So what do we do with the child, when her father commits a a crime by entering the US illegally and brings her with him? Should we separate the child from the father? Do we put them on buses (which is what happened) and drive them to a place where they can be processed, and then split them up?
generally made conditions at the border so hostile that it is driving people to cross illegally at the most inhospitable and dangerous areas of the border
So the issue is we make it hard for people to illegally enter the US?
About 14-18% of CO2 emissions are from agriculture. And
organic agriculture produces 50-70% more CO2 than modern farming techniques (that includes all considerations for fertilizer, techniques, etc). Cutting organic farming techniques (voluntary, like in the US and most of the EU, and involuntary like in most of the 3rd world) could easily significantly cut total CO2 output.
Yet we're #42 out of all 50 in terms of fiscal condition, mainly from debt. A lot of that "surplus" is because Sacramento loves to punt expenses further down the road, and bank a small "surplus" to fund special interest projects.
Google, Apple, and Facebook made about $75 billion in net profits in 2017. So why not take 10% of that? That would provide about $156 per month per California State resident - we could give EVERYONE free 4G connectivity! Why tax texts - just tax those big companies benefiting from the Internet and communications!
The father of the child who died has no complaints about the treatment she received. Revived multiple times, air-lifted to a hospital. I guess that is murder to you? You're sick.
Yes, you can ship a lot of crappy product! Isn't that what the Apple Faithful always say about Android and Windows PCs? The facts are the same - it's a poorly designed connector, you don't put the moving/delicate parts on the expensive-to-fix side of the connection.
Lightning is a terrible connector. The reason is the pins are in the phone - not the cable. The cable has all the fixed parts, while the pins (the bending contact springs) are in the phone. The parts of connectors that break/fail are the pins - either they get bent the wrong way, or dirt gets trapped underneath them and they no longer function. The pins belong on the cable, and the fixed parts belong on the phone. The phone is a LOT more difficult and expensive to fix/repair than a cable. The Lightning connector was designed backwards - but it definitely makes a "visual cue" about what connector you're using!
They have a bounded range of operation for tuning. That is why if your O2 sensor dies, your car still runs quite well - it is bounded and stays within limits or default values. And open-bounded feedback/self-tuning system would simply destroy itself, or fail to run, if any sensor had a failure.
I see this a lot. I'd like to know - outside of targeted subsidies like this one - what program the Federal Government has that specifically helps only the rich, or excludes the poor, such that the rich make more out of it than they put into the system (a net benefit, instead of a reduction of loss).
Try not to slice-and-dice statement, m'kay? I want to know what makes a person think the rich get out more than they put in. Can you shed light on that?
In the US, we do not tax wealth; we tax income. If you look at the actual data you will see the top 1% make about 20% of all the income, but pay 40% of all income taxes. Wealth isn't taxed; income is. If you want to argue for a wealth tax, then do that - otherwise you're just trying to stir up some class-envy to bolster your incorrect argument.
Capital gains taxes for short-term (less than 1 year) gains are the same as ordinary income. Long term capital gains (more than 1 year held) can be lower, but still is not tax-free. It's there to encourage long-term investments and savings - which I would think would be beneficial to society? Or should we encourage all investors to only see short-term gains, in-and-out, churn the funds and eschew long-term stability?
For protection, we already tax property on its assessed value. The person with the $500,000 home pays, on average, twice the property tax as the person with a $250,000 home. The more expensive car has higher tabs/registration rates. And those tax payments are what covers things like police, fire, roads, schools, and so on. Federal taxes you on how much you make, so if you make more you pay more (and it's progressive - your payment rate goes from essentially zero income tax to quite high). If anything, it appears the original GP was correct - the more you make, the more you pay, and disproportionately so. Even taxes on Social Security benefits are also progressive and tax the higher income earner at an even higher rate.
So let's cut to the chase - what should the tax rate be? Should it be on income? Should it be on wealth? Who gets away with paying zero, who gets to pay more?
Too easy to disconnect a speedometer, especially on older, heavy vehicles. It might work on newer, computer controlled cars, but on older ones with mechanical speedos - nope. Right now, in CA, it is based upon the State's own determination of value of your vehicle (which is different than Kelly Blue Book or NADA prices - the State is a lot higher), and a tax rate applied. I'd say just make it a function of weight and be done with it.
