They create a foreign shell corp and give it IP. The shell collects royalties on worldwide sales which just happen to equal profts. Result is that there are no profits for the US or CA.
I really don't understand what you're saying... it's gibberish. Today was full cloud cover and my solar panels captured 7 kwh... on full sun days it's 20 - 25 kwh. Didn't your mother warn you to put on sunscreen even on cloudy days?
California is a very high tax state. Rich people aren't leaving, they're moving to the state and California is creating millionaires daily... they don't leave and they don't want to leave. Corporations can try to move their HQ to another country but they still want to do business in the US so they will end up paying more tax. "Rich people will move away" is a myth that has be repeatedly debunked.
A greedy corporation has the same power as government to fine you or put you in jail if you don't abide by their rules. (Just try not paying a bill from some corporation and you'll quickly find out how powerful they are.) Corporations have found that threats and intimidation are much more effective than "customer service" in extracting money from you. Most of the time you don't have an alternative to their effective monopoly (Comcast anyone?). Taxation does not stifle corporations or individuals initiative as proven by the high growth and high tax rates in the 50s and 60s.
Corporations are accountable to their managers and stockholders and have only one goal... maximize profit (at my expense). Governments are at least in theory accountable to voters and do not have a profit motive. (However, we all know that governments can be corrupted by corporations buying favors.) So, if I have to choose between a greedy corporation whose only goal is taking my money or a government accountable to voters (which may or may not have been corrupted), I'll choose the government.
Rich people invest in corporations, financial instruments and real property. These serve to further corporate monopolies and the natural monopoly of real estate. These investments strengthen their monopoly rents and further drain the working class. OTOH, taxes are put to work immediately with investments in roads, bridges, water, sewer, education and health. These all have immediate benefits to the working class. That's how money and bank accounts work.
Land is a fixed resource. Housing isn't. There are lots of ways to build more housing cheaper (pre-fab, better designs, higher density). Good city planning will put high density housing near jobs. However, developers don't like to be told what to do and they tend to do whatever makes the most money which is usually McMansions so they monopolize a piece of land and put a single house on it.
Interesting.... I agree that speculators (on houses or stocks) are toxic and not "productive". Wall street is a toxic plague on our economy. High tax rates did persist until Reagan and the neoliberals took over and since then we have seen inequality skyrocket. Just a few comments. We have trillions of dollars in necessary infrastructure investments which have been neglected (bridges, roads, sewers, water, health, education etc.) Only government invests in infrastructure. Government needs tax dollars to invest in infrastructure. Best to tax high income people... that's where the money is. The only pain for clearing out toxic actors will be to the toxic actors... the rest of us benefit.
The money was not earned. It was stolen by kleptomaniac monopolists. It is not being spent. It sits untaxed in offshore accounts. It should be returned to the people.
The person working a "crushing 9-5 job" is just as much a victim of neoliberalism as those who can't get a job. There is plenty of money. The problem is that the very rich have it all (top 1% own about 50% of all resources). You won't run out of money taxing the rich. George Monbiot says it well: "Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances. Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."
Socialism has a different world view. We form societies, governments to take care of each other; not to out-compete and crush our fellow man.
The greatest advance for the US economy and expansion of the middle class was in the 50s and 60s when the top income tax bracket was 90%. That was pretty effective in putting a limit on income and providing government with sufficient funds for infrastructure, etc.
Teenage boys... they (think) they're the best drivers.
Or... maybe you could customize your driving: - teenage girl - texting and talking - old geezer - very slow reflexes - little old lady going to church on Sunday - soccer mom with 8 kids in the car running around after school to get everybody delivered - middle age guy with road rage - new driver with an "L" on the car The possibilities are endless
You start looking at a universal basic income. If their are not enough jobs, you need to ensure that everyone can afford food, housing and health care even if they don't have a job.
Tesla now has about 50 million miles of driving experience with AutoPilot. Their initial analysis of the data they collect is that you are about 50% less likely to have an accident when AutoPilot is engaged. This would seem to be proof of their "concept". Elon reported this during an interview in Norway recently: https://www.yahoo.com/news/mus...
I appreciate your heartfelt rant but this article has nothing to do with fossil fuels. It's about substituting a different refrigerant in a heat pump system to make it cheaper. You might want to save that rant for a more appropriate thread.
Slashdot Mirror
They create a foreign shell corp and give it IP. The shell collects royalties on worldwide sales which just happen to equal profts.
Result is that there are no profits for the US or CA.
The contractor is just responsible for generating the power, not managing the grid. That's a problem for Dubai to handle.
Which part of 2.99 cents / kwh don't you understand?
They get 2.99 cents for every kwh they deliver.
I really don't understand what you're saying... it's gibberish.
