Minimum wage earners spend more of their income than rich people, so they pay more sales tax as a percentage of their income than rich people. Sales taxes are regressive, which is why it's important they not be neglected when we're talking about tax burdens.
By your statement, one would think that people working minimum wage and not making enough through their efforts were not poor. Because that's how the numbers work out.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that minimum wage earners don't pay taxes?
I'm not terribly concerned about income vs assets. If you're sitting on a fat sack of cash and not earning anything, but enjoying the stability and convenience of our great nation, you should be paying your fair share.
the top 10% of taxpayers paid 55% of total federal taxes in 2007. The lower 90% of taxpayers paid the other 45%.
In 2007, the top 10% of the population owned 73% of total assets and 83% of financial wealth in the US. If they're only paying 55% of the total taxes than the adage that "only the poor pay taxes" does in fact ring true.
The people in power, the rich, already have complete control over the media. They don't need to grant the government control over it, because they already use it to control the government.
The Act seems to apply to this case exactly. I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.
If the intent of the legislation isn't clear, then more language needs to be added to the legislation to make it clear. Comments are not law, and should not be used as if they were.
So when someone in the UK government clearly states their intentions for evil, it's all "hold on guys, it's just a proposal!". But when Apple introduces a new revenue stream without a hint of malice, "It's really only a matter of time now."
That's an interesting question. I don't presume to understand the mind of a parent, but I would tend to think so. From what I gather, most parents would want to see their child succeed, even at the expense of the success of other children. I think actually many wars are fought on such a notion, securing a good future for your children at the expense of foreign children.
Prayers are not, but where you pray, and when you pray are. The latter two are more important to the establishment of religion than the former. You can intimidate someone to make them go to church, but you can't change the content of their prayers. Similarly, you can intimidate someone to stay away from the polls, but you can't make them change their vote if they go.
Intimidation doesn't work as well when the threat isn't credible. Surely you can see the difference between private ballots, where some voters may perceive a threat, and public ballots where all voters are actually threatened.
More likely, they'll exert enough force, or threat of force, to assuage any doubt that you did as they demanded.
No amount of force can ever assuage any doubt. Since they'd be exerting such force whether you vote their way or not, there's no reason not to vote your own way.
Slashdot Mirror
Minimum wage earners spend more of their income than rich people, so they pay more sales tax as a percentage of their income than rich people. Sales taxes are regressive, which is why it's important they not be neglected when we're talking about tax burdens.
Are minimum wage earners exempt from sales tax?
By your statement, one would think that people working minimum wage and not making enough through their efforts were not poor. Because that's how the numbers work out.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that minimum wage earners don't pay taxes?
I'm not terribly concerned about income vs assets. If you're sitting on a fat sack of cash and not earning anything, but enjoying the stability and convenience of our great nation, you should be paying your fair share.
In the US, the bottom 20% pay nearly no taxes at all
What freeloaders! Obviously we should raise taxes on the poor. They've been stealing food off of the table of this nation's rich for far too long.
If only there were some way for him to control what goes in the kernel.
the top 10% of taxpayers paid 55% of total federal taxes in 2007. The lower 90% of taxpayers paid the other 45%.
In 2007, the top 10% of the population owned 73% of total assets and 83% of financial wealth in the US. If they're only paying 55% of the total taxes than the adage that "only the poor pay taxes" does in fact ring true.
Hm, maybe not. I mistook a link to another story as a tag line. Where did this actually take place, I'm not finding it in the article.
Figures.
This article is about the kernel. If you have problems with your GUI, take it up with your distro.
But it would be considerably less awesome. DVDs or shooting shit into space. Hmmm, which would I choose.
The people in power, the rich, already have complete control over the media. They don't need to grant the government control over it, because they already use it to control the government.
No, our current leaders are too smart to do that. Why alienate the media when you can feed them the news you want them to report?
Like PBS/NPR? Partially tax payer funded, and more truthful than any other news source.
The Act seems to apply to this case exactly. I wish Parliament published comments along with the Acts so we have an easier time judging legislative intent.
If the intent of the legislation isn't clear, then more language needs to be added to the legislation to make it clear. Comments are not law, and should not be used as if they were.
Life is not a zero-sum game, though the fact that you (apparently) think it is explains a lot about your political beliefs.
Clearly it is not. Though occasionally it is. I only set up the zero sum scenario as that is where the differences are most clear.
So when someone in the UK government clearly states their intentions for evil, it's all "hold on guys, it's just a proposal!". But when Apple introduces a new revenue stream without a hint of malice, "It's really only a matter of time now."
That's an interesting question. I don't presume to understand the mind of a parent, but I would tend to think so. From what I gather, most parents would want to see their child succeed, even at the expense of the success of other children. I think actually many wars are fought on such a notion, securing a good future for your children at the expense of foreign children.
Prayers are not, but where you pray, and when you pray are. The latter two are more important to the establishment of religion than the former. You can intimidate someone to make them go to church, but you can't change the content of their prayers. Similarly, you can intimidate someone to stay away from the polls, but you can't make them change their vote if they go.
iOS is "unix". OS X is UNIX.
Intimidation doesn't work as well when the threat isn't credible. Surely you can see the difference between private ballots, where some voters may perceive a threat, and public ballots where all voters are actually threatened.
OS X is still UNIX. As long as it can run UNIX software, there's little chance of it being locked down.
More likely, they'll exert enough force, or threat of force, to assuage any doubt that you did as they demanded.
No amount of force can ever assuage any doubt. Since they'd be exerting such force whether you vote their way or not, there's no reason not to vote your own way.
Are there any known obstacles to using it for American elections?
Xenophobia.
And this isn't already an issue exactly, how?
Because we currently have secret ballots. You can't retaliate against someone for voting the wrong way if you cannot confirm how they voted.