Do the math. In the most current complete year, 2005, we have taxable income - which is basically the government's way of saying gross income it can tax - is $5,137,165,874,000. Then, scroll over to the Total Tax Payments line item: $1,083,700,046,000.
$1,083,700,046,000 / $5,137,165,874,000 = ~21%
This number assumes no credits and dealing with the economic impact that comes from not giving preferencial tax treatment for companies paying foreign taxes, child care, elderly & disabled, education, retirement savings, children, etc. Any additional will drive up the effective flat rate. The problem is the math doesn't work out, and most people that favor flat taxes have never bothered to look at the numbers. If 21% is the lowest rate you can get to replace existing revenues and it would do so by shifting the tax burden to the poor - which will likely have many macro-economic effects such as taxing demand for goods out of the economy. So, we have the problem that the tax rate isn't anywhere near where you say it will be and that this system will have many effects that you don't understand.
And if you are going to conduct wars in Iraq and elsewhere, that are estimated to cost more than all of the tax that is collected in a single year, then you have additional issues driving up government expense that ultimately need to be covered by taxes.
While true that Russia's has a flat tax of 13% on personal income, it also has taxes on capital income, value added, corporate and other taxes that make it a bit more complicated and mean a higher effective tax rate. See this discussion.
I jumped to the conclusion because the guy is clearly not supporting the Fair Tax as it is typically talked about, flat (meaning single rate) taxes or taxes on consumption. So, it looked like something you were bringing to the table because of an agenda - and in reading your second post, I see I was right. You may not be for the Fair Tax proposal, but I've heard plenty of flat taxers make the same arguments you make - and neglect to consider the fact that the approach doesn't work.
Russia has a problem with corruption and a poor tax enforcement system, so this move worked for them. Our problems are a little bit different, and a flat tax - while perhaps easier for tax filers - will bankrupt the government.
Here's a question for you, penguin_dance. Why are you asking about Fair Taxes and Flat Taxes when no country on earth uses them? From Money Magazine:
Critics claim the FairTax has two major flaws: It wouldn't work in practice and, even if it did, it wouldn't raise enough money...Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan's Office of Tax Policy Research says that only six countries in the world have tried to collect a sales tax north of 10 percent, and four of them eventually adopted alternatives like a VAT. Consumers might also be unpleasantly surprised by all the things that get taxed: Not just milk at the grocery store, but legal fees, rent on an apartment, even health-care expenses.
From Just how fair is the 'FairTax'?
Given the fact that it doesn't work and the Fair Tax book makes some major and unsubstantiated assumptions of the impact of said tax on the economy, why are you talking about this as if it were a solution - particularly when we are conducting wars costing trillions. Where's that money going to come from?
Interesting. I do the same thing, but I'm learning Bengali. Bengali doesn't have several hundred movies to choose from - so it is less of a problem, but still, it would be good to know when Netflix gets new ones and what not. It's a good point.
Semantics. We have a long history of TARGETing civilians - Hiroshima and the firebombing of Japan being perhaps the best example. While there is a difference between a professional soldier and an insurgent, events like Abu Ghraib or turning Saddam over to vigilante justice, suggests that the line can, and frequently does, get crossed.
And your argument that the terrorists won't stop killing until everyone is killed or converted to Islam is not based in fact. For one, they don't have the capability, anymore than Christian Identity groups or militia groups can secede from the United States. In other words, they have neither the capability to enslave or kill, we only need to "fight back" in the same way we "fight back" other forms of criminal activity - by doing police work.
I served in the military, during the first Iraq War. It's been my experience that people most in favor of military solutions have never been in the service or in combat. Care to share what war you served in?
I'll suggest that communication alone may never bring peace, because communication does not address disagreement at the philosophical level. It just defines the boundaries of the disagreement.
Well, the parent post made an argument that the military does not kill civilians. The person you are replying to basically called B.S., and they made the argument that killing results in more killing.
You replied to this person with a vague argument - but one that seems to argue that wars and killing are necessary, particularly when we disagree with people on the philosophic level. I was pointing out three examples of people that had disagreements on a philosophic level and did not use violence.
Now, the problem for you is to indicate where their actions of submitting to violence - in the form of being sent to prison, physically attacked or what have you - that was the source of more violence. I don't think you can - which is why you moved the discussion to world peace or total agreement.
My counter-examples were attacking the way you changed the framework to suggest that non-violence (cast as appeasement, acting without integrity, etc.) leads to violence. I provided three counter-examples - where I don't think you can claim that the actions of these three men caused more violence. In fact, I think you can make a plausible argument that their efforts minimialized it. If true, that puts your argument on shaky footing and you have to do more work.
