Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).


Comment: Re:Liberal Arts education is valuable. (Score 1) 363

by gurps_npc (#49386659) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous
I strongly disagree with the idea of a job famine. Jobs are not a limited resource - no X # and that's it.

There are basically four kinds of jobs:

1)Super - Essential jobs that we all need to live in an area. Specifically jobs that provide food, water, heat, clothing, etc. At one point in time, ALL jobs were that. But long ago we filled all those jobs and we honestly have not increased them significantly. Few people get them anymore.

2)Essential jobs that would cause some but not all people to die if we stopped. Sewer worker, doctors, firemen, cops, soldiers. There are again a limited number of such jobs but occasionally we come up with new "essential' jobs - new types of doctors, pollution monitors/reductions, etc. Most developed countries have filled these jobs, but in certain locations they are unfilled. Why? Because of monetary issues.

3) Supportive jobs. These jobs help the rest of society do their work. Teachers, engineers, manufacturers, etc. They consist of the majority of our jobs and we are no where near the limit. We quite honestly do not have enough money to pay for all the supportive jobs we need. The old and the autistic need help (not prison - nor a prison that is called help). The jobs might have a limit, but we can't see it.

4) Luxury jobs. This includes both research and pleasure producing jobs. They make people happy and more importantly, CREATE NEW JOBS. There is no limit to these jobs and there never will be one. There will always be room for more scientists and more musicians.

Comment: Liberal Arts education is valuable. (Score 3, Interesting) 363

by gurps_npc (#49379479) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous
Which I think is the heart of the complaint here.

I think the real problem is not the number of people getting a generalized liberal arts degree vs the number of people getting a STEM degree.

Both of those degrees are expensive and worth it.

Nor is it the number of people getting what I will call the specialized non-stem degree.

Prime examples of this would be "Hotel Management", "Sociology", "Graphic Designer", "illustrator", "Teaching."

Note, this is not an insult to those fields. The world needs people with those skills. But if you want to be a teacher, get a BA in English or Mathematics, or Biology, not in teaching. My sister has a Masters in sociology - a well worth it. But as a College level degree, it is worthless. You can't get a job as a Sociology Major, nor does it help you get into a Masters Program more than a degree in Psychology. No on goes looking for a painter with an Illustrator degree, they look for a painter that paints WELL.

Some of these 4 year degrees would do much better as a 2 year program. Others should simply get a liberal arts 4 years BA and then get work or go into a post-grad study. Some should never go to college at all, better to get some real life experience.

The problem is that certain job fields have NO business getting a 4 year degree in that subject. There is reason to learn how to lift off an airplane if you don't also learn how to land it. Four year programs for certain things make no sense.

The problem is people have been caught up in the idea that a College education is the be all and end all. So we took a bunch of regular jobs that don't need or want a BA and created BA's for them. Some of them need Post-Grad work, others could get by on a couple of Community College courses, rather than spending the huge amount of money for a BA.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 2) 322

by gurps_npc (#49376757) Attached to: Sign Up At Before Crooks Do It For You
Are you really stupid enough to think everything you just described doesn't happen now?

Normal people have mortgages. If they can't afford the house, they have to sell it. That's the way the world works.

As for on top of, I did not say that. I want a federal property tax to replace existing federal taxes.

As for how much tax 5% property tax (on everything excluding IRAs and 1 home of upto 200K value) per year would allow us to totally remove all federal income tax

If you make it 2% that only applied if you owned more than 1 million dollars, we could lower the top tax rate to 30% and keep it there.

The fact that you thought 10% or more indicates your knowledge of the math and economics involved is seriously flawed. Frankly, you don't know enough to have this argument.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 322

by gurps_npc (#49376717) Attached to: Sign Up At Before Crooks Do It For You
Most things are fairly easy to determine their worth. But for anything you have issues with determining, you can write whatever you want in there - but the government has the right to offer you 15% more and you are required to sell it for that 'profit'.

