sighs wistfully I still remember the first day I was able to exit vim without looking it up. It's right up there with that one time I wrote a function that compiled and worked on the first try.
While you ARE technically correct, the alternative in the wild is progressive taxation. That makes flat taxation a de facto regressive tax, as it will be more regressive than the current taxation regime.
> Say 4 of the high earners stop working as much (since their marginal rates are so high).
I know you're just using this as an example, but it begs a question I've struggled with: is there any actual proof that marginal tax rates reduce productivity in high earners?
On its face it makes perfect micro-economic sense, but that's like saying a cache will never miss or a cow is perfectly spherical. It just doesn't match up with real life experience. I've never once heard someone say "well, I'd ask for that raise, but they're going to take so much in taxes it's just not worth the effort".
Anecdotally it hasn't changed my motivations one lick as I've moved up tax brackets, to the point that I recently joked with my dad "I guess I'm done trying now!" when I stopped qualifying for a certain tax credit after I'd negotiated hard for a nice raise.
Not-so-anecdotally there's plenty of research that has shown that money (in and of itself) is a terrible motivating factor[0].
> Despite all the different changes in the income tax rate/other progressive taxes. This supports an overhaul to the tax code to a more simple, flat tax system. From another data source outside this report, I'd have to find it, but historically, no matter the top bracket tax rate, the Federal government collects about 15-17 % income tax. Including when the top rate was 90%+.
Even assuming that is true, it wouldn't change the regressive nature of a flat tax.
I've wrestled with it, and settled into prioritizing humanely-raised meat. I have far more qualms about the inhumane treatment of most farm animals than I do about the concept of raising and slaughtering animals for food.
The heuristic I apply is I only eat antibiotic free meat. It has nothing to do with animals taking antibiotics per se, but rather that large farms abuse them as it's cheaper to pump a pig full of antibiotics than it is to provide remotely sanitary living conditions, nevermind the environmental issues around creating antibiotic resistant superbugs.
Yeah I was having this thought the other day: Why own a home when you could own a self-driving RV? Obviously there will still be advantages to owning land, but there's some real appeal to having your home drive itself around for you. Imagine waking up, prepping for work, opening the door and being in the parking lot, then hopping inside after work, eating dinner, and stepping out in front of a park to meet some friends.d Maybe you own some land with a larger home that you can "dock" with, maybe you don't and you can roam the country while working remotely.
Then you start to imagine what businesses could do with this. Self-driving food trucks is an obvious example: why pay a delivery driver when your restaurant drives itself?
Right. People forget that there is no such thing as a truly "free" market. Literally everything we consider a "market" has regulations, from contract enforcement to currency standardization to abolishing violence and theft as market forces.
Allow me to followup in support: I work for a private VPN company (that coincidentally used to be a dial-up ISP), and the owner/leadership is very active in lobbying state and federal legislatures to pass privacy-oriented legislation. In other words: someone who's worked for decades on both sides of the issue acknowledges that legislation is the best solution.
a) The biggest instigator by far is a dog we adopted at the age of 3 who was abandoned in the street and then spent another 9 months in the dog shelter. Each dog's mileage will vary.
b) I've worked with kids for years, and many display the exact same behavior, regardless of the particulars of the "shiny object". Fighting does not necessarily mean a physical altercation.
c) I've studied animal behavioral psychology, and have yet to find anything I learned that fails to apply to humans. We vary by degree, not kind.
> These five words are, as far as I can tell, the poison in the pudding of American politics today.
In the abstract, you're right, but I feel like it's worth noting that there's nothing exceptionally ignorant about voters of _today_. If anything they're more knowledgeable than any voters in American history.
> I have two young kids - pre-fb age - and they already have some questionable habits on my wife's iPhone - as soon as it comes out, they wanna look at pictures, go on youtube and fight over it. The second they see it...
This is also 100% true of my dogs. As soon as there's a new dog toy in the house and one shows interest the other will begin to fight over it. There are some deeply-ingrained mammalian social behaviors that have nothing to do with technology, and won't change anytime soon. I'd be wary of blaming a phone ahead of instinct (though blaming businesses for exploiting those instincts is a bit different).
That said, I commend your efforts to try to maintain a happy medium for your family, that's really the best way to address these sorts of issues.
I'd argue the better analogy is "If you have a great idea, what's more important to get it to market: your first engineer or your first investor?"
The next is always going to be "well, do I have enough money to pay my engineer?" This is why the investor holds all the cards and therefore gets the best deal up front. Without that up-front money there is no eventual business.
This sounds more like a mobile security camera than a replacement for a security guard. I'd be surprised if a large chunk is taken out of that employment market anytime soon.
MY company does hybrid remote/on-site, and one of the best ways to mitigate issues with off-site communication is part-time work from home. Since on-site workers spend some of their time as remote workers, everyone has a good idea of what's required to empower remote developers.
It's not always roses and rainbows, but it definitely helps.
Good times.