Re:Hmmmmmm I wonder...
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Maybe it's one of those standard moves they learn in their MBA program...right after the frontal lobotomy.
Re:Learned Professionals?
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
And in the US, the bottom half receive very little for their money as well. Shared responsibility? Those with the greatest benefit also shoulder the greatest burden. Apparently they think it is not too much, since they make make their money overseas, but they all live here.
Re:Working more pays off
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I don't see tax figures on the link you provided. I'll dig on their site later to try and find it. 40-50% in Europe sounds right, but that is about what we pay in the US. There is 27% federal income tax, 7% state income tax, and 14% for social security and FICA. That's 48% on someone making only $28,000 to $68,000. It drops to 42% if you are employed by a company, so they pay 6.2% of your SS for you.
Now, for that 48%, what do I get? Health care, nope. Cheap-free higher education, nope. A livable retirement income, nope. Europe does have some major issues to address with their system, but the US is not the low tax and efficiency haven it tries to present itself as.
The problem is, for all the taxes we pay and all the money supposedly spent, our social welfare programs provide very little value. I think a lot of the problems are the massive administration costs incurred by making it all "needs based" and enforcing regulations. Some people have run the figures and found that allowing the small amount of fraud in the system would be far cheaper than what it costs to police it.
Medicaid may be somewhat helpful, but like you say, it is _very_ hard to qualify. There is a massive gap in the US where you are making enough that you don't qualify for any help, but not making enough to buy any of those services for yourself. In Europe, those in the middle at least have a chance to make it upwards.
Re:Despite this...
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First, an execellant link, thank you. It has been fairly difficult to find numbers that are actually comperable, instead of the usual 6 vs 18% dross.
I would have to state, though, that the US average of 6% is hardly far from the 7.2% average of the major European nations. Also, unemployment in the US is a far harsher experience, with little if any support. I would happily take an extra percent in the unemployment rate if I could be sure that my family would not starve, and that non-emergency/preventative medical care was available.
Re:hardly working
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, he would be referring to the sums paid to help in foreign markets, tax breaks targeted to a single company, sweetheart contracts directly from Cheney himself, etc. The over $150 billion spent to give money to those who need it least is a far greater crime than giving $124 billion to those who need it most.
Also, a huge part of the social welfare money is for SSI which is paid for by the person's social security dollars, which even the poorest pay. Also, it the housing assistance, considering how it really is used, benefits property owners as much as or more than the poor who qualify.
If we simply eliminated corporate welfare, we could cut taxes by 50% for those between 27k and 55k, and eliminate taxes entirely for those making less than 27k, including regressive payroll taxes. Hmm, choices choices...
Re:Hmmmmmm I wonder...
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Come to think of it, neither have I. Of course, I have heard of lots of 5 figure end of year bonuses. Or would that be the 2 million dollar bonus the CEO got for laying off everyone and liquidating the company?
Re:Learned Professionals?
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, I will remember that. Those that benefit the most from government protection, largesse, and corporate welfare pay a pathetic 25%? There have apparently already been too many tax cuts for the rich.
Re:Learned Professionals?
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You might try reading sometime, the EIC is designed to be a refund for the regressive payroll taxes like social security and FICA.
Now, about Dubya and welfare for the ownership class?
Actually, I thought skipping college to actually be successful in a field is a sign of being smart.
(-1 Flamebait)
Re:US vs French vacation packages
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Oh, give him a break, he probably gets his information from the US media...
Re:Working more pays off
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, tax rates aren't as different as you may think. The big difference though is that Europeans actually get something for their tax dollars. All I get for mine in the US is foreign adventures in ego and corporate handouts.
Re:Despite this...
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You might want to take a look at how each country calculates its unemployment numbers. We are actually about even.
Re:If you have the inspiration...
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So what you're saying is that if I study a lot of new stuff and really work my butt off for a few years, I might be able to equal the standard of living an average worker has in most first world countries?
I do own my own company, and it is not for the faint hearted.
Re:What about paid holidays?
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, European countries typically get a _lot_ more paid holidays as well. Their sick pay, disability, etc is all provided for too. Odds are, with all standard of living factors included, you have no chance of coming out on top if you aren't in the top 5% of wage earners (executive management).
But it never has to be as explicit as blackmail. It just has to become known that media orgs that don't comply may have a lot of trouble at license renewal time, or when they apply to aquire a company, etc. The reason governments like to make sure everyone is violating some law or another is to give them the power of selective enforcement as a "motivational tool".
