milozauckerman
Aug 7, 03:36 PM
1. You are going to spend thousands on a Mac PRO and you are going to pitch a fit over adding wireless for less than 80 bucks?
Yes. I bought a work truck for $15000 and made them give me a $100 bedliner free. The amount I'm spending has nothing to do with my desire to extract the most value for myself.
Apple ain't a charity, I want every last penny I can squeeze from our transactions.
Guess what, these are PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATIONS, not consumer internet computers. The target demographic of these computers is a wired-network setting. Obviously home users and others may have use for wireless in a Mac Pro, so that's why Apple OFFERS IT.
These are PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATIONS that LOOK an awful lot like DESKTOP COMPUTERS shockingly enough.
I hear you can even buy one if you've never worked in an office.
I hear Apple's popular among 'creative types' who might work independently, even from home.
Yes. I bought a work truck for $15000 and made them give me a $100 bedliner free. The amount I'm spending has nothing to do with my desire to extract the most value for myself.
Apple ain't a charity, I want every last penny I can squeeze from our transactions.
Guess what, these are PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATIONS, not consumer internet computers. The target demographic of these computers is a wired-network setting. Obviously home users and others may have use for wireless in a Mac Pro, so that's why Apple OFFERS IT.
These are PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATIONS that LOOK an awful lot like DESKTOP COMPUTERS shockingly enough.
I hear you can even buy one if you've never worked in an office.
I hear Apple's popular among 'creative types' who might work independently, even from home.
![kate middleton dress designer. [New] Kate Middleton#39;s Wedding](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uDr1rXqwyz1pIUeHWK_D-YU0-SKyz0VjN570FwacXfyw0iWD0LRsj2AngZdRyCoo7KOyuzkhTIf_5ZuyUvngaXNG-2Ikmj9JZAFDk8LBXWP41iKEwQqcd9RWwnnfwOC7y5oxudP2Bp9KUv0W6Yb5IfuuV3A-4MMbkrCAPA86-nHzuuzj5yEEETFpM3P4CMZvXMZA3JcnYSv86q=s0-d "[New] Kate Middleton#39;s Wedding")
THX1139
Aug 7, 10:30 PM
I wonder if those processors are soldered. I suppose they aren't since it's build to order? Anyone know if there is a way to verify that? It would be nice to finally get a machine from Apple that won't be cost prohibitive to upgrade to faster chips later.
Rocketman
Nov 26, 07:55 PM
This can be done quite cheaply, if Apple doesn't use off the shelf PC components - which is why current tablet PCs are so expensive. An Intel ULV processor is not cheap.
Shame that Apple moved away from the PowerPC really, when it comes to applications such as this. They could use a $20 PPC 750CL processor (16mm^2 die size, compare to the ~150mm^2 PC processors) at up to 1GHz (~2W power consumption at 700MHz), with a 30GB 1.8" hard drive (same as iPod), 512MB memory ... that'd be cheap (the display would probably be the most expensive part).
Valuable post.
Rocketman
Shame that Apple moved away from the PowerPC really, when it comes to applications such as this. They could use a $20 PPC 750CL processor (16mm^2 die size, compare to the ~150mm^2 PC processors) at up to 1GHz (~2W power consumption at 700MHz), with a 30GB 1.8" hard drive (same as iPod), 512MB memory ... that'd be cheap (the display would probably be the most expensive part).
Valuable post.
Rocketman
starflyer
Mar 27, 12:52 PM
My thoughts exactly. Our school district (ISD 482) just bought 1,465 iPads for its students, and I can see us getting really mad if Apple were to release a new iPad 6 mos. later.
If the iPad 2 wasn't what you needed, why not wait?
If the iPad 2 wasn't what you needed, why not wait?
nagromme
Aug 11, 11:00 AM
My guess: it's a game of "telephone" in which someone misunderstood the meaning of "both laptops." I think it means the 15" and 17" MBP, not the MBP and MB.
Which does the bottom-end laptop buyer need the most? A lower price (with no reduction in Apple profits) or faster CPU? The former of course, so as Yonah drops in price I expect it to be used for some time to come.
Yonah is already a VERY fast, G5-class processor--and Apple's bottom model has two of them! It's not screaming for an upgrade when that would prevent a price drop.
The need for 64-bit will come to low-end users, but not yet.
Which does the bottom-end laptop buyer need the most? A lower price (with no reduction in Apple profits) or faster CPU? The former of course, so as Yonah drops in price I expect it to be used for some time to come.
