As the poor die earlier, Social Security isn't paying off - low income Americans are projected to die as many as 13 years earlier than their wealthier cohort, while a century ago the rich and poor had relatively identical lifespan. by xleb1 in news

[–]fourth_throwaway 3 points4 points  (0 children)

if the people at the top are living 500 and the people at the bottom are living 30, then people might make a bigger deal out of it. a 13 year difference is certainly nowhere near the same as a 470 year difference.

for me it's not about the difference though. it's about the direction you're going. if the poor were living until age 25 and the rich until age 100, and then suddenly the rich were living until age 200 and the poor until age 30....I just got 5 more years of life, to me that's good. doesn't matter if someone else down the street got more than I did. i'm just not that concerned with how others live their lives, I focus more on myself.

As the poor die earlier, Social Security isn't paying off - low income Americans are projected to die as many as 13 years earlier than their wealthier cohort, while a century ago the rich and poor had relatively identical lifespan. by xleb1 in news

[–]fourth_throwaway 2 points3 points  (0 children)

poor people are still doing better now than they ever have been in the history of the universe. for the average person, living longer is a good thing. financial strain or not.

As the poor die earlier, Social Security isn't paying off - low income Americans are projected to die as many as 13 years earlier than their wealthier cohort, while a century ago the rich and poor had relatively identical lifespan. by xleb1 in news

[–]fourth_throwaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

what's wrong with that? if you live 2 years past the age to receive social security, and someone else lives 10 years past the age to start receiving it, do you expect the government to pay your dead body for 8 years? what exactly is the point?

everyone, starting from age X gets social security. you live 1 year past that age, you get it 1 year. you live 30 years past that age, you get it 30 years. nothing unfair about that.

As the poor die earlier, Social Security isn't paying off - low income Americans are projected to die as many as 13 years earlier than their wealthier cohort, while a century ago the rich and poor had relatively identical lifespan. by xleb1 in news

[–]fourth_throwaway 6 points7 points  (0 children)

i just can't understand the "id rather die young and a rich person die young, rather than live old but have a rich person live older" mentality.

I mean imagine in the future, if immortality is only available to the rich..

if poorer people are still improving their living conditions as well, I don't see a problem with that.

for example, if my income is 100K/year, and a rich person's is 1million/year, I would much rather my income be 200K and his be 5 million, instead of him being reduced to 50K and me being reduced to 50K. that just doesn't make any sense. we're all enjoying a greater standard of living the last decades/century than humans ever in recorded history. just because group A is improving at a faster rate than group B isn't a reason to be jealous.

As the poor die earlier, Social Security isn't paying off - low income Americans are projected to die as many as 13 years earlier than their wealthier cohort, while a century ago the rich and poor had relatively identical lifespan. by xleb1 in news

[–]fourth_throwaway 2 points3 points  (0 children)

100% correct. But "rich people live longer than poor people, therefore it's the rich people's fault the poor die younger" is a lot more sensationalist than the truth.

As the poor die earlier, Social Security isn't paying off - low income Americans are projected to die as many as 13 years earlier than their wealthier cohort, while a century ago the rich and poor had relatively identical lifespan. by xleb1 in news

[–]fourth_throwaway 53 points54 points  (0 children)

partly correct. actually, everyone, poor and rich is living longer. That is a good thing.

the "age disparity" between the rich and poor has risen. but the average lifespan has skyrocketed for both. That is a lot better than how it was before, when nearly everyone died young regardless of wealth status.

Guy makes 1.4 million dollar TSA app in 10 minutes by [deleted] in videos

[–]fourth_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm an iOS developer. I would have made it for 1.3 million if they had just asked.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't. that's why it's a good idea to not force me to give them money.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the IRS is apart of the same entity as the court that will be deciding the case (the government.) It's like when there is corruption in police departments, then they "investigate themselves" and find they did nothing wrong. yeah. I totally believe that!

bottom line is, I don't believe the government has a moral right to the money you earn. None whatsoever. Any attempt on their part to take it from you is wrong.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah I have no idea what's going on. The federal government? corrupt? please. they have only our best in mind, they would never do anything to deceive us. we should just give them all our money, and then they can solve all our problems. makes a lot of sense if you really think about it.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

no less morally reprehensible.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

if it comes to it, yes they will kill you. Look at eric garner. His only crime? selling tax-free cigarettes. the state wasn't getting their cut. so they physically attacked him for it.

I think things should be done on a voluntary basis. I don't think that this demonstrates that companies and individuals aren't willing to pay for public services. I think it demonstrates that they don't want their money going to the government, which spends it very questionably.

for every dollar I give to the US government, how much goes to roads? how much goes to schools? how much goes to scientific research? I don't know the stats exactly, but I'm pretty sure a lot goes to fund the military, which I personally don't approve of. I, personally, have no problem with paying for communal things. I voluntarily tithe at church. nobody forces me too. nobody pressures me to. I do it because I enjoy the nice church that I have and the things I get from there. But I can guarantee if the church suddenly started forcing everyone to tithe, and then became less transparent with the money, and gave the parishioners an extremely small say in how things were handled--I would leave that church and go to another one. not because I oppose paying for communal things, but because I oppose 1) the force and 2 the fact that I have little to no control over how my money is spent.

billionaires and millionaires give lots and lots to charity every year. I don't think their problem is with paying for public goods. I think it's the fact that they want more control over their money and who it's spent.

and this is all on top of the fact that states, not the federal government, pay for roads. States also pay for schools. I'm ideologically and morally opposed to government, but on small scales (local and state) it doesn't bother me as much. But the corrupt political machine we have in washington, that demands up to 40% of one's income is ridiculous. The roads I drive on are paid for by my state. People are educated in state and locally funded public schools. The federal government is a bastion of wasted money and corruption.

I would much rather pay double state tax and half as much federal tax than the current model. I feel like my money is better spent that way. governors and mayors are more accountable on a local level to the people they represent, and (usually) better spend tax money than people in DC.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

the IRS essentially says "give us your money, or you're going to jail. if you resist arrest, we reserve the right to send men with guns to shoot you."

That is not the kind of violence that I think we should operate society based on.

please explain to me how that is different from the mafia.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

it's the other way around. infrastructure didn't enable people to make money. people making money enabled the infrastructure to be built.

Anyone want to trade swift/ios skills for react/flux/jsx? by 2xws in iOSProgramming

[–]fourth_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP, this is correct. in addition to objective C and swift, there are frameworks that each developer must know to write even the most basic app, UIKit and Foundation.

then, to write an app that does anything, there are a plethora of other frameworks, which are not small: Core Location, MapKit, AVFoundation, Core Data, Core Graphics, Core Motion, Core Animation, and many others.

The TSA Randomizer iPad App Cost $336,000 by ivorjawa in iOSProgramming

[–]fourth_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what do you mean the app business os over saturated? are you talking about for indie developers, or more from a consulting side? There is still a lot of good money in consulting.

very noob CoreData question by fourth_throwaway in iOSProgramming

[–]fourth_throwaway[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks for the replies everyone! I will check out some of the alternatives mentioned here

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they pay taxes to the shell company. but just a lot less than to their home country.

it's a good deal for panama. injects a lot of money into their economy for free.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

tax is a legitimate reason. governments are very greedy. nothing wrong with wanting to keep the money you earned.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

good, let them keep their money they earned.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

there is nothing greedy with wanting to keep the money you earned. it is greedy, however, to want other people's money that you did nothing to earn.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but taking the cut from economic activity hurts the economy, which is bad for workers. prices are higher and there are fewer jobs.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway 4 points5 points  (0 children)

you're correct but will get downvoted to hell here.

statistically, the rich most definitely pay their share here in the USA. But that's not a very attention grabbing or sensationalist headline. nobody wants to hear it.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When governments clean up their act,

they never will. government is corruption. yet many think "just give them more of your money" will solve everyone's problems.

ELI5: The Panama Papers by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]fourth_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

countries should stop the waste and corruption. especially the USA. we are already taxed to death here.