It's fine for the rich to "be rich". They can sit on their cash all they want. It's when they want to do something with that cash like buying/selling stocks, moving their operations overseas, or passing their fortunes on to their children, it needs to be taxed. The taxes then go into social welfare programs (which include roads, schools, police) for the betterment of the society which they've used to become rich in the first place.
If they want to take their ball and go home crying, then so be it. Thanks to social safety nets, there will be a robust middle class eager to fill the void. The rich aren't the only ones capable of producing markets!
The rich who make more than $117,000 annually do not have to pay Social Security taxes on anything earned above that amount despite the fact that every US citizen is expected to draw from the pool. As the rich inevitably get richer, the taxable dollars become fewer.
Please do the logic in your head and tell us how you think that is "the best way to distribute limited resources".
Oh yea - keep on blaming the poor for being poor! Have you ever lived paycheck-to-paycheck? If not then count your lucky-ducky stars because you are in the minority of Americans (assuming that you live in the US).
when the poor stop getting earned income credits totaling in the several thousands every year
You're thinking about this in the wrong way. Social safety nets are not about altruism, or even making it easy for the poor to get subsidies (it's not). When poor people lose their jobs, they lose their homes and end up on the streets. When large swaths of the population are homeless, you end up with filthy slums where basic necessities are rare and diseases flourish. Walls, police and even social ostracism may be able to keep undesirable people out of your pristine life, but they won't prevent diseases from spreading from poor communities to the rich who've managed to deny them even a damn toilet to shit in.
Keeping the poor from becoming that poor is a necessity for any civilization. Subsidies for the poor do far more for the common good than tax breaks for the rich.
It was a bad joke. I was agreeing with the OP that an opinionated comparison between two unrelated concepts is not really news for anybody, much less nerds.
"Over-charged" in this context implies that the bill was too high -- like when your waiter "charges" you for an extra cola that you didn't actually order. When you point it out to him, he goes back and prints a new check before you pay him. What mega-corporations like Comcast will do is simply ding your credit card on file without authorization for a product or service which was neither requested nor provided. Taking something which you aren't entitled to is theft, so let's call this what is: THEFT.
Yawn. Way to make an arbitrary distinction between the "wannabes" and the "cool kids". That is no more insightful than sitting with the jocks at the pep rally.
I'm in Virginia Beach too. Cox high-speed is great and we even got to stream the World Cup via WatchESPN on the Roku for free simply for being Cox customers (we only have internet, no cable TV). However, all that streaming did put us over our usage last month, which they promptly informed us lol!
I see your point. However, assuming that you actually do use TPB or something similar (you didn't specify), do you re-seed what you've downloaded? Because if you don't, then you are actually putting the seeders (distributors) at greater risk of getting caught and prosecuted for copyright infringement than you are willing to take on yourself. You would be consuming without paying in any form whatsoever. That would be unethical.
I get where you're coming from with regards to "sitting on your ass" and the perception that you as a manager might have of said person. I don't agree with the short-sightedness of that view point, but let's leave that aside for a moment.
What I don't understand is your combative attitude toward this hypothetical employee, and accusing him/her of fraudulent behavior when they've fulfilled their end of the deal -- mainly completing their tasks as assigned within the time allotted. That is what they are paid to do, is it not? That they finished before you thought that they would is irrelevant. If you expect the employee to seek more work above what they were originally expected to perform, then which is the best course of action for you the manager? Or do you think that your subordinates only have a duty to do right by you and not the other way around? Is the business the only entity entitled to act in its own self interest?
You sound like a manager. Having a "what have you done for me lately" attitude only demotivates your best employees. How about letting that company-time-saving individual go home an hour early on Friday? For the love of jeebus, that's all it takes to keep him happy!
To a certain extent, perhaps. However, eyeballing a 100+ line spreadsheet is 100% likely to produce errors. I know, I know... real geeks don't use spreadsheets! But managers do! I think the article is expressing the woes of the common cubicle-warrior who is damned if they do, damned if they don't in this regard.
