No, it's not 7x. It's because you don't start at Zero when something is several times bigger then itself, you start at the size of itself in order to calculate how many times bigger it is.
This works out to x+7*x or 8x instead of just 7x.
It's one of those trick word problems in high school math class where how it was said effects how you to the math and a lack of attention to detail means you got it wrong.
You shouldn't give CNN that much credit. Ted Turner himself admitted to the left leaning bias of CNN and said his greatest fear when creating the channel was that someone would start up a conservative 24 hour news channel which would have drove him under in the early days of CNN. He has said this many time and many places, but I think he said the most about it when being interviewed by PBS's Charlie Rose a year or so ago.
Of course, the "company" could provide pretty much everything a person needs to live - transport, housing, food, etc - as "expenses".
Only in a furtherance of a legitimate business need. Otherwise it counts as income to the employee (you). There are even tax rules about how much a business can spend per diem on a person and have it count as a legitimate furtherance of a business need. These rules can easily understate the costs too. Interestingly, as an employee who might be sent away over night, they can only deduct a per diem cost allowances equal to the actual costs up to the federal limit, if they are duplicating costs. If for instance, you are a truck driver who lives in their truck, you aren't entitled to a per diem expense.
So while a business could actually provide a lot of what a person needs, most of it would be counted as income already.
The best way to produce the situation you want - the majority of profits fed back into the business and employees - is punishingly high income taxes for the super-rich and (particularly) corporations, with appropriate deductions (most of which already exist anyway) when that money is ploughed back into the business and employees.
Corporations paying taxes is a myth of convenience. All they do is pass their costs on to the consumer who pays it all. If the share holders are completely over taxed, they will demand larger dividends or profits in order to protect their investments value. IF that doesn't happen, they leave and find an investment that has a higher return with the same amounts of risk. This hurts the company's ability to do business to some degree. But it has them looking at greener pastures which may be cheaper labor, less benefits for labor, higher consumer prices, and so on.
You are not really going to force a business into doing something it doesn't want to do. At best, you can make it more attractive to do something than not doing it would be. This is how most corporate tax breaks and subsidies operate.
But you don't really want to punish the super rich either. Granted, they have accumulated more, but the majority of their wealth is the investment vehicles that spurs development and productivity for those who have little. They purchase goods on futures contracts ensuring some businesses have the capitol to operate until the product makes it to the market, they fund new ventures which creates new employment opportunities, and in some cases, they fund the expansion of existing businesses which does the same. But here is the problem, if you take too much, it stops becoming worth their while to investigate these investments and take risks on them. This hampers development, expansion and all the other crap that benefits the not so rich. It also puts pressure for profits to be higher as they are keeping less of their incomes so looking to cut costs like labor or increasing prices to the consumer becomes more attractive to them.
Let's look at this from a monetary standpoint. Suppose you wanted to invest 1000 but knew you would be taxed at 25% of everything made from it. So you would have to figure how valuable that $1k is to you and determine what kind of profits you might want. Now inflation averages about 3 percent so doing nothing will cost you 3% of the 1k per year. So lets say you are looking at making twice the amount of inflation or 6%. So you find a modest investment and make 6% or $60. But wait, your going to be taxed 25% so that $60 becomes $45 or 4.5%. So now you have to increase your expectations in order to account for taxes because a spike in inflation could leave you with less money then you had. So knowing that you will lose 25% to taxes, you know have to make about 8.8% profit in order to meet the double the rate of inflation. So what happens, do you pass up the investments that won't return 8.8% or do you pressure the company you invested in to make more money by either cutting costs or increasing prices? So now lest s
But they are willing to pay for it. The inverse isn't. Just like with any other job, you have to weight what is expected with the payments and determine if that's better then nothing. To me, passing up 40k a year or better while being uncomfortable is a lot worse then living off of the equivalent of 15k a year with welfare and such.
Organized labor isn't going to do anything other then turn the tech industry into GM that fails or abandons entire states like Michigan in search of profit.
Why do you think it would be different then what we have already seen? And why do you think voting politics would make any difference? I mean the democrats controlled both houses of congress in 2008 when this emergency rule was made, they now control both houses of congress as well as the executive and have done nothing to end this practice. You act as if there is some magical choice when there isn't.
That's only going to work if the intent is to actually keep the kid in the US. If the goal is to train them here and ship them overseas, then the person applying wouldn't want the green card.
