When Microsoft purchases the inventory - stamps out discs, pays coders to code, etc - they deduct the expense then (or over time according to archaic rules). If they then donate that inventory - let schools use it for free - they do not deduct anything, because they have already deducted the expense once.
In other words, Microsoft has only spent X dollars, they can't deduct 2X dollars.
If Microsoft does what your example shows, then they would have committed fraud.
On the other hand, if you buy a copy of Vista and give it to your church, you spent X dollars on the copy, and that X dollars is deductible.
The key is that every expense is recorded once and only once.
No, I'm with him too. I just think that using industry statistics is always a little iffy.
I think it's very interesting how much of a chunk jet fuel takes on that California chart. I never would have guessed that.
New question now that I'm thinking about it - with the California chart, is that a chart of how oil is converted by California industries for wholesale or how oil is ultimately used by its consumers? If you made the same chart for South Carolina, which doesn't have much in the way of oil refineries but has a good smattering of plastics plants, would the chart be about the same, or would it be completely different?
There isn't. We HAVE liberty. It is not provided, it is only taken away (sometimes justly -- for example, I have the right to swing my fist, but your right to not have me punch your nose supercedes -- and sometimes, unjustly). I understand the semantic difference between the terms liberty, justice, and equality. Justice and equality are certainly easier to create than liberty - but liberty can actually be created as easily as it is destroyed, and a progressive government will seek to create as much liberty as feasible, while eliminating as little as possible.
As an example, the tax code allows moving expenses to be deducted above the line. This lowers the burden of moving to an area with more jobs, something many Americans cannot afford to do, creating economic mobility - which I consider to be a fundamental liberty.
Public transportation is another good example of creating liberty. It lowers the cost of going out into the world and doing things such as finding and retaining a job, or getting groceries from the store to your house. That increases people's job options, their options regarding whom they purchase goods from, and increases their disposable income - providing them with more options on how they spend their money.
You'll be hard-pressed to find honest statistical analysis that justifies your position, I'm afraid. Longevity: I just grabbed the Human Development Report (excel file) off the UN's website and I got the US tied for 28th for life expectancy at birth.
Health Care Expenditure Per Capita: I did the same thing (excel again), and big shocker, the US was ranked first.
That 4 minutes pressed me hard. To my limit.
Socialism fails to grasp something basic about Liberty - it includes the freedom to make bad choices and suffer their consequences. You have failed to grasp something basic about Liberty - this is not a choice I have made, and yet I am suffering the consequences.
My understanding (IANAE, btw) is that economics was considered a philosophical pursuit until the late 1800s / early 1900s - with Marx being the last major purely philosophical economist. With Keynes and the Austrians, economics moved over into the social sciences with the introduction of graphs, statistics, math, etc.
More recently, with game theorists, economists have been running simulations. Having participated in chemistry labs and game theory simulations at the junior/senior level, I can say that game theory simulations are as rigorous as organic chemistry experiments if not as rigorous as p-chem. One of the most interesting things to observe when participating in those experiments is how people in (well designed) simulations begin to act like rational automatons, while people in chemistry experiments will let an extra drop in the beaker slide, or will make the temperature that a reaction occurred be the average of when they stopped paying attention and when they looked over and noticed that the reaction they'd been waiting on had apparently happened at some point. Granted, this is all anecdotal, and I'm not trying to imply (at least not to the extent that last paragraph reads) that economics is somehow harder than chemistry.
In my opinion, chemists and physicists discount economics primarily because of its sordid (i.e., not hard science) history and not because of how it is currently practiced. The historical stigma is of course, hard to shake when every study done has (obviously) sociological implications.
Rationing and price controls lower at-the-counter dollar costs. They also increase costs measured in human misery, deprivation of liberty, and economic damage. National Socialism is a parasite - an anti-growth, anti-liberty system that is self-destructive - sustaining itself by preying upon other nations and lowering the overall standard of living for the citizenry in the medium and long terms. A sane healthcare system doesn't have to be socialist or nationalized. I don't know what the other options besides national/single payer or privatized healthcare are - those are the only two we can observe historically (I guess there are hybrids like the Quebecois and Dutch systems). However, the historical observation of the two most prominent styles of healthcare systems is: healthcare in the US (and other private countries) has a higher cost inflation than healthcare in countries with nationalized systems. At the same time, the US has a lower life expectancy and a higher rate of preventable deaths. How is paying more to die younger after a less capable life not an infringement on liberty? How is that not economic damage? How is that not human misery?
If you go re-read the question, the question was really "Are you an objectivist?" and Novick's answer was No. So it would make sense for someone who is an ideological voter, and whose ideology is objectivism, to vote against Novick.
I thought economists were scientists?
And really, the biggest issues with our healthcare system today are in that it ignores basic economics - it incentivizes the denial of care while driving up prices even as supply increases. So don't be that surprised if the GAO signs off on a semipublic healthcare plan: they certainly seem to be hinting that way. See also: this.
I also absolutely disagree with federal school lunch standards. The federal government has no business of any kind in the local public schools. Period, end of story. For the poorest Americans, school lunches are the only real meal they get. So they get five squares a week. We should make sure they don't count.
Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. And while you have some good ideas, it is only barely a start. Frankly, I think many people -- not sure if this includes you -- ideologically believe we SHOULD have government-provided universal health care, and try to shoehorn reality into that ideology, instead of addressing the actual problems of cost. Then again, the most expensive healthcare in the world is also the country where the government doesn't pay for it. Government paid healthcare is not perfect, and it's not a panacea, but it certainly seems to do a better job than privately funded healthcare does, and does so for less money. Which I think means that it lowers the cost?
Slashdot Mirror
I did think about it. Do software publishers pay tax? Do you have evidence one way or another?
'cause I couldn't find any.
On Microsoft's Investor Relations Page, They have their Yearly Income statements in Excel format: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/Yearly%20Income%20Statements.xls
The line you're looking for is "Provision for Income Taxes," and it looks like MS paid $6B in income taxes (that would be worldwide) last year.
When Microsoft purchases the inventory - stamps out discs, pays coders to code, etc - they deduct the expense then (or over time according to archaic rules). If they then donate that inventory - let schools use it for free - they do not deduct anything, because they have already deducted the expense once.
In other words, Microsoft has only spent X dollars, they can't deduct 2X dollars.
If Microsoft does what your example shows, then they would have committed fraud.
On the other hand, if you buy a copy of Vista and give it to your church, you spent X dollars on the copy, and that X dollars is deductible.
The key is that every expense is recorded once and only once.
No, I'm with him too. I just think that using industry statistics is always a little iffy.
I think it's very interesting how much of a chunk jet fuel takes on that California chart. I never would have guessed that.
New question now that I'm thinking about it - with the California chart, is that a chart of how oil is converted by California industries for wholesale or how oil is ultimately used by its consumers? If you made the same chart for South Carolina, which doesn't have much in the way of oil refineries but has a good smattering of plastics plants, would the chart be about the same, or would it be completely different?
I like how you choose a nice, unbiased source to cite on the plastic bags there.
Where do you think the plastic bags are on that California chart - other refined products? There's not a bar for "Statistically insignificant."
As an example, the tax code allows moving expenses to be deducted above the line. This lowers the burden of moving to an area with more jobs, something many Americans cannot afford to do, creating economic mobility - which I consider to be a fundamental liberty.
Public transportation is another good example of creating liberty. It lowers the cost of going out into the world and doing things such as finding and retaining a job, or getting groceries from the store to your house. That increases people's job options, their options regarding whom they purchase goods from, and increases their disposable income - providing them with more options on how they spend their money.
Health Care Expenditure Per Capita: I did the same thing (excel again), and big shocker, the US was ranked first.
That 4 minutes pressed me hard. To my limit.
Socialism fails to grasp something basic about Liberty - it includes the freedom to make bad choices and suffer their consequences. You have failed to grasp something basic about Liberty - this is not a choice I have made, and yet I am suffering the consequences.
My understanding (IANAE, btw) is that economics was considered a philosophical pursuit until the late 1800s / early 1900s - with Marx being the last major purely philosophical economist. With Keynes and the Austrians, economics moved over into the social sciences with the introduction of graphs, statistics, math, etc. More recently, with game theorists, economists have been running simulations. Having participated in chemistry labs and game theory simulations at the junior/senior level, I can say that game theory simulations are as rigorous as organic chemistry experiments if not as rigorous as p-chem. One of the most interesting things to observe when participating in those experiments is how people in (well designed) simulations begin to act like rational automatons, while people in chemistry experiments will let an extra drop in the beaker slide, or will make the temperature that a reaction occurred be the average of when they stopped paying attention and when they looked over and noticed that the reaction they'd been waiting on had apparently happened at some point. Granted, this is all anecdotal, and I'm not trying to imply (at least not to the extent that last paragraph reads) that economics is somehow harder than chemistry. In my opinion, chemists and physicists discount economics primarily because of its sordid (i.e., not hard science) history and not because of how it is currently practiced. The historical stigma is of course, hard to shake when every study done has (obviously) sociological implications.
If you go re-read the question, the question was really "Are you an objectivist?" and Novick's answer was No. So it would make sense for someone who is an ideological voter, and whose ideology is objectivism, to vote against Novick.
I thought economists were scientists? And really, the biggest issues with our healthcare system today are in that it ignores basic economics - it incentivizes the denial of care while driving up prices even as supply increases. So don't be that surprised if the GAO signs off on a semipublic healthcare plan: they certainly seem to be hinting that way. See also: this.