Nothing wrong with that but what do you plan to do if/when Spotify goes belly up? Not saying it will or won't but it's certainly a realistic possibility since Spotify has never to my knowledge made a profit.
I'm fairly sure there'll be a shutdown period if that ever happens. People generally pay monthly, and to simply close down mid-month would be an extremely shitty month. So I figure that buys me at least a couple of weeks to make sure I have all of my playlists and saved tracks as offline versions.
But I honestly don't think the labels are going to let Spotify die. They'll maybe keep it going on life support, make it slightly worse (Premium-only albums, that sort of thing), but not let it die outright. The record industry just posted the largest profit increase in 20 years, thanks to streaming, so Spotify is basically making them money hand over fist, and I think they're very well aware of that.
As the mega-rich and powerful gather more wealth and power, by exploiting the common people, they are also significantly increasing the surveillance of the same common people.
They know that when you concentrate too much power at the top, uprisings will start from the bottom. So they're increasing surveillance, in the hopes of being able to curb these uprisings before they happen, by strategic arrests and by exploiting sensitive information about key persons associated with civil unrest.
For the last 70+ years, people come with cars semi-attached. People are no longer satisfied to simply walk from home to store to work and back, they like to move around more and more freely than buses and trains will permit.
Only in countries where people seem to consider their cars an extension of their personalities.
In more enlightened cities, cars account for less than 10% of the people transporting themselves/being transported, and people manage to keep their everyday life together just fine. And even more now, that e-bikes are becoming more affordable and thus more common.
She had narrowly lost a senatorial race in California. Visibly pregnant by the time Election Day arrived, she had soon given birth to a baby with Down syndrome and become a human Rorschach blot for all sorts of angst around amniocentesis and selective abortion. Making the rounds of talk shows to discuss those topics, she had drawn the eye of national political campaigns on both sides of the aisle. During the following presidential campaign, she had found herself in the unusual position of being on both parties’ vice presidential short lists. She was staunchly middle-of-the-road, with enough ambiguity in her politics to extend the Democrats’ reach rightward and the Republicans’ leftward. No one had expected her to end up in the Oval Office; that was never seriously expected, nowadays, of vice presidents. But the scandal that had brought down the president in only the tenth month of his inaugural year had elevated her to the presidency and made her hairstyle fair game for dissertation-length treatments in the press.
But I think he deliberately wrote her to not match any living politician too well, considering how much of a shitheel she turns out to be.
It's not so much about Mars itself (other than to say "hell yeah, we put people on another planet!"), as it is about the spinoff technologies it will create.
Stop arguing against a strawman that you made yourself. You're reading your own biases into what I wrote.
Want to continue owning expensive assets, which generate wealth for you? Pay up, because today it's more or less just untaxed income, and a giant loophole exploited by the rich. Please note that no one is proposing to tax said assets at a higher rate than the income they generate, which is what you seem to think.
Well, if your developed modern western democratically-run country adopts the major policies of Zimbabwe, then it's an apples to apples comparison.
If you only look at an extremely simplified model, as in your Econ 101 handbook, then sure. Your overly simplified model holds up, because you've removed every factor that could change the result away from your prediction.
How about another example, this one a developed, modern western democracy - South Africa.
Don't make me laugh.
You're deliberately ignoring a million different factors, from cultural differences, to geography, to neighboring countries, to even the damn weather. And you're doing this to make your overly simplified model work, because you're wildly prejudiced against any other viewpoint than your own.
And again, apparently the situation in a sub-saharan country in Africa, with one of the lowest average life expectancy, run by Mugabe (a shitheel dictator by any measure) and ravaged by civil unrest, is a perfect analog for a developed, modern western democratically-run country?
In that case, I'd change my vote from "against UBI" to "For UBI". You see, to people today who already have decent house, cars, boat and other property, we'd use UBI to simply stop working. We, some of the most experienced and skilled workers, already have all the materialistic shit a person could want.
A reasonably-sized property tax will take care of that little "loophole". Want to keep owning expensive shit? Make an effort.
That worked well in Zimbabwe, didn't it?
Because Zimbabwe is exactly the same as a developed, post-scarcity western nation, right?
Do you really have 10.000 all-time favorite tracks? If you're habitually saving whole albums, why not make playlists instead (those have separate 10.000 song limits from "My Music") or simply follow the artist, if you like the majority of their albums?
