garrettdc

People can choose to work or not. I just don't want to be stuck with the consequences of it. The word parasite means that they are increasing their well-being by reducing another individual's well-being.

The number of children who are able to live off of their parents / grandparents money and don't work at all is so finite that it isn't really worth mentioning. Alongside that, they are a net gain for the economy.

Think about it - you have vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases, and no impact to the labor force by them working. I may not agree with their decision to not work, but I really couldn't care less whether they do what I agree or not.

Also, a 100% estate tax would do one of two things: 1) create a disincentive for wealth accumulation as their is nothing to do with it afterwards thereby reducing their overall output 2) force those people into different investment vehicles where they can pass their wealth to their children as a "gift" prior to their passing.

That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though. For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down, or the funds that could have gone to their grandchildren's college is now funneled into the government, or other similar act of smallish amount of funds being siphoned off by the federal government.

Considering that much of the democratic presidential platform this previous election cycle, I would have to disagree with the assertion that this view is a "fringe one."

We are constantly told that 7.25/hr isn't enough to live on, but people find a way to do so at the moment. 7.25 $/hr * 2000 hrs/year = 14500 which isn't far off from 12000. If the choice was between working for that and not working, I think the choice is easy.

Unless this program were to completely eliminate welfare spending, then you'd likely end up with people choosing not to work because they don't need to. This of course assumes that purchasing power doesn't change with the massive influx of cash into the economy.

Or maybe it is dead in the water because of horrid assumptions in their model...

He isn't saying that intake of sufficient protein isn't important in the new paper. Just that it doesn't matter when you get it in, so long as it is with mixed meals and the total protein consumption is the same.

Also of note, the study mentions that this is in older individuals. Impacts of protein timing in trained individuals may be different.

We use Hello Fresh and like it quite a bit. Even being a full time wife and mom and a good cook, she still likes to use this as it adds variation to our dinners, and we try some foods that we wouldn't ordinarily try.

As for affordability: $60 / 3 meals = $20 / meal. In general, getting similar meals elsewhere would run us $40+.

They normally give you a few different options for the week and project out multiple weeks in advance so you have plenty of time to decide what you want. If you don't want anything they have to offer that week, then you can always just skip the box altogether too.

I'm certainly not trying to diminish the benefits of having someone at home full time to care for the family (and all that entails), but saying that the meal-in-a-box service industry is in existence solely because of more two-income families is a rather narrow view.

My assumption would be if they were to see someone with a foreign address come and try to cash out 1000 BTC in USD (or even 10BTC currently) on one of the exchanges, then they would want to know where those bitcoins came from. It would be able to combat another form of layering (with the normal process of placement, layering, and integration). So "at border crossings" here would probably mean any bitcoin exchange operating in the US that deals with foreign entities.

* so long as they are biologically adapted to such a diet.

People have been posting similar studies of Indian and Asian countries, basing their recommendations for everyone off that subset of the population, and then completely discount that of traditional European, African, and American diets.

"Dangerously wrong" may be incorrect, but it tends to ignore things like thermic effects of food sources, intake vs. absorption, nutrient timing, and efficient gut microbes.

Using the scale is great if you understand proper nutrient timing and partitioning. What if you don't know the basics of nutrition though? Where do I cut from? What can I add in that will assist with satiety but still reduce overall energy absorbed? Where do I go to understand that these are questions that need to be asked in the first place?