I dunno what the deal is with people and this crap.
You do it to yourself.
Yes, I have a cell phone, but when I'm off work and not scheduled to work again for awhile, I do NOT answer any calls that I do not recognize for one thing. And those I do recognize, if it is anything but personal related, it goes straight to voice mail. I will check that at my leisure.
I don't do work on MY time. The only reason I do work in the first place, is to earn enough money to live the lifestyle I want, and I do that on my free time. It wouldn't make sense to work all days....or I'd not be able to enjoy my 'toys' and other things money enables me to get.
If you answer the phone for work or are a slave to work...then it is YOUR fault.
You *do* know that most modern phones have voicemail don't you? USE IT.
I take it you've not lived near this type of poverty and abuse of social services like I have.
Do you live in a very mixed area of a well distributed mix of races? Do you or have you lived in areas that minority numbers are actually the prevalent numbers in that community?
I have and I do....live in my shoes for as long as I have, and you don't have to make assumptions, you know what your talking about when you speak as I do.
How many different races live on your street you live on? What percentage of each?
I have a strong suspicion that you don't actually know any of the information above and are simply stereotyping, falling into the same type of ignorance, bigotry, and hatred that continues to keep "them" from having the same opportunities you've had. I also suspect that you've never had to live on welfare, never had to make the types of choices people in the projects make, never had to go through the failing education system of the inner-city and so you cannot fathom how "they" live, how "they" make the choices they make.
Err, where do you get bigotry...I never once mentioned race of myself of those I've observed and, YES, have known, met and have a great deal of first hand knowledge of...I'm quite familiar with inner city life, hence I speak from what I know first hand.
I'm not saying everyone has had opportunities I"ve had, it doesn't matter. If you are an adult, and able to get up and about, and process oxygen, then you are definitely able to get your ass out of the govt provided apt, and work doing something. Our streets are dirty, pick trash up. There are always jobs to be done, might not be the glorious ones, but earn your keep if we the tax payers are gonna pay you money.
No one should be able to be paid to sit at home all day on the front porch.
And, I think if they are going to accept tax payer money, then we have a say on what "choices" they do get to make for themselves.
If they do not like that, then, they do not have to be on the welfare roles, and can pick another means to earn money, and it had better be legal.
I'm interested in this "welfare" you speak of. Although I guess I wouldn't qualify since I'm not able bodied. Love it when people blame budget problems on the sick and elderly.
Seriously, that terminology isn't clear to you?
The infirmed/disabled, and elderly are not generally thought of when the term "able bodied" is used.
I'm talking about anyone outside of that category, and is an adult.
I drive by the projects and can see a number of great examples there....people sitting around outside during work day hours, looking in doors open at times you see flatscreen tvs playing, etc. I see them at the grocery stores, ladies using food stamps to feed a bunch of kids, many of which are from different fathers, because that helps with more welfare coming in.
Please, it is easy to spot out there...don't be so obtuse.
Aww. $500 million. Just imagine how many satellites could have been built from a fraction of the military budget.
Or, even by cutting off welfare for people that ARE able bodied and can work. Or by cutting the waste from Medicare and SS, which are about the other 2/3 of the main budget chunks along with military.
You know, if we shrunk the Federal Govt back down to more resemble what it is Constitutionally mandated to do, we could easily afford a lot more stuff.
Hell, why don't we quit sending so much fucking money out for Foreign Aid, and spend it on satellites? Who objects to that one?
Except when it doesn't and goes west off Africa and comes in from the southeast and slams across Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South/North Carolina, Virgina, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, etc.. Or when it comes in from the North Atlantic from the northeast....
Hello? Louisiana.....
Did we just suddenly fall off the fuckin' hurricane map?!? WhooHoo...I certainly hope so!!! That way, I can get rid of that damned flood insurance, and not have to leave town a couple times each summer...
"what you need to live" is a surprisingly subjective term. After all, do people really *need* to live? What quality of life justifies such a need? Basic sustenance may not provide such a quality of life.
It is quite simple.
1. What do people need to live? - Food and shelter are the basics to allow someone to live and be a part of society. Some may argue freely provided medical tx, I'm not on that bandwagon, but that is an arguable point of contention.
