At certain times (generally Friday after rush hour to midnight and Saturday evenings/nights), it is faster and probably cheaper to take the highway to strip hotels on the west side of the strip (it's easier to get to the east side strip hotels going the back way). Anytime you cross (or God forbid have to travel on) the strip in traffic, it adds quite a bit of time/money to your journey. Some west side hotels are inconvenient from any route, though (Monte Carlo and Mirage, and to a slightly lesser extent, Caesar's, immediately come to mind).
I go to Vegas quite a bit, and every taxi driver that I spoke with during the monorail era (when they were talking about or actually extending it) was for it going to the airport. They make more money the more time cabs are occupied, and just going back and forth between the strip and the airport meant waiting in one line or other a great deal of the time. It's much better to take one $50 fare in an hour than two $20 fares. I don't know if the various companies' bottom line would have been affected - probably so, but there would be more cabs available (and thus more revenue) from the strip hotels at peak times (some times it takes quite a while to get a cab) if the monorail extended to the airport.
Show me an alternative tax structure that doesn't lower the tax burden for corporations or high earners by passing it onto the middle class and I'll support it.
As I said, the poor would benefit.
And corporations do not pay taxes! Consumers already pay corporate taxes. Transferring how it's paid is a side-effect of a consumption tax. I'd argue that it's a beneficial side-effect, as it would be completely transparent, and there would be no more incentives for corporations to hide/shift income.
Inequality isn't a problem because rich people MAKE more than poor people. We should
encourage people to create as much wealth as possible.
This is a semantic misdirection I can't help commenting on when I hear it.
Rich people don't "make" more money than poor people. Rich people "get their hands on" more money than poor people.
Talk abut semantics. Everyone gets/receives/makes money in various ways. If you're using "make" as a term for earning money through wages, then most rich people "make" money. They may also make more money by investing money wisely, whether it be stocks, starting businesses, etc... If you think that rich people "get their hands on" money by just stealing it from the poor, you're delusional.
How would you rank these in terms of a) actual creation of value, and b) income?
1. A CEO
2. A lawyer
3. An engineer
4. A scientist
Now rank them in terms of income.
That list is in its correct order for value and income in a free market. Can a scientist/engineer/lawyer organize and run a huge company composed of lawyers, engineers, and scientists? There's a reason that top CEOs get paid what they do. Without them, there is no functioning company. Sure, some or even most get paid what we think of as more than they're actually worth, but those companies are in a position to pay them so much because of their CEO. If they're not good enough, they get fired - it happens all of the time. Sure, plenty get exorbitant severance, but usually because they've negotiated that into their employment agreement, which anyone in the U.S., rich or poor, CEO or engineer, is free to do.
And that's not an argument for not taxing corporate profits, it's an argument for closing stupid loopholes.
So implement a consumption tax, repeal all others, and there will be no loopholes. Then it won't matter where corporations are based, where they sell, etc...
The sticking point is the "moving away" part. Can anyone seriously think with as hooked on spending as the government is that any form of tax would actually go away? It's far, far more likely that a consumption tax would be an "also" and not an "instead of".
Just tie any consumption tax legislation to the repeal of the 16th Amendment (in the U.S., of course).
The Fair Tax solves this by giving everyone a subsidy equal to the amount of taxes that would be paid at a certain income level (directly related to the poverty line, I believe). Everyone essentially pays no taxes on necessary food/housing/etc... So it's actually better for the poor than the middle and upper classes. I'm sure that most consumption tax proposals do something similar.
None of the three endings to that game (I assume that you mean the original Deus Ex?) were particularly satisfying, and I think it's the greatest game ever produced. Endings are hard, as evidenced by The Sopranos, LOST, countless other video games, etc...
The Fair Tax (one sales tax proposal) fixes this by giving a stipend to everyone that's equivalent to taxes paid on necessities. So someone that makes at or below the poverty line will essentially pay no taxes (I don't remember what the exact number is, but I think the stipend was $5Kish, tied to inflation, of course), and someone who makes $200K will pay significantly more, but have the $5K they spent on necessities or so refunded.
Being overwhelmed with cheap American content doesn't assist in educating Canadians about Canadian values and awarenesses.
Why should this even remotely matter? It is not a government's job to educate its citizens about values that it wants to promote. In fact, that's an extraordinarily bad idea.
The real question is "Is it worth invading privacy for any increase?" And, to be fair, it's an 8 percentage-point increase, or a 13% increase in accuracy.
I don't think that you understand capitalism. The companies that will be affected (and indeed, every for-profit company, everywhere) already charge the most money that they can. I know some customers would theoretically pay more for any given item, but each company charges as much as possible for its products, regardless of its costs. If I own a company that makes a widget for $80 and can sell it for $100, I'll do that. I won't sell it for less because it would still be profitable. On the other hand, if my costs increase to $90 per widget, I can't suddenly charge $110 for the same item and keep the same level of income. Some customers, maybe even most, will stop buying the widget. If these companies now have to pay more taxes, many will move out of the higher-taxing countries completely, and some may just fold. Sure, some could probably afford to pay more taxes and still be profitable, but it certainly won't make their shareholders happy.
I learned C++ first and just kind of learned various languages and technologies as the need arose, and now I know several languages and my projects have been widely varied. But I noticed that most of my peers who specialized were much more in demand, and therefore pretty much had their pick of jobs, made more money, and had better working conditions. The kind of specialization I'm referring to is learning something that less than ~5% of programmers know, but is still in some demand, and likely to be in demand in ten or twenty years. Or if you pick something that many programmers already know, learn the shit out of that one thing so that there aren't many others that have your level of knowledge in that one thing. In an interview, impressive knowledge of something specific is always better than just adequate knowledge of many things.
Also, learn how to be interviewed. It is a very valuable skill.
You kind of suspect that there's some huge archive of historical data about football in the back of a project like that, to parameterise the players and teams, but it never occurred to me that they had 1300 of their own scouts performing observations.
From what I've read on their own forums, they do have an enormous number of "scouts" that give them information, but most are volunteers, so the information is sometimes suspect. I'm sure that most of the players in the top leagues around the world have fairly accurate attributes, but when you're relying on one guy in Uruguay, for example, to give you info on every third-tier team, some of it naturally going to be way off. So teams that will be using this data hopefully understand that those 1300 "scouts" are usually just fans of the game that happen to live in an area where they can contribute.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor does it cost much more to just get a private limo instead. At least with either you don't have to be on the lookout for getting long-hauled.
A private limo (sedan, actually) is $50+ one-way, and the shuttle is $13 r/t. How is that not "much more"?
At certain times (generally Friday after rush hour to midnight and Saturday evenings/nights), it is faster and probably cheaper to take the highway to strip hotels on the west side of the strip (it's easier to get to the east side strip hotels going the back way). Anytime you cross (or God forbid have to travel on) the strip in traffic, it adds quite a bit of time/money to your journey. Some west side hotels are inconvenient from any route, though (Monte Carlo and Mirage, and to a slightly lesser extent, Caesar's, immediately come to mind).
I go to Vegas quite a bit, and every taxi driver that I spoke with during the monorail era (when they were talking about or actually extending it) was for it going to the airport. They make more money the more time cabs are occupied, and just going back and forth between the strip and the airport meant waiting in one line or other a great deal of the time. It's much better to take one $50 fare in an hour than two $20 fares. I don't know if the various companies' bottom line would have been affected - probably so, but there would be more cabs available (and thus more revenue) from the strip hotels at peak times (some times it takes quite a while to get a cab) if the monorail extended to the airport.
Transcripts and additional evidence: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html
It is an economic impossibility because everyone (well, enough people to make it matter) would just stop working and wait on their check.
Show me an alternative tax structure that doesn't lower the tax burden for corporations or high earners by passing it onto the middle class and I'll support it.
As I said, the poor would benefit.
And corporations do not pay taxes! Consumers already pay corporate taxes. Transferring how it's paid is a side-effect of a consumption tax. I'd argue that it's a beneficial side-effect, as it would be completely transparent, and there would be no more incentives for corporations to hide/shift income.
Inequality isn't a problem because rich people MAKE more than poor people. We should encourage people to create as much wealth as possible. This is a semantic misdirection I can't help commenting on when I hear it. Rich people don't "make" more money than poor people. Rich people "get their hands on" more money than poor people.
Talk abut semantics. Everyone gets/receives/makes money in various ways. If you're using "make" as a term for earning money through wages, then most rich people "make" money. They may also make more money by investing money wisely, whether it be stocks, starting businesses, etc... If you think that rich people "get their hands on" money by just stealing it from the poor, you're delusional.
How would you rank these in terms of a) actual creation of value, and b) income? 1. A CEO 2. A lawyer 3. An engineer 4. A scientist Now rank them in terms of income.
That list is in its correct order for value and income in a free market. Can a scientist/engineer/lawyer organize and run a huge company composed of lawyers, engineers, and scientists? There's a reason that top CEOs get paid what they do. Without them, there is no functioning company. Sure, some or even most get paid what we think of as more than they're actually worth, but those companies are in a position to pay them so much because of their CEO. If they're not good enough, they get fired - it happens all of the time. Sure, plenty get exorbitant severance, but usually because they've negotiated that into their employment agreement, which anyone in the U.S., rich or poor, CEO or engineer, is free to do.
