Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Tax Controversy Explained In Cartoon Form
theodp writes "If you prefer to digest your news in a cartoon format, you'll be happy to know that the Twitter tax controversy has gotten the Next Media Animation TV treatment. In the NMAtv clip, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone cuts a tax break with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and ascends a ladder to 'Tax-Free Haven' where he's high-fived by execs from GE and Google. If you insist on reading the news, IBD has an account of the payroll tax break, which critics are calling corporate welfare."
A hilarious, but true, story. Please remember, when you see 'haven' instead of 'heaven,' that English isn't everyone's first language.
admittedly it's a bad pun, but would it really be surprising that the taiwanese media have a better grasp of english than slashdot editors?
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
No, but they still have to pay their employees, therefore they must pay a payroll tax.
What sparked this is their impending IPO, since stock options would have been taxed.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
English audio for those who don't like reading subtitles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1evfTk58o
Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
Amazing - IBD couldn't stop fellating Big Corporate long enough to report on yet another company refusing to pay its share without getting a few kicks in at public employees.
Thing is, the amount of money I have to pay annually to Twitter: $0
The amount I have to pay to government: 40% of my salary, plus penalties if I make a mistake
So yeah, I think the activities of government deserve a bit more scrutiny.
Please remember, when you see 'haven' instead of 'heaven,' that English isn't everyone's first language.
Interestingly, the expression for "tax haven" in Spanish is "paraiso fiscal" (tax heaven), which I'm pretty sure was a mistranslation in the first place. Ok, ignore the "interestingly"..
The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
is it just me, or was that not hilarious at all? Oh, it's an animation, I see. Of course it's funny.
Anybody want a peanut?
Why dish out corporate welfare - Twitter degrades society by making it's users into even more impulsive retards than they were prior. Surely we can't be giving handouts to people degrading society...oh, nevermind.
I understand it's SOP, but I do think it is motherfucking bullshit that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than these companies. And I guarantee my net is six to seven orders of magnitude less than what they bring in, which is probably true for most Americans as well. But its the welfare state that is bankrupting us they say!
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Why does San Francisco need a larger share than other towns?
40% is pretty high tax bracket. I wish I am in that bracket.
New Economic Perspectives
Seriously?
What the fuck? Now you're mocking people for using the term "haven"? A perfectly acceptable word when talking about tax-free locations.
Dictionary.com definition of "haven"
Now, as a person for whom English is his 3rd language, allow me to dumb down my judgment of Roblimo's IQ and knowledge of English to a level that even he should be able to understand, despite it having three syllables: Imbecile.
You may also want to look up the term "walking on cloud nine".
It's funny how in your world everybody but the government has to justify their "share."
Seems to be a popular opinion of late.
I'm betting 40% isn't a bracket at all. That's probably the sum total of all the taxes he pays most likely.
So... what's unnecessary? The tax, the tax break, the cartoon news of it, or the article on it?
Overall, I like this idea. Forcing larger companies, into shitty areas, which they'll have to do up, and which will provide incentives for other businesses to move there too (such as those that will supply these other businesses).
I could see such strategies being valuable to both the businesses (as it eliminates the cost of moving, and problems of re-hiring people), and it could revitalize some run down areas.
Though doing it for just one business, might not be on a large enough scale.
Either way, quite interesting.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
40%? How much do you make? I made $100,000 and paid less than $10,000 in federal income tax. When you add everything else I paid taxes on (property tax on two homes, sales tax, state taxes, Social Security, Medicare, etc.) I was under 20%. Perhaps if you were a contractor and paid the extra SS portion for yourself, then maybe you'd have a chance, but you specifically said "salary" so I call BS. But then, like all unlikely and biased statements I read here, it's from an AC, so I'll just assume it's all lies in an attempt to prove your point.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm betting it's an AC who made up numbers he thinks proves his point. I'm not an AC. With income at $100,000 in a year, I was at 10% federal income tax, and about 20% for the sum of all taxes I paid (SS, Medicare, sales, state, local, property - multiple properties, and all that). It would be hard to reach 40% in the US. Though some people manage it, like those hit with AMT and other such weirdness. Or those who pay both halves of SS themselves (contractors) but he specifically said "salary" so that doesn't count.
Learn to love Alaska
Use the force
Voilà! mon chéri
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
While I hate corporate welfare I really don't know if you can call it that in this case. In fact what they got Twitter to agree to is to build new offices in a scummy slum part of town, which of course will now cost Twitter in extra security and such, in the hopes that they can renew the area and get businesses to move back which will also get the same break if they move into scum town.
Now considering this neighborhood is probably "welcome to the jungle" you are gonna have to offer something for any business to take the risk, and I'm sure there will be employees that will turn down an offer from twitter because they'd have to go into and out of such a rough area.
So while I think bullshit like GE paying almost no taxes by pulling crap like the double dutch IS bullshit and needs to be stopped ASAP, giving a company a break for taking increased risk by moving into bad areas in the hope of fixing them up is just smart. The same was done several years ago in my own state with the river market area, and whereas before the place looked like Beirut, what with all the bombed out looking buildings and garbage everywhere, now it is a really nice neighborhood with little shops and a thriving gay community.
Everything there is clean and nice with plenty of foot paths and nobody is afraid to walk there anymore, so I'd say the tax breaks the city gave were money well spent. If by giving them a tax break the city of SF can do the same to one of their slums why not? Better than just letting the buildings fall apart and become fire hazards like Detroit.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
When I watched this my head nearly exploded. The mayor had to do what he had to do to keep Twitter in his city. Consider this: if they had just let Twitter move somewhere else, lots of jobs would be terminated. These are all employees who live in the city, purchase things and pay sales tax, pay income taxes and a whole host of other taxes levied. All of the equipment, much of which is probably purchased locally, would be purchased elsewhere. Contractors who service their equipment would have fewer clients, their office space would be unoccupied, and so on and so on and so on. Over all, it's probably a net gain for the city. $22 million a year less in revenue. Big deal in the grand scheme of things. Twitter is big, and it's getting bigger. Kudos to the mayor for being so forward thinking.
Taiwan: quit trolling and mind your own fucking business.
I wish I were in that bracket.
Step 1: Learn to English.
Step 2: Study a lot.
Step 3: Get full time job.
Step 4: Study more.
Step 5: Get next full time job.
Step 6: Study more.
Step 7: Get next full time job.
Assumes you're in or willing to move to a competitive location (NYC, London, Segments of California, etc), that you're able to put in this amount of work, and that you're lucky.
Given you weren't born into it, or extremely lucky, or extremely exceptional (which everyone seems to think they are), then you too could earn this sort of money.
I've family and friends, who are close to or in those tax brackets, and though I've really simplified it, they essentially did the above.
One studied for 5 years, worked through it, had no life, got reasonable grades, travelled to the other side of the world, with almost no money, a suit case, and without a job (in the 90s), now has a job working in remote places for large amounts of time, flying in and out, sees his family rarely.
Another studied and worked to support that study for 6 years, got quite high grades, had no life, now works in isolated areas around the world, moving from place to place.
There's a few more instances of this, but they become less close to that amount of money, but they all have a few things in common:
1 - No family life, and no life with friends, or more so, little to speak of.
2 - Extremely long hours, such that at even on "holiday", their phone is on, they've got their laptop, they'll probably end up doing SOME work, and their holidays are often under the amount many would get.
3 - Took some huge risks which could have ruined them, forcing them to return to their relatively poor beginnings (one guy above came from a very very poor neighbourhood, the other a middle lower class neighbourhood).
