I completely agree that high school should be more difficult and BS classes should be eliminated, but you have to understand that such a situation will actually increase tuition prices because universities will no longer be able to 'subsidize' the cost of research, tenured profs, overpriced equipment, etc. from entry level courses taught by adjuncts making $1500/semester. The basic problem is that we no longer subsidize a significant portion higher education through taxes. What we should be doing is making college free or nearly free (to the recipient, paid by taxes), but only for people who can prove that they have the aptitude and the dedication to see it through.
And that's exactly my point. People no longer have the ability to do this, so we're going to end up with an underclass of poor, uneducated people with no job prospects.
I actually buy from Ikea in large part for their design, and the fact that their furniture is modular. For instance, if I buy a bookcase and decide I don't really want to display my books anymore, I buy a sliding glass door, some stands, and I've turned it into a nice little liquor cabinet/bar. The quality is actually better than much of what you'll get at a "real" furniture store, as well.
The issue at hand is that Buffett makes most of his money in investments, and is thus taxed via capital gains taxes, which top out at 15%. Even with no deductions or tax tricks, he pays a lower percentage than his secretary. Granted, this is not exactly what Obama is talking up right now, but it IS what Buffett was talking about.
Well the taxes are the lowest they've been in 100 years, and we have 9.X% unemployment. Sounds to me like thos "job creators" aren't doing so great at creating jobs, so let's have them help out some other way, i.e. by paying taxes.
Can this show levels of chemicals in water that are relevant for brewing beer? It would be awesome to be able to analyze my own tap water for suitability in homebrewing.
Actually, true communism is anarchistic, with no need for a government because everyone would have an egalitarian mindset. That _can_ work e.g. hippie communes, but does not scale.
I used to college was way too expensive.. Then I realized that, for my $500 per class, plus $500 for the other 20 students, that class was only bringing in $10,000 to the university. If that class took up 1/6 of the day for the professor, and if he got every dime of it, he'd be making less than most of the fresh graduates in the field. We do need to spend more on education, but we need to focus on higher education, and accept that not everyone should be going to college. It would help if we as a society didn't see college as a 4 year long party extravaganza, too.
I'm just telling you what the methed-out Christian janitor told me. He seemed fairly representative of Christians as a whole, from what I can tell.
You know Frank the Janitor too?
Yeah, he's a hoot. Now that you mention it, I guess it's true that Evangelical Christians do love the Jews, as long as they stay to themselves and don't try to date their daughters. Of course, there's that little matter of killing Jesus, but nobody's perfect.
In all fairness, Judaism is one of my favorite religions because Jews generally have the good sense to not talk to me about religion.
Only in the past 10 years has "judeo" been widely added to "judeo-christian" and only for the most crass political reasons.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but you need to get out and talk to more self-avowed Christians who don't go to your church. As much as they love the Jews as pets, they don't believe there's any way to get to heaven without accepting Jesus as Lord. No exceptions, no how.
Maybe you're not an American? We have a very special flavor of Christian over here that appear to hold a lot more hate in their hearts than love. To them, Jesus Christ was sort of like a cross between Ronald Reagan, Rambo and Dirty Harry, who when asked how he feels about killing answered, "As long as the right people get killed."
I'm just telling you what the methed-out Christian janitor told me. He seemed fairly representative of Christians as a whole, from what I can tell.
Except that the Jews are our elders in the faith of Isaac and Abraham.
So, they'll make it to heaven with you? Even though they don't believe Jesus Christ is Lord?
That's a prevailing belief among many Christians.. The explanation I was given was that the Jews are grandfathered in under the old contract, so long as they kill and burn a lamb every now and again. But anyone just joining has to go under the new contract, which involves swearing fealty to Jesus and taking a bath.
You are aware that bible thumpers don't actually read the book, right? After all, it's too hard to understand with all the Thee's and Thou's and such. Seriously, I've heard many a "Christian" say that you shouldn't read the Bible, but merely certain passages carefully picked by your pastor. I read the thing cover to cover, and was not impressed. An inconsistent and unethical tome, that Bible.
The word you are looking for is "Reactionary", which unfortunately doesn't fit in the reduced size post Reagan dictionary of doubleplusgood ebonics for all.
Funny thing is, I'm a *contemporary* liberal, and could also be considered a reactionary, as I believe in going back to a system where we had government oversight and standards to keep corporations in check, and heavy spending on education and infrastructure to improve the lives of Americans, specifically middle class and poor Americans.
Yeah, but the internal criticism is based on the fear that MS is leaving.NET for javascript, or whatever it was they were using on that Windows 8 demo. I don't really know what that's all about, but I'm 99% sure that anything they're doing there is only on the front end, and the "front end" has never been very stable in terms of development.. There's always a newer, better way to solve that problem floating around, and I assume this is just another iteration of that. Personally I just avoid getting too invested in front end technologies... Their lifespans are too short, and most of them are easy enough to pick up that there's nothing gained by becoming an expert in them.
