patrick.net

humanity says

TWong sounds like a total fraud

you dont say... too bad you dont mention National Review..

I have only two things to say to this. #1. Jesus was a communist. Christians aren't so into Christianity obviously. #2. Marijuana more dangerous than cigarettes...bahahahahaha. Oh, this is just too funny.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Bap33 says

But now the gov, allows dope to be smoked, and it's a much more dangerous drug with much worse health effects.

Do you have any proof of this?

Come on, that should be EASY if marijuana is so much worse than "tabacco".

You don't understand, duckie. Marijuana is really, really bad because hippies do it. Tobacco is good because cowboys do it, and cowboys never do any wrong unlike those dirty, oversexed hippies.

Can I make it any clearer?

You forgot Mexicans and jazz musicians...

thomaswong.1986 says

you can certainly explain that to the 1970s generation that lost their lives deep in the Drug Culture... You have no idea how many parished..

Thomas your link just proves my point. The article inexplicably complains about use-age of marijuana but provides absolutely NO evidence there proving marijuana had any negative impact on health.

Besides I would think you'd see all those who "parished" as a good thing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parish

humanity says

If it's true, then it proves that to be a high level accountant you need not be literate nor to you need to be particularly intelligent. I fully agree that TWong sounds like a total fraud.

I have had serious doubts all along that someone who cannot put together a grammatically correct simple declarative sentence is the controller, soon to be vp, of a major international software firm. Could be possible, then again aliens could have brought down the wtc.

bob2356 says

I have had serious doubts all along that someone who cannot put together a grammatically correct simple declarative sentence is the controller, soon to be vp, of a major international software firm. Could be possible, then again aliens could have brought down the wtc.

If you dont like what i said.. go find someone in the field of Corporate Accounting/Finance and they will give you the same answer.

Face it.. all your liberals misinformation isnt supported in the real world be they about capital gains, taxing policies, international business structure..
and much more.. So some of you libs make up shit to further your own goals.

Like I said.. go find the facts for yourself.

As far as grammer..like I said.. no one in the business world using emails writes long proper sentences and paragraphs.. that died out long ago.. time is short and storage devices are expensive to maintain. I guess you never worked in the real world... let me guess you an educator.. what a joke!

thomaswong.1986 says

As far as grammer..like I said.. no one in the business world using emails writes long proper sentences and paragraphs.. that died out long ago.. time is short and storage devices are expensive to maintain. I guess you never worked in the real world... let me guess you an educator.. what a joke!

I work in the real world and proper grammar and spelling is very much used on all emails. At least by anyone who would like to be respected and taken seriously.

Regardless of the grammar and spelling, however, your lack of knowledge in your supposed field of expertise is what astounds me.

tatupu70 says

I work in the real world and proper grammar and spelling is very much used on all emails. At least by anyone who would like to be respected and taken seriously.

you want to waste all day writing proper emails.. go right ahead..

tatupu70 says

however, your lack of knowledge in your supposed field of expertise is what astounds me.

... like when you libs talk about moving profits overseas.. im still waiting how thats done.. since you cant enter such transactions on your books.. no such transactions exist... how exactly are you going to mix various currencies across all your subs ... how about so called tax subsidies for oil companies which is nothing more than FASB 2 capitalizing of development costs. but thats all just more misinformation to spew out by the libs..

No .. none of you work in the real world.. you guys write fiction and hope to fool the public to push your own dead end political agenda. pathetic !

sbh, you may find him to be as obnoxious as "wild animals" but mr wong has shared information, memories and observations here that only a 50's-ish lifetime local haolie or totally-assimilated-into-haolie-culture American born/raised nonhaolie could.

Bap33 says

Liberalism ( or call it socialism, communism, leftistism, progressivism, anti-Christianism, anti-Americanism) ... call it what you wish, is a bad idea.

that too will end.. 1100 days left in Obama presidency and
afterward all to show is 8 years of failure.

New Renter says

absolutely NO evidence there proving marijuana had any negative impact on health.

Maybe, but personal experience with those who were/are heavy users has shown me it can be extremely detrimental to a person's behavior and mental health. Certainly anyone in even a moderate position of power or responsibility can exhibit signs of extreme paranoia, and even violent tendencies, as well as causing harm to themselves or others.

thomaswong.1986 says

like when you libs talk about moving profits overseas

I'm far from an expert, but I don't believe anyone is talking about moving profits overseas, they are talking about LEAVING them overseas. The profits are made by an overseas subsidiary by playing games with transfer prices.

thomaswong.1986 says

No .. none of you work in the real world.. you guys write fiction and hope to fool the public to push your own dead end political agenda. pathetic !