Please try to keep up... I understand most ACs are ACs because they're not quite intelligent enough to figure out how to create an account, but please do try to keep up!
So how are the one percenters "deriving 90% of the benefit"? What programs and Government largesse is targeted/reserved for the top 1%, that is not available to anyone else?
I assume, since we've pretty much mastered agriculture and can grow food where it was never though possible (hydroponics, for instance), and we can breed/engineer plants and animals to adapt - we can probably do a pretty good job of that, too!
What should happen is your vehicle tabs should be based upon average mileage of all cars (around 15,000) times the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle (since road damage goes as the fourth power of weight), times the tax rate. Light vehicles pay very little, because they do very little road damage; heavy vehicles pay a lot because they do most of the damage to the road.
The curb weight of my 2015 Honda CTX700 motorcycle is 478 pounds; the curb weight of my wife's 2015 Mustang convertible Ecoboost is 3600 pounds. Tabs for my motorcycle are $130, tabs for the car are $280. Yet the car does [(3600/478)^4] 3200 times the road damage as the bike. Make the car $400, and the motorcycle essentially free (after all, not only does it get 55+ MPG, it greatly reduces traffic congestion) because it does, effectively, zero road damage.
Yes, this does tend to penalize heavier EVs (for example, the Model 3 is about as heavy as the fully-optioned convertible Mustang, a larger car with more stuff in it like a motorized roof), but that's where the damage comes from. A Model S would pay 8 times the tabs as a BMW i3, because it weighs about 1.7 times as much as the i3.
I see this a lot. I'd like to know - outside of targeted subsidies like this one - what program the Federal Government has that specifically helps only the rich, or excludes the poor, such that the rich make more out of it than they put into the system (a net benefit, instead of a reduction of loss).
If we go by the typical Leftist diatribe (that is, the business owners are always "rich"), then at least half of Social Security is paid by "the rich" - since it is paid by the company. And then, if you're making more than the median income (which is half of the people), another 25% (half of the other half) is paid by "the rich". So that would mean about 75% of all Social Security and FICA taxes are paid by "the rich".
Total US Department of Defense spending from 1996 to 2017 is about $11 trillion. What you're saying is that if we assigned 100% of that spending to subsidies for big oil, we'd need to double it again to get to the claim of $22 trillion. Yeah - that makes zero sense.
As far as keeping oil flowing - check where that Middle East oil flows. Predominantly to Asia and the EU - not the US (which gets most of its imported oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela - today and historically). If we've fought wars to keep ME oil flowing, it's been so our allies can continue to have a reliable source of oil - not us.
Let's imagine that was true. It isn't, but let's pretend.
It is true. Current EV rebates in California are about $10,000. With half a million purchased, that's around $5 billion; if anything, the original estimate may be a bit low.
We know that fossil fuels get $22 trillion in subsidies EACH YEAR.
That's not true... Citation needed. That is greater than the GDP of the US, the EU, or China. That's pretty much a straight-out lie. So - yeah. Citation needed.
Now, want to tell me which of those numbers is the more significant?
A real $5 billion, or a fake $22 trillion? The real $5 billion. Additionally, the $5 billion is directed to those who can afford, on average, $60,000+ cars. So it's a gift to the top 10%. Any subsidies to oil benefit everyone, from the rich with their supercars and private jets to the poor using a plastic bag at the grocery store or buying new tennis shoes.
If you think cars shouldn't be subsidized, fine. Abolish the subsidies on fossil fuels as well. All of it. Go on. Or is it only causes you agree with that get handouts?
Great! Let's do it! And let's also include subsidies for renewable energy - energy source for energy source, right? Because actual US subsidies don't fall as you think they do. Taxes paid by just ExxonMobil and Chevron are easily 3 times the most generous "subsidies" list you can reasonably come up with. ExxonMobil and Chevron paid $45 billion in just Federal taxes in 2012, compared to a supposed $15 billion in "subsidies" for the entire US industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Fiscal year 2018 had record revenues. Remember the fiscal year is NOT the calendar year.
So what do we do with the child, when her father commits a a crime by entering the US illegally and brings her with him? Should we separate the child from the father? Do we put them on buses (which is what happened) and drive them to a place where they can be processed, and then split them up?
generally made conditions at the border so hostile that it is driving people to cross illegally at the most inhospitable and dangerous areas of the border
So the issue is we make it hard for people to illegally enter the US?
