I like public transportation but in DC, the metro rail sucks. It sucks something fierce.
Bad news for you: DC is pretty damn good. The only better setup we have is in NYC. We'd need to go full tokyo retard to get something approaching good trains in most places, and that takes decades. Going to Arlington is a dream compared to Georgetown (places in DC for the nonlocal), and it's all because of the metro.
Last time I went to Vancouver, gas was 1.26/l. a bit pricy, but hardly european levels. And the commie canadians have socialized healthcare and not much different taxes than the US, I don't know what your problem is.
So you went from driving a fully financed Navigator with 3 DUIs on your record (that's the only way to get insurance that high around where I live) to a bicycle? If so, good luck. I'm paying quite a bit less:
$30/tank every 4-5 days - $180/mo
Loan payments are $410 (last loan ever, I hope)
Insurance $900/6 mo.
I pay about $9k per year, and half is the car loan. I do have a bike, and when I start commuting with that, I save $90/mo on gas, but the big thing will be waiting for the car note to evaporate. If I rode the bus, my commute would be 2 hours, give or take, instead of 30 min.
The track car from a previous post is planned to be a Cayman S with fancy sport seats, and isn't really relevant to the discussion, being a frivolous hobby purchase. Just mentioning it if someone decides to bring it up.
My car, her car, track car. Of course, the track car hasn't been bought, gets awful mileage (5), and gets driven 2000 miles each year. Oh, and I just got a 500cc motorcycle - 60mpg and good for commuting. Wonder how that compares to the bus.
The quote asserts a "fundamental right" of Internet users - ie, a right to use other peoples' property (the ISP's).
No, it asserts that internet users have fundamental rights, although they do have a right to internet access insofar as the gub has no authority to restrict them from it.
Internet access is no more a 'right' than international phone call access is.
They're both rights - I have the right to bear arms, but nobody's obligated to pay for them. I have the right to make a phone call by contracting with some company that provides the service. Nothing in our body of laws allows the gub to restrict this right, save for the times I'm in their custody (jail, the army).
Speed limits are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
True, most highway limits are too low by at least 10mph, and everybody knows about the local 4 lane ruler straight road that's marked as a 30.
Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
True - Portugal legalized everything 8 years back, and drug use went down.
Well, it is quite relevant. It demonstrates a fundamental difference between two lines of reasoning that you purport to be identical in effect.
They are identical. Or how does the cost passthrough argument differ?
Why should they pay anything?
Because it's the law?
When I purchase something, and money changes hands across the counter by the cash register, the rate of "money transfer tax" is 0%. Oh, the horror!.
Sales tax here is about 8-9%
More to the point: Why should income earned abroad be taxed locally when none of the services it supposedly funds are available in the jurisdiction where the income was earned?
Which income is that? Why should a company be able to radically change their tax obligation by moving their paper HQ to bermuda? You should pay taxes on operations in a country
But, if they take bigger profits, they are taxed more personally. This is the point you do not seem to get. The revenue is taxed more than once.
I do get it - revenue is not taxed - profits are. Salary comes out of profit, so no it isn't.
So? Make a case for AIG to fail and not be bailed out. Those harmed would be those who have invested in dubious loans.
Are you claiming that AIG earned their money and taxing them would be immoral?
I work for a California company, and they had me sign a non-compete. I asked them why considering that California courts will not enforce them.
Response from the legal department--just in case the court changes their mind.
Wouldn't the law at the time of the signing apply?
Just because I don't have enough money to continue doing R&D, doesn't mean that my engineers don't possess valuable information that I already paid for and that is rightly my trade secret.
Sucks to be you. You either keep them on the payroll or deal with losing them.
No, no they wouldn't. Any farmer would see the market flooded and switch to something with a better margin next cycle so they can make money, then some would switch back once the price of wheat gets too high, wash rinse repeat. The market finds a way to get goods cheaply - if your goal is a stable supply of goods, you have to make distortions.
Hmm. Is it easier for you to be charged more for a gallon of milk, or to get a raise from your boss?
Irrelevant. I'm just applying the same logic as the idiot I responded to.
The problem with this scenario is that now corporations are doubly squeezed: the government taxing them more on one hand, and their workers demanding increased wages to pay the higher costs of living because other corporations have raised the prices of the goods they sell.
Won't someone think of the poor multinationals paying more than 3%.
You might think that this forces "the rich" shareholders to finally cry "Uncle!" and accept lower profits to pay the higher corporate taxes instead of passing them on to their customers, but what actually happens is insidious: the corporation is driven to losses, and has to lay off workers, leading to a downward economic spiral.
Yes, because your only choices are getting gouged and having the gouger die. Business owners would never take smaller profits over bankruptcy.
The only thing taxes do is take money from those who earned it and redistribute it to those who didn't.
Spoken so soon after the wallstreet clusterfuck. You must be a real prize.
I said nothing about monocropping. If wheat wasn't subsidised, it'd be alternately cheap as dirt and unavailable, as it'd be in very large supply with very low margins and high capital investment costs. Better to avoid the whole unstable mess and have a price floor.
You are correct, given your example that wouldn't be more profitable. However, some country will always be cheaper.
I'd like to see a multinational do that - you make it sound like they can just hire a bunch of people in cheap country #1 (like everyone else will be doing) and train them. They can't even outsource software, so this would crater in a most disastrous way.
Corporations do not pay taxes, at all! If we impose a 75% tax on every corporation and eliminate all loopholes and tax havens, corporations still won't pay a cent in taxes. All wealth is held by individuals.
You're an idiot. Corporations are a legal entity with balance sheets, and they pay taxes.
When a corporation is taxed, you and I pay that tax when we buy their products.
I don't pay taxes. When uncle sam comes for its share, I pass that cost on to the place I work for.
If only they'd teach economics in school these days
If only you'd retake some classes, you wouldn't sound like a wingnut.
Successful farms do not need subsidies. That's why they are successful.
No, if you want to grow wheat without subsidies and price floors, the first bad winter or unforseen event will kill you. Even without that, you'll be on the edge of starvation. The fed decided that having a stable food supply is more important that absolute efficiency, and I agree with them.
I posit that that point is lower for entities like a corporation. They can move their headquarters to another country at will when it is more profitable to avoid taxes.
And if this legislation passes, that will require them to actually, you know, move their HQ. I don't forsee them moving 1000 employees to bermuda because taxes are lower, especially if they still get taxed the same.
What makes you think that everything can be reduced to a static array? Quite a lot of things are more easily modeled as map(string,struct), and at least the map won't have a nasty buffer overflow.
Slashdot Mirror
I like public transportation but in DC, the metro rail sucks. It sucks something fierce.
Bad news for you: DC is pretty damn good. The only better setup we have is in NYC. We'd need to go full tokyo retard to get something approaching good trains in most places, and that takes decades. Going to Arlington is a dream compared to Georgetown (places in DC for the nonlocal), and it's all because of the metro.
Last time I went to Vancouver, gas was 1.26/l. a bit pricy, but hardly european levels. And the commie canadians have socialized healthcare and not much different taxes than the US, I don't know what your problem is.
So you went from driving a fully financed Navigator with 3 DUIs on your record (that's the only way to get insurance that high around where I live) to a bicycle? If so, good luck. I'm paying quite a bit less:
I pay about $9k per year, and half is the car loan. I do have a bike, and when I start commuting with that, I save $90/mo on gas, but the big thing will be waiting for the car note to evaporate. If I rode the bus, my commute would be 2 hours, give or take, instead of 30 min.
The track car from a previous post is planned to be a Cayman S with fancy sport seats, and isn't really relevant to the discussion, being a frivolous hobby purchase. Just mentioning it if someone decides to bring it up.
My car, her car, track car. Of course, the track car hasn't been bought, gets awful mileage (5), and gets driven 2000 miles each year. Oh, and I just got a 500cc motorcycle - 60mpg and good for commuting. Wonder how that compares to the bus.
The quote asserts a "fundamental right" of Internet users - ie, a right to use other peoples' property (the ISP's).
No, it asserts that internet users have fundamental rights, although they do have a right to internet access insofar as the gub has no authority to restrict them from it.
Internet access is no more a 'right' than international phone call access is.
They're both rights - I have the right to bear arms, but nobody's obligated to pay for them. I have the right to make a phone call by contracting with some company that provides the service. Nothing in our body of laws allows the gub to restrict this right, save for the times I'm in their custody (jail, the army).
Speed limits are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
True, most highway limits are too low by at least 10mph, and everybody knows about the local 4 lane ruler straight road that's marked as a 30.
Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
True - Portugal legalized everything 8 years back, and drug use went down.
Your new to the concept of "laws", aren't you?
The law is a human institution, soon.
I'm tired of talking to you. You clearly don't understand half of what you think you do.
Well, it is quite relevant. It demonstrates a fundamental difference between two lines of reasoning that you purport to be identical in effect.
They are identical. Or how does the cost passthrough argument differ?
Why should they pay anything?
Because it's the law?
When I purchase something, and money changes hands across the counter by the cash register, the rate of "money transfer tax" is 0%. Oh, the horror!.
Sales tax here is about 8-9%
More to the point: Why should income earned abroad be taxed locally when none of the services it supposedly funds are available in the jurisdiction where the income was earned?
Which income is that? Why should a company be able to radically change their tax obligation by moving their paper HQ to bermuda? You should pay taxes on operations in a country
But, if they take bigger profits, they are taxed more personally. This is the point you do not seem to get. The revenue is taxed more than once.
I do get it - revenue is not taxed - profits are. Salary comes out of profit, so no it isn't.
So? Make a case for AIG to fail and not be bailed out. Those harmed would be those who have invested in dubious loans.
Are you claiming that AIG earned their money and taxing them would be immoral?
I work for a California company, and they had me sign a non-compete. I asked them why considering that California courts will not enforce them. Response from the legal department--just in case the court changes their mind.
Wouldn't the law at the time of the signing apply?
Just because I don't have enough money to continue doing R&D, doesn't mean that my engineers don't possess valuable information that I already paid for and that is rightly my trade secret.
Sucks to be you. You either keep them on the payroll or deal with losing them.
What if Google announced that they killed a kitten for every search done on Google?
Funny, that's what I use google for, late at night.
No, no they wouldn't. Any farmer would see the market flooded and switch to something with a better margin next cycle so they can make money, then some would switch back once the price of wheat gets too high, wash rinse repeat. The market finds a way to get goods cheaply - if your goal is a stable supply of goods, you have to make distortions.
Hmm. Is it easier for you to be charged more for a gallon of milk, or to get a raise from your boss?
Irrelevant. I'm just applying the same logic as the idiot I responded to.
The problem with this scenario is that now corporations are doubly squeezed: the government taxing them more on one hand, and their workers demanding increased wages to pay the higher costs of living because other corporations have raised the prices of the goods they sell.
Won't someone think of the poor multinationals paying more than 3%.
You might think that this forces "the rich" shareholders to finally cry "Uncle!" and accept lower profits to pay the higher corporate taxes instead of passing them on to their customers, but what actually happens is insidious: the corporation is driven to losses, and has to lay off workers, leading to a downward economic spiral.
Yes, because your only choices are getting gouged and having the gouger die. Business owners would never take smaller profits over bankruptcy.
The only thing taxes do is take money from those who earned it and redistribute it to those who didn't.
Spoken so soon after the wallstreet clusterfuck. You must be a real prize.
I said nothing about monocropping. If wheat wasn't subsidised, it'd be alternately cheap as dirt and unavailable, as it'd be in very large supply with very low margins and high capital investment costs. Better to avoid the whole unstable mess and have a price floor.
Perhaps relevant, the Dow has not since regained the level it was at on Nov. 4
Perhaps you missed the failure of AIG, the wall street bailouts, and the whole recession thing in Q1. Sort of puts a damper on recovery.
You are correct, given your example that wouldn't be more profitable. However, some country will always be cheaper.
I'd like to see a multinational do that - you make it sound like they can just hire a bunch of people in cheap country #1 (like everyone else will be doing) and train them. They can't even outsource software, so this would crater in a most disastrous way.
Big businesses employ big numbers of people.
Most people work for small companies.
Corporations do not pay taxes, at all! If we impose a 75% tax on every corporation and eliminate all loopholes and tax havens, corporations still won't pay a cent in taxes. All wealth is held by individuals.
You're an idiot. Corporations are a legal entity with balance sheets, and they pay taxes.
When a corporation is taxed, you and I pay that tax when we buy their products.
I don't pay taxes. When uncle sam comes for its share, I pass that cost on to the place I work for.
If only they'd teach economics in school these days
If only you'd retake some classes, you wouldn't sound like a wingnut.
Successful farms do not need subsidies. That's why they are successful.
No, if you want to grow wheat without subsidies and price floors, the first bad winter or unforseen event will kill you. Even without that, you'll be on the edge of starvation. The fed decided that having a stable food supply is more important that absolute efficiency, and I agree with them.
I posit that that point is lower for entities like a corporation. They can move their headquarters to another country at will when it is more profitable to avoid taxes.
And if this legislation passes, that will require them to actually, you know, move their HQ. I don't forsee them moving 1000 employees to bermuda because taxes are lower, especially if they still get taxed the same.
Wait, doctor, I'm not numb!
Shut up, hold on, here I come!
Most dentists like their patients to have good teeth. They aren't in it for the exploitation.
I'll just point out that we're also discussing UK, where the 5th is not a valid defense.
What makes you think that everything can be reduced to a static array? Quite a lot of things are more easily modeled as map(string,struct), and at least the map won't have a nasty buffer overflow.