the result might well have been that they would still have hired the guy, but would have avoided to publish an incorrect CV and then the "scandal" would not have been: "thomson lied to get hired by Yahoo", but "thomson's cv x years ago was not fully correct", but since he did a job that we think is "good enough at the previous position" we still want him...
So Patti Hart is not fired over "getting the wrong guy in" but over "not doing her homework to make sure that the guy they choose would fit in and be able to do his work without generating a scandal just at the begining..."
Yes Microsoft, Apple, and Google are behaving in unethical manner, stop whining, vote with your wallet, boycot the jerks..
And yes it's kind of hard to do with google since it has something like "all the share", and if you want a smartphone, you are kind of stuck, (I mean BB come on...)
But not using microsoft and apple is really trivial, there is no real valid excuse, you might find it slightly more comfortable because you're used to... But if you cannot change an habit because you are too lazy to learn something new, then do not expect law maker to stop helping these same companies to steal your money in exchange for some small "gifts". (and I do not even suggest that you lobby your employer to get rid of microsoft, just you on your personal machine),
If you are really shocked, write a letter today telling them: "I exchanged my i for an alternative vendor, and scratched the OS on my PC to install (your choice of Linux/BSD/haiku/...) and I will not come back until your tax returns show that you pay fair taxes in all the countries where you operate.
(of course I do expect you to do exactly nothing...)
And you would be completely wrong, B&M is just a way to outsource some marketing from Microsoft to a tax exemption device, and do some arm twisting exchanging some bribes for friendly IP policies in developing countries. Moreover the cooperation of the foundation with monsanto will probably kill more farmer than any vacine could ever save.
Government are far from efficient, but at least they do somehow stem from they will of the people, and if you have not been able to elect non jerks in the past 200 years is not an excuse for "delegating" the use of collective money to a con person like mr Gate.
Moreoever although MS pays very little tax, and therefore it has very little opportunity to do any good, the level of cash siphoned by a small group of ethically challenged thieves does not bode well for your evil vs good calculation.
The number of recent convert to free software who are somewhat afraid of themselves grow quite fast. They are using "permissive" licenses because it gives them less to think about on the short term... In the medium to long term very often it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does, and they'll regret it.. But probably it will not go horribly wrong either... So globally nothing really to see here...
Well, if you download some creative common content, no it's not (usually) criminal, but it is easy to be in a dangerous situation if you download copyrighted content, including content that although it is not the desire of the initial authors is not available for sale because the copyright "handler" does not care about it, and prefer pushing "new stuff". Minor in Possession, nope it's not a felony, but it can be a misdemeanor or in washington state's case a gross misdemeanor.
And yes neither law nor ethics are "absolute", although one could argue that ethics should at least try to tend toward being absolute (or you risk becoming exceedingly "casuistic" and give a free pass of conscience just because it's convenient). And laws should be made to make sure that people can be as free as possible as long as it does not limit the freedoms of others. But the current issue is that many laws are created to impose "community standards" on people, because some people would be too bothered if other would have rights they disapprove of... And many laws are too lax because, protecting citizens against some class of unethical actions would be bad for business...
Ideally doing something illegal should be obviously wrong, and doing something that obviously harm others should be illegal, and unfortunately it's not. (well obviously not in all case, killing people is still usually illegal, and wrong...)
Of course having regulation on food safety, which starts basically with fair advertisement is desirable. And I suspect only very rare people would really want to try salmonella contaminated food. BTW one of the issues with drug prohibition is that it also stops regulation and customer information. A couple of month ago the main newpapers in Brazil and Bolivia where warning "customers" about how bat and dangerous bolivian coke was (not because it's coke, but because the production process and transportation mode was too filthy).. In reality I mostly agree with you, I would even say that ethics have little to do with law, since they are largely personal. Cheating on your partner is not illegal anymore in most cases, it doesn't make it ethical... What bugs me is when law starts to look like incompatible or at least severely disconnected.
nb: I didn't specify pot because it is just one of several products who are in practice "tolerated" until caught. many "performance" products are socially accepted and illegal.
At least a member of your family is probably guilty of: - downloading something - using prohibited agricultural products - and if less than 21 and living in the US, using other also prohibited agricultural liquids.
And that's just for starters...
And the real "looser" in this equation, is that disconnect between law and ethics...
how can a parent educate their children when many laws prohibits actions that are hard to describe as unethical, and
many unethical actions are totally legal.
And if you have enough power, you can make illegal actions legal in your special case...
The right wing is pushing the morals out of the window... (and I'm not speaking of the operating system....)
The increase of backup capacity, and computing capacity makes the dream or nightmare of searching through the internet a reality. Anybody being connected to anybody in a rather short chain of relations it's obvious that we are all at some level "persons of interest".
If you are a "bad guy" you are obviously "fair game", if you know the bad guy, you are reasonably suspect, if you know somebody who knows the bad guy, you might be needed to understand if you are not part of the support group of the bad guy. Two level more of indirection and the whole humanity is in the dragnet. No unfortunately there is not one unique "bad guy", so the probability of being more than N+2..N+3 of any bad guy is really low, even if you are a retired nun. (actually, in practice not such a good example).
So anybody can with some justification be "looked at", so it seems that the only way to alleviate the issue is to over broadcast everything, and hoping that the weighting algorithm finds you booring...
Guess it's too boring for me, I'll have to fish for friends in high places,... so it's back to the "old regime" (as in before Louis Capet got his headache cured, actually not really fair for the guy, and the change where far from smooth,... but somehow the end of privileges seemed a good idea, and now seems an idea whose time is past....)
The only real value of Linux on the desktop are: - that whatever you put on your machine is "hard to remove by others", normally it's free and you got the source code, the more you use, the more you learn, it becomes easier, and even if your software becomes obsolete it is still mostly avaiable. - and you know that putting spys, and limiting what you can do is sinificantly harder than with other platoforms. (although not impossible read the thomson paper).
So the only "selling point" is : if you care about your freedom more than about convenience, use linux, if not... well it's your life.
BTW: People who do not care about the level of control proprietary software companies can have on them through their desktop (through spying, control of the media distribution chain, remote data access, etc...) do not really care about their own liberties, they are the kind of persons who believe in electronic voting. So probably we should just remove the right to vote to microsoft/macosx users, hummm, well the initial bootstrap vote will be hard to get though..:-)
The point is, that the fair value impacts only the payment that is done to the "shareholder" not to the company. So even if the government is "unreasonable", wich is not demonstrated (not the the indian government has a very good track record), it does not matter at all as long as the investor really invest.
In practice in the vast majority of cases the angel investissor does not pay the owners anything, it INVEST in the company by creating new shares and putting the money there.
In this case there is not tax whatsover.
so the only thing it does is encourage entrepreuneur to stay in their company even after angel investors invested...
Again, check the article, The tax happens only if the investor "pays" the "current owner". So if I build my company with 1€, convince the investor that it now is worth 1 billion €, and that he should invest 1 other billion €, and I put this money in the companies account. Then the investor and i both have 50% of the company. And there is not tax to pay.
But if I tell him, It is now worth 1Billions, And I would like it all in cash so that I can take some holliday, but do not worry the other worker can go on working long hours and small wages, and BTW you'll have 100% and I'll have hollidays, then you pay 30% taxes.
In a more realistic situation, if you tell the investor: I need 200 000€ to start commercialisation and demonstrate that there is a real market, so that we can go to a second round, and since you want to have 60% of the company, I want at least 20K, but I will not ask for a raise right now... Then you'll have to explain that the 180K "new cash" are worth 60% and your "old" investment was worth something like 120+20 (since you keep 40% and get 20K). If not you'll pay 30% of 20K in taxes.
And to answer your question, the fair value of a company is exactly what the investor is evaluating, and for the tax man a good start is to look at what stays in the company.
So if I have 100 shares, keep 50 and sell 50 to the investor I'll be in "trouble" because there is no easy "comparision". But if I sell 25, keep 75 and create 75 others by capital influx, then as long as the 25 I get paid in cash are approximatelly worth the 75 that are added to the capital it is easy to demonstrate that the investor at least think that this is a "fair" price.
And if I want a "bonus" I can still sell 20 at the "normal price" (not taxed) and 5 at a "funder price" taxed 30%. But that would just make it similar to a bonus on the salary. And if I think this is too much, I should use the capital to pay me a bonus salary and pay taxes on this.
The budget proposal is much more complex and interesting as it seems. First it apparently it applies only on money invested by residents, so it would not slow down any foreign investments (although there might be other mecanism impacting this). Second the 30% tax is not on the investment, but on any money paid for share over the fair market value.
So in short, if I create a company investing 10 K, make some business and show that realistically the company is worth 20 K, and then go to Mr MoneyBag and offers him to invest 20K for 50% of the share, I and hil pay nothing. If I ask 15K and invest 10K in the capital keep 5K for me and give 50% of the company to Mr MoneyBag (effectivelly selling 5K of shares), I pay nothing. Now If I ask 20K but make it prudently in two time, 15K "tax free" and then 5K tax "heavy" I would pay 1.5 K in taxes, to be compared to using the 5K to pay me a salary that would be impacted by taxes and various social costs.
So the real issue will be on "how to evaluate the fair market share of a closely held company" and it's impact on "petty corruption", but the law is rather reasonable, and it encourage entrepreneurs to leave money in their company until it really "runs" rather than cash out at the earliest opportunity.
Those who would work more can work less, and use the time gained to think about how they could do better, smarter,
Oooh, how gracious of you, to allow them to do something they don't want to do, and to not allow them to do something they want to do. You've just proved my point on paternalism. Do you even comprehend how insulting that attitude is, that you know better than everybody else how they should behave, what they should want?
If you do not impose some common limit, the "invisible hand of the free market", usually slaps you in the face, and does not "find an optimum point of equilibrium" not having some limits on hours, has the typical result that all the "managers" think that everybody should work "a lot" to "show commitment", whether it improves productivity or not. Moreover it usually promotes "raw work" over "creative work", it is not paternalism to tell enterrprises that they are not allowed to insist on "over time as a norm". And having a norm would in reallity only go against those people who absolutelly want to work in an uniform way until burned out, curtailing their "liberty" seems a correc trade off to the current alternative wich makes people work without having either the time to relax and enjoy life outside work, or focus on making their work more interesting, typically by thinking about it, networking, and trying out things outside of the normal line of command.
The paternalistic view is the one you promote, where people can only "think" if the command and control structure allows them.
And those who would work less still need to put a full day of work, and have trouble getting ahead in comparision to the people who use their "free" time to manage their personal progress.
Again you display an amazing lack of comprehension of basic human nature. Some people are simply lazy, or want less and so see no need to work the full 8 hours to get the little they do want. Yet you imply that they still have to work a full day, when part time would suit them fine, or that they want to get ahead, when maybe they are quite happy not proving the Peter Principle. Are you at all aware in even the slightest manner of all the different people around you, all their different wants and needs and attitudes? No, that would be reality, and that would make you uncomfortable. So you dream up fantasies instead where you know better than everybody else how they should live.
Surprise! People are *different*.
I have been to more than 70 different countries, worked with a very large set of teams from very different countries, cultures and industries, so I do not know how anybody "should" live, but I have a pretty good idea of what is an environment where people have the time to build their life as they want, and get enough money to be able to take care of themselves, and environments where people are basically worked to burnout or death. BTW all my international experience is business related, working with people who build things, provide services, and trade products or services, so it is not some kind of UN pipe dream either..
In a "un social" situation everybody is pushed to burnout, with the result that both the lazy and the ambitious are mostly busy reading dilbert cartoons and dreaming of being somewhere else..
So completely backwards. In a regimented society, as required by socialism, people are forced to work out of their comfort zone to gain rewards they do not want, all by the dictate of their betters. I cannot think of a more assembly line culture than that imposed by socialists, the very antithesis of freedom, all for our own good, of course. Some people are more equal than others.
You actually drank the republican koolaid and have strictly no idea what socialism is, you confuse it with some disney land vision of the URSS. in practice the idea of socialism is that: nobody should die or suffer because of some life accident, n
Not true, Those who would work more can work less, and use the time gained to think about how they could do better, smarter, And those who would work less still need to put a full day of work, and have trouble getting ahead in comparision to the people who use their "free" time to manage their personal progress. In a "un social" situation everybody is pushed to burnout, with the result that both the lazy and the ambitious are mostly busy reading dilbert cartoons and dreaming of being somewhere else..
It will probably just prompt massive increase of the chinese investments in iran... they do not care that much about swift, barter is nice, more margins...
Well the USA's relationship with Iran became shitty when they decided in the 50s to remove Dr Mosadegh because he had the weird idea that it was not a good idea to let the british go on stealing iranian oil. The funny part is that from the british point of view it would probably have been much better to renegociate the deal with iran than to end up sharing the revenue with the US. (but of course they prefere kow towing to the "big brother" rather than giving "bad examples" to former "protectorates"...)
One definition of madness is doing again and again and again what failed first and hoping that the results will be different "this time" One definition of evil is doing something, seeing that it is bad for people, and doing it again and again and again...
Having a "public authority" asking the shareholder to vote on what would be in effect an element of "self regulation" is either mad or evil, probably both.
The only justification for this would be if there would be some way to make the shareholder liable for the crimes of the management. If the SEC would seriously think that the FCC might for a nationalisation or a breakup of the operators if they do not garanty network neutrality, then asking the Shareholder about their opinion would be somehow justified. By the way this should not be an issue since the operators are supposedly liable for defaulting on their "common carrier" responsibilities, so asking the shareholder is basically: do you want us to comit a crime to make a lot of cash for you ? or would you prefer us to be honest. (not that the PR agency would let them ask the question that way of course...)
Nope, Hacking in might be presented as a "friendly door rattling to make sure it is well closed", it really becomes a crime when it is used for nefarious purposes... Blackmailing is always bad, and a crime.
Negotiating would be: "your system is way open, I know where, and I'd love to work for you, but if you do not care, well I will not waste my time writing a report if you are not paying for it, be happy "i'm a nice guy" you might not be so lucky with the next one who finds all the fails in your infrastructure"...
Sending it to the "board of directors" and investors, or the press would be wistleblowing, yet another legal situation....
Publishing on a blackhat forum, would also be "bad"...
Not really, they probably panicked, and hired a couple of outside consultants to check their security. And since they probably didn't have a real inside expert (or they would not need this) they also needed a senior security manager... So all in all 3 persons with expensive rare skills hired on short notice. for let's say 3 month. 180 days * average 1500$/day => 270 K$ + at least one senior manager and one assistant to track what their are doing... "et voila" => 400 k$ Add cost of building, chairs, computers, etc....
Well, mostly he was seriously stupid, he might have got a job if he would have shown the weaknesses, and offered to help them, making sure that if they didn't want him, he would just forget about it, or if they would be interested make at a latter time an intrusion test. He should also make sure that he can explain how to pull documents out, but not actually do it. That way he would not have to go to jail... (or at least very much lower the risk of...)
But nobody sane hires a blackmailer without immediately thinking about how to put the idiot in jail...
Well a simple way to go around this issue would be to offer to sell the datas to the owners. Any registerer MegaUpload customer could buy back it's data at a fair price, let's say 20€ per gigabyte. This is a good price if you have your thesis stored there with 2 years of work and you forgot to make any backup and it discourage anybody who uploaded tons of bootleg videos as it is more expensive than the original dvd.
They could remove all the copies of DCMA notified data, and make a special provision for non profit organisations who can demonstrate that they uploaded terabyte of research data and it's not bootleg, but they need a discount..
And they could publicly request an agreement from the "MPAA" since refusal would force the MPAA to tell that they do not want legitimate users to reposess their data (enabling a class action suit) and acceptance might demonstrate that no user is willing to pay a reasonable fee to get it's personal data back (if you have stolen the data you typically have a copy and do not really care, only "real" users would need access).
Cool, you allready owe about 15 000$ per familly member for the Irak and Afghan war.... Do you really want to owe at the very least 30 000$ for the Iran war (that would be assuming you succeed to isolate iran from their neighbors and do not need to return to iran and afghan right after because they are kind of "unhappy", and assuming the millions of Irannian living in the US do not freak out because you killed their cousins and bombed their vacation house on the caspian (BTW on average they are quite well to do, most left iran before the revolution with a "LOT" of cash, and then proceded to make quite well for themselves...)
since using such a "clean" bomb on a nuclear site is bound to make a very dirty area, why bother ? why not just use a nuke, maybe calling it "cleaner area" to convince the "vox populi" that it is "all right"...
humm, probably the marketing/PR company do not need as much cash as boing,.. silly me...
Slashdot Mirror
the result might well have been that they would still have hired the guy, but would have avoided to publish an incorrect CV and then the "scandal" would not have been:
"thomson lied to get hired by Yahoo", but
"thomson's cv x years ago was not fully correct", but since he did a job that we think is "good enough at the previous position" we still want him...
So Patti Hart is not fired over "getting the wrong guy in" but over "not doing her homework to make sure that the guy they choose would fit in and be able to do his work without generating a scandal just at the begining..."
so it make some kind of sense actually...
Yes Microsoft, Apple, and Google are behaving in unethical manner,
stop whining, vote with your wallet, boycot the jerks..
And yes it's kind of hard to do with google since it has something like "all the share", and if you want a smartphone, you are kind of stuck, (I mean BB come on...)
But not using microsoft and apple is really trivial, there is no real valid excuse, you might find it slightly more comfortable because you're used to...
But if you cannot change an habit because you are too lazy to learn something new, then do not expect law maker to stop helping these same companies to steal your money in exchange for some small "gifts". (and I do not even suggest that you lobby your employer to get rid of microsoft, just you on your personal machine),
If you are really shocked, write a letter today telling them: "I exchanged my i for an alternative vendor, and scratched the OS on my PC to install (your choice of Linux/BSD/haiku/...) and I will not come back until your tax returns show that you pay fair taxes in all the countries where you operate.
(of course I do expect you to do exactly nothing...)
And you would be completely wrong, B&M is just a way to outsource some marketing from Microsoft to a tax exemption device, and do some arm twisting exchanging some bribes for friendly IP policies in developing countries.
Moreover the cooperation of the foundation with monsanto will probably kill more farmer than any vacine could ever save.
Government are far from efficient, but at least they do somehow stem from they will of the people, and if you have not been able to elect non jerks in the past 200 years is not an excuse for "delegating" the use of collective money to a con person like mr Gate.
Moreoever although MS pays very little tax, and therefore it has very little opportunity to do any good, the level of cash siphoned by a small group of ethically challenged thieves does not bode well for your evil vs good calculation.
The number of recent convert to free software who are somewhat afraid of themselves grow quite fast. ...
They are using "permissive" licenses because it gives them less to think about on the short term...
In the medium to long term very often it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does, and they'll regret it..
But probably it will not go horribly wrong either
So globally nothing really to see here...
I could have been Phil, that would have been a news for hackers/nerds/geeks
Well, if you download some creative common content, no it's not (usually) criminal,
but it is easy to be in a dangerous situation if you download copyrighted content, including content that although it is not the desire of the initial authors is not available for sale because the copyright "handler" does not care about it, and prefer pushing "new stuff".
Minor in Possession, nope it's not a felony, but it can be a misdemeanor or in washington state's case a gross misdemeanor.
And yes neither law nor ethics are "absolute", although one could argue that ethics should at least try to tend toward being absolute (or you risk becoming exceedingly "casuistic" and give a free pass of conscience just because it's convenient).
And laws should be made to make sure that people can be as free as possible as long as it does not limit the freedoms of others.
But the current issue is that many laws are created to impose "community standards" on people, because some people would be too bothered if other would have rights they disapprove of...
And many laws are too lax because, protecting citizens against some class of unethical actions would be bad for business...
Ideally doing something illegal should be obviously wrong, and doing something that obviously harm others should be illegal, and unfortunately it's not. (well obviously not in all case, killing people is still usually illegal, and wrong...)
Of course having regulation on food safety, which starts basically with fair advertisement is desirable.
And I suspect only very rare people would really want to try salmonella contaminated food.
BTW one of the issues with drug prohibition is that it also stops regulation and customer information.
A couple of month ago the main newpapers in Brazil and Bolivia where warning "customers" about how bat and dangerous bolivian coke was (not because it's coke, but because the production process and transportation mode was too filthy)..
In reality I mostly agree with you, I would even say that ethics have little to do with law, since they are largely personal.
Cheating on your partner is not illegal anymore in most cases, it doesn't make it ethical...
What bugs me is when law starts to look like incompatible or at least severely disconnected.
nb: I didn't specify pot because it is just one of several products who are in practice "tolerated" until caught.
many "performance" products are socially accepted and illegal.
At least a member of your family is probably guilty of:
- downloading something
- using prohibited agricultural products
- and if less than 21 and living in the US, using other also prohibited agricultural liquids.
And that's just for starters...
And the real "looser" in this equation, is that disconnect between law and ethics...
how can a parent educate their children when many laws prohibits actions that are hard to describe as unethical, and
many unethical actions are totally legal.
And if you have enough power, you can make illegal actions legal in your special case...
The right wing is pushing the morals out of the window... (and I'm not speaking of the operating system....)
The increase of backup capacity, and computing capacity makes the dream or nightmare of searching through the internet a reality.
Anybody being connected to anybody in a rather short chain of relations it's obvious that we are all at some level "persons of interest".
If you are a "bad guy" you are obviously "fair game", if you know the bad guy, you are reasonably suspect, if you know somebody who knows the bad guy, you might be needed to understand if you are not part of the support group of the bad guy.
Two level more of indirection and the whole humanity is in the dragnet.
No unfortunately there is not one unique "bad guy", so the probability of being more than N+2..N+3 of any bad guy is really low, even if you are a retired nun. (actually, in practice not such a good example).
So anybody can with some justification be "looked at", so it seems that the only way to alleviate the issue is to over broadcast everything, and hoping that the weighting algorithm finds you booring...
Guess it's too boring for me, I'll have to fish for friends in high places, ... so it's back to the "old regime" (as in before Louis Capet got his headache cured, actually not really fair for the guy, and the change where far from smooth, ... but somehow the end of privileges seemed a good idea, and now seems an idea whose time is past ....)
Sic transit gloria mundi...
Tropical rain forest is actually not a very good soil, if you try to use it as farmland you'll probably end up with a desert.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0113340/text/biomes/biomes.rainforest.soil.html
The only real value of Linux on the desktop are:
- that whatever you put on your machine is "hard to remove by others", normally it's free and you got the source code, the more you use, the more you learn, it becomes easier, and even if your software becomes obsolete it is still mostly avaiable.
- and you know that putting spys, and limiting what you can do is sinificantly harder than with other platoforms. (although not impossible read the thomson paper).
So the only "selling point" is : if you care about your freedom more than about convenience, use linux, if not... well it's your life.
BTW: People who do not care about the level of control proprietary software companies can have on them through their desktop (through spying, control of the media distribution chain, remote data access, etc...) do not really care about their own liberties, they are the kind of persons who believe in electronic voting. .. :-)
So probably we should just remove the right to vote to microsoft/macosx users, hummm, well the initial bootstrap vote will be hard to get though
The point is, that the fair value impacts only the payment that is done to the "shareholder" not to the company.
So even if the government is "unreasonable", wich is not demonstrated (not the the indian government has a very good track record), it does not matter at all as long as the investor really invest.
In practice in the vast majority of cases the angel investissor does not pay the owners anything, it INVEST in the company by creating new shares and putting the money there.
In this case there is not tax whatsover.
so the only thing it does is encourage entrepreuneur to stay in their company even after angel investors invested...
Again, check the article,
The tax happens only if the investor "pays" the "current owner".
So if I build my company with 1€, convince the investor that it now is worth 1 billion €, and that he should invest 1 other billion €, and I put this money in the companies account.
Then the investor and i both have 50% of the company.
And there is not tax to pay.
But if I tell him, It is now worth 1Billions, And I would like it all in cash so that I can take some holliday, but do not worry the other worker can go on working long hours and small wages, and BTW you'll have 100% and I'll have hollidays, then you pay 30% taxes.
In a more realistic situation, if you tell the investor:
I need 200 000€ to start commercialisation and demonstrate that there is a real market, so that we can go to a second round, and since you want to have 60% of the company, I want at least 20K, but I will not ask for a raise right now...
Then you'll have to explain that the 180K "new cash" are worth 60% and your "old" investment was worth something like 120+20 (since you keep 40% and get 20K).
If not you'll pay 30% of 20K in taxes.
And to answer your question, the fair value of a company is exactly what the investor is evaluating, and for the tax man a good start is to look at what stays in the company.
So if I have 100 shares, keep 50 and sell 50 to the investor I'll be in "trouble" because there is no easy "comparision".
But if I sell 25, keep 75 and create 75 others by capital influx, then as long as the 25 I get paid in cash are approximatelly worth the 75 that are added to the capital it is easy to demonstrate that the investor at least think that this is a "fair" price.
And if I want a "bonus" I can still sell 20 at the "normal price" (not taxed) and 5 at a "funder price" taxed 30%.
But that would just make it similar to a bonus on the salary.
And if I think this is too much, I should use the capital to pay me a bonus salary and pay taxes on this.
The budget proposal is much more complex and interesting as it seems.
First it apparently it applies only on money invested by residents, so it would not slow down any foreign investments (although there might be other mecanism impacting this).
Second the 30% tax is not on the investment, but on any money paid for share over the fair market value.
So in short, if I create a company investing 10 K, make some business and show that realistically the company is worth 20 K, and then go to Mr MoneyBag and offers him to invest 20K for 50% of the share, I and hil pay nothing.
If I ask 15K and invest 10K in the capital keep 5K for me and give 50% of the company to Mr MoneyBag (effectivelly selling 5K of shares), I pay nothing.
Now If I ask 20K but make it prudently in two time, 15K "tax free" and then 5K tax "heavy" I would pay 1.5 K in taxes, to be compared to
using the 5K to pay me a salary that would be impacted by taxes and various social costs.
So the real issue will be on "how to evaluate the fair market share of a closely held company" and it's impact on "petty corruption", but the law is rather reasonable, and it encourage entrepreneurs to leave money in their company until it really "runs" rather than cash out at the earliest opportunity.
Those who would work more can work less, and use the time gained to think about how they could do better, smarter,
Oooh, how gracious of you, to allow them to do something they don't want to do, and to not allow them to do something they want to do. You've just proved my point on paternalism. Do you even comprehend how insulting that attitude is, that you know better than everybody else how they should behave, what they should want?
If you do not impose some common limit, the "invisible hand of the free market", usually slaps you in the face, and does not "find an optimum point of equilibrium"
not having some limits on hours, has the typical result that all the "managers" think that everybody should work "a lot" to "show commitment", whether it improves productivity or not.
Moreover it usually promotes "raw work" over "creative work", it is not paternalism to tell enterrprises that they are not allowed to insist on "over time as a norm".
And having a norm would in reallity only go against those people who absolutelly want to work in an uniform way until burned out, curtailing their "liberty" seems a correc trade off to the current alternative wich makes people work without having either the time to relax and enjoy life outside work, or focus on making their work more interesting, typically by thinking about it, networking, and trying out things outside of the normal line of command.
The paternalistic view is the one you promote, where people can only "think" if the command and control structure allows them.
And those who would work less still need to put a full day of work, and have trouble getting ahead in comparision to the people who use their "free" time to manage their personal progress.
Again you display an amazing lack of comprehension of basic human nature. Some people are simply lazy, or want less and so see no need to work the full 8 hours to get the little they do want. Yet you imply that they still have to work a full day, when part time would suit them fine, or that they want to get ahead, when maybe they are quite happy not proving the Peter Principle. Are you at all aware in even the slightest manner of all the different people around you, all their different wants and needs and attitudes? No, that would be reality, and that would make you uncomfortable. So you dream up fantasies instead where you know better than everybody else how they should live.
Surprise! People are *different*.
I have been to more than 70 different countries, worked with a very large set of teams from very different countries, cultures and industries, so I do not know how anybody "should" live, but I have a pretty good idea of what is an environment where people have the time to build their life as they want, and get enough money to be able to take care of themselves, and environments where people are basically worked to burnout or death.
BTW all my international experience is business related, working with people who build things, provide services, and trade products or services, so it is not some kind of UN pipe dream either..
In a "un social" situation everybody is pushed to burnout, with the result that both the lazy and the ambitious are mostly busy reading dilbert cartoons and dreaming of being somewhere else..
So completely backwards. In a regimented society, as required by socialism, people are forced to work out of their comfort zone to gain rewards they do not want, all by the dictate of their betters. I cannot think of a more assembly line culture than that imposed by socialists, the very antithesis of freedom, all for our own good, of course. Some people are more equal than others.
You actually drank the republican koolaid and have strictly no idea what socialism is, you confuse it with some disney land vision of the URSS.
in practice the idea of socialism is that: nobody should die or suffer because of some life accident, n
Not true,
Those who would work more can work less, and use the time gained to think about how they could do better, smarter,
And those who would work less still need to put a full day of work, and have trouble getting ahead in comparision to the people who use their "free" time to manage their personal progress.
In a "un social" situation everybody is pushed to burnout, with the result that both the lazy and the ambitious are mostly busy reading dilbert cartoons and dreaming of being somewhere else..
It will probably just prompt massive increase of the chinese investments in iran ...
they do not care that much about swift, barter is nice, more margins...
Well the USA's relationship with Iran became shitty when they decided in the 50s to remove Dr Mosadegh because he had the weird idea that it was not a good idea to let the british go on stealing iranian oil.
The funny part is that from the british point of view it would probably have been much better to renegociate the deal with iran than to end up sharing the revenue with the US. (but of course they prefere kow towing to the "big brother" rather than giving "bad examples" to former "protectorates"...)
One definition of madness is doing again and again and again what failed first and hoping that the results will be different "this time"
One definition of evil is doing something, seeing that it is bad for people, and doing it again and again and again...
Having a "public authority" asking the shareholder to vote on what would be in effect an element of "self regulation" is either mad or evil, probably both.
It is worth while to read: ( http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/reviews/2010/12/ars-book-review-the-master-switch-by-tim-wu.ars ) The master switch
to learn about how again, and again the government supported the creation of private monopolies, and stronger business control on public expression and opinion.
The only justification for this would be if there would be some way to make the shareholder liable for the crimes of the management.
If the SEC would seriously think that the FCC might for a nationalisation or a breakup of the operators if they do not garanty network neutrality, then asking the Shareholder about their opinion would be somehow justified.
By the way this should not be an issue since the operators are supposedly liable for defaulting on their "common carrier" responsibilities, so asking the shareholder is basically: do you want us to comit a crime to make a lot of cash for you ? or would you prefer us to be honest.
(not that the PR agency would let them ask the question that way of course...)
Nope, Hacking in might be presented as a "friendly door rattling to make sure it is well closed", it really becomes a crime when it is used for nefarious purposes...
Blackmailing is always bad, and a crime.
Negotiating would be: "your system is way open, I know where, and I'd love to work for you, but if you do not care, well I will not waste my time writing a report if you are not paying for it, be happy "i'm a nice guy" you might not be so lucky with the next one who finds all the fails in your infrastructure"...
Sending it to the "board of directors" and investors, or the press would be wistleblowing, yet another legal situation....
Publishing on a blackhat forum, would also be "bad"...
Not really, they probably panicked, and hired a couple of outside consultants to check their security.
And since they probably didn't have a real inside expert (or they would not need this) they also needed a senior security manager...
So all in all 3 persons with expensive rare skills hired on short notice.
for let's say 3 month.
180 days * average 1500$/day => 270 K$ + at least one senior manager and one assistant to track what their are doing...
"et voila" => 400 k$
Add cost of building, chairs, computers, etc....
Well, mostly he was seriously stupid, he might have got a job if he would have shown the weaknesses, and offered to help them, making sure that if they didn't want him, he would just forget about it, or if they would be interested make at a latter time an intrusion test.
He should also make sure that he can explain how to pull documents out, but not actually do it.
That way he would not have to go to jail... (or at least very much lower the risk of...)
But nobody sane hires a blackmailer without immediately thinking about how to put the idiot in jail...
Well a simple way to go around this issue would be to offer to sell the datas to the owners.
Any registerer MegaUpload customer could buy back it's data at a fair price, let's say 20€ per gigabyte.
This is a good price if you have your thesis stored there with 2 years of work and you forgot to make any backup
and it discourage anybody who uploaded tons of bootleg videos as it is more expensive than the original dvd.
They could remove all the copies of DCMA notified data, and make a special provision for non profit organisations who can demonstrate that they uploaded terabyte of research data and it's not bootleg, but they need a discount..
And they could publicly request an agreement from the "MPAA" since refusal would force the MPAA to tell that they do not want legitimate users to reposess their data (enabling a class action suit) and acceptance might demonstrate that no user is willing to pay a reasonable fee to get it's personal data back (if you have stolen the data you typically have a copy and do not really care, only "real" users would need access).
Cool, you allready owe about 15 000$ per familly member for the Irak and Afghan war....
Do you really want to owe at the very least 30 000$ for the Iran war (that would be assuming you succeed to isolate iran from their neighbors and do not need to return to iran and afghan right after because they are kind of "unhappy", and assuming the millions of Irannian living in the US do not freak out because you killed their cousins and bombed their vacation house on the caspian (BTW on average they are quite well to do, most left iran before the revolution with a "LOT" of cash, and then proceded to make quite well for themselves...)
since using such a "clean" bomb on a nuclear site is bound to make a very dirty area, why bother ?
why not just use a nuke, maybe calling it "cleaner area" to convince the "vox populi" that it is "all right"...
humm, probably the marketing/PR company do not need as much cash as boing, .. silly me...