I think you are confused...
First you are using an extreme version of your rule. Nothing in the rule says that they have to maximize the results, only that they take care of it as they would take care of their own money.
Secondly you dont invest in a company, outside the IPO, after that you are investing in the stock of the company, not the company itself. If I buy a share of MSFT the corporation get $0.00~ of it, so you are not actually investing in the company..
Except that is a strawman.. the OP claimed that ALL taxes are theft, even that 8m, therefore in his mind that should not have been paid either. If you are going to consider that paid you also have to consider all the other services they get for that 8m.
First of all it seems the statement was in general, not just AUS, which would make your statement overly specific, however it seems that you are saying that apple has no assets in the country that would need protecting...
If you are "taking care" of your neighbors kids do you have to "maximize" the effect? Do you have to feed them the best foods, only let him sleep on the best mattresses, take them to the best doctors?
No, you are only required to ensure that, within the best of your ability, he leaves as he enters, not that he leaves better then he entered.
of course that is generally speaking, not specifically speaking. Meaning that those who dodge the taxes in this way are paying lower than that, making them freeloading scum, while the part of the group paying more are making up for their freeloading.
except in practice they are going beyond the offsetting costs when calculating profits. An Irish shell company has no costs, its subsidiary has no real cost to license the products, other than an arbitrary number made up for the purpose of making the shell game legitimate. Make it so the costs paid to parent companies, or companies owned by a parent company are not considered costs.
Umm, you should read the article. It does not say 30%, it says 4%. In fact the word, or number 30 is not mentioned in the article at all.
The company is not tax resident in any jurisdiction... The average tax rate for all jurisdictions in which it operates is approximately 4 per cent.”
But
In its ASIC filings the company reported pre-tax earnings outside the US of $US4 billion in 2009 and calculated that 4 per cent tax would be $US160 million. The accounts show the actual tax paid was only $US3.65 million.
Also
They pay no US tax either because US law disregards where a company is managed and only looks at where a company is legally registered.
I will disagree wholeheartedly. There are issues with developers sometimes not getting the proper information, however many development processes aer geared directly towards getting that information. This lands squarely in a poorly developed product on the developers end, as the article implies functionality that was given to the developer, and a slew of bugs.
No, that is not what he asserted, all he did was asked where it is ok for men to physically be attacked in the work force, from that you made a giant logical leap to make your assumption.
Actually, if you followed the rest of the chain you would have see a link to the study, and the article is not about caffeine withdrawal, try reading it.
And your thought is not very scientific. You dont have to increase it in every group for the addiction to allow it to be raised in a single group. It is a good assumption, but nothing more than that without further studies. Almost every person I know who is a non drinker is more alert than almost any coffee drinker I know. even after their addiction, and that is more scientific than your assertion.
So I come with an article with a study and it is complete and utter bs, as opposed to your counter argument with nothing but nonsense? Do you have a counter study?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are confused... First you are using an extreme version of your rule. Nothing in the rule says that they have to maximize the results, only that they take care of it as they would take care of their own money. Secondly you dont invest in a company, outside the IPO, after that you are investing in the stock of the company, not the company itself. If I buy a share of MSFT the corporation get $0.00~ of it, so you are not actually investing in the company..
Except that is a strawman.. the OP claimed that ALL taxes are theft, even that 8m, therefore in his mind that should not have been paid either. If you are going to consider that paid you also have to consider all the other services they get for that 8m.
First of all it seems the statement was in general, not just AUS, which would make your statement overly specific, however it seems that you are saying that apple has no assets in the country that would need protecting...
If you are "taking care" of your neighbors kids do you have to "maximize" the effect? Do you have to feed them the best foods, only let him sleep on the best mattresses, take them to the best doctors?
No, you are only required to ensure that, within the best of your ability, he leaves as he enters, not that he leaves better then he entered.
Citation please?
This article shows that they make, as an average, 20% of the income and pay 20% of the taxes, http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2...
of course that is generally speaking, not specifically speaking. Meaning that those who dodge the taxes in this way are paying lower than that, making them freeloading scum, while the part of the group paying more are making up for their freeloading.
But I bet you would still want a military to protect you, but without taxes would you like slave labor?
Fiduciary just means they have to take care, not maximize a return.
except in practice they are going beyond the offsetting costs when calculating profits. An Irish shell company has no costs, its subsidiary has no real cost to license the products, other than an arbitrary number made up for the purpose of making the shell game legitimate. Make it so the costs paid to parent companies, or companies owned by a parent company are not considered costs.
Umm, you should read the article. It does not say 30%, it says 4%. In fact the word, or number 30 is not mentioned in the article at all.
The company is not tax resident in any jurisdiction ... The average tax rate for all jurisdictions in which it operates is approximately 4 per cent.”
But
In its ASIC filings the company reported pre-tax earnings outside the US of $US4 billion in 2009 and calculated that 4 per cent tax would be $US160 million. The accounts show the actual tax paid was only $US3.65 million.
Also
They pay no US tax either because US law disregards where a company is managed and only looks at where a company is legally registered.
Yes, that is why in my state it is actually happening... But I agree with your second statement.
On the other hand there are also many cases where "those repubs" do the same thing you are saying about "those dems".
It is not about technical expertise, it is about the money from Ask. If you pay them enough you may be able to get a tool bar on their as well.
Well some states purposely wanted to balloon the costs, or make the law look like a failure (hey look at what those dems cost us)
I will disagree wholeheartedly. There are issues with developers sometimes not getting the proper information, however many development processes aer geared directly towards getting that information. This lands squarely in a poorly developed product on the developers end, as the article implies functionality that was given to the developer, and a slew of bugs.
not according to any dictionary I have seen.
Cool, what does that have to do with the statement?
No, that is not what he asserted, all he did was asked where it is ok for men to physically be attacked in the work force, from that you made a giant logical leap to make your assumption.
Are you going to seriously pretend that is in any way what he said?
Actually, if you followed the rest of the chain you would have see a link to the study, and the article is not about caffeine withdrawal, try reading it.
And your thought is not very scientific. You dont have to increase it in every group for the addiction to allow it to be raised in a single group. It is a good assumption, but nothing more than that without further studies. Almost every person I know who is a non drinker is more alert than almost any coffee drinker I know. even after their addiction, and that is more scientific than your assertion.
Of course it took 30 seconds to google and find the actual study http://www.nature.com/npp/jour...
So I come with an article with a study and it is complete and utter bs, as opposed to your counter argument with nothing but nonsense? Do you have a counter study?
And you probably would not have CFS if you got over your addition to caffeine http://www.reuters.com/article...
The caffeine not so much.
Depends. It will buy the same amount, but the rich man will not value it as much, so some clarification is in order.