Comment On AAC Front Page Article: Underwater Data Center

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
I've received good junk mail from companies that I've purchased stuff from.
So even though literally every piece of junk mail received by anyone in your condo complex goes straight into that one wastebasket, somehow not even all of the junk mail that YOU receive ends up there.

Interesting.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
So even though literally every piece of junk mail received by anyone in your condo complex goes straight into that one wastebasket, somehow not even all of the junk mail that YOU receive ends up there.

Interesting.
Actually, I screen my junk mail and 99% of it has NOT come from any business I've ever dealt with before.

On your comment that you found it "creepy" that I checked a public wastebasket that's wide open and conveniently placed right underneath the mail boxes. I've been trying to organize a formal campaign to get rid of junk mailers and having the trash bin right there in plain sight gives me the opportunity to get a statistical idea of what other people are doing with junk mail.

It's a simple case of conducting an urban science experiment and it's not like I'm peering into someone's bathroom window to check how many times people wipe.
 
Last edited:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
Actually, I screen my junk mail and 99% of it has NOT come from anyone I've dealt with before.
Doesn't change the fact that you've made two claims that are incompatible -- (1) literally every piece of junk mail ends up in that wastebasket (a claim that you've doubled-down on), and (2) not all of your junk mail ends up in that wastebasket.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
Doesn't change the fact that you've made two claims that are incompatible -- (1) literally every piece of junk mail ends up in that wastebasket (a claim that you've doubled-down on), and (2) not all of your junk mail ends up in that wastebasket.
Yes, there are some incompatibilities, but the fact remains that junk mail is a nuisance to most of its recipients and nothing but a shot gun approach to advertising.

By the way, people have also installed pop up blocking and that seems to have gotten rid of a lot of unwanted on line ads. It's an example of people "Voting with their feet" and telling the ad industry to take a hike. If the government would stop advertising on billboards, a lot of them would be bulldozed from the landscape in a jiffy.
 

Alec_t

Joined Sep 17, 2013
14,280
but the actual data flow itself is not a physical entity that can be regulated.
I don't see why not. The ISPs know exactly how much data is being sent/received, to the nearest byte probably. Cellphone network providers already charge by the megabyte for data access (unless you are on an 'unlimited data' contract).
 

Sinus23

Joined Sep 7, 2013
248
Some junk mail works even though they end up straight in the trash. There is a pamphlet that we deliver every Thursday for a store that is kind of like home depot and they insist that we deliver it before noon since then they see a surge of costumers on the same day. Otherwise it moves on to Friday which is already a busy day and that just causes long lines overcrowded parking lots and an overall unpleasant experience...

They have been doing this for more than 15 years and if it wouldn't work they would have abandoned that tactic a long time ago.

What I meant by that it works even though it goes straight to the trash is that every one in the country knows what that store is about so they don't really need to know whats in that pamphlet. It's just a reminder that on Thursdays there are discounts and new stocks. Plus to nudge your memory that you needed to by a new laundry basket or a bed sheet.

Plus that you really just need a handful of people to read the offers since the word of mouth travels.

Another marketing strategy that works here is what Domino's does and that is having one week a month were all their's pizza's on the menu is 50% off. This happens always on the 3rd week of the month but most people don't realize that since what do they care about the cycle of Domino's?;) Which means that they send out pamphlets at the beginning of that week and advertisements on bus stops just to remind people. It doesn't matter if it ends straight in the trash since people know what they are selling with just a millisecond glance.

And it works. During that week they get more business than the rest of the month combined.

Ikea, Bauhaus...The list goes on. They all have a similar marketing strategy where it doesn't matter if most of the people just throw their pamphlets straight away. It still works as a reminder.

The junk mail that doesn't work that well is the unknown company that really needs the residents to actually read their pamphlet. They are going to need to spend money and time until it becomes general knowledge. Most of the time they can't afford that luxury...

That was just a small mailman rant. Carry on:cool:
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
I don't see why not. The ISPs know exactly how much data is being sent/received, to the nearest byte probably. Cellphone network providers already charge by the megabyte for data access (unless you are on an 'unlimited data' contract).
ISPs charge by the byte, but I have a problem with the government taxing internet service by a parameter that doesn't relate to the financial/market value of the product.

My internet costs a flat $50/month and I can use conventional email or Skype to get around using phone service which is taxed at the local, state, and federal level. So is the government now going to try to tax everyone for finding a way to get around a service that is taxed? It's market manipulation and a rigged game.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
While I opposed taxing the internet, on what basis do you claim that the amount of traffic carried doesn't relate to the market value of the product? Which has more value to you (all other things being equal), a service that offers you 1 GB of data or one that offers you 10 GB of data? One that offers you 10 GB of data of one that offers you unlimited data?

The most likely tax that would be imposed would be a combination of flat fees plus a percentage of what is charged to customers, just like what is done on most phone bills now.

