I think the only justifiable time to ban a game is when it depicts a real life crime. Sexually explicit pictures of a minor, a murder being performed, and that type of stuff.
What is being done in Australia is blatent censorship. The government needs to realize it's up to the parents to raise their children right. There is no substitute for a parent teaching a child right from wrong.
I don't know why someone would bother moderating my post down as overrated. If whoever did that bothered to read the parent post to my post, you could see it was simply my thoughts and comments regarding geofferensis's comments about the purchasing power of rich people versus poor people.
By the way, some networks do it right when it comes to advertising. Take Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block. They shove a lot of the commercials towards the end of the show, and just have like a 2-3 minute break halfway through. Then there are other networks lacking advertisement commercials altogether.
A hybrid between capitalism and socialism needs to be done. I'm going to mention some ideas without using any numbers, just so you get the basis of the idea.
Fix the tax system so it's progressive. It has to be stress-free without a lot of red tape. Income taxation as it is now in the federal government of America causes a lot of stress, and permits the government to bully anyone who speaks out against them (such as some churches I believe who are being audited after saying some stuff the government didn't agree with).
Do something like the Alaska Permanent Fund, but on a national scale. Give senior citizens more money. Since the gap between retired persons and working persons is lessening (a bad thing financially speaking), cap it like at a portion of the number of people. Define seniors as like the top 1/4th or whatever of the population.
Have the federal government pay for the cost of tuition at any accredited college. Pay for each credit passed, on a credit by credit basis. Pass a Math 204 class that cost $179, then the government through the college would give you a refund check. Sure, someone would have to worry about room and board and fees and the cost of the failed classes, but it would certainly help.
The government could legislate to make drug related medicinal patents expire after a certain number of years. This would allow generic drugs to come into the picture for some drugs that are a monopoly now.
At the state level, and I don't know if this would work, but this could be tried. There's already school, hospital, and other types of districts. Why not create a free clinic type district, where property taxes would pay for it? However, property taxes would first have to be made progressive in the state before anything this radical is tried. Also, safeguards should be in place first, like maybe preventing foreclosure on any residential property that is occupied, or just having property taxes affect non-residential properties only.
I don't live in the United Kingdom, but if I understand it correctly, citizens who owns television sets have to pay a t.v. licensing fee each year, correct? The t.v. licensing fee pays for public television, namely a few channels or whatever.
Here is the problem. Just because you own a t.v. doesn't mean you're going to watch those specific public t.v. channels. The government is basically forcing people to pay for something. There is no option. This can be regressive on the poor, and by regressive, I mean it takes more of their income percentage-wise than compared to someone more financially well off.
In my opinion, it would be much more fair to fund this through a form of progressive taxation. Just one idea would be as follows: A sales tax on electronics, all electronics. Electronics aren't a necessity. They can then adjust the specific sales tax rate to get the revenue they tend to usually get over the previous years.
Is this talking about how they have like an annual fee for simply owning a t.v.? Maybe it's time the government switches to something progressive for their form of taxation. Isn't this a burden on the poor? Don't the richer people pay a lot less relative to their income?
I guess I should have read the whole article. Things are different where I live.
I think in the counties in Washington state, it's pretty much fixed, more or less. The governments have to deal with the amount of money they get. If they need more tax revenue, I think they would have to try raising the values of the home, not the taxation rate (which I "think" is limited by state constitutional law, lest they do a levy or something).
Comments on property taxes, and yes, this is definitely whining I'm doing.
They should really try making it progressive. I'm not sure about other states, but I know what they could do in my state. In my state, I think they should try having a constitutional amendment doing the following. Split property taxes into two categories, residential and non-residential properties. The following for residential properties only. Exempt the state median home value from state property taxation. Exempt the county median home value from county property taxation. Exempt the city median home value from city property taxation. Leave the levies alone as it would be too messy trying to do homestead exemptions with those. Uncap the state, county, and city property taxation rates allowing the state, county, and city governments adjust as necessary.
I just thought of this. They should add artificial intelligent to water heater thermostats. It would require a clock, and probably have it adjust for daylight savings time, but have it learn what times of day the hot water is needed, and have it heat accordingly to be most efficient.
Also, if possible, use natural sunlight to heat the water heater as much as possible when possible because it's essentially free energy, if you know what I mean. This way it would cut down on electricity.
