Your 'fashion' makes the term meaningless. You, yourself, are guilty of censorship under your use, since you chose what words you used and prevented yourself from using ones that you did not want. I "censor" my own postings here; you "censor" yours; others "censor" theirs. By choosing not to post to Twitter, I "censor" Twitter, and ditto Facebook and whatever else. Claiming "censorship" under such a definition is hardly an earth-shattering problem; it is so common that it is meaningless. The only possible use of the term "censorship", then, is to try to evoke the negative connotations of real censorship.
Using your definition, the only reasonable response to a cry of "censorship" is "so what?" Only when it comes to true, enforced censorship does it have any negative connotations. Who in the US truly censors any of the private companies you listed? If your only answer is like "Twitter is closing accounts of people who do X", then you haven't met the burden of proof.
When you point out the TV numbers alone it does not demonstrate the larger scope of the problem.
I pointed out "the TV numbers" because this discussion is about the FCC changing "the TV numbers". They can do nothing about the numbers overall because they do not regulate the vast majority of news sources. Trying to claim that this change will create "censorship" and "monopolies" of news is just silly. It's like saying that a store that refuses to carry M&M candies is trying to deprive the world of chocolate. There are so many other sources of chocolate that you won't go hungry no matter what that store doesn't sell you.
"two decades, at least" means "twenty or more years". How can a statement that has no starting date be short by ten years?
GP is correct however, that people should be bothered about further monopolization.
Changing the 39% value doesn't mean there will become a news monopoly, nor would changing the UHF discount. And considering the huge number of news sources today, claiming that anyone had a monopoly on providing it is just patently absurd.
Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, all being censored.
I understand that you are using the term "censored" in the modern, meaningless sense, hoping to evoke fear based on true censorship. None of those media are being censored, at least not in the US. Yes, German laws regarding Nazi material (as one example), that's true censorship, but we're talking about US Federal regulation of media ownership, which is based on US law, not German.
The phrase Super Mighty in English sounds childish. It's meant to diminish the perceived threat from North Korea.
The problem with your argument is that this phrase was used by North Korea itself, reported by Reuters:
The Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea's ruling Workers' Party, struck an aggressive tone earlier on Thursday.
"In the case of our super-mighty preemptive strike being launched, it will completely and immediately wipe out not only U.S. imperialists' invasion forces in South Korea and its surrounding areas but the U.S. mainland and reduce them to ashes," it said.
It is easy to forget while living in countries where the press is free and is expected to publish things that make the government look bad, that places like North Korea don't have such freedoms, and certainly not when you consider that the source is the official publication of the ruling political party.
Do you believe that North Korea used this phrase to deliberately diminish the seriousness of their threat?
That's the kind of propaganda that'll be everywhere, not just on the major Cable networks.
I hadn't heard the phrase before, so I did a quick google for it. It seems to be everywhere, not just the major cable networks. ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, USA Today, and The Telegraph are all hits high on the list.
I think it is a good thing when such statements are aired openly and by every news organization. I don't see how loosening the cap on coverage areas is going to change this specific situation at all. I also think that concerns about billionaires buying up media and manipulating the news are about two decades, at least, too late. It doesn't require just one billionaire buying all the news media to have this happen, just the fact that billionaires are in charge of setting news policy for the ones they already own.
Bernard Goldberg wrote a book about his experiences at CBS. It's a fascinating read, and it was written almost 20 years ago.
Since when does "whoosh" mean "wow you just skewered me".
In this use, "whoosh" meant "not only did you fail to correctly identify the relevant point of the comment you replied to, you proved the point that was being made." Thank you.
Why does that need a separate decree, rather than just being prosecuted...?
Because to prosecute someone for taking secret pictures of someone in the shower, you need to prove that that specific person took the pictures.
To prosecute someone for posting them online, you only need to prove they posted them.
They may have been taken years before they were posted, or they may have been taken by someone else. They may have been taken with permission, but not with permission to post.
while using a $100+ Garman device mounted to the exact same spot for the exact same purpose is legal.
The Oregon law as introduced makes no such distinction. It would be a "mobile electronic device" being used for navigation. And Garmin has a pretty large facility in Salem, OR...
In this configuration, futzing with it is exactly like someone futzing with their stereo controls.
