Tesla Model 3 will be $35k. I don't need to wish. I can buy it with my credit card. It's within reach of about half of the population. If somebody came along with a $2k escalator, probably every house would have one. Many older people have stair lifts installed and it costs them this much to *rent* one for a few years.
We have flying cars. They are called helicopters and in some places the wealthy want to use them to commute but the cities pass ordinances against landing them in parking lots. There aren't enough helicopter owners that they can band together and have any clout. They are the rich outsiders. Every two-story shopping mall that I've ever seen has escalators.
Rather than standing around making a judgment, take some pictures and use them to decide later. This could be done with a handheld camera as well. Guess you make the news when you mount it on a drone. Since the equipment is expensive, keeping it in service a higher percentage of the time makes sense. Unless the drone can get the pictures faster than a person, it's really superfluous in this context. It may be cheaper, though, because you don't need to manage the photograph takers.
Bankruptcy is not evasion. It's not like everybody in the world can go and file bankruptcy. But those who have crippling debts are afforded that protection. If you borrow from friends or family, I would argue for a moral obligation to repay. From a publicly traded bank? If you meet the legal definition of bankruptcy, by all means file. Failing to file for bankruptcy creates an economic distortion. If enough liberal arts majors with 200k student loans and 30k a year maximum earning potential start filing for bankruptcy, financial institutions will stop making these loans. The interest rates will start to vary based on your economic potential. It's arguably immoral to charge somebody a lifetime of debt for a humanities degree. But it happens because the federal government guarantees the loans and because not enough bankrupt people file. If those distortions went away, we'd be better off. But for that to happen we have to take a way the stigma of bankruptcy. (No I've never filed. I have been lucky to have good income out of school)
It won't take a lot to achieve critical mass on this. Once people have electric, self-driving cars, the behaviors of the owners (for better or worse) will influence others. The self-driving cars will observe speed limits totally changing traffic patterns. People will be willing to commute farther at lower speeds. If we want real speed enforcement just have a barrier of self-driving vehicles go down the freeways at the posted limit. Of course we will also see special "high speed" lanes where only self-driving vehicles are allowed. Who know what else will happen. The point is that you don't have to go out and proactively force this stuff. As long as there is enough demand to start altering behavior you can hit a tipping point. And the minute there is a 100mph self-driving car lane, everybody *will* go out and by them!
I had already read this yesterday before seeing it on/. and liked the opinion piece as it make some valid points. That was before knowing the author's lack of credibility. I would be very concerned with this strategy as the government is almost guaranteed to collect at some point. Things like having your wages garnished. Also not mentioned in this is that, if you do have federal student loans, payments are capped at like 10% of your income. You may never pay off the debt, but you would be considered current on the loan and credit worthy. Better to make the seven years of payments equal to 10% of your income and then file for bankrupts. I'm not a lawyer and I don't look like an actor so I can't play one on TV either. This is not legal advice. But if you have high student debt and low income, you should talk to a real lawyer. Many people miss out on the chance to discharge debt through bankruptcy for a number of reasons. "Personal responsibility" shouldn't be one of them. The rates on your loans are set under the premise that some people will be eligible to discharge in bankruptcy. You've already paid for the privilege so not using it is just a waste. It isn't a moral issue.
It's messy (sometimes you get leaks) and the recharged versions don't last as long, but you can extend the life this way. I have no idea what the market for this product is, though. For my devices that go through power quickly (I have a four year old, and just about everything he owns requires 3-4 AA batteries) I use NiMH rechargable. For things that only need a new set once a year or so (remote controls) I recharge primary alkalines. I realize that there are people out there who can't be bothered, money is no object, and they don't care about what they put into landfills. But they aren't going to buy this product either. I have no idea who would be the target market. And, as others have said, this circuitry belongs in the device, not the battery. And most devices have it. I don't have a single thing that won't work off of the 1.2V supplied by NiMH.
I don't see a lot of abuse potential here. If somebody is returning a large percentage of their games, why would Valve want them as a customer? It would be a money losing proposition. Big physical retailers track this stuff. Amazon does as well. It's an easy form or abuse to ferret out.
