God forbid we grant that somebody in the Tea Party might knowingly agree with something an atheist said. That's as ridiculous as assuming that a liberal might agree with something a Christian said.
I would assume that libertarians would support suing the individuals (not the corporation) most directly culpable. For instance, if a manager committed a crime by acting in opposition to orders from the executives, the manager should be sued. If the executives condoned the crime, they should be sued. If the shareholders had any reason to suspect crimes were being committed, but kept their money in the company, they should be sued.
Well, at least, that's what I support, and I'm kind of libertarian. Can't speak for others.
We need another decade or two of study before we commit strongly either way. This will allow the science to be improved, and will (hopefully) cause the pop-culture aspect of the controversy to fade. The best thing that could happen for climate science is for both the public and the politicians to STOP CARING about it.
So, are you arguing that permitting people to starve to death is acceptable?
It's always moral to permit things. Save your condemnation for those people actually actively causing people to starve... their own governments, generally.
If the government passes a law saying you can get a lower rate by doing X, they shouldn't make X illegal. They should just not pass the loophole in the first place.
I wouldn't be opposed to the fair tax, but I'd rather have a simpler flat tax:
Standard deduction of $10,000 per family member. (Or employee, if you're a corporation.)
You're taxed 20% of every dollar earned over that amount (regardless of source... income, capital gains, inheritance, etc.)
There might be some simple factors that shift the standard deduction up or down, like catastrophic medical expenses, but the shorter the tax code, the more productive the economy will be.
Doesn't work that way. Profit doesn't increase linearly with sale price of the items. Otherwise, we could do this:
Cost of Tax on business: $900mil
Cost of goods on the market: OVER $7,000 per unit sold.
Profit: $60 BILLION!!!!
In reality, sales follows a curve, not a line, and price increases will decrease sales. A new expense (like taxes) will generally be divided between price hikes to the customer and cuts in profit, sharing the pain. After all, if they could have made more money by charging more, they'd already be charging more.
Corporations do not pay taxes at all.
That's economics from junior high school.
All corporations do is pass their tax costs on to the price of their goods.
No, corporations do pay taxes. They may raise their product prices to compensate, but the effect of the price increase is generally a decrease in total sales meaning that consumers get charged more AND the corporation earns less money. After all, if they could have made more money by raising their prices, they would already have done that. They have to set their prices at a higher level than the market would naturally settle at. Increases in taxes screw the consumer AND the business in favor of the government.
Rich people use more public services than poor people in support of their activities. So yes, a larger percentage.
I think this is obviously wrong. If a rich guy makes ten times as much money as a poor guy, you think he uses MORE than ten times as many public services? I would think he uses proportionately fewer, like two or three times. Your argument would make more sense if you were arguing FOR a flat tax.
Well, that's the short version. The long version is: Buffet is right, but his remarks are being misconstrued by nearly everybody. Deliberately so, by the politicians.
The rich have higher income tax rates than the poor. This is absolutely the case. If you're arguing that the tax rates should be increased on the rich because you think they're less than the poor, you're simply misinformed.
Now, there are other types of taxes. Estate taxes, tariffs, capital gains taxes. Those are charged at different rates. Capital gains are charged at a rate ranging from 0 to 15%, Note that rich people pay a higher rate on gains than poor people, also. However, if a person makes 90% of his income from capital gains, and you average together the different types of taxes he pays, the overall tax burden on the rich guy might be lower.
This is deliberate. Capital gains taxes are low on purpose, because those drive investment. However, if the situation is unacceptable, the solution is not to adjust the base rates, the solution would be to raise the capital gains taxes. I don't believe Obama's plan does this; instead, it's using Buffet's statement as a marketing point for other tax increases.
Well you travel the roads, drink the water, breath the air that now does not have a heavy burden of sulfur dioxide and Nitrox oxide. Your food does not contain DDT and your resonably safe from illegal robbery and if you are can call on law enforcement and the judical system to help fix the problem. You don't have to worry much about forgeigners rolling tanks down your street and when you retire you probably won't starve.
Those are great advantages of society, but it's disingenuous to use that to support a tax increase; all those things can be done with the money the government is currently taking in, with plenty left over. The government is spending a lot of money on things that you wouldn't put on that list... things that offer little benefit to society, or that are actively detriments, or items that are good inefficiently done. Take a look at a detailed breakout of the federal budget as proof of that.
When we could have a 'good' government for less than what we are already paying, why should we support a tax increase?
No, the problem is people are tired of paying taxes for bullshit.
Exactly. You know, I might support a limited tax increases, if it really would go into deficit reduction. But it won't. It will get spent, very inefficiently, on stuff I probably don't think is important in the first place. The beast needs to be starved, because it cannot behave rationally.
How about... reduce all expenditures by whatever percentage is necessary to match revenue, and then keep the growth in budget balanced to growth in income?
Another annoying thing the CEO did... from the story at CNN:
Netflix customers were incensed in July when the company announced that it would stop bundling the streaming service for free with DVD-by-mail plans, effectively increasing the price for some by as much as 60%. Hastings finally offered an apology, not for the price hike but for failing to clearly communicate why the change was being made.
"It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming, and the price changes," Hastings wrote. "I messed up. I owe everyone an explanation."
I'm sick of apologies that amount to 'I'm not sorry I did it, I'm going to keep on doing it, but I'm sorry I failed to communicated clearly enough to persuade you that I'm right.". It's a tired, cowardly talking point for CEOs and politicians.
This point is so overlooked, and yet it completely transforms the debate. The problem is always framed in the context of the US Government forbidding stem cell research, even though that is absolutely false. It's legal to use fetal stem cells for experimentation RIGHT NOW, and has been since Bush's term.
You can't see this obvious fact because you and your wife's brains are broken. It happens to all parents.
You're arguing emotionally. You want to be correct, and so you're categorizing those who disagree with you as 'innately wrong'. There are rational reasons to consider fetuses persons, but you can't honestly appraise them with that attitude.
There are problems with that approach. When is a baby sentient? I have a three week old at home, and the cats are much more intelligent. Still, I would gladly torture you eternally if you hurt her.
If you define it by the first neurological activity, it's within the first couple months. If you define it by self-awareness, it's... well, undefinable.
Slashdot Mirror
Just don't tell the Tea Partiers.
God forbid we grant that somebody in the Tea Party might knowingly agree with something an atheist said. That's as ridiculous as assuming that a liberal might agree with something a Christian said.
I would assume that libertarians would support suing the individuals (not the corporation) most directly culpable. For instance, if a manager committed a crime by acting in opposition to orders from the executives, the manager should be sued. If the executives condoned the crime, they should be sued. If the shareholders had any reason to suspect crimes were being committed, but kept their money in the company, they should be sued.
Well, at least, that's what I support, and I'm kind of libertarian. Can't speak for others.
We need another decade or two of study before we commit strongly either way. This will allow the science to be improved, and will (hopefully) cause the pop-culture aspect of the controversy to fade. The best thing that could happen for climate science is for both the public and the politicians to STOP CARING about it.
Nobody seriously uses the phrase 'space nutters' besides you. You do use it a lot, though.
So, are you arguing that permitting people to starve to death is acceptable?
It's always moral to permit things. Save your condemnation for those people actually actively causing people to starve... their own governments, generally.
If the government passes a law saying you can get a lower rate by doing X, they shouldn't make X illegal. They should just not pass the loophole in the first place.
I wouldn't be opposed to the fair tax, but I'd rather have a simpler flat tax:
Standard deduction of $10,000 per family member. (Or employee, if you're a corporation.)
You're taxed 20% of every dollar earned over that amount (regardless of source... income, capital gains, inheritance, etc.)
There might be some simple factors that shift the standard deduction up or down, like catastrophic medical expenses, but the shorter the tax code, the more productive the economy will be.
The only class waging war in this country on other classes is the rich.
We don't have classes in this country. Different levels of income do not constitute a class.
Doesn't work that way. Profit doesn't increase linearly with sale price of the items. Otherwise, we could do this:
Cost of Tax on business: $900mil
Cost of goods on the market: OVER $7,000 per unit sold.
Profit: $60 BILLION!!!!
In reality, sales follows a curve, not a line, and price increases will decrease sales. A new expense (like taxes) will generally be divided between price hikes to the customer and cuts in profit, sharing the pain. After all, if they could have made more money by charging more, they'd already be charging more.
Corporations do not pay taxes at all.
That's economics from junior high school.
All corporations do is pass their tax costs on to the price of their goods.
No, corporations do pay taxes. They may raise their product prices to compensate, but the effect of the price increase is generally a decrease in total sales meaning that consumers get charged more AND the corporation earns less money. After all, if they could have made more money by raising their prices, they would already have done that. They have to set their prices at a higher level than the market would naturally settle at. Increases in taxes screw the consumer AND the business in favor of the government.
They don't spend it, but they don't ignore it. Their money is invested, which typically helps all us poor people.
Rich people use more public services than poor people in support of their activities. So yes, a larger percentage.
I think this is obviously wrong. If a rich guy makes ten times as much money as a poor guy, you think he uses MORE than ten times as many public services? I would think he uses proportionately fewer, like two or three times. Your argument would make more sense if you were arguing FOR a flat tax.
He's right, Buffet is wrong.
Well, that's the short version. The long version is: Buffet is right, but his remarks are being misconstrued by nearly everybody. Deliberately so, by the politicians.
The rich have higher income tax rates than the poor. This is absolutely the case. If you're arguing that the tax rates should be increased on the rich because you think they're less than the poor, you're simply misinformed.
Now, there are other types of taxes. Estate taxes, tariffs, capital gains taxes. Those are charged at different rates. Capital gains are charged at a rate ranging from 0 to 15%, Note that rich people pay a higher rate on gains than poor people, also. However, if a person makes 90% of his income from capital gains, and you average together the different types of taxes he pays, the overall tax burden on the rich guy might be lower.
This is deliberate. Capital gains taxes are low on purpose, because those drive investment. However, if the situation is unacceptable, the solution is not to adjust the base rates, the solution would be to raise the capital gains taxes. I don't believe Obama's plan does this; instead, it's using Buffet's statement as a marketing point for other tax increases.
The bottom 2/3rds control completely who gets elected. The upper 1/3 have no power against them.
Pity that the bottom 2/3rds are pretty much self-destructive.
Well you travel the roads, drink the water, breath the air that now does not have a heavy burden of sulfur dioxide and Nitrox oxide. Your food does not contain DDT and your resonably safe from illegal robbery and if you are can call on law enforcement and the judical system to help fix the problem. You don't have to worry much about forgeigners rolling tanks down your street and when you retire you probably won't starve.
Those are great advantages of society, but it's disingenuous to use that to support a tax increase; all those things can be done with the money the government is currently taking in, with plenty left over. The government is spending a lot of money on things that you wouldn't put on that list... things that offer little benefit to society, or that are actively detriments, or items that are good inefficiently done. Take a look at a detailed breakout of the federal budget as proof of that.
When we could have a 'good' government for less than what we are already paying, why should we support a tax increase?
No, the problem is people are tired of paying taxes for bullshit.
Exactly. You know, I might support a limited tax increases, if it really would go into deficit reduction. But it won't. It will get spent, very inefficiently, on stuff I probably don't think is important in the first place. The beast needs to be starved, because it cannot behave rationally.
I earn my money and the rich don't.
You're immoral. They do earn their money. It's theirs, and you want to steal it.
How about... reduce all expenditures by whatever percentage is necessary to match revenue, and then keep the growth in budget balanced to growth in income?
Another annoying thing the CEO did... from the story at CNN:
Netflix customers were incensed in July when the company announced that it would stop bundling the streaming service for free with DVD-by-mail plans, effectively increasing the price for some by as much as 60%. Hastings finally offered an apology, not for the price hike but for failing to clearly communicate why the change was being made.
"It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming, and the price changes," Hastings wrote. "I messed up. I owe everyone an explanation."
I'm sick of apologies that amount to 'I'm not sorry I did it, I'm going to keep on doing it, but I'm sorry I failed to communicated clearly enough to persuade you that I'm right.". It's a tired, cowardly talking point for CEOs and politicians.
"not using tax dollars for embryonic research."
This point is so overlooked, and yet it completely transforms the debate. The problem is always framed in the context of the US Government forbidding stem cell research, even though that is absolutely false. It's legal to use fetal stem cells for experimentation RIGHT NOW, and has been since Bush's term.
You can't see this obvious fact because you and your wife's brains are broken. It happens to all parents.
You're arguing emotionally. You want to be correct, and so you're categorizing those who disagree with you as 'innately wrong'. There are rational reasons to consider fetuses persons, but you can't honestly appraise them with that attitude.
There are problems with that approach. When is a baby sentient? I have a three week old at home, and the cats are much more intelligent. Still, I would gladly torture you eternally if you hurt her.
If you define it by the first neurological activity, it's within the first couple months. If you define it by self-awareness, it's... well, undefinable.
So, if there was a game where the gameplay consisted of revising and improving its own gameplay...
That would recursively loop until it collapsed society. We better not do that.
But the first post was correct, which leads to the possibility that it was just posted by a smart, fast guy.
Got it. You'd give them some sort of... examination... to determine that they have skills that can't be... tested for.