What do you mean? Equities would still be attractive, and I don't think artificially pumping up the value of equities with the tax code is healthy in the long term anyway.
I'm all for flattening the tax code - I just don't think that Zuckerberg is trying to avoid taxes as his primary motive in this particular case. He's already getting 4 billion dollars worth of stock... if the stock goes up by 1%, he makes 40 million dollars. He is far, far more concerned with moving the stock price than he is in his tax rate.
Personally, I'd like to see the feds kill the corporate tax. This would eliminate the "double taxation" howls and then you could jack up the dividend and capital gains rates to match the income tax rate. While this would be disastrous to the CPA occupation, I don't think that's a very good reason to hold up tax reform.
but when companies require you to buy at least 1,000 shares of stock and stocks sell for at least $1
I sympathize and agree with your general argument, but on this point you are way off. You can open an etrade account for free and then trade any number of shares for the $9.99 commission. Now, to keep your overhead sane, you should probably not spend 10 bucks to buy $100 worth of stock. The real barrier to entry is that most people simply don't save at all. It's in our blood as Americans - not sure what the real problem is. People live paycheck-to-paycheck in very nice houses, driving very nice cars. My kids are actually doing much better than me in total returns in their little $2000 education IRAs - and they simply have a DRIP fund in each. I'm amazed how many people don't max out their 401(k), yet have enough to buy a new car every 5 years. I'm also surprised how many people (like my wife) put up with a 401(k) plan that only lets them choose from a small number of pre-screened mutual funds. I think DRIP funds are great because there is no commission when you re-invest the dividends.
The only way that argument makes any sense is if you believe that Zuckerberg thinks that doing the Steve Jobs $1 salary thing won't affect stock price.
Yes, there are many tricks like that. I can't write-off the miles on my second car even though the only reason we have a second car is so that I can get to work. Yet my VP can drive around in a company car and the company can write it off.
But that's not the sort of thing we are talking about here. The man holds billions worth of Facebook stock... any dip (or rise) in stock price is of far more concern to him than all the incentive packages the board could possibly come up with. He already has motivation to work as hard as he is capable of for the company. Do I think he has a great accountant? I'm sure of it. Do I think that he took the $1 salary because it would be good for the stock price and not because it could save him a few hundred thousand (or even million) in taxes? Yes, I'm quite certain that was his rationale.
Those cynics are idiots. His dividend/capital gains are going to be the same whether he has a salary or not. So yeah, he'd have to pay more taxes if he made more money, but he'd... wait for it... make more money!
The cynics are right in cases where the employee takes a salary cut but is instead compensated in some other way which is taxed at a lower level.
It rather depends on the translation. The "common Engilsh" bible translates the passages as follows:
2 Timothy 3:16 - "Every scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for showing mistakes, for correcting, and for training character, 17 so that the person who belongs to God can be equipped to do everything that is good."
Psalm 19:7-9 - "The LORD’s Instruction is perfect, reviving one’s very being." It's pretty clear that they don't mean the Bible, but even if they did, the same Psalm says, "God has made a tent in heaven for the sun," so take it literally at your own peril.
Deuteronomy 4:2 - "Don’t add anything to the word that I am commanding you, and don’t take anything away from it. Instead, keep the commands of the LORD your God that I am commanding all of you." Note that this is Moses speaking, not God.
Revelation 22:19 - "If anyone takes away from the words of this scroll of prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this scroll." Meaningless without context. First of all, this is John speaking, not God. The prophecy referred to is quoted in the passage as being the words of Jesus.
If you don't want the public to know of a bill being passed then there is something inherently wrong with the bill you are trying to pass.
I think that is probably mostly right when drafting laws, but this is a treaty. Because it is a treaty, you are dealing with diplomacy - not just drafting a bill. Diplomacy makes everything more complicated, including openness.
Just as a simplified for-instance: Let's say you want to negotiate a trade treaty with Saudi Arabia, and that government - which is closed - insists on closed negotiation sessions. Do you walk away unless they are willing to negotiate openly or do you compromise somehow? Sometimes you have to advance your own national interests at the expense of some higher ideal that you can't force upon another sovereign state.
That was sort of my point - pet ownership is not rational. A rational being would realize that cats and dogs have just co-evolved and thus acquired behaviors that we mistake for real emotion and affection. We talk to them, despite their inability to comprehend. We cuddle and pamper them, and they still prefer members of their own species to us. There are known benefits to pet ownership - pet owners tend to live longer, all that pet crap and hair in the house might help ward off allergies, lonely people can have a feeling of companionship that they otherwise would not get, dogs can help prevent robberies, and cats can ward off rodents. Of course, you can do most of these things without pets and with fewer inconveniences and mess, but as I said, we aren't rational:)
I'm not rational either, mind you. I grew up with pets. I like to pet cats and play with dogs - my brain is just as fooled by these social parasites as everyone else's.
People aren't rational at all. You could have mouse pets for free, but no - those get trapped and killed while the dogs and cats roam the house. Bigger poops, too.
They make gloves with contact patches for smart phones. If you aren't completely retarded and have 20 extra minutes you can make any gloves smartphone friendly with conductive thread.
Blackberry replies (actually any smartphone replies) are usually useless and poorly thought out. The useful ones are stuff like, "We'll talk tomorrow at 3," which can still be hacked out on a virtual keyboard.
That said, I can understand the desire for an actual keyboard, but then I don't work for Halliburton.
Glad to hear that Motorola is back to having decent voice quality - maybe I'll give one of their newer models a try once my kids totally kill my current phone.
Slashdot Mirror
That's all they had lying around, and it makes a decent enough Faraday cage. :)
What do you mean? Equities would still be attractive, and I don't think artificially pumping up the value of equities with the tax code is healthy in the long term anyway.
I'm all for flattening the tax code - I just don't think that Zuckerberg is trying to avoid taxes as his primary motive in this particular case. He's already getting 4 billion dollars worth of stock... if the stock goes up by 1%, he makes 40 million dollars. He is far, far more concerned with moving the stock price than he is in his tax rate.
Personally, I'd like to see the feds kill the corporate tax. This would eliminate the "double taxation" howls and then you could jack up the dividend and capital gains rates to match the income tax rate. While this would be disastrous to the CPA occupation, I don't think that's a very good reason to hold up tax reform.
Wow! I didn't realize it was charity to pay taxes
It's not. It's charity to pay more than you owe.
Otherwise I suspect we largely agree.
but when companies require you to buy at least 1,000 shares of stock and stocks sell for at least $1
I sympathize and agree with your general argument, but on this point you are way off. You can open an etrade account for free and then trade any number of shares for the $9.99 commission. Now, to keep your overhead sane, you should probably not spend 10 bucks to buy $100 worth of stock. The real barrier to entry is that most people simply don't save at all. It's in our blood as Americans - not sure what the real problem is. People live paycheck-to-paycheck in very nice houses, driving very nice cars. My kids are actually doing much better than me in total returns in their little $2000 education IRAs - and they simply have a DRIP fund in each. I'm amazed how many people don't max out their 401(k), yet have enough to buy a new car every 5 years. I'm also surprised how many people (like my wife) put up with a 401(k) plan that only lets them choose from a small number of pre-screened mutual funds. I think DRIP funds are great because there is no commission when you re-invest the dividends.
The only way that argument makes any sense is if you believe that Zuckerberg thinks that doing the Steve Jobs $1 salary thing won't affect stock price.
Yes, there are many tricks like that. I can't write-off the miles on my second car even though the only reason we have a second car is so that I can get to work. Yet my VP can drive around in a company car and the company can write it off.
But that's not the sort of thing we are talking about here. The man holds billions worth of Facebook stock... any dip (or rise) in stock price is of far more concern to him than all the incentive packages the board could possibly come up with. He already has motivation to work as hard as he is capable of for the company. Do I think he has a great accountant? I'm sure of it. Do I think that he took the $1 salary because it would be good for the stock price and not because it could save him a few hundred thousand (or even million) in taxes? Yes, I'm quite certain that was his rationale.
You'd have to be a weird sort of dude to give charity to the federal government.
I reduce my tax burden as much as is legal, so I don't think the rich are all that "different" on that particular score.
"Leave it to Brezhnev"
I like the 4-episode series where he accidentally gets his eyebrows burned off.
Those cynics are idiots. His dividend/capital gains are going to be the same whether he has a salary or not. So yeah, he'd have to pay more taxes if he made more money, but he'd... wait for it... make more money!
The cynics are right in cases where the employee takes a salary cut but is instead compensated in some other way which is taxed at a lower level.
Yeah, you probably aren't alone.
But of course, there were also people saying, "They can't fly to Russia from California because the world is FLAT!"
It rather depends on the translation. The "common Engilsh" bible translates the passages as follows:
Don't be so hasty... Spammers can get past spam filters even when they are tuned to look for every variation of the word P3N1S. :)
Hi there! 48
All is well in the Islamic Republic! 65
Our glorious leader has won another election! 6c
Praise Allah! 70
Yeah, I think that leaks are an integral part of the diplomacy (and political) process :)
Uh, oh, I offended a pet owner! LOL. Yeah, your house still smells like dog.
If you don't want the public to know of a bill being passed then there is something inherently wrong with the bill you are trying to pass.
I think that is probably mostly right when drafting laws, but this is a treaty. Because it is a treaty, you are dealing with diplomacy - not just drafting a bill. Diplomacy makes everything more complicated, including openness.
Just as a simplified for-instance: Let's say you want to negotiate a trade treaty with Saudi Arabia, and that government - which is closed - insists on closed negotiation sessions. Do you walk away unless they are willing to negotiate openly or do you compromise somehow? Sometimes you have to advance your own national interests at the expense of some higher ideal that you can't force upon another sovereign state.
Stupid, irrational pet owners!
That was sort of my point - pet ownership is not rational. A rational being would realize that cats and dogs have just co-evolved and thus acquired behaviors that we mistake for real emotion and affection. We talk to them, despite their inability to comprehend. We cuddle and pamper them, and they still prefer members of their own species to us. There are known benefits to pet ownership - pet owners tend to live longer, all that pet crap and hair in the house might help ward off allergies, lonely people can have a feeling of companionship that they otherwise would not get, dogs can help prevent robberies, and cats can ward off rodents. Of course, you can do most of these things without pets and with fewer inconveniences and mess, but as I said, we aren't rational :)
I'm not rational either, mind you. I grew up with pets. I like to pet cats and play with dogs - my brain is just as fooled by these social parasites as everyone else's.
Yeah, 'cause dogs don't ever poop in the house.
Hell, just the hair and skin flakes from an animal the size of a dog or can dwarf the feces output of a mouse.
You can smell the long-term presence of a cat or dog as soon as you walk into a house - not sure I can say the same about a mouse.
But like I said, we're irrational. :)
People aren't rational at all. You could have mouse pets for free, but no - those get trapped and killed while the dogs and cats roam the house. Bigger poops, too.
So long as you are happy never receiving another update, security or otherwise.
Don't get me wrong - I seriously doubt that ReactOS will be up to XP-standards in 2 years, but such a thing certainly WOULD be useful.
LOL, a have Java dictionary?
One pro tip: never type curse words into your phone. It will learn the curse words and then auto-correct at the worst possible times.
They make gloves with contact patches for smart phones. If you aren't completely retarded and have 20 extra minutes you can make any gloves smartphone friendly with conductive thread.
typing this on i touchscreen keyboard
Comedy gold!
All I can say is, "Thank Jebus."
Blackberry replies (actually any smartphone replies) are usually useless and poorly thought out. The useful ones are stuff like, "We'll talk tomorrow at 3," which can still be hacked out on a virtual keyboard.
That said, I can understand the desire for an actual keyboard, but then I don't work for Halliburton.
Glad to hear that Motorola is back to having decent voice quality - maybe I'll give one of their newer models a try once my kids totally kill my current phone.