Apparently we still need to put the /sarc tag on things...
About 14-18% of CO2 emissions are from agriculture. And organic agriculture produces 50-70% more CO2 than modern farming techniques (that includes all considerations for fertilizer, techniques, etc). Cutting organic farming techniques (voluntary, like in the US and most of the EU, and involuntary like in most of the 3rd world) could easily significantly cut total CO2 output.
Yet we're #42 out of all 50 in terms of fiscal condition, mainly from debt. A lot of that "surplus" is because Sacramento loves to punt expenses further down the road, and bank a small "surplus" to fund special interest projects.
Google, Apple, and Facebook made about $75 billion in net profits in 2017. So why not take 10% of that? That would provide about $156 per month per California State resident - we could give EVERYONE free 4G connectivity! Why tax texts - just tax those big companies benefiting from the Internet and communications!
The father of the child who died has no complaints about the treatment she received. Revived multiple times, air-lifted to a hospital. I guess that is murder to you? You're sick.
This is clearly an Australian conspiracy, as they want the world to tip over so they don't have to keep hanging on to the ground to avoid falling off!
Because a CO2 molecule from a US citizen is more damaging than a CO2 molecule from a Chinese citizen, right?
Yes, you can ship a lot of crappy product! Isn't that what the Apple Faithful always say about Android and Windows PCs? The facts are the same - it's a poorly designed connector, you don't put the moving/delicate parts on the expensive-to-fix side of the connection.
Lightning is a terrible connector. The reason is the pins are in the phone - not the cable. The cable has all the fixed parts, while the pins (the bending contact springs) are in the phone. The parts of connectors that break/fail are the pins - either they get bent the wrong way, or dirt gets trapped underneath them and they no longer function. The pins belong on the cable, and the fixed parts belong on the phone. The phone is a LOT more difficult and expensive to fix/repair than a cable. The Lightning connector was designed backwards - but it definitely makes a "visual cue" about what connector you're using!
What brand was that? When the O2 in my 1999 Ford Ranger died, it ran fine but would not pass smog check.
They have a bounded range of operation for tuning. That is why if your O2 sensor dies, your car still runs quite well - it is bounded and stays within limits or default values. And open-bounded feedback/self-tuning system would simply destroy itself, or fail to run, if any sensor had a failure.
But I didn't have the heart to tell them that I don't have an office, so if they wanted to blow up some random building, well...
I see this a lot. I'd like to know - outside of targeted subsidies like this one - what program the Federal Government has that specifically helps only the rich, or excludes the poor, such that the rich make more out of it than they put into the system (a net benefit, instead of a reduction of loss).
Try not to slice-and-dice statement, m'kay? I want to know what makes a person think the rich get out more than they put in. Can you shed light on that?
In the US, we do not tax wealth; we tax income. If you look at the actual data you will see the top 1% make about 20% of all the income, but pay 40% of all income taxes. Wealth isn't taxed; income is. If you want to argue for a wealth tax, then do that - otherwise you're just trying to stir up some class-envy to bolster your incorrect argument.
Capital gains taxes for short-term (less than 1 year) gains are the same as ordinary income. Long term capital gains (more than 1 year held) can be lower, but still is not tax-free. It's there to encourage long-term investments and savings - which I would think would be beneficial to society? Or should we encourage all investors to only see short-term gains, in-and-out, churn the funds and eschew long-term stability?
Social Security is capped in terms of benefits, which is why contributions are also capped. You are really mistaken here, stating there is no cap on social security contributions.
For protection, we already tax property on its assessed value. The person with the $500,000 home pays, on average, twice the property tax as the person with a $250,000 home. The more expensive car has higher tabs/registration rates. And those tax payments are what covers things like police, fire, roads, schools, and so on. Federal taxes you on how much you make, so if you make more you pay more (and it's progressive - your payment rate goes from essentially zero income tax to quite high). If anything, it appears the original GP was correct - the more you make, the more you pay, and disproportionately so. Even taxes on Social Security benefits are also progressive and tax the higher income earner at an even higher rate.
So let's cut to the chase - what should the tax rate be? Should it be on income? Should it be on wealth? Who gets away with paying zero, who gets to pay more?
Too easy to disconnect a speedometer, especially on older, heavy vehicles. It might work on newer, computer controlled cars, but on older ones with mechanical speedos - nope. Right now, in CA, it is based upon the State's own determination of value of your vehicle (which is different than Kelly Blue Book or NADA prices - the State is a lot higher), and a tax rate applied. I'd say just make it a function of weight and be done with it.
Please try to keep up... I understand most ACs are ACs because they're not quite intelligent enough to figure out how to create an account, but please do try to keep up!
So how are the one percenters "deriving 90% of the benefit"? What programs and Government largesse is targeted/reserved for the top 1%, that is not available to anyone else?
I assume, since we've pretty much mastered agriculture and can grow food where it was never though possible (hydroponics, for instance), and we can breed/engineer plants and animals to adapt - we can probably do a pretty good job of that, too!
What should happen is your vehicle tabs should be based upon average mileage of all cars (around 15,000) times the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle (since road damage goes as the fourth power of weight), times the tax rate. Light vehicles pay very little, because they do very little road damage; heavy vehicles pay a lot because they do most of the damage to the road.
The curb weight of my 2015 Honda CTX700 motorcycle is 478 pounds; the curb weight of my wife's 2015 Mustang convertible Ecoboost is 3600 pounds. Tabs for my motorcycle are $130, tabs for the car are $280. Yet the car does [(3600/478)^4] 3200 times the road damage as the bike. Make the car $400, and the motorcycle essentially free (after all, not only does it get 55+ MPG, it greatly reduces traffic congestion) because it does, effectively, zero road damage.
Yes, this does tend to penalize heavier EVs (for example, the Model 3 is about as heavy as the fully-optioned convertible Mustang, a larger car with more stuff in it like a motorized roof), but that's where the damage comes from. A Model S would pay 8 times the tabs as a BMW i3, because it weighs about 1.7 times as much as the i3.
And deriving 90% of the benefit.
I see this a lot. I'd like to know - outside of targeted subsidies like this one - what program the Federal Government has that specifically helps only the rich, or excludes the poor, such that the rich make more out of it than they put into the system (a net benefit, instead of a reduction of loss).
If we go by the typical Leftist diatribe (that is, the business owners are always "rich"), then at least half of Social Security is paid by "the rich" - since it is paid by the company. And then, if you're making more than the median income (which is half of the people), another 25% (half of the other half) is paid by "the rich". So that would mean about 75% of all Social Security and FICA taxes are paid by "the rich".
Total US Department of Defense spending from 1996 to 2017 is about $11 trillion. What you're saying is that if we assigned 100% of that spending to subsidies for big oil, we'd need to double it again to get to the claim of $22 trillion. Yeah - that makes zero sense.
As far as keeping oil flowing - check where that Middle East oil flows. Predominantly to Asia and the EU - not the US (which gets most of its imported oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela - today and historically). If we've fought wars to keep ME oil flowing, it's been so our allies can continue to have a reliable source of oil - not us.
Let's imagine that was true. It isn't, but let's pretend.
It is true. Current EV rebates in California are about $10,000. With half a million purchased, that's around $5 billion; if anything, the original estimate may be a bit low.
We know that fossil fuels get $22 trillion in subsidies EACH YEAR.
That's not true... Citation needed. That is greater than the GDP of the US, the EU, or China. That's pretty much a straight-out lie. So - yeah. Citation needed.
Now, want to tell me which of those numbers is the more significant?
A real $5 billion, or a fake $22 trillion? The real $5 billion. Additionally, the $5 billion is directed to those who can afford, on average, $60,000+ cars. So it's a gift to the top 10%. Any subsidies to oil benefit everyone, from the rich with their supercars and private jets to the poor using a plastic bag at the grocery store or buying new tennis shoes.
If you think cars shouldn't be subsidized, fine. Abolish the subsidies on fossil fuels as well. All of it. Go on. Or is it only causes you agree with that get handouts?
Great! Let's do it! And let's also include subsidies for renewable energy - energy source for energy source, right? Because actual US subsidies don't fall as you think they do. Taxes paid by just ExxonMobil and Chevron are easily 3 times the most generous "subsidies" list you can reasonably come up with. ExxonMobil and Chevron paid $45 billion in just Federal taxes in 2012, compared to a supposed $15 billion in "subsidies" for the entire US industry.