If you refuse, you can give a new number - and pay back taxes for the past 5 years.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 322

by gurps_npc (#49376691) Attached to: Sign Up At Before Crooks Do It For You
Wow, what an idiot. We already have property taxes on homes - but I don't see people moving out of the high tax ares. In fact they move to them because they offer good services. Similarly, we already tax the homes of old people, so what kind of idiot thinks that would suddenly put old people out of their home?

Yes, my method would shift the tax burden to the wealthy a SMALL amount, but not by much. Current estimates have the US wealth divided as such:

0-50 percentile are poor. They own nothing and pay no income tax. nothing changes for the poor

51-90 are middle class, own 1/3 of the property and pay about 1/3 of the taxes. Again, nothing changes.

91-99 are upper class, own a bit less than 1/3 of the property but pay a bit more than 1/3 of the taxes. They do better with this system.

1 % are truly wealthy, own more than 1/3 of the property but pay a bit less than 1/3 of the taxes (mainly becuase of tax manipulations). They lose their unfair advantage.

My system does not eat the rich, but is simple.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 322

by gurps_npc (#49376655) Attached to: Sign Up At Before Crooks Do It For You
If you pay an annual ownership fee of 5% (excluding IRA and the first home), then you would not have to pay any income tax. The math works out fine. Under those circumstances people still pay for things they need. Cars, clothing, jewelery, etc. But we would stop buying junk we don't need - like a sports car we can't afford. There would be a slight increase in the market for consumables - specifically experiences, and classes.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 322

by gurps_npc (#49376637) Attached to: Sign Up At Before Crooks Do It For You
Your argument makes ZERO sense. If you think that taxing what people own means the state owns it, then taxing what people earn means the state earns it.

Tax does not equal ownership. It is a fee for protection from invasion, pollution, crime, etc.

The more wealth you have, the more you should pay to protect what you own. Taxing income on the other hand makes no sense, why should you pay more because you earn more? Because you might some day eventually own more?

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 322

by gurps_npc (#49376613) Attached to: Sign Up At Before Crooks Do It For You
No it doesn't. The only way to get rich is to save. The incentive to save still far exceeds the incentive to spend.

Effectively what this does is make it a bit harder to get rich and STAY rich.

In other words it reduces the gap between the wealthy and the poor,

If you merely keep an IRA as tax free, effectively the middle class starts to save, while the wealthy, particularly the extremely wealthy, start paying their fair share.

The key thing is this is a simple tax structure that soaks the wealthy, the exact opposite of the flat tax that soaks the poor.

Comment: Re:It may survive a court challenge... (Score 1) 84

by gurps_npc (#49373303) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Net Rules Will Withstand Court Challenge
Right now it is nearly impossible for a Republican to win the general election.

During the Bush years, the GOP has sidetracked itself with it's own gerrymandering. By pursuing said strategy, they created a bunch of safe districts, allowing only the most extreme, conservative people to get elected. This works extremely well on the local level, but the Constitution of the US prevents them from gerrymandering all the democrats into a a few states.

This forces the majority of the party to kowtow to the extreme right on issues like gay rights and gun control, so it becomes impossible for a truly moderate republican, such as Huntsman to win the nomination.

As such, the Democrats get to decide who runs the country, while the Republicans get to decide the Congress. The Senate and the Governorships are the only real elections up for grabs.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 0) 322

by gurps_npc (#49373031) Attached to: Sign Up At Before Crooks Do It For You
No. You should tax people on what they own, not what they earn or what they consume.

If you tax people on what they earn, people declare certain things as 'not an earning'.

If you tax people on what they consume, than you are screwing over the people that have no money - the elderly, students, sickly people, etc.

If you tax people on what they OWN, then you don't screw over anyone. While similar to a consumption tax, it affects the wealthy more than the poor - it stops them from buying things outside of the tax system, and if you can't pay the taxes on it you shouldn't buy it.

% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis