Today, you usually know who's calling before you answer. It may be appropriate to take a call if it's more important than the meeting. If you're in sales, a call from a major customer is probably more important than a meeting.

Sure, but not in the meeting. Excuse yourself, and explain it's an extremely important customer call that absolutely cannot wait.

And even if this is the case, you're still being rude... just with an excuse. The call may be more important to you, but the other people in the meeting? You're wasting their time.

If you've blocked out time for a meeting, don't take calls during that time. It's rude and unprofessional.

Note: This is for orgs that have effective meetings. If your meetings are generally unproductive, it may be a different story...

Part of the list of things I go over with my new hires is basic business etiquette. I spend at least an hour per employee on it. The most annoying thing I find is people who have a mother/father/significant other who expect them to always answer the cell phone when they call it. My experience is that a lot of people we hire have never worked in a professional atmosphere before... I'm not sure if this is because of our hiring practices, or is because of the general habits of today's younger workforce. If I am in a meeting I scheduled, and someone my rank or lower answers their phone, I almost always immediately end the meeting, to be rescheduled later. I run meetings so as to waste the minimum amount of time required for everyone; I expect the same from others. The public shaming seems to work well at my current workplace.

Sure they are, but that doesn't stop 90% of people from filing on time, or at least filing for the automatic extension. For that matter, nearly every church in the country manages to do the same.

Actually, churches are an exception. Churches that have been granted 501(c)3 status as a church under 170(b)(1)(A)(i) are not required to file information returns with the IRS. They get special treatment.

Taking a two-decade-old trend is not cherry-picking.

It can be cherrypicking when there are cyclical trends whose period is longer than 20 years.

I didn't make any kind of judgment about the assumptions, sorry if you took it the wrong way.

It was a feeble attempt at a joke, playing on the multiple meanings of "pass". I guess it wasn't obvious enough.

Hammurabi, benevolent as he may have been, didn't have to "pass" anything. He simply decreed it.

Assumption 1: Hammurabi was personally responsible for all laws under his reign
Assumption 2: Taxes singling out specific types of businesses are shit.

Reasonable Conclusion: Hammurabi did, indeed, "pass" that tax specifically targeting breweries.

But still... you are talking about an issue you specifically said you haven't researched, and giving assertions as fact.

This is not a good way for anyone to approach and address arguments, or have any kind of informed discussion

Also, per the second reference, the top 10% of the US pays more than 60% of the TOTAL tax income.

So? They control 77% of wealth in the US, and it's going up. Source: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Unless we want wealth (and ultimately, political power) to ultimately concentrate in the top few percent of people, we need to maintain a progressive tax rate to maintain any semblance of democratic society.

Emphasis mine:

Capital gains, when applied to stock market gains, means that a company's worth has increased by making more money, on which the company has been taxed.

That is not necessarily the case. There are innumerable examples of companies whose stock price has gone up even though there has not been a comparable increase taxable corporate income. Stock price depends on a lot of factors, and taxed profits are but one small part.

If you were limiting discussion to dividend income, I could see your point, although I disagree with it... but it is clear from what you wrote that dividends are not what you're talking about.

If you think that a large percentage of urban development isn't subsidized as much if not more than rural development, you're either naive or stupid.

Source, please?

Are you saying that rural areas subsidize development in urban areas?

Or are you simply stating that urban areas subsidize their own development, which would hardly be relevant to the argument?

I think you'll find that when it comes to conflicts between people who produce food, and wealthy concentrations of people and power,

But... in the US... the people who produce the food ARE a place where wealth and power is concentrated. We romanticize the small family farm, but that's not where most of our food comes from.

Emphasis mine:

That being said, I am not convinced that it was a good idea in the first place and lean towards getting rid of it now. I haven't studied the issue

So why are you even talking about it?

This particular subsidy was created because it was recognized that the utility of the telephone system was much greater if just about everyone had one than if there were vast areas where no one had telephone service.

Source, please? If you haven't studied the issue, then don't give speculation as assertion.

Despite your claim, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly states,

To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas, at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas

Seems to me the point is to ensure remote people get access, not to make the system have a higher utility overall.

I know some great offshore developers, and I also know some American developers that aren't worth their salt. Each assessment needs to be made at a personal level; you can't make a valid blanket stereotyped claim that fits everyone.

I'm in finance, not development. But my experience is that you get what you pay for. Good finance people in India are only slightly cheaper than here in the US; add in the off-shoring complications, it's a losing prospect. We save money on drone jobs, but that's about it.

That's a really good point.

I have nothing to add to it, but since I don't get mod points after an argument with Pudge a few years ago... I just wanted to call attention to your post.

I agree, but...

Don't forget the abundant inflow of cheap labor!