Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Tax? (Score 1) 155

by ScentCone (#47921321) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

Yes but at a lower rate. Investment income is taxed lower than standard wages.

Right. Usually, that's because:

1) We want people to risk their money making investments to start and grow businesses. That creates economic activity, which is taxed.

2) If the person risking their money on such an investment loses it (as most do - most new businesses fail), they do NOT get to write that loss off on their own income taxes. It's just gone, goodbye. 3) The lower rates only apply if you let the investment site for a good long time. Those who throw money in and yank it back up pay a much higher rate.

businesses and the people who profit from them

Employees ARE people who profit from a business. In fact employees account for the vast majority of the outbound cash that most businesses spend. And its taxed at normal payroll rates. And the taxes levied on the money those people are getting out of the company are a big part of what pays for the public infrastructure that they (as the people who are making money daily in the business) use. Why do you think that city, county, state, and federal programs to encourage business presence and growth aren't hesitant to wave, for some period of time, taxes charged directly to the business? It's because the net result of establishing that business in place and keeping it there is MUCH MORE TAX REVENUE - from all of the other activity and employment that results.

Comment: Re:well (Score 1) 175

by DerekLyons (#47921079) Attached to: WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

Given that Boeing will already be 3 years late to the party, when SpaceX has manned capability up and running this coming January?

The mixed tense of the latter half of the sentence aside... The January test is that of a flight abort, not a qualification or validation flight. (And thus does not represent "manned capability".) The first full-up unmanned flight test isn't manifested until 2016 and no manned flight is currently manifested.

We're supposed to wait another couple of years for manned launch capability

We're *already* waiting at least a year and half for the first unmanned test flight - with the first manned test flight currently unscheduled (but at least a year after the first unmanned test flight according to the original projections). Your argument that Boeing will be "late to the party" and that "we must wait" is thus not based on reality.

Comment: Re:Translation... (Score 1) 175

by DerekLyons (#47920945) Attached to: WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

BTW, I agree with you in regards to Dreamchaser. It is a good enough vehicle that the ESA is even looking at using it, and Sierra Nevada is already on record saying they will continue the development of this vehicle even without additional development money from NASA.

The ESA "looks at" all kinds of things (they even "looked at" the one time darling of the space fanbois - Kliper), and such is about as meaningful as a celebrity endorsement. And going on record as intending to do something you don't have the money to do is equally meaningless.

Indeed the only company that has said they will stop any further development if their vehicle isn't selected is Boeing.

Except for the nit-picky fact that they've said nothing of the sort.

Comment: Re:Tax? (Score 1) 155

by ScentCone (#47920657) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

Companies use infrastructure to deliver goods to their customers ... Companies benefit from local education systems to provide knowledgable people (arguably).

But the company doesn't do anything with the money except spend it on growing the company, or in compensation to employees and investors. When those investors or employees take money home from the company, it's taxed. And if those same people take that already taxed money and invest it that or another company, and it makes money, they get taxed again.

The company doesn't benefit from services and education, etc., the people WHO TAKE HOME THE MONEY do (at which point it's taxed). They other group that benefits are company's customers, who spend money (on which they've already paid other taxes) to buy goods or services from that company. And that means nothing until, again, somebody takes it home as pay (taxed) or dividends (taxed) or cashed out stocks (taxed).

The company's actual profits shouldn't be taxed because all that money does is sit there until somebody either spends it on the company as reinvestment (which isn't taxed anyway), or it gets turned over to somebody designated to receive it - at which point it IS taxed as income.

Comment: Re:Not the only strategy (Score 4, Insightful) 155

by ScentCone (#47920477) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

It's a race to the bottom, my friend. You don't out-compete countries with less than a few million inhabitants and no significant social programs.

You mean, like Canada? It has a 26% rate, compared the US's 40% rate. Yeah, third-world hell holes like Canada always whore around with those low numbers, right?

Comment: Not the only strategy (Score 4, Insightful) 155

by ScentCone (#47920055) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance
There are other ways to generate more tax revenue from business operations in the US: quit making elsewhere so much more attractive. The US has the second highest effective business tax burden in the world (second only to the United Arab Emerates, which mostly taxes foreign oil operations). Gee, I wonder why businesses born in the US look to mitigate that in whatever ways the law allows. If the law no longer allows it, there will simply be more companies actually moving, entirely, to places with a lower burden. Then the government will still miss the revenue, and they'll miss all the tax revenue they're already getting on the income taxes levied on and other economic activity generated by all of the company's current domestic employees, partners, vendors, service providers, etc.

Comment: Re:Translation... (Score 2) 175

by DerekLyons (#47918233) Attached to: WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

Boeing vs SpaceX? without doing all the number crunching it is hard to make an educated judgment.

This is Slashdot. This isn't about educated judgements, number crunching, or reasoned discussion. This is all about geek fanboyism and that all contracts are awarded solely on the amount slipped under the table being an article of faith.

Other than that, you're absolutely correct - Dragon and (especially) Dreamchaser represent fairly risky designs. Boeing presents a largely conventional alternative. This matters a great deal in the technical evaluation of the proposals, and contrary to popular belief such evaluations play a large role in determining who is awarded such contracts. It's not, by a long shot, just about who offers the least expensive option.

Comment: Re:Hmmm .... (Score 1) 175

by DerekLyons (#47918113) Attached to: WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

I've seen lots of stuff about what SpaceX is doing, but not a lot about Boeing on the space front these days.

If that's true, then you badly need to re-think where you get your space news. (Slashdot and other popular sites tends to disproportionately worship SpaceX.) I only casually follow and *I* knew about Boeing.

So, is this something which actually exists and is being tested? Or is this vapor ware?

It's something that actually exists and is actually being worked on.

Comment: Re:Yep, another botched job, or was it?? (Score 1) 17

by smitty_one_each (#47915869) Attached to: #isisporn
So, beyond our "I know you are, but what am I?" circles, what is there? I came from your dead POV into life.

You just play shallow religious/political games to avoid facing the truth.

I met the truth, and it broke me utterly. You can call me anything under the sun, but "shallow" is laughable. Faith, in the ultimate sense, is really all I have. All of the other materialistic mumbo-jumbo is transient.

Comment: A hundred times less? (Score 1) 64

by ScentCone (#47914447) Attached to: A 16-Year-Old Builds a Device To Convert Breath Into Speech

Sure if thing A is inexpensive, then thing B which costs a fraction of that price might indeed be said to cost X times less. Implying that thing A is already less than some other option, and thing B is even MORE less.

But if thing A is very expensive (as in the example cited in TFA), thing B would be better described as being not a hundred times less ... but one hundredth the cost.

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.