With Republicans in Congress and the White House, the FTC will never be given teeth, as it could then bite their big business cronies.
Yeah, like the FTC was so free and effective during the Clinton administration.
Come on... I know some people can only have mental orgasms by beating up on Bush and Republicans but come on, it's getting old. Visit a pr0n site already and get yourself off there.
Assuming the original email had a valid return address...
Authentication-based spam-protection is bogus. Sure, it works for the receiver but it is an extra burden on the sender. Sure, only one time. But those that send you email are paying the price for the spam you receive. So rather than the spammer paying the price or you paying the price, you are offloading that price to totally innocent third parties. Hardly an attractive solution.
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 1
jesus christ, you guys couldn't even figure out the metric system
Interestingly, CNN just posted a review on a book today regarding Why the Metric system is wrong. While I don't feel like getting into a debate regarding the merits of any measurement system, the fact that anyone uses the metric system is as much a testament to marketing strategy as it is to any underlying scientific reason to use the metric system.
Although making it completely decimal-based does make it easy enough for every idiot that has 10 fingers to be able to use it.:)
pure capitalism only works in the states because the majority of the population are stupid and fat.
First of all, we don't have "pure" capitalism in the United States. And even if we did, I don't think it would work as a result of anybody's weight or lack of intelligence.
i refer you to your tv and fast-food culture if you need further convincing...
That is one ASPECT of our culture (or two if you want to count them separately). Our culture is large enough that by touching on those two aspects you've still left out most of what our culture is. You've stereotyped us nicely, though. Good work.
people only pretend to like the US because you have the most bombs
Hmm. Yeah, right. No-one pretends to like us. Everyone professes to hate us, yet readily listens to our music, eats lunch at our fast-food restauraunts, and consumes our movies. No amount of U.S. bombs can force that to happen. A large amout of hypocrisy around the world can, though.
i don't hate you, i hate your ignorance.
Hmmm. I was modded as "flamebait" presumably for calling European countries socialist. Take a look at the "total" tax rates and see for yourself.
You, on the other hand, have said nothing that remotely makes sense except for those that love to rip on Americans based on absurd stereotypes.
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Bullcrap. Gas SHOULD cost what the free market says it should cost. Gas is not subsidized by the government, it is taxed.
Essentially, gas prices higher than about a buck a gallon is the government discouraging use. $3/gallon (or whatever it costs) in the Socialist States of Europe are due to socialistic tendencies in those countries, not because gas should cost $3.
You're right, politics are the last thing licenses should contain.
Agreed.
If you buy a car, you can use it how you see fit. Sure, there are certain traffic laws you have to follow to avoid getting tickets, but the manufacturer doesn't put any restrictions on you.
Likewise, we're always pissing and moaning about how if we buy a CD we have the right to convert it to MP3 or other format so we can enjoy it how and when we want and on the equipment we want. We don't care if the RIAA says we can or can't, we bought and paid for it and will use it how we see fit.
Now some software license says we must obey certain human rights to use their software? That's total BS.
Let me put it in perspective. While not agreeing to EULAs in general, I can see why a company would want you NOT to reverse engineer their product and try to sneak that into their EULA. While not agreeing with their position, I understand why RIAA would like to see technology stop and why they're trying to limit the ways in which we can use technology. In neither case do I agree with their stances, but at least their stances are somehow related to their market and business model.
Basing the right to use software on something completely unrelated to software is absurd and worries me as much as government regulation of the Internet, or restrictions on free speech in the interest of reducing spam.
What if your cell phone came with the restriction that you could only use it if you went to church every Sunday? What if your car was sold on the condition that you had to drink a 6-pack of beer per week? What if your computer would only work if you voted for the Democrats in each election?
Trying to dictate what people can and cannot do in areas of their life that have absolutely nothing to do with your product is wrong and dangerous. In reality, it OUGHT to be made illegal. Not because human rights shouldn't be defended, but because of the path of rediculous requirements that this could inspire other organizations to add to their licensing.
In fact, the clause in question is more dangerous than anything I've ever seen in a Microsoft EULA.
Who cares? I have audio completely silenced on my email machine. No beeps, no tones, and certainly no annoying audio clips that someone would be foolish enough to send me.
Maybe it's hokie or whatever, but I bet when an artist gets a hand addressed letter with a crisp $5 bill in it, they remember why they started making music in the first place.
In other words, they remember they got into music for the money?
I'm not against people making money, but if the reason the musician got into music was the money and not because he liked making music then therein lies the problem with the quality of music these days.
That's pretty much implied by the part of my post that you didn't quote (you know, about how WA residents are sueing - and winning - and collecting) from spammers.
