But I don't think you're going to have much success convincing people that we shouldn't encourage, or should actually discourage, stable households and the continuance of our species.
Come on now, I'm pretty sure that the continuation of our species is not dependent on having tax cuts for married people. Considering that OVER 50% of marriages end in divorce, perhaps the government should get completely out of the marriage business, let simply let anyone get married who wants to, straight or gay. It is fine to consider the marriage a legally binding contract/corporation, which is currently the way it is, but the government isn't helping continue anything by giving tax cuts to married people.
People got married before taxes were instituted. They do it because they generally want to start a family, or just a life together. Ending unfair tax advantages to married people will not change this.
In tax law, single people, irrespective of sexual orientation, always pay the highest rate of tax.
Fixed that for you. I personally don't like the government telling me I should be straight or married or have kids. The government needs to stick to what the constitution says it is supposed to be doing: paving interstate highways, national defense, regulate commerce that crosses state lines.
Education is not paid for with income tax, it is paid for (primarily) by state taxes, either property tax (Texas and others) or the general fun, like here in NC. The federal government has some programs to put money in schools, but the feds have no business interfering with schools anyway, that is something the states can handle by themselves just fine.
Indeed. To me, it would be fair if we simply got rid of all tax deductions for being married, children, home loan interest, etc. and just have an overall lower tax rate. I paid my home off by making sacrifices, yet I pay more taxes because I was responsible enough to do so. And why should I subsidize someone else's children? I don't have kids, so I pay yet higher taxes than those who decided to procreate. If you want kids, fine, have them, but a tax deduction for children is no different than me giving you a hand out for the effort.
In a nutshell, I pay way more taxes because I am financially responsible and have no kids. And before those with kids (and deductions) say "But you don't understand how expensive it is to have kids", I would remind them that it was their choice, not mine, and there is no sense of fairness in me having to pay for part of raising their kids.
But what if it is true? Likely, it is, actually. Every country spies on other countries. I don't really see the US getting completely bent out of shape over it, it was a 10 year investigation. What was more important was tracking them and finding out who in the US was helping them. But spies come and go, but spying is a constant.
Honest pricing? They didn't say it was ad free. If they say "1000 ads per episode for $9.99", and that is what they deliver, then it is honest pricing.
You might not LIKE their system, but it is plenty honest as long as they are delivering what they promised. Saying it is dishonest, well, is dishonest.
You get newer shows, *current shows*, plus older stuff, *plus* they still have a huge catalog of really old stuff, which is free. While they lack the quantity that netflix has, they make up for it in quality. Keep in mind that Hulu is owned by a bunch of networks.
I see a lot of people bitching about ads on Hulu, but I use Hulu now, and they don't have that many ads for most shows. Many shows let you watch one 60 second ad at the beginning only, others only have 2 breaks, 3 max. Those breaks are in the 30 second range. There is no where NEAR the amount of ads that you find on network broadcast or cable tv, not even close.
The important thing to remember is that when people (on average) are making LESS than they did a year ago, they are barely getting by. For simplicity, if in 2009, for every $110 they paid 11 and spent 99, fine, and they consumed all of it. Now they are making 88 and paying 8, thus spending $80. They have already reduced their spending because they had no choice, and there is no longer "disposable" income as it takes the $80 to just pay the basics. Now you increase the tax, you are biting into basics, forcing them to make tougher choices. More importantly, once they make these choices, they *ARE* more likely to try to overcompensate and actually put money into savings, even if only a dollar or two. (this is proven in that the savings rate in the USA is currently at a historic high: saving for an even rainier day, even though they have less money available.)
So you raise taxes to 12.5%, so that $88 becomes $11 again, and they have a net of only $77 to spend, instead of 80. To make it worse, the savings rate goes up, they only spend $75 of that money. Even if the tax collection might be similar, they are only injecting a net of $75 into the economy instead of the previous $99. The money they inject is what is (was) paying the salaries of other people. Final result is higher unemployment. People argue "but the extra taxes are money spent as well", but as you can see, there are no extra monies, the net for the government is the same for this one person, and less overall as more people are unemployed.
The fact is that government spending can create a few jobs, but they tend to have a lower ROI than the same money spent in the private sector, as there is no "profit" motive in the public sector. In the private sector, the money is more likely to be invested in longer term projects: newer computers, larger building, more vehicles, the very things that benefit the economy as a whole.
