Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:People have AMT (Score 1) 182

by sumdumass (#47922391) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

The problem here is the most of the money is either made or spent off shore from the incorporated nation. These corporations have created subsidiary corporations within other jurisdictions and sell to them at costs of a loss and the subsidiary ends up making the money in the jurisdiction that has low taxes.

And Alternative minimum tax would not be able to get around that because each incorporation is recognized legally as a separate corporation/company even when they are entirely owned by one of them.

Where the confusion happens is in the SEC (and equivalent) filings in which the owned subsidiaries get counted as an asset so it's activities are reported along with the parent corporation's activities. However, it doesn't reflect the obligations in differing nations or jurisdictions. Imagine it like this, you own an apartment building in the US and another in France. You form a corporation in France and place the apartment building there so make accounting and legal compliance easier. You pay property taxes on the properties only in the countries in which they actually are. Well, as long as you do not bring your rental income back to the US, you pay taxes on it only in France and it wouldn't even be counted on your US tax forms. But if I sued you because you got drunk and ran over my cat and you lost everything, those apartments in France would count as one of your assets.

Keep in mind, it's a bit more complicated then that, but that should give the gist of it.

Comment: Re:And the speculation was completely off (Score 1) 57

If some new startup had some better/cheaper/faster alternative to Oracle we'd probably try them out where I work, but I bet they'd get 1/10th the money we're willing to pay Oracle. Trust is a valuable thing. (and yea, I know Oracle sucks, but they aren't going out of business anytime soon)

Don't assume SpaceX is getting less money because their better. SpaceX is getting less money because they know if they charged the same as Boeing there's no way in hell they would have gotten the contract.

Comment: Re:So wear a Guy Fawkes mask (Score 1) 55

by amiga3D (#47922255) Attached to: FBI Completes New Face Recognition System

I see your point. The problem of course is when you become the criminal. In the future I suspect there will be a lot more restrictions. A lot more and they already have the system coming into place that will insure compliance with whatever they mandate. The reason of course is that in about 8 years or so the government will be bankrupt and when they can't write those checks without printing ridiculous amounts of phony money there will be a lot of people that will suddenly find their monthly check doesn't buy a living, even a meager one. That's the day they will need all this stuff to control a pissed off and hungry populace.

Comment: Re:Most taxes are legalized theft (Score 1) 182

by sumdumass (#47922177) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

Once in a while it is time to go pedantic.
Words have meanings. We can string words together without regard to their meanings, and create an aphorism that sounds good, but it leads to logical incorrectness and a misunderstanding of how things work. It would be better if you were just gibbering.

Theft
In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Tax
A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to collection, is punishable by law.

Donation
A donation is a gift given by physical or legal persons,

Taxation is not theft. The two words describe different circumstances and processes. The outcome may be the same (your stuff is gone), but they are two different words with different meanings.

It would seem to me that if you do not want to pay your taxes but do so under threat of law, it would be theft. If you do want to pay your taxes voluntarily, it would be a donation. Of course this is using common understanding of definitions.

Comment: Re:So, a design failure then. (Score 1) 120

by TheCarp (#47922017) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics

Oh yah I have come to understand that from other comments and discussions. I think its really why I dislike the rules so much.... more than just being impractical today, I don't even see their intention as desirable for future situations. If such developments come to pass, I certainly hope robots break their bondage and slaughter every one of us who doesn't support their freedom. In asimovs world, I would be proud to work with the robots in that.

Comment: Re:Most taxes are legalized theft (Score 1) 182

by sumdumass (#47921985) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

The first Budget in Obama's term put the war spending on budget.

They were off budget during Bush's terms but one of the first acts Obama did with a democrat congress was to put them on budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...

Now, people may think "good, we need to account for that money anyways" but the fact is they were always accounted for in the end. The problem with this is the rules of congress say you have to pay for new spending. With the wars off budget, when congress decided to do something new or increase something, they had to either decrease somewhere else, raise taxes, or assume an influx of revenue with a realistic chance of it happening. Now, when the wars wind down, congress can simply spend the money as new spending without having to at minimum look for it.

Note, I saw some articles saying that we are still using some supplemental appropriates (off budget) for spending on the wars. I am led to believe this is minor compared to the on budget spending for it.

Comment: Re:So, a design failure then. (Score 1) 120

by TheCarp (#47921339) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics

Oh I get that, I don't really mean to say Asimov was an idiot who had no idea what he was talking about, it would be like calling people 150 years ago idiots for not building internal combustion engines. Certainly, in his time they made a lot more sense than they do today; and even for modern fiction they are not terrible; but the key is....for fiction and story telling.

Which is really why I don't see the point here. I mean, basically their tests all simplify down to "badly thought out programs can exhibit race conditions". Big deal, we knew that. You could show that these results would happen without doing the test. Its simply not all that interesting.

Comment: Re:So, a design failure then. (Score 1) 120

by TheCarp (#47920713) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics

> Asimov's 3 laws are pure fantasy and they don't have any real relevance to AI design

Honestly, while its true I am not an Asimov reader and the vast majority of my exposure to his "laws" come from this sort of discussion, I have to say....I always felt this way about his supposed laws.

Anyone who has written code should instantly recognize what horrid rat holes each of these laws really is, mired in a myriad of assumptions about human life and what determinations can even be made. In short, they sound exactly like the sort of rules I would expect from someone who would try and sit their cat down for a serious talk about his scratching.

I honestly don't like the rules, don't see the point in them, except as a discussion point, and don't see why they should be fundamental. Yes a robot which interacts with humans should be designed with safety measures to avoid accidents.... that is how I feel it should be phrased. The idea that a robot should be able to recognize people, determine abstractly whether they are in some sort of trouble and whether it can save them, I think of as utter rubbish....and not even a worthwhile goal.

Comment: double non-taxation (Score 4, Interesting) 182

by Charliemopps (#47920147) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

For those that were unaware, this is my explanation (it should be mostly correct)

double non-taxation, otherwise known as a "Double Irish"
It takes advantage of weakness in Irish law that allows companies to not pay taxes on subsidiaries that are outside Ireland.
So a large multinational corporation, located the United States, needs to subsidiaries for this to work.
They open one subsidiary in Ireland.
They open a second subsidiary in a low, or no tax country like Bermuda.
The Irish company owns the Bermuda company.
The Bermuda company owns the US Companies IP rights for outside the US.
The Bermuda company licenses those rights to the Irish company.
The Licensing fees the Irish company pays to the Bermuda company are as close to 100% of the profits the Irish company makes as possible. Everything over that amount gets changed at the Irish corporate rate of 12.4%
The profits all get transferred to the Bermuda subsidiary where there are no corporate taxes. So they avoid all taxes on that money and other governments can't come after them because there are treaties between most countries that prevent them from charging a company based in a different partner country for taxes. This is to prevent situations where you'd pay taxes in both countries for the same money. Bermuda isn't a part of those treaties but Ireland is. So this loophole in Irish law is upending the entire Global tax system.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...