4 - Studied for ages, while others worked.
5 - When opportunities to study more came up, they took them, AND kept working.
6 - When opportunities to work came up, they took them.
On top of all of that, they had some good luck.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No doubt the parent is using somebody's calculation of total tax burden. Estimates vary. This estimate claims poor people pay about 20%, working its way up to 30% for everybody with average income or above.
Their stock charts require Microsft Silverlight and they won't officially support anything else..
I have a Firefox Extension that makes it easy to boycott sites that don't support Linux.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/webcott/
I would have gone with "word salad".
Help stamp out iliturcy.
http://www.paycheckcity.com/NetPayCalc/netpayCalcResult.asp
At $100,000 a year, you will lose 35% of your paycheck before deductions and writeoffs. Throw in the 10% state sales tax in California, and there you go.
You obviously have some tax write-offs. Kids, house? For those who are single and don't own a home and subsidizing your lifestyle, the very lowest tax bracket is 10%. The rate for $100,000 is 28%. We also have to pay social security and medicare, which comes to 7.6% and our employer has to chip in 7.6%, so that's ~15%. Depending on what state you live in (I'm in California, where most people pay 4-9%), there is state income tax and then some percentage of purchases goes to sales and excise taxes (e.g. gas). So someone in California making $100,000 per year who is single and doesn't own a home pays 28+9+15= 52%, not including sales and excise taxes.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Bah. The worst thing about the Tenderloin is that on Sunday, you can't find anywhere to park because so many bridge-and-tunnel people come into town to go to Glide.
The CB App. What's your 20?
"maybe not paying taxes is a sign that you've made it as a company in the US."
Made me chuckle coming from China. Somebody over there must have had a good sense of humour for that one
I have seen these videos on and off for some years now but its only when I have taken a close look at Taiwan to see how a vibrant media and lead to quirky informative news briefs like this. Bit insane to think an island of twenty million has as many tv + radio feeds as is, not to mention one of the hardest wired countries.
47% of household had a 0% income tax rate last year. The bottom 40% have a negative tax rate due to refundable credits.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Okay, so 22% instead of 28%. So that's only a 47% tax rate, not including sales and excise taxes.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
The individual pay an INCOME tax, such as every single of us pay. The corporation ON TOP OF THAT, pay a corp tax to pay for the ADDITIONAL burden they pause on the local utility or governement services.
I think it's that the gayer it is, the nicer it is. Think of any nice city, or area of town, it's usually the gayest. Lots of coffee shops and all that.
Btw, in most states you're supposed to pay sales/use taxes on things bought out of state -- whether you're a corporation or an individual -- it's just that few people actually do it.
Yes, but in no other state will simple inaction or bad record keeping automatically double the sales tax you are supposed to pay.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
WTF?
Lets see, google "Tax free haven" and "Tax free heaven", just over 8million for the former and just under 3 million for the latter. Maybe someone needs lay off the pills.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
You post that as if it were a *good thing*
Well, it's definitely a good sight better than a community of pushy religious types who like to evangelize at others.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Rolling stones gather no moses. You move around, you lose money. Especially I live close in a major midwestern U.S. city.
That's why I study for a PhD.
New Economic Perspectives
religious bigots who dont even understand their own book Gay community
Hint: sodom was nothing to do with gay sex, but a civil war.
That's also counting that you didn't take any tax deductions at all, not even the "standard" one you get automatically. Like I said, sounds like someone is rigging the comparison. Combine that with "theoretically you could owe XXX" isn't a case of "I pulled in $100,000 and paid 10% of that in federal income tax." But then, you obviously have an agenda to push, and the truth doesn't seem to be on the menu.
Learn to love Alaska
Or have the people drop their white pride and learn the language.
New Economic Perspectives
Personally I would have rather lived in either one that surrounded by a bunch of religious bigots and hate mongers, thanks. I guess love thy neighbor only applies if he is white and republican huh?
Not to mention Sodom didn't have a damned thing to do with your "God" either, you just gave him the credit. They built over a large gas vein a city where the primary means of cooking was...dum dum dum...open flames! It would be like giving your God credit for Pompeii and the Hindenburg. A bad design is a bad design is a bad design, period.
Personally I've lived near Xtians and gays and I'll take gays any day of the week, they are nicer and more decent than the knuckle dragging religious types by a HUGE amount! At least THEY are busy trying to stick their noses in my business or trying to force me to live by rules written by goat herders who feared a deity I don't even believe in. Oh and guess whose PCs are the most overloaded with kinky porn? It ain't the gays! Hypocrites, bullshit artists, scammers, and control freaks. I'd say that pretty well describes most of what I've seen of your religion, so please don't sully my home with it, thanks but no thanks.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Okay, so 46% of $8400 = $3864. $46,000 - $3864 = $42,136. So only a 42% tax rate, not including sales and excise taxes. I most certainly have an agenda; I don't get my money's worth and I want to pay less. Can you please support your claim that I am using something besides the truth? I have never used any other deduction than the standard deduction because I am not married, have no kids, and do not own a home.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
An AC without details asserting some percentage is more likely lying by having taken some calculator like that and just calculating the worst case. Real people invest in things like 401(k)s and such that reduce taxes. Or have families. Or mortgages with lots of deductible interest. But yes, if you were a self-employed single programmer still living in his mom's basement, then you might have some issues.
Learn to love Alaska
I most certainly have an agenda;
Yeah, it's obvious. You make up numbers to prove a point, indicating that your point is unsupportable. A "normal" American family pays less than half your worst-case assertion. And your assertion changes every post. Why not just do what I did, post your gross and federal income tax. $100,000, and $10,000 (well, $9,800-something). There, that was mine. What's yours? And no, not making up something that could be some worst-case.
I don't get my money's worth and I want to pay less.
So you must be Republican. You want to borrow and spend, rather than actually pay for things. You do realize that just the military and interest on the debt alone exceed the receipts from federal income tax. If all welfare, Medicare, SS, education, science, were eliminated today, firing all non-military federal employees, we still couldn't balance the budget. Since no one is seriously arguing that we should cut the military or default on our debt, that means that you are getting more than your money's worth. Your money may be going to Afghanistan, Iraq and China in wars and interest, weakening the dollar and bankrupting the country. But it's not an issue of a billion here or there for Planned Parenthood or all that. The budget couldn't be balanced if we closed everything but the military.
So, what do you want done when we can't pay the bills now? I'm all for eliminating the standing army, but the "fiscal conservatives" are also the same people that enjoy wasting trillions on foreign wars, so there's no one out there that has even tried to pretend that the budget could be balanced since Clinton.
Learn to love Alaska
Not Twitter :P
Anyhow, getting businesses to move in to bad neighborhoods sounds like a good idea.
- "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
>>An AC without details asserting some percentage is more likely lying by having taken some calculator like that and just calculating the worst case.
Oh, worst case would be a lot worse. I didn't include property taxes, local tax assessments, business tax, fees (pay $800 a year minimum to run a corporation in CA), capital gains, penalties, Use Tax, etc. I was just making the point that losing 40% from your salary in taxes isn't especially extraordinary.
Two rich family members dying in a row can trigger an over 100% tax assessment on assets.
>>Real people invest in things like 401(k)s and such that reduce taxes.
Retirement plans don't reduce taxes, they defer taxes. So they don't count.
>>Or have families
Slashdot.
>>Or mortgages with lots of deductible interest.
Property taxes offset a lot of the supposed benefit.
Anyhow, the point is, we're taxed plenty. The government should be able to make do with the money it takes in.
