No. And you don't need to be an asshat if you disagree with me... though I'm getting used to your flaming.
Apparently, you are still confusing spending restraint with fiscal responsibility. They are not the same.
"Does the federal governement COLLECT money from the states? YES"
Since when does the federal government collect money from states? If you mean taxpayers within states, then fine... but show me a budget item showing any state paying the federal government for operational or capital expenses.
Furthermore, from an economic standpoint (not a political one), it doesn't really matter whether the funds are received and spent at the national, state, or local level. Here's a good paper that discusses deficit spending and how it is accounted for: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1008&context=rutgersnewarklwps
Fiscal responsibility is a separate issue from states' rights. They are not independent when applied in practice, if you mean "fiscal responsibility only at the federal level." But fiscal responsibility really includes federal, state, and local spending and revenues.
You see now why you're completely wrong?
BTW, I read your recent posts... I see you still as misinformed as ever. The filibuster cannot be used in the House of Reps. You linked that Wikipedia article... maybe you should have bothered reading it.
Well, what should one expect from a troll, but trollish comments?
"Now that they're outnumbered at the federal level, they have all kinds of respect for checks and balances and fiscal responsibility."
Umm, fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with federalism vs. states' rights. If you mean restraint on federal spending, then you may have a point -- but fiscal responsibility is really about balancing a budget, not spending less.
Neither major party in the US walks the walk -- but they all talk the talk. Tax & spend (the traditional conservative appellation for the liberal method) sure beats borrow & spend (the current liberal appellation for the 'conservative' method in use).
Either way, the Federal government continues to bloat.
FTA: A way to remove the 'cloaking device' without breaking the DRM (or your device driver): URLhttp://cp.sonybmg.com/xcp/english/updates.html>
Sony: We Make Your DRM a Little Less Evil (tm)
Obviously, this was just a way for Sony to try to bring WoW to its knees; after all, that's a lot of potential EQ2 subscribers who might have changed over had Sony been able to cripple the WoW economy.
/tinfoil plate armor, shield, and helm securely equipped
"If designers have to somehow work around 3, 4, 5 different browsers' rendering habits and bugs- things will be a disaster, they'll be frustrated and tempted to just support IE and "the next biggest fish", etc."
Which is the biggest reason to support open standards. Then, designers only have one set of standards to develop for, and those 3, 4, 5 browsers will render without problem.
"No, they don't. The lower income earners pay the same if not less of a proportion. That is because of state tax breaks when it comes time to file. The "rich" on the other hand spend more at the local level such as higher property taxes. Sales tax being the same proportion for all income clases."
Umm, no. Analyze property tax vs. income level, and you'll find that the poor pay a higher proportion of their income on property tax than the rich -- keeping in mind that a proportion of rent is property tax. We're talking proportion, not absolute amounts here. If you want anecdotal evidence, just check out property tax rates vs. median incomes for a few municipalities... you'll quickly find that property tax rates are much lower in high-income areas, while there is a positive correlation between property values and income. Therefore, there is a inverse correlation between income level and property tax paid. If you want evidence that is better than anecdotal, google for some, since it is obvious you are good at using google to pull statistics, however irrelevant, out of a hat to support your points.
"Wealth redistribution does not work. It back fires. It always has and always will on any country that invokes socialism. That's correct. Our tax system is a form of socialism in the mildest form. Nothing fair about."
What are the criteria by which you judge success or failure of a system? This generalization is a bunch of BS, since it is obvious that socialized medicine is working well in many nations...
If you believe the role of government is to stimulate maximal economic growth, then you may be correct. But socialized medicine works well in many countries... in fact, the per capita cost of health care is lower in socialized countries than it is in the US... even when you only include countries with medical systems comparable to ours.
At any rate, your blatant generalizations that mean nothing, and that are not arguable since there are no criteria, just go to show that you don't have a good idea of what you are talking about. You may be able to google for some facts and figures, but you're obviously missing the boat.
"They can simply refuse to sell it for less than their desired price"
But that's not the ideal price point. I'm sure they've analyzed the market to determine their strategy for sales and pricing, it's not like any mass-produced good is just put onto the market with a number pulled from a pie.
In terms of the early adopters (the segment of the market at the highest part of the dmeand curve) affecting the future demand curve, I agree with you and the earlier poster.
However, this is also an anecdotal explanation of limiting supply to maintain demand, which is kind of what I was pointing out.