Counterexample: Gandhi. Or does winning independence for an entire country nonviolently not count?
Counterexample: Dr. Martin Luther King. Or does civil rights not count?
Counterexample: Jesus. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-41)
I'll tell you why you need it. It provides another layer of abstraction. Let's try a few illustrative examples.
1. Let's say you work for a Fortune 500 company and you get over 10,000 emails a day from customers complaining. Do you think it is better to read each one or have a tool that abstracts it to graphically display key concepts that they are complaining about so management can do something about it today?
2. You are a clinical researcher in Cancer and have a terabyte of unstructured patient data. Can you think how text descriptions of pathology reports might be displayed graphically against outcomes to suggest some interesting insights?
There's a lot of useful information that isn't on blogs - although it would be useful for them too. You need to exercise a bit more imagination.
If I made $50,000 a year 10 years ago and I now make $100,000 a year, I'm supposed to feel good that my security company is charging me 75% more for less service - providing innovative products like "Star Wars" and tactical nuclear weapons? Or that it doesn't factor in debt expense from previous military engagements - interest on borrowed money, veterans benefits, etc.
Why is it that all you so called "conservatives" love to talk about fiscal responsibility, except when it means having less guns lying around or giving an accurate accounting of their costs - rather than some bullshit figure comparing on the books budget expenditures as fabricated in the U.S. budget and comparing it to GDP? Give up the shell game.
Nobody is representative of all Quakers. I'm a Quaker and I support AFSC. Most of the other Quakers I know do as well.
What you need to understand that there is a difference between reaching out to the "enemy" in the spirit of compassion and making apologies for them. Quakers met with Nazis during World War II, sent medical supplies to the North Vietnamese, and these days, sit down to visit with leaders in Iran. These kind of behaviors exemplify the gospel message of "turning the other cheek".
In doing these type of things, they demonstrate that they are very much different from other political pressure groups.
Have an agenda? Want to make the argument that Quakers are communists?
At least four of the incidences of surveillance uncovered were activities coordinated or supported by the American Friends Service Committee, a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947. Founded by Quakers in 1917, the Service Committee began as a vehicle for conscientious objectors to the First World War to contribute to binding up the wounds of war: by building houses for war victims, feeding hungry children, and clothing the displaced. AFSC has historically felt called to witness against war and for changing the conditions that cause violent conflict.
Your commentary that free speech zones are necessary to make sure there aren't disruptions in people's education is silly. It's not a factor and doesn't explain the sudden emergence of this kind of activity. And your anti-communism? It belongs to the 1950s. It's this kind of thinking that shows the bankruptcy and enablity to tolerate diversity of thought that is the hallmark of people calling themselves conservatives these days. I feel sorry for you.
And technical books go out of date how fast? Have any idea how frequently standard books get lifted or never returned? The crap that remains, want to venture a guess how often they get checked out?
I'm a librarian with a technical bent and rather obscure interests. Most libraries don't have the books I want to read, but there is such a thing as inter-library loan. I'm not the target audience - neither are you. But to think they aren't useful (particularly if you have found that buying anything but reference books is a colossal waste of money) or that you can get all your information off the Internet (you do know that most libraries provide access to resources one typically has to pay for?) says a great deal more about your information needs and how you spend your money than they say about the usefulness of libraries.
The other side of this is that traditional radiation is sometimes a better option. If you are irradiating the area where you have resected a glioma in the brain, the whole point is to get the tumor cells around that area. With photon radiation, you run the risk of defining the area too well and leaving some of them without any exposure to radiation.
This is just another treatment tool, and it is perfect for certain types of treatments. However, like any tool, it has its limitations.
Also, for the asshat responding to your post about who cares about expense - ignore him. Hopefully, he'll never be in a position where he has to choose between taking a second mortgage on his house to pay for a twice a month chemotherapy that goes for $9,000 each treatment (or photo radiation therapy or whatever) or rolling the dice on his wife's life (and likely losing). Besides the emotional devastation, families pay an enormous financial cost. To pretend its about goverment or even medical insurance - institutions that do not cover many of the costs involved and if they do, are fulfulling their obligations as insurers - is to not know what you are talking about.
Further, if he wants to apply a cold calculus of financial benefit to healthcare, then maybe we should extend that logic to the natural conclusion. Think he or anyone in his family is obese? Drug abusers? Genetically predisposed to certain illnesses? I'd love to see him explain to his people that limiting their services is in the interest of the common good. He may want to live in that world, but I would much rather live in a world where we do what we can for those that need it most, particularly those that are ill.