2. What quality of life juistifies such a need? - What does quality of life have to do with it? That is up the the INDIVIDUAL to take care of that. If things like nice cars, tennis shoes, large flat screen TVs make someone's quality of life better, when those are luxuries, and they go above and beyond necessities of life.
Your quality of life is not guaranteed, nor is it a 'right' that others are required to pay for and bestow upon you if you can't figure how to earn it yourself.
The best we can do (and should do) in the US, is provide the opportunity out there to work, hustle and succeed. The opportunities are out there.
Does everyone start at the same starting blocks? Does everyone have equal genes? Is everyone lucky?
No.
Everyone has to start with the cards they are dealt in life, you are not guaranteed happiness....but you are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. Aside from that, you are owned NOTHING by the world at all. It is up to YOU, to do things like appreciate and fight for (if needed) a good education, the stamina and determination to find a job you do well, and do your best to excel and make a good living.
The world owes no one "quality of life", you are given a quantity of it, use it to its full extent and the individual is responsible for their own quality of life.
Any specific level of quality of life is not a right you have...not at the expense of others.
So, anything luxury, is up for taxation. You get a break for things allowing you to maintain biological life (food, water), and a place to sleep at night out of the elements.
Some degree of redistribution is required. Some people are simply not capable of looking after themselves. If you don't basically hand money to them you'll have to hand more to the police (to catch them when they turn to crime) and more to the prison for when they get caught.
To the truly infirmed/disabled or elderly, sure I'm good for a safety net.
I don't call that redistribution of wealth, caring for the disabled or elderly.
But anyone else that is able-bodied, if they don't want to work and, instead, commit crimes, then fuck'em....that's what prisons are for.
I love how you translate: "country needs government and therefore taxes to operate" to "these people believe that the government can do much better with your money than you can".
Please read my ENTIRE post, I didn't say that.
I was posting this section of it, more in part to threads yesterday and other times how people were saying it was somehow MORAL to pay as much tax as you can. Often they were in favor of making people pay more than was needed to operate on a basic level of common services everyone needs.
They also were promoting beyond govt funding needs, to basically redistribution to others that weren't as lucky or talented or hard working as the rest....or that the govt could decide better to give my money to deserving people better than they could themselves by doing charity work themselves or donating directly to people and causes they think are worthy and efficient with their monies.
Read my original post, I didn't say anything about paying NO taxes realistically. There ARE some basic things we need on govt levels...mostly on the local and state levels, which more directly addresses their citizenry's needs, and then to a lessor extent to the federal level which needs to do things (in the US) like national defense and other constitutionally, enumerated responsibilities.
If a hard working person can afford it, why not allow polygamy? It's the hard working person's own money, why should other people, especially the state, have control over how many spouses he takes in?
Frankly, I don't see anything really wrong with what you said...if a group of people wanna have sex together, and have some sorts of social contracts with each other...they should be free to do so as they wish.
That's an awful idea. Poor people will spend every cent they earn and pay sales tax on that expenditure. Rich people will not spend every cent, and so will pay a lower rate of tax than the poor. Dreadful. As for the idea that food, etc would be tax exempt - do you really trust politicians, especially on the right, to look out for the needs of the less well off?
It is not a bad idea.
How would the poor be taxed to death on everything they owed, I mean, if they only have enough money for food (and I say I'd also have none or limited tax on the basics in life, housing/medical expenses)...but if the poor are only paying for things they need, then they would not be taxes. Any extra funds, they could save just like the rich people and not pay taxes until it was spent.
I'm sorry, but no one has a 'right' to a bit TV set, nor a 'right' to any luxuries in life, which is basically anything outside of the basic necessities of life. Anything spent outside of what you need to live, should be subject to tax.
Everyone should have some skin in the game when it comes to taxation and supporting the basic services the govt needs to provide.
And yes, I think if we went to a national sales tax (make sure to completely do away with other taxes), and ingrain this into law, likely on a constitutional level as suggested previously by another poster, then yes, I think we'd be safe from the politicians.
