As a society, we have a real inequality issue and I'm sympathetic to those who can't afford to participate in our shared culture
What if not participating in our shared culture prevents you from improving your financial situation? What if that "shared culture" was specifically designed to increase inequality?
We're creating a digital divide that's more effective than a fence at the border when it comes to keeping out the "undesirables".
Ok then. A clever government would rise corporate income taxes to 100%, after all it can't affect prices, right? Why that's not happening?
That's easy. A clever government wants corporations to be able to make (and keep) a profit. And despite our supposedly crushing corporate income tax rates, they do make (and keep) a profit.
I'm not advocating for high corporate tax rates. I'm just saying that corporate income taxes are not borne by the consumers.
Of course yes. And I also understand that you are playing the "True Scotsman" game. We were talking about "taxes" but you now insist in considering only "corporate income taxes"
Please go back to the very top of our discussion and you will see that it has always been about corporate income tax. I've continued to specify corporate income tax throughout.
My very first assertion (the one to which you first replied) was that "consumers do not pay for corporate income taxes". I stand by that.
The meme that consumers are the ones who pay corporate income taxes started during the supply side/Reaganomics days. It comes from right-wing, corporatist ideology. It's never been true.
Get off your soapbox, this is a TECH SITE not Climate Change News.
"Climate change is not news for nerds. My mom's basement is perfectly climate controlled and the temperature hasn't changed since I moved down here in 1989."
They produce more. Once again, we have the dishonest assertion that every pollutant is equal. The US doesn't produce more particulate matter, more mercury, or raw sewage pollution per capita than China does.
You think that because the US has a high corporate tax rate that all American companies operate at a loss? Do you understand that corporate income tax is computed on profits not revenue?
Now you're just flailing. Come back when you have something useful to add to this conversation.
Remember, after the 12.6% that companies pay in corporate income tax on their profits, they still have 87.4% of their profits left over.
-Our analysis shows that our overall cost-per-unit is 90 and our net profit margin should be 10 (or else, our shareholders would buy insured national debt of country ZZZ, which renders 9 out of 90, instead of investing in our company), so we will sell for 100 per unit. -Sorry, Mr CEO, you forgot about VAT which, in our country is 21%. We should sell for 121 per unit, taxes included. -Are you stupid!? Those are taxes, damn taxes, I say. We will sell for 100 and we'll still take our 10 of benefit out of it. Didn't you read PopeRatzo or what?
A value added tax is computed during the manufacturing process, and prior to sale. A corporate income tax is computed up to a year after the sale of the item.
As I said, if they could sell the item for 100 per unit, they already would be doing so.
"So, you're saying that the less demand there is for something, the more companies charge for it?"
That's exactly the case. There are many reasons for that, and it works between price boundaries dependant on market and product, but one of them is still that there's very little demand.
Well, there's zero demand for Pentium II processors, so they must be really, really expensive.
I'm a capitalist and I have some money to invest to get a profit in return. If I invest 100$ in your company, what will you return me in exchange at the end of the day? 101$? 110? I won't give a damn if you tell me "I'll return you 101$ but bear in mind that's because goverment took out 9$ in corporate taxes! weren't that the case, I'd give you 110$!" I still invest in the one that returns me 110$, no questions asked.
You're conflating private equity investing with manufacturing. They are two different businesses.
And if you're saying that the lower the demand for something, the higher the price, does that also mean that the more demand there is for a product, the lower the price?
I've been using the Surface Pro for mobile music production for over a year, as I've written here before. It is by far the best mobile, touch-based music production computer on the market today.
It runs a full version of Pro-Tools, with all the VSTs and VSTi support you could want.
I haven't taken my MacBook Pro to a field recording session in 9 months.
As I get older, I'm more amazed at the things my grandfather did, especially considering the limitations they had 70 years ago.
No kidding. I still have furniture my grandfather built by hand, some of it during the Depression, and it's as solid and sturdy as the day he made it. I see people buying stuff from IKEA and wonder what happened.
The only thing is, when I have to move, grandad's furniture is some of the heaviest stuff I own.