Maybe you missed the memo, but we don't select candidates. People with money that donate to candidates select candidates. There is a reason people are talking about Mitt, Rudy, Hillary and Barack rather than Ron and Dennis, and it's about one thing - money. And those "donating" that money? You don't think they might want something from their investment?
So, let's dispense with those niave notions that people need to ignore gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. People should wake up to the fact that no matter who gets into office, you're still stuck with government; government that is in the pockets of the people that make sure their candidates win their office - by donating money.
You know what 1/millions of voters is? It's a statistical nullity. There is no weaker political weapon than the ballot box. Vote Smart in 2008? It's like making a healthy choice between Coke and Pepsi. They're are both bad for your health. Substitute Democrat and Republican and the same applies.
For one, companies don't enforce laws. For two, they make their money off settlements. If you have a criminal case, bring it. But that's not what we have going on here, it's getting people to pay up (whether they have fully paid licenses or not) or spend a lot of time in court. Wait until you get your first lawsuit doing something for some company and they decide to sue you - and they have lawyers on staff and you don't. You'll get a sense real quick why the word "extortion" is being used.
One detail: On a sneaker net, periodically checking in means something different than phone home applications hooked in to a machine on a publically accessible network. Encryption can go both ways too - TrueCrypt for example. Check my drive all you like - you still can't be certain what's on there.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't make that particular distinction. In some countries, corporations have the same rights as human beings and in others, so long as they are performing certain legal functions - they are also considered the same as human beings. I believe the term is juristic person.
Let's see. Your argument is that the Brazilian government provides terrible education and health services to the 31% of the population living below the poverty line and that somehow it's a sweet life carrying your bags and fixing your plumbing for peanuts. Poor people have it so easy.
Smells like classism my friend. Why don't you try living the life of one of these "freeloaders" some week - preferably one where you are sick and report back to us on how easy you find it.
Having a +5 Informative on a post that reads "[Bill Gates/RIAA/Linux/NASA/insert...] is teh fucktard!!!!oneoneone!!!" shows that something has gone wrong.
Please feel free to link to a +5 post that illustrates what you are talking about. I've never seen one. There are +5 posts I don't agree with, but few stay at +5 that are stupid.
Don't forget the dhoti. It's basically a long strip of cloth, folded. Once you've learned how to do it, it doesn't take much longer than putting on pants. Not to mention it works both as formal wear and out in the field - depending on the quality of the cloth, just like with pants. It's very comfortable too.
Most of the time you only need a few copies, for a team or whatever. You then go to Factiva, Nexis or Dialog and purchase a contract - covers most news - and you are good. You can get and share articles for up to...10-20 people. Shoot, it is even possible to get enterprise wide contracts for these services.
Now, sure. You might want a 500 reprints of an article. But if this comes up a lot, then you need to turn to one of the news aggregation services - and pay the costs.
Many of the comments missed the long-term view. Let's suppose that it works the way Google intended. Then, some of these small businesses then go out of business, change location, change their name, come under new management, etc. Who tells Google?
Keeping directory information current is a friggin' nightmare. Good luck to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Do the math. In the most current complete year, 2005, we have taxable income - which is basically the government's way of saying gross income it can tax - is $5,137,165,874,000. Then, scroll over to the Total Tax Payments line item: $1,083,700,046,000.
$1,083,700,046,000 / $5,137,165,874,000 = ~21%
This number assumes no credits and dealing with the economic impact that comes from not giving preferencial tax treatment for companies paying foreign taxes, child care, elderly & disabled, education, retirement savings, children, etc. Any additional will drive up the effective flat rate. The problem is the math doesn't work out, and most people that favor flat taxes have never bothered to look at the numbers. If 21% is the lowest rate you can get to replace existing revenues and it would do so by shifting the tax burden to the poor - which will likely have many macro-economic effects such as taxing demand for goods out of the economy. So, we have the problem that the tax rate isn't anywhere near where you say it will be and that this system will have many effects that you don't understand.
And if you are going to conduct wars in Iraq and elsewhere, that are estimated to cost more than all of the tax that is collected in a single year, then you have additional issues driving up government expense that ultimately need to be covered by taxes.
While true that Russia's has a flat tax of 13% on personal income, it also has taxes on capital income, value added, corporate and other taxes that make it a bit more complicated and mean a higher effective tax rate. See this discussion.
I jumped to the conclusion because the guy is clearly not supporting the Fair Tax as it is typically talked about, flat (meaning single rate) taxes or taxes on consumption. So, it looked like something you were bringing to the table because of an agenda - and in reading your second post, I see I was right. You may not be for the Fair Tax proposal, but I've heard plenty of flat taxers make the same arguments you make - and neglect to consider the fact that the approach doesn't work.
