Re: "finally receive backing from the National Cabinet"
No - national cabinet is a government forum consisting of state, territory and federal government representatives.
27 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Dec 2017
Putting the onus on providers will leave them little option to insist on some form of ID verification to establish an account. All of a sudden the true owners of an account will be identifiable to the government by a court order. This may or may not be a good thing depending on your viewpoint - but I’m generally keen on less rather than more government oversight.
If you see the sort of social media posts that are receiving police interest these days - where posting an image of the national flag can make you ‘of interest’ - some may think this kind of thing has a much wider agenda.
We all lose when this kind of thing goes on - innovation is stifled and the addition of a hefty ' infringemnet tax' (or 'potential infringeent tax' due to process that needs to be put in place to try and limit the risk) on products and services ultimately hurts the consumer.
In any case the original patent owner (Boeing) did allow Amazon to use it - so Amazon seems to be absolved from any kind of hypotetical 'screwing over the little guy' claims.
Regardless of public opinion, large corporations go to enormous lengths to avoid this kind of thing , and generally act correctly and within the law. But they are also massive bureaucracies - even where policies and processes are put in place making sure everyone is aware, and undertstands how to comply, and realises that it applies to their little obscure bit of the business is amazingly hard.
I can remotely disable my iPhone - I can remotely do stuff to my car - and I can remotely shut down a whole bunch of electronics in my house. I like being able to do this - but I'm not so naive to assume that the manufacturer also can't do these things to my equipment if it so chooses. So I can't see how this is any different.
Server buisness is owned by HPE now not HP. And in any event a maintenance contract on one of those microsoervers costs bugger all. And if you don't want hardware maintenance a software updates only contract costs even less. If you want software updates it doesn't seem unreasonable to pay for them..
Two different issues.
There can be no contract if there is no consideration. That's simply an essential element of a contract. One might argue that supplying of containers for the service to share represents consideration - but that is a separate and complicated question (I think we get into discussions about weighing boilers at that point)
In terms of unilateral changes - assuming a contract exists - if you agreed in the original TOS to unilateral changes then you can't really complain and its perfectly legitimate (mostly - there are some limits to that in most jurisdictions) - if you didn't then they can't be changed.
Fair enough to criticise the backwards state of Saudi Arabia, but Singapore has managed to maintain a high degree of social cohesion, despite a very diverse and multicultural population.
One of the ways they have done this is to carefully manage anything that offends religion. Singapore doesn't care what religion you are - they just know (as has been demonstrated in many other places) that when you get friction caused by perceived slights to a deity/messiah/prophet/floating carbohydrate based entity that it can cause massive unrest. So play nice and keep your opinions to yourself.
If only other countries managed this so well...
They can't simply invoice from Ireland and avoid UK tax. They must in fact be an irish company that is invoicing from ireland, and ultimately be the company that the buyer contracted with. There is very little stopping you from setting up an Irish or Luxembourg based company and doing the same thing.
If the UK wants to attract more tax revenue then it needs to reduce its tax rates.
Tax is a marketplace - companies will do business where conditions are favourable.
Unless you're voluntarily handing over money to the taxman in excess of that required by law, then you're not realy in a position to critiscise Amazon here.. They are operating legally and paying tax as required. Many of the mechanisms that are critiscised that allow for reduced tax payments in the UK are very much neccesary for functioning international commerce.
In any event, its not like the government is spending money so well that you'd be wantng to give them more...
Why is it neccesarily the right thing?
Most companies aren't (or shouldn't be) a socialist workers collective. And people should be paid what they can negotiate. If I was hired in a time of job scarcity then I might accept lower pay, in the opposite situation i might be able to get a better package. Is it then fair that either party should be advantaged or disadvantaged just because the labour market conditions that existed when they were hired no longer exist. Certainly the employer has operational needs to meet - so they may neccesarily choose to pay a premium at certain times which they shouldn't then have to extend to all other workers.
Plenty of aircraft over time have had initial teething problems - even recurring fatal issues - and have recovered. In 12 months time this will be completely forgotten.
I still suspect that flying in a 'buggy' 737 MAX is much safer than driving. Irrespective of any flaws. I'm happy to take that risk every day - it woulld be illogical to have different thresholds for personal safety based on the mode of transport.
You can't do that - it lead to a whole bunch of undesirable consequences.
Company A develops software in the US. Company B (its subsidiary) sells that software in the UK. Company B needs to pay a licence fee to A otherwise A doesn't have any revenue to pay its costs.
In your world A is going to make a loss in the US, whilst B makes an unrealistic profit in the UK - because now its cost of goods becomes close to zero. B will pay a stack of tax but A will not pay any tax - but will also not have any income to offset their losses.
Transfer pricing is very heavily regulated anyway - calculating and managing it represents a significant cost to do business.
To be fair the 'TSA Key set' was based on the 8 most common luggage keys that were in use. Baggage handlers and other airport workers had already made their own bunches of these keys long before they were identified as the 'TSA Standard'. Only one of them is even remotely secure. So this quite a lot different to that...
Whilst not a rocket scientist, I have played Kerbal Space Programme enough to know that the most efficient way of deorbiting something is to apply retrograde force to that object - thus lowering its orbit on the opposite side to where the forces is applied. Force applied radially in will change the shape of the orbit, but not affect the orbital velocity - so whilst possible to send it down that way it will require a lot more force.
A job is only worth so much - if the cost of employing a worker is greater than the value that a company derives from that job then its not sustainable. Its not an employers job to overpay their worker. Minimum wage makes this worse. It provides an incentive to not employ anyone who is worth less than the minimum wage. Which is why Australian macdonalds now employ fewer staff to take orders and use a machine instead....
A company is not a charity. And this is only going to get worse - more jobs will be replaced by automation. This is not the employers fault - this is employees failing to obtain valuable skills.
It seems perfectly reasonable that the people who contribute such a large proportion of tax revenue should also benefit more when those taxes are reduced. Will be interesting to see how much revenue is actually reduced from these groups in any event - no need to structure your affairs as aggressively to reduce your tax liability if your tax burden is reduced...
These are the same people who can typically afford to drive anything they fancy. So if an incentive makes them buy an electric car rather than an environmentally less good v8 Mercedes then that sounds like a reasonable use of an incentive. Lets also not forget that these are the people whose tax revenue supports everyone else - so perhaps they for once deserve the same break that everybody else gets....