The rich, say the top 1% of the pop. pay approx 37 % of all the income tax in the country. The top 20% pay about 85% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of the pop. pay no income tax.
Seeing as the top 1% own 38% of the wealth, and the top 10% own 80% of the wealth, I'm ok with this. Sure, relative to their aggregate share of income, they're overtaxed, but relative to wealth it comes out nicely in proportion (because of capital gains vs income taxes, and the fact that the wealthy make money in capital gains and not labor). If anything, the tax brackets should be shifted a bit high on that first 10% as the second 10% are overtaxed relative to their wealth.
Well, they have chemical sniffers that can detect even trace amounts of explosives, so it would have to be tightly sealed in an almost perfect container.
No, they got rid of those because they were 'too difficult to maintain' and replaced them with the backscatter machines.
Not quite. Mitochondrial Eve is a last common matrilineal ancestor, but that is NOT the same as saying that we are all descended from her, and her alone, in the way the biblical story goes, with the children of Eve interbreeding, and so on. What does mean is that if you trace any matrilineal line of descent, it goes back to her. If you trace a mixed line, it may (and some mixed lines definitely will) lead back to a different woman living at the same time.
Is this place which was flooded where the Indo-European language roots come from?
No. There are too many cold weather/northern animal words shared across IE languages. The north Caspian Sea area is the most likely, though there are other possibilities. Any area as far south as the Persian Gulf though is highly unlikely based on weather/animal words shared across IE languages.
Though it may be where Proto-Semitic language roots come from (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac, Assryian, etc.), but there is extensive debate on that as well (whether Afroasiatic languages like the Semitic family formed in Africa and moved north, or the Middle East and moved south).
Also, Helen didn't sink any ships. The phrase is 'launched a thousand ships.'
The point I was making is still valid, though: being rich mean being able to buy privileges
Class divisions simply mean that some are more equal than others.
Yes. I don't disagree. I suppose a better way to state my previous point would be to say that the legal system is not the source of the problem, and that it is (generally, there are exceptions of course) extra-legal conditions (education, first and foremost) which create the 'justice gap.'
I assumed the policy didn't mean 4 DAYS, but 4 ILLNESSES--as in you might be six a total of five days in two instances, one three days and one two days, which would count as calling in sick twice.
Of course, I have no idea, since the GP was a little vague, butt that was how I interpreted it.
Many people get stuck living hand to mouth despite spending wisely and despite living as modest a life as is possible.
For some absurd American value of 'spending wisely' and 'as modest a life as is possible,' maybe.
The reality is that damn near EVERYONE (including you, I'm sure) in this country isn't living a reasonable, modest lifestyle. Including all but the absolute poorest.
there is a valid corollary: "If you've done nothing wrong, you won't get caught".
Do you actually think no innocent person has ever been convicted of a crime they didn't commit? No one has ever been framed for a crime by someone with something to gain from framing them?
Did it really take you two weeks to come up with that non-sequitur bit of idiocy?
I never, anywhere, said anything about the scanners.
You made a moronic faux-sarcastic post ridiculing the idea that the radiation dosing while flying is a real risk, on the basis that the ozone layer is still above the plane.
I was simply informing you of reality. Flying causes cancer (or rather, staying at 30,000 feet for extended periods causes cancer due to increased radiation exposure). None of which has anything to do with the scanners (which I vehemently oppose, not because of radiation exposure, but because I don't like wasting millions of dollars of public money on a project that does nothing but make Chertoff richer).
You're retarded. You've voted in two presidential elections, so you make this statement? Really?
When my 80 year old grandfather makes that statement, it means something (he's an unreasoning moron who checks the R box without thinking).
Actually, I guess it means the same thing when you say it. It just also happens to be pathetic when you say it, as if two election cycles of blind party loyalty was noteworthy.
if the police strongly suspect a person is guilty of a crime but are unable to prove it, it's ok for them to go searching for something else to convict that person of instead?
That's a rather humorous misunderstanding of what I said, and how Capone's conviction took place.
It's more like they tried to collect evidence to convict him on murder and bootlegging charges, and when they looked at the evidence they'd collected realized that they could prove tax evasion.
It's not as if they said 'Well, we have no evidence for murder, start looking for the next thing on the list, we'll get him eventually.' Tax evasion came up after they'd already collected the evidence that proved he was guilty of tax evasion in the course of their existing investigation.
This is standard operating procedure for police organizations and prosecuting attorneys throughout the US. "What can we prove with the evidence we have?" So long as the evidence is collected legally (warrants and such), what is wrong with this? They weren't trolling random citizens for evidence of crimes, they found evidence of other crimes committed by someone they already had good reason to investigate.
Which means that if the police set their minds to it, they could convict anyone they wanted.
This is already a fact of reality. What stops it from happening is that they generally have to have a reason to carry out the initial investigation (see 4th amendment).
Slashdot Mirror
Not if your name is Jeff Bezos.
I think he meant the sex wasn't stated, just implied. The age is explicit, yes.
Maritime (commercial and recreational).
Low battery life is fine if the cost per minute is this high.
Not when you're using these phones in the middle of nowhere with little or no power infrastructure for days at a time.
No wonder they're $1.2 billion in debt. A satellite with a dedicated beam for every subscriber? Holy fuck.
Are you kidding? My bar has free wifi!
The rich, say the top 1% of the pop. pay approx 37 % of all the income tax in the country. The top 20% pay about 85% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of the pop. pay no income tax.
