You don't seem to get it. A private company can refuse to do business with someone, especially if the other party doesn't follow the rules (contract) that they agreed to. That's not denying free speech. The guy can still go out on a street corner and piss people off. But Rackspace has no obligation to continue hosting his page to facilitate his right to free speech. Just as no publisher is required to publish someone's book just because no one else will in order for that person to exercise free speech. They could just as easily print it out themselves and have it bound at Kinkos and sell it on their own. They're not preventing him from exercising free speech. They just don't want to facilitate it for him.
So, this guy can go burn his books if he wants to. But Rackspace doesn't need to continue doing business with him. He violated the contract they agreed to when the church began putting their site up on Rackspace's servers. Therefore, Rackspace can exit without concern of breaking the contract. This church already broke it.
Just as the customer can go elsewhere, Rackspace can, too. It goes both ways. They could even refuse to renew their contract with this church, if they felt like it. It's the right of private companies to refuse to do business, just as it's this jackass's right to go burn books and get blown up by impending jihad over this.
Why's that..? People still buy the gas, they jack up prices (claiming short supply), and reduced production means they don't need to pay their workers as much. Of course, on the other hand, if they jack up prices and sell MORE gas, well... that helps their cause, too. Greedy bastards...
The person may not be a criminal, but they may not have implemented good security practices. So it's good to look over what they've put in place anyway. There may be accounts they forgot about lingering, awaiting deletion. Extra equipment that could be put to use. Extra equipment you don't need. And changing passwords is just plain common sense.
It depends on why they've been canned. But we're assuming it was "under duress", so it's not a happy parting. If their relationship with the company was going south for some time, it's good to investigate a bit to ensure they didn't leave anything behind that might be a problem.
Considering many IT staff have full control over your infrastructure, it's good to take the cautious route of assuming they've planted a back door or some other problem. After all, they likely had the root passwords to your systems. Better get those changed ASAP!
It may seem strange, but think about it... The oil companies are all about making record profits, and don't really seem to function by standard economics principles. So, if people begin buying fewer petroleum products or less gasoline, they'll probably start reducing production and jacking up prices to keep making a ton of money. It's just what they do.
Doesn't mean it SHOULDN'T be the case. Most of us understand that DRM and other restrictions put on personal use are a load of crap. Unfortunately for all of us, you're correct. But the gov't isn't going to come charging into my house for applying a crack to my game to play without a CD. So he can likely get away with doing what he wants (short of distributing copies).
Have you seen any nitrous oxide engines being produced..? The only engines I'm aware that use NO2 are the ones that inject it along with gasoline (i.e. rice burners, drag racers, etc.).
My assumption is that they want a rocket to increase consumption of the NO2, which a rocket would burn considerably faster than a simple internal combustion engine. An NO2 ICE still needs to be designed, which will cost money. And a rocket would burn much hotter, allowing for faster use of energy. You could use this to generate steam or something. I'm not saying it's the most efficient method, but things seemed to fall into place. Plus, if necessary, they could bottle and store the NO2 for later use in actual rockets, I suppose...
N2O doesn't contain any carbon. And as for the methane, when you burn it it gives off water and carbon dioxide. But the vast majority of the combustion reaction creates water. It's far better than releasing methane into the atmosphere without burning it. If environmentalists flip out over this, then fine... just release the methane into the atmosphere and see how happy they are. It's a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
Besides, these "self-powered" plants will cut down on energy consumption and very likely offset any CO2 being given off, thereby making the EPA happier than just releasing methane or causing more pollutants from coal-burning power plants.
As for oil companies... who even gives a shit about them, anyway? Why even bring them up? They have no place in this discussion.
1. It was proven time and again that the safest speed is at the 85th percentile of traffic speed, yet the posted limits are usually way lower. On the 400-series highways in Ontario the posted limits are 100Km/h yet, when there is no congestion or visible police presence, the observed speed of the rightmost (slowest) lane is 115-120Km/h. Near where I live there is a school with a sign advertising lowered speed limits "when lights" are flashing, yet a short distance from there there's another one with reduced speed in effect 24/365 (at least one person that I know was ticketed at 1AM on an August weekend).
Again, does not mean you can ignore posted speed limits just because there's no traffic or you think the speed is too slow. Ignore the signs and you may be fined/arrested.
2. Police vehicles are allowed to go over the speed limit only when they have their lights/sirens on, yet people constantly observe them speeding without being ticketed.
Therefore: When (1) speed limits are routinely set too low for the conditions and (2) are routinely broken by those in charge of enforcing them. they lose their moral strength and become arbitrary coercions set up for revenue generating reasons. In such case, obeying or disobeying them becomes a personal choice.
Just because a cop doesn't obey it doesn't mean you don't have to. It's a LAW. If you don't like the law, either run the risk of a fine/arrest by breaking it, or write a letter to your congressman/local politician/local police chief/whatever to have the speed changed. Sure, a cop speeding looks bad. But again, it's not an excuse to do it yourself.
