Right, but getting fined in this situation means the government is incompetent. They should just tell retailers the "right" thing to do and not fine any retailers that follow the guidelines.
The idea that this is complicated legally is an example of why so many Americans are so frustrated with their government. Common sense should rule the day, not mindless legalism.
Agreed: If I was working with a human interior designer I would still want them to provide me a curated list of options on what decor to buy. Blindly trusting a person seems risky, a robot even more so.
Yes, but a large component of worse health outcomes is due to bias on the part of healthcare workers.
Overweight people frequently have their problems ignored or downplayed, or given treatments for issues that they aren't experiencing, which leads to worse health outcomes.
I'm not denying that being overweight can be bad for one's health, just pointing out that when doctors provide worse treatment to a group of people that group has worse health outcomes and makes obesity more dangerous that it would be in a world without weight stigma.
The "registry" is signing your name on a sheet of paper on a clipboard - less than 1% more work for the pharmacy employee's overall job, approximately 0 new jobs created.
I don't understand the distinction you are making: two couples (4 people) meeting at a restaurant is, to me, equally social as one couple going to another couple's house to eat dinner.
You aren't arguing against what I wrote: an investor currently pays no tax on their own stock going up.
I'm suggesting if an investor in NVIDIA uses their $100 Million in stock that they bought for $10 Million to get a loan they would have to pay capital gains on that $90 Million capital gain. Just like they would have to pay capital gains when they sell the stock.
No stock sale has to occur - the investor could pay $18 million in taxes out of their loan.
When we decide to tax things is inherently arbitrary: I'm suggesting that we count "borrowing" against an asset as a taxable event which is a simple and straightforward change that makes buy-borrow-die more equitable: government gets taxes at the same time as the investor gets the benefits.
Not really, nobody goes "ooh, the stock price is up 5% this year, we can hire 5% more employees!"
Most stock wealth isn't doing anything for the company. If the stock price of Apple went down by 90% tomorrow for no reason, the main effect on Apple would be... almost nothing.
The employees who get equity compensation would be mad but they don't use their stock value to fund R&D or expansion or salaries.
Getting a loan against assets is another way of "using" it, so why not make that a taxable event?
Just like now your stock value would not be taxed while it is invested. But now it would be taxed if you use it as collateral for anything. If you don't want to pay capital gains by selling the underlying stock then you can just get a bigger loan and pay the taxes out of that.
There, now you don't have to liquidate but the taxpayers benefit too when the wealth is "used" by the owner.
Calling any of this "radical" is rather dramatic and framing it as "obedience" misses the point.
If someone says "My name is spelled e. e. cummings" then writing it "E. E. Cummings" is weird. It feels either uninformed or a deliberate, though tiny, mark of disrespect.
It would also be weird to spell the Motorola "Razr" phone's name as "Razor" as that's not the spelling Motorola gave it.
It isn't about "obeying" the poet nor the corporation but rather following social norms to spell things as the named person (or the namer of the item) prefers it to be spelled. And if you don't follow this convention then... oh well, most people will probably forget about it seconds after they notice it as they have other things to think about.
Right: most systems with paper ballots are simple enough that the vast majority of the electorate, including those with lower-than-average IQ's (50% of the population), can understand and could participate in if they were inclined.
I have yet to see a digital system that I would trust myself to validate, much less the non-technical majority of the public.
Very true when it comes to antisemitic views: only 1 in 10 Russians would be ok having a Jewish friend.
"In a Levada Center poll, for instance, 45 percent of Russians said they had a positive attitude toward Jews in 2021, up from 22 percent in 2010. Russians said Jews were the minority group they were most comfortable having close to them — but only 11 percent said they’re ready to have a Jewish friend, up from 3 percent in 2010."
The idea that this is complicated legally is an example of why so many Americans are so frustrated with their government. Common sense should rule the day, not mindless legalism.