Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
First of all, California is anything but a "Right to Work state. In fact, I'd say that Michigan is the only state where unions hold more power.
Secondly, the tech sector is largely non-union regardless of where you go.
Finally, I can assure you that as a programmer in a Right to Work state, this sort of thing doesn't happen in my area. In fact, for good software developers, the pay and benefits are going up because there aren't enough of us to keep up with the demand.
Point is, you're clearly singling out the one factor that's important to you and inflating its importance while ignoring factors that don't matter to you. Which, while common- heck, even our "So Called" leaders do it- is just about the worst way to solve a problem.
There's always a 100% chance of death. Living on Earth doesn't change that.
Life insurance is about the risk of dying before the actuarial tables say you're expected to. Which is why it's difficult and expensive to get term life insurance when you're >65.
That being said, I think the insurance premiums for a Mars colonist would be roughly that of a 200 year old that routinely snorts cocaine off a diseased gibbon's rear end.
Give or take.
This is why capital gains taxes are... well, to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, let's call them "odd".
Facebook revenue gets taxed. Income put into the stock market is (generally) taxed. Yet, when the profits of a company get divided up among stock holders, the money gets taxed yet again. The infrastructure FB uses has been paid for in taxes a few times- corporate income taxes and payroll taxes come to mine immediately, but given how the federal government has never met a tax it didn't like, I'm sure that there are others.
A more interesting question, I think, is one of pragmatism. If the U.S. wants to continue to have a tax-based revenue stream, is it doing itself any good by fostering a tax system that is causing billionaires (not just this guy) and even some companies to leave the U.S. for better tax structures?
"This is absolutely, unalterably correct and anybody entertaining even reasonable skepticism is an IDIOT"
Nobody has a problem with reasonable skepticism.
I don't think we use the same internet.