"...run afoul of antitrust laws on the grounds that it turned the car manufacturers into vertical monopolies."
I suspect this would not be an issue. However it would not scale well. It costs serious money to build your own network when many already exist. In any case, various potential fatal flaws exist include people wanting to touch and drive expensive cars before they buy (the reason behind dealers), people are legally allowed to get their car serviced by independent shops, and the fact that selling cars is not their core business.
"In the case of the Big Three, the dealer networks were an albatross around the neck of the auto manufacturers."
So that explains why GM and Chrysler got rid of all of their dealers during bankruptcy. Oh, wait, they didn't.
"Dealerships will be profit centers, not loss centers, for the manufacturer."
The Big Three dealers made/make plenty of profit. There were just too many of them for the market share of their product. And the contracts were hard/expensive to get out of.
Tesla won't need many dealerships because they don't sell many cars. And if they don't require much service, they aren't going to be profitable.
Car companies need dealers. People aren't going to spend large amounts of money on vehicles they can't touch. If Tesla is going to survive long term they are going to become just like every other car company. Or be bought by one.
"To modernize they need to re-enter everything, then ensure that backups are carefully followed,..."
True. But they have to do that anyway. Grave markers can be wrong and they have limited information anyway.
"...then they have to replace all the technology every few years, and pay support. Then they have to convert the data when new format/versions come out. That is a ton of Money and Time."
Utter bullshit. The data doesn't change. It isn't complex. There is no need to make it so. Map the site, input it into a GIS, use your database of choice, keep it backed up and you are good to go. Hell, since this is the military, keep paper copies.
The project is difficult because of the time and effort required to accurately input all of the data into computer form. Compared to that tedium, the hardware and support side is EASY.
No they aren't. I can send a document accross the country for 44 cents in a matter of days to ANY address. For an extra $2.80 I can get proof of mailing and receipt. For an extra $1.10 I can get a physical receipt sent to me. UPS and FedEx can't beat that.
UPS and FedEx don't compete with the USPS to deliver letters because they can't deliver to mailboxes. They don't do it because it makes no sense from a business case.
"...everybody knows that if you give congress the power to do something, they will exercise it."
And the reason they exercise the power is because their constituents WANT it. If eliminating something as small as a post office or a large as a day of service was merely a business decision, the USPS would just do it. But it is a political decision. People don't like it when their local post office is closed. They complain to their Representative. Who "explains" the situation to the USPS. So they are forced to operate inefficiently. The same happens with service days.
It's easy to bash Congress. But Congress is only trying to give people what they want. It doesn't always make sense because those things are often in conflict.
"So yeah, other than all of that, it was done in complete guaranteed secrecy!"
Yep. You also forgot to mention that many organizers routinely photocopy petitions before they submit them. Just in case something "happens" to them. Or just in case there are disputes about what is a valid signature.
The idea that signing a petition is in any way private is absurd.
"I don't understand why the general public seems to prefer lethal injection to hanging or firing squad as a method, given that the latter two are far, far more dignified."
They are squeamish. They like the idea of killing the bad person but don't want to be reminded of the brutality of it. Lethal injection can be made to look like just another sterile clinical procedure. Hanging, firing squad, and the gas chamber reminds people that a person is being killed. I suspect there is a large segment of people that support the death penalty but could never actually impose the penalty themselves (or would have great difficulty). Hence the preference for "humane" lethal injection.
"Morons with beer hats paved the way precisely because they were moronic enough to start chasing twisters long before the dudes in white coats figured it was a legitimate scientific endeavor worthy of their time and reputation."
Did you ever consider that maybe there wasn't much scientific point in chasing tornadoes before such technology as mobile doppler radar and the like? Of course, I suspect that scientists have been in the field with cameras and video for a long time.
"The most important work was done when someone decided to chase the storm just for the hell of it."
The arrogance is strong in that one...
"If an amateur develops a safer way to get closer to the storm - is that development any less scientific?"
Not if it is published or otherwise distributed. Research is worthless if nobody knows about it. It also helps if it is useful.
I don't have much regard for the stormchasers. Having said that, I don't have much sympathy for the researchers. It's the price they pay for being hyped as the second coming by the Weather Channel.
"In my experience, publishers no longer do any editing. I had an expensive text book on "Quality" and the author misquoted John Kennedy. How could this get by an editor? Authors submit camera ready text to academic publishers."
It depends upon the textbook. For K-12 texts there is extensive editing. There are editors for content, style, grammar,etc. But that does mean error free. The editors are not paid well and are under incredible time pressures. I suspect as the textbooks get more advanced and the quantities sold smaller, the editing resources lessen accordingly. In general, the content writers are assumed to be experts. Only a content editor might have significant knowledge of the field and based on experience I would assume that the quote was probably not even checked. The content editor has limited time and is not going to check a quote unless it seems obviously wrong. After all the writer is an expert and if they can't get a quote right....
"Maybe it is high time professors fought back against this extortion."
What extortion? The high cost of textbooks doesn't affect the professors or lecturers. And they certainly don't make any money from it (at least most don't).
They could source an older version of the text. But those often don't exist or don't exist in sufficient quantity. In any case, there is nothing preventing students from going this route.
They could elect not to use a text. In some courses this is largely impractical (yes, there really are good textbooks). In any case this will increase the work load of the professor or lecturer. Gathering the appropriate material together to teach a course is essentially like writing a book-at which point one might just as well use a book if an adequate one is available.
Students wouldn't like this option either. After all, how many students don't buy books for introductory courses? You know, the ones where the material is freely available and hasn't changed for a long time (calculus, history, etc)? Yeah, I thought so...
"True, but then Ford can turn around and say, "Sorry, you voided your warranty by using a third party engine.""
No they can't. Unless they can prove that the third party engine caused the warranty issue. It's amazing how many consumer protections/rights evaporate as soon as the product is software or computer related....
"SUVs simply replaced station wagons for most people."
Precisely. A typical SUV has about as much room as a hatchback or wagon. A crossover is ACTUALLY just a wagon.
"Clearly you don't know anyone that lives down a gravel road, or someplace that regularly gets feet of snow, or where roads wash out."
Most vehicles would be fine on gravel roads. Most vehicles, including SUVs would fail on the latter. The same for the snow if not plowed...
"Are you saying that it's a fad to have five or six people and a bunch of stuff all going to the same place at the same time?"
Then the Buick Century I drove is far more useful than most SUVs. Most SUVs are four or five person vehicles with no more load capacity than any other car.
There is a place for large capacity vehicles. Some people really do need them. But most people who drive them because they WANT to, not because they NEED to.
"But I really don't mind speed cameras... at least here in Montgomery County, MD, they're *very* clearly marked (you have to really be not paying attention to miss them), they beat speed bumps, and the fines are reasonable (about $40 here for going >10mph)"
Speed cameras are expensive speed bumps. They only slow traffic in the range of their lense. At least a police car with radar can move.
Like speed bumps, they can be useful. But most of the time they are a solution in search of a problem.
"The problem with an objective test is that it's going to take away a lot of people's excuse for their behavior."
And you think a urine test would be an objective test why exactly? Seriously?
There seems to be a common belief that a lab test is somehow more objective than using observational criteria. This would be very wrong. Many lab tests are very subjective. They may not have established values of normal, they may have ranges of normal and even then there are outliers. We routinely use tests that fail to serve their intended purpose (such as the psa test for prostate cancer).
"I fail to see where there are any "facts", other than these observed symptoms, that are present using our current diagnostic method."
And exactly what "facts" does the urine test provide? Exactly zero. Sure, it shows a correlation, but so what? What is the accuracy and specificity of the test? Almost certainly very poor. While an interesting idea for further research, actual use of this test would be a waste of resources.
"You are aware that the only diagnostic method for "autism" at this time is casual observation of a failure to develop or loss of language and/or social skills, aren't you?"