The Spiderman comic books have been dead to me since the whole clone wars debacle.. Seriously, I'm a bit surprised they're even still making comics anymore.. I thought Marvel and DC made their money off of franchise license these days?
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
exactly my point - if you *spend* money (thus helping the economy) you get a deduction (or it reduces profit, or taxable income). If you stuff it in your mattress/coffers you don't.
So if taxes are lower you have more money to spend on buying stuff - which helps other businesses and employment in general.
But as a business, you spend *more* when taxes are higher, because your spending is pre-tax. Businesses are not spending right now, and letting them bank almost all their profits rather than reinvesting them is not helping.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
wrong. you can't escape any taxes through investment or stuffing money into matresses. Once you get the money you pay corporate tax on it. You do that before you "lock it away".
shareholders expect a year-on-year return, so businesses need to spend money to grow to make them happy. the spending can be in many area - e.g. building new stores, acquiring other companies etc. Companies that don't spend are generally forced by shareholders to disburse any excess cash holdings to the investors, as dividends since most companies are't in business to hoard cash - they are in business to make money for investors (or owners).
You're telling me that business expenses are not tax-deductible? Because that is demonstrably false. Also, hardly any stocks actually pay dividends; most investors buy and sell stocks as if they were collectible trading cards. They only expect a return when selling the stock.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Reagan et al thought that this means that they should lower taxes to make more money in taxes
the concept is that lower taxes encourage business growth, which results in net increase in tax income, from increased profits, and increasing payroll taxes. There is some evidence for this effect.
The key concept is that the economy isn't a "zero sum" game - the economy grows through businesses creating value. For example the microcomputer industry resulted in a huge economic net gain.
Except that lower taxes mean less business growth. With higher taxes, businesses are more prone to reinvest earnings to avoid paying taxes on them. If taxes are low, then it makes more sense to lock away everything you make in your coffers in case you need it in the future.
What don't you like about the tea party? Give me some specifics, not some rhetorical talking point about "racist xenophobes". What specifically makes you want to call another group of people "those idiots". I'm not a tea party member by any measure, but I'm really curious what would elicit such a vitriolic response. The only thing I've ever heard about the tea part is that they 1. want a smaller government, and 2. want lower taxes. Both of these ideas: smaller government, less taxation, is what this country is founded upon and can hardly be called "idiotic". So what is it then that evokes such hatred? This is a serious question, not an attack.
Alright.
1.) They don't understand that the government actually does stuff. Smaller government means less government services, and they don't even realize they benefit from those services because they take them for granted.
2.) They assume that all you have to do to succeed in life is to work hard, and that anyone who needs help is leaching off of society. Social welfare programs exist because they're better than letting the poor and infirm die of starvation or easily treated diseases. And regardless of what Ayn Rand tells you, some people just get shit luck, and they don't deserve to die for it.
3.) Though somewhat counter-intuitive, low taxes are actually very bad for the economy. The higher tax rates are, the more likely the rich are to invest their money long term in order to avoid having to pay taxes. When taxes are low, the rich tend to horde.
4.) Hipocrasy. Michelle Bachman rails against welfare, yet receives farm subsidies. The House Tea Baggers think the best way to be fiscally responsible is to not pay our bills. Despite claiming that they desire to cut all government spending, they refuse to make meaningful cuts in military spending, else they would rally behind the Reid bill, which is almost exactly like their bill, but includes over 1 trillion more in cuts to military spending.
5.) Corporate welfare. Most corporate welfare is done through tax incentives. Remember how GE didn't have to pay taxes last year? that's because they receive corporate welfare. Tea Baggers are against social welfare, but love corporate welfare, and call any attempt to reduce it a "tax hike".
6.) Idealogues are stupid. This is true of the left, the right, and anyone else who believes in following an ideology blindly and without question. Ideologies are guidelines, not rules. If you can't see any circumstance in which you might have to make an exception to your general beliefs, then you can't see very far. Some on the left (i.e. Pelosi) are guilty of this as well.
I could continue, but I think I've made my point. Also, I'd like to point out that smaller government and less taxation were not the principles on which this country was founded. Individual liberty and the right of a society to choose its government were the prime motivating factors.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree that high school should be more difficult and BS classes should be eliminated, but you have to understand that such a situation will actually increase tuition prices because universities will no longer be able to 'subsidize' the cost of research, tenured profs, overpriced equipment, etc. from entry level courses taught by adjuncts making $1500/semester. The basic problem is that we no longer subsidize a significant portion higher education through taxes. What we should be doing is making college free or nearly free (to the recipient, paid by taxes), but only for people who can prove that they have the aptitude and the dedication to see it through.
