Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
Placing income producing assets in a corporation will, however, cause income to be taxed at the corporate rate and avoid tax.
You should be "buying bits of corporations" every chance you get. Not because it avoids taxation but because your money is rotting with the high inflation created to artificially lower interest rates.
This is normal - the rich don't pay tax.
The normal thing here is someone on Slashdot didnt read the TFA. The debate is about corporate taxation not "the rich". The individuals still pay the tax on wages.
It is fair (intellectually, not necissarily a correct posititon) to argue that income should be taxed twice, once at the corporation an once with the investor / employee. It is also fair (intellectually, not necissarily a correct posititon) to debate deductions. But it is knee jerk illogic to confuse a debate about corporate taxation with the debate whether "the rich" pay their fair share.
The usual poorly informed Slashdot debate has focused on accidental cross-polination. That is not the issue. We can debate the efficacy of patents and other intellectual property protections in spurring innovation and I am not completely convinced either way. I know Round Up Ready is very effective but over used to the point of creating resistant weeds. But that doesn't change the issue at work here that Monsanto is targeting intentional conduct not accidental. Granted, accidental cross-pollination may occur.
Signed: A farmer's son.
There is so much uneducated FUD about biofuel which only goes to show that the best of intentions among environmentalists and world hunger activists can have adverse environmental and social impacts. If use of corn for ethanol was an issue I would expect the vulnerable third world countries to be crying out for the US to sell them corn, but that isn't the case. The third world is attempting to curb the expansion of US production of corn. See e.g. http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/ http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/truth.pdf
If people want to solve a problem, at least decide what the problem is. What is the greater evil, too much or too little corn?
As a side note, seaweed biofuels may be a better solution to bio-fuels - or it may not. Treating the environment and problems of world hunger as questions with such a simple answer is dangerous.
The fundamental error here is a confusion about what a virtual world is and how virtual worlds relate to the real world. A virtual game world must, to be worth the name, and to be worth entering, be like our world: a world with physics and freedom of individual action. Any restraints on action of the players must arise via social organization within that world. If the characters want to create laws and build prisons, or apply peer pressure to others, fine. But for the human beings running the game to reach in and impose what amount to magical constraints from the in-world point of view, such as striking characters dead every time they commit certain actions, is deeply wrong and undermines the whole business. It's worse than playing God.
The appropriate response then, is a virtual Hague.
The right to free speech is not infinite. Especially when your speech infringes on the rights of others (try right to life of soldiers and CIA),
This woman would be subject to having her home searched and private papers viewed if she were physically in the US. Physical papers could be searched if they were in a US bank vault. The same rule applies when she stores her private papers here electronically. If you don't like a jurisdiction's policy calls on the lines drawn regarding speech and privacy - don't speak in that jurisdiction (servers located there).
Due process has been afforded and civil rights upheld. From TFA - the justice department followed the law and the use of the law was allowed to be challenged.
My clients settled for less than their entire amount (like everyone does) because of the uncertainties of trial - they couldn't prove how much money they spent from their legal award and they couldn't completely prove how much they made in their jobs. Further, my clients were minorities and the case was venued in a minority unfriendly county.
You know, much as it would happen here.
You really have to love government humility and responsibility.