These yearly events are just not doing it anymore. The first couple were OK, but now it's just marketing masturbation. I'm more excited about a new version of OpenBSD or the new Nexus phone than I am about anything Apple are doing.
You mean the Apple PencilTM doesn't knock your socks off?
Two (2) new bands for the Apple Watch?
How about the fact that they got OS2 to run on the Apple Watch?
Slashdot Mirror
What if not participating in our shared culture prevents you from improving your financial situation? What if that "shared culture" was specifically designed to increase inequality?
We're creating a digital divide that's more effective than a fence at the border when it comes to keeping out the "undesirables".
That's easy. A clever government wants corporations to be able to make (and keep) a profit. And despite our supposedly crushing corporate income tax rates, they do make (and keep) a profit.
I'm not advocating for high corporate tax rates. I'm just saying that corporate income taxes are not borne by the consumers.
Who or what is "ying"?
Please go back to the very top of our discussion and you will see that it has always been about corporate income tax. I've continued to specify corporate income tax throughout.
My very first assertion (the one to which you first replied) was that "consumers do not pay for corporate income taxes". I stand by that.
The meme that consumers are the ones who pay corporate income taxes started during the supply side/Reaganomics days. It comes from right-wing, corporatist ideology. It's never been true.
Don't forget,
10. Kanye and Kim.
"Climate change is not news for nerds. My mom's basement is perfectly climate controlled and the temperature hasn't changed since I moved down here in 1989."
And rock'n'roll. Levi's, too.
Hell yeah, they better start paying up. They probably owe us $4 trillion just for Michael Jackson, goddamnit.
But they didn't fool you though did they? No siree.
And South Vietnam. We spread freeance and peeance everywhere we go.
https://youtu.be/EIcBodWDHRA
Great idea. We could call it a "carbon tax".
Why has no one thought of this before?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/d...
So think of this as 100+ years of back rent.
The bill has come due.
There's a good chance it was.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
You think that because the US has a high corporate tax rate that all American companies operate at a loss? Do you understand that corporate income tax is computed on profits not revenue?
Now you're just flailing. Come back when you have something useful to add to this conversation.
Remember, after the 12.6% that companies pay in corporate income tax on their profits, they still have 87.4% of their profits left over.
A value added tax is computed during the manufacturing process, and prior to sale. A corporate income tax is computed up to a year after the sale of the item.
As I said, if they could sell the item for 100 per unit, they already would be doing so.
Well, there's zero demand for Pentium II processors, so they must be really, really expensive.
You're conflating private equity investing with manufacturing. They are two different businesses.
And if you're saying that the lower the demand for something, the higher the price, does that also mean that the more demand there is for a product, the lower the price?
Apparently, you've never seen one of these:
http://www.college-cram.com/st...
I've been using the Surface Pro for mobile music production for over a year, as I've written here before. It is by far the best mobile, touch-based music production computer on the market today.
It runs a full version of Pro-Tools, with all the VSTs and VSTi support you could want.
I haven't taken my MacBook Pro to a field recording session in 9 months.
No kidding. I still have furniture my grandfather built by hand, some of it during the Depression, and it's as solid and sturdy as the day he made it. I see people buying stuff from IKEA and wonder what happened.
The only thing is, when I have to move, grandad's furniture is some of the heaviest stuff I own.
Before GenX, DIY'ers were called, "machinists" or "tool and die makers".
Every generation has to put its pitiful stamp on things so they can imagine they did something special.
You mean the Apple PencilTM doesn't knock your socks off?
Two (2) new bands for the Apple Watch?
How about the fact that they got OS2 to run on the Apple Watch?
"You failed because you're holding it wrong!"
I didn't slander anything. I just pointed out that the source of your information speaks volumes about you.
People can draw their own conclusions.
Good ones.
31/1000000000 is as close to none as any human-designed system can get.
You have a better chance of winning Powerball than being affected in any way by a fraudulent vote.
You're cool with billionaires buying election, but a possible 31 votes out of ONE BILLION is just beyond the pale for you.
Don't be silly.
That the "Daily Signal" is your first link says more about you than it does about voter fraud.