or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by e_veritas

  No one here is debating the fact that taxing 'corporations' is effectively the same as taxing 'individuals'. What is being debated is who these 'individuals' are. Several here are trying to suggest that increased taxes will only be paid by consumers, when in reality, they are paid by the profit takers.    The fact remains that corporations benefit immensely from government services. They benefit from government provided infrastructure to deliver their products. They...
  Someone needs to put the Koch Kool-aid down. Let's say I have a lemonade stand that makes $100, and I am taxed at an effective rate of 20%; thereby paying $20 to Uncle Sam and keeping $80 for myself. Now let's take that same scenario, but increase the effective rate to 35%. According to you, for me to make my same $80, I would need to raise my prices in a manner that would have me make $123 in profit. But this is where you argument falls apart!   If it was possible for...
  Corporate taxes have nothing to do with the prices of goods and services. They are a liability that take place 'after the fact' and much farther downstream from operating expenses.
  Maybe I should have phrased my comment a little better. My main contention was with the notion that increased taxes will raise prices of products and services at the cash register. 
  Unfortunately, this is not an accurate statement. Taxes are derived from profit, and have nothing to do with the process of delivering products and services. Taxes are a cost associated with making a return on your business, not doing business as you are trying to imply.
  Corporations price their products and services at a point where profit will be maximized, regardless of the tax rate. Raise your price higher, you sell less; lower your price, you sell more. Somewhere in the mix is the optimal price to obtain the highest gross profit. Taxes play no role in this dynamic equation, as it is an expense that comes into play much further downstream.   If companies could increase prices to make more profit, they would have already done so....
  There certainly would have been a licensing agreement as Google was paying Apple for the privilege of being the default mapping provider. As I understand it, Apple did not want to broker a deal based upon the conditions given by Google. We simply don't know what those conditions were. The disagreement could have been as simple as Apple not wanting to include the name 'Google' anywhere in their application, or Apple wanting more money for including Google mapping services.
          Ummm...you guys do realize that the old versions of iOS Maps were written by Apple....right?!? Google only provided the data that was driving the application (graphics, POI, etc). It was up to Apple to update the mapping application and take advantage of the latest SDK features.
  So you're in a position with an app that has exposure to millions of users, and instead of simply adding an ad to generate significant revenue, you're going to try to scam with nothing more than a name, zip code, and email address. Maybe a Nigerian 419 email scam? Who knew it was so easy to get an app with millions of downloads! /s   You do know they sell the exact same information on bulk marketing lists for a few hundred buck,right??? Talk about a brilliant plan.... /s
  Sounds like you need to pay a little more attention to your receipts from credit card transactions at those stores! Your name is automatically included in any transaction, and with the exception of a very few states that have banned it, most ask for your zip code for authorization. Try to go to any gas pump and get out of there without your name and zip code being revealed....never going to happen.   The email address however is a little disconcerting. I do understand...
New Posts  All Forums: