On paper, I don't know. Assessments here run about double actual sale value, so until you actually sell a property, you don't know what it's "worth" so far as the government is concerned.
Unless you die - then it's taxed at full assessed value.
And in your last, you've switched from "spend" to "use". If I liquidate everything and "leave" my kids suitcases of non-sequential hundreds, I have not "spent" that money, it's not in the taxable income stream.
One of my kids spending $100 of that cash is returning it to the income stream. Them putting it in a piggy bank for one of their kids is not. I don't see the difference.
We've got an "aristocrat" class. We just call them "politicians".
"Raising the tax rate on the highest earners...."
...you mean the people that already pay over 90% of the total income taxes collected by the Federal Government?
...or do you mean the people IN government that are in the top 5% or so of earners, the people that MAKE the laws regarding taxation?
...or do you mean the people that buy the laws to protect their income?
And when you hear some liberal millionaire complaining that his tax rate is lower than his chauffeur's, please point out to him or her that the IRS has always accepted donations, there's absolutely nothing preventing them from paying that same "rate".
If I blew it on hats, I'd pay 8% State Sales Tax.
Estate taxes are a bit higher than that.
What it comes down to is... ownership. Is the Estate I leave when I die mine to distribute, or does it belong to the Government?
And that $500k number is ludicrous. Work for thirty years, invest wisely in low-risk areas, and you should leave an estate of about three times that by age 75 or so.
Post something logical about how raising the wage without an increase in productivity is a net loss and you'll get shouted down.
Point out that Warren going around saying we need to send more money to central american oppressive regimes to help the people there being oppressed shows she hasn't got a clue where international aid money goes (the oppressive government) and you'll get shouted down.
Ask "have you tried getting a job?" in reply to someone whining at full volume that they're not getting enough welfare money and... yup, you get shouted down.
Have that "hive mind" you mention find out that you're an old white guy who busted his ass for decades at three careers to make something of his life, provide for his kids, and you get shouted down as a "nazi", "racist", and "that's because of white privilege".
How much of that do you put up with before you simply drop your account?
THAT is the main reason you don't see "conservatives" on "social media" in any great quantity. For the most part, those that do have FB accounts keep them private and only family members are "friended".
At 30%, used in airports and border crossings, it's wildly accurate compared to some rentacop's "feeling" that someone is a bad guy.
They already have the "excuses" they need, and they're ludicrous. At a 1:3 chance of a match, that's 2:3 people that would not be hassled.
And still nowhere near close enough for evidentiary use. I wouldn't consider even 98% efficient good enough for that.
That's the cost of a low-end home in a good neighborhood.
If I leave an estate of $5 million, the government takes a huge chunk of it.
If I blow it all buying hats instead, the government says that's ok - it's my money.
I earned it, I should be able to spend it how I wish, within the confines of the law.
Which includes "spending" it on my kids and grandkids.
Fair points.
I'd change the "bigoted, famous..." to simply "loudmouth idiots", as they're quickly shouted down.
And I really wasn't referring to the attention seeking types, just that you don't see many people post so-called "conservative views", like actually working for a living, pointing out a fallacy in a populist "movement", that a Dem presidential candidate's only "plus side" is that they're not a white male. Hell, just disagreeing with something a liberal "icon" says will get you such a raft of shouting replies you'll think you're in an AC thread on TechDirt...
The platforms don't. The bulk of the users do.
The sites in question have an indisputable left/liberal majority of users.
So if you're not (or even if you ARE) left/liberal, and you post something the choir is conditioned to knee-jerk against, you'll get a slew of replies telling you you're an idiot.
Bust your ass for thirty years to make ends meet while putting something aside for old age then post on facebook that you're being taxed too much and see what kind of replies you get.
Make mention of the millions of able-bodied welfare drones there and see what the replies look like.
So, YES, the lack of "conservatives" on facebook makes it appear there's an organized "plot" to keep them off.
You don't see many conservatives on those sites for the same reason you don't see Catholic Priests walking into Mosques and performing Mass.
In the early 80's, we'd "hide" details of products by applying for a Patent and constantly modifying the Application.
Once Patent is granted, it's available to anyone who asks for a copy and pays a small fee.
When an item is Patent Pending, the documentation isn't available to the public.
From some of the Patent nonsense reported here, that's likely been changed.
"So where is the public safety value in facial recognition? Searching for perpetrators after the fact?"
Yes. Airports, border crossings, those kind of places make sense - the "faces" of thousands of criminals are already in the databases.
Everyday "street" use? It'll be abused just like ALPR's are - they're mainly used to catch such dangerous criminals as parking ticket scofflaws.
Of course, all this only applies if the recognition system is at least reasonably accurate - say 30%.
Since current tech is about 95% inaccurate, perhaps the best use of it would be to round up the 5% or so that it doesn't have a false match for...
"I think AC's problem is that"
He doesn't have a problem.
He posts inflammatory nonsense, and the bulk of posters here fall in line with replies like a pod of trained seals.
Flag and move on....
The proffered "logic" behind it is simple security through obscurity, supposedly "only" the company has access.
Stop laughing so hard, you'll hurt yourself...
That's very close.
Search engine is the Library Card Catalog.
So making the search engines remove links is the same as removing ONE of the THREE cards in the Catalog.
The book with the defamatory content is still on the shelf, you've just made it more difficult to find it.
Oddball thought that brings to mind.... how many people can currently work a card catalog effectively? How many know why there are three cards for each book?
People don't realize that about 30% of the US population is on the socio/psychopathic spectrum.
And refuse to realize that anyone seeking the power over others that comes with a political or law enforcement job are the LAST people that should be trusted with that kind of power.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On paper, I don't know. Assessments here run about double actual sale value, so until you actually sell a property, you don't know what it's "worth" so far as the government is concerned. Unless you die - then it's taxed at full assessed value. And in your last, you've switched from "spend" to "use". If I liquidate everything and "leave" my kids suitcases of non-sequential hundreds, I have not "spent" that money, it's not in the taxable income stream. One of my kids spending $100 of that cash is returning it to the income stream. Them putting it in a piggy bank for one of their kids is not. I don't see the difference.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We've got an "aristocrat" class. We just call them "politicians". "Raising the tax rate on the highest earners...." ...you mean the people that already pay over 90% of the total income taxes collected by the Federal Government? ...or do you mean the people IN government that are in the top 5% or so of earners, the people that MAKE the laws regarding taxation? ...or do you mean the people that buy the laws to protect their income? And when you hear some liberal millionaire complaining that his tax rate is lower than his chauffeur's, please point out to him or her that the IRS has always accepted donations, there's absolutely nothing preventing them from paying that same "rate".
Re: Re: Re:
Unlike you, I didn't have internet access, nor did the USPTO, in the early 1980's.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I blew it on hats, I'd pay 8% State Sales Tax. Estate taxes are a bit higher than that. What it comes down to is... ownership. Is the Estate I leave when I die mine to distribute, or does it belong to the Government? And that $500k number is ludicrous. Work for thirty years, invest wisely in low-risk areas, and you should leave an estate of about three times that by age 75 or so.
Re: Re: Re:
Post something logical about how raising the wage without an increase in productivity is a net loss and you'll get shouted down. Point out that Warren going around saying we need to send more money to central american oppressive regimes to help the people there being oppressed shows she hasn't got a clue where international aid money goes (the oppressive government) and you'll get shouted down. Ask "have you tried getting a job?" in reply to someone whining at full volume that they're not getting enough welfare money and... yup, you get shouted down. Have that "hive mind" you mention find out that you're an old white guy who busted his ass for decades at three careers to make something of his life, provide for his kids, and you get shouted down as a "nazi", "racist", and "that's because of white privilege". How much of that do you put up with before you simply drop your account? THAT is the main reason you don't see "conservatives" on "social media" in any great quantity. For the most part, those that do have FB accounts keep them private and only family members are "friended".
Re: Re: Re: Security: Detection vs Investigation
At 30%, used in airports and border crossings, it's wildly accurate compared to some rentacop's "feeling" that someone is a bad guy. They already have the "excuses" they need, and they're ludicrous. At a 1:3 chance of a match, that's 2:3 people that would not be hassled. And still nowhere near close enough for evidentiary use. I wouldn't consider even 98% efficient good enough for that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the cost of a low-end home in a good neighborhood. If I leave an estate of $5 million, the government takes a huge chunk of it. If I blow it all buying hats instead, the government says that's ok - it's my money. I earned it, I should be able to spend it how I wish, within the confines of the law. Which includes "spending" it on my kids and grandkids.
Re:
Fair points. I'd change the "bigoted, famous..." to simply "loudmouth idiots", as they're quickly shouted down. And I really wasn't referring to the attention seeking types, just that you don't see many people post so-called "conservative views", like actually working for a living, pointing out a fallacy in a populist "movement", that a Dem presidential candidate's only "plus side" is that they're not a white male. Hell, just disagreeing with something a liberal "icon" says will get you such a raft of shouting replies you'll think you're in an AC thread on TechDirt...
Re:
The platforms don't. The bulk of the users do. The sites in question have an indisputable left/liberal majority of users. So if you're not (or even if you ARE) left/liberal, and you post something the choir is conditioned to knee-jerk against, you'll get a slew of replies telling you you're an idiot. Bust your ass for thirty years to make ends meet while putting something aside for old age then post on facebook that you're being taxed too much and see what kind of replies you get. Make mention of the millions of able-bodied welfare drones there and see what the replies look like. So, YES, the lack of "conservatives" on facebook makes it appear there's an organized "plot" to keep them off. You don't see many conservatives on those sites for the same reason you don't see Catholic Priests walking into Mosques and performing Mass.
Re: I Have Seen The WebSite
No problem. When the site is swamped and crashed, we'll just see Good ol' Ajit doing the Harlem Shuffle explaining why it was really the fault of....
Re:
In the early 80's, we'd "hide" details of products by applying for a Patent and constantly modifying the Application. Once Patent is granted, it's available to anyone who asks for a copy and pays a small fee. When an item is Patent Pending, the documentation isn't available to the public. From some of the Patent nonsense reported here, that's likely been changed.
Re: Re: Known, Knowns*
It's a good thing you know that I know that you know that I know that you know what you're talking about... /s
Re: Security: Detection vs Investigation
"So where is the public safety value in facial recognition? Searching for perpetrators after the fact?" Yes. Airports, border crossings, those kind of places make sense - the "faces" of thousands of criminals are already in the databases. Everyday "street" use? It'll be abused just like ALPR's are - they're mainly used to catch such dangerous criminals as parking ticket scofflaws. Of course, all this only applies if the recognition system is at least reasonably accurate - say 30%. Since current tech is about 95% inaccurate, perhaps the best use of it would be to round up the 5% or so that it doesn't have a false match for...
Re: Re: Re:
Must have been fixed, we only paid how many billions to have them fixed without supervision again?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I think AC's problem is that" He doesn't have a problem. He posts inflammatory nonsense, and the bulk of posters here fall in line with replies like a pod of trained seals. Flag and move on....
Re: Re: Re: But if we told, they might fix the problem
The proffered "logic" behind it is simple security through obscurity, supposedly "only" the company has access. Stop laughing so hard, you'll hurt yourself...
Re: Re: Re:
Did you work for the phone company 30 years ago? Replace "5G" with "ISDN" in your comment and it's a perfect match.
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt echo chamber long downplays conservative co
I always put it down to people with jobs don't have the time to sit on facebook and it's ilk all day long...
Re:
That's very close. Search engine is the Library Card Catalog. So making the search engines remove links is the same as removing ONE of the THREE cards in the Catalog. The book with the defamatory content is still on the shelf, you've just made it more difficult to find it. Oddball thought that brings to mind.... how many people can currently work a card catalog effectively? How many know why there are three cards for each book?
Re: Re:
People don't realize that about 30% of the US population is on the socio/psychopathic spectrum. And refuse to realize that anyone seeking the power over others that comes with a political or law enforcement job are the LAST people that should be trusted with that kind of power.