Slashdot Mirror
White House Pulls Down TSA Petition
Jeremiah Cornelius writes with a note that on Thursday of this week "The Electronic Privacy Information Center posted a brief and detailed notice about the removal of a petition regarding security screenings by the TSA at US airports and other locations. 'At approximately 11:30 am EDT, the White House removed a petition about the TSA airport screening procedures from the White House 'We the People' website. About 22,500 of the 25,000 signatures necessary for a response from the Administration were obtained when the White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition. The site also went down for 'maintenance' following an article in Wired that sought support for the campaign."
We need a petition for the petition!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
So much for open government and responsiveness. Yes, but only if we ask for what they want to give us.
Given that online petitions are notoriously ineffective, I wonder why they'd bother. Let the thing get to 25,000, and issue a generic, mostly content-free response about balancing safety and the War on Terror with civil liberties and whatever. I doubt it'd be particularly politically damaging either way, since this is one issue where the Obama administration is more or less in line with the GOP opposition, which created the TSA in the first place, and whose law-and-order branch still strongly supports it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
They were going to give a non-answer answer anyway. This is just an attempt to avoid any coverage of the issue.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
The reddit crowd already went over this one in detail... it wasn't pulled down...the petitions have a limited amount of time, and there was a standard maintenance window near the time this particular petition ended. So no big conspiracy...just normal network maintenance...
TFS and TFA state that the "White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition", and indeed, the petition's page now says "The petition you are trying to access has expired, because it failed to meet the signature threshold."
It would be nice if EPIC provided information on (i) how long a petition normally gets before it expires, and (ii) how old this petition was when it was abruptly terminated. We know that it had garnered 22500 out of the 25000 signatures required, but how much time was taken away by the early termination of the petition?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
What did the petition say? Can we put up a new one and slashdot-sign it?
...for the least transparent administration in American history. Perhaps the Obama Administration will restore the petition shortly after they turn over the Fast and Furious documents Obama has claimed Executive Privilege over.
This is also par for the course for the Obama Administration's constant defense of the TSA. When Texas tried to pass a bill to ban TSA groping in the state, the Obama Administration threatened to impose a no fly zone on Texas over the right for TSA agents to grope people. Do you think think the Obama Administration will be any less protective now that they're unionized.
Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz has called for the abolition of the TSA. Given the wasteful, intrusive, and ineffective security theater they stage, does anyone think the America public would object to to their abolition?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/court_orders_ts.html Nothing to see here.
How much time was cut short? When was the petition supposed to end? IIRC it was ending very soon anyway.
If they didn't want to answer, they'd just say "this matter pertains to pending litigation, so we cannot comment" as they have done before. Why would they cut the answer period short?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The petition was not removed, but randomly chosen for special screening in a side room, away from public eyes to protect its privacy. Hence you saw it "under maintenance".
Unfortunately it has been determined that the petition was carrying some dangerous baggage, and therefore it was denied boarding rights to the oval office. It is now blacklisted for future trips.
Hope and change ?
Bullshit.
What those of us with brains hope is that soon we will have a change of
president.
Has the "We The People" website had one iota of influence on ANY issue?
I suspect the whole purpose was to get some good touchy-feely-see-I-care press for launching the site, not to actually do anything substantive but pat people on the head and continue to do whatever the hell they want anyway.
oh wait.....
zosxavius photography
It never has been. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBdk5n68gdM
you see the petition was set to expire on the 9th and they admit they didn't have the 25,000 threshold so how can they complain? i think the TSA is crap but this is a bogus conspiracy.
If anyone bothers to read this, (and this is an old story already, been done at Reddit) they will discover that it was due to be taken down in a half an hour. It was a half an hour early, BIG FUCKING DEAL. It's highly doubtful that they would have got the 2500 signatures in that time anyway. Besides these petitions are only for letting them know what people are on about, to get a public opinion. They don't set policy.
This is a none issue, only made an issue by hysterical paranoid loons.
Take the Red Pill.
This comes from the "most transparent administration in American history." They are because they said so and if you say otherwise, they will remove your post.
In his own words:
"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government." - President Barack Obama
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I tried to sign this petition several times over the last couple of weeks, but the system would not let me create an account.
1) The people behind this "story" are making a big fucking deal out of normal maintenance and a half hour
2) You really shouldnt care anyway cause 'We the People' is a fucking joke anyway. Its nothing more than busywork that gets you nothing else but an official copy and paste response.
We just recently saw a study which shows that the TSA isn't an issue -- Americans don't hate them that much.
But the study didn't control for whether you'd flown or not in the past few years.
Obviously, I'd like to see the study redone with whether you've flown. I suspect people who've flown HATE the TSA and people who haven't think they're grand.
But I'd also like another variable added. People who vote.
I suspect the people who don't hate the TSA are a complacent bunch who don't read, don't think, and don't vote. I further suspect people who don't fly don't vote. But it could go the other way. I want to see those numbers. The TSA may be a much, MUCH bigger issue than the administration thinks it is, or they may be completely right -- ignore it, because it's not something the real people who vote crare about.
getting rid of janet napolitano should be the focus of the effort. She loves the police state for some reason. When she was governer of Arizona they put in revenue cameras. When she left they ripped them out. Get rid of napolitano and there is a better chance to get rid of the tsa.
Amendment I of the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If there's no law preventing it, then the White House must immediately address this grievous situation.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Almost exactly one year ago, when this website first launched in September 2011, a petition was submitted for "abolishing the TSA." The White House responded to it, and, BIG SURPRISE, gave a cookie cutter response defending the TSA without even acknowledging the short-comings of the TSA (budget, civil liberties, incompetence, and so on).
Considering the fact that the White House already gave an official response to this question, I don't see how they are under any obligation to answer a duplicate question. Even if the White House decided to respond to the duplicate question, was anyone expecting their answer to change in the slightest? After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
Nothing will come from all this horn-blowing about the petition. If either candidate were to openly come against the TSA, you can bet your ass their opponent will get a massive backing from the security industry which is supported by the TSA. Since neither Obama or Romney have the balls to challenge the TSA, the only answer is to vote third party and send the bastards a message that we are fed up with their shit. Once enough people become disenfranchised and stop voting for "the lesser of two evils" the political spectrum will shift over to accomodate these people, and their voices will be heard once again.
A remote-control flying taxidermied cat
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Might as well get used to it folks. The TSA is never going away. Already it has absorbed several other agencies along the way (coast guard, etc.). As Rham Emmanuel once famous said "never let a good crisis go to waste". The creation of TSA was a direct result of 9/11 and it's continued existence is playing upon people's fears of some vague "terrorist" threat somewhere in the distance. Remember in the airports they always used to announce that the threat alert was "orange"? Never yellow, never red. Always orange. If it was yellow people might question if we even need the TSA. It was never red because they never actually caught anyone doing anything that could justify setting it to that. So basically it was just a charade. Remember how the govt told us how they were going to replace those rent-a-cops that the airlines used to hire for security? Looks to me like the same drones that were there before. The only difference is that it costs more and the lines are longer. I don't feel one bit safer. Oh, and the screenings are more invasive and we have given up (or had taken away more accurately) more of our civil rights. If someone wanted to blow up a plane they could do it TODAY, with or without the TSA. I'm not suggesting that we don't need screening in airports I just don't want the government in charge of it.
My, what rose colored glasses you have.
Truman was a dyed-in-the-wool machine politician who inherited the presidency from Roosevelt - and he was only in the position because of deals made in smoke filled back rooms and political patronage. Eisenhower was a war hero who was drafted (after much struggle) by the Republican Party to exploit his popularity and give them a chance to break the long dominance of the Democratic party.
Not to mention that the House and Senate were already dominated by career politicians.
Indeed, much has changed.
I hope you're all happy who you voted for!
-Styopa
The EPA can only enforce environmental laws within the US. They have no ability to enforce US environmental standards overseas, and no ability to prevent the importation of foreign-manufactured goods unless the goods THEMSELVES pose an environmental threat (such as banned pesticides).
