The daytime talk shows have no problem finding people to sit around and watch people argue. I'm sure TG would have no problem at all finding a studio audience. Besides, they have done plenty of shows in the U.S. and plenty of stunts. They will be fine.
Deciding who broke the law and what the punishment should be is not the job of the military. A military coup involving a new election isn't necessarily any better than one where the military just directly takes over. Look at Egypt. Military stepped in because the president "broke the law." Military called a new election, which resulted in an unmitigated disaster of a government.
To some extent, you are running into that problem everywhere in computing. If you had bought a processor in 2012, you would also be struggling for a reason to upgrade. Heck, my Q6600, which is now 8 years old, still suffices for 1080p gaming with contemporary titles. It could very well be a decade processor. Imagine trying to game with a 10 year old processor in 2007. It seems that video cards are starting to hit the same wall, and die shrinks probably won't change the things much- they haven't with CPUs.
Taxing large endowments would cause wealthy universities to slash financial aid and charge more tuition. Harvard doesn't even charge tuition if your family is middle class (less than ~$125 income) or lower because it has a huge endowment and can afford those kind of things. For profits have no endowment and charge almost everyone full freight. Hardly the desired result. Most of the really bad universities out there (the ones that don't get graduates jobs) don't have huge endowments.
A transfer to another type of debt for the sole purpose of declaring bankrupcty would likely count. You might be OK if you made every effort to pay before defaulting.
Navient is just a servicer now. It's now mostly the government that enjoys these protections. The Student loan business has essentially become a government monopoly. At least on paper, the government actually makes money off student loans.
Those provisions are not entitlements (the term "entitlement" refers to direct payments the government has bound itself to make, such as social security benefits), and some of them aren't really aren't even tax breaks. For example, Oil and Gas development expensing (known as IDC expensing) was created in part in reaction to the specific economics of drilling for oil. Arguably, it simply creates a more accurate reflection of income.
Many states already address this with separate taxes for diesel fuel. In any event, I have much less of a problem with a per-mile tax applied to commercial vehicles.
My point is: increasing the tax is not politically possible, but installing a completely NEW tax that requires tracking your every movement is politically possible?
We are at least a decade away from the point where EVs make up a large enough share to be a serious threat to revenue. In the meantime, we want to encourage EV use. Most states are subsidizing them already.
The gas tax works. It's hard to evade and benefits from existing taxing infrastructure. The only problem is that it was never indexed for inflation. Tell me why we need a completely new system? Are people really less resistant to this than paying a few more cents a gallon at the pump?
Electric vehicles and hybrids can't be the reason. Electric vehicles still represent a tiny portion of vehicles on the road. Hybrids don't really get much better fuel economy than the tiny econoboxes of the 90s. People still drive big trucks everywhere. Since less fuel efficient vehicles also tend to be heavier, they cause a disproportionate amount of road damage (and effectively get taxed more per mile).
The big difference is that the auto industry is extremely capital intensive compared to the software industry. You can't start a car company out of a garage like you could a computer company. Even Tesla (with all of Musk's cash backstopping it) almost went bankrupt trying to get off the ground. For this reason, established players have a massive advantage. The more likely scenario is not that Automakers will lose their position as automakers, but that they will be forced to purchase automation equipment from tech companies. But automakers have always used third-party component suppliers- so this would really not be a huge change for them.
Voice acting is still acting. You can pretend to be someone else (it's a lot more convincing with characters who mostly say things like "what's up doc?"), but you can never copy someone's acting performance perfectly. If a substitute were equally as good, they wouldn't have offered $14 million to keep the original. Fox isn't a charity.
No, you and I write the rules for the game. Every time you watch an episode of the "Simpsons" instead of paying to read a scientific journal, you increase the demand for the former at the expense of the latter. You can argue market failures, and they do exist (especially with respect to things like executive compensation), but market failures aren't the reason why movie stars get paid more than scientists.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Pay is a function of supply and demand for talent.
Medical research is done by teams- no one person is going to "cure cancer" by force of sheer intellect. If such a thing were to happen and that person had reasonably good business sense, that person would easily become the wealthiest person who ever lived. What actually happens in the real world is that hundreds of researchers, who are actually mostly pretty fungible, perform years of grunt work to come up with a drug that marginally increases survival rates. The company keeps most of the profits because the company is what organized and bankrolled the effort in the first place.
In entertainment, the phenomenon of one-person brands means supply is necessarily limited. Only one person on earth can be Mr. Burns, and a lot of people want to see Mr. Burns. So if you want Mr. Burns on your show, you had better pay that person a lot of money. By contrast, there are hundreds of thousands of medical researchers, who are all willing to work for low six-figures or less. They, in turn, make a lot more than fry cooks, a job which just about any reasonably healthy human can perform with minimal training.
Who still affirmatively listens to chart-topping music in their 20s? I started listening to chart-topping music around 4th grade. I decided it was mostly garbage by 7th grade. Now, don't "listen" to chart-topping music so much as I am assaulted by it when in public places.
Who said anything about Janitors making the same as a skilled employee? I seriously doubt this company had many employees making much less than $50k. Pretty much all the employees were skilled to a degree, and probably most of them probably already made six figures. Most companies don't directly employ janitors these days. Everywhere I've worked, they are outsourced by building management.
Bonuses are taxed as ordinary income. But the main thrust is correct: CEOs of major companies get most of their compensation outside of their regular base salary. This is not a major company, so that may or may not be true here.
The peak oil alarmists really don't understand the oil industry. We haven't even scratched the surface of available oil on earth. Forget shale and other unconventionals. Consider that 70% of the earth is deep water oceans. The average ocean depth is around 12,000 feet. Until recently, we didn't have the technology to drill at 12,000 feet. There has been essentially no exploration deep offshore in international waters. That's more than 2/3 of the earth that hasn't even really been explored for oil yet, let alone tapped. It won't be until prices rise substantially, as it's nowhere near economic at today's prices. We also keep finding more and more shale. Everyone's been talking about the Eagle Ford shale in Texas. Well, guess what? The Austin Chalk layer, which is largely untapped, has been found to have huge potential as well. Same physical location above ground, just different depths.
It's almost certain that there will be some point in human history (perhaps within some of our lifetimes) when oil dependence ceases. When it happens, it will simply be because oil got out competed in the market place by other alternatives. That's what is starting to happen to coal in some parts of the world. There are myriad potential doomsday scenarios, but peak oil isn't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
The daytime talk shows have no problem finding people to sit around and watch people argue. I'm sure TG would have no problem at all finding a studio audience. Besides, they have done plenty of shows in the U.S. and plenty of stunts. They will be fine.
Deciding who broke the law and what the punishment should be is not the job of the military. A military coup involving a new election isn't necessarily any better than one where the military just directly takes over. Look at Egypt. Military stepped in because the president "broke the law." Military called a new election, which resulted in an unmitigated disaster of a government.
Yeah, that's called a military coup. Usually doesn't turn out well for the country involved.
To some extent, you are running into that problem everywhere in computing. If you had bought a processor in 2012, you would also be struggling for a reason to upgrade. Heck, my Q6600, which is now 8 years old, still suffices for 1080p gaming with contemporary titles. It could very well be a decade processor. Imagine trying to game with a 10 year old processor in 2007. It seems that video cards are starting to hit the same wall, and die shrinks probably won't change the things much- they haven't with CPUs.
In this case, the concepts would likely overlap.
Taxing large endowments would cause wealthy universities to slash financial aid and charge more tuition. Harvard doesn't even charge tuition if your family is middle class (less than ~$125 income) or lower because it has a huge endowment and can afford those kind of things. For profits have no endowment and charge almost everyone full freight. Hardly the desired result. Most of the really bad universities out there (the ones that don't get graduates jobs) don't have huge endowments.
A transfer to another type of debt for the sole purpose of declaring bankrupcty would likely count. You might be OK if you made every effort to pay before defaulting.
Navient is just a servicer now. It's now mostly the government that enjoys these protections. The Student loan business has essentially become a government monopoly. At least on paper, the government actually makes money off student loans.
Look up the term "fraudulent transfer" as relates to the bankruptcy laws.
Those provisions are not entitlements (the term "entitlement" refers to direct payments the government has bound itself to make, such as social security benefits), and some of them aren't really aren't even tax breaks. For example, Oil and Gas development expensing (known as IDC expensing) was created in part in reaction to the specific economics of drilling for oil. Arguably, it simply creates a more accurate reflection of income.
Plenty of shady shops will be happy to forge one for you.
Too easy to evade. Just by tires online from out of state.
I'm not in favor of any program that requires me to install something in my car.
Many states already address this with separate taxes for diesel fuel. In any event, I have much less of a problem with a per-mile tax applied to commercial vehicles.
My point is: increasing the tax is not politically possible, but installing a completely NEW tax that requires tracking your every movement is politically possible?
We are at least a decade away from the point where EVs make up a large enough share to be a serious threat to revenue. In the meantime, we want to encourage EV use. Most states are subsidizing them already.
The gas tax works. It's hard to evade and benefits from existing taxing infrastructure. The only problem is that it was never indexed for inflation. Tell me why we need a completely new system? Are people really less resistant to this than paying a few more cents a gallon at the pump?
Electric vehicles and hybrids can't be the reason. Electric vehicles still represent a tiny portion of vehicles on the road. Hybrids don't really get much better fuel economy than the tiny econoboxes of the 90s. People still drive big trucks everywhere. Since less fuel efficient vehicles also tend to be heavier, they cause a disproportionate amount of road damage (and effectively get taxed more per mile).
The big difference is that the auto industry is extremely capital intensive compared to the software industry. You can't start a car company out of a garage like you could a computer company. Even Tesla (with all of Musk's cash backstopping it) almost went bankrupt trying to get off the ground. For this reason, established players have a massive advantage. The more likely scenario is not that Automakers will lose their position as automakers, but that they will be forced to purchase automation equipment from tech companies. But automakers have always used third-party component suppliers- so this would really not be a huge change for them.
Yeah, and most garbage dumps also probably have gems in them somewhere, but you don't see me rifling through them.
Voice acting is still acting. You can pretend to be someone else (it's a lot more convincing with characters who mostly say things like "what's up doc?"), but you can never copy someone's acting performance perfectly. If a substitute were equally as good, they wouldn't have offered $14 million to keep the original. Fox isn't a charity.
No, you and I write the rules for the game. Every time you watch an episode of the "Simpsons" instead of paying to read a scientific journal, you increase the demand for the former at the expense of the latter. You can argue market failures, and they do exist (especially with respect to things like executive compensation), but market failures aren't the reason why movie stars get paid more than scientists.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Pay is a function of supply and demand for talent.
Medical research is done by teams- no one person is going to "cure cancer" by force of sheer intellect. If such a thing were to happen and that person had reasonably good business sense, that person would easily become the wealthiest person who ever lived. What actually happens in the real world is that hundreds of researchers, who are actually mostly pretty fungible, perform years of grunt work to come up with a drug that marginally increases survival rates. The company keeps most of the profits because the company is what organized and bankrolled the effort in the first place.
In entertainment, the phenomenon of one-person brands means supply is necessarily limited. Only one person on earth can be Mr. Burns, and a lot of people want to see Mr. Burns. So if you want Mr. Burns on your show, you had better pay that person a lot of money. By contrast, there are hundreds of thousands of medical researchers, who are all willing to work for low six-figures or less. They, in turn, make a lot more than fry cooks, a job which just about any reasonably healthy human can perform with minimal training.
Who still affirmatively listens to chart-topping music in their 20s? I started listening to chart-topping music around 4th grade. I decided it was mostly garbage by 7th grade. Now, don't "listen" to chart-topping music so much as I am assaulted by it when in public places.
Who said anything about Janitors making the same as a skilled employee? I seriously doubt this company had many employees making much less than $50k. Pretty much all the employees were skilled to a degree, and probably most of them probably already made six figures. Most companies don't directly employ janitors these days. Everywhere I've worked, they are outsourced by building management.
Bonuses are taxed as ordinary income. But the main thrust is correct: CEOs of major companies get most of their compensation outside of their regular base salary. This is not a major company, so that may or may not be true here.
The peak oil alarmists really don't understand the oil industry. We haven't even scratched the surface of available oil on earth. Forget shale and other unconventionals. Consider that 70% of the earth is deep water oceans. The average ocean depth is around 12,000 feet. Until recently, we didn't have the technology to drill at 12,000 feet. There has been essentially no exploration deep offshore in international waters. That's more than 2/3 of the earth that hasn't even really been explored for oil yet, let alone tapped. It won't be until prices rise substantially, as it's nowhere near economic at today's prices. We also keep finding more and more shale. Everyone's been talking about the Eagle Ford shale in Texas. Well, guess what? The Austin Chalk layer, which is largely untapped, has been found to have huge potential as well. Same physical location above ground, just different depths.
It's almost certain that there will be some point in human history (perhaps within some of our lifetimes) when oil dependence ceases. When it happens, it will simply be because oil got out competed in the market place by other alternatives. That's what is starting to happen to coal in some parts of the world. There are myriad potential doomsday scenarios, but peak oil isn't one of them.