It is? Since when is 3 years old in the computer world "brand new"?
Even cars aren't considered "brand new" when they are 3 years old.
Windows 10 has no features worth mentioning that differentiate it from a Windows 8.1 service pack
From that point of view, Windows 10 is just a really fancy Windows Vista service pack, but that isn't how any of this works.
They COULD have made it all Vista and service packs, if everyone was paying yearly sub fees, but since that isn't how Windows is sold, they need new versions to bring in money.
One could easily set the tax rate and various rebates and the like to make it tax neutral for virtually everyone.
There is no such thing as "easily" when it comes to taxes.
First, what you can do in theory and what you can do in reality (or what politicians can do in reality) aren't the same thing.
Second, you actually are wrong anyway, since the whole point of "carbon taxes" are to try and move people off a cheap solution (carbon) and on to an expensive solution (not carbon). If not-carbon were cheap, people would do this naturally and there would be no need for a solution.
Trying to move everyone to something else that costs more can't be done at no cost, that violates how money works.
Yes the cost of items would rise to cover the now embeded carbon fees, but the sales tax and/or income tax could be reduced by equivalent amounts.
No, it doesn't work that way. If you honest believe it, then you have failed at critical thinking...
First, for the carbon fees to be offset by lower taxes, people must pay them, so people must keep using carbon. This defeats the point completely.
Second, if people leave carbon stuff for non-carbon stuff, then the government loses the income from the carbon fees, creating a tax shortfall. This can already be seen in places that are taxing EVs instead of giving them tax credits (Georgia for example) to make up for the loss of gax tax dollars.
At the end of the day, there is no free lunch. What you want is for everyone to pay more money to have the same stuff they already have today. There is no way that won't cost us all in the form of our standard of living.
The question is, are the externalities associated with fossil fuels large enough that it would be worthwhile to create a tax to offset them and would the long term negative effect on economic growth due to the tax be greater than the cost of the externalities? The answer to that depends in large part on whether you believe in global warming and its negative effects.
None of that matters...
Yes, I do believe in global warming, and yes, I do believe it will cause us huge problems.
However, I think all of your ideas and theories mean nothing, because they can't be implemented practically or politically.
The reality is that we passed the point of no-return decades ago. We are moving the deck chairs around the Titanic because we see the bow slip under the water, but what most fail to realize is that the ship only has 20 minutes to live.
Given that there are negative externalities associated with burning fossil fuels, if we assume that the cost of those externalities is estimated correctly and a tax is imposed no greater than that cost the effect the tax would have on the price of burning fuels would send a more accurate market signal about their true cost. Acting on more accurate information people's market behavior would naturally result in a more efficient/economical result. Standard of living should go up, not down, according to basic economic theory given the simple premise and assumptions.
^ That is the answer someone thinking in theory would come up with. It sounds great, I'm sure a smart person somewhere thought of it in a nice air conditioned room with a whiteboard.
But it ignores reality. The real world where people are making $10/hr and driving to work and have 3 kids to feed and are just scraping by. If you triple their energy costs (and the price of everything that has to rise to pay for it), they'll end up hungry or homeless.
A billion freshly hungry people does not help your case.
The reality is that we can't tax carbon enough to drive it out of the economy without crushing the bottom 1/3 of society, which would just result in riots, violence, and in the end, war.
If you tax it lightly enough to avoid that, then you won't make enough of a difference to change the outcome.
---
The reality is that we are way, way past the point of no return. Anyone who objectively looks at the numbers, the raw numbers, can see this.
There doesn't have to be a solution, just because we want one. We aren't owed one by the universe. We did this to ourselves and will have to live with the consequences.
---
Side note: The only real solution would be to reduce the population of the planet by 3/4. If we could get the world back down below 2 billion, then we'd have a chance at stopping this. But it would take WWIII to do it and no one is going to sign up for that choice. So we're screwed either way.:(
And we can look to any of the places that have put in carbon taxes or polution taxes or cap-and-trade systems to put prices on externalites and see exactly this!
Cute, but you're ignoring the obvious... the places that have done this are already taxed to death and socialist places to begin with.
Do it in the US and you'd have riots on your hands. If the price of gas ended up at $5/gal you'd quickly have 50 million people unable to afford gas.
The reality is that you can't tax carbon enough to matter without stomping on the lower class and what you can tax it won't change anything worthwhile.
Unforunately, we don't magically see all the other potential benifits - carbon emission does seem to decrease, but not hugely for example. In any case, as long as it is revenue neutral - any carbon pricing scheme seem unlikely to have a big effect on standard of living.
A carbon tax large enough to do what Musk wants would crush standards of living. No one has actually done that yet.
Originally, the tax location for a corporation was where the offices of the CEO were (not explicitly, but in practice). A large English trading company was treated like all sales were made at the corporate HQ. Of course, back then, the taxes were also structured differently.
Yes, but that was back when the sun never set on the British Empire and England controlled 1/4 of the planet.
They could get away with that back then.
Today, it is America trying to do it (worldwide taxes), but America is trying to do it without... Empire...
It is a crappy half-assed solution that needs to go away.
Except for nuking the Middle East, this sounds pretty good actually.
I was mostly joking there... that is an emotional viewpoint, not a rational one. At the end of the day, rational would win. (I think!)
I do disagree on the tax rates; it should be 0% for lower incomes. Since you've thrown a UBI in there, it doesn't have to be very high, maybe the first $10k is tax-free.
Actually, that is why I put a UBI in there, to avoid 0% tax rates.
I believe that everyone should pay something into the system, everyone takes part. If millions of people pay nothing, then they have no investment in the system.
Consider UBI to be the counterbalance to the removal of 0% tax rates.
However, to make your UBI and universal healthcare work you'll need much higher taxes at the top end, more like 50% for the $1M+ people and 35% for the $100k-1M people.
Maybe... I haven't done a serious study on it or anything, but consider that large numbers of people pay amazingly little in taxes. Under my plan, my personal tax rate would double, for example.
As for universal health care, I don't think that would cost a dime, it may save money. Take all the money from insurance companies, all the money from medicaid, all the money from welfare, food stamps, writeoffs from medical bills not being paid, plus the economic damage from 1 million+ bankruptcies from medical bills, and I think it pays for itself.
Of course, I'd do it differently... I'd suggest simply hiring 250,000 doctors, pay them a salary, and tell them to take all comers with the goal to provide quality patient outcomes. Consider that we don't allow "for-profit" police departments or fire departments, some things just shouldn't be profit driven. Of course doctors have to be paid, but they don't need half a million dollars either.
Keep in mind, my wife is a doctor, she makes in the comfortable six figures, but takes home less than half of it. She has to employ a medical billing person who does nothing but chase down insurance companies for money. She would LOVE to take a $100k salary and just treat all comers, free of charge.
As for the military, the thing really needs to be revamped. We should be able to afford just as much military hardware for half as much money. Look at how much an aircraft carrier costs now. 20 years ago, it was around $2.5B for a carrier. Now it's suddenly $15B. Military costs have risen far more than the rate of inflation. And there's been a huge amount of merging in the defense contracting industry, which probably isn't a coincidence. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but we taxpayers are not getting much for our defense dollars, and it needs to be fixed.
Yep, that is a long story in itself... In short, we love flashy and fancy, but we tend to waste a huge amount of money. We make far too few long term plans. The F22 is wonderful and you need those, but the F35 has been a mess. And they KEEP trying to kill the A10, what a wonderful and cheap airplane, I'd love to build 200 more of them.
One thing that I'd like to consider is merging all the services into a united military service. There is a lot of overlap between the branches and while they would fight tooth and nail, the question is how much could be saved by having a single purchasing department instead of 5, a single testing center instead of 5, etc.
Maybe lots, maybe little, but I'd look at it.
