Your gross wages are not your money, it is your employers money and if your taxes go down, well your gross wages go down, either directly or through inflation, so your take home pay is the same or a little bit more. Taxes are taken into consideration when pay is calculated. This is why so many large employers push for lower taxes, so they can decrease their payrolls.
Honesty about BS is worse as the fact that people actually vote for the BS... While lies about change and transparency is horrible, at least when the voters agree it seems like a good thing. It was really nice to see Obama voted in as he was in 2008 as it showed what the American population actually wanted. It's just a shame that he has turned into the great disappointment. I might add that promises about transparency seems to be the best way to get elected (all my levels of government have been elected on promises of transparency and all have been at least opaque with the feds being the most secretive ever,our PM won't even let anyone see him eat) with change being really important at times. When things are good, change doesn't sound as inviting.
The reverse is also true, when people pay all the countries tax they need to be paid that much more or don't have any spare money to support businesses. Currently we have a compromise, good for business as they can write off expenses including the owners salary, money spent on upgrading, expanding etc and only get taxed on pure profit.Good for people as their taxes aren't so high and have enough money to meet basic needs and hopefully some left over to support various businesses.
If that is so, then why are we by far the most violent and aggressive species on earth?
Lots of species more violent and aggressive then us, we often co-operate while lots of other species never co-operate and just try to kill each other if they find themselves in the same territory. Siamese Fighting Fish is one example, put two males together and they fight. We are better at violence then other species due to our use of tools.
Throw in the food waste, I forget the figures but there is an amazing amount of food wasted between what people don't eat, what is wasted between farm and consumer and what the farmer wastes. Then throw in the inefficient crops including those that don't even go for food but rather things like ethanol at an energy loss and then eliminate cows from the food chain, some chickens, goats, pigs, or sheep are way more efficient resource wise then a cow and possibly we're up to feeding all those 4 billion, especially if similar things were done world wide, especially the wastage caused by warlords
Ignoring how communism enabled Russia to go from feudal to space fairing in less then 60 years while making huge sacrifices to win WWII and suffering from totally nutty authoritarian dictators (is there any examples of really successful capitalistic dictatorships?), perhaps the biggest thing it did was make the capitalists share the wealth with the average worker so they didn't get killed in a socialist revolution. Things were pretty bad under pure capitalism (think Dickinson England) with the exception of areas where land and resources were freely available to the common person for the cost of a bit of genocide.
It's not first-world government and economic standards. It's simply educating and empowering women and giving them access to birth control. Turns out that most women don't want to be pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove but would rather have a life. The obvious example was the USSR (along with most of the communist states), by definition a second-world government, which educated their women and had a falling population growth rate. Currently Russia really has a falling population.
Its been claimed (I didn't actually check but from a reputable source) that it's cheaper for me to buy a built in Canada car by driving south 30 miles to the closest American airport, fly to Hawaii, purchase the manufactured in Canada car and ship it back including doing the paper work and paying the duty and taxes. On the other hand yesterday the CBC radio show Q had an interview with whats his name from the daily show and they had to geopolitically block it to only stream from youtube and cbc.ca to Canada. Today Americans outraged as they'd never been geopolliically been blocked before and Canadians smirking with the "see how it feels attitude"
Every point you make can be reversed. Employees don't do anything with their wages except (eventually) spend it therefore growing the business of where ever they spend it and then it's taxed when the business makes money. If those employees take their money and open a business, then it's taxed. The people don't benefit from services, education etc excepting when it's useful to the company. No one to hire you, well what good is the education? And when they get a job, the money means nothing until they spend it, allowing a business to profit and pay taxes. The employees money shouldn't be taxed as all it does is sit there until it is spent which creates profits for a business and they can then pay a tax. If the employee uses the money to start a business, then it gets taxed based on how profitable the business is. Really only businesses should pay taxes as they are the ones who benefit from people having money to spend.
It's easy to not pay taxes, you do it the same way as not paying a business, don't use their services. You don't have an income, you don't pay taxes, simple and no one will violently throw you in jail for not using the services that allow an income. Actually most countries will allow you to make a small amount and still not pay taxes.
And yet business continues to move south (or be bought out by American companies). Tax is just one of the costs of doing business and when everything else costs 1/3rd more being able to save 1/6th in taxes isn't as inviting.
If you look closely at the constitution you'll notice that while the navy was easy to fund, the army not so much and the air force not at all (how hard would it have been to pass a constitutional amendment making or at least clarifying the air force constitutional?) . They also added an amendment clarifying that people should own arms so they could be part of an effective militia. You founding fathers as most enlightened people of the time, understood well that keeping a standing army was an invitation to tyranny and sure enough the military industrial complex is one of the major pushers to tyranny today. Besides do you really need to outspend the rest of the world for defence?
