Stock market typically makes 8% a year after inflation. 8%-5% = a profit of 3%.
More importantly, the 5% a year allows for a minimal (couple hundred thousand, or even a million) amount untaxed.
As for renting everything, that drops the price of real estate. Which means that poor people could afford a place - particularly if it was under the minimal untaxed.
And guess what, when real estate prices drop, that means rent drop.
Your understanding of basic economics is flawed. You can't just look one step out, you need to look out multiple steps.
The 5% number I used actually works even if you exempt the first million dollars of wealth.
As for wealthy avoiding taxes, they do it already. It is fact much HARDER to hide wealth than it is to hide income. Because people can claim that the income never existed merely by spending it, or by hiding the source of it. But it is much harder to evade a tax on wealth because we don't care where it came from, and we can simply insist you show us what happened to the wealth. Oh, you had 2.3 million last year and earned another million this year? That means you now have 3.3 million, show us the receipts to prove that you don't have that much. Oh, it was destroyed? Show us the insurance check. What, you mean you didn't have insurance? Bull. You want us to believe something that stupid, then show us the police report and the MULTIPLE investigations that prove it.
Property taxes are MUCH harder to evade. First of all, most of the wealth in the US is actual real estate. Try claiming that your land vanishes. We just need to put more taxes on things like
As for grating to you, all taxes are grating. The fact that you don't like it is proof it's a good idea.
Provide evidence please. Because your concept is bad.
Profits taxes the poor MORE than property tax. Because profits include your salary.
The only reason you think property tax affects the poor is because people that pay income tax AND property tax can't afford both. You foolish object to the property tax instead of objecting to the income tax.
You can tax consumption (tax when purchasing). It discourages purchasing, is by nature regressive (i.e. taxes poor more than wealthy), and will often tax people who government is providing benefits to because they are poor and not perhaps not even working (including the sick, children, and elderly).
You can tax profits (income tax),. It neither discourages nor encourages anything because any tax less than 100% still leaves you ahead when you profit. It is by nature neither progressive nor regressive, and will occasionally tax the working poor, but not the sick, children, or elderly.
Finally, you can tax wealth (property tax). It encourages investment because if the thing you buy is not profitable, then it is costing you money. It is by nature progressive, as poor people don't save anything.
The simplest and best tax is clearly a tax on wealth. It should not be limited to just property, but also include tax on anything worth more than a hundred thousand dollars (luxury cars, jewelry, stocks, annuities, mutual funds, bonds, etc.) A mere 5% tax on said objects would allow us to end the income tax (note, 5% is accurate, because we own so much of this kind of property, far more than the entire yearly income - which would require a flat tax of 20%).
As for the idea that capital should be taxed differently than labor, it is merely propaganda for the wealthy.
The reason Bush and Cheney did not shout it out was that Republicans made them and sold them to bad guys. All of those weapons, while not reported by the news during the 2nd war, were reported after the first Iraq war.
Bush and Cheney specifically said that they were looking for facilities to make new weapons. Specifically nuclear weapons and biological weapons, with maybe some new chemical weapons. But that was not a big deal, because we knew they had saved some chemical weapons. That was a known thing, and not new.
After the first Iraq war, we destroyed massive stockpiles of chemical weapons but we knew we could not have gotten them all. We had however destroyed the factories.
They specific claims made by Bush and Cheney were for factories capable of making weapons, and the main fear was bio and nuke, not more chemicals.
The factories are the most important thing, and this new information does not indicate that Iraq had kept or created any new factories at all. It is entirely about old stockpiles of chemical, not biological nor nuclear weapons that were never destroyed during the first war. Some of them were used in the second war. Others apparently may have survived to be used by ISIS.
But no one has made a credible claim for new factories that successfully made chemical weapons after the first Iraq war, let alone ever making biological or nuclear weapons
I did read the article. Did you read my entire comment?
I was saying that yes people ignore the safety lecture, because it is stupid. Ninety five percent of people have already heard it.
More importantly, my point was that the law is not there to make the flight attendants job easier, no matter how worthy they are. Similarly, the law doesn't let cops listen to everyone's phone calls just because it would make their job easier.
Laws are there to prevent dangerous behavior, not to help people do their job - even if their job is safety related.
That is, people have the right to ignore the safety lecture, especially considering it is the exact same thing EVERY single flight.
You want people to actually listen to it? Fine. Put a machine in the waiting area and require people to enter the machine and listen to the speech for 30 seconds, before being given a 'boarding order.'.
True. But the majority of inventions are modified versions of existing things with improvements.
The value of slight changes can be VERY significant.
Think of the first guy to ever rifle a long gun. Long guns had grooves before, they were just not consistent. Making those grooves consistent and using ammo that expanded just enough to catch them made a HUGE difference.
The linkage to transfer the weight to the ground is just such a huge improvement. They had to design it special so that it bore the weight, but still let your heels touch the ground.
Look, if the police actually think that large notes are an indication of criminal activity, then they should KEEP them, just pass rules that let bankers and other people notify the police when someone uses them.