When I started using Spotify, I tried saving alle the music I had in my MP3 collection, and quickly ran into the limit. It made me realize how few tracks I actually considered favorites, and how few tracks I actually played on a regular basis. Don't worry, the music is still there even if you don't save it to "My Music".
The average new house today is twice the size of a house in 1973. Cars are better, TVs are better, etc. So people aren't working more to "scrape by", they are working more for a much better quality of life.
All of those products have become easier and less expensive to produce. So why should we work more to have them?
As for taxes over 50% there are countries with tax rates over 50% -- most of the Scandinavian countries, for example. They have very high-levels of employment, in addition to some things that other countries are missing, such as functioning universal health care.
No, the tax rate is not over 50%, my personal tax rate is 36% and you have to factor in deductions to get the real tax rate.
The only tax rate that is over 50% is the marginal tax on very high incomes, and that is only applied to income over a (rather high) amount. Nobody pays even near 50%, and I would be surprised if anyone actually paid more than 40%.
The working citizen in those countries is the equivalent of a modern slave, enjoying 50%+ income tax, excessive sales tax/VAT and countless other artificial taxes, keeping them from any sense of achievement or happiness.
I live in one of the highest-tax rate countries in the world, and my income tax is 36%, and you have to calculate in deductions for interest on loans and deductions for union membership fees, so the effective tax rate is actually lower. I have no idea where you get 50% from, but it is an outright lie.
The only people who pay the marginal tax rate are people who make a hell of a lot more than I do, and they only pay that rate on income above a certain level. No one here pays even close to 50%, not even the 0.1%.
Slashdot Mirror
An extremely shitty move, is what I meant.
Nothing wrong with that but what do you plan to do if/when Spotify goes belly up? Not saying it will or won't but it's certainly a realistic possibility since Spotify has never to my knowledge made a profit.
I'm fairly sure there'll be a shutdown period if that ever happens. People generally pay monthly, and to simply close down mid-month would be an extremely shitty month. So I figure that buys me at least a couple of weeks to make sure I have all of my playlists and saved tracks as offline versions.
But I honestly don't think the labels are going to let Spotify die. They'll maybe keep it going on life support, make it slightly worse (Premium-only albums, that sort of thing), but not let it die outright. The record industry just posted the largest profit increase in 20 years, thanks to streaming, so Spotify is basically making them money hand over fist, and I think they're very well aware of that.
As the mega-rich and powerful gather more wealth and power, by exploiting the common people, they are also significantly increasing the surveillance of the same common people.
They know that when you concentrate too much power at the top, uprisings will start from the bottom. So they're increasing surveillance, in the hopes of being able to curb these uprisings before they happen, by strategic arrests and by exploiting sensitive information about key persons associated with civil unrest.
For the last 70+ years, people come with cars semi-attached. People are no longer satisfied to simply walk from home to store to work and back, they like to move around more and more freely than buses and trains will permit.
Only in countries where people seem to consider their cars an extension of their personalities.
In more enlightened cities, cars account for less than 10% of the people transporting themselves/being transported, and people manage to keep their everyday life together just fine. And even more now, that e-bikes are becoming more affordable and thus more common.
Sure, but space exploration is an easier sell.
I'm not American.
And yes, there has been a ton of spinoffs from Nasa research: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/
Space is a great excuse to spend tons of money, because everyone knows sci-fi and a lot of people want us to do those kinds of things in the future.
I read her more as Sarah Palin, to be honest.
She had narrowly lost a senatorial race in California. Visibly pregnant by the time Election Day arrived, she had soon given birth to a baby with Down syndrome and become a human Rorschach blot for all sorts of angst around amniocentesis and selective abortion. Making the rounds of talk shows to discuss those topics, she had drawn the eye of national political campaigns on both sides of the aisle. During the following presidential campaign, she had found herself in the unusual position of being on both parties’ vice presidential short lists. She was staunchly middle-of-the-road, with enough ambiguity in her politics to extend the Democrats’ reach rightward and the Republicans’ leftward. No one had expected her to end up in the Oval Office; that was never seriously expected, nowadays, of vice presidents. But the scandal that had brought down the president in only the tenth month of his inaugural year had elevated her to the presidency and made her hairstyle fair game for dissertation-length treatments in the press.
