It's called regulatory capture. Our corrupt political system allows corporations to buy politicians (Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter) so you can't vote out the bad guys. (Only Bernie is not corrupted.)
Considering that the top 1% have 50% of the wealth and the top 5% have 72% of the wealth, they are not paying enough taxes. They are not paying their fair share. They are getting a free ride on the backs of the rest of the taxpayers.
Corporate taxes are paid on profits. No profits, no taxes. Corporations try to maximize profits and pay less in taxes. Lots of ways to maximize profits but the market (for labor, materials, prices, regulation, etc.) places limitations on their expenses and their prices. Companies are always trying to increase profits. They constantly try to cut expenses and increase prices. Taxes are a part of doing business. If you can hide your profit overseas, that will increase profits. When you increase taxes, it will lower corporation profits. They will do everything they can to increase profits. However, most of the time they can't cut wages or other expenses or raise prices since they are already an efficient corporation operating in a competitive market. So, when you increase taxes, it will lower profits. Corporations will complain... boohoo. Increased corporate taxes means less burden on regular taxpayers.
Rich people don't pay taxes either. They hide their money in offshore accounts (just like corporations). The solution to corporate loopholes is to close them (but not likely since they control the politicians).
Very odd logic... do you have a newsletter? I am really not concerned about the profits of corporations. They tend to take care of themselves. I don't care if a corporation decides to stop investing, producing or even goes out of business. They are just sucking money out of us and it's not worth it if they don't pay taxes.
Except that the top 10% of rich people hold 74% of assets so while I know that you are really concerned about "the little people", taxing corporate profits and dividends essentially taxes rich people which should be the point of the exercise. Tax rich people more. Tax the rest less.
Corporate taxes come out of profits so prices don't rise (because of all of that wonderful free market competition) unless the corporation has a monopoly (which the government should prevent).
When corporations pay less tax, real people have to pay more tax to cover the shortfall. Corporations only pay tax on their profit after expenses and deductions, etc. whereas real people have to pay tax on all of their income before expenses. Doesn't seem fair. It's just another way to transfer money from poor people to rich people. We need to raise corporate tax so that real people won't have to pay as much tax.
If your only criteria is speed of charging... Well, Tesla did build a station which swaps batteries in three minutes and these could be built for much less than the cost of H2 refueling stations. However, as a practical matter, there wasn't much of a demand for the battery swap since Supercharging works so well. Fast charging is only necessary when traveling long distances (about once a month) and we usually plan meals and breaks around charging so not an issue. Most of the time we just plug it in at home and we always have a "full tank" without having to stop at a gas station... ever. It takes between 5 and 10 seconds to plug it in at home and this is much faster than driving to a gas station and dealing with the gas pump, etc. every few days. Also, much cheaper. I can fill up my Tesla for about $10 (from empty) whereas my old ICE car costs $60 to go the same distance (even with the cheap gas we have today).
Wow! Twenty-six hydrogen fueling stations in the US. Not going anywhere with these. If I had an electric car ten years ago, I could have plugged it in anywhere (believe it or not, there was a well developed electric grid ten years ago with electric sockets in all houses and businesses).
Since you can install ten Superchargers for the cost of one H2 station and since existing electric infrastructure is ubiquitous and there is no H2 infrastructure, it would seem a fools errand to start building H2 infrastructure when we already have EV infrastructure in place. You can do all the R&D you want but you'll never overcome the basic thermodynamic inefficiency of H2 which is about 30% of an EV.
Superchargers are installed about every 150 miles. Mostly near Interstates. There are very few places without a Supercharger and there are also about 10,000 other electric vehicle chargers in the US (plus every house or business has an electric plug). Tesla will double the number of Superchargers in the next year. H2 charging doesn't exist so you can predict anything but the $1-2 million cost for an H2 charging station makes them ten times as expensive as a Supercharger so I don't think many of them will get built in my lifetime. No one said an EV could be everything to everyone. We are talking about EV vs H2 here and right now EVs work very well for a few hundred thousand people whereas H2 vehicles don't really work for anyone.
I've driven my Tesla to remote areas with only low power charging available. Stayed up to a week at a time and drove as much as I wanted since the overnight low power charging gave me about 75 miles of range every night and we only drove 25 to 50 miles a day.
There is no existing infrastructure for H2. There is no way the existing oil and gas infrastructure could be "upgraded" to H2. It needs new plants, storage tanks, compressors, transport vehicles, etc. Everything built new from the ground up. It would be much easier to convert existing gas stations to electric charging stations. They already have electricity, just install a few plugs. As for disrupting the existing fossil fuel industry; it needs to be destroyed as soon as possible since it is destroying the planet.
So, where do you recharge your H2 vehicle on long trips? I charge my Tesla at Superchargers which are already installed just about everywhere. Drive 3-4 hours, charge 30 minutes (usually ready for some food and a break by then), drive another 3-4 hours, repeat... Tesla Model X can tow your boat (it has a 5000 lb rated hitch).
H2 is not plentiful. There is no natural source of H2. It is rare. You have to make it by electrolysis or from CH4 by very inefficient methods. There is no distribution network for H2. You have to build plants and compressors and tank trucks and storage tanks and they all leak since H2 is such a small molecule. Millions of dollars for a single distribution point. Electricity already has a ubiquitous distribution network. It's literally available everywhere. Just plug your car in at home (or work, etc.). Electric socket costs a few hundred dollars to install (if you don't already have one).
Not that the US is immune. Theranos had a startup value of $9 billion based solely on their "story". No product. No sales. Just "we're going to make a better blood testing machine". There's a sucker born every minute.
Maybe the next version of the ransomware could do an automatic backup of the site before infecting it and then restore this backup as a "service" for an extra fee. Sounds like you would find this useful.
Slashdot Mirror
But does it run on Linux?
It's called regulatory capture. Our corrupt political system allows corporations to buy politicians (Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter) so you can't vote out the bad guys. (Only Bernie is not corrupted.)
The good news is that it will be warmer in Iceland.
The bad news is that Iceland will be under water.
Corporate taxes are paid on profits. No profits, no taxes.
Which part of that don't you understand?
Considering that the top 1% have 50% of the wealth and the top 5% have 72% of the wealth, they are not paying enough taxes. They are not paying their fair share. They are getting a free ride on the backs of the rest of the taxpayers.
Corporate taxes are paid on profits. No profits, no taxes.
Corporations try to maximize profits and pay less in taxes.
Lots of ways to maximize profits but the market (for labor, materials, prices, regulation, etc.) places limitations on their expenses and their prices.
Companies are always trying to increase profits. They constantly try to cut expenses and increase prices. Taxes are a part of doing business. If you can hide your profit overseas, that will increase profits.
When you increase taxes, it will lower corporation profits. They will do everything they can to increase profits. However, most of the time they can't cut wages or other expenses or raise prices since they are already an efficient corporation operating in a competitive market. So, when you increase taxes, it will lower profits. Corporations will complain... boohoo.
Increased corporate taxes means less burden on regular taxpayers.
Rich people don't pay taxes either. They hide their money in offshore accounts (just like corporations).
The solution to corporate loopholes is to close them (but not likely since they control the politicians).
Very odd logic... do you have a newsletter?
I am really not concerned about the profits of corporations. They tend to take care of themselves.
I don't care if a corporation decides to stop investing, producing or even goes out of business. They are just sucking money out of us and it's not worth it if they don't pay taxes.
Except that the top 10% of rich people hold 74% of assets so while I know that you are really concerned about "the little people", taxing corporate profits and dividends essentially taxes rich people which should be the point of the exercise. Tax rich people more. Tax the rest less.
Corporate taxes come out of profits so prices don't rise (because of all of that wonderful free market competition) unless the corporation has a monopoly (which the government should prevent).
When corporations pay less tax, real people have to pay more tax to cover the shortfall. Corporations only pay tax on their profit after expenses and deductions, etc. whereas real people have to pay tax on all of their income before expenses. Doesn't seem fair. It's just another way to transfer money from poor people to rich people.
We need to raise corporate tax so that real people won't have to pay as much tax.
If your only criteria is speed of charging...
Well, Tesla did build a station which swaps batteries in three minutes and these could be built for much less than the cost of H2 refueling stations. However, as a practical matter, there wasn't much of a demand for the battery swap since Supercharging works so well.
Fast charging is only necessary when traveling long distances (about once a month) and we usually plan meals and breaks around charging so not an issue. Most of the time we just plug it in at home and we always have a "full tank" without having to stop at a gas station... ever.
It takes between 5 and 10 seconds to plug it in at home and this is much faster than driving to a gas station and dealing with the gas pump, etc. every few days. Also, much cheaper. I can fill up my Tesla for about $10 (from empty) whereas my old ICE car costs $60 to go the same distance (even with the cheap gas we have today).
Wow! Twenty-six hydrogen fueling stations in the US. Not going anywhere with these.
If I had an electric car ten years ago, I could have plugged it in anywhere (believe it or not, there was a well developed electric grid ten years ago with electric sockets in all houses and businesses).
Since you can install ten Superchargers for the cost of one H2 station and since existing electric infrastructure is ubiquitous and there is no H2 infrastructure, it would seem a fools errand to start building H2 infrastructure when we already have EV infrastructure in place.
You can do all the R&D you want but you'll never overcome the basic thermodynamic inefficiency of H2 which is about 30% of an EV.
But there is no stress when your gas gauge goes below 1/3?
You do know that there are a lot more places to charge your car than to buy gas?
Is it that stressful to plug in your car at night?
Superchargers are installed about every 150 miles. Mostly near Interstates. There are very few places without a Supercharger and there are also about 10,000 other electric vehicle chargers in the US (plus every house or business has an electric plug). Tesla will double the number of Superchargers in the next year.
H2 charging doesn't exist so you can predict anything but the $1-2 million cost for an H2 charging station makes them ten times as expensive as a Supercharger so I don't think many of them will get built in my lifetime.
No one said an EV could be everything to everyone. We are talking about EV vs H2 here and right now EVs work very well for a few hundred thousand people whereas H2 vehicles don't really work for anyone.
And they leak... about 1% per day.
I've driven my Tesla to remote areas with only low power charging available. Stayed up to a week at a time and drove as much as I wanted since the overnight low power charging gave me about 75 miles of range every night and we only drove 25 to 50 miles a day.
There is no existing infrastructure for H2. There is no way the existing oil and gas infrastructure could be "upgraded" to H2. It needs new plants, storage tanks, compressors, transport vehicles, etc. Everything built new from the ground up.
It would be much easier to convert existing gas stations to electric charging stations. They already have electricity, just install a few plugs.
As for disrupting the existing fossil fuel industry; it needs to be destroyed as soon as possible since it is destroying the planet.
So, where do you recharge your H2 vehicle on long trips?
I charge my Tesla at Superchargers which are already installed just about everywhere. Drive 3-4 hours, charge 30 minutes (usually ready for some food and a break by then), drive another 3-4 hours, repeat...
Tesla Model X can tow your boat (it has a 5000 lb rated hitch).
H2 is not plentiful. There is no natural source of H2. It is rare. You have to make it by electrolysis or from CH4 by very inefficient methods.
There is no distribution network for H2. You have to build plants and compressors and tank trucks and storage tanks and they all leak since H2 is such a small molecule. Millions of dollars for a single distribution point.
Electricity already has a ubiquitous distribution network. It's literally available everywhere. Just plug your car in at home (or work, etc.). Electric socket costs a few hundred dollars to install (if you don't already have one).
Not that the US is immune. Theranos had a startup value of $9 billion based solely on their "story". No product. No sales. Just "we're going to make a better blood testing machine".
There's a sucker born every minute.
Maybe the next version of the ransomware could do an automatic backup of the site before infecting it and then restore this backup as a "service" for an extra fee.
Sounds like you would find this useful.
He had the best, highest, most pure intentions.