Huh? They go hand in hand, without the surveillance wouldn't have to worry about the coercion and threats and why do the surveillance unless looking for dirt.
The surveillance puts a damper on free speech, it's hard to freely communicate knowing the government can be listening in. This is especially true for dissenting political speech, whether you're part of the opposition party or more extreme the possibility that the government can be listening in dampens. The government is quite capable of screwing you if you come to its attention as a threat of any kind. Whether digging into your tax situation, spreading mis-information or setting you up for a criminal investigation.
Coal, oil and similar do basically disappear. If we got blasted back to the pre-industrial revolution, that lack of easily available concentrated energy would make it much harder to industrialize.
In Canada, it is legal, at least as long as you don't do photography in a voyeurism or criminal harassment manner as citizens are exempt from privacy legislation, at least for personal, journalistic or artistic purposes and the feds have only become involved when drones are operated around airports and over a certain height. Constitutionally it is clear that regulating airspace (above a certain height I believe) is a federal responsibility and so is criminal law. So the feds could pass a law criminalizing drone use. The Province also has quite a bit of power and can regulate drone use, especially when it comes to privacy, a constitutional right according to the way our Supreme court has interpreted our equivalent to the 4th amendment. So far I don't believe any regulations have been passed. Of course the other problem is enforcement, which apartment did that drone fly out of?
What do you do when, as recently happened in Vancouver, drones start hanging out of peoples high rise apartments looking through the windows. Shooting the drones isn't a solution as they'll fall down on a crowded street. The problem is when rights conflict.
The service jobs are already full of foreign workers though legal under the foreign workers program. Seems Canadians don't want to be abused for less then a living wage whereas you can hire a Filipino, put them to work in the wrong restaurant rather the one that they're legally allowed to work in and then threaten them with deportation to keep them on their toes. Gotta have cheap Timmies and coffee
Slashdot Mirror
Well you'll be pleased to hear that Netflix is reviving Trailer Park Boys
Assuming you fled to America, how much would your taxes be if the American government wasn't borrowing trillions of dollars to keep your taxes low?
Your gross wages are not your money, it is your employers money and if your taxes go down, well your gross wages go down, either directly or through inflation, so your take home pay is the same or a little bit more. Taxes are taken into consideration when pay is calculated. This is why so many large employers push for lower taxes, so they can decrease their payrolls.
Read up on active galaxies, eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....
Honesty about BS is worse as the fact that people actually vote for the BS...
While lies about change and transparency is horrible, at least when the voters agree it seems like a good thing. It was really nice to see Obama voted in as he was in 2008 as it showed what the American population actually wanted. It's just a shame that he has turned into the great disappointment.
I might add that promises about transparency seems to be the best way to get elected (all my levels of government have been elected on promises of transparency and all have been at least opaque with the feds being the most secretive ever,our PM won't even let anyone see him eat) with change being really important at times. When things are good, change doesn't sound as inviting.
No argument there, just arguing that the idea that capitalism always results in progress and communism never does.
The reverse is also true, when people pay all the countries tax they need to be paid that much more or don't have any spare money to support businesses.
Currently we have a compromise, good for business as they can write off expenses including the owners salary, money spent on upgrading, expanding etc and only get taxed on pure profit.Good for people as their taxes aren't so high and have enough money to meet basic needs and hopefully some left over to support various businesses.
If that is so, then why are we by far the most violent and aggressive species on earth?
Lots of species more violent and aggressive then us, we often co-operate while lots of other species never co-operate and just try to kill each other if they find themselves in the same territory. Siamese Fighting Fish is one example, put two males together and they fight.
We are better at violence then other species due to our use of tools.
Throw in the food waste, I forget the figures but there is an amazing amount of food wasted between what people don't eat, what is wasted between farm and consumer and what the farmer wastes. Then throw in the inefficient crops including those that don't even go for food but rather things like ethanol at an energy loss and then eliminate cows from the food chain, some chickens, goats, pigs, or sheep are way more efficient resource wise then a cow and possibly we're up to feeding all those 4 billion, especially if similar things were done world wide, especially the wastage caused by warlords
Ignoring how communism enabled Russia to go from feudal to space fairing in less then 60 years while making huge sacrifices to win WWII and suffering from totally nutty authoritarian dictators (is there any examples of really successful capitalistic dictatorships?), perhaps the biggest thing it did was make the capitalists share the wealth with the average worker so they didn't get killed in a socialist revolution.
