...they would allow and even embrace the drones and driverless trucks...as long as the maintenance and repair positions to manage these new delivery mediums were Teamster organized.
The Teamsters have an opportunity to make inroads into the growing industry of automation maintenance and can move their union into the 21st century. They can be the union that plants the flag of organized labor firmly onto the portions of the tech industry that still need human hands to do work. But...we all know they won't be that proactive nor forward thinking.
So, let me get this straight...governmental tax policy should follow "public opinion" because why again? Because the public is well informed? Because the public understands basic economics much less more complex theories? THAT'S your response? Because public opinion?
I don't know why that would surprise me though given that your entire other argument is based entirely on what YOU feel the law should be.
Lowering the tax rate makes it more attractive for businesses to do their thing in the United States. This means more jobs, more tax revenues, more...well...everything. More jobs, incidentally, means that more people work and that those people make more money. That, in turn, also leads to more tax revenue via income taxes, sales taxes and so on. In fact, given that you think HIGHER corporate taxes are the way to go (they're not but hey, we skipped proven economic reality already) then you're likely also one of those folks who think income redistribution is also a good thing. Do you know why more money in the middle and lower classes' hands is a good thing? Because they spend it and are taxed on it. Does the source of the money matter if the middle and lower classes have more of it? It doesn't when it comes to taxation revenue.
Discussions like this always come down to two sides: factual reality and "feelings". Forming national fiscal policy based on feelings is an incredibly poor way to go.
Ah! I see the issue here. You have decided that avoidance is the same as evasion because your emotions overwhelm actual reality. I wonder...when you drive down the road do you wish you were pulled over every time and given a citation for speeding? I mean, you likely saw the signs that described the allowable speed limit. Why did you not simply drive faster? Why did you avoid (dare I say "evade") the fine? The only difference between your equality and this one is how one personally feels about the situation...because the laws in neither case magically changed to transmute avoidance to evasion.
There is a reason why there are two different terms for them...they're NOT the same thing. Every one of us observes the rules and the letter of the law so as to avoid undesirable consequences. That includes you. Why, if it's okay for you, is it not okay for others? A company is, ultimately, people. Those people gather to discuss how best to govern and manage the company. One of the aspects they examine and make decisions about is how to account for the operations of their business so as to avoid paying taxes to a government. The government of the United States just changed the rules and, now perhaps, companies will decide to conduct their financial business under our auspices and, therefore, pay the taxes those activities produce. We go from zero to something...and your entire argument is that this is bad...because they followed the rules and successfully avoided doing something...were they a person...that could best and most accurately be described as "stupid". Others not being stupid offends you somehow.
You are, of course, welcome to embrace your opinions and ideas and even espouse them to others...but you cannot twist meanings of words because, minus such falsities, your opinions are exposed as fallacy and folly.
I have to ask if you applied logic and/or math to your comment.
Take any company who is currently, as you put it, "evading taxes" (they're not...they're avoiding them because evasion is being legally obligated to pay them but refusing to). They have X amount of revenue or profits or whatever valuation it is the tax is using to calculate the tax bill on. Currently, they're paying exactly 0% (X times 0%) to the IRS (because they're not obligated to). However, if this change makes the United States a better deal for them than whatever country they're currently paying that country's IP tax in then the equation changes to X times 13.125%.
I often wonder at the difficulty some have for what is, apparently, simple mathematics. 0% of something is always going to be less than any other taxation percentage greater than 0 of that same something. Unless I totally misunderstood you and that your objection ("bad thing") was based on a company paying taxes to the IRS...because the only way your statement makes any sense at all is if you equate paying more than zero to the IRS as a "bad thing".
I'll say this applies to all musical genres and not just pop music. Tons of what makes up the current top 40 in any category you won't hear or even want to hear 6 months from now. It's rare to have a truly gifted artist produce truly different music.
Personally, I quit listening to the radio years ago because it was all programmed, force fed playlists made up primarily of mediocre music. Playlists on my phone piped through my car stereo is how I go these days. Same thing? Yes. But it's all MY favorites.
My family uses a tracking app on our phones (so we can see when kids get home, where they are, etc) but I'm not clear on what this "vulnerability" amounts to. If it allowed them access to stored data for other apps on the phones that would be concerning but it doesn't appear to do that.
Hope someone can explain this one better.
So, we took the family to see Murder on the Orient Express last week. The movie itself was actually pretty good (although I'll admit that I'm easily entertained) but what made the entire experience truly worthwhile was that our local theater had a half price Tuesday promotion and we went on Tuesday. I didn't know about the promotion until the register showed the amount for 7 tickets and it came out to less than $40. I was totally prepared to pay around $85 (we had 4 teens to keep occupied over the Christmas break).
Thing is: the last movie I saw was Ragnarok with my son and as I thought on that movie I discovered that my personal rating for how good a movie is is very much dependent on how much I pay for the experience. I like Thor but I'd have liked it a lot more had the price been $11 for 2 tickets as opposed to $23. I'd also tend to take a flyer on more movies if doing so didn't mean I'd break the bank doing it. I bet if they cut prices across the board by 50%, you'd see way more than a doubling of people going to see movies. And for an industry that likes to pose themselves as so very liberal, you'd think they'd recognize their pricing models means poorer folks can't enjoy their product near as comfortably as middle and upper class families can.
Just my 2c.
...seems like what is going on here. Perhaps not having other options forces kids to come back to a toy or game that presented them with a challenge.
I'm okay with this.
