This is correct. It's still capital gains (i.e. investment) income though, meaning that as long as you held the asset for more than a year, you pay the 15% rate, rather than the 39% rate.
I'm pretty sure I could entertain myself for all eternity given a sufficient supply of 4X games, at least, judging from the "played" time on some of them on my steam profile...
Guaranteed minimum income is probably the way to go. It reduces the need for a lot of other things, including lots of existing bureaucracy. It also eliminates the need for minimum wage laws, since if everyone already gets enough for a living wage, any additional income would by nature be purely discretionary.
It also guarantees that the economy will continue to have the necessary demand signaling to keep markets functional and not skewed out of proportion.
Why mandatory? As I said, it's completely unnecessary, because the data shows that birth rates fall well below replacement level in every advanced country, and even in less advanced ones. It's a sufficient problem that governments in many countries are concerned not with stopping overpopulation, but just with encouraging enough people to have kids so the population doesn't plummet.
It's very easy, actually. Falling birth rates will do the job for us. We just have to take care of everyone in the meantime, probably through a universal basic income.
Meanwhile, the other co-founder of PayPal has gone on to do awesome and incredible things that will probably contribute significantly to the betterment of humanity. So I guess it's a wash?
Sanders is a step along the road - not a shortcut to the end. It's a long road, and it will be a hike, not a quick skip and a jump. The problem is that too many young and overly idealistic sorts don't get that. Even if Sanders won, it's still far from over. You need to elect people who share the same bent at the local, state, and congressional levels too. Look at how the right wing took control of the Republican party - it certainly wasn't done simply by electing a president, it was done by electing candidates for Congress and elsewhere in primaries, getting involved in local party politics, and showing that they were a faction that couldn't be ignored. Eventually winning the party's presidential primary was almost a foregone conclusion, because in this cycle even the "moderate" ones had already veered hard right.to begin with.
Except those Red States have a democratic primary electorate that happens to be largely black. Denying them a voice in the primary because they happen to not be a majority in their state is a pretty wild proposition. I thought we were electing a president of all 50 states, not just the states who vote Democratic.Now, while there's certainly something to be said for adjusting the primary to weight by actual votes rather than overall population, in order to minimize things like how the ratio of votes to delegates varies wildly, those never were the rules, nevermind that it would be difficult to tally under such a system (and you might as well just get rid of statewide primaries).
The law already requires that an H-1B be paid more. The problem is that there are ways around that where you don't put them in an "equal" position.
For instance, Acme Widgets decides that instead of paying its own IT workers at $80,000 apiece, it'll just contract out its IT work to a company like Infosys or Tata. That company just happens to employ lots of H-1Bs as its workers for contracts, making $40,000 each, but it tells Acme they'll work for an FTE rate of $50,000, saving Acme $30,000 per worker. No workers were directly replaced, so they get away with it.
It was actually a reform pushed around the turn of the century (19th to 20th), as part of the same movement that pushed the 17th amendment allowing the direct election of Senators. The idea was (as I understand it) to take nominations away from the party bosses and smoke filled rooms, and put it in the hands of the people. It's still largely a state by state thing, and some don't have public funded primaries, or primaries at all, opting for party caucuses instead. Some also have different rules on open versus closed primaries.
She's actually much further ahead in pledged delegates than Obama was at this point in the 2008 primaries.
It is true that Superdelegates were included to give a sort of veto over the nominee - back in the aftermath of 1972 and the McGovern debacle. That said, they're a tactic that has never been actually used, to the point that it's now all but unthinkable to do so, because of the backlash which would inevitably follow using them to overturn the popular voting results. It would almost certainly lead to a crushing defeat in the general election. They really should just get rid of them entirely, because they've become a distraction.
You do realize that this is the case in some states already, and that it has done nothing to impede the parties? That some states don't even do voter registration by party?
That having the state pick up the tab for running a primary election wasn't added until 100 some years in, and it was meant as a check on the power of the parties by moving nominations from the purview of party bosses to the people? And in some cases they still just hold their own state conventions anyway, on their own dime. Several states on the Republican side did that this time.
No, it's more than just identification, or having state funded primaries. It's the fact that we have a winner take all, first past the post system, that grossly disadvantages anyone who isn't one of the top dogs. It's only gotten worse in the age of big money, because short of self-funding billionaires, you need money to run a campaign - and then you need to convince people that you're not just delivering the election to someone else, the way Republicans blame Perot for 1992, and the way Democrats blame Nader for 2000.
Bob wants Eve to send him an office chair. Instead of sending Eve the money first, or asking her to send the chair before he sends the money, he offers to have Alice hold the money in escrow. When Bob confirms he has the chair (the condition), Alice will release the money to Eve.
Instead of an office chair, Eve sends Bob a package containing a bobcat. This failure to meet the criteria puts the escrow payment in jeopardy.
Because it really isn't about her. Like a lot of other people, I used to think it was (at least in part). That was one reason I thought Obama would be the better choice in 2008, because he wouldn't have the baggage of all that vitriol from the Clinton years. But then he was elected, and guess what - we just got more of the same, despite his repeated efforts to offer just about any concession short of capitulation. You can argue that the demonization and demagoguing didn't come from the politicians, but does it really matter in the end? If those politicians are beholden to their constituents, and those constituents are demanding exactly that, I'd argue that's actually worse, because it's far more systemic.
In short, why do politicians have enemies? Because that's what the most active and vocal voting blocs are demanding.
If they really wanted to pass a law about perverts in restrooms, maybe they should start by targeting a population that's been proven to have a much higher incidence rate - Republican Senators.
Basically because what T-Mobile is doing, or claims to be doing, is about network management rather than billing. The difference is in the profit, and profit structure - namely, that T-Mobile isn't using their free streaming program to drive its users towards a preferred application (either their own in-house, or one that someone is paying them to promote), but rather, appears to be making a legitimate effort to get lots of different services onto their approved program list.
They also tend to not have been dicks about various other things, and seem more intent on actually using data caps to help with congestion rather than to pad your bill. Or at least that's the impression I get when they suddenly added the ability for me to save up some of the unused data from my monthly cap, to where I could now burn through something like 18gb next month and not get charged a dime.
Could be worse. They could be Konami, that basically is trashing all of its old flagship franchises and the creators along with them, in order to switch completely to mobile gaming. I'd much rather pay for a mobile port of a real game, than get saddled with a ridiculous microtransaction heavy mess, like with Granblue Fantasy: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
You seem to be only familiar with blue-collar unions. That's possibly because most white collar professions that have them don't go by the "union" name. They call themselves professional associations, licensing boards, that sort of thing. They don't necessarily do all of the same things, but unions also aren't just about negotiating salary. They can do a lot more than that.
But really, even your assumptions about what a union will do is flawed. Haven't you ever seen how trade unions work in skilled labor? You know, the ones where they enforce a set of standards to prove that a qualified person knows his or her shit, so jobs can't just be flooded by unskilled hacks to drive down costs. There's also the fact that a union is what its members decide that it should be, and its rules are what they set - so if you're terribly worried that whomever you elect to handle those duties is going to sell you down the river, you could always do something like set the rules such that they don't have an incentive to go the route of lots of cheap low skill bodies.
Furthermore, my experience with unions has been that they tend to protect and favor the more senior people, rather than the other way around as you seem to think. That's largely anecdotal, though, in fairness.
If I understand his argument, he's claiming that he knows the system is broken because he's exploited it too, but that now he wants to block the exploits.
Whether or not you believe him in that claim is up to you.
While technically it's the same thing, it's an entire category of different.
When other people recognize and remember you on an individual level, you feel a connection with them. It's friendly, in that "place where everyone knows your name" sort of way. You feel welcome, and important to them.
It's hard to feel the same way when dealing with something reminiscent of ad networks. It's entirely impersonal, automated, and fake, at least in its current form, probably because it's a lot more intrusive and a lot more extensive. If my bartender knows I happen to like a certain kind of beer, I don't expect that he's busy selling that knowledge to various ad networks or the beer company, for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
This is correct. It's still capital gains (i.e. investment) income though, meaning that as long as you held the asset for more than a year, you pay the 15% rate, rather than the 39% rate.
Great! We'll put you on the upgrade request list. You're currently #523 on the wait list for upgrade for your flight.
I'm pretty sure I could entertain myself for all eternity given a sufficient supply of 4X games, at least, judging from the "played" time on some of them on my steam profile...
