Zero is also usually theoretical. The rate equivalent of the lowest legal taxable jurisdiction is practical, because that's what happens in the real world.
They'll always be trying to lower it. The point is to not give them incentive to pay what little they already do to other jurisdictions. They'll still dodge taxes, but current loopholes which require funneling of property to other jurisdictions won't be as attractive because they will no longer enable net tax savings.
I said nothing about natural rights. The concept of property and theft both stem, ultimately, from the conventions on use of force and/or coercion. The disagreement is merely word choice and semantics.
unless you want to go down the road of thought-crime.
We're already halfway there. Thought-crime charges are currently prosecutorial bonuses, but give it some time and we'll start seeing people charged and convicted without the actual criminal act.
His actions were a crime only because of what was going on in his head. Had he thought other thoughts, or done what he did for any other reason, his actions would not have been considered criminal.
These guys would have been better off swallowing the plans and crapping them out later. At least I haven't heard of any suspected terrorist getting CAT scans, well... not yet.
They do Xrays looking for drug mules, and have for years. I would be surprised if at least one hasn't been done in a terrorism-related case somewhere already.
It would be interesting to see how Washington ranks in college students in the 16-22 range compared to the rest of the states 18-24 range, considering the enormous number of students enrolled via Running Start. They start 2 years earlier, which probably leads to a lot more completing the same college curriculum early as well. Both those would skew enrollment numbers to the low side.
Not that this makes up for enrollment being near the bottom nationwide, but it's certainly something to consider.
No, Apple sells a physical product, which limits their ability to minimize their taxes through holding companies in other jurisdictions. That is the one and only reason they pay more taxes.
Microsoft's product is all intellectual property which, even when licensed, has no physical manifestation in higher-tax jurisdictions. That means it can be held (and thus profit generated from it based) in low-tax jurisdictions. The company in the US then licenses its own technology, thus incurring a tax loss in the US.
You can't do that the same way with a physical product.
That's exactly why they only paid that much, because they have offshore subsidiaries in low tax locations where a great deal of their profits are held. They pay more than many other companies because they have physical product. If you sell only software, it's easier to move more of your money into low-tax jurisdictions while still being able to use it to continue your business. "Fleeing" is not the right word, because they still maintain their primary presence in the markets they serve. They just don't maintain the same financial structure, which makes all the difference in the world from a tax standpoint.
If the US lowered their tax rate to be roughly equal with the jurisdictions companies are allowed to shift profits to, they would have no reason to shift those profits. The only way companies will pay more US taxes is if they are barred by law from creating such subsidiaries (something hideously difficult to realistically do) or if they have no reason to work through such subsidiaries.
It only sounds counter-intuitive if you don't understand how the economics of multinational corporations work.
I believe that line was actually referring to people who had done none of the work to earn those pennies, but instead believe it to be theirs to do with as they please despite having nothing to do with its production.
Nobody should quit saying it, because it's true. However, most people realize that there are overall benefits to such systematic theft. As long as it's pointed out, we may have some restraint on how much is taken because the ends should be justifiable given the means. If they are not justifiable, the means should not be employed in that area and there should be a great deal of protest if they are employed in such a manner anyway.
What you're proposing is getting something for nothing; it's popular when you're the one getting something, and never popular when you're the one giving it, and always an illusion.
That's the state of most societies. The argument is always who should be the group giving and who should be the group receiving. You can't say the US doesn't already have a lot of people living in it doing much more giving than they receive and an enormous contingent of people who receive all those same benefits (and frequently many more) while giving almost nothing.
People are essentially pissed off because the more money someone (or something, in the case of companies) has, the more options they have.
Ordinary people, by-and-large, do not have the money to take advantage of loopholes designed to protect a lot of money since the upfront costs outweigh what they'd save. However, they also rarely even bother exercising the options they have in front of them to stop paying taxes almost completely (charitable donations, medical savings accounts, educational savings accounts, retirement savings, etc).
You absolutely do not need to sell stocks. You can simply borrow against their value for your expenses. The only thing you end up paying is interest on what is basically revolving credit. That interest rate will be much lower than paying yearly taxes on the same amount.
Well, there's no kill switch for those products (as far as anyone knows) and they don't give law enforcement the authority to cavity search you, so not really in the same ballpark for boycott purposes.:)
Just because he was a liar or a lunatic doesn't mean some of what he said wasn't admirable, assuming he actually existed and the accounts of his teachings are actually true.
While we're at it, a condemnation of one side of a dichotomy does not imply acclamation for the other
Some people need this burned into their retinas so that they never, ever are allowed to let it slip from their memory. Then again,/. comments as we now know them would collapse upon themselves if this were the case, since so many arguments are posted based on the assumption that one is implicitly supporting issue X when they post regarding a problem they see in issue Y.
Whether the poster is biased in that manner or not I'm not actually going to address, but this particular example isn't really a valid counter in any case.
Obama made a signing statement, meaning he was in a position where vetoing it was not any sort of logistical imposition and was something he, himself, likely had a great deal of scheduling discretion over. The two cases, at least at first glance, are almost nothing alike in regard to the practical situational disadvantages of engaging in the particular act in question in each one.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder when government and law enforcement are going to get the message
They won't. Ever. Especially law enforcement, as it is by its very nature designed to understand no message but its own.
Unlike all other countries in the world, the US believes you continue to owe taxes for the rest of your life, even if you renounce your citizenship.
As far as I was aware, CALEA already applied to VOIP providers. I assumed Skype has always had an LEA reporting function.
The problem with being proactive is that, in the case of an ISP, it can set you up for legal headaches.
Zero is also usually theoretical. The rate equivalent of the lowest legal taxable jurisdiction is practical, because that's what happens in the real world.