The diagnosis of autism is based on these observations. Also known as facts. Prior to the category called autism, the condition would have been lumped in with other developmental disabilities or not diagnosed. The types of bacteria in the gut is not part of the diagnosis.
"The Federal government should be restricted to what is actually written in the Constitution. You really, really need something that's not in the Constitution? Amend it."
That sounds nice in theory. In practice I suspect you are going to get pretty much what you have now. But it will be a lot messier along the way.
For instance, the Constitution mentions the Army and Navy. I assume that means that one cannot fund an air force, a space command, a "cyber" warfare program, etc. without an appropriate ammendment? Sure, you could INTERPRET the Constitution to allow those things but they aren't required for defense circa 1793.
The interstate road system is right out per president Madison. If that is out, then have to get rid of every other R & D expenditure. Things like the TVA, BPA, Core of Engineers are similar. Obviously the entitlements are gone.
So you have declared that most of the government programs are not constitutional. Programs that exist because they solve a problem and are really popular. Most of these programs are funded at the federal level because they are impractical (inefficient) at the state level. Ultimately to prevent the loss of these programs, some amendments will be passed to allow them to continue. Years of litigation by opponents of every program to rehash the same arguments that have already been decided over decades.
Or we could accept reality and realize that the Constitution is not black and white and that we have a court system designed to interpret the laws.
"It has been firmly established in law and precedent that the states have the power to judge constitutionality, regardless of the opinions of SCOTUS."
And you would be completely incorrect. SCOTUS is the final arbiter on the law. Their power is checked because they cannot enforce the rulings. And the underlying law can be altered, making their rulings moot. Your precedent ignores reality, including such things as the Civil War.
"Oh, but usually its a pretty big stretch of a justification. I.e. drinking laws do not affect interstate commerce, but they blackmail certain states by cutting out road funding as well as other funds if they dont set it at 21."
You do realize that under a strict reading of the Constitution, federal funding of roads is ILLEGAL. As president, Madison vetoed such funding for precisely that reason-he told Congress that an amendment was needed-a law wouldn't work. So anyone complaining about a state being blackmailed by federal road funds has already bought into the idea of a flexible interpretation of the document.
I have no doubt that the terms "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" meant very different things 200 years ago to those writing the Constitution. But practically speaking those are very broad terms, aren't very specific and can be open to significant interpretation. And those who wrote the Constitution were very smart and had to realize that but chose to use those terms anyway.
"Taxing the sale of used items is taxing twice, which doesn't seem right."
Why isn't it right? This whole concept of double taxation is bad is stupid. You should be incredibly happy if you are only taxed twice on the same money.
If you receive a paycheck, you are being taxed twice on the gross amount (FICA, Income tax). If you happen to live in a state with income tax, you may be taxed up to three more times (school, local, state). All this before you even get to spend any of it.
"Furthermore, even as someone with a "simple" income myself, various retirement plans (401K, IRA, Roth IRA), and college savings plans for my kids (529 plan, Educational IRA), and flexible spending accounts (childcare FSA, medical FSA) it gets complicated real quick."
You have a strange definition of complicated-I would consider those to be pretty basic things. In return for saving a bunch of taxes (money), you have to spend a minimal amount of time in research. If this takes you much more a a few hours a year, you are doing something wrong. In any case, you don't have use any of these deductions if you don't want to.
"When you work for yourself, calculating your income means tracking your gross income and deducting your costs. That's where a lot of the deductions come in. We still have to track all that crap."
Once again, there is no requirement to track your expenses. Feel free to report your income and pay your taxes. I am unsure why the deductions place an extra burden on you as I assume that as part of a business you would be tracking expenses anyway. In my experience the only time business expenses for taxes are problematic is when you don't track them until April....
"The tax code needs to die a painful death."
Why? So you can pay more taxes? As the previous poster said, the tax code is generally only as complicated as you make it. The complication is generally for your benefit.
"The US government, however, is an utter clusterfuck. You'd have to be the most servile kind of blinders-wearing sycophant to think otherwise."
Hyperbole much?
You lack historical perspective if you seriously think that the US government is the worst it has ever been. The only people that used to be able to vote in this country were white landowners. Slavery used to be acceptable. We committed systematic genocide of the Native Americans. There was no stable economic system in this country for much of its history. The bill of rights WAS thrown out of the window by Lincoln during the Civil War (hell, there WAS a Civil War). We have a large history of unjust wars including the The Spanish-American War and probably every conflict fought in South America. We detained a hundred thousand people based on their ancestry 65 years ago. Shall I go on?
The government is not out of control. It is merely doing what a large portion of the electorate wants it to do, as best it can considering that the electorate holds contradictory beliefs. Just because it is not what YOU want it to do does not mean it is unconstitutional or out of control.
"A sales tax is actually inherently progressive. It taxes not income nor savings, but consumption. Who do you suppose consumes more, rich people or poor people? Who do you suppose will pay a proportionally higher share?"
As a percentage of their income, poor people consume more. In any case, fairtax would increase my tax liability when I made 35k a year. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
"If you can think of an objection in two minutes, it has already been answered."
It won't work in practice? This legislation will never pass as written. There is a reason that the tax code is complex. People don't want a simple tax code-they want low taxes, government programs, and specific social policies. Politicians give it to them in part via the tax code.
"Applying scientific rigor to religious faith generally doesn't work."
Actually it works very well. But those with faith really dislike being shown faith is based on faulty logic. And make life miserable for those who point out those facts. Considering the fact that atheists are considered militant for merely not believing in a god, is it an wonder why a scientist would avoid a religious discussion? Especially if it was not related to their research or when it would most likely hurt their research.
Slashdot Mirror
"...run afoul of antitrust laws on the grounds that it turned the car manufacturers into vertical monopolies."
I suspect this would not be an issue. However it would not scale well. It costs serious money to build your own network when many already exist. In any case, various potential fatal flaws exist include people wanting to touch and drive expensive cars before they buy (the reason behind dealers), people are legally allowed to get their car serviced by independent shops, and the fact that selling cars is not their core business.
"In the case of the Big Three, the dealer networks were an albatross around the neck of the auto manufacturers."
So that explains why GM and Chrysler got rid of all of their dealers during bankruptcy. Oh, wait, they didn't.
"Dealerships will be profit centers, not loss centers, for the manufacturer."
The Big Three dealers made/make plenty of profit. There were just too many of them for the market share of their product. And the contracts were hard/expensive to get out of.
Tesla won't need many dealerships because they don't sell many cars. And if they don't require much service, they aren't going to be profitable.
Car companies need dealers. People aren't going to spend large amounts of money on vehicles they can't touch. If Tesla is going to survive long term they are going to become just like every other car company. Or be bought by one.
"To modernize they need to re-enter everything, then ensure that backups are carefully followed,..."
True. But they have to do that anyway. Grave markers can be wrong and they have limited information anyway.
"...then they have to replace all the technology every few years, and pay support. Then they have to convert the data when new format/versions come out. That is a ton of Money and Time."
Utter bullshit. The data doesn't change. It isn't complex. There is no need to make it so. Map the site, input it into a GIS, use your database of choice, keep it backed up and you are good to go. Hell, since this is the military, keep paper copies.
The project is difficult because of the time and effort required to accurately input all of the data into computer form. Compared to that tedium, the hardware and support side is EASY.
"UPS and FedEx are both better at it."
No they aren't. I can send a document accross the country for 44 cents in a matter of days to ANY address. For an extra $2.80 I can get proof of mailing and receipt. For an extra $1.10 I can get a physical receipt sent to me. UPS and FedEx can't beat that.
UPS and FedEx don't compete with the USPS to deliver letters because they can't deliver to mailboxes. They don't do it because it makes no sense from a business case.
"...everybody knows that if you give congress the power to do something, they will exercise it."
And the reason they exercise the power is because their constituents WANT it. If eliminating something as small as a post office or a large as a day of service was merely a business decision, the USPS would just do it. But it is a political decision. People don't like it when their local post office is closed. They complain to their Representative. Who "explains" the situation to the USPS. So they are forced to operate inefficiently. The same happens with service days.
It's easy to bash Congress. But Congress is only trying to give people what they want. It doesn't always make sense because those things are often in conflict.
"So yeah, other than all of that, it was done in complete guaranteed secrecy!"
Yep. You also forgot to mention that many organizers routinely photocopy petitions before they submit them. Just in case something "happens" to them. Or just in case there are disputes about what is a valid signature.
The idea that signing a petition is in any way private is absurd.
"How do they check?"
The names (and addresses and signatures) are compared to voter registration records.
"I'm all for a private space industry, but NASA has a pretty darn good track record of performance to back up their expenditures."
Please name one launch vehicle designed and produced by NASA.
I'm waiting.
This is a rhetorical question.
Every single NASA launch vehicle was produced by the private industry under contract.
As for the track record, I would rate NASA below Europe and Russia.
"I don't understand why the general public seems to prefer lethal injection to hanging or firing squad as a method, given that the latter two are far, far more dignified."
They are squeamish. They like the idea of killing the bad person but don't want to be reminded of the brutality of it. Lethal injection can be made to look like just another sterile clinical procedure. Hanging, firing squad, and the gas chamber reminds people that a person is being killed. I suspect there is a large segment of people that support the death penalty but could never actually impose the penalty themselves (or would have great difficulty). Hence the preference for "humane" lethal injection.
"Morons with beer hats paved the way precisely because they were moronic enough to start chasing twisters long before the dudes in white coats figured it was a legitimate scientific endeavor worthy of their time and reputation."
Did you ever consider that maybe there wasn't much scientific point in chasing tornadoes before such technology as mobile doppler radar and the like? Of course, I suspect that scientists have been in the field with cameras and video for a long time.
"The most important work was done when someone decided to chase the storm just for the hell of it."
The arrogance is strong in that one...
"If an amateur develops a safer way to get closer to the storm - is that development any less scientific?"
Not if it is published or otherwise distributed. Research is worthless if nobody knows about it. It also helps if it is useful.
I don't have much regard for the stormchasers. Having said that, I don't have much sympathy for the researchers. It's the price they pay for being hyped as the second coming by the Weather Channel.
"In my experience, publishers no longer do any editing. I had an expensive text book on "Quality" and the author misquoted John Kennedy. How could this get by an editor? Authors submit camera ready text to academic publishers."
It depends upon the textbook. For K-12 texts there is extensive editing. There are editors for content, style, grammar,etc. But that does mean error free. The editors are not paid well and are under incredible time pressures. I suspect as the textbooks get more advanced and the quantities sold smaller, the editing resources lessen accordingly. In general, the content writers are assumed to be experts. Only a content editor might have significant knowledge of the field and based on experience I would assume that the quote was probably not even checked. The content editor has limited time and is not going to check a quote unless it seems obviously wrong. After all the writer is an expert and if they can't get a quote right....
"Maybe it is high time professors fought back against this extortion."
What extortion? The high cost of textbooks doesn't affect the professors or lecturers. And they certainly don't make any money from it (at least most don't).
They could source an older version of the text. But those often don't exist or don't exist in sufficient quantity. In any case, there is nothing preventing students from going this route.
They could elect not to use a text. In some courses this is largely impractical (yes, there really are good textbooks). In any case this will increase the work load of the professor or lecturer. Gathering the appropriate material together to teach a course is essentially like writing a book-at which point one might just as well use a book if an adequate one is available.
Students wouldn't like this option either. After all, how many students don't buy books for introductory courses? You know, the ones where the material is freely available and hasn't changed for a long time (calculus, history, etc)? Yeah, I thought so...
"True, but then Ford can turn around and say, "Sorry, you voided your warranty by using a third party engine.""
No they can't. Unless they can prove that the third party engine caused the warranty issue. It's amazing how many consumer protections/rights evaporate as soon as the product is software or computer related....
"SUVs simply replaced station wagons for most people."
Precisely. A typical SUV has about as much room as a hatchback or wagon. A crossover is ACTUALLY just a wagon.
"Clearly you don't know anyone that lives down a gravel road, or someplace that regularly gets feet of snow, or where roads wash out."
Most vehicles would be fine on gravel roads. Most vehicles, including SUVs would fail on the latter. The same for the snow if not plowed...
"Are you saying that it's a fad to have five or six people and a bunch of stuff all going to the same place at the same time?"
Then the Buick Century I drove is far more useful than most SUVs. Most SUVs are four or five person vehicles with no more load capacity than any other car.
There is a place for large capacity vehicles. Some people really do need them. But most people who drive them because they WANT to, not because they NEED to.
"But I really don't mind speed cameras... at least here in Montgomery County, MD, they're *very* clearly marked (you have to really be not paying attention to miss them), they beat speed bumps, and the fines are reasonable (about $40 here for going >10mph)"
Speed cameras are expensive speed bumps. They only slow traffic in the range of their lense. At least a police car with radar can move.
Like speed bumps, they can be useful. But most of the time they are a solution in search of a problem.
"The problem with an objective test is that it's going to take away a lot of people's excuse for their behavior."
And you think a urine test would be an objective test why exactly? Seriously?
There seems to be a common belief that a lab test is somehow more objective than using observational criteria. This would be very wrong. Many lab tests are very subjective. They may not have established values of normal, they may have ranges of normal and even then there are outliers. We routinely use tests that fail to serve their intended purpose (such as the psa test for prostate cancer).
"I fail to see where there are any "facts", other than these observed symptoms, that are present using our current diagnostic method."
And exactly what "facts" does the urine test provide? Exactly zero. Sure, it shows a correlation, but so what? What is the accuracy and specificity of the test? Almost certainly very poor. While an interesting idea for further research, actual use of this test would be a waste of resources.
"You are aware that the only diagnostic method for "autism" at this time is casual observation of a failure to develop or loss of language and/or social skills, aren't you?"
The diagnosis of autism is based on these observations. Also known as facts. Prior to the category called autism, the condition would have been lumped in with other developmental disabilities or not diagnosed. The types of bacteria in the gut is not part of the diagnosis.
"The Federal government should be restricted to what is actually written in the Constitution. You really, really need something that's not in the Constitution? Amend it."
That sounds nice in theory. In practice I suspect you are going to get pretty much what you have now. But it will be a lot messier along the way.
For instance, the Constitution mentions the Army and Navy. I assume that means that one cannot fund an air force, a space command, a "cyber" warfare program, etc. without an appropriate ammendment? Sure, you could INTERPRET the Constitution to allow those things but they aren't required for defense circa 1793.
The interstate road system is right out per president Madison. If that is out, then have to get rid of every other R & D expenditure. Things like the TVA, BPA, Core of Engineers are similar. Obviously the entitlements are gone.
So you have declared that most of the government programs are not constitutional. Programs that exist because they solve a problem and are really popular. Most of these programs are funded at the federal level because they are impractical (inefficient) at the state level. Ultimately to prevent the loss of these programs, some amendments will be passed to allow them to continue. Years of litigation by opponents of every program to rehash the same arguments that have already been decided over decades.
Or we could accept reality and realize that the Constitution is not black and white and that we have a court system designed to interpret the laws.
"It has been firmly established in law and precedent that the states have the power to judge constitutionality, regardless of the opinions of SCOTUS."
And you would be completely incorrect. SCOTUS is the final arbiter on the law. Their power is checked because they cannot enforce the rulings. And the underlying law can be altered, making their rulings moot. Your precedent ignores reality, including such things as the Civil War.