It just like those illegal craigslist advertisements - the police should LOVE them because it makes it easier to identify a criminal.
It is pretty darn effective at getting people to talk.
Passwords however can be easily verified. As such, you can torture people to get a password, while you can not torture people to find out if they committed the crime.
The point of cleaning up a messy room or of arresting criminals is not to keep everything spotless.
Instead it is to manage the mess so that it does not get out of hand.
You personally may choose to live in a world with no one ever cleans up the mess. But the rest of us like having the dirt cleaned up sometimes, even if it never gets rid of all the dirt.
You personally only get mail from a specific kind of account.
Your spam filters are set up to deny lots of emails that are obviously not someone you are interested in. For example, I bet you can kill any email that contains chinese.
Google can not do that because while for YOU an email in Chinese is a huge red flag, it means nothing to the chinese american student living in New York who still gets emails from her cousin in Hong Kong.
Most of the decisions you make are like this one. For you, country, language, etc. etc. are indications of spam, but they are not true for the general population.
So a spam filter designed for your personal use will always work a lot better than one designed for all users of google.
I see nothing wrong with taking the photos. But using digital seems foolish.
There is no reason to use a cellphone camera.
Buy a POLAROID and use that.
Let there be nudity, but don't put it on a computer or the internet. Of course, I don't have a Facebook account because they are way too expensive (in terms of what they take from you for what they get).
Similarly, I don't walk through Harlem dressed like Bruce Willis in Die Hard with a Vengeance.
First, if it's just about money, it is at best moderately significant. And the gaming industry is moderately significant. No one will die, no one will go to jail no matter what the gaming industry does.
Because Gaming is a 90 billion dollar industry. So if the GAME DESIGNERS were corrupt, you would have a point.
Game reviewing is not a 90 billion dollar industry. Frankly, if it hit 1 billion worthless industry I would be surprised. I bet it is in the 10s of millions.
Because we are merely talking about the corrupt people that review games, not the people that build the games, it is INSIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
They don't matter. Everyone knows they are corrupt and the power they have over whether a game gets made is insignificant.
1) I agree that is what they are thinking.
2) But it is NOT valid.
The problem with your argument isPeople already have a legal right to that information.. If you read the article, you would see that he specfically referenced an Australian law that says they HAVE to give out the information.
So I congratulate you on your logic, but am sorely disappointed in both your knowledge of Australian law and in failing to read the article.
They have to fulfill Australia's law. If they failed to store the data in a way that let them satisfy Australia's law, that is THEIR problem, not his.
At the very least, they could call every number on the list and ask the recipient if their number was unlisted. If the number's owner said no, then they could provide it. If the recipient said yes, they could reasonably withhold that number..
NPP section 6 says: "Gives individuals a general right of access to their personal information, and the right to have that information corrected if it is inaccurate, incomplete or out-of-date."
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, the 5% a year allows for a minimal (couple hundred thousand, or even a million) amount untaxed.
As for renting everything, that drops the price of real estate. Which means that poor people could afford a place - particularly if it was under the minimal untaxed.
And guess what, when real estate prices drop, that means rent drop.
Your understanding of basic economics is flawed. You can't just look one step out, you need to look out multiple steps.
As for wealthy avoiding taxes, they do it already. It is fact much HARDER to hide wealth than it is to hide income. Because people can claim that the income never existed merely by spending it, or by hiding the source of it. But it is much harder to evade a tax on wealth because we don't care where it came from, and we can simply insist you show us what happened to the wealth. Oh, you had 2.3 million last year and earned another million this year? That means you now have 3.3 million, show us the receipts to prove that you don't have that much. Oh, it was destroyed? Show us the insurance check. What, you mean you didn't have insurance? Bull. You want us to believe something that stupid, then show us the police report and the MULTIPLE investigations that prove it.
Property taxes are MUCH harder to evade. First of all, most of the wealth in the US is actual real estate. Try claiming that your land vanishes. We just need to put more taxes on things like
As for grating to you, all taxes are grating. The fact that you don't like it is proof it's a good idea.
Profits taxes the poor MORE than property tax. Because profits include your salary.
The only reason you think property tax affects the poor is because people that pay income tax AND property tax can't afford both. You foolish object to the property tax instead of objecting to the income tax.
You can tax profits (income tax),. It neither discourages nor encourages anything because any tax less than 100% still leaves you ahead when you profit. It is by nature neither progressive nor regressive, and will occasionally tax the working poor, but not the sick, children, or elderly.
Finally, you can tax wealth (property tax). It encourages investment because if the thing you buy is not profitable, then it is costing you money. It is by nature progressive, as poor people don't save anything.
The simplest and best tax is clearly a tax on wealth. It should not be limited to just property, but also include tax on anything worth more than a hundred thousand dollars (luxury cars, jewelry, stocks, annuities, mutual funds, bonds, etc.) A mere 5% tax on said objects would allow us to end the income tax (note, 5% is accurate, because we own so much of this kind of property, far more than the entire yearly income - which would require a flat tax of 20%).
As for the idea that capital should be taxed differently than labor, it is merely propaganda for the wealthy.
Bush and Cheney specifically said that they were looking for facilities to make new weapons. Specifically nuclear weapons and biological weapons, with maybe some new chemical weapons. But that was not a big deal, because we knew they had saved some chemical weapons. That was a known thing, and not new.
After the first Iraq war, we destroyed massive stockpiles of chemical weapons but we knew we could not have gotten them all. We had however destroyed the factories.
They specific claims made by Bush and Cheney were for factories capable of making weapons, and the main fear was bio and nuke, not more chemicals.
The factories are the most important thing, and this new information does not indicate that Iraq had kept or created any new factories at all. It is entirely about old stockpiles of chemical, not biological nor nuclear weapons that were never destroyed during the first war. Some of them were used in the second war. Others apparently may have survived to be used by ISIS.
But no one has made a credible claim for new factories that successfully made chemical weapons after the first Iraq war, let alone ever making biological or nuclear weapons
More importantly, my point was that the law is not there to make the flight attendants job easier, no matter how worthy they are. Similarly, the law doesn't let cops listen to everyone's phone calls just because it would make their job easier.
That's like saying New Jedi Religion is the fastest growing religion in America because it just went from one worshiper to two.
Aboujt 1 /week. I think more people are killed by hammers than Ebola.
Shocked, I say. To find out that the loser of a major World War (twice) lost their per-eminent place in scientific literature.
Perfect. Tell those financial organizations that they are under increased scrutiny and start auditing their books.
That is, people have the right to ignore the safety lecture, especially considering it is the exact same thing EVERY single flight.
You want people to actually listen to it? Fine. Put a machine in the waiting area and require people to enter the machine and listen to the speech for 30 seconds, before being given a 'boarding order.'.
But these complaints are just silly.
The value of slight changes can be VERY significant.
Think of the first guy to ever rifle a long gun. Long guns had grooves before, they were just not consistent. Making those grooves consistent and using ammo that expanded just enough to catch them made a HUGE difference.
The linkage to transfer the weight to the ground is just such a huge improvement. They had to design it special so that it bore the weight, but still let your heels touch the ground.
It just like those illegal craigslist advertisements - the police should LOVE them because it makes it easier to identify a criminal.
It is pretty darn effective at getting people to talk.
Passwords however can be easily verified. As such, you can torture people to get a password, while you can not torture people to find out if they committed the crime.
The equivalent of putting a luggage lock on your luggage, as opposed to a real lock.
Among other things, it will discourage people from reusing a slashdot password for something that matters.
Instead it is to manage the mess so that it does not get out of hand.
You personally may choose to live in a world with no one ever cleans up the mess. But the rest of us like having the dirt cleaned up sometimes, even if it never gets rid of all the dirt.
The same thing applies to Forget Me requests.
But the law needs to be fixed the other way around. I.e. The woman should be held responsible for her actions with the sperm, not the guy.
Similarly, the man that receives the photos should not be allowed to do with them what he wants.
Google can not do that because while for YOU an email in Chinese is a huge red flag, it means nothing to the chinese american student living in New York who still gets emails from her cousin in Hong Kong.
Most of the decisions you make are like this one. For you, country, language, etc. etc. are indications of spam, but they are not true for the general population.
So a spam filter designed for your personal use will always work a lot better than one designed for all users of google.
There is no reason to use a cellphone camera.
Buy a POLAROID and use that.
Let there be nudity, but don't put it on a computer or the internet. Of course, I don't have a Facebook account because they are way too expensive (in terms of what they take from you for what they get).
Similarly, I don't walk through Harlem dressed like Bruce Willis in Die Hard with a Vengeance.
Short men tend to get married later but stay married longer. Referenced
Game reviewing is not a 90 billion dollar industry. Frankly, if it hit 1 billion worthless industry I would be surprised. I bet it is in the 10s of millions.
Because we are merely talking about the corrupt people that review games, not the people that build the games, it is INSIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
They don't matter. Everyone knows they are corrupt and the power they have over whether a game gets made is insignificant.
2) This is Australia, not the US.
But there is an Australian law that requires they provide the information requested. It is in fact referenced in the original article.
The problem with your argument isPeople already have a legal right to that information.. If you read the article, you would see that he specfically referenced an Australian law that says they HAVE to give out the information.
So I congratulate you on your logic, but am sorely disappointed in both your knowledge of Australian law and in failing to read the article.
At the very least, they could call every number on the list and ask the recipient if their number was unlisted. If the number's owner said no, then they could provide it. If the recipient said yes, they could reasonably withhold that number..
Why should they figure it out? Because he referenced Australia's Law that said they had to.
Specifically, the Privacy Act's National Privacy Principles law:
http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-act/national-privacy-principles
NPP section 6 says: "Gives individuals a general right of access to their personal information, and the right to have that information corrected if it is inaccurate, incomplete or out-of-date."