Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Tell that to illegal aliens voting in US elections (Score 1) 454

If it was required to prove ID, residency, and citizenship when registering to vote then I would agree that voter ID at the polling place is probably not required as that kind of "My name is Bob Smith but I'm going to pretend to be Bill Jones so I can steal his vote" voter fraud is probably non-existent. Just sign your name and if the data on the form and the signature matches the registration, then off you go to the booth.

But in most places registering does not require any of the above. If it did, the Democrats would be screaming about disenfranchisement at the time of registration--how dare we require someone to prove that they a) are alive and who they say they are via approved photo ID, b) actually reside in the district in which they are voting, and c) are actually US citizens? In some places, you can register and vote on the same day.

If nothing else, can we agree that voting in US elections should be reserved to US citizens? If not, let's just send a ballot to every person on the planet and let them vote for US Congress and President. And if so, can we come up with some way to ensure that only US citizens vote that Democrats will not complain about?

Comment Clickbait titles (Score 1) 210

"participants who used wearable devices reported an average weight loss of 7.7 pounds, compared to the 13 pounds lost by those who didn't use the devices and only used health counseling"


Both A (fitbit) and B (counseling) are better than doing nothing (as well as many other alternatives), but A is somewhat less effective than B on average.

Now if people with a fitbit had gained 7.7 pounds...

Comment Re:Businesses don't pay taxes (Score 1) 45

First of all, some 2/3s of US corps. don't owe any taxes in any given year, since they aren't profitable enough to have positive tax rate.

But the OP is probably talking about the elasticity of corporate taxes means that by and large, individuals pay the taxes be they shareholders, employees, or consumers.

The CBO produced a report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX" in which it states

"A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."

And it goes on to say

"Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO's review of the studies yields the following conclusions:

o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.

o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.

o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of the corporate tax falls on capital in general.

o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different countries can be substituted.

o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.

Comment Re:service (Score 1) 97

"Capitalism in the US requires silencing dissent and anti-free speech when it comes to a sport player sitting for the national anthem"

Not sure how the former implies the later or even what connection there may be between capitalism and protesting using the national anthem.

As for the "requires silencing..." I think you'd be hard to pressed to find anyone who thinks the athletes should be deprived of their free speech rights or not be allowed to express their dissenting opinion. What you will find are lot of people who are offended by the actions of the athletes, primarily along the lines of "there's a time and a place" and who think that protesting against cops by disrespecting the flag and anthem during a 9/11 ceremony is just beyond the pale. Also a large number of people who feel that the athletes protests are largely nothing more than hypocritical attention-getting antics (i.e., coddled multi-millionaires paid to play a game, worshiped for their athletic prowess all their lives complaining about oppression?).

Perhaps there is a capitalistic connection, because a lot of people are now boycotting the NFL for their actions for allowing its employees to execute this protest on "company time" effectively supporting the protesters while at the same time fining athletes who wore commemorative gear (e.g., shoes with 9/11 painted on them).

Comment Re:Um.. what? (Score 1) 459

Here's the story: A bunch of right wing think tanks were campaigning for Republican politicians and calling themselves charities. They weren't even trying to hide it. The IRS went after them because hey, low hanging fruit. That didn't change a damn thing about how illegal their actions were. There's a reason it's illegal to pretend to be a charity. A good one. And you're being disingenuous (read: lying through your teeth) when you suggest otherwise.


May 18, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET
Barack Obama owes his presidency in no small part to the power of rhetoric. It's too bad he doesn't appreciate the damage that loose talk can do to America's tax system, even as exploding federal deficits make revenues more important than ever.

At his Arizona State University commencement speech last Wednesday, Mr. Obama noted that ASU had refused to grant him an honorary degree, citing his lack of experience, and the controversy this had caused. He then demonstrated ASU's point by remarking, "I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS."

Just a joke about the power of the presidency. Made by Jay Leno it might have been funny. But as told by Mr. Obama, the actual president of the United States, it's hard to see the humor. Surely he's aware that other presidents, most notably Richard Nixon, have abused the power of the Internal Revenue Service to harass their political opponents. But that abuse generated a powerful backlash and with good reason. Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system.


Fast forward to 2012 when Lois Lerner and her minions sought out politically disfavored groups for targeting. And of course lots of potential evidence magically disappeared right after Congressional subpoena.

You also characterize the targeted groups incorrectly, perhaps in an attempt to paint them as somehow more worthy of your contempt.

The groups in question were not presenting themselves as "charities". Under point of law, they presented themselves as 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations. Such organizations are not charities, and donations to them are not deductible. Organizations like Greenpeace and Obama's own Organizing for Action (to promote President Obama's legislative priorities) are 501(c)(4) organizations. Such organizations cannot donate to campaigns, but are free to pursue issue-based initiatives, which may align with or be opposed to positions taken by one or more politicians or candidates and thus by indirect extension "support" or "oppose" candidates.

As previously stated, and much like the Clinton email server scandal, the Obama Justice Department investigated the Obama IRS and chose to file no charges.

The lack of transparency, destruction of evidence, and self-serving denial goes a long way in Obama's administration.

I hate to think what putting the IRS and Justice Department in either Hillary's or Donald's hands would look like. Make Obama look like a piker.

Comment Oh, you assume I'm pro-Trump? (Score 1) 459

Just because I state an opinion that is anti-Hillary?

What I find very interesting is how George Bush who was, by all Democratic opinion, an idiot barely capable of remembering to breath was able to trick Hillary, Kerry, to vote for his war.

Similarly, how is it that Trump--by far the worst Republican candidate in memory--barely trails "the most qualified candidate ever" (really? more qualified than George Washington?) and even leads her in some polls?

This election is truly the giant douche vs the turd sandwich.

Alas, Gary Johnson has been sounding like Bernie Sanders and Bill Weld channeled his inner Michael Bloomberg on a gun-control chant. And Jill Stein? Seriously?

So not only giant douch and turd sandwich, but sides of dog vomit and cat hairballs.

Comment Re:What's the price of your integrity? (Score 1) 338

It's not just about lowering costs. It's about lowering costs by abusing a system, the H1B, that is specifically designed so as to not be about lowering costs but filling holes where there are too few workers. This situation does not track with the purpose of the H1B, so it is an abuse of the H1B process and should be stopped under the H1B rules. If you don't like the H1B rules, get them changed.

Don' t fire a bunch of employees after making them train their imported replacements, in violation of the visa clause...

The employer must attest, and may need to furnish documentation upon rest, to show that the non-immigrant workers on behalf of whom the application is being made will be paid at or above both these numbers:

The actual wage: This is the wage paid to other employees in the company who do the same work.
The prevailing wage: This is the wage for that occupation in the geographical area.
The employer must make similar attestation regarding non-wage benefits offered.

Bringing in workers under H1B to replace existing workers at lower cost violates the clause.

Comment Ability to prosecute? (Score 1) 459

You can take a losing case to trial and prosecute. Juries acquit all the time.

In this case, the reality seems to be more of choosing to not prosecute just to avoid the political outrage that would accompany the proceedings. A more cynical would say it was a decision based on partisan criteria--Obama and Lynch fixed it for Hillary when anyone else would be on trial for mishandling classified information, for destroying evidence (even after subpoena), and any number of other things.

Slashdot Top Deals

Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings