Personally I would rather just take the models at face value and quadruple our nuclear power electric generating capacity and solve the damn problem without all the shenanigans. Oh yes and some solar panels and a few wind turbines to make some people feel better about it.

Corporate income taxes appear to be less than 10% of Federal tax revenue, compared to around 80% for individual income taxes and payroll taxes. I believe you could eliminate corporate taxes and keep it deficit neutral with a relatively modest increase in higher bracket income taxes on those making over a million dollars per year. Or you could just not worry about the deficit (because the Federal Reserve will fund deficits with new money creation) and do it anyway.

I think some math is certainly in order to come up with some numbers, but personally I would say you could use a good bending over if you are making millions of dollars a year and paying just 20% or even 30% while the rest of society is becoming an inequitable mess. I'm all for lower middle class taxes also, regardless of the effect on the deficit.

States and the Federal government should just set the corporate tax rate to 0% for all corporations. And increase the tax on higher incomes progressively to pay for it.

All those unproductive and wealth destroying things that corporations both large and small do in order to avoid the high corporate taxes in the United States could be avoided and the increased capital could go back into creating higher paying jobs and profits to shareholders which are all already taxed as income anyway.

Cozying up to your sources is part of the game.... But becoming a propaganda tool is unfortunately where we are at in the American free press. The friendly press even get offices in the government buildings of the agencies they are supposed to be covering. Becoming little more than an extension of the PR department. Cozy indeed. More like Stockholm Syndrome.

Snowden had to go to the British Press to report on the US government because the US press has a track record of killing unfavorable stories about the government... not that that is an endorsement of the British press. They are just as cozy with their government. Just damning for our own government and the state of the free press here in the US.

Concerts don't generally pack people into sealed areas with no provisions for leaving the venue(which in the case of the airline, is the plane at 35,000). As for cars, the same generally applies - as you can pull over to a safe area and exit in a speedier manner. Air travel has no such advantages, so a certain degree of comfort is expected at minimum - enough that people have no thought to warrant a diverted flight.

If you're going to be packed in a crammed space, cannot leave it, and it is not punitive in nature, it is a generally bad idea to do extra charges. That, and bad customer service might work for the bean counters that end up having enough status to escape their design, but not everyone is fortunate enough to have it.

After the bean-counters were allowed to design airplane layouts, they forgot about the people that had to sit in them.

Then people wonder why consumers want regulation in air travel to smack these practices down.

Now what would happen if nobody could hide economic development decisions, such as the relocation of companies between states? That is, that any decision to move, no matter how small or early, had to be publicly disclosed - and that all existing records had to be made public? That would anger thieving states like Georgia, who have no qualms about removing history from Northern states, while providing a chance for states to make an agreement.

Or, you can have the status quo, which encourages blood-feud between states.

Statistically speaking, that's a rare enough position that it is an exception. Besides, employers can do more damage with the same position over multiple people and jurisdictions - as they are favored by government over workers.

You can rationalize it all you want, but tax "avoidance" really is the same concept as tax evasion.

Some people just need to take this person's advice before modding down truthful information.

If they have to throw everything and the kitchen sink to shut up critics, it doesn't look good for them.

Consider the deeds of professional victim-manipulators like:
Anita Sarkeesian, who can make a convincing, but fake, death threat on herself.
Chelsea Van Valkenburg, aka Zoe Quinn, who reached out many forums to clean out dissent - when she was called out on corruption.
Maya Felix Kramer, an individual that aided/abetted Ms. Van Valkenburg.

In addition, consider that various unrelated sites carried essentially the same message, "Gaming is dead", at about the same time. They won't allow anyone to say the truth or present evidence that journalistic integrity in gaming has died. All they permit is the party line - which supports these professional victims.

Crying "misogyny" won't help when people are calling them out on the real issue - their lack of integrity when it comes to developers and game journalism. Trying to shut critics up on multiple forums won't help to control the message - since nothing has stopped it.

Of course, this might not appeal to some, but modbombing this won't make the issue go away.

I miss being able to plug a modem into any phone line and have internet access. Cable and DSL just destroyed that freedom of mobility (and we all accepted it, in exchange for Mbps bandwidth instead of Kbps bandwidth). Wifi kinda brought it back but its all locked down in Terms and Conditions away from any rights conveyed as a result of the lines being covered by common carrier rules.

Probably a truck load of laws and regulations in each state that raise the costs and barrier to entry for new car dealerships.

I think that is probably backwards. These laws would obviously tend to help larger car companies exclude competition. Like many issues of regulatory capture I would deduce that these state franchise laws were actually bought and paid for by big companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler in order to ensure that all those smaller car companies that didn't have robust dealership networks would either be forced out of business or forced to sell out to the big three. It took some serious capital investment and many years to set up dealer networks for Toyota, Honda and other foreign car companies. But they had the backing of their respective countries and large consumer base at home to leverage. Make no mistake these laws may have been passed at the behest of the local dealers, but those dealers were working from the same game plan as the big three.

Experience and credentials always need to be judged against the Job being offered. I agree that merely looking at the number of years of experience in a broadly defined job type is meaningless. The meaningful experience is what a person actually did in their job, not what their job title was.

This is an age old question not necessarily particular to Software Engineering... Are credentials or experience more important?

I would say experience is what you need to do the job, while credentials are often what you need to get the job in the first place and advance your career beyond your current role. I think that holds true for the majority of jobs, but there are plenty of examples and counter-examples of people having success without experience and/or without relevant degree credentials. Career wise I would suggest maximizing the financial return on all your strengths in the near term and either address your weaknesses as best you can or just go around them. Medium to long term always be looking to fill in the gaps in your experience or education that might be relevant to the types of jobs you may want/need in the future.