What these 'gay parts of town' usually are without is families and children. An all-adult environment is, well... kinda sterile.
Well, you can solve that the way it is solved in the Netherlands: let gay people marry and adopt children like everyone else.
But we were comparing the situation before (Beirut, noone wants to come there unless you have something shady on your mind) and after (lots of little shops, attractive place to be, artists and other friendly folk on the street 24/7 so place is much safer). Once you have a safe place, families will move in as well. They're just not the first to come and risk the lives of their children, so be happy the people without kids are the pioneers.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
In fact what they got Twitter to agree to is to build new offices in a scummy slum part of town, which of course will now cost Twitter in extra security and such
Ohhhh, I think that's painting it on pretty thick. San Francisco is so gentrified now that there are very few "scummy slum parts of town" that aren't tucked away where nobody has to see them -- the Bayview and Hunter's Point neighborhoods in particular. If you want to avoid this particular scummy slum, all you'd have to do is walk about two blocks.
Breakfast served all day!
"white and republican"
How very narrow minded. Basically, if you don't beat the liberal drum and agree that gay is an "alternative lifestyle" they you must be white and republican. And, you call people who disapprove of homosexuality narrow minded? Phhht.
Sodom didn't have a damned thing to do with homosexuality? I guess - there are plenty of liberal minded (and other) people who are rewriting the Bible these days. You can read any version of events that you wish. Since you've stated YOUR personal preferences, then I'd much rather that you didn't mention the Bible at all, than to quote or misquote adulterated versions of the Bible, thank you very much.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Did your family immigrate from Sodom, or Gomorha?
The only family that immigrated out of Sodom & Gomorrah (spelling - it's in your biblez, check it out!) was that of Lot, who was a very righteous dude - or so your God says. So if you meant to offend GP, you fail even if looking from your own narrow-minded world view.
Rolling stones don't gather Moses. ...
That's why you're studying a Ph.D.
I got no idea what you're saying.
What language are you studying in?
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
"Ooh, I know this one! Is it Correlation or Causation? ('Cause we know they're not the same!)"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Income tax, yes. The figure I posted was for total tax burden at all levels of government, which is "the bottom line" after all.
It is worth considering just WHY the blighted area they locate the company into will begin to prosper. Employees of the company itself will, by and large, still prefer to commute, at least until the slum their company is located in gets rehabbed. The rehabbing will start when the taxes the company pays begin to filter into the surrounding area's infrastructure: after all, the drug lords and gangbangers aren't going away until that part of the town begins fielding policemen. The yuppies won't come until they start building decent schools nearby.
In other words, tax money (and the occasional greased palm) makes it happen. Forcing the company to set up shop locally simply means they have to pay local property taxes. They will continue to hire qualified employees wherever they can find them, and automate or outsource their jobs when they cannot. Most of their employees will still be living in the burbs. Once the slum gets rehabbed, rents will go up, and the poor people living there will move to another old and neglected neighborhood, which will become the new slum. The company employees will get tired of commuting and move into the shiny new neighborhood and the restaurants will open and everyone will pat themselves on their backs for their civic ingenuity. The wealthy residents of the nice new neighborhood will applaud the influence of capitalism and the free market on job creation and the displaced poor people will continue to complain about rich people bleeding them dry and shoving them around.
And so it goes.
Which version do you follow? What makes your version of the Bible the right version?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
someone scared him into thinking that the view forced on him is the correct view.
he had no choice. his brain was manipulated at an early age. poor fool, can't ever get out of that mental trap.
we all WANT a god but some of us are smart enough to realize we've been lied to and are not going to fall for primitive man style 'explanations' of things.
simple experiment: look around at other religions. they all think they are right. they can't all be. why are you sure yours is the 'right' one?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Hint: sodom was nothing to do with gay sex, but a civil war.
Hint: Jude 7:
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
If you prefer it in the sodomites own words: "Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (part of Genesis 19:5) If your not familiar with Biblical language and are confused by the term "know", here is a hint: "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived")
Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
Sodom DIDN'T "have a damned thing to do with homosexuality."
There's one key account in the Bible used to convey the "character" of Sodom and its inhabitants. Here's a quick paraphrase:
Lot, a good and god-fearing man in Sodom, is visited by two out-of-town strangers (who later turn out to be angels in disguise). Being the very model of hospitality, Lot invites them in for the night and has a meal prepared for them. Lot's Sodomite neighbors see he has company, and a crowd comes knocking on his door because they want to RAPE his visitors (not very hospitable of them!).
Do you think this story would reflect any better on Sodom if Lot's angelic visitors had come in the form of hot ladies? If you look at this story and think Sodom's problem is homosexuality (rather than an inclination to forcibly gang-rape strangers, in contrast to Lot's welcoming hospitality), then you have a sick and hate-twisted mind. We probably read the same bible --- you ought to try reading it to see God's love rather than to magnify your own hate.
That was why they didn't want you reading their damned book.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
How do you know when know means know or something else?
I check the context. You do the same when you tell the difference between the meaning of "gay" in "that's gay", "gay rights" and "Make the Yule-tide gay".
Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
Trying to turn the Bible into a secretly liberal-minded, humanistic text is a failed enterprise. Ultimately, the Bible does advocate the severe intolerance of a nomadic desert tribe, softened in the new testament by a cosmopolitanism introduced by a trans-cultural empire. Better to reject the absurd idea that this collection of texts is the word of God than trying to make it a sock-puppet for our 21st century ideas of fairness.
Actually one of the "gay areas" of my town has some of the best restaurants, and one of the few family owned comic book/gaming stores. There also is a couple art galleries, some boutiques, and an upscale antique store. Its a pretty good area to spend the afternoon.
Me and my girlfriend used to live right on the border to this area (right between the richest zip code in the city and one of the poorest), and it was a blast. Have of our neighbors were gay, and awesome. Most of them were professionals, and around half of them worked in IT and other "hip" emerging industries. Some guy would always go to work dressed to the nines, full suit, nice shoes, etc... And on fridays stumble home at 3:30am in a dress and high heels. Our heavily tattooed, gun toting, lesbian neighbor is among the coolest people I've ever met.
Now we live in the suburbs, in the only house without a large HOA-friendly cross attached to the front, driving the only car without a mega-church bumper sticker. Everyone is white, everyone is Christian, everyone is very boring. We just had a house party, and our neighbors were scared because only around 10% of our guests were white. This neighborhood is very, very sterile and boring, even if people do have kids. The kids never venture outside from their protective houses, with their nourishing television and video games.
I miss mixed neighborhoods.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
You obviously have some tax write-offs. Kids, house? For those who are single and don't own a home and subsidizing your lifestyle...
You better think again about who is subsidizing who. Those with children are doing a lot more to subside the lifestyle of the citizens of the united states than those without. If we were all without children then the nation would have an expect successful span of existence of about 60 years, and that's from the day the last childless person was born. That's not including that a large portion of the expenditures in this country, those things that actually put capital back into the system, are for the care of children. If your fellow citizens where not having children then your future would be very very bleak.
Nations give "breaks" to those who have children, and even those that are in heterosexual marriages, because they promote the creation and raising of successful children. Children are necessary for the continued existence and success of a society. Any even if we were not talking about the future, you would have to realize that if you are employed it is because someone had a child that is now paying for your services. Married people with children on the other hand, have considerably higher expenses than they receive in any taxes breaks. So if anyone is subsidizing anyone, it's those with children that are subsidizing those with out.
How very narrow minded. Basically, if you don't beat the liberal drum and agree that gay is an "alternative lifestyle" they you must be white and republican. And, you call people who disapprove of homosexuality narrow minded? Phhht.
I didn't know having a live and let live attitude (lets call it "turning the other cheek" or "not judging lest I be judged") was liberal. Doesn't really reflect well for the opposite view does it? I have no problem with people who disapprove of homsexuality, as a personal choice. I count myself among them, long ago I decided I didn't like it and stuck with not being gay. The second you start to enforce your subjective preferences on others though, I disapprove. Thats not narrowminded, I also disapprove of people who hate blacks, Muslims, Christians, Americans, or anyone else who isn't like them. Especially if they take an active stance on their bigotry and try to suppress that group. If Christians were ever persecuted, I would feel the same way about their persecutors as I do towards the Christian fringe who hates homosexuals.
I personally dislike American Idol. So I choose not to watch American Idol. This is fine. Many people among the religious would start from the same point and decide that NO ONE should be allowed to watch it.
I guess - there are plenty of liberal minded (and other) people who are rewriting the Bible these days. You can read any version of events that you wish. Since you've stated YOUR personal preferences, then I'd much rather that you didn't mention the Bible at all, than to quote or misquote adulterated versions of the Bible, thank you very much.
Any idea what is actually says in the original Hebrew? Does the original text stack up to the Chinese whispers English version? The version whose main translation was pretty much made just to consolidate power for one English king? And how does this translated oral tradition version of events actually relate to the events which is speaks? Most of the stuff in the old testament is thought to have occurred long before it was codified in the text.
Also which bible, and which translation do we go by? What makes your text better than others based on the same source material? Translating is an art, akin to actual writing, especially from ancient languages. Hell, the full text of the modern Bible was voted on long after it was written, and the current form is hugely subjective.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
There's also this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49-50&version=NIV
49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
So if any arrogant, overfed and selfish person thinks he's doing OK just because he's not doing "detestable things", he should think again.
That Lot was considered righteous compared to the rest of those in Sodom might be an indication how bad things were. From what I read, Lot doesn't seem to be an extremely righteous person.
Sorry, meant aren't. The religious scumbags really piss me off as I have a gay kid, he is the sweetest most gentle creature you would ever want to meet, literally wouldn't hurt a fly, and I have seen knuckle draggers drag their kids across the street rather than let them come anywhere near him.
It took three janitors to keep me from bitch slapping the fuck out of a fifth grade teacher who brought a bible into her fifth grade class to speak about "Sodomite and idol worshiping heathens "(his brother is Catholic). I would have loved to sue the whole fucking town out of existence, but unfortunately my sister who gave me the boys to raise when she found out her illness was terminal, didn't want the last year of her life to be a circus.
Oh and those "Xtian values" that bitch rallied for? We home schooled the boys after that and now the oldest is in pre-med, the youngest is deciding whether to be a graphic artist or a chef, meanwhile the kids in the class they were in are 2/3rds junkies or dropouts INCLUDING the bitches little bitch who got knocked up and became a meth whore.
As for those villages being sterile? Easy way to fix that, there are TONS of kids growing up in the system right now that could use a loving stable home, but the bigots won't allow that. Isn't it funny how they rally against abortion but then don't want a damned thing to do with the offspring nobody wants, except to tell everyone else THEY can't have them either? Last I checked something like 40%+ of the kids dumped in the system that aren't infants will NEVER be adopted, and instead be bounced from one facility and foster home to another. I wonder what the crime rate for those kids turned adults are? I bet pretty high as being told nobody wants you from an early age must destroy their self esteem.
I know plenty of gay couples that would be happy to open their homes to a couple of kids nobody else wants, too bad knuckle dragging bigots will NEVER allow it to happen. Instead the gays have found a way around it, with the gays and lesbians working out deals where the lesbians are artificially inseminated by the gays and then either keep the child themselves or give the child to the gay couple. Just shows that yet another stupid pointless law hurts nobody but the most vulnerable.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I think it's that the gayer it is, the nicer it is.
Citation required.
Oh don't forget the best part! The best part is over a third of the bible was thrown away in the third century and NEVER put back! Can you imagine reading LOTR and having over a third of the chapters shitcanned in no particular order? Do you think you would have ANY clue as to the author's meaning? And yet people base their lives on a book with a third missing LOL!
Sorry I can't remember the king's name but I DO remember the story: Basically the king got tired of the "My Bible is better than your Bible!" and all the bullshit, so he called the religious leaders of the day into a conference. he told them basically "nobody leaves until you get your stories straight, and anybody who doesn't agree can have his head on a pike out front" which got them to STFU REAL quick. They then threw out ANY and ALL books they couldn't agree on, and the 28 or so books in the bible got cut down to the 12 in there now.
So I personally find it hilarious that so much hatred and bigotry is done in the name of a book with nearly half the chapters missing. That of course doesn't count the parts later cut by the Catholics or old King "I hate women unless they're barefoot and pregnant!" James. So personally I think the Soviets had the right idea, pile up their books and throw them in the fire. For 80 years they had different religions living side by side but without organized bigotry they didn't go around killing each other. what happened when they allowed religious "freedom"? "My god is better then yours, you heathen!".
Pile up the religious texts and break out the gasoline. While I hate the thought of losing ANY book, the amount of suffering caused by the three major religions makes Mein Kampf and the little red book look like Mickey Mouse coloring books in comparison. The world would be a better place if they simply didn't exist.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Your logic is that people would stop having kids without tax breaks? I'm not buying it.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
If you prefer it in the sodomites own words: "Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (part of Genesis 19:5) If your not familiar with Biblical language and are confused by the term "know", here is a hint: "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived")
From Ancient Aramaic to Ancient Hebrew to (a more) modern Hebrew, other parts from Ancient Greek twisted in some parts from to Selucid mix of Indo-Iranian and Greek, other parts straight from ancient Greek to Latin and all eventually finds its messed up way into King James English. At this point direct quotes are no longer relevant, but rather the overall message. Though I'm not sure what that message is, after all the hero of said story offered up his daughters for the horny crowds to gang rape and later personally impregnates both of them. although Mr Lot aka Fritzl does later claim they date raped him.
While mentioning this offtopic but overall message of love from the Bible, I'll leave you with a quote from the same Bible you quoted yourself Sveinungkv
Hosea 13:16 (King James) "Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."
So, you're saying that there are 12 books in the Bible today?
Just give it up. Your ignorance shines through, just as clearly as my own ignorance would shine If I professed to be a networking guru. And, you don't even know the king's name? I already said - give it up. You obviously know nothing, but you are more than happy to parrot some bullshit you read in an activist magazine.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
There is no "live and let live" today. Activists march in the streets, they have parades in half the major cities, whining and crying, demanding rights that are ridiculous - but when someone posts their disapproval of that behaviour - he's intolerant.
"Live and let live"?
Funny - there isn't a lot of that "live and let live" for those of us who think there might be a god, or a God.
As for the Bible - let's read Hebrew, alright? That's right, go right back to the Hebrew. Can't read it? Amazing - there are several good translators on the internet. Use them all, and see what the differences are. Then, ask a Jewish freind which is most accurate. Not my fault you can't read Hebrew, and you have no Jewish freinds. I'll bet you can't read Greek, either.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Retirement plans don't reduce taxes, they defer taxes. So they don't count.
I give up. I can't win an argument against the insane. When the number is reduced, if you don't like the way the number is reduced, you claim it doesn't count. When you take out everything you don't like, multiply everything you want to include by 10, then you are right, we pay more in taxes than we actually make. You win. My taxes were really $250,000 on $100,000 in income, I was just lying before.
Learn to love Alaska
Many years ago I lived in a heavily gay San Francisco neighborhood. It was heaven, because wherever you have lots of gay men, the heterosexual females are hungrier than usual. A straight man with a job, a car, and semi-decent clothes and manners who lives in a gay neighborhood will never lack female companionship.
Nothing he has said indicates any party affiliation not is the republican party strategy to borrow and spend.
Then we read differently. The comments about taxes being too high and getting nothing from them (apparently, he doesn't like the police, roads, schools, etc.) are right along party lines, even if he didn't explicitly state a party. That you purposefully choose to ignore that doesn't change that fact.
Let's see some citations for [military + debt service exceeding income tax receipts].
Really? So your argument is "citation needed." You realize that argument is "I'm ignorant on the subject and too lazy to google for myself, so please do all the work so that I can attack your sources as soon as you post them." If not how you meant it, I'd suggest you stay away from such annoying memes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
That's from the first hit. Now, admittedly, that's not supporting my statement. I took my numbers from the official 2011 budget, not from Wikipedia's report of actual spending for the previous year. But tracking down the parts I did was multiple pages and I don't have the time right now. You can if you like. The sum of "net interest" and "defense department" is essentially the same as "individual income." For 2011, the numbers are such that "net interest" and "defense department" exceed "individual income" in the budget. But that was just the first link off a google search for "US budget" and here you are demanding citations when you can't even be bothered to look at the first hit from the most obvious and basic search.
"Citation needed" just means that you are too stupid to know what you are talking about and too lazy to look for yourself before posting "nuh uh." So if I'm a little harsh, it's because I don't like that response. Arguing from the platform of willful ignorance should be left to the talk show hosts.
Wrong, we could balance the budget, we couldn't remove the debt.
No, if we eliminated everything from the 2011 budget other than military and debt interest, we still wouldn't balance the budget. That you are ignorant and willfully stupid doesn't change simple math.
Oh.. I see. Your problem isn't that he wants to keep his money, it's that he doesn't want to pay the Eugenics corporation to kill innocent babies before then can gain legal status and protection under the law.
No, my problem is that what cuts to make gets massively politicized such that nutjobs come out of the woodwork to promote, defend, or attack their pet projects, whatever those may be. Given your rant about Planned Parenthood, you can't evaluate something based on what they do, but based on what you think some dead guy thought about it.
You pretend it's an all your way or nothing situation.
I pretend that when military plus debt service is greater than personal income tax receipts, you can't balance the budget without cutting the military or increasing taxes (or defaulting on the debt). That's not a radical position, that's the only position. Please point out where my statement is flawed and what other options we have.
Lower taxes and staying within our means builds a steady foundation and it is that simple.
That's great. But the foundation is rotten. The only way to stay within our means at this point is something radical like abolishing a standing army. But I've not seen "I want a small government" person yet who also wants a small military. Will you be the first? Let me know whether you are actually fiscally responsible, or just another insane neo-con who claims one thing until someone points to something they want funded and claim "that's essential."
Learn to love Alaska
here is the 2010 tax table. $100,000 in taxable income comes out to $21,000 for a single filer. If you're paying $10,000 in taxes, then your taxable income is $55,000 (or $70,000 if married). a $100,000 salary with 1 exemption and a standard deduction pays $19,098 in federal taxes.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
You gave the absolute worst case. Not a typical case. Not even an actual case (as I know some actual cases are or approximate the worst case). I gave a real case. I'm not unusual, other than in addition to bitching about SS not going to be around to give me any money, I actually put a good bit in my retirement myself. Own a home, put away some for retirement, and things like that, and suddenly you find that you are paying 10% in taxes while your gross income would otherwise put you in the 25% bracket. And even if you are just a single person living in your mother's basement, you are paying $20k in federal income taxes, far from the 40% quoted.
Learn to love Alaska
that's my actual case.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
it's also a translation, some people forget that the English version of the Bible was not the first. how do you know in the original that know in the know was 'know' and not 'know', we will never know.
I agree with almost all of this, but two things: First, you keep talking about "military and debt interest" but you could say exactly the same thing (and more, because it's bigger) about "social security, medicare and medicaid."
Second, this:
The only way to stay within our means at this point is something radical like abolishing a standing army.
This really isn't true. The problem isn't that we have a military, the problem is that we spend the better half of a trillion dollars a year on it. I mean yes, if you want to balance the budget by making cuts only to the military, you would have to get rid of the whole thing. But why is that the case? It would be like saying we had to get rid of all social welfare programs.
What we have to do is to cut everything in half. If we spent half as much on the military and half as much as we do now on social programs, we would basically be there. And if that scares you, remember that the way you cut a budget in half is not by sawing every Humvee in half and selling one half on eBay.
What you do is stop funding military pork barrel projects and stop sending social security checks to millionaires. Now obviously that isn't as easy as it sounds -- you have to be able to distinguish "good military research" (see: internet) from "wasteful military research" (see: Star Wars / SDI). You have to decide who qualifies as too rich for social security, or which procedures for medicare to stop covering because they aren't cost-effective. And we won't get that 100% right, but that is no excuse for not trying.
Your logic is that people would stop having kids without tax breaks
My logic, as you put it, is those that are having children are subsidizing the entire country and so it seems only reasonable that they receive some compensation for their subsidization. Trust me, even with the tax breaks provided, the economics of raising children is not a net positive. Parents are not getting rich off of your taxes, but you are getting rich off of them and their children.
I agree with almost all of this, but two things: First, you keep talking about "military and debt interest" but you could say exactly the same thing (and more, because it's bigger) about "social security, medicare and medicaid."
No, I couldn't. Why not? Because at this point, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are fully funded (depending on who's accounting you pay attention to, or essentially within a rounding error if you take the worst case numbers). There are separate taxes for SS and medical. They are designed to fund those programs, and come pretty close to doing so, if they aren't successfully doing so now. The point is that if you eliminated SS (all the payouts, but also the SS taxes collected) you'd be no closer to balancing the budget. I guess if you wanted to argue that you could eliminate the SS payouts while keeping or increasing the SS taxes, you could. But I don't think that would go over very well politically. Apply the same for Medicare/Medicaid.
This really isn't true. The problem isn't that we have a military,
Yes, it is. We got by just fine, winning lots of wars and such, without a standing army. We won WWI and WWII with no standing army. We won the Revolutionary War with no standing army. We had a standing army and lost Vietnam. Having a standing army seems to reversely correlate with winning, yet we seem obsessed with paying billions/trillions on having guys standing around waiting for something to kill.
What happens when you have a standing army, with billions wasted on "readiness" and guys sitting around not doing anything is that you look for reasons to deploy them. That's what Eisenhower warned us about, and that's what's happened. The only escape is to not have wasted money sitting there you are looking for excuses to justify.
What you do is stop funding military pork barrel projects and stop sending social security checks to millionaires.
Social Security payments to millionaires don't cost much. SS to any one person is so tiny it's a rounding error. The number of millionaires is small enough that it won't affect everyone else. But it's impossible to have a standing army anywhere close to what we have and not have most of the expense of the military be nothing other than pork. I understand your point. And I agree with it. But I find it impossible in the US political climate. So rather than a small reset of the expenses that will climb quickly back up, I'd rather abolish the standing army and prevent the creep back up that would otherwise be inevitable.