The proposed Oregon legislation that I linked to earlier would make this use of your mobile device illegal.
Standards for "car-safe" apps when hooked to a BT source would be a really good start.
My HTC phone has a "car" mode with limited apps. I never use it since I never find myself needing the artificial nanny to keep me from texting. It is interesting that some of the apps in the limited set include navigation, music, phone, and texting (at least receiving them -- "car" wants permission to access SMS.)
I can use all the basic controls in my car without looking.
Not everyone can, because not everyone memorizes where they are or which function is at which detent. And advanced controls are worse. But then, there are people who can operate their phone without looking at it, too, so if the controls of your vehicle are exempt from consideration as distractions, so to should cell phones be exempted.
Note that the "controls" of your vehicle would include the display from your Sirius radio, and if you don't think that looking at the display to see the name of the artist playing that song you're listening to is a distraction, then you don't own a Sirius radio.
The problem is, the issue is not what highly capable people can and are doing, it is what normal people do. Normal people are distracted by tuning the radio and other people in the car.
I don't care what someone does with their phone while driving, as long as they don't have to look at it.
Perhaps you missed the point that I was making, in that the argument about distracted driving that most people make regarding phones applies just as much to a lot of other things, like tuning the radio, and sometimes even just listening to it.
But that's not what happens - people read social media while driving, FFS.
Sadly, while that is the way the argument against using cell phones while driving is typically presented, eliminating that is not the result that anti-phone zealots seek. They wish the elimination of the "use" of phones, not just the obviously serious distractions they can present.
(c) "Using a mobile electronic device" includes but is not limited to using a mobile electronic device for text messaging, voice communication, entertainment, navigation, accessing the Internet or producing electronic mail.
(2) A person commits the offense of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile electronic device if the person, while operating a motor vehicle on a highway:
(a) Holds a mobile electronic device in the person's hand; or
(b) Uses a mobile [communication] electronic device for any purpose.
The emphasis is mine. The law is specific in saying that you cannot use them for entertainment (playing audio) or for navigation. That means it would be illegal to start up a five hour audio book on your cell phone to listen to during your one hour commute, even though you don't have to touch the phone in any way from the time you press play while parked in your garage until you press "stop" after parking at work. "Any purpose" would be illegal. As is just holding it in your hand.
But holding a cup of coffee in your hand is not illegal.
The existing Oregon law has exemptions for ham and other licensed radio operators, and people participating in emergency service or public safety activities, but those exemptions would be removed.
So, while you cry about "people read[ing] social media", stopping just that is not the goal. If eliminating distracted driving were the true goal, then there would be a law that children under the age of 14 would need to be stored in the trunk.
I would argue that there be sanity in any regulation on "distracting" devices. Either accept that there are a lot of them and go after them all, permanently installed or not, or accept that there are times when it is NOT a problem for someone to use a cell phone in a car.
For example, while at a complete stop at a red light. OMG, someone stepped out in front of your car and you didn't see them! BFD. You aren't moving, and the only way they will come in contact with your car is if they walk into it themselves. They can do that whether or not I'm changing the playlist on my audio player.
With a smart phone, it is not in a predictable location (your hand, the seat, a holder in the dash, your pocket, maybe the floor).
Really? I cannot predict that my phone is in the mount that I've put it in when I got into the car? I would not notice if the phone, which is mounted right above the steering wheel, has fallen out and wound up on the floor? Really? I would not notice if the phone, which has had a power cable attached, is now swinging right in front of my face?
Smart phone interfaces are not specifically designed for driving, where the native car controls are.
So you are really trying to argue that tuning the radio, or even listening to the radio (and maybe shouting at the commentator because he's said something stupid), is NOT a distraction? Really? That looking at the climate control knob to make sure you've selected "heat to feet only" or to select the proper button so you get rear window defrost, is NOT a distraction from driving? Really? (I've had my current car for 12 years and I still have to look at the knob to know which setting it is on, and which button of the three is rear defrost. It's just not something I waste time memorizing.)
I'm sorry, but this argument about how "distracted driving is bad" that ignores the fact that EVERYONE has distractions while driving is disingenuous. Whether it is the radio, the climate control, the person sitting in the front seat you are talking to, or the kids in the back who are screaming "make him stop touching me", drivers have distractions ALL THE TIME.