Slashdot Mirror
...they would allow and even embrace the drones and driverless trucks...as long as the maintenance and repair positions to manage these new delivery mediums were Teamster organized. The Teamsters have an opportunity to make inroads into the growing industry of automation maintenance and can move their union into the 21st century. They can be the union that plants the flag of organized labor firmly onto the portions of the tech industry that still need human hands to do work. But...we all know they won't be that proactive nor forward thinking.
So, let me get this straight...governmental tax policy should follow "public opinion" because why again? Because the public is well informed? Because the public understands basic economics much less more complex theories? THAT'S your response? Because public opinion? I don't know why that would surprise me though given that your entire other argument is based entirely on what YOU feel the law should be. Lowering the tax rate makes it more attractive for businesses to do their thing in the United States. This means more jobs, more tax revenues, more...well...everything. More jobs, incidentally, means that more people work and that those people make more money. That, in turn, also leads to more tax revenue via income taxes, sales taxes and so on. In fact, given that you think HIGHER corporate taxes are the way to go (they're not but hey, we skipped proven economic reality already) then you're likely also one of those folks who think income redistribution is also a good thing. Do you know why more money in the middle and lower classes' hands is a good thing? Because they spend it and are taxed on it. Does the source of the money matter if the middle and lower classes have more of it? It doesn't when it comes to taxation revenue. Discussions like this always come down to two sides: factual reality and "feelings". Forming national fiscal policy based on feelings is an incredibly poor way to go.
Ah! I see the issue here. You have decided that avoidance is the same as evasion because your emotions overwhelm actual reality. I wonder...when you drive down the road do you wish you were pulled over every time and given a citation for speeding? I mean, you likely saw the signs that described the allowable speed limit. Why did you not simply drive faster? Why did you avoid (dare I say "evade") the fine? The only difference between your equality and this one is how one personally feels about the situation...because the laws in neither case magically changed to transmute avoidance to evasion. There is a reason why there are two different terms for them...they're NOT the same thing. Every one of us observes the rules and the letter of the law so as to avoid undesirable consequences. That includes you. Why, if it's okay for you, is it not okay for others? A company is, ultimately, people. Those people gather to discuss how best to govern and manage the company. One of the aspects they examine and make decisions about is how to account for the operations of their business so as to avoid paying taxes to a government. The government of the United States just changed the rules and, now perhaps, companies will decide to conduct their financial business under our auspices and, therefore, pay the taxes those activities produce. We go from zero to something...and your entire argument is that this is bad...because they followed the rules and successfully avoided doing something...were they a person...that could best and most accurately be described as "stupid". Others not being stupid offends you somehow. You are, of course, welcome to embrace your opinions and ideas and even espouse them to others...but you cannot twist meanings of words because, minus such falsities, your opinions are exposed as fallacy and folly.
I have to ask if you applied logic and/or math to your comment. Take any company who is currently, as you put it, "evading taxes" (they're not...they're avoiding them because evasion is being legally obligated to pay them but refusing to). They have X amount of revenue or profits or whatever valuation it is the tax is using to calculate the tax bill on. Currently, they're paying exactly 0% (X times 0%) to the IRS (because they're not obligated to). However, if this change makes the United States a better deal for them than whatever country they're currently paying that country's IP tax in then the equation changes to X times 13.125%. I often wonder at the difficulty some have for what is, apparently, simple mathematics. 0% of something is always going to be less than any other taxation percentage greater than 0 of that same something. Unless I totally misunderstood you and that your objection ("bad thing") was based on a company paying taxes to the IRS...because the only way your statement makes any sense at all is if you equate paying more than zero to the IRS as a "bad thing".
I'll say this applies to all musical genres and not just pop music. Tons of what makes up the current top 40 in any category you won't hear or even want to hear 6 months from now. It's rare to have a truly gifted artist produce truly different music. Personally, I quit listening to the radio years ago because it was all programmed, force fed playlists made up primarily of mediocre music. Playlists on my phone piped through my car stereo is how I go these days. Same thing? Yes. But it's all MY favorites.
My family uses a tracking app on our phones (so we can see when kids get home, where they are, etc) but I'm not clear on what this "vulnerability" amounts to. If it allowed them access to stored data for other apps on the phones that would be concerning but it doesn't appear to do that. Hope someone can explain this one better.
So, we took the family to see Murder on the Orient Express last week. The movie itself was actually pretty good (although I'll admit that I'm easily entertained) but what made the entire experience truly worthwhile was that our local theater had a half price Tuesday promotion and we went on Tuesday. I didn't know about the promotion until the register showed the amount for 7 tickets and it came out to less than $40. I was totally prepared to pay around $85 (we had 4 teens to keep occupied over the Christmas break). Thing is: the last movie I saw was Ragnarok with my son and as I thought on that movie I discovered that my personal rating for how good a movie is is very much dependent on how much I pay for the experience. I like Thor but I'd have liked it a lot more had the price been $11 for 2 tickets as opposed to $23. I'd also tend to take a flyer on more movies if doing so didn't mean I'd break the bank doing it. I bet if they cut prices across the board by 50%, you'd see way more than a doubling of people going to see movies. And for an industry that likes to pose themselves as so very liberal, you'd think they'd recognize their pricing models means poorer folks can't enjoy their product near as comfortably as middle and upper class families can. Just my 2c.
...seems like what is going on here. Perhaps not having other options forces kids to come back to a toy or game that presented them with a challenge. I'm okay with this.