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. I think you are describing a situation where you don't trust your lawyer. They are bound by attorney-client privilege and believe me it's not hard to find one who takes that seriously. Bill Cosby had no trouble paying off women because he used third-party intermediaries.
I see your point about having to make regular payments rather than one lump sum. I will keep it in mind if I'm ever on either end of a blackmail transaction. I'm generally a fan of anonymity, but it does seem that there aren't a lot of good reasons to do *large* anonymous transaction.
We see $1.7M being moved around in a way that doesn't make sense. It might be that the former speaker is being blackmailed. Many victims don't come forward so we want to investigate. Purported victim tries to throw off the investigation which doesn't make much sense. Maybe something more sinister is happening. No way to know without *investigating*. Seriously. This whole thing doesn't make sense. He could have just made one large wire transfer, documented it, paid the gift taxes, and had the whole thing be over. Probably have to retire from lobbying as it, otherwise, might show up on a financial disclosure. But if it's worth $3.5M to keep something quiet, than do it the right way.
Blackmail is a pretty serious crime. Surely people attempt to blackmail high profile officials all the time. The fact that Hastert didn't go immediately to the police and was willing to pay $3.5M indicates that he probably *does* have something to hide. That something may not be illegal. Could have been a consensual homosexual relationship. His ex-partner may have wanted to cash in in the story and Hastert made him a better offer. Of course this is all speculation. But there are too many strange things about this story. Why lie to the investigators is what gets me. Surely guys at his level have lawyers on retainer to do that for them.
If the competitor could have done this, they should have done it *before* the tax increase. Why would they wait for the government to add the tax, just undercut your competition preemptively. That's why taxes disturb competitive markets. All of those things that you describe have already been done. So the only choice left if higher prices. There is a different analysis for non-competitive markets that I'm not skilled in economics enough to examine.
As soon as you have that, you get a mix of suppliers in one market with different cost structures. As a result you get different profit margins and different tax burdens for different suppliers, and with it different returns on capital. Transaction costs, various constraints, and uncertainty about future costs limit how easily businesses can set up shop elsewhere.
Having a mix of suppliers with different cost structures and different tax burdens wouldn't be possible if taxes were just another cost.
And the problem is that, in the medium term, you won't have this. The "disadvantaged" firms will eventually set up shop elsewhere. If for no other reason that new businesses will spring up in the low-cost locations and undercut those with higher tax burdens.
All taxes are, in the medium term, incident upon the consumer. The Wikipedia article is way better than anything I can write up in a few minutes on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... However, this focuses primarily on short-term incidence. The reason that the incidence is always on the consumer in the long run is pretty easy. I recommend Peter Berck's class "Economics of the Environment" (UC Berkley webcast, free, Google it) for a better explanation.
In a competitive industry (not all are), things have already reached an equilibrium where most firms have similar cost structures and are making the minimum return on capital that they are willing to accept. If the industry becomes more attractive for whatever reason, that would motivate firms to enter. If things get worse, they would leave and do something else. Add a certain tax and, suddenly, everybody is making less money. Those willing to tolerate the lower returns will stay. Others will leave. This will raise prices. For how long and how much? Generally until we get to a point where the new price = old price + tax in which case it is 100% incident upon the consumers.
There's nothing wrong with somebody using their own car as a taxi if they are following the state and local regulations. The point is that they are still a taxi. Smaller towns may have looser regulations. Big cities sometimes require certain makes and models of vehicle even. The problem comes when you are operating a tax, calling it something else, and not following the rules.
I have no idea how such a disingenuous argument got modded up. The idea of the HOV lane is that if people are planning to make the same trip, they can travel together and be more efficient. What your friend is doing is legitimately "ride sharing" but that's not what Uber and Lyft offer. Instead, in their model your friend would ride with somebody who has no interest in going there except for the money that she paid. The fare would be way more than $10. (Probably like $150) Taxis are allowed in many HOV lanes so HOV or not isn't relevant here. What matters is that if you are out charging for rides, it's a taxi service, not ride sharing.
There are regulations around ride sharing. In most government facilities you get a better parking space if you carpool, for example. And there may be special tax treatment. But ride sharing clearly refers to a situation where multiple people are going the same place and can improve efficiency by taking the same vehicle. Two people going from the office to the airport? Take one car! Uber and Lyft are sedan services. The only way it would be "ride sharing" is if two passengers shared an Uber car to the same destination. But then Uber is still a taxi service.
Their web site assures passengers are covered while in the vehicle. They don't talk about third-parties. That is to say, Uber driver has a crash, causes $1M of injuries to the passenger in the Uber vehicle (covered supposedly) and $1M of injuries to each of the two pedestrians. Who covers those pedestrians? The chances of having a serious injury while *riding* in a car are relatively low thanks to things like seatbelts and air bags and if your driver is unsafe you can just get out of the vehicle. But what about unprotected third-parties? I imagine that's where the bulk of insurance costs are. Hit a pedestrian and chances are that the bill is pretty high between medical care, lost wages, et cetera.
Not all miles are created equal. If I drive the same hundred miles every weekend to see granny, I'm familiar with the roads and, although the trip is long, the actual driving part is easy. If I'm going through an unfamiliar neighborhood on a rainy night looking to pick up my fare from an unfamiliar address, that's very difficult driving. Easy to not notice something. In any event, it's not reasonable to second-guess the actuaries who come up with this stuff without backing it up with data. Commercial insurance is *expensive*. Nobody would drive for uber if they had to buy it. Uber seems to cover the *passengers* (their web site isn't exactly high on details in terms of exactly what they insure) but it's not clear on what happens to injured third parties especially during the times that they are trying to find their fare.
Slashdot Mirror
When the robot car is $35k I will buy one of those too.
Tesla Model 3 will be $35k. I don't need to wish. I can buy it with my credit card. It's within reach of about half of the population. If somebody came along with a $2k escalator, probably every house would have one. Many older people have stair lifts installed and it costs them this much to *rent* one for a few years.
We have flying cars. They are called helicopters and in some places the wealthy want to use them to commute but the cities pass ordinances against landing them in parking lots. There aren't enough helicopter owners that they can band together and have any clout. They are the rich outsiders. Every two-story shopping mall that I've ever seen has escalators.
Rather than standing around making a judgment, take some pictures and use them to decide later. This could be done with a handheld camera as well. Guess you make the news when you mount it on a drone. Since the equipment is expensive, keeping it in service a higher percentage of the time makes sense. Unless the drone can get the pictures faster than a person, it's really superfluous in this context. It may be cheaper, though, because you don't need to manage the photograph takers.
Bankruptcy is not evasion. It's not like everybody in the world can go and file bankruptcy. But those who have crippling debts are afforded that protection. If you borrow from friends or family, I would argue for a moral obligation to repay. From a publicly traded bank? If you meet the legal definition of bankruptcy, by all means file. Failing to file for bankruptcy creates an economic distortion. If enough liberal arts majors with 200k student loans and 30k a year maximum earning potential start filing for bankruptcy, financial institutions will stop making these loans. The interest rates will start to vary based on your economic potential. It's arguably immoral to charge somebody a lifetime of debt for a humanities degree. But it happens because the federal government guarantees the loans and because not enough bankrupt people file. If those distortions went away, we'd be better off. But for that to happen we have to take a way the stigma of bankruptcy. (No I've never filed. I have been lucky to have good income out of school)
It won't take a lot to achieve critical mass on this. Once people have electric, self-driving cars, the behaviors of the owners (for better or worse) will influence others. The self-driving cars will observe speed limits totally changing traffic patterns. People will be willing to commute farther at lower speeds. If we want real speed enforcement just have a barrier of self-driving vehicles go down the freeways at the posted limit. Of course we will also see special "high speed" lanes where only self-driving vehicles are allowed. Who know what else will happen. The point is that you don't have to go out and proactively force this stuff. As long as there is enough demand to start altering behavior you can hit a tipping point. And the minute there is a 100mph self-driving car lane, everybody *will* go out and by them!
