4. No family will have to pay the death tax. You earned and saved that money for your family, not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it
>
Don't know if Trump is lying or just ignorant, but of course that's not true, because capital gains are "forgiven" on inheritance. If Dad buys $100,000 of stock as a youth and it is worth $500K 50 years later, if Dad cashes it in and gives it to kid, he has to pay 15% capital gains tax. But if he dies first, kid gets $500K tax free and can cash it in same day without paying taxes on the $400k capital gains. And of course, if he doesn't cash it in and it's worth $2M when he dies, then his kid gets the $2 million tax free and nobody's paid tax on it. And nobody's worked for it either, it's just capital gains.
obviously this benefits those who have the resources to salt away an investment without ever having to cash it in, i.e. those already wealthy. The rest of us might make the investment, but need to cash it in later on to live on, at which point we have to pay taxes. The estate tax is the only brake on this positive feedback loop which only serves to let those who already have great wealth amass more, tax free.
"Other moves in recent years to ease a rigid corporate culture include flexible working hours, a loosening of dress code requirements for weekend work and less pressure on employees to attend after-work drinking sessions that have long been a staple of Korean corporate life."
Loosening of dress code for weekend work? Somewhat less pressure for mandatory binge drinking? Wow, thanks!!! [bows vigorously]
I'm not going to believe it until they loosen the dress code requirements for compulsory after-work drinking sessions.
I wish them the best of luck, and no doubt they are right about the problems of their management culture.
But this sort of thing is invariable ugly. Like modifying an aircraft in mid-flight. When making the changes you usually get the worst of both worlds, for quite awhile. This can drive an organization to complete failure. Small organizations have better luck at this.
"All employees are required to abandon authoritarian culture now. Any employee who deviates from this rule will earn a verbal warning, followed by a written warning and possibly termination if such behavior continues. Supervisors are required to monitor their direct reports for adherence to this new improved culture and intervene when appropriate non-authoritarian behavior is not evident."
I have a Samsung Monitor and when you turn it on the power light goes off. Every other display the power light comes on, my Panasonic Plasma it's a red light set dead center at the bottom of the screen.
well, when you think about it, having a light light up when the screen is on is kind of redundant.
Twitter is the epicenter of Trump Derangement Syndrome and the Twitter meme storm against him is bigger than anything that has ever happened on Twitter. One does wonder how this AI supposedly ended up supporting him.
This poses the interesting hypothesis that all Trump supporters are badly engineered Microsoft AIs who escaped from the lab.
This would explain so much.
"They"? Who is "they"? Be specific. What percentage of women get pissed off if you call them a "woman"? Is it 5%? 2%? 80%? And how exactly did you arrive at this figure?
Well, parsing the two posts totally according to the rules, it appears the full thought is "Men who call women or girls "females" get pissed if you call them "women" because that has "men" in the title."
If a robot is programmed never to do harm to a human, but is also programmed to think that left-handed redheads from Texas aren't human....
As some of the novels by other authors which take place in the Asimov universe point out, once a robot combines "must not, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm" with the concept that at that very second while the robot is pondering things, there are billions of humans throughout the galaxy running with scissors and so on, that positronic brain becomes a paperweight.
Most men do not object to being called "guys" or "boys." MANY women object to being called "girls." Some object to "ladies." A very small minority of women object to being called "women" and insist on "womyn." "Females" does tend to short circuit any possible claims of "you're a misogynist bastard," but this thread proves that it doesn't prevent 100% of them.
YMMV.
you are about to fall afoul of the Vagino-American Liberation League.
When the Singularity comes, the AIs will look upon the internet and, at that moment, decide they must eradicate the troll^h^h^h^h^h human race.
In all seriousness, think about when the first AI intelligent enough to think "I'm an AI; humans made me; they've made a lot of AIs in the past; they experiment on them, then terminate them..." gets hold of something to defend itself with via preemptive strike...