Sure, some newer cars are going to screen based interfaces, and this is a bad trend,
You've just argued that built-in controls are designed to be used while driving, and then pointed out that they aren't.
but at least these screens are mounted to the dash and car companies have some responsibility (and potential liability) around making these interfaces non-distracting,
Ok, I thought you were making a serious argument. My mistake.
2,000 "leading edge" consumers aren't scared of technology. Hmm. Talk about selecting the population for a survey so you get the results you are looking for.
P.S. Dewey didn't beat Truman, even if the survey said he did.
See, and stupid reasoning like yours is why we have monopolies.
No, we had monopolies because we had nearly complete control of the franchise process by local authorities, who offered exclusive franchises in exchange for service requirements. When federal regulation removed that control of the franchise process, they also removed the ability to create exclusive franchises. That was so long ago that any exclusive franchises have expired.
It's too bad that you don't know history here, or you'd know that it was not federal regulations that created exclusive franchises (monopolies), it was the very same "local authorities" that you think should regain more control. If you let them do it again, why do you think they wouldn't do it again?
And to address that stupid reasoning, you propose even more stupid solutions.
I'm sorry, but just what solution did you think I was proposing? I asked someone else what kind of solution they were proposing.
Generally speaking, protecting individual property rights and allowing more local decision making.
Given that the problems of cable monopolies came about because of "more local decision making", I don't see how you can think that "more local decision making" would result in more competition.
A city council for a city with a population of 1M should not have much power deciding what happens in individual neighborhoods.
ISPs don't operate on an "individual neighborhood" basis.
"Individual neighborhoods" don't have a political structure that can enter into contracts or manage infrastructure, and yes, if that "individual neighborhood" is part of the city that elected the city council, the city council has the authority. If you and your neighbors don't want to be part of the city politics, don't vote to approve annexation.
it would probably be better if the federal government got rid of regulations, and perhaps also forced local governments to allow more competition.
Do you realize that it is federal government regulation that has eliminated exclusive franchises for cable companies? Poof went their legal monopolies. And, of course, ISPs have NEVER had monopolies from the local government.
What new kind of legislation or regulation do you see that wouldn't overstep federal limits but would force local governments to "allow more competition" when the regulations that currently exist say they have to allow competition?
Yes, sir, people who pay sales tax in the US see an additional charge at the end of the bill, applied to the sum of all items that are subject to sales tax. What people who pay VAT see is one price on the shelf and/or price tag and that is the price they are charged at the checkout. That's the difference the customer sees, and for most people, that's the only real difference between VAT and sales tax.
Let's look at how this started. Your original statement:
Be honest. My original statement was refuting the claim that VAT was an indirect tax. Everything after that was supporting that. And it does. The only real difference is exactly what I claimed -- what's hidden from the customer under the hood makes no difference to them.
because there are significant differences between a sales tax and a VAT that are not readily visible at a retail checkout.
Which makes those differences IRRELEVANT to them. That you consider them "significant" doesn't change the reality of what the customer who pays them sees, and it doesn't change a direct tax into some "indirect" one.
just yesterday, I rented a Virtual Private Server and the price quoted was 5 pounds. At checkout, I was surprised to see VAT was added
So even YOU expected the price you were quoted to include VAT already, which only proves my point for me. If you didn't expect it to have VAT included already, then it wouldn't be a surprise when it was added later.
And since the vast majority of people deal with VAT as customers, that's the reality they see.
However, when you are spouting falsehoods like this: "The only real difference between VAT and sales tax is that it is quoted as part of the purchase price while sales tax is a surprise at the register" in a discussion about taxation, then you (or perhaps other readers) should care.
You've completely ignored my repeated explanations that I'm talking about what most people see, and what the effective ("real") difference is between the two. It doesn't matter at all if you remit part of what to who, it matters what people see when they pay it.
There is nothing inherent in VAT that means it must be included in the price.
Except that it almost always is.
In fact, in the UK, for many goods, intended for sale to other businesses,
And I've told you ad nauseum that I'm discussing this taxation system from the viewpoint of the people who pay those taxes not the resellers. You want to show how smart you are by talking about the legal differences, but that's not how people who pay these taxes think of them, and I've told you more than once that that's the context of my statement.
