Sorry, I'm with gp. I don't believe in giving-up just because it's difficult to close the loopholes. The government can hire the very same "armies of accountants and lawyers" to close the loopholes. Or at least reduce them. Significantly.
Example: We deride government attempts to force companies to break encryption, citing open source alternatives. Yet the government still passes SOMETHING. They'll take whatever they can. (c.f. recently passed privacy invading laws in Australia)
Another measure: governments can declare they won't purchase goods / services from organisations that are bad corporate citizens.
Unfortunately they're heart (if they have one) isn't devoted to minimising tax evasion for the top-end of town.
I understand their need for commercials; I'd rather not lose any of our free-to-air stations. But they've become so aggressive with ads that I can no longer tolerate watching television without a PVR.
At least the taxpayer funded stations display a modicum of decency around commercials. Unfortunately they're slowly being starved of cash by successive governments, so I don't know how long this will last.
Now the commercial stations embed short ads in the lower third of the screen during the regular programme. For $10 / month Netflix is starting to look really good. Just a shame we don't have the full catalogue here in Australia. (I don't care enough to bother with VPN's, etc.)
There's probably a dose of PC* injected into Discovery, but I very much enjoyed it and look forward to upcoming episodes. I think anyone who likes science fiction (and particularly a Trekkie) would be unnecessarily depriving themselves of entertainment by sidestepping this series.
* There's arguably an over-representation of strong and competent females vs males in the upper Starfleet ranks. Then again Janeway (and Admiral Nechayev) cleared this path years ago. (Our timeline... Discovery is set before them in the Star Trek universe.) Anyhow, if that's not someone's cup of coffee (black) then "get off my ship!"
Surely that would skew the stats? If he's donated nearly every week since the late 50's, that duration would well account for 10% of the population, even accommodating for a significant migrant intake over that time.
Exactly what I was going to say. In the near future $10,000 will be hailed (rightly, wrongly, or exaggeratedly) as a huge success in reducing tax evasion, with a new limit of $5,000 or less being proposed.
Meanwhile, if the politicians really wanted to limit tax evasion (err, avoidance) they'd ban money coming into/going out to tax havens. After all, they implement bans for other things. Of course then they'd be punishing themselves and their wealthy friends.
These days an experience is only worth having if you can post it on Facebook later.
Later !? Even that's too kind. It needs to be posted on Facebook stat !
I can understand wanting to capture a moment (photo, video) to prompt one's memory in the future. Of course, living the entire experience through a lens ain't right.
I like the move taken by this artist, especially the hiring of a professional event photographer and making the media freely available.
but it's usually not too bad unless investors believe they're bailing because they know something
Very true. That's why founders at this level only cash-out small amounts (small by their standards, not mine !) and even then announce the share sale well ahead, so that the market is minimally spooked.
Some tokens have NFC. I presume this allows the user to tap the token against the phone when logging-into the app, thus providing another, secure factor.
Sure, they reversed that stance. But what the heck ?!?!
It's disturbing how that company oscillates between being friendly one minute (e.g. open sourcing stuff, etc) and being horribly monopolistic the next (crap moves like these, spying on users, etc).
I won't disagree that companies are only doing what's permissible. And rest assured I place the blame squarely on politicians. (And you better believe these things do influence my vote.)
But in many tech cases the IP is created in Silicon Valley (using American infrastructure, emergency services, etc), it resides in Ireland, and is financially offset by everyone else. So Americans could argue they are owed a little more in tax.
Again, I blame politicians. I know they leave these loopholes open deliberately -- they're remarkably efficient at passing legislation when they wish. (Violating our privacy, extending their entitlements, closing tax loopholes for private citizens, etc.) I presume they turn a blind eye to mega corporations for one or both of the following reasons: (1) political donation largesse; (2) a board seat when they leave politics.
On the upside: tracking the rise of minor parties and independents in Australian politics over the past decade -- including the occasional hung parliament -- gives me hope that democracy might just be working. (Albeit slowly.) And I don't think the future is great for the major parties... I believe younger voters don't particularly identify with them.
In my understanding, the below are 4 general scenarios listed in decreasing order of benefit to the employee:
Scenario 1: You're given a Pixel phone, no tax burden on employee. In some scenarios, the employer may pay any tax on the value of the gift. You benefit the full value of the gift... $700 US.
Scenario 2: You're given a Pixel phone, employee pays tax on the value of the gift. You benefit $400 US (let's assume you paid $300 tax on the value of the gift).
Scenario 3: Pixel phone donated to registered charity, donation is in the name of the employee Employee gets to deduct the tax component from their salary. In reality it may not be this "clean" as tax may vary across employees You benefit $300.
Scenario 4: Pixel phone donated to registered charity, donation made in the name of the employer Employer claims the tax deduction. You benefit $0.
Google / Alphabet appears to have chosen Scenario 4. Caveats:
I am not a tax lawyer!
My understanding of tax law is based on the Australian environment. Other tax jurisdictions may throw these numbers off, wildly.
Excludes non-financial factors e.g. warm fuzzy feelings.
Anyone who knows better is welcome to chime-in! I'd be curious to know of significantly different tax rules in other countries.
Alphabet likely would have spent around the same amount of money on its holiday gifts, so it’s not exactly a cost-saving move
Just wanted to flag that when donating to a charity the value of the donation MAY be tax deductible. So it's possible that Google / Alphabet recouped [their marginal tax rate] x [$30 million]. Of course this would vary across tax jurisdictions.
Having said that, even the full $30 million would be peanuts for those entities.
I'd much rather spend my time doing fun things that working or nurturing a company.
And I'm sure Zuckerberg felt that growing Facebook was a fun thing.
Once he was offered several billion for his company, he probably figured he could continue with this fun project knowing he could always bail and get at least one billion.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I'm with gp. I don't believe in giving-up just because it's difficult to close the loopholes. The government can hire the very same "armies of accountants and lawyers" to close the loopholes. Or at least reduce them. Significantly.
Example:
We deride government attempts to force companies to break encryption, citing open source alternatives. Yet the government still passes SOMETHING. They'll take whatever they can. (c.f. recently passed privacy invading laws in Australia)
Another measure: governments can declare they won't purchase goods / services from organisations that are bad corporate citizens.
Unfortunately they're heart (if they have one) isn't devoted to minimising tax evasion for the top-end of town.
Yup: I've been home and later found the "Sorry we missed you" in the letterbox.
Sorry my butt.
Apparently even Angela Merkel thinks of Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison as some random dude
I don't understand why they chose South Australia and gave up the advantages of a site closer to the equator.
Also, why we spend billions upon billions BUILDING submarines in South Australia when we could just buy them from an ally for a fraction of the price.
Oh, that's right: pork barrelling
I sincerely hope not. It's frustrating how much LOUDER commercials are than the actual show.
And this despite regulations prohibiting this practice: Australian Communications and Media Authority (PDF, section 1.13 on page 3)
I understand their need for commercials; I'd rather not lose any of our free-to-air stations. But they've become so aggressive with ads that I can no longer tolerate watching television without a PVR.
At least the taxpayer funded stations display a modicum of decency around commercials. Unfortunately they're slowly being starved of cash by successive governments, so I don't know how long this will last.
Now the commercial stations embed short ads in the lower third of the screen during the regular programme. For $10 / month Netflix is starting to look really good. Just a shame we don't have the full catalogue here in Australia. (I don't care enough to bother with VPN's, etc.)
There's probably a dose of PC* injected into Discovery, but I very much enjoyed it and look forward to upcoming episodes. I think anyone who likes science fiction (and particularly a Trekkie) would be unnecessarily depriving themselves of entertainment by sidestepping this series.
* There's arguably an over-representation of strong and competent females vs males in the upper Starfleet ranks. Then again Janeway (and Admiral Nechayev) cleared this path years ago. (Our timeline ... Discovery is set before them in the Star Trek universe.) Anyhow, if that's not someone's cup of coffee (black) then "get off my ship!"
has donated blood nearly every week for 60 years
Surely that would skew the stats? If he's donated nearly every week since the late 50's, that duration would well account for 10% of the population, even accommodating for a significant migrant intake over that time.
Exactly what I was going to say. In the near future $10,000 will be hailed (rightly, wrongly, or exaggeratedly) as a huge success in reducing tax evasion, with a new limit of $5,000 or less being proposed.
Meanwhile, if the politicians really wanted to limit tax evasion (err, avoidance) they'd ban money coming into/going out to tax havens. After all, they implement bans for other things. Of course then they'd be punishing themselves and their wealthy friends.
These days an experience is only worth having if you can post it on Facebook later.
Later !? Even that's too kind. It needs to be posted on Facebook stat !
I can understand wanting to capture a moment (photo, video) to prompt one's memory in the future. Of course, living the entire experience through a lens ain't right.