What? The fact that people have on a number of occasions successfully sued spammers means there is less spam in Washington? Hmm, and because some people have been successfully thrown in jail by the IRS means there is less income tax evasion?
I'm glad that spammers are being forced to pay in Washington. But I've seen no evidence that there is any less spam in Washington, just useless disclaimers on spam. The vast majority of spammers are completely untargeted. They add their disclaimer because they know very well they have no way to know whether they are emailing someone in washington unless it happens to be a washington.edu address.
First, you're not "double taxed". It's more like a dozen. Without getting bogged down in details, you forgot about property taxes, excise taxes, and use taxes, among others.
I didn't forget them. I precisely didn't want to get bogged down in details. The problem is clear enough just analyzing the money you earn and spend directly. Feel free to do a complete analysis looking at all taxes, if you'd like.
And I'm still not sure why you think having multiple forms of taxation is "dishonest". You're not being lied to; you know full well when you pay each of these.
Yes, I do. So do you, apparently. Most people don't understand how much they really pay in taxes. I'm self-employed and, believe me, you don't appreciate how high taxes are until you're sending in a check for $5000 to the U.S. Treasury for tax payment.
The average citizen doesn't really know. They get their paycheck without really realizing how much has been taken out--since they never really had it in their hands, they don't miss it. They don't realize the "matching" amount the company pays in taxes. They then accept sales tax as a part of life, further reducing their effective income.
You pay a few thousand dollars a year for things like police protection, fire protection, roads, a court system, national defense, banking regulations and on and on...
I *wish* it was only a few thousand a year.
And I agree with defense spending, court system, and some limited regulations, education too. Unfortunately all of those make up less than half the federal budget. It's "the rest" of the stuff that I'm bothered by. Read: Entitlement programs, as if others were entitled to my money.
Get a grip, buddy. You're getting a bargain. Look at the alternatives. You could move to Mexico or Sweden. In Mexico you don't get many of these, and in Sweden your tax rate *will* be high enough to complain about.
Heheh, for your information I'm an American who has lived the last 7 years in Mexico--so kind of you to so completely stick your foot in your mouth.:)
I've lived in Mexico and, for all of its problems, my car stereo has never been stolen (happened twice in the U.S.) and our house has never been broken into (happened once in the U.S., stole my mom's purse).
Third, I'm not sure where you get the idea sales taxes are harder to evade than income taxes.
Uhm, ok. You sell a million dollars in cocaine and don't report it to the IRS. You've just avoided income tax.
However, even if you have a million dollars from illegal drugs, you have to spend it. Wal-Mart's not going to give you a break, neither is the gas station, etc. Thus it IS harder to avoid the sales tax. Income tax must be avoided once for each "income" avoided. Sales tax must be avoided once for each purchase. Unless you spend all your money at once, it's harder to avoid the sales tax.
I do business all the time with people who give me discounts they don't give to their other customers. By reducing my price by 10%, I'll certainly "evade" 10% of my taxes
Negotiating a lower price and evading taxes are not the same thing. I assume they still charge you sales tax on the discounted amount? If so, you haven't evaded any sales tax. You've paid less for the product and the seller has earned less. There's an obvious limit to how much they can discount what they sell.
Also, if you ramp up the sales tax from 8% to 20%, you'll see a lot more effort put into evading sales taxes through barter and other means.
Agreed. At some point it makes sense to move to a barter arrangement (which the IRS technically is supposed to tax, by the way, based on the value of the goods or services bartered). But, again, that's harder than avoiding income tax which is just a matter of not reporting it, and requires someone else that is also interested in avoiding taxes by bartering.
It will have a huge impact on sales of big ticket items, like autos.
No, probably not. Yes, the car will have a higher tax than it used to--but people will no longer be paying 25%+ in income tax. The economy might shake for a year or two as people become used to earning what they earn and paying taxes on the other side of the equation, but that's it.
A lot of people complain the government improperly uses tax law to encourage or discourage certain behaviours, but by shifting away from an income tax to a sales tax, this will change people's habits big time, and have huge repurcussions throughout the economy.
Only if the sales tax is higher on one product than another. If it's an even playing field then there's no reason it should change buying habits significantly.
But, hey, it will get the IRS off your back and on to somebody else's, right?
You miss the point. If we get rid of the income tax, we don't even NEED the IRS and it won't be on ANYONE'S back. There won't be any fear of having to justify your lifestyle or your income, being able to prove years later how you earned the money you did and being screwed if you don't have the paperwork.
At the same time, what is currently spent on the IRS can be eliminated or spent on something else. Or just left with the taxpayers, preferably.
In my opinion, no. The proper authorities should be notified. If the proper authorities don't take action, THAT is newsworthy.