Guaranteed minimum income is probably the way to go. It reduces the need for a lot of other things, including lots of existing bureaucracy. It also eliminates the need for minimum wage laws, since if everyone already gets enough for a living wage, any additional income would by nature be purely discretionary. It also guarantees that the economy will continue to have the necessary demand signaling to keep markets functional and not skewed out of proportion.
Why mandatory? As I said, it's completely unnecessary, because the data shows that birth rates fall well below replacement level in every advanced country, and even in less advanced ones. It's a sufficient problem that governments in many countries are concerned not with stopping overpopulation, but just with encouraging enough people to have kids so the population doesn't plummet.
It's very easy, actually. Falling birth rates will do the job for us. We just have to take care of everyone in the meantime, probably through a universal basic income.
Looks to me like a classic case of the user claiming a particular behavior, but the logs clearly indicate that the user was either:
a) Mistaken
b) Lying
Meanwhile, the other co-founder of PayPal has gone on to do awesome and incredible things that will probably contribute significantly to the betterment of humanity. So I guess it's a wash?
Sanders is a step along the road - not a shortcut to the end. It's a long road, and it will be a hike, not a quick skip and a jump. The problem is that too many young and overly idealistic sorts don't get that. Even if Sanders won, it's still far from over. You need to elect people who share the same bent at the local, state, and congressional levels too. Look at how the right wing took control of the Republican party - it certainly wasn't done simply by electing a president, it was done by electing candidates for Congress and elsewhere in primaries, getting involved in local party politics, and showing that they were a faction that couldn't be ignored. Eventually winning the party's presidential primary was almost a foregone conclusion, because in this cycle even the "moderate" ones had already veered hard right.to begin with.
Greetings Professor Falken
Hello
A strange game.
The only winning move is
not to play.
How about a nice game of Chess?
Except those Red States have a democratic primary electorate that happens to be largely black. Denying them a voice in the primary because they happen to not be a majority in their state is a pretty wild proposition. I thought we were electing a president of all 50 states, not just the states who vote Democratic.Now, while there's certainly something to be said for adjusting the primary to weight by actual votes rather than overall population, in order to minimize things like how the ratio of votes to delegates varies wildly, those never were the rules, nevermind that it would be difficult to tally under such a system (and you might as well just get rid of statewide primaries).
The law already requires that an H-1B be paid more. The problem is that there are ways around that where you don't put them in an "equal" position.
For instance, Acme Widgets decides that instead of paying its own IT workers at $80,000 apiece, it'll just contract out its IT work to a company like Infosys or Tata. That company just happens to employ lots of H-1Bs as its workers for contracts, making $40,000 each, but it tells Acme they'll work for an FTE rate of $50,000, saving Acme $30,000 per worker. No workers were directly replaced, so they get away with it.
It was actually a reform pushed around the turn of the century (19th to 20th), as part of the same movement that pushed the 17th amendment allowing the direct election of Senators. The idea was (as I understand it) to take nominations away from the party bosses and smoke filled rooms, and put it in the hands of the people. It's still largely a state by state thing, and some don't have public funded primaries, or primaries at all, opting for party caucuses instead. Some also have different rules on open versus closed primaries.
Reference: http://ivn.us/2015/07/30/story...
She's actually much further ahead in pledged delegates than Obama was at this point in the 2008 primaries.
It is true that Superdelegates were included to give a sort of veto over the nominee - back in the aftermath of 1972 and the McGovern debacle. That said, they're a tactic that has never been actually used, to the point that it's now all but unthinkable to do so, because of the backlash which would inevitably follow using them to overturn the popular voting results. It would almost certainly lead to a crushing defeat in the general election. They really should just get rid of them entirely, because they've become a distraction.
You do realize that this is the case in some states already, and that it has done nothing to impede the parties? That some states don't even do voter registration by party?
That having the state pick up the tab for running a primary election wasn't added until 100 some years in, and it was meant as a check on the power of the parties by moving nominations from the purview of party bosses to the people? And in some cases they still just hold their own state conventions anyway, on their own dime. Several states on the Republican side did that this time.
