1) Hyperloop runs along the entire top of Mexico wall
I know you're kidding but that's kind of a cool idea.
1) Hyperloop runs along the entire top of Mexico wall
I know you're kidding but that's kind of a cool idea.
Feeling superior are we? Yes I called you a fucking idiot because nothing gets through to you. I love how you ignored everything I said because you were so distracted and offended by that, whereas you expect people to tolerate your own arrogance and smugness.
You can't explain it because you're wrong. That's it. In the world of hypothetical money, the government could charge you $1 million for something, anything. It's hypothetical. Yet they didn't. In your world that must be a subsidy.
If not, explain how it's not.
Pro-tip: you can't, because this analogy is quite good... the LACK of a legal requirement to pay something, either insurance for nuclear damage, or something else
It would be different if you WERE required to pay something but got a special dispensation not to. That's not hypothetical money because you can point to some people having to pay it and others not paying it.
You haven't addressed a single point I've made, but you feel superior because dumb shit like "I'm not going to argue with people who cannot understand that dollars are dollars" is more polite in your world than "fucking idiot." Fucking idiot.
What would be the difference between a company paying for 12 billion dollars of insurance coverage, and one paying for 10 or 20 times that?
Do you not understand numbers or something? You don't know the difference between X and 10X and 20X?
I would like that setup for say, my house insurance. Since we bought our place, it has trebled in value, and I have had to pay more every time it gets re-assessed.
No you don't. Once you own your home, you don't have to have homeowner's insurance at all. It's only your mortgage agreement with a bank that requires you to. Oh hey you learned something new!
A better example would be car insurance since it's legally required in order to drive on public roads. But hey look what do you know, car insurance does not require you to cover a worst case scenario! In my state it's $30k for bodily injury. Now can you use a few brain cells and come up with a situation where $30k wouldn't cover the medical fees for a car accident? Hm? On the other hand you probably ARE the kind of idiot who treats that lack of required unlimited insurance as a driving subsidy.
And as it turns out, there is a federal flood insurance program that does similarly to the Nuc industry exemption from liabilit
You're really not understanding the issue are you? Flood insurance protects the person who holds the policy. If your house floods, you get a new house. If you don't have flood insurance, you don't get a new house. The end.
Now what happens if there's a nuclear disaster? The insurance isn't to protect the company's assets, it's to protect the public. Flood insurance is a terrible analogy.
But I would indeed have about 20 thousand dollars sitting around that I would have not had to pay out over time if I could have been covered in the same way the nuc plants are covered.
Hey well since hypothetical money is real to you, guess what? You're a millionaire! Because the government *could* have a 90% tax rate! And it *could* assess a 100% asset tax every year. And it *could* require everybody to have a $10 million umbrella insurance policy just in case. And it *could* reverse the tax benefit of dependents so you pay $5 million for each child you have.
Wow! You have like literally millions of dollars of hypothetical money lying around! So that means you have millions of real dollars lying around right?
I'm not going to argue with people who cannot understand that dollars are dollars
Buddy, please explain it, because I really don't understand. Why don't you have $500 million in the bank, since the government could assess various fees totaling $500 million against you? You didn't have to pay that, so it should be just lying around unused right?
Explain, I'm soooo confused! Or I would be if I was a fucking idiot like you and thought hypothetical dollars were real.
And like I said, this limitation of liability applies to nearly everyone in the modern world. Debt slavery is gone. Debts are not passed to others. So we are all being subsidized by your logic, which is illogical.
Hey a homeless guy could start a fire in a big city and cause millions of dollars of damage. And he wouldn't have to pay a dime. So the government is subsidizing homeless guys to start fires!!! That's the equivalent of your logic. It's nonsense.
If there is money that you DO have to pay, and the government allows you to not pay it, then that could be considered a subsidy. But if it's money that you DO NOT have to pay, such as a $250 billion charge for Chernobyl, then it's nonsense to call that a subsidy. It was never owed or expected to be paid.
I totally agree with you.. this should not be hard to understand.
The limitation on liabilities isn't even "money that you don't have to pay." It's money that some groups (like Energy Fair) *wish* you had to pay. Otherwise, the maximum liability would be capped at the assets of the company anyway.
I mean I guess you consider that a subsidy, so actually everybody is being subsidized due to bankruptcy laws. That doesn't seem like a useful definition. It's worthless in fact.
Whoa, what? So you reject everything I said because I said "anti-nuclear"? Did you think I just applied that label because I assume they're anti-nuclear due to their use in the article? No, here's the wikipedia page about them: "Energy Fair in the United Kingdom is a group of six people leading a campaign that claims that the nuclear power industry receives unfair subsidies"
That's just what they do. They have tried to come up with every conceivable point to use against nuclear power, whether they are rational or not.
Either it was a poor assumption on your part, or you know better in which case you're just the type of person who enjoys living in their bubble. I mean really that's shocking, anybody interested in talking about pro OR anti nuclear power should not dismiss others for saying "pro" or "anti" -- it's like a joke.
I've always assumed it's some kind of tax scam. To take another example like medical costs.. an ER might have a negotiated rate with an insurance company that is 75% lower than what they charge an uninsured individual. My question is, does that mean if the uninsured person doesn't pay, the ER gets to write off the inflated price as bad debt? So in that case, boosting the price by 4x actually results in the write-off being profitable, assuming say 35% tax. In other words, hey we get to deduct $1000 against the profits we made on patients who paid, that's worth $350 to us, rather than hey we get to deduct $250 against the profits we made, that's worth $87.50 to us. But I don't know.
I've seen that list so there's an easy example to give you.
One of the largest subsidies is the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents which the nuclear power industry has negotiated with governments. “Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured,” said Gerry Wolff, coordinator of the Energy Fair group. The group calculates that, "if nuclear operators were fully insured against the cost of nuclear disasters like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the price of nuclear electricity would rise by at least €0.14 per kWh and perhaps as much as €2.36, depending on assumptions made".
So an anti-nuclear group came up with some assumptions that make nuclear energy look bad. News at 11.
This is an example of what I'm talking about... this "subsidy" is actually not a payment to any fossil fuel producer or user.
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
1. Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Now I don't know if you know anything about taxes, but foreign tax credits are not a subsidy to fossil fuels. They are part of the tax treaties we have with many many countries. I get a foreign tax credit every year (about $2... but hey...) for withheld taxes on dividends from foreign corporations that I hold in some mutual funds.
So yes, I'm sure that if Exxon is producing oil from Canada, and must pay a royalty to the Canadian province where it's happening and also to the Canadian federal government, they get an equivalent tax credit here... that's to prevent double taxation because otherwise they'd be paying taxes on the full price of a barrel of oil, when in reality up to half of it is directly given to Canada.
That usually means they have installed (or contracted) a certain amount of wind power that equals out to the amount of electricity they use, not that they have severed their connection to the baseline generation provided by the grid.
But if oil and gas can have the huge subsidies they've gotten
What huge subsidies are you referring to? All of the articles I've seen about fossil fuel subsidies are mostly bullshit. They'll include intangibles like "not having to pay for cancer or climate change caused by coal... that's worth $89 trillion!!!" as a subsidy. Or they'll include as a subsidy the full cost of the highway system, because "that's just for gas burning cars man! that's worth trillions!!!" (I guess they'll have to give up that line now that there are viable electric cars in mass production.) Or some percentage of the defense budget because "muh middle east wars are obviously 100% for oil."
If corporate makes something clear to employees, and trains employees on it, and enforces it, and then an employee does it anyway, then corporate is only accountable to prove that the employee was trained appropriately, and then to fire the employee.
Right, so the employee gets fired. But let me note that it's not like it's required by law that the employee gets fired. That's the company's choice.
But with a contractor, corporate is accountable at all. It doesn't need to train contractors. It doesn't need to prove that contractors understood anything. It doesn't even need to fire the contractors.
I don't understand... if the contractor misbehaves, that will likely breach the contract, and the company is probably not going to enter a new agreement with that person. Why do you think nothing would happen? Wouldn't the broker lose a lot of credibility?
Brokers don't set policies, they simply decide whom to broker. Recruiting agencies don't set hiring requirements either.
They can decide whom to broker based on a set policy though. For instance it's common to have a service like a nanny finding service that does screening for you, background checks, reference checks, etc. There are 2 contracts involved... my contract with the nanny finding service, and the service's contract with nannies. But there is interaction.. my contract with the agency will definitely include things like doing criminal background checks, and that means the agency's contract with the nanny will also include that.
the key question appears to be: who controls the relationship? Under rules 1 and 2, it seems pretty clear that it's Uber, not the driver. Yes, the driver supplies the car and fuel. But that's because Uber says so.
I'm not sure how you determined that. If we look at a more clear cut case like a plumber, it seems like the same things hold. I've never been asked by a plumber to provide his tools or other supplies, and I would find it highly inappropriate and unprofessional if that came up. I don't think that makes me his employer or gives me more or less power in the relationship.
For #3 you're right, but how do you square that with concepts like subcontracting? A subcontract is obviously part of the primary business of the overall contract. If I win a contract to build a new tank, and I subcontract development of the tank engine to some other company, obviously I haven't taken over that company and "employ" them exclusively.
What company do you work for that allows unlimited unpaid leave at your discretion? Or if you're not willing to say, can you say whether it's not wholly or in part owned by you or a relative of yours?
But when you start to meddle with the individual transactions (creating uniform pricing, dictating standards for worker behavior, etc)
Sounds like what Amazon is doing with their new service options. I bought a kitchen faucet last month on Amazon and they gave me the option of adding installation. Uniform pricing, at least some standards (they claim they handpick the businesses involved, require screening, and set standards on scheduling and cancellation).
I wonder if they are considered Amazon employees? I would think not.
You could simply stop driving for Uber any time, but in an at-will state you could walk out at any time. That alone doesn't make you a contractor.
An Uber driver can stop driving at any time, and then start again at any time. That's a huge difference. I can't walk out of my job with no notice or approval and then come back in 8 weeks and say "Well that was a nice vacation!" You can't do that at any job that I know of. Full freedom of setting your own schedule is practically the definition of "being your own boss."
Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.