The net is what I was speaking of: Any additional tax during a recession reduces economic activity. The most basic concept is tied up as "If you want to discourage something, tax it. If you want to encourage something, reduce taxes on it". Whether it is liquor, tobacco or jobs, it generally holds true.
If there were both twins, and both born on Tuesday, the statement would still hold. He didn't say "only one was born on Tuesday", just that one was. He is only describing one of them, not necessarily differentiating them in any way.
It would appear to be a very clear interpretation of their constitution. Even if Comcast had not backed out of their original contract to provide free services to public institutions, it would not matter. The MI state constitution clearly says that franchises are the responsibility of the local governments, then the state stomped on that by signing a state wide deal with Comcast. It is a clear matter of constitutional law, and very much a valid case.
On my servers, however, I'm the only user. It is for multiple domains owned by my employer, so it wouldn't make sense for me to pay for a certificate if it won't be any better than one I can create myself for free. But yes, if I had multiple users, then it would make more sense.
Also, every dedicated server has SSL for logging in (Server Beach, etc.), and the certificate never matches the domain, typically localhost.localdomain or similar. If you aren't doing actual ecommerce, then there is no reason to buy a certificate if you can instead just create one or use the self generated one, and either ignore the warning on your client, or install the certificate on the client as trusted (one mouse click). So to this "poll", it would appear to be incorrect, although it is perfectly fine and secure for the purpose it is being used for.
I was speaking of smaller businesses (less than 50 people) which is a very different animal. Individuals don't do a single job always, and individuality is more of a plus in smaller businesses. I *do* understand why large companies play by different rules, and even can admit that (sometimes) unions have done some really good things. But in the small biz world, which is where most job growth is, it is a two edged sword.
It isn't always pretty, but I am confident that this kind of flexibility gives an end result of more jobs. The big hassle for small biz is finding good work anyway, in any economy, so small business owners are not prone to just fire people that are capable, just because of some issues. For instance, at my work, there have been several pregnancies (employer paid for 2 months off for each, out of pocket), 1 heart attack (male) and 1 bypass (male), giving them the same 8 weeks off, out of pocket. Most of the people have been here many years, including myself for 17. The basic rule is "everyone gets ONE". Likely, he would do more if needed, but that is the basic rule. And yes, the guys still bitch at the women (you CHOSE to get pregnant) and the women bitch at the men (you don't understand how hard it is to be the mom), and yes the women take a lot more time off than the men, although it counts against vacation time. Then again, the employer gives a total of 160 hours per year to everyone, for sick/vacation/whatever, so that is pretty damn generous.
So yes, I'm pro business, and not the biggest fan of unions, but that doesn't mean I'm a big meanie (I think you get that now). We can disagree about the details, but the main thing that always sticks in my mind is an expression I try to manage by: "Generosity is what you get to do with profits". First, you make the money, then it is easy to share and be tolerant.
Most US states are "Right To Work" states (ie: non-union), including NC where I live. That means an employer can terminate your employment without cause. You can draw unemployment, but unless he violated the law (fired you because you are black, etc.) then that is your only recourse. He has to pay any vacation pay due, but that is it. There is nothing illegal about that in Right To Work states, and I would agree with the philosophy of giving employers that kind of flexibility, as long as it is not discriminatory. There is no requirement that you pay two people doing the same work, the same pay either.
I have been both the employer and the employee over the last two decades, and sometimes both at the same time (owned a few small shops). It isn't that hard for me to see both sides of the argument. To be clear, if I had an employee that had missed a lot of time, and is likely to in the future, of course that would put them down on the list for promotions, if everything else is equal. No question about it. My job is to staff my business in the most effective way I can, particularly in management. I wouldn't fire them and would pay them equal to anyone doing the same job, but they can't expect to be put ahead of people who are more reliable, for whatever reason. And this is regardless of their sex, race, religion or sexual orientation. You invest in employees who can and do invest their time in your company.
I keep seeing this argument. It simply isn't a very good one. Complaining about a female getting paid for being gone for 6 weeks is the same thing as complaining about a male employee who gets paid for 6 weeks to stay home after spinal fusion surgery.
I wasn't complaining, I was making an observation. I thought it was clear that I wasn't the one who was complaining about it in my examples, referring to how sexism is still alive an well, albeit to a lesser degree than past decades. That should not indicate I participate in it, as I don't. Most good companies do have some form of paid time off for having kids. Even the small company where I work, which gives 8 weeks.
Both your comments seem to be trying to read me as being sexist and opposed to women having medical leave for child birth. That simply isn't the case. The observations are still valid, the costs are still real, and the trade offs are made every day. If a guy missed work for 2 months in a row, 3 times in 8 years, for other medical reasons (surgeries, etc.) it would also hurt his chances at advancement, and ultimately his paycheck. Any boss *has* to consider all of these factors, or he is negligent.
No, I'm quite sure about it. Sexism is not something I have ever been accused of, although you don't really know me and I couldn't expect you to know that, so the mistake is forgivable.
Dads today are better about helping with the kids than 50 years ago, but the vast majority of "maintenance" is still done by mom, not to mention all the single moms out there doing everything. There are many, many more single moms than single dads as well, which is another cultural bias that is played in the courts. Still, the net result is that moms are doing more of the hard work when it comes to kids than dads are.
That is one of the disadvantages of the internet on news. It has become more acceptable for the large outlets to be biased because "there are other choices". There has always been bias in the "mainstream press", but not to the degree we see now. On the upside, CNN appears to be a bit more balanced than they were 10 years ago, but they are in the minority. This speaks nothing of all the blogs and sites that are intentionally biased by design. Basically, the press has become fragmented into political camps.
Unfortunately, too often, it is up to citizens to read all the sources and attempt to extract the truth from the pile of bias.
We used to have an institution that would do that for you, present all sides, including sections that are fact only, plus separate editorial pieces, all in once convenient package. I think they used to call it "the press".
It would all be moot if people developed against the actual standards instead of to a particular browser. Yes, I know, MS started it, but we are talking about usability and there really isn't a good reason why your banking should be done NOT using the most cutting edge features, but instead focusing on usability, security, simplicity and reliability. Instead, most banks have as much CSS as Facebook and entirely too much eye candy.
The math is pretty easy in a recession with high unemployment: any additional tax reduces consumption. It isn't like everyone is walking around with spare cash. When times are booming, not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
But I don't think you're going to have much success convincing people that we shouldn't encourage, or should actually discourage, stable households and the continuance of our species.
Come on now, I'm pretty sure that the continuation of our species is not dependent on having tax cuts for married people. Considering that OVER 50% of marriages end in divorce, perhaps the government should get completely out of the marriage business, let simply let anyone get married who wants to, straight or gay. It is fine to consider the marriage a legally binding contract/corporation, which is currently the way it is, but the government isn't helping continue anything by giving tax cuts to married people.
People got married before taxes were instituted. They do it because they generally want to start a family, or just a life together. Ending unfair tax advantages to married people will not change this.
In tax law, single people, irrespective of sexual orientation, always pay the highest rate of tax.
Fixed that for you. I personally don't like the government telling me I should be straight or married or have kids. The government needs to stick to what the constitution says it is supposed to be doing: paving interstate highways, national defense, regulate commerce that crosses state lines.
Education is not paid for with income tax, it is paid for (primarily) by state taxes, either property tax (Texas and others) or the general fun, like here in NC. The federal government has some programs to put money in schools, but the feds have no business interfering with schools anyway, that is something the states can handle by themselves just fine.
Indeed. To me, it would be fair if we simply got rid of all tax deductions for being married, children, home loan interest, etc. and just have an overall lower tax rate. I paid my home off by making sacrifices, yet I pay more taxes because I was responsible enough to do so. And why should I subsidize someone else's children? I don't have kids, so I pay yet higher taxes than those who decided to procreate. If you want kids, fine, have them, but a tax deduction for children is no different than me giving you a hand out for the effort.
In a nutshell, I pay way more taxes because I am financially responsible and have no kids. And before those with kids (and deductions) say "But you don't understand how expensive it is to have kids", I would remind them that it was their choice, not mine, and there is no sense of fairness in me having to pay for part of raising their kids.
But what if it is true? Likely, it is, actually. Every country spies on other countries. I don't really see the US getting completely bent out of shape over it, it was a 10 year investigation. What was more important was tracking them and finding out who in the US was helping them. But spies come and go, but spying is a constant.
'mon Apple Developers..... no App for that? :-)
Just like porn, Steve Jobs recommends you use Android for that.
They encrypted everything using ROT13, TWICE! How much better security can you get?
Honest pricing? They didn't say it was ad free. If they say "1000 ads per episode for $9.99", and that is what they deliver, then it is honest pricing.
