If they actually bet on those beliefs, they've probably lost their shoes in the stock market and can't afford to comment. But talk is always cheap and there's no end of people who'd like to convince you that they know what they're talking about. Anyone who was all talk is surely talking about something else right now.
Please enlighten me as to this magical state which doesn’t tax you. I know that there are stars which don’t have an income tax, but you’d better believe that they make it up in other ways.
Perhaps it’s advantageous for you in some states given your unique circumstances, but on average you’re better off finding states which spend the least as on average they’ll tax you least regardless of how they go about it.
Even though $3 billion sounds like a lot of money, it's not necessarily a terrible deal for the state. Assuming that you bring in 25,000 new jobs and you're not displacing anyone else as a result (which I'll admit is a bit of a stretch) and that the average salary of each employee is $100,000 (seems ballpark good based on a quick Google search and information on glassdoor), then that's nearly $3 billion that Amazon is paying back into the area in the first year. State taxes for those employees will be 6.65%, so the state would make back that money in a little under 20 years. Once you factor in sales tax and additional taxes gained from the additional money being spent into the local economy and the turn around might be much shorter.
That aside, I still don't think it's appropriate for governments to cut special deals. If you're going to have various tax laws, etc. then all companies and citizens should play be the same rules. To do otherwise is simply forcing other businesses to subsidize Amazon. If New York has policies that make in unattractive for Amazon to locate there, then Amazon should go somewhere with better policies. Anything else tends to send the wrong messages and encourage the wrong sort of behavior. Make it illegal for government to sell and companies to buy preferential treatment and we'll be much better off if for no other reason that it keeps the kind of pimps out of office that thrive on whoring out political power.
I wouldn't give children money while they're children, mostly because parents will take it and potentially squander it, but if that money were to accrue and be given to a person when the reached adulthood (and possibly satisfied some other requirements) then they would have the ability to go on to further education, put a down payment on a house, or otherwise spend that money as they see fit.
I don't deny that some would waste it, but I don't think anyone would have a problem telling them that they made their own poor choices and that's their own fault.
I'll be interested in seeing how this turns out. Apple has had great success with their ARM SoC design, and I don't doubt they can design a modem and baseband, but will they be able to design something that provides similar performance to what Qualcomm produces. Intel hasn't had a lot of success outside of x86, so I don't know how much of their failings can be pinned on the company, but rolling your own hardware is no small task.
If nothing else, I suspect that there are some Qualcomm on Intel employees who work on these designs that are about to receive some job offers with very attractive salaries.
I think this just shows the real problem with taxes. Half of the things you think are great, are not good use of tax dollars according to another group of people. Some of what you want to spend more taxes on is going to be considered squandering tax money on nonsense by others. No one has a problem identifying the wastefulness of government spending in the things the consider to be bad, yet seem to believe that such could not happen with those things that they want tax dollars to fun. Once you legitimize government largess, it's no wonder that people will crawl out of the woodwork to direct some of it towards themselves.
And New York seems to consider it a fine idea to take from those who have most and redistribute to those who have less. They are one of the richer states, so shouldn't they be happy that more federal money is being spent on the states that contribute less? Everyone loves the notion of taking from those who have more, but most don't realize that they're quite far up the ladder themselves and there's a whole wider world that has much, much less.
. Yes work does create the initial seed capital but it's only through rent extraction (money without work) do these money piles grow so you can afford to live without working.
What else am I supposed to do with the capital that I acquire from working? If I'm not investing it, then either I can leave it sit in a pile to watch inflation eat away at it, or spend it immediately. The latter option is what a lot of people do, but doing so means that you need to continue working as long as you live in order to maintain your costs.
And if I want to start a new business, but lack capital of my own, how would I be able to start a company if there aren't people who are willing to invest some of their capital? If I'm successful in my endeavors, shouldn't those people who invested in my expect to share in that success?
So the way I look at it, UBI extends the benefit of money without work to everyone and it should be funded by taking money from those who don't work and have a lot of money.
Money is just a commodity and it has no value itself and is only worth anything to the extent which work is done. You can't just take that money, because it's being invested in other economic activity. The reason basic income works at all is because we've become so productive that we can absorb the costs of people who are slacking off. If you want society to be able to care for the least well off, the only reasonable way to so is to make it so inexpensive to support people that the opportunity cost doesn't cripple the economy.
