Your latest post amounts to an Ad hominem thrust, followed by a deflecting "we're all different". While carefully avoiding further discussion of the uselessness of the peer-review process.
Well played, sir.
I haven't seen a single critical/deep analysis
If you really are looking for something different...
The problem is Google and Apple are subject to the 35% rate and there is little they can do about it, other than keeping their profits off-shore. Only lowering the rate to 20% (or maybe 15%, the exact amount is debatable) will motivate them to bring it back here.
Actually, it won't. Canada's corporate tax rate is 15% and it has had no significant effect. Lower the rate to 0% and maybe they will be motivated to bring it back. It's a simple fact that the money goes where it will be taxed the least, end of story. They pay people to make sure their tax rates as low as legally allowed, and the last time I checked, there were already 0% corporate tax jurisdictions, so the only way to guarantee they bring the money back is to offer a negative tax rate.
Hadrian's Wall. Two and a half centuries of use suggests it was working pretty well.
I'm not sure if that was sarcasm because the building of Hadrian's wall marks the beginning of the end of the Roman empire. It was a spiritual turning point for the Romans. When they built the wall they admitted that they could not conquer the world and that they were no longer strong enough to dominate technologically inferior opponents. So they built a wall across an island because they no longer had the will nor the capacity to conquer the rest of the island. It was an admission of what they could no longer do, and it marks the end of the expansion of the empire and the beginning of the fall.
That's just not true. People are uniformly better off today than they were 35 years ago. What has happened is that tax burdens have shifted somewhat. And if you look at government taxation and spending, you'll find that the only income group that pays substantially more than they receive in government benefits is the top 20% [taxfoundation.org].
I suppose that depends on whether maintaining the society that allows the top 20% to earn their massive incomes should count as a benefit. Studies like this (especially from organizations called "The Tax Foundation" or something similar) are generally run with the intention of showing how the rich are taxed way too much for the benefit of "those lazy poor people" while ignoring the fact that the very same people they spit on the ones who generate all of the wealth that the rich are accumulating. The change that's being going on since the 70s is that corporations have been systematically underpaying their employees for the work they do and transferring that wealth to the owners. I think that in general, Americans overvalue ownership and undervalue productive work and I suspect it's the inevitable end result of the worship of capitalism. It's a pretty good system, but y'all need to stop dry-humping it's leg.
From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets).
I used to believe the same thing, but apparently it's not as simple as that. For instance, according to the department of labour it's actually myth that increases to the minimum wage cause unemployment. They cite a letter signed by 600 economists (including 7 Nobel Prize winners) that claims that recent research shows that raising the minimum wage doesn't lead to job losses and furthermore it actually tends to reduce unemployment by mildly stimulating the economy.
I have an alternate explanation they might have missed: women who display gender intently tend to be less useful in code projects (causality nor its direction are not inferred here), than women who don't.
So, when will a California resident be able to purchase a non CARB compliant motor vehicle?
Hopefully, approximately the same time it becomes OK for me to crap on your lawn. Your encrypted messages to your wife don't harm me or the state. Your high-pollution vehicles make it harder for me to breathe.
I disagree. If he came in and took over a low UID for the sake of appearances, I'd personally write off a lot of his messages as PR attempts. But to join in through the same route as everyone else to earn his rep by participating, not by owning a low UID*? I respect that.
* But don't underestimate the importance of that. They give you a Ferrari each year on your anniversary.
And why exactly would Kim who fancies himself a god want to provide Daesh whose cause is to create an Islamic state with assistance in the form of a nuclear weapon?
I don't see many upsides for Kim or the DPRK in doing so. Everyone likes to paint Kim as a mad man. It might be true he does not always display what we consider to be sound judgement. Still he is self interested enough to hand a group that would turn on him as fast as he can blink a real actual WMD ( as opposed to the nasty but hardly massively destructive things we tend to use to justify drone strikes ). He isn't a lunatic.
A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.