Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Tax? (Score 1) 164

by ScentCone (#47921321) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

Yes but at a lower rate. Investment income is taxed lower than standard wages.

Right. Usually, that's because:

1) We want people to risk their money making investments to start and grow businesses. That creates economic activity, which is taxed.

2) If the person risking their money on such an investment loses it (as most do - most new businesses fail), they do NOT get to write that loss off on their own income taxes. It's just gone, goodbye. 3) The lower rates only apply if you let the investment site for a good long time. Those who throw money in and yank it back up pay a much higher rate.

businesses and the people who profit from them

Employees ARE people who profit from a business. In fact employees account for the vast majority of the outbound cash that most businesses spend. And its taxed at normal payroll rates. And the taxes levied on the money those people are getting out of the company are a big part of what pays for the public infrastructure that they (as the people who are making money daily in the business) use. Why do you think that city, county, state, and federal programs to encourage business presence and growth aren't hesitant to wave, for some period of time, taxes charged directly to the business? It's because the net result of establishing that business in place and keeping it there is MUCH MORE TAX REVENUE - from all of the other activity and employment that results.

Comment: Re:Tax? (Score 1) 164

by ScentCone (#47920657) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

Companies use infrastructure to deliver goods to their customers ... Companies benefit from local education systems to provide knowledgable people (arguably).

But the company doesn't do anything with the money except spend it on growing the company, or in compensation to employees and investors. When those investors or employees take money home from the company, it's taxed. And if those same people take that already taxed money and invest it that or another company, and it makes money, they get taxed again.

The company doesn't benefit from services and education, etc., the people WHO TAKE HOME THE MONEY do (at which point it's taxed). They other group that benefits are company's customers, who spend money (on which they've already paid other taxes) to buy goods or services from that company. And that means nothing until, again, somebody takes it home as pay (taxed) or dividends (taxed) or cashed out stocks (taxed).

The company's actual profits shouldn't be taxed because all that money does is sit there until somebody either spends it on the company as reinvestment (which isn't taxed anyway), or it gets turned over to somebody designated to receive it - at which point it IS taxed as income.

Comment: Re:Not the only strategy (Score 4, Insightful) 164

by ScentCone (#47920477) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

It's a race to the bottom, my friend. You don't out-compete countries with less than a few million inhabitants and no significant social programs.

You mean, like Canada? It has a 26% rate, compared the US's 40% rate. Yeah, third-world hell holes like Canada always whore around with those low numbers, right?

Comment: Not the only strategy (Score 4, Insightful) 164

by ScentCone (#47920055) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance
There are other ways to generate more tax revenue from business operations in the US: quit making elsewhere so much more attractive. The US has the second highest effective business tax burden in the world (second only to the United Arab Emerates, which mostly taxes foreign oil operations). Gee, I wonder why businesses born in the US look to mitigate that in whatever ways the law allows. If the law no longer allows it, there will simply be more companies actually moving, entirely, to places with a lower burden. Then the government will still miss the revenue, and they'll miss all the tax revenue they're already getting on the income taxes levied on and other economic activity generated by all of the company's current domestic employees, partners, vendors, service providers, etc.

Comment: A hundred times less? (Score 1) 64

by ScentCone (#47914447) Attached to: A 16-Year-Old Builds a Device To Convert Breath Into Speech
Grrr.

Sure if thing A is inexpensive, then thing B which costs a fraction of that price might indeed be said to cost X times less. Implying that thing A is already less than some other option, and thing B is even MORE less.

But if thing A is very expensive (as in the example cited in TFA), thing B would be better described as being not a hundred times less ... but one hundredth the cost.

Comment: Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score 1) 401

by DigiShaman (#47909663) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Back when worked at Time Warner, we never charged for a truck roll that I'm aware of. Not unless you did something stupid like cut the main line to the house with a garden tool, or you request an additional outlet to be installed in the wall.

While I don' know, I'm pretty sure they're no fee in swapping the box out in person if the TSR agent states it's ok to do based on a technical issue. But for a truck to drive a box and install it to your home, yes, I can understand the delivery and setup charge. Now if a squirrel chewed through an overhead coax line, well that's their problem, not the subscriber's.

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 1) 401

by DigiShaman (#47909325) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Since when does the Executive and Legislative branch give a damn about your constitutional rights?! Half of SCOTUS plays with it like jujitsu; bending and contorting its meaning to service some living-breating "modern times meaning" BS.

1rst amendment? You wacko! Don't have such thoughts.

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 1) 401

by DigiShaman (#47909293) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Sure, agreed. But there is a major difference. Once is screwing you over on how you would like to use the connection you paid for. The other does it for political reasons, and at the behest of their corporate masters.

Democracy?? Please, we have a plutocracy now. One poison is worst than the other.

Comment: Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score 1) 863

by DoofusOfDeath (#47909013) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

I think you may be missing my point. Let me illustrate with a scenario:

Doctor: I think you have long cancer.
You: That's an extraordinary claim, I want proof.
Doctor: Sorry, you're not my patient. I don't have time to talk.

Do you ignore what he said because he made an extraordinary claim and wouldn't meet some particular burden of proof?

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 0, Troll) 401

by DigiShaman (#47907737) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Into the frying pan, into the fire. You really want the Internet to be a "utility". Oh, that sounds all nice until Big Government starts regulating all sorts of shit. The first to go will be anonymous activity under the guise of "homeland security". In reality, to stifle political free speech and may *you* fear pissing off the opposition.

Be damn careful what you wish for. Be DAMN CAREFUL!!!!

Comment: Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score 5, Funny) 401

by DigiShaman (#47907687) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

I'm sure they'll come up with some BS term. Something like "Active services suspension" Yeah, that's it!

"Sir, we've placed a hold on your active account. You're still a valuable customer, and will be billed as such, but your connection has been disconnected" We will re-enable the connection when you agree and signed a form stating you will stop using Tor. Good day"

Brilliant. I make for such an evil villain!

"Once they go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department." -- Werner von Braun

Working...