Just a pedantic nitpick: the Republican party was never part of the Democratic-Republican party. The Democratic-Republicans split into Democrats and Whigs. The Whigs later folded, and the Republicans rose up as the opposition to the Democrats.
We are a representative democracy, and also a republic, and those are not the same thing.
The US is both a democracy and a republic.
The UK is a democracy but not a republic.
North Korea is not a democracy but is a republic.
Saudi Arabia is neither a democracy nor a republic.
Being a democracy or not is about how and by whom the power of the state is exercised. Being a republic or not is about in whose name the power of the state is exercised.
A republic is a state that officially belongs to the people, in whose name its power is exercised. The degree to which the people themselves direct the use of that power can vary from complete (in a direct democracy) to partial (in a representative democracy) to none at all (in an autocracy).
A democracy is a state that is directed and controlled (to at least some extent) by the people, whether the power of that state is in their name (as in a republic) or not (as in a monarchy).
The US is a republic, because the power of the state is officially that of the people (which is why court cases are titled things like "The People vs
God, can your math really be that bad? If the state raises taxes on car dealers by 30%, as you say, and the tax goes from 3% to 4%, why would that require the car dealers to raise the prices of their cars 30%?
How did you get "the tax goes from 3% to 4%" from "the state raises taxes on car dealers by 30%?"
About your other point, sure some of the dealers may only raise prices by 29% and absorb that other 1%, but you're still missing the point. The consumer is still paying the full amount of the tax. So the dealer is taking less of a profit. He isn't PAYING any of the tax unless he's running that business at a loss. The consumer is the only one putting money into the equation unless the business is being run at a loss.
If you don't think only consumers pay taxes, let me leave you with this "If that car dealership doesn't have any customers and no business for a month, why are the taxes '0' for the month?"
Just then there was a concussive shock. Momentarily the Post's reporter was transported into a netherworld of pounding, blinding light as his office exploded in a cloud of acrid smoke and swirling documents. He lost consciousness momentarily. When he awoke, there were several men standing over him with solemn, angry looks on their faces. Their black paramilitary uniforms were outlined in stark contrast against the white-boards and family photographs. "Who... who are you" he struggled to speak.
"We're the Power Point Rangers".
I agree. His fascination on cramming everything into the smallest space has left us with Macs that are not worth upgrading. It blows.
His touches on the UI are like cancer since he applies principles from designing hardware shapes (Industrial Design) to UI design and THEY DO NOT FUCKING APPLY THERE. Minimalist UI is bullshit. Context matters. You wan to eyebell the UI and understand what each part can do without having to interact with it.
If text looks just like a button, then you can't tell the difference between an item you can interact with and a static design element that you can't click or tap on. This confuses the user. This creates crappy and confusing UI.
I remember looking in Xcode for the longest time for an option in the far right panel. It just wasn't there. Well, his dumbass design principles replaced the arrow that shows the items can expand next to the text with NOTHING. I had no idea that the item was expandable because the visual cue that it was expandable was removed. I wasted 1/2 a hour on this and I'm not the only one who has.
I could go on, but there are so many cases of this now in the UI. It sucks.
And all the motion in the UI? We are wired to divert our attention to things that move or dart. It happens before we think. Every time an item darts or jumps or bumps, it's a distraction that pulls out attention to that item and away from the task we wanted to accomplish. The UI becomes an ADD machine. It's terrible.
All this thanks to Jony Ive. I say no thanks. When not in the office, I use Snow Leopard (10.6.8) because it's simply so much more usable a UI.
Ever since he's gotten his "design direction" on the Mac OS and iOS, their design have gone to shit.
Everything's animated whether it needs to be or not and you can't turn it off. Everything is ultra skinny and harsh blue on glaring white. Common standards of "don't make the user guess what's functional in the UI and what's not" have been thrown away and the UI of the Mac OS has become a distraction machine that gets in the way of the user. Too much darty motion is ADD fodder as it innately draws your attention to the little darty thing as opposed to keeping your attention on the task at hand that you are trying to accomplish.
I don't want animations that get in the way of me doing my task, or ones that pull for my attention. I want a goo d looking, non distracting UI that lets me do my job, not one with crap sliding all over the place and with hideous colors.
Ugh. This is crappy crappy news for the Mac. But then, we already have too much animated crap in the UI.
Not sure why you're getting slammed by mods. This is truth. If big oil disappeared, you'd be up a creek. If big pharma went away, you might die. If the industrials went away, our infrastructure would rot.
If FaceBook disappeared? The world would actually be a better place. Tesla isn't perfect; I like electric cars but I hate some of the big brother that's coming along for the ride. Same deal though, we could live without them and somebody else will eventually pick up their patents and make electrics that are more affordable.
That's beside your point though. Your thesis is valid--buy value when it's priced properly. Futuristic vision and trends aren't value. Stuff people need is value, but it's overpriced now due to Fed manipulation.
The first rule of economics is "Businesses do not pay taxes. Businesses collect taxes."
No, the first rule of economics is "don't talk about economics".
Seriously, as long as you have companies in competition in regard to pricing, then yes, businesses do in fact pay taxes. They can not in fact just raise prices to cover taxes, because if they could raise prices, they already would have done so.
There is no law in economics that says "Businesses do not pay taxes. Businesses collect taxes." That's an old conservative trope that gained currency when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were busy rodgering the working people of their respective countries.
Sure, individual businesses would raise prices if they could. But you're missing the point of a tax.
Example 1: There are 50 auto dealers in a state. One dealer decides to raise his prices across the board because like you said "If they could, they would." He goes out of business.
Example 2: There are 50 auto dealers in a state. The state raises taxes on car dealers 30%. Now all dealers raise their prices 30%.
Now I ask you "Who is paying that 30% increase?"
Businesses can't print money. Well, other than the Reserve. But that's a different matter. Any money a business pays out for any reason has to originally come from an individual somewhere.
Raise the tax rate to 75% of the corporate profit and see what happens...
Companies will reinvest revenue rather than pay it out as dividends. Also, stock prices fall as future expected dividends are cut by 75%, and then rise again as said reinvestment makes economy grow faster.
Actually, this could be just the stimulus economy needs...
Oh dear Lord.
Raising the tax rate to 75% is a stimulant to the economy?
Wow.
Yeah, force the Germans to pay reparations. What could possibly go wrong?
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
