Indeterminate costs are simply not easy to model, especially when you need a steady stream for operating costs.
I meant to say, "Indeterminate incomes are simply not easy to model, especially when you need a steady (determinate) stream for operating costs."
Also, another point is that taxes are not optional - they are mandated by law. However, paying for a service is optional, and the insurance company could be accused of "forcing" the homeowner to offset their liability (not necessarily a wrong thing, but it is a Class Action opportunity, especially if done on a larger scale).
What about the guy that burns his house down every 3 years? Or the guy that burns his house down because he was a smoker and dropped a cigarette? Should I pay the same $75 as the guy being neglectful? If I don't smoke or don't have a fire in 10+ yrs or have a newer up-to-code house or have a alarm system that automatically calls the police shouldn't I get a discount? Homeowner's insurance gives discounts on all of those things, so why is the fee the same?
This $75 thing is just a huge can of worms.
Also why didn't the home owner's insurance pay the $75 a year? After all they're the ones getting screwed here, not the guy. They should have automatically paid the $75 and just added it to his insurance policy just like mortgage companies will often pay the personal property tax (even if they're not escrowed) if the homeowner doesn't and add it to the monthly payment.
There are two distinct things at play here - liability costs and protection costs.
Typically, the cost of protection is very flat, but may change for certain neighborhoods based on supply/demand in that neighborhood, not on a per case basis. It is just not realistic for them to operate a fire unit with that model. Indeterminate costs are simply not easy to model, especially when you need a steady stream for operating costs.
The cost of liability takes into account the cost of protection, and that is often through insurance (e.g. to quote from your example, some home owner's insurance companies will lower your rates if you have a small fire hydrant in your home). And they can afford to do that because they're dealing with capital, not operations (i.e. they can just pay the money - they don't have to run a fire department). It's an entirely different beast.
But if I was the insurance company, I would accuse you of reckless endangerment and deny you the money for the house. True, they could have made the guy pay for the protection, but on some level, isn't your argument one for choice (i.e. if I am a better citizen I shouldn't have to pay more - by the same token, if I think I'm a safe person, I shouldn't have to pay at all).
You've essentially described one of the fundamental problems with public goods -- if it's provided for the benefit of all, how do you avoid free-riders?
While there are several solutions (and theories) in place, the fact remains that you'll always have a percentage of free-riders. Of course, in a purely capitalistic model, this is solved because every service has an associated cost with it, and those that don't pay the cost don't get the service (e.g. this case). In socialism, you pay a larger chunk (e.g. taxes) and you get a plethora of services, freeing you from the worry of particular services -- but then, you do not get to pick and choose.
Typically, life-or-death services (e.g. police/fire) fall under the latter, but I guess rural Tennessee is different.
Congratulations, sir! On showing your ignorance and bigoted attitude.
The Mughals were actually a very positive influence on India and Indian culture. In fact, for the most part, Mughal rulers (look up Akbar) were open and secular, and *shudder* tolerated and embraced the multi-ethnic/cultural/religious/lingual landscape of India.
I suppose not - but then again, I just had to look up what the hell a CCIE was. If your job description involves an arcane acronym that's not common-speak, then chances are, you're in a niche area of competency.
Well, a significant chunk of military spending includes equipment - correct? Amount spent per soldier is a misnomer since "real" military soldiers aren't really that many when compared to civilians engaged in military activities or military personnel who are not soldiers (and I say this as someone married to an ex. Navy vet).
It costs $1,000,000.00 per year per soldier. They don't pay anywhere near that in taxes.
Really? Wow, that seems awfully high. I'd be curious to see what's included in that number - some things (e.g. GI Bill) may get back into the economy.
I'd think that soldiers would be a relatively small part of defense budgets - R&D and tools/equipment would be higher (e.g. production costs of a single missile tends to be in the millions, depending on its constituent components).
Just because someone makes more money, that doesn't entitle them to being "off the hook" when it comes to funding the country.
Of course not. But then, they should also not be unfairly taxed.
Let's take a simple example of a neighborhood with one main street that costs $100k/year to maintain. If there are 20 families in that neighborhood, and each family uses it evenly, then each family owes $5k/year for use of the road. Let's call 'em taxes.
Now, let's assume that the salaries of the neighborhood range from $10k - $200k. Let's take a nice little Gaussian distribution, or screw that, take one that's biased to the lower end of the spectrum. Say, $10k (4), $20k (6), $50k (8), $100k (2).
If we assume that the bottom 4 pay no taxes, then you've $100k shared between the 16 other folks. Now let's drop the taxes for the ones at the very bottom, and have a nice little rule that says that you should not pay taxes that exceed a fourth of your income.
So, now you've the following tax distribution --
$10k income - no taxes
$20k income - $5k taxes
$50k income - $7.75k taxes
$100k income - $7.75k taxes
Now let's imagine for a moment that one the two $100k earners gets a new job and makes $200k now. And around this time, the neighborhood council (which obviously can override the one vote from the one family, or maybe 2 from the other 100k person as well) decides to introduce salary discounts. Maybe they felt that the amount paid in taxes did not correspond well with the salaries.
$10k income - discount not applicable
$20k income - 20% discount
$50k income - 10% discount
$100k income - 5% discount (just to placate this person)
$200k income - 0% discount
Now suddenly, your tax distribution changes -
$10k income - no taxes
$20k income - $4k taxes
$50k income - ~$7k taxes
$100k income - ~$7.4k taxes
$200k income - ~$12.9k taxes
So, let's look at percentages. The $20k income pays 20% of its income in taxes, while the $200k family only pays about 6.4% of their income in taxes. Hmmm. Now let's make this even more realistic by adding population numbers (higher percentile income families usually tend to be very nuclear in size).
In an ideal world, you'd be taxed more for adding more mouths to consume limited resources, but that's not how the real world works (procreation, supposedly, is one of god's commandments that needs to be taken very, very seriously - but I digress).
$10k income - 4 family members - 0/member
$20k income - 4 family members - $1k/member
$50k income - 4 family members - ~$1.4k/member
$100k income - 2 family members - ~$3.6k/member
$200k income - 2 family members - ~$6.4k/member
By Jove! For use of the same road, the person with the $200k income pays more than 6x the amount of the lowest tax paying category. If you overlay the salary distribution curve with the tax/member distribution curve, the disparity becomes even more apparent.
And now, just for kicks, let's just assume that the taxes include public transportation, and that costs $20k of the $100k. But since the $100k and the $200k families are so well off, they just drive their own car. So now, you've these guys paying more while using less.
Welcome to reality. No one is objecting to being on the hook. They are just objecting to being on the hook unfairly when compared to their relative use of public goods. But please feel free to pick apart my simplistic illustrative example.
You have to include both veterans affairs (pensions, benefits, etc) and much of the DOE budget (nuclear research, etc) in that figure. That bumps war to # 1. Also, war doesn't even pretend to pay taxes into the system, whereas social security recipients paid something into the pot.
Not sure what you meant by that, but military personnel, those employed by DOE labs, and veterans do pay taxes. Therefore, war certainly puts back a chunk back as taxes.
Seeking simplicity and ease of understanding is not anti-intellectualism.
If you need to use convoluted phrases to assert your intellect, then you're probably not someone most people would want to be acquainted with.
Re:Does it have a monitor and full-size keyboard?
on
Flight of the Desktops
·
· Score: 1
What on earth are you talking about?
In the corporate world that I'm part of, desktops are increasingly being replaced by laptops.
a) "Decent" laptops are way too heavy to carry around. Once you've tried a netbook there's no going back.
As someone who has tried umpteen Windows netbooks, let me tell you that netbooks do not in any way compare for serious computer use. I own a MacBook Air and a MacBook Pro, and the MBA is the closest to a usable netbook that I've seen.
That said, the MBP is quite a decent laptop and it is very portable. Hell, I travel every week with two computers (ThinkPad/MBA/MBP), so I don't buy the "too" heavy argument.
b) You still have to plug them in if you're going to do a full day's work.
So? You can also take it with you and work from home. Or from a coffee shop. And take it with you when you travel. I don't understand this point in the least.
c) You can't adjust distance between screen/keys or raise/lower the screen or tweak the ergonomics in any way.
Laptops are infinitely more comfortable to use than desktop, where you have to sit upright in the desk to use. With a laptop, you can kick back in your seat with your foot on the table and just use your machine with no problems whatsoever. I would argue that laptops have *more* customizability since you can always add an extra monitor or two, and external keyboard and mouse. A desktop by itself is quite useless.
d) Nasty laptop keys vs. Model M... you decide.
In what ways are laptop keys nasty? Maybe I am biased, but I switch forth between a ThinkPad and MacBook Pro/Air, and both are very comfortable and usable.
The same could be said about just about every profession. Not everyone can fly a plane, or become a doctor, or even fix plumbing effectively. Hell, most people are barely passable drivers at best. Your point?
Typically, most of those places offer free internet to their loyalty members (i.e. I'm a Diamond at Hilton, and usually internet is free -- if not, I call them and they waive the charge). Otherwise, I just expense it, of course.
The other point is that most business travelers will have EVDO/Clear or some other means of having internet wherever they go. So, hotel wifi is rather meaningless, unless you're sending an 8 MB deck (in which case, you could always go up to the lounge or the business center which have free internet access).
Slashdot Mirror
I meant to say, "Indeterminate incomes are simply not easy to model, especially when you need a steady (determinate) stream for operating costs."
Also, another point is that taxes are not optional - they are mandated by law. However, paying for a service is optional, and the insurance company could be accused of "forcing" the homeowner to offset their liability (not necessarily a wrong thing, but it is a Class Action opportunity, especially if done on a larger scale).
There are two distinct things at play here - liability costs and protection costs.
Typically, the cost of protection is very flat, but may change for certain neighborhoods based on supply/demand in that neighborhood, not on a per case basis. It is just not realistic for them to operate a fire unit with that model. Indeterminate costs are simply not easy to model, especially when you need a steady stream for operating costs.
The cost of liability takes into account the cost of protection, and that is often through insurance (e.g. to quote from your example, some home owner's insurance companies will lower your rates if you have a small fire hydrant in your home). And they can afford to do that because they're dealing with capital, not operations (i.e. they can just pay the money - they don't have to run a fire department). It's an entirely different beast.
But if I was the insurance company, I would accuse you of reckless endangerment and deny you the money for the house. True, they could have made the guy pay for the protection, but on some level, isn't your argument one for choice (i.e. if I am a better citizen I shouldn't have to pay more - by the same token, if I think I'm a safe person, I shouldn't have to pay at all).
You've essentially described one of the fundamental problems with public goods -- if it's provided for the benefit of all, how do you avoid free-riders?
While there are several solutions (and theories) in place, the fact remains that you'll always have a percentage of free-riders. Of course, in a purely capitalistic model, this is solved because every service has an associated cost with it, and those that don't pay the cost don't get the service (e.g. this case). In socialism, you pay a larger chunk (e.g. taxes) and you get a plethora of services, freeing you from the worry of particular services -- but then, you do not get to pick and choose.
Typically, life-or-death services (e.g. police/fire) fall under the latter, but I guess rural Tennessee is different.
Congratulations, sir! On showing your ignorance and bigoted attitude.
The Mughals were actually a very positive influence on India and Indian culture. In fact, for the most part, Mughal rulers (look up Akbar) were open and secular, and *shudder* tolerated and embraced the multi-ethnic/cultural/religious/lingual landscape of India.
But please. Let me not stop you.
I suppose not - but then again, I just had to look up what the hell a CCIE was. If your job description involves an arcane acronym that's not common-speak, then chances are, you're in a niche area of competency.
Well, a significant chunk of military spending includes equipment - correct? Amount spent per soldier is a misnomer since "real" military soldiers aren't really that many when compared to civilians engaged in military activities or military personnel who are not soldiers (and I say this as someone married to an ex. Navy vet).
That's one of the more idiotic oversimplifications that I've ever had the misfortune of reading.
Really? Wow, that seems awfully high. I'd be curious to see what's included in that number - some things (e.g. GI Bill) may get back into the economy.
I'd think that soldiers would be a relatively small part of defense budgets - R&D and tools/equipment would be higher (e.g. production costs of a single missile tends to be in the millions, depending on its constituent components).
Of course not. But then, they should also not be unfairly taxed.
Let's take a simple example of a neighborhood with one main street that costs $100k/year to maintain. If there are 20 families in that neighborhood, and each family uses it evenly, then each family owes $5k/year for use of the road. Let's call 'em taxes.
Now, let's assume that the salaries of the neighborhood range from $10k - $200k. Let's take a nice little Gaussian distribution, or screw that, take one that's biased to the lower end of the spectrum. Say, $10k (4), $20k (6), $50k (8), $100k (2).
If we assume that the bottom 4 pay no taxes, then you've $100k shared between the 16 other folks. Now let's drop the taxes for the ones at the very bottom, and have a nice little rule that says that you should not pay taxes that exceed a fourth of your income.
So, now you've the following tax distribution --
Now let's imagine for a moment that one the two $100k earners gets a new job and makes $200k now. And around this time, the neighborhood council (which obviously can override the one vote from the one family, or maybe 2 from the other 100k person as well) decides to introduce salary discounts. Maybe they felt that the amount paid in taxes did not correspond well with the salaries.
Now suddenly, your tax distribution changes -
So, let's look at percentages. The $20k income pays 20% of its income in taxes, while the $200k family only pays about 6.4% of their income in taxes. Hmmm. Now let's make this even more realistic by adding population numbers (higher percentile income families usually tend to be very nuclear in size).
In an ideal world, you'd be taxed more for adding more mouths to consume limited resources, but that's not how the real world works (procreation, supposedly, is one of god's commandments that needs to be taken very, very seriously - but I digress).
By Jove! For use of the same road, the person with the $200k income pays more than 6x the amount of the lowest tax paying category. If you overlay the salary distribution curve with the tax/member distribution curve, the disparity becomes even more apparent.
And now, just for kicks, let's just assume that the taxes include public transportation, and that costs $20k of the $100k. But since the $100k and the $200k families are so well off, they just drive their own car. So now, you've these guys paying more while using less.
Welcome to reality. No one is objecting to being on the hook. They are just objecting to being on the hook unfairly when compared to their relative use of public goods. But please feel free to pick apart my simplistic illustrative example.
Not sure what you meant by that, but military personnel, those employed by DOE labs, and veterans do pay taxes. Therefore, war certainly puts back a chunk back as taxes.
I thought you said he'd just dump out of a plane. But hey...
Well, they did sleep on hard surfaces, without a pillow. So, their "awesomeness" sort of takes a hit.
There. Fixed that for ya! ;-)
Some of us like the social interaction - thankyouverymuch.
Have you ever been to Boston?
Not to mention Jorge Luis Borges, who was perhaps one of the greatest authors ever alive.
Yes, because showing care and concern for other creatures that inhabit this planet is something to be mocked at.
(Although, kudos to the folks for using already dead roadkill.)
I don't cave dive, but I do pursue high-adrenaline sports, including climbing and base jumping.
In my mind, the sheer "un-rescue-ability" of the whole thing is what makes it interesting and worth pursuing.
When people explored the world in the days of yon, they did not do it expecting a rescue. Nor did people those who attempted first ascents.
Not that I disagree with the rest of your piece on doing everything you can to survive...
Only if you're Daniel Jackson. And die. Again.
Well, this has less to do with being gay or lesbian.
When I wanted to include my fiancée in my health benefits plan, I would still had to pay taxes because we weren't married.
So, ideally Google should compensate all couples that are not married who are subjected to such taxes.
Why stop only at same-sex couples? The rest of us pay the same tax. :-)
Seeking simplicity and ease of understanding is not anti-intellectualism.
If you need to use convoluted phrases to assert your intellect, then you're probably not someone most people would want to be acquainted with.
What on earth are you talking about?
In the corporate world that I'm part of, desktops are increasingly being replaced by laptops.
As someone who has tried umpteen Windows netbooks, let me tell you that netbooks do not in any way compare for serious computer use. I own a MacBook Air and a MacBook Pro, and the MBA is the closest to a usable netbook that I've seen.
That said, the MBP is quite a decent laptop and it is very portable. Hell, I travel every week with two computers (ThinkPad/MBA/MBP), so I don't buy the "too" heavy argument.
So? You can also take it with you and work from home. Or from a coffee shop. And take it with you when you travel. I don't understand this point in the least.
Laptops are infinitely more comfortable to use than desktop, where you have to sit upright in the desk to use. With a laptop, you can kick back in your seat with your foot on the table and just use your machine with no problems whatsoever. I would argue that laptops have *more* customizability since you can always add an extra monitor or two, and external keyboard and mouse. A desktop by itself is quite useless.
In what ways are laptop keys nasty? Maybe I am biased, but I switch forth between a ThinkPad and MacBook Pro/Air, and both are very comfortable and usable.
Let me redirect you to some Ze Frank awesomeness.
The same could be said about just about every profession. Not everyone can fly a plane, or become a doctor, or even fix plumbing effectively. Hell, most people are barely passable drivers at best. Your point?
Typically, most of those places offer free internet to their loyalty members (i.e. I'm a Diamond at Hilton, and usually internet is free -- if not, I call them and they waive the charge). Otherwise, I just expense it, of course.
The other point is that most business travelers will have EVDO/Clear or some other means of having internet wherever they go. So, hotel wifi is rather meaningless, unless you're sending an 8 MB deck (in which case, you could always go up to the lounge or the business center which have free internet access).