That's also why the billionaires get away with paying so little in taxes, there's things like the AMT (make over X, pay only Y),
You do realize, I hope, that the AMT is an ALTERNATIVE tax that is HIGHER than the regular tax rate. It is specifically so that people cannot get away with paying "too little" in taxes.
We actually lean toward personal wealth, the greater good be damned.
You assume that "taxation" is "the greater good", which is an opinion that is not universally held. Some people think letting people keep what they work for so they can provide for their family and not rely on handouts from everyone else is a greater good.
I really don't think that you understand the difference.
I really don't think you understand that I don't care about the legal or minor differences. For MOST PEOPLE, who are just shopping at the store, VAT is really no different than a sales tax except for the "real" difference I pointed out.
It makes ZERO DIFFERENCE if you as a seller remit VAT on only the difference between what you paid for a chair and what you sell it for. The CUSTOMER, the MOST PEOPLE who are shopping in your store, pay the full VAT and it doesn't matter to them that you remit part of it to the the tax office and write the other part off as a cost or whatever the hell you do with it.
In the US sales tax scenario, I charge the full sales tax, but I remit all of it to the tax office.
Tell me why I, as a customer, give a shit whether you remit it all or remit none or any percentage in between. What I SEE is an additional charge added to my bill at checkout, whereas with VAT I am told the full, complete price for an object before I pick it up.
THAT is the "real difference" I spoke of, and that's what most people see.
I don't think that you understand the "Value Added" part of VAT.
I understand VAT very well, thank you. MOST people pay VAT as just another sales tax. And in your example, you pay VAT on the $1 and your customer pays VAT on the $1 profit you make. You have to charge more for the item, so actually they're paying the entire VAT, and it is based on the price they pay.
I said the only "real" difference, which doesn't mean there is only one difference.
With a sales tax, the whole amount is collected at every stage, with exceptions for resellers.
In other words, YOU, when you buy for $1 and sell for $2.
it some how implies that a collection of people working for a common cause has less rights than say a megacorp headed by maybe as few as a single person.
When that "collection of people" is a government that has entered a contract with the "megacorp" to require certain conditions be met for them to be allowed to operate within that jurisdiction, and then the same "collection of people" decides to directly compete with that corporation without requiring any of the same conditions, yes, they should have "less rights". They entered into the contract and now want to compete without playing the same game.
You also can't have a state or federal government telling a city not to do something so obviously beneficial to their residents.
Whenever an argument devolves into "obviously", it is usually wrong. I don't know that it is obvious that is it beneficial to all the residents. It's a great deal for those who want the service without paying the going commercial rate, but not so good for those who don't want or can't use the taxpayer-backed service. It is certainly not beneficial to the employees of the company that is being competed with unfairly, many of whom live in that same location.
No, it was $800, a hotel for the night, and a seat on the next available airplane, which was at 3PM the next day. You accept the deal, you're not getting your money for the ticket back.
But at that point, I have to ask, "Couldn't the airline just send the employees to the destination using ANY OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION for that much money?"
That aircrew that hands you free drinks has a federal law limiting their duty day and mandating rest periods. Taking 6 hours to drive them to their destination almost certainly means they will violate either or both, making them unavailable for the flight they were trying to deadhead to.
after that someone figured out that selling a business class ticket and having that person miss the flight was really losing money cause they could have sold two tickets for that seat.
It was losing money, but not because they can sell two tickets. It's because when they sell the seat once and that person doesn't fly, they carry either an explicit liability to refund the money (on refundable tickets) or provide service at a later date. And then they have an empty seat they COULD have sold to someone.
You make it sound like they get paid twice for the same seat, but they don't. They get the seats filled and someone has paid something for every seat, compared to empty seats that nobody paid for.
And a much more complex explicit contract. You should ask to see the "contract of carriage", which you agreed to by purchasing a ticket. It's part of the stuff you don't read when you click "buy".
VAT is an indirect (sales) tax, so it's collected alongside income tax.
VAT isn't very indirect, it is collected with every purchase. The only real difference between VAT and sales tax is that it is quoted as part of the purchase price while sales tax is a surprise at the register. Under VAT, a "10 pound widget" costs 10 pounds when you check out. Under sales tax, the 10 dollar widget winds up costing more.
The only upside to VAT is that I recall once being able to get a VAT refund by filing a form as I exited England. Since the sales tax is a state-level and below thing, getting a refund when you leave the US isn't happening.
