By your definition, the same clause allows the federal government to use taxes to pay down debts for individuals citizens (or the sum of the debt of its citizens).
Certainly, as long as we're not talking about bills of attainder. The Federal government does use taxes to pay down some debts. You have such a minority viewpoint that approximately nobody in the judiciary branch seems to agree with you.
Depends on the laws in force. There's laws around here about holding too noisy a party at night. I don't know that there's laws about owning a place where there is a noisy party, and those laws would cause problems.
Given long-term tenants, the landlord will typically have difficulty in evicting them, and the tenants can be held responsible for their own behavior, so it makes sense to ticket the tenants. Having transient tenants, as you say, requires different laws, and if there's going to be new laws it's just as easy to ban transient rentals. The fines for noisy parties would also have to be high enough to not be just a cost of doing business, and that could be prohibitive in itself.
It doesn't say anything particularly about a debt incurred for a good or service It does say it's legal tender for a debt. It says people don't have to accept cash as payment for goods and services, but they do for payment of a debt. If my local grocery store decides to stop accepting cash, it's their decision (and probably a bad one), since there's never any debt. I get a cart of stuff, pay for it, and then it's mine. I think you're reading more into the text than is actually there.
Suppose my tax bill arrives, and I'm in a personal liquidity crunch, so I sell some stock to pay it. I owe capital gains on that stock. Similarly, if you bought Bitcoin at $400 each and am paying the state while they're worth $8K each, you will owe capital gains.
Are you talking about places where a sale occurs, or where a debt is incurred? If you owe someone $100, a $100 bill is legally payment. If you're making a deal to buy something, then you can do it on any mutually acceptable terms, and includes payment type. If your shoe store doesn't accept cash, that's legal. You're not creating a debt. If you go to a restaurant and order a meal and the bill comes later, that's a debt.
The state is unlikely to come out and say "You owe us 0.3865 bitcoin for your state taxes." They're much more likely to say "You owe us $X in state taxes, and we'll accept cash, check, credit card, bank transfer, or Bitcoin." That $X is what you deduct on your Federal taxes. (If you still do. I understand the last tax cut made a whole lot of changes.)
Just check with your accountant before relying on that. The IRS is likely to send you a letter saying something like "Did you forget this? Send a check for $X and all is forgiven.:"
Let's take a look at the WWII Bismarck. Inefficient armor layout (much like the last WWI German battleship, when the layout was obsolescent anyway), half of the main AA guns couldn't depress low enough to hit British torpedo bombers, the 37mm AA guns were single-shot, and, out of ten hits with the main battery on the Prince of Wales, precisely zero exploded the way they should.
100 years ago was 1918, so we're talking about battleships of roughly 325-0,000 tons. The Zumwalt class is between 14,000 and 15,000 tons, which is a lot less. Drop back another 20 years and the British would consider it a touch small for a first-rate battleship.
I'm not sure how comparable the figures are. The older figures would be for the ship ready for sea but not fully fueled or provisioned, soft of an average of what it would be on patrol. During WWII, the figures normally quoted were roughly equivalent. Since then, I don't know if they're doing WWI normal displacement, WWII standard displacement, or full load (which would result in Zumwalt''s displacement being higher than it would have been rated before).
The same way the weight has increased too much in the past, I'd think. Design a ship to carry X tons of whatever. Decide it needs additional roles or additional equipment in its current roles, and add Y tons of whatever to accomplish that. Suddenly, duh, the ship is a lot lower in the water. Rinse and repeat, and hope it doesn't sink before it gets well out of the harbor.
We've got better tools now, sure, but earlier naval architects had ways to estimate the weight of the loaded ship and such. They took longer and weren't as precise, but they worked well enough.
So, I'm going to say the ships are overwieght for much the same reason as emacs handles mail and has built-in games.
Succeeding classes of dreadnoughts weren't really all that different from the last. They kept growing and getting better, but slowly. The engine type (in the RN) didn't change. The general armor(armour?) layout didn't change. The armament changed significantly, and the turret arrangement, but that didn't affect the basic ship.
That's the sharing economy, when it works well. There's also the people who own cars and houses and pretend to be part of the sharing economy. At least for AirBnB, that's where the main trouble comes from.
Also, annoyed neighbors call their elected officials and tell them to stop the problem or get kicked out next election. City elected officials are generally pretty close to their constituents, and have to take them seriously. Given an AirBnB house on a block, there's probably several people who will vote against anyone who wants that to continue, and many fewer voting in favor of the house.
So, exactly what are the neighbors supposed to do about it? They can phone in individual minor complaints to the police or other authorities. That's not going to get them very far. A police officer might show up to a noisy party at 2AM and tell the people to keep it down. The noise will then quiet until, say, 2:05 or 2:10. If the police officer writes tickets, the visitors are likely to tear them up, since they're from out of town, and in any case there will be a new noisy group in the next weekend.
How is one of the neighbors going to get the landlord to clean up the place?
Politics is the art of the possible. It's possible to make renting out homes in residential areas to short-term tenants illegal. It's not possible to make those tenants behave, or to make an absentee landlord keep the place up.
When I want to buy something, I usually have several choices. Some of them involve going somewhere the item is offered for sale, buying it, and having it immediately. That can be a lot better than saving some money and getting Amazon Prime shipping.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly, as long as we're not talking about bills of attainder. The Federal government does use taxes to pay down some debts. You have such a minority viewpoint that approximately nobody in the judiciary branch seems to agree with you.
Depends on the laws in force. There's laws around here about holding too noisy a party at night. I don't know that there's laws about owning a place where there is a noisy party, and those laws would cause problems.
