Even if never sell the stock, you can take out a loan against the value of that stock.
Well, you can't. You don't have enough stock to make it attractive to the institution making the loan. But if you did have enough (as was shown in TFA) then you could take out such loans.
And such loans are not taxed as "income" or "capital gains" from stock.
You can take out a loan against the value of your house too. And it's not counted as income or capital gains either.
According to Miller, mark-to-market would only affect individuals who were undeniably, extraordinarily rich, only publicly traded stock would be marked to market, and a mark-to-market system of taxation on the top one-tenth of 1 percent would raise hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue over the next 10 years."
Don't see anything in the basic concept that makes it apply just to "undeniably extraordinarily rich" individuals. It looks like it would apply to anyone who owned stock.
Then there's the problem that it would encourage stock manipulation, since it would pretty much require that stock be valued at some specific time every year. And if you're not smart enough to make sure your stock is valued low that day, you prolly don't deserve to be rich.
Re:This is why a flat tax will not work.
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This has nothing to do with a flat tax. Or most other kinds.
So he doesn't pay income tax on things that aren't income. Big deal.
I don't pay income on my bank balance either. Just on my income.
Truly, if nothing makes a carrier more obsolete is a weapon that can hit one where there will likely be no practical defense. Is any surface ship safe from such a weapon? Yes I know you can definitely pilot an evasive course but you have to know your being attacked before you can do that.
Not sure I see how this will make a carrier obsolete, really.
It's not like a carrier is really worried about 5" shellfire, even at extended ranges - the big missiles with 450+ kg warheads are much more of a problem, really.
However, as to evading fire from such a weapon. At 200 km, and 2500 m/s muzzle speeds, we're talking pretty near two minutes (yes, it loses speed the whole way, so it won't be anywhere near as quick as 200/2.5 travel time) between shot and landing. And our radars can detect a shell-sized object now (that's what counterbattery radar is for, after all), so you have a minute or more to change your projected position by 200 meters - you can manage that without even turning, just speed up/down as needed.
This ignoring the detail that you won't even be able to see the carrier at 200 km without aerial surveillance, and the carrier air group will be doing its best to make sure your aerial surveillance quickly becomes sub-surface surveillance....
What you and your "Herp derp we took an economics class once so now we are Milton Friedman herp derp" are missing is that if there is no collusion all it would take is one saying "I'll undercut the others and corner the OEMs!" to make out like a fucking robber baron.
That can only happen if any one of the manufacturers produced enough to supply all the OEM needs.
Well, except for Satanic blood-sacrifice. And witchcraft. I almost forgot about that.
That was mostly a reaction to the Black Death.
The belief that Satan was loose in the world mostly arose out of attempts to understand how God could allow 1/3 the population of Europe (the world? possibly, but we don't have good records for the whole world, we do have them for Europe) to die of some loathsome disease....
The Defense budget hasn't been a mere 5 billion since, oh, 1948, IIRC. The current 3 wars we're involved in (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) each suck up about 5 billion a day thereabouts.
Hmm, at $5 billion per day for each of three wars, we're talking $5.5 trillion or so annually. Which is rather larger (about 50%) than the ENTIRE Federal budget.
In other words, your numbers are off. By about a factor of six, I think.
because the doctrine, thanks to an idiot general in the US, was that Tank Destroyer battalions should do the combat with the tanks, while tanks should only support infantry.
Wasn't an entirely idiotic doctrine, nor entirely a US problem.
Note that the British built infantry tanks and cruiser tanks for various tasks, only one of which was fighting other tanks.
Note also the first iteration of Panzer IV, which was uncompromisingly designed for infantry support, and had a gun that was totally worthless against a decent tank. Note that that was still the PzkwIV that was operational when the Sherman was being designed.
The problem with tank destroyer doctrine in WW2 (the US TD doctrine) was that it was built on the assumption that TD's would be used defensively - they would be held in reserve and deployed in front of a German attack as needed (hence the need for high-speed vehicles with big anti-armour guns). Alas, the Germans were almost never in position to actually ATTACK the US forces in any meaningful way - usually it was the other way around.