This seems pretty reasonable as it describes a lot of urban cores with good transportation. So it also seems to mean more suburban sprawl.
I had already read this yesterday before seeing it on /. and liked the opinion piece as it make some valid points. That was before knowing the author's lack of credibility. I would be very concerned with this strategy as the government is almost guaranteed to collect at some point. Things like having your wages garnished. Also not mentioned in this is that, if you do have federal student loans, payments are capped at like 10% of your income. You may never pay off the debt, but you would be considered current on the loan and credit worthy. Better to make the seven years of payments equal to 10% of your income and then file for bankrupts. I'm not a lawyer and I don't look like an actor so I can't play one on TV either. This is not legal advice. But if you have high student debt and low income, you should talk to a real lawyer. Many people miss out on the chance to discharge debt through bankruptcy for a number of reasons. "Personal responsibility" shouldn't be one of them. The rates on your loans are set under the premise that some people will be eligible to discharge in bankruptcy. You've already paid for the privilege so not using it is just a waste. It isn't a moral issue.
It's messy (sometimes you get leaks) and the recharged versions don't last as long, but you can extend the life this way. I have no idea what the market for this product is, though. For my devices that go through power quickly (I have a four year old, and just about everything he owns requires 3-4 AA batteries) I use NiMH rechargable. For things that only need a new set once a year or so (remote controls) I recharge primary alkalines. I realize that there are people out there who can't be bothered, money is no object, and they don't care about what they put into landfills. But they aren't going to buy this product either. I have no idea who would be the target market. And, as others have said, this circuitry belongs in the device, not the battery. And most devices have it. I don't have a single thing that won't work off of the 1.2V supplied by NiMH.
So I guess you need to give him a no-show job and a regular paycheck!
I don't see a lot of abuse potential here. If somebody is returning a large percentage of their games, why would Valve want them as a customer? It would be a money losing proposition. Big physical retailers track this stuff. Amazon does as well. It's an easy form or abuse to ferret out.
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. I think you are describing a situation where you don't trust your lawyer. They are bound by attorney-client privilege and believe me it's not hard to find one who takes that seriously. Bill Cosby had no trouble paying off women because he used third-party intermediaries.
I see your point about having to make regular payments rather than one lump sum. I will keep it in mind if I'm ever on either end of a blackmail transaction. I'm generally a fan of anonymity, but it does seem that there aren't a lot of good reasons to do *large* anonymous transaction.
I assume he would declare it as a gift. I don't know the rules on who pays gift taxes; the giver or the recipient.
We see $1.7M being moved around in a way that doesn't make sense. It might be that the former speaker is being blackmailed. Many victims don't come forward so we want to investigate. Purported victim tries to throw off the investigation which doesn't make much sense. Maybe something more sinister is happening. No way to know without *investigating*. Seriously. This whole thing doesn't make sense. He could have just made one large wire transfer, documented it, paid the gift taxes, and had the whole thing be over. Probably have to retire from lobbying as it, otherwise, might show up on a financial disclosure. But if it's worth $3.5M to keep something quiet, than do it the right way.
Blackmail is a pretty serious crime. Surely people attempt to blackmail high profile officials all the time. The fact that Hastert didn't go immediately to the police and was willing to pay $3.5M indicates that he probably *does* have something to hide. That something may not be illegal. Could have been a consensual homosexual relationship. His ex-partner may have wanted to cash in in the story and Hastert made him a better offer. Of course this is all speculation. But there are too many strange things about this story. Why lie to the investigators is what gets me. Surely guys at his level have lawyers on retainer to do that for them.
If the competitor could have done this, they should have done it *before* the tax increase. Why would they wait for the government to add the tax, just undercut your competition preemptively. That's why taxes disturb competitive markets. All of those things that you describe have already been done. So the only choice left if higher prices. There is a different analysis for non-competitive markets that I'm not skilled in economics enough to examine.