If you have the desire and/or ability to use your computer properly and automate tasks, and your job title is "______ Assistant", your boss will likely not respect you enough to permit automating anything. Therefore, you should do it as quietly as possible, and do not expect any pats on the back for mysteriously having perfect reports in your boss's inbox every morning at 8:31AM, or data requests completed before he/she even has time to walk back to his/her desk. Your boss may "expect" perfection, but will not actually know what to do about a subordinate who is actually capable of delivering it.
Expect to have only Microsoft VBA at your disposal. And amuse yourself daily with this image which sums up your situation perfectly!
Sadly, there seems to be more support behind teaching the "creationism controversy", than what a mortgage is, or why it is probably not wise to buy Beats-By-Dre speakers with a credit card.
And I am supposed to care about what my fellow students "think" about me, because...
I'm currently a second year engineering student. Many of my fellow students are blockheads who refuse to buy their books, show up late for class, leave early for class, and then complain when the prof made the test "too hard". Yes, these are Science/Engineering majors who will not graduate, and so I really don't care if they hate me for asking questions to a professor who I've paid to answer my questions.
You need look no further than the Congress/POTUS stealth repealing of the 2012 STOCK Act to know exactly who and what we are dealing with here. We live in a land where "good" laws are fabricated during election years and silently shit-canned once the voters have been duped.
Slashdot Mirror
They also generated a butt-load of cash for the makers of said equipment.
Tell me, when was government ever satisfied with the taxes it collected?
Never.
The rich have robust retirement savings accounts AND pull social security once they've turned 65.
It most definitely is worth something to them, otherwise the cap would not exist.
It's fine for the rich to "be rich". They can sit on their cash all they want. It's when they want to do something with that cash like buying/selling stocks, moving their operations overseas, or passing their fortunes on to their children, it needs to be taxed. The taxes then go into social welfare programs (which include roads, schools, police) for the betterment of the society which they've used to become rich in the first place.
If they want to take their ball and go home crying, then so be it. Thanks to social safety nets, there will be a robust middle class eager to fill the void. The rich aren't the only ones capable of producing markets!
But poor and middle class people don't pay less, they pay more.
Ever hear of the Social Security tax cap?
The rich who make more than $117,000 annually do not have to pay Social Security taxes on anything earned above that amount despite the fact that every US citizen is expected to draw from the pool. As the rich inevitably get richer, the taxable dollars become fewer.
Please do the logic in your head and tell us how you think that is "the best way to distribute limited resources".
Oh yea - keep on blaming the poor for being poor! Have you ever lived paycheck-to-paycheck? If not then count your lucky-ducky stars because you are in the minority of Americans (assuming that you live in the US).
when the poor stop getting earned income credits totaling in the several thousands every year
You're thinking about this in the wrong way. Social safety nets are not about altruism, or even making it easy for the poor to get subsidies (it's not). When poor people lose their jobs, they lose their homes and end up on the streets. When large swaths of the population are homeless, you end up with filthy slums where basic necessities are rare and diseases flourish. Walls, police and even social ostracism may be able to keep undesirable people out of your pristine life, but they won't prevent diseases from spreading from poor communities to the rich who've managed to deny them even a damn toilet to shit in.
Keeping the poor from becoming that poor is a necessity for any civilization. Subsidies for the poor do far more for the common good than tax breaks for the rich.
It was a bad joke. I was agreeing with the OP that an opinionated comparison between two unrelated concepts is not really news for anybody, much less nerds.
Unfortunately I suck a e-jokes :)
What's better: municipal parks or the NFL?
"Over-charged" in this context implies that the bill was too high -- like when your waiter "charges" you for an extra cola that you didn't actually order. When you point it out to him, he goes back and prints a new check before you pay him. What mega-corporations like Comcast will do is simply ding your credit card on file without authorization for a product or service which was neither requested nor provided. Taking something which you aren't entitled to is theft, so let's call this what is: THEFT.
Yawn. Way to make an arbitrary distinction between the "wannabes" and the "cool kids". That is no more insightful than sitting with the jocks at the pep rally.
