The top 1% are paying about 22.8% in income tax alone. And overwhelmingly pay capital gains taxes (which would range from 20% to nearly 40%). The myth that "the rich" don't pay taxes is just that - a myth. In actuality they pay the highest tax rates, paying nearly 40% of all income taxes collected whilst earning less than 22% of all income.
That's only partly true, at least for individuals. Above a certain threshold you get the "pleasure" to pay taxes to the country you're residing in AND in the US. I believe that limit is about $97,000 - well within the earning of many tech workers...
If you have over $2 million in total assets, the Federal Government will demand a slice of that before you can expatriate. Yes, those are accumulated assets that have already been taxed when first gained. Renouncing really doesn't solve the problem...
Lots of municipalities have administrative fees to contest tickets. Sure, you get the ticket tossed, but you still pay big money (in my case, $125) to get a completely invalid ticket tossed. Driver's record is completely clear - but the pocket book is substantially lighter...
The only ticket I've ever received was for doing 40 in a school zone. The arterial I was on is normally 40 MPH except when children are present. Cop pulled me over, gave me a ticket, and against my protestations told me to "take it up with the judge". So I did. I explained to the judge that the ticket was bogus because as it was easily seen on the ticket it was:
A. 11:17 PM at night
B. Saturday
C. July 9th, the heard of summer.
Judge tossed the ticket in a heartbeat. But I did get the "pleasure" of paying a $125 "administrative fee" to contest my $195 ticket in court. So 4 hours, $125 - and I got the ticket tossed. There really is no loser in the story other than me; the police got credit for another ticket, the municipality (Lynnwood, WA) got $125 scott-free, and I got the shaft all around...
So, we agree that Antarctica is still accumulating ice as of today. Tomorrow? That might be different. But today - as originally claimed - it's still accumulating ice.
Where in the NASA article does it say the total ice volume in Antarctica is decreasing? The rate of increase is slowing - but it's been adding ice for the last 10,000 years, and over the last 23 years is averaging nearly 100 billion tons of ice increase a year. So if I"m not understanding, how about explaining rather than just insulting?
In China, you get the hollow shell. That's the normal approach for new construction - in a "ghost city" or in the heart of Shanghai. You pay for the flooring, paint, doors, fixtures (plumbing and electrical), even the outlet covers and the outlets themselves. You get the concrete walls, ceiling, floor, and pre-pulled electrical and plumbing - and that's it.
Looks flat to me, rather than decreasing. Considering that unemployment lowered during the 80s as well, I'd say a flat level of expenditures on entitlements would be expected.
You claimed record. I showed you are in error. Should be simple enough for you to modify your claim and now state "near record lows" rather than "record low". Unless you're pushing an agenda, and don't care about actual facts?
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
So there are some losses, but the accumulation is still growing faster. That's straight from NASA. How you debunk that without completely ignoring their results is a mystery to me. But you seem determined to do so! No thanks, I'll take NASA's statement and study that say ice volume is actually accumulating. Slower, but still accumulating overall.
The Antarctic ice sheet contains ~61% of all fresh water on the planet, and about 26 million cubic km of ice, which would be well above the rest of the ice held everywhere - including the Arctic. IF you were talking about just sea ice, you'd be correct - the Arctic is slightly above Antarctica. But include the full ice sheet of Antarctica, including that on land, and you find that the volume of ice in Antarctica greatly exceeds that of the Arctic, including all of Greenland (which itself is about 3.5 million cubic km of ice).
NASA says otherwise, 2007 and 2012 were both lower - significantly - than 2015. So the Arctic is rebounding, Antarctica has record ice mass. That seems to be the trends from measurements - increases in ice off of lows rather than decreases.
The only thing that is unusually big (actually it is just a little bit over the mean of the recent decades, there where bigger ice shelfs, so this is by far not a record), big in terams of area, not kn terms of actually ice.
Actually, the latest NASA paper says that the total Antarctic ice mass is increasing overall, not just the area or in a small location. The total ice locked up is at a new record.
Because if you want to sell it in the US, it's more economical to build it here. And if you want to sell it in China, then you can easily command a 40-50% premium because it's an "American" product.
I read what you wrote. And it's wrong. Hansen spoke anyway, and per your own article he was "talked to" AFTER the his interviews and publications. And he bore no repercussions. Was there even a warning as Hansen (a proven, documented liar) claimed? If there was - then show the proof. Show the memos requiring him to only speak through spin-doctors, of the threat of losing his job.
Just because you suck on the knob of Hansen et. al. do not assume that others will be blinded by their scientific jism in your eye...
Slashdot Mirror
The top 1% are paying about 22.8% in income tax alone. And overwhelmingly pay capital gains taxes (which would range from 20% to nearly 40%). The myth that "the rich" don't pay taxes is just that - a myth. In actuality they pay the highest tax rates, paying nearly 40% of all income taxes collected whilst earning less than 22% of all income.
This isn't true. Foreign taxes are either excludable or deductible.
Not always. At least that's what the IRS claims, and they're the ones who will try to collect that tax.
That's only partly true, at least for individuals. Above a certain threshold you get the "pleasure" to pay taxes to the country you're residing in AND in the US. I believe that limit is about $97,000 - well within the earning of many tech workers...
What percentage of Apple's profits did the US government earn?
According to many on the political left - all of it.
If you have over $2 million in total assets, the Federal Government will demand a slice of that before you can expatriate. Yes, those are accumulated assets that have already been taxed when first gained. Renouncing really doesn't solve the problem...
Lots of municipalities have administrative fees to contest tickets. Sure, you get the ticket tossed, but you still pay big money (in my case, $125) to get a completely invalid ticket tossed. Driver's record is completely clear - but the pocket book is substantially lighter...
The only ticket I've ever received was for doing 40 in a school zone. The arterial I was on is normally 40 MPH except when children are present. Cop pulled me over, gave me a ticket, and against my protestations told me to "take it up with the judge". So I did. I explained to the judge that the ticket was bogus because as it was easily seen on the ticket it was:
A. 11:17 PM at night
B. Saturday
C. July 9th, the heard of summer.
Judge tossed the ticket in a heartbeat. But I did get the "pleasure" of paying a $125 "administrative fee" to contest my $195 ticket in court. So 4 hours, $125 - and I got the ticket tossed. There really is no loser in the story other than me; the police got credit for another ticket, the municipality (Lynnwood, WA) got $125 scott-free, and I got the shaft all around...
Now they can steal your phone AND the rest of your money.
Only if they also steal your access PIN, or one of your fingers...
So, you're saying that I need to carry a pair of tin snips...
Just not in NY or NV...
So, we agree that Antarctica is still accumulating ice as of today. Tomorrow? That might be different. But today - as originally claimed - it's still accumulating ice.
Where in the NASA article does it say the total ice volume in Antarctica is decreasing? The rate of increase is slowing - but it's been adding ice for the last 10,000 years, and over the last 23 years is averaging nearly 100 billion tons of ice increase a year. So if I"m not understanding, how about explaining rather than just insulting?
The record on sea level rise says we're not in any real danger when you consider the 20,000 year record. It's increased a LOT faster in the past (orders of magnitude faster)...
The first rule of Rumblr is not to post about Rumblr...
Which has been the typical result of every communist country (self-declared communist, at that) ever.
In China, you get the hollow shell. That's the normal approach for new construction - in a "ghost city" or in the heart of Shanghai. You pay for the flooring, paint, doors, fixtures (plumbing and electrical), even the outlet covers and the outlets themselves. You get the concrete walls, ceiling, floor, and pre-pulled electrical and plumbing - and that's it.
Looks flat to me, rather than decreasing. Considering that unemployment lowered during the 80s as well, I'd say a flat level of expenditures on entitlements would be expected.
You claimed record. I showed you are in error. Should be simple enough for you to modify your claim and now state "near record lows" rather than "record low". Unless you're pushing an agenda, and don't care about actual facts?
From the NASA article:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
So there are some losses, but the accumulation is still growing faster. That's straight from NASA. How you debunk that without completely ignoring their results is a mystery to me. But you seem determined to do so! No thanks, I'll take NASA's statement and study that say ice volume is actually accumulating. Slower, but still accumulating overall.
Sure, because we all know that Global Warming is the reason brutal dictators exist, and religious extremists try to conquer the world.
The Antarctic ice sheet contains ~61% of all fresh water on the planet, and about 26 million cubic km of ice, which would be well above the rest of the ice held everywhere - including the Arctic. IF you were talking about just sea ice, you'd be correct - the Arctic is slightly above Antarctica. But include the full ice sheet of Antarctica, including that on land, and you find that the volume of ice in Antarctica greatly exceeds that of the Arctic, including all of Greenland (which itself is about 3.5 million cubic km of ice).
And the Artic has again a record low ..
NASA says otherwise, 2007 and 2012 were both lower - significantly - than 2015. So the Arctic is rebounding, Antarctica has record ice mass. That seems to be the trends from measurements - increases in ice off of lows rather than decreases.
The only thing that is unusually big (actually it is just a little bit over the mean of the recent decades, there where bigger ice shelfs, so this is by far not a record), big in terams of area, not kn terms of actually ice.
Actually, the latest NASA paper says that the total Antarctic ice mass is increasing overall, not just the area or in a small location. The total ice locked up is at a new record.
It was just 20,000 years ago that New York was buried under glacier. What makes us think that the climate is "stable" about the current situation?
Because if you want to sell it in the US, it's more economical to build it here. And if you want to sell it in China, then you can easily command a 40-50% premium because it's an "American" product.
I read what you wrote. And it's wrong. Hansen spoke anyway, and per your own article he was "talked to" AFTER the his interviews and publications. And he bore no repercussions. Was there even a warning as Hansen (a proven, documented liar) claimed? If there was - then show the proof. Show the memos requiring him to only speak through spin-doctors, of the threat of losing his job.
Just because you suck on the knob of Hansen et. al. do not assume that others will be blinded by their scientific jism in your eye...