go buy some gmo fruit and then some natural organic of the same
well in the US at least it's not labled so how do you tell.
Actually I don't agree with this one
would you randomly go to a chemlab and mix a bunch of vials together and drink it?
If you think that's how genetic modifications are arrived at and released into the food chain then you really need to ask why it costs so much to develop and test the stuff. Just zap a few dozen chickens with ionizing radiation or mutagenic drugs and let out the ones that don't die to see what they do special, like laser eyes for defence against predators (birds and aircraft) then sell it before it dies. I don't think so.
wow, 20 whole people, i wouldn't call that everyone....
When George Bush says America wants X we don't say "wow, almost one whole person, I wouldn't call that everyone". You want they should all turn up. I don't think they'd all fit in the cab.
but I think taking a look at people like greenpace is enough to make a person feel that GM food is perfectally fine.
Yeah, that's logical. But I'm sure some of our smarter readers will find some flaw in your argument.
My mother used to work for Genentech before it was bought by Monsanto
You don't have to apologize for your parents. But at least she would have first hand knowledge of how wonderful Monsanto is with its desire to supply every poor farmer around the developing world with fresh seed every year (and at such reasonable prices too) instead of that old stale seed from last years crop. You wonder how they survived for all those thousands of years really without crops that produce sterile seeds each year.
Evolution hasn't stopped. It's just become optional. Your problem is that you think it's your option.
And, depending on how you read the law, it's 100% illegal.
Notice the small change in the quoted text. And it's still 100% true.
This is not like the cat in the box where you cannot ever know if it's dead or alive till you open the box and discover it's dead/alive.
With this law once you discover it is illegal, it's been illegal since you started doing it. So it's a bad plan to do it on the basis that you don't know if its illegal or not.
Oh God, are we to loose another cat to the great god, technology.
Little Timmy has only just gotten over the Garbage_Grinder Feline_Overflow vulnerability. Perhaps my husband could have waited till after bed time to try the work around but we weren't told it was model specific. Damn these generic grinders.
i>shouldn't you, ya kno, wait a few years after marriage before getting knocked up?
Why? What's magic about 'a few years'
none of them were ready for it.
Having had three of my own I can safely say that no-one is ever 'ready' for it. They might think they know what is going to happen and what they will do; they may even think that they 'don't' know what will happen or what they will do, but having children is living proof that 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy'
even the poor will end up having a better lifestyle due to an increase in wages
If they had enough for the basic food and shelter before a flat sale tax prices and wages will adjust faily rapidly to the same situation. People at the lower margins are paid as little as possible because of competitive pressures on wages. There is no magic jump in income because tax rates change. If jobs are going offshore because of wage pressure the only way to keep them is presumably to drop wages. If they are going for other reasons changing wages will have little effect.
But in order to support the poor, you have to give the rich the incentive to NOT outsource their wealth to other coutries.
Or you can just make sure that overseas income is taxed at homeland rates.
There are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Re:They need to privatize the IRS - the only solut
on
No EZ Fix For The IRS
·
· Score: 1
For example, opposition to privatization could be significantly reduced by providing government workers and managers with shares of stock in the new private enterprise, either at a discounted price or at no cost at all
Bribery doesn't seem to be a great way to kick off a new efficient blah blah privately run government service. Though it is in keeping with tradition.
In any case, I don't really understand why you'd want to outsource any more of government. You've been doing it with Congress and the Senate with (theoretically) very tough contract reviews every couple of years and no one seems terribly happy with the results so far.
The Australian system allows a credit to individual shareholders for company tax paid on the pre-tax dividend amount. The dividend is grossed up by the Co Tax paid and included in your income to calculate your tax liability then a credit is given for the co tax paid.
So the company pays it's tax and the shareholder doesn't pay the second level of tax.
Why, because they really believe that some REAL PERSON is getting away without paying their fair share
If the company doesn't pay out the tax saving in dividends and the value is taxed only as capital gain because of the increase in cash held by the company then a long enough deferral will mean effectively that the shareholders do not pay tax on the income. The IRS along with every other taxing authority in the world realize that deferral is as bad as plain evasion as far as the revenue is concerned.
All taxes levied on businesses are built into the prices of products and paid by customers
The alternate view (on which the tax system is based) is that taxes paid by the company are taxes on income the shareholders would otherwise get. That is certainly the way it is treated here in Australia. Here the tax a company pays is allowable as a refundable credit against the tax payable on dividends received by the shareholder.
So if I receive $70 from a company as a dividend (the co tax rate is 30%) it is assumed that I received $100 which I include in my income and tax is levied on me for say $40 (because of all my other income) I get a crediut of $30 towards that and only pay $10. If for some reason my tax bill is only $20 (because of other deductions or because I don't have much other income and fall in a bracket below 30%) I get a refund of $10.
I think the US was looking at a similar scheme recently.
Perhaps the VAT/GST tax initiatives your thinking of (aus/eng) dont stop tax evasion because thay where implimented on top of already complex tax stuctures instead of replacing them. They have made the tax rules even more complex which can only aid in tax evasion scams.
The VAT/GST systems are quite simple to comply with and administer from a year or so after their introduction. Once you've done a few returns it becomes rote work. In some cases it is a lot more work but not complex once the rules for your particular business are established and understood. I really believe its just greed on the part of some that 'makes' them try to avoid tax.
All business taxes and corporate income taxes would go away. The national sales tax would be on end user purchases only.
As business is economically not an enduser of anything (everything a business does is associated with providing a good or service to ultimately an individual consumer) under this system they would pay no tax at all.
No politician will ever propose a system where corporations do not pay any tax at any stage. No matter how sound it might be economically.
To counteract the regressive nature of the sales tax, everybody would receive a fixed dollar amount refund.If you do introduce such a tax though don't give a fixed refund. Prices and incomes will change in ways you can't predict. Make a few adjustments to welfare payments to account for price changes to those sectors and let the market work out hoew much incomes will change for the employed (with legal protection against exploitation).
Don't expect such a system to eliminate tax evasion. It hasn't in any country that has instituted any widespread VAT or GST. If there is tax to be avoided, people will try to avoid it. To make such a system work 100% the IRS would need access to every transaction record.
if there is a perceived value for a service, then it will come into existence and people will pay for it
I think the theory says that if there is a perceived profit to be made in providing a service then it will come into existence. A small but telling difference.
Services exist because someone offers them in the hope of making a profit. Advertising exists to ensure people understand they have a need for the service.
If people perceive the offshoring to give some privacy risk then they will perhaps be prepared to pay an extra $5 or $10 or whatever each month to a service that guarantees your case will be handled by an American.
This confuses two separate groups; the hospital (people in the quote above) and the patient (your in the quote). The patient doesn't have any say in what happens to their records within the hospital system neither do they pay for the service anyway. The hospital is only concerned in the long run with confidentiality because of laws and potential lawsuits. If they can save a few $ then they will make the decision about risk of breach of privacy based on that rather than directly on the desire of the patient.
Everywhere you look in the Healthcare system you run into head snapping examples of moral hazard at work.
It seems hypocracy to me that those that bitch about losing their jobs to India don't seem to mind wearing Nikes made in Philipines and having Korean RAM in their PCs.
That is a very simplistic view of the role of international trade. Are you prepared to stop importing and exporting goods and services. If not then it's perfectly reasonable to question the extent of movement of capital and labour across borders. Especially if you are direct effected by it.
to 'bring it on' to the dastardly USA forces of opression. Pres Bush invited them back. I asumed they all went back. There seems to have been plenty of bombings in Iraq.
Except the Spanish cells of course. They must have been out when Osama rang.
It is certainly not an accurate description of the activity,
It was certainly more apposit as a description when it was co-opted as a term for naughty musical activities when radio stations blasted into mainland Europe and UK from ships at sea to avoid the licencing fees or outright banning of new stations.