Today was full cloud cover and my solar panels captured 7 kwh... on full sun days it's 20 - 25 kwh.
Didn't your mother warn you to put on sunscreen even on cloudy days?
Contract is for 2.99 cents /kwh for energy delivered. Contractor eats any overruns. This is not the US Military pork barrel cost+ contract.
My solar panels would beg to differ. Very cloudy days production goes down but I still get 25-50% of full sun days.
You're right! It jacks it all the way up to 2.99/kwh.
California is a very high tax state. Rich people aren't leaving, they're moving to the state and California is creating millionaires daily... they don't leave and they don't want to leave. Corporations can try to move their HQ to another country but they still want to do business in the US so they will end up paying more tax.
"Rich people will move away" is a myth that has be repeatedly debunked.
A greedy corporation has the same power as government to fine you or put you in jail if you don't abide by their rules. (Just try not paying a bill from some corporation and you'll quickly find out how powerful they are.)
Corporations have found that threats and intimidation are much more effective than "customer service" in extracting money from you. Most of the time you don't have an alternative to their effective monopoly (Comcast anyone?).
Taxation does not stifle corporations or individuals initiative as proven by the high growth and high tax rates in the 50s and 60s.
Corporations are accountable to their managers and stockholders and have only one goal... maximize profit (at my expense).
Governments are at least in theory accountable to voters and do not have a profit motive. (However, we all know that governments can be corrupted by corporations buying favors.)
So, if I have to choose between a greedy corporation whose only goal is taking my money or a government accountable to voters (which may or may not have been corrupted), I'll choose the government.
I trust government more than any greedy corporation.
Rich people invest in corporations, financial instruments and real property. These serve to further corporate monopolies and the natural monopoly of real estate. These investments strengthen their monopoly rents and further drain the working class.
OTOH, taxes are put to work immediately with investments in roads, bridges, water, sewer, education and health. These all have immediate benefits to the working class.
That's how money and bank accounts work.
You are probably better off moving to a remote desert (and staying there).
Most other people find value in cities and society.
Land is a fixed resource. Housing isn't.
There are lots of ways to build more housing cheaper (pre-fab, better designs, higher density). Good city planning will put high density housing near jobs. However, developers don't like to be told what to do and they tend to do whatever makes the most money which is usually McMansions so they monopolize a piece of land and put a single house on it.
Interesting....
I agree that speculators (on houses or stocks) are toxic and not "productive". Wall street is a toxic plague on our economy.
High tax rates did persist until Reagan and the neoliberals took over and since then we have seen inequality skyrocket.
Just a few comments.
We have trillions of dollars in necessary infrastructure investments which have been neglected (bridges, roads, sewers, water, health, education etc.)
Only government invests in infrastructure.
Government needs tax dollars to invest in infrastructure.
Best to tax high income people... that's where the money is.
The only pain for clearing out toxic actors will be to the toxic actors... the rest of us benefit.
The money was not earned. It was stolen by kleptomaniac monopolists. It is not being spent. It sits untaxed in offshore accounts. It should be returned to the people.
The person working a "crushing 9-5 job" is just as much a victim of neoliberalism as those who can't get a job.
There is plenty of money. The problem is that the very rich have it all (top 1% own about 50% of all resources). You won't run out of money taxing the rich.
George Monbiot says it well:
"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."
Socialism has a different world view. We form societies, governments to take care of each other; not to out-compete and crush our fellow man.
The greatest advance for the US economy and expansion of the middle class was in the 50s and 60s when the top income tax bracket was 90%. That was pretty effective in putting a limit on income and providing government with sufficient funds for infrastructure, etc.
This might work:
Neural net on a stick.
http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/...
Teenage boys... they (think) they're the best drivers.
Or... maybe you could customize your driving:
- teenage girl - texting and talking
- old geezer - very slow reflexes
- little old lady going to church on Sunday
- soccer mom with 8 kids in the car running around after school to get everybody delivered
- middle age guy with road rage
- new driver with an "L" on the car
The possibilities are endless
Food, shelter, health care... the basics.
You start looking at a universal basic income.
If their are not enough jobs, you need to ensure that everyone can afford food, housing and health care even if they don't have a job.
Tesla now has about 50 million miles of driving experience with AutoPilot.
Their initial analysis of the data they collect is that you are about 50% less likely to have an accident when AutoPilot is engaged.
This would seem to be proof of their "concept".
Elon reported this during an interview in Norway recently:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mus...
I appreciate your heartfelt rant but this article has nothing to do with fossil fuels. It's about substituting a different refrigerant in a heat pump system to make it cheaper.
You might want to save that rant for a more appropriate thread.
Article is dumb.
The real news is buried. Google "transcritical CO2" to get the real story.