While I completely agree with you in regards to outsourcing in order to skirt environmental regulations, the laws needed to prevent this would need to come from agencies other than the EPA. Starting with the commerce dept.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I am reposting this from Friday:
In a recent Schneier post titled Court Orders TSA to Answer EPIC a menacing comment was left by what claimed to be 'Blogger Bob' from the TSA's blog. It may be and likely enough is a dupe, but seemed terribly appropriate for the TSA. I have pasted it below for your reading pleasure, for the second time:
"I've been asked to respond to this post in order to clarify misunderstandings that some people may have.
The TSA properly exempted itself from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Sunshine Act. The TSA granted itself the exemption for valid reasons that must remain classified for National Security reasons, so you'll have to trust us on that.
The TSA also had a valid grounds for respectfully refusing to comply with both court orders. The reasons are also classified for National Security reasons, so again you'll have to trust us the refusal was appropriate and necessary. But I can tell you that the decision was based on thorough analysis of the latest robust intelligence pertaining to the current threat environment.
In both cases, TSA Counsel determined that any form of notice and comment rulemaking regarding the deployment of AIT would be detrimental to National Security, based on the classified determinations I referenced above. TSA Counsel prepared a classified memorandum exempting the agency from notice and comment requirements. TSA Counsel believes that the National Security determinations set forth in the classified memorandum give the TSA full authority to disregard any court orders requiring notice and comment rulemaking.
You are, of course, free to sign the petition. But it will have no more effect than the lawsuit or the court order. And do be aware that pursuant to classified TSA procedures, any names on the petition will be forwarded to the Terrorist Screening Center for possible inclusion on appropriate watch lists.
Thank you for allowing me to address your concerns about this matter."
Posted by: Blogger Bob at August 2, 2012 6:39 PM
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Wired is good for us but this news needs to be on the majors, such as they are.
Anyone know anyone at the NY Times, CNN, whatever?
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Cause the dictatorship don't wanna hear it!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
In Soviet America, you need pre-approval for a signature campaign.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
This is why no one believes you, and why the best you can hope for is "not as bad as the Republican alternative."
Too bad we can't get a real left wing in this country.
Great Intellect...
So they pull this one just before getting to the 25,000 threshold. So what? That 25.000 threshold never meant anything! Never.
IIRC, the similar signature gathering for review of SOPA went far over 25,000, and the response was: Yeah, we 'reviewed" it. Now STFU and GTBW. Did you really think they would reverse a policy based on petitions at that site? Since its inception, have any proposals been reversed due to petitions at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/?
See? We're good! We're giving you, the little people, a voice! [we won't listen to it, but here ya go]
meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Double anal inspections for everyone.
How dare you question your government?
Don't think that Robespierre wasn't paid by the banks.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Every time a petition goes up which the Obama Administration doesn't like, which seems like a regular occurrence these days, be it legalization of marijuana or now this TSA proposal, it gets shut down by the operatives in the White House. Let me make it perfectly plain to those of you who aren't seeing this: Obama is a true product of the cutthroat and revenge oriented Chicago style of American machine politics. Consider his background prior to being elected President, that of an east coast lawyer who never worked an honest job in his whole life and has ZERO respect for business or private enterprise. He speaks about "transcending" politics and bringing people together, while stabbing enemies and even friends in the back when they aren't looking. Obama is a silver-tounged devil, plain and simple, and the thugs who work for his administration are ever ready to do whatever it takes to get rid of those whom they add to their "enemies list". In this much at least the Obama Administration makes Bush and his cronies look like rank amateurs.
but how much time was taken away by the early termination of the petition?
I'm too lazy to dig up wherever I read it, maybe it was a comment on hacker news, but it sounded like it had about another week to go before expiration.
It expired on the 9th. See, e.g. Bruce Schneier's post a week ago, or the Fark thread from the 8th saying 'it expires tomorrow'.
The wealthy have already looted the country after cajoling us into reducing our entire social contract down to one aspect: Money (the piles of it that they're sitting on).
You have to find a workable way to get that money back, or else they'll take it with them when they go. If its done incorrectly (assuming there is a decent way, short of shifting the entire nation's value system toward the political sphere), then virtually all of the 'trust' between people and ability to convincingly motivate them go flying out the window. At that point you are left printing up new bales of currency that the rest of the world's bankers will wrinkle their noses at.
Then again, we can simply tax them and take that new Globalized police state that was used to help the wealthy loot and control, and turn it against them so that tax collection (like Predator strikes) becomes an inevitability. It might work...
the logical dissonance is in your head, the industries that were created to avoid paying taxes are in accounting and law, those are a net negative for the economy, not net positive.
1. The person who is working on avoiding taxes is distracted from his business, whatever it is.
2. The resources are spent to come up with ways to avoid paying taxes rather than having those resources be used productively.
3. The people in those industries were employed to do fight a problem that shouldn't have been a problem in the first place, their labour were misallocated.
4. The individual freedoms are infringed upon by the government when it steals productivity of people via income, payroll, corporate taxes.
Your silly point is that an industry was created to avoid paying taxes, and thus it is 'good for the economy', is that it?
It's as good for the economy as having all those regulators hired by the firms that are forced to hire the regulators by the gov't, it's the same effect on the economy as having people hired to do unproductive work, like digging and then filling in ditches.
Your statement is both illogical and a sad reflection of modern public education system.
You can't handle the truth.
How about re-posting the petition, and mention the fate of the previous petition. Include all the drama its removal incurred. You can even have a "release party", on Twitter, Facebook and whatnot.
[End Of Line]
The creator of the petition says that the petition expired at the expected time. Nothing to see here.
There has to be a contradiction first. The claim of the original poster boils down to a) the rich pay more in marginal taxes, and b) that's why the economy is better. So the grandparent poster first shows a) is wrong and then shows b) is wrong. That's all logically consistent. There's no opportunity for cognitive dissonance.
It's not cognitive dissonance because there is no contradiction. Ask yourself this. What sort of "industry" is going to be created to dodge taxes? The answer obviously won't be "building airplanes".
So to get you thinking about this some more in the right light, the main "industry" thus created was the creation of trusts for tax avoidance purposes, both of income and estate taxes. A number of the big family "foundations" are basically trusts which insure wealth stays in the family.
So what's logical about creating a high tax bracket and a fairly complex means for bypassing that tax bracket? It's only logical, if you're part of the financial industry which is scrapping cream off the top whenever the rich use those loopholes to protect their wealth.
For a decade. Clean out the corruption in DC.
I'm not calling for term limits. Just don't send ANYBODY back to the swamp.
Re-elect no one.
We just made corporations people so we wouldn't have to change our constitution.
"I believe the puppet on the left shares MY beliefs, well I believe the puppet on the right has MY interests at heart...hey wait a minute, there's one guy working both puppets!"...Bill Hicks.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Sounds like someone is modding -1, disagree. If you're denzacar, I'd have to say you're being robbed. Flamebait maybe, not trolling though.
Did I say that we should let the rich "get away with anything"? No. I said that taxing the rich "very heavily" is a bad idea.
I didn't say that they should be allowed to "fuck you over" and "try their best to enslave you" either.
It's not cognitive dissonance because there is no contradiction. Ask yourself this. What sort of "industry" is going to be created to dodge taxes? The answer obviously won't be "building airplanes".
Except that there is contradiction.
On the logical level, we are supposed to believe that a government which would implement higher taxes in order to raise funds would then allow loopholes which would let those taxes slip through their fingers.
Because, they are all... you know, stupid and lazy and incompetent I guess.
On a historical level, he is talking about Truman-Eisenhower years. You know... the "golden age" of the 1950s.
When the interstates were built, when owning a home, a car and a TV became the norm, when unemployment was at record lows... when USA was "building airplanes".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I'd sign my name if I was me. Naaah... I don't have karma issues.
I'm guessing the commenter above is roman_mir, who is well known for taking his extreme libertarian views way too far and in the wrong direction, ending way past the doorstep and the living room of fascism and heading straight for the toilet area.
So when that karma wheel turns, he gets burned.
But since he is riding high on his delusion steed, he translates down-modding as "attention".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
One can like part of a system without subscribing to the whole of it.
You are set so deep in your delusions that no argument, no matter how logical or factual can't reach you.
I'm not here to argue with you.
At best, I'm here only to point out the flaws in your logic and views, so those who skim the discussions wouldn't get the idea that your delusional nonsense is an unopposed norm here.
I mean... I could waste days tearing apart your continuous torrent of quasi-arguments - and for what?
Even with those 4 points above, all you need is to scratch their surface to see that you manage to contradict yourself without even noticing.
You are actually promoting greed as a solution for everything and your personal tyranny over "the tyranny of taxation".
You would probably be a lot happier if you finally came out to yourself that you are not a libertarian as you've lead yourself to believe, but a full blown fascist. You may actually be happier.
Here's a hint: Libertarians have no need to meddle into other people's "misallocation of labor" - they are against such meddling.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The majority are garbage, posted by economically illiterate morons.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Never mind what's behind the curtain....
*click* your heels three times and repeat
"Hope and Change"
"Hope and Change"
"Hope and Change"
Aww....still stuck?
Not cutting this porker in an election year.
--
It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
Let us ignore the fact that if we got rid of the military tomorrow the next day we would probably be overrun by some other country the following day. Also if we ignore all the other things external to military spending (jobs that are needed to support the military, the money military members spend, etc) your numbers still won't produce a balanced budget. There also is the interest on the debt that is still accumulating that will further increase the debt but we can even ignore that and your numbers don't work. For reference see the following:
There is the obligitory XKCD Money chart
The NY Times "Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How $3.7 Trillion is Spent"
The NY Times "Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent"
The NY Times "Four Ways to Slice Obama’s 2013 Budget Proposal" best when viewed by department as it is pretty worthless otherwise
The U.S. National Debt Clock showing the 6 largest budget items.
It's not like eliminating all military spending would magically produce a $500+ billion surplus each year. Yes it would get us much closer to a balanced budget for a few years but there are also major structural issues with Social Security (you can find this in section II Overview pages 2-5) now projected to take in less in taxes that it distributes (in 2022 the trust fund will start to decrease as the interest no longer makes up difference) indefinitely. In 2033 it will be unable to meet the all current obligations. There are also similar issues with Medicare and Medicaid but those are going to be happening sooner.
Now back to real world were things have consequences and we are basically screwed. From what I have read in the past on this subject we are fully capable of digging our selves out of this hole as 13 years ago we were running a budget surplus at the federal level and actually retiring what debt could be. The problem is that everyone wants to keep their government benefit, tax break, subsidy, etc and we have politicians that know that cutting someone's benefit or raising someone's taxes is political suicide so it is just easier to put off the hard decisions until later. That way it is some other congress critter's problem when the shit really hits the fan. In the '90s with Clinton in the White House and Republicans in charge in the house and the senate it was easy with the economy booming the necessary changes were being made and people didn't feel it. Now in a bad economy these changes would be devastating and people might have to break out the pitch forks and torches which no elected official wants.
Time to offend someone
On the logical level, we are supposed to believe that a government which would implement higher taxes in order to raise funds would then allow loopholes which would let those taxes slip through their fingers.
That is what is called a "truism". Given it's true by observation, then it is true. Simplest logic that isn't a perfect tautology.
Because, they are all... you know, stupid and lazy and incompetent I guess.
Or simply that the tax prep industry scored a few wins.
On a historical level, he is talking about Truman-Eisenhower years. You know... the "golden age" of the 1950s. When the interstates were built, when owning a home, a car and a TV became the norm, when unemployment was at record lows... when USA was "building airplanes".
And the real rich paid 90+% of their income as taxes? I don't buy that part of the myth especially when it was painfully obvious that they weren't.
Income tax? What about wealth tax? Income taxes that high simply guarantee that the already rich get to stay rich and in power.
If you want a more egalitarian world, you should tax wealth and especially inheritance, not income.
... going to loose Democratic voters over this, and other stuff he's done. They may not vote for Romney, but every vote Obama looses is as good as a vote FOR Romney.
THINK! It's patriotic
The point is they are a long way from being the "Anyone" the previous poster claimed.
As I said, because these are tech start-up businesses, the group is notable for having particularly academic parents, and ones capable of funding an education at the best universities.
In more traditional lines of business, you'd see less importance in intellectual and educational capital, and a higher proportion who are wealthy because they inherited their businesses, or at least the capital that created the business.
Either way, it's a silver spoon.
True average Joe to wealthy business leader tales exist, but they are rare. The biggest predictor of a person's adult wealth is their parent's wealth.
If all that you say is true, government not collecting taxes, rich not paying taxes, the almighty IRS being helpless facing the godlike tax preparation advisers - why did those rich folks then continuously lobby to have the taxes lowered?
So the little guy would hate them more?
Your "truisms" are actually more like fallacies.
Errors in reasoning due to misconception or a presumption.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
why did those rich folks then continuously lobby to have the taxes lowered?
Because not every rich person is a tax preparation specialist. As usual with any group of people, there's a lot of conflicts of interest between members of this group.
Neither is every person a competent cook - that's why there are restaurants.
Places where you pay other people to do everything else for you but eating the food.
And wasn't it you who mentioned those people whose job it is to dodge taxes for other people?
As usual with any group of people, there's a lot of conflicts of interest between members of this group.
And what is that even supposed to mean? Lobbying for lower taxes is a result of internal strife among the rich?
Rich people have high taxes, don't pay them (you said so above), want them lower though they are not paying them, so they are in conflict with... who exactly? Those rich people who want higher taxes?
So, you are saying that because some rich people actually WANT to pay higher taxes, taxes get lowered just to fuck them over?
"Uncle Sam's gonna make you give even less to the state, you millionaire scum. See how you like them apples!"
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Look, you're going to pieces here. It's not at all complicated. Most rich like anyone else want to pay less for what they get. In the 50s, they did it by paying a middle man, the tax preparer, to come up with schemes to legally avoid paying those infamously high taxes. Now they pay similar though lower taxes, but the tax preparer doesn't contribute as much and hence, the rich tend to pay less in tax preparation as well as in taxes.
So there it is. The rich want to pay less. The tax preparers on the other hand, want the rich to have to jump through profitable hoops to avoid paying taxes legally. You could have just thought about it for a few minutes and get this far.
I plan to send a kid to Harvard, and even though I am a millionaire, you've never heard of me (and probably never will). I began working at 15 and never inherited anything. I've never stolen money from anyone and I don't think I'm taking too big a slice of "the pie". I'm just now finishing a BS degree 30 years late, but at least I'll have a better education than Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs.
My GP post was modded down to zero so I guess most Slashdotters today are communists and socialists. They'll never become wealthy with such attitudes.
but the tax preparer doesn't contribute as much and hence, the rich tend to pay less in tax preparation as well as in taxes.
Seriously?
Somehow, lowering the tax bracket (which they were already avoiding completely according to you) lowers the price of tax preparation advisers' services or the time it takes them to do their job?
1 - lowering the tax bracket would actually make their services more expensive.
Getting 20% off on your taxes from 90% is only 70%, but a same cut from 70% means you're now paying ONLY half.
Which makes the tax cuts more valuable the lower you cut them.
You could have just thought about it for a few minutes and get this far.
Or if that's confusing, take 20% off of different tax brackets and watch as the difference goes down - you get less and less for the same cut the lower you go.
I.e. the price of a tax percentage goes up.
Not that any of it matters.
2 - being motivated by the need to pay less, they are naturally aiming at 0% tax or as close to it as possible.
As such, any cut is not enough and tax prep advisers are hired regardless of the height of taxes.
Not that any of that matters either.
3 - being needed regardless of the current tax bracket, tax prep advisers have no reason to lower the price of their services.
You wanna keep your millions, give them thousands. Only thing that matters in lowering their prices is competition.
4 - prices of tax prep advisers are peanuts compared to actual taxes.
And last but not least...
5 - full price of services is based on the input and complexity of one's tax situation.
It's NOT about the current maximum tax bracket, but about HOW MUCH IS there to be TAXED.
Having more stuff means you have more stuff to pay taxes on. Paying less taxes means you get to have more stuff... etc. etc.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
He's like a WWF entertainer
Cute and apparently cuddly when wrestling, but prone to attack humans when irritated, like a giant panda?