You might not LIKE their system, but it is plenty honest as long as they are delivering what they promised. Saying it is dishonest, well, is dishonest.
What customers want is free programs with no ads. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. People like to get paid, from CEOs to cameramen.
You get newer shows, *current shows*, plus older stuff, *plus* they still have a huge catalog of really old stuff, which is free. While they lack the quantity that netflix has, they make up for it in quality. Keep in mind that Hulu is owned by a bunch of networks.
I see a lot of people bitching about ads on Hulu, but I use Hulu now, and they don't have that many ads for most shows. Many shows let you watch one 60 second ad at the beginning only, others only have 2 breaks, 3 max. Those breaks are in the 30 second range. There is no where NEAR the amount of ads that you find on network broadcast or cable tv, not even close.
Yea! They should do like cable TV and satellite, and charge you $50 and have ads.
My guess is $10 pays for the bandwidth, and the ads pay for the content, actually.
Federal rules do not automatically trump state constitutions. That is what the courts are for, to determine.
The important thing to remember is that when people (on average) are making LESS than they did a year ago, they are barely getting by. For simplicity, if in 2009, for every $110 they paid 11 and spent 99, fine, and they consumed all of it. Now they are making 88 and paying 8, thus spending $80. They have already reduced their spending because they had no choice, and there is no longer "disposable" income as it takes the $80 to just pay the basics. Now you increase the tax, you are biting into basics, forcing them to make tougher choices. More importantly, once they make these choices, they *ARE* more likely to try to overcompensate and actually put money into savings, even if only a dollar or two. (this is proven in that the savings rate in the USA is currently at a historic high: saving for an even rainier day, even though they have less money available.)
So you raise taxes to 12.5%, so that $88 becomes $11 again, and they have a net of only $77 to spend, instead of 80. To make it worse, the savings rate goes up, they only spend $75 of that money. Even if the tax collection might be similar, they are only injecting a net of $75 into the economy instead of the previous $99. The money they inject is what is (was) paying the salaries of other people. Final result is higher unemployment. People argue "but the extra taxes are money spent as well", but as you can see, there are no extra monies, the net for the government is the same for this one person, and less overall as more people are unemployed.
The fact is that government spending can create a few jobs, but they tend to have a lower ROI than the same money spent in the private sector, as there is no "profit" motive in the public sector. In the private sector, the money is more likely to be invested in longer term projects: newer computers, larger building, more vehicles, the very things that benefit the economy as a whole.
The net is what I was speaking of: Any additional tax during a recession reduces economic activity. The most basic concept is tied up as "If you want to discourage something, tax it. If you want to encourage something, reduce taxes on it". Whether it is liquor, tobacco or jobs, it generally holds true.
If there were both twins, and both born on Tuesday, the statement would still hold. He didn't say "only one was born on Tuesday", just that one was. He is only describing one of them, not necessarily differentiating them in any way.
It would appear to be a very clear interpretation of their constitution. Even if Comcast had not backed out of their original contract to provide free services to public institutions, it would not matter. The MI state constitution clearly says that franchises are the responsibility of the local governments, then the state stomped on that by signing a state wide deal with Comcast. It is a clear matter of constitutional law, and very much a valid case.
On my servers, however, I'm the only user. It is for multiple domains owned by my employer, so it wouldn't make sense for me to pay for a certificate if it won't be any better than one I can create myself for free. But yes, if I had multiple users, then it would make more sense.
Also, every dedicated server has SSL for logging in (Server Beach, etc.), and the certificate never matches the domain, typically localhost.localdomain or similar. If you aren't doing actual ecommerce, then there is no reason to buy a certificate if you can instead just create one or use the self generated one, and either ignore the warning on your client, or install the certificate on the client as trusted (one mouse click). So to this "poll", it would appear to be incorrect, although it is perfectly fine and secure for the purpose it is being used for.
I was speaking of smaller businesses (less than 50 people) which is a very different animal. Individuals don't do a single job always, and individuality is more of a plus in smaller businesses. I *do* understand why large companies play by different rules, and even can admit that (sometimes) unions have done some really good things. But in the small biz world, which is where most job growth is, it is a two edged sword.