Russia has a problem with corruption and a poor tax enforcement system, so this move worked for them. Our problems are a little bit different, and a flat tax - while perhaps easier for tax filers - will bankrupt the government.
Interesting. I do the same thing, but I'm learning Bengali. Bengali doesn't have several hundred movies to choose from - so it is less of a problem, but still, it would be good to know when Netflix gets new ones and what not. It's a good point.
Semantics. We have a long history of TARGETing civilians - Hiroshima and the firebombing of Japan being perhaps the best example. While there is a difference between a professional soldier and an insurgent, events like Abu Ghraib or turning Saddam over to vigilante justice, suggests that the line can, and frequently does, get crossed.
And your argument that the terrorists won't stop killing until everyone is killed or converted to Islam is not based in fact. For one, they don't have the capability, anymore than Christian Identity groups or militia groups can secede from the United States. In other words, they have neither the capability to enslave or kill, we only need to "fight back" in the same way we "fight back" other forms of criminal activity - by doing police work.
I served in the military, during the first Iraq War. It's been my experience that people most in favor of military solutions have never been in the service or in combat. Care to share what war you served in?
I'll suggest that communication alone may never bring peace, because communication does not address disagreement at the philosophical level. It just defines the boundaries of the disagreement.
Well, the parent post made an argument that the military does not kill civilians. The person you are replying to basically called B.S., and they made the argument that killing results in more killing.
You replied to this person with a vague argument - but one that seems to argue that wars and killing are necessary, particularly when we disagree with people on the philosophic level. I was pointing out three examples of people that had disagreements on a philosophic level and did not use violence.
Now, the problem for you is to indicate where their actions of submitting to violence - in the form of being sent to prison, physically attacked or what have you - that was the source of more violence. I don't think you can - which is why you moved the discussion to world peace or total agreement.
My counter-examples were attacking the way you changed the framework to suggest that non-violence (cast as appeasement, acting without integrity, etc.) leads to violence. I provided three counter-examples - where I don't think you can claim that the actions of these three men caused more violence. In fact, I think you can make a plausible argument that their efforts minimialized it. If true, that puts your argument on shaky footing and you have to do more work.
Counterexample: Gandhi. Or does winning independence for an entire country nonviolently not count?
Counterexample: Dr. Martin Luther King. Or does civil rights not count?
Counterexample: Jesus. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-41)
I'll tell you why you need it. It provides another layer of abstraction. Let's try a few illustrative examples.
1. Let's say you work for a Fortune 500 company and you get over 10,000 emails a day from customers complaining. Do you think it is better to read each one or have a tool that abstracts it to graphically display key concepts that they are complaining about so management can do something about it today?
2. You are a clinical researcher in Cancer and have a terabyte of unstructured patient data. Can you think how text descriptions of pathology reports might be displayed graphically against outcomes to suggest some interesting insights?
There's a lot of useful information that isn't on blogs - although it would be useful for them too. You need to exercise a bit more imagination.
If I made $50,000 a year 10 years ago and I now make $100,000 a year, I'm supposed to feel good that my security company is charging me 75% more for less service - providing innovative products like "Star Wars" and tactical nuclear weapons? Or that it doesn't factor in debt expense from previous military engagements - interest on borrowed money, veterans benefits, etc.
Why is it that all you so called "conservatives" love to talk about fiscal responsibility, except when it means having less guns lying around or giving an accurate accounting of their costs - rather than some bullshit figure comparing on the books budget expenditures as fabricated in the U.S. budget and comparing it to GDP? Give up the shell game.
Nobody is representative of all Quakers. I'm a Quaker and I support AFSC. Most of the other Quakers I know do as well.
What you need to understand that there is a difference between reaching out to the "enemy" in the spirit of compassion and making apologies for them. Quakers met with Nazis during World War II, sent medical supplies to the North Vietnamese, and these days, sit down to visit with leaders in Iran. These kind of behaviors exemplify the gospel message of "turning the other cheek".
In doing these type of things, they demonstrate that they are very much different from other political pressure groups.
And technical books go out of date how fast? Have any idea how frequently standard books get lifted or never returned? The crap that remains, want to venture a guess how often they get checked out?
I'm a librarian with a technical bent and rather obscure interests. Most libraries don't have the books I want to read, but there is such a thing as inter-library loan. I'm not the target audience - neither are you. But to think they aren't useful (particularly if you have found that buying anything but reference books is a colossal waste of money) or that you can get all your information off the Internet (you do know that most libraries provide access to resources one typically has to pay for?) says a great deal more about your information needs and how you spend your money than they say about the usefulness of libraries.