I like the move taken by this artist, especially the hiring of a professional event photographer and making the media freely available.
Spot on. The jokes are also what ruined it for me. ... they outright changed certain characters!
Specifically, comedy inappropriately placed
Previous shows had their lighter moments, but they seemed to do a better job of it.
but it's usually not too bad unless investors believe they're bailing because they know something
Very true. That's why founders at this level only cash-out small amounts (small by their standards, not mine !) and even then announce the share sale well ahead, so that the market is minimally spooked.
Seriously? No one gets the above pun?
Some tokens have NFC. I presume this allows the user to tap the token against the phone when logging-into the app, thus providing another, secure factor.
It seems a small crisis is brewing in the South China Sea. Or thereabouts.
Fair enough.
But let's also note that in January 2016 Microsoft announced the end of support of Win 7 / 8 on Skylake ... a processor that was available months earlier in 2015
Sure, they reversed that stance. But what the heck ?!?!
It's disturbing how that company oscillates between being friendly one minute (e.g. open sourcing stuff, etc) and being horribly monopolistic the next (crap moves like these, spying on users, etc).
It appears pronunciation must be your "neech" ;-)
I won't disagree that companies are only doing what's permissible. And rest assured I place the blame squarely on politicians. (And you better believe these things do influence my vote.)
But in many tech cases the IP is created in Silicon Valley (using American infrastructure, emergency services, etc), it resides in Ireland, and is financially offset by everyone else. So Americans could argue they are owed a little more in tax.
Again, I blame politicians. I know they leave these loopholes open deliberately -- they're remarkably efficient at passing legislation when they wish. (Violating our privacy, extending their entitlements, closing tax loopholes for private citizens, etc.) I presume they turn a blind eye to mega corporations for one or both of the following reasons: (1) political donation largesse; (2) a board seat when they leave politics.
On the upside: tracking the rise of minor parties and independents in Australian politics over the past decade -- including the occasional hung parliament -- gives me hope that democracy might just be working. (Albeit slowly.) And I don't think the future is great for the major parties ... I believe younger voters don't particularly identify with them.
Unless one or the other succeeds with a decapitation first strike
That's where subs come into the picture.
I used to use MyPhoneExplorer to sync my Android phone with my Windows desktop. There's a corresponding desktop client. Worked very well.
You could then use something like Duplicati to sync with a cloud provider. I use it to backup to my own server over SSH.
In my understanding, the below are 4 general scenarios listed in decreasing order of benefit to the employee:
Scenario 1: You're given a Pixel phone, no tax burden on employee. ... $700 US.
In some scenarios, the employer may pay any tax on the value of the gift.
You benefit the full value of the gift
Scenario 2: You're given a Pixel phone, employee pays tax on the value of the gift.
You benefit $400 US (let's assume you paid $300 tax on the value of the gift).
Scenario 3: Pixel phone donated to registered charity, donation is in the name of the employee
Employee gets to deduct the tax component from their salary. In reality it may not be this "clean" as tax may vary across employees
You benefit $300.
Scenario 4: Pixel phone donated to registered charity, donation made in the name of the employer
Employer claims the tax deduction.
You benefit $0.
Google / Alphabet appears to have chosen Scenario 4.
Caveats:
I am not a tax lawyer!
My understanding of tax law is based on the Australian environment. Other tax jurisdictions may throw these numbers off, wildly.
Excludes non-financial factors e.g. warm fuzzy feelings.
Anyone who knows better is welcome to chime-in! I'd be curious to know of significantly different tax rules in other countries.
Alphabet likely would have spent around the same amount of money on its holiday gifts, so it’s not exactly a cost-saving move
Just wanted to flag that when donating to a charity the value of the donation MAY be tax deductible. So it's possible that Google / Alphabet recouped [their marginal tax rate] x [$30 million]. Of course this would vary across tax jurisdictions.
Having said that, even the full $30 million would be peanuts for those entities.
Nice one: just logged-in to say that was brilliant!
I'd much rather spend my time doing fun things that working or nurturing a company.
And I'm sure Zuckerberg felt that growing Facebook was a fun thing.
Once he was offered several billion for his company, he probably figured he could continue with this fun project knowing he could always bail and get at least one billion.
I want [the slightly heavier, thicker] phone a lot more than I want a lighter slimmer one that can't get me through an entire day.
Now, I agree with you. (Gimme a slightly thicker phone and triple its battery life.)
But I'll ask you:
Do you use battery cases? They add thickness & weight and increase the battery life.
Nice one, Alice.