But how can a company buy assets if it doesn't have any money? Oh, sorry, of course it does, because it has income which is generated from selling things to customers. So why shouldn't it pay income tax on its income? Ah, because it's an abstract entity that should not pay tax (as the post I replied to suggested).
Alternatively, if companies don't pay taxes, they shouldn't enjoy benefits such as protection of laws or electricity provided by infrastructure that is paid for by taxes. Why should the general public pay the salaries of lawmakers if they're going to pass laws in favour of companies that don't pay taxes?
The concept of a corporation was invented to allow a group of people to shift the risk of enterprise into an abstract entity. But just because it's an abstract entity doesn't mean that it's not part of the economy.
You are absolutely right, that's exactly the purpose of a corporation. It's allowed to exist because this lack of responsibility (or the ability to take on risks that are too great for individuals and groups) is seen as a positive. But this shouldn't give corporation the right to do whatever they want, which is what currently happens in some cases.
So people get taxed at the point of earning, but companies get taxed at the point of spending? Why is that?
I suggest amending the definition of a company so that it cannot own any assets (nor be liable for anything). Get the shareholders and/or employees to own the company, pay taxes at the point of earning, be directly liable for the company's actions etc. That'll solve many problems, and once that's done, I will see absolutely no reason to tax companies (because they will not earn anything and not own anything).
And I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument of "do you prefer that employees lose their jobs?" Many companies have folded and many people have already lost their jobs - having the abstract concept of a company doesn't guarantee anything. The concept was invented to allow people to invest in an enterprise, enjoy the profits and let it sink if it needs to (instead of the owners being directly liable). It's a great concept if you want humanity to take risks (on which progress depends), but it does have a price.
It also can't have profits and can't pay taxes - it's a company, not a human being.
So I suggest we get rid of the notion of "companies". It's harmful to society. Instead, let's have the employees and the shareholders responsible for taking the profits and for paying taxes. That'll be a lot simpler, and would require them to actually relocate to the Cayman Islands before they can enjoy the tax benefits.
And if specific employees and/or shareholders find ways not to pay taxes, then the government can find ways to withhold services such as education, health, roads and sewage. Agreed?
It must be heartbreaking to have your work judged by a few stars on Amazon. It's such a ruthless system (I've seen many authors that answer reviews in the comments, asking for specific details to show that the reviewer hasn't got a clue).
Even Amazon is a victim of this sometimes - it's enough to see the reviews of the Kindle Fire HD: "It's not an iPad - one star".
Good luck with your stories, don't give up because of idiots!
Usually 1 stars are "Didn't receive the item. Contacted seller but got no response (it's been more than 24 hours since I ordered the product). Very disappointed."
It's not the same. When someone reviews a book, you can assume that they've actually read a few pages (or at least the summary at the back). That would be a very dangerous assumption on Slashdot.
Usually the sequence is: 1. Quick keyword search on the title 2. Find a comment near the top that is somewhat related to the anger you feel about the keywords you found in the title 3. Post your rant as a response to the comment 4. Check if there are any links to interesting videos in the summary 5. Defend your opinion, starting with "I haven't actually RTFA, but..." 6. Feel smug
On Amazon it's slightly different (but maybe not by much).
You sound like you're doubting my 200h week for some reason. But that's nothing, I used to do double that when I was younger - that's how competitive my field is!
I spend 9:00am until 5:00pm pulling out the bugs I put in from 5:00pm until 9:00pm. 60 hours a week and I work non-stop... I must be very productive - and it shows: I'm top in number of commits, number of issues resolved (and opened), and number of lines of code. All the metrics are pointing at a hard-working, loyal and committed team player. Now where's my promotion?!
If you get in at 9am and stay until 8pm, that's 11 hours a day. So that's 77 hours a week, if you work 7 days a week. When people work 80 hours a week, they normally stay until 11pm and have one day off a week (14 * 6 = 84 hours).
My wife would leave me if I worked 80 hours a week, and then I'd commit suicide. But some people are happy to live like that. I guess we're all different.
Slashdot Mirror
It was worth scrolling all this way to learn something new. Thanks!
You'd be amazed what APL can do in a single line.
I wouldn't like to read 50,000 lines of it, though.
But how can a company buy assets if it doesn't have any money? Oh, sorry, of course it does, because it has income which is generated from selling things to customers. So why shouldn't it pay income tax on its income? Ah, because it's an abstract entity that should not pay tax (as the post I replied to suggested).
Alternatively, if companies don't pay taxes, they shouldn't enjoy benefits such as protection of laws or electricity provided by infrastructure that is paid for by taxes. Why should the general public pay the salaries of lawmakers if they're going to pass laws in favour of companies that don't pay taxes?
