Firstly, it should be 108k adjusted for inflation since it was first set but whatever.
More importantly, it's going to be a waste of time if they fix it because it'll be broken within a few years (unless we have deflation in which case things are much worse anyway).
$100,000 is basically top 20%.
So instead of setting it at $100,000, set it at "Must pay a salary equal to the lowest income in the highest quintile for the prior tax year".
That way it will naturally increase with inflation. When $60,000 was originally set, it had purchasing power of over $100,000 today.
And if these are so special, rare, and talented then shouldn't they be making top 20% pay?
Keep in mind that Google and similar companies are often unable to hire the truly rare genius's they need because all the slots have been taking by bachelor's degree candidates with "C" averages for that year by large consulting firms.
The goal of H1B was to bring in labor unavailable in the U.S. at any price- not to bring in labor that undercut local market prices.
CEO Heather Bresch basically destroyed one of Mylan's permanent cash cow for a few years higher profits (and higher bonuses for her). As an investor, I'd be pissed.
Remember the name... Heather Bresch. Good for a short term profit but don't hold on to her companies long term.
Even my buds who are still working and making 6 figures balk at $18 for a regular 3d film (they'll kick in for something special like the force awakens) in theaters and not one of them bought a 3d television.
Plus for many people, TV's are an appliance... which means the replacement cycle is very long. You are not going to drop $4000 on a new top of hte line TV every couple years. So are blue ray players. Heck- I have a friend who still has a DVD player and won't replace it.
And then you add the sizable percentage of people who get nausea from watching 3d and the smaller percentage who don't see 3d as 3d (they only process one eye or their brain doesn't merge the images).
But among the people I know- it was the cost. It's just too high for the benefit. To me, 3d is worth an extra 10%. The 3d industry wanted an extra 125% to 150%.
Oh and finally finally... in many cases, the 3d wasn't that good. I've seen some good 3d (snow flakes that appear to drift in the audience pulling you into the picture) and a lot of bad 3d.
God.. and yet another finally... you don't NEED 3d to watch "Everyone loves Raymond". The way 3d was sold wasn't immersive- it was a spice for action, sci fi and fantasy films. Never romcoms, thrillers, dramas, etc.
It's an interesting point tho there is a difference in the way china wants to kill us and the way middle east terrorists want to kill us. Given nuclear capability, ISIS would use it to destroy cities and kill millions of people. China has been nuclear for decades and while an enemy, they've been sane and sober in their use of nuclear weapons.
Not only is the volume of waste reduced by 2 orders of magnitude (:a factor of 100") but the great reduction of transuranic products in the waste reduces the lifetime of the radioactive waste from breeder reactors is much shorter than the lifetime of radioactive wastes from normal reactors which means there are a LOT more safe places to store the waste (you don't need to find a place that's going to be stable for 10,000 years).
"Since breeder reactors on a closed fuel cycle would use nearly all of the actinides fed into them as fuel, their fuel requirements would be reduced by a factor of about 100. The volume of waste they generate would be reduced by a factor of about 100 as well. While there is a huge reduction in the volume of waste from a breeder reactor, the activity of the waste is about the same as that produced by a light water reactor.[39]
In addition, the waste from a breeder reactor has a different decay behavior, because it is made up of different materials. Breeder reactor waste is mostly fission products, while light water reactor waste has a large quantity of transuranics. After spent nuclear fuel has been removed from a light water reactor for longer than 100,000 years, these transuranics would be the main source of radioactivity. Eliminating them would eliminate much of the long-term radioactivity from the spent fuel.[13]
In principle, breeder fuel cycles can recycle and consume all actinides,[9] leaving only fission products. As the graphic in this section indicates, fission products have a peculiar 'gap' in their aggregate half-lives, such that no fission products have a half-life longer than 91 years and shorter than two hundred thousand years. As a result of this physical oddity, after several hundred years in storage, the activity of the radioactive waste from a Fast Breeder Reactor would quickly drop to the low level of the long-lived fission products."
9 "www.ne.anl.gov/pdfs/12_Pyroprocessing_bro_5_12_v14%5B6%5D.pdf" (PDF). Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved 25 December 2012.
13 Bodansky, David (January 2006). "The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal". Physics and Society. American Physical Society. 35 (1).
39 Fast BreederReactors by Richard L. Garwin IBMFellow Emeritus IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Things move too fast. Nano solar which was crazy cheap was enormously undercut on prices by even cheaper competitors and went out of business because it was too expensive.
AC Said: "I'm not sure why the Funny rather than Insightful moderation you are getting. This explanation is the only one that makes any sense with the series climax in Episode V."
I've heard rumors of an episode VI but something bad happened and only half the film was made. Had some exciting stuff set on tatooine with carrie fisher in a hot metal bikini and luke all dressed in black looking tres chique. I heard the writer went insane and was screaming something about furry smurfs and second derivative death stars. I saw the part that was made in a locked room at a Spectrum Con 84 on a low quality VHS back when I was in my early 20's.
âoeThe most reliable estimate of the cost of decommissioning [a nuclear power plant] is 10-15 percent of the construction cost, contrary to some highly inflated estimates... Modern serious studies of the disposal problem indicate that satisfactory isolation is technologically feasible, even for the long term.â So wrote MIT nuclear engineering professor David Rose in the November 1985 issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
How misguided that view seems now, with the advantage of decades of experience. The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommissionâ"or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plantâ"constructed early in the 1960s for $39 millionâ"cost $608 million.
So it was estimated to cost $6 million (*inflation adjusted- about $39 million) to decommission and as of 2014, it instead took $608 million dollars.
So.. no... we haven't built the actual cost of decommissioning plants into the bill. We've collected about 5% of what will actually be needed to decomission them. And the difference will either result in a rotting husk that isn't cleaned up or a $560 million dollar bill handed to the tax payers by the nuclear power plant industry (which keeps the profits).
Coal is horrifically uneconomical. At this point. And it's not solar- it's natural gas.
The only place tidal is called a disaster that I can find is in flat out propaganda by the oil industry. Perhaps you have a citation?
Solar is being sold in huge quantities without subsidies to power companies. German power companies bought up 2 years of Nano Solar's new "printed" solar cells that were crazy cheap (an order of magnitude cheaper than solid substrata and much lighter and easier to install).
Do you want to pay $22 for a human driving private cab or $10 (or even less) for a shared car.
People will be free to choose their option so everyone wins.
People do astonishing things for a few pennies. Give up their privacy. Queue up for an an extra 40 minutes. Shop on certain days. Buy two of a product when they are barely likely to use one.
I suspect as solar becomes ubiquitous we may see more DC options.
Photo voltaic has become very compelling plus we don't fund people who want to kill us when we buy photo voltaic so that's always a plus.
But molten salt is pretty compelling for solar as well.
Coal is already uneconomical compared to other resources even without considering the pollution cleanup costs. Old coal plants didn't have to comply to the new pollution laws until last year (well 2015 so I guess now barely two years ago) and were polluting large areas with mercury.
Nuclear is great as long as you ignore decommissioning and fuel storage and human nature. i.e. humans get sloppier and cut more and more corners over time until something bad happens. I'd feel more comfortable if nuclear were restricted to small (5000 house) self contained plants which didn't even allow humans in the loop and which shut themselves down automatically. And we need to build a breeder reactor to reduce the volume of nuclear waste by 2 orders of magnitude. But it has to be crazy secure. As in put it on an army base secure.
Solar, wind, and tides are the way to go tho. All have minimal cleanup costs, minimal problems on failure, fail by tiny pieces rather than as a whole, and costs are plummeting.
Well the thing was Lucas was very inexperienced as a director but by the time episode 4, "A new hope" rolled around Lucas had finally learned to trust the actors and stop redoing scenes til the emotion was drained from them. And then for episode 5 Lucas handed the reigns to another experienced character director and focused on producing.
Also, the actors chosen for episodes 1-3 were terrible so when Lucasfilm decided to reboot series with fresh new actors as of episode 4 they did a much better job, for example picking unknown actors who had a lot of chemistry with each other. The decision to go with puppets for Yoda was a big step up from the poor CGI they had used for him in the first 3 films.
I agree the light sabers looked like sticks a few times (and I could see them fixing that to glow consistently) but the hologram was fine. I watched the movie 24 times in the theater and the hologram was never an issue.
With the despecialized editions out there spreading around, lucasfilm/disney had to finally push out the originals after 40 years to grab the money before the market was impacted.
For example, it's not uncommon for refrigerators to be half the size they are in the U.S. Cars are often smaller as well. Livings spaces are smaller as well.
Partially, we have an issue in the U.S. with demand driving up the price of everything so it's harder to live even tho we make more money.
And it's not just u.s. citizen money, it's money from the well off all over the globe. They buy houses and buildings here to get their money out of their home countries. It's artificial demand that wouldn't exist if their countries were safer places to hold money.
But the end result is that the poor can live okay for $600 a month in China (in 500sq ft-cheaper food-much cheaper medical care) but you can't survive on $600 a month in the U.S. Just flat out can't survive.
> Pricing for many products is way lower than the market will bear.
This statement is nonsense. Companies do not leave profits on the table. Think about what you are saying. Companies have entire departments dedicated to finding the razors edge on price. I worked at a multibillion dollare corporation that had a department of over 200 people whose sole purpose was to find the inflection point in the demand curve. I see my grocery store doing this all the time. They try every possible variation of prices, 2 for 1, buy 5, 50 cents off, 50 cents off purchase of 2, etc. etc. etc. Companies strive constantly to find the highest profit point.
Your underlying point ignores drop in demand with rising price regardless of if the source is higher sales tax or higher corporate taxes.
However, now we really disagree in the degree to which my statement is true.
You think/swagged that they pass on 75% and I swagged that they pass on 25%. Realistically- it's going to be different values for different industries and different companies. Some will pass on 100% (completely inelastic demand - monopoly market) while others will pass on almost none of the tax (elastic demand - competitive market).
My point was it's not true to simply say that taxes will be passed on. When passing on taxes results in sharp drop in sales, then the taxes will not be passed on. There are many product categories where passing on the taxes will result in a sharp drop in demand.
It seems to me that things were horrible pre world war 2. Not so bad from about 1960 to 1984ish and then they've gone downhill since then. When I try to make arguments for the common good the most frequent response is that businesses should do whatever they want regardless of how badly it hurts society because it's legal and their only duty is to maximize shareholder return on investment.
As if the rest of society didn't educate employees, provide police, roads, electricity, standards, etc. etc. etc.
It's a combination of eating the tax and passing on the tax that depends on competition in the market and how inelastic pricing in the market is.
First, you need to recognize that pricing is ALREADY set at what the market will bear and has little relationship to what it costs to provide the good or service.
Many of the products you buy for $100 only cost $30 to manufacture. Many of the products you buy for $8, only cost 0.50 to manufacture.
The T-shirt price is set at $8 because that's the price people will pay for it. If you tax the corporation enough that it would need to charge $9 for the T-Shirt and it raises prices the full $1, it's sales may drop catastrophically on a product it was making a $7 gross profit on.
So in reality, they raise the cost of the T-Shirt to $8.25, suffer some lost sales and reduce their gross profits from $7 to $5.95.
And it's the same for every other product and service offered by any company that has profits higher than a grocery store. Grocery stores have very low net profit margins. Any cost added to them goes on to the food. Pharmas have very high net profit margins.
So corporate taxes are NOT passed on to the consumer unless the consumer will still buy the product at the higher prices.
Or.. the days of corps running to ireland or other low cost havens are numbered.
Look, governments go where the money is. If corporations sell products within a companies borders, then there is a way to get money from the corporation. And governments are getting more agile and more pissy about it.
You may just wake up and find your corporation has a 14 billion dollar tax bill due one morning.
So it is up to the rest of society to keep CEO's and Boards honest with proper laws, audits, restrictions, and so on.
I'm atheist but part of the problem is the loss of shame and kindness associated with religion becoming entangled with politics and the decline of religion in our society generally.
Doing whats "fair and reasonable" has been replaced with doing "what's legal- even if it's harsh, cruel, and destructive."
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, it should be 108k adjusted for inflation since it was first set but whatever.
More importantly, it's going to be a waste of time if they fix it because it'll be broken within a few years (unless we have deflation in which case things are much worse anyway).
$100,000 is basically top 20%.
So instead of setting it at $100,000, set it at "Must pay a salary equal to the lowest income in the highest quintile for the prior tax year".
That way it will naturally increase with inflation. When $60,000 was originally set, it had purchasing power of over $100,000 today.
And if these are so special, rare, and talented then shouldn't they be making top 20% pay?
Keep in mind that Google and similar companies are often unable to hire the truly rare genius's they need because all the slots have been taking by bachelor's degree candidates with "C" averages for that year by large consulting firms.
The goal of H1B was to bring in labor unavailable in the U.S. at any price- not to bring in labor that undercut local market prices.
Until it is inevitably corrupted and taken over.
They expire.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Looks like the 18 months is aggressive tho. Might depend on storage conditions too.
CEO Heather Bresch basically destroyed one of Mylan's permanent cash cow for a few years higher profits (and higher bonuses for her).
As an investor, I'd be pissed.
Remember the name... Heather Bresch. Good for a short term profit but don't hold on to her companies long term.
You talk like people live in an ideal world so we should also assume perfectly spherical dentists as well.
We must maintain our purity of essence and preserve our precious bodily fluids!
Also metropcs.
I was with Tmobile but changed MetroPCS because it was cheaper a few months ago.
Had a weird thing where my phone voicemail was stuck in spanish for the first few weeks but finally got that straightened out.
The cost for 3d is WAY too high.
Even my buds who are still working and making 6 figures balk at $18 for a regular 3d film (they'll kick in for something special like the force awakens) in theaters and not one of them bought a 3d television.
Plus for many people, TV's are an appliance... which means the replacement cycle is very long. You are not going to drop $4000 on a new top of hte line TV every couple years. So are blue ray players. Heck- I have a friend who still has a DVD player and won't replace it.
And then you add the sizable percentage of people who get nausea from watching 3d and the smaller percentage who don't see 3d as 3d (they only process one eye or their brain doesn't merge the images).
But among the people I know- it was the cost. It's just too high for the benefit. To me, 3d is worth an extra 10%. The 3d industry wanted an extra 125% to 150%.
Oh and finally finally... in many cases, the 3d wasn't that good. I've seen some good 3d (snow flakes that appear to drift in the audience pulling you into the picture) and a lot of bad 3d.
God.. and yet another finally... you don't NEED 3d to watch "Everyone loves Raymond". The way 3d was sold wasn't immersive- it was a spice for action, sci fi and fantasy films. Never romcoms, thrillers, dramas, etc.
It's an interesting point tho there is a difference in the way china wants to kill us and the way middle east terrorists want to kill us.
Given nuclear capability, ISIS would use it to destroy cities and kill millions of people.
China has been nuclear for decades and while an enemy, they've been sane and sober in their use of nuclear weapons.
yes, we do...
Not only is the volume of waste reduced by 2 orders of magnitude (:a factor of 100") but the great reduction of transuranic products in the waste reduces the lifetime of the radioactive waste from breeder reactors is much shorter than the lifetime of radioactive wastes from normal reactors which means there are a LOT more safe places to store the waste (you don't need to find a place that's going to be stable for 10,000 years).
"Since breeder reactors on a closed fuel cycle would use nearly all of the actinides fed into them as fuel, their fuel requirements would be reduced by a factor of about 100. The volume of waste they generate would be reduced by a factor of about 100 as well. While there is a huge reduction in the volume of waste from a breeder reactor, the activity of the waste is about the same as that produced by a light water reactor.[39]
In addition, the waste from a breeder reactor has a different decay behavior, because it is made up of different materials. Breeder reactor waste is mostly fission products, while light water reactor waste has a large quantity of transuranics. After spent nuclear fuel has been removed from a light water reactor for longer than 100,000 years, these transuranics would be the main source of radioactivity. Eliminating them would eliminate much of the long-term radioactivity from the spent fuel.[13]
In principle, breeder fuel cycles can recycle and consume all actinides,[9] leaving only fission products. As the graphic in this section indicates, fission products have a peculiar 'gap' in their aggregate half-lives, such that no fission products have a half-life longer than 91 years and shorter than two hundred thousand years. As a result of this physical oddity, after several hundred years in storage, the activity of the radioactive waste from a Fast Breeder Reactor would quickly drop to the low level of the long-lived fission products."
9 "www.ne.anl.gov/pdfs/12_Pyroprocessing_bro_5_12_v14%5B6%5D.pdf" (PDF). Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved 25 December 2012.
13 Bodansky, David (January 2006). "The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal". Physics and Society. American Physical Society. 35 (1).
39 Fast BreederReactors
by
Richard L. Garwin
IBMFellow Emeritus
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Things move too fast. Nano solar which was crazy cheap was enormously undercut on prices by even cheaper competitors and went out of business because it was too expensive.
lol.
AC Said: "I'm not sure why the Funny rather than Insightful moderation you are getting. This explanation is the only one that makes any sense with the series climax in Episode V."
I've heard rumors of an episode VI but something bad happened and only half the film was made. Had some exciting stuff set on tatooine with carrie fisher in a hot metal bikini and luke all dressed in black looking tres chique. I heard the writer went insane and was screaming something about furry smurfs and second derivative death stars. I saw the part that was made in a locked room at a Spectrum Con 84 on a low quality VHS back when I was in my early 20's.
http://thebulletin.org/rising-...
âoeThe most reliable estimate of the cost of decommissioning [a nuclear power plant] is 10-15 percent of the construction cost, contrary to some highly inflated estimates ... Modern serious studies of the disposal problem indicate that satisfactory isolation is technologically feasible, even for the long term.â So wrote MIT nuclear engineering professor David Rose in the November 1985 issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
How misguided that view seems now, with the advantage of decades of experience. The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommissionâ"or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plantâ"constructed early in the 1960s for $39 millionâ"cost $608 million.
So it was estimated to cost $6 million (*inflation adjusted- about $39 million) to decommission and as of 2014, it instead took $608 million dollars.
So.. no... we haven't built the actual cost of decommissioning plants into the bill. We've collected about 5% of what will actually be needed to decomission them. And the difference will either result in a rotting husk that isn't cleaned up or a $560 million dollar bill handed to the tax payers by the nuclear power plant industry (which keeps the profits).
Coal is horrifically uneconomical. At this point. And it's not solar- it's natural gas.
The only place tidal is called a disaster that I can find is in flat out propaganda by the oil industry. Perhaps you have a citation?
Solar is being sold in huge quantities without subsidies to power companies. German power companies bought up 2 years of Nano Solar's new "printed" solar cells that were crazy cheap (an order of magnitude cheaper than solid substrata and much lighter and easier to install).
Absolutely. It will come down to costs.
Do you want to pay $22 for a human driving private cab or $10 (or even less) for a shared car.
People will be free to choose their option so everyone wins.
People do astonishing things for a few pennies. Give up their privacy. Queue up for an an extra 40 minutes. Shop on certain days. Buy two of a product when they are barely likely to use one.
I suspect as solar becomes ubiquitous we may see more DC options.
Photo voltaic has become very compelling plus we don't fund people who want to kill us when we buy photo voltaic so that's always a plus.
But molten salt is pretty compelling for solar as well.
Coal is already uneconomical compared to other resources even without considering the pollution cleanup costs. Old coal plants didn't have to comply to the new pollution laws until last year (well 2015 so I guess now barely two years ago) and were polluting large areas with mercury.
Nuclear is great as long as you ignore decommissioning and fuel storage and human nature. i.e. humans get sloppier and cut more and more corners over time until something bad happens. I'd feel more comfortable if nuclear were restricted to small (5000 house) self contained plants which didn't even allow humans in the loop and which shut themselves down automatically. And we need to build a breeder reactor to reduce the volume of nuclear waste by 2 orders of magnitude. But it has to be crazy secure. As in put it on an army base secure.
Solar, wind, and tides are the way to go tho. All have minimal cleanup costs, minimal problems on failure, fail by tiny pieces rather than as a whole, and costs are plummeting.
Well the thing was Lucas was very inexperienced as a director but by the time episode 4, "A new hope" rolled around Lucas had finally learned to trust the actors and stop redoing scenes til the emotion was drained from them. And then for episode 5 Lucas handed the reigns to another experienced character director and focused on producing.
Also, the actors chosen for episodes 1-3 were terrible so when Lucasfilm decided to reboot series with fresh new actors as of episode 4 they did a much better job, for example picking unknown actors who had a lot of chemistry with each other. The decision to go with puppets for Yoda was a big step up from the poor CGI they had used for him in the first 3 films.
I agree the light sabers looked like sticks a few times (and I could see them fixing that to glow consistently) but the hologram was fine. I watched the movie 24 times in the theater and the hologram was never an issue.
With the despecialized editions out there spreading around, lucasfilm/disney had to finally push out the originals after 40 years to grab the money before the market was impacted.
For example, it's not uncommon for refrigerators to be half the size they are in the U.S.
Cars are often smaller as well. Livings spaces are smaller as well.
Partially, we have an issue in the U.S. with demand driving up the price of everything so it's harder to live even tho we make more money.
And it's not just u.s. citizen money, it's money from the well off all over the globe. They buy houses and buildings here to get their money out of their home countries. It's artificial demand that wouldn't exist if their countries were safer places to hold money.
But the end result is that the poor can live okay for $600 a month in China (in 500sq ft-cheaper food-much cheaper medical care) but you can't survive on $600 a month in the U.S. Just flat out can't survive.
That was the model of libraries when fewer books were published per year.
Now they have to balance demand for new books against availability of older books.
The problem is it creates a cultural amnesia.. a perpetual "now" with less history.
I think scanning and retaining an electronic copy to release when the copyright goes away would be a better approach.
> Pricing for many products is way lower than the market will bear.
This statement is nonsense. Companies do not leave profits on the table. Think about what you are saying. Companies have entire departments dedicated to finding the razors edge on price. I worked at a multibillion dollare corporation that had a department of over 200 people whose sole purpose was to find the inflection point in the demand curve. I see my grocery store doing this all the time. They try every possible variation of prices, 2 for 1, buy 5, 50 cents off, 50 cents off purchase of 2, etc. etc. etc. Companies strive constantly to find the highest profit point.
Your underlying point ignores drop in demand with rising price regardless of if the source is higher sales tax or higher corporate taxes.
However, now we really disagree in the degree to which my statement is true.
You think/swagged that they pass on 75% and I swagged that they pass on 25%. Realistically- it's going to be different values for different industries and different companies. Some will pass on 100% (completely inelastic demand - monopoly market) while others will pass on almost none of the tax (elastic demand - competitive market).
My point was it's not true to simply say that taxes will be passed on. When passing on taxes results in sharp drop in sales, then the taxes will not be passed on. There are many product categories where passing on the taxes will result in a sharp drop in demand.
It seems to me that things were horrible pre world war 2. Not so bad from about 1960 to 1984ish and then they've gone downhill since then. When I try to make arguments for the common good the most frequent response is that businesses should do whatever they want regardless of how badly it hurts society because it's legal and their only duty is to maximize shareholder return on investment.
As if the rest of society didn't educate employees, provide police, roads, electricity, standards, etc. etc. etc.
It's a combination of eating the tax and passing on the tax that depends on competition in the market and how inelastic pricing in the market is.
First, you need to recognize that pricing is ALREADY set at what the market will bear and has little relationship to what it costs to provide the good or service.
Many of the products you buy for $100 only cost $30 to manufacture. Many of the products you buy for $8, only cost 0.50 to manufacture.
The T-shirt price is set at $8 because that's the price people will pay for it. If you tax the corporation enough that it would need to charge $9 for the T-Shirt and it raises prices the full $1, it's sales may drop catastrophically on a product it was making a $7 gross profit on.
So in reality, they raise the cost of the T-Shirt to $8.25, suffer some lost sales and reduce their gross profits from $7 to $5.95.
And it's the same for every other product and service offered by any company that has profits higher than a grocery store. Grocery stores have very low net profit margins. Any cost added to them goes on to the food. Pharmas have very high net profit margins.
So corporate taxes are NOT passed on to the consumer unless the consumer will still buy the product at the higher prices.
Or.. the days of corps running to ireland or other low cost havens are numbered.
Look, governments go where the money is. If corporations sell products within a companies borders, then there is a way to get money from the corporation. And governments are getting more agile and more pissy about it.
You may just wake up and find your corporation has a 14 billion dollar tax bill due one morning.
Exactly...
So it is up to the rest of society to keep CEO's and Boards honest with proper laws, audits, restrictions, and so on.
I'm atheist but part of the problem is the loss of shame and kindness associated with religion becoming entangled with politics and the decline of religion in our society generally.
Doing whats "fair and reasonable" has been replaced with doing "what's legal- even if it's harsh, cruel, and destructive."