You can't really compare tax rates between countries like that. Some 20% of households in the USA earn 112000€ or more per year, where as only 6% of house holds in Germany earn 72000€ or more per year.
I think the argument that you're trying to make is that the average wage is higher, and therefore you have to take that into account when doing this comparison.
You're absolutely correct about that, and the linked article I showed does exactly that. It computes the multiple of the average wage at which the top marginal rate kicks in. The U.S. top marginal rate applies only to taxpayers whose wages are 9.3 times the average wage. In Belgium the top marginal rate ensnares workers earning 1.1 times the average, and in the Netherlands 1.4 times. This pattern persists across all peer OECD nations. The US is an outlier in its progressivity.
The article is unfortunately paywalled so I couldn't read it. That ratio is indeed more sensical and interesting. But I think it still misses two points.
First, the distribution of tax payers to different marginal tax rate brackets differ. That is, how many percent of US tax payers actually pay top marginal rate vs how many in Belgium do.
Second, the differences in purchasing power. What does the average income (or the top income for that matter) actually get you in different countries.
> First, the distribution of tax payers to different marginal tax rate brackets differ. That is, how many percent of US tax payers actually pay top marginal rate vs how many in Belgium do.
By definition, the the metric takes into account the median. Because the top marginal rate kicks in at 1.1x the median (in Belgium), it is the middle of the distribution bears the top marginal burden. Likewise, in the US, 9.3x the median is at the top end of the distribution.
> Second, the differences in purchasing power. What does the average income (or the top income for that matter) actually get you in different countries.
In fact, the median disposable income after adjusting for purchasing power in the US is higher than that of Belgium as well as Germany. That means that the median person in the US has a higher purchasing power AND pays much less in taxes than the median Belgian, who pays the top marginal rate (well, 1.1x the median, but that's basically the same).
Atleast here in Finland the political hurdle is so tall that when the green ligth is finally given, they basically have to build the biggest reactor possible.
Yes, you can access raw memory and flip bits to modify a private member of an object (and it migth even be defined, not too sure about that thou). But I don't find that an valid argument for the statement that you can't do abstractions in c++. That's just not something people do.
The c++ version of your example would be, if I understood your code correctly, to take an std::vector as an constructor parameter, copy it to an private field and sort it.
I don't know all that much about C++'s object system, so I can't give you a concrete example on how it breaks down.
However, you say that it is "not something people do" ... well maybe not in C++ (I highly doubt that), but it's very common in many languages.
In C, it's common to look inside structs directly and change things.
Javascript libraries do it all the time: They inspect their arguments, look at the types and change their behavior depending on it. It's a common programming practice to poke deep into the data-structures and do things.
In Java, they made it an art with reflection and monstrosity such as Spring.
Abstraction is a bit like immutability: Sure, you can try to fake it in languages that don't have it, but then you are just praying that everyone plays by your rules. :)
My comment "not something people do" was about directly accessing memory to circumvent the private data abstraction in c++ and I stand by that.
I admit that I kinda pushed you into it, but you are moving the goal post. People indeed use public fields in languages like C and Javascript.
In C it's often done for the sake of performance. Hiding data behind a pointer has a cost.
In Javascript I would say it's lazyness above all. Front end programs often aren't that big nor pinacles of code quality.
But it is possible to define abstract data types in both languages. ML makes it a bit easier and some times even more performant, but it doesn't "own" the idea.
Abstractions are quite like immutability. You can enforce both in many languages, some just give you better tools for it.
The goal post, right from the start, is that by having proper abstraction (the kind that doesn't break when you blow lightly on it), you get many benefits.
You say that, even when the language doesn't enforce it, people don't break it ..... except when they do. It doesn't really matter why, it simply makes every thing else more brittle as a consequence and limits how you can reason about your code.
You seem to trust that programmers will play by the rules, even if the compiler doesn't enforce them. We will simply have to agree to disagree. :)
> You seem to trust that programmers will play by the rules, even if the compiler doesn't enforce them.
I've been trying to say the exact oppisite. C, C++, Javascript, all those languages provide ways to define abstract datatypes that cannot be circumvented (by "normal" code. Even Haskell has unsafePerformeIO). My latest argument was that people decide not to use those abstractions not because they are unavailable, but because it is more ergonomical or performant not to. The same happens even in ML, not all data is abstracted as an abstract data type.
> That means it is illegal because it goes against the (higher) EU law.
It actually does not mean that. The courts cannot ignore an Act of Parliament even if it conflicts with the Human Rigths Act but can o ly give an declaration of incombability which they have done.
The Human Rigths Act specifically does not grant the courts the possibility of not following Acts of Parliament when the too conflict. The courts can only give an declaration of incombability which they have done. This is how an Parliamentary sovereignty works.
Umm... that is exactly how an parliamentary democracy works. The parliament can enact any law. Yes, many such systems contain laws that overrule all other laws and are often harder to change. These are often called constitutions. But I can't recall any constitution that could not be changed.
Exactly. The point of time boxing is that you have to stop and reflect on the time spent. It gives you the chance to switch tasks if priorities have changed or to split the current task.
Or to go on to the next sprint with the same task. But here lies the problem in many cases. The sprint is taken not as a time box but as a deadline. A sprint should meen: "You can work 2 weeks, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day on this. Then you stop to think."