I generally don't have much problem with estate taxes. A dead person has no need of their assets and even if they dispensed all of them prior to their deaths they would still be subject to some form of taxation in their transfer. However, if you think you can just "eat the rich" or something nonsensical like that, you're only deluding yourself. Reallocating resources to provide for people who produce nothing themselves is a reduction in the net wealth creation ability of the country.
At $700 per month, the cost isn't that high. If you did that in the U.S. it comes out to $2.7 trillion which is about the same as mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) in the U.S. Federal budget.
A lot of people like to point out that basic income will not motivate people to work, yet we're subsidizing that laziness, and that's certainly true. However, the mistake is assuming that we aren't paying for it already. I would rather use a basic income to replace all of the existing social programs that we spend billions of dollars on per year. It's far better solution in that it's more adaptive (food stamps are useless if you need to repair your car to get to a job) and less expensive to administer since it's a single program.
But it's also necessary to look at it in terms of other costs it might help prevent. People without money or any way to obtain it aren't going to sit and starve. More often than not they turn to some form of crime. It costs a lot of money to hire a police force necessary to deal with that crime and to incarcerate the criminals who perpetuate it. If $700 a month stops us from having to pay almost four times that amount to lock that person up in jail, we're recognizing cost savings there as well.
I think that large scale government wealth redistribution schemes are folly, but a basic income is the best way to go about doing it. From a utilitarian point of view, we're already spending massive amounts of money on these types of programs. I think it's a good compromise because the left gets their government program and the right gets a smaller government.
The people that Amazon employs are likely to earn more than the people they displace, which means the state will collect additional income tax simply due to the higher wages, but also because Amazon workers will fall into a higher tax bracket. Those workers also have more disposable income which means more money being spent into the local economy. If people are being pushed out at a 1:1 ratio with every person Amazon brings in, there's no net change in road utilization (unless Amazon workers are more likely to drive) or other utilization. If it displaces other types of labor, it just means that value of what remains increases due to more limited supply, so it would raise wages for those jobs. There's also plenty of housing available, but some of it needs to be reclaimed but idiotic development laws typically mean that no one wants to spend the time or money dealing with it.
It may still be that the net effect doesn't result in much additional revenue for the state or city, but I'm not sure if I agree with the reasoning that you've used to arrive at that conclusion.
A tax break is not giving them money.
It's simply refraining from taking it from them.
Be that as it may, it's still asking other businesses which are being taxed so subsidize Amazon who is getting preferential treatment. I think that high taxes are idiotic and usually counter-productive, but if some city or state wants to enact them, then they should be applied fairly and evenly to all who live and do business there. If those cities or states find that it drives out businesses, then they can vote to reduce the tax rates.
The whole thing is a farce to begin with and the same shit played out with 4G. Hell, there's still services being sold as 4G that doesn't even meet the technical specifications for it today. Sprint should just one up them and start selling their network as 6G. Full on five blades strategy.
The stupid part is that it really doesn't matter how fast your connection is when the carriers impose such tiny bandwidth caps. It's like driving a formula one car on a track with a brick wall at the end of the quarter mile stretch.
I can detect it even quicker than that. After being out all hours of the night drinking with my friends, I already know that my girlfriend is going to be angry before I even talk to her. It's like the pre-cogs from Minority Report or something.
In case anyone wasn't aware of these yet, the videos demonstrating how they work are pretty damn cool. Here's one that has slow motion captures of such a laser in action. It doesn't have any audio, but the whole thing is even more awesome if you open a video playing Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries in another tab.
Somalia isn’t a particularly good example of an anarchist (or libertarian if you want to lump it in with their beliefs) state since the turmoil there resulted from the collapse of the former communist government when the Soviet Union fell. The country is heavily divided along different lines and no group can control all of it and some parts want to splinter off.
Everything has a cost whether politicians claim it’s “free” or not. I think the obvious solution is to allow others to host the court documents if the court feels that the expenses of being the sole provider are too great. You could use torrents for something like this and it would work well and provide excellent redundancy. The records are public anyway so it doesn’t matter if everyone has a copy.