Hell, doing it that way would take a great deal of power AWAY from politicians, and put more of it back to the people I'd think, and I have no problem with that.
I have no need to elected politicians to try to guide my behavior, I want them there to make sure basic services are provided to allow me to go about my life in the way I best see fit. The should not be able to use taxation as a method to drive behavior, I do not wish to be controlled (hence freedom)...so, take away their ability to have deductions for doing this or that....just take care of the roads, police, schools and defense of the nation, and leave us the fuck alone otherwise.
I don't want to pay taxes either. What does that have to do with anything? No one wants to pay them. And the people that tell you they're fine with it are liars or up to something. Pretty sure this guy is both.
Well, while I think the majority of people in the world would prefer to pay as little tax as possible, you'd not get that impression from a seemingly large (or at least vocal) contingent of slashdot users. Some of them seem to think that the government can do MUCH better with your money than you can, better deeds, more efficiently,etc.
While I don't advocate for not paying any tax at all (sure it would be nice, but not realistic), I am in full favor of:
1. On the country/federal level, pay the minimum possible to only fund the things it is best at at that level, defense and a few other things for the most part, but I find it to be limited, and not as responsive to the actual needs of a country, especially if it is a very large spread out country, like the US.
2. Most taxation being taken at the local level, since it is more sensitive to the users votes, and needs which often are very regional due to climate, location, population, etc. This is where the majority should come from and STAY, for roads, schools, police, etc.
3. That taxation should ONLY be for funding needed govt services, that it should never in any way, be used to try to guide human behavior, hence I'm for revamping the tax code to take out ALL deductions/incentives that give you breaks for doing X or Y behavior. The govt should be responsive to me the citizenry, not use doing what the govt wants. I'd personally prefer some type of flat or fair tax....something that does not tax the necessities of life, food, shelter, health needs....but hits on everything else, and the forms should be simple enough to fit on one single page of paper. If on income, basically "You made A, pay %B". Or maybe a national sales tax, which I think would be more effective in catching almost all taxable transactions, and would catch money from people currently working under the radar for ca$h. Again, excluding food and possibly a couple other things so as not to put too much pressure on the truly poor.
I think all of the above would be fair...if we cut govt to the basic services it really should provide to allow for people to guide their own lives, and do the pursuit of happiness thing with proper infrastructure, and lawful protection, I think most people could get along with it. And, we might get more people in the workforce doing stuff rather than sitting on their asses collecting entitlements, eveyone able to work should be working.
Interesting that you're not prepared to guarantee your work. It would make me wary of contracting you as it places the onus on me to ensure that I've throughly tested your code rather than on you. Is this common practice?
Well, for the most part, the answer is YES.
Often there is a contractual clause for UAT (User Acceptance Testing), which the users is expected to test to ensure it works per the specs, and signs off on the deliverable, and the contract is done and payment is due.
I've rarely heard of any software that is warranted, in fact in most contracts or even EULAs (like with Microsoft for example), there is often explicit language rendering the developer/selling company from any damages that said software might cause, that it is used at the users own risk, etc.
Go read the EULAs on most any software you purchase commercially, this type of language is quite prevalent.
It might be wrong for me to date two women at the same time, but it's not illegal. As such, I could perfectly understand anyone calling me a prick for doing it, but that's about as far as it should go.
Why in the world would it be wrong to date two or more women at a time??
I mean, unless you are serious about one enough to start thinking commitment, but until then, date as many as possible to work your way through the herd...
Re:I look forward to hearing about why this will f
on
Microsoft Unveils Xbox One
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm curious how this thing will 'tune' in TV?
Do they have deals with ATT UVerse, Cox/Charter/You Name it Cable channels, Dish/Direct TV Satellite companies to hook into their systems? That would actually be some coup if they were to be able to integrate into all these systems...will it also act as a DVR? I mean, if they want to be a 1 box fits all, that would be one big requirement I'd guess.
Sure it can play games....but how well does it do the other stuff ?
Except we're far from just barely surviving, while there are people actually struggling. Your indoctrination in individualism does not allow you to see how immoral that is...
A little bit of empathy would do you good.
Well, what can I say? There are winners and losers in the world, always has been, always will.
Nothing shy of taking everyones money/wealth, and redistributing so that everyone has an equal share, whether they earned it or not, you are not going to have people that don't 'struggle" as you say.
I certainly hope you aren't proposing that....because at some point, you run out of people willing to work harder and excel, only to have their rewards given to someone that didn't/couldn't do the same work or had the same luck.
Life is a contest....you have to fight to win. Not everyone gets that.
Much of this stuff is not clearly laid out online. If it was I surely would not want to take advantage of it either.
Wait, are you giving people grief because they took a little extra time and effort to learn what tax laws and breaks are applicable to them? Heck, if anything, people that take the time to truly learn what they are doing, SHOULD get to keep more money, lets reward effort, eh?
I have described in the past what I was able to save using a S-corp to save a good deal on employment taxes (SS and medicare) 100% legally with my companies I've had. I set this up WAAYY before everything was out there on the Web for easy research. I heard about S-corps, and how best to run a self employment business, and did the footwork and research to find out what the best path to pursue for my situation was. Some internet, some phone calls.
Today, it is much easier, with a little effort to find these things out. Heck, if someone was interested, and quit watching American Idol, they could use that time to learn a lot of things...tax laws are just one of them.
And hey, if you don't want to take advantage of it..that's fine, but don't fault others for doing so as long as it is perfectly legal.
Personally, I can't understand why you wouldn't take advantage of it as you mentioned...unless you really think a large, bloated, faceless national bureaucracy can allocate and spend YOUR money YOU earned in a much better, efficient and humane way than you could. Frankly, I'd rather give my extra charity dollars directly to people or entities that "I" vet as being efficient and causes I support.
Most of what you were talking about, the services used are LOCAL ones, and covered by local city/state taxes.
Look if you want to make it fair...redo the tax system. Let's take it all and do it from scratch.
Start with the Feds, minimize it to their constutional level needs (defense, etc...there aren't that many things the Feds are really mandated to cover. That will ease off the need for DC to print and borrow so much money.
Bring most of the taxation back to the states, and the states have more flexibility to tax based on the states needs. I'd be more for a simple flatter (if not flat or fair tax). You make this...you pay % of this, no deductions. And almost no one (except true poverty) would get out of the tax game without a little skin in it. Everyone should pay something, even if it is only a fucking dollar.
Now, that way, everyone pays less, reasonable amounts, then you can feel moral about taxation...and no one gets what you term "unfair" loopholes.
I still don't see doing whatever I possibly can that is legal to keep as much of my money as a moral issue at all, but if you don't like people using whatever they have at their means legally to reduce their taxes, then you should be for extreme simplification, which is fair to everyone, and everyone pays something, and with this set up, overall, less money is required by govt. and power begins to shift, as it should, back to the people.
The solution is simple. Make guns illegal for all men, and legal for all women.
Are you kidding?
I mean, have you been in close confinement with a bitch on the rag with PMS??
Geez, I try to keep all throwable and sharp objects (guns are a given) away from my women pretty much every month till their 'visitor' leaves again for awhile, and some semblance of sanity can return to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno what the deal is with people and this crap.
You do it to yourself.
Yes, I have a cell phone, but when I'm off work and not scheduled to work again for awhile, I do NOT answer any calls that I do not recognize for one thing. And those I do recognize, if it is anything but personal related, it goes straight to voice mail. I will check that at my leisure.
I don't do work on MY time. The only reason I do work in the first place, is to earn enough money to live the lifestyle I want, and I do that on my free time. It wouldn't make sense to work all days....or I'd not be able to enjoy my 'toys' and other things money enables me to get.
If you answer the phone for work or are a slave to work...then it is YOUR fault.
You *do* know that most modern phones have voicemail don't you? USE IT.
Why pay more? If they're getting govt. handouts from OUR tax dollars, let's get a little work out of them, eh?
Do you live in a very mixed area of a well distributed mix of races? Do you or have you lived in areas that minority numbers are actually the prevalent numbers in that community?
I have and I do....live in my shoes for as long as I have, and you don't have to make assumptions, you know what your talking about when you speak as I do.
How many different races live on your street you live on? What percentage of each?
Err, where do you get bigotry...I never once mentioned race of myself of those I've observed and, YES, have known, met and have a great deal of first hand knowledge of...I'm quite familiar with inner city life, hence I speak from what I know first hand.
I'm not saying everyone has had opportunities I"ve had, it doesn't matter. If you are an adult, and able to get up and about, and process oxygen, then you are definitely able to get your ass out of the govt provided apt, and work doing something. Our streets are dirty, pick trash up. There are always jobs to be done, might not be the glorious ones, but earn your keep if we the tax payers are gonna pay you money.
No one should be able to be paid to sit at home all day on the front porch.
And, I think if they are going to accept tax payer money, then we have a say on what "choices" they do get to make for themselves.
If they do not like that, then, they do not have to be on the welfare roles, and can pick another means to earn money, and it had better be legal.
Seriously, that terminology isn't clear to you?
The infirmed/disabled, and elderly are not generally thought of when the term "able bodied" is used.
I'm talking about anyone outside of that category, and is an adult.
I drive by the projects and can see a number of great examples there....people sitting around outside during work day hours, looking in doors open at times you see flatscreen tvs playing, etc. I see them at the grocery stores, ladies using food stamps to feed a bunch of kids, many of which are from different fathers, because that helps with more welfare coming in.
Please, it is easy to spot out there...don't be so obtuse.
Ahh....why don't I have points to share today? Definitely Insightful.
Or, even by cutting off welfare for people that ARE able bodied and can work. Or by cutting the waste from Medicare and SS, which are about the other 2/3 of the main budget chunks along with military.
You know, if we shrunk the Federal Govt back down to more resemble what it is Constitutionally mandated to do, we could easily afford a lot more stuff.
Hell, why don't we quit sending so much fucking money out for Foreign Aid, and spend it on satellites? Who objects to that one?
Hello? Louisiana.....
Did we just suddenly fall off the fuckin' hurricane map?!? WhooHoo...I certainly hope so!!! That way, I can get rid of that damned flood insurance, and not have to leave town a couple times each summer...
WOW...this is amazing!! I cannot believe such a world changing thing has become available to the public!!!!
By the way, what is snapchat?
I really have no idea really what you're trying to say here...?
Responsible for own birth? Not sure how that's possible...you parents fuck and you appear, seems THEY are responsible for your birth....?
I'd say you have a right to try to survive, I dunno if survival itself is a natural right of nature, but the struggle to try to survive is I suppose.
It is quite simple.
1. What do people need to live? - Food and shelter are the basics to allow someone to live and be a part of society. Some may argue freely provided medical tx, I'm not on that bandwagon, but that is an arguable point of contention.
2. What quality of life juistifies such a need? - What does quality of life have to do with it? That is up the the INDIVIDUAL to take care of that. If things like nice cars, tennis shoes, large flat screen TVs make someone's quality of life better, when those are luxuries, and they go above and beyond necessities of life.
Your quality of life is not guaranteed, nor is it a 'right' that others are required to pay for and bestow upon you if you can't figure how to earn it yourself.
The best we can do (and should do) in the US, is provide the opportunity out there to work, hustle and succeed. The opportunities are out there.
Does everyone start at the same starting blocks? Does everyone have equal genes? Is everyone lucky?
No.
Everyone has to start with the cards they are dealt in life, you are not guaranteed happiness....but you are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. Aside from that, you are owned NOTHING by the world at all. It is up to YOU, to do things like appreciate and fight for (if needed) a good education, the stamina and determination to find a job you do well, and do your best to excel and make a good living.
The world owes no one "quality of life", you are given a quantity of it, use it to its full extent and the individual is responsible for their own quality of life.
Any specific level of quality of life is not a right you have...not at the expense of others.
So, anything luxury, is up for taxation. You get a break for things allowing you to maintain biological life (food, water), and a place to sleep at night out of the elements.
To the truly infirmed/disabled or elderly, sure I'm good for a safety net.
I don't call that redistribution of wealth, caring for the disabled or elderly.
But anyone else that is able-bodied, if they don't want to work and, instead, commit crimes, then fuck'em....that's what prisons are for.
Please read my ENTIRE post, I didn't say that.
I was posting this section of it, more in part to threads yesterday and other times how people were saying it was somehow MORAL to pay as much tax as you can. Often they were in favor of making people pay more than was needed to operate on a basic level of common services everyone needs.
They also were promoting beyond govt funding needs, to basically redistribution to others that weren't as lucky or talented or hard working as the rest....or that the govt could decide better to give my money to deserving people better than they could themselves by doing charity work themselves or donating directly to people and causes they think are worthy and efficient with their monies.
Read my original post, I didn't say anything about paying NO taxes realistically. There ARE some basic things we need on govt levels...mostly on the local and state levels, which more directly addresses their citizenry's needs, and then to a lessor extent to the federal level which needs to do things (in the US) like national defense and other constitutionally, enumerated responsibilities.
Frankly, I don't see anything really wrong with what you said...if a group of people wanna have sex together, and have some sorts of social contracts with each other...they should be free to do so as they wish.
It is not a bad idea.
How would the poor be taxed to death on everything they owed, I mean, if they only have enough money for food (and I say I'd also have none or limited tax on the basics in life, housing/medical expenses)...but if the poor are only paying for things they need, then they would not be taxes. Any extra funds, they could save just like the rich people and not pay taxes until it was spent.
I'm sorry, but no one has a 'right' to a bit TV set, nor a 'right' to any luxuries in life, which is basically anything outside of the basic necessities of life. Anything spent outside of what you need to live, should be subject to tax.
Everyone should have some skin in the game when it comes to taxation and supporting the basic services the govt needs to provide.
And yes, I think if we went to a national sales tax (make sure to completely do away with other taxes), and ingrain this into law, likely on a constitutional level as suggested previously by another poster, then yes, I think we'd be safe from the politicians.
Hell, doing it that way would take a great deal of power AWAY from politicians, and put more of it back to the people I'd think, and I have no problem with that.
I have no need to elected politicians to try to guide my behavior, I want them there to make sure basic services are provided to allow me to go about my life in the way I best see fit. The should not be able to use taxation as a method to drive behavior, I do not wish to be controlled (hence freedom)...so, take away their ability to have deductions for doing this or that....just take care of the roads, police, schools and defense of the nation, and leave us the fuck alone otherwise.
Well, while I think the majority of people in the world would prefer to pay as little tax as possible, you'd not get that impression from a seemingly large (or at least vocal) contingent of slashdot users. Some of them seem to think that the government can do MUCH better with your money than you can, better deeds, more efficiently,etc.
While I don't advocate for not paying any tax at all (sure it would be nice, but not realistic), I am in full favor of:
1. On the country/federal level, pay the minimum possible to only fund the things it is best at at that level, defense and a few other things for the most part, but I find it to be limited, and not as responsive to the actual needs of a country, especially if it is a very large spread out country, like the US.
2. Most taxation being taken at the local level, since it is more sensitive to the users votes, and needs which often are very regional due to climate, location, population, etc. This is where the majority should come from and STAY, for roads, schools, police, etc.
3. That taxation should ONLY be for funding needed govt services, that it should never in any way, be used to try to guide human behavior, hence I'm for revamping the tax code to take out ALL deductions/incentives that give you breaks for doing X or Y behavior. The govt should be responsive to me the citizenry, not use doing what the govt wants. I'd personally prefer some type of flat or fair tax....something that does not tax the necessities of life, food, shelter, health needs....but hits on everything else, and the forms should be simple enough to fit on one single page of paper. If on income, basically "You made A, pay %B". Or maybe a national sales tax, which I think would be more effective in catching almost all taxable transactions, and would catch money from people currently working under the radar for ca$h. Again, excluding food and possibly a couple other things so as not to put too much pressure on the truly poor.
I think all of the above would be fair...if we cut govt to the basic services it really should provide to allow for people to guide their own lives, and do the pursuit of happiness thing with proper infrastructure, and lawful protection, I think most people could get along with it. And, we might get more people in the workforce doing stuff rather than sitting on their asses collecting entitlements, eveyone able to work should be working.