Who knows, probably the same thing that happens when a member of a Capitalist society refuses to pretend that just because the state has declared that certain theives are "owners", they can deny the use of non-personal property to the public.
Or the question could be how "your property", which is really just state recognition at some point of the theft of it from the original user, will be protected without "force".
Capitalism is, and always has been, a philosophy born of a group of robber barons seeking to legitimize their theft of property from the people at large.
Ahh, a free press? Take a look at the serious stories aired in other countries, and then at the minor fluff that is reported in our own. Just because the press is free in theory provides no protection, it must be aggressively free in practice.
And yes, it is pretty irrelevant which system a country claims to adhere to. I doubt your average totalitarian dictator much cares about political philosophy. Communism, in your world, tramples the individual to improve the collective. Capitalism, then, must trample the individual to improve the owners of capital.
If it is like the way other groups try to twist their importance with lobbying, they include everything from the place that does their employees dry cleaning to the 7-11 where they might get a hot dog in their "economic impact". If all economists were layed head to feet in a line around the world...it would be a good thing:)
Ahh, hit post too soon. Why don't we take the answer to GNU/BSD from Stallman himself, right off the FSF web site.
--- Should we say "GNU/BSD" too?
No, that would not fit the history of the BSD systems.
The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux is. It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but the code had little overlap with GNU.
BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.
The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's why the name "GNU/Linux" is appropriate for it.
By the way, there is a project to develop a version of GNU which uses the kernel from FreeBSD. Its developers call it "Debian GNU/FreeBSD" system, but "GNU/kernelofFreeBSD" would be more accurate, since FreeBSD is an entire system, not just the kernel. To call them a "Linux system" and a "BSD system" would give a misleading impression that they are very different; this system won't be very different, in terms of the code it contains or how it operates, from Debian GNU/Linux.
This strikes me as one of those brilliant questions like "when did you stop beating your wife?"
The correct answer is neither, you have tried to limit the range of answers to two irrelevant choices, neither of which answers the questions posed to you. Thanks for playing.
The whole problem is the mindset that it seems pricy, I could build a...
The big advantages are size, noise, power consumption, and heat. Yes, you could build a cheaper box, but it would be bigger, louder, run hotter, and use a lot more power (and likely not DC). That defeats the entire purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's one of those standard moves they learn in their MBA program...right after the frontal lobotomy.
And in the US, the bottom half receive very little for their money as well. Shared responsibility? Those with the greatest benefit also shoulder the greatest burden. Apparently they think it is not too much, since they make make their money overseas, but they all live here.
Actually, I don't see tax figures on the link you provided. I'll dig on their site later to try and find it. 40-50% in Europe sounds right, but that is about what we pay in the US. There is 27% federal income tax, 7% state income tax, and 14% for social security and FICA. That's 48% on someone making only $28,000 to $68,000. It drops to 42% if you are employed by a company, so they pay 6.2% of your SS for you.
Now, for that 48%, what do I get? Health care, nope. Cheap-free higher education, nope. A livable retirement income, nope. Europe does have some major issues to address with their system, but the US is not the low tax and efficiency haven it tries to present itself as.
The problem is, for all the taxes we pay and all the money supposedly spent, our social welfare programs provide very little value. I think a lot of the problems are the massive administration costs incurred by making it all "needs based" and enforcing regulations. Some people have run the figures and found that allowing the small amount of fraud in the system would be far cheaper than what it costs to police it.
Medicaid may be somewhat helpful, but like you say, it is _very_ hard to qualify. There is a massive gap in the US where you are making enough that you don't qualify for any help, but not making enough to buy any of those services for yourself. In Europe, those in the middle at least have a chance to make it upwards.
First, an execellant link, thank you. It has been fairly difficult to find numbers that are actually comperable, instead of the usual 6 vs 18% dross.
I would have to state, though, that the US average of 6% is hardly far from the 7.2% average of the major European nations. Also, unemployment in the US is a far harsher experience, with little if any support. I would happily take an extra percent in the unemployment rate if I could be sure that my family would not starve, and that non-emergency/preventative medical care was available.
No, he would be referring to the sums paid to help in foreign markets, tax breaks targeted to a single company, sweetheart contracts directly from Cheney himself, etc. The over $150 billion spent to give money to those who need it least is a far greater crime than giving $124 billion to those who need it most.
