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


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

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.

Comment Re:Good thing you have a choice (Score 1) 537

Why be so hostile? Why not just make your point, which was a fairly sensible one, without the swearing and insults?

How can you possibly be so offended that someone thinks mobile phones are a good thing? You can certainly disagree (I think I probably do on balance) but why take it so personally?

Comment Re:The DNC overlords always get their way (Score 1) 644

I find it quite interesting comparing the UK to the US in this respect - they are quite the opposite of eachother.

In the UK we have the Labour party (the mainstream left wing party) tearing itself apart over doctrinal and ideological disagreements (symbolised by its current leader who is fighting for his survival this evening, but running much deeper, and largely going back to the days of Tony Blair), whereas the Conservatives have had their leader, PM Cameron, resign and they have reasonably quietly and peacefully selected a new leader behind which the whole party has unified without much noticeable dissent.

Comment Re:old wisdom (Score 1) 387

In 1915 when he publish GR there was no QM. There was his explanation of the photoelectric effect, which suggested that light was absorbed in discreet quanta when being shone on a metal, and there were some early theories of wave-particle duality, but there was no proper theory that he could incorporate into his GR.

He published GR a year before Bohr publish his quantised model of the electron in the atom, and 10 years before Heisenberg and Shrodinger published their respective QM theories.

Comment Re: The Naked Truth (Score 1) 1592

I've been tracking the GBP EUR rate all day - and it is only a few percent down at the end of the day from where it was a couple of weeks ago. It was up most of this week compared to the past three month average (it pushed as high as £1 = €1.31 at one point, which is much higher than it has been all year).

It has been hovering around £1 = €1.27 for months, and today it was around £1 = €1.24. Hardly a collapse.

It is worse against the dollar, but again barely more than the sort of movement you see month to month.

Similarly, the FTSE 100 hardly collapsed as reported. It dropped around 600 points as trading opened, but by the end of the day it was only around 2-3% down, and was therefore back to the level it was at around 3 weeks ago.

Slashdot Top Deals

Yes, we will be going to OSI, Mars, and Pluto, but not necessarily in that order. -- Jeffrey Honig