How many people are going to change travel plans based on a report about a weapon getting into an airport? Very, very few. How many passengers in the U.S. have been affected by a non-authorized object getting onto a plane? Very, very few. Even 9/11 was the result of APPROVED objects being used.
In the end, reporting on security weaknesses in the airport is of little use to the public but of potentially great use to those that might want to exploit the weakness. When the press reports it, they're just going for easy ratings when, in my opinion, the journalist that got a gun passed a checkpoint should be thrown in jail.
That said, computer security is different. A user CAN do something based on his or her knowledge of the security problem. He can insall a patch. He can turn off scripting. He can dump Microsoft. There are many options--short of abandoning computers entirely--that an informed user can do. Thus it is worth publishing.
and it is doing something, because 1/2 of the spam I get now has a disclaimer of "this isn't intended for people in Washington, California, etc..
These laws have helped because half your spam now includes another 200-300 bytes of disclaimer for Washington receivers? Unless people from Washington are receiving less spam then all the law has done has been to add 200-300 bytes to each spam sent. Perhaps it is easier to filter on, but the spam hasn't gone away--in fact, it's now used more bandwidth.
Yahoo Messenger? No thanks. ICQ was the first and it's still the best. You just don't use the official ICQ client.
Try downloading Miranda from SourceForge (lazy, go google it yourself). It weighs in at about 499k executable size. No advertisements, no crap. And I'm currently logged in to both ICQ and MSMessenger with the same client.
As for spam, I used to get it. But just set "Receive messages only from users in contact list" and you'll get none. Ever. Unless your friends are spammers.:)
actually illegal somehow -- companies can't charge extra for the use of a credit card.
It's not ILLEGAL, but it is against the contract the merchant has with Visa/Mastercard.
I wouldn't mind the 3% cost (I'm a merchant) if it actually bought me some protection. As it is, they earn 3% of what I earn. Then if they didn't catch a fraudulent charge and allowed me to believe it was valid, they reverse the charges and take back the money, plus charge me a $20 chargeback fee.
Visa/Mastercard makes 3% on all valid transactions. It makes even more on fraudulent transactions. And the financial risk is incurred entirely by the merchant, not by any bank or Visa/Mastercard.
It truly is an impressive scheme they've set-up. The merchant is always screwed, it's just a matter of degree.
Re:Per Transaction Fees Suck...
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 1
Actually as long as you pay consistently they'll increase your limit period. I've never had more than a few hundred bucks on my card but they bump my limit by thousands every 6 months or so. I guess they figure if I pay well then I'm the kind of person they WANT to have charge a car to the card.
Uh, I need money to survive, too. Is it more important that they have my money than I do?
Any taxes or departure fees should be built-in to the prices of the tickets. Anything else is ripe for corruption in a worst case and just plain annoying in a best case.
Re:Ahhh, the old screw you foreigner tax.
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 1
After all, in Mexico policing is a for profit business. You should assume like I do that the police are massively crooked whenever you go to a foreign nation, and be surprised when they are not.
I'm an American who has lived in Mexico for the last 7 years. Yes, policing is often a business. BUT, within reason.
1. If you speak Spanish, that's a huge benefit.
2. Ask them for an official receipt with an "RFC" on it BEFORE you give them money. Mexico is more obsessed with paperwork than the U.S. Nothing is done here without about ten pieces of paper. If what they're asking is legitimate, they'll give you a receipt. If not, they'll move on to a more gullible target.
3. If what they're asking for is valid, they'll insist. If it's invalid and you say, "I'm sorry, I don't carry cash" you will NOT have a problem. They're not going to kill you. They want beer money, that's it. If your CNN friend has $50 to spend on cops, he'll probably spend most of it. If he has $5, he'll probably spend that. See how it works?
4. I am unaware of any such "departure taxes" that aren't included in the tickets, whether bought in Mexico or abroad. I've traveled to, from, and within Mexico by plane and it's never been an issue.
The above doesn't apply if you're on a dark road in the middle of the night hundreds of miles from nowhere. Better play it safe. But on a crowded airplane? Forget it.
Of course, you said it was a tiny island? What airline was it? Was it a charter? Was it a private plane? It's entirely possible they didn't pay a fee. I would have complained to the airline.
Again, it's just a matter of knowing WTF is going on. Those that are gullible will be taken advantage of--both in Mexico, the U.S., and around the world.
Funny that we had a budget surplus with a Democrat in office, and now that we have a republication we once again have a defeciet.
