Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Well duh. (Score 3, Insightful) 115

The reason is that an anti-particle is a particle with opposite charge (both electric and colour) compare to its partner. So an anti-electron has opposite charge to a normal electron, and an anti-quark has opposite colour-charge and electric charge to a normal quark.

A photon does not have any charge, so an anti-photon would have identical properties to a normal photon - they would be identical, and so it makes no sense to talk about them as being different entities.

Comment Re:Seize it! (Score 1) 302

The great majority would do what people always do when given shares - they would immediately sell them to the highest bidder. Once the shares were on the secondary market it would not take long for a majority owner to emerge again.

The net overall effect would be no change in the ownership breakdown (i.e. a small group of big investors would still be in control) but each share would just be worth less.

Comment Re:I love the UK ... (Score 1) 135

That purpose is served by general elections. The Lib Dems went against many of their campaign promises after the 2010 GE, and look at them now after the 2015 GE, they are dead, only 8 MPs.

Like with most of these things, the problem isn't a moral failing with the politicians - they're just part of a system playing out their role. The problem is the lack of engagement from the electorate. If the politicians really thought that the electorate would punish them for their actions they wouldn't behave the way they do, but as it is they know that whatever betrayal we are talking about this week the electorate will have forgotten about it next month, let alone by the time of the next GE.

By the way, your plan of a 'no faith' option for the public would be disastrous - it would force politicians to constantly be trying to do everything they could to buy good will from the electorate - constant give aways, tax cuts, extra spending, etc. anything they could do win support at any cost. They wouldn't be able to focus on good governing because they would be overwhelmed with keeping their support above a certain level, while their opponents' only job would be getting it below that level.

Government would come to a halt, and it would be a perpetual election campaign.

Comment Re:Huh who knew? (Score 1) 609

Parliament is not the government, no. The government is the executive, formed out of members of that party who have the most seats in parliament (or more technically correct, that group of MPs who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, which is almost always the party who have the majority of seats).

Parliament passes and approves legislation, but does not perform any executive functions.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 143

Correct. There is no concept of Class Action here in UK law. As HP Hal says, this is a ruling against Uber as a whole (although they have immediately appealed, so let's wait and see).

The interesting aspect is what happens to other similar businesses - Deliveroo is a similar large 'gig-economy' company here in Britain, so how will they react?

Comment Re:Crap? (Score 1) 410

Hello Ken,

It is a fair point. But keep in mind that you have imposed the condition that only the shareholder pay taxes, whereas this is not the case.

My first post made the point that if you increase corp tax, then it is various groups of people who, one way or another, have to pay for it.

It seems to me that the reverse if also true - if you reduce (or eliminate) corp tax, then those same groups of people, in some combination, would receive more money. These people would therefore pay more tax on the money they receive.

If we are talking about the case of a multinational then these people would be all over the world - workers who receive a bit more pay, and so pay more income tax; shareholders who receive more dividends; etc.

(I accept that lower prices doesn't lead to more tax revenue, but it is none the less an economic good for the consumer).

In answer to your strict question - if only shareholders paid the tax on the profits a company made, then those taxes would be paid to multiple countries, depending on where those shareholders were resident, at the particular different rates of those countries.

But, like I say above, the idea of shareholders only paying the taxes is neither a necessary nor useful nor a realistic condition. Companies are just group of people through which money flows - shareholders are just one of those groups.

Thank you btw for raising the point about companies multi-nationality vs an individual's locality - I hadn't thought about it that way and it does add a new dimension to my point.

Comment Re:Crap? (Score 4, Insightful) 410

It's all just taxes on people in the end. Corporations aren't real things, they're abstract - they're just groups of people organised together to do a task.

Corporation taxes are paid as a proportion of profits (incomes minus costs) - if they go up then there are less profits, which someone has to pay for: generally it will be paid for by some combination of:

- Workers, through lower wages
- Shareholders, through lower dividends (and by association, lower stock prices)
- Consumers, through higher prices
- Less investment in the business, and hence the productivity of the staff, since the lower profits lead to lower retained earnings

It may be that you are happy with at least one of these groups paying more (I would guess most are happy with shareholders paying more) but my point is that a corporation doesn't pay anything because it doesn't exist, only people exist and only they pay.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser." -- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"