Take your "real" furniture apart. If you're not spending at least 10x as much as at Ikea, you're going to find particle board or plywood.
You realize that $300/week won't even cover tuition these days, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_tense
And that's exactly my point. People no longer have the ability to do this, so we're going to end up with an underclass of poor, uneducated people with no job prospects.
You realize that $300/week won't even cover tuition these days, right?
I actually buy from Ikea in large part for their design, and the fact that their furniture is modular. For instance, if I buy a bookcase and decide I don't really want to display my books anymore, I buy a sliding glass door, some stands, and I've turned it into a nice little liquor cabinet/bar. The quality is actually better than much of what you'll get at a "real" furniture store, as well.
The issue at hand is that Buffett makes most of his money in investments, and is thus taxed via capital gains taxes, which top out at 15%. Even with no deductions or tax tricks, he pays a lower percentage than his secretary. Granted, this is not exactly what Obama is talking up right now, but it IS what Buffett was talking about.
Well the taxes are the lowest they've been in 100 years, and we have 9.X% unemployment. Sounds to me like thos "job creators" aren't doing so great at creating jobs, so let's have them help out some other way, i.e. by paying taxes.
...It's our patriotic duty to make sure they pay their fair share for this country...
Define fair share.
To some people that means they need to pay a higher percentage. To others that means they need to pay the same percentage.
I'll settle for same percentage.
Can this show levels of chemicals in water that are relevant for brewing beer? It would be awesome to be able to analyze my own tap water for suitability in homebrewing.
Actually, true communism is anarchistic, with no need for a government because everyone would have an egalitarian mindset. That _can_ work e.g. hippie communes, but does not scale.
I used to college was way too expensive.. Then I realized that, for my $500 per class, plus $500 for the other 20 students, that class was only bringing in $10,000 to the university. If that class took up 1/6 of the day for the professor, and if he got every dime of it, he'd be making less than most of the fresh graduates in the field. We do need to spend more on education, but we need to focus on higher education, and accept that not everyone should be going to college. It would help if we as a society didn't see college as a 4 year long party extravaganza, too.
You know Frank the Janitor too?
Yeah, he's a hoot. Now that you mention it, I guess it's true that Evangelical Christians do love the Jews, as long as they stay to themselves and don't try to date their daughters. Of course, there's that little matter of killing Jesus, but nobody's perfect.
In all fairness, Judaism is one of my favorite religions because Jews generally have the good sense to not talk to me about religion.
I'm sorry, friend, but that's simply not so.
Only in the past 10 years has "judeo" been widely added to "judeo-christian" and only for the most crass political reasons.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but you need to get out and talk to more self-avowed Christians who don't go to your church. As much as they love the Jews as pets, they don't believe there's any way to get to heaven without accepting Jesus as Lord. No exceptions, no how.
Maybe you're not an American? We have a very special flavor of Christian over here that appear to hold a lot more hate in their hearts than love. To them, Jesus Christ was sort of like a cross between Ronald Reagan, Rambo and Dirty Harry, who when asked how he feels about killing answered, "As long as the right people get killed."
I'm just telling you what the methed-out Christian janitor told me. He seemed fairly representative of Christians as a whole, from what I can tell.
So, they'll make it to heaven with you? Even though they don't believe Jesus Christ is Lord?
That's a prevailing belief among many Christians.. The explanation I was given was that the Jews are grandfathered in under the old contract, so long as they kill and burn a lamb every now and again. But anyone just joining has to go under the new contract, which involves swearing fealty to Jesus and taking a bath.
You are aware that bible thumpers don't actually read the book, right? After all, it's too hard to understand with all the Thee's and Thou's and such. Seriously, I've heard many a "Christian" say that you shouldn't read the Bible, but merely certain passages carefully picked by your pastor. I read the thing cover to cover, and was not impressed. An inconsistent and unethical tome, that Bible.
The word you are looking for is "Reactionary", which unfortunately doesn't fit in the reduced size post Reagan dictionary of doubleplusgood ebonics for all.
Funny thing is, I'm a *contemporary* liberal, and could also be considered a reactionary, as I believe in going back to a system where we had government oversight and standards to keep corporations in check, and heavy spending on education and infrastructure to improve the lives of Americans, specifically middle class and poor Americans.
Those who "fair badly"[sic] should perhaps clean up their language? That might bring more grants.
Not if their research is based on the quality of fair events.
