871–880 of 991 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So on the $200,000 it’s reasonable to you that they have to pay $120,000 ($80k income+$40k business) in taxes?
Two people earning $100k each would pay $28k income taxes each, totaling $56k. Where did this $80k come from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just pledge copyright of contributions to eff or something.
Work-for-hire open source contributions often already bear a copyright holder of the entity paying for the work. The problem isn't who is the copyright holder. The problem is that the license assigned says that anyone is free to use the code. Anyone is a set of people that includes the contributor, which then triggers the interpretation that the research is incrementally in the contributor's benefit and thus disquali…
Should every other member of that set, i.e. everyone minus contributor, also amortize their software development expenses because they have a hypothetical, non-exercised right to use some (i.e. all) open-source "R&D" software... somewhere? Or should the tax liability be invoked starting on the date of first use of any open-source code?
If some code is upstreamed to Linux kernel or userspace, should this obligate every Linux distro consumer to amortize their Linux software development expenses?
There must be _some_ legal boundary for dispersal of the tax obligation with respect to open-source code, since it self-evidently cannot be intended to apply to the entire universe of businesses and union of all OSS development. If necessary, a court case can establish this distinction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In addition to the research costs, I'd also have to pay taxes on the research costs mostly up-front. Significantly, if the project doesn't work out, I'm still out of pocket for the tax money. That’s how it works for every business! If Jim Bean builds a distillation facility it has to amortize the investment in that over time. If the distillation facility doesn’t pan out, then it doesn’t get a refund for the taxes p…
It doesn’t matter. Jim Bean doesn’t compete with an R&D software company. The R&D software company does compete with other companies in different jurisdictions with better regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think quality of governance is a major reason, yes. When my parents immigrated to this country, they moved to a deep red state (Virginia) instead of the deep blue state next door (Maryland). Why? A focus on good schools, low crime, and low taxes, instead of a focus on economic redistribution.
I may have misunderstood, when you said internal migration in the earlier comment I assumed that was referring to people moving from one state to another rather than immigrating from another country. > A focus on good schools, low crime, and low taxes, instead of a focus on economic redistribution. That's also interesting. I wouldn't have rolled that up to quality of governance, but I could see why you would. To me t…
I was just giving an example—people moving within the U.S. make the same choice. When I was growing up, Virginia was like Florida is today: a red state with a booming economy, low taxes, and a good business climate. Why did AOL start in the farmland of Loudon County instead of the farmland of eastern PG County (which is closer to DC)?
> That's also interesting. I wouldn't have rolled that up to quality of governance, but I could see why you would.
It’s a cultural trait that strongly affects governance. The government can focus its energies on making things better for middle class people and businesses, as Virginia long did, or it can focus on poor people and minorities, as Maryland long did. And the resulting differences in governance are quite apparent. Virginia has better schools, ore employment, and has grown faster than Maryland over the last 50 years.
So it’s a tax break for tech companies and the problem is that Trump got rid of the tax break?
What happened to making companies “pay their fair share”?
I have such cognitive dissonance, I am constantly hearing about how Trump is evil because he wants to give tax breaks to companies. Now the problem is that he’s NOT giving tax breaks.
It’s almost like no matter what Trump does the news will cover it negatively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it your opinion that the only factor relevant for those deciding what state to move to is quality of government? I'm surprised that things like the job market wouldn't come into play, for example.
I think quality of governance is a major reason, yes. When my parents immigrated to this country, they moved to a deep red state (Virginia) instead of the deep blue state next door (Maryland). Why? A focus on good schools, low crime, and low taxes, instead of a focus on economic redistribution.
Maryland is a deep-blue state. Virginia is about as red as Pennsylvania.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't actually matter that much who actually writes the check to the government (although in the US, both parties pay taxes). Either way, the total cost of employment is higher for the employer than the after-tax income of the employee.
It matters alot. Both the employee and employer are benefitting from government spending, the employee shouldnt have to foot the whole bill. That is dytopian If corporations were able to operate in a high trust fashion and actually take responsinility for their tax burden properly, instead of trying to shirk it, then this policing wouldnt be needed, but we dont live in that world
Now, there are other tax schemes that aren't based on how much an employee is paid, but that is a completely different matter.
And FWIW sales/vat tax is somewhat similar. It doesn't matter if the buyer or the seller pays the tax, either has the same effect on the total amount paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That self-selection left Republicans not a competitive amount of credibility or voter pool behind to work with. So by your logic New York is a better governed state than Florida? Net internal migration would seem to disagree.
... because nobody moves to Florida for (what they perceive of) the weather, right? Especially not retirees tired of the idea of one more winter in NY.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is a misrepresentation of the fundamental progressive position, which is to make progress but never at the cost of the marginalized. Because we historically make most progress at the cost of the marginalized it can feel limiting or even discriminatory when we make sure they don’t beat the brunt of continued progress. There is nothing against the group you mention except that it might be the group that mo…
> I think that is a misrepresentation of the fundamental progressive position, which is to make progress but never at the cost of the marginalized. That just means that the marginalized become an anchor preventing progress. We can’t have nice things until we solve the problems of the bottom quantile—which we never will. If progressives had been in charge, America and everything it created wouldn’t exist. They never w…
Was the end of slavery a progressive or regressive move?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The evidence is that independent commissions drawing maps makes for more competitive districts. Which party is most opposed to such commissions? Which party is gleefully dismantling all accountability and oversight positions and departments? Which party is openly inviting corruption and pardoning those they should be prosecuting?
I wonder why one party would be seeking to change a civil service that’s 90% staffed by members of the other party? I guess “democracy” means Democrats running the country no matter who wins the election, right?