Those rankings are political wranglings. No one is going to argue that Washington was a bad president, but I will certainly argue that Jackson burnt this nation so hard we spun into the Civil War from his mismanagement. I'm certain an intelligent conservative could have excellent arguments against Roosevelt being on that list too. Eisenhower was a humble man at the right time. He never would have been a bad president, but he wasn't one of our finest. The bad presidents governed during bad times in our nation's history.
It's not inefficient. It does it's job 100% of the time. Expensive gasoline keeps people closer to their work, schools, and cultural centers. The corollary is also true as people will not drive to the mega-movie theater 10 miles away on the outskirts of town, so the mega-movie theater is instead a renovated building downtown. Expensive gas means efficient cities and significantly less capital flight from urban areas.
Rich people absolutely take more. Government hand outs are not the only service a government provides. A stable economic climate that enables a rich person to thrive is a much larger function of the federal government than handing out money to poor people.
Surely because Bill Gates profits vastly more from working in the great United States of America than a poor person, he should pay significantly more in taxes than a poor person. Sadly it seems they pay about the same amount.
That 40-50% of Americans includes me. What you are plainly ignoring is the vast amount of payroll tax that I pay. My return isn't generated by crazy accounting, hiding wealth, or EIC. I do my own taxes because it's a very simple process. I have my job's income and a very small income from my family farm (formed as a partnership). Subtract the standard deductible and my student loan interest, calculate taxes, subtract my payroll tax, and voila the federal government owes me money. Where in there do I get the government to buy me a large TV or a new car?
I think you misunderstand. He wants to tax all wealth at 1%. However, because average ROI is 5%, investing makes plenty of sense. Hording wealth does not as it generally won't increase your own wealth but you will pay for it yearly. I already do this with the only asset of much value I own, my car. I think I'm even paying 2% of KBB. Add on a house and whatever appliances people own and you'll have the middle class tax base. Drop property tax and this actually seems like a good idea, though real problems could crop up. Hiding wealth in foreign countries comes to mind (second homes in Greece rather than the Hamptons). Arguing with the IRS over the value of that Camaro on cinder blocks in the front lawn also comes to mind.
Are you suggesting that had Microsoft opened the source for Windows in 1988, they would have failed to secure the PC market? Android, just as Windows, was the first OS that vendors could easily install on low-end hardware without needing additional work. It was called Wintel for a long time because without the one, the other wouldn't have become so common. We have had ARM for a long while, but Google was the first to imitate Microsoft's simple OS that wasn't hardware specific. Both Intel and Microsoft could have repeated their original success, but they have long since forgotten the agility that shot them to success in the first place.
Both you and the other commenter miss the point of fractional reserve banking and how this poker site isn't. The difference is that FRB is an agreed contract when you give them your money. It is not a secure mattress. This poker site gave each player a secure mattress and then took it away. That is why it is a Ponzi scheme.
I definitely approve of you trying to shift the Overton window on SS, but I don't think it will help. You should join us in showing "SS is a Ponzi scheme" commenters that their logic is just invalid.
You also miss the point of a Ponzi scheme. Group investments such as SS are completely legit. What makes them a Ponzi scheme is when the operations of that investment differs from the agreed contract. That is what this gambling site and Bernie Madoff did. My 401K and SS have not.
Your oversimplify and then misuse Ponzi scheme. SS, just like any group investment plan, is only interested in performance vs. payout. The number of investors can dwindle down to 1 as long as that 1 investor can create enough profit to payout. The core point of a Ponzi scheme is that the operations of said scheme do not match the agreed operations in contract. SS is even more explicit than my 401K about it's operations, and neither is close to resembling a Ponzi scheme.
It is telling that you have not received mod points. How are nerds supposed to rule the world if we can't even understand finances. It's really not that difficult.
A clear point of a Ponzi scheme is that the actual operations differ from the agreed contract. Thus SS is not a Ponzi scheme. Very simple. Please spread the good logical.
A bank is not a secure mattress. Banking is an explicitly different activity than secure asset storage or investment. This gambling site promised secure asset storage and did not deliver. Their operation does imitate a Ponzi scheme quite closely. The only difference was that they promised secure asset storage rather than investment and dividend.
No, for exactly the reason stated in GP. When you put your money in a bank, you are giving money to the bank, not storing it in a mattress. A bank is not a safe mattress. There is only 1 pile of money in a fractional reserve bank. This is as intended and we know this when we put money in a bank. That money is available to the operation of the bank, not to the bankers themselves. This is summed up in the name "fractional reserve banking."
The government of these United States certainly earned it more than children or wife. My government has set up an extremely safe country where investments are assumed to live or die on their merits rather than externalities. It's not perfect but it is only because our government is so effective at this that America is what is is today. Without our liberal immigration policies, civil rights movements, business friendly laws, the American Civil War/Reconstruction, late entry into European affairs in the early half of the 20th century, our late 20th century world policing, our pragmatic political system, and a culture that is supportive of individual rights and responsibilities, those entities would be at much greater risk. I'm continuously amazed by how much our government does and how little it is recognized.
You think corporations really pay 35% on all earnings? That's what I call gullible. The reason Warren Buffet pays himself a dividend instead of an income is precisely because he won't pay as much in taxes. He's gaming the system and telling us how he does it.
You sir are a god damn thoroughbred racehorse. I couldn't even read the whole way here as your foils hurt my head too much. Thank you for sticking with it!
Here in Montana (you know, Ted Turner's land) we prefer our land to be untouched and especially undeveloped. There is great need to preserve land if not for wilderness areas, at least for future use.
Slashdot Mirror
Those rankings are political wranglings. No one is going to argue that Washington was a bad president, but I will certainly argue that Jackson burnt this nation so hard we spun into the Civil War from his mismanagement. I'm certain an intelligent conservative could have excellent arguments against Roosevelt being on that list too. Eisenhower was a humble man at the right time. He never would have been a bad president, but he wasn't one of our finest. The bad presidents governed during bad times in our nation's history.
It's not inefficient. It does it's job 100% of the time. Expensive gasoline keeps people closer to their work, schools, and cultural centers. The corollary is also true as people will not drive to the mega-movie theater 10 miles away on the outskirts of town, so the mega-movie theater is instead a renovated building downtown. Expensive gas means efficient cities and significantly less capital flight from urban areas.
Your "kthxbye" was not followed up by you leaving. Why?
Laws about how much space a child is to have in a car? Nonsense. As long as they're in the backseat, you can cram them in like sardines.
Are you suggesting you own a car that hasn't needed significant repair in 12 years?
Rich people absolutely take more. Government hand outs are not the only service a government provides. A stable economic climate that enables a rich person to thrive is a much larger function of the federal government than handing out money to poor people.
Surely because Bill Gates profits vastly more from working in the great United States of America than a poor person, he should pay significantly more in taxes than a poor person. Sadly it seems they pay about the same amount.
That 40-50% of Americans includes me. What you are plainly ignoring is the vast amount of payroll tax that I pay. My return isn't generated by crazy accounting, hiding wealth, or EIC. I do my own taxes because it's a very simple process. I have my job's income and a very small income from my family farm (formed as a partnership). Subtract the standard deductible and my student loan interest, calculate taxes, subtract my payroll tax, and voila the federal government owes me money. Where in there do I get the government to buy me a large TV or a new car?
I think you misunderstand. He wants to tax all wealth at 1%. However, because average ROI is 5%, investing makes plenty of sense. Hording wealth does not as it generally won't increase your own wealth but you will pay for it yearly. I already do this with the only asset of much value I own, my car. I think I'm even paying 2% of KBB. Add on a house and whatever appliances people own and you'll have the middle class tax base. Drop property tax and this actually seems like a good idea, though real problems could crop up. Hiding wealth in foreign countries comes to mind (second homes in Greece rather than the Hamptons). Arguing with the IRS over the value of that Camaro on cinder blocks in the front lawn also comes to mind.
The intent being a smooth transition to systems without BIOS.
Are you suggesting that had Microsoft opened the source for Windows in 1988, they would have failed to secure the PC market? Android, just as Windows, was the first OS that vendors could easily install on low-end hardware without needing additional work. It was called Wintel for a long time because without the one, the other wouldn't have become so common. We have had ARM for a long while, but Google was the first to imitate Microsoft's simple OS that wasn't hardware specific. Both Intel and Microsoft could have repeated their original success, but they have long since forgotten the agility that shot them to success in the first place.
Both you and the other commenter miss the point of fractional reserve banking and how this poker site isn't. The difference is that FRB is an agreed contract when you give them your money. It is not a secure mattress. This poker site gave each player a secure mattress and then took it away. That is why it is a Ponzi scheme.
I definitely approve of you trying to shift the Overton window on SS, but I don't think it will help. You should join us in showing "SS is a Ponzi scheme" commenters that their logic is just invalid.
You also miss the point of a Ponzi scheme. Group investments such as SS are completely legit. What makes them a Ponzi scheme is when the operations of that investment differs from the agreed contract. That is what this gambling site and Bernie Madoff did. My 401K and SS have not.
Your oversimplify and then misuse Ponzi scheme. SS, just like any group investment plan, is only interested in performance vs. payout. The number of investors can dwindle down to 1 as long as that 1 investor can create enough profit to payout. The core point of a Ponzi scheme is that the operations of said scheme do not match the agreed operations in contract. SS is even more explicit than my 401K about it's operations, and neither is close to resembling a Ponzi scheme.
It is telling that you have not received mod points. How are nerds supposed to rule the world if we can't even understand finances. It's really not that difficult.
The Fed is doing a very poor job of inflation when they have the simplest mechanism available. You might want to find the nuance in their strategies.
A clear point of a Ponzi scheme is that the actual operations differ from the agreed contract. Thus SS is not a Ponzi scheme. Very simple. Please spread the good logical.
A bank is not a secure mattress. Banking is an explicitly different activity than secure asset storage or investment. This gambling site promised secure asset storage and did not deliver. Their operation does imitate a Ponzi scheme quite closely. The only difference was that they promised secure asset storage rather than investment and dividend.
No, for exactly the reason stated in GP. When you put your money in a bank, you are giving money to the bank, not storing it in a mattress. A bank is not a safe mattress. There is only 1 pile of money in a fractional reserve bank. This is as intended and we know this when we put money in a bank. That money is available to the operation of the bank, not to the bankers themselves. This is summed up in the name "fractional reserve banking."
The government of these United States certainly earned it more than children or wife. My government has set up an extremely safe country where investments are assumed to live or die on their merits rather than externalities. It's not perfect but it is only because our government is so effective at this that America is what is is today. Without our liberal immigration policies, civil rights movements, business friendly laws, the American Civil War/Reconstruction, late entry into European affairs in the early half of the 20th century, our late 20th century world policing, our pragmatic political system, and a culture that is supportive of individual rights and responsibilities, those entities would be at much greater risk. I'm continuously amazed by how much our government does and how little it is recognized.
I would like to commend you as well. Is LBArrettAnderson a troll? Or just can't follow logic? I don't know, but I certainly appreciate your efforts!
You think corporations really pay 35% on all earnings? That's what I call gullible. The reason Warren Buffet pays himself a dividend instead of an income is precisely because he won't pay as much in taxes. He's gaming the system and telling us how he does it.
You sir are a god damn thoroughbred racehorse. I couldn't even read the whole way here as your foils hurt my head too much. Thank you for sticking with it!
Here in Montana (you know, Ted Turner's land) we prefer our land to be untouched and especially undeveloped. There is great need to preserve land if not for wilderness areas, at least for future use.