"Oh, but usually its a pretty big stretch of a justification. I.e. drinking laws do not affect interstate commerce, but they blackmail certain states by cutting out road funding as well as other funds if they dont set it at 21."
You do realize that under a strict reading of the Constitution, federal funding of roads is ILLEGAL. As president, Madison vetoed such funding for precisely that reason-he told Congress that an amendment was needed-a law wouldn't work. So anyone complaining about a state being blackmailed by federal road funds has already bought into the idea of a flexible interpretation of the document.
I have no doubt that the terms "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" meant very different things 200 years ago to those writing the Constitution. But practically speaking those are very broad terms, aren't very specific and can be open to significant interpretation. And those who wrote the Constitution were very smart and had to realize that but chose to use those terms anyway.
"Taxing the sale of used items is taxing twice, which doesn't seem right."
Why isn't it right? This whole concept of double taxation is bad is stupid. You should be incredibly happy if you are only taxed twice on the same money.
If you receive a paycheck, you are being taxed twice on the gross amount (FICA, Income tax). If you happen to live in a state with income tax, you may be taxed up to three more times (school, local, state). All this before you even get to spend any of it.
"Furthermore, even as someone with a "simple" income myself, various retirement plans (401K, IRA, Roth IRA), and college savings plans for my kids (529 plan, Educational IRA), and flexible spending accounts (childcare FSA, medical FSA) it gets complicated real quick."
You have a strange definition of complicated-I would consider those to be pretty basic things. In return for saving a bunch of taxes (money), you have to spend a minimal amount of time in research. If this takes you much more a a few hours a year, you are doing something wrong. In any case, you don't have use any of these deductions if you don't want to.
"When you work for yourself, calculating your income means tracking your gross income and deducting your costs. That's where a lot of the deductions come in. We still have to track all that crap."
Once again, there is no requirement to track your expenses. Feel free to report your income and pay your taxes. I am unsure why the deductions place an extra burden on you as I assume that as part of a business you would be tracking expenses anyway. In my experience the only time business expenses for taxes are problematic is when you don't track them until April....
"The tax code needs to die a painful death."
Why? So you can pay more taxes? As the previous poster said, the tax code is generally only as complicated as you make it. The complication is generally for your benefit.
"The US government, however, is an utter clusterfuck. You'd have to be the most servile kind of blinders-wearing sycophant to think otherwise."
Hyperbole much?
You lack historical perspective if you seriously think that the US government is the worst it has ever been. The only people that used to be able to vote in this country were white landowners. Slavery used to be acceptable. We committed systematic genocide of the Native Americans. There was no stable economic system in this country for much of its history. The bill of rights WAS thrown out of the window by Lincoln during the Civil War (hell, there WAS a Civil War). We have a large history of unjust wars including the The Spanish-American War and probably every conflict fought in South America. We detained a hundred thousand people based on their ancestry 65 years ago. Shall I go on?
The government is not out of control. It is merely doing what a large portion of the electorate wants it to do, as best it can considering that the electorate holds contradictory beliefs. Just because it is not what YOU want it to do does not mean it is unconstitutional or out of control.
"A sales tax is actually inherently progressive. It taxes not income nor savings, but consumption. Who do you suppose consumes more, rich people or poor people? Who do you suppose will pay a proportionally higher share?"
As a percentage of their income, poor people consume more. In any case, fairtax would increase my tax liability when I made 35k a year. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
"If you can think of an objection in two minutes, it has already been answered."
It won't work in practice? This legislation will never pass as written. There is a reason that the tax code is complex. People don't want a simple tax code-they want low taxes, government programs, and specific social policies. Politicians give it to them in part via the tax code.
"Applying scientific rigor to religious faith generally doesn't work."
Actually it works very well. But those with faith really dislike being shown faith is based on faulty logic. And make life miserable for those who point out those facts. Considering the fact that atheists are considered militant for merely not believing in a god, is it an wonder why a scientist would avoid a religious discussion? Especially if it was not related to their research or when it would most likely hurt their research.