Sales taxes are paid by the consumer, they are not based on business profits, they are collected and passed on by the retailer.
Corporate taxes are also paid for by the consumer. That is, if NZ imposes a $100 million corporate tax on Apple, then Apple is simply going to raise its prices in NZ until it has made up those $100 million. Or do you think Apple is going to have their US share holders or US or European customers gift this money to NZ?
Currently corporates have all the benefits of a country and don't pay any of the costs.
What "benefit" does NZ provide to Apple? NZ didn't significantly contribute to the development, manufacture, or distribution of iPhones. All that happens is that iPhones arrive in NZ ports and New Zealanders buy them. And those activities are already heavily taxed through income taxes and sales taxes.
THAT is why corporates should be expected to pay taxes, so they compete on a fair and equal basis with those local companies who can not dodge the taxes.
You make the mistaken assumption that imposing corporate taxes on Apple hurts Apple. It might, slightly, if NZ actually had a competitive industry; in that case, it would be a form of protectionism. But NZ has nothing competitive. All imposing a corporate tax on Apple would do is to transfer more money from New Zealand citizens to the New Zealand government; it's a tax increase that makes New Zealanders poorer. I'm just telling you that you are terminally stupid to hurt yourself that way.
Apple only has to remit the sales taxes that its customers have paid. It receives an input tax credit for all purchases in NZ that it makes. In essence this means that the net sales tax paid by a company is zero. Its customers are who have paid it.
Customers also pay any corporate tax that NZ imposes on Apple. That is, if NZ imposes a corporate tax on Apple, Apple is going to jack up prices in NZ, because they sure as hell aren't going to pay for it out of their pockets, and they aren't going to subsidize NZ sales by asking US or French customers to pay more. Customers always end up paying for all taxes.
Apple NZ is the entity that is making the money. But it is using licensing fees to shift it's profits to another locale. That profit shifting is where governments are getting upset. And understandably so.
If Apple shifts profits to NZ in order to avoid US taxes, then that doesn't justify NZ taxing Apple.
OTOH, if NZ is complaining that they are not getting enough of Apple's profits, then the question you ought to answer: what's a fair cut? NZ contributed next to nothing to the development or manufacture or transportation of iPhones, so why should the NZ government get any corporate taxes related to the profits derived from the development, manufacture, or transportation of iPhones?
Just because something is attached to your face, does not make it an AR/VR/MR device.
No, but the fact that it overlays information on top of the real world does make it an AR device. And that's what Google Glass does. It doesn't do it very well, mind you, but it does do it.
Apple Paid $0 In Taxes To New Zealand, Despite Sales of $4.2 Billion
Apple almost certainly paid sales tax. In addition, people who bought Apple devices already paid income tax. Why should Apple, on top of all that, pay corporate tax in New Zealand, when mostly what they are doing is importing goods into New Zealand?
If you get upset about Apple not paying corporate tax in New Zealand, then perhaps Americans should start imposing corporate and income tax on New Zealand farmers whose Kiwis and sheep are shipped to the US. How about it?
The EFF has created a web page where you can encourage your own legislators to pass similar bills, and to urge universities to pledge "not to knowingly license or sell the rights of inventions, research, or innovation...to patent assertion entities, or patent trolls."
How about publicly funded research simply end up in the public domain?
How Would You Implement Site-Wide File Encryption?
Hire someone who knows what they are doing. Seriously, if this is for a business, there are lots of complex issues with compliance and audits in addition to availability and the possibility of sabotage. And this causes enough work that you'll probably need to hire someone anyway, so it might as well be someone who knows this stuff.
Dealing with those requires experience. And the very first thing you need to come to terms with is: what risks are you actually trying to protect against? What tradeoffs are you willing to make and what risks (mainly of data loss) are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to spend on this?
Google Glass is just an AR headset, one among many, and one with a fairly limited feature set. These kinds of simple, monocular AR headsets have been around for a while commercially, for example the Epson Moverio and the Vusix. For higher quality AR, the Microsoft Hololens and the Meta are probably better choices.
DMARC isn't even an anti-spam protocol, it's simply a protocol that prevents E-mail addresses from getting forged. But given the huge number of E-mail providers out there, spammers don't need to bother forging the source of E-mails. In addition, spammers can always corrupt and subvert domain registrars. So, DMARC is likely to be of negligible effectiveness compared to existing AI techniques.
DMARC and similar systems would mainly serve to eliminate privacy and threaten free speech by making every piece of E-mail traceable to its real-world sender. That's the real reason why these crooks are trying to push this technology on us even though we don't need it. Don't let them fool you. Tell them to get lost and shove their 1984-fantasies where the sun don't shine.
There's a lot of science about when people behave and misbehave that has not been put to use," says Lemonade cofounder and CEO Daniel Schreiber
Behavioral science generally measures the behavior of people who don't know what the experiment is about, don't know the outcome the experimenter desires, and don't care about the actual outcome. Fraud involves people who have a strong interest in specific outcomes and can shape their behaviors accordingly.
So, if you use behavioral science, humans will figure it out and adapt; they will "game the system". That's why the outcome of social policies is often unexpected: after you implement the policy, people change their behavior, and the statistical patterns that caused you to adopt the policy change.
For example, it would be extremely unlikely for any new or competing theory to work around the uncertainty principle and have any hope of being correct.
It's trivial to construct theories that "work around the uncertainty principle" and are compatible with all existing observations.
. GR relies on things like the equivalence principle that are so strongly self-evident that they're generally accepted as fact but actually have no physical basis beyond noticing that...
And the same is true for all the fundamental assumptions of QM.
Before quantum mechanics was discovered, people could prove mathematically that no object could jump or tunnel out of a potential well; it was physically impossible. Now we know that this is quite possible since the "laws" of classical mechanics can be violated under certain conditions.
It's no different with quantum mechanics. Well, that's not quite true: it is actually a little different. Before quantum mechanics was discovered, many physicists believed classical mechanics to be complete. But for quantum mechanics, we already know that it is an incomplete theory.
I agree. Which is why you shouldn't expect to get a well-paying job after getting your university degree. Yet, for some reason, people do.
whereas a university education lasts a lifetime
Unless you're planning on becoming an academic or a researcher, a university education is largely useless.
But someone who only had training on a particular tool will need to spend a long time learning to use the new thing.
That's utter bullshit. Professionals constantly improve their skills; they aren't passive recipients of "training" and they don't "take a long time to learn".
There was this concept called "loyalty" which used to mean something for both employee and employer back in the day
That wasn't "loyalty", it was market inefficiency and cartels. Fortunately, we have gotten rid of it.
Employers burned that bridge when they started treating employees like disposable commodities instead of people.
The root cause here is increased labor market efficiencies, and it's a good thing that we have it.
"Bind" employees? How about treating them well so that they WANT to stay?
Let's say an employee is worth $50000/year before training and $90000/year after training. Let's say training costs $100000. How am I ever going to recoup that money? If I train the employee and then pay them only $70000/year for five years to recoup the training costs, someone else is going to offer them $90000 and they are going to leave. If I start paying them $90000/year right away after training, I'm out $100000 in training costs that I'm never going to recoup. It simply doesn't make sense for an employer to do either of those things.
Employees own their labor, and they own the benefits of training. That's why employees need to pay for their own training. There simply is no other rational way of dealing with training.
A new editorial by BetaNews columnist Mark Wilson argues that Windows 10 isn't an operating system -- it's "a vehicle for ads".
Sounds like Google envy to me.
On the other hand, I don't actually recall seeing a lot of ads in my Windows 10 installation. Maybe Mark Wilson is just installing the wrong kind of software?
The people are friendly and the climate is only going to get better as the temps start getting uncomfortably high further south.
You hold the usual uninformed belief that climate change means an increase in temperatures across the world. In fact, temperatures in already warm regions will not increase significantly (but precipitation will increase). The changes in global average temperatures due to climate change are largely due to increasing temperatures at high latitudes.
Employers need to understand that they need to develop employees if they don't want a bunch of mercenaries working for them.
No, sorry. Employers simply offer employees what they are worth right now; employers aren't going to "invest" in employees because there is no legal way in which employers can bind employees to them.
Employers need to accept that they're not getting a drop-in replacement for someone who leaves, no matter what the Indian consulting firm tells them.
If new hires aren't immediately productive after spending 16-20 years in the educational system, then the educational system is fundamentally broken.
Furthermore, employers already paid through the nose for public education with their taxes; why should they pay again?
Back then, even the Comparative Literature and Classics people were at least getting interviews. It was still the case that graduating with a bachelors' degree in anything was the entry ticket to any sort of corporate job.
Colleges used to have more selective admissions. That means that if you graduated with a useless degree, employers could at least assume that you were significantly smarter than the population average. These days, college enrollment rates are so high that college admissions tells you next to nothing even about a person's general qualifications. On the other hand, the supply of graduates with relevant job-specific training has increased enough that employers simply don't have to bother anymore.
It has always had import tariffs and massive subsidies, especially in the agricultural sector.
And yet, those import tariffs and massive subsidies were less massive than those of most other nations.
In fact the USA has been loosing when it comes to the WTO when it comes to protectionist policies.
That's funny. Who do you think made GATT/WTO happen? Who exactly do you think had the commitment to free markets and free trade? German ex-Nazis? French farmers? The Supreme Soviet? New Zealand sheep? Get a clue.
The flaw with your rant is that you someone suffer from the delusion that the rest of the world wants free trade while the US becomes protectionist. In fact, the frustration of Americans with the rest of the world is that it is horribly protectionist, xenophobic, and nationalist, whether it's the EU, China, or Japan. The US is the reason there is the level of free trade, free movement, and prosperity that we have in the world today.
If the US demands that "stuff must be made in the USA", it simply starts acting like all the other nations in the world are already acting. That should scare you. But if you think that this will lead to a flowering of free trade among other countries, you are completely out of touch with reality.
And he attempted to address America's politically-charged atmosphere where professional news organizations struggled to pay their bills while still producing quality journalism. The internet played a huge role in this crisis
What "crisis"? Newspaper corporations and giant media corporations going out of business because the cost of producing and disseminating news has fallen is not a "crisis", it's a good thing. For that matter, the abolition of a profession whose main tools for money making were monopolization of information and making deals with the wealthy and powerful is also a good thing. As for Denton and Gawker, they are instances and examples of the rotten state of journalism, and they aren't even the worst.
If it turns out the the highest jobs turn out to be the cheaper paying jobs to the H-1B people,
Well, fortunately, after decades of experience, we know what the top paying jobs in the H-1B program are, so your fears are unfounded.
then the American workers just lost the best jobs in America. Is this what is meant by creating jobs for Americans??
If you limit highly skilled workers and immigrants from coming into the country, companies like Google and Facebook are simply going to increase the size of their R&D labs in China, India, and the EU. That is, those jobs won't go to (current) Americans, they will go to the same people who would have immigrated here, but they will now be paying taxes and contributing to foreign communities.
Americans need to realize that the most valuable resource a country can have is smart people; they bring the wealth and the growth. If you attract them, make life good for them, and offer them low taxes and wealth, they'll come, stay, and make you rich. If you keep them out, marginalize them, and impose high taxes on them, they'll stop being productive and eventually leave.
The Democrats don't have the votes to block anything
They file lawsuits. Democratic bureaucrats and judges sabotage the implementation of directives, etc.Yes, there is plenty of crap Democrats can do and have been doing.
Iraq is America's "boots on the ground" ally in the fight against ISIS, not an enemy. America is not effectively at war with anyone, though Syria/Iran might soon be
Well, call it whatever you want to. Those countries are in chaos, and that's why their citizens can't be vetted properly and shouldn't be admitted.
The reason the Social Justice Activists stopped his ban was the retroactive part, it affected travel visas already issued.
So what? Border agents can turn you away at the border if they don't like your answers, visa or not. A visa gives you no enforceable rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporate taxes are also paid for by the consumer. That is, if NZ imposes a $100 million corporate tax on Apple, then Apple is simply going to raise its prices in NZ until it has made up those $100 million. Or do you think Apple is going to have their US share holders or US or European customers gift this money to NZ?
What "benefit" does NZ provide to Apple? NZ didn't significantly contribute to the development, manufacture, or distribution of iPhones. All that happens is that iPhones arrive in NZ ports and New Zealanders buy them. And those activities are already heavily taxed through income taxes and sales taxes.
You make the mistaken assumption that imposing corporate taxes on Apple hurts Apple. It might, slightly, if NZ actually had a competitive industry; in that case, it would be a form of protectionism. But NZ has nothing competitive. All imposing a corporate tax on Apple would do is to transfer more money from New Zealand citizens to the New Zealand government; it's a tax increase that makes New Zealanders poorer. I'm just telling you that you are terminally stupid to hurt yourself that way.
Customers also pay any corporate tax that NZ imposes on Apple. That is, if NZ imposes a corporate tax on Apple, Apple is going to jack up prices in NZ, because they sure as hell aren't going to pay for it out of their pockets, and they aren't going to subsidize NZ sales by asking US or French customers to pay more. Customers always end up paying for all taxes.
If Apple shifts profits to NZ in order to avoid US taxes, then that doesn't justify NZ taxing Apple.
OTOH, if NZ is complaining that they are not getting enough of Apple's profits, then the question you ought to answer: what's a fair cut? NZ contributed next to nothing to the development or manufacture or transportation of iPhones, so why should the NZ government get any corporate taxes related to the profits derived from the development, manufacture, or transportation of iPhones?
All taxes are always ultimately paid for "by the consumer", hence my mention of income tax.
My point is that NZ already got hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes related to Apple sales in NZ.
No, but the fact that it overlays information on top of the real world does make it an AR device. And that's what Google Glass does. It doesn't do it very well, mind you, but it does do it.
Apple almost certainly paid sales tax. In addition, people who bought Apple devices already paid income tax. Why should Apple, on top of all that, pay corporate tax in New Zealand, when mostly what they are doing is importing goods into New Zealand?
If you get upset about Apple not paying corporate tax in New Zealand, then perhaps Americans should start imposing corporate and income tax on New Zealand farmers whose Kiwis and sheep are shipped to the US. How about it?
How about publicly funded research simply end up in the public domain?
Hire someone who knows what they are doing. Seriously, if this is for a business, there are lots of complex issues with compliance and audits in addition to availability and the possibility of sabotage. And this causes enough work that you'll probably need to hire someone anyway, so it might as well be someone who knows this stuff.
Dealing with those requires experience. And the very first thing you need to come to terms with is: what risks are you actually trying to protect against? What tradeoffs are you willing to make and what risks (mainly of data loss) are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to spend on this?
Google Glass is just an AR headset, one among many, and one with a fairly limited feature set. These kinds of simple, monocular AR headsets have been around for a while commercially, for example the Epson Moverio and the Vusix. For higher quality AR, the Microsoft Hololens and the Meta are probably better choices.
Given that AI can catch 99.9% of spam, the spam problem has largely been solved.
DMARC isn't even an anti-spam protocol, it's simply a protocol that prevents E-mail addresses from getting forged. But given the huge number of E-mail providers out there, spammers don't need to bother forging the source of E-mails. In addition, spammers can always corrupt and subvert domain registrars. So, DMARC is likely to be of negligible effectiveness compared to existing AI techniques.
DMARC and similar systems would mainly serve to eliminate privacy and threaten free speech by making every piece of E-mail traceable to its real-world sender. That's the real reason why these crooks are trying to push this technology on us even though we don't need it. Don't let them fool you. Tell them to get lost and shove their 1984-fantasies where the sun don't shine.
Behavioral science generally measures the behavior of people who don't know what the experiment is about, don't know the outcome the experimenter desires, and don't care about the actual outcome. Fraud involves people who have a strong interest in specific outcomes and can shape their behaviors accordingly.
So, if you use behavioral science, humans will figure it out and adapt; they will "game the system". That's why the outcome of social policies is often unexpected: after you implement the policy, people change their behavior, and the statistical patterns that caused you to adopt the policy change.
Indeed, I don't.
Research shows that, as a group, only men pay tax:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
http://judgybitch.com/2016/08/...
It's trivial to construct theories that "work around the uncertainty principle" and are compatible with all existing observations.
And the same is true for all the fundamental assumptions of QM.
Before quantum mechanics was discovered, people could prove mathematically that no object could jump or tunnel out of a potential well; it was physically impossible. Now we know that this is quite possible since the "laws" of classical mechanics can be violated under certain conditions.
It's no different with quantum mechanics. Well, that's not quite true: it is actually a little different. Before quantum mechanics was discovered, many physicists believed classical mechanics to be complete. But for quantum mechanics, we already know that it is an incomplete theory.
I agree. Which is why you shouldn't expect to get a well-paying job after getting your university degree. Yet, for some reason, people do.
Unless you're planning on becoming an academic or a researcher, a university education is largely useless.
That's utter bullshit. Professionals constantly improve their skills; they aren't passive recipients of "training" and they don't "take a long time to learn".
That wasn't "loyalty", it was market inefficiency and cartels. Fortunately, we have gotten rid of it.
The root cause here is increased labor market efficiencies, and it's a good thing that we have it.
Let's say an employee is worth $50000/year before training and $90000/year after training. Let's say training costs $100000. How am I ever going to recoup that money? If I train the employee and then pay them only $70000/year for five years to recoup the training costs, someone else is going to offer them $90000 and they are going to leave. If I start paying them $90000/year right away after training, I'm out $100000 in training costs that I'm never going to recoup. It simply doesn't make sense for an employer to do either of those things.
Employees own their labor, and they own the benefits of training. That's why employees need to pay for their own training. There simply is no other rational way of dealing with training.
Sounds like Google envy to me.
On the other hand, I don't actually recall seeing a lot of ads in my Windows 10 installation. Maybe Mark Wilson is just installing the wrong kind of software?
You hold the usual uninformed belief that climate change means an increase in temperatures across the world. In fact, temperatures in already warm regions will not increase significantly (but precipitation will increase). The changes in global average temperatures due to climate change are largely due to increasing temperatures at high latitudes.
No, sorry. Employers simply offer employees what they are worth right now; employers aren't going to "invest" in employees because there is no legal way in which employers can bind employees to them.
If new hires aren't immediately productive after spending 16-20 years in the educational system, then the educational system is fundamentally broken.
Furthermore, employers already paid through the nose for public education with their taxes; why should they pay again?
Colleges used to have more selective admissions. That means that if you graduated with a useless degree, employers could at least assume that you were significantly smarter than the population average. These days, college enrollment rates are so high that college admissions tells you next to nothing even about a person's general qualifications. On the other hand, the supply of graduates with relevant job-specific training has increased enough that employers simply don't have to bother anymore.
The left somehow believes that sending short kids to basketball camp makes them tall and lets everybody earn the salary of a professional athlete.
And yet, those import tariffs and massive subsidies were less massive than those of most other nations.
That's funny. Who do you think made GATT/WTO happen? Who exactly do you think had the commitment to free markets and free trade? German ex-Nazis? French farmers? The Supreme Soviet? New Zealand sheep? Get a clue.
The flaw with your rant is that you someone suffer from the delusion that the rest of the world wants free trade while the US becomes protectionist. In fact, the frustration of Americans with the rest of the world is that it is horribly protectionist, xenophobic, and nationalist, whether it's the EU, China, or Japan. The US is the reason there is the level of free trade, free movement, and prosperity that we have in the world today.
If the US demands that "stuff must be made in the USA", it simply starts acting like all the other nations in the world are already acting. That should scare you. But if you think that this will lead to a flowering of free trade among other countries, you are completely out of touch with reality.
What "crisis"? Newspaper corporations and giant media corporations going out of business because the cost of producing and disseminating news has fallen is not a "crisis", it's a good thing. For that matter, the abolition of a profession whose main tools for money making were monopolization of information and making deals with the wealthy and powerful is also a good thing. As for Denton and Gawker, they are instances and examples of the rotten state of journalism, and they aren't even the worst.
Facebook pays an average of $135k to their H-1B employees.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/03...
Well, fortunately, after decades of experience, we know what the top paying jobs in the H-1B program are, so your fears are unfounded.
If you limit highly skilled workers and immigrants from coming into the country, companies like Google and Facebook are simply going to increase the size of their R&D labs in China, India, and the EU. That is, those jobs won't go to (current) Americans, they will go to the same people who would have immigrated here, but they will now be paying taxes and contributing to foreign communities.
Americans need to realize that the most valuable resource a country can have is smart people; they bring the wealth and the growth. If you attract them, make life good for them, and offer them low taxes and wealth, they'll come, stay, and make you rich. If you keep them out, marginalize them, and impose high taxes on them, they'll stop being productive and eventually leave.
They file lawsuits. Democratic bureaucrats and judges sabotage the implementation of directives, etc.Yes, there is plenty of crap Democrats can do and have been doing.
Well, call it whatever you want to. Those countries are in chaos, and that's why their citizens can't be vetted properly and shouldn't be admitted.
So what? Border agents can turn you away at the border if they don't like your answers, visa or not. A visa gives you no enforceable rights.
I voted for Obama, and I think that after eight years, he turned out to be the shittiest president in my memory.
I didn't vote for Trump, and I don't like some of his policies, but I am going to wait another eight years to pass judgment on his presidency.
Let the guy get to work. We can all draw our conclusions eight years from now at the end of his administration.