It isn't always pretty, but I am confident that this kind of flexibility gives an end result of more jobs. The big hassle for small biz is finding good work anyway, in any economy, so small business owners are not prone to just fire people that are capable, just because of some issues. For instance, at my work, there have been several pregnancies (employer paid for 2 months off for each, out of pocket), 1 heart attack (male) and 1 bypass (male), giving them the same 8 weeks off, out of pocket. Most of the people have been here many years, including myself for 17. The basic rule is "everyone gets ONE". Likely, he would do more if needed, but that is the basic rule. And yes, the guys still bitch at the women (you CHOSE to get pregnant) and the women bitch at the men (you don't understand how hard it is to be the mom), and yes the women take a lot more time off than the men, although it counts against vacation time. Then again, the employer gives a total of 160 hours per year to everyone, for sick/vacation/whatever, so that is pretty damn generous.
So yes, I'm pro business, and not the biggest fan of unions, but that doesn't mean I'm a big meanie (I think you get that now). We can disagree about the details, but the main thing that always sticks in my mind is an expression I try to manage by: "Generosity is what you get to do with profits". First, you make the money, then it is easy to share and be tolerant.
Most US states are "Right To Work" states (ie: non-union), including NC where I live. That means an employer can terminate your employment without cause. You can draw unemployment, but unless he violated the law (fired you because you are black, etc.) then that is your only recourse. He has to pay any vacation pay due, but that is it. There is nothing illegal about that in Right To Work states, and I would agree with the philosophy of giving employers that kind of flexibility, as long as it is not discriminatory. There is no requirement that you pay two people doing the same work, the same pay either.
I have been both the employer and the employee over the last two decades, and sometimes both at the same time (owned a few small shops). It isn't that hard for me to see both sides of the argument. To be clear, if I had an employee that had missed a lot of time, and is likely to in the future, of course that would put them down on the list for promotions, if everything else is equal. No question about it. My job is to staff my business in the most effective way I can, particularly in management. I wouldn't fire them and would pay them equal to anyone doing the same job, but they can't expect to be put ahead of people who are more reliable, for whatever reason. And this is regardless of their sex, race, religion or sexual orientation. You invest in employees who can and do invest their time in your company.
I keep seeing this argument. It simply isn't a very good one. Complaining about a female getting paid for being gone for 6 weeks is the same thing as complaining about a male employee who gets paid for 6 weeks to stay home after spinal fusion surgery.
I wasn't complaining, I was making an observation. I thought it was clear that I wasn't the one who was complaining about it in my examples, referring to how sexism is still alive an well, albeit to a lesser degree than past decades. That should not indicate I participate in it, as I don't. Most good companies do have some form of paid time off for having kids. Even the small company where I work, which gives 8 weeks.
Both your comments seem to be trying to read me as being sexist and opposed to women having medical leave for child birth. That simply isn't the case. The observations are still valid, the costs are still real, and the trade offs are made every day. If a guy missed work for 2 months in a row, 3 times in 8 years, for other medical reasons (surgeries, etc.) it would also hurt his chances at advancement, and ultimately his paycheck. Any boss *has* to consider all of these factors, or he is negligent.
No, I'm quite sure about it. Sexism is not something I have ever been accused of, although you don't really know me and I couldn't expect you to know that, so the mistake is forgivable.
Dads today are better about helping with the kids than 50 years ago, but the vast majority of "maintenance" is still done by mom, not to mention all the single moms out there doing everything. There are many, many more single moms than single dads as well, which is another cultural bias that is played in the courts. Still, the net result is that moms are doing more of the hard work when it comes to kids than dads are.
That is one of the disadvantages of the internet on news. It has become more acceptable for the large outlets to be biased because "there are other choices". There has always been bias in the "mainstream press", but not to the degree we see now. On the upside, CNN appears to be a bit more balanced than they were 10 years ago, but they are in the minority. This speaks nothing of all the blogs and sites that are intentionally biased by design. Basically, the press has become fragmented into political camps.
Unfortunately, too often, it is up to citizens to read all the sources and attempt to extract the truth from the pile of bias.
We used to have an institution that would do that for you, present all sides, including sections that are fact only, plus separate editorial pieces, all in once convenient package. I think they used to call it "the press".
It would all be moot if people developed against the actual standards instead of to a particular browser. Yes, I know, MS started it, but we are talking about usability and there really isn't a good reason why your banking should be done NOT using the most cutting edge features, but instead focusing on usability, security, simplicity and reliability. Instead, most banks have as much CSS as Facebook and entirely too much eye candy.
The math is pretty easy in a recession with high unemployment: any additional tax reduces consumption. It isn't like everyone is walking around with spare cash. When times are booming, not so much.