The economy doesn't go sky-high or tank in a month. The economy started tanking a month or two after Bush became president so don't blame that on Bush--whatever caused it was in motion well before Bush arrived. Clinton got lucky to be president over what appeared to be "good times" but was mostly just the tech bubble. Bush has been unlucky to receive the economy of the popped bubble and with the accounting scandles that were permitted to happen during Clinton's reign.
There are always deficits in recessions.
Me: 1) Tax sales *OR* 2) Tax income. Taxing both *IS* dishonorable and reprehensible,
You: Why? Because you say so? If we only had income tax, i bet you'd be complaining its too high.
It's dishonest because it's double taxation. I earn $100 and I get taxed, say, 20%. Now I'm left with $80. I go out and spend the money the government has so graciously left me with--but I don't really have $80. If the sales tax rate is 8%, I really have $74.
The best system is to NOT tax income--which stimulates growth--and to tax SPENDING (sales tax) which stimulates savings AND lets you tax all the money, even that money that might have been earned illegally. It's also much harder to evade taxes since Wal-Mart isn't going to give you a break on sales taxes.
But, again, levying both income and sales tax is just wrong.
...from people not reporting mail/internet orders on their state taxes where they should pay them . When I lived in Michigan it was the honorable thing to do and it's the same in California. You buy without paying sales tax, you're supposed to record it and pay it at tax time.
Let me get this straight...
You work hard to earn money. The government then tells you you have to pay them for everything you buy in your state, so you "shop around" looking for someplace to buy the good that doesn't make that silly requirement. And then the "honorable" thing is to pay that money to the state anyway? You've been listening to tax-and-spend Democrats too long, I think. It's scary that anyone would actually believe what you just outlined.
I hate taxes, but they are a necessary evil, within reason. But we need to get a clue: 1) Tax sales *OR* 2) Tax income. Taxing both *IS* dishonorable and reprehensible, so don't depend on MY honor to support a dishonorable system.
Give me a fair taxation system and I'll think of going out of my way to do the "honorable" thing. In the meantime, believe me, I will pay the absolute minimum I can get away with legally or practically.
And you must be an envirowacko. The whole "If you don't think global warming is a problem it's because you're part of big oil" is as silly as "If you're a Republican you're rich and want to stomp the poor" or "If you're a Democrat you truly have the best interests of the poor in mind" or believing that the entier U.S. foreign policy is totally based on our quest for oil and that's why we attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and willingly allowed airplanes to be flown into the WTC to give us an excuse. That's all an incredible load of crap.
Clue by four: There are MANY of us who don't believe in global warming and don't have anything to gain financially or politically from promoting that viewpoint. We simply have looked at the claims being made and realized it doesn't add up.
The fact of the matter is this: If we don't have a reason to put emphasis on research of alternative energy, we won't do it.
That, too, is BS. Technology doesn't need a reason to advance--it happens all by itself. At the same time, if certain technologies are not yet mature what is lacking is TIME, not necessarily money. Perhaps clean energy will be available in 20 years and after spending 100 billion dollars. But that doesn't necessarily mean that if we spend 500 billion dollars now that we'll have it in 5 years.And if we try to reduce oil consumption because you say it's a "good thing" then our economy will be less efficient until a solution is found--making it less feasible to spend those 100-500 billion dollars on research.
Who does the research, universities who get funding from Oil companies to research on oil. Who else - no one.
References? Links? How many universities are researching oil? What is left to research? And how many of those have strings attached that say "You can't research other energy sources if you accept our funds for this research." Sure, perhaps you can't spend oil's money on researching alternatives--but I'd like to see some evidence that says that oil made oil research grants conditional on universities not accepting other grants to study other areas of research.
More likely, you're full of crap.
To correct your unbelievable statement: When will we start doing anything significant with alternative energy research? When we run out of oil! Oh - but then were fucked!
Wrong. You obviously don't understand economics any more than you understand this issue.
As supply dwindles (assuming it ever does), prices will start rising. As prices start rising, there will be an economic incentive to find other sources of energy. It's not like one day we're going to say, "Oops, ran out of oil." Prices will rise long before that happens and alternative energy will become more attractive as a result.
Good try though, keep playing and better luck next time.
According to that new-age chick... can't remember her name now. Ah, Ruth Montgomery. This is probably the pole shift that will cause millions or billions of deaths with only the enligthened few remaining.
Yeah right... Go smoke a few more, Ruth.:)
Actually, is she dead yet? She looked pretty old when I read one of her books that I checked out of the library because it was in the UFO section. WTF? UFOs? I guess there isn't a "new-age drugs working on a 60+ year-old mind" section in the Dewey decimal system.:)
Northern Mexico. But I think 25 peso CDs are pretty much everywhere. You can get pretty much any cracked software you want in Mexico City for about the same price, I think.