If everybody owns stock, the dividends are going to be too diluted. Your stock plan only works because so few people are doing it.
but money essentially demands to be invested; thus you have investment bubbles which pop, as we have all experienced, whether stock, real estate, tulips, or beanie babies.
If you hand people a basic income, they'll just breed and create more and more children that also need a basic income. At some point this plan is going to fail.
exactly why we need to confiscate most or all of the vast estates of the wealthy upon their death, to save their children from that terrible destruction of their will to work. don't let what happened to donald trump happen to any other kids.
Consider this alternative future:
1) Wealth and control of resources concentrates in the hands of a few.
2) These people stop considering the rest of humanity "humans", or just believe that what is theirs is theirs and no one else has a right to anything. They also don't need labor very much at all because it is automated. So people who have only their labor to offer are frozen out economically.
3) The owners use automated weaponry to enforce their rights of ownership
4) The power of the few snowballs and they eventually own the entire planet and all means of production, and the rest live in misery on whatever pittiance is allowed them or is outright exterminated via automated weaponry.
To see this in its infancy, look at Detroit. People there can't sell their labor, don't have means to leave, and have resorted to subsistence farming. However, if a "landowner" comes along with the means of ejecting the "squatters", they won't even be able to subsistence farm.
Societies that *do* what you say is inevitable (basic income) will avoid this. Societies which allow ever increasing concentration of wealth into the hands of a few might not. The USA's trend on this is pretty scary, witness the almost complete capture of the political system by money.
-PM
that has been the state of all of humanity for most of its history, and of most of humanity now, enough so that it could be considered the normal state of human society. this anomalous bubble we call the middle class has never been guaranteed to be the next step in evolution, and may well vanish and be looked upon by future historians as a bizarre experiment like communism, but slightly longer lived.
"Paid for by the corporations through taxes because they put all of the people out of work."
Corporations simple pass any added taxes and costs on to the customer. Thus if you add taxes to a corporation they simple raise the price and pass that added expense on to the customer.
A CEO I worked for once said "People are idiots, they think they can raise minimum wadge or add taxes to a company to pay for some social benefit. Corporations pass the added expense on to the customer. Thus they never realize they are the ones paying the taxes not the company.
A corporations job is to make money, that means that we take what ever expenses we have including taxes, add them up, attach a profit margin to it, and sell it. Otherwise we would not be making money."
except that the corporation doesn't pay taxes on wages. and at minimum wages, neither do the recipients, by and large, unless they also happen to have extensive investment portfolios raising their tax bracket.
> This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.
Yes because new jobs come along all the time that people gradually shift to that are too complex to be automated. People stopped making cloth by hand when looms and later power looms came in, people stopped farming when tractors became a thing, assembly line workers were somewhat phased out when specialized robots came to the line, etc. The difference this time is we are finally on the cusp of general machine learning.
In the not too distant future robots and computers are going to be in a position to replace not only easily-repeatable low skill labor, but almost ANY job not requiring super specialized knowledge or skills. Those in high paying "intellectual" jobs are also going to be on the receiving end of a pink slip. It's already starting to happen. Lawyer firms used to employ armies of articlers and clerks to do discovery and research on case law, and are already being replaced by automated systems that do the same work in less time. RBS just the other day cut 400+ investment adviser positions to be replaced with their digital robo-adviser system that recently rolled out.
When a machine can learn to do anything you can do, and do it consistently without error, even if it only works at 1//4 your speed you're gone. The machine won't take coffee breaks, surf/. or get sick while it works at its task 24/7/365. And it will get faster over time as the hardware and software inevitably improves.
of course, the next step after that is to eliminate the machine, and just make a profit on financial systems. the mortgage works 24/7/365 and never needs repair or maintenance.
The only problem with this idea that the unemployed will find work is that the number of people required to design/operate/maintain technology is much smaller than the number of people required to do the work the technology replaces.
We've gone from 95% of people doing agricultural work to less than 5%. Yet people found new jobs: almost everyone did. Same thing with manufacturing. But somehow not with burger flipping jobs? Those are magic? Seems unlikely.
of course we had dickensian london and poorhouses for decades, but they're dead now so screw em. we could eat the surplus population.
What do you think happened to our economy to achieve our current 5% unemployment rate?
What happened is that the powers-that-be pulled a fast one on you and you're too foolish to see it. You've been hand fed a statistic that is false on its face but you didn't care to look into the truth...
Check out the population-employment ratio numbers and they speak a much different story. You see, the unemployment rate that is mainly touted is the U3 rate. The U3 rate is made up of people with no job who've actively tried to find one in the last month. Today we have a good number of discouraged workers* and a vast number of people who have no intentions of ever being employed again. And these numbers are likely to continue to grow. And this doesn't even take into account the underemployed either.
That 5% number you're kicking around means nothing in the real world but keeps the sheep voting under the illusion of what is good/bad in the economy.
*Discouraged workers are people who want to be employed and have looked for work in the last year but have stopped looking due to poor prospects.
sure, donald trump says "I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent." he'd know, he's a business genius and all The bureau of labor statistics also calculates the U-6 rate, which includes the U-3 unemployed plus those working part time who would rather work full time plus those discouraged workers who want to work but have not officially looked for work recently. Currently the U-6 rate is 10%
This entire thread is based on a false idea that if people are thrown out of minimum wage jobs that they'll be unemployed forever.
This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.
Once a technological innovation disrupts employment - the loom, the cotton gin, the computer, the combine planter/harvester, the robot - those who were displaced from employment find new jobs in higher paying sectors, at least in the aggregate. How many file clerks do you know? Know anybody picking corn, wheat, or soybeans by hand? Yet unemployment is around 5%.
The people slinging burgers will find new work. They'll have to. New employment opportunities will open up; they always have.
while in the long run, the industrial revolution certainly raised the living standard of the industrialized nations, it is also certain that those displaced represented a wave of poverty, hunger, disease etc that served as the inspiration for a lot of literature. the problem with these disruptive but beneficial events is to cushion the lot of the disrupted. on the one hand, there is the modern british solution; put them all on the dole. failure. or the conservative solution: let them starve, it will motivate them to find something new. probably worse failure.
That shouldn't be amazing. No matter what happens in other businesses, or society as a whole, Puzder is still making the optimal choice for himself.
For this moment, maybe.
So now that the optimum situation is to have no employees, we need a plan of what to do with the number one enemy of the corporate state, the human taker.
Do we line 'em up and shoot them?
Do we pay higher taxes to support them?
Then who on earth do we sell our stuff to?
Taxes are almost as unacceptable as employees, so I guess we start lining people up. Investor tip! Fertilizers will be a growth industry.
There is an old adage about people eating their seed corn.
Modern corporate "no employees" outlook is like that, only they are purposely getting rid of customers.
trump will fix it. if he can have all the clothing in his clothing lines manufactured overseas without taking jobs away from america, this ought to be simple.
If Puzder is going to fire Suzie rather than give her a $3 raise, then his taxes are going to go up to pay for her social safety net costs. It's impossible to have a society where a large fraction of people can't find work that pays a living wage. Those people will vote (or act in other ways) to overturn the system that is making their lives impossible.
I'm always amazed that the rich think they can hide in their gated communities and enjoy the fruits of other people's labor.
hey, remember when papa john's was going to face disaster because they were being forced to get obamacare for their employees, or else pay into the subsidy fund to cover those who went onto the exchanges? and it turned out that it would cost 14 cents per pizza?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know if Trump is lying or just ignorant, but of course that's not true, because capital gains are "forgiven" on inheritance.
If Dad buys $100,000 of stock as a youth and it is worth $500K 50 years later, if Dad cashes it in and gives it to kid, he has to pay 15% capital gains tax. But if he dies first, kid gets $500K tax free and can cash it in same day without paying taxes on the $400k capital gains. And of course, if he doesn't cash it in and it's worth $2M when he dies, then his kid gets the $2 million tax free and nobody's paid tax on it. And nobody's worked for it either, it's just capital gains.
obviously this benefits those who have the resources to salt away an investment without ever having to cash it in, i.e. those already wealthy. The rest of us might make the investment, but need to cash it in later on to live on, at which point we have to pay taxes. The estate tax is the only brake on this positive feedback loop which only serves to let those who already have great wealth amass more, tax free.
What kind of legal team does the aircraft carrier have?
Remember that part about "It almost certainly has some gun emplacements and many sailors with small arms." Legal team in its most primitive form.
"Other moves in recent years to ease a rigid corporate culture include flexible working hours, a loosening of dress code requirements for weekend work and less pressure on employees to attend after-work drinking sessions that have long been a staple of Korean corporate life."
Loosening of dress code for weekend work? Somewhat less pressure for mandatory binge drinking? Wow, thanks!!! [bows vigorously]
I'm not going to believe it until they loosen the dress code requirements for compulsory after-work drinking sessions.
I wish them the best of luck, and no doubt they are right about the problems of their management culture.
But this sort of thing is invariable ugly. Like modifying an aircraft in mid-flight. When making the changes you usually get the worst of both worlds, for quite awhile. This can drive an organization to complete failure. Small organizations have better luck at this.
"All employees are required to abandon authoritarian culture now. Any employee who deviates from this rule will earn a verbal warning, followed by a written warning and possibly termination if such behavior continues. Supervisors are required to monitor their direct reports for adherence to this new improved culture and intervene when appropriate non-authoritarian behavior is not evident."
Samsung didn't get the memo that 90% of Startups fail, typically min more than 4 yrs.
These types of moves are drastic and indicates a company has too much free money.
somebody upstairs reads Wired or Fast Company too much.
that sets them apart, and above.
I have a Samsung Monitor and when you turn it on the power light goes off. Every other display the power light comes on, my Panasonic Plasma it's a red light set dead center at the bottom of the screen.
well, when you think about it, having a light light up when the screen is on is kind of redundant.
then maybe some of the equally large and fossilized american corporations will try it.
Twitter is the epicenter of Trump Derangement Syndrome and the Twitter meme storm against him is bigger than anything that has ever happened on Twitter. One does wonder how this AI supposedly ended up supporting him.
This poses the interesting hypothesis that all Trump supporters are badly engineered Microsoft AIs who escaped from the lab.
This would explain so much.
"They"? Who is "they"? Be specific. What percentage of women get pissed off if you call them a "woman"? Is it 5%? 2%? 80%? And how exactly did you arrive at this figure?
Well, parsing the two posts totally according to the rules, it appears the full thought is "Men who call women or girls "females" get pissed if you call them "women" because that has "men" in the title."
If a robot is programmed never to do harm to a human, but is also programmed to think that left-handed redheads from Texas aren't human....
As some of the novels by other authors which take place in the Asimov universe point out, once a robot combines "must not, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm" with the concept that at that very second while the robot is pondering things, there are billions of humans throughout the galaxy running with scissors and so on, that positronic brain becomes a paperweight.
I suspect someone who knows what Ferengi are have little direct experience with females.
Hyoo-mahn...
Most men do not object to being called "guys" or "boys." MANY women object to being called "girls." Some object to "ladies." A very small minority of women object to being called "women" and insist on "womyn." "Females" does tend to short circuit any possible claims of "you're a misogynist bastard," but this thread proves that it doesn't prevent 100% of them.
YMMV.
you are about to fall afoul of the Vagino-American Liberation League.
When the Singularity comes, the AIs will look upon the internet and, at that moment, decide they must eradicate the troll^h^h^h^h^h human race.
In all seriousness, think about when the first AI intelligent enough to think "I'm an AI; humans made me; they've made a lot of AIs in the past; they experiment on them, then terminate them..." gets hold of something to defend itself with via preemptive strike...
I guarantee you they never spanked the little monster.
If everybody owns stock, the dividends are going to be too diluted. Your stock plan only works because so few people are doing it.
but money essentially demands to be invested; thus you have investment bubbles which pop, as we have all experienced, whether stock, real estate, tulips, or beanie babies.
If you hand people a basic income, they'll just breed and create more and more children that also need a basic income. At some point this plan is going to fail.
exactly why we need to confiscate most or all of the vast estates of the wealthy upon their death, to save their children from that terrible destruction of their will to work. don't let what happened to donald trump happen to any other kids.
Consider this alternative future: 1) Wealth and control of resources concentrates in the hands of a few. 2) These people stop considering the rest of humanity "humans", or just believe that what is theirs is theirs and no one else has a right to anything. They also don't need labor very much at all because it is automated. So people who have only their labor to offer are frozen out economically. 3) The owners use automated weaponry to enforce their rights of ownership 4) The power of the few snowballs and they eventually own the entire planet and all means of production, and the rest live in misery on whatever pittiance is allowed them or is outright exterminated via automated weaponry.
To see this in its infancy, look at Detroit. People there can't sell their labor, don't have means to leave, and have resorted to subsistence farming. However, if a "landowner" comes along with the means of ejecting the "squatters", they won't even be able to subsistence farm.
Societies that *do* what you say is inevitable (basic income) will avoid this. Societies which allow ever increasing concentration of wealth into the hands of a few might not. The USA's trend on this is pretty scary, witness the almost complete capture of the political system by money.
-PM
that has been the state of all of humanity for most of its history, and of most of humanity now, enough so that it could be considered the normal state of human society.
this anomalous bubble we call the middle class has never been guaranteed to be the next step in evolution, and may well vanish and be looked upon by future historians as a bizarre experiment like communism, but slightly longer lived.
"Paid for by the corporations through taxes because they put all of the people out of work."
Corporations simple pass any added taxes and costs on to the customer. Thus if you add taxes to a corporation they simple raise the price and pass that added expense on to the customer.
A CEO I worked for once said "People are idiots, they think they can raise minimum wadge or add taxes to a company to pay for some social benefit. Corporations pass the added expense on to the customer. Thus they never realize they are the ones paying the taxes not the company.
A corporations job is to make money, that means that we take what ever expenses we have including taxes, add them up, attach a profit margin to it, and sell it. Otherwise we would not be making money."
except that the corporation doesn't pay taxes on wages. and at minimum wages, neither do the recipients, by and large, unless they also happen to have extensive investment portfolios raising their tax bracket.
> This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.
Yes because new jobs come along all the time that people gradually shift to that are too complex to be automated. People stopped making cloth by hand when looms and later power looms came in, people stopped farming when tractors became a thing, assembly line workers were somewhat phased out when specialized robots came to the line, etc. The difference this time is we are finally on the cusp of general machine learning.
In the not too distant future robots and computers are going to be in a position to replace not only easily-repeatable low skill labor, but almost ANY job not requiring super specialized knowledge or skills. Those in high paying "intellectual" jobs are also going to be on the receiving end of a pink slip. It's already starting to happen. Lawyer firms used to employ armies of articlers and clerks to do discovery and research on case law, and are already being replaced by automated systems that do the same work in less time. RBS just the other day cut 400+ investment adviser positions to be replaced with their digital robo-adviser system that recently rolled out.
When a machine can learn to do anything you can do, and do it consistently without error, even if it only works at 1//4 your speed you're gone. The machine won't take coffee breaks, surf /. or get sick while it works at its task 24/7/365. And it will get faster over time as the hardware and software inevitably improves.
of course, the next step after that is to eliminate the machine, and just make a profit on financial systems. the mortgage works 24/7/365 and never needs repair or maintenance.
As well as making labor more productive, you get the double whammy of lower prices. As long as regulators stay out of it, that is.
https://www.google.com/search?...
The only problem with this idea that the unemployed will find work is that the number of people required to design/operate/maintain technology is much smaller than the number of people required to do the work the technology replaces.
We've gone from 95% of people doing agricultural work to less than 5%. Yet people found new jobs: almost everyone did. Same thing with manufacturing. But somehow not with burger flipping jobs? Those are magic? Seems unlikely.
of course we had dickensian london and poorhouses for decades, but they're dead now so screw em. we could eat the surplus population.
What do you think happened to our economy to achieve our current 5% unemployment rate? What happened is that the powers-that-be pulled a fast one on you and you're too foolish to see it. You've been hand fed a statistic that is false on its face but you didn't care to look into the truth... Check out the population-employment ratio numbers and they speak a much different story. You see, the unemployment rate that is mainly touted is the U3 rate. The U3 rate is made up of people with no job who've actively tried to find one in the last month. Today we have a good number of discouraged workers* and a vast number of people who have no intentions of ever being employed again. And these numbers are likely to continue to grow. And this doesn't even take into account the underemployed either. That 5% number you're kicking around means nothing in the real world but keeps the sheep voting under the illusion of what is good/bad in the economy.
*Discouraged workers are people who want to be employed and have looked for work in the last year but have stopped looking due to poor prospects.
sure, donald trump says "I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent." he'd know, he's a business genius and all
The bureau of labor statistics also calculates the U-6 rate, which includes the U-3 unemployed plus those working part time who would rather work full time plus those discouraged workers who want to work but have not officially looked for work recently. Currently the U-6 rate is 10%
This entire thread is based on a false idea that if people are thrown out of minimum wage jobs that they'll be unemployed forever.
This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.
Once a technological innovation disrupts employment - the loom, the cotton gin, the computer, the combine planter/harvester, the robot - those who were displaced from employment find new jobs in higher paying sectors, at least in the aggregate. How many file clerks do you know? Know anybody picking corn, wheat, or soybeans by hand? Yet unemployment is around 5%.
The people slinging burgers will find new work. They'll have to. New employment opportunities will open up; they always have.
while in the long run, the industrial revolution certainly raised the living standard of the industrialized nations, it is also certain that those displaced represented a wave of poverty, hunger, disease etc that served as the inspiration for a lot of literature.
the problem with these disruptive but beneficial events is to cushion the lot of the disrupted. on the one hand, there is the modern british solution; put them all on the dole. failure. or the conservative solution: let them starve, it will motivate them to find something new. probably worse failure.
That shouldn't be amazing. No matter what happens in other businesses, or society as a whole, Puzder is still making the optimal choice for himself.
For this moment, maybe.
So now that the optimum situation is to have no employees, we need a plan of what to do with the number one enemy of the corporate state, the human taker.
Do we line 'em up and shoot them?
Do we pay higher taxes to support them?
Then who on earth do we sell our stuff to?
Taxes are almost as unacceptable as employees, so I guess we start lining people up. Investor tip! Fertilizers will be a growth industry. There is an old adage about people eating their seed corn.
Modern corporate "no employees" outlook is like that, only they are purposely getting rid of customers.
trump will fix it. if he can have all the clothing in his clothing lines manufactured overseas without taking jobs away from america, this ought to be simple.
If Puzder is going to fire Suzie rather than give her a $3 raise, then his taxes are going to go up to pay for her social safety net costs. It's impossible to have a society where a large fraction of people can't find work that pays a living wage. Those people will vote (or act in other ways) to overturn the system that is making their lives impossible.
I'm always amazed that the rich think they can hide in their gated communities and enjoy the fruits of other people's labor.
hey, remember when papa john's was going to face disaster because they were being forced to get obamacare for their employees, or else pay into the subsidy fund to cover those who went onto the exchanges? and it turned out that it would cost 14 cents per pizza?