They'll always be trying to lower it. The point is to not give them incentive to pay what little they already do to other jurisdictions. They'll still dodge taxes, but current loopholes which require funneling of property to other jurisdictions won't be as attractive because they will no longer enable net tax savings.
Don't ask me, ask the person who said it what they mean. I was simply interpreting.
I said nothing about natural rights. The concept of property and theft both stem, ultimately, from the conventions on use of force and/or coercion. The disagreement is merely word choice and semantics.
Well, I don't know what he's referring to about OKC, but while the FBI didn't help construct the WTC bomb, they also didn't do anything to stop it despite knowing who, what, when, and how:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html
It sucks for law enforcement sometimes when informants turn around and tape them surreptitiously.</sarcasm>
unless you want to go down the road of thought-crime.
We're already halfway there. Thought-crime charges are currently prosecutorial bonuses, but give it some time and we'll start seeing people charged and convicted without the actual criminal act.
Scratch that. Already completely there: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7056927
His actions were a crime only because of what was going on in his head. Had he thought other thoughts, or done what he did for any other reason, his actions would not have been considered criminal.
These guys would have been better off swallowing the plans and crapping them out later. At least I haven't heard of any suspected terrorist getting CAT scans, well... not yet.
They do Xrays looking for drug mules, and have for years. I would be surprised if at least one hasn't been done in a terrorism-related case somewhere already.
For some reason this comment reminded me of the Klingon trial in an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise.
It would be interesting to see how Washington ranks in college students in the 16-22 range compared to the rest of the states 18-24 range, considering the enormous number of students enrolled via Running Start. They start 2 years earlier, which probably leads to a lot more completing the same college curriculum early as well. Both those would skew enrollment numbers to the low side.
Not that this makes up for enrollment being near the bottom nationwide, but it's certainly something to consider.
No, Apple sells a physical product, which limits their ability to minimize their taxes through holding companies in other jurisdictions. That is the one and only reason they pay more taxes.
Microsoft's product is all intellectual property which, even when licensed, has no physical manifestation in higher-tax jurisdictions. That means it can be held (and thus profit generated from it based) in low-tax jurisdictions. The company in the US then licenses its own technology, thus incurring a tax loss in the US.
You can't do that the same way with a physical product.
That's exactly why they only paid that much, because they have offshore subsidiaries in low tax locations where a great deal of their profits are held. They pay more than many other companies because they have physical product. If you sell only software, it's easier to move more of your money into low-tax jurisdictions while still being able to use it to continue your business. "Fleeing" is not the right word, because they still maintain their primary presence in the markets they serve. They just don't maintain the same financial structure, which makes all the difference in the world from a tax standpoint.
If the US lowered their tax rate to be roughly equal with the jurisdictions companies are allowed to shift profits to, they would have no reason to shift those profits. The only way companies will pay more US taxes is if they are barred by law from creating such subsidiaries (something hideously difficult to realistically do) or if they have no reason to work through such subsidiaries.
It only sounds counter-intuitive if you don't understand how the economics of multinational corporations work.
I believe that line was actually referring to people who had done none of the work to earn those pennies, but instead believe it to be theirs to do with as they please despite having nothing to do with its production.
Nobody should quit saying it, because it's true. However, most people realize that there are overall benefits to such systematic theft. As long as it's pointed out, we may have some restraint on how much is taken because the ends should be justifiable given the means. If they are not justifiable, the means should not be employed in that area and there should be a great deal of protest if they are employed in such a manner anyway.
What you're proposing is getting something for nothing; it's popular when you're the one getting something, and never popular when you're the one giving it, and always an illusion.
That's the state of most societies. The argument is always who should be the group giving and who should be the group receiving. You can't say the US doesn't already have a lot of people living in it doing much more giving than they receive and an enormous contingent of people who receive all those same benefits (and frequently many more) while giving almost nothing.
People are essentially pissed off because the more money someone (or something, in the case of companies) has, the more options they have.
Ordinary people, by-and-large, do not have the money to take advantage of loopholes designed to protect a lot of money since the upfront costs outweigh what they'd save. However, they also rarely even bother exercising the options they have in front of them to stop paying taxes almost completely (charitable donations, medical savings accounts, educational savings accounts, retirement savings, etc).
You absolutely do not need to sell stocks. You can simply borrow against their value for your expenses. The only thing you end up paying is interest on what is basically revolving credit. That interest rate will be much lower than paying yearly taxes on the same amount.
I want http://dot.dot.dot/ myself.
Well, there's no kill switch for those products (as far as anyone knows) and they don't give law enforcement the authority to cavity search you, so not really in the same ballpark for boycott purposes. :)
Just because he was a liar or a lunatic doesn't mean some of what he said wasn't admirable, assuming he actually existed and the accounts of his teachings are actually true.
While we're at it, a condemnation of one side of a dichotomy does not imply acclamation for the other
Some people need this burned into their retinas so that they never, ever are allowed to let it slip from their memory. Then again, /. comments as we now know them would collapse upon themselves if this were the case, since so many arguments are posted based on the assumption that one is implicitly supporting issue X when they post regarding a problem they see in issue Y.
With the way lies of omission and mudslinging work in US politics, they'd have no way to defend their "record" if they did something so sensible.
Whether the poster is biased in that manner or not I'm not actually going to address, but this particular example isn't really a valid counter in any case.
Obama made a signing statement, meaning he was in a position where vetoing it was not any sort of logistical imposition and was something he, himself, likely had a great deal of scheduling discretion over. The two cases, at least at first glance, are almost nothing alike in regard to the practical situational disadvantages of engaging in the particular act in question in each one.