Which meant that a lot of TD units were laying around doing nothing worthwhile, and tended to be tossed in as "pretty much another tank" into situations where their thin armour was a killer (of their crews).
It should also be noted (growing up on military bases and having access to books that seldom make it into civilian libraries can be useful sometimes) that the guys in the US Army responsible for designing the next generation weapons were developing constantly during WW2, and that Sherman was never intended to last out the war - just to field something quickly that could fight NOW. Several Sherman follow-on tanks got as far as field trials, but were ultimately rejected because they'd cut into tank production and tanker training while the new machines were phased in.
The Event (capitalized on purpose) that finally got a Sherman follow-on building was the Battle of the Bulge - that green-lighted the Pershing (which was an approximate match for Tiger I - similar armour levels, with better slope to same, similar gun, but better engine and so faster).
Which tank American tankers loved, but American logistics guys hated, since it meant a whole new supply chain, all being moved to a few select units which themselves were always on the move and so hard to find.
One final note about the Pershing - the Armor Board originally rejected the Pershing because it might make American tankers go hunting German tanks to shoot up...which is pretty much what happened after the Pershing was deployed.
In what sense? The first Android phone to be sold was HTC Dream, in the fourth quarter of 2008. The first iPhone to ship with the App Store was the iPhone 3G, introduced four months earlier.
Note that GP didn't say "Android Phone was older than iPhone".
What he said was Android OS was older than iOS.
Possibly based on wiki articles about the two.
Android OS SDK was released on 12 NOV 2007.
iOS SDK was released on 6 MAR 2008.
Now, arguably, he should have read further and found that the first version of "what became iOS" was released on 29 JUN 2007.
Equally arguably, "what became iOS" wasn't necessarily iOS...
On this first mission they will only "berth" with ISS, rather than docking. (They'll fly up close enough so that the ISS manipulator arm can grapple the Dragon capsule and haul it in.) If that goes well, they'll be allowed to actually dock with ISS on the next flight.
I had understood that they were planning on carrying some ISS consumables up this flight, on the assumption that they'll succeed.
If they do succeed, they've delivered their first cargo to ISS. If they fail, nothing really important lost (the cost of the consumables is peanuts next to the cost of the launch).
They are also, as I understand it, planning on delivering a couple small satellites to orbit on the same launch....
The trick is to build a tower so high that
it reaches geostationary orbit, so the top of the tower is in orbit, not just in space. That's about 36000 km up.
The top of the tower needs to be higher than that. With something large and heavy up there.
You want a counterweight above GEO so that the station at GEO isn't dragged down into a spectacular crash.
Not usually, but this seems to be a correct statement of facts.
Well, other than the part where you can't actually read the order yet...
Note also that a dismissal of an "Affirmative Defense" isn't actually the end of the world - it just means that you'll have to actually go to Trial for real, rather than saying "Nyah, nyah, the law says that since we have this affirmative defense, you lose!"....
What the fuck does the mainstream Democratic party call someone who is pro-war, pro-surveillance, pro-dronebombing, pro-due-process-free-detention, pro-due-process-free-execution, pro-goldman-sachs, pro-protecting-torturers, pro-persecuting-whistleblowers, pro-PATRIOT-Act
A Presidential candidate?
It ought to be pointed out that Bush's challenger in '04 fit this definition, to the extent that he was the one who WROTE those sections of the PATRIOT Act you dislike so much.
Alas, no, there's no real proof that the Democrats are merely angels beleaguered by the EVIIIIIIIIL Republicans - the Dems are just as intent on the evils you decry, just for different reasons.
Third, under SOPA it's not illegal to access the sites, just for DNS to return their IP and for Google (and who?) to list them in search results.
Check the fine print in SOPA - it's not even illegal for Googel to list them in search results. It's just illegal (given the requisite court orders) to provide CLICKABLE LINKS to them.
Putting the URL in out as plaintext would be perfectly fine....
No, they interpret it differently, emphasizing the "A well regulated militia" clause.
And carefully ignoring the "right to keep and bear arms" part. Note that "rights" don't apply to States (who maintain well-regulated militias), nor to the Federal government (who write laws regulating militias).
Also note the Militia Act for a good picture of who the "well-regulated militia" is - everyone capable of bearing arms in the country, basically.
Even Space X's Dragon probably won't be human rated till 2015 even though it starts delivering cargo to the ISS in March.
Not having kept up on ISS crew rotation schedules, but one of the reasons the latest Dragon flight was delayed was that there was a requirement that two of the ISS crew be trained in operation of the Dragon-control link used for docking to ISS.
Unless there are two such guys up there right now, they won't be able to do the Dragon resupply-mission....
Slashdot Mirror
Money != Income.
Nice bit of sleight of hand to try it, but it's not true...
You can take out a loan against the value of your house too. And it's not counted as income or capital gains either.
Your point is?
Don't see anything in the basic concept that makes it apply just to "undeniably extraordinarily rich" individuals. It looks like it would apply to anyone who owned stock.
Then there's the problem that it would encourage stock manipulation, since it would pretty much require that stock be valued at some specific time every year. And if you're not smart enough to make sure your stock is valued low that day, you prolly don't deserve to be rich.
This has nothing to do with a flat tax. Or most other kinds.
So he doesn't pay income tax on things that aren't income. Big deal.
I don't pay income on my bank balance either. Just on my income.
Not sure I see how this will make a carrier obsolete, really.
It's not like a carrier is really worried about 5" shellfire, even at extended ranges - the big missiles with 450+ kg warheads are much more of a problem, really.
However, as to evading fire from such a weapon. At 200 km, and 2500 m/s muzzle speeds, we're talking pretty near two minutes (yes, it loses speed the whole way, so it won't be anywhere near as quick as 200/2.5 travel time) between shot and landing. And our radars can detect a shell-sized object now (that's what counterbattery radar is for, after all), so you have a minute or more to change your projected position by 200 meters - you can manage that without even turning, just speed up/down as needed.
This ignoring the detail that you won't even be able to see the carrier at 200 km without aerial surveillance, and the carrier air group will be doing its best to make sure your aerial surveillance quickly becomes sub-surface surveillance....
That can only happen if any one of the manufacturers produced enough to supply all the OEM needs.
And there's not a lot of evidence of that.
Umm, no.
The Constitution is a listing of the POWERS of the federal government. Rights are something only people have.
Or not.
The shortage of fuel the Germans suffered in WW2 was far more about bombing the crap out of refineries, railyards, and suchlike than about V2 fuel.
Which V2 fuel was ethanol. Made from potatoes.
That was mostly a reaction to the Black Death.
The belief that Satan was loose in the world mostly arose out of attempts to understand how God could allow 1/3 the population of Europe (the world? possibly, but we don't have good records for the whole world, we do have them for Europe) to die of some loathsome disease....
Hmm, at $5 billion per day for each of three wars, we're talking $5.5 trillion or so annually. Which is rather larger (about 50%) than the ENTIRE Federal budget.
In other words, your numbers are off. By about a factor of six, I think.
Wasn't an entirely idiotic doctrine, nor entirely a US problem.
Note that the British built infantry tanks and cruiser tanks for various tasks, only one of which was fighting other tanks.
Note also the first iteration of Panzer IV, which was uncompromisingly designed for infantry support, and had a gun that was totally worthless against a decent tank. Note that that was still the PzkwIV that was operational when the Sherman was being designed.
The problem with tank destroyer doctrine in WW2 (the US TD doctrine) was that it was built on the assumption that TD's would be used defensively - they would be held in reserve and deployed in front of a German attack as needed (hence the need for high-speed vehicles with big anti-armour guns). Alas, the Germans were almost never in position to actually ATTACK the US forces in any meaningful way - usually it was the other way around.
Which meant that a lot of TD units were laying around doing nothing worthwhile, and tended to be tossed in as "pretty much another tank" into situations where their thin armour was a killer (of their crews).
It should also be noted (growing up on military bases and having access to books that seldom make it into civilian libraries can be useful sometimes) that the guys in the US Army responsible for designing the next generation weapons were developing constantly during WW2, and that Sherman was never intended to last out the war - just to field something quickly that could fight NOW. Several Sherman follow-on tanks got as far as field trials, but were ultimately rejected because they'd cut into tank production and tanker training while the new machines were phased in.
The Event (capitalized on purpose) that finally got a Sherman follow-on building was the Battle of the Bulge - that green-lighted the Pershing (which was an approximate match for Tiger I - similar armour levels, with better slope to same, similar gun, but better engine and so faster).
Which tank American tankers loved, but American logistics guys hated, since it meant a whole new supply chain, all being moved to a few select units which themselves were always on the move and so hard to find.
One final note about the Pershing - the Armor Board originally rejected the Pershing because it might make American tankers go hunting German tanks to shoot up...which is pretty much what happened after the Pershing was deployed.
Note that GP didn't say "Android Phone was older than iPhone".
What he said was Android OS was older than iOS.
Possibly based on wiki articles about the two.
Android OS SDK was released on 12 NOV 2007.
iOS SDK was released on 6 MAR 2008.
Now, arguably, he should have read further and found that the first version of "what became iOS" was released on 29 JUN 2007.
Equally arguably, "what became iOS" wasn't necessarily iOS...
I had understood that they were planning on carrying some ISS consumables up this flight, on the assumption that they'll succeed.
If they do succeed, they've delivered their first cargo to ISS. If they fail, nothing really important lost (the cost of the consumables is peanuts next to the cost of the launch).
They are also, as I understand it, planning on delivering a couple small satellites to orbit on the same launch....
The top of the tower needs to be higher than that. With something large and heavy up there.
You want a counterweight above GEO so that the station at GEO isn't dragged down into a spectacular crash.
Well, other than the part where you can't actually read the order yet...
Note also that a dismissal of an "Affirmative Defense" isn't actually the end of the world - it just means that you'll have to actually go to Trial for real, rather than saying "Nyah, nyah, the law says that since we have this affirmative defense, you lose!"....
People still take this guy seriously?
Alpha Centauri (the star) is from beyond our solar system. It is NOT "interstellar".
Didn't see any spelling/English errors, actually.
That particular problem seems to be more common for Americans than for non-native speakers...
A Presidential candidate?
It ought to be pointed out that Bush's challenger in '04 fit this definition, to the extent that he was the one who WROTE those sections of the PATRIOT Act you dislike so much.
Alas, no, there's no real proof that the Democrats are merely angels beleaguered by the EVIIIIIIIIL Republicans - the Dems are just as intent on the evils you decry, just for different reasons.
Check the fine print in SOPA - it's not even illegal for Googel to list them in search results. It's just illegal (given the requisite court orders) to provide CLICKABLE LINKS to them.
Putting the URL in out as plaintext would be perfectly fine....
Very well said.
And yes, I'm a space nut, since back when I was watching Gemini launches as a child....
...where whathername insisted on "designing the study".
As opposed, of course, for calling for a study to be done - not the same at all.
And carefully ignoring the "right to keep and bear arms" part. Note that "rights" don't apply to States (who maintain well-regulated militias), nor to the Federal government (who write laws regulating militias).
Also note the Militia Act for a good picture of who the "well-regulated militia" is - everyone capable of bearing arms in the country, basically.
A naval nuclear reactor will have somewhere between 100 Kg and 250 kg of uranium.
Sealed inside non-corrosive alloys, which are further incorporated into inconel fuel rods.
Which, in turn, are inside a reactor vessel designed to handle several thousand psi differential pressure.
Which is inside a reactor room which is designed to handle rather more than another 500 psi differential pressure.
Which will then be sitting on the bottom of the ocean.
Good luck with any meaningful contamination being measured at any distance from the sunken boat.
Not having kept up on ISS crew rotation schedules, but one of the reasons the latest Dragon flight was delayed was that there was a requirement that two of the ISS crew be trained in operation of the Dragon-control link used for docking to ISS.
Unless there are two such guys up there right now, they won't be able to do the Dragon resupply-mission....