They finally confiscated about 80,000 pirate CDs in a local flea market. The pirates were out selling their wares at the exact same place a week later.
Digital file formats was apparently not something they considered "distributable."... Royalties, etc., would have to be tabulated in a whole different means. Billboard would never report it if one million people downloaded the song since that is not a "traditional" method of distribution, but you can guarantee that people would all know how the song went.
Herein lies the problem. You still buy (pun not intended) into the viewpoint of the RIAA that the music itself should cause royalties. No, that time has passed. Music is now free. Artists will record their music essentially to promote their concerts. They will then make money from concerts and perhaps endorsements or some merchandise sold at the concerts.
Will artists make millions and millions of dollars? No, not most. Some, maybe, but most will probably have to get used to a lifestyle more similar to what the rest of us live. I don't see a problem with that.
In the end, I think this technological revolution will result in "free music" for the consumer and will result in MORE musicians making MORE money than they are now. The prospects of making MILLIONS will probably be lower, but then again a very small fraction of artists actually make that much anyway.
However it isn't the RIAA that would fold, it would be labels who don't fall in line with whatever "standard" is in place.
Forgive me, I frequently use "RIAA" to refer to the recording industry, period. It's not accurate, of course, but generally pretty close. It's just easier to type "RIAA" than "recording industry" each time.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, like the FTC was so free and effective during the Clinton administration.
Come on... I know some people can only have mental orgasms by beating up on Bush and Republicans but come on, it's getting old. Visit a pr0n site already and get yourself off there.
Authentication-based spam-protection is bogus. Sure, it works for the receiver but it is an extra burden on the sender. Sure, only one time. But those that send you email are paying the price for the spam you receive. So rather than the spammer paying the price or you paying the price, you are offloading that price to totally innocent third parties. Hardly an attractive solution.
Interestingly, CNN just posted a review on a book today regarding Why the Metric system is wrong. While I don't feel like getting into a debate regarding the merits of any measurement system, the fact that anyone uses the metric system is as much a testament to marketing strategy as it is to any underlying scientific reason to use the metric system.
Although making it completely decimal-based does make it easy enough for every idiot that has 10 fingers to be able to use it. :)
pure capitalism only works in the states because the majority of the population are stupid and fat.
First of all, we don't have "pure" capitalism in the United States. And even if we did, I don't think it would work as a result of anybody's weight or lack of intelligence.
i refer you to your tv and fast-food culture if you need further convincing...
That is one ASPECT of our culture (or two if you want to count them separately). Our culture is large enough that by touching on those two aspects you've still left out most of what our culture is. You've stereotyped us nicely, though. Good work.
people only pretend to like the US because you have the most bombs
Hmm. Yeah, right. No-one pretends to like us. Everyone professes to hate us, yet readily listens to our music, eats lunch at our fast-food restauraunts, and consumes our movies. No amount of U.S. bombs can force that to happen. A large amout of hypocrisy around the world can, though.
i don't hate you, i hate your ignorance.
Hmmm. I was modded as "flamebait" presumably for calling European countries socialist. Take a look at the "total" tax rates and see for yourself.
You, on the other hand, have said nothing that remotely makes sense except for those that love to rip on Americans based on absurd stereotypes.
Essentially, gas prices higher than about a buck a gallon is the government discouraging use. $3/gallon (or whatever it costs) in the Socialist States of Europe are due to socialistic tendencies in those countries, not because gas should cost $3.
Reality check.
Agreed.
If you buy a car, you can use it how you see fit. Sure, there are certain traffic laws you have to follow to avoid getting tickets, but the manufacturer doesn't put any restrictions on you.
Likewise, we're always pissing and moaning about how if we buy a CD we have the right to convert it to MP3 or other format so we can enjoy it how and when we want and on the equipment we want. We don't care if the RIAA says we can or can't, we bought and paid for it and will use it how we see fit.
Now some software license says we must obey certain human rights to use their software? That's total BS.
Let me put it in perspective. While not agreeing to EULAs in general, I can see why a company would want you NOT to reverse engineer their product and try to sneak that into their EULA. While not agreeing with their position, I understand why RIAA would like to see technology stop and why they're trying to limit the ways in which we can use technology. In neither case do I agree with their stances, but at least their stances are somehow related to their market and business model.
Basing the right to use software on something completely unrelated to software is absurd and worries me as much as government regulation of the Internet, or restrictions on free speech in the interest of reducing spam.
What if your cell phone came with the restriction that you could only use it if you went to church every Sunday? What if your car was sold on the condition that you had to drink a 6-pack of beer per week? What if your computer would only work if you voted for the Democrats in each election?
Trying to dictate what people can and cannot do in areas of their life that have absolutely nothing to do with your product is wrong and dangerous. In reality, it OUGHT to be made illegal. Not because human rights shouldn't be defended, but because of the path of rediculous requirements that this could inspire other organizations to add to their licensing.
In fact, the clause in question is more dangerous than anything I've ever seen in a Microsoft EULA.
Yeah, I bought my phone with no 5's and my calendar with no 7's at Radio Shack, too.
Or is the RIAA entitled to ever-growing sales, even in a recession?
In other words, they remember they got into music for the money?
I'm not against people making money, but if the reason the musician got into music was the money and not because he liked making music then therein lies the problem with the quality of music these days.
What? The fact that people have on a number of occasions successfully sued spammers means there is less spam in Washington? Hmm, and because some people have been successfully thrown in jail by the IRS means there is less income tax evasion?
I'm glad that spammers are being forced to pay in Washington. But I've seen no evidence that there is any less spam in Washington, just useless disclaimers on spam. The vast majority of spammers are completely untargeted. They add their disclaimer because they know very well they have no way to know whether they are emailing someone in washington unless it happens to be a washington.edu address.
I didn't forget them. I precisely didn't want to get bogged down in details. The problem is clear enough just analyzing the money you earn and spend directly. Feel free to do a complete analysis looking at all taxes, if you'd like.
And I'm still not sure why you think having multiple forms of taxation is "dishonest". You're not being lied to; you know full well when you pay each of these.
Yes, I do. So do you, apparently. Most people don't understand how much they really pay in taxes. I'm self-employed and, believe me, you don't appreciate how high taxes are until you're sending in a check for $5000 to the U.S. Treasury for tax payment.
The average citizen doesn't really know. They get their paycheck without really realizing how much has been taken out--since they never really had it in their hands, they don't miss it. They don't realize the "matching" amount the company pays in taxes. They then accept sales tax as a part of life, further reducing their effective income.
You pay a few thousand dollars a year for things like police protection, fire protection, roads, a court system, national defense, banking regulations and on and on...
I *wish* it was only a few thousand a year.
And I agree with defense spending, court system, and some limited regulations, education too. Unfortunately all of those make up less than half the federal budget. It's "the rest" of the stuff that I'm bothered by. Read: Entitlement programs, as if others were entitled to my money.
Get a grip, buddy. You're getting a bargain. Look at the alternatives. You could move to Mexico or Sweden. In Mexico you don't get many of these, and in Sweden your tax rate *will* be high enough to complain about.
Heheh, for your information I'm an American who has lived the last 7 years in Mexico--so kind of you to so completely stick your foot in your mouth. :)
I've lived in Mexico and, for all of its problems, my car stereo has never been stolen (happened twice in the U.S.) and our house has never been broken into (happened once in the U.S., stole my mom's purse).
Third, I'm not sure where you get the idea sales taxes are harder to evade than income taxes.
Uhm, ok. You sell a million dollars in cocaine and don't report it to the IRS. You've just avoided income tax.
However, even if you have a million dollars from illegal drugs, you have to spend it. Wal-Mart's not going to give you a break, neither is the gas station, etc. Thus it IS harder to avoid the sales tax. Income tax must be avoided once for each "income" avoided. Sales tax must be avoided once for each purchase. Unless you spend all your money at once, it's harder to avoid the sales tax.
I do business all the time with people who give me discounts they don't give to their other customers. By reducing my price by 10%, I'll certainly "evade" 10% of my taxes
Negotiating a lower price and evading taxes are not the same thing. I assume they still charge you sales tax on the discounted amount? If so, you haven't evaded any sales tax. You've paid less for the product and the seller has earned less. There's an obvious limit to how much they can discount what they sell.
Also, if you ramp up the sales tax from 8% to 20%, you'll see a lot more effort put into evading sales taxes through barter and other means.
Agreed. At some point it makes sense to move to a barter arrangement (which the IRS technically is supposed to tax, by the way, based on the value of the goods or services bartered). But, again, that's harder than avoiding income tax which is just a matter of not reporting it, and requires someone else that is also interested in avoiding taxes by bartering.
It will have a huge impact on sales of big ticket items, like autos.
No, probably not. Yes, the car will have a higher tax than it used to--but people will no longer be paying 25%+ in income tax. The economy might shake for a year or two as people become used to earning what they earn and paying taxes on the other side of the equation, but that's it.
A lot of people complain the government improperly uses tax law to encourage or discourage certain behaviours, but by shifting away from an income tax to a sales tax, this will change people's habits big time, and have huge repurcussions throughout the economy.
Only if the sales tax is higher on one product than another. If it's an even playing field then there's no reason it should change buying habits significantly.
But, hey, it will get the IRS off your back and on to somebody else's, right?
You miss the point. If we get rid of the income tax, we don't even NEED the IRS and it won't be on ANYONE'S back. There won't be any fear of having to justify your lifestyle or your income, being able to prove years later how you earned the money you did and being screwed if you don't have the paperwork.
At the same time, what is currently spent on the IRS can be eliminated or spent on something else. Or just left with the taxpayers, preferably.
How many people are going to change travel plans based on a report about a weapon getting into an airport? Very, very few. How many passengers in the U.S. have been affected by a non-authorized object getting onto a plane? Very, very few. Even 9/11 was the result of APPROVED objects being used.
In the end, reporting on security weaknesses in the airport is of little use to the public but of potentially great use to those that might want to exploit the weakness. When the press reports it, they're just going for easy ratings when, in my opinion, the journalist that got a gun passed a checkpoint should be thrown in jail.
That said, computer security is different. A user CAN do something based on his or her knowledge of the security problem. He can insall a patch. He can turn off scripting. He can dump Microsoft. There are many options--short of abandoning computers entirely--that an informed user can do. Thus it is worth publishing.
These laws have helped because half your spam now includes another 200-300 bytes of disclaimer for Washington receivers? Unless people from Washington are receiving less spam then all the law has done has been to add 200-300 bytes to each spam sent. Perhaps it is easier to filter on, but the spam hasn't gone away--in fact, it's now used more bandwidth.
Try downloading Miranda from SourceForge (lazy, go google it yourself). It weighs in at about 499k executable size. No advertisements, no crap. And I'm currently logged in to both ICQ and MSMessenger with the same client.
As for spam, I used to get it. But just set "Receive messages only from users in contact list" and you'll get none. Ever. Unless your friends are spammers. :)
It's not ILLEGAL, but it is against the contract the merchant has with Visa/Mastercard.
I wouldn't mind the 3% cost (I'm a merchant) if it actually bought me some protection. As it is, they earn 3% of what I earn. Then if they didn't catch a fraudulent charge and allowed me to believe it was valid, they reverse the charges and take back the money, plus charge me a $20 chargeback fee.
Visa/Mastercard makes 3% on all valid transactions. It makes even more on fraudulent transactions. And the financial risk is incurred entirely by the merchant, not by any bank or Visa/Mastercard.
It truly is an impressive scheme they've set-up. The merchant is always screwed, it's just a matter of degree.
Any taxes or departure fees should be built-in to the prices of the tickets. Anything else is ripe for corruption in a worst case and just plain annoying in a best case.
I'm an American who has lived in Mexico for the last 7 years. Yes, policing is often a business. BUT, within reason.
1. If you speak Spanish, that's a huge benefit.
2. Ask them for an official receipt with an "RFC" on it BEFORE you give them money. Mexico is more obsessed with paperwork than the U.S. Nothing is done here without about ten pieces of paper. If what they're asking is legitimate, they'll give you a receipt. If not, they'll move on to a more gullible target.
3. If what they're asking for is valid, they'll insist. If it's invalid and you say, "I'm sorry, I don't carry cash" you will NOT have a problem. They're not going to kill you. They want beer money, that's it. If your CNN friend has $50 to spend on cops, he'll probably spend most of it. If he has $5, he'll probably spend that. See how it works?
4. I am unaware of any such "departure taxes" that aren't included in the tickets, whether bought in Mexico or abroad. I've traveled to, from, and within Mexico by plane and it's never been an issue.
The above doesn't apply if you're on a dark road in the middle of the night hundreds of miles from nowhere. Better play it safe. But on a crowded airplane? Forget it.
Of course, you said it was a tiny island? What airline was it? Was it a charter? Was it a private plane? It's entirely possible they didn't pay a fee. I would have complained to the airline.
Again, it's just a matter of knowing WTF is going on. Those that are gullible will be taken advantage of--both in Mexico, the U.S., and around the world.
The economy doesn't go sky-high or tank in a month. The economy started tanking a month or two after Bush became president so don't blame that on Bush--whatever caused it was in motion well before Bush arrived. Clinton got lucky to be president over what appeared to be "good times" but was mostly just the tech bubble. Bush has been unlucky to receive the economy of the popped bubble and with the accounting scandles that were permitted to happen during Clinton's reign.
There are always deficits in recessions.
Me: 1) Tax sales *OR* 2) Tax income. Taxing both *IS* dishonorable and reprehensible,
You: Why? Because you say so? If we only had income tax, i bet you'd be complaining its too high.
