If the numbers show that everybody is better off, but some people are better off to a greater extent, that might be o.k. (without a couple of dozen globes to test whether more equitable progress would result in more overall benefit, who knows).
If the numbers show that very few people are better off and most people are worse off, that probably isn't o.k. (it might be okay if the majority of the people who are worse off drink a gallon of gin a week).
Rich can be bounded a little bit. GDP/working population is ~$100,000. GDP/population is ~$43,000.
So in the U.S., there is approximately $43,000 of production per person, and approximately $100,000 of production per worker. Depending on how you feel about the distribution of resources, rich is probably more than one of those amounts(because there isn't enough production for someone to consume more than $43,000 without lowering consumption for someone else, and because there isn't enough production to pay someone more than $100,000 without paying someone else less).
Right, but with server only commits, people wanting to do experiments may not bother doing any version management if they don't want to hassle with creating a branch to hold the work. Cultural problems come up in both situations.
Anyway, you haven't done anything other than hand wave and my life hasn't been getting worse for the last ten or twenty years, nor have the lives of my immediate family, or most of my extended family.
Not matching you doesn't really mean that they are inaccurate. If you are right on the edge of a quintile, the rest of the quintile that you are in is going to be dragging you up or down(depending on which edge of the quintile you are on), so there could be a huge discrepancy, if the numbers within the quintile vary quite a lot. It would be pretty controversial if the numbers were intentionally distorted(they were published in December of 2007, so there probably is not a party issue).
And effective taxes are the percentage of you income that the government ends up keeping, so the net amount that you pay to federal is what matters, not the amount that is withheld. You stated the net amount along those lines so I'm not sure why you mention what you had withheld.
Does one of the tables in this document make more sense(rates are probably going to be higher for single people than for families, etc.)?
The big difference is that a DVCS adds a local workspace. I can check something out from the centralized server(with a DVCS, I pull the server tree to my local tree), mess around, make a branch, see what it does, decide it was stupid and throw the whole thing away, or I can decide it was a good idea and then commit it to the centralized server(by pushing my tree up to the central tree). The only real difference is that a check out is called a pull and a commit is called a push.
Separating change management from committing to the repository is not necessarily a bad thing. It may be undesirable in many situations, but it can also be handy.
Google is somewhat a special case. Larry and Sergey have a controlling voting interest and thus have broad leeway to interpret what is in shareholder's interests:
I understand the math, even without your 6 person simplification.
Do notice how I didn't make any comment about how much the rich *should* be paying, I simply pointed out that 'most' is an accurate description of the percentage of the taxes they pay.
I'm fine with people arguing that high income earners should bear the vast majority of the tax burden, but I'd like to make the debate about what high income is, and what exactly constitutes a vast majority, and despite your comment, many people actually believe that the rich don't really pay very much taxes(whereas they, especially as a group, pay a higher percentage of taxes on their income and pay for a majority of government spending). If you look at the numbers, the higher your income, the higher your effective tax rate.
There is another discussion about wealth taxes rather than income taxes. I don't like wealth taxes. For starters, I'd like to become wealthy and a wealth tax is a major impediment to that. Another thing is that I don't think the government is very good at spending money. So the incredibly rich get to hang on to their money in my world of fair.
Well, you haven't established that it is indeed the case that economic policies take 5 years to take effect. You've just stated that you heard someone say it once.
To the extent that the credit crunch is an after effect of the extreme low interest rates that were a response to the dot com crash, the problem is that Greenspan didn't have a crystal ball and only managed the situation very well rather than perfectly.
The sub prime portion of the situation was exacerbated by law changes going to back to Clinton, there was a law passed that was designed to increase home ownership. That got coupled with poor regulation and dishonest dealing during the Bush administration(note, I'm talking about dishonest mortgage brokers here) to make the situation worse than it needed to be.
Hi, welcome to thinking about taxes. People making $32,000 a year have a nominal marginal tax rate of about 25%. Rich people have an effective tax rate of about 25%.
Until understand the difference, don't bother talking about taxes publicly.
Yes, the Carter era was a bonanza compared to the Reagan-Bush I years (things were pretty good under Clinton, but his economic policies were closer to Reagan than, say, Kennedy or Johnson).
It's a ridiculous simplification to attribute the presence or lack of economic success to the man in office at the time, because there are policies that take many years to take effect or unwind, but the idea that taxing wealthy people at 90% is smart is just silly. Wealthy people pay ~25% taxes on their income at the moment, that could easily go north of 35% without really hurting anything, but there is a good debate somewhere near 50%.
I do, and I wonder if I read differently when I have contacts in, because I can't read text with my uncorrected right eye. It would be interesting if you were reading books and screens with opposite eyes and it was affecting the way you remember the material.
When you classify more activity as misuse than you classify as use (I get the impression that you would agree that this is the case), the problem isn't that people are misusing the system, the problem is that the system is broken.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends a great deal on the numbers.
If the numbers show that everybody is better off, but some people are better off to a greater extent, that might be o.k. (without a couple of dozen globes to test whether more equitable progress would result in more overall benefit, who knows).
If the numbers show that very few people are better off and most people are worse off, that probably isn't o.k. (it might be okay if the majority of the people who are worse off drink a gallon of gin a week).
1.5, -2, etc. Apparently any positive whole number power.
People earning over $230,000 pay ~67% of all federal taxes. People earning less than that pay ~33% of all federal taxes:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
Rich can be bounded a little bit. GDP/working population is ~$100,000. GDP/population is ~$43,000.
So in the U.S., there is approximately $43,000 of production per person, and approximately $100,000 of production per worker. Depending on how you feel about the distribution of resources, rich is probably more than one of those amounts(because there isn't enough production for someone to consume more than $43,000 without lowering consumption for someone else, and because there isn't enough production to pay someone more than $100,000 without paying someone else less).
Right, but with server only commits, people wanting to do experiments may not bother doing any version management if they don't want to hassle with creating a branch to hold the work. Cultural problems come up in both situations.
Where have I suggested that the rich should pay less taxes?
I'm only suggesting that it is fair to say that they pay most of the taxes.
Which question?
Anyway, you haven't done anything other than hand wave and my life hasn't been getting worse for the last ten or twenty years, nor have the lives of my immediate family, or most of my extended family.
Not matching you doesn't really mean that they are inaccurate. If you are right on the edge of a quintile, the rest of the quintile that you are in is going to be dragging you up or down(depending on which edge of the quintile you are on), so there could be a huge discrepancy, if the numbers within the quintile vary quite a lot. It would be pretty controversial if the numbers were intentionally distorted(they were published in December of 2007, so there probably is not a party issue).
And effective taxes are the percentage of you income that the government ends up keeping, so the net amount that you pay to federal is what matters, not the amount that is withheld. You stated the net amount along those lines so I'm not sure why you mention what you had withheld.
Does one of the tables in this document make more sense(rates are probably going to be higher for single people than for families, etc.)?
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf
A DVCS can still be used to commit to a server.
The big difference is that a DVCS adds a local workspace. I can check something out from the centralized server(with a DVCS, I pull the server tree to my local tree), mess around, make a branch, see what it does, decide it was stupid and throw the whole thing away, or I can decide it was a good idea and then commit it to the centralized server(by pushing my tree up to the central tree). The only real difference is that a check out is called a pull and a commit is called a push.
Separating change management from committing to the repository is not necessarily a bad thing. It may be undesirable in many situations, but it can also be handy.
Well muddled.
Google is somewhat a special case. Larry and Sergey have a controlling voting interest and thus have broad leeway to interpret what is in shareholder's interests:
http://finance.aol.com/company/google-inc/goog/nas
How come no one who talks about not participating in the system mentions not using Google anymore?
I understand the math, even without your 6 person simplification.
Do notice how I didn't make any comment about how much the rich *should* be paying, I simply pointed out that 'most' is an accurate description of the percentage of the taxes they pay.
I'm fine with people arguing that high income earners should bear the vast majority of the tax burden, but I'd like to make the debate about what high income is, and what exactly constitutes a vast majority, and despite your comment, many people actually believe that the rich don't really pay very much taxes(whereas they, especially as a group, pay a higher percentage of taxes on their income and pay for a majority of government spending). If you look at the numbers, the higher your income, the higher your effective tax rate.
There is another discussion about wealth taxes rather than income taxes. I don't like wealth taxes. For starters, I'd like to become wealthy and a wealth tax is a major impediment to that. Another thing is that I don't think the government is very good at spending money. So the incredibly rich get to hang on to their money in my world of fair.
Well, you haven't established that it is indeed the case that economic policies take 5 years to take effect. You've just stated that you heard someone say it once.
To the extent that the credit crunch is an after effect of the extreme low interest rates that were a response to the dot com crash, the problem is that Greenspan didn't have a crystal ball and only managed the situation very well rather than perfectly.
The sub prime portion of the situation was exacerbated by law changes going to back to Clinton, there was a law passed that was designed to increase home ownership. That got coupled with poor regulation and dishonest dealing during the Bush administration(note, I'm talking about dishonest mortgage brokers here) to make the situation worse than it needed to be.
Depending on who you call rich, the rich pay between 67% and 85% of federal taxes:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml#1011535
Maybe they should pay more, but it is still quite accurate to say that the rich pay most of the taxes in this country.
Hi, welcome to thinking about taxes. People making $32,000 a year have a nominal marginal tax rate of about 25%. Rich people have an effective tax rate of about 25%.
Until understand the difference, don't bother talking about taxes publicly.
Effective tax rates by household income:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
Yes, the Carter era was a bonanza compared to the Reagan-Bush I years (things were pretty good under Clinton, but his economic policies were closer to Reagan than, say, Kennedy or Johnson).
It's a ridiculous simplification to attribute the presence or lack of economic success to the man in office at the time, because there are policies that take many years to take effect or unwind, but the idea that taxing wealthy people at 90% is smart is just silly. Wealthy people pay ~25% taxes on their income at the moment, that could easily go north of 35% without really hurting anything, but there is a good debate somewhere near 50%.
He stops turning the page...
Do you have different visual acuity in each eye?
I do, and I wonder if I read differently when I have contacts in, because I can't read text with my uncorrected right eye. It would be interesting if you were reading books and screens with opposite eyes and it was affecting the way you remember the material.
Cost management.
I'm happy that I can pay $6 for a book that only lasts 20 years.
When you classify more activity as misuse than you classify as use (I get the impression that you would agree that this is the case), the problem isn't that people are misusing the system, the problem is that the system is broken.
I like novels just fine thanks.
Society is encumbering the ideas. Their paper isn't magic, it gets its meaning from the legal system.
That doesn't change the fact that it sucks.
I don't disagree with you very much, but they have been doing the ~1 post per hour thing for about 3 years now.
Has she proved that you are the father?