Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Skills needed (Score 2) 51

4 year college degree, and 5 years experience in a technology that has only existed for 14 months and cannot be taught in a classroom outside of business anyways.

And be under 20 years old, left handed and a Sagittarius with garde 3 piano and a brown belt in judo.

I saw an ad like that once - maybe it was a typo but you'd have had to be admitted to college two years early and finished in half the time AND been working overtime while doing it.

Comment Re:Poster does not understand Algebra (Score 1) 358

The fact that someone owns wealth and has not consumed it requires that at some point, someone decided not to consume it, i.e. deferred their consumption.

This is a tautology, it's true by definition.

Also, that you believe the normal state is for people to start out life with different amounts of wealth (as if it's endowed by some random action), rather than as the result of choices and work people have done says a lot about your prior beliefs.

Comment Re: It's pretty simple (Score 1) 272

So believing what Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison put in writing during the ratification debates about what the phrase meant is arguing the writers on the Constitution were unable to properly express themselves??? You obviously didn't bother to read the quotes from them in the link.

I'm not twisting anything. The real puzzle is why some people have created this myth that it somehow includes everything. Standard legal construction (for hundreds of years) is to read phrases as adding meaning to the text, not being superfluous. If it can cover any kind of spending, then there would have been no point in adding it to the Constitution. Only if it expresses a limitation on what kind of spending is allowed does it convey a meaning.

Comment Re:Poster does not understand Algebra (Score 1) 358

For a consumption tax, you don't have to track people's purchases. Instead, you track people's sales and the tax is collected by the seller.

In terms of privacy, this is much better, as you pretty much already know that Widget Corp. is a seller of Widgets and the government doesn't need to collect exactly _who_ they sold widgets to, just how much they sold them all for.

In terms of tracking, 90% of the States currently already track sales. It's how they collect State-level sales taxes. Piggybacking on an existing system is much cheaper/easier than running a completely different system, which is why most States currently piggy-back on the federal system for their income taxes.

In terms of black markets, even income made on the black market (currently untaxed due to the income tax system) gets taxed when used to consume things.

As for cheating, it's relatively simple to catch businesses cheating and they already have the structure and the . For the most part, individuals can't cheat because they're the buyers, not the sellers. You may get some used-market under the table cheating, but you can either call that a recycling incentive, or else create monetary incentives to catch it, i.e. a reward (no penalties) to any buyer who turns in a seller who sold them something without charging the tax.

Comment Re:Poster does not understand Algebra (Score 1) 358

It's funny how you respond to a post almost entirely about interest representing the compensation for the choice to defer consumption with no mention whatsoever of that point.

Just repeating your mistaken economic views over and over again while deriding the views of actual economists isn't very convincing. Try addressing the actual argument next time.

Submission + - SPAM: America's Banking System is Stuck in the 1990s

An anonymous reader writes: When it comes to person-to-person transfers, the America banking system is behind the rest of the world by over a decade:

...I had asked my friends, “Does America support direct person to person digital transfers yet?” People would mention that this could be done via PayPal, Square or even Facebook. None of these are direct person to person transfers. Many incur fees and require accounts on privately held systems. Although some of these private systems connect to banks directly via ACH, the verification process is terribly outdated. Many simply use the existing Credit/Debt card networks, incurring and passing on the additional fees to the end users and businesses.

Link to Original Source

Slashdot Top Deals

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan