Every state has something that keeps people there. Hell if Texas didn't have oil I doubt there'd be as much money there as there is now.
Most of PA is a dive because of all the old businesses that died off like coal. In fact I'd say most states are probably like that. The only ones that are probably more consistent are those that are primarily farming states but any rich state will have only one or two key things that make them rich and if you remove that they're fucked and it's only around those key things where the people are doing well.
Even in small countries like England it's like night and day between the north and south. All the money is in one area. I suppose it sort of balances out because the population is much more dense in the rich areas but still I can't think of any place with wealth and it's balanced across the state / nation.
I'd definitely say if we went down that route we should have to not tax the essentials. I don't really think those things should be taxed under any circumstance. It's taking advantage of people.
But the 2.8% of $4500 is still higher than $750. You're talking $121.50 vs $35.25. The rich man will also have a more expensive home(s), cars, clothes, etc.
As things are the rich person is going to have an accountant and that will get him out of paying as much as possible as things are now. They can do things like rather than actually paying themselves they're loaning themselves money to pay less tax.
But I'd generally prefer a flat income tax. No deductions at all. You just pay, for instance 20%. I'd be ok with a portion not being included that basically works out to be minimum wage. Therefore most income for the poorest won't be taxed but really everyone should contribute and rather than letting people avoid paying tax it would be better to lower government waste and taxes.
Some clothing is and some isn't. Where do you draw the line? Also clothes aren't something you buy every week so it's not a huge deal if someone has to pay tax on clothes.
I don't think the weather matters. In fact most countries with paradise-like weather are poor and it's the supposed poor weather countries that are successful.
Even if you want to discount Africa for having other issue, just look at Europe. All the warmer countries have shittier economies.
On that note, between all the fires, mud slides an earthquakes, California insurance, I would assume, is much higher than other states. That's another costly downside to the state.
Businesses bitch but when it comes down to it they aren't going to leave an area with good talent. Just as MS isn't just going to pick up and move to Florida or probably anywhere on the east coast.
California seems to forever have budget problems and that hasn't stopped hurt them yet nor have the rolling black outs they had for years. Really, if you look at everything California should be the worst state to start a business in but it still attracts businesses.
No it doesn't. Poor people buy less and if you do something sensible like not tax necessary foods like veg and meat then they can avoid sales tax on their food and eat healthier.
Poor people are some of the biggest buyers of cigarettes which are one of the highest (if not the highest) taxed item. They're also much more likely to pay the stupid tax (ie lottery) .
Quite frankly I get annoyed about all the scare mongering about how more fair tax systems (like the flat tax) supposedly hurt the poor. They don't and all the current system does is allow companies and rich people avoid more tax they should. As far as the poor the benefit tremendously from taxes so actually it's not asking too much that they pay something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't California have a state income tax as well as the highest sales tax and yet it still manages to a magnet for high tech companies. Even Microsoft has offices in Silicon Valley which, to me seems a bit unnecessary especially if high taxes are so detrimental to businesses.
If someone is selling someone's else then I'm all for the ridiculous lawsuits awards but if the person only shares 24 songs then I don't think they should have to pay any more than say $50 per song.
It'll be different for each country. They've only just came to the UK. I was correct originally too in that only 5 or so episodes are available. I thought I was wrong but when I went to view some season 3 episodes it told me they're still negotiating.
The difference being British people have to pay a TV licence which funds those programmes on the iplayer so despite iplayer not requiring a TV licence it still isn't commercial content. Where as Hulu's restrictions are purely greed. Hulu has (I believe one or two shows you can watch outside of the US) and I'm sure they'd love to show the programmes to even more countries but greedy people rather sell off rights to foreign stations who buy the TV rights and, from what I can tell not the internet rights so you get stuck with crap like not being able to watch south park online for ages and even now I believe you can only watch a like 5 or so episodes.
Grab the Android source and make your own version. Meanwhile most people will use what Google gives them and be happy they're watching their back. There is no issue as long as Apple, Google and MS don't abuse it. I'd also argue it's not your system if you're left on your own and have to be a slave to anti-virus / malware software.
I don't think there is an issue (for me at least) in there being a kill switch. If they find out there is a rogue app I'd like to see it go away if I'm unaware. What matters is what the company does with it.
Not Murdoch is an idiot with an empire build on old media and he's struggling to transition because he himself is old and can't see how to do it the right way, imo.
There are subscription services that work. It just happens that no one wants to pay for news because we all have news overload. You get news for free on tv, radio, the net and even free newspapers in the UK. Why in the hell would you pay to access a website when it offers nothing special?
I'd like to see him pay wall the Sun so all his low-class readers run off elsewhere. He won't do that nor does he really need to do that because the Sun offers "premium" trash so it's a leader. The Times isn't premium anything so it's falling to the side and he's desperate and has turned to subscriptions.
Oh yeah it's impossible to find anything in the menus. Thank god you can at least do email and meetings without them. I've gone on week long holidays without setting an away message because I couldn't find it and refused to look it up on Google because I shouldn't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
Every state has something that keeps people there. Hell if Texas didn't have oil I doubt there'd be as much money there as there is now.
Most of PA is a dive because of all the old businesses that died off like coal. In fact I'd say most states are probably like that. The only ones that are probably more consistent are those that are primarily farming states but any rich state will have only one or two key things that make them rich and if you remove that they're fucked and it's only around those key things where the people are doing well.
Even in small countries like England it's like night and day between the north and south. All the money is in one area. I suppose it sort of balances out because the population is much more dense in the rich areas but still I can't think of any place with wealth and it's balanced across the state / nation.
I'd definitely say if we went down that route we should have to not tax the essentials. I don't really think those things should be taxed under any circumstance. It's taking advantage of people.
But the 2.8% of $4500 is still higher than $750. You're talking $121.50 vs $35.25. The rich man will also have a more expensive home(s), cars, clothes, etc.
As things are the rich person is going to have an accountant and that will get him out of paying as much as possible as things are now. They can do things like rather than actually paying themselves they're loaning themselves money to pay less tax.
But I'd generally prefer a flat income tax. No deductions at all. You just pay, for instance 20%. I'd be ok with a portion not being included that basically works out to be minimum wage. Therefore most income for the poorest won't be taxed but really everyone should contribute and rather than letting people avoid paying tax it would be better to lower government waste and taxes.
Some clothing is and some isn't. Where do you draw the line? Also clothes aren't something you buy every week so it's not a huge deal if someone has to pay tax on clothes.
New York is another high tax state and its unemployment is only 8.2% and 1% lower than the US average.
I don't think the weather matters. In fact most countries with paradise-like weather are poor and it's the supposed poor weather countries that are successful.
Even if you want to discount Africa for having other issue, just look at Europe. All the warmer countries have shittier economies.
On that note, between all the fires, mud slides an earthquakes, California insurance, I would assume, is much higher than other states. That's another costly downside to the state.
Businesses bitch but when it comes down to it they aren't going to leave an area with good talent. Just as MS isn't just going to pick up and move to Florida or probably anywhere on the east coast.
California seems to forever have budget problems and that hasn't stopped hurt them yet nor have the rolling black outs they had for years. Really, if you look at everything California should be the worst state to start a business in but it still attracts businesses.
Sorry but no one is expecting them to pay as much as the rich but they should contribute something. Everyone should. It's only fair.
No it doesn't. Poor people buy less and if you do something sensible like not tax necessary foods like veg and meat then they can avoid sales tax on their food and eat healthier.
Poor people are some of the biggest buyers of cigarettes which are one of the highest (if not the highest) taxed item. They're also much more likely to pay the stupid tax (ie lottery) .
Quite frankly I get annoyed about all the scare mongering about how more fair tax systems (like the flat tax) supposedly hurt the poor. They don't and all the current system does is allow companies and rich people avoid more tax they should. As far as the poor the benefit tremendously from taxes so actually it's not asking too much that they pay something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't California have a state income tax as well as the highest sales tax and yet it still manages to a magnet for high tech companies. Even Microsoft has offices in Silicon Valley which, to me seems a bit unnecessary especially if high taxes are so detrimental to businesses.
stretch marks and overly fat tits are in fucking way better than crooked teeth.
If someone is selling someone's else then I'm all for the ridiculous lawsuits awards but if the person only shares 24 songs then I don't think they should have to pay any more than say $50 per song.
It'll be different for each country. They've only just came to the UK. I was correct originally too in that only 5 or so episodes are available. I thought I was wrong but when I went to view some season 3 episodes it told me they're still negotiating.
correction, I do think they have al of them now. The link I clicked only showed the current season. Still it took years for them to get here.
The difference being British people have to pay a TV licence which funds those programmes on the iplayer so despite iplayer not requiring a TV licence it still isn't commercial content. Where as Hulu's restrictions are purely greed. Hulu has (I believe one or two shows you can watch outside of the US) and I'm sure they'd love to show the programmes to even more countries but greedy people rather sell off rights to foreign stations who buy the TV rights and, from what I can tell not the internet rights so you get stuck with crap like not being able to watch south park online for ages and even now I believe you can only watch a like 5 or so episodes.
Everyone = the US.
They already use akamai and in fact use them even more now. http://www.businessinsider.com/akamai-gets-more-of-netflixs-business-but-at-a-very-low-price-2010-3
Yeah how's that mobile phone market working for you? Must be nice having paying out the ass for more restricted mobile service / phones.
Grab the Android source and make your own version. Meanwhile most people will use what Google gives them and be happy they're watching their back. There is no issue as long as Apple, Google and MS don't abuse it. I'd also argue it's not your system if you're left on your own and have to be a slave to anti-virus / malware software.
I don't think there is an issue (for me at least) in there being a kill switch. If they find out there is a rogue app I'd like to see it go away if I'm unaware. What matters is what the company does with it.
Or get an iphone or android phone and don't install 3rd party apps while getting much better internet access.
You're a fucking tit.
Not Murdoch is an idiot with an empire build on old media and he's struggling to transition because he himself is old and can't see how to do it the right way, imo.
There are subscription services that work. It just happens that no one wants to pay for news because we all have news overload. You get news for free on tv, radio, the net and even free newspapers in the UK. Why in the hell would you pay to access a website when it offers nothing special?
I'd like to see him pay wall the Sun so all his low-class readers run off elsewhere. He won't do that nor does he really need to do that because the Sun offers "premium" trash so it's a leader. The Times isn't premium anything so it's falling to the side and he's desperate and has turned to subscriptions.
Oh yeah it's impossible to find anything in the menus. Thank god you can at least do email and meetings without them. I've gone on week long holidays without setting an away message because I couldn't find it and refused to look it up on Google because I shouldn't have to.
I'd agree and I fouled up. It's better than my constant inability to type the.
I'd agree. OO.o on My macbook and linux machines is definitely superior to Windows. I'd say that abou a lot of Java apps to be honest.