It's not the job of government to ensure competition. It's the job of government to prevent abuse due to the lack of competition.
If fact, the government even helps prevent competition by the use of Patents and copyrights.
It is not the job of the government (at least in the US) to interfere in industry or liberty unless acting within those are detrimental to others. Our entire society operates under the assumption of you can unless something forbids it. We don't need to ask permission to do something and the government reacts to abuses and hazards which creates regulations and laws.
That's the way it should be. It relieves all of the problems with religions having to defend themselves and with some of the outrageous ways they do so.
I don't think it would be that much of a problem outside of the schools if someone said something. At least then, the ideas would be pushed on people who volunteer to participate.
Another easy line to avoid the issue of religion in science is to simple say "This is science and the way science does things. Science doesn't speak of religion and we aren't starting it now. You will be expected to know how science does things to pass the class".
It's not irrelevant, you are attempting to extract the wrong meaning from it.
If the eyewitnesses believed in what they saw so much that they continued to admit it after being tortured and imprisoned, then it is likely that they believed in what they witnessed. The entire bible is written by other people detailing accounts. The legitimacy of these accounts are as close to the legitimacy in the beliefs of the people witnessing them as the beliefs themselves.
The persecution stories aren't supposed to say God Exists, they say This person witnessed this and after all this crap, he wouldn't change his story.
A local horse stable that had rental trail riding used to place clauses like that into the disclaimers you had to sign.
It would say that neither you or anyone on your behalf could sue them and if it happened, that you agreed to be liable for all damages, judgments, and legal fees associated with it.
Anyways, it was challenged in court and found that it left the consumer without legal redress and was unenforceable. They cited many other cases covering it but the stable still escaped liability because of equine laws on the books that release the owners of the horse or event or grounds from liability to unintentional and non-malicious actions of the animals. It was interesting because the stable actually lost on the contract but was shielded by other laws signifying they didn't even need the language in the first place.
I'm sure ATT knew if they added something more restrictive, the entire contract clause could become voided easily.
No, it isn't. If it is true, you would have pointed to at least one such prediction. Instead, you rambled on about religious domination.
Please present the useful predictions that religion has made, or STFU.
Have you forgotten about the prediction of microbes, bacteria and viruses? Yes, the early laws in the old testament said quite a bit about washing, being clean, and spreading of diseases 1500 years before man had the concept of germs.
The only difference is that some religious people seem to think this percieved persecution is a valid argument in a discussion about the existance of a deity. Somehow other people telling them they're wrong makes them more right.
This is actually a strong indication of the people being persecuted actually believing in whatever it was they were persecuted for. Take early Christians and some of the apostles for instance. They actually believed in their message despite all the beatings, imprisonment, torture and so on, it was that strong to them that they couldn't be forced to believe something different.
It doesn't prove an existence of God or any Gods but it does prove a conviction in the beliefs they held that was stronger then the people who didn't want them believing it. A way to spot a liar is to watch the guy change his statements when jailed.
Actually, the problem is more fundamental then that. The entire intelligent BS design was started because some people were attempting to us Science to disprove religion which it cannot do (for reasons you already stated).
Also the problem is that it is being done so in schools that people are mandated by law to attend. If there wasn't people out there saying there is no God or magic man in the clouds waving their hand, then it wouldn't even be an issue. But in a free society that has freedom of religion, when the government, though some ill intentioned science teacher at a place that people are compelled by law to attend send little Johny home with the Idea that God and religion is a lie, there is going to be problems. Evolution and the big bang is not fact, it can be wrong, there are several different theories within the subjects (like the bubble theory of evolution), and it says nothing about the existence of a god or not or anything about what that god has supposedly done or not.
Ok, clearly you can even comprehend even basic concepts put forward in a discussion.
"Of course your a coward troll who comes from a line of cowards so I guess you might be dense.... You should run off and have homosexual sex with your granddaddy who help Jews and queers escape the nazi's instead of defending his country from the invading army just before he ran."
And you call me the troll, how sad.
Yes, you are a troll. You can't even comprehend what you are writing yourself and you already showed all of the above to be true except for you but fucking your grandpa.