Learn to love Alaska
The same logic says those who invest money and own companies are actually subsidizing this country. Without their wealth there would be no growth. If they all just sat on their money there would be nothing for all those kids to do, so people who invest money and own companies should pay no taxes also.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
No, I couldn't. Why not? Because at this point, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are fully funded (depending on who's accounting you pay attention to, or essentially within a rounding error if you take the worst case numbers). There are separate taxes for SS and medical. They are designed to fund those programs, and come pretty close to doing so, if they aren't successfully doing so now. The point is that if you eliminated SS (all the payouts, but also the SS taxes collected) you'd be no closer to balancing the budget. I guess if you wanted to argue that you could eliminate the SS payouts while keeping or increasing the SS taxes, you could. But I don't think that would go over very well politically. Apply the same for Medicare/Medicaid.
Obviously you wouldn't leave social security tax as it is. What you could do is reduce outlays by social security, then reduce social security tax and (at the same time and by the same amount) raise the federal income tax. But what would be far superior would be to eliminate social security tax entirely and raise the income tax to compensate. That way you would have to raise the income tax by a smaller percentage, because the general income tax is graduated in a far more equitable way than the existing social security tax.
That would also have the benefit of doing away with the legal fiction of the social security trust fund that so many people seem to misunderstand. (People just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that all current-year social security checks come out of current-year federal receipts, regardless of whether the money the treasury provides for the social security administration comes in exchange for a bond out of the trust or not. If the government issues a bond to A, we can say that A has an asset and the government has a liability. If the government issues a bond to the government, all we can say is that the government has a piece of paper -- the asset and the liability cancel each other.)
Yes, it is. We got by just fine, winning lots of wars and such, without a standing army.
The world is different than it was. Now there are nuclear weapons, private armies, stealth bombers, etc. It is no longer possible to raise in army in a period of time less than what it would take for an enemy to completely destroy you. I mean forget about China and MAD, what happens when some crackpot third world dictator gets hold of some refurbished soviet fighter jets and you haven't got anything to counter? You can't exactly spend six months manufacturing a fighter jet and training pilots in the 30 minutes between when you detect them and when they enter US airspace.
Social Security payments to millionaires don't cost much. SS to any one person is so tiny it's a rounding error. The number of millionaires is small enough that it won't affect everyone else.
I suspect there are more than you think. In any event, you know what I'm saying -- you invert the existing payment scheme. Right now people who made more money during their careers are collecting larger social security checks. So you keep payments to the people who made less than the median wage right where they are, and you reduce the payments to anyone who made more than that amount to the same level. I don't know if that would cut the outlays in half, but I bet it would cut a huge chunk out of it without causing anyone to starve to death.
At least I understand the video without looking into the English subtitles. That's good enough. Because we own more than $1 trillion in US treasury bonds.
New Economic Perspectives
Haha, ahhh, okay, so you're Chinese. Good to know. I wasn't trying to be derogatory or anything (just to clarify).
I'm currently studying with a fair few immigrants (I'm not in America), and I see a lot of these sorts of problems. Learning to read and write English really well will help you in your studies (tend to get higher grades), and will really help you get a job.
On another note, if you've got a non-anglo-saxon name (like John Smith) you might find it harder to get jobs, and will find it harder to get interviews. This is mainly because businesses are used to seeing non-anglo-saxon names, and used to seeing them have lower than average grades, used to having trouble communicating with them in the business, and on top of that, a whole lot of fundamental attribution error problems.
Because of this, a friend of mine who is Indian (from India) yet grew up in Australia, and has Australian parents, finds that he absolutely has to call up jobs he applies for, and make sure they hear his voice, and see that he's not from that certain group. When he told me this I was amazed, since I hadn't thought, or heard of it before. He said he wishes he had a (legal) anglo-saxon name, even if his parents/friends/family called him something else, just so it didn't inhibit him before the interview.
I actually have a non-anglo-saxon name, because my parents are hippies. Luckily part of my name is anglo-saxon, so I use that part instead, and leave out the other parts. When I started doing this, after my friend mentioned it, suddenly I was getting a LOT more call backs. It was quite amazing.
Also, my first name is more middle eastern than anything, and many people from reading it, assume that it's a female name (which it isn't, it's one of those strictly male names). So, I also found many people who would get my call before, shocked to hear a male voice. Always used to make a bit of a joke about it.
Anyhow, just some things I've come across. You should definitely look to improve your English to help your studied and career though (unless your studies are strictly in a non-English area, or unless you want to work outside of an English speaking country, though I hear that many countries require English for business).
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No problem. Mis-communication sometimes happens.
As for non-anglo-saxon name link to lower than average grades, it depends on the field. For STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), it is very likely than people with East or South Asian names that have higher grades than those of anglo-saxon names.
But of course, when it comes to promotion opportunity, especially for sensitive areas such as national-defense related stuff, people who have anglo-saxon names will very likely to get promoted first. This is where the term "Glass Ceiling" can be used to describe this.
New Economic Perspectives
Yeah, definitely. I have done some mathematics and technology study, and while there are many bright international students, they do seem few and far between. I think it's the added problems of having to move to a different country, possibly having to work, possibly having to study a certain quota for their visa, possibly being on their own for the first time, and lastly having to learn a totally new language. I know all of this would place a huge strain on me. When we did a statistical comparison of grades attained when seperated by natively english speaking vs. several alternative groups (there were a pile of these done, we just analyzed some data, but the university had a lot, and conducted its own), we noticed that the probability distributions for native speakers had a higher mean/mode/median than the distribution for non-native speakers. We also noticed fatter tails towards the higher end for native speakers.
Which makes sense, international students are exactly like us in demographics, personality, skill (given they passed the entrance exams), etc, so we both have similar proportions of lazy people, or people who just don't understand the material, and so these distributions should be similar. However, on top of this, you have even more challenges, so it makes sense that we'd see some difference.
The most amazing things I've seen, are talking to some people (a few from Vietnam, a few form China), where their families are paying insane amounts of money for them to study here, and these people didn't really care much about studying. They were some of the biggest partyers I'd seen. Staying out late, handing in assignments late, or not at all. Skating through with barely passes. Amazing. I just couldn't do that.
Another unrelated statistic which was quite interesting, was that your grades throughout the year, are a weak predictor of your grades at the end of the year (exam grades). Which seems totally wrong, but isn't. Given how lousy my exam grades turn out, due to the pressure/time limits/etc, and considering I get near 100%'s for all other work, I can see why universities are abandoning exams as a determinant of your competency, these days. Unfortunately, mine isn't one of them.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
On the one hand, you can understand - most of the Government's spending is for war and shitty politicians that want to use 100 dollar bills as toilet paper. On the other hand, you don't want greedy corporations controlling the country.. ahm... that would be, a nightmare reality.. yeah.
That would also have the benefit of doing away with the legal fiction of the social security trust fund that so many people seem to misunderstand. (People just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that all current-year social security checks come out of current-year federal receipts, regardless of whether the money the treasury provides for the social security administration comes in exchange for a bond out of the trust or not.
I've never met anyone who thought SS was a funded retirement plan. It's called "insurance" on the forms they send regarding it. And, like all insurance, they pool this years income and use if for this years expenses. It's exactly like an insurance program, because, well, it is. And the finances are handled like one. And it calls itself one. Just because one of the conditions at which payout starts resembles a retirement plan doesn't mean it is or pretends to be one. And as insurance programs go, it has lower overhead than any private insurance company in the US (and if you want to compare it to retirement plans, it has a lower overhead than any comparable mutual fund).
