Skype and Dropbox.

Not a bad idea. Probably saves a lot of aggravation and cuts down on the number of investigations.

All taxes get paid by the people purchasing products and services.

Taxes are paid by those against whom they are levied.

Those entities may try and recover that cost elsewhere. They may or may not be successful in doing so.

If you tax only the rich, the poor will pay the differences.

So you don't think anyone will step in and provide equivalent products and services at a lower cost than established players because they're prepared to accept a smaller profit margin ?

Ie: markets don't work ?

There are plenty of rich people who don't own and run businesses, or have substantial income and wealth outside of their business interests.

and no, you cannot address that with any legislation because congress does not have the power to do so.

Firstly, the world is not America.

Secondly, even in the US, between local, state and federal Governments, they can legislate nearly anything they want to. If, of course, they want to. But there's been little interest in trying to build a better society since the neoliberal right took over the western world in the '70s and started pursuing the greatest wealth transfer from the

There is nothing there that could not be addressed with appropriate legislation.

And it's all completely irrelevant to the original claim that "all taxes are regressive".

Their business range of Windows laptops don't come with bloatware.

I live in a rural area even more rural than where you do. Its an area 1.5 times the size of the inner M25 with a population of just 200,000. We have no city, the largest town has a population of just 33,000, the population of my town is 11,000. We've had 76mbit FTTC for nearly 2 years now.

Want to see real change and justice? Talk to the actual owners of Uber and see if you can convince them to make a better company.

Uber is run by libertarian psychopaths. Their thought process - though they would obviously never say it in public - is "nobody made you get into the taxi, tough luck".

Even the slightest voluntary attempt to try and ameliorate the risk involved would be an anathema - "nanny state regulation" or some such bullshit - to them.

Probably better because who can say how many cab drivers make it in via political favors?

Given the life and pay of a taxi driver, I'd go with "sweet fuck all".

People calling in "political favours" to be a *taxi driver* ? Did you even think about that before you wrote it ? Do you think garbage collectors get jobs through "political favours" as well ?

The problems in the taxi industries worldwide have nothing to do with regulations around safety, and everything to do with the regulations around taxi plates (or "medallions" I think they call them in the states).
Uber vehicles should be required to carry the same safety facilities as a taxi, including video/audio recording and driver duress buttons.
This sort of situation and the absurdly trivial solutions for reducing its risk (what's the cost of a few dash cams ?) were entirely predictable and the only reason Uber did not act proactively was because it's a company run by libertarian psychopaths who think rules shouldn't apply to them.

Global Warming is a theory. So is gravity. Are you worried about suddenly flying off into space ?

All the AGW models have failed, miserably.
If that were true it would not be getting hotter (or getting colder).
"It's not getting hotter as quickly as predicted, but it is getting hotter as expected" is not "miserable failure".

of course, its people who dont use X who always want to raise taxes on X
Similarly, the people who can easily afford the things taxes pay for are always in favour of eliminating them

And why I keep saying ALL Taxes are regressive. Please, tell me more about how a taxes that only targets the top 1%, 0.1% and 0.01% would be "regressive".

We have FTTC, fibre to the cabinet, here in the UK which gives most people the thick end of 76Mbit which in this country pretty much everyone finds is more than enough and as a result of using the existing copper from the street cabinet to the house instead of laying fibre means that that truly unlimited 76Mbit can cost you less than $30 a month with a half price discount on the first 12 months.

The USA has several laws which block what you can see online. As for my UK ISP I don't know of any websites it actually blocks because being a smaller one it doesn't seem to have the same requirements as BT.