most providers.
That's they key concern. 10mpbs up/down isn't really that bad if you have no other options. It lets you handle just about any productivity task a normal person would need, it falls short for entertainment. But is it accessible for a reasonable cost compared to other home access costs like for cable? No. That is the problem with cell wireless plans.
If you wanted to improve broadband speeds in the U.S. the best solution would be to make it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to various cable companies or other entities and to allow for cities to form their own municipal providers or networks if they want to.
The intent of the FCC policy in the article is not for improving speeds, but rather increasing access to broadband at at defined minimum speed.
However, on the other topic of improving broadband speed, I agree that better methods to set up competition such as municipal or common infrastructure would be nice to see.
When the FCC decides that mobile data speeds are all the bandwidth anyone needs, they're basically saying large parts of the United States are fine with the same level of bandwidth to be found in large portions of India.
All they are saying is that it is the minimum acceptable speed. If that's the minimum acceptable speed in India as well, so bit it.
Considering something adequate for federal policy is different than 'all people need'.
Might be mice this time.
Libre Office is almost as bad as Open Office for productivity.... just sayin.