And, again, I can assure you that I work in manufacturing in the real world.

John Bailo says

New Renter says

absolutely NO evidence there proving marijuana had any negative impact on health.

Maybe, but personal experience with those who were/are heavy users has shown me it can be extremely detrimental to a person's behavior and mental health. Certainly anyone in even a moderate position of power or responsibility can exhibit signs of extreme paranoia, and even violent tendencies, as well as causing harm to themselves or others.

I'll counter with my personal examples. Heavy user's I've known (as in toking in the parking lot at work) were directors and VPs of medium sized biotech companies. I've also known successful small business owners, programmers, middle aged athletes etc who used regularly yet it did not impact their performance or health at all. One VP attributed at least some of his career success to smoking weed claiming it helped him relax allowing him to reexamine problems from a new perspective.

Those people to whom you are referring to - did they use anything OTHER than straight marijuana? Isn't it possible the marijuana they were using was adulterated?

egads101 says

zero evidence of marijuana

Yes, of course. Unlike everything ever known to man in all of recorded history, Mary Jane is the one substance in the Universe which has solely beneficial effects with zero detriments. Please, let's re-write the engineering and science books on this one.

sbh, if thomaswong1986 is an Asian immigrant like you say, then he's also a liar.

Because he wrote on here before that he's white.

About the grammar, remember the Phoney Texan Connecticutt Yankee GW Bush?

sbh says

My guess is he's a Korean immigrant, a devotee of Reverend Moon, th

gotta love liberals when they are exposed as racist. dont feel too bad sbh, your not the first Lib who made the same mistakes.. I must say.. I do like my Pnet handle.. it does serve its purpose.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WH8E_nkDNDo

egads101 says

No re-write necessary. There aren't any science or engineering textbooks that show a correlative link between marijuana usage and violence.

really.. those gangbangers killing people are not a problem.

just how many will die this weekend in anyone of the major cities.

John Bailo says

Mary Jane is the one substance in the Universe which has solely beneficial effects with zero detriments. Please, let's re-write the engineering and science books on this one.

Reason 4 for being a Landlord and being your own boss.. you can take as many drugs as you like and not worry about taking some drug test as part of your employment.

Of course if Roberto has a stash in one of his properties.. the property will be confiscated and sold by the police at auction.

tatupu70 says

I'm far from an expert, but I don't believe anyone is talking about moving profits overseas, they are talking about LEAVING them overseas. The profits are made by an overseas subsidiary by playing games with transfer prices.

there is nothing to leave overseas.. profits are a bookkeeping entry and taxable by the US and Foreign countries. You still havent figured out how much to tax since the same overseas profit has already been taxed by foreign govt and US regulations applies the Foreign tax credit so the same profit isnt taxed twice.

What is overseas is "cash". Part of it 3-4 months working capital to pay for employees, rent, taxes, and other expenses. The bulk that isnt tapped for major construction projects or to buy Treasury Paper. So taxing more to pay the Treasury holders is no more than a dog chasing its tail. Your taxing more to pay back the IOUs you have issued. But the Govt Spending problem still remains since the Govt cannot control is behavior.

as far as Transfer Pricing Agreements.. the vast majority are simple cost plus.. it costs a sub $10,000/month operate for a couple sales people (Salary,PR Tax, Rent, taxes and other) so the they charge 5-10% above costs.. for their local statutory books, that comes to revenues at $11,000 and net profit of $1,000 after expenses of $10,000. With low tax of 15% that leaves $850 in the bank to do with as needed.. non expense charge.. Buy Fixed Assets, make a refundable deposit, etc.

The $11,000 is eliminated by equal amounts in the interco accounts. And for US Tax purposes all the global revenues less less expenses less taxes paid leaving Taxable income (per IRS not GAAP) are still taxable/payable to the IRS. There is no game here. Your not going to get some big mountain of cash as you believe.. thats not going to happen.

thomaswong.1986 says

there is nothing to leave overseas.. profits are a bookkeeping entry and taxable by the US and Foreign countries

Really? What do you know that these folks don't then?

http://qz.com/53949/four-charts-that-show-us-multinationals-hiding-profits-abroad/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/10/1215040/-US-Corporations-Hiding-Taxable-Income-Overseas#

"Like other companies, Apple typically keeps profits on overseas sales in overseas accounts. When someone buys an iPad in Paris or Sydney, for instance, the profit stays outside the United States."

"Apple may pay some corporate income taxes on that profit to the country where it sells the iPad, but it minimizes these by using various accounting moves to shift profits to countries with low tax rates. For example the strategy known as "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich," routes profits through Irish and Dutch subsidiaries and then to the Caribbean."

http://news.yahoo.com/apples-phantom-taxes-hide-billions-profit-183821426--finance.html

The key point being that companies don't owe taxes on profits that stay in overseas accounts.

