Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Whatever (Score 1) 252

by macsimcon (#49099701) Attached to: No Tech Bubble Here, Says CNN: "This Time It's Different."

I’ve got tens of thousands in SDS. When the powers that be decide it’s time to crash the market (because they’ve shorted it), I’ll make out like a bandit.

SDS moves dollar for dollar as the S&P does, but in the opposite direction. In the last crash, SDS went up more than 20X. This time, the banks are much larger, and the federal government will not have the money to bail them out, so we’ll have a true depression, with SDS going up probably 40X or 50X.

And I’ll make hundreds of thousands on the way down. After that, I'll buy into the S&P on the cheap, and make tens of millions on the way up as the market rebounds in the years after the crash.

Hey, isn’t this how the Kennedys made much of their money, by betting against the market?

Comment: Re: Wrong Koch (Score 5, Insightful) 222

by macsimcon (#48995577) Attached to: GPG Programmer Werner Koch Is Running Out of Money

Another right-wing canard to debunk. Oh well here goes...

For every Soros who is spending money to promote "collectivism" (code used by Ayn Rand-loving sociopathic troglodytes who haven't had a date this century) , there are ten or more Adelsons and Kochs promoting their fascism. It isn't even close dude.

I think it's great that the Koch brothers give to charity, but at those levels, it's like someone who earns $40K per year giving $100 in total to charity each year. Not exactly a sacrifice.

It's even worse because that worker earning $40K per year can't pay for all of their necessities for life on that salary, where the Kochs have already paid for everything they'll ever need.

Comment: Re:Did Obama literally just say... (Score 1) 825

by macsimcon (#48954515) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

I'm just goofing around with you, don't be a brick, and try reading for content.

If a U.S. company designs products in one country, manufactures them in another country, and sells them in a third, in which jurisdiction should the company pay tax? The country in which it's domiciled?

I have no problem with Apple paying federal income tax on every product designed in the U.S., and then paying sales taxes or VAT to the governments of the countries in which those goods are sold. I don't think the country of manufacture should matter at all when it comes to determination of corporate income tax.

Apple is a U.S. corporation. So long as it reaps the benefits of incorporating here, they have to pay for it.

Comment: Re:Double Irish (Score 1) 825

by macsimcon (#48954157) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but do you have any proof of this, or is this supposition on your part.

For example, is there anywhere in the quarterly report that I could find proof that this occurred? I don't doubt that Apple is doing this (as I'm sure Cisco, Google, et al are), but how can we prove it?

Comment: Re:Did Obama literally just say... (Score 1) 825

by macsimcon (#48953895) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

No, those would be examples to support my argument, the total argument itself.

It DOES read "Designed by Apple in California" on the box for every hardware product Apple makes. So, by your argument, shouldn't Apple pay US and California state taxes on every hardware product it sells, no matter where?

Comment: Re:And he wonders why there's no wage and job grow (Score 2) 825

by macsimcon (#48953825) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

Ah, Atlas Shrugged. Written by a sociopath, rule book for the selfish, prized tome to Libertarian wackos everywhere.

Go ahead, you John Galts! Take your ball and leave, like a four year-old throwing a tantrum.

You THINK that you’re special, but the truth is you’re completely disposable. There are a hundred Americans just waiting to take your place with great ideas and hard work. Perhaps they’ll even do your work better than you could.

As an entrepreneur, I relish this mindset, as I don’t have to compete against pouting quitters.

You won’t be missed.

Comment: Re:That would require congress to sign off on it.. (Score 2) 825

by macsimcon (#48953803) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

It’s part of the budget, which the President submits to Congress. I’m pretty sure that counts as talking to them.

Congress can always strip it out, but there’s nothing requiring the President to sign that modified budget, and then we’re right back to CRs to pay for everything, like we’ve been doing for the past several years.

Comment: Re:Did Obama literally just say... (Score 1) 825

by macsimcon (#48953783) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

How’s this for fair share: corporations used to pay 27% of the taxes in this country, and now they pay 7%.

I’d argue that they were paying their “fair share” when they paid 27%, rather than the 7% they pay now. They use the roads more and the courts more than the average citizen does.

Comment: Re:Double Irish (Score 1) 825

by macsimcon (#48953747) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

Something doesn’t add up there. Apple just posted the largest corporate profit in world history, and according to their filings, paid a 26% rate (rather than the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate). Apple stated this was due to their foreign holdings.

What am I missing here? Are you claiming that Apple’s true profit is far greater than the $18B reported?

Comment: Re:That is what you lost... (Score 1) 562

by macsimcon (#48853625) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

First, some definitions: in English, the word "many" is defined as a large number. Two is not a large number.

There are only two countries in Europe with compulsory voting, and they don't enforce it (I'm not going to name them for you, you'll have to learn something by doing the research yourself). Australia is the only English-speaking nation with compulsory voting which also enforces with a fine, and they aren't in Europe.

Second, you're (intentionally, I suspect) missing my point that, in general, an educated populace is more likely to vote, where an ignorant populace will not, and that's the reason Europe has higher voter turnout than the U.S.

Third, you can't claim I'm spouting biased propaganda without providing evidence. Do you have any? Ah, I thought not. But don't trouble yourself, I do have evidence. Both President Clinton and President Obama have raised taxes on the wealthy, and they are Democrats. President George W. Bush TWICE cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and he's a Republican. Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul...all are Republicans, and all have consistently suggested lowering taxes on the wealthy. Just this month, Republicans reduced the amount of the Social Security Disability Fund in the future, which helps those who are not wealthy. Republicans have reduced food stamp funding, and they've fought to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which help poorer people afford food and health insurance, respectively. Republicans support the Keystone Pipeline, which benefits the billionaire Koch brothers. The United States Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, illegally halted the recount in 2000 to allow Republican (and member of the top 1%) George W. Bush to become president. He subsequently charged up trillions in debt to pay wealthy private industry to wage war, probably one of the largest redistributions of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy that we've ever seen.

President Reagan (darling of Republicans everywhere) reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 50%. He was a Republican, and that benefitted the wealthy, no one else. And it was Republicans in Congress who came up with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, allowing the 1% to gamble with their money and stick middle class and poor taxpayers with the bill (while also setting us up for the Great Recession).

Have you even looked at the Republican Party platform? You can read it, you know. It endorses regulatory reform (so the wealthy can get away with poisoning our food and environment without fines or penalties), and privatizing Social Security (so wealthy banks can get trillions of dollars in new accounts they can charge fees). It suggests pulling more money out of welfare programs (so the poor will be desperate enough to take that job at the local McDonald's...owned by a wealthy person), and both gut the FDA and restrict Americans' rights to sue when they're harmed (both great for the top 1%).

I don't straddle the fence like some milquetoast moderate, I see things for what they are: the Republican Party stands for elevating the wealthy, while destroying the middle class and the poor, and represents the single largest threat to America since World War II. Yes, more than terrorism. And much more than Libertarians.

While we're engaging in ad hominem attacks, I'm sorry you don't have the balls to admit the truth, and think I should moderate my position. Republicans came down with the Citizens United decision, which benefits the top 1%. Democrats take corporate money for their campaigns as well, but it is a false equivalency to claim the parties are basically the same. Democrats are pro-union, which benefits working people, and not the top 1%. Republicans are anti-union. Democrats want to help poor people, and the Republican Party does not.

Honestly, I can't figure out if you're just ignorant, or a moron. Is it possible you're a sociopath or a malignant narcissist? Those are practically prerequisites for Republicans and Libertarians these days.

Politics is a hobby of mine, so I don't expect you to know everything I do, but you could bother to do SOME small amount of research before taking such an untenable, absurd position. America can't afford to have voters so naive.

By the way, the Fortune 500 is much too large to be an oligarchy. I would characterize the United States as more of a kleptocracy than republic these days.

Try harder...to know what you're talking about.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein

Working...