I do not nominally (I presume you mean legally) pay any corporate tax, nor does any other individual. The only entities that nominally pay corporate taxes are corporations, although the economic incidence of such taxes is more hidden. I also suspect that the desire to tax corporations comes more from a soak-the-rich attitude than from a desire to have hidden taxes.
"But how many people are shareholders or corporate employees?"
Many people.
But do these many people constitute the general population? What if only 45% of the population owns stock or is a corporate employee?
No, most corporate employees I talk to do not realize that corporations usually pay 40% of their profits in taxes. Most people calling for the oil companies profits to be taken do not seem realize it would mean higher gasoline prices.
Why don't they know? Is the corporate tax rate so obscure? And what is the economic incidence of corporate taxes on corporate employees?
Well, some are more fair than others. For example, when you pay income, or sales tax you are notified of the amount you are paying. Property tax is a little more unfair, because renters can not know how much of the property tax is passed on to them, nor are they aware of the the amount their landlord pays in property taxes on their unit. Corporate taxes are the worst, the people paying them get no breakdown of the cost and they can't possibly know how much they are individually paying. Not only that, but corporate taxes are an unreliable source of government funds, since they pay zero in unprofitable years.
For personal income or sales tax, you are notified of your legal tax burden, but not the economic incidence, the same as corporate taxes.
That's because it's irrelevant. Then again so is your most recent comment.
It is not irrelevant to this discussion. Are you treating the general population as a single collective or as a group of individuals? Your answer will have some bearing on the matter.
"The economic incidence of corporate taxes fall mainly on shareholders and corporate employees"
Okay, so that doesn't really contradict my assertion, does it? I work for a corporation, so do many, many people. I have a 401K plan that invests in corporations, as do many people, so that makes me a shareholder. These taxes really do affect the general population.
But how many people are shareholders or corporate employees? Also, wouldn't employees and shareholders know that corporate taxes affect them?
On some hypothetical "absolute scale" of liberal/conservative, it might be true that CNN or ABC is 'conservative' and Fox only more so, but in reality there is no absolute scale. Everything is relative to something else: either the citizenry at large, or to the consumers who affect a particular market.
How about the facts, rather than our beliefs about them?
The only borderline-objective source for normalcy seems, to me, to be what the market actually produces in response to consumer desires. It's easy to lie on an opinion poll to make yourself look or feel good, when you're not spending your own money or time. But the market is a good measure of what people actually do; and people abandoned CNN in the late 90s and early 2000s to watch Fox News instead. That's an indicator to me, that the public is actually quite -- perhaps frighteningly -- conservative.
Why would you deem this even border-line objective? It might be correct as to people's beliefs, but are those beliefs themselvescorrect?
The economic incidence of corporate taxes fall mainly on shareholders and corporate employees, not the general population as a whole. Are you saying that people are unaware of this, or that they would object if they were aware?
They are unfair and unjust to the general population, who has a right to know how much they are paying in taxes.
I usually don't correct grammar on Slashdot, but your inability to decide whether the term "general population" is singular or plural is of some importance in this matter.
I don't believe that the OP is blaming the Pope for that, but His Holiness does benefit from it. Is it Microsoft's fault that some countries have low corporate tax rates?
To whom or what are corporate taxes unfair or unjust? And how can one punish corporations, or how can corporations (as opposed to its employees) be successful?
What properties can one ascribe to a corporation, as opposed to its employees/officers?
A BSD license allows for more people to use the source over what time frame? In the short term, yes, the BSD license allows for more freedom. But what about the long term? Code is not a static thing, it is part of a stream of constantly evolving code. What is crucial is to protect the freedom of the entire stream, and not just a small piece of it.
And I'm having trouble understanding how a data center is providing software as a service. And if it is not providing software as a service, how is this relevant to the topic?
And how does Software as a service handle power outages? How would Windows Genuine Advantage deal with hardware issues? Can you have people support your hardware without handing your data over to them?
This type of control is the rule rather than the exception in companies. Part of the purpose is to contain trade secrets and to protect the reputation of the company, but it's also to prevent the spread of false information. Engineers and scientists aren't infallible. (What's worse, most of us think we know more than we really do, love it when people ask us our opinions, and aren't slow to speculate.) Even when we're right, we might exaggerate or use technical jargon, as you pointed out. A system has to exist to make sure that technically vetted, relevant information is provided to the public.
And the Bush administration is capable of such technical vetting?
My physics teacher told us that he could give us all As, but that wouldn't make much difference for getting into university, because they would look at the class average and conclude that you didn't do much better than anyone else, and you were just average.
But what if the students at your school are on average better than the students at other schools?
But that is not the issue. In terms of what the reader sees, there is little difference between HTML and XHTML. The main advantage of XML is that is it easier for computers to deal with. MathML requires more typing than LaTeX to achieve the same representational effect, but MathML allows for easier application building.
It is true that the Union was initially unprepared for the magnitude of the war. The North had few officers who had commanded large forces before the war, given that the peacetime army was small. Also, the US did much better against the Iraqi military than the Union initially did against the Confederacy, but on the other hand, the Union had a tougher opponent.
What elevates Lincoln above George W. Bush is not his military wizardry, but his humanity. Lincoln did not demand that his cabinet members give him undue personal loyalty. Lincoln, like Bush, sought and received expanded powers that encroached on the liberties of the American people. But did Lincoln abuse those powers as much as Bush has? Could our current President even read the Gettysburg Address using a teleprompter, never mind composing it? Lincoln faced stresses that could have broken his granite visage on Mount Rushmore, such as testifying to Congress that, as far as he knew, his wife was not aiding the Confederate cause. And Lincoln also took risks that no modern president would, such as viewing Early's raid on Washington from the parapet of Ft. Stevens and visiting Richmond the day after it fell to Union forces.
Lincoln was also a politician, as in had some ability to get Congress to support his policies, such as the Thirteenth Amendment. He also demanded effort of the American people.
Of course, Lincoln did not live to see Reconstruction, which is the part of the Iraq war that has so vexed Bush.
As for spreading democracy, has Bush pursued policies likely to achieve that goal? Should we have invaded Iraq before pacifying Afghanistan? Should he have called for a larger army on 9/12/2001.
(but again so is Lincoln with his constant replacing of his top field commander)
If Lincoln had not replaced McClellan, the Army of the Potomac would still be somewhere in Northern Virginia, waiting for the right moment to attack. Pope and McDowell simply had to go, Burnsides forced Lincoln's hand, and Hooker made Terrell Owens look like the consummate team player.
Slashdot Mirror
LaTex is a beautiful system to create documents in but it is a BITCH and a half to setup properly
Most Linux distributions include LaTeX, and it installs pretty much automatically.
java as a platform for web applications should really be always said as 'java is THE platform for web applications'.
Does Java have the equivalent of PHP's eval() function?
I do not nominally (I presume you mean legally) pay any corporate tax, nor does any other individual. The only entities that nominally pay corporate taxes are corporations, although the economic incidence of such taxes is more hidden. I also suspect that the desire to tax corporations comes more from a soak-the-rich attitude than from a desire to have hidden taxes.
And with corporate taxes, you don't know what a corporation nominally owes?
"But how many people are shareholders or corporate employees?"
Many people.
But do these many people constitute the general population? What if only 45% of the population owns stock or is a corporate employee?
No, most corporate employees I talk to do not realize that corporations usually pay 40% of their profits in taxes. Most people calling for the oil companies profits to be taken do not seem realize it would mean higher gasoline prices.
Why don't they know? Is the corporate tax rate so obscure? And what is the economic incidence of corporate taxes on corporate employees?
Well, some are more fair than others. For example, when you pay income, or sales tax you are notified of the amount you are paying. Property tax is a little more unfair, because renters can not know how much of the property tax is passed on to them, nor are they aware of the the amount their landlord pays in property taxes on their unit. Corporate taxes are the worst, the people paying them get no breakdown of the cost and they can't possibly know how much they are individually paying. Not only that, but corporate taxes are an unreliable source of government funds, since they pay zero in unprofitable years.
For personal income or sales tax, you are notified of your legal tax burden, but not the economic incidence, the same as corporate taxes.
"I usually don't correct grammar on Slashdot"
That's because it's irrelevant. Then again so is your most recent comment.
It is not irrelevant to this discussion. Are you treating the general population as a single collective or as a group of individuals? Your answer will have some bearing on the matter.
"The economic incidence of corporate taxes fall mainly on shareholders and corporate employees"
Okay, so that doesn't really contradict my assertion, does it? I work for a corporation, so do many, many people. I have a 401K plan that invests in corporations, as do many people, so that makes me a shareholder. These taxes really do affect the general population.
But how many people are shareholders or corporate employees? Also, wouldn't employees and shareholders know that corporate taxes affect them?
Is there any tax that you would consider fair?
On some hypothetical "absolute scale" of liberal/conservative, it might be true that CNN or ABC is 'conservative' and Fox only more so, but in reality there is no absolute scale. Everything is relative to something else: either the citizenry at large, or to the consumers who affect a particular market.
How about the facts, rather than our beliefs about them?
The only borderline-objective source for normalcy seems, to me, to be what the market actually produces in response to consumer desires. It's easy to lie on an opinion poll to make yourself look or feel good, when you're not spending your own money or time. But the market is a good measure of what people actually do; and people abandoned CNN in the late 90s and early 2000s to watch Fox News instead. That's an indicator to me, that the public is actually quite -- perhaps frighteningly -- conservative.
Why would you deem this even border-line objective? It might be correct as to people's beliefs, but are those beliefs themselvescorrect?
The economic incidence of corporate taxes fall mainly on shareholders and corporate employees, not the general population as a whole. Are you saying that people are unaware of this, or that they would object if they were aware?
They are unfair and unjust to the general population, who has a right to know how much they are paying in taxes.
I usually don't correct grammar on Slashdot, but your inability to decide whether the term "general population" is singular or plural is of some importance in this matter.
Do you honestly believe that the US government would do something constructive with an extra $500 million?
If you're a Halliburton stockholder, maybe.
I don't believe that the OP is blaming the Pope for that, but His Holiness does benefit from it. Is it Microsoft's fault that some countries have low corporate tax rates?
And as Blackstone wrote, one cannot excommunicate a corporation, for it has no soul.
To whom or what are corporate taxes unfair or unjust? And how can one punish corporations, or how can corporations (as opposed to its employees) be successful?
What properties can one ascribe to a corporation, as opposed to its employees/officers?
A BSD license allows for more people to use the source over what time frame? In the short term, yes, the BSD license allows for more freedom. But what about the long term? Code is not a static thing, it is part of a stream of constantly evolving code. What is crucial is to protect the freedom of the entire stream, and not just a small piece of it.
And I'm having trouble understanding how a data center is providing software as a service. And if it is not providing software as a service, how is this relevant to the topic?
And how does Software as a service handle power outages? How would Windows Genuine Advantage deal with hardware issues? Can you have people support your hardware without handing your data over to them?
That happened to General Meade. He mistreated a journalist, and other journalists refused to mention his name in their stories.
This type of control is the rule rather than the exception in companies. Part of the purpose is to contain trade secrets and to protect the reputation of the company, but it's also to prevent the spread of false information. Engineers and scientists aren't infallible. (What's worse, most of us think we know more than we really do, love it when people ask us our opinions, and aren't slow to speculate.) Even when we're right, we might exaggerate or use technical jargon, as you pointed out. A system has to exist to make sure that technically vetted, relevant information is provided to the public.
And the Bush administration is capable of such technical vetting?
Are you saying that the Constitution means "people" collectively rather than distributively?
My physics teacher told us that he could give us all As, but that wouldn't make much difference for getting into university, because they would look at the class average and conclude that you didn't do much better than anyone else, and you were just average.
But what if the students at your school are on average better than the students at other schools?
But that is not the issue. In terms of what the reader sees, there is little difference between HTML and XHTML. The main advantage of XML is that is it easier for computers to deal with. MathML requires more typing than LaTeX to achieve the same representational effect, but MathML allows for easier application building.
Well, if we're going to do that to Iran, do you expect us to negotiate with them?
It is true that the Union was initially unprepared for the magnitude of the war. The North had few officers who had commanded large forces before the war, given that the peacetime army was small. Also, the US did much better against the Iraqi military than the Union initially did against the Confederacy, but on the other hand, the Union had a tougher opponent.
What elevates Lincoln above George W. Bush is not his military wizardry, but his humanity. Lincoln did not demand that his cabinet members give him undue personal loyalty. Lincoln, like Bush, sought and received expanded powers that encroached on the liberties of the American people. But did Lincoln abuse those powers as much as Bush has? Could our current President even read the Gettysburg Address using a teleprompter, never mind composing it? Lincoln faced stresses that could have broken his granite visage on Mount Rushmore, such as testifying to Congress that, as far as he knew, his wife was not aiding the Confederate cause. And Lincoln also took risks that no modern president would, such as viewing Early's raid on Washington from the parapet of Ft. Stevens and visiting Richmond the day after it fell to Union forces.
Lincoln was also a politician, as in had some ability to get Congress to support his policies, such as the Thirteenth Amendment. He also demanded effort of the American people.
Of course, Lincoln did not live to see Reconstruction, which is the part of the Iraq war that has so vexed Bush.
As for spreading democracy, has Bush pursued policies likely to achieve that goal? Should we have invaded Iraq before pacifying Afghanistan? Should he have called for a larger army on 9/12/2001.
Also, in Linux, the attachment might not be marked as executable.
(but again so is Lincoln with his constant replacing of his top field commander)
If Lincoln had not replaced McClellan, the Army of the Potomac would still be somewhere in Northern Virginia, waiting for the right moment to attack. Pope and McDowell simply had to go, Burnsides forced Lincoln's hand, and Hooker made Terrell Owens look like the consummate team player.
More than reasonable to a nation that ian't holding your diplomats hostage.