Things were pretty bad under pure capitalism (think Dickinson England) with the exception of areas where land and resources were freely available to the common person for the cost of a bit of genocide.
So about the population of communist China.
It's not first-world government and economic standards. It's simply educating and empowering women and giving them access to birth control. Turns out that most women don't want to be pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove but would rather have a life.
The obvious example was the USSR (along with most of the communist states), by definition a second-world government, which educated their women and had a falling population growth rate. Currently Russia really has a falling population.
Its been claimed (I didn't actually check but from a reputable source) that it's cheaper for me to buy a built in Canada car by driving south 30 miles to the closest American airport, fly to Hawaii, purchase the manufactured in Canada car and ship it back including doing the paper work and paying the duty and taxes.
On the other hand yesterday the CBC radio show Q had an interview with whats his name from the daily show and they had to geopolitically block it to only stream from youtube and cbc.ca to Canada. Today Americans outraged as they'd never been geopolliically been blocked before and Canadians smirking with the "see how it feels attitude"
Every point you make can be reversed.
Employees don't do anything with their wages except (eventually) spend it therefore growing the business of where ever they spend it and then it's taxed when the business makes money. If those employees take their money and open a business, then it's taxed.
The people don't benefit from services, education etc excepting when it's useful to the company. No one to hire you, well what good is the education? And when they get a job, the money means nothing until they spend it, allowing a business to profit and pay taxes.
The employees money shouldn't be taxed as all it does is sit there until it is spent which creates profits for a business and they can then pay a tax. If the employee uses the money to start a business, then it gets taxed based on how profitable the business is.
Really only businesses should pay taxes as they are the ones who benefit from people having money to spend.
It's easy to not pay taxes, you do it the same way as not paying a business, don't use their services. You don't have an income, you don't pay taxes, simple and no one will violently throw you in jail for not using the services that allow an income.
Actually most countries will allow you to make a small amount and still not pay taxes.
And yet business continues to move south (or be bought out by American companies). Tax is just one of the costs of doing business and when everything else costs 1/3rd more being able to save 1/6th in taxes isn't as inviting.
If you look closely at the constitution you'll notice that while the navy was easy to fund, the army not so much and the air force not at all (how hard would it have been to pass a constitutional amendment making or at least clarifying the air force constitutional?) . They also added an amendment clarifying that people should own arms so they could be part of an effective militia. You founding fathers as most enlightened people of the time, understood well that keeping a standing army was an invitation to tyranny and sure enough the military industrial complex is one of the major pushers to tyranny today.
Besides do you really need to outspend the rest of the world for defence?
Huh? They go hand in hand, without the surveillance wouldn't have to worry about the coercion and threats and why do the surveillance unless looking for dirt.
Some of our governments look at what the USA is doing and salivate and of course the rest of the 5 eyes play right along.
The surveillance puts a damper on free speech, it's hard to freely communicate knowing the government can be listening in. This is especially true for dissenting political speech, whether you're part of the opposition party or more extreme the possibility that the government can be listening in dampens. The government is quite capable of screwing you if you come to its attention as a threat of any kind. Whether digging into your tax situation, spreading mis-information or setting you up for a criminal investigation.
Given a couple of hundred million years things would probably be back to plentiful when it comes to all those resources.
Coal, oil and similar do basically disappear. If we got blasted back to the pre-industrial revolution, that lack of easily available concentrated energy would make it much harder to industrialize.
In Canada, it is legal, at least as long as you don't do photography in a voyeurism or criminal harassment manner as citizens are exempt from privacy legislation, at least for personal, journalistic or artistic purposes and the feds have only become involved when drones are operated around airports and over a certain height.
Constitutionally it is clear that regulating airspace (above a certain height I believe) is a federal responsibility and so is criminal law. So the feds could pass a law criminalizing drone use. The Province also has quite a bit of power and can regulate drone use, especially when it comes to privacy, a constitutional right according to the way our Supreme court has interpreted our equivalent to the 4th amendment. So far I don't believe any regulations have been passed.
Of course the other problem is enforcement, which apartment did that drone fly out of?
What do you do when, as recently happened in Vancouver, drones start hanging out of peoples high rise apartments looking through the windows. Shooting the drones isn't a solution as they'll fall down on a crowded street.
The problem is when rights conflict.
The service jobs are already full of foreign workers though legal under the foreign workers program. Seems Canadians don't want to be abused for less then a living wage whereas you can hire a Filipino, put them to work in the wrong restaurant rather the one that they're legally allowed to work in and then threaten them with deportation to keep them on their toes. Gotta have cheap Timmies and coffee