You are making broad generalities, and you're talking to someone who microwaves day old coffee. I can tell you of the people I know in my community there isn't a lot of money floating around on eccentricities.
While I understand the difference between wealth and income, to me it doesn't matter. I would hope that the people with the resources would recognize that they have a vested interest in contributing to the society around them. Any tax system that fails to reflect this is imperfect in my opinion.
The fact is, the wealthy have a lot more disposable income AFTER all expenses to use as investment income. That is what makes it less practical for someone with less money, because there are a lot more sacrifices to make in terms of meager living. And yes we ask our kids all the time if they want to keep going and they do.
Until you know how much income he had, it's really had to say whether what he paid was fair or not. He is wealthy, so he should be paying some astronomical amount. Neither of us can say whether $38 mil was astronomical enough for him.
We have dealt with cancer twice in our family and even though we were covered, time off work still created a big hit to our bank account. Does taking time off for cancer treatment count as instant gratification?
I know I spend all my money enriching my kids though extracurricular activities. I have lost track of whether that counts as instant gratification or not.
It's not easy because it isn't PRACTICAL for many people. I guess what I am trying to say is, at least show me something practical if it is to be considered an option.
Not unless he is exaggerating about how much he is worth. Also considering he has spent more than his tax money and Obama's personal expenses combined already on personal endeavors while in office, $38 mil is incredibly low.
I think there will first have to be mass dissatisfaction and then a bloody war and then the system of economy may change to something more appropriate for our time.
The first point was instructing me to work more, and the second point was to control my expenses. I stopped there. First of all, I can figure this stuff out on my owrn. Secondly, I think if it was as easy as depicted here, then everyone would be doing it. Maybe there is more to it than what I see on the wikipedia page, but it people need a little more than conventional knowledge.
It only seems rudimentary because you hear about the few people with unique cases that run into a problem with it. But there are thousands of people being treated successfully every day, I guarantee you.
The problem is not that the wealthy use every option to save on their taxes. The problem is that there are a great many more of these opportunities for the wealthy to save on their taxes than others. Look at all the offshore tax havens. Those happen because they save money for the wealthy, yet you need to own a lot of capital to benefit from a scheme like that in order to overcome the cost of setting it up.
Unless the software is setting up an offshore account for you, opening a subsidiary there that you own, and paying that subsidiary with your income, then no it is not doing everything it can.
Come to think of it, a lot of people have seasonal homes here and there are a lot of long winding driveways under a canopy of trees. How is that going to work with a vehicle with no steering wheel?
Then you have far more rural money for infrastructure than a lot of places. Where I am, chances are significantly high you will need to go off road at some point in the country.
So you're saying if you theoretically handicapped the computer to only calculate the number of moves that a human could, then it would do just as well?
I'm worried about the amount of renting that will happen. At least if people take public transit then they are contributing to their society by paying for the transit. Imagine a world where you have to pay a private company $5 a day to take you to work. It will be like a tax by a private company just to move you around. This is why it will be important for cities to keep up their public transit, but currently it isn't looking good. How long will it be before any average person can afford one of these though?
In my city we have bus shortages from time to time, and the problem is not the drivers, but the mechanics. They have enough drivers but they can't pay the mechanics enough / hire enough to keep all the buses going. Is automation going to relieve the expense for mechanics?
Self driving cars are only safe if a majority of people on the road are driving them. That will be well beyond the time span in this article, which only gets us to 25%.
While we're running comparisons, as long as self driving cars don't cause more accidents than other heavy machinery on the market currently do, automated or not, then I'll be happy. Let's be clear here that companies are selling a machine for the purpose of transporting people, it should be held to current industry safety standards for heavy machines.
So the truckers will get the minimum wage warehouse job? Wow how wonderful for them! What does the kid putting himself through school do now? I know someone who put themselves through school working in a warehouse unloading trucks.
Slashdot Mirror
You are making broad generalities, and you're talking to someone who microwaves day old coffee. I can tell you of the people I know in my community there isn't a lot of money floating around on eccentricities.
While I understand the difference between wealth and income, to me it doesn't matter. I would hope that the people with the resources would recognize that they have a vested interest in contributing to the society around them. Any tax system that fails to reflect this is imperfect in my opinion.
They likely have an even greater proportion of the wealth.
The fact is, the wealthy have a lot more disposable income AFTER all expenses to use as investment income. That is what makes it less practical for someone with less money, because there are a lot more sacrifices to make in terms of meager living. And yes we ask our kids all the time if they want to keep going and they do.
Until you know how much income he had, it's really had to say whether what he paid was fair or not. He is wealthy, so he should be paying some astronomical amount. Neither of us can say whether $38 mil was astronomical enough for him.
We have dealt with cancer twice in our family and even though we were covered, time off work still created a big hit to our bank account. Does taking time off for cancer treatment count as instant gratification?
I know I spend all my money enriching my kids though extracurricular activities. I have lost track of whether that counts as instant gratification or not.
But you have to have enough money TO max out your 401k. Most people don't have that ability.
It's not easy because it isn't PRACTICAL for many people. I guess what I am trying to say is, at least show me something practical if it is to be considered an option.
Not unless he is exaggerating about how much he is worth. Also considering he has spent more than his tax money and Obama's personal expenses combined already on personal endeavors while in office, $38 mil is incredibly low.
I think there will first have to be mass dissatisfaction and then a bloody war and then the system of economy may change to something more appropriate for our time.
The first point was instructing me to work more, and the second point was to control my expenses. I stopped there. First of all, I can figure this stuff out on my owrn. Secondly, I think if it was as easy as depicted here, then everyone would be doing it. Maybe there is more to it than what I see on the wikipedia page, but it people need a little more than conventional knowledge.
It only seems rudimentary because you hear about the few people with unique cases that run into a problem with it. But there are thousands of people being treated successfully every day, I guarantee you.
The problem is not that the wealthy use every option to save on their taxes. The problem is that there are a great many more of these opportunities for the wealthy to save on their taxes than others. Look at all the offshore tax havens. Those happen because they save money for the wealthy, yet you need to own a lot of capital to benefit from a scheme like that in order to overcome the cost of setting it up.
Unless the software is setting up an offshore account for you, opening a subsidiary there that you own, and paying that subsidiary with your income, then no it is not doing everything it can.
Yes because everyone has the means to "convert earned income into investment income".
Come to think of it, a lot of people have seasonal homes here and there are a lot of long winding driveways under a canopy of trees. How is that going to work with a vehicle with no steering wheel?
Then you have far more rural money for infrastructure than a lot of places. Where I am, chances are significantly high you will need to go off road at some point in the country.
So you're saying if you theoretically handicapped the computer to only calculate the number of moves that a human could, then it would do just as well?
I'm worried about the amount of renting that will happen. At least if people take public transit then they are contributing to their society by paying for the transit. Imagine a world where you have to pay a private company $5 a day to take you to work. It will be like a tax by a private company just to move you around. This is why it will be important for cities to keep up their public transit, but currently it isn't looking good. How long will it be before any average person can afford one of these though?
In my city we have bus shortages from time to time, and the problem is not the drivers, but the mechanics. They have enough drivers but they can't pay the mechanics enough / hire enough to keep all the buses going. Is automation going to relieve the expense for mechanics?
Self driving cars are only safe if a majority of people on the road are driving them. That will be well beyond the time span in this article, which only gets us to 25%.
Maybe it could look like the 80's or 90's. It would be a nice improvement to the Tomorrowland that looks like the 70's.
While we're running comparisons, as long as self driving cars don't cause more accidents than other heavy machinery on the market currently do, automated or not, then I'll be happy. Let's be clear here that companies are selling a machine for the purpose of transporting people, it should be held to current industry safety standards for heavy machines.
So the truckers will get the minimum wage warehouse job? Wow how wonderful for them! What does the kid putting himself through school do now? I know someone who put themselves through school working in a warehouse unloading trucks.