They still pay a high percentage of their income in sales tax, and they ultimately pay their landlord’s property taxes. The middle class might see the highest taxes, but the working poor still pay proportionally more than the ultra-rich.
That’s what I’m asking: what would that law look like? Securities fraud?
Could current anti-trust laws be applied? This could be construed as anti-competitive practices.
The relevant metric is “proportionate” not “majority”. The working poor pay a much higher proportion of their earnings in taxes than the ultra rich.
For example, our social security system is funded by taxes on the first $184,500 of personal income. Every dollar you earn above that is exempted from social security tax. That’s a 12.4% regressive flat tax. That tax is not assessed against business income, only personal income.
What laws are going to attack circular funding?
Exactly. Nothing about gender. Nothing about incompetence. The whole thing is clickbait/ragebait bullshit.
Read up on it. Everyone on board has anxiety. She reported no current symptoms: a cough she’d had several days earlier had resolved before she was examined.
She specifically told the doctors that she was feeling anxious. They didn’t pull that out of their asses; they listened to their patient.
She displayed and reported no current symptoms consistent with the Hantavirus. That’s not improper doctoring. They would have needed a crystal ball to diagnose her at that time.
Asymptomatic. Correct. You just agreed with the doctor that she was not displaying symptoms of Hantavirus.
Like the other 95% of asymptomatic people on board, she was already under quarantine. Like all of them, she was already being treated as an asymptomatic carrier.
That’s a very, very good point, but not the one you think it is.
Of the ~240 people aboard the vessel, 100% are experiencing symptoms of “anxiety”, while about 5% have been identified as also experiencing “Hantavirus”.
Everyone aboard is quarantined, and regularly being interviewed by medical personnel to determine if they are symptomatic. Did she initially report virus symptoms along with the anxiety affecting everyone? Or did the virus symptoms appear later?
“Ma’am, even though you have reported no symptoms indicating you have contracted the virus, we’re going to go ahead and say you have it.”
^ much more problematic diagnosis.
Yeah, the world really didn’t need Stargate: Voyager.
What were the specific symptoms she reported to the doctors?
If I go to the doctor and I report “I’m feeling generally nervous and a little scared”, I would expect the doctor to respond “That sounds like anxiety”.
If I report “I’m having a worsening cough, and body aches”, I’d expect “That sounds like a viral infection”.
If I were to report “I had a cough several days ago, but it has disappeared. I’m feeling generally nervous and a little scared”, should the doctor listen to what I am saying and conclude “anxiety”? Or should they focus solely on the symptom I reported in decline and conclude “virus”?
40? The oldest millenials are turning 45 this year.
correct, that’s called regulation.
It’s called “invading children’s privacy”, but ok. Paxton is a scumbag, but even a broken clock…
Telegraph was the big one, that shortened broadcast communication times from weeks to a couple days. (Receiving the news telegram -> publishing and distributing the newspaper). News ticker, teletype, and eventually, telephone were all evolutionary ideas: they relied on the same newspaper for broad dissemination.
Radio was the next revolution, shortening news distribution from a couple days to a couple hours, bypassing the newspaper and going directly to the public. TV was a relatively small evolution of radio. It didn’t increase the speed or breadth of distribution; it only expanded the scope of what was distributed.
The internet was a big revolution. Cloud computing was another evolutionary idea. AI is a rather small evolutionary take off from that.
California and Colorado respond to such data mining not by suing them to stop, but by requiring them to do it.
Yeah, it’s definitely the next Dot Com bubble. It’ll eventually be about as evolutionary as the transition from Radio to Television, but there’s gonna be a major course correction first.
Invasion of privacy can be a good teaching moment.
Don’t wait until they’ve embarrassed themselves: take them through their browser history before they’ve even thought about porn. Show them router logs before they include pornhub entries. Show them their tracking history while they were far away from you, out with grandma. Explain that you don’t look at these things, but that this sort of information is available. That if they use their school’s wifi it’s available to their teachers. If they use their friend’s wifi, it’s available to their friend’s dad.
Do it while the information isn’t embarrassing, and they will learn to protect themselves, rather than be upset about your “invasion”.
Access to the Internet is not something that the parents are actually capable of restricting. As soon as one kid in the has a phone, their entire peer group is exposed.
The question isn’t about restriction. It’s about who will be teaching these kids about the Internet. The first kid learns from their parents; every other kid learns (mostly) from other kids.
If your kid is the last in their class to have a phone, everything they know about the Internet they will have learned from their peers. They sure as hell aren’t going to tell you they already know about all the things you’ve been trying to hide from them.
Your wife is your adopted daughter?
Gen X grew up with daily exposure to the highest levels of lead in their environment. Boomers had the second highest. Their mothers smoked and drank while pregnant. These generations are more brain damaged than any before or since.
Only the oldest Millennials can even remember leaded gasoline, and it was off the market long before they learned to drive. Zeds are obnoxious, but they aren’t wrong. The sooner they engage with politics, the better.