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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:To be more precise, Amazon will collect on taxe (Score 1) 243

by SensitiveMale (#49779643) Attached to: Amazon Decides To Start Paying Tax In the UK

God, can your math really be that bad? If the state raises taxes on car dealers by 30%, as you say, and the tax goes from 3% to 4%, why would that require the car dealers to raise the prices of their cars 30%?

How did you get "the tax goes from 3% to 4%" from "the state raises taxes on car dealers by 30%?"

About your other point, sure some of the dealers may only raise prices by 29% and absorb that other 1%, but you're still missing the point. The consumer is still paying the full amount of the tax. So the dealer is taking less of a profit. He isn't PAYING any of the tax unless he's running that business at a loss. The consumer is the only one putting money into the equation unless the business is being run at a loss.

If you don't think only consumers pay taxes, let me leave you with this "If that car dealership doesn't have any customers and no business for a month, why are the taxes '0' for the month?"

Comment: Re:To be more precise, Amazon will collect on taxe (Score 1) 243

by SensitiveMale (#49768401) Attached to: Amazon Decides To Start Paying Tax In the UK

The first rule of economics is "Businesses do not pay taxes. Businesses collect taxes."

No, the first rule of economics is "don't talk about economics".

Seriously, as long as you have companies in competition in regard to pricing, then yes, businesses do in fact pay taxes. They can not in fact just raise prices to cover taxes, because if they could raise prices, they already would have done so.

There is no law in economics that says "Businesses do not pay taxes. Businesses collect taxes." That's an old conservative trope that gained currency when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were busy rodgering the working people of their respective countries.

Sure, individual businesses would raise prices if they could. But you're missing the point of a tax.

Example 1: There are 50 auto dealers in a state. One dealer decides to raise his prices across the board because like you said "If they could, they would." He goes out of business.

Example 2: There are 50 auto dealers in a state. The state raises taxes on car dealers 30%. Now all dealers raise their prices 30%.

Now I ask you "Who is paying that 30% increase?"

Businesses can't print money. Well, other than the Reserve. But that's a different matter. Any money a business pays out for any reason has to originally come from an individual somewhere.

Comment: Re:To be more precise, Amazon will collect on taxe (Score 1) 243

by SensitiveMale (#49768351) Attached to: Amazon Decides To Start Paying Tax In the UK

Raise the tax rate to 75% of the corporate profit and see what happens...

Companies will reinvest revenue rather than pay it out as dividends. Also, stock prices fall as future expected dividends are cut by 75%, and then rise again as said reinvestment makes economy grow faster.

Actually, this could be just the stimulus economy needs...

Oh dear Lord.

Raising the tax rate to 75% is a stimulant to the economy?

Wow.

Comment: Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599

by SensitiveMale (#49137587) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

You've got it backwards. Obamacare doesn't benefit an overwhelming majority. It screws over the overwhelming majority. Why do you think it isn't fully implemented yet? Why do you think executive order time and time again has been illegally issued to delay whole parts of it? Why do you think the private business mandate was pushed past another election?

Improve on the system? How? Unless something happens with the latest Supreme court case about the IRS ignoring the law, the whole system is rushing to a single payer inevitability.

Back to the original point. This entire FCC seizure of the internet is being done in secret and there is precedence of how Obama's administration does things in secret.

Comment: Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599

by SensitiveMale (#49137489) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

"As for your fiance, you should thank me. My insurance went up 90% while my deductibles went up over 200%. What? You thought your fiance's insurance was in a vacuum?"

Horse shit!

Provide evidence to back up your claim. Provide the name of the policy you had before. Cost and what it covered. And the provide the name of the new policy you have. Cost and what it covers.

Dude you are high if you think I'm posting my insurance info for your reading pleasure. My insurance payment last year was a little over $200. My insurance payment this year is a little under $400.

Comment: Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599

by SensitiveMale (#49127961) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

Actually it does. You have no idea what will change nor how it will change. No one does. If this government takeover was all sunshine & freedom you know damn well that the sponsors of this action would be shouting it from the rooftops. This is 100% completely secret for a reason.

As for your fiance, you should thank me. My insurance went up 90% while my deductibles went up over 200%. What? You thought your fiance's insurance was in a vacuum?

Comment: Re:Sounds good (Score 1, Troll) 599

by SensitiveMale (#49127565) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

Actually I do know what they are about to do. The FCC released a 4 page summary of what the regulations were going to accomplish earlier this month. Just because you have no idea what's going on doesn't mean the rest of us are as uninformed.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

The devil is in the details.

Remember the summary "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."?

Comment: Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599

by SensitiveMale (#49127495) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

This sounds good-- but I wonder just what form that regulation will take, and what level of regulatory capture will emerge.

The republicans gave up too easily. Look how long and drawn out their battle against Obamacare was. In comparison, this measure seems to have been abandoned without much fight. I can't help but wonder why.

The reason Obamacare took so long was not even the Democrats wanted to pass it. Look at the number of bribes that were needed for just Dems to pass it.

This is bad. Very bad. Biblically bad. The simple fact that ALL of the regulation is being kept a secret should tell everyone how much of a goat fuck this is going to be.

Comment: Ok, let's hear all the stories how Seagate sucks (Score 5, Funny) 219

by SensitiveMale (#48589289) Attached to: Seagate Bulks Up With New 8 Terabyte 'Archive' Hard Drive

and then let's hear about how it's all anecdotal evidence.

Then someone will bring out the backblaze survey.

Then someone will say "They've never had a problem with Seagate, but WD sucks."

Then someone will lament how IBM no longer makes drives. Then the deskstar stories will start.

In other words, the same responses every time a hard drive story is posted.

Comment: Re:This partisan "report" was released for one rea (Score 1) 772

by SensitiveMale (#48569277) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

It wasn't released before the election because it is an unpopular partisan football. It wasn't released before the election because it would have cost the dems votes. Since they've already lost control of the senate they have to release it now before they lose control of the senate. Again, you're missing the point of why was this released now? Do you think that this report just happened to be finished at the end of November? Don't be naive. This report has been declassified since July. This report was released because as a lame duck dem senate there is nothing for them to lose.

Feinstein, along with Pelosi and other democrats, knew this was going on. They were briefed AS IT WAS HAPPENING. Was anyone in the CIA or anyone involved in these interrogations interviewed? NOPE. That should tell you everything right there.

The "flamebait" mod was bullshit because my comment was political. My comment was political because this report along with the timing of it's release was purely political. Again look who wrote the report, when it was ready, when it was released, and who was ignored.

Comment: Re:This partisan "report" was released for one rea (Score 0) 772

by SensitiveMale (#48560735) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

Releasing this report for purely political reasons does. People can mod my original post as flamebait but that's bullshit. Why wasn't the report released before now? Why now? Why wasn't ANYONE in the program interviewed to be included in the report? Why are all of the dems that were in congress saying they knew nothing about this when it was proven that they were included in the briefings?

Look, you may not like what was done. I can respect that. But releasing this report for pure political reasons is inexcusable.

Comment: As for the people who say "XXX kills more than..." (Score 0) 772

by SensitiveMale (#48559627) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

terrorists, stop being an idiot. Richard Reid tried to light a shoe bomb and didn't kill anyone, yet let at all of the trouble and hassle EVERYONE who flies has to go through now. It isn't always about death. It's also about our way of life. How much money do you think is being spent to find explosives on persons who fly?

So stop saying "More people are killed by albino left-handed sharks than terrorists because that isn't the point."

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming

Working...