Yeah, but the internal criticism is based on the fear that MS is leaving .NET for javascript, or whatever it was they were using on that Windows 8 demo. I don't really know what that's all about, but I'm 99% sure that anything they're doing there is only on the front end, and the "front end" has never been very stable in terms of development.. There's always a newer, better way to solve that problem floating around, and I assume this is just another iteration of that. Personally I just avoid getting too invested in front end technologies... Their lifespans are too short, and most of them are easy enough to pick up that there's nothing gained by becoming an expert in them.
The Spiderman comic books have been dead to me since the whole clone wars debacle.. Seriously, I'm a bit surprised they're even still making comics anymore.. I thought Marvel and DC made their money off of franchise license these days?
exactly my point - if you *spend* money (thus helping the economy) you get a deduction (or it reduces profit, or taxable income). If you stuff it in your mattress/coffers you don't.
So if taxes are lower you have more money to spend on buying stuff - which helps other businesses and employment in general.
But as a business, you spend *more* when taxes are higher, because your spending is pre-tax. Businesses are not spending right now, and letting them bank almost all their profits rather than reinvesting them is not helping.
wrong. you can't escape any taxes through investment or stuffing money into matresses. Once you get the money you pay corporate tax on it. You do that before you "lock it away".
shareholders expect a year-on-year return, so businesses need to spend money to grow to make them happy. the spending can be in many area - e.g. building new stores, acquiring other companies etc. Companies that don't spend are generally forced by shareholders to disburse any excess cash holdings to the investors, as dividends since most companies are't in business to hoard cash - they are in business to make money for investors (or owners).
You're telling me that business expenses are not tax-deductible? Because that is demonstrably false. Also, hardly any stocks actually pay dividends; most investors buy and sell stocks as if they were collectible trading cards. They only expect a return when selling the stock.
Reagan et al thought that this means that they should lower taxes to make more money in taxes
the concept is that lower taxes encourage business growth, which results in net increase in tax income, from increased profits, and increasing payroll taxes. There is some evidence for this effect.
The key concept is that the economy isn't a "zero sum" game - the economy grows through businesses creating value. For example the microcomputer industry resulted in a huge economic net gain.
Except that lower taxes mean less business growth. With higher taxes, businesses are more prone to reinvest earnings to avoid paying taxes on them. If taxes are low, then it makes more sense to lock away everything you make in your coffers in case you need it in the future.
What don't you like about the tea party? Give me some specifics, not some rhetorical talking point about "racist xenophobes". What specifically makes you want to call another group of people "those idiots". I'm not a tea party member by any measure, but I'm really curious what would elicit such a vitriolic response. The only thing I've ever heard about the tea part is that they 1. want a smaller government, and 2. want lower taxes. Both of these ideas: smaller government, less taxation, is what this country is founded upon and can hardly be called "idiotic". So what is it then that evokes such hatred? This is a serious question, not an attack.
Alright.
1.) They don't understand that the government actually does stuff. Smaller government means less government services, and they don't even realize they benefit from those services because they take them for granted.
2.) They assume that all you have to do to succeed in life is to work hard, and that anyone who needs help is leaching off of society. Social welfare programs exist because they're better than letting the poor and infirm die of starvation or easily treated diseases. And regardless of what Ayn Rand tells you, some people just get shit luck, and they don't deserve to die for it.
3.) Though somewhat counter-intuitive, low taxes are actually very bad for the economy. The higher tax rates are, the more likely the rich are to invest their money long term in order to avoid having to pay taxes. When taxes are low, the rich tend to horde.
4.) Hipocrasy. Michelle Bachman rails against welfare, yet receives farm subsidies. The House Tea Baggers think the best way to be fiscally responsible is to not pay our bills. Despite claiming that they desire to cut all government spending, they refuse to make meaningful cuts in military spending, else they would rally behind the Reid bill, which is almost exactly like their bill, but includes over 1 trillion more in cuts to military spending.
5.) Corporate welfare. Most corporate welfare is done through tax incentives. Remember how GE didn't have to pay taxes last year? that's because they receive corporate welfare. Tea Baggers are against social welfare, but love corporate welfare, and call any attempt to reduce it a "tax hike".
6.) Idealogues are stupid. This is true of the left, the right, and anyone else who believes in following an ideology blindly and without question. Ideologies are guidelines, not rules. If you can't see any circumstance in which you might have to make an exception to your general beliefs, then you can't see very far. Some on the left (i.e. Pelosi) are guilty of this as well.
I could continue, but I think I've made my point. Also, I'd like to point out that smaller government and less taxation were not the principles on which this country was founded. Individual liberty and the right of a society to choose its government were the prime motivating factors.
I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing.
Isn't that the party line that got them elected into office in the first place?
It sure is. The problem is that the sane people in society have to pay for the votes of those idiots.
Sorta forgot that part, didn't ya?
Did you RTFA? His point is that, much like LoTR, the tea bagger plan is pure fantasy.