Well, unless your attempting to say that everyone who participated in this has to stay in the country for a defined length of time. But then it would be sort of like an end run around the legitimate green card process that doesn't take advantage of already skilled labor wanting to get in. I'm not sure it's a fix.
Lol.. There is no technical difference between the two from a user perspective. It's essentially the same, hosted applications and data. The same pitfalls apply outside of the supposed redundancy of the images which seemed to fail miserably when Amazon had those issues a year or so ago.
Let's expand on this, what happens when they lose a lawsuit and all their assets are frozen and some judge thinks your data is part of their assets or order the servers to be shut down in order to prevent wear and tear and degradation of value? Or even worse yet, when the FBI (insert alternative evil government agency of any country) responds to someone's alleged wrong doings by busting into the server farm and taking the equipment for evidence?
Using someone else' equipment in a location not under your control does present a lot of potential problems with people not even connected to your establishment.
You mean we should have equipment on site that the cloud was supposed to replace in order to have a backup business operation in case of emergency? Isn't that sort of redundantly redundant?
I know of several insurance companies across 5 counties that have been essentially using "the cloud" for a long time (before it ever was popular).
well, actually, they were using web based applications from either their parent offices or the actual provider to obtain rates and set up policies. It's the same thing as the cloud concept as all they needed to do it route to those select locations.
Anyways, I can count several times a year in which either their electricity, internet, or something along those lines upstream, has prevented the offices from doing anything productive for a day or more. And when speaking with one of the reps, this seems to be something of a common thing that they just accept.
The cloud doesn't make sense for small to medium businesses because the type of investment needed to ensure productivity and negate any of those issues is more then they would save (power generator, back up internet, and so on). When your business is placed in a situation where someone crashing into a telephone pole across town or some hilljack decided to dig a drainage ditch 10 miles away will shut down most all productivity, it's not a good thing. When your business is large enough that a work stoppage causes losses greater then the costs of maintaining a generator or having a separate and redundant internet routed differently then the other, then it makes sense.
I don't really care about Bush or Gore in my comment. The comment was about the exaggeration of cause and effect and how it all had little to do with reality and how people were carelessly wrong about what they thought to be true.
You see, the problem with the lock box is that the money doesn't keep up with inflation when it's buried in your back yard. This is why millionaires stopped using that form of savings long ago. It's not a solution just as the fuzzy math wasn't a solution and was used to justify other non-solutions. This lead to the resurgence of the similar idea that a tax break somehow was less tax revenue then no taxes at all and I pointed that out.
Corporate tax is the equivalent of income tax for corporations. So if everyone has to pay their income tax, why should corporations be exempt of that?
Because the costs of doing business is a deciding factor if a business will do business in a certain area. Go ahead and take google for instance, they are funneling projects and money to Ireland and other areas to take advantage of lower costs of business. This places companies where taxes on corporations are stiff at a competitive disadvantage. Those companies at the disadvantage are typically the companies that provide the most benefits for the society by providing jobs and goods that can't really move away and be electronically beamed back.
You seem to have a strangely optimistic fate that the corporations will do good with the money, but fail to present a good reason why they should do so.
Corporations will either expand their business or pay dividends. In some rare cases, they will sit on their profit to cover anticipated expenditures but the point is that the money is being used in some useful way. Instead, collect that revenue from the shareholders at the time in which the revenue is distributed to them and it stops benefiting the society it is in. And yes, even if a corporation sits on all it's positive income for ten years, all that would happen is their net worth increases which means their stock prices increase and you raise more taxes from the trade of it. So it's not like it's lost or anything, it's just being collected at the point in time it stops producing or keeping jobs and other growth that benefits society.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no illusions of corporations being some bastion of freedom with the goals of benefiting society. It's just something that happens when corporations make money. They employ people, these people spend money, the corporations make more money and spend it too. It's just how it works. Even with you bringing up Google, they invest their profit into jobs or technology or research and expansion. IF they didn't do this, do you think they would employ as many people as they do today?
Employees are just assets/liabilities of them, but don't really belong in the same bucket with the obligations of their income.