And that's not an argument for not taxing corporate profits, it's an argument for closing stupid loopholes.
So implement a consumption tax, repeal all others, and there will be no loopholes. Then it won't matter where corporations are based, where they sell, etc...
A better idea is to tax wealth.
That will just encourage people to have no assets at all and go into debt.
The sticking point is the "moving away" part. Can anyone seriously think with as hooked on spending as the government is that any form of tax would actually go away? It's far, far more likely that a consumption tax would be an "also" and not an "instead of".
Just tie any consumption tax legislation to the repeal of the 16th Amendment (in the U.S., of course).
The Fair Tax solves this by giving everyone a subsidy equal to the amount of taxes that would be paid at a certain income level (directly related to the poverty line, I believe). Everyone essentially pays no taxes on necessary food/housing/etc... So it's actually better for the poor than the middle and upper classes. I'm sure that most consumption tax proposals do something similar.
Hopefully (probably?) what he means is that the only taxes are on consumption.
Going back repeatedly is much more profitable.
None of the three endings to that game (I assume that you mean the original Deus Ex?) were particularly satisfying, and I think it's the greatest game ever produced. Endings are hard, as evidenced by The Sopranos, LOST, countless other video games, etc...
Maybe it was an elaborate hoax to publicize 4chan by publicizing an elaborate hoax to attack 4cahn.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
The Fair Tax (one sales tax proposal) fixes this by giving a stipend to everyone that's equivalent to taxes paid on necessities. So someone that makes at or below the poverty line will essentially pay no taxes (I don't remember what the exact number is, but I think the stipend was $5Kish, tied to inflation, of course), and someone who makes $200K will pay significantly more, but have the $5K they spent on necessities or so refunded.
Also, your percentage math is a bit off.
Let's fix the corporate tax evasion first please.
Let's fix corporate taxes first, so that there is no evasion.
Um, no: http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/9/807132/restaurant/Atlanta/Waffle-House-McDonough
Being overwhelmed with cheap American content doesn't assist in educating Canadians about Canadian values and awarenesses.
Why should this even remotely matter? It is not a government's job to educate its citizens about values that it wants to promote. In fact, that's an extraordinarily bad idea.
Your "privacy" is not worth a human life.
Right. Because every crime takes a human life.
The real question is "Is it worth invading privacy for any increase?" And, to be fair, it's an 8 percentage-point increase, or a 13% increase in accuracy.
I don't think that you understand capitalism. The companies that will be affected (and indeed, every for-profit company, everywhere) already charge the most money that they can. I know some customers would theoretically pay more for any given item, but each company charges as much as possible for its products, regardless of its costs. If I own a company that makes a widget for $80 and can sell it for $100, I'll do that. I won't sell it for less because it would still be profitable. On the other hand, if my costs increase to $90 per widget, I can't suddenly charge $110 for the same item and keep the same level of income. Some customers, maybe even most, will stop buying the widget. If these companies now have to pay more taxes, many will move out of the higher-taxing countries completely, and some may just fold. Sure, some could probably afford to pay more taxes and still be profitable, but it certainly won't make their shareholders happy.
I learned C++ first and just kind of learned various languages and technologies as the need arose, and now I know several languages and my projects have been widely varied. But I noticed that most of my peers who specialized were much more in demand, and therefore pretty much had their pick of jobs, made more money, and had better working conditions. The kind of specialization I'm referring to is learning something that less than ~5% of programmers know, but is still in some demand, and likely to be in demand in ten or twenty years. Or if you pick something that many programmers already know, learn the shit out of that one thing so that there aren't many others that have your level of knowledge in that one thing. In an interview, impressive knowledge of something specific is always better than just adequate knowledge of many things.
Also, learn how to be interviewed. It is a very valuable skill.
I found another source that put the average at 2700 in 2009. So saying a 2400 sq ft home is huge is like saying, "My six-inch penis is huge".
You kind of suspect that there's some huge archive of historical data about football in the back of a project like that, to parameterise the players and teams, but it never occurred to me that they had 1300 of their own scouts performing observations.
From what I've read on their own forums, they do have an enormous number of "scouts" that give them information, but most are volunteers, so the information is sometimes suspect. I'm sure that most of the players in the top leagues around the world have fairly accurate attributes, but when you're relying on one guy in Uruguay, for example, to give you info on every third-tier team, some of it naturally going to be way off. So teams that will be using this data hopefully understand that those 1300 "scouts" are usually just fans of the game that happen to live in an area where they can contribute.