Given long-term tenants, the landlord will typically have difficulty in evicting them, and the tenants can be held responsible for their own behavior, so it makes sense to ticket the tenants. Having transient tenants, as you say, requires different laws, and if there's going to be new laws it's just as easy to ban transient rentals. The fines for noisy parties would also have to be high enough to not be just a cost of doing business, and that could be prohibitive in itself.
It did. The USN seriously lagged in adopting turbines.
It doesn't say anything particularly about a debt incurred for a good or service It does say it's legal tender for a debt. It says people don't have to accept cash as payment for goods and services, but they do for payment of a debt. If my local grocery store decides to stop accepting cash, it's their decision (and probably a bad one), since there's never any debt. I get a cart of stuff, pay for it, and then it's mine. I think you're reading more into the text than is actually there.
You left out "Thirdly, you are telling the state that you personally control a certain wallet, so they can associate all your transactions with you."
Suppose my tax bill arrives, and I'm in a personal liquidity crunch, so I sell some stock to pay it. I owe capital gains on that stock. Similarly, if you bought Bitcoin at $400 each and am paying the state while they're worth $8K each, you will owe capital gains.
I don't see any other way Arizona could do it, Constitutionally. No state can make legal tender out of anything except silver or gold.
Are you talking about places where a sale occurs, or where a debt is incurred? If you owe someone $100, a $100 bill is legally payment. If you're making a deal to buy something, then you can do it on any mutually acceptable terms, and includes payment type. If your shoe store doesn't accept cash, that's legal. You're not creating a debt. If you go to a restaurant and order a meal and the bill comes later, that's a debt.
The state is unlikely to come out and say "You owe us 0.3865 bitcoin for your state taxes." They're much more likely to say "You owe us $X in state taxes, and we'll accept cash, check, credit card, bank transfer, or Bitcoin." That $X is what you deduct on your Federal taxes. (If you still do. I understand the last tax cut made a whole lot of changes.)
That is a big step, but you'll still have to do your accounting in dollars.
Just check with your accountant before relying on that. The IRS is likely to send you a letter saying something like "Did you forget this? Send a check for $X and all is forgiven.:"
Let's take a look at the WWII Bismarck. Inefficient armor layout (much like the last WWI German battleship, when the layout was obsolescent anyway), half of the main AA guns couldn't depress low enough to hit British torpedo bombers, the 37mm AA guns were single-shot, and, out of ten hits with the main battery on the Prince of Wales, precisely zero exploded the way they should.
And the Ranger design sucked. The following carrier, the Yorktown, was built to an excellent design.
100 years ago was 1918, so we're talking about battleships of roughly 325-0,000 tons. The Zumwalt class is between 14,000 and 15,000 tons, which is a lot less. Drop back another 20 years and the British would consider it a touch small for a first-rate battleship.
I'm not sure how comparable the figures are. The older figures would be for the ship ready for sea but not fully fueled or provisioned, soft of an average of what it would be on patrol. During WWII, the figures normally quoted were roughly equivalent. Since then, I don't know if they're doing WWI normal displacement, WWII standard displacement, or full load (which would result in Zumwalt''s displacement being higher than it would have been rated before).
Submarines, no matter how big, are traditionally "boats".
The same way the weight has increased too much in the past, I'd think. Design a ship to carry X tons of whatever. Decide it needs additional roles or additional equipment in its current roles, and add Y tons of whatever to accomplish that. Suddenly, duh, the ship is a lot lower in the water. Rinse and repeat, and hope it doesn't sink before it gets well out of the harbor.
We've got better tools now, sure, but earlier naval architects had ways to estimate the weight of the loaded ship and such. They took longer and weren't as precise, but they worked well enough.
So, I'm going to say the ships are overwieght for much the same reason as emacs handles mail and has built-in games.
Succeeding classes of dreadnoughts weren't really all that different from the last. They kept growing and getting better, but slowly. The engine type (in the RN) didn't change. The general armor(armour?) layout didn't change. The armament changed significantly, and the turret arrangement, but that didn't affect the basic ship.
That's the sharing economy, when it works well. There's also the people who own cars and houses and pretend to be part of the sharing economy. At least for AirBnB, that's where the main trouble comes from.
Also, annoyed neighbors call their elected officials and tell them to stop the problem or get kicked out next election. City elected officials are generally pretty close to their constituents, and have to take them seriously. Given an AirBnB house on a block, there's probably several people who will vote against anyone who wants that to continue, and many fewer voting in favor of the house.
So, exactly what are the neighbors supposed to do about it? They can phone in individual minor complaints to the police or other authorities. That's not going to get them very far. A police officer might show up to a noisy party at 2AM and tell the people to keep it down. The noise will then quiet until, say, 2:05 or 2:10. If the police officer writes tickets, the visitors are likely to tear them up, since they're from out of town, and in any case there will be a new noisy group in the next weekend. How is one of the neighbors going to get the landlord to clean up the place?
Politics is the art of the possible. It's possible to make renting out homes in residential areas to short-term tenants illegal. It's not possible to make those tenants behave, or to make an absentee landlord keep the place up.
In any functioning democracy, guns don't matter. Votes matter. The guns are there behind it all, but they don't vote.
When I want to buy something, I usually have several choices. Some of them involve going somewhere the item is offered for sale, buying it, and having it immediately. That can be a lot better than saving some money and getting Amazon Prime shipping.
Lots of families have two or more cars, only one of which has to be suitable for road trips. The other could easily be a Leaf.
Tesla does not make spacecraft. That's Space-X.
And, yes, if Tesla crashes, it's still had a significant and positive effect on society. Space-X certainly has.
He did get the right to say that Tesla made the fastest production car in the Solar System.