Comment Re:fuck you iceland. (Score 1) 684
whose, not who's. Please.
" as a woman who is various parts
There's a reason we have grammar.
whose, not who's. Please.
" as a woman who is various parts
There's a reason we have grammar.
For a while she was considering using the money to go to school to become an engineer and get into the automotive industry. From what I understand, she's still taking her clothes off for creepy old dudes because going to school to pursue a career that doesn't pay as much doesn't make sense to her.
Fair enough, but you can have a much longer career as an engineer than as a stripper.
You're just lobbying for your dead people's shoes business.
I think this would need some tweaks at the international trade treaty level, so it was seen a competition-neutral, but I like the idea in principal.
FFS, principle not principal. Principal has a very specific financial meaning, and it's not what you mean here. If you bloody English speakers can't even be bothered to learn your first language properly, it's not surprising you're so crap at picking up others.
Although I am not the poster you asked this question of, I have to admit not ever reading xkcd, having more important things on my Kindle
Like slashdot?
Actually, in this case the free marketers are probably right.
If there was a free market, no one (outside of Brazil) would grow plants for fuel-ethanol. It's just too expensive at the moment.
Also, in a proper free market, producers would have to pay for the externalities. Use of common resources - e.g. aquifers - must be paid for properly.
Or, you could, like, teach them how to use birth control?
Oh no, that'd be too simple
Which is fine and dandy but there are NO 4 open positions per month for nuclear physicist. So?
Have you tried applying in North Korea?
But yes, banning you from jobs you're overqualified for is a bit daft
A very, very small step in roughly the right direction.
How many people reading this have any significant ability to adjust their 'nothing we did was other than legal' tax rate to be substantially different from their 'time to fill out the tax forms' tax rate?
Probably most of the UK readers:
1. Start saving in an ISA
2. Start putting money into your pension
3. Donate to charity and tick the "Gift Aid" box
Not as effective as Google's arrangement, I grant you, but it can make a significant difference.
RTFA. It's on independent.co.uk, and fairly early on says "In an interview in New York Eric Schmidt, Google’s Chairman, confirmed the company had no intention of paying more to the UK exchequer."
It's a shame the blink tag is no longer supported. It would be ideal in this situation!
the problem is that companies are creating fake deductions to ensure there is nothing left for corporation tax to be paid on, in Starbucks' case for example, they make up a fake intercompany "royalty" charge to a low tax area so that they shift off all remaining revenue to other low tax areas before corporation tax is paid on it.
Except that there's a pretty good argument that this isn't a "fake" charge. It's benchmarked to the royalty they get from non-subsidiary companies using their logo and IP.
And it's all done with the blessing of HMRC.
As to their profits coming down, maybe people have finally realised that their coffee is atrocious?
Aussie here, similar tax bracket, similar government services, similar attitude towards taxes. I too forgo the $500 "high earners" rebate for private insurance. I would much rather the public insurance fund got that money than give it to people who encourage you to spend it on "alternative medicine" insurance. I don't think that is an efficient use of my health dollars.
The NHS funds homeopathic "treatment". That is not an efficient use of health dollars (or pounds).
It's also probably one of the smaller wastes of money within the NHS.
Yes and Amen.
Are you serious? So you think paying taxes is "a waste of money"?
Look at how your tax money is actually spent. An awful lot of it is, indeed, wasted.
1) paying more taxes than absolutely necessary is NOT a waste of money, is a donation to a good greater than just your personal benefit.
I give to charities that are far more effective and efficient in alleviating suffering than the government I pay taxes to.
2) Saving in taxes by doing legal tricks that allow you to pay them in a given country, while your profit is obtained in another country ACTUALLY IS unethical. The whole point of taxes is to return part of your benefit to the society that allowed it in first place. So yes, tax evasion is against the aim of tax laws, whether their written form permits it or not.
Tax evasion is illegal. This is tax avoidance.
So would it be unethical for me to give presents to my children while I'm alive to reduce the amount of inheritance tax they have to pay when I die? Is it, in your opinion, unethical to use tax efficient savings and retirement plans?
If my government is doing unethical things (good luck trying to find one that doesn't!), is it not the ethical thing to reduce their funding?
It's not as clear cut as you think it is. You may also find that your ethical standards don't match other people's.
"Ada is the work of an architect, not a computer scientist." - Jean Icbiah, inventor of Ada, weenie