The concept of a corporation was invented to allow a group of people to shift the risk of enterprise into an abstract entity. But just because it's an abstract entity doesn't mean that it's not part of the economy.
You are absolutely right, that's exactly the purpose of a corporation. It's allowed to exist because this lack of responsibility (or the ability to take on risks that are too great for individuals and groups) is seen as a positive. But this shouldn't give corporation the right to do whatever they want, which is what currently happens in some cases.
So people get taxed at the point of earning, but companies get taxed at the point of spending? Why is that?
I suggest amending the definition of a company so that it cannot own any assets (nor be liable for anything). Get the shareholders and/or employees to own the company, pay taxes at the point of earning, be directly liable for the company's actions etc. That'll solve many problems, and once that's done, I will see absolutely no reason to tax companies (because they will not earn anything and not own anything).
And I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument of "do you prefer that employees lose their jobs?" Many companies have folded and many people have already lost their jobs - having the abstract concept of a company doesn't guarantee anything. The concept was invented to allow people to invest in an enterprise, enjoy the profits and let it sink if it needs to (instead of the owners being directly liable). It's a great concept if you want humanity to take risks (on which progress depends), but it does have a price.
Then make sure that corporations can have no assets. After all, they're just abstract entities.
It also can't have profits and can't pay taxes - it's a company, not a human being.
So I suggest we get rid of the notion of "companies". It's harmful to society. Instead, let's have the employees and the shareholders responsible for taking the profits and for paying taxes. That'll be a lot simpler, and would require them to actually relocate to the Cayman Islands before they can enjoy the tax benefits.
And if specific employees and/or shareholders find ways not to pay taxes, then the government can find ways to withhold services such as education, health, roads and sewage. Agreed?
It must be heartbreaking to have your work judged by a few stars on Amazon. It's such a ruthless system (I've seen many authors that answer reviews in the comments, asking for specific details to show that the reviewer hasn't got a clue).
Even Amazon is a victim of this sometimes - it's enough to see the reviews of the Kindle Fire HD: "It's not an iPad - one star".
Good luck with your stories, don't give up because of idiots!
Usually 1 stars are "Didn't receive the item. Contacted seller but got no response (it's been more than 24 hours since I ordered the product). Very disappointed."
It's not the same. When someone reviews a book, you can assume that they've actually read a few pages (or at least the summary at the back). That would be a very dangerous assumption on Slashdot.
Usually the sequence is:
1. Quick keyword search on the title
2. Find a comment near the top that is somewhat related to the anger you feel about the keywords you found in the title
3. Post your rant as a response to the comment
4. Check if there are any links to interesting videos in the summary
5. Defend your opinion, starting with "I haven't actually RTFA, but..."
6. Feel smug
On Amazon it's slightly different (but maybe not by much).
No thanks, just not have children if that's OK with you. Do the same and within 100 years all those problems will go away.
Your comments are very insightful to the problems that the article is talking about. Thank you for sharing your experience!
How is that news?
I was juggling like crazy in the 90's, but that's still almost 20 years ago.
Oh, you mean 'svn praise' ;-)
You could pay $6 a month at http://repositoryhosting.com/.
Yes, I just found out that the Ritz are charging £6.50 for a cup of tea, while at Tesco they sell 80 tea bags for £0.27 (0.3375p each).
Well I never!
It's really important not to eat into your principal, because you want to make sure that you still have $5 million in the bank when you're dead.
I'm sure that's based on real data.
MISRA C, not MIRSA C (clearly...)
MIRSA C does not contain any naming conventions. It only recommends that you have a style guide that includes a naming convention.
It doesn't cost much, and well worth the read, even if you don't agree with every point.
You mean that we cannot guarantee that the product does not contain nuts, even though the factory only makes sewing machines.
They wouldn't have stolen the subtiles if the pirates kept them encryped.
You sound like you're doubting my 200h week for some reason. But that's nothing, I used to do double that when I was younger - that's how competitive my field is!
I spend 9:00am until 5:00pm pulling out the bugs I put in from 5:00pm until 9:00pm.
60 hours a week and I work non-stop... I must be very productive - and it shows: I'm top in number of commits, number of issues resolved (and opened), and number of lines of code. All the metrics are pointing at a hard-working, loyal and committed team player. Now where's my promotion?!
Yes, I'm only joking.
If you get in at 9am and stay until 8pm, that's 11 hours a day. So that's 77 hours a week, if you work 7 days a week.
When people work 80 hours a week, they normally stay until 11pm and have one day off a week (14 * 6 = 84 hours).
My wife would leave me if I worked 80 hours a week, and then I'd commit suicide. But some people are happy to live like that. I guess we're all different.