That would fall under the undercover operations clause.
Most small businesses are incorporated.
Most people on Slashdot are from the US. Australians speak more or less the same language so we care more what happens to them.
I would guess that most of those that pay are corporations that actually need that data.
Verizon and AT&T are far from the only two reasonable choices for providers of mobile devices.
On the other hand, that experience also makes it easier to screw over the taxpayers. I can't think of any good reason why a company would think it more important to look out for taxpayers than to look out for their own bottom line.
Your argument works much better going the other direction, but you don't see a whole lot of people going from high level private sector jobs to the public sector.
For growers that could be a problem, but for distributors you wouldn't need as strong a light as it would be for the sole purpose of killing bugs.
So they pay roughly a quarter of the total taxes and earn roughly half of the total income... I think they're underpaying.
On the other hand, the person who receives payment has to pay taxes on the overvalue.
Where do you see racism in his post? All I see is an accurate analysis of the racism that was shown by people in the past.
Isn't the lesson to use the best people regardless of gender? In which case, why should she go instead of someone more qualified?
It only works as an alibi if you can force them to admit that they know where your phone was and that it was at home.
The question isn't whether they are able to, it's whether they actually will.
And there won't be one until people start using something else.
People pay taxes on their salaries.