The summary I included mentions that those who earn around 200k are those who are interested in purchasing an electric vehicle now and that the market is expected to expand a bit to include those making around 100k.
The summary also states (at the end) that the vast majority of car buyers are not likely to adopt electric vehicles.
Your personal experience with hybrid vehicle owners contributes nothing to the argument of whether the demographic data for potential buyers of all electric vehicles are accurate.
Also, the article never states that only those making 200k or more will purchase electric vehicles. Only that demographic studies indicate that those are the buyers interested now. A slightly wider market is expected to emerge later, but would still be limited to those making about 100k per year.
The article suggests the largest group of car buyers (middle class suburbanites) is least likely to adopt all electric vehicles, because of issues with range, performance and price. Hybrids are far more competitive with traditional vehicles in those areas.
And so that you are aware in the future, your stated income puts you well outside of middle class.
However, the MAIN reason for inefficiency is that politicians craft 'solutions' that are actually problems.
Fixed that for you.
Your net income is what is determined by taxes
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
You are implying that if that tax rate was lessened, I would somehow have had "more money" to spend.
Fixed that for you.
Taxes reduce earning power by depriving of a percentage of your wages. Every dollar that the government withholds from your pay is a dollar that you no longer have available to spend on goods and services of your choice. The parent was arguing that if taxes were lessened, you would have money to pay the plumber and some left over.
Taxes reduce your spending power because they are a cost that is factored into everything you spend what remains of your wages on. The plumber may continue charging the same rate for services if his taxes were lower, but he could charge less and make the same profit because his overhead has been reduced. Understand?
It does not matter why all of those taxpayers left New York. The point is that with them gone, the government's solution will be to make up the tax revenue shortfall by raising taxes on those who remain.
The point of the article is that politicians and people who have faith in them - like you - have not bothered to consider that such a move is doomed to failure. In her opinion, this is because they are disconnected from reality.
Why does government spending always seem to go up in general? Mostly because increasing technology levels.
Actually, it is because government budgets assume a fixed rate of growth for all expenditures. In most cases, the annual increase in funding for each program is written into the legislation which provides the service.
When governments claim that funding is being cut, what they almost always mean is that spending is going to fall short of the additional amount spent over the previous fiscal year. In other words, spending more money than before, but not as much as planned.
The government inspection is not nearly as bad as employer/school policing of your online activities.
My apologies, but I am always shocked when people make the claim that potentially nefarious activities are somehow "more evil" when performed by private actors as opposed by government. What is the basis for your argument?
The government has an absolute monopoly on force. A corporation, no matter how evil, cannot lawfully detain you, lock you in a cage or kill you. The government can do all of those things and more. Your school cannot deprive you of your income, restrict your movements or require that your name be entered on a list of proscribed persons. The government does these things as a matter of course.
Perhaps you feel more in control of your government than you do your employer or school? Good luck with that. You can find another job. You can study elsewhere. Your government is inescapable.
The proliferation of government surveillance systems is not amusing. It is disturbing. The fact that persons such as yourself dismiss the potential negative implications of omnipresent authority as paranoia is frightening.
In the novel 1984 Orwell described a government (the Party) that used ubiquitous surveillance as an instrument to consolidate power and oppress the populace. In reality, governments are installing cameras, creating databases and using technology to invade privacy on a massive scale. The correlation is obvious.
Furthermore, even if the cameras are, as you argue, only going to be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes, is that an acceptable practice? Can a society be free when there is 100% enforcement of the laws?
I guess that would depend on the laws, now, wouldn't it? Though, given some of the more insane laws on the books, and the barrage of new ones poured forth that target the "worst" in our societies (think sex offenders and terrorists), I would venture that "perfect" law enforcement is no more a legitimate function of government than maximizing tax revenue.
Also, your argument concerning "Little Brother" is flawed. Rodney King's tormentors were not convicted of any crime. Indeed, episodes of police brutality, wrongful prosecution and judicial misconduct rarely end with the offenders being punished. A citizen with a cell phone tends to be outmatched by the power of the government.
1984 is fiction. But many in power act like it's an instruction manual.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary I included mentions that those who earn around 200k are those who are interested in purchasing an electric vehicle now and that the market is expected to expand a bit to include those making around 100k.
The summary also states (at the end) that the vast majority of car buyers are not likely to adopt electric vehicles.
Your personal experience with hybrid vehicle owners contributes nothing to the argument of whether the demographic data for potential buyers of all electric vehicles are accurate.
Also, the article never states that only those making 200k or more will purchase electric vehicles. Only that demographic studies indicate that those are the buyers interested now. A slightly wider market is expected to emerge later, but would still be limited to those making about 100k per year.
The article suggests the largest group of car buyers (middle class suburbanites) is least likely to adopt all electric vehicles, because of issues with range, performance and price. Hybrids are far more competitive with traditional vehicles in those areas.
And so that you are aware in the future, your stated income puts you well outside of middle class.
However, the MAIN reason for inefficiency is that politicians craft 'solutions' that are actually problems.
Fixed that for you.
You are implying that if that tax rate was lessened, I would somehow have had "more money" to spend.
Fixed that for you.
Taxes reduce earning power by depriving of a percentage of your wages. Every dollar that the government withholds from your pay is a dollar that you no longer have available to spend on goods and services of your choice. The parent was arguing that if taxes were lessened, you would have money to pay the plumber and some left over.
Taxes reduce your spending power because they are a cost that is factored into everything you spend what remains of your wages on. The plumber may continue charging the same rate for services if his taxes were lower, but he could charge less and make the same profit because his overhead has been reduced. Understand?
You do realize that those are Apple's patents, right? Nokia actually holds patents on nearly every wireless technology known to man.
It does not matter why all of those taxpayers left New York. The point is that with them gone, the government's solution will be to make up the tax revenue shortfall by raising taxes on those who remain.
The point of the article is that politicians and people who have faith in them - like you - have not bothered to consider that such a move is doomed to failure. In her opinion, this is because they are disconnected from reality.
Why does government spending always seem to go up in general? Mostly because increasing technology levels.
Actually, it is because government budgets assume a fixed rate of growth for all expenditures. In most cases, the annual increase in funding for each program is written into the legislation which provides the service.
When governments claim that funding is being cut, what they almost always mean is that spending is going to fall short of the additional amount spent over the previous fiscal year. In other words, spending more money than before, but not as much as planned.
Process per tab made its debut in IE8, not Chrome.
For other operating systems, I would recommend a VM.
Alternatively, you could always suggest - politely - that your classmate get a laptop of their own.
The government inspection is not nearly as bad as employer/school policing of your online activities.
My apologies, but I am always shocked when people make the claim that potentially nefarious activities are somehow "more evil" when performed by private actors as opposed by government. What is the basis for your argument?
The government has an absolute monopoly on force. A corporation, no matter how evil, cannot lawfully detain you, lock you in a cage or kill you. The government can do all of those things and more. Your school cannot deprive you of your income, restrict your movements or require that your name be entered on a list of proscribed persons. The government does these things as a matter of course.
Perhaps you feel more in control of your government than you do your employer or school? Good luck with that. You can find another job. You can study elsewhere. Your government is inescapable.
The proliferation of government surveillance systems is not amusing. It is disturbing. The fact that persons such as yourself dismiss the potential negative implications of omnipresent authority as paranoia is frightening.
In the novel 1984 Orwell described a government (the Party) that used ubiquitous surveillance as an instrument to consolidate power and oppress the populace. In reality, governments are installing cameras, creating databases and using technology to invade privacy on a massive scale. The correlation is obvious.
Furthermore, even if the cameras are, as you argue, only going to be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes, is that an acceptable practice? Can a society be free when there is 100% enforcement of the laws?
I guess that would depend on the laws, now, wouldn't it? Though, given some of the more insane laws on the books, and the barrage of new ones poured forth that target the "worst" in our societies (think sex offenders and terrorists), I would venture that "perfect" law enforcement is no more a legitimate function of government than maximizing tax revenue.
Also, your argument concerning "Little Brother" is flawed. Rodney King's tormentors were not convicted of any crime. Indeed, episodes of police brutality, wrongful prosecution and judicial misconduct rarely end with the offenders being punished. A citizen with a cell phone tends to be outmatched by the power of the government.
1984 is fiction. But many in power act like it's an instruction manual.