tertius

How so?

Another one, not quite 51% this time.

My exact setup. Using Gaia for maps.

Hence the need for reform.

Probably better to try and reform the law instead of suggest children break the law and ruin their lives.

> In a healthy economy the profits of corporations are spent on more facilities, more suppliers, more employees, who all in turn spend their profits on the same.

Only if those investments will create more profit. If capital cannot be allocated effectively (i.e. a company that returns $1 for every extra dollar invested above current ability) then the profit should be returned to the shareholders.

> We have corporations that lose money every single day of their entire existence, but manage to drive their share prices by tax scams, accounting fraud, government subsidies, and share buybacks financed with debt the would not be available to them but for the existence of the scams, frauds, and government subsidies.

Sure there are companies like this.

> at the expense of a tax base they do not participate in so should logically be shut out of.

I mean, you shouldn't pay taxes if you lose money... Shareholders/employees still pay taxes here.

> When a corporation uses that money to buy back shares the money is effectively destroyed by being circulated among a financial class that has (mostly) bribed their way out of the tax system.

Say we have 100 shares of a company. The company makes $100 per year. Each of those shares own $1 per year of the company. If they company pays $50 to buy back 50 shares then each of the remaining shares owns $2 of that $100. I mean, the market still decides what the stocks are worth, but eventually most if not all stocks get valued fairly. How is the money being destroyed?

Again, if the company cannot invest the money profitably to make more money, it should return it to the owners of the company. Are you against private ownership?

> Hence, any money used for share buybacks should logically be treated as net income for the company in question's next filing.

Why?

Profits, if not able to be reallocated for more profit should be return to shareholders.

Taxes should be taken into account in calculating where the best ROI would be here. Obviously it changes when you would return profit to shareholders.

On #2: Buying back shares does not create individual income. It only creates temporary unrealized gains. Only if those individual shareholders sell, do they realize the gains and, in some cases, will they be taxed on it at income tax rates.

Yes, but increased profits (by running profitably) also increases returns for the shareholders... A good thing.

Nope, the tax is paid on the profit (i.e. post consumer).

Expound on how you may take advantage of it.

Libertarianism thrives here and in most successful Silicon Valley.

Yes, but not for reason of age alone.

Creditworthiness is judged based on history, not on age or race etc. I.e. egalitarianism.

If your history is bad, lower limit etc.

"Now go and sin no more."

Trolling isn't helpful to discussion about this topic.

Yes. There are many successful arrests of people who would face the death penalty if convicted without them being killed.

The number of police killings are a very small number. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares about the truth.

And I'm strongly against police brutality.

But you don't solve that by being ignorant about what actually happened in reality.

> Yet it's simply too dangerous for any society to have the death penalty, even for these heinous crimes.

Why? Tyranny? (As per the rest of your note).

Hyperbole won't solve the issue you see.

Live in prison and living with knowing that society seems you a deviant vs death.

We shouldn't tolerate either if innocent.

Or generate new keys and then you're golden.

Ubiquiti.

Instead of looking at tax rates, look at how much the government actually collected as a % of GDP. It's fairly flat.

> Why not?

Because money is finite? Not every research grant gets funded. So let's start with the most promising ones?

Funding vaccines that are not meeting standards should be dropped so that standards can be met. These companies don't need money for R&D, they have enough and can recoup it if they create a product that the market wants.

Source?

Ending a contract would encourage them to do more R&D for more future contracts.

Don't subsidize drugs/vaccines that don't work.

There are 100+ vaccines being worked on. We're fine.

Who controls the machines? Those people are a-holes too.

The courts can discover intent. It cannot determine it independently.

Because corporation didn't deliver on promises. Trust was broken and their attempts at fixing said trust is meaningless given what they've already done to break said trust.

Ah yes, it was so much better before...

Tesla is not a payment processor. Nor is it in the business of profiting off of crypto as a fundamental change in it's business model.

I'm replying to a comment saying they should use their cash reserve to buy bitcoin instead of dividends/buybacks.

And yes, they can sell it and have some level of "float" to support crypto buy/sell exchange. But the comment was a hodl comment to "make them more money."