"What? How about you pay taxes in the state where you use the resources provided by the state? You know - roads, emergency services, schools, etc? If you commute to an employer in another state, the employer is using that other state's resources/facilities, and corporate/property/sales taxes collected as that business does business in that state cover those expenses."
To deal with the specifics first -- emergency services and schools are paid for primarily by local property taxes, not state income taxes. I know what you mean, though, as there are a lot of state services for whom the benefit goes to residents of the state.
What would happen, I think, is that state budgets would shift revenue to property taxes, while income taxes would be reduced. I think this is more in line with the services provided by the state, rather than income taxes.
Furthermore, I think it has the added advantage of people wanting to live in those states that have high business volume -- since those states would have higher revenue, and most likely a better quality of life. Might help cut down some of the wasteful sprawl we have.
"But a business never pays taxes out of their own pocket."
Since businesses are owned by individuals, in the end, it's the individuals who pay taxes assessed on businesses. Or, it's the individuals (or the individuals who own companies) that purchase goods from a company.
The point is that "business" is a useful term to represent an intangible structure that acts like an individual. Since the tax burden on a business can directly affect the actions of the business, it's useful to think of it in terms of the business paying the taxes. Cash flow problems can not always be passed on to the customer, nor to the investor.
The opposite side can be taken as well -- it's never the individual who pays the taxes, but instead the employer who does -- the individual passes on the tax burden to the business by demanding higher wages.
In the end, it's a semantic argument, since the tax burden needs to be looked at from the perspective of the entire economy, and subsets of the economy. Who actually cuts the check isn't as improtant.
The problem with replacing the current system with a national sales tax is that it disproportionately affects the lower income levels, since they spend a higher proportion of their income on taxable goods. Even with a rebate, so as to not tax people on the first, say $20k, of income, you still have those at the top paying a far lower percentage of their income as taxes.
You aren't making the distinction between the revenues of their business, and the wages they are paid.
Payments made to their business (the band) are subject to sales tax in the locality in which the goods and services are delivered (i.e., where the concert is). Payments to the individuals in the band is considered wages, or possibly non-employee income, depending on the situation, and should be taxed in the state in which the business is located.
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they'd be paying state income taxes on their total income for each state they do business in. What I'm saying is that, were an individual to consult in multiple states, he'd have to pay state income tax in each state based upon the amount he earned in each respective state.
Make 30k in NJ, 30k in NY, 30k in PA? Pay taxes on 30k in each of the states, but the tax rate is based upon a gross income of 90k.
"We pay taxes for (what little) services the government provides to us. We do not pay taxes for the privelage of earning a living. Taxation without representation? Hello?"
Hahahhaha. You buy into that horseshit? There are a ton of books you should read that explain the real causes of the American Revolution. It was never about taxation without representation, except to the sheeple. It was class warfare, local control of commodities, and currency. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid they fed you in grade school.
Why should the individual be taxed at all? Why not just, in effect, make it employment taxes (which is the natural extension of what I said in the GP). The business derives advantage from the services provided to the individuals. Then, anyone who gets pissed can't complain about taxation without representation, since they are not being taxed. And everyone can agree that corporations are represented pretty heavily in state governments, anyway.
First off, let me say that your figures don't even apply to what is being discussed -- individual tax rate cannot be extrapolated from % total tax burden by income class.
Second, your figures (and yes, I'm familiar with the IRS figures that you linked to, but I checked them just to be sure) do not include state and local taxes. Nor do they reflect true gross income -- instead they are AGI, adjusted gross income.
Lower-income people pay a much, much higher proportion of their income in state & local taxes than the wealthy.
You can cherry-pick statistics to your heart's content, but that's a reflection of your poor analysis, not any economic misunderstanding on my part.
What really pisses me off is people who think that federal income tax is the only tax that people pay, and don't even bother to read the part of a post that talks about total tax burden. Nor do they bother to understand that AGI reported to the IRS is different than true GI.
"As far as a tax code going out of its way to help the extremely wealthy, well, all I have to say is that our graduated income tax in the US pretty much proves that we don't have such a tax code."
That's pretty funny. Last I checked, the extremely wealthy pay a smaller portion of their income in taxes as any group except for the destitute. Seeing as most of their income is not wages.
The stated graduated income tax rates are a joke. No person making six figures or more is paying even 25% of their income in taxes each year... unless they are absolute morons. Just forget about those who make 7 figures. Yet I pay 25% of my income in taxes and use all the deductions at my disposal to pay as little as possible.
You might see it as an attack, but that's because you are looking for an attack. Doesn't mean that it is one. You are also working from the assumption that responding to the market in the most profitable way is a bad thing -- otherwise, why would this be negative?
"Any theoretical benefit to understocking is surely not as big a benefit as trying to make sure as many people as possible who want 360s will be able to get them. The more sold, the more games and accessories sold, the quicker the installed base increases, and the better the head start over the PS3."
Not so. The goal is not to sell the most units at release. The goal is to sell the most units this quarter, or to sell the most units prior to PS3 launch. Undersupply now will increase the incentive for people to purchase the product when it is no longer undersupplied -- such as immediately before the winter holidays. This is a strategy that has worked again and again for unique goods, and if done properly, does not lead to fewer users -- it leads to more users, many of whome have paid more than they would have otherwise.
"Does he utilize any New York resources? Does he get the right to vote? No taxation without representation? Taxes paid while visiting in New York, or even taxes paid on wages earned while physically in New York are a little more understandable."
Yes, he utilizes NY resources. He gets NY employment protection, his employer gets the benefit of NYS spending, and therefore he does too.
Don't even bother with the no taxation without representation business, that hasn't applied to states in the US for a long, long time.
"So if he's a consultant who occasionally travels to 3-6 states where his client base exists while living elsewhere, he should pay the full tax rate for each state based on your logic? That's ridiculous, regardless of how many services a state is providing to his clients."
No. He is a self-employed consultant, not an employee. If he is operating as a business (not an employee, there is a huge distinction in tax law) then he should pay individual income tax in the state that his employer (his business) pays him.
You'd be surprised how little in taxes many NY employers pay. A company I used to work for paid close to 80% of their profit in taxes (Federal, state, local income taxes only -- forgeddaboud local rent tax, property tax share, employment tax, etc). Yet, relative to revenue, the amount was very small.
Taxing employers only, and not employees, will have a chilling effect on commerce -- pretty much any higher tax burden on the company I used to work for would have driven it out of business (whoops, there goes 95 jobs!).
It does depend on reciprocal agreements. NY & NJ do have a reciprocal agreement -- but that doesn't absolve me of paying state income taxes to either state. It just means I get to take a partial credit on my NJ taxes.
I'm not attacking MS, I'm explaining what they are doing. Did you bother reading my post?
If you had an understanding of supply vs demand and how it affects pricing, maybe you'd realize why it is good for MS to intentionally understock. Never mind all the other reasons that understocking may help increase demand, not just allow a high price point for longer.
"Hence, if you aren't a resident of a state and benefit in no way from the services that the government there provides, why should you be paying taxes to that government?"
Except that he does see benefit from the services those taxes provide. Most of the services you mention are local services, anyway -- not state services.
Second, that job that he telecommutes to wouldn't exist without the services that NYS provides to his company.
"What about people who live next to state lines? Surely there are other cases where people live in one state and work in another."
Yup. I live in NJ, work in NY. Pay income taxes to NJ, NY, Federal Government. If they reinstate the commuter tax in NYC, I will also pay income tax to NYC (I did until about 4-5 years ago). Pay sales tax in NYC to the city, the county, and the state. Pay sales tax in NJ to the state. Pay property tax to my municipality in NJ. My wife pays gas tax in NJ -- I take mass transit (but still pay for roads via taxes).
The way I see it, people should pay income tax in the state that they earn the income, not the state in which they reside. If my home state wants to tax me for simply importing cash into their state, that's a problem -- since import taxes between states are illegal in the US. Besides, when I spend cash in NJ, they get to tax it then.
The Escapist regularly has articles/editorials that are pretty useless. I've occasionally seen a good write-up there, but in general, I skip any/. link that points there.
To get back on topic, I don't think we're going to see any major releases aimed at women gamers for quite a while... the same reason we don't see many non-derivative games aimed at the traditional (male) game market -- the industry has become pretty risk-averse.
What the game industry really needs to do if they want to target the women gamer market heavily, is to analyze what women gamers are playing casually, and make more of the same -- but in more depth.
That, and encourage more women to develop small games. Try to create a situation where female-targeted games have a chance to evolve like male-oriented games did.
Slashdot Mirror
"See now why you're completely wrong?"
e =1008&context=rutgersnewarklwps
No. And you don't need to be an asshat if you disagree with me... though I'm getting used to your flaming.
Apparently, you are still confusing spending restraint with fiscal responsibility. They are not the same.
"Does the federal governement COLLECT money from the states? YES"
Since when does the federal government collect money from states? If you mean taxpayers within states, then fine... but show me a budget item showing any state paying the federal government for operational or capital expenses.
Furthermore, from an economic standpoint (not a political one), it doesn't really matter whether the funds are received and spent at the national, state, or local level. Here's a good paper that discusses deficit spending and how it is accounted for: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl
Fiscal responsibility is a separate issue from states' rights. They are not independent when applied in practice, if you mean "fiscal responsibility only at the federal level." But fiscal responsibility really includes federal, state, and local spending and revenues.
You see now why you're completely wrong?
BTW, I read your recent posts... I see you still as misinformed as ever. The filibuster cannot be used in the House of Reps. You linked that Wikipedia article... maybe you should have bothered reading it.
Well, what should one expect from a troll, but trollish comments?
"because the guys over at www.wowsharp.net thought to use the rootkit first"
Hardly. They're just the first to publicize... this has been floating around in some forums for a little while.
There's less of an advantage to cheating if everyone can do it. So those exploiting this have been keeping their mouths shut...
"Now that they're outnumbered at the federal level, they have all kinds of respect for checks and balances and fiscal responsibility."
Umm, fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with federalism vs. states' rights. If you mean restraint on federal spending, then you may have a point -- but fiscal responsibility is really about balancing a budget, not spending less.
Neither major party in the US walks the walk -- but they all talk the talk. Tax & spend (the traditional conservative appellation for the liberal method) sure beats borrow & spend (the current liberal appellation for the 'conservative' method in use).
Either way, the Federal government continues to bloat.
FTA: A way to remove the 'cloaking device' without breaking the DRM (or your device driver): URLhttp://cp.sonybmg.com/xcp/english/updates.html>
Sony: We Make Your DRM a Little Less Evil (tm)
Obviously, this was just a way for Sony to try to bring WoW to its knees; after all, that's a lot of potential EQ2 subscribers who might have changed over had Sony been able to cripple the WoW economy.
/tinfoil plate armor, shield, and helm securely equipped
"If designers have to somehow work around 3, 4, 5 different browsers' rendering habits and bugs- things will be a disaster, they'll be frustrated and tempted to just support IE and "the next biggest fish", etc."
Which is the biggest reason to support open standards. Then, designers only have one set of standards to develop for, and those 3, 4, 5 browsers will render without problem.
"No, they don't. The lower income earners pay the same if not less of a proportion. That is because of state tax breaks when it comes time to file. The "rich" on the other hand spend more at the local level such as higher property taxes. Sales tax being the same proportion for all income clases."
Umm, no. Analyze property tax vs. income level, and you'll find that the poor pay a higher proportion of their income on property tax than the rich -- keeping in mind that a proportion of rent is property tax. We're talking proportion, not absolute amounts here. If you want anecdotal evidence, just check out property tax rates vs. median incomes for a few municipalities... you'll quickly find that property tax rates are much lower in high-income areas, while there is a positive correlation between property values and income. Therefore, there is a inverse correlation between income level and property tax paid. If you want evidence that is better than anecdotal, google for some, since it is obvious you are good at using google to pull statistics, however irrelevant, out of a hat to support your points.
"Wealth redistribution does not work. It back fires. It always has and always will on any country that invokes socialism. That's correct. Our tax system is a form of socialism in the mildest form. Nothing fair about."
What are the criteria by which you judge success or failure of a system? This generalization is a bunch of BS, since it is obvious that socialized medicine is working well in many nations...
If you believe the role of government is to stimulate maximal economic growth, then you may be correct. But socialized medicine works well in many countries... in fact, the per capita cost of health care is lower in socialized countries than it is in the US... even when you only include countries with medical systems comparable to ours.
At any rate, your blatant generalizations that mean nothing, and that are not arguable since there are no criteria, just go to show that you don't have a good idea of what you are talking about. You may be able to google for some facts and figures, but you're obviously missing the boat.
"They can simply refuse to sell it for less than their desired price"
But that's not the ideal price point. I'm sure they've analyzed the market to determine their strategy for sales and pricing, it's not like any mass-produced good is just put onto the market with a number pulled from a pie.
In terms of the early adopters (the segment of the market at the highest part of the dmeand curve) affecting the future demand curve, I agree with you and the earlier poster.
However, this is also an anecdotal explanation of limiting supply to maintain demand, which is kind of what I was pointing out.
"What? How about you pay taxes in the state where you use the resources provided by the state? You know - roads, emergency services, schools, etc? If you commute to an employer in another state, the employer is using that other state's resources/facilities, and corporate/property/sales taxes collected as that business does business in that state cover those expenses."
To deal with the specifics first -- emergency services and schools are paid for primarily by local property taxes, not state income taxes. I know what you mean, though, as there are a lot of state services for whom the benefit goes to residents of the state.
What would happen, I think, is that state budgets would shift revenue to property taxes, while income taxes would be reduced. I think this is more in line with the services provided by the state, rather than income taxes.
Furthermore, I think it has the added advantage of people wanting to live in those states that have high business volume -- since those states would have higher revenue, and most likely a better quality of life. Might help cut down some of the wasteful sprawl we have.
"But a business never pays taxes out of their own pocket."
Since businesses are owned by individuals, in the end, it's the individuals who pay taxes assessed on businesses. Or, it's the individuals (or the individuals who own companies) that purchase goods from a company.
The point is that "business" is a useful term to represent an intangible structure that acts like an individual. Since the tax burden on a business can directly affect the actions of the business, it's useful to think of it in terms of the business paying the taxes. Cash flow problems can not always be passed on to the customer, nor to the investor.
The opposite side can be taken as well -- it's never the individual who pays the taxes, but instead the employer who does -- the individual passes on the tax burden to the business by demanding higher wages.
In the end, it's a semantic argument, since the tax burden needs to be looked at from the perspective of the entire economy, and subsets of the economy. Who actually cuts the check isn't as improtant.
The problem with replacing the current system with a national sales tax is that it disproportionately affects the lower income levels, since they spend a higher proportion of their income on taxable goods. Even with a rebate, so as to not tax people on the first, say $20k, of income, you still have those at the top paying a far lower percentage of their income as taxes.
You aren't making the distinction between the revenues of their business, and the wages they are paid.
Payments made to their business (the band) are subject to sales tax in the locality in which the goods and services are delivered (i.e., where the concert is). Payments to the individuals in the band is considered wages, or possibly non-employee income, depending on the situation, and should be taxed in the state in which the business is located.
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they'd be paying state income taxes on their total income for each state they do business in. What I'm saying is that, were an individual to consult in multiple states, he'd have to pay state income tax in each state based upon the amount he earned in each respective state.
Make 30k in NJ, 30k in NY, 30k in PA? Pay taxes on 30k in each of the states, but the tax rate is based upon a gross income of 90k.
"We pay taxes for (what little) services the government provides to us. We do not pay taxes for the privelage of earning a living. Taxation without representation? Hello?"
Hahahhaha. You buy into that horseshit? There are a ton of books you should read that explain the real causes of the American Revolution. It was never about taxation without representation, except to the sheeple. It was class warfare, local control of commodities, and currency. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid they fed you in grade school.
Why should the individual be taxed at all? Why not just, in effect, make it employment taxes (which is the natural extension of what I said in the GP). The business derives advantage from the services provided to the individuals. Then, anyone who gets pissed can't complain about taxation without representation, since they are not being taxed. And everyone can agree that corporations are represented pretty heavily in state governments, anyway.
Well, first off, politicians rarely take advantage of anything that may be 'questionable' on their taxes.
Second, state and local taxes tax lower-income individuals at a much higher rate, especially when sales taxes are factored in.
I'm talking total tax burden, not federal income tax.
First off, let me say that your figures don't even apply to what is being discussed -- individual tax rate cannot be extrapolated from % total tax burden by income class.
Second, your figures (and yes, I'm familiar with the IRS figures that you linked to, but I checked them just to be sure) do not include state and local taxes. Nor do they reflect true gross income -- instead they are AGI, adjusted gross income.
Lower-income people pay a much, much higher proportion of their income in state & local taxes than the wealthy.
You can cherry-pick statistics to your heart's content, but that's a reflection of your poor analysis, not any economic misunderstanding on my part.
What really pisses me off is people who think that federal income tax is the only tax that people pay, and don't even bother to read the part of a post that talks about total tax burden. Nor do they bother to understand that AGI reported to the IRS is different than true GI.
Huh. My tax accountant did not agree... I paid in NY, and still had to pay (a small amount, though) in NJ.
"As far as a tax code going out of its way to help the extremely wealthy, well, all I have to say is that our graduated income tax in the US pretty much proves that we don't have such a tax code."
That's pretty funny. Last I checked, the extremely wealthy pay a smaller portion of their income in taxes as any group except for the destitute. Seeing as most of their income is not wages.
The stated graduated income tax rates are a joke. No person making six figures or more is paying even 25% of their income in taxes each year... unless they are absolute morons. Just forget about those who make 7 figures. Yet I pay 25% of my income in taxes and use all the deductions at my disposal to pay as little as possible.
You might see it as an attack, but that's because you are looking for an attack. Doesn't mean that it is one. You are also working from the assumption that responding to the market in the most profitable way is a bad thing -- otherwise, why would this be negative?
"Any theoretical benefit to understocking is surely not as big a benefit as trying to make sure as many people as possible who want 360s will be able to get them. The more sold, the more games and accessories sold, the quicker the installed base increases, and the better the head start over the PS3."
Not so. The goal is not to sell the most units at release. The goal is to sell the most units this quarter, or to sell the most units prior to PS3 launch. Undersupply now will increase the incentive for people to purchase the product when it is no longer undersupplied -- such as immediately before the winter holidays. This is a strategy that has worked again and again for unique goods, and if done properly, does not lead to fewer users -- it leads to more users, many of whome have paid more than they would have otherwise.
"Does he utilize any New York resources? Does he get the right to vote? No taxation without representation? Taxes paid while visiting in New York, or even taxes paid on wages earned while physically in New York are a little more understandable."
Yes, he utilizes NY resources. He gets NY employment protection, his employer gets the benefit of NYS spending, and therefore he does too.
Don't even bother with the no taxation without representation business, that hasn't applied to states in the US for a long, long time.
"So if he's a consultant who occasionally travels to 3-6 states where his client base exists while living elsewhere, he should pay the full tax rate for each state based on your logic? That's ridiculous, regardless of how many services a state is providing to his clients."
No. He is a self-employed consultant, not an employee. If he is operating as a business (not an employee, there is a huge distinction in tax law) then he should pay individual income tax in the state that his employer (his business) pays him.
You'd be surprised how little in taxes many NY employers pay. A company I used to work for paid close to 80% of their profit in taxes (Federal, state, local income taxes only -- forgeddaboud local rent tax, property tax share, employment tax, etc). Yet, relative to revenue, the amount was very small.
Taxing employers only, and not employees, will have a chilling effect on commerce -- pretty much any higher tax burden on the company I used to work for would have driven it out of business (whoops, there goes 95 jobs!).
It does depend on reciprocal agreements. NY & NJ do have a reciprocal agreement -- but that doesn't absolve me of paying state income taxes to either state. It just means I get to take a partial credit on my NJ taxes.
I'm not attacking MS, I'm explaining what they are doing. Did you bother reading my post?
If you had an understanding of supply vs demand and how it affects pricing, maybe you'd realize why it is good for MS to intentionally understock. Never mind all the other reasons that understocking may help increase demand, not just allow a high price point for longer.
"Hence, if you aren't a resident of a state and benefit in no way from the services that the government there provides, why should you be paying taxes to that government?"
Except that he does see benefit from the services those taxes provide. Most of the services you mention are local services, anyway -- not state services.
Second, that job that he telecommutes to wouldn't exist without the services that NYS provides to his company.
"What about people who live next to state lines? Surely there are other cases where people live in one state and work in another."
Yup. I live in NJ, work in NY. Pay income taxes to NJ, NY, Federal Government. If they reinstate the commuter tax in NYC, I will also pay income tax to NYC (I did until about 4-5 years ago). Pay sales tax in NYC to the city, the county, and the state. Pay sales tax in NJ to the state. Pay property tax to my municipality in NJ. My wife pays gas tax in NJ -- I take mass transit (but still pay for roads via taxes).
The way I see it, people should pay income tax in the state that they earn the income, not the state in which they reside. If my home state wants to tax me for simply importing cash into their state, that's a problem -- since import taxes between states are illegal in the US. Besides, when I spend cash in NJ, they get to tax it then.
The Escapist regularly has articles/editorials that are pretty useless. I've occasionally seen a good write-up there, but in general, I skip any /. link that points there.
To get back on topic, I don't think we're going to see any major releases aimed at women gamers for quite a while... the same reason we don't see many non-derivative games aimed at the traditional (male) game market -- the industry has become pretty risk-averse.
What the game industry really needs to do if they want to target the women gamer market heavily, is to analyze what women gamers are playing casually, and make more of the same -- but in more depth.
That, and encourage more women to develop small games. Try to create a situation where female-targeted games have a chance to evolve like male-oriented games did.