But I think he deliberately wrote her to not match any living politician too well, considering how much of a shitheel she turns out to be.
It's not so much about Mars itself (other than to say "hell yeah, we put people on another planet!"), as it is about the spinoff technologies it will create.
Hasn't he read Seveneves? We need Izzy for the survival of mankind!
Oh, we've got much harder far-right wingers trying to get into Parliament.
And now I've just made myself sad :-(
I lived perfectly fine before using their products, I could live perfectly fine without them again.
But which ones would I be severely annoyed at losing? Spotify is probably the most important one, Youtube comes second.
Stop arguing against a strawman that you made yourself. You're reading your own biases into what I wrote.
Want to continue owning expensive assets, which generate wealth for you? Pay up, because today it's more or less just untaxed income, and a giant loophole exploited by the rich. Please note that no one is proposing to tax said assets at a higher rate than the income they generate, which is what you seem to think.
No one is taking anything away from you, I am simply proposing a tax on wealth-generating assets.
I have never once advocated for denying private ownership of property. Stop strawmanning.
Get outta here with your well-reasoned arguments and nicely-worded inputs.
This is Slashdot! :-P
Well, if your developed modern western democratically-run country adopts the major policies of Zimbabwe, then it's an apples to apples comparison.
If you only look at an extremely simplified model, as in your Econ 101 handbook, then sure. Your overly simplified model holds up, because you've removed every factor that could change the result away from your prediction.
How about another example, this one a developed, modern western democracy - South Africa.
Don't make me laugh.
You're deliberately ignoring a million different factors, from cultural differences, to geography, to neighboring countries, to even the damn weather. And you're doing this to make your overly simplified model work, because you're wildly prejudiced against any other viewpoint than your own.
And again, apparently the situation in a sub-saharan country in Africa, with one of the lowest average life expectancy, run by Mugabe (a shitheel dictator by any measure) and ravaged by civil unrest, is a perfect analog for a developed, modern western democratically-run country?
So they had a corrupt government, and the country failed? Quelle surprise!
In that case, I'd change my vote from "against UBI" to "For UBI". You see, to people today who already have decent house, cars, boat and other property, we'd use UBI to simply stop working. We, some of the most experienced and skilled workers, already have all the materialistic shit a person could want.
A reasonably-sized property tax will take care of that little "loophole". Want to keep owning expensive shit? Make an effort.
That worked well in Zimbabwe, didn't it?
Because Zimbabwe is exactly the same as a developed, post-scarcity western nation, right?
Do you really have 10.000 all-time favorite tracks? If you're habitually saving whole albums, why not make playlists instead (those have separate 10.000 song limits from "My Music") or simply follow the artist, if you like the majority of their albums?
When I started using Spotify, I tried saving alle the music I had in my MP3 collection, and quickly ran into the limit. It made me realize how few tracks I actually considered favorites, and how few tracks I actually played on a regular basis. Don't worry, the music is still there even if you don't save it to "My Music".
And they carry the rest on their shoulders.
The average new house today is twice the size of a house in 1973. Cars are better, TVs are better, etc. So people aren't working more to "scrape by", they are working more for a much better quality of life.
All of those products have become easier and less expensive to produce. So why should we work more to have them?
You need to break out of the "my job is my identity" mentality.
Work to live, don't live to work.
As for taxes over 50% there are countries with tax rates over 50% -- most of the Scandinavian countries, for example. They have very high-levels of employment, in addition to some things that other countries are missing, such as functioning universal health care.
No, the tax rate is not over 50%, my personal tax rate is 36% and you have to factor in deductions to get the real tax rate.
The only tax rate that is over 50% is the marginal tax on very high incomes, and that is only applied to income over a (rather high) amount. Nobody pays even near 50%, and I would be surprised if anyone actually paid more than 40%.
The working citizen in those countries is the equivalent of a modern slave, enjoying 50%+ income tax, excessive sales tax/VAT and countless other artificial taxes, keeping them from any sense of achievement or happiness.
I live in one of the highest-tax rate countries in the world, and my income tax is 36%, and you have to calculate in deductions for interest on loans and deductions for union membership fees, so the effective tax rate is actually lower. I have no idea where you get 50% from, but it is an outright lie.
The only people who pay the marginal tax rate are people who make a hell of a lot more than I do, and they only pay that rate on income above a certain level. No one here pays even close to 50%, not even the 0.1%.