It wasn't chosen for copying cds as a prejoritive or for any mind games. The popular press invented it and have carried it over into all activities of musical copyright. Unfortunately it may be applicable to organized crime rings mass production of CDs that are supposed to look like the real thing but does seem overkill for me copying my mates cd. That's about as pirate as homosexuals are gay.
Don't let a wealthy minority force you to think the way they want you to. Resist their self-serving manipulations.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought cover in this context came from the old catering usage as a seat or customer . See this UK ref as an example.
The general rule "There is more than you know" is particularly true in your case.
Why bring the American Business Management System into this discussion on the use of advanced technology.
If you have done nothing wrong you shouldn't be concerned.. At least now it is not necessary to speak into the flower.
go buy some gmo fruit and then some natural organic of the same
well in the US at least it's not labled so how do you tell.
Actually I don't agree with this one
would you randomly go to a chemlab and mix a bunch of vials together and drink it?
If you think that's how genetic modifications are arrived at and released into the food chain then you really need to ask why it costs so much to develop and test the stuff. Just zap a few dozen chickens with ionizing radiation or mutagenic drugs and let out the ones that don't die to see what they do special, like laser eyes for defence against predators (birds and aircraft) then sell it before it dies. I don't think so.
When George Bush says America wants X we don't say "wow, almost one whole person, I wouldn't call that everyone". You want they should all turn up. I don't think they'd all fit in the cab.
but I think taking a look at people like greenpace is enough to make a person feel that GM food is perfectally fine.
Yeah, that's logical. But I'm sure some of our smarter readers will find some flaw in your argument.
My mother used to work for Genentech before it was bought by Monsanto
You don't have to apologize for your parents. But at least she would have first hand knowledge of how wonderful Monsanto is with its desire to supply every poor farmer around the developing world with fresh seed every year (and at such reasonable prices too) instead of that old stale seed from last years crop. You wonder how they survived for all those thousands of years really without crops that produce sterile seeds each year.
Evolution hasn't stopped. It's just become optional. Your problem is that you think it's your option.
Notice the small change in the quoted text. And it's still 100% true.
This is not like the cat in the box where you cannot ever know if it's dead or alive till you open the box and discover it's dead/alive.
With this law once you discover it is illegal, it's been illegal since you started doing it. So it's a bad plan to do it on the basis that you don't know if its illegal or not.
Little Timmy has only just gotten over the Garbage_Grinder Feline_Overflow vulnerability. Perhaps my husband could have waited till after bed time to try the work around but we weren't told it was model specific. Damn these generic grinders.
Why? What's magic about 'a few years'
none of them were ready for it.
Having had three of my own I can safely say that no-one is ever 'ready' for it. They might think they know what is going to happen and what they will do; they may even think that they 'don't' know what will happen or what they will do, but having children is living proof that 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy'
No. Mainly because you won't sell it.
And I wouldn't want to anyway. If I was going to spend that much time on my transport I'd buy a horse.
If they had enough for the basic food and shelter before a flat sale tax prices and wages will adjust faily rapidly to the same situation. People at the lower margins are paid as little as possible because of competitive pressures on wages. There is no magic jump in income because tax rates change. If jobs are going offshore because of wage pressure the only way to keep them is presumably to drop wages. If they are going for other reasons changing wages will have little effect.
But in order to support the poor, you have to give the rich the incentive to NOT outsource their wealth to other coutries.
Or you can just make sure that overseas income is taxed at homeland rates.
There are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Bribery doesn't seem to be a great way to kick off a new efficient blah blah privately run government service. Though it is in keeping with tradition.
In any case, I don't really understand why you'd want to outsource any more of government. You've been doing it with Congress and the Senate with (theoretically) very tough contract reviews every couple of years and no one seems terribly happy with the results so far.
So the company pays it's tax and the shareholder doesn't pay the second level of tax.
Why, because they really believe that some REAL PERSON is getting away without paying their fair share
If the company doesn't pay out the tax saving in dividends and the value is taxed only as capital gain because of the increase in cash held by the company then a long enough deferral will mean effectively that the shareholders do not pay tax on the income. The IRS along with every other taxing authority in the world realize that deferral is as bad as plain evasion as far as the revenue is concerned.