The other side of this is that traditional radiation is sometimes a better option. If you are irradiating the area where you have resected a glioma in the brain, the whole point is to get the tumor cells around that area. With photon radiation, you run the risk of defining the area too well and leaving some of them without any exposure to radiation.
This is just another treatment tool, and it is perfect for certain types of treatments. However, like any tool, it has its limitations.
Also, for the asshat responding to your post about who cares about expense - ignore him. Hopefully, he'll never be in a position where he has to choose between taking a second mortgage on his house to pay for a twice a month chemotherapy that goes for $9,000 each treatment (or photo radiation therapy or whatever) or rolling the dice on his wife's life (and likely losing). Besides the emotional devastation, families pay an enormous financial cost. To pretend its about goverment or even medical insurance - institutions that do not cover many of the costs involved and if they do, are fulfulling their obligations as insurers - is to not know what you are talking about.
Further, if he wants to apply a cold calculus of financial benefit to healthcare, then maybe we should extend that logic to the natural conclusion. Think he or anyone in his family is obese? Drug abusers? Genetically predisposed to certain illnesses? I'd love to see him explain to his people that limiting their services is in the interest of the common good. He may want to live in that world, but I would much rather live in a world where we do what we can for those that need it most, particularly those that are ill.
Maybe you missed the memo, but we don't select candidates. People with money that donate to candidates select candidates. There is a reason people are talking about Mitt, Rudy, Hillary and Barack rather than Ron and Dennis, and it's about one thing - money. And those "donating" that money? You don't think they might want something from their investment?
So, let's dispense with those niave notions that people need to ignore gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. People should wake up to the fact that no matter who gets into office, you're still stuck with government; government that is in the pockets of the people that make sure their candidates win their office - by donating money.
You know what 1/millions of voters is? It's a statistical nullity. There is no weaker political weapon than the ballot box. Vote Smart in 2008? It's like making a healthy choice between Coke and Pepsi. They're are both bad for your health. Substitute Democrat and Republican and the same applies.
For one, companies don't enforce laws. For two, they make their money off settlements. If you have a criminal case, bring it. But that's not what we have going on here, it's getting people to pay up (whether they have fully paid licenses or not) or spend a lot of time in court. Wait until you get your first lawsuit doing something for some company and they decide to sue you - and they have lawyers on staff and you don't. You'll get a sense real quick why the word "extortion" is being used.
You do know that Spears makes about $750,000 a month, right? I don't think Pirate Bay is much of a problem for her.
One detail: On a sneaker net, periodically checking in means something different than phone home applications hooked in to a machine on a publically accessible network. Encryption can go both ways too - TrueCrypt for example. Check my drive all you like - you still can't be certain what's on there.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't make that particular distinction. In some countries, corporations have the same rights as human beings and in others, so long as they are performing certain legal functions - they are also considered the same as human beings. I believe the term is juristic person.
Let's see. Your argument is that the Brazilian government provides terrible education and health services to the 31% of the population living below the poverty line and that somehow it's a sweet life carrying your bags and fixing your plumbing for peanuts. Poor people have it so easy.
Smells like classism my friend. Why don't you try living the life of one of these "freeloaders" some week - preferably one where you are sick and report back to us on how easy you find it.
...and filtering WTF in the subject line is hard because...?
Unethical? I'd be happy if they just started with some of the illegal stuff.
Having a +5 Informative on a post that reads "[Bill Gates/RIAA/Linux/NASA/insert...] is teh fucktard!!!!oneoneone!!!" shows that something has gone wrong. Please feel free to link to a +5 post that illustrates what you are talking about. I've never seen one. There are +5 posts I don't agree with, but few stay at +5 that are stupid.
Don't forget the dhoti. It's basically a long strip of cloth, folded. Once you've learned how to do it, it doesn't take much longer than putting on pants. Not to mention it works both as formal wear and out in the field - depending on the quality of the cloth, just like with pants. It's very comfortable too.
Most of the time you only need a few copies, for a team or whatever. You then go to Factiva, Nexis or Dialog and purchase a contract - covers most news - and you are good. You can get and share articles for up to...10-20 people. Shoot, it is even possible to get enterprise wide contracts for these services.
Now, sure. You might want a 500 reprints of an article. But if this comes up a lot, then you need to turn to one of the news aggregation services - and pay the costs.
Many of the comments missed the long-term view. Let's suppose that it works the way Google intended. Then, some of these small businesses then go out of business, change location, change their name, come under new management, etc. Who tells Google?
Keeping directory information current is a friggin' nightmare. Good luck to them.