I think maybe you are a little confused. Employees have nothing to do with this, it's the share holders who would bear the burden. However, when the company stays in business because it's easier to be competitive, those employees continue to contribute to the tax base as well as purchase goods and services which aid in others being employed. When those companies expand their business, it provides more jobs with growth the previous. When they distribute the money by way of dividends, it stops being as productive and useful to society and becomes taxed at the share holders levels. You can increase the share holder's cut (which is essentially the same as taxing the company and reducing dividend taxes as it present is now). This would increase the productivity of the amount of fund that would have gone to taxes while they are being the most productive to society,
Evidently, you do no understand how a corporation works. Once you are incorporated, you can't spend company money on yourself or your personal needs. That's called embezzlement and you can be imprisoned for embezzlement from your own company as well as exempted from any separation of liability from your personal effect in cases of bankruptcy. It all has to be business related expenditures and accounted for through generally accepted accounting practices.
If someone incorporated themselves, they would still have to pay themselves a wage and it would be taxed on their personal income in which they would need to pay income taxes on. But a corporation can't be an employee of another business so benefits like sick time, unemployment compensation, vacation pay, insurances and so on would be the sole responsibility of the person through their own corporation doing business with their former employer. Of course an incorporated person can become an contract employee and negotiate a contract that might supply some of that but it's not likely that it would be done individually.
The so called powerless individual already foots the bills. In the US, in 2007, corporate income taxes accounted for approximately 15 percent of all federal income taxes and once this is in perspective with all federal revenue, it accounts for less then 7 percent. This comes out to about 400 billion dollars. If you take that 400b and move it to the personal income of individuals, then a 2% increase on the top marginal rates for dividend income, the 400 billion is more then accounted for. But more importantly, it's accounted for when it hits the private person and ceases to provide jobs and benefits for the so called powerless and society in general.
You know, if the bridges, streets, water, electric, and waste water treatment wasn't already being paid for through either service fees or ancillary taxes that aren't associated with income tax, you might have a point. You even lost your entire point by completely ignoring other taxes that are inspired by corporations being in an area that contribute so much more to this. In the US, the Raw corporate income tax only accounted for less then 15% of all income tax revenue. When that is adjusted to all federal tax revenues, it's only 7%.
Perhaps all corporations should move to china and we can import everything- wait, with a double digit unemployment rate and wages falling through the floor, I guess that's not a good idea. Perhaps if we track down and deport the 15-20 percent of the population in the country illegally and deport them all, we could lessen this blow a little. Have you ever thought any of this through or do you just swallow the entire "evil corporation must pay" lines while ignoring reality?
Do you ever wonder why some places have such a hard time attracting and keeping business? I mean seriously, if you want jobs in your area, should you do something to attract jobs or is it something where anyone wanting to make money automagically owes you or the area?
This is lovely. I feel like I'm back in the 2000 election cycle with the fuzzy math floating around and a magic lock box with the key to the lock box that was going to hide where no one, not even he, could find.
Please tell me something, is 12 minus 7 percent of $100k more or less then 12 percent of $0? Is 20% of $50k times three more or less then 25% of 0 times 0? You see, I'm confused because the government is making more by discounting tax revenue by means of tax breaks then they would be making by not having anything to tax at all, so how are they going broke and how would they not go broke without them?
No, the problem with Ireland getting hit so hard isn't because of tax breaks, it's because they primarily attracted services oriented companies which do not create wealth in the portion of enterprise located in their country. At best, service companies consume wealth as they are primarily a middle man. When capitol becomes in short supply, those companies get hit first and the worst. This cascades down which also effects jobs and other tax revenues.
In 2001, corporate taxes was just ~15% of Ireland's income taxable. In contrast, in 2008, the 2009 budget was 65 billion Euro in deficit at almost 10% of GDP. This means tax breaks for corporations is not what caused this problem and getting rid of them is not going to solve it. What will solve it is getting inflation under control and making sure the banks in Ireland are solvent to capitol flow remains possible. Again, taking money from corporations is not going to fix either of those and most likely would retard most efforts in it.
I'm not sure Ireland's or the EU constitution allows for governments to punish corporations unfairly while protecting others. In fact, this would pretty much put them in violation of many free trade agreements in which they are penalizing foreign trade within the country.
There would be many problems with your suggestions. None of these problems would likely help.
It's not a bullshit comparison. You see, the companies are not interested in running the government, they are interested in running their own business which means that if it is cheaper in China or India or with the same results, then that's where they can run their business for less.
The comparison here isn't about what government provides it's citizens or the citizen's expected lifestyle, the comparison is on where the company can be run the most effectively for the least amount of expense.
Personally, I think they should do away with corporate taxes altogether. All money corporations make either go to the share holder by way of dividend, or is invested into expanding the company. Expansion of the company means more commerce which means more sales and more taxes on sales but it also means more jobs and more services and products that people can afford. Going to the share holder means income which means more income taxes and all perceived lost revenue outside of that which would go to foreign investors, could be captured by simple progressive income taxes with a small increase on income from dividends.
The problem is that the founders, who mostly wrote or adopted the US constitution, set the border exception into play in the first congress and the courts have already ruled it constitutional.
What you ask for will take a lot of creativity and perhaps quite a bit of information that seems to contradict history.
I find it funny that people seem to be focused on the effects part of the clause when the problem is something completely different. Effect basically means things on your person or directly in your control, electronic files would most certainly fall into that category. Just because the founding fathers didn't have a concept of electronic files doesn't mean that they didn't cover or intend to cover it because it's nothing more then a high tech version of a paper and effect that is already covered.
but that's sort of like arguing for the sake of argument. Whether or not electronic files are covered by the 4th amendment isn't the question. The question is the reasonableness as the 4th amendment only protects us from the government doing unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts have long ago, and much to the backing of the founding fathers as they wrote and implemented the very first warrant-less search law in the very first congress session in this country, rules that it's reasonable as a right of sovereignty, that the government be allowed to inspect persons and items entering the country.
It's not different for your data, it's different because of where it is at.
The courts have long held up the idea that the US government can as being a necessary a right of sovereignty, control what enters the country and this right allows searches at the borders and ports of entry. This sentiment is also shared by our founding fathers insomuch as they created and passed into law, the very first warrant-less search at the border (or port of entry) in the second session of the very first congress of the United states.
BTW, even the US mail is allowed to be searched/read when it comes in from another country. Well, in certain circumstances that is. There are some restrictions written into postal code (a portion of US law) but the courts support not having those protections at all.
They most likely connected it to something to see that it was empty. Instead of taking it apart to ensure that nothing was hiding inside the drive and possibly ruining it in the process (it's common to hollow things out and stuff crap inside them), they likely took the Write Blocking off and wrote something to see if it could be retrieved.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not 7x. It's because you don't start at Zero when something is several times bigger then itself, you start at the size of itself in order to calculate how many times bigger it is.
This works out to x+7*x or 8x instead of just 7x.
It's one of those trick word problems in high school math class where how it was said effects how you to the math and a lack of attention to detail means you got it wrong.
Why don't you quote the rest of what he said, he explains right there in what he meant. If you have a problem with it, address that.
You shouldn't give CNN that much credit. Ted Turner himself admitted to the left leaning bias of CNN and said his greatest fear when creating the channel was that someone would start up a conservative 24 hour news channel which would have drove him under in the early days of CNN. He has said this many time and many places, but I think he said the most about it when being interviewed by PBS's Charlie Rose a year or so ago.
Don't let the hairline majority and Filibusters overshadow the unwilling representatives.
In other words, they are not what you think they are and you have seemed to swallow the excuses.
Only in a furtherance of a legitimate business need. Otherwise it counts as income to the employee (you). There are even tax rules about how much a business can spend per diem on a person and have it count as a legitimate furtherance of a business need. These rules can easily understate the costs too. Interestingly, as an employee who might be sent away over night, they can only deduct a per diem cost allowances equal to the actual costs up to the federal limit, if they are duplicating costs. If for instance, you are a truck driver who lives in their truck, you aren't entitled to a per diem expense.
So while a business could actually provide a lot of what a person needs, most of it would be counted as income already.
Corporations paying taxes is a myth of convenience. All they do is pass their costs on to the consumer who pays it all. If the share holders are completely over taxed, they will demand larger dividends or profits in order to protect their investments value. IF that doesn't happen, they leave and find an investment that has a higher return with the same amounts of risk. This hurts the company's ability to do business to some degree. But it has them looking at greener pastures which may be cheaper labor, less benefits for labor, higher consumer prices, and so on.
You are not really going to force a business into doing something it doesn't want to do. At best, you can make it more attractive to do something than not doing it would be. This is how most corporate tax breaks and subsidies operate.
But you don't really want to punish the super rich either. Granted, they have accumulated more, but the majority of their wealth is the investment vehicles that spurs development and productivity for those who have little. They purchase goods on futures contracts ensuring some businesses have the capitol to operate until the product makes it to the market, they fund new ventures which creates new employment opportunities, and in some cases, they fund the expansion of existing businesses which does the same. But here is the problem, if you take too much, it stops becoming worth their while to investigate these investments and take risks on them. This hampers development, expansion and all the other crap that benefits the not so rich. It also puts pressure for profits to be higher as they are keeping less of their incomes so looking to cut costs like labor or increasing prices to the consumer becomes more attractive to them.
Let's look at this from a monetary standpoint. Suppose you wanted to invest 1000 but knew you would be taxed at 25% of everything made from it. So you would have to figure how valuable that $1k is to you and determine what kind of profits you might want. Now inflation averages about 3 percent so doing nothing will cost you 3% of the 1k per year. So lets say you are looking at making twice the amount of inflation or 6%. So you find a modest investment and make 6% or $60. But wait, your going to be taxed 25% so that $60 becomes $45 or 4.5%. So now you have to increase your expectations in order to account for taxes because a spike in inflation could leave you with less money then you had. So knowing that you will lose 25% to taxes, you know have to make about 8.8% profit in order to meet the double the rate of inflation. So what happens, do you pass up the investments that won't return 8.8% or do you pressure the company you invested in to make more money by either cutting costs or increasing prices? So now lest s
I don't think anyone is saying it won't work, I think they are saying it won't work for everyone or even them.
They are expressing their concerns to why or why not.
But they are willing to pay for it. The inverse isn't. Just like with any other job, you have to weight what is expected with the payments and determine if that's better then nothing. To me, passing up 40k a year or better while being uncomfortable is a lot worse then living off of the equivalent of 15k a year with welfare and such.
Organized labor isn't going to do anything other then turn the tech industry into GM that fails or abandons entire states like Michigan in search of profit.
Why do you think it would be different then what we have already seen? And why do you think voting politics would make any difference? I mean the democrats controlled both houses of congress in 2008 when this emergency rule was made, they now control both houses of congress as well as the executive and have done nothing to end this practice. You act as if there is some magical choice when there isn't.
That's only going to work if the intent is to actually keep the kid in the US. If the goal is to train them here and ship them overseas, then the person applying wouldn't want the green card.
Well, unless your attempting to say that everyone who participated in this has to stay in the country for a defined length of time. But then it would be sort of like an end run around the legitimate green card process that doesn't take advantage of already skilled labor wanting to get in. I'm not sure it's a fix.
Just remember, when hanging out there, it's better to be more on then more off.
Lol.. There is no technical difference between the two from a user perspective. It's essentially the same, hosted applications and data. The same pitfalls apply outside of the supposed redundancy of the images which seemed to fail miserably when Amazon had those issues a year or so ago.
Let's expand on this, what happens when they lose a lawsuit and all their assets are frozen and some judge thinks your data is part of their assets or order the servers to be shut down in order to prevent wear and tear and degradation of value? Or even worse yet, when the FBI (insert alternative evil government agency of any country) responds to someone's alleged wrong doings by busting into the server farm and taking the equipment for evidence?
Using someone else' equipment in a location not under your control does present a lot of potential problems with people not even connected to your establishment.
You mean we should have equipment on site that the cloud was supposed to replace in order to have a backup business operation in case of emergency? Isn't that sort of redundantly redundant?
I know of several insurance companies across 5 counties that have been essentially using "the cloud" for a long time (before it ever was popular).
well, actually, they were using web based applications from either their parent offices or the actual provider to obtain rates and set up policies. It's the same thing as the cloud concept as all they needed to do it route to those select locations.
Anyways, I can count several times a year in which either their electricity, internet, or something along those lines upstream, has prevented the offices from doing anything productive for a day or more. And when speaking with one of the reps, this seems to be something of a common thing that they just accept.
The cloud doesn't make sense for small to medium businesses because the type of investment needed to ensure productivity and negate any of those issues is more then they would save (power generator, back up internet, and so on). When your business is placed in a situation where someone crashing into a telephone pole across town or some hilljack decided to dig a drainage ditch 10 miles away will shut down most all productivity, it's not a good thing. When your business is large enough that a work stoppage causes losses greater then the costs of maintaining a generator or having a separate and redundant internet routed differently then the other, then it makes sense.
I don't really care about Bush or Gore in my comment. The comment was about the exaggeration of cause and effect and how it all had little to do with reality and how people were carelessly wrong about what they thought to be true.
You see, the problem with the lock box is that the money doesn't keep up with inflation when it's buried in your back yard. This is why millionaires stopped using that form of savings long ago. It's not a solution just as the fuzzy math wasn't a solution and was used to justify other non-solutions. This lead to the resurgence of the similar idea that a tax break somehow was less tax revenue then no taxes at all and I pointed that out.
Because the costs of doing business is a deciding factor if a business will do business in a certain area. Go ahead and take google for instance, they are funneling projects and money to Ireland and other areas to take advantage of lower costs of business. This places companies where taxes on corporations are stiff at a competitive disadvantage. Those companies at the disadvantage are typically the companies that provide the most benefits for the society by providing jobs and goods that can't really move away and be electronically beamed back.
Corporations will either expand their business or pay dividends. In some rare cases, they will sit on their profit to cover anticipated expenditures but the point is that the money is being used in some useful way. Instead, collect that revenue from the shareholders at the time in which the revenue is distributed to them and it stops benefiting the society it is in. And yes, even if a corporation sits on all it's positive income for ten years, all that would happen is their net worth increases which means their stock prices increase and you raise more taxes from the trade of it. So it's not like it's lost or anything, it's just being collected at the point in time it stops producing or keeping jobs and other growth that benefits society.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no illusions of corporations being some bastion of freedom with the goals of benefiting society. It's just something that happens when corporations make money. They employ people, these people spend money, the corporations make more money and spend it too. It's just how it works. Even with you bringing up Google, they invest their profit into jobs or technology or research and expansion. IF they didn't do this, do you think they would employ as many people as they do today?
I think maybe you are a little confused. Employees have nothing to do with this, it's the share holders who would bear the burden. However, when the company stays in business because it's easier to be competitive, those employees continue to contribute to the tax base as well as purchase goods and services which aid in others being employed. When those companies expand their business, it provides more jobs with growth the previous. When they distribute the money by way of dividends, it stops being as productive and useful to society and becomes taxed at the share holders levels. You can increase the share holder's cut (which is essentially the same as taxing the company and reducing dividend taxes as it present is now). This would increase the productivity of the amount of fund that would have gone to taxes while they are being the most productive to society,
Evidently, you do no understand how a corporation works. Once you are incorporated, you can't spend company money on yourself or your personal needs. That's called embezzlement and you can be imprisoned for embezzlement from your own company as well as exempted from any separation of liability from your personal effect in cases of bankruptcy. It all has to be business related expenditures and accounted for through generally accepted accounting practices.
If someone incorporated themselves, they would still have to pay themselves a wage and it would be taxed on their personal income in which they would need to pay income taxes on. But a corporation can't be an employee of another business so benefits like sick time, unemployment compensation, vacation pay, insurances and so on would be the sole responsibility of the person through their own corporation doing business with their former employer. Of course an incorporated person can become an contract employee and negotiate a contract that might supply some of that but it's not likely that it would be done individually.
The so called powerless individual already foots the bills. In the US, in 2007, corporate income taxes accounted for approximately 15 percent of all federal income taxes and once this is in perspective with all federal revenue, it accounts for less then 7 percent. This comes out to about 400 billion dollars. If you take that 400b and move it to the personal income of individuals, then a 2% increase on the top marginal rates for dividend income, the 400 billion is more then accounted for. But more importantly, it's accounted for when it hits the private person and ceases to provide jobs and benefits for the so called powerless and society in general.
You know, if the bridges, streets, water, electric, and waste water treatment wasn't already being paid for through either service fees or ancillary taxes that aren't associated with income tax, you might have a point. You even lost your entire point by completely ignoring other taxes that are inspired by corporations being in an area that contribute so much more to this. In the US, the Raw corporate income tax only accounted for less then 15% of all income tax revenue. When that is adjusted to all federal tax revenues, it's only 7%.
Perhaps all corporations should move to china and we can import everything- wait, with a double digit unemployment rate and wages falling through the floor, I guess that's not a good idea. Perhaps if we track down and deport the 15-20 percent of the population in the country illegally and deport them all, we could lessen this blow a little. Have you ever thought any of this through or do you just swallow the entire "evil corporation must pay" lines while ignoring reality?
Do you ever wonder why some places have such a hard time attracting and keeping business? I mean seriously, if you want jobs in your area, should you do something to attract jobs or is it something where anyone wanting to make money automagically owes you or the area?
This is lovely. I feel like I'm back in the 2000 election cycle with the fuzzy math floating around and a magic lock box with the key to the lock box that was going to hide where no one, not even he, could find.
Please tell me something, is 12 minus 7 percent of $100k more or less then 12 percent of $0? Is 20% of $50k times three more or less then 25% of 0 times 0? You see, I'm confused because the government is making more by discounting tax revenue by means of tax breaks then they would be making by not having anything to tax at all, so how are they going broke and how would they not go broke without them?
No, the problem with Ireland getting hit so hard isn't because of tax breaks, it's because they primarily attracted services oriented companies which do not create wealth in the portion of enterprise located in their country. At best, service companies consume wealth as they are primarily a middle man. When capitol becomes in short supply, those companies get hit first and the worst. This cascades down which also effects jobs and other tax revenues.
In 2001, corporate taxes was just ~15% of Ireland's income taxable. In contrast, in 2008, the 2009 budget was 65 billion Euro in deficit at almost 10% of GDP. This means tax breaks for corporations is not what caused this problem and getting rid of them is not going to solve it. What will solve it is getting inflation under control and making sure the banks in Ireland are solvent to capitol flow remains possible. Again, taking money from corporations is not going to fix either of those and most likely would retard most efforts in it.
I'm not sure Ireland's or the EU constitution allows for governments to punish corporations unfairly while protecting others. In fact, this would pretty much put them in violation of many free trade agreements in which they are penalizing foreign trade within the country.
There would be many problems with your suggestions. None of these problems would likely help.
It's not a bullshit comparison. You see, the companies are not interested in running the government, they are interested in running their own business which means that if it is cheaper in China or India or with the same results, then that's where they can run their business for less.
The comparison here isn't about what government provides it's citizens or the citizen's expected lifestyle, the comparison is on where the company can be run the most effectively for the least amount of expense.
Personally, I think they should do away with corporate taxes altogether. All money corporations make either go to the share holder by way of dividend, or is invested into expanding the company. Expansion of the company means more commerce which means more sales and more taxes on sales but it also means more jobs and more services and products that people can afford. Going to the share holder means income which means more income taxes and all perceived lost revenue outside of that which would go to foreign investors, could be captured by simple progressive income taxes with a small increase on income from dividends.
The problem is that the founders, who mostly wrote or adopted the US constitution, set the border exception into play in the first congress and the courts have already ruled it constitutional.
What you ask for will take a lot of creativity and perhaps quite a bit of information that seems to contradict history.
I find it funny that people seem to be focused on the effects part of the clause when the problem is something completely different. Effect basically means things on your person or directly in your control, electronic files would most certainly fall into that category. Just because the founding fathers didn't have a concept of electronic files doesn't mean that they didn't cover or intend to cover it because it's nothing more then a high tech version of a paper and effect that is already covered.
but that's sort of like arguing for the sake of argument. Whether or not electronic files are covered by the 4th amendment isn't the question. The question is the reasonableness as the 4th amendment only protects us from the government doing unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts have long ago, and much to the backing of the founding fathers as they wrote and implemented the very first warrant-less search law in the very first congress session in this country, rules that it's reasonable as a right of sovereignty, that the government be allowed to inspect persons and items entering the country.
It's not different for your data, it's different because of where it is at.
The courts have long held up the idea that the US government can as being a necessary a right of sovereignty, control what enters the country and this right allows searches at the borders and ports of entry. This sentiment is also shared by our founding fathers insomuch as they created and passed into law, the very first warrant-less search at the border (or port of entry) in the second session of the very first congress of the United states.
BTW, even the US mail is allowed to be searched/read when it comes in from another country. Well, in certain circumstances that is. There are some restrictions written into postal code (a portion of US law) but the courts support not having those protections at all.
They most likely connected it to something to see that it was empty. Instead of taking it apart to ensure that nothing was hiding inside the drive and possibly ruining it in the process (it's common to hollow things out and stuff crap inside them), they likely took the Write Blocking off and wrote something to see if it could be retrieved.