Yonah is already a VERY fast, G5-class processor--and Apple's bottom model has two of them! It's not screaming for an upgrade when that would prevent a price drop.
The need for 64-bit will come to low-end users, but not yet.
Piggie
Apr 25, 04:43 AM
This is for a development in the future and the cost may not go up.
Apple usually outwaits developments until the cost fall into their range.
BTW: I do find it funny that you want to fault Apple for "gaming" a field that they clearly did not want to be in.
BTW2: The iMac for the masses is a clever space saving design. Their sales success shows it!
The Pro type tower boxes with separate monitor are just big clunky boxes.
They take up desk space or are usually hidden under the desk.
Also, in any good design Form follows Function. Apple follows that principle well and then some.
The secret of excellent design is actually what is not there:-)
Well, we will have to disagree there :)
I think Apple puts form/Style above function, and will make a device that does not work very well, or is comfortable/practical for a human to use, simply so that it looks cool and people want to buy it.
Apple usually outwaits developments until the cost fall into their range.
BTW: I do find it funny that you want to fault Apple for "gaming" a field that they clearly did not want to be in.
BTW2: The iMac for the masses is a clever space saving design. Their sales success shows it!
The Pro type tower boxes with separate monitor are just big clunky boxes.
They take up desk space or are usually hidden under the desk.
Also, in any good design Form follows Function. Apple follows that principle well and then some.
The secret of excellent design is actually what is not there:-)
Well, we will have to disagree there :)
I think Apple puts form/Style above function, and will make a device that does not work very well, or is comfortable/practical for a human to use, simply so that it looks cool and people want to buy it.
yankeedoodle
Nov 22, 02:16 AM
Wasn't it exactly the same story with the iPod?
Yep. And Palm doen't even know how to make a PDA right... Sorry, just my 2 cents and as much as I hate Microsoft: If there is one single thing that Microsoft's dullness department has overlooked so far it's the Pocket PC... Have a look at them next time you are in a store, compare them; have a look at their multitasking features, watch online TV on them -- they are by far not perfect and tend to crash (that's the Microsoft part in it) -- but they are still worlds better than any Palm out there.
I wish Apple would not only enter the phone business but also come back into the PDA market and show the Microsoft folks how to do it the Apple way. The Newton was fantastic and much ahead of it's time. In 1993 people just didn't know how to handle a PDA and didn't know how to integrate it into their daily workflow. Today, we are used to carry our iPods around wherever we go -- so if Apple could manage to enter the phone and PDA business via the iPod as a well known, emotionally positive vector (people buy the iPod because they want to listen to music and find out that it can also do much more than just play back U2 tracks), they could have a tremendous success.
Yep. And Palm doen't even know how to make a PDA right... Sorry, just my 2 cents and as much as I hate Microsoft: If there is one single thing that Microsoft's dullness department has overlooked so far it's the Pocket PC... Have a look at them next time you are in a store, compare them; have a look at their multitasking features, watch online TV on them -- they are by far not perfect and tend to crash (that's the Microsoft part in it) -- but they are still worlds better than any Palm out there.
I wish Apple would not only enter the phone business but also come back into the PDA market and show the Microsoft folks how to do it the Apple way. The Newton was fantastic and much ahead of it's time. In 1993 people just didn't know how to handle a PDA and didn't know how to integrate it into their daily workflow. Today, we are used to carry our iPods around wherever we go -- so if Apple could manage to enter the phone and PDA business via the iPod as a well known, emotionally positive vector (people buy the iPod because they want to listen to music and find out that it can also do much more than just play back U2 tracks), they could have a tremendous success.
RebelScum
Apr 20, 08:53 AM
I just upgraded to a (2011) 13" MBP and I'm still trying to get a 32 GB iPad 2 (Wi-Fi only) as my first iOS device. I'm giving my old (2010) 13" MBP to a friend.
But later this year, when my mortgage is paid off, I might spring for my first iPhone (although i'm still concerned the small screen may be unmanageable for me... due to vision issues which may, or may not, be resolved later this year).
Also, when my mortgage is paid off, I'll consider getting a MobileMe account and next year perhaps a 128 GB iPad 3 (Wi-Fi + LTE/G3 GSM). If I get that iPad 3, I'll give my old iPad 2 to a friend.
But all this is a matter of treating myself to toys that I do not really need. First I need to focus on financial fundamentals like paying off my mortgage.
Mortgage? Ahhhhh, MORTgage mortgage mortGAGE.
Mortgage.
