Are you honestly saying that using a step-function is what makes taxes so complicated?

There are two parts that make taxes complex. The first is deductions. That takes up a bit of the complexity. The second is defining income. That's hugely complex.

In one easy to identify problem, your system seems to imply that I have to pay taxes on the value of any asset I sell, not just the appreciation of that asset since purchase. Which makes investing... interesting.

I have a bit of free time.

I did some pretty basic accounting in the past, and wrote most of the internal report generating software my company (quite small) uses.

What scared me away from publishing any accounting software before was the lack of a CPA. Do companies not care if the software is verified as long as it is transparent?

But if you're serious, I'd love to know more.

I agree. But that makes this is an excellent example of how the world should work:

Shitty practice exists

News media locates and publicizes this shitty practice instead of focusing on celebrities/tragedies

People in charge fix the problem, either out of embarrassment or because someone who was ignorant of it but had the power to stop it finds out it's going on.

Fin.

You can tell her Majesty that we will gladly pay our Tea Taxes once restitution has been made for the Revolutionary War, impressment of our sailors, War of 1812 (including burning D.C.), and the money we loaned during the world wars.

They recognized the inheritance of debt. The IRS ended this policy shortly before Slashdot reported on it.

I suppose Slashdot will post a countering news study a few days from now.

The entire premise of capitalism is that money that gets invested into useful purposes

No, the entire premise of capitalism is people own stuff. Period.

There is an assumption people might invest in useful stuff and make rational decisions in their own best interests. The reality is not quite the same.

When billionaires buy multi-million dollar yachts and diamond crusted iPhones you get to see why kings periodically get their heads chopped off.

The producers add their tax burden to the cost of goods. The study from Harvard econ. sets the price of goods as 22% higher (average) than they would otherwise be without the income tax.

And, if you didn't have a government to take taxes and do the things the public needs, your society would be a shitty place to live, and would be the most brutally Darwinistic thing you can imagine. So those 22% lower costs would be offset by a society which is many many times the worse to live in.

This fictional, utopian tax free society would be not nearly as good as its proponents claim it would be.

If you model your economic system on the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, you will not like the results.

Yeah, but making taxes difficult to do also creates animosity towards the IRS which directly helps the talking points of the right.

And god forbid they actually lose talking points by actually accomplishing something they've said they'd like to do.

Nosiree, if we don't change anything, we can keep bitching about it and we can blame the other guys. And, we can keep getting paid by the lobbyists to maintain the status quo.

Because, really, politicians are douchebags just looking to line their own pockets. Some of them may be honest, but increasingly, I doubt that fact and think we should start off with the premise they're crooked and on the take and force them to live under much more careful scrutiny.

It's shit like this why I don't think corporations should have "free speech". Humans have free speech, corporations are not humans and should not have the same bloody rights.

For instance:

A U.S. appeals court on Monday struck down parts of a regulation that forces public companies to disclose if their products contain "conflict minerals" from a war-torn part of Africa, saying it violates free speech rights.

Because when corporate money is equated with free speech, they can afford to have their speech heard more than anyone else.

And when they can astro-turf and get op-ed pieces written by people who think this is an assault on tax-payers, they just cloud the issue.

It should also be illegal for politicians to accept any personal or financial benefit from lobbyists ... because all it does it cause them to be sold to the highest bidder.

My bet? This would be a net benefit for tax-payers, and this is just buggy whip makers entrenching into law their business model. And all of those politicians who like to talk about free markets are full of shit .. the only free market here is how much the politicians get paid.

Whatever court decision decided that corporations are people too was garbage.

Yo Dawg! I hear you like updates ... so I got you an update so you can update while you're updating.

LOL ... I've seen CDs which are printed to look like vinyl albums.

I'm sure someone could just print on the existing ones something which makes it look like a floppy.

2D traffic sucks here; time to up-grade.

I see way too many examples of people not understanding how to drive their car in 2D.

The idea of many of these same drivers being expected to navigate in 3D is terrifying.

There's a reason why getting a pilots license is much harder than getting a driving license. And the idiots I see around me talking on their phone, texting while driving, and weaving all over the place and making random lane changes ... these people in a flying car would be utterly dangerous.

Perhaps if they posted about their product on well know tech blogs with links to contribute then maybe it will work.

If you're about $3 Million short of being able to start your prototypes, pay your lawyers, and move into your offices ... you need much more than publicity.

'In detail we aim to create an urban dual-mode, hybrid flight and electric drive motorized vehicle that fits into sustainable mobility.'

Does it have gattling guns? Can it be used for urban pacification? Does it have stealth technology?

If not ... well, you're just another in a long line of people hoping to create a flying car.

Many of us have long since relegated the idea into the long-since cliche bucket. And since I don't trust most people to drive in the mostly 2 dimensions offered by cars ... I really don't trust most people with a z axis.

If you want to save money, here's a hint ... don't get offices in Silicon Valley before you've got a product.

Can someone please explain this obsession with the Commodore 64?

Nostalgia.

These were the first computers many people used, and and the games were quite legendary to some people.

Because they can.

Now that they're all grown up and have these spiffy new toys to play with, you have to do something with it.

Vanity.

It has always been true that programmers tend to play with projects that appeal to them and which they find fun and interesting. That there's already a crap ton of the same kind of app is irrelevant. This one is mine dammit.

Why not?

So if in the process of learning to use something new, you decide to re-implement/emulate something old, what's the harm in it? Do you care that someone nerded out and created an emulator?

Girls.

Because, really, the ultimate pick up line is "Hey baby, wanna see my C64 emulator on my Raspberry Pi"? Right? Anyone?