Well, for the most part, the answer is YES.
Often there is a contractual clause for UAT (User Acceptance Testing), which the users is expected to test to ensure it works per the specs, and signs off on the deliverable, and the contract is done and payment is due.
I've rarely heard of any software that is warranted, in fact in most contracts or even EULAs (like with Microsoft for example), there is often explicit language rendering the developer/selling company from any damages that said software might cause, that it is used at the users own risk, etc.
Go read the EULAs on most any software you purchase commercially, this type of language is quite prevalent.
I see you have not, as a man, had to deal with a large number of women that get in this state over the years.
They don't make jokes about that stuff out of thin air, it often is true, some worse than others.
Why in the world would it be wrong to date two or more women at a time??
I mean, unless you are serious about one enough to start thinking commitment, but until then, date as many as possible to work your way through the herd...
Do they have deals with ATT UVerse, Cox/Charter/You Name it Cable channels, Dish/Direct TV Satellite companies to hook into their systems? That would actually be some coup if they were to be able to integrate into all these systems...will it also act as a DVR? I mean, if they want to be a 1 box fits all, that would be one big requirement I'd guess.
Sure it can play games....but how well does it do the other stuff ?
Well, what can I say? There are winners and losers in the world, always has been, always will.
Nothing shy of taking everyones money/wealth, and redistributing so that everyone has an equal share, whether they earned it or not, you are not going to have people that don't 'struggle" as you say.
I certainly hope you aren't proposing that....because at some point, you run out of people willing to work harder and excel, only to have their rewards given to someone that didn't/couldn't do the same work or had the same luck.
Life is a contest....you have to fight to win. Not everyone gets that.
Wait, are you giving people grief because they took a little extra time and effort to learn what tax laws and breaks are applicable to them? Heck, if anything, people that take the time to truly learn what they are doing, SHOULD get to keep more money, lets reward effort, eh?
I have described in the past what I was able to save using a S-corp to save a good deal on employment taxes (SS and medicare) 100% legally with my companies I've had. I set this up WAAYY before everything was out there on the Web for easy research. I heard about S-corps, and how best to run a self employment business, and did the footwork and research to find out what the best path to pursue for my situation was. Some internet, some phone calls.
Today, it is much easier, with a little effort to find these things out. Heck, if someone was interested, and quit watching American Idol, they could use that time to learn a lot of things...tax laws are just one of them.
And hey, if you don't want to take advantage of it..that's fine, but don't fault others for doing so as long as it is perfectly legal.
Personally, I can't understand why you wouldn't take advantage of it as you mentioned...unless you really think a large, bloated, faceless national bureaucracy can allocate and spend YOUR money YOU earned in a much better, efficient and humane way than you could. Frankly, I'd rather give my extra charity dollars directly to people or entities that "I" vet as being efficient and causes I support.
But, that's just me.
Look if you want to make it fair...redo the tax system. Let's take it all and do it from scratch.
Start with the Feds, minimize it to their constutional level needs (defense, etc...there aren't that many things the Feds are really mandated to cover. That will ease off the need for DC to print and borrow so much money.
Bring most of the taxation back to the states, and the states have more flexibility to tax based on the states needs. I'd be more for a simple flatter (if not flat or fair tax). You make this...you pay % of this, no deductions. And almost no one (except true poverty) would get out of the tax game without a little skin in it. Everyone should pay something, even if it is only a fucking dollar.
Now, that way, everyone pays less, reasonable amounts, then you can feel moral about taxation...and no one gets what you term "unfair" loopholes.
I still don't see doing whatever I possibly can that is legal to keep as much of my money as a moral issue at all, but if you don't like people using whatever they have at their means legally to reduce their taxes, then you should be for extreme simplification, which is fair to everyone, and everyone pays something, and with this set up, overall, less money is required by govt. and power begins to shift, as it should, back to the people.
Are you kidding?
I mean, have you been in close confinement with a bitch on the rag with PMS??
Geez, I try to keep all throwable and sharp objects (guns are a given) away from my women pretty much every month till their 'visitor' leaves again for awhile, and some semblance of sanity can return to them.