You know there is such a thing as a tax credit, right?
Yes. They are used (1) for social engineering, such as buying solar panels or an electric car, and (2) as crony capitalism corporate welfare.
We should certainly get rid of #2 entirely. If you get rid of #1, or even threaten to drug test people that take advantage of them, you'll lose the incentive for the activities you're trying to encourage.
It's ALL debt - all money is debt in our system. Taxes is just a way to take some out of circulation. You could just take it out in the back yard and burn it, and it would have exactly the same effect. Proves you don't even know what money is.
"subsidy / welfare == receipt of someone else's money
tax deduction == less of one's own money being taken"
Wrong. Tax deduction beyond the standard deduction is part of your debt being forgiven. Just because you still have the money in paws does not mean it belongs to you. This is especially true of tax credits.
Nope. Deductions are NOT deductions to the amount of tax owed - they are deductions to the amount of taxable income.
No, the underlying assumption is that portion of your income which falls in your tax bracket is property of the people. Deductions are a form of charity or gift to ease the burden of paying some kinds of expenses that are necessary or may stimulate the economy.
Incorrect. Deductions are an adjustment to your income. For instance, you can deduct from your taxable income the about of taxes paid to another authority. It's money you never really made. Similarly, you can give money to a charity that can more efficiently provide services to people and ease the burden on the government to provide them (and you only get to use a small percentage of that to adjust your income).
Anything beyond the standard deduction is an unfair boon above and beyond what others get.
Actually if you have a lot of deductions, you have contributed above and beyond your fair tax burden. You may have lost your house to a fire. You may have lost your retirement investment. You may have a job overseas and already paid more than your US tax burden to another country.
Your real underlying assumption is that all PEOPLE are the property of government. Even people that have nothing to offer but their time and labor in order to eat, and that government gets whatever they want of it. That's what's referred to as indentured servitude.
There are ways to improve tax revenue by playing with various tax rates, but capital gains is not one of them. It's been tweaked up and down enough that raising it now would produced lower revenues in the long term. Economists all know this. Biden and Obama know this as well, even when they talk about raising it ("It's an issue of fairness," they say).
Besides, taking less money from people is not an "expenditure", any more than a mugger giving you $5 for bus fare before he walks off with your wallet a "kindness".
Anyone suggesting that eliminating CO2 completely is even on the table is an obvious troll.
And yet the/. hivemind rated him +5, Insightful.
But nowhere do they say *all* of it. Just enough to get it back to comfortable levels, like 300ppm.
Actually, it would probably be better to set it to higher levels. That way, we can grow enough crops to feed the population without resorting to toxic levels of petroleum-based fertilizers that pollute the rivers and shorelines. We tried GMOs, but recent reports say that they don't improve crop yields.
I see no reason why polluting industries like (oil/gas companies) should be subsidized at all. Frankly, we should be taxing them based on how much pollution they emit and how damaging it is. We are eventually going to have to remove CO2 from the air and it's going to be a pricey project. We might as well start saving money for it now.
Removing CO2 from air would kill all plant life.
Dude, you need to get with the program. CO2 is a dangerous pollutant that kills EVERYTHING!
It would be a punishment of sin to be obliged to watch on TV for the next eight years either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I bow down on my knees, and I repent.
Don't worry, whoever wins will certainly be a one-term president, so you'll only four years. A HUGE global financial collapse is coming, and it's bound to hit during the next term. No president will be reelected presiding over that.
One of the most prominent Leave campaigners claimed that staying in the EU risked women being raped by Muslims yesterday. The fear-mongering over immigration from that side is intense, far worse from than the mostly justifiable warnings about economic ruin if we leave.
Well that's actually true. It's been going on in many EU countries, and the extent of it is often suppressed. The response from German officials is that women in Germany should "cover up" when they go out, or make sure they have a male escort.
The EU is now proposing quotas of middle eastern immigrants that all member countries must accept. So it might be fear-mongering, but it's based on facts and a predictable future outcome.
Yeah, conspiracy and that. I'm enough of a scientist to know that this was an unverifiable (and unfalsifiable) hypothesis, at least for means whithin my reach
Well, it should be verifiable if you assume that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and NSA, actually posts all of their investments in their portfolio. But considering how much they do in secret, it's entirely possible that they simply left Google out. Or, it's listed there, but it's one of Google's many obscure subsidiaries or purchases.
What's to stop Sanders from standing as an independent, unaffiliated with either party?
Mainly the "sore loser" laws that most states have. These laws state that if someone runs for a party nomination in a primary or caucus, they cannot appear on the ballot if they don't have that party's nomination. It's party of the 2-party duopoly protection system.
That's assuming Trump doesn't provoke North Korea into nuclear war. As a citizen of Earth, I implore all USA voters to recognise the dangers of a Trump presidency. Not all of us get a vote on this matter.
What the hell are you talking about? Trump doesn't give a crap about North Korea - Hillary is MUCH more likely to start wars than Trump, who is more interested in domestic issues, renegotiating trade agreements (we don't really trade with NK), and invigorating manufacturing and productivity of companies within the US. Hillary already started wars in Libya, Syria, and stirs up conflicts all over the globe.
If you're concerned about the next US president starting wars, you should be way more concerned about Hillary. Her foreign policy is practically identical to the neocons. Yes, the warmongering neocons. Who hate Trump, because he has already stated he thinks the US has too many military bases abroad.
The EU referendum in the UK has been a total disaster. The Leave side in particular just spews lies and half truths, repeating them often enough for them to become facts in some people's minds. I mean easily verifiable lies too, completely bare faced.
Here across the pond it seems like the opposite. Except that the Stay side is going way over the edge trying to generate fear.
Uber's behavior is certainly hypocritical, but it is likely legally unenforceable. Factual data cannot be copyrighted, and it is unlikely that it can be kept secret by TOS restrictions. Urbanhail should not just cave in because they received "a few emails".
Uber, as it turns out, really makes a lot of money selling data. In fact, this is what the real issue with Austin regulations was all about - Austin demanded free access to Uber ride data (the details). It's too much of a revenue generator for them to give away. Houston was anxious for the data, New York, too, and they both paid for the data from Uber. But when Austin decided they weren't going to pay for it, Uber decided to leave town.
Data is that important to Uber. They will crush Urbanhail with their lawyers.
We have more hydroelectricty than we can use... Does this not qualify as renewable energy?
Sure it is. But the same groups that want to end the use of fossil fuels and nuclear also want to end the use of hydroelectric. Because - some fish or something.
You've clearly never seen Beyond Thunderdome. People need hydrocarbons whether we pull them out of the ground, produce them in wetware chemical factories, harvest them from Jupiter's moons, or produce them from processed pig shit. Ask some of your mates from high school who managed to go to college and get an industrial engineering degree.
Unless, of course, you want to kill off most of the human population, get most of the rest to live subsistence lifestyles like we did 2000 years ago (except for a few elites that live as kings). That's the goal of many, just don't know if you're among them or not.
If I have to know that a particular system is using systemd in order to invoke "screen" correctly, somebody's design is totally broken.
That is just silly. I suppose you would have fiercely resisted when Telnet was kicked out in favor of ssh too since it had new syntax.
So systemd is changing the behavior of every other program? I still have telnet, and still use it. But not for the same things I used to. But it still works the same way. Installing openssh did NOT change the behavior of telnet. ssh did not kick telnet off my system. I can kick it off if I want to - I sure as hell don't want the ssh (or the openssh installer or whatever) kick off telnet for me.
Get used to it.
No. Hell no. I won't ever get used to some component of any device arbitrarily changing the behavior of some other component. Imagine the death and mayhem if that happened regularly.
You just start screen, either as a proper.service or as a transient service in its own scope using : "systemd-run --user -scope screen". This will make screen run in its own scope so it won't be destroyed when the users scope is purged at logout.
Why? Why do I have to invoke an obscure systemd command to do something I've done without referencing the OS init system? Do all my bash scripts now need to change to work with systemd?
Slashdot Mirror
You know there is such a thing as a tax credit, right?
Yes. They are used (1) for social engineering, such as buying solar panels or an electric car, and (2) as crony capitalism corporate welfare.
We should certainly get rid of #2 entirely. If you get rid of #1, or even threaten to drug test people that take advantage of them, you'll lose the incentive for the activities you're trying to encourage.
It's ALL debt - all money is debt in our system. Taxes is just a way to take some out of circulation. You could just take it out in the back yard and burn it, and it would have exactly the same effect. Proves you don't even know what money is.
"subsidy / welfare == receipt of someone else's money tax deduction == less of one's own money being taken" Wrong. Tax deduction beyond the standard deduction is part of your debt being forgiven. Just because you still have the money in paws does not mean it belongs to you. This is especially true of tax credits.
Nope. Deductions are NOT deductions to the amount of tax owed - they are deductions to the amount of taxable income.
No, the underlying assumption is that portion of your income which falls in your tax bracket is property of the people. Deductions are a form of charity or gift to ease the burden of paying some kinds of expenses that are necessary or may stimulate the economy.
Incorrect. Deductions are an adjustment to your income. For instance, you can deduct from your taxable income the about of taxes paid to another authority. It's money you never really made. Similarly, you can give money to a charity that can more efficiently provide services to people and ease the burden on the government to provide them (and you only get to use a small percentage of that to adjust your income).
Anything beyond the standard deduction is an unfair boon above and beyond what others get.
Actually if you have a lot of deductions, you have contributed above and beyond your fair tax burden. You may have lost your house to a fire. You may have lost your retirement investment. You may have a job overseas and already paid more than your US tax burden to another country.
Your real underlying assumption is that all PEOPLE are the property of government. Even people that have nothing to offer but their time and labor in order to eat, and that government gets whatever they want of it. That's what's referred to as indentured servitude.
There are ways to improve tax revenue by playing with various tax rates, but capital gains is not one of them. It's been tweaked up and down enough that raising it now would produced lower revenues in the long term. Economists all know this. Biden and Obama know this as well, even when they talk about raising it ("It's an issue of fairness," they say).
Besides, taking less money from people is not an "expenditure", any more than a mugger giving you $5 for bus fare before he walks off with your wallet a "kindness".
Anyone suggesting that eliminating CO2 completely is even on the table is an obvious troll.
And yet the /. hivemind rated him +5, Insightful.
But nowhere do they say *all* of it. Just enough to get it back to comfortable levels, like 300ppm.
Actually, it would probably be better to set it to higher levels. That way, we can grow enough crops to feed the population without resorting to toxic levels of petroleum-based fertilizers that pollute the rivers and shorelines. We tried GMOs, but recent reports say that they don't improve crop yields.
An IP address? DNS? Gateway?
We are eventually going to have to remove CO2 from the air
--- by Gravis Zero
+5, Insightful
I see no reason why polluting industries like (oil/gas companies) should be subsidized at all. Frankly, we should be taxing them based on how much pollution they emit and how damaging it is. We are eventually going to have to remove CO2 from the air and it's going to be a pricey project. We might as well start saving money for it now.
Removing CO2 from air would kill all plant life.
Dude, you need to get with the program. CO2 is a dangerous pollutant that kills EVERYTHING!
Brexit will spell END of EU and bring ‘DESTRUCTION of Western civilisation’, says eurocrat.
It would be a punishment of sin to be obliged to watch on TV for the next eight years either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I bow down on my knees, and I repent.
Don't worry, whoever wins will certainly be a one-term president, so you'll only four years. A HUGE global financial collapse is coming, and it's bound to hit during the next term. No president will be reelected presiding over that.
One of the most prominent Leave campaigners claimed that staying in the EU risked women being raped by Muslims yesterday. The fear-mongering over immigration from that side is intense, far worse from than the mostly justifiable warnings about economic ruin if we leave.
Well that's actually true. It's been going on in many EU countries, and the extent of it is often suppressed. The response from German officials is that women in Germany should "cover up" when they go out, or make sure they have a male escort.
The EU is now proposing quotas of middle eastern immigrants that all member countries must accept. So it might be fear-mongering, but it's based on facts and a predictable future outcome.
Yeah, conspiracy and that. I'm enough of a scientist to know that this was an unverifiable (and unfalsifiable) hypothesis, at least for means whithin my reach
Well, it should be verifiable if you assume that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and NSA, actually posts all of their investments in their portfolio. But considering how much they do in secret, it's entirely possible that they simply left Google out. Or, it's listed there, but it's one of Google's many obscure subsidiaries or purchases.
What's to stop Sanders from standing as an independent, unaffiliated with either party?