Very strange coming from an evil human being who supports indiscriminate mass murder. So I guess you need to not let yourself get away with murder. Arrest yourself for the mass murdering polices you support. Oh, and while you're at it it's likely that you're not telling the truth about what really happened so arrest yourself for those two murders too.
Again, indiscriminate does not mean what you think it means. That unless you are trolling because you don't know the difference. I do not supposed indiscriminate killing, I support targeted and accurate returns of fire on the people taking up arms against us. Why you continue to get that wrong is beyond me. Oh that's right, you are a fucking troll.
Obviously you can't see how your own stated policy applies to yourself, but then people like you only see things from your one sided point of view and ignore the damage you do in the world only concerned with your own perceived victories.
Obviously you are a moron. I have said all along that I desired an alternative to the killing but everything else has already failed. What part of that do you not understand? Oh yea, you understand it all and are just a fucking troll making shit up.
You've not schooled anyone except in how evil and murderous you are. I guess you got a taste for it.,/blockquote> Your right, despite all efforts, you successfully remains stupid. You can now go and brag about that to all your friends. (as if they had any doubt in you)
if the congress had authorized a loan to clean up pollution, for example, they could certainly demand repayment under any condition they like and specify in the leglislation in question.
They can't change the rules retroactively in order to punish someone or some entity. They also cannot force anyone to take the loan out. So even if they did create such a screwed up law, it would be up to the company and the executives to agree with it before anything would be binding.
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that makes this unconstitutional. it's called "providing for the general welfare of the united states". repayment is not a tax.
You need to go back and study your constitution again. This time, hopefully you will have a competent teacher. The General welfare clause is not, I repeat- IS NOT, a blank sheet of paper giving the government unlimited authority. You are supposed to look at the general welfare clause as being reasoning for the powers granted to congress. They can only use it in pursuit to a constitutionally appropriate interest which is spelled out in constitution. In short, you need a qualifier.
And yes, if the loan was forced onto the companies, it would be considered an impost which is a tax and must be uniform throughout the country. But we are not talking about a loan anyways. The situation is where a company is filing bankruptcy and is getting out from under their obligations to clean up an environmental situation.
In that respect, congress could give and take money pretty much as they see fit, as long as it is in terms of loans, or the satisfaction of a grant condition, and not a tax. And, oddly enough, they do use this power regularly.
See above. And no, they don't do this regularly, they used to but then the courts said it was unconstitutional so they attempt to provide extra funding if certain conditions are met.
Such as withholding highway funds if drinking ages are not mandated: there my not be a federal drinking age, constitutionally (that, I'm not sure , but they sure as hell can make it attractive to do what they like without running afoul of constitutional problems.
Actually, they did run afoul of constitutional powers. This was already decided in South Dakota v. Dole in which the court ultimately upheld the lower courts ruling, but did so because the amount (less the 5% of federal highway funds) was not enough to be considered coercive. Had it been much more, it would have been tossed out. The court used a 4 prong test to measure the constitutionality of the law and if any other laws don't fall within that test, it will be struck down.
They cannot, as you say, target a tax at Bob the CeO of GM. But they sure could, if they wished, require repayment of a loan should the terms of a loan be defaulted upon to be guaranteed by anyone they care to have sign on the dotted line
And these people can either not sign the dotted line or file bankruptcy and get out from under it. And yes, each person who would be impacted by that would have to sign the loan and not be under duress or pressure in order for it to be binding.
I have no idea if that's the case and I'm not advocating necessarily for targeting CEOs specifically.. not ruling it out either... just saying there are ways it could be done without running afoul of any constitutional rule against taxation.
What you are talking about now is someone taking a loan out in a company's name and personally vouching for it. Bankruptcy will discharge it just like it does all other debt, and all the participants have to be freely willing to sign onto it. I wouldn't sign to guarantee a loan for a company I worked for. I don't see why others would.
You are a pig-ignorant cunt-of-a-trogolodyte mate. (just a rebuttal on behalf of the generation that gives a shit about something known as "reality")
Yes, you are. And I will point to why by commenting on your own statements and show how fucked up you conception of reality is. You are living in a fallacy world.
The fact of the matter, is that we have this stupid situation where there is an artifice known as a "corporation" these don't have morals because they are not human, yet the humans that run them are not liable for the actions of the corporation.
Wrong. First of all, it's a fact of life that any corporation has to maintain a step of community standards or else they will not remain in business. This is caused by regulations and activism. Look at Nike for instance, one of the worlds largest sport garment producers who used to use child labor in sweat shops but had to stop because people quit buying their crap when that was brought out.
For two, you are wrong about the people running the corporations are not liable for the actions of the corporation. As you already pointed out, a corporation is only an object and needs people in order to act. You are not shielded from your own actions and the corporation becomes liable for your actions vicariously. The only shielding a corporation provide is from actions that are not yours. IF the CEO orders the toxic waste to be dumped next to the towns water supply, then that CEO is liable for his actions civilly as well as criminally.
The only possible solutions are to either regulate them or to remove the limited liability.
You only think that because you are living in a fallacy of corporations being shielded from their actions. Probably from watching Captain Planet.
So far all major legislators have chosen the first, because of some ignoble reason like "not wanting to scare off investors", or likely persuaded by some astroturfists.
It's because when you own a business and someone else runs it, you have taken no actions yourself to direct whatever the problem is. So why should you be liable just because you had 200 shares in your retirement account. Do you really think it is a good Idea to hold you parents accountable because of some company in a mutual fund that they have in their 401k, poisoned a water supply?
So now we have this situation where we need to make a second set of laws to address these amoral entities. (notice the word amoral is not immoral (a rock is amoral Hitler was Immoral))
Corporations are not amoral. Corporations do no act on their own and bring the morals and ethics of the people running them. And yes, those people are liable for their own actions too. When someone or something cannot act, they cannot display any morals at all. Amoral is a trait that varies and is imposed things that can act, not things that can't like rocks or whatever.
This fancy legislation works by rewarding those that our Govt. thinks are good for the country and punishing those who they think are doing bad
WTF are you talking about. The government should not be in the practice of rewarding anything. The regulation penalizes acts which are determined to be detrimental. It's that simple.
Recently people (and more recently legislators) have realized that in fact, unless they are encouraged otherwise, corporations will not dispose of their waste in a responsible manner, because its not cheap enough...in between stuff like this has happened:...
(hopefully)Some legislators determined that to encourage corporate responsibility, sanctions needed to be applied.
Have you even read that link? All that was done by companies in other countries. Non
Actually, I said it was a conspiracy theory. One that plays into the self interest aspect the parent was talking about. Just because it is there doesn't mean I believe it or that I'm pushing it.
And yes, the Illuminati conspiracy is real too. They too are organized within their own self interest. I'm not sure I get your point.
It would appear that the hatred toward Microsoft came from microsoft's own actions and probably some of the OSS groups. However, I wasn't really attempting to comment on participants in an industry, just the industry in general. A closer example to my point would be that Captain Planet indoctrinated these people to believe all industry is evil then they would point to MS in order to prove Sun was evil.
Things like buying a new office furniture and everything down to unused copy machine paper counts as income at the end of the year if it was purchased that year. Obviously what you have used is an expense.
The point is, expenses are unique to the business and buying clothing or large ticket items will not be an expense or a deduction unless your business is buying and selling them.
I just looked it up in case it changed, and nope, still can only deduct uniforms that are not suitable for ordinary wear. Also things like hard hats and safety glasses.
And that's all the corporations can deduct so where it the problem?
Exactly. If I had my own business and was incorporated, if I needed business attire as part of running my business, I could have my business buy it and get a tax write-off*. But if I'm employed by someone else, and this requires me to buy business attire if I want to stay employed, I don't get the same write-off.
You could not write it off through the business. If the business purchased the clothing and it didn't already meet the other requirements, it becomes an asset and counts as income the first year. There probably isn't a deduction schedule for clothing either.
Have you ever filed a business return? Thing like buying a new office furniture and everything down to copy machine paper counts as income at the end of the year if it was purchased that year. That is why you are allowed to depreciate a lot of it. And when you get rid of it, if you get more then your depreciated value, you have to pay a capitol gains on it.
*Okay, to be honest I'm not sure if this is how the system is supposed to work, but I know people who do this and the IRS doesn't question it.
Those people are cheating on their taxes. Most smaller companies do things like that but if they have any (silent) partners or go into bankruptcy, they "can be" hit for embezzlement as well as tax fraud. The embezzlement charge is more likely with bankruptcy charged because it's easier to show your personal benefit from it.
What? That's a good one. You think that I wrote those quotes of OBL? That's a good one. No, those are quotes attributed to him sumdumass. I didn't miss anything, in fact I put the quote there!
Those quotes say what I said, not what you said.
The USA has a long history of drawing blood in the region in one way or another thinking it has impunity to do so. As the rest of the world now knows the USA doesn't have impunity in it's actions... I just wonder when the people in America will figure that out.
Then the rest of the world should attempt to stop the US.
Drawing of first blood is irrelevant anyhow since even if that question were settled (which it can't be due to the many claims and counter claims) it wouldn't stop the cycle of violence. What will stop the cycle of violence is those that make the decisions to conduct violence stop choosing violence as their solution to problems. Until then it'll keep going back and forth. This is a basic notion that isn't even disputed. Many disputes have been finally settled only once the violence stopped. Again look to history for examples. Sometimes it takes a long time for it to happen which is too bad for all those needlessly killed as the waring parties keep at their deadly murderous killing dance.
And here is where you are showing your ignorance. This is exactly what I have been saying from day one, there has to be a viable solution other then killing that solves the problems that has not already failed and caused the violence to happen. Of course your a coward troll who comes from a line of cowards so I guess you might be dense.
I've made up no history murderous sumdumass. How do you think I've made up history?
You must not only have a problem with reading comprehension but you also believe the lies you told. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda themselves said 9/11 was because of our support for Israel. You have attempted to attribute it to several other things as well numerous times and that is just making shit up.
That's really funny. As for reality, I'm fully connected. You see I do actually understand your point of view, I used to hold something similar in my foolish years then this thing called wisdom happened... I value human life... clearly you don't which is why it's so easy for you to kill and murder people indiscriminately with your politics which is just an open invitation for your enemies (OBL for example) to strike back against your policies. When you get that then maybe you'll be on your way back to reality and compassion from that dark place you inhabit now.
If you ended up with wisdom, you sure have failed to show it in any of our conversations. As for valuing human life, I sure as hell do, but I do know the difference between evil humans over innocent humans and will not expect them to get away with murder because you are a coward who doesn't want to see us strike back.
BTW, they are not indiscriminate killings. I think you probably need to buy a discretionary if you actually think so.
"sumdumbass" - you sure picked a great name that fits you.
Yea, and how does it feel to be schooled by a dumass? Go troll somewhere else coward. And yes, you said you wanted to end it, we've said our parts, you haven't changed (other then accepting my point as your own now) and I haven't changed. You should run off and have homosexual sex with your granddaddy who help Jews and queers escape the nazi's instead of defending his country from the invading army just before he ran.
You said the following statement is not true and no longer true.
You should finish reading, I said it's not true and hasn't been for a long time due to regulation.
Tell me how a business can remain competitive if it introduces costs associated with voluntary emission limits when its competitors don't have to, and thereby can then undercut them and eventually drive them out of business.
By refining the process that results in the emissions- what ever they are. You can come up with not only cleaner but more efficient processes and ways to manufacture things. Nowadays, chemicals that were once tossed are now recycled, Waist streams are filtered and cleansed before being discharged and so on. And those processes cost less then one cent per piece sold in a lot of situations.
Now, I'm not sure about you but undercutting another manufacturer by less then one cent per product doesn't really mean you are going to have a huge advantage. Sure, sometimes there is a huge capitol outlay but sometimes is not always and always is not the reality we live in.
I don't believe anyone said that. Could you point out where or are you living in some fantasy land where if someone doesn't agree with you they are plotting against you?
Please, lets keep the conversation to what was actually said and not what you want to think was said.
And yes, those CEOs and Corporations are far and few in between in comparison of all the legit companies. But because of Captain Planet, all corporations are evil polluters to some who cannot really support their claims outside of pointing to the few in the limelight.
Ah, it's true. Because they need to remain competitive. If a business voluntarily spends a boatload of money to clean up emissions and their competitors don't, they'll go out of business. That's why, at least, environmental regulations level the playing field among competitors (which falls apart when this doesn't happen in other countries though).
No it is not true. It may have been at one point in time but hasn't been true for longer then Captain Planet has been on the air. That was because of regulations too.
I'm also old enough to remember when cap and trade was a conservative answer to prohibitive environmental regulations. It would give incentives to companies to voluntarily cut emissions so they could sell unused credits to pollute to other companies on the open market that might not be able to do that sort of clean up. The government would just set an overall target level.
Then you are old enough to have questionable memory. This was never a plan offered by the republicans. There was some talk about limiting Sulfur emissions a while back in a manner similar to cap and trade but it was never a party line stance and never as far reaching as the current debacle has gone.
Seems that now Democrats are pushing the idea, it's suddenly evil (although I suspect some of that comes from classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, but the conservative groups should say that instead of billing the "cap and trade" concept as flawed -- it *was* their own creation after all)
Ideas are different in minor details but the democrat's plan would cause far more harm with little to no results. You need to focus on the details or end up passing a bail out plan that pays Executive bonuses just to find out that you are the congress critter who put that into the law at the request of the administration after both of you are criticizing it. When a democrat congressman stands on the floor ridiculing all of the calls to read a fucking bill before it get voted on by saying you would need two days and two lawyers just to understand it, then there is a problem. A serious problem.
In short, the details are important and if your stuck on the concept, then you might as well trade in a Jaguar for a ford pinto because the concept is the same even though the details are completely different. I know most democrats do not read the bills they vote into law because they don't think they have two days or two attorneys, but at least lets find out what is being pushed. And yes, the Cap and Trade they are pushing is a nightmare for the US economy. They know it and wouldn't even add three simple exemptions to the bill that would halt it if unemployment went up more then so much from the already high 2009 rates, if gas got over $5 a gallon or if inflation skyrocketed to a certain point above the 1008 levels. They know it will happen and see those amendments which I would call reasonable safeguards as ways to defeat the cap and trade.
Say whatever you want, but you cannot deny that. If unemployment wasn't going to soar by design, that amendment should have went in, if inflation wasn't going to soar, that amendment would have got in. And if they didn't expect gas prices to soar, that amendment would have gotten in. But they do expect all that to happen which is why they wouldn't place any safe guards against it in the legislation and if you think that is acceptable, you are a fool.
If the business attire exceeds 2% of your income, it is a legitimate write off. As for the commute, that's considered preparing for work. However, if you stop at one work place then travel to another, it is a complete write off.
Please don't comment about tax issues if you have not filed more then a 1040ez in your life.
No one emphasized Hussein in this thread or made the connections to Saddam except for you. That's the problem, it isn't the people saying Barrack Hussein Obama that is making the connections, it's you and people like you pointing it out in your Barbra Streisand style attempts to censor it.
I'm always amazed at how little people know of what it actually costs to be employed. Especially after being told that there is more to it them wage plus health care benefits. Now my post is modded redundant- probably for telling the guy this twice (or it's some freaks with mod points).
Anyways, yes something needs to be done with the costs of health care. Just like you, I don't see anything in the bills being promoted to address that outside of denying care to some people.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the job of government to ensure competition. It's the job of government to prevent abuse due to the lack of competition.
If fact, the government even helps prevent competition by the use of Patents and copyrights.
It is not the job of the government (at least in the US) to interfere in industry or liberty unless acting within those are detrimental to others. Our entire society operates under the assumption of you can unless something forbids it. We don't need to ask permission to do something and the government reacts to abuses and hazards which creates regulations and laws.
That's the way it should be. It relieves all of the problems with religions having to defend themselves and with some of the outrageous ways they do so.
I don't think it would be that much of a problem outside of the schools if someone said something. At least then, the ideas would be pushed on people who volunteer to participate.
Another easy line to avoid the issue of religion in science is to simple say "This is science and the way science does things. Science doesn't speak of religion and we aren't starting it now. You will be expected to know how science does things to pass the class".
It's not irrelevant, you are attempting to extract the wrong meaning from it.
If the eyewitnesses believed in what they saw so much that they continued to admit it after being tortured and imprisoned, then it is likely that they believed in what they witnessed. The entire bible is written by other people detailing accounts. The legitimacy of these accounts are as close to the legitimacy in the beliefs of the people witnessing them as the beliefs themselves.
The persecution stories aren't supposed to say God Exists, they say This person witnessed this and after all this crap, he wouldn't change his story.
A local horse stable that had rental trail riding used to place clauses like that into the disclaimers you had to sign.
It would say that neither you or anyone on your behalf could sue them and if it happened, that you agreed to be liable for all damages, judgments, and legal fees associated with it.
Anyways, it was challenged in court and found that it left the consumer without legal redress and was unenforceable. They cited many other cases covering it but the stable still escaped liability because of equine laws on the books that release the owners of the horse or event or grounds from liability to unintentional and non-malicious actions of the animals. It was interesting because the stable actually lost on the contract but was shielded by other laws signifying they didn't even need the language in the first place.
I'm sure ATT knew if they added something more restrictive, the entire contract clause could become voided easily.
Have you forgotten about the prediction of microbes, bacteria and viruses? Yes, the early laws in the old testament said quite a bit about washing, being clean, and spreading of diseases 1500 years before man had the concept of germs.
This is actually a strong indication of the people being persecuted actually believing in whatever it was they were persecuted for. Take early Christians and some of the apostles for instance. They actually believed in their message despite all the beatings, imprisonment, torture and so on, it was that strong to them that they couldn't be forced to believe something different.
It doesn't prove an existence of God or any Gods but it does prove a conviction in the beliefs they held that was stronger then the people who didn't want them believing it. A way to spot a liar is to watch the guy change his statements when jailed.
Actually, the problem is more fundamental then that. The entire intelligent BS design was started because some people were attempting to us Science to disprove religion which it cannot do (for reasons you already stated).
Also the problem is that it is being done so in schools that people are mandated by law to attend. If there wasn't people out there saying there is no God or magic man in the clouds waving their hand, then it wouldn't even be an issue. But in a free society that has freedom of religion, when the government, though some ill intentioned science teacher at a place that people are compelled by law to attend send little Johny home with the Idea that God and religion is a lie, there is going to be problems. Evolution and the big bang is not fact, it can be wrong, there are several different theories within the subjects (like the bubble theory of evolution), and it says nothing about the existence of a god or not or anything about what that god has supposedly done or not.
Yes, you are a troll. You can't even comprehend what you are writing yourself and you already showed all of the above to be true except for you but fucking your grandpa.
Again, indiscriminate does not mean what you think it means. That unless you are trolling because you don't know the difference. I do not supposed indiscriminate killing, I support targeted and accurate returns of fire on the people taking up arms against us. Why you continue to get that wrong is beyond me. Oh that's right, you are a fucking troll.
Obviously you are a moron. I have said all along that I desired an alternative to the killing but everything else has already failed. What part of that do you not understand? Oh yea, you understand it all and are just a fucking troll making shit up.
Your going to talk smack about my chosen moniker when yours is a reflection of your penis size or mental capacity? Oh look, it's itsy bitsy
They can't change the rules retroactively in order to punish someone or some entity. They also cannot force anyone to take the loan out. So even if they did create such a screwed up law, it would be up to the company and the executives to agree with it before anything would be binding.
You need to go back and study your constitution again. This time, hopefully you will have a competent teacher. The General welfare clause is not, I repeat- IS NOT, a blank sheet of paper giving the government unlimited authority. You are supposed to look at the general welfare clause as being reasoning for the powers granted to congress. They can only use it in pursuit to a constitutionally appropriate interest which is spelled out in constitution. In short, you need a qualifier.
And yes, if the loan was forced onto the companies, it would be considered an impost which is a tax and must be uniform throughout the country. But we are not talking about a loan anyways. The situation is where a company is filing bankruptcy and is getting out from under their obligations to clean up an environmental situation.
See above. And no, they don't do this regularly, they used to but then the courts said it was unconstitutional so they attempt to provide extra funding if certain conditions are met.
Actually, they did run afoul of constitutional powers. This was already decided in South Dakota v. Dole in which the court ultimately upheld the lower courts ruling, but did so because the amount (less the 5% of federal highway funds) was not enough to be considered coercive. Had it been much more, it would have been tossed out. The court used a 4 prong test to measure the constitutionality of the law and if any other laws don't fall within that test, it will be struck down.
And these people can either not sign the dotted line or file bankruptcy and get out from under it. And yes, each person who would be impacted by that would have to sign the loan and not be under duress or pressure in order for it to be binding.
What you are talking about now is someone taking a loan out in a company's name and personally vouching for it. Bankruptcy will discharge it just like it does all other debt, and all the participants have to be freely willing to sign onto it. I wouldn't sign to guarantee a loan for a company I worked for. I don't see why others would.
Yes, you are. And I will point to why by commenting on your own statements and show how fucked up you conception of reality is. You are living in a fallacy world.
Wrong. First of all, it's a fact of life that any corporation has to maintain a step of community standards or else they will not remain in business. This is caused by regulations and activism. Look at Nike for instance, one of the worlds largest sport garment producers who used to use child labor in sweat shops but had to stop because people quit buying their crap when that was brought out.
For two, you are wrong about the people running the corporations are not liable for the actions of the corporation. As you already pointed out, a corporation is only an object and needs people in order to act. You are not shielded from your own actions and the corporation becomes liable for your actions vicariously. The only shielding a corporation provide is from actions that are not yours. IF the CEO orders the toxic waste to be dumped next to the towns water supply, then that CEO is liable for his actions civilly as well as criminally.
You only think that because you are living in a fallacy of corporations being shielded from their actions. Probably from watching Captain Planet.
It's because when you own a business and someone else runs it, you have taken no actions yourself to direct whatever the problem is. So why should you be liable just because you had 200 shares in your retirement account. Do you really think it is a good Idea to hold you parents accountable because of some company in a mutual fund that they have in their 401k, poisoned a water supply?
Corporations are not amoral. Corporations do no act on their own and bring the morals and ethics of the people running them. And yes, those people are liable for their own actions too. When someone or something cannot act, they cannot display any morals at all. Amoral is a trait that varies and is imposed things that can act, not things that can't like rocks or whatever.
WTF are you talking about. The government should not be in the practice of rewarding anything. The regulation penalizes acts which are determined to be detrimental. It's that simple.
Have you even read that link? All that was done by companies in other countries. Non
Actually, I said it was a conspiracy theory. One that plays into the self interest aspect the parent was talking about. Just because it is there doesn't mean I believe it or that I'm pushing it.
And yes, the Illuminati conspiracy is real too. They too are organized within their own self interest. I'm not sure I get your point.
It would appear that the hatred toward Microsoft came from microsoft's own actions and probably some of the OSS groups. However, I wasn't really attempting to comment on participants in an industry, just the industry in general. A closer example to my point would be that Captain Planet indoctrinated these people to believe all industry is evil then they would point to MS in order to prove Sun was evil.
I need to rephrase something.
Things like buying a new office furniture and everything down to unused copy machine paper counts as income at the end of the year if it was purchased that year. Obviously what you have used is an expense.
The point is, expenses are unique to the business and buying clothing or large ticket items will not be an expense or a deduction unless your business is buying and selling them.
And that's all the corporations can deduct so where it the problem?
You could not write it off through the business. If the business purchased the clothing and it didn't already meet the other requirements, it becomes an asset and counts as income the first year. There probably isn't a deduction schedule for clothing either.
Have you ever filed a business return? Thing like buying a new office furniture and everything down to copy machine paper counts as income at the end of the year if it was purchased that year. That is why you are allowed to depreciate a lot of it. And when you get rid of it, if you get more then your depreciated value, you have to pay a capitol gains on it.
Those people are cheating on their taxes. Most smaller companies do things like that but if they have any (silent) partners or go into bankruptcy, they "can be" hit for embezzlement as well as tax fraud. The embezzlement charge is more likely with bankruptcy charged because it's easier to show your personal benefit from it.
Those quotes say what I said, not what you said.
Then the rest of the world should attempt to stop the US.
And here is where you are showing your ignorance. This is exactly what I have been saying from day one, there has to be a viable solution other then killing that solves the problems that has not already failed and caused the violence to happen. Of course your a coward troll who comes from a line of cowards so I guess you might be dense.
You must not only have a problem with reading comprehension but you also believe the lies you told. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda themselves said 9/11 was because of our support for Israel. You have attempted to attribute it to several other things as well numerous times and that is just making shit up.
If you ended up with wisdom, you sure have failed to show it in any of our conversations. As for valuing human life, I sure as hell do, but I do know the difference between evil humans over innocent humans and will not expect them to get away with murder because you are a coward who doesn't want to see us strike back.
BTW, they are not indiscriminate killings. I think you probably need to buy a discretionary if you actually think so.
Yea, and how does it feel to be schooled by a dumass? Go troll somewhere else coward. And yes, you said you wanted to end it, we've said our parts, you haven't changed (other then accepting my point as your own now) and I haven't changed. You should run off and have homosexual sex with your granddaddy who help Jews and queers escape the nazi's instead of defending his country from the invading army just before he ran.
What is your point? one action by one company doesn't make it an industry standard. Or are you one of those Captain Planet people?
Why don't you try schedule A of the 1040 long. I clearly offers the same deductions that are availible to business.
The thread is about corporations verses private right?
You should finish reading, I said it's not true and hasn't been for a long time due to regulation.
By refining the process that results in the emissions- what ever they are. You can come up with not only cleaner but more efficient processes and ways to manufacture things. Nowadays, chemicals that were once tossed are now recycled, Waist streams are filtered and cleansed before being discharged and so on. And those processes cost less then one cent per piece sold in a lot of situations.
Now, I'm not sure about you but undercutting another manufacturer by less then one cent per product doesn't really mean you are going to have a huge advantage. Sure, sometimes there is a huge capitol outlay but sometimes is not always and always is not the reality we live in.
I don't believe anyone said that. Could you point out where or are you living in some fantasy land where if someone doesn't agree with you they are plotting against you?
Please, lets keep the conversation to what was actually said and not what you want to think was said.
And yes, those CEOs and Corporations are far and few in between in comparison of all the legit companies. But because of Captain Planet, all corporations are evil polluters to some who cannot really support their claims outside of pointing to the few in the limelight.
No it is not true. It may have been at one point in time but hasn't been true for longer then Captain Planet has been on the air. That was because of regulations too.
Then you are old enough to have questionable memory. This was never a plan offered by the republicans. There was some talk about limiting Sulfur emissions a while back in a manner similar to cap and trade but it was never a party line stance and never as far reaching as the current debacle has gone.
Ideas are different in minor details but the democrat's plan would cause far more harm with little to no results. You need to focus on the details or end up passing a bail out plan that pays Executive bonuses just to find out that you are the congress critter who put that into the law at the request of the administration after both of you are criticizing it. When a democrat congressman stands on the floor ridiculing all of the calls to read a fucking bill before it get voted on by saying you would need two days and two lawyers just to understand it, then there is a problem. A serious problem.
In short, the details are important and if your stuck on the concept, then you might as well trade in a Jaguar for a ford pinto because the concept is the same even though the details are completely different. I know most democrats do not read the bills they vote into law because they don't think they have two days or two attorneys, but at least lets find out what is being pushed. And yes, the Cap and Trade they are pushing is a nightmare for the US economy. They know it and wouldn't even add three simple exemptions to the bill that would halt it if unemployment went up more then so much from the already high 2009 rates, if gas got over $5 a gallon or if inflation skyrocketed to a certain point above the 1008 levels. They know it will happen and see those amendments which I would call reasonable safeguards as ways to defeat the cap and trade.
Say whatever you want, but you cannot deny that. If unemployment wasn't going to soar by design, that amendment should have went in, if inflation wasn't going to soar, that amendment would have got in. And if they didn't expect gas prices to soar, that amendment would have gotten in. But they do expect all that to happen which is why they wouldn't place any safe guards against it in the legislation and if you think that is acceptable, you are a fool.
If the business attire exceeds 2% of your income, it is a legitimate write off. As for the commute, that's considered preparing for work. However, if you stop at one work place then travel to another, it is a complete write off.
Please don't comment about tax issues if you have not filed more then a 1040ez in your life.
No one emphasized Hussein in this thread or made the connections to Saddam except for you. That's the problem, it isn't the people saying Barrack Hussein Obama that is making the connections, it's you and people like you pointing it out in your Barbra Streisand style attempts to censor it.
I'm always amazed at how little people know of what it actually costs to be employed. Especially after being told that there is more to it them wage plus health care benefits. Now my post is modded redundant- probably for telling the guy this twice (or it's some freaks with mod points).
Anyways, yes something needs to be done with the costs of health care. Just like you, I don't see anything in the bills being promoted to address that outside of denying care to some people.