But later this year, when my mortgage is paid off, I might spring for my first iPhone (although i'm still concerned the small screen may be unmanageable for me... due to vision issues which may, or may not, be resolved later this year).
Also, when my mortgage is paid off, I'll consider getting a MobileMe account and next year perhaps a 128 GB iPad 3 (Wi-Fi + LTE/G3 GSM). If I get that iPad 3, I'll give my old iPad 2 to a friend.
But all this is a matter of treating myself to toys that I do not really need. First I need to focus on financial fundamentals like paying off my mortgage.
Mortgage? Ahhhhh, MORTgage mortgage mortGAGE.
Mortgage.
squirrellydw
Apr 26, 03:45 PM
Fiat owns 85% of Ferrari.
Volkswagen owns 49.9% of Porsche.
Right and what is your point?
If they weren't making money they would be sold off or shut down. They are high end cars sold to the rich. But let me guess you are stupid to buy an over priced Apple or iProduct right? Just like anyone that buys a BMW, Ferrari or Porsche is dumb. What is dumb is thinking one product is better than another. What is better, the iPhone, Android or a Star Tec? I guess if the only thing I want to do is make phone calls my old Star Tec is the best if it still works. My point is it depends on what your needs are.
Volkswagen owns 49.9% of Porsche.
Right and what is your point?
If they weren't making money they would be sold off or shut down. They are high end cars sold to the rich. But let me guess you are stupid to buy an over priced Apple or iProduct right? Just like anyone that buys a BMW, Ferrari or Porsche is dumb. What is dumb is thinking one product is better than another. What is better, the iPhone, Android or a Star Tec? I guess if the only thing I want to do is make phone calls my old Star Tec is the best if it still works. My point is it depends on what your needs are.
dom91932
May 8, 05:26 PM
Knowing apple when you buy an apple product mobileme will be free for a certain amount of time, than you will have to renew the membership for the $100.
mcrain
Apr 15, 01:43 PM
I hate to pull this card, but my livelihood depends on trading and investing. I'm a small time player, so I can't afford to make mistakes. I have over 95% of my money "in the game" at any time. I can tell you that based on my experience, most of what you described simply isn't true. I don't know how else to say it. If I tried to respond point by point, it would take all day to explain all the concepts clearly.
Which "game"? Are you "trading and investing" in companies by purchasing shares in IPOs, or are you "trading and investing" on Wall St.? If it is the latter, then basically you are buying and selling ownership interests in companies, which has almost no affect on underlying companies.
Won't higher capital gains reduce your "take home" earned from trading in the secondary market? If so, don't hedge funds and the like start investing in more risk taking?
Higher taxes does not spur innovation. If anything, it would spur more risk taking because hedge fund and the like would have to make up for that difference in revenue.
What do you think is/was the riskier investment? Investing in GE or investing in a start-up like Google? Innovation? I'm fairly certain buying 100 shares of GE from my broker didn't innovate a new lightbulb, but Google has innovated and expanded with the capital it received in its IPO. If you are trying to increase your rate of return over what you get from your GE shares, would you invest in AT&T or a little start-up called Chef John Smith, Inc. because you think he's an up and coming talent? One has a big upside, but also a lot of risk.
If the goal is to increase rate of return of an investment portfolio, your only choices are to be better at picking good stocks, or to invest in risker investments. Wouldn't that lead to an influx of start-up capital, innovation, hiring, and economic growth?
On the other hand, you can lower capital gains and encourage people to invest conservatively in the secondary market.
Which "game"? Are you "trading and investing" in companies by purchasing shares in IPOs, or are you "trading and investing" on Wall St.? If it is the latter, then basically you are buying and selling ownership interests in companies, which has almost no affect on underlying companies.
Won't higher capital gains reduce your "take home" earned from trading in the secondary market? If so, don't hedge funds and the like start investing in more risk taking?
Higher taxes does not spur innovation. If anything, it would spur more risk taking because hedge fund and the like would have to make up for that difference in revenue.
What do you think is/was the riskier investment? Investing in GE or investing in a start-up like Google? Innovation? I'm fairly certain buying 100 shares of GE from my broker didn't innovate a new lightbulb, but Google has innovated and expanded with the capital it received in its IPO. If you are trying to increase your rate of return over what you get from your GE shares, would you invest in AT&T or a little start-up called Chef John Smith, Inc. because you think he's an up and coming talent? One has a big upside, but also a lot of risk.
If the goal is to increase rate of return of an investment portfolio, your only choices are to be better at picking good stocks, or to invest in risker investments. Wouldn't that lead to an influx of start-up capital, innovation, hiring, and economic growth?
On the other hand, you can lower capital gains and encourage people to invest conservatively in the secondary market.
jeznav
Mar 30, 05:51 PM
Downloading now!
okboy
Apr 23, 06:18 PM
Bogus story because Apple would never fit graphics cards capable of outputting at that res in the iMacs or laptops. Plus I don't think any single monitor can have that resolution that you can buy today?
They currently do... even the Airs can do 1440x700 plus a 2560x1440 Cinema Display. And the 15" MBP and up and all the iMacs have pretty good video cards. You're wrong.
Retina Cinema in Summer?
I'm hoping for a new Cinema too, but the DPI on them is as high as it's ever going to get, IMO. There's no need for a higher pixel density on a screen that you see from that distance. The screens in them are already very dense. They're equivalent to the Dell Ultra Sharp, which are over $1000.
The resolution will not be updated, but hopefully the Cinemas will get dual Thunderbolt ports and maybe USB 3.0 and audio through Thunderbolt.
They currently do... even the Airs can do 1440x700 plus a 2560x1440 Cinema Display. And the 15" MBP and up and all the iMacs have pretty good video cards. You're wrong.
Retina Cinema in Summer?
I'm hoping for a new Cinema too, but the DPI on them is as high as it's ever going to get, IMO. There's no need for a higher pixel density on a screen that you see from that distance. The screens in them are already very dense. They're equivalent to the Dell Ultra Sharp, which are over $1000.
The resolution will not be updated, but hopefully the Cinemas will get dual Thunderbolt ports and maybe USB 3.0 and audio through Thunderbolt.
SuperCachetes
May 3, 09:28 PM
Yes, it's a system that has its roots in the past, but the system still works. There's no compelling reason to change it. There's no efficiency to be gained.
I don't buy that for a second. As someone who works in the construction industry and has to deal with fractions of inches and materials that are odd nominal dimensions and even odder actual dimensions, I can tell you that there is a ****-ton of efficiency to be gained by getting away from bricks that are 3-5/8" deep, interior sheetrock walls that are 4-7/8" thick, and ceiling grids that are 15/16" wide.
Can a guy who's been working construction for 30 years add this stuff up in his head? Sure. But all along the way - from the architect, to the contractor, to the fabricator, to the installer - there is a chance for miscalculation because of our goofy system of measurement, and the savings from going to SI would be both in time spent designing and time spent correcting errors in the field.
Yes, there is a cost, both monetary and emotional - but we need to just rip the bandage off, already. "It's what I'm used to" is a tired excuse.
I don't buy that for a second. As someone who works in the construction industry and has to deal with fractions of inches and materials that are odd nominal dimensions and even odder actual dimensions, I can tell you that there is a ****-ton of efficiency to be gained by getting away from bricks that are 3-5/8" deep, interior sheetrock walls that are 4-7/8" thick, and ceiling grids that are 15/16" wide.
Can a guy who's been working construction for 30 years add this stuff up in his head? Sure. But all along the way - from the architect, to the contractor, to the fabricator, to the installer - there is a chance for miscalculation because of our goofy system of measurement, and the savings from going to SI would be both in time spent designing and time spent correcting errors in the field.
Yes, there is a cost, both monetary and emotional - but we need to just rip the bandage off, already. "It's what I'm used to" is a tired excuse.
Finallyfamous
Apr 10, 12:11 PM
I agree with I student UK using the constraints of / makes it rather ambiguos (did I spell that right) as I originally read it. I believed the 2(9+3) to be in the denominator in which case the answer is clearly 2
puuukeey
Sep 11, 02:41 PM
* new middle mac should be thirty inch tv. built in bluetooth for control couch. remote with track ball. bundled with eyetv and x10 automation software. NO MORE WHITE PLASTIC
* bluetooth remote. (a few more buttons)
* Airport Express with video and 5.1
* Plugin architecture for front row!!!!!!!!!
* add screen savers to front row(did this myself)
* add video and audio messaging to front row (did this myself)
* Jeff Han coffee table.
* bluetooth remote. (a few more buttons)
* Airport Express with video and 5.1
* Plugin architecture for front row!!!!!!!!!
* add screen savers to front row(did this myself)
* add video and audio messaging to front row (did this myself)
* Jeff Han coffee table.
XForge
Aug 4, 01:45 PM
Who voted negative????? You want it slower, eh? Give the man a G3! No, a 601!
They can have my 500MHz G3 iBook, I'm nearly done with it.
Ah, to be able to view movie trailers again.... siiigghhhh....
They can have my 500MHz G3 iBook, I'm nearly done with it.
Ah, to be able to view movie trailers again.... siiigghhhh....
lilo777
Apr 26, 04:54 PM
Ok umm it's obvious that the examples I used was sarcasm....but all in all..yes u get cameras and far better specs...but what does that prove? Not sales really..what device has sold more then an iOS device? All together android is out there more but target one single devices sales compared to iOS...evo made more then an iOS?no...droid made more then an iOS? No...android is ok but it's not passing iOS as one device alone...it needs to desperately piggy back other manufacturers in order to do so...but tell u this..if jobs was to say he wanted other manufacturers to carry iOS , goodbye android...but it doesn't need to do that..I guarantee that in apples top "threat" chart android is not even on the list....jailbreaks are...then probably cloud based services...but android like I said isn't even on there "oh snap" list.
And what does that prove? It's Apple's strategy to have a single iOS phone model. If there was a single Android phone it might be doing just as well as iPhone. However, if Apple were to release, say, 20 iPhone models do you really thing they would sell 20 times more iPhones. They would not. And as far as threats are concerned, did you notice that iPhone market share actually declined? Is it not a threat?
And what does that prove? It's Apple's strategy to have a single iOS phone model. If there was a single Android phone it might be doing just as well as iPhone. However, if Apple were to release, say, 20 iPhone models do you really thing they would sell 20 times more iPhones. They would not. And as far as threats are concerned, did you notice that iPhone market share actually declined? Is it not a threat?
World Citizen
May 4, 03:03 PM
I want my Lion on a stick with a ThunderTail!
What else do I use my Tunderbolt port for... :p
What else do I use my Tunderbolt port for... :p
cdallen
Mar 30, 11:23 AM
That seems quite rude. Wikipedia happens to have a wealth of base level knowledge. I understand that one should not cite it when doing in depth research but when looking for general knowledge it is a great source.
Many of my professors have realized this and told us that if we need a different explanation of something to look it up on Wikipedia because it tends to use more common language than out text books. The do not allow citing Wikipedia no matter how well the article is sourced.
Just like any book you look at using for research you must weigh the quality before choosing to use it.
That being said, any college level class in history that covers the Cold War will talk about Alfred Sauvy and his contribution to how we talk about the world during that time period.
Thank you
Many of my professors have realized this and told us that if we need a different explanation of something to look it up on Wikipedia because it tends to use more common language than out text books. The do not allow citing Wikipedia no matter how well the article is sourced.
Just like any book you look at using for research you must weigh the quality before choosing to use it.
That being said, any college level class in history that covers the Cold War will talk about Alfred Sauvy and his contribution to how we talk about the world during that time period.
Thank you
Jape
Nov 4, 11:29 AM
I don't know how they do it at such a discount, but mine just arrived a day early in fine shape, so at least in my case they came through fine.
I'll try it out this afternoon.
Ok, thats good to hear, let me know how it works when you try it out :) I am considering getting it from there
I'll try it out this afternoon.
Ok, thats good to hear, let me know how it works when you try it out :) I am considering getting it from there
bassfingers
Apr 22, 11:47 AM
It would be a lot harder to cheat a value added tax than income tax.
Plus it would take no time or money to fill out
it would naturally put a larger burden on the rich who spend more
it would be simple to raise/lower
It would naturally exempt charitable giving
it would reduce the tax-code a few thousand pages
It would reduce the need to pay to keep up the IRS program
nobody would be in debt to the IRS
Payroll taxes would be easier to manage
My dad spends two full weeks, and hire personal assistants in order to file taxes as it is. Value added tax instead of income tax would be a blessing
or even a less complicated flat income tax rate would be an improvement
Plus it would take no time or money to fill out
it would naturally put a larger burden on the rich who spend more
it would be simple to raise/lower
It would naturally exempt charitable giving
it would reduce the tax-code a few thousand pages
It would reduce the need to pay to keep up the IRS program
nobody would be in debt to the IRS
Payroll taxes would be easier to manage
My dad spends two full weeks, and hire personal assistants in order to file taxes as it is. Value added tax instead of income tax would be a blessing
or even a less complicated flat income tax rate would be an improvement
Multimedia
Aug 7, 06:18 PM
SO in the Paris expo is where we'll most likely see updated MBP?They don't need a special event for what will most likely just be an updated processor.I am one who thinks the Merom MBP will be a new design including user installable HD like on the MB. :) So I am still thinking Paris Apple Expo. Apple loves the French. ;)
mcrain
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
That is a fair point.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.