Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:meanwhile (Score -1) 342

by Amouth (#49284559) Attached to: UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'

Those with smaller incomes must use a larger proportion of it on consumption.

10% is 10% no matter what the purchase price is, the Proportions are the same.

The only way where they get out of balance is where corporations can purchase larger quantity and get a lower sale price per unit then the smaller consumer for a given item.. So you will not be removing the buying power element, but even then you are capturing the taxes and doing it based on money changing hands.

Comment: Re:Q1: So, are you a tax dodger? (Score 1) 342

by Amouth (#49284123) Attached to: UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'

easiest way is to break the company into shells each making a max of 9,999,999 and not look back. at an added tax rate of 25% as the summary says it would be simple math to show that the added paper work for inter-company billing and accountants would be cheaper than paying the tax (especially if they automate it).

They need to move to a flat consumption tax for products and services, get rid of all theses random income crap and just keep it simple. When money changes hands, tax it.

Comment: Re:meanwhile (Score 0) 342

by Amouth (#49284085) Attached to: UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'

Drop the income tax, make it a flat tax on consumption (both products and services). You pay tax on raw materials and collect tax when you sell. you can make 100m$ and pay no tax until you spend it. it would make it easier for everyone to understand, it would be easy to track as tax would happen when money changes hands.

but hey, simple logic does not seem to work in this world because everyone wants the rules to apply to everyone but them.

Comment: Re:It's not THAT much.... (Score 1) 529

by Amouth (#49219991) Attached to: Apple's "Spring Forward" Event Debuts Apple Watch and More

To be honest, i didn't justify it. This is a pass-down (i'm the 3rd owner).. at some point my grandfather justified it.

Personally i never would have justified it, but after owning it i could almost justify it. ~6,000$/58 years = ~100$ a year. which is nearly the cost of any decent dive watch. if it lasts another 50+ years then it will easily justify it's self (by being less than 50$ a year for a high quality dive watch).

But you can't even come close to thinking an apple watch will have a lifespan anywhere near what a quality pure mechanical watch will have.. not even a lower end (but still good) Fossil.

Comment: Re:It's not THAT much.... (Score 1) 529

by Amouth (#49219167) Attached to: Apple's "Spring Forward" Event Debuts Apple Watch and More

You know i had the same impression when i looked at theses. Apple watch while interesting and impressive, seems more like a temp gadget than a lifetime tool.

I was looking at the list saying who in their right mind would pay 1-10k for one of these.. then realized i was wearing my submariner.

The difference is as you said, this watch from Apple will be irrelevant in 2-3 years (new versions, bad batteries, out dated software).

Where a high quality pure mechanical watch will last more than a lifetime (mine is a 62, its more than 20 years older than me, i'm the 3rd owner, and i plan on passing it to my son).

There are people who buy high end things for the "status" there are others that buy them because they understand value. Not all high end has high value, i would count the Apple watch in that group (high end low value) the same way i would compare a diamond encrusted submariner (used for people to show status, no one would ever go diving with it).

Comment: Re:May not have to worry about taxes (Score 1) 734

by Amouth (#49193151) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Should I Let My Kids Become American Citizens?

Actually this isn't true.

You have a "choice" (i quote it because it is your parents that do it, you can't yet make the decision) on getting an SSN or not. BUT once you have and SSN you can not get rid of it.

If you "chose" not to have an SSN the IRS will issue you a tax-id number to use on all your forms. it functions like an SSN but isn't one (may also conflict with someone else's SSN# as they are different).

You also do not pay into Social Security (your employer still has to withhold, and pay their match, but you get your contributions back). But on that same counter you can never draw from Social Security.

I know several people in this situation. I personally wish i could do it (but again you can never get rid of an SSN once you have it) and i thought long and hard before getting an SSN for my Son. We eventually did it because to function in the US with any type of credit you must have one, so many industries here have zero idea what to do when you don't have one.

Not having an SSN is not illegal, But not paying your taxes is.

Comment: Re:Speeding not always an issue (Score 1) 335

by Amouth (#48703099) Attached to: Out With the Red-Light Cameras, In With the Speeding Cameras

Agreed, it should be based on a risk/value assessment.

Sadly right now they are "made up" by people who do not have the ability to preform such an assessment.

Note: i know there are traffic engineers who can do this, and every place has them and every place has "standards". But do recognize that said standards are anything but when you look at the whole nation (along with very rarely getting reviewed/updated), and ultimately what gets turned into laws is what politicians want not what Engineers say it should be.

Comment: Re:Are they good? No. (Score 1) 335

by Amouth (#48703071) Attached to: Out With the Red-Light Cameras, In With the Speeding Cameras

Not really, take open freeway types of places. a great example of this is the Atlanta Beltway where you have a road built for much higher speeds limited to 55 mph.

a great video to see what happens when someone actually makes people follow that speed limit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And trust me that there are plenty of examples of this. Personally I've driven in many states on the same conditions of roadways with varying speed limits from 55 (GA) -> 75 (TX) and honestly people don't want to go slow so traffic is generally better in on the faster roads.. BUT that being said i fully agree with limiting speeds in residential areas, side streets, school zones, and any place that has potential for pedestrian traffic.

Also on a random note, bike lanes do not belong on freeways/interstates.. That is just asking for someone to be killed.

The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work. -- Richard Bach, "Illusions"

Working...