First thing I notice is how much property taxes a cheap $121,900 home would have to pay. That amount doesn't seem progressive, $1,500 in taxes.
Second thing I notice is the spending issues. Didn't the government realize that a lot more tax revenue was coming their way this year than in previous years? Didn't that raise some eyebrows? Shouldn't they be trying to spend less, instead of spending 100% of what they think they will get?
Isn't there a big difference between a person renting a housing unit wanting a specific roommateand a person who rents out the housing units to anyone they wish?
Hypothetically, if I own some apartments, I shouldn't have the right to discriminate on who lives there and who doesn't live there. However, shouldn't the tenants be able to choose however they please (legally,not morally, speaking?
Those energy saving light bulbs tend to go dim over time, and may be rended non-useful half way through their life. I know, I have one I use a lot of the time in my room while on my computer, but it's gotten so dim that I'm going to have to replace it I guess.
After doing the math, I guess you're right. It would be interesting to find out at what hour point the energy saving light bulbs (by this I obviously mean those compact spiral ones) start to lose enough lumens to be noticeable.
Those energy saving light bulbs can be a bad idea sometimes. Sure, they may last thousands of hours, but they end up going dim after a certain amount of time. I suggest those energy saving light bulbs are only worth it if the light you need doesn't have to be bright.
Here are some ideas. Buy a motion detector. Hook it up in places that tend to have the lights left on all the time. Maybe the place is a place that is difficult to turn off the light because it's dark otherwise and difficult to find the switch.
Although others have mentioned this and the like, I'm going to say it. Water heaters with timers on them would be a good idea. Also, can't sunlight heat the water quite a bit?
I'm not so sure if it's legal to mandate that the employees give up their fingerprints like that.
Below is the part of the 4th Amendment in which I am referring. Aren't our fingerprints considered to be part of our property? Isn't mandating that they collect our fingerprints without being suspected of a crime an unreasonable search? (It's one thing to do a background check and ask for fingerprints. It's another thing to require your fingerprints be on a card you have to carry around.)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
I don't think it's legal for Washingtonians to cross the boarder to avoid paying Washingtonian sales tax. If I were to travel to Oregon to buy a plasma t.v. hypothetically speaking, I think I would still be subject to sales tax. It would be my liability for paying it. Sure, I could try to get away with it, but that would be dishonest.
The intent is to make taxes progressive. There can always be one year trial runs until something is figured out that will solve the problems.
I still stick to my idea about luxury taxes, something small as maybe a 3% addition to regular sales tax. Nonetheless, I am still speaking of state taxes.
I think the best way to fix state taxes is to make property tax progressive. Split it into residential and non-residential property tax rates. Require a certain percentage, fixed, of the residential property tax revenue to be used for homestead exemptions. As for the non-residential property tax and whether there should be exemptions, I don't know yet.
We live in the digital age. We should be able to figure out a solution with computers concerning calculating sales tax. A national sales tax registry perhaps?
What do you mean? Someone, like from Texas, buying an item from another state and having it shipped to Mexico? Well, that's definitely cheating the state.
Some people are bound to try cheating, but I would hope they would be more honest. Since there's no income tax in my state, they do have the money to pay the sales tax. Also, if the luxury tax isn't too much, perhaps 3% in addition to regular sales taxes, that's only $3k more.
If a luxury tax doesn't work, there's always one more idea. Make property taxes progressive, and there are so many ways to do it too.
I believe that would be illegal to avoid paying the tax. Sales tax tends to be done by destination, not the purchasing place. For example, I, being a Washingtonian, would be responsible for any and all sales tax on purchases I make by mail order or by Internet purchase. If I purchase a book from New York while my residence and shipping destination is in Washington state, I am responsible for paying the sales tax. Although a book is a minor purchase, you get the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the only justifiable time to ban a game is when it depicts a real life crime. Sexually explicit pictures of a minor, a murder being performed, and that type of stuff.
What is being done in Australia is blatent censorship. The government needs to realize it's up to the parents to raise their children right. There is no substitute for a parent teaching a child right from wrong.
I don't know why someone would bother moderating my post down as overrated. If whoever did that bothered to read the parent post to my post, you could see it was simply my thoughts and comments regarding geofferensis's comments about the purchasing power of rich people versus poor people.
I don't think television is a necessity.
By the way, some networks do it right when it comes to advertising. Take Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block. They shove a lot of the commercials towards the end of the show, and just have like a 2-3 minute break halfway through. Then there are other networks lacking advertisement commercials altogether.
