Don't worry. We'll keep the right half.
$880 Billion - $ 564 Billion = $316 Biillion, which is about $260 K per household after tax. So if you were to say it's all going to come from the top 1%, they'd be taxed at an average 64%.
You might call that "confiscatory" but it's not eating the seed corn.
Why limit your methods to the slowest one available if the problem is urgent?
I don't think it's right to call the default browser that comes with a device bloatware.
It's the default browser on a lot of Android devices though, and I think it's pretty uncommon for people to use other than the default browser on a phone or tablet.
It has been shown that presidents age quickly in office.
That's more perception than reality. Aside from the possibility of getting assassinated, it hasn't shortened their life expectancy noticeably.
Stuff you might put in (or on) your wrist preventing Apple's watch from working right isn't really a problem with the watch. You did something non-standard to your skin and now you want some tech company to compensate for it?
It's not their problem; it's your problem. But it's not a very significant problem in the big picture because only a tiny percentage of people have tattoos on their wrists. Of those, a minority want one. Of those, only a few percent can afford one. We're talking a handful of people affected. Why should Apple care?
"To make our health care system efficient, the system needs to be more market oriented: a health savings account started at birth with some kind of catastrophic insurance coverage. That's the only way to make it work."
That's your response to the US spending more per capita than the UK? You're incoherent. The UK has a much more socialized system that makes them much less sensitive to cost of services than US consumers.
If you want it to cost like the UK system, design it like the UK system. THAT is at least coherent thinking.
If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit.
This year's deficit is about $750 billion. I think you're emboldened quote is a little out of date.
Well, I don't really think rich people should pay for it ALL. Just a lot of it.
But let's look at that math. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/mo...
the top 1% average in 2012 was $717,000 per household and there are roughly 1.2 million such households. Their income was therefore about $880 billion. Figures aren't in for last year but it's safe to say they're considerably higher.
The deficit last year was $564 billion. So yes, they could pay the deficit and have money to spare.
If you recognize that nobody's proposing that they do it without help from the moderately well-off, it starts looking not at all out of reach.
But paying the deficit wasn't even my point. If you want to nationalize health care, you do it with taxes. INSTEAD of the health-insurance premiums and all the nickel and your-whole-bank-account charges we pay now. Not in addition, INSTEAD.
And what has Obama done with the national debt? Hmmmm?
Obama is not running.
Paying for them is a simple matter of raising taxes on wealthy people.
You think we can't afford to pay for health care? We're paying for it now through a combination of taxes and premiums, just in a less efficient system than what Sanders wants.
What other thing is it you think we can't afford that Sanders wants?
What, how many masochists and suckers there are. No, you can't suprise anyone with that.
I agree. But to be safe, demand plaintext unless you're looking for a photographer or a graphic designer.
A naive strategy that would beat most non pros would be as follows:
At each round of betting, evaluate how many stronger hands there are than your cards and how many weaker hands there are. If there are N other players at the table, you should bet if the number of stronger hands divided by the number of possible hands is less than 1/N because you should assume that whoever has the strongest cards is still in the game, so the strongest opponent is the strongest hand of N random hands.
No they don't. They literally do not because there is no reason why the FM radio service ever has to end.