As for the carriers, keep in mind that exists for 2 reasons:
1. Jobs program 2. Maintaining the ability to build nuclear ships at all - once lost, that ability is hard to get back
European countries have proven this by doing it. Healthcare costs (per capita) are much cheaper there, telecom/internet service is much cheaper, etc.
Too many Americans think we're the best at EVERYTHING, without being willing to look at other nations and seeing what they do best... This is foolish, we are not the only "great nation" in the world.
The point is this: If people make up their minds to extend a minimum of trust to each other - even to people they disagree with - then democracy can work. If not, then the result is much more in doubt. It is like any other civilised contest - a game of football, for example: on the pitch you may be all out to beat the other side, but off the pitch, you can still work together like human being. The other team may win this time, but next time you have the chance again.
Real life is not a game of football.
I would not choose to play a game with Clinton, I would tell her to go pound sand. When it comes to a game like football, I can choose not to play and no harm done.
But this isn't a game, this is our nation, our lives, and our future. Real consequences to real life happen. Imagine if you were playing football and if you lost the game, child died off the field? Would you take it so casually then?
That is what is wrong with your example.
At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to make the choice - you can decide that you are human being, in control of yourself and capable of coexisting peacefully with your opponents - iow trusting them to be peacful in return at some level - or not. It isn't somebody else's responsibility - it is yours alone.
Replace Clinton with Hitler and ask yourself if your viewpoint still stands. There comes a time to work with people and then there comes a time to fight.
Now that Trump's nomination is assured, he could become more racist, more xenophobic and more unlikable. In fact, I think that is the more likely scenario.
No, I don't... but if he does, this will be over really fast since he'll never win doing that...
Trump can put his foot in his mouth sometimes, but he is not stupid. I think he'll pivot to the center, not the far right. Frankly I don't think he was really all that "right-wing" to begin with, he is more of a conservative democrat than a liberal republican.
I believe that Clinton is corrupt and evil, she is not remotely interested in what is best for the average person, she is bought and sold by the real people in power.
Trump is pragmatic, he'll go in and do deals, including with Democrats. He'll tell Republicans "you'll get some stuff, but it is time to give the Democrats some things too".
Don't be shocked if Trump actually supports rising the minimum wage, and he might even go for single-payer healthcare.
Clinton can't get those things done, Republicans will just block everything she tries to do, it'll be 4 more years of nothing.
---
Side note: I'm a right-wing conservative, but I'd take Bernie over Clinton. Why? Because while I don't agree with all he says, I believe he is sincere in his beliefs and actually does care. I can respect that. If he is willing to do deals and find middle ground with those who disagree with him, I think Republicans could work with him.
If Democrats could dump Clinton and run Sanders, I think Trump would have a massive fight on his hands. I wouldn't even mind a Trump/Sanders ticket, I think they would moderate each other.
Both sides have good ideas, only by working together with respect can we get anything done. I don't trust or respect Clinton, I would never work with her.
There is still too many devices that simply don't work right on Linux for one reason or another. Everything tends to work on Windows, given the market share...
This doesn't make Linux "bad", it is fine for what it is... but these delusions of grandeur that Linux will take over the desktop are just silly.
Perfectly spoken for someone who has now idea how democracy works and who doesn't actually understand much.
You are wrong, I understand it quite well. I'm one of the people who has told our Congress to block Obama at every turn. If Clinton becomes President, we'll keep doing it.
Democrats are morons for running her, we'll get more of nothing happening. Republicans will not work with her.
In any case, you miss the bigger picture... at some point, the divide grows large enough that we'll have another civil war. You think all problems can be resolved at the ballot box?
Of course you will still have a country, even if you feel the Democrats are idiots. They may not have the right ideas in your view, but they still want to govern for the benefit of the whole of the nation - as will the Republicans, if they win.
Actually, I'm not at all convinced of that... and clearly tens of millions of other people aren't either, which is why both Sanders and Trump are doing so well...
At the end of the day, both sides (or all sides, if you have more than two parties) have to trust their opponents to at least want to do what they think is right for the entire nation
No, I really don't have to trust them, and I don't.