A hybrid between capitalism and socialism needs to be done. I'm going to mention some ideas without using any numbers, just so you get the basis of the idea.
Fix the tax system so it's progressive. It has to be stress-free without a lot of red tape. Income taxation as it is now in the federal government of America causes a lot of stress, and permits the government to bully anyone who speaks out against them (such as some churches I believe who are being audited after saying some stuff the government didn't agree with).
Do something like the Alaska Permanent Fund, but on a national scale. Give senior citizens more money. Since the gap between retired persons and working persons is lessening (a bad thing financially speaking), cap it like at a portion of the number of people. Define seniors as like the top 1/4th or whatever of the population.
Have the federal government pay for the cost of tuition at any accredited college. Pay for each credit passed, on a credit by credit basis. Pass a Math 204 class that cost $179, then the government through the college would give you a refund check. Sure, someone would have to worry about room and board and fees and the cost of the failed classes, but it would certainly help.
The government could legislate to make drug related medicinal patents expire after a certain number of years. This would allow generic drugs to come into the picture for some drugs that are a monopoly now.
At the state level, and I don't know if this would work, but this could be tried. There's already school, hospital, and other types of districts. Why not create a free clinic type district, where property taxes would pay for it? However, property taxes would first have to be made progressive in the state before anything this radical is tried. Also, safeguards should be in place first, like maybe preventing foreclosure on any residential property that is occupied, or just having property taxes affect non-residential properties only.
Yeah, but what happens if someone cannot afford it? They got to jail/prison, right?
I don't live in the United Kingdom, but if I understand it correctly, citizens who owns television sets have to pay a t.v. licensing fee each year, correct? The t.v. licensing fee pays for public television, namely a few channels or whatever.
Here is the problem. Just because you own a t.v. doesn't mean you're going to watch those specific public t.v. channels. The government is basically forcing people to pay for something. There is no option. This can be regressive on the poor, and by regressive, I mean it takes more of their income percentage-wise than compared to someone more financially well off.
In my opinion, it would be much more fair to fund this through a form of progressive taxation. Just one idea would be as follows: A sales tax on electronics, all electronics. Electronics aren't a necessity. They can then adjust the specific sales tax rate to get the revenue they tend to usually get over the previous years.
Is this talking about how they have like an annual fee for simply owning a t.v.? Maybe it's time the government switches to something progressive for their form of taxation. Isn't this a burden on the poor? Don't the richer people pay a lot less relative to their income?
I should have probably said, "I would think a $400 million increase in local assessment values would raise a few eyebrows."
I guess I should have read the whole article. Things are different where I live.
I think in the counties in Washington state, it's pretty much fixed, more or less. The governments have to deal with the amount of money they get. If they need more tax revenue, I think they would have to try raising the values of the home, not the taxation rate (which I "think" is limited by state constitutional law, lest they do a levy or something).
Comments on property taxes, and yes, this is definitely whining I'm doing.
They should really try making it progressive. I'm not sure about other states, but I know what they could do in my state. In my state, I think they should try having a constitutional amendment doing the following. Split property taxes into two categories, residential and non-residential properties. The following for residential properties only. Exempt the state median home value from state property taxation. Exempt the county median home value from county property taxation. Exempt the city median home value from city property taxation. Leave the levies alone as it would be too messy trying to do homestead exemptions with those. Uncap the state, county, and city property taxation rates allowing the state, county, and city governments adjust as necessary.
I just thought of this. They should add artificial intelligent to water heater thermostats. It would require a clock, and probably have it adjust for daylight savings time, but have it learn what times of day the hot water is needed, and have it heat accordingly to be most efficient.
Also, if possible, use natural sunlight to heat the water heater as much as possible when possible because it's essentially free energy, if you know what I mean. This way it would cut down on electricity.
First thing I notice is how much property taxes a cheap $121,900 home would have to pay. That amount doesn't seem progressive, $1,500 in taxes.
Second thing I notice is the spending issues. Didn't the government realize that a lot more tax revenue was coming their way this year than in previous years? Didn't that raise some eyebrows? Shouldn't they be trying to spend less, instead of spending 100% of what they think they will get?
Isn't there a big difference between a person renting a housing unit wanting a specific roommateand a person who rents out the housing units to anyone they wish?