"And just like other corporations, Apple leaves cash overseas. If it brought it home to the U.S., it would have to pay federal income taxes on the money (though it would get a credit for foreign taxes already paid)."

thomaswong.1986 says

as far as Transfer Pricing Agreements.. the vast majority are simple cost plus

Sure, unless you are trying to avoid paying taxes.

tatupu70 says

"Like other companies, Apple typically keeps profits on overseas sales in overseas accounts. When someone buys an iPad in Paris or Sydney, for instance, the profit stays outside the United States."

everthing is taxable and payble current or defferred.. the excessive cash is used to buy US treasury paper.. look up how much CASH apple has compared to US Govt paper. page 57... http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-13-416534&CIK=320193

out of $147B they only have $5B real cash in all their global accounts. The rest went to buy Treasury paper..

so you want more taxes to pay back Apple for buying Treasuries ?

thomaswong.1986 says

everthing is taxable and payble current or defferred

Thomas--this is why I find it hard to believe that you are a controller, about to be a VP. This is basic stuff that even I know and I'm definitely NOT an accountant.

"The U.S. currently taxes worldwide income at a rate of as much as 35 percent. Most companies pay lower effective rates because the U.S. allows them to claim tax credits for payments to other governments and defer taxation until profits are brought home."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-31/obama-diverges-with-camp-over-taxing-company-profits-overseas.html

tatupu70 says

"Apple may pay some corporate income taxes on that profit to the country where it sells the iPad, but it minimizes these by using various accounting moves to shift profits to countries with low tax rates. For example the strategy known as "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich," routes profits through Irish and Dutch subsidiaries and then to the Caribbean."

Page 64.. http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-13-416534&CIK=320193

Indefinitely invested earnings of foreign subsidiaries (4,614 )

say $4.6 Billion... which goes to foreign expansion costs to build Apple Store construction and other projects.

The FTC will avoid double taxation, but what ever lower rates you pay to foreign
govt is made up by the difference up to 35% or such by the IRS.

And dont forget.. the bigger you are .. the more IRS audits you get. And if the IRS
doesnt like what your doing so they will disqualify the treatment and you will pay.

thomaswong.1986 says

And dont forget.. the bigger you are .. the more IRS audits you get. And if the IRS

doesnt like what your doing so they will disqualify the treatment and you will pay.

It's not against the law. For the fiftieth time. It's not taxable to the US until you bring the money back to the States.

tatupu70 says

It's taxable in the country where the subsidiary is located. Until it is brought back to the US.

you think the foreign taxing authority dont get their cut in Payroll, VAT and Income Taxes... they sure do.. and they too do their audits of the Subs...

thomaswong.1986 says

you think the foreign taxing authority dont get their cut in Payroll, VAT and Income Taxes... they sure do.. and they too do their audits of the Subs...

What the hell are you talking about. Of course the foreign country gets their taxes. And that's why US companies choose low tax countries in which to operate.

tatupu70 says

It's not against the law. For the fiftieth time. It's not taxable to the US until you bring the money back to the States.

what are you complaining about.. like apple above. they "Gave the Money" already to the US Govt for an IOU.. Treasury Paper.. Go look it up. Now you want to tax more to pay back Apple for their purchase of Treasuries? Bright !

You want the US Govt to Tax a portion of $5B Apples investments while Apple Holds some $45B of US govt IOUs ? Yea.. thats going to solve the problem... well at least Obama can stick his nose in the air and say.. how great he was in solving the inequalities. laughable..

thomaswong.1986 says

what are you complaining about.. like apple above. they "Gave the Money" already to the US Govt for an IOU.. Treasury Paper.. Go look it up. Now you want to tax more to pay back Apple for their purchase of Treasuries? Bright !

Surely you can see the difference between a LOAN and a tax payment. The government might not need the loan if Apple had paid its taxes in the first place.

Do you at least now understand how US corporations are hiding their profits and avoiding US taxes?

tatupu70 says

Do you at least now understand how US corporations are hiding their profits and avoiding US taxes?

Who is "hiding" what ? Lets roll out the IRS auditors on this...

tatupu70 says

Surely you can see the difference between a LOAN and a tax payment. The government might not need the loan if Apple had paid its taxes in the first place.

You mean they (the US Govt) are overspending .. and will continue to overspend. You add up all the other Big Fortune 500 companies .. its all the same.. lets throw in the Chinese/Japanese as well since they own what 50% of IOUs.. they to need to be taxed.

thomaswong.1986 says

Who is "hiding" what ? Lets roll out the IRS auditors on this...