Obama is a terrible President, Clinton would be even worse. Obama is at least just bumbling about clueless. Clinton isn't clueless, she is evil.
Now Trump isn't all roses, I'm not thrilled with him at all. I would have loved 10 other choices.
But with Clinton running, frankly the ballot might as well say:
[ ] Clinton [ ] Not-Clinton
The point I'm trying to get across is: it is up to everybody - you and I included - to decide to trust our opponents, even if we disagree with them; that is what really determines the future of the nation.
What happens when you don't believe they are worth trusting?
I honestly feel Clinton is evil and corrupt. She'll never be my President if she wins, I will call and write my members of Congress to block anything she does.
Sanders is nuts, but I at least believe he is honest in what he says. He is out of his mind on a few things, but not all his ideas are bad, at least I could listen to him speak. I can't listen to Clinton for more than a minute or so without wanting to throw up.
I'm not alone in my feelings. If it is just a few of me, then no worries, we don't matter. What happens when people like me become tens of millions?
Frankly, this is smart on Facebook's part... For $10K they avoided a serious flaw in their systems that they didn't catch. Had they not offered the money, he might not have told them.
Or he might have, but better safe than sorry.
10 years old? Sheesh, Facebook should hire the kid!:)
From this site (which summarizes a bunch of national polls), 5 out of 6 polls have Hillary beating the Donald. And it is 6 out of 6 for Sanders beating him So it looks like he most likely won't win.
That is true, if the election were held today...
Keep in mind, NOONE expected Trump to end up the Nominee, so keep in mind lots can change over the next few months.
Clinton might not even be running, if she is indited... but even if not, what if Trump comes out and picks off Bernie's supporters by taking some of his positions?
$15/hr min wage Free state college Universal health care
???
If he came out and offered those three things as the "move to the middle" for the Reagan Democrats, he could win it in a landslide.
That is also why I think companies should do a better job caring for their employees.
The layoffs that Intel just made might be "needed" from a bottom line point of view, but I imagine a lot of loyal and long term Intel people were caught up in that.
Is the damage to company morale, the loss of experienced talent that was loyal to you, worth the $1 share price bump that it might get?
If I was CEO, I'd remind shareholders that my job is to increase the value of the company and that one way to do that is to think long term about the people who work for the company.
Of course, I probably couldn't be picked as CEO because I'd tell all the shareholders that they either need a 5+ year outlook, or they need to own another stock, because I won't make decisions based on quarterly results. Of course, they might fire me for that!:)
It is workable for a physical store, they only have to know the rules for the address at which they are located.
Quoted for truth...
Even then it can be interesting when collecting tax within a state for mail order.
In Texas, the state rate is 6.25%. The local counties and cities can add up to 2% to that, so the rates vary between 6.25% and 8.25% across the state.
To keep it simple, I charge 8.25% on everything I sell online within Texas, since everything I sell is generally taxable (computers, computer parts, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8.1 is essentially brand new
It is? Since when is 3 years old in the computer world "brand new"?
Even cars aren't considered "brand new" when they are 3 years old.
Windows 10 has no features worth mentioning that differentiate it from a Windows 8.1 service pack
From that point of view, Windows 10 is just a really fancy Windows Vista service pack, but that isn't how any of this works.
They COULD have made it all Vista and service packs, if everyone was paying yearly sub fees, but since that isn't how Windows is sold, they need new versions to bring in money.
One could easily set the tax rate and various rebates and the like to make it tax neutral for virtually everyone.
There is no such thing as "easily" when it comes to taxes.
First, what you can do in theory and what you can do in reality (or what politicians can do in reality) aren't the same thing.
Second, you actually are wrong anyway, since the whole point of "carbon taxes" are to try and move people off a cheap solution (carbon) and on to an expensive solution (not carbon). If not-carbon were cheap, people would do this naturally and there would be no need for a solution.
Trying to move everyone to something else that costs more can't be done at no cost, that violates how money works.