There is a simple choice, do we, as a society, agree to let old people die of neglect and starvation? We answered that question a long time ago and the answer was "no." If you like, we can ask the question again, but given the polls, I think the answer will be similar.
The world is different than it was. Now there are nuclear weapons, private armies, stealth bombers, etc. It is no longer possible to raise in army in a period of time less than what it would take for an enemy to completely destroy you.
Then why are the large number of countries out there without a standing army of note still standing? Who would try to invade the US? And if they wanted to completely destroy us, they could succeed whether or not we have a standing army. So that seems an unrelated issue. Not to mention, you don't seem to understand what "no standing army" means. It means the US government sells off everything to the states, as it was before. The National Guard in Texas alone is one of the largest militaries in the world. And it's not a standing army. Hell, if China invaded the US at Los Angeles, just the gangs alone could take them on. There are more firearms in the US than people. And, with the national guards holding nukes (maybe not all, just like the USSR only gave nukes to a small number of "member nations"), it's not like the US would just abandon all equipment to rust.
Right now people who made more money during their careers are collecting larger social security checks. So you keep payments to the people who made less than the median wage right where they are, and you reduce the payments to anyone who made more than that amount to the same level. I don't know if that would cut the outlays in half, but I bet it would cut a huge chunk out of it without causing anyone to starve to death.
I understand what you are saying. However, I think an insurance program where the more you pay in the less you get would be, well, silly. That would be a hard sell. Those with the most money have the most influence and, though they'd not lose too much, would likely oppose it.
Learn to love Alaska
>Benefits that an employee receives are given a value and will be taxed if they exceed certain numbers that are relative to all employees.
An interesting question is: what determines what benefits are "allowed"?
If the IRS had its way, giving free water to employees would be taxed, too (at maybe the rate for bottled water).
Before the rise of MS and Silicon Valley companies, businesses didn't give their employees free food & drink, pool tables, laundries, entertainment centers, daycare, petcare, and so forth.
So if some companies are giving all that stuff away, and some companies aren't (old-style corps), are "all employees" receiving the benefit so that it can be given taxfree?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Funny - there isn't a lot of that "live and let live" for those of us who think there might be a god, or a God.
I don't see anyone attacking God here, or people who believe in Him. I would be as against people who attack Christians (or any other religious group) as I am against those who attack homosexuals. The only Christians I have any beef against are those who try to force their religion, and its morality, down the throats of others. I hold this standard to everyone, though. You can do, or believe, anything you want until it harms someone else, or infringes on their rights to do likewise.
There is no "live and let live" today. Activists march in the streets, they have parades in half the major cities, whining and crying, demanding rights that are ridiculous - but when someone posts their disapproval of that behaviour - he's intolerant.
Actually the "pride" thing annoys me a bit too. Acting like a spectacle while demanding to be treated equally strikes me as a bit odd. But then again most straight males also annoy me by constantly wandering around proclaiming how straight they are. Sex should be private, no matter who you do it with. I don't care if you like women or men, it isn't my business, don't make it so.
What ridiculous rights? To be treated like everyone else? Why shouldn't they be? They aren't hurting anyone. If two men are having hot gay sex next door to me, it will never effect my life. I used to live in a predominately lesbian and gay apartment complex with my girlfriend, and my life never came crumbling to a halt, my relationship never suffered for it. My life ticked on about like normal.
Let them get married, at least in civil ceremonies, and in whatever religion will allow it. Let them have the same benefits that straight couples have. Let them adopt children... who cares. The more adoptions the better. I haven't seen any non-religious arguments that convince me otherwise.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
>>My taxes were really $250,000 on $100,000 in income
Yeah, yeah.
Funny story though, when a friend of mine got audited, the IRS claimed he owed exactly that much tax on a little bit more than that in income.
The auditor was so lazy, she just tallied up all of his deposits across all of his accounts to determine his income. Not realizing that most of it was him shuffling money between accounts and banks trying to maximize his interest rate.
(And no, he didn't end up paying $250k.)
He wasn't right on the details, but he is right on the general gist. There are tons of books that never made it into the Bible, even though various sects took them as Biblical. The Bible, especially the New Testament, didn't really exist until nearly 400 years after the death of Jesus. And even then, until will into the 16th century many sects used different sets of texts, while being oppressed by the Church. There were many many other books that were considered canonical before this point, many of which exist in the form of the Apocrypha, some of which were also found in Nag Hammadi, and other such caches of scrolls and codices.
Even reading theories on the origin and history of the New Testament is very interesting, and casts a bit of doubt on them. It is currently thought that not a single book of the Bible was written during Jesus' life time, and many were written almost a century after his death. My favorite theory is the Quelle, or Q, theory, that all the Gospels owe existence to one single source, and that source was just the basic teaching of Jesus himself, a list of quotations. All of the magic stuff was added in later as literary convention. Probably the oldest found Biblical materiel isn't even in the Bible, the Gospel of Thomas.
I digress a bit. The Septuagint (stuff that was the basis of the Old Testament) is an even bigger muddled mess. Christians don't even have 1:1 parity with Jews, and the Jews also have a very, VERY, large amount of apocrypha. The Dead Sea scrolls show that the Hebrew "Bible" had a HUGE amount of variation before Jesus.
In a sense, the Bible's we ended up with are largely accidental, and mostly political. I don't see much evidence for God's hand, in the voting and politicking of a large amount of old crusty men looking out for their own power and interests (damn those Gnostics and Manicheans, and other threatening heresies...). If God authored the Bible, its been so butchered that his voice would be all but completely destroyed.
Hell, even different translations say different things, being that translation is an art form, and not a science. I have two Bibles on my shelf next to me*, my old King James and the NIV. In King James the Commandment is "Thou Shall not Kill", where my NIV has "Murder" instead. These provide two very different readings. There are several other places where translations are a bit wonky, since much of the Old Testament comes via Hebrew by way of Greek, and finally into crusty old English. The New Testament is also a crazy quilt of translations and languages. All of which were done by human hands.
I find the Bible, and how it evolved, and how our relationship to it changes to be absolutely fascinating. The influence of Neo-Platonism on some of the writers is very interesting, as is the possible influence of Greek Cynicism on Jesus (I doubt it exists, but it is a fascinating hypothesis).
* - And a Torah, and a Koran, and a Book of Mormon, and a Principia Discordia, and The Book of Subgenious, and The Tibetan Book of the Dead, not bad for an old atheist, no? And, yes, I've read them all, several times.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I got one of those letters from the IRS. Turns out that brokerage houses are required by law to report sales of shares and can, but don't have to, report purchases of those. So I got a bill from the IRS for more than I made that year based on the assumption that every sale was 100% profit. Of course, I sent one and only one letter back to the IRS and got a letter back saying "we consider this matter closed" with me owing nothing. I kept both the initial one and the resolution as well.
Learn to love Alaska
I've never met anyone who thought SS was a funded retirement plan.
I don't understand how calling it insurance vs. a retirement plan has anything to do with the futility of the government issuing itself bonds. The problem remains: A government bond held by the government has zero value because it represents both an asset and a liability of equal value. The accounting method has no practical effect -- at the end of the day, every dollar paid in social security checks that wasn't paid that year in social security tax comes out of the federal treasury one way or another. And if that draw on the treasury becomes too large, we have to take steps to reduce it.
More to the point, setting up the accounting in the way it is causes people to be greatly misled, because it encourages people to focus on the assets and ignore the liabilities.
There is a simple choice, do we, as a society, agree to let old people die of neglect and starvation?
Are you positive that there are utterly no means by which total social security payments can be nontrivially reduced without causing widespread "neglect and starvation"? Because otherwise you're just asking a loaded question.
you don't seem to understand what "no standing army" means. It means the US government sells off everything to the states, as it was before.
That's a completely different story then. You're just saying that we should have a (smaller) military operated at the state level. Which is actually a pretty good idea.
I understand what you are saying. However, I think an insurance program where the more you pay in the less you get would be, well, silly. That would be a hard sell. Those with the most money have the most influence and, though they'd not lose too much, would likely oppose it.
The purpose of social security is that we don't want "old people to die of neglect and starvation." But if that's the case then we only have to provide money to those who would otherwise "die of neglect and starvation." The idea that rich people would be mildly opposed to that and therefore it would be hard to pass does not seem to me any kind of justification for not doing it.
I don't understand how calling it insurance vs. a retirement plan has anything to do with the futility of the government issuing itself bonds.
I never said anything about issuing bonds to itself. However, that's a process that private entities go through as well. You have to keep track on paper of transfers of funds from a holding company and the subsidiaries. The government just keeps track of that on paper that outside entities can buy as well. It's silly, but then the vast majority of GAAP is silly. Unless you've been exposed to corporate accounting, specifically regarding the handling of subsidiary companies, it seems absurd to make judgments regarding the "futility" of proper accounting.
The accounting method has no practical effect -- at the end of the day, every dollar paid in social security checks that wasn't paid that year in social security tax comes out of the federal treasury one way or another.
I honestly don't understand. This is obvious and nobody disputes it. It seems you are complaining about standard corporate accounting practices, and ones that no one seems confused about regarding SS. On "the books" it loans money to the US treasury (using the same instruments others can use for that purpose) and earns interest on that. This is not unusual. In fact, if you did that as a private company and didn't pay interest (which would happen if they just moved the money without the paperwork you think they shouldn't do) you'd likely be breaking the law. So it comes across like you are arguing against their accounting practices because you don't understand accounting, and not because of anything going on that's wrong.
Are you positive that there are utterly no means by which total social security payments can be nontrivially reduced without causing widespread "neglect and starvation"? Because otherwise you're just asking a loaded question.
I am asking a loaded question. I never asserted "widespread" and as such, your response question was as much or more loaded than mine. So you do exactly what you complain about me doing. If it's a problem, why did you do it?
That's a completely different story then. You're just saying that we should have a (smaller) military operated at the state level. Which is actually a pretty good idea.
If the military owned 100% of what it owned today and was populated by reservists, it would be "no standing army." If you just transfer the ownership to the states and then the states hire as many full-time military as now, then it's as bad or worse as now. You could even keep it federally run and be all reservists, except that they'd invent some reason to fight and call them up permanently (which is harder when the guy sending your children to death is local to you).
The purpose of social security is that we don't want "old people to die of neglect and starvation." But if that's the case then we only have to provide money to those who would otherwise "die of neglect and starvation."
But that's not fair. It's already progressive. But to take from the rich because they can afford it with the express reason of sending it to poor will not work in today's politics. If it won't pass, then it's as impossible as fixing the debt by finding 100 trillion dollars of gold under the White House. I'm sticking to things that are at least plausible, well, aside from ending the military industrial complex. I honestly think that if that started to happen, we'd have assassinations until the idea was dropped.
Learn to love Alaska
There is no "live and let live" today. Activists march in the streets, they have parades in half the major cities, whining and crying, demanding rights that are ridiculous - but when someone posts their disapproval of that behaviour - he's intolerant.
If you understand this why do you persist?
"Live and let live"?
Funny - there isn't a lot of that "live and let live" for those of us who think there might be a god, or a God.
You're allowed to live, but you aren't allowed to turn a liberal democracy into a theocracy. If you can't handle the thought of love without the blessing of your God, then you are truly selfish.
What liberal democracy? We live in a republic, here in the US of A. Please, don't confuse democracy with a republic, and don't claim that the republic is liberal.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
What liberal democracy? We live in a republic, here in the US of A. Please, don't confuse democracy with a republic, and don't claim that the republic is liberal.
The USA is a liberal democracy.
From Wikipedia:
A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic; as the United States, India, Germany or Brazil, or a constitutional monarchy, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada or Spain. It may have a presidential system (United States, Brazil), a parliamentary system (Westminster system, UK and Commonwealth countries, Spain), or a hybrid, semi-presidential system (France).
Wikipedia? It must be right then. Sorry about my confusion. See, I got my definitions out of textbooks that were written long before the internet existed, complete with web pages that are editable by any Tom, Dick, or Harry.
So - since we are a liberal democracy, why in hell is marijuana still illegal? And, why do our "representatives" fund the DEA with millions of dollars every year to put our citizens in prison?
Do you think that just MAYBE the wikipedia has it wrong?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The same logic says those who invest money and own companies are actually subsidizing this country.
Society existed before the accumulation of wealth, it will not exist after the discontinuation of breeding (at least with current technological know how). Get rid of wealth accumulation, and the ability to invest, and society would continue. Get rid of children and society is doomed to extinction. Lucky for all of us nature already figured that out and made the drive to reproduce considerably higher than the drive to accumulate wealth.
Maybe according to Hollywood. Prison can get pretty gay sometimes.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
It does not matter who came first. If holders of wealth did not reinvest, then everyone would be starving to death as food supplies dwindle from lack of increases in production capacity. Your argument is null and void.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
It does not matter who came first. If holders of wealth did not reinvest, then everyone would be starving to death as food supplies dwindle from lack of increases in production capacity.
Yes because everyone was starving to death before the accumulation of wealth and reinvestment.(please note the sarcasm)
Again, the world will not end if we stop investing capital as there remains land and resources to be had and used. It would end if we stopped having children.
Try and remember that the people actually producing food an other necessities are not those with accumulated capital, and if those with capital stopped investing, their capital would become worthless. Lets just hope that some of the people having children remember to teach them basic survival skills so when the capital dries up, or the capitalists attempt to hold society hostage, we will have some people who can teach those who can't fend for themselves how to do so. And just so you know, when that time comes, I'll be happy to teach you how to fend for yourself.
Or you can just keep paying your taxes, and keep on bitching about it, what ever makes you feel better.
Now considering this neighborhood is probably "welcome to the jungle" you are gonna have to offer something for any business to take the risk, and I'm sure there will be employees that will turn down an offer from twitter because they'd have to go into and out of such a rough area.
This is San Francisco. Going into such a rough area will be appealing because employees will be able to pick stuff up and get serviced on the way home from work!
No, I will not work for your startup
I didn't think that the suggestion that USA is a liberal democracy would be controversial, the only reason I can see for you having a problem with the term is that you think there is some kind of US "Liberal" (ie the Democrats) connotation. There is not.
There is no Left or Right bent to the term, it has to do with civil liberties, like freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the freedom to vote (hint: the other freedoms aren't subject to this.)
Waaay down the list you might find the liberty to toke, and yes it is a civil liberty to do so, but compared to those others, it is of little consequence.
If you think we can return to the days of humans plowing fields or can even let our technologies stagnate, then you clearly have no idea of what our supply chain looks like nor what the increases in production capacity of food has done to support our increasing population. Your argument still falls flat on its face. You also have no idea what a capitalist is.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Capitalist - a person who has capital especially invested in business
At least that is according to Meriam Webster, but they also think nuclear can be pronounced Nuculer so I'm not sure we should accept their definition.
Your lack of understanding the meaning of Capitalist doesn't make your entire argument invalid. But your lack of understand or recognition of history on the other hand does.