@FlyHelicopters
As soon as you have that, you get a mix of suppliers in one market with different cost structures. As a result you get different profit margins and different tax burdens for different suppliers, and with it different returns on capital. Transaction costs, various constraints, and uncertainty about future costs limit how easily businesses can set up shop elsewhere.
Having a mix of suppliers with different cost structures and different tax burdens wouldn't be possible if taxes were just another cost.
And the problem is that, in the medium term, you won't have this. The "disadvantaged" firms will eventually set up shop elsewhere. If for no other reason that new businesses will spring up in the low-cost locations and undercut those with higher tax burdens.
All taxes are, in the medium term, incident upon the consumer. The Wikipedia article is way better than anything I can write up in a few minutes on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... However, this focuses primarily on short-term incidence. The reason that the incidence is always on the consumer in the long run is pretty easy. I recommend Peter Berck's class "Economics of the Environment" (UC Berkley webcast, free, Google it) for a better explanation.
In a competitive industry (not all are), things have already reached an equilibrium where most firms have similar cost structures and are making the minimum return on capital that they are willing to accept. If the industry becomes more attractive for whatever reason, that would motivate firms to enter. If things get worse, they would leave and do something else. Add a certain tax and, suddenly, everybody is making less money. Those willing to tolerate the lower returns will stay. Others will leave. This will raise prices. For how long and how much? Generally until we get to a point where the new price = old price + tax in which case it is 100% incident upon the consumers.
Only if you bring the item back into the state where you live. If you buy it and use it in the other state, yours can't charge a use tax.
There's nothing wrong with somebody using their own car as a taxi if they are following the state and local regulations. The point is that they are still a taxi. Smaller towns may have looser regulations. Big cities sometimes require certain makes and models of vehicle even. The problem comes when you are operating a tax, calling it something else, and not following the rules.
I have no idea how such a disingenuous argument got modded up. The idea of the HOV lane is that if people are planning to make the same trip, they can travel together and be more efficient. What your friend is doing is legitimately "ride sharing" but that's not what Uber and Lyft offer. Instead, in their model your friend would ride with somebody who has no interest in going there except for the money that she paid. The fare would be way more than $10. (Probably like $150) Taxis are allowed in many HOV lanes so HOV or not isn't relevant here. What matters is that if you are out charging for rides, it's a taxi service, not ride sharing.
There are regulations around ride sharing. In most government facilities you get a better parking space if you carpool, for example. And there may be special tax treatment. But ride sharing clearly refers to a situation where multiple people are going the same place and can improve efficiency by taking the same vehicle. Two people going from the office to the airport? Take one car! Uber and Lyft are sedan services. The only way it would be "ride sharing" is if two passengers shared an Uber car to the same destination. But then Uber is still a taxi service.
Their web site assures passengers are covered while in the vehicle. They don't talk about third-parties. That is to say, Uber driver has a crash, causes $1M of injuries to the passenger in the Uber vehicle (covered supposedly) and $1M of injuries to each of the two pedestrians. Who covers those pedestrians? The chances of having a serious injury while *riding* in a car are relatively low thanks to things like seatbelts and air bags and if your driver is unsafe you can just get out of the vehicle. But what about unprotected third-parties? I imagine that's where the bulk of insurance costs are. Hit a pedestrian and chances are that the bill is pretty high between medical care, lost wages, et cetera.
Not all miles are created equal. If I drive the same hundred miles every weekend to see granny, I'm familiar with the roads and, although the trip is long, the actual driving part is easy. If I'm going through an unfamiliar neighborhood on a rainy night looking to pick up my fare from an unfamiliar address, that's very difficult driving. Easy to not notice something. In any event, it's not reasonable to second-guess the actuaries who come up with this stuff without backing it up with data. Commercial insurance is *expensive*. Nobody would drive for uber if they had to buy it. Uber seems to cover the *passengers* (their web site isn't exactly high on details in terms of exactly what they insure) but it's not clear on what happens to injured third parties especially during the times that they are trying to find their fare.