The most honest way to tax, in my opinion, is for every dollar that comes into a company to eventually make it to a single individual's income. Then that individual pays a set fraction of that income to their local, county, state, and federal government (preferably by writing a check for the full amount so that they see the full amount). If you want to have a progressive scale for the fraction, fine. Personally, I'd like to see a flat base amount plus a percentage, but that won't ever fly. An alternative is to do away with all forms of internal taxation except retail sales taxes. External taxes, such as tariffs, are a separate issue.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
While I opposed taxing the internet, on what basis do you claim that the amount of traffic carried doesn't relate to the market value of the product? Which has more value to you (all other things being equal), a service that offers you 1 GB of data or one that offers you 10 GB of data? One that offers you 10 GB of data of one that offers you unlimited data?

The most likely tax that would be imposed would be a combination of flat fees plus a percentage of what is charged to customers, just like what is done on most phone bills now.

The most honest way to tax, in my opinion, is for every dollar that comes into a company to eventually make it to a single individual's income. Then that individual pays a set fraction of that income to their local, county, state, and federal government (preferably by writing a check for the full amount so that they see the full amount). If you want to have a progressive scale for the fraction, fine. Personally, I'd like to see a flat base amount plus a percentage, but that won't ever fly. An alternative is to do away with all forms of internal taxation except retail sales taxes. External taxes, such as tariffs, are a separate issue.
The "Market Value" I refer to is an economic construct called "Ad Volerum" ("according to value") which is used by the government to determine the taxable value of an actual product, service, or property -not the amount of data used in a transaction.

For example, many products are purchased on line and some states propose taxing on line transactions the same as store bought. However, taxation of an on line purchase should not be based on the number of bytes used to expedite the purchase.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
The "Market Value" I refer to is an economic construct called "Ad Volerum" ("according to value") which is used by the government to determine the taxable value of an actual product, service, or property -not the amount of data used in a transaction.

For example, many products are purchased on line and some states propose taxing on line transactions the same as store bought. However, taxation of an on line purchase should not be based on the number of bytes used to expedite the purchase.
Two different taxes. When you call someone on the phone and order a pizza you pay one tax for the item pizza and another tax for the phone service used to place the order. It's the same thing they are proposing here -- the per-byte tax is a tax on the service of providing data connectivity and not on the what that data represents. They want to tax that separately. In most states, in fact, you are already violating the law whenever you buy something from out of state (or even out of county/city) and fail to pay sales tax on it. Heck, for that matter you are usually violating the law if you buy something from your neighbor and don't pay sales tax. For most goods there isn't an efficient way to enforce that law so they turn a blind eye. But when there is a way, they don't. Buy a car from your neighbor and find out -- you pay sales tax when you go to title it unless you can document that you've already paid it.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
Two different taxes. When you call someone on the phone and order a pizza you pay one tax for the item pizza and another tax for the phone service used to place the order. It's the same thing they are proposing here -- the per-byte tax is a tax on the service of providing data connectivity and not on the what that data represents. They want to tax that separately. In most states, in fact, you are already violating the law whenever you buy something from out of state (or even out of county/city) and fail to pay sales tax on it. Heck, for that matter you are usually violating the law if you buy something from your neighbor and don't pay sales tax. For most goods there isn't an efficient way to enforce that law so they turn a blind eye. But when there is a way, they don't. Buy a car from your neighbor and find out -- you pay sales tax when you go to title it unless you can document that you've already paid it.
Actually, multinational/multistate corporations do business off shore (or out of state) all of the time so they don't have to pay taxes. Although Google is actually in headquartered in California (and rakes in big $$$ from doing business in this state) , it's corporate registration is the state of Delaware. That's who it owes and pays its corporate taxes and not California.

So there's nothing illegal or unethical about people figuring out ways to get around tax laws, it's just shameful when the middle class to do it.

Reminds me of the old saying "Taxes are just for the Average Joe Working Sucker".
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,218
it's just shameful when the middle class to do it.
How come?
I think about taxes as being subject to exactly the same rules as a competitive free market. The most efficient states will offer the most advantages to businesses, and therefore will benefit the individual (and not just corporations) more. Geographical entities will always (and should always) compete to attract customers, be them large or small. Otherwise we'll all end up getting "threaded" (don't wanna use the "s" word here) ... I'm middle class, and I'm always looking for ways to legaly minimize the amount of taxes I have to pay to the government, and trust me, there's no shame in that.

EDIT: did you mean to say "it just looks shameful when the middle class do it" ?
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
Actually, multinational/multistate corporations do business off shore (or out of state) all of the time so they don't have to pay taxes. Although Google is actually in headquartered in California (and rakes in big $$$ from doing business in this state) , it's corporate registration is the state of Delaware. That's who it owes and pays its corporate taxes and not California.

So there's nothing illegal or unethical about people figuring out ways to get around tax laws, it's just shameful when the middle class to do it.

Reminds me of the old saying "Taxes are just for the Average Joe Working Sucker".
That is the most ill-informed assumption I have ever read!

Corporations choose Delaware for incorporation filings simply because they like the rules Delaware has about how the corporation can manage themselfs vs the more restrictive rules of other states. That is, what changes they can make to the board of directors, how much information they have to release to share holders and which decisions/changes must be voted on by share holders and what so on.

Taxes are a completely different animal. Taxes are paid to the jurisdiction where income is generated. For example, if Ford makes an engine in Cleveland and moves it to Detroit for assembly into a vehicle, then the mustang is moved to a distribution center in California to sit until a dealer requests on to be moved on their lot and finally sold to a customer-
Ford must calculate what's know as an inter company transfer price (ICTP) for the engine. That is, a fair market value. The methodology must be consistent and auditable across the company. Sometimes an ICTP will allow the 'selling' site to make money and some may lose money. Either way, the accounting is done for each site the same way. Ultimately, the profit or loss of each site dictates the taxes that are paid to the state where ICTP is created.

Headquarter sites don't usually manufacture anything more than toilet water so there is not usually a profit to be reported there. States like headquarter sites more for the personal income taxes and property taxes generated than the corporate taxes. Some headquarters have licensing revenue and investment income that does contribute to the headquarters location. Incidentally, the corporation can shift money around the company and manage their taxes by including indirect costs. One example would be intellectual property. The headquarters site can charge manufacturing sites for IP-license fees that those sites are using. Those fees can go back to fund additional R&D Or be placed in general corporate funds. More recently, corporations are creating subsidiary corporations or LLCs (e.g. Ford Motor Company IP corporation) to manage IP, invest in R&D and charge licensing fees (internal and external).

In summary, taxation is complicated and justifies the number of accountants in tax departments of big corporations.

If your laughable theory about Delaware was true, people would be swarming to the most boring state in the country to be part of the wind-fall and live in the lap of luxury provided by non-resident corporations paying tax to the state.
 
Last edited:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
Actually, multinational/multistate corporations do business off shore (or out of state) all of the time so they don't have to pay taxes. Although Google is actually in headquartered in California (and rakes in big $$$ from doing business in this state) , it's corporate registration is the state of Delaware. That's who it owes and pays its corporate taxes and not California.

So there's nothing illegal or unethical about people figuring out ways to get around tax laws, it's just shameful when the middle class to do it.

Reminds me of the old saying "Taxes are just for the Average Joe Working Sucker".
Just because a company is registered in Delaware (which many, many, many companies are) does not mean they don't pay California taxes -- they most certainly do. If you do business in California you pay corporate taxes in California regardless of where your company is registered or where it is physically located.

And where did anyone say that is was illegal or unethical for people to figure out ways to reduce their taxes? Or say that it is shameful when the middle class does it?

And if there's anyone who is NOT paying "their fair share" of taxes, it's that Average Joe Working Sucker (except that it goes even more so for the folks even lower on the rung).
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
Just because a company is registered in Delaware (which many, many, many companies are) does not mean they don't pay California taxes -- they most certainly do. If you do business in California you pay corporate taxes in California regardless of where your company is registered or where it is physically located.

And where did anyone say that is was illegal or unethical for people to figure out ways to reduce their taxes? Or say that it is shameful when the middle class does it?

And if there's anyone who is NOT paying "their fair share" of taxes, it's that Average Joe Working Sucker (except that it goes even more so for the folks even lower on the rung).
The Average Joe sucker does not have much opportunity to cheat on his taxes because the taxes are taken out of his paycheck before he has a chance to lay his hands on the $$$.

Multinationals also move their operations overseas so they don't get taxed as a U.S. corporation. But they sure as Hell use up all sorts of goodies from the U.S. government like installing politicians that are friendly toward their interest.

Then there is the issue of "undocumented" workers who get paid in cash (with no income or other taxes taken out) and send it back to their home country as "remittances". I know this for a fact because I infiltrated one of the "hiring centers" where contractors pick up undocumented workers. The government (and the big banks) know it's going on and they even condone and promote the practice. It's well known in California that the government provides a load of social services for these undocumented workers and their families.
 
Last edited:

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
The Average Joe sucker does not have much opportunity to cheat on his taxes because the taxes are taken out of his paycheck before he has a chance to lay his hands on the $$$.

Multinationals also move their operations overseas so they don't get taxed as a U.S. corporation. But they sure as Hell use up all sorts of goodies from the U.S. government like installing politicians that are friendly toward their interest.

Then there is the issue of "undocumented" workers who get paid in cash (with no income or other taxes taken out) and send it back to their home country as "remittances". I know this for a fact because I infiltrated one of the "hiring centers" where contractors pick up undocumented workers. The government (and the big banks) know it's going on and they even condone and promote the practice. It's well known in California that the government provides a load of social services for these undocumented workers and their families.

Either do something about it or stop complaining about it. You will not do anything about it because this theory likely holds as much water as your Delaware tax theory.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
Either do something about it or stop complaining about it. You will not do anything about it because this theory likely holds as much water as your Delaware tax theory.
I cannot do anything about it because I cannot change government policy which is determined by those who have the $$$ to influence the government.

Furthermore would you explain what anything I said in my last post does not hold water?
 
Top