Using a car requires special licensing and mandatory identification... Only if it is used on a public road. Similarly, if you want to carry a firearm in public, in many states it also requires a special license and identification. These are STATE regulations in all cases and as they should be because the federal government doesn't have the power to impose them. Remember that you can own vehicles that aren't registered and drive them without a license on private property. Go to a race track sometime, unregistered non-street legal vehicles are all over the place and some tracks even allow people younger than license age to drive.
You are so correct... If we were smart, we'd use diesel like our European friends. Higher energy density, greater combustion efficiency, longer engine life, and not nearly as flammable. But soot looks dirty, so we stick with gas...
I am glad someone points out the obvious. I work for a fortune 500 company and in our own small department management made a ridiculous parody video that probably cost well more than 60k. Not to mention the cost of showing to everyone (I mean forcing them to watch it, and in my case multiple times).
Actually, in most cases we'd be better off treating our waste water and putting it right back in the drinking supply since municipal (not industrial) waste water effluent is cleaner than the bodies of water we are discharging to. Unfortunately people have this 'ick' factor with drinking their own former poo/pee despite it being cleaner than drinking our own poo/pee mixed with large quantities of nature's pollution.
Well until next month when the credit card gets maxed out again. Then we won't have the money until we have another slapfest between Rs and Ds over the debt ceiling.
That makes total sense. Let's punish all of those who were responsible and have saved for future to save those that spent beyond their means and have no way to pay back the debt they owe.
Obama keeps talking about how the rich need to pay their fair share. Well in the US you might be middle class, but in the world you are the 1%. So you'd better start paying your fair share!
Exactly. Let's assume we can affect the climate, we are making it warmer currently, and we have the ability to repair the warming we have done... Ok, now climate is not constant, so due to natural causes, it will get warmer or colder in the future. Which scenario is humanity and life as a whole better off? With the earth warmer. So given that it is going to get colder or warmer in the future, if we can affect it shouldn't we be tipping the scales in the warmer direction?
You are completely right. The Republicans relentlessly advocated higher spending while saying "smaller government!" while Democrats advocated higher spending while saying "Ask the rich to pay a little more".
I also find it ironic that those pushing for higher tax rates for the rich like to point out that the rich never end up paying the top rates anyway. Higher tax rates just increase the amount of money wasted on accountants trying to avoid taxes.
Standards of living have SKYROCKETED and companies producing new products (which they need cash reserves and profit incentive to do) is what increases standard of living. Someone in 1970 may have earned more on an inflation adjusted term, but they are living a more lavish life today with less money and have better health and more life expectancy to boot. How many people in 1970 had a color TV? A car with airbags? A cordless phone? A place to argue with other people around the world?
Corporations are not hurting anyone when they have lots of cash on hand. You act like corporations are people, but they aren't... That money will eventually get spent for salaries (taxed), capital investment (taxed), buying back shares (taxed), dividends (taxed), or other investments (taxed). Sitting on it simply gives the company greater stability and long term growth. But our government is not good at planning for the long term. Hell it seems like they can't see past the next election most of the time. Companies want to be around for the long haul, most aren't in business to make a quick buck and be gone tomorrow.
The problem is that there is tax on everything, and thus at the end of the day it is impossible to fathom or calculate how much of a total item is actually government revenue (or deadweight loss as economists like to call it). It screws up the pricing information and doesn't tell people how valuable something is, but rather how much the government values it. This is why some things are much cheaper than they should be (electric cars, ethanol, etc) and some things are far more expensive than they should be (alcohol, tobacco, etc).
The question is why you think taxation should be used as a method of equalizing wealth or driving an economy rather than funding government operations. Realistically, I think the best option should a property tax (based on your land and the value of items on it) and a use tax (for roads, public services, etc). Since the government is defending your property through laws and the military, the value of property protected is really the only claim they have for you to be forced to compensate them or in the case of use taxes, you pay for what you use. However, in that society, maybe only landowners should be allowed a vote since they are the ones for whom the government is benefiting and likewise who primarily funds the government. However, since that will never happen in our society, I believe a sales tax is more fair than an income tax.
As to your other point, why is idle wealth a bad thing? Why should I be taxed on savings, emergency funds, retirement plans, etc? Saving up money for a rainy day or future consumption is a GOOD THING, not a bad thing. The government has been creating a huge debt bubble and encouraging people to take out more loans, spend more money, and dear lord, don't save anything. How is this a good long term strategy? You can't solve a credit crisis by relying on more credit.
Perhaps you didn't actually read the fair tax and the fact that you get a prebate to cover taxes basically to the poverty level. Or the fact that a rich man paying 20% on Christmas presents is significant if he is buying expensive presents.
More importantly, the VAT in Europe is ON TOP OF income taxes, not a replacement for it. The idea is that taxes discourage things (yes, economics says if you increase the cost of something, the demand goes down). Thus if you have to discourage something, you should discourage consumption (sales), not production (profit, income).
That's why the "fair tax" is more fair. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer You can actually see the amount the government is taking at the consumer end transaction. It makes it much simpler to keep track of taxes and know how much the government is actually getting.
Warning, large PDF. This is the EPA guidelines for reuse of water. They all have to meet certain standards, additional treatment may need to be done to meet those standards. If you hooked up the outlet of a waste water treatment plant (what I call a poo processing plant or 3P) to the inlet of a water treatment plant (my term is a chlorination and filtration emporium), you'd have better quality water in most cases.
The only reason it's not good for the USA is because we are one of those high tax nations. If we lower taxes, businesses will want to keep money here and we'll be on the winning side of things while all the rich people leave Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
Using a car requires special licensing and mandatory identification... Only if it is used on a public road. Similarly, if you want to carry a firearm in public, in many states it also requires a special license and identification. These are STATE regulations in all cases and as they should be because the federal government doesn't have the power to impose them. Remember that you can own vehicles that aren't registered and drive them without a license on private property. Go to a race track sometime, unregistered non-street legal vehicles are all over the place and some tracks even allow people younger than license age to drive.
Yes because making it a crime to possess pot has drastically reduced its usage too...
You are so correct... If we were smart, we'd use diesel like our European friends. Higher energy density, greater combustion efficiency, longer engine life, and not nearly as flammable. But soot looks dirty, so we stick with gas...
Most people want a candidate like that. But they won't vote for that candidate because "they don't have a chance".
I am glad someone points out the obvious. I work for a fortune 500 company and in our own small department management made a ridiculous parody video that probably cost well more than 60k. Not to mention the cost of showing to everyone (I mean forcing them to watch it, and in my case multiple times).
The government prints it.
Actually, in most cases we'd be better off treating our waste water and putting it right back in the drinking supply since municipal (not industrial) waste water effluent is cleaner than the bodies of water we are discharging to. Unfortunately people have this 'ick' factor with drinking their own former poo/pee despite it being cleaner than drinking our own poo/pee mixed with large quantities of nature's pollution.
Well until next month when the credit card gets maxed out again. Then we won't have the money until we have another slapfest between Rs and Ds over the debt ceiling.
That makes total sense. Let's punish all of those who were responsible and have saved for future to save those that spent beyond their means and have no way to pay back the debt they owe.
Funny since construction work is not an insignificant part of the economy and tends to be busiest during the summer months...
Obama keeps talking about how the rich need to pay their fair share. Well in the US you might be middle class, but in the world you are the 1%. So you'd better start paying your fair share!
Did you just have a net change output in different units than your input? *facepalm*
Exactly. Let's assume we can affect the climate, we are making it warmer currently, and we have the ability to repair the warming we have done... Ok, now climate is not constant, so due to natural causes, it will get warmer or colder in the future. Which scenario is humanity and life as a whole better off? With the earth warmer. So given that it is going to get colder or warmer in the future, if we can affect it shouldn't we be tipping the scales in the warmer direction?
You are completely right. The Republicans relentlessly advocated higher spending while saying "smaller government!" while Democrats advocated higher spending while saying "Ask the rich to pay a little more".
They were eliminated in favor of minting trillion dollar coins.
I also find it ironic that those pushing for higher tax rates for the rich like to point out that the rich never end up paying the top rates anyway. Higher tax rates just increase the amount of money wasted on accountants trying to avoid taxes.
Boo freakety hoo. You are going back to school by CHOICE. Why should the taxpayers be forced to feed you while you live beyond your means?
Wages are meaningless to talk about growth. What matters is standards of living.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/StandardsofLivingandModernEconomicGrowth.html
Standards of living have SKYROCKETED and companies producing new products (which they need cash reserves and profit incentive to do) is what increases standard of living. Someone in 1970 may have earned more on an inflation adjusted term, but they are living a more lavish life today with less money and have better health and more life expectancy to boot. How many people in 1970 had a color TV? A car with airbags? A cordless phone? A place to argue with other people around the world?
Corporations are not hurting anyone when they have lots of cash on hand. You act like corporations are people, but they aren't... That money will eventually get spent for salaries (taxed), capital investment (taxed), buying back shares (taxed), dividends (taxed), or other investments (taxed). Sitting on it simply gives the company greater stability and long term growth. But our government is not good at planning for the long term. Hell it seems like they can't see past the next election most of the time. Companies want to be around for the long haul, most aren't in business to make a quick buck and be gone tomorrow.
The problem is that there is tax on everything, and thus at the end of the day it is impossible to fathom or calculate how much of a total item is actually government revenue (or deadweight loss as economists like to call it). It screws up the pricing information and doesn't tell people how valuable something is, but rather how much the government values it. This is why some things are much cheaper than they should be (electric cars, ethanol, etc) and some things are far more expensive than they should be (alcohol, tobacco, etc).
The question is why you think taxation should be used as a method of equalizing wealth or driving an economy rather than funding government operations. Realistically, I think the best option should a property tax (based on your land and the value of items on it) and a use tax (for roads, public services, etc). Since the government is defending your property through laws and the military, the value of property protected is really the only claim they have for you to be forced to compensate them or in the case of use taxes, you pay for what you use. However, in that society, maybe only landowners should be allowed a vote since they are the ones for whom the government is benefiting and likewise who primarily funds the government. However, since that will never happen in our society, I believe a sales tax is more fair than an income tax.
As to your other point, why is idle wealth a bad thing? Why should I be taxed on savings, emergency funds, retirement plans, etc? Saving up money for a rainy day or future consumption is a GOOD THING, not a bad thing. The government has been creating a huge debt bubble and encouraging people to take out more loans, spend more money, and dear lord, don't save anything. How is this a good long term strategy? You can't solve a credit crisis by relying on more credit.
Perhaps you didn't actually read the fair tax and the fact that you get a prebate to cover taxes basically to the poverty level. Or the fact that a rich man paying 20% on Christmas presents is significant if he is buying expensive presents.
More importantly, the VAT in Europe is ON TOP OF income taxes, not a replacement for it. The idea is that taxes discourage things (yes, economics says if you increase the cost of something, the demand goes down). Thus if you have to discourage something, you should discourage consumption (sales), not production (profit, income).
That's why the "fair tax" is more fair. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer You can actually see the amount the government is taking at the consumer end transaction. It makes it much simpler to keep track of taxes and know how much the government is actually getting.
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/dw/smallsystems/pubs/625r04108.pdf
Warning, large PDF. This is the EPA guidelines for reuse of water. They all have to meet certain standards, additional treatment may need to be done to meet those standards. If you hooked up the outlet of a waste water treatment plant (what I call a poo processing plant or 3P) to the inlet of a water treatment plant (my term is a chlorination and filtration emporium), you'd have better quality water in most cases.
It's a common problem among liberals...
The only reason it's not good for the USA is because we are one of those high tax nations. If we lower taxes, businesses will want to keep money here and we'll be on the winning side of things while all the rich people leave Europe.