Yes the cost of items would rise to cover the now embeded carbon fees, but the sales tax and/or income tax could be reduced by equivalent amounts.
No, it doesn't work that way. If you honest believe it, then you have failed at critical thinking...
First, for the carbon fees to be offset by lower taxes, people must pay them, so people must keep using carbon. This defeats the point completely.
Second, if people leave carbon stuff for non-carbon stuff, then the government loses the income from the carbon fees, creating a tax shortfall. This can already be seen in places that are taxing EVs instead of giving them tax credits (Georgia for example) to make up for the loss of gax tax dollars.
At the end of the day, there is no free lunch. What you want is for everyone to pay more money to have the same stuff they already have today. There is no way that won't cost us all in the form of our standard of living.
Anything else is a lie.
The solution to that is raise taxes. How's that help your standard of living?
Why are you under the impression that raising taxes is the only solution?
Like I said, there are other solutions, but you won't like any of them.
The question is, are the externalities associated with fossil fuels large enough that it would be worthwhile to create a tax to offset them and would the long term negative effect on economic growth due to the tax be greater than the cost of the externalities? The answer to that depends in large part on whether you believe in global warming and its negative effects.
None of that matters...
Yes, I do believe in global warming, and yes, I do believe it will cause us huge problems.
However, I think all of your ideas and theories mean nothing, because they can't be implemented practically or politically.
The reality is that we passed the point of no-return decades ago. We are moving the deck chairs around the Titanic because we see the bow slip under the water, but what most fail to realize is that the ship only has 20 minutes to live.
Given that there are negative externalities associated with burning fossil fuels, if we assume that the cost of those externalities is estimated correctly and a tax is imposed no greater than that cost the effect the tax would have on the price of burning fuels would send a more accurate market signal about their true cost. Acting on more accurate information people's market behavior would naturally result in a more efficient/economical result. Standard of living should go up, not down, according to basic economic theory given the simple premise and assumptions.
^ That is the answer someone thinking in theory would come up with. It sounds great, I'm sure a smart person somewhere thought of it in a nice air conditioned room with a whiteboard.
But it ignores reality. The real world where people are making $10/hr and driving to work and have 3 kids to feed and are just scraping by. If you triple their energy costs (and the price of everything that has to rise to pay for it), they'll end up hungry or homeless.
A billion freshly hungry people does not help your case.
Cute, but no...
The reality is that we can't tax carbon enough to drive it out of the economy without crushing the bottom 1/3 of society, which would just result in riots, violence, and in the end, war.
If you tax it lightly enough to avoid that, then you won't make enough of a difference to change the outcome.
---
The reality is that we are way, way past the point of no return. Anyone who objectively looks at the numbers, the raw numbers, can see this.
There doesn't have to be a solution, just because we want one. We aren't owed one by the universe. We did this to ourselves and will have to live with the consequences.
---
Side note: The only real solution would be to reduce the population of the planet by 3/4. If we could get the world back down below 2 billion, then we'd have a chance at stopping this. But it would take WWIII to do it and no one is going to sign up for that choice. So we're screwed either way. :(
A lower standard of living in a clean world vs a higher standard of living while we slowly pollute it?
There are other ways of making this work, but you wouldn't like them...
By the way how do you define standard of living?
The ability to have a nice house that is heated and air conditioned. The ability to drive your own car, to have space to live, and nice food to eat.
All of those are heavy carbon events. Making them NOT carbon events for everyone would be way too expensive.
If you tax carbon enough to actually make a difference to climate change, then you'll crush the economy and destroy the lower 1/3 of people's lives.
If you tax it lightly enough to NOT do that, then you won't make enough of a difference to matter.
---
It is a grave error to think that there MUST be a solution, simply because we want one.
There doesn't have to be, we waited too long to address this problem.
And we can look to any of the places that have put in carbon taxes or polution taxes or cap-and-trade systems to put prices on externalites and see exactly this!
Cute, but you're ignoring the obvious... the places that have done this are already taxed to death and socialist places to begin with.
Do it in the US and you'd have riots on your hands. If the price of gas ended up at $5/gal you'd quickly have 50 million people unable to afford gas.
The reality is that you can't tax carbon enough to matter without stomping on the lower class and what you can tax it won't change anything worthwhile.
Unforunately, we don't magically see all the other potential benifits - carbon emission does seem to decrease, but not hugely for example. In any case, as long as it is revenue neutral - any carbon pricing scheme seem unlikely to have a big effect on standard of living.
A carbon tax large enough to do what Musk wants would crush standards of living. No one has actually done that yet.
The short version then is that Elon Musk wants to lower the average standard of living then.
Because that would be the effect of his plan, even if he doesn't say it out loud.
The US kinda sorta wants an Empire, without the emotional baggage that comes along with it...
Either do it all the way, or don't... this half-way solution is stupid...
Note: I'm not supporting either position, I'm simply saying that in this case, the middle isn't the place to be.
Either go full-on British Empire and control 1/4 of the planet, or don't. But don't try and run the place without owning it.
Originally, the tax location for a corporation was where the offices of the CEO were (not explicitly, but in practice). A large English trading company was treated like all sales were made at the corporate HQ. Of course, back then, the taxes were also structured differently.
Yes, but that was back when the sun never set on the British Empire and England controlled 1/4 of the planet.
They could get away with that back then.
Today, it is America trying to do it (worldwide taxes), but America is trying to do it without... Empire...
It is a crappy half-assed solution that needs to go away.
Except for nuking the Middle East, this sounds pretty good actually.
I was mostly joking there... that is an emotional viewpoint, not a rational one. At the end of the day, rational would win. (I think!)
I do disagree on the tax rates; it should be 0% for lower incomes. Since you've thrown a UBI in there, it doesn't have to be very high, maybe the first $10k is tax-free.
Actually, that is why I put a UBI in there, to avoid 0% tax rates.
I believe that everyone should pay something into the system, everyone takes part. If millions of people pay nothing, then they have no investment in the system.
Consider UBI to be the counterbalance to the removal of 0% tax rates.
However, to make your UBI and universal healthcare work you'll need much higher taxes at the top end, more like 50% for the $1M+ people and 35% for the $100k-1M people.
Maybe... I haven't done a serious study on it or anything, but consider that large numbers of people pay amazingly little in taxes. Under my plan, my personal tax rate would double, for example.
As for universal health care, I don't think that would cost a dime, it may save money. Take all the money from insurance companies, all the money from medicaid, all the money from welfare, food stamps, writeoffs from medical bills not being paid, plus the economic damage from 1 million+ bankruptcies from medical bills, and I think it pays for itself.
Of course, I'd do it differently... I'd suggest simply hiring 250,000 doctors, pay them a salary, and tell them to take all comers with the goal to provide quality patient outcomes. Consider that we don't allow "for-profit" police departments or fire departments, some things just shouldn't be profit driven. Of course doctors have to be paid, but they don't need half a million dollars either.
Keep in mind, my wife is a doctor, she makes in the comfortable six figures, but takes home less than half of it. She has to employ a medical billing person who does nothing but chase down insurance companies for money. She would LOVE to take a $100k salary and just treat all comers, free of charge.
As for the military, the thing really needs to be revamped. We should be able to afford just as much military hardware for half as much money. Look at how much an aircraft carrier costs now. 20 years ago, it was around $2.5B for a carrier. Now it's suddenly $15B. Military costs have risen far more than the rate of inflation. And there's been a huge amount of merging in the defense contracting industry, which probably isn't a coincidence. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but we taxpayers are not getting much for our defense dollars, and it needs to be fixed.
Yep, that is a long story in itself... In short, we love flashy and fancy, but we tend to waste a huge amount of money. We make far too few long term plans. The F22 is wonderful and you need those, but the F35 has been a mess. And they KEEP trying to kill the A10, what a wonderful and cheap airplane, I'd love to build 200 more of them.