It's dishonest because it's double taxation. I earn $100 and I get taxed, say, 20%. Now I'm left with $80. I go out and spend the money the government has so graciously left me with--but I don't really have $80. If the sales tax rate is 8%, I really have $74.
The best system is to NOT tax income--which stimulates growth--and to tax SPENDING (sales tax) which stimulates savings AND lets you tax all the money, even that money that might have been earned illegally. It's also much harder to evade taxes since Wal-Mart isn't going to give you a break on sales taxes.
But, again, levying both income and sales tax is just wrong.
Let me get this straight...
You work hard to earn money. The government then tells you you have to pay them for everything you buy in your state, so you "shop around" looking for someplace to buy the good that doesn't make that silly requirement. And then the "honorable" thing is to pay that money to the state anyway? You've been listening to tax-and-spend Democrats too long, I think. It's scary that anyone would actually believe what you just outlined.
I hate taxes, but they are a necessary evil, within reason. But we need to get a clue: 1) Tax sales *OR* 2) Tax income. Taxing both *IS* dishonorable and reprehensible, so don't depend on MY honor to support a dishonorable system.
Give me a fair taxation system and I'll think of going out of my way to do the "honorable" thing. In the meantime, believe me, I will pay the absolute minimum I can get away with legally or practically.
And you must be an envirowacko. The whole "If you don't think global warming is a problem it's because you're part of big oil" is as silly as "If you're a Republican you're rich and want to stomp the poor" or "If you're a Democrat you truly have the best interests of the poor in mind" or believing that the entier U.S. foreign policy is totally based on our quest for oil and that's why we attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and willingly allowed airplanes to be flown into the WTC to give us an excuse. That's all an incredible load of crap.
Clue by four: There are MANY of us who don't believe in global warming and don't have anything to gain financially or politically from promoting that viewpoint. We simply have looked at the claims being made and realized it doesn't add up.
The fact of the matter is this: If we don't have a reason to put emphasis on research of alternative energy, we won't do it.
That, too, is BS. Technology doesn't need a reason to advance--it happens all by itself. At the same time, if certain technologies are not yet mature what is lacking is TIME, not necessarily money. Perhaps clean energy will be available in 20 years and after spending 100 billion dollars. But that doesn't necessarily mean that if we spend 500 billion dollars now that we'll have it in 5 years.And if we try to reduce oil consumption because you say it's a "good thing" then our economy will be less efficient until a solution is found--making it less feasible to spend those 100-500 billion dollars on research.
Who does the research, universities who get funding from Oil companies to research on oil. Who else - no one.
References? Links? How many universities are researching oil? What is left to research? And how many of those have strings attached that say "You can't research other energy sources if you accept our funds for this research." Sure, perhaps you can't spend oil's money on researching alternatives--but I'd like to see some evidence that says that oil made oil research grants conditional on universities not accepting other grants to study other areas of research.
More likely, you're full of crap.
To correct your unbelievable statement: When will we start doing anything significant with alternative energy research? When we run out of oil! Oh - but then were fucked!
Wrong. You obviously don't understand economics any more than you understand this issue.
As supply dwindles (assuming it ever does), prices will start rising. As prices start rising, there will be an economic incentive to find other sources of energy. It's not like one day we're going to say, "Oops, ran out of oil." Prices will rise long before that happens and alternative energy will become more attractive as a result.
Good try though, keep playing and better luck next time.
Yeah right... Go smoke a few more, Ruth. :)
Actually, is she dead yet? She looked pretty old when I read one of her books that I checked out of the library because it was in the UFO section. WTF? UFOs? I guess there isn't a "new-age drugs working on a 60+ year-old mind" section in the Dewey decimal system. :)
They finally confiscated about 80,000 pirate CDs in a local flea market. The pirates were out selling their wares at the exact same place a week later.
Herein lies the problem. You still buy (pun not intended) into the viewpoint of the RIAA that the music itself should cause royalties. No, that time has passed. Music is now free. Artists will record their music essentially to promote their concerts. They will then make money from concerts and perhaps endorsements or some merchandise sold at the concerts.
Will artists make millions and millions of dollars? No, not most. Some, maybe, but most will probably have to get used to a lifestyle more similar to what the rest of us live. I don't see a problem with that.
In the end, I think this technological revolution will result in "free music" for the consumer and will result in MORE musicians making MORE money than they are now. The prospects of making MILLIONS will probably be lower, but then again a very small fraction of artists actually make that much anyway.
However it isn't the RIAA that would fold, it would be labels who don't fall in line with whatever "standard" is in place.
Forgive me, I frequently use "RIAA" to refer to the recording industry, period. It's not accurate, of course, but generally pretty close. It's just easier to type "RIAA" than "recording industry" each time. :)