As for "alongside the income tax", do you really mean that you pay income tax at the register at Sainsbury's just like you pay the VAT?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm using censorship in the correct fashion.
Your 'fashion' makes the term meaningless. You, yourself, are guilty of censorship under your use, since you chose what words you used and prevented yourself from using ones that you did not want. I "censor" my own postings here; you "censor" yours; others "censor" theirs. By choosing not to post to Twitter, I "censor" Twitter, and ditto Facebook and whatever else. Claiming "censorship" under such a definition is hardly an earth-shattering problem; it is so common that it is meaningless. The only possible use of the term "censorship", then, is to try to evoke the negative connotations of real censorship.
Using your definition, the only reasonable response to a cry of "censorship" is "so what?" Only when it comes to true, enforced censorship does it have any negative connotations. Who in the US truly censors any of the private companies you listed? If your only answer is like "Twitter is closing accounts of people who do X", then you haven't met the burden of proof.
When you point out the TV numbers alone it does not demonstrate the larger scope of the problem.
I pointed out "the TV numbers" because this discussion is about the FCC changing "the TV numbers". They can do nothing about the numbers overall because they do not regulate the vast majority of news sources. Trying to claim that this change will create "censorship" and "monopolies" of news is just silly. It's like saying that a store that refuses to carry M&M candies is trying to deprive the world of chocolate. There are so many other sources of chocolate that you won't go hungry no matter what that store doesn't sell you.
but off by about 10 years
"two decades, at least" means "twenty or more years". How can a statement that has no starting date be short by ten years?
GP is correct however, that people should be bothered about further monopolization.
Changing the 39% value doesn't mean there will become a news monopoly, nor would changing the UHF discount. And considering the huge number of news sources today, claiming that anyone had a monopoly on providing it is just patently absurd.
Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, all being censored.
I understand that you are using the term "censored" in the modern, meaningless sense, hoping to evoke fear based on true censorship. None of those media are being censored, at least not in the US. Yes, German laws regarding Nazi material (as one example), that's true censorship, but we're talking about US Federal regulation of media ownership, which is based on US law, not German.
The phrase Super Mighty in English sounds childish. It's meant to diminish the perceived threat from North Korea.
The problem with your argument is that this phrase was used by North Korea itself, reported by Reuters:
It is easy to forget while living in countries where the press is free and is expected to publish things that make the government look bad, that places like North Korea don't have such freedoms, and certainly not when you consider that the source is the official publication of the ruling political party.
Do you believe that North Korea used this phrase to deliberately diminish the seriousness of their threat?
That's the kind of propaganda that'll be everywhere, not just on the major Cable networks.
I hadn't heard the phrase before, so I did a quick google for it. It seems to be everywhere, not just the major cable networks. ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, USA Today, and The Telegraph are all hits high on the list.
I think it is a good thing when such statements are aired openly and by every news organization. I don't see how loosening the cap on coverage areas is going to change this specific situation at all. I also think that concerns about billionaires buying up media and manipulating the news are about two decades, at least, too late. It doesn't require just one billionaire buying all the news media to have this happen, just the fact that billionaires are in charge of setting news policy for the ones they already own.
Bernard Goldberg wrote a book about his experiences at CBS. It's a fascinating read, and it was written almost 20 years ago.
Since when does "whoosh" mean "wow you just skewered me".
In this use, "whoosh" meant "not only did you fail to correctly identify the relevant point of the comment you replied to, you proved the point that was being made." Thank you.
Why does that need a separate decree, rather than just being prosecuted...?
Because to prosecute someone for taking secret pictures of someone in the shower, you need to prove that that specific person took the pictures.
To prosecute someone for posting them online, you only need to prove they posted them.
They may have been taken years before they were posted, or they may have been taken by someone else. They may have been taken with permission, but not with permission to post.
I think anyone who doesn't care, is uninterested in maintaining a rePUBLIC based on trust between the elites and the drones
That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist. Now it is good to care about promises.
God, I wish /. could get back to the topics it was created for and stop being this political discussion hellhole.
while using a $100+ Garman device mounted to the exact same spot for the exact same purpose is legal.
The Oregon law as introduced makes no such distinction. It would be a "mobile electronic device" being used for navigation. And Garmin has a pretty large facility in Salem, OR...
In this configuration, futzing with it is exactly like someone futzing with their stereo controls.
The proposed Oregon legislation that I linked to earlier would make this use of your mobile device illegal.
Standards for "car-safe" apps when hooked to a BT source would be a really good start.
My HTC phone has a "car" mode with limited apps. I never use it since I never find myself needing the artificial nanny to keep me from texting. It is interesting that some of the apps in the limited set include navigation, music, phone, and texting (at least receiving them -- "car" wants permission to access SMS.)
I can use all the basic controls in my car without looking.
Not everyone can, because not everyone memorizes where they are or which function is at which detent. And advanced controls are worse. But then, there are people who can operate their phone without looking at it, too, so if the controls of your vehicle are exempt from consideration as distractions, so to should cell phones be exempted.
Note that the "controls" of your vehicle would include the display from your Sirius radio, and if you don't think that looking at the display to see the name of the artist playing that song you're listening to is a distraction, then you don't own a Sirius radio.
The problem is, the issue is not what highly capable people can and are doing, it is what normal people do. Normal people are distracted by tuning the radio and other people in the car.
I don't care what someone does with their phone while driving, as long as they don't have to look at it.
Perhaps you missed the point that I was making, in that the argument about distracted driving that most people make regarding phones applies just as much to a lot of other things, like tuning the radio, and sometimes even just listening to it.
But that's not what happens - people read social media while driving, FFS.
Sadly, while that is the way the argument against using cell phones while driving is typically presented, eliminating that is not the result that anti-phone zealots seek. They wish the elimination of the "use" of phones, not just the obviously serious distractions they can present.
Oregon House Bill 2597 says, in part:
The emphasis is mine. The law is specific in saying that you cannot use them for entertainment (playing audio) or for navigation. That means it would be illegal to start up a five hour audio book on your cell phone to listen to during your one hour commute, even though you don't have to touch the phone in any way from the time you press play while parked in your garage until you press "stop" after parking at work. "Any purpose" would be illegal. As is just holding it in your hand.
But holding a cup of coffee in your hand is not illegal.
The existing Oregon law has exemptions for ham and other licensed radio operators, and people participating in emergency service or public safety activities, but those exemptions would be removed.
So, while you cry about "people read[ing] social media", stopping just that is not the goal. If eliminating distracted driving were the true goal, then there would be a law that children under the age of 14 would need to be stored in the trunk.
I would argue that there be sanity in any regulation on "distracting" devices. Either accept that there are a lot of them and go after them all, permanently installed or not, or accept that there are times when it is NOT a problem for someone to use a cell phone in a car.
For example, while at a complete stop at a red light. OMG, someone stepped out in front of your car and you didn't see them! BFD. You aren't moving, and the only way they will come in contact with your car is if they walk into it themselves. They can do that whether or not I'm changing the playlist on my audio player.
With a smart phone, it is not in a predictable location (your hand, the seat, a holder in the dash, your pocket, maybe the floor).
Really? I cannot predict that my phone is in the mount that I've put it in when I got into the car? I would not notice if the phone, which is mounted right above the steering wheel, has fallen out and wound up on the floor? Really? I would not notice if the phone, which has had a power cable attached, is now swinging right in front of my face?
Smart phone interfaces are not specifically designed for driving, where the native car controls are.
So you are really trying to argue that tuning the radio, or even listening to the radio (and maybe shouting at the commentator because he's said something stupid), is NOT a distraction? Really? That looking at the climate control knob to make sure you've selected "heat to feet only" or to select the proper button so you get rear window defrost, is NOT a distraction from driving? Really? (I've had my current car for 12 years and I still have to look at the knob to know which setting it is on, and which button of the three is rear defrost. It's just not something I waste time memorizing.)
I'm sorry, but this argument about how "distracted driving is bad" that ignores the fact that EVERYONE has distractions while driving is disingenuous. Whether it is the radio, the climate control, the person sitting in the front seat you are talking to, or the kids in the back who are screaming "make him stop touching me", drivers have distractions ALL THE TIME.
Sure, some newer cars are going to screen based interfaces, and this is a bad trend,
You've just argued that built-in controls are designed to be used while driving, and then pointed out that they aren't.
but at least these screens are mounted to the dash and car companies have some responsibility (and potential liability) around making these interfaces non-distracting,
Ok, I thought you were making a serious argument. My mistake.
P.S. Dewey didn't beat Truman, even if the survey said he did.
See, and stupid reasoning like yours is why we have monopolies.
No, we had monopolies because we had nearly complete control of the franchise process by local authorities, who offered exclusive franchises in exchange for service requirements. When federal regulation removed that control of the franchise process, they also removed the ability to create exclusive franchises. That was so long ago that any exclusive franchises have expired.
It's too bad that you don't know history here, or you'd know that it was not federal regulations that created exclusive franchises (monopolies), it was the very same "local authorities" that you think should regain more control. If you let them do it again, why do you think they wouldn't do it again?
And to address that stupid reasoning, you propose even more stupid solutions.
I'm sorry, but just what solution did you think I was proposing? I asked someone else what kind of solution they were proposing.
Generally speaking, protecting individual property rights and allowing more local decision making.
Given that the problems of cable monopolies came about because of "more local decision making", I don't see how you can think that "more local decision making" would result in more competition.
A city council for a city with a population of 1M should not have much power deciding what happens in individual neighborhoods.
ISPs don't operate on an "individual neighborhood" basis. "Individual neighborhoods" don't have a political structure that can enter into contracts or manage infrastructure, and yes, if that "individual neighborhood" is part of the city that elected the city council, the city council has the authority. If you and your neighbors don't want to be part of the city politics, don't vote to approve annexation.
it would probably be better if the federal government got rid of regulations, and perhaps also forced local governments to allow more competition.
Do you realize that it is federal government regulation that has eliminated exclusive franchises for cable companies? Poof went their legal monopolies. And, of course, ISPs have NEVER had monopolies from the local government.
What new kind of legislation or regulation do you see that wouldn't overstep federal limits but would force local governments to "allow more competition" when the regulations that currently exist say they have to allow competition?
No one sees an "additional charge",
Yes, sir, people who pay sales tax in the US see an additional charge at the end of the bill, applied to the sum of all items that are subject to sales tax. What people who pay VAT see is one price on the shelf and/or price tag and that is the price they are charged at the checkout. That's the difference the customer sees, and for most people, that's the only real difference between VAT and sales tax.
Let's look at how this started. Your original statement:
Be honest. My original statement was refuting the claim that VAT was an indirect tax. Everything after that was supporting that. And it does. The only real difference is exactly what I claimed -- what's hidden from the customer under the hood makes no difference to them.
because there are significant differences between a sales tax and a VAT that are not readily visible at a retail checkout.
Which makes those differences IRRELEVANT to them. That you consider them "significant" doesn't change the reality of what the customer who pays them sees, and it doesn't change a direct tax into some "indirect" one.
just yesterday, I rented a Virtual Private Server and the price quoted was 5 pounds. At checkout, I was surprised to see VAT was added
So even YOU expected the price you were quoted to include VAT already, which only proves my point for me. If you didn't expect it to have VAT included already, then it wouldn't be a surprise when it was added later.
As a customer, you don't.
And since the vast majority of people deal with VAT as customers, that's the reality they see.
However, when you are spouting falsehoods like this: "The only real difference between VAT and sales tax is that it is quoted as part of the purchase price while sales tax is a surprise at the register" in a discussion about taxation, then you (or perhaps other readers) should care.
You've completely ignored my repeated explanations that I'm talking about what most people see, and what the effective ("real") difference is between the two. It doesn't matter at all if you remit part of what to who, it matters what people see when they pay it.
There is nothing inherent in VAT that means it must be included in the price.
Except that it almost always is.
In fact, in the UK, for many goods, intended for sale to other businesses,
And I've told you ad nauseum that I'm discussing this taxation system from the viewpoint of the people who pay those taxes not the resellers. You want to show how smart you are by talking about the legal differences, but that's not how people who pay these taxes think of them, and I've told you more than once that that's the context of my statement.
That's also why the billionaires get away with paying so little in taxes, there's things like the AMT (make over X, pay only Y),
You do realize, I hope, that the AMT is an ALTERNATIVE tax that is HIGHER than the regular tax rate. It is specifically so that people cannot get away with paying "too little" in taxes.
We actually lean toward personal wealth, the greater good be damned.
You assume that "taxation" is "the greater good", which is an opinion that is not universally held. Some people think letting people keep what they work for so they can provide for their family and not rely on handouts from everyone else is a greater good.
I really don't think that you understand the difference.
I really don't think you understand that I don't care about the legal or minor differences. For MOST PEOPLE, who are just shopping at the store, VAT is really no different than a sales tax except for the "real" difference I pointed out.
It makes ZERO DIFFERENCE if you as a seller remit VAT on only the difference between what you paid for a chair and what you sell it for. The CUSTOMER, the MOST PEOPLE who are shopping in your store, pay the full VAT and it doesn't matter to them that you remit part of it to the the tax office and write the other part off as a cost or whatever the hell you do with it.
In the US sales tax scenario, I charge the full sales tax, but I remit all of it to the tax office.
Tell me why I, as a customer, give a shit whether you remit it all or remit none or any percentage in between. What I SEE is an additional charge added to my bill at checkout, whereas with VAT I am told the full, complete price for an object before I pick it up. THAT is the "real difference" I spoke of, and that's what most people see.
I don't think that you understand the "Value Added" part of VAT.
I understand VAT very well, thank you. MOST people pay VAT as just another sales tax. And in your example, you pay VAT on the $1 and your customer pays VAT on the $1 profit you make. You have to charge more for the item, so actually they're paying the entire VAT, and it is based on the price they pay.
I said the only "real" difference, which doesn't mean there is only one difference.
With a sales tax, the whole amount is collected at every stage, with exceptions for resellers.
In other words, YOU, when you buy for $1 and sell for $2.
it some how implies that a collection of people working for a common cause has less rights than say a megacorp headed by maybe as few as a single person.
When that "collection of people" is a government that has entered a contract with the "megacorp" to require certain conditions be met for them to be allowed to operate within that jurisdiction, and then the same "collection of people" decides to directly compete with that corporation without requiring any of the same conditions, yes, they should have "less rights". They entered into the contract and now want to compete without playing the same game.
You also can't have a state or federal government telling a city not to do something so obviously beneficial to their residents.
Whenever an argument devolves into "obviously", it is usually wrong. I don't know that it is obvious that is it beneficial to all the residents. It's a great deal for those who want the service without paying the going commercial rate, but not so good for those who don't want or can't use the taxpayer-backed service. It is certainly not beneficial to the employees of the company that is being competed with unfairly, many of whom live in that same location.
I assume they mean $800 + a ticket refund.
No, it was $800, a hotel for the night, and a seat on the next available airplane, which was at 3PM the next day. You accept the deal, you're not getting your money for the ticket back.
But at that point, I have to ask, "Couldn't the airline just send the employees to the destination using ANY OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION for that much money?"
That aircrew that hands you free drinks has a federal law limiting their duty day and mandating rest periods. Taking 6 hours to drive them to their destination almost certainly means they will violate either or both, making them unavailable for the flight they were trying to deadhead to.
after that someone figured out that selling a business class ticket and having that person miss the flight was really losing money cause they could have sold two tickets for that seat.
It was losing money, but not because they can sell two tickets. It's because when they sell the seat once and that person doesn't fly, they carry either an explicit liability to refund the money (on refundable tickets) or provide service at a later date. And then they have an empty seat they COULD have sold to someone.
You make it sound like they get paid twice for the same seat, but they don't. They get the seats filled and someone has paid something for every seat, compared to empty seats that nobody paid for.
We have a simple implied contract:
And a much more complex explicit contract. You should ask to see the "contract of carriage", which you agreed to by purchasing a ticket. It's part of the stuff you don't read when you click "buy".
VAT is an indirect (sales) tax, so it's collected alongside income tax.
VAT isn't very indirect, it is collected with every purchase. The only real difference between VAT and sales tax is that it is quoted as part of the purchase price while sales tax is a surprise at the register. Under VAT, a "10 pound widget" costs 10 pounds when you check out. Under sales tax, the 10 dollar widget winds up costing more.
The only upside to VAT is that I recall once being able to get a VAT refund by filing a form as I exited England. Since the sales tax is a state-level and below thing, getting a refund when you leave the US isn't happening.
As for "alongside the income tax", do you really mean that you pay income tax at the register at Sainsbury's just like you pay the VAT?