One thing that I'd like to consider is merging all the services into a united military service. There is a lot of overlap between the branches and while they would fight tooth and nail, the question is how much could be saved by having a single purchasing department instead of 5, a single testing center instead of 5, etc.
Maybe lots, maybe little, but I'd look at it.
As for the carriers, keep in mind that exists for 2 reasons:
1. Jobs program
2. Maintaining the ability to build nuclear ships at all - once lost, that ability is hard to get back
European countries have proven this by doing it. Healthcare costs (per capita) are much cheaper there, telecom/internet service is much cheaper, etc.
Too many Americans think we're the best at EVERYTHING, without being willing to look at other nations and seeing what they do best... This is foolish, we are not the only "great nation" in the world.
The point is this: If people make up their minds to extend a minimum of trust to each other - even to people they disagree with - then democracy can work. If not, then the result is much more in doubt. It is like any other civilised contest - a game of football, for example: on the pitch you may be all out to beat the other side, but off the pitch, you can still work together like human being. The other team may win this time, but next time you have the chance again.
Real life is not a game of football.
I would not choose to play a game with Clinton, I would tell her to go pound sand. When it comes to a game like football, I can choose not to play and no harm done.
But this isn't a game, this is our nation, our lives, and our future. Real consequences to real life happen. Imagine if you were playing football and if you lost the game, child died off the field? Would you take it so casually then?
That is what is wrong with your example.
At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to make the choice - you can decide that you are human being, in control of yourself and capable of coexisting peacefully with your opponents - iow trusting them to be peacful in return at some level - or not. It isn't somebody else's responsibility - it is yours alone.
Replace Clinton with Hitler and ask yourself if your viewpoint still stands. There comes a time to work with people and then there comes a time to fight.
Did you ever think it could go the other way?
Now that Trump's nomination is assured, he could become more racist, more xenophobic and more unlikable. In fact, I think that is the more likely scenario.
No, I don't... but if he does, this will be over really fast since he'll never win doing that...
Trump can put his foot in his mouth sometimes, but he is not stupid. I think he'll pivot to the center, not the far right. Frankly I don't think he was really all that "right-wing" to begin with, he is more of a conservative democrat than a liberal republican.
But then so was Reagan. :)
I believe that Clinton is corrupt and evil, she is not remotely interested in what is best for the average person, she is bought and sold by the real people in power.
Trump is pragmatic, he'll go in and do deals, including with Democrats. He'll tell Republicans "you'll get some stuff, but it is time to give the Democrats some things too".
Don't be shocked if Trump actually supports rising the minimum wage, and he might even go for single-payer healthcare.
Clinton can't get those things done, Republicans will just block everything she tries to do, it'll be 4 more years of nothing.
---
Side note: I'm a right-wing conservative, but I'd take Bernie over Clinton. Why? Because while I don't agree with all he says, I believe he is sincere in his beliefs and actually does care. I can respect that. If he is willing to do deals and find middle ground with those who disagree with him, I think Republicans could work with him.
If Democrats could dump Clinton and run Sanders, I think Trump would have a massive fight on his hands. I wouldn't even mind a Trump/Sanders ticket, I think they would moderate each other.
Both sides have good ideas, only by working together with respect can we get anything done. I don't trust or respect Clinton, I would never work with her.
Linux isn't there now, much less in 2008...
There is still too many devices that simply don't work right on Linux for one reason or another. Everything tends to work on Windows, given the market share...
This doesn't make Linux "bad", it is fine for what it is... but these delusions of grandeur that Linux will take over the desktop are just silly.
Perfectly spoken for someone who has now idea how democracy works and who doesn't actually understand much.
You are wrong, I understand it quite well. I'm one of the people who has told our Congress to block Obama at every turn. If Clinton becomes President, we'll keep doing it.
Democrats are morons for running her, we'll get more of nothing happening. Republicans will not work with her.
In any case, you miss the bigger picture... at some point, the divide grows large enough that we'll have another civil war. You think all problems can be resolved at the ballot box?