How can you be sure they were left up by mistake?
He cannot. But if they were removed afterwards -- without any change in the conditions -- he can conclude that. And if he observes similar occurrences multiple times, he can extrapolate.
You're making an assumption by "extrapolating" from "evidence". Just because a sign is put up or taken down doesn't mean the sign doesn't need to be followed. You can choose to ignore the sign and assume you know what the posted speed SHOULD be. But you run the risk of fine/arrest by doing so.
When you disobey a bad law the fact that you may still get punished is still a consideration. After all, if you refuse to give a bully your lunch money, he and his gang may still beat you up even if morally they are in the wrong.
This is exactly my point. Even if you don't agree with it, it's a LAW. Follow it, or be prepared to deal with the consequences of breaking it. There's really no gray area here.
Yes. But simply saying, "I know it's wrong!" doesn't constitute proof. As my original post was stating (and as RichiH seemed to be saying the same thing, despite attempting to argue with me for some reason), ignoring a posted sign means assuming a risk. You could get fined or arrested, requiring a court appearance. If you're correct, great! But you'd better know your stuff before assuming anything. And you'd better be prepared to defend your position in court. I'd rather just drive the posted speed limit or follow the signs and avoid a fine than assume it's an incorrect sign.
Of course, context is everything. But the issue with your original statement is that the context that matters is the one of the policeman watching you. (Of course, if there isn't a cop, then it really doesn't matter, since you won't get a ticket.) Violate the sign, you get a ticket. Doesn't matter what your context is, unless you can prove that you were right when you take the issue to court. But if there's a posted speed limit (whether it's correct or not), I can't imagine how you'd argue the ticket simply by saying, "I know it's not the right speed limit!"
Again.. so you're special so you can ignore posted signs? How can you be sure they were left up by mistake? Even if you're 99% sure, I wouldn't be surprised if you were pulled over for violating a posted sign, despite the fact that it "shouldn't be there". No one's saying we have never been speeding or that we've never broken the rules of a posted sign. All we're stating is that you can't just assume a sign is incorrect just because you feel like it. You can't break the law just because you disagree with it without having consequences.
From what I've read and family members driving them, a VW Jetta TDI would get you about the same MPG over highway miles. (Probably more into the 40's for mixed driving.) Which is pretty respectable. No need to fiddle with battery packs, extra electrical circuitry and whatnot.
For me, a hybrid always seemed to be a waste. I don't want to deal with extra systems that can have problems, plugging anything in, poor acceleration/power, etc. Why not improve gasoline/diesel cars? It's not that we can't improve mileage on gasoline/diesel cars. The manufacturers just don't want to. Sure they improve it a little at a time hoping to look good in the public eye. But they don't make any major leaps because of monetary reasons.
Plus, hybrids have other environmental issues besides fossil fuels and emissions. There's the impact of producing batteries. My understanding is mining for the resources to produce rechargeable batteries produces considerable toxic pollutants/waste. They may not be wasting fossil fuels (oh, wait... they ARE using fossil fuels to mine these materials), but the toxicity can sure harm the environment in other ways.
The biggest issue is the definition of an "assault weapon" in general. A REAL assault weapon is a fully-automatic firearm used to launch an assault. As in war/battle. The term "assault weapon" gets tossed around an awful lot by idiots who don't understand what that term really means. And sure, you can buy a fully-automatic "assault weapon". If you don't mind the extensive background checks, paying for a permit, registering it, writing your local police chief for his blessing, and paying out the ass for the gun (full-auto weapons are EXPENSIVE!!). But to those looking to increase gun control, an "assault weapon" is just a gun that can hold more than 10 bullets and looks mean.
Guns were invented to kill or injure for food, protection, or war. This is true. But banning a gun because it looks mean, while allowing an equally dangerous firearm to be purchased because it's a "hunting rifle" makes no sense at all. Guns can be used for all kinds of things. Not everyone can afford separate firearms for every use, so they tend to be multitaskers. I use my shotgun for hunting as well as trap and skeet shooting. Who's to say you can't hunt for deer with an AR-15? (It might look kind of "bubba", but so what?) How is it any different than hunting with a magazine-fed, semi-automatic, wood-stocked "hunting" rifle? It's not. Just because one gun was originally designed for a particular purpose, doesn't mean it doesn't have other uses. AR-15's are used all the time in shooting competitions, as hunting guns, range guns, etc. Any lunatic could just as easily pick up a hunting rifle or pump shotgun and shoot a bunch of people.
So, why not ban semi-auto firearms all-together, while you're at it? They're basically all the same. They just look different on the outside. But banning all semi-auto firearms won't happen, so the gun control idiots just go after the easy-to-pick-on guns that "look mean".
Why people are so afraid of guns eludes me. I still say anyone who's afraid of a gun has never shot one. They're not scary or mysterious. They're just tools that can be dangerous when mishandled, just like lots of other things in this world (e.g. cars, heavy machinery, chemicals, lasers, alcohol/drugs, