It would be amazing the shift in public opinion once the cost of all those "free" things they get from the government became more visible.
Let's think this through:
Nearly half of all tax filers pay no net income taxes; Slightly fewer tax payers collect refunds from the tax system in excess of any currently withheld amount; and the top 20% of tax filers pay about 80% of all income taxes collected.
Half of Americans will have the concept of "Free Stuff" actually being free for them confirmed on a monthly basis. Some fourty percent of Americans would actually see payments from the government as their monthly "obligation" ON TOP OF getting free stuff. The top 20% would quickly tire of writing outsized checks month after month for everyone's free stuff AND monthly tax refunds.
You are typically taxed based on the location of the seller's location, not yours.
In NJ Ikea has a storefront in an "enterprise zone" where sales taxes are half the normal rate, 3.25% instead of 6.5% (those were the numbers a few years ago, it may have changed slightly), and when you drove to Ikea in Newark you paid 3.25% on your purchase, not 6.5% - no matter where you lived in NJ.
The issue is when you don't have a storefront in the state, what address is used to calculate the tax rate? Using the ship-to address isn't correct, but it is "easy", states should set up an "other" location and all sales within the state fulfilled out of state by vendors without business presences in the state would use that location - state capitol, perhaps? Thus giving out-of-state retailers a simple state-wide tax rate.
I've lived in Dallas. There are towns were a street can have 4 different tax rates. All in the same zip code, on the same street. Only with a full tax-map could a retailer hope to keep up.
I found this:
Texas imposes a 6.25 percent state sales and use tax on all retail sales, leases and rentals of most goods, as well as taxable services. Local taxing jurisdictions (cities, counties, special purpose districts and transit authorities) can also impose up to 2 percent sales and use tax for a maximum combined rate of 8.25 percent.
Texas has a 6.25 state sales tax (remember, no state income tax) and up to 2% local taxes. When I checked my address, I saw that one percent went to the local transit authority, one percent went to the local gov't BUT Sales Taxes are calculated based on the SELLER's address/location, not the buyer's location, in most cases.
Granted, they burn oil that's considered waste, and I'm unsure what we'd do with that, but to me, it's what nations should have agreed upon before nearly anything else.
No, they shouldn't - the entirety of the global shipping fleet produces exactly 2% of all greenhouse gases, a small, small percentage of the greenhouse gases produced thru bovine flatulance (cow farts).
That's like saying "my doctor told me to cut down on my salt intake, so I plugged up a couple holes on top of my salt shaker so the salt comes out slower"...
Crews on modern cargo ships are quite small, adding a security force would double salary and crew space required - and to what end? They'd ultimately be there serving the same function as a bank guard - to make the patrons feel safer, and to handover their gun if confronted by a bank robber.
Cargo is insured, crew has escape options, and it's hard to hide a container ship in open water.
Ships contribute 2% of total greenhouse gases - cutting it in half leaves us with a 1% reduction in total greenhouse gases, unless shipping volume increases...
If each ship emits half as much greenhouse gasses in 2050 compared with 2018, but more ships are at sea, it's possible that greenhouse gases in 2050 will exceed current 2018 levels. That's a good thing, as it might otherwise increase more without this agreement, but don't pretend this is some grand fix.
All retirement plans should be prepaid/invested. That's the responsible thing to do.
Read an article about pensions in Oregon, they give retirees the option of choosing the method that pays them the most among several - here's my favorite:
Pretend the state employee put 6% of their salary in an imaginary retirement account, further pretend that the retirement account paid market-average returns every year, and then, after you figure out how much they would have, if their imaginary 6% investment had grown with the market over the years, then pretend that the state matched that 6% contribution and was similarly invested all those years, paying market rates AND THEN calculate the retirement fund the worker has to draw from.
Of course the employee never contributes 6%, the employer (the state) never contributes the 6% on behalf of the employee, the employer never contributes their matching 6%, and it is all fiction until the employee retires, then the states runs the numbers and tries to squeeze the pension money out of their budgets going forward.
The insanity of this program isn't that pension costs are 12% of salary annually, it is that those costs are never considered until the worker retires, no money is ever put aside for the employee. To properly fund this pension, Oregon would have to start putting away 12% of every workers salary, and invest that money in some financial instrument that tracks the overall market performance year after year - can Oregon afford to properly fund these pensions? No. It's insane.
On top of current retiree obligations, every pension-eligible worker would suddenly cost the state 12% every year...
The point many seem to miss is that one of the motivations for dividing CA is that ostensibly one of the three new states would have a different political position on things than the other two, diversifying the "California vote", at least in the senate. Of course, another reason to split CA is because it is just too damn big for local governance.
Building solar is much more expensive than re-activating an existing coal-fired plant.
Also, there is the "what do you do when the sun sets" question. Sure, you could buy batteries, but that only drives up costs.
Remember, this is an off-grid power plant - it will power dedicated Crypto Currency "miners", the power will never go on the grid, will incur no distribution surcharge, and will not be taxed.
What does your desire for Pakistan to open a wind farm have to do with a plan to re-open an existing coal plant in Australia to exclusively power bitcoin miners?
It gets very expensive until fully-funded, then it is just incremental payments. It's an idea, there are worse ideas, but don't for a second pretend it is a common thing, or that anyone else in the world does it.
When people can retire and set their kids or grandkids to be beneficiaries, then you have a real problem as they will be paid in full for far longer than 75 years.
You literally made that up, USPS retirees can't designate their kids or grandkids as beneficiaries for their retirement payments.
USPS Pension fund is not funded by payroll deductions.
The pensions are funded 75 years out, if employment slows down, fewer beneficiaries to fund, payments to retirement fund will go down. If USPS stopped hiring employees today, and everyone remained in the pension system, never left before vesting, never died before receiving benefits, etc. there would be no need to make any payments to the fund for 75 years - that's what it means to be 75 years funded.
How cute. No one, and I mean no one, pre-funds their pension fund 75 years out, it's not rational.
Let's try this - why don't you go down to your local school board and get them to pre-fund their pension 75 years out, just like the USPS? Why not, according to you it is merely being 'fiscally responsible'?
I just watched the Hitchcock classic "North by Northwest" and I think almost every outdoor scene was filmed either in front of a projected movie (50's green screen technology) or on a soundstage (where the ground is absolutely flat and the trees are all 50' or taller and spaced about 5 feet apart - just like in nature!).
Cannes showed about 70 films at the last festival, Netflix is scheduled to make 80 films this year, on top of just as many TV shows. Netflix's production budget is $5B/year.
So? The 70 shown at Cannes are a curated list drawn from submissions from around the world, Netflix's lists are more commercially-oriented, for the most part.
Displaying 70 movies is a very, very small part of the purpose of Cannes in today's movie industry - it is the deals for movies yet to be made that is the real purpose, it provides industry leaders the opportunity to compete for scripts and actors face-to-face.
Cannes is mostly inside baseball and media tabloid fodder. If it disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't matter much.
Except, you know, all those small, independent art films that get "picked up" at Cannes for distribution would lose an important market. Cannes serves a purpose in the movie business ecosystem beyond showcasing the latest Woody Allen movie.
I sit here, with bated breath, awaiting politicians on the Left stepping forward declaring Backpage a national treasure, an example of technology empowering women and enabling financial independence for women with no commercial skills, just orafices men will pay to insert body parts into...
Slashdot Mirror
It would be amazing the shift in public opinion once the cost of all those "free" things they get from the government became more visible.
Let's think this through:
Nearly half of all tax filers pay no net income taxes;
Slightly fewer tax payers collect refunds from the tax system in excess of any currently withheld amount;
and the top 20% of tax filers pay about 80% of all income taxes collected.
Half of Americans will have the concept of "Free Stuff" actually being free for them confirmed on a monthly basis.
Some fourty percent of Americans would actually see payments from the government as their monthly "obligation" ON TOP OF getting free stuff.
The top 20% would quickly tire of writing outsized checks month after month for everyone's free stuff AND monthly tax refunds.
You are typically taxed based on the location of the seller's location, not yours.
In NJ Ikea has a storefront in an "enterprise zone" where sales taxes are half the normal rate, 3.25% instead of 6.5% (those were the numbers a few years ago, it may have changed slightly), and when you drove to Ikea in Newark you paid 3.25% on your purchase, not 6.5% - no matter where you lived in NJ.
The issue is when you don't have a storefront in the state, what address is used to calculate the tax rate? Using the ship-to address isn't correct, but it is "easy", states should set up an "other" location and all sales within the state fulfilled out of state by vendors without business presences in the state would use that location - state capitol, perhaps? Thus giving out-of-state retailers a simple state-wide tax rate.
I've lived in Dallas. There are towns were a street can have 4 different tax rates. All in the same zip code, on the same street. Only with a full tax-map could a retailer hope to keep up.
I found this:
Texas imposes a 6.25 percent state sales and use tax on all retail sales, leases and rentals of most goods, as well as taxable services. Local taxing jurisdictions (cities, counties, special purpose districts and transit authorities) can also impose up to 2 percent sales and use tax for a maximum combined rate of 8.25 percent.
Source: https://comptroller.texas.gov/...
And the state comptroller helpfully provides a 12 page booklet regarding tax collections: https://comptroller.texas.gov/...
Texas has a 6.25 state sales tax (remember, no state income tax) and up to 2% local taxes. When I checked my address, I saw that one percent went to the local transit authority, one percent went to the local gov't BUT Sales Taxes are calculated based on the SELLER's address/location, not the buyer's location, in most cases.
Cargo ships contribute 2% of all greenhouse gases. If we scuttled all oil-burning ships immediately we'd see a 2% decrease. Wow.
If you teach cows not to fart you've got a much bigger impact on reducing greenhouse gases.
Granted, they burn oil that's considered waste, and I'm unsure what we'd do with that, but to me, it's what nations should have agreed upon before nearly anything else.
No, they shouldn't - the entirety of the global shipping fleet produces exactly 2% of all greenhouse gases, a small, small percentage of the greenhouse gases produced thru bovine flatulance (cow farts).
That's like saying "my doctor told me to cut down on my salt intake, so I plugged up a couple holes on top of my salt shaker so the salt comes out slower"...
Crews on modern cargo ships are quite small, adding a security force would double salary and crew space required - and to what end? They'd ultimately be there serving the same function as a bank guard - to make the patrons feel safer, and to handover their gun if confronted by a bank robber.
Cargo is insured, crew has escape options, and it's hard to hide a container ship in open water.
Ships contribute 2% of total greenhouse gases - cutting it in half leaves us with a 1% reduction in total greenhouse gases, unless shipping volume increases...
If each ship emits half as much greenhouse gasses in 2050 compared with 2018, but more ships are at sea, it's possible that greenhouse gases in 2050 will exceed current 2018 levels. That's a good thing, as it might otherwise increase more without this agreement, but don't pretend this is some grand fix.
Is England->US the same distance as China->US? Otherwise you went out of your way to specifically compare apples to oranges.
All retirement plans should be prepaid/invested. That's the responsible thing to do.
Read an article about pensions in Oregon, they give retirees the option of choosing the method that pays them the most among several - here's my favorite:
Pretend the state employee put 6% of their salary in an imaginary retirement account, further pretend that the retirement account paid market-average returns every year, and then, after you figure out how much they would have, if their imaginary 6% investment had grown with the market over the years, then pretend that the state matched that 6% contribution and was similarly invested all those years, paying market rates AND THEN calculate the retirement fund the worker has to draw from.
Of course the employee never contributes 6%, the employer (the state) never contributes the 6% on behalf of the employee, the employer never contributes their matching 6%, and it is all fiction until the employee retires, then the states runs the numbers and tries to squeeze the pension money out of their budgets going forward.
The insanity of this program isn't that pension costs are 12% of salary annually, it is that those costs are never considered until the worker retires, no money is ever put aside for the employee. To properly fund this pension, Oregon would have to start putting away 12% of every workers salary, and invest that money in some financial instrument that tracks the overall market performance year after year - can Oregon afford to properly fund these pensions? No. It's insane.
On top of current retiree obligations, every pension-eligible worker would suddenly cost the state 12% every year...
The point many seem to miss is that one of the motivations for dividing CA is that ostensibly one of the three new states would have a different political position on things than the other two, diversifying the "California vote", at least in the senate. Of course, another reason to split CA is because it is just too damn big for local governance.
Building solar is much more expensive than re-activating an existing coal-fired plant.
Also, there is the "what do you do when the sun sets" question. Sure, you could buy batteries, but that only drives up costs.
Remember, this is an off-grid power plant - it will power dedicated Crypto Currency "miners", the power will never go on the grid, will incur no distribution surcharge, and will not be taxed.
What does your desire for Pakistan to open a wind farm have to do with a plan to re-open an existing coal plant in Australia to exclusively power bitcoin miners?
just tax the import from their nation
Yay! A trade war! why that is the very definition of a win-win situation, that never works out badly for anyone.
This is so pointless. All that energy, and all those computing resources, for nothing. What the hell is wrong with people?
Are you talking about Crypto Currencies or Candy Crush?
It gets very expensive until fully-funded, then it is just incremental payments. It's an idea, there are worse ideas, but don't for a second pretend it is a common thing, or that anyone else in the world does it.
When people can retire and set their kids or grandkids to be beneficiaries, then you have a real problem as they will be paid in full for far longer than 75 years.
You literally made that up, USPS retirees can't designate their kids or grandkids as beneficiaries for their retirement payments.
USPS Pension fund is not funded by payroll deductions.
The pensions are funded 75 years out, if employment slows down, fewer beneficiaries to fund, payments to retirement fund will go down. If USPS stopped hiring employees today, and everyone remained in the pension system, never left before vesting, never died before receiving benefits, etc. there would be no need to make any payments to the fund for 75 years - that's what it means to be 75 years funded.
Oh the horror, being fiscally responsible.
How cute. No one, and I mean no one, pre-funds their pension fund 75 years out, it's not rational.
Let's try this - why don't you go down to your local school board and get them to pre-fund their pension 75 years out, just like the USPS? Why not, according to you it is merely being 'fiscally responsible'?
I just watched the Hitchcock classic "North by Northwest" and I think almost every outdoor scene was filmed either in front of a projected movie (50's green screen technology) or on a soundstage (where the ground is absolutely flat and the trees are all 50' or taller and spaced about 5 feet apart - just like in nature!).
Cannes showed about 70 films at the last festival, Netflix is scheduled to make 80 films this year, on top of just as many TV shows. Netflix's production budget is $5B/year.
So? The 70 shown at Cannes are a curated list drawn from submissions from around the world, Netflix's lists are more commercially-oriented, for the most part.
Displaying 70 movies is a very, very small part of the purpose of Cannes in today's movie industry - it is the deals for movies yet to be made that is the real purpose, it provides industry leaders the opportunity to compete for scripts and actors face-to-face.
Cannes is mostly inside baseball and media tabloid fodder. If it disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't matter much.
Except, you know, all those small, independent art films that get "picked up" at Cannes for distribution would lose an important market. Cannes serves a purpose in the movie business ecosystem beyond showcasing the latest Woody Allen movie.
My mouth was numb, and the next day I wished my asshole was.
Had a good laugh when I read that, thanks!
Because, really, who could come up with 93 baseless accusations?
Would this be the law that makes it illegal to use federal funds to pay for cloning, but are mute when it comes to private funding?
I sit here, with bated breath, awaiting politicians on the Left stepping forward declaring Backpage a national treasure, an example of technology empowering women and enabling financial independence for women with no commercial skills, just orafices men will pay to insert body parts into...