No, it's more than just identification, or having state funded primaries. It's the fact that we have a winner take all, first past the post system, that grossly disadvantages anyone who isn't one of the top dogs. It's only gotten worse in the age of big money, because short of self-funding billionaires, you need money to run a campaign - and then you need to convince people that you're not just delivering the election to someone else, the way Republicans blame Perot for 1992, and the way Democrats blame Nader for 2000.
So, how do you say "EXTERMINATE" in Mandarin Chinese?
In other words, something like this:
Bob wants Eve to send him an office chair. Instead of sending Eve the money first, or asking her to send the chair before he sends the money, he offers to have Alice hold the money in escrow. When Bob confirms he has the chair (the condition), Alice will release the money to Eve.
Instead of an office chair, Eve sends Bob a package containing a bobcat. This failure to meet the criteria puts the escrow payment in jeopardy.
Relevant links:
https://xkcd.com/325/
https://xkcd.com/1323/
Can you really blame her, though?
Because it really isn't about her. Like a lot of other people, I used to think it was (at least in part). That was one reason I thought Obama would be the better choice in 2008, because he wouldn't have the baggage of all that vitriol from the Clinton years. But then he was elected, and guess what - we just got more of the same, despite his repeated efforts to offer just about any concession short of capitulation. You can argue that the demonization and demagoguing didn't come from the politicians, but does it really matter in the end? If those politicians are beholden to their constituents, and those constituents are demanding exactly that, I'd argue that's actually worse, because it's far more systemic.
In short, why do politicians have enemies? Because that's what the most active and vocal voting blocs are demanding.
If they really wanted to pass a law about perverts in restrooms, maybe they should start by targeting a population that's been proven to have a much higher incidence rate - Republican Senators.
It sucks, yes, but at least it's not an effort to try and gouge more money out of you like Verizon and AT&T are constantly trying to.
Basically because what T-Mobile is doing, or claims to be doing, is about network management rather than billing. The difference is in the profit, and profit structure - namely, that T-Mobile isn't using their free streaming program to drive its users towards a preferred application (either their own in-house, or one that someone is paying them to promote), but rather, appears to be making a legitimate effort to get lots of different services onto their approved program list.
They also tend to not have been dicks about various other things, and seem more intent on actually using data caps to help with congestion rather than to pad your bill. Or at least that's the impression I get when they suddenly added the ability for me to save up some of the unused data from my monthly cap, to where I could now burn through something like 18gb next month and not get charged a dime.
Could be worse. They could be Konami, that basically is trashing all of its old flagship franchises and the creators along with them, in order to switch completely to mobile gaming. I'd much rather pay for a mobile port of a real game, than get saddled with a ridiculous microtransaction heavy mess, like with Granblue Fantasy: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
You seem to be only familiar with blue-collar unions. That's possibly because most white collar professions that have them don't go by the "union" name. They call themselves professional associations, licensing boards, that sort of thing. They don't necessarily do all of the same things, but unions also aren't just about negotiating salary. They can do a lot more than that.
But really, even your assumptions about what a union will do is flawed. Haven't you ever seen how trade unions work in skilled labor? You know, the ones where they enforce a set of standards to prove that a qualified person knows his or her shit, so jobs can't just be flooded by unskilled hacks to drive down costs. There's also the fact that a union is what its members decide that it should be, and its rules are what they set - so if you're terribly worried that whomever you elect to handle those duties is going to sell you down the river, you could always do something like set the rules such that they don't have an incentive to go the route of lots of cheap low skill bodies.
Furthermore, my experience with unions has been that they tend to protect and favor the more senior people, rather than the other way around as you seem to think. That's largely anecdotal, though, in fairness.
If I understand his argument, he's claiming that he knows the system is broken because he's exploited it too, but that now he wants to block the exploits.
Whether or not you believe him in that claim is up to you.
While technically it's the same thing, it's an entire category of different.
When other people recognize and remember you on an individual level, you feel a connection with them. It's friendly, in that "place where everyone knows your name" sort of way. You feel welcome, and important to them.
It's hard to feel the same way when dealing with something reminiscent of ad networks. It's entirely impersonal, automated, and fake, at least in its current form, probably because it's a lot more intrusive and a lot more extensive. If my bartender knows I happen to like a certain kind of beer, I don't expect that he's busy selling that knowledge to various ad networks or the beer company, for instance.