Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:And all this simply proves ... (Score 1) 207

by kenshin33 (#48227517) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline
I didn't read much, on the event, when it happened (caught it on reddit by mistake), I turned on the TV to watch on CBC. Something is bugging me though, as you explained it the guy was quickly and switfly disposed of, before that, he should have had the chance to shoot anyone ( and it good thing he didn't), but why (genuine question)????

Comment: Re:Libertarian paradise...have you been? (Score 1) 255

by kenshin33 (#48210377) Attached to: Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales
and you;re absolutely right, int that we're not ready for anything like that. But that's shouldn't be an obstacle to evolve in that direction!
the middle east has nothing to do with though (the situation has a lot of explanation, the lack of authority is not one of them).

Comment: Re:I Trust Debain (Score 1) 549

by kenshin33 (#48196759) Attached to: Debian's Systemd Adoption Inspires Threat of Fork
it's not about who has the longest proverbial dick. it's not about, it just worked for you, or a bunch of other people. Where it works, well, it works there's nothing more. The big hairy problem is when it doesn't, in the case of sysv init (or openRC) the places to look for troubles are few an easy to read and modify.
Take for For example the *KIT set, theses are very nice additions that simplified the life of a lot of people (including me), but only when everything was working, it stops working and hello 3/4 hours wasted to find out WHY exactly it wasn't working, b/c of the lack of documentation (a problem that was corrected lately) and cryptic messages if any at all. Source code is documentation you say? yeah sure, if you're home with nothing to do it's good, but a sysadmin with an already understaffed department doesn't have that luxury. You, me at home is one story, we have time, and are dealing with ONE system that is ours, managing hundreds of desktops, users and servers is an other beast all together!
the fact that technical committees of multiple distributions adopted systemd doesn't mean anything unless the reasoning behind it is bullet proof (I don't know as I wasn't there and didn't bother looking for it, did you?).

Comment: Re:let me rephrase (Score 1) 259

by kenshin33 (#48154613) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed
BTW, I'm not a us citizen, I'm Canadian.

In both scenarios, the family's income as a whole takes a hit, with one scenario requiring less work
In the case of these corporation it doesn't, they take the income spread it over different tax jurisdictions to minimize taxes for the same income.
A loophole is an unintended consequence of some rule. while exploiting the existence is not illegal, it certainly goes against the original intent of said rule. I'm no expert on the subject, but it seams to me that taxing corporation is not the way it should go. Let the corporate entity be Tax those that derive income from that: shareholders, as you'd tax anyone else (say the janitor of said corporation).
(where I live daycare fees are tax deductible, I don't know what it yields as our son doesn't go to daycare, we are lucky enough that the grandparents live near by)

Comment: Re:$1000 worth of child care either way, taxed dif (Score 1) 259

by kenshin33 (#48152953) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed
Exactly, the whole point of that exercise is to determine if going to work is worth it, not paying less taxes. If, as you said, she end up poring her whole income in daycare there's nothing to gain (monetarily speaking that is, some may prefer to work). That is why I said bad example.

Comment: Re: Why..... (Score 1) 259

by kenshin33 (#48151367) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed

No, even if they're in a higher tax bracket, they necessarily still have more money (as far as net income goes). That's the entire point of brackets instead of thresholds.

That's why I used "probably". (the certain events are a subset of probable events).

The cost of day care has nothing to do with taxes, so let's not make things more complicated than they need be. That one parent staying home to take care of kids is cheaper than sending kids to day care has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with that parent's earning potential and the cost of day care. Even if taxes were 0% for everyone, it's still possible that having only one parent working would be more cost effective than having both parents work if the cost of day care exceeds the income of one of the parents. Orthogonal issues.

Again, that was exactly my point.

Comment: Re: Why..... (Score 1) 259

by kenshin33 (#48150873) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed

An intelligent individual has more to learn from understanding the formal aspects of a system (as perfect or imperfect as it might be), vs. rushing to quick poor conclusions based on "slang" and ignorance.

"Dictionary definition" is not slang/street talk, AFAIK, may be I'm mistaken? With that said, I wasn't trying to redefine legally "tax evasion", or implying it was fact. If it wasn't clear enough, I'm sorry. That was my humble opinion. Let me rephrase is : doing so, in MY book is tax evasion.

Comment: Re: Why..... (Score 1) 259

by kenshin33 (#48146811) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed
The mom that stays home has no revenue. Corporation X, that is doing what you described has overall has revenue (and fucking big one to boot). It is legal, but still a tax evasion, may not the legal definition of it, but the dictionary one: avoid paying taxes (in full or partially) on revenue. the mom staying at home does pay taxes (on X% of $0 is still $0).

Comment: Re: Why..... (Score 2) 259

by kenshin33 (#48146787) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed

I personally know families in which the wife does not work and is stay-home mom because is "cheaper" vs. two working parents and kids in day care. This is because two spouses working would put them in a higher taxable income bracket which will also make them receive less or none of some tax deductions. Plus they will have to pay for day care. With the wife staying home, taxable income of just one working spouse is lower, there are higher tax deductions, and no day care costs. Tax evasion? No, simply a personal example of tax optimization.

Very bad example. even if they're in a higher tax bracket they'l probably still have more money. And I doubt that the reasoning goes like the way you described it. Most of the time it's because daycare is so expensive that the stay at home is the better choice (economically).

news: gotcha

Working...