Of course you will still have a country, even if you feel the Democrats are idiots. They may not have the right ideas in your view, but they still want to govern for the benefit of the whole of the nation - as will the Republicans, if they win.
Actually, I'm not at all convinced of that... and clearly tens of millions of other people aren't either, which is why both Sanders and Trump are doing so well...
At the end of the day, both sides (or all sides, if you have more than two parties) have to trust their opponents to at least want to do what they think is right for the entire nation
No, I really don't have to trust them, and I don't.
Obama is a terrible President, Clinton would be even worse. Obama is at least just bumbling about clueless. Clinton isn't clueless, she is evil.
Now Trump isn't all roses, I'm not thrilled with him at all. I would have loved 10 other choices.
But with Clinton running, frankly the ballot might as well say:
[ ] Clinton
[ ] Not-Clinton
The point I'm trying to get across is: it is up to everybody - you and I included - to decide to trust our opponents, even if we disagree with them; that is what really determines the future of the nation.
What happens when you don't believe they are worth trusting?
I honestly feel Clinton is evil and corrupt. She'll never be my President if she wins, I will call and write my members of Congress to block anything she does.
Sanders is nuts, but I at least believe he is honest in what he says. He is out of his mind on a few things, but not all his ideas are bad, at least I could listen to him speak. I can't listen to Clinton for more than a minute or so without wanting to throw up.
I'm not alone in my feelings. If it is just a few of me, then no worries, we don't matter. What happens when people like me become tens of millions?
You're assuming that we'll still have a country after the Democrats are finished with it...
Now this doesn't mean all Republican ideas are good, they aren't... but you seem to think the Democrats can't do real damage, but they can...
Both sides have their idiots, sadly they are all running for President...
Frankly, this is smart on Facebook's part... For $10K they avoided a serious flaw in their systems that they didn't catch. Had they not offered the money, he might not have told them.
Or he might have, but better safe than sorry.
10 years old? Sheesh, Facebook should hire the kid! :)
From this site (which summarizes a bunch of national polls), 5 out of 6 polls have Hillary beating the Donald. And it is 6 out of 6 for Sanders beating him So it looks like he most likely won't win.
That is true, if the election were held today...
Keep in mind, NOONE expected Trump to end up the Nominee, so keep in mind lots can change over the next few months.
Clinton might not even be running, if she is indited... but even if not, what if Trump comes out and picks off Bernie's supporters by taking some of his positions?
$15/hr min wage
Free state college
Universal health care
???
If he came out and offered those three things as the "move to the middle" for the Reagan Democrats, he could win it in a landslide.
That is also why I think companies should do a better job caring for their employees.
The layoffs that Intel just made might be "needed" from a bottom line point of view, but I imagine a lot of loyal and long term Intel people were caught up in that.
Is the damage to company morale, the loss of experienced talent that was loyal to you, worth the $1 share price bump that it might get?
If I was CEO, I'd remind shareholders that my job is to increase the value of the company and that one way to do that is to think long term about the people who work for the company.
Of course, I probably couldn't be picked as CEO because I'd tell all the shareholders that they either need a 5+ year outlook, or they need to own another stock, because I won't make decisions based on quarterly results. Of course, they might fire me for that! :)
What happens when random taxing agency in another state decides to audit you?
Nothing... I'm not subject to "random taxing agency in another state".
I don't live in Colorado, I'm not subject to the laws of Colorado, any more than I'm subject to the laws of China.
It is workable for a physical store, they only have to know the rules for the address at which they are located.
Quoted for truth...
Even then it can be interesting when collecting tax within a state for mail order.
In Texas, the state rate is 6.25%. The local counties and cities can add up to 2% to that, so the rates vary between 6.25% and 8.25% across the state.
To keep it simple, I charge 8.25% on everything I sell online within Texas, since everything I sell is generally taxable (computers, computer parts, etc.).
Elon Musk can't "make" without the workers, but then again the workers can't "make" without Elon Musk.
They need each other...