Sure--roll them out. Unfortunately, what they are doing is legal so the auditors won't have an issue with it.

Again--as a controller, I'd think you'd understand that.

thomaswong.1986 says

You mean they (the US Govt) are overspending .. and will continue to overspend. You add up all the other Big Fortune 500 companies .. its all the same.. lets throw in the Chinese/Japanese as well since they own what 50% of IOUs.. they to need to be taxed.

lol--are you really that dense?

tatupu70 says

Sure--roll them out. Unfortunately, what they are doing is legal so the auditors won't have an issue with it.

Again--as a controller, I'd think you'd understand that.

like i said.. who is hiding what ?

tatupu70 says

thomaswong.1986 says

You mean they (the US Govt) are overspending .. and will continue to overspend. You add up all the other Big Fortune 500 companies .. its all the same.. lets throw in the Chinese/Japanese as well since they own what 50% of IOUs.. they to need to be taxed.

lol--are you really that dense?

if you have to reach outside of your border and issue IOUs to pay for your spending..
yes. you have a spending problem. ...

thomaswong.1986 says

like i said.. who is hiding what ?

And like I said, US corporations are keeping money overseas to avoid paying US taxes. What don't you understand??

tatupu70 says

And like I said, US corporations are keeping money overseas to avoid paying US taxes. What don't you understand??

.
There you go again with all this talk about "avoidance"...
.

do you know what it takes to grow US business overseas... sure doesnt sound like it.

do you want US companies .. Apple, Ford, Hersey, IBM, Chevron.. to grow or do you favor the other guys ... Toyota, Samsung, Royal Dutch and Bank of China.

thomaswong.1986 says

do you know what it takes to grow US business overseas... sure doesnt sound like it.

lol--it has nothing to do with keeping money overseas to avoid taxation.

Dan8267 says

Can I make it any clearer?

Joe the cammel doesn't endanger everyone when he drives and smokes. Those stoned teenager neighbors of ours are reckless when they are high. That's the difference.

FortWayne says

Joe the cammel doesn't endanger everyone when he drives and smokes.

Actually yes he does.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Can I make it any clearer?

Joe the cammel doesn't endanger everyone when he drives and smokes. Those stoned teenager neighbors of ours are reckless when they are high. That's the difference.

So, your claim is that marijuana use should be illegal because driving while under the influence of marijuana causes reckless driving and vehicular homicide. OK, let's examine this claim.

Let's start with the facts of driving while under the influence of marijuana.

At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.

G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and Alcohol in Motor Vehicle Accidents

The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.

F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”

Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1. There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2. The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3. It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.

M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of Cannabis in Motor Vehicle Crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. …Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.

With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.

A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

Intoxication with cannabis leads to a slight impairment of psychomotor … function. … [However,] the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator. This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take great risks and drive more aggressively.

UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. London: United Kingdom. Chapter 4: Section 4.7.

For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.

Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.

P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.

To summarize all the above studies...
1. Marijuana use has never been shown to increase the likelihood of automobile accidents or fatalities.
2. Many independent studies have show zero correlation between light or heavy marijuana use and automobile accidents.
3. In contrast, alcohol use shows a very strong positive correlation to crashes and fatalities.
4. Other legal drugs have also shown a very strong positive correlation to crashes and fatalities.

So your claim is false. Furthermore, if we were to go by your reasoning (something that causes car crashes and deaths should be made illegal), then we should outlaw alcohol. Drunk driving kills over 10,000 people a year in the U.S. alone, whereas there is no evidence that driving while high has ever caused an accident, nonetheless, a fatal one.

But even if marijuana usage did lead to accidents -- and all the evidence says otherwise -- if marijuana should be illegal because of that, then there are a lot of other legal things that should be illegal first, things that cause many accidents like
1. Alcohol
2. Mobile Phones
3. Many prescription and over the counter drugs.
4. Music players (MP3, CDs, tapes, car radios, etc.)
5. Restaurant Take-Out
6. Texting

Every one of these things, when used or done while driving, has been shown to significantly increase crashes and fatal crashes. Yet, at most, the law prohibits such things only while driving. So the argument that marijuana should be illegal even if it caused auto accidents, is simply wrong. One would only make driving while high illegal.

Think about it this way. It ain't safe to have sex while driving, but if we made sex illegal, our country would cease to exist in a single lifetime.

Oh, and alcohol kills a lot of people even excluding drunk driving. Why isn't beer illegal? Oh yeah, because NASCAR fans like beer. I guess if marijuana was sponsoring NASCAR then it would be legal.

Dan I don't care for someones biased or unbiased research. I have real life experience out here that states otherwise.