Corporate Tax Breaks Do Not Increase The Amount Of Tax You Must Pay

Here is a good article on tax incidence:



Corporate Tax Breaks Do Not Increase The Amount Of Tax You Must Pay

Big banks face fines for collusion

Apparently some traders in big banks are manipulating foreign exchange rate markets and making enormous profits. They are communicating in chatrooms with 'codes' and team names for the secret groups of three or more traders. Collectively $4.25 billion in fines have been assigned to the various companies, a relatively small amount when compared to the roughly $5 trillion traded in world currency markets every day. Various regulators are using the chatroom transcripts as evidence in their prosecution which will likely begin next year. Is fining capital-rich industries like big banks enough to keep this type of collusion out of the financial markets? What would you suggest for regulators to do to keep this behavior to a minimum?

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/british-and-u-s-regulators-fine-big-banks-3-16-billion-in-foreign-exchange-scandal/?ref=us&_r=0

Even John, the Monopoly King, didn't go this far..........

Crimea Nationalizes the Means of Bread Production | Business | The Moscow Times

More on net neutrality...

In class we talked about net neutrality, Obama's speech regarding it, and his views on how internet should be reconsidered as utility and equal and fair for all.  This article describes the aftermath of Obama's speech regarding broadband regulation, particularly in showing and describing falling share prices as a result.  This article does not seem to be in favor of net neutrality.

Following everything on the topic from yesterday, does this recent article showing one view of how Obama's speech was taken change your opinion at all?  Is net neutrality bad for investors and would it set the stage for increased regulation that could make the Comcast and Time Warner merger less lucrative? Or, is this just one side of the coin and you still believe net neutrality is the right, good, and fair thing?  If anything, feel free to comment on your own opinion of the topic since it is an interesting one.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/investors-in-cable-deal-fret-over-talk-of-broadband-regulation-1415662986?KEYWORDS=regulation

Modern day poll taxes

Photo ID's cost money.  And they are now required in many states in order to vote.


 The days of Jim Crow are officially over, but poll-tax equivalents are
newly thriving, through restrictive voter registration and ID
requirements, shorter poll hours and various other restrictions and red
tape that cost Americans time and money if they wish to cast a ballot.
As one study by a Harvard Law School
researcher found, the price for obtaining a legally recognized voter
identification card can range from $75 to $175, when you include the
costs associated with documentation, travel and waiting time. (For
context, the actual poll tax that the Supreme Court struck down in 1966 was just $1.50, or about $11 in today’s dollars.)





Catherine Rampell: Voter suppression laws are already deciding elections - The Washington Post

Iconic Photo Will Define The 21st Century

This is considered as one of the 75 Iconic Photos Will Define The 21st Century.

Three young women from the New York Fashion Week pose next to a homeless man. [2012]

 What is happening here? Are we living in a show-off society where the elites are given too much privilege that they are careless about other people?
My first reaction to the picture was how and why these three young women could post a picture next to a homeless man? I could never do that, it was so wrong.
What is your opinion about this photo? Do you think it is powerful enough to be considered as "Iconic Photo Will Define The 21st Century"?
  
Read more: http://news.distractify.com/mark-pygas/pictures-taken-in-past-10-years/?v=1
 

Xi Jinping: 'China's Business Opportunities Are Lasting And Limitless'

Despite the signs of downturn in China’s manufacturing and industrial sector and China's economy, President Xi Jinping told global business leaders on Sunday to dispel worries about the world's second-largest economy. "Some people worry that China's economic growth will fall further, can it climb over the ridge?" Xi said. "There are indeed risks, but it's not so scary." He also addressed that "China's development brings enormous opportunities and benefits to the Asia Pacific and the world, and the business opportunities are lasting and limitless."

Do you agree with his statement? Do you think President  Xi Jinping is too over-confident that there is nothing to worry about the risks faced by China's economy?

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-president-says-risks-to-economy-not-that-scary-2014-11#ixzz3IdVZufHv