Mainly the "sore loser" laws that most states have. These laws state that if someone runs for a party nomination in a primary or caucus, they cannot appear on the ballot if they don't have that party's nomination. It's party of the 2-party duopoly protection system.
I'm not voting for trump, I'm writing in Bernie if necessary because fuck this system anyway
I think a vote for Trump IS a vote for "fuck this system anyway". All the TV pundits sure seem to think so.
That's assuming Trump doesn't provoke North Korea into nuclear war. As a citizen of Earth, I implore all USA voters to recognise the dangers of a Trump presidency. Not all of us get a vote on this matter.
What the hell are you talking about? Trump doesn't give a crap about North Korea - Hillary is MUCH more likely to start wars than Trump, who is more interested in domestic issues, renegotiating trade agreements (we don't really trade with NK), and invigorating manufacturing and productivity of companies within the US. Hillary already started wars in Libya, Syria, and stirs up conflicts all over the globe.
If you're concerned about the next US president starting wars, you should be way more concerned about Hillary. Her foreign policy is practically identical to the neocons. Yes, the warmongering neocons. Who hate Trump, because he has already stated he thinks the US has too many military bases abroad.
The EU referendum in the UK has been a total disaster. The Leave side in particular just spews lies and half truths, repeating them often enough for them to become facts in some people's minds. I mean easily verifiable lies too, completely bare faced.
Here across the pond it seems like the opposite. Except that the Stay side is going way over the edge trying to generate fear.
Uber's behavior is certainly hypocritical, but it is likely legally unenforceable. Factual data cannot be copyrighted, and it is unlikely that it can be kept secret by TOS restrictions. Urbanhail should not just cave in because they received "a few emails".
Uber, as it turns out, really makes a lot of money selling data. In fact, this is what the real issue with Austin regulations was all about - Austin demanded free access to Uber ride data (the details). It's too much of a revenue generator for them to give away. Houston was anxious for the data, New York, too, and they both paid for the data from Uber. But when Austin decided they weren't going to pay for it, Uber decided to leave town.
Data is that important to Uber. They will crush Urbanhail with their lawyers.
We have more hydroelectricty than we can use... Does this not qualify as renewable energy?
Sure it is. But the same groups that want to end the use of fossil fuels and nuclear also want to end the use of hydroelectric. Because - some fish or something.
You've clearly never seen Beyond Thunderdome. People need hydrocarbons whether we pull them out of the ground, produce them in wetware chemical factories, harvest them from Jupiter's moons, or produce them from processed pig shit. Ask some of your mates from high school who managed to go to college and get an industrial engineering degree.
Unless, of course, you want to kill off most of the human population, get most of the rest to live subsistence lifestyles like we did 2000 years ago (except for a few elites that live as kings). That's the goal of many, just don't know if you're among them or not.
These comments suck
We really need to come up with a good name for people who accuse anyone who disagrees with them a shill.
In the above case, I think we can just use the term "correct".
If I have to know that a particular system is using systemd in order to invoke "screen" correctly, somebody's design is totally broken.
That is just silly. I suppose you would have fiercely resisted when Telnet was kicked out in favor of ssh too since it had new syntax.
So systemd is changing the behavior of every other program? I still have telnet, and still use it. But not for the same things I used to. But it still works the same way. Installing openssh did NOT change the behavior of telnet. ssh did not kick telnet off my system. I can kick it off if I want to - I sure as hell don't want the ssh (or the openssh installer or whatever) kick off telnet for me.
Get used to it.
No. Hell no. I won't ever get used to some component of any device arbitrarily changing the behavior of some other component. Imagine the death and mayhem if that happened regularly.
Change is just part of tech.
just part of tech.
part of tech.
of tech
of tech
of tech
This isn't about running stuff in the background (though systemd-run can do that too)
It can ! OH! Glory Day! What a miraculous tool this systemd is! YES ! It's a miraculous tool!
Miraculous tool
You just start screen, either as a proper .service or as a transient service in its own scope using : "systemd-run --user -scope screen". This will make screen run in its own scope so it won't be destroyed when the users scope is purged at logout.
Why? Why do I have to invoke an obscure systemd command to do something I've done without referencing the OS init system? Do all my bash scripts now need to change to work with systemd?