Seeing as the top 1% own 38% of the wealth, and the top 10% own 80% of the wealth, I'm ok with this. Sure, relative to their aggregate share of income, they're overtaxed, but relative to wealth it comes out nicely in proportion (because of capital gains vs income taxes, and the fact that the wealthy make money in capital gains and not labor). If anything, the tax brackets should be shifted a bit high on that first 10% as the second 10% are overtaxed relative to their wealth.
Well, they have chemical sniffers that can detect even trace amounts of explosives, so it would have to be tightly sealed in an almost perfect container.
No, they got rid of those because they were 'too difficult to maintain' and replaced them with the backscatter machines.
NOW you're thinking like a TSA administrator!
Not quite. Mitochondrial Eve is a last common matrilineal ancestor, but that is NOT the same as saying that we are all descended from her, and her alone, in the way the biblical story goes, with the children of Eve interbreeding, and so on. What does mean is that if you trace any matrilineal line of descent, it goes back to her. If you trace a mixed line, it may (and some mixed lines definitely will) lead back to a different woman living at the same time.
Is this place which was flooded where the Indo-European language roots come from?
No. There are too many cold weather/northern animal words shared across IE languages. The north Caspian Sea area is the most likely, though there are other possibilities. Any area as far south as the Persian Gulf though is highly unlikely based on weather/animal words shared across IE languages.
Though it may be where Proto-Semitic language roots come from (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac, Assryian, etc.), but there is extensive debate on that as well (whether Afroasiatic languages like the Semitic family formed in Africa and moved north, or the Middle East and moved south).
Also, Helen didn't sink any ships. The phrase is 'launched a thousand ships.'
The point I was making is still valid, though: being rich mean being able to buy privileges
Class divisions simply mean that some are more equal than others.
Yes. I don't disagree. I suppose a better way to state my previous point would be to say that the legal system is not the source of the problem, and that it is (generally, there are exceptions of course) extra-legal conditions (education, first and foremost) which create the 'justice gap.'
why is it that rich kids somehow don't get punished as hard as the filthy junkie when they commit the same crime (drug dealing)?
The filthy junkie is usually dumb (or ignorant rather) enough to confess, often inadvertantly.
The rich kid knows not to talk until Daddy and the Lawyers have told him what to say.
I'm not saying it's fair, but it's not (usually) like the prosecutor looks at Dad's tax returns before deciding whether to prosecute.
I assumed the policy didn't mean 4 DAYS, but 4 ILLNESSES--as in you might be six a total of five days in two instances, one three days and one two days, which would count as calling in sick twice.
Of course, I have no idea, since the GP was a little vague, butt that was how I interpreted it.
No, 40% should be. In most places it's more like 60% are.
You, not your moronic parent poster with no clue what a 'modest life' is, need to be modded up.
Many people get stuck living hand to mouth despite spending wisely and despite living as modest a life as is possible.
For some absurd American value of 'spending wisely' and 'as modest a life as is possible,' maybe.
The reality is that damn near EVERYONE (including you, I'm sure) in this country isn't living a reasonable, modest lifestyle. Including all but the absolute poorest.
there is a valid corollary: "If you've done nothing wrong, you won't get caught".
Do you actually think no innocent person has ever been convicted of a crime they didn't commit? No one has ever been framed for a crime by someone with something to gain from framing them?
Or did you just post without thinking?
Did it really take you two weeks to come up with that non-sequitur bit of idiocy?
I never, anywhere, said anything about the scanners.
You made a moronic faux-sarcastic post ridiculing the idea that the radiation dosing while flying is a real risk, on the basis that the ozone layer is still above the plane.
I was simply informing you of reality. Flying causes cancer (or rather, staying at 30,000 feet for extended periods causes cancer due to increased radiation exposure). None of which has anything to do with the scanners (which I vehemently oppose, not because of radiation exposure, but because I don't like wasting millions of dollars of public money on a project that does nothing but make Chertoff richer).
Grumble, grumble, grumble...
Now where did I leave that trout?
Get off my lawn. When a 24 y/o says "back in MY day," they should be slapped. With a trout. This is the same category.
Never voted Democrat in my life
You're retarded. You've voted in two presidential elections, so you make this statement? Really?
When my 80 year old grandfather makes that statement, it means something (he's an unreasoning moron who checks the R box without thinking).
Actually, I guess it means the same thing when you say it. It just also happens to be pathetic when you say it, as if two election cycles of blind party loyalty was noteworthy.
We cannot have this conversation if you do not acknowledge copyrights as being rights.
Which I will never do, because they aren't.
What?
This part of thread was offtopic from the parent I was replying to. So much so, that by bring up the original topic, it is you who are offtopic now.
if the police strongly suspect a person is guilty of a crime but are unable to prove it, it's ok for them to go searching for something else to convict that person of instead?
That's a rather humorous misunderstanding of what I said, and how Capone's conviction took place.
It's more like they tried to collect evidence to convict him on murder and bootlegging charges, and when they looked at the evidence they'd collected realized that they could prove tax evasion.
It's not as if they said 'Well, we have no evidence for murder, start looking for the next thing on the list, we'll get him eventually.' Tax evasion came up after they'd already collected the evidence that proved he was guilty of tax evasion in the course of their existing investigation.
This is standard operating procedure for police organizations and prosecuting attorneys throughout the US. "What can we prove with the evidence we have?" So long as the evidence is collected legally (warrants and such), what is wrong with this? They weren't trolling random citizens for evidence of crimes, they found evidence of other crimes committed by someone they already had good reason to investigate.
Which means that if the police set their minds to it, they could convict anyone they wanted.
This is already a fact of reality. What stops it from happening is that they generally have to have a reason to carry out the initial investigation (see 4th amendment).