That's more reasonable, good. I wonder though - why "the same rate"? What makes a proportion of profit (or income?) the natural tax amount, as distinct from e.g., an accounting of government services used?
"However inequality in practice has been called the most important problem."
And it has been called a giant red herring too. Right here.
"The effects of inequality are massive and effect almost every facet of life. It would be hard to find a bigger problem than inequality."
See, that's all 100% wrong. The problem is not inequality (Y minus X). The problem is that X is too small (for many people's taste). Now one can dream up all kinds of reasons why X may be too small. But to blame Y automatically... "hard to find a bigger problem"... no way!
"if this is used as an excuse to have people in poverty. "
It's not (regardless of "have" means). It's that comparing rich-vs-poor is not relevant to the task of helping the poor get out of poverty. If you want to help X, help them because of the value of X, not because there exists some Y who is >>> X.
... could it possibly be that maternity leave and more sick days and less willingness to do unpaid overtime have an economic cost? I wonder if there is a quantitative way to measure and express that economic cost.
"We have no equality because people like you not only ignore the morality of certain people who abuse the system"
We all agree that abusing the system (breaking the law, bribing lawmakers) is wrong.
"but attempt to claim that does not happen or have influence if it does."
I don't know how much it happens or how much influence it has. I suspect this is not the place to convince us.
But I must disagree with your "We don't have equality because..." bit. Putative abuse of the laws is not why we don't have "equality". We don't have "equality" in the colloquial economic/etc. sense because people are inequal in countless ways, as are their environments. And that is a good thing.
Words like "best" / "worst" are a moral evaluation. They could have used "highest", "lowest" instead, if they didn't want to drag normative morality into it. To the NYT's credit, the punchline of their story backs away from inequality as the evil:
With regard to health, "I think maybe income inequality should not be our primary villain," said Dr. Ashish Jha, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. "We should really be thinking about how do we build up the public health infrastructure."
I refuse to take seriously any topic where inequality of life circumstances is held up as some sort of moral evil. Imposed equality needs to be limited to very few domains, like equality -before the law-, to the extent even that is possible. But to use inequality as a cudgel against different people living longer or better than others... hell no, go away. Free people aren't equal. Equal people aren't free.
"I will never understand why minimum wage is not tied to inflation rates"
Because minimum wage rises are themselves inflationary. If they are tied to inflation, you get a positive feedback. This might serve the desires of debt-crazy governments, but not savers.
If only projects approved based on firm projections were automatically cancelled if those projections were falsified. It'd put some honesty back (?) into governance.
Oh, fraud is probably a problem. Those victimized by those "millions of dollars in property damage" [citation needed] have surely sued.
But of course that's not what this topic was about. It was the putative horror, aye, horror, that some wall warts are inefficient. I'm looking for some pearls to clutch right now, will get right back to you.
"Real world "free markets" are absolutely powerless to combat this, as evidenced by the fact that it happens routinely and there is nothing preventing the free market from doing so"
You are still making a giant leap of logic. "powerless to do X" != "not doing X".
The free market is not "combating this" simply because "this" is a non-problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"Once you correctly differentiate ..."
Operationally, how does one do that?
That's more reasonable, good.
I wonder though - why "the same rate"?
What makes a proportion of profit (or income?) the natural tax amount, as distinct from e.g., an accounting of government services used?
When it comes to taxes, those who throw the phrase "fair share" around interpret it as more, more, always more, more, and a hell of a lot more.
Does the NC law affect any part of LGBTQXYZ other than T?
"However inequality in practice has been called the most important problem."
And it has been called a giant red herring too. Right here.
"The effects of inequality are massive and effect almost every facet of life. It would be hard to find a bigger problem than inequality."
See, that's all 100% wrong. The problem is not inequality (Y minus X). The problem is that X is too small (for many people's taste). Now one can dream up all kinds of reasons why X may be too small. But to blame Y automatically ... "hard to find a bigger problem" ... no way!
"if this is used as an excuse to have people in poverty. "
It's not (regardless of "have" means). It's that comparing rich-vs-poor is not relevant to the task of helping the poor get out of poverty. If you want to help X, help them because of the value of X, not because there exists some Y who is >>> X.
... could it possibly be that maternity leave and more sick days and less willingness to do unpaid overtime have an economic cost? I wonder if there is a quantitative way to measure and express that economic cost.
"In your general view, unequal is good."
Let me clarify - the freedom to be unequal is good.
"[inequality] is completely unfair, so is unfair also good?"
What do you mean by "unfair", other than a sneaky synonym of "unequal", thus begging the question?
"Sorry, but there is nothing a politician can say in an hour worth $250,000,000.00 US"
Your opinion is irrelevant - those paying disagree.
"We have no equality because people like you not only ignore the morality of certain people who abuse the system"
We all agree that abusing the system (breaking the law, bribing lawmakers) is wrong.
"but attempt to claim that does not happen or have influence if it does."
I don't know how much it happens or how much influence it has. I suspect this is not the place to convince us.
But I must disagree with your "We don't have equality because ..." bit. Putative abuse of the laws is not why we don't have "equality". We don't have "equality" in the colloquial economic/etc. sense because people are inequal in countless ways, as are their environments. And that is a good thing.
Let me highlight one in the second TFA's excerpt:
Words like "best" / "worst" are a moral evaluation. They could have used "highest", "lowest" instead, if they didn't want to drag normative morality into it.
To the NYT's credit, the punchline of their story backs away from inequality as the evil:
I refuse to take seriously any topic where inequality of life circumstances is held up as some sort of moral evil. Imposed equality needs to be limited to very few domains, like equality -before the law-, to the extent even that is possible. But to use inequality as a cudgel against different people living longer or better than others ... hell no, go away. Free people aren't equal. Equal people aren't free.
Remember, this is the same company that excludes its users from commerce in legal but politically incorrect products & services.
https://www.paypal.com/ca/weba...
"Sufficient demand" is code for "profitable demand".
Of course it does. Demand is apprx. infinite for products and services at a price below their cost.
... and we were breathlessly waiting for your sneering analysis of same.
"I will never understand why minimum wage is not tied to inflation rates"
Because minimum wage rises are themselves inflationary. If they are tied to inflation, you get a positive feedback. This might serve the desires of debt-crazy governments, but not savers.
I wouldn't mind over-bidding actually, It'd still be more transparent to the people by disclosing the worst-case scenario, instead of lying to them.
If only projects approved based on firm projections were automatically cancelled if those projections were falsified. It'd put some honesty back (?) into governance.
Aw poor commie "national pride". My heart bleeds, beyond redemption.
next thing you'll be telling us is how tolerance mandates not tolerating the intolerant :-)
That law is just waiting to be nuked by a proper first-amendment challenge.
"Find the barrier to entry, and then remove it."
What if the barrier to entry is the very agent that wields the legal power?
"Coraline Ada Ehmke
â@CoralineAda
I'm thrilled to announce that I will be joining the team at @github next month to work on community management and anti-harassment tools.
"
So that's a no then.
" it's pretty hard to screw up "soak cloth in water and detergent, agitate, drain and rinse" .."
Spoken like you've never had to shop for laundry machines - or do your own laundry by hand.
"manufacturers will just need to put an extra fifty cents worth of components"
Spoken like you've never had to make an engineering/financial product decision, and suffer the consequences.
Do you have any other proclamations to make?
Oh, fraud is probably a problem. Those victimized by those "millions of dollars in property damage" [citation needed] have surely sued.
But of course that's not what this topic was about. It was the putative horror, aye, horror, that some wall warts are inefficient. I'm looking for some pearls to clutch right now, will get right back to you.
"Real world "free markets" are absolutely powerless to combat this, as evidenced by the fact that it happens routinely and there is nothing preventing the free market from doing so"
You are still making a giant leap of logic. "powerless to do X" != "not doing X".
The free market is not "combating this" simply because "this" is a non-problem.