Also, a huge part of the social welfare money is for SSI which is paid for by the person's social security dollars, which even the poorest pay. Also, it the housing assistance, considering how it really is used, benefits property owners as much as or more than the poor who qualify.
If we simply eliminated corporate welfare, we could cut taxes by 50% for those between 27k and 55k, and eliminate taxes entirely for those making less than 27k, including regressive payroll taxes. Hmm, choices choices...
Come to think of it, neither have I. Of course, I have heard of lots of 5 figure end of year bonuses. Or would that be the 2 million dollar bonus the CEO got for laying off everyone and liquidating the company?
Hmm, I will remember that. Those that benefit the most from government protection, largesse, and corporate welfare pay a pathetic 25%? There have apparently already been too many tax cuts for the rich.
You might try reading sometime, the EIC is designed to be a refund for the regressive payroll taxes like social security and FICA.
Now, about Dubya and welfare for the ownership class?
Actually, I thought skipping college to actually be successful in a field is a sign of being smart.
(-1 Flamebait)
Oh, give him a break, he probably gets his information from the US media...
Actually, tax rates aren't as different as you may think. The big difference though is that Europeans actually get something for their tax dollars. All I get for mine in the US is foreign adventures in ego and corporate handouts.
You might want to take a look at how each country calculates its unemployment numbers. We are actually about even.
So what you're saying is that if I study a lot of new stuff and really work my butt off for a few years, I might be able to equal the standard of living an average worker has in most first world countries?
I do own my own company, and it is not for the faint hearted.
Actually, European countries typically get a _lot_ more paid holidays as well. Their sick pay, disability, etc is all provided for too. Odds are, with all standard of living factors included, you have no chance of coming out on top if you aren't in the top 5% of wage earners (executive management).
But it never has to be as explicit as blackmail. It just has to become known that media orgs that don't comply may have a lot of trouble at license renewal time, or when they apply to aquire a company, etc. The reason governments like to make sure everyone is violating some law or another is to give them the power of selective enforcement as a "motivational tool".
Who knows, probably the same thing that happens when a member of a Capitalist society refuses to pretend that just because the state has declared that certain theives are "owners", they can deny the use of non-personal property to the public.
Or the question could be how "your property", which is really just state recognition at some point of the theft of it from the original user, will be protected without "force".
Capitalism is, and always has been, a philosophy born of a group of robber barons seeking to legitimize their theft of property from the people at large.
See, it's not all so obvious, is it?
Ahh, a free press? Take a look at the serious stories aired in other countries, and then at the minor fluff that is reported in our own. Just because the press is free in theory provides no protection, it must be aggressively free in practice.
And yes, it is pretty irrelevant which system a country claims to adhere to. I doubt your average totalitarian dictator much cares about political philosophy. Communism, in your world, tramples the individual to improve the collective. Capitalism, then, must trample the individual to improve the owners of capital.
Lying to spread information the government wanted to be beleived...were you talking about the Iraqi government or ours?
If it is like the way other groups try to twist their importance with lobbying, they include everything from the place that does their employees dry cleaning to the 7-11 where they might get a hot dog in their "economic impact". If all economists were layed head to feet in a line around the world...it would be a good thing :)
Ahh, hit post too soon. Why don't we take the answer to GNU/BSD from Stallman himself, right off the FSF web site.
---
Should we say "GNU/BSD" too?
No, that would not fit the history of the BSD systems.
The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux is. It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but the code had little overlap with GNU.
BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.
The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's why the name "GNU/Linux" is appropriate for it.
By the way, there is a project to develop a version of GNU which uses the kernel from FreeBSD. Its developers call it "Debian GNU/FreeBSD" system, but "GNU/kernelofFreeBSD" would be more accurate, since FreeBSD is an entire system, not just the kernel. To call them a "Linux system" and a "BSD system" would give a misleading impression that they are very different; this system won't be very different, in terms of the code it contains or how it operates, from Debian GNU/Linux.
This strikes me as one of those brilliant questions like "when did you stop beating your wife?"
The correct answer is neither, you have tried to limit the range of answers to two irrelevant choices, neither of which answers the questions posed to you. Thanks for playing.
Ooh, you evil, evil man. I just told my wife I wouldn't buy any more goodies...
The whole problem is the mindset that it seems pricy, I could build a...
The big advantages are size, noise, power consumption, and heat. Yes, you could build a cheaper box, but it would be bigger, louder, run hotter, and use a lot more power (and likely not DC). That defeats the entire purpose.