Food trucks?
"Anyone who works from home is masturbating all day. I know this because I work from home."
~ Lewis Black
I'm in Virginia Beach too. Cox high-speed is great and we even got to stream the World Cup via WatchESPN on the Roku for free simply for being Cox customers (we only have internet, no cable TV). However, all that streaming did put us over our usage last month, which they promptly informed us lol!
I see your point. However, assuming that you actually do use TPB or something similar (you didn't specify), do you re-seed what you've downloaded? Because if you don't, then you are actually putting the seeders (distributors) at greater risk of getting caught and prosecuted for copyright infringement than you are willing to take on yourself. You would be consuming without paying in any form whatsoever. That would be unethical.
its very telling that the NFL needs a *law* to force people to go to games and pay their exhorbitant ticket costs
Indeed. And so many of the players are either arrogant thugs or outright criminals. It's a disgusting organization from the inside-out.
I get where you're coming from with regards to "sitting on your ass" and the perception that you as a manager might have of said person. I don't agree with the short-sightedness of that view point, but let's leave that aside for a moment.
What I don't understand is your combative attitude toward this hypothetical employee, and accusing him/her of fraudulent behavior when they've fulfilled their end of the deal -- mainly completing their tasks as assigned within the time allotted. That is what they are paid to do, is it not? That they finished before you thought that they would is irrelevant. If you expect the employee to seek more work above what they were originally expected to perform, then which is the best course of action for you the manager? Or do you think that your subordinates only have a duty to do right by you and not the other way around? Is the business the only entity entitled to act in its own self interest?
So let's be clear here:
Boss (you): "How do you get me these perfectly consistent Excel reports, which I have required of you as part of your job description, so quickly?"
Underling: "Well, you see, sir, I pushed Alt-F11 here in Excel to bring up the VBA Editor and ..."
Boss (you): "GO GET A FUCKING BOX YOU INSUBORDINATE FRAUDSTER!"
Is that accurate?
You sound like a manager. Having a "what have you done for me lately" attitude only demotivates your best employees. How about letting that company-time-saving individual go home an hour early on Friday? For the love of jeebus, that's all it takes to keep him happy!
Also, obligatory Dilbert
To a certain extent, perhaps. However, eyeballing a 100+ line spreadsheet is 100% likely to produce errors. I know, I know ... real geeks don't use spreadsheets! But managers do! I think the article is expressing the woes of the common cubicle-warrior who is damned if they do, damned if they don't in this regard.
I've found myself in this exact situation.
If you have the desire and/or ability to use your computer properly and automate tasks, and your job title is "______ Assistant", your boss will likely not respect you enough to permit automating anything. Therefore, you should do it as quietly as possible, and do not expect any pats on the back for mysteriously having perfect reports in your boss's inbox every morning at 8:31AM, or data requests completed before he/she even has time to walk back to his/her desk. Your boss may "expect" perfection, but will not actually know what to do about a subordinate who is actually capable of delivering it.
Expect to have only Microsoft VBA at your disposal. And amuse yourself daily with this image which sums up your situation perfectly!
Also, smile often! :)
Sadly, there seems to be more support behind teaching the "creationism controversy", than what a mortgage is, or why it is probably not wise to buy Beats-By-Dre speakers with a credit card.
And I am supposed to care about what my fellow students "think" about me, because ...
I'm currently a second year engineering student. Many of my fellow students are blockheads who refuse to buy their books, show up late for class, leave early for class, and then complain when the prof made the test "too hard". Yes, these are Science/Engineering majors who will not graduate, and so I really don't care if they hate me for asking questions to a professor who I've paid to answer my questions.
You need look no further than the Congress/POTUS stealth repealing of the 2012 STOCK Act to know exactly who and what we are dealing with here. We live in a land where "good" laws are fabricated during election years and silently shit-canned once the voters have been duped.
My personal favorite is the enormous headache-inducing excel spreadsheet that somebody has obviously spent way too much time "designing".
How do we shift business culture to reward effective work more than the appearance of work?
Promote managers who have a clue?