Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Maybe this will be modded 'troll' but... (Score 1) 152

So how about we leave the hyperbole for another occasion. Clearly, there have been no cases where a driverless car actually killed anybody, and certainly there is no evidence that people looked the other way when the cars failed to live up to promises. The fact that these cases are well documented would, in fact, tend to argue exactly the opposite.

Comment Re: Progressive Bollocks (Score 1) 448

Just as I'd expect from a fuckwit like you...barefaced lies with nothing to back it up.

Read and learn, moron:

"This brief examines corporate income-tax rates, and the argument linking low corporate tax rates with higher economic growth. The principal findings are:

- Claims that the United States corporate tax rate is uniquely burdensome to U.S. business when compared with the corporate tax rates of its industrial peers are incorrect. While the United States has one of the highest statutory corporate income-tax rates among advanced countries, the effective corporate income-tax rate (27.7 percent) is quite close to the average of rich countries (27.2 percent, weighted by GDP).

- The U.S. corporate income-tax rate is also not high by historic standards. The statutory corporate tax rate has gradually been reduced from over 50 percent in the 1950s to its current 35 percent.

- The current U.S. corporate tax rate does not appear to be impeding corporate profits. Both before-tax and after-tax corporate profits as a percentage of national income are at post World War II highs; they were 13.6 percent and 11.4 percent, respectively, in 2012.

- Lowering the corporate income-tax rate would not spur economic growth. The analysis finds no evidence that high corporate tax rates have a negative impact on economic growth (i.e., it finds no evidence that changes in either the statutory corporate tax rate or the effective marginal tax rate on capital income are correlated with economic growth)."

And yes, there's lots more out there saying the same thing. Calling you stupid just doesn't go far enough.

Comment Re:Progressive Bollocks (Score 1) 448

You seem to believe it's impossible to figure out the right level of tax for a large, international corporation like Apple to pay.

It's not.

Set it at a level comparable to what the United States charged in corporate tax through the 1950's and early 60's. It provided enough income for the various levels of government to expand infrastructure and provide educational opportunities like the GI Bill, provide a basic social safety net (including mass immunization for diseases that until recently were virtually forgotten), and more. This led directly to an economic boom that propelled the US to #1 in the world in just about every category you can name. The entire country, including corporations, continue to rely on the now-crumbling infrastructure built during that extraordinary time.

Over the years, however, corporations have exercised their power over US federal, state and local government to steadily cut back the percentage of actual income paid in taxes. They also became expert at externalizing their expenses. Why run a clean operation when you can persuade a corrupt state government to let you pump industrial waste straight into any convenient lake, river or ocean? Why install scrubbers when it's cheaper to just build a higher smoke stack? Meanwhile, average people have had to shoulder more and more of the tax burden even as those same corporations mercilessly hammer them with stagnant wages, deteriorating working conditions, and predatory business practices.

So just go back to that same corporate tax rate and make it a model for other countries as well. Corporations did very well under those conditions, and a flourishing middle class provided a decent market for their goods.

Comment This is actually simple (Score 2) 281

This is basic "social contract" stuff. Your part of the contract is that you expose your children to the very small risk that they will have an unfavourable reaction to being vaccinated. In return, you get to participate in all the things society provides: schooling, day care, playgrounds, theatres, etc.

I would never dream of forcing parents to vaccinate their children. But if that's their choice, they shouldn't get all the good stuff that goes along with fulfilling their part of the social contract, either.

In fact, I'd even go a step further. If it could be proved that somebody who had no choice about being vaccinated suffered because they were exposed directly or indirectly to a child whose parents chose not to vaccinate, those parents should be held legally responsible.

Slashdot Top Deals

If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.