Hypothetically, if I own some apartments, I shouldn't have the right to discriminate on who lives there and who doesn't live there. However, shouldn't the tenants be able to choose however they please (legally,not morally, speaking?
Okay, I'll do the math. Using Amazon.com for help.
I'll use the 60 watt equivalent.
GE Soft White Light Bulb; 60 watts; 820 lumens; 1500 hours; $1.50
Compact Fluorescent Energy Saver; 14 watts; 800 lumens (close enough to 820); 10,000 hours; $11.98
6 cents per kilowatt hour...
Calculating cost for 5,000 hours, replacing the energy saving one every 5,000 hours even though the lifetime is 10,000 hours
GE Soft White Light Bulbs: ($1.5 * 5) + (5000 * 60/1000 * 0.06) = $7.50 + $18 = $25.50
Compact Fluorescent Energy Saver: ($11.98 * 1) + (5000 * 13/1000 * 0.06) = $11.98 + $3.9 = $15.88
Those energy saving light bulbs tend to go dim over time, and may be rended non-useful half way through their life. I know, I have one I use a lot of the time in my room while on my computer, but it's gotten so dim that I'm going to have to replace it I guess.
After doing the math, I guess you're right. It would be interesting to find out at what hour point the energy saving light bulbs (by this I obviously mean those compact spiral ones) start to lose enough lumens to be noticeable.
Those energy saving light bulbs can be a bad idea sometimes. Sure, they may last thousands of hours, but they end up going dim after a certain amount of time. I suggest those energy saving light bulbs are only worth it if the light you need doesn't have to be bright.
Here are some ideas. Buy a motion detector. Hook it up in places that tend to have the lights left on all the time. Maybe the place is a place that is difficult to turn off the light because it's dark otherwise and difficult to find the switch.
Although others have mentioned this and the like, I'm going to say it. Water heaters with timers on them would be a good idea. Also, can't sunlight heat the water quite a bit?
I'm not so sure if it's legal to mandate that the employees give up their fingerprints like that.
... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
Below is the part of the 4th Amendment in which I am referring. Aren't our fingerprints considered to be part of our property? Isn't mandating that they collect our fingerprints without being suspected of a crime an unreasonable search? (It's one thing to do a background check and ask for fingerprints. It's another thing to require your fingerprints be on a card you have to carry around.)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
I don't think it's legal for Washingtonians to cross the boarder to avoid paying Washingtonian sales tax. If I were to travel to Oregon to buy a plasma t.v. hypothetically speaking, I think I would still be subject to sales tax. It would be my liability for paying it. Sure, I could try to get away with it, but that would be dishonest.
The intent is to make taxes progressive. There can always be one year trial runs until something is figured out that will solve the problems.
I still stick to my idea about luxury taxes, something small as maybe a 3% addition to regular sales tax. Nonetheless, I am still speaking of state taxes.
I think the best way to fix state taxes is to make property tax progressive. Split it into residential and non-residential property tax rates. Require a certain percentage, fixed, of the residential property tax revenue to be used for homestead exemptions. As for the non-residential property tax and whether there should be exemptions, I don't know yet.
I should have said purchases made for personal reasons, i.e. not by a business.
Fine, then just make it any yacht exceeding $100k in value.
Is that even legal?
We live in the digital age. We should be able to figure out a solution with computers concerning calculating sales tax. A national sales tax registry perhaps?
I should really be more careful. I hate making typos on something I can't edit.
What do you mean? Someone, like from Texas, buying an item from another state and having it shipped to Mexico? Well, that's definitely cheating the state.
Some people are bound to try cheating, but I would hope they would be more honest. Since there's no income tax in my state, they do have the money to pay the sales tax. Also, if the luxury tax isn't too much, perhaps 3% in addition to regular sales taxes, that's only $3k more.
If a luxury tax doesn't work, there's always one more idea. Make property taxes progressive, and there are so many ways to do it too.
How exactly did they go out of business? A 10% retail sales tax on boats shouldn't be that negative.
I believe that would be illegal to avoid paying the tax. Sales tax tends to be done by destination, not the purchasing place. For example, I, being a Washingtonian, would be responsible for any and all sales tax on purchases I make by mail order or by Internet purchase. If I purchase a book from New York while my residence and shipping destination is in Washington state, I am responsible for paying the sales tax. Although a book is a minor purchase, you get the idea.