It’s not quite that easy. People who are depressed don’t always like admitting it to other people and are often pretty good about hiding it. Add in every teenager acting a little weird as they mature and deal with becoming an adult and it’s not exactly hard to miss.
I agree with you that parents sometimes just want a reason, if for no other reason than they don’t understand it themselves and need something that they can at least make sense of. Maybe someday we’ll understand it all a bit better and be able to prevent it, but for now it’s not much different from cancer or any other illness that we hadn’t figured out. At least we’re not chipping holes in each other’s heads anymore.
No Cortez is a dingbat. I was curious about her when she won the primary so I watched some of her interviews. The gaffs were amazing. She has no understanding of economics and this is despite having a degree in it. She screws up things that are just common sense.
Her own party hates her and I won’t be surprised if they try to run someone against her in the next election. Maybe you mistake the media coverage she gets for something it isn’t. Of course Fox is going to pillory her, but the rest of the coverage of her idiocy is to get people to toss her out. Of course the media made the same mistake with Trump, so I’m sure the Democrats will have this blow up in their face again.
This only exists because they needed something to show off at CES because their next generation Navi cards aren’t ready. This is a Vega 20 part which is specifically designed for machine learning and heavy compute workloads. It’s basically just one of their MI50 cards with the double precision performance crippled intentionally. If NVidia weren’t jacking up the prices on their 2000 series cards, AMD probably wouldn’t be able to sell this since it’s expensive for them to make and comes at the cost of selling a several thousand dollar professional card instead.
The real test of any indication of confidence is an actual wager. If they're 10% certain, they should be willing to take bets that offer 9:1 odds or better. Similarly, you should be willing to make that same wager on the other side since you're at least 90% certain that they are wrong. If either of you won't make that wager, then you're not actually as confident as you claim.
It's the old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is."
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone care to update or respond to the list?
If they actually bet on those beliefs, they've probably lost their shoes in the stock market and can't afford to comment. But talk is always cheap and there's no end of people who'd like to convince you that they know what they're talking about. Anyone who was all talk is surely talking about something else right now.
Please enlighten me as to this magical state which doesn’t tax you. I know that there are stars which don’t have an income tax, but you’d better believe that they make it up in other ways.
Perhaps it’s advantageous for you in some states given your unique circumstances, but on average you’re better off finding states which spend the least as on average they’ll tax you least regardless of how they go about it.
Even though $3 billion sounds like a lot of money, it's not necessarily a terrible deal for the state. Assuming that you bring in 25,000 new jobs and you're not displacing anyone else as a result (which I'll admit is a bit of a stretch) and that the average salary of each employee is $100,000 (seems ballpark good based on a quick Google search and information on glassdoor), then that's nearly $3 billion that Amazon is paying back into the area in the first year. State taxes for those employees will be 6.65%, so the state would make back that money in a little under 20 years. Once you factor in sales tax and additional taxes gained from the additional money being spent into the local economy and the turn around might be much shorter.
That aside, I still don't think it's appropriate for governments to cut special deals. If you're going to have various tax laws, etc. then all companies and citizens should play be the same rules. To do otherwise is simply forcing other businesses to subsidize Amazon. If New York has policies that make in unattractive for Amazon to locate there, then Amazon should go somewhere with better policies. Anything else tends to send the wrong messages and encourage the wrong sort of behavior. Make it illegal for government to sell and companies to buy preferential treatment and we'll be much better off if for no other reason that it keeps the kind of pimps out of office that thrive on whoring out political power.
If you die in the matrix, you die in real life.
Don't you know that if you BLINK you'll miss it?
I wouldn't give children money while they're children, mostly because parents will take it and potentially squander it, but if that money were to accrue and be given to a person when the reached adulthood (and possibly satisfied some other requirements) then they would have the ability to go on to further education, put a down payment on a house, or otherwise spend that money as they see fit.
I don't deny that some would waste it, but I don't think anyone would have a problem telling them that they made their own poor choices and that's their own fault.
I'll be interested in seeing how this turns out. Apple has had great success with their ARM SoC design, and I don't doubt they can design a modem and baseband, but will they be able to design something that provides similar performance to what Qualcomm produces. Intel hasn't had a lot of success outside of x86, so I don't know how much of their failings can be pinned on the company, but rolling your own hardware is no small task.
If nothing else, I suspect that there are some Qualcomm on Intel employees who work on these designs that are about to receive some job offers with very attractive salaries.
I think this just shows the real problem with taxes. Half of the things you think are great, are not good use of tax dollars according to another group of people. Some of what you want to spend more taxes on is going to be considered squandering tax money on nonsense by others. No one has a problem identifying the wastefulness of government spending in the things the consider to be bad, yet seem to believe that such could not happen with those things that they want tax dollars to fun. Once you legitimize government largess, it's no wonder that people will crawl out of the woodwork to direct some of it towards themselves.
And New York seems to consider it a fine idea to take from those who have most and redistribute to those who have less. They are one of the richer states, so shouldn't they be happy that more federal money is being spent on the states that contribute less? Everyone loves the notion of taking from those who have more, but most don't realize that they're quite far up the ladder themselves and there's a whole wider world that has much, much less.
Granted, I live paycheck to paycheck and have a small savings to take care of minor emergencies. But nothing to cover a single month of expenses.
Why the hell are you doing that? It seems like you recognize the folly, but yet you choose to continue to do so.
. Yes work does create the initial seed capital but it's only through rent extraction (money without work) do these money piles grow so you can afford to live without working.
What else am I supposed to do with the capital that I acquire from working? If I'm not investing it, then either I can leave it sit in a pile to watch inflation eat away at it, or spend it immediately. The latter option is what a lot of people do, but doing so means that you need to continue working as long as you live in order to maintain your costs.
And if I want to start a new business, but lack capital of my own, how would I be able to start a company if there aren't people who are willing to invest some of their capital? If I'm successful in my endeavors, shouldn't those people who invested in my expect to share in that success?
So the way I look at it, UBI extends the benefit of money without work to everyone and it should be funded by taking money from those who don't work and have a lot of money.
Money is just a commodity and it has no value itself and is only worth anything to the extent which work is done. You can't just take that money, because it's being invested in other economic activity. The reason basic income works at all is because we've become so productive that we can absorb the costs of people who are slacking off. If you want society to be able to care for the least well off, the only reasonable way to so is to make it so inexpensive to support people that the opportunity cost doesn't cripple the economy.
I generally don't have much problem with estate taxes. A dead person has no need of their assets and even if they dispensed all of them prior to their deaths they would still be subject to some form of taxation in their transfer. However, if you think you can just "eat the rich" or something nonsensical like that, you're only deluding yourself. Reallocating resources to provide for people who produce nothing themselves is a reduction in the net wealth creation ability of the country.
At $700 per month, the cost isn't that high. If you did that in the U.S. it comes out to $2.7 trillion which is about the same as mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) in the U.S. Federal budget.
A lot of people like to point out that basic income will not motivate people to work, yet we're subsidizing that laziness, and that's certainly true. However, the mistake is assuming that we aren't paying for it already. I would rather use a basic income to replace all of the existing social programs that we spend billions of dollars on per year. It's far better solution in that it's more adaptive (food stamps are useless if you need to repair your car to get to a job) and less expensive to administer since it's a single program.
But it's also necessary to look at it in terms of other costs it might help prevent. People without money or any way to obtain it aren't going to sit and starve. More often than not they turn to some form of crime. It costs a lot of money to hire a police force necessary to deal with that crime and to incarcerate the criminals who perpetuate it. If $700 a month stops us from having to pay almost four times that amount to lock that person up in jail, we're recognizing cost savings there as well.
I think that large scale government wealth redistribution schemes are folly, but a basic income is the best way to go about doing it. From a utilitarian point of view, we're already spending massive amounts of money on these types of programs. I think it's a good compromise because the left gets their government program and the right gets a smaller government.
The people that Amazon employs are likely to earn more than the people they displace, which means the state will collect additional income tax simply due to the higher wages, but also because Amazon workers will fall into a higher tax bracket. Those workers also have more disposable income which means more money being spent into the local economy. If people are being pushed out at a 1:1 ratio with every person Amazon brings in, there's no net change in road utilization (unless Amazon workers are more likely to drive) or other utilization. If it displaces other types of labor, it just means that value of what remains increases due to more limited supply, so it would raise wages for those jobs. There's also plenty of housing available, but some of it needs to be reclaimed but idiotic development laws typically mean that no one wants to spend the time or money dealing with it.
It may still be that the net effect doesn't result in much additional revenue for the state or city, but I'm not sure if I agree with the reasoning that you've used to arrive at that conclusion.
A tax break is not giving them money.
It's simply refraining from taking it from them.
Be that as it may, it's still asking other businesses which are being taxed so subsidize Amazon who is getting preferential treatment. I think that high taxes are idiotic and usually counter-productive, but if some city or state wants to enact them, then they should be applied fairly and evenly to all who live and do business there. If those cities or states find that it drives out businesses, then they can vote to reduce the tax rates.
The whole thing is a farce to begin with and the same shit played out with 4G. Hell, there's still services being sold as 4G that doesn't even meet the technical specifications for it today. Sprint should just one up them and start selling their network as 6G. Full on five blades strategy.
The stupid part is that it really doesn't matter how fast your connection is when the carriers impose such tiny bandwidth caps. It's like driving a formula one car on a track with a brick wall at the end of the quarter mile stretch.
I can detect it even quicker than that. After being out all hours of the night drinking with my friends, I already know that my girlfriend is going to be angry before I even talk to her. It's like the pre-cogs from Minority Report or something.
In case anyone wasn't aware of these yet, the videos demonstrating how they work are pretty damn cool. Here's one that has slow motion captures of such a laser in action. It doesn't have any audio, but the whole thing is even more awesome if you open a video playing Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries in another tab.
Somalia isn’t a particularly good example of an anarchist (or libertarian if you want to lump it in with their beliefs) state since the turmoil there resulted from the collapse of the former communist government when the Soviet Union fell. The country is heavily divided along different lines and no group can control all of it and some parts want to splinter off.
Everything has a cost whether politicians claim it’s “free” or not. I think the obvious solution is to allow others to host the court documents if the court feels that the expenses of being the sole provider are too great. You could use torrents for something like this and it would work well and provide excellent redundancy. The records are public anyway so it doesn’t matter if everyone has a copy.
It’s not quite that easy. People who are depressed don’t always like admitting it to other people and are often pretty good about hiding it. Add in every teenager acting a little weird as they mature and deal with becoming an adult and it’s not exactly hard to miss.
I agree with you that parents sometimes just want a reason, if for no other reason than they don’t understand it themselves and need something that they can at least make sense of. Maybe someday we’ll understand it all a bit better and be able to prevent it, but for now it’s not much different from cancer or any other illness that we hadn’t figured out. At least we’re not chipping holes in each other’s heads anymore.
No Cortez is a dingbat. I was curious about her when she won the primary so I watched some of her interviews. The gaffs were amazing. She has no understanding of economics and this is despite having a degree in it. She screws up things that are just common sense.
Her own party hates her and I won’t be surprised if they try to run someone against her in the next election. Maybe you mistake the media coverage she gets for something it isn’t. Of course Fox is going to pillory her, but the rest of the coverage of her idiocy is to get people to toss her out. Of course the media made the same mistake with Trump, so I’m sure the Democrats will have this blow up in their face again.
Cortez is still an idiot though.
Bill Gates won’t be affected. But the least well off will be.
Ask France how that is working out for them. People won’t put up with that shit. We didn’t wind up with Trump because people found him charming.
This only exists because they needed something to show off at CES because their next generation Navi cards aren’t ready. This is a Vega 20 part which is specifically designed for machine learning and heavy compute workloads. It’s basically just one of their MI50 cards with the double precision performance crippled intentionally. If NVidia weren’t jacking up the prices on their 2000 series cards, AMD probably wouldn’t be able to sell this since it’s expensive for them to make and comes at the cost of selling a several thousand dollar professional card instead.
My bigger concern would have been that my child was seeking out self harm images in the first place.
And I'm sure that they would have quit looking after they couldn't find any on Instagram.
Kids tend to be social creatures by nature
Then let them go out and spend time with their friends instead of being on social media.
I think that humans are only about as adapted to coping with social media as they are life on Mars.
The real test of any indication of confidence is an actual wager. If they're 10% certain, they should be willing to take bets that offer 9:1 odds or better. Similarly, you should be willing to make that same wager on the other side since you're at least 90% certain that they are wrong. If either of you won't make that wager, then you're not actually as confident as you claim.
It's the old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is."