The alternate view (on which the tax system is based) is that taxes paid by the company are taxes on income the shareholders would otherwise get. That is certainly the way it is treated here in Australia. Here the tax a company pays is allowable as a refundable credit against the tax payable on dividends received by the shareholder.
So if I receive $70 from a company as a dividend (the co tax rate is 30%) it is assumed that I received $100 which I include in my income and tax is levied on me for say $40 (because of all my other income) I get a crediut of $30 towards that and only pay $10. If for some reason my tax bill is only $20 (because of other deductions or because I don't have much other income and fall in a bracket below 30%) I get a refund of $10.
I think the US was looking at a similar scheme recently.
The VAT/GST systems are quite simple to comply with and administer from a year or so after their introduction. Once you've done a few returns it becomes rote work. In some cases it is a lot more work but not complex once the rules for your particular business are established and understood. I really believe its just greed on the part of some that 'makes' them try to avoid tax.
As business is economically not an enduser of anything (everything a business does is associated with providing a good or service to ultimately an individual consumer) under this system they would pay no tax at all.
No politician will ever propose a system where corporations do not pay any tax at any stage. No matter how sound it might be economically.
To counteract the regressive nature of the sales tax, everybody would receive a fixed dollar amount refund.If you do introduce such a tax though don't give a fixed refund. Prices and incomes will change in ways you can't predict. Make a few adjustments to welfare payments to account for price changes to those sectors and let the market work out hoew much incomes will change for the employed (with legal protection against exploitation).
Don't expect such a system to eliminate tax evasion. It hasn't in any country that has instituted any widespread VAT or GST. If there is tax to be avoided, people will try to avoid it. To make such a system work 100% the IRS would need access to every transaction record.
If you put as much energy into something productive as you do into working out why tax isn't legal we'd all be better off I think.
...but still I am just a little bit worried. Perhaps I should take another pill now.
Why do libertarians think that capitalism without government would be any better than government without capitalism.
So let's ditch the income tax and see if our country really does come to an end. Somehow I doubt it
No you're right. It won't come to an end. Russia made Income Tax optional recently and look how well it's going.
I think the theory says that if there is a perceived profit to be made in providing a service then it will come into existence. A small but telling difference.
Services exist because someone offers them in the hope of making a profit. Advertising exists to ensure people understand they have a need for the service.
If people perceive the offshoring to give some privacy risk then they will perhaps be prepared to pay an extra $5 or $10 or whatever each month to a service that guarantees your case will be handled by an American.
This confuses two separate groups; the hospital (people in the quote above) and the patient (your in the quote). The patient doesn't have any say in what happens to their records within the hospital system neither do they pay for the service anyway. The hospital is only concerned in the long run with confidentiality because of laws and potential lawsuits. If they can save a few $ then they will make the decision about risk of breach of privacy based on that rather than directly on the desire of the patient.
Everywhere you look in the Healthcare system you run into head snapping examples of moral hazard at work.
It seems hypocracy to me that those that bitch about losing their jobs to India don't seem to mind wearing Nikes made in Philipines and having Korean RAM in their PCs.
That is a very simplistic view of the role of international trade. Are you prepared to stop importing and exporting goods and services. If not then it's perfectly reasonable to question the extent of movement of capital and labour across borders. Especially if you are direct effected by it.
No problem.
Except the Spanish cells of course. They must have been out when Osama rang.
It was certainly more apposit as a description when it was co-opted as a term for naughty musical activities when radio stations blasted into mainland Europe and UK from ships at sea to avoid the licencing fees or outright banning of new stations.
It wasn't chosen for copying cds as a prejoritive or for any mind games. The popular press invented it and have carried it over into all activities of musical copyright. Unfortunately it may be applicable to organized crime rings mass production of CDs that are supposed to look like the real thing but does seem overkill for me copying my mates cd. That's about as pirate as homosexuals are gay.
Don't let a wealthy minority force you to think the way they want you to. Resist their self-serving manipulations.
Yes Master.