The money has to come from somewhere, why not the people damaging the roads?
On that note, if we're going to accurately assess some kind of road tax based on who is causing the wear-and-tear, let's make sure we consider:
Weight of the vehicle Tire condition/inflation Accelerometer measurements
Really, as long as they considered vehicle weight, I'd be happy. Because there's no way my 2200 lb Civic is causing as much wear-and-tear on the roads as the Canyoneros (4-ton Ford Excursions, etc) I see on my commute every day.
Would this hurt contractors who have to drive heavy vehicles? Sure. Of course, as you point out, they are hurting us by the wear-and-tear they cause on our roads. This would make many contract jobs more expensive to have done... but in the end, it is a more accurate way of capturing costs, that in theory would lead to more efficient economic activity and thus would be better for everyone.
Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, and their ilk are basically so centrist they're "Republican Lite".
Centrist? I don't think that's a good description. They are all conservatives, with a few notable exceptions on specific policies (namely, health care). But even then, they ushered in a healthcare reform that other developed nations laugh at -- even if it is better than nothing.
I think we need to come up with another, better, descriptive axis on the US political viewpoint chart that reflects what I think frustrates both you and me.
I hate how loaded the terms are, but really it's about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat... make no mistake, the "corporatism" that has infected both major political parties in the US is really just another term for those who favor the bourgeoisie. While I don't advocate a Marxist revolution, we need to find a solution to the problem of domination of the proletariat.
Normal hard braking is about 0.4 Gs.
Skilled hard braking is around 0.7 Gs.
Around 1 G seems to be the limit for skilled braking with performance tires and a great road surface.
Whereas for the 100 dollars I paid for XP I got 5 years of free mainstream support and an additional 6 years of security fixes.
But you didn't get any productivity software or support for the same (you paid extra for that, and that's MS's cash cow).
Of course Windows is cheap. It's equivalent to a loss leader for Microsoft. Because you use Windows, you are far more likely to pay for things like MS Office. And you fit into their plan of maintaining dominance on desktops and workstations, which is a losing proposition for us all in the long run.
Ubuntu charges nothing for patches, RHEL is for production boxes not desktops
RHEL Workstsation is for production boxes. RHEL desktop is for desktops, and is much cheaper. Not sure why anyone would use it, though, except to maintain uniformity across all machines in an office.
Support on that level would cost more than updating your OS every decade from a stable company
RHEL desktop self-support subscription is $49 a year. Windows 7 Home Premium is $200. Cost is roughly equivalent on a 4-year upgrade cycle, though RHEL support gives you more than a Windows license does.
RHEL Workstation self-support subscription is $179/yr. Windows 7 Pro is $300. Ditto on the qualification re: getting more.
If you're looking at a standard subscription for RHEL Workstation, it's $299 a year. Compare to the same level of support from Microsoft: probably Technet Pro, which is $349 for the first year and $249 for renewals.
How is the parent spreading FUD when you're the one comparing apples to oranges? You're either misinformed, or being disingenuous. If it's the first, then I hope I've opened your eyes. If it's the latter, then GTFO.
They DO have a good reason to replace it. They don't have the capability to maintain or repair it. They don't have an inventory of spares. It's literally a mission-critical part.
Even if they keep using it for the time being, they need to develop an alternative (or acquire spares).
What would have happened if there WASN'T a spare at the museum, or if no one remembered it was there?
Sometimes you need to replace a part that works fine because you don't have the capability to handle a situation where that part no longer works fine.
Magazine? What's that, some kind of relic of the paper age?
You know what would be even more awesome than a "Google P****" magazine? A website where you could just search for images of P*****, and get tens of thousands of results for your salacious review. That would be all kinds of awesome.
Dozens of employees can have options which expire at different times, have different strike prices, and may include additional terms such as a date before which they may not be exercised. It's not that the calculations are difficult, so much as that they are numerous and opaque
While they can be complex, the annual report spells out the details that could otherwise be confusing. You'll see weighted average exercise price, weighted average years til expiry, etc.
The info is there, and it's not hard to calculate what it means.
The idea is, as I'm sure you know, that options are a means of tying pay to performance, to "incentivize" management. That sort of thinking sounds more like another feeble justification for the extreme pay they are given. How much research has been done on how well these sorts of incentives work? I would guess very little, and the conclusions are that they do not work and aren't worth the cost. And that we don't need lots of research to figure this out. These options are merely thinly veiled money grabs.
Now I see where you're coming from. And I have to say, there's a lot of guesswork on your part. Stock options are a form of compensation, period. This is tangential to the problem of overcompensation -- it's the overcompensation that's a problem, not the means by which it is accomplished. Stock options are a form of deferred compensation. Deferred comp is a very useful tool for cash-strapped young companies who seek to retain top talent. And using stock options allow them to tie the payout to work outcomes. Sure, it's a bit of a lottery. And sure, it devalues other shares. But options are not nearly as obfuscated as you make them out to be.
No...S corp....where you can pay yourself a 'reasonable' salary....and you only have to pay SE taxes (SS and medicare) on that portion of what you bring in.
Be very careful what you decide to be 'reasonable' salary. I've had two friends busted for this, one was a Mac support guru who paid himself $40k in NYC; had to file amended returns paying himself 80 or 90k plus paid P&I... don't remember the exact amount. Other one was a landscaper, paid himself $25k, had to refile and pay P&I.
Don't forget you're supposed to be paying yourself salary for marketing, sales, etc, where applicable.
YOu can also write off mileage....deductions for all business expenses...etc. All perfectly legal....
That can be done whether you're incorporated or not, if you're self-employed.
I suppose you don't take the personal deductions you are alloted on your taxes? No deduction for kids or house payments?
Those are examples of allowed deductions. Of course I take them. Short-paying salary to avoid taxes in a S corp (or C corp) is not allowed...
commit a serious enough crime, company gets liquidated.
What good does that do? You liquidate the company, and the owners simply reincorporate. It's just an inconvenience and cost to the investors. Furthermore, liquidating the corp removes the ability of the corp to make reparations.
Even fines are problematic. Investors will just pull their cash and invest with a competitor who doesn't face the overhead associated with the fines. Who gets hurt by fines? Institutional investors like pension holders who do not have the means or knowledge to get out ahead of the curve. Brokers in the know get out early, minimize their losses. Everyone else is left holding the bag.
My opinion? The buck stops with the officers of the corp. Punish them, good and hard, when applicable. Also punish those who were breaking the law within the company.
We're only going to get compliance when the people at the top demand it, follow up on it, and bear personal responsibility for it.
Once again, a corporation has rights because it inherits them from the people involved with the corporation.
Only if you already subscribe to the line of thinking that a corporation is a valid extension of its owner(s). I do not believe corporations should inherit rights from the people associated with the corporation.
People associated with the corp already have rights. Any rights assigned to corporations are done so, not by natural law, but by the specific grant of the public (as embodied by their government).
You see corporations as extensions of their owners. I, and likely the parent to my post, do not. They are separate entities. The owners have engaged in an agreement with the corporation by which the corporation uses the owner's capital to generate more capital to be either disbursed back to the owners or reinvested. A corporation is not an extension of is owners; it is a business partner, of limited rights, whose existence is allowed only at the exercised will of the people.
The problem is that corporations are powerful enough to overwhelm and/or subvert the will of the people.
There are only tax benefits to incorporating as an individual when you run a wage business if you're cheating the system by taking a reduced salary in exchange for capital gains. This is illegal (even if it is often overlooked), and, IMO, unethical.
Of course you can just ride it all the way to the top and say the CEO is responsible for everything but that'd only lead to crazy risk premiums on being the CEO and no real effect on everyone else.
In theory, SOx did do this. Corporate officers are personally liable for some of this stuff.
And yes, this is part of the reason why CEOs are compensated so much (the risk premium is reflected there) -- because they bear personal risk.
Also you'll probably get another ton of CYA and impossible to follow process that everyone will break until shit hits the fan - then it's your fault for violating procedure.
The point is to assign responsibility. If a process is impossible to follow, it is your responsibility to kick that up the chain so either the formal process or your actual process are changed. If you knowing violate the formal process, it IS your fault. Sometimes even if you unknowing violate the process... since it is your responsibility to know and understand the process.
I know, workplaces aren't that simple. But I've never had a problem pointing out process problems when I could couch it in such a way that it was clear there was risk to the company.
So? The partners lost some equity. Whoopty-do. They then brought their clients to another firm and continued to rake in the cash.
A company going bankrupt means nothing. The individuals who profited from Arthur Andersen's malfeasance, by and large, suffered no long-term ill effects. The same can't be said for the people who lost their pensions due to the collapse of Enron.
I know what my skills are worth in the marketplace...and when I negotiate salary for a W2 job, or bill rate for a 1099 job...I keep that in mind. I may take a little less money, for more paid time off...I insist on EVERY job, that I get paid for every hour I'm there. I don't work for free...if I work over 40 hours in a week, I insist that every hour over that comes in at least at normal hourly rate. That keeps them honest on how much they work me.
And for all that, you're still a wage slave. You're still talking about getting compensated for your time, not for the value that you bring to your employer / contract holder.
I don't care about my market value on a time basis. What I do care about is my *actual* value, and ensuring that my employer is also aware of this. This is why I'm paid well above market value.
See, it's easy to be condescending to people. You condescend to people whose value you do not appreciate; I condescend to you, who while is worth more than those you look down upon, are still a wage slave.
I don't, however, think any one person should be forced to join a union and pay dues to work tho. They should have a choice...otherwise is un-American IMHO.
Why the boldface on the word "forced"? To make it less likely that people will see through your falsehood? No one is forced to join a union. It's a choice. If you don't want to join a union, then don't work at a union-only shop. There is no place in the US where membership in a union is legally required for employment.
What's un-American is not allowing a company and a union to come to a voluntary agreement under which the company obligates itself to only hire union employees.
One more quick note:
However, those times are past..and [unions] are more of a drag on the economy today
This statement is a little problematic, if you're intending it to be a foundation for any kind of logical progression to action. Massive executive salaries are also a drain on the economy; does that mean we should not allow executive compensation to be so high? Some corporate profits are also a huge drain on our economy today (when not spent in the US); does this mean we should restrict them, or that they are a bad thing?
See, it's funny... on one hand you seem to praise the value of free action in markets (in re: your salary/contract negotiations), but on the other hand you seem to categorically dismiss the modern utility of something that exists in the market (if it had no value, it wouldn't exist).
For instance, I can't recall the last time a recommendation to vote for a pay package actually told the amounts in easily understood terms such as dollars rather than percentages of profits or stock options. The people running the show-- setting the agenda, deciding which questions to put to the owners, what and how to tell as little as possible to satisfy pesky legal requirements, that sort of thing-- view stockholders with contempt.
From my perspective, giving absolute dollar figures is meaningless. Percentages of profits is a more significant metric, IMO. Re: stock options, it's not too hard to calculate... you do read the annual report, right? So you know how many shares are outstanding, the approximate value of those shares, etc.
I have IRAs and mutual funds that are made up of dozens of stocks. Maybe you have the time and resources to investigate all of their chief officers and board directors, I don't.
Which is why you signed over you authority to do so to your proxy. Didn't you read the fine print?
IOW, you pay your fund manager or other proxy to do this for you. The problem is, are you sure they are acting in your best interest?
Because the shareholders are the wrongdoers, inasmuch as they hired the wrongdoers to act on their behalf.
The reason this is important is because the shareholders reap the benefits when the "evil" is done; they should also pay the punishment when the "evil" is caught. Scapegoating is not the way to handle it... the end result is corporate officers making godawful amounts of money in order to accept risk on behalf of shareholders. This is inefficient, as risk assessments when dealing with individuals are rarely accurate... so shareholders end up overpaying for the risk assignment.
Most shareholders have no say in who's in leadership positions in the company
Kinda true. More on that below.
The Board of Directors picks the CEO, and the CEO largely picks the Board.
What are you talking about? The CEO does not 'largely pick the board'. A subset shareholders elect or pick the board.
The problem is the subset of shareholders. Who are they? Those who own a significant portion of the stock. Those who control the votes of shareholders via mutual fund management (ever notice the fine print when you join a mutual fund? that whole bit about assigning your vote(s) to a proxy?).
Where it gets to be silly is when the ultra-wealthy get to appoint each other to Directorships at different companies. There's this kind of incestuous relationship between Boards of companies and investors in related companies.
If you set out to behave ethically in all your endeavours, and are honest and forthright with people, the only attacks people can make against you will be lies. Sure, you'll face attacks, but you don't have anything that you would need to be actively hiding to stay "safe".
That only holds true if
1. "ethically" is the same as "legally". 2. You're version of "ethically" is the same as everyone else's version of "ethically".
Tyson: legitimate answer. Arkansas produces chickens. Walmart: Not a legitimate answer. Walmart does not produce anything of merit in Arkansas. Walmart is a company that makes profit based on global labor and material arbitrage. JB Hunt: Since when is transport a product?
Slashdot Mirror
On that note, if we're going to accurately assess some kind of road tax based on who is causing the wear-and-tear, let's make sure we consider:
Weight of the vehicle
Tire condition/inflation
Accelerometer measurements
Really, as long as they considered vehicle weight, I'd be happy. Because there's no way my 2200 lb Civic is causing as much wear-and-tear on the roads as the Canyoneros (4-ton Ford Excursions, etc) I see on my commute every day.
Would this hurt contractors who have to drive heavy vehicles? Sure. Of course, as you point out, they are hurting us by the wear-and-tear they cause on our roads. This would make many contract jobs more expensive to have done... but in the end, it is a more accurate way of capturing costs, that in theory would lead to more efficient economic activity and thus would be better for everyone.
Centrist? I don't think that's a good description. They are all conservatives, with a few notable exceptions on specific policies (namely, health care). But even then, they ushered in a healthcare reform that other developed nations laugh at -- even if it is better than nothing.
I think we need to come up with another, better, descriptive axis on the US political viewpoint chart that reflects what I think frustrates both you and me.
I hate how loaded the terms are, but really it's about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat... make no mistake, the "corporatism" that has infected both major political parties in the US is really just another term for those who favor the bourgeoisie. While I don't advocate a Marxist revolution, we need to find a solution to the problem of domination of the proletariat.
Just to add some points of comparison:
Normal hard braking is about 0.4 Gs.
Skilled hard braking is around 0.7 Gs.
Around 1 G seems to be the limit for skilled braking with performance tires and a great road surface.
But you didn't get any productivity software or support for the same (you paid extra for that, and that's MS's cash cow).
Of course Windows is cheap. It's equivalent to a loss leader for Microsoft. Because you use Windows, you are far more likely to pay for things like MS Office. And you fit into their plan of maintaining dominance on desktops and workstations, which is a losing proposition for us all in the long run.
RHEL Workstsation is for production boxes. RHEL desktop is for desktops, and is much cheaper. Not sure why anyone would use it, though, except to maintain uniformity across all machines in an office.
RHEL desktop self-support subscription is $49 a year. Windows 7 Home Premium is $200. Cost is roughly equivalent on a 4-year upgrade cycle, though RHEL support gives you more than a Windows license does.
RHEL Workstation self-support subscription is $179/yr. Windows 7 Pro is $300. Ditto on the qualification re: getting more.
If you're looking at a standard subscription for RHEL Workstation, it's $299 a year. Compare to the same level of support from Microsoft: probably Technet Pro, which is $349 for the first year and $249 for renewals.
How is the parent spreading FUD when you're the one comparing apples to oranges? You're either misinformed, or being disingenuous. If it's the first, then I hope I've opened your eyes. If it's the latter, then GTFO.
They DO have a good reason to replace it. They don't have the capability to maintain or repair it. They don't have an inventory of spares. It's literally a mission-critical part.
Even if they keep using it for the time being, they need to develop an alternative (or acquire spares).
What would have happened if there WASN'T a spare at the museum, or if no one remembered it was there?
Sometimes you need to replace a part that works fine because you don't have the capability to handle a situation where that part no longer works fine.
Magazine? What's that, some kind of relic of the paper age?
You know what would be even more awesome than a "Google P****" magazine? A website where you could just search for images of P*****, and get tens of thousands of results for your salacious review. That would be all kinds of awesome.
Narwhals.
Not sea-unicorns, narwhals. And yes, they do engage in banditry on the high seas.
It would be filed under "Microgoosoft".
The corporate slogan is:
"Our passion, our evil".
While they can be complex, the annual report spells out the details that could otherwise be confusing. You'll see weighted average exercise price, weighted average years til expiry, etc.
The info is there, and it's not hard to calculate what it means.
Now I see where you're coming from. And I have to say, there's a lot of guesswork on your part. Stock options are a form of compensation, period. This is tangential to the problem of overcompensation -- it's the overcompensation that's a problem, not the means by which it is accomplished. Stock options are a form of deferred compensation. Deferred comp is a very useful tool for cash-strapped young companies who seek to retain top talent. And using stock options allow them to tie the payout to work outcomes. Sure, it's a bit of a lottery. And sure, it devalues other shares. But options are not nearly as obfuscated as you make them out to be.
Be very careful what you decide to be 'reasonable' salary. I've had two friends busted for this, one was a Mac support guru who paid himself $40k in NYC; had to file amended returns paying himself 80 or 90k plus paid P&I... don't remember the exact amount. Other one was a landscaper, paid himself $25k, had to refile and pay P&I.
Don't forget you're supposed to be paying yourself salary for marketing, sales, etc, where applicable.
That can be done whether you're incorporated or not, if you're self-employed.
Those are examples of allowed deductions. Of course I take them. Short-paying salary to avoid taxes in a S corp (or C corp) is not allowed...
What good does that do? You liquidate the company, and the owners simply reincorporate. It's just an inconvenience and cost to the investors. Furthermore, liquidating the corp removes the ability of the corp to make reparations.
Even fines are problematic. Investors will just pull their cash and invest with a competitor who doesn't face the overhead associated with the fines. Who gets hurt by fines? Institutional investors like pension holders who do not have the means or knowledge to get out ahead of the curve. Brokers in the know get out early, minimize their losses. Everyone else is left holding the bag.
My opinion? The buck stops with the officers of the corp. Punish them, good and hard, when applicable. Also punish those who were breaking the law within the company.
We're only going to get compliance when the people at the top demand it, follow up on it, and bear personal responsibility for it.
Only if you already subscribe to the line of thinking that a corporation is a valid extension of its owner(s). I do not believe corporations should inherit rights from the people associated with the corporation.
People associated with the corp already have rights. Any rights assigned to corporations are done so, not by natural law, but by the specific grant of the public (as embodied by their government).
You see corporations as extensions of their owners. I, and likely the parent to my post, do not. They are separate entities. The owners have engaged in an agreement with the corporation by which the corporation uses the owner's capital to generate more capital to be either disbursed back to the owners or reinvested. A corporation is not an extension of is owners; it is a business partner, of limited rights, whose existence is allowed only at the exercised will of the people.
The problem is that corporations are powerful enough to overwhelm and/or subvert the will of the people.
There are only tax benefits to incorporating as an individual when you run a wage business if you're cheating the system by taking a reduced salary in exchange for capital gains. This is illegal (even if it is often overlooked), and, IMO, unethical.
In theory, SOx did do this. Corporate officers are personally liable for some of this stuff.
And yes, this is part of the reason why CEOs are compensated so much (the risk premium is reflected there) -- because they bear personal risk.
The point is to assign responsibility. If a process is impossible to follow, it is your responsibility to kick that up the chain so either the formal process or your actual process are changed. If you knowing violate the formal process, it IS your fault. Sometimes even if you unknowing violate the process... since it is your responsibility to know and understand the process.
I know, workplaces aren't that simple. But I've never had a problem pointing out process problems when I could couch it in such a way that it was clear there was risk to the company.
So? The partners lost some equity. Whoopty-do. They then brought their clients to another firm and continued to rake in the cash.
A company going bankrupt means nothing. The individuals who profited from Arthur Andersen's malfeasance, by and large, suffered no long-term ill effects. The same can't be said for the people who lost their pensions due to the collapse of Enron.
And for all that, you're still a wage slave. You're still talking about getting compensated for your time, not for the value that you bring to your employer / contract holder.
I don't care about my market value on a time basis. What I do care about is my *actual* value, and ensuring that my employer is also aware of this. This is why I'm paid well above market value.
See, it's easy to be condescending to people. You condescend to people whose value you do not appreciate; I condescend to you, who while is worth more than those you look down upon, are still a wage slave.
Why the boldface on the word "forced"? To make it less likely that people will see through your falsehood? No one is forced to join a union. It's a choice. If you don't want to join a union, then don't work at a union-only shop. There is no place in the US where membership in a union is legally required for employment.
What's un-American is not allowing a company and a union to come to a voluntary agreement under which the company obligates itself to only hire union employees.
One more quick note:
This statement is a little problematic, if you're intending it to be a foundation for any kind of logical progression to action. Massive executive salaries are also a drain on the economy; does that mean we should not allow executive compensation to be so high? Some corporate profits are also a huge drain on our economy today (when not spent in the US); does this mean we should restrict them, or that they are a bad thing?
See, it's funny... on one hand you seem to praise the value of free action in markets (in re: your salary/contract negotiations), but on the other hand you seem to categorically dismiss the modern utility of something that exists in the market (if it had no value, it wouldn't exist).
From my perspective, giving absolute dollar figures is meaningless. Percentages of profits is a more significant metric, IMO. Re: stock options, it's not too hard to calculate... you do read the annual report, right? So you know how many shares are outstanding, the approximate value of those shares, etc.
Which is why you signed over you authority to do so to your proxy. Didn't you read the fine print?
IOW, you pay your fund manager or other proxy to do this for you. The problem is, are you sure they are acting in your best interest?
Because the shareholders are the wrongdoers, inasmuch as they hired the wrongdoers to act on their behalf.
The reason this is important is because the shareholders reap the benefits when the "evil" is done; they should also pay the punishment when the "evil" is caught. Scapegoating is not the way to handle it... the end result is corporate officers making godawful amounts of money in order to accept risk on behalf of shareholders. This is inefficient, as risk assessments when dealing with individuals are rarely accurate... so shareholders end up overpaying for the risk assignment.
Kinda true. More on that below.
What are you talking about? The CEO does not 'largely pick the board'. A subset shareholders elect or pick the board.
The problem is the subset of shareholders. Who are they? Those who own a significant portion of the stock. Those who control the votes of shareholders via mutual fund management (ever notice the fine print when you join a mutual fund? that whole bit about assigning your vote(s) to a proxy?).
Where it gets to be silly is when the ultra-wealthy get to appoint each other to Directorships at different companies. There's this kind of incestuous relationship between Boards of companies and investors in related companies.
That only holds true if
1. "ethically" is the same as "legally".
2. You're version of "ethically" is the same as everyone else's version of "ethically".
You used the plural. Arkansas has a diamond mine. And that mine is a fee-to-dig park, not a commercial mine.
Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, and a couple other states have geology and sites under consideration for commercial diamond mining.
The last commercial diamond mine in the US closed in 2002, I think it was in Colorado.
Tyson: legitimate answer. Arkansas produces chickens.
Walmart: Not a legitimate answer. Walmart does not produce anything of merit in Arkansas. Walmart is a company that makes profit based on global labor and material arbitrage.
JB Hunt: Since when is transport a product?