Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Lower income households pay more tax and high income households pay less.  Just what TGN promised (not).
2
Macintosh / Reverting to previous Skype??
« Last post by Julianne S on November 19, 2017, 03:30:41 PM »
This new Skype for Mac is a disaster, aside from being able to have a dark interface...   unless I accidentally clicked on something it seemed to automatically download and install it on my mac mini (mavericks)! It doesn't let me send SMS from there anymore (but I can if I use iOS Skype), another friend seems to have lost some contacts and landline numbers are missing from her contacts... sheesh!      My workaround for now is to use the web version, which also lets me send SMS (using an friendlier interface). 

I have tried to revert to a number of previous versions from this page:
https://skype.en.uptodown.com/mac/old
but have been unable to sign in successfully, even with the latest Skype sitting in the trash.

Are there some prefs I have to delete? Or is it just impossible to revert to an older version?

thanks!
J
3
Macintosh / Success getting Skype running in 10.6.8!!!
« Last post by Julianne S on November 19, 2017, 03:27:32 PM »
In my hunt to find a way to download a previous version of Skype on my mac mini, I inadvertently stumbled upon a way to get Skype working again in 10.6.8. You have to change some numbers in the plist file.

For anyone interested, the instructions are here, it works to a tee, my macbook air now has Skype running again!

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6776261?start=0
4
Ok, point well taken!

And at the same time I think there are a lot of similarities between people trying to be able to use money that the govt. doesn't know they made, and money that has been gained by illegal activities.

If, for instance, a drug dealer buys a very expensive painting, the painting will be best bought by another person or entity, so the painting is not at all connected to the drug dealer. If someone wanted to clean $10 mil and they give that money to Person X and tell him to buy a painting for that amount , I am guessing that cannot be done so easily, because I am guessing that governments check to see whether Person X is likely to have that much money legally. And thus there will be one shell company connected to another shell company, connected to...  If you watched the series Narcos, you can see that criminals spend a LOT of money in order to clean their money.

It is mind boggling to see how expensive prime real estate has become everywhere in the world, and apparently a large part of the price increases is due to Russians and Chinese people buying a LOT. Very hard, if not often impossible to track all of this.
5
IMO, you are conflating money laundering and tax evasion. People with sources of dirty money (from drugs, prostitution, extortion, illegal arms dealing, insider business deals, bribery, corruption) are not unhappy to pay income/corporate tax on it once it has been cleaned because taxation adds legitimacy.  Dirty money is subject to 100% forfeiture, but once cleaned it is only subject to tax (at rates that are a lot less than 100%). Investing dirty money in art is a well-known laundering technique because once the art has been bought successfully the authorities looking for illegality are less likely to be looking at a "painting" that can be stashed in a vault accruing value than cash moving through the banking and business systems trying to build a record of legality. And windfall profits on the next sale become clean instantly. In fact, losses become clean too and the authorities are less likely to look deeper into negative "profits". Property is another way money gets laundered—the London property market is awash with money from dirty overseas corrupt sources waiting to be resold and converted to a clean profit. And the UK government has been complicit in allowing this market to develop too.
6
It can be very easy to launder "only" a million or two. It is when the sums get larger where the problem multiplies.

One important point being- You can legislate that people must pay taxes, and for what, but you cannot legislate that people MUST be successful in business.

So lots of people set up losing businesses, and in that way they reap the profits!
 ;D
7
I am a big fan of "co-living"!

8
Open Discussion (members and non-members) / Re: Japan housing
« Last post by Charlie Badenhop on November 18, 2017, 06:46:57 PM »
Perhaps my favorite of the TV series was when they took a house that was situated so that you had to go down a steep stairway to get to the front door, and they opened up the roof and you no longer and you could then enter from there.

But every project seemed quite special.

No idea of the build quality of course.
9
Open Discussion (members and non-members) / Re: Japan housing
« Last post by Wayne B on November 18, 2017, 05:10:58 PM »
10
Similar to my views:

'Humans, Prof Patel said, would need to find a way to live with less material wealth.

“Re-imagining a world with less stuff but more joy is probably the way forward,” he said.

“There’s a strong case for saying there’s room for ... less individual consumption and loneliness ... and more sharing and communality, getting together around the table, rather than sitting alone in front of the TV.”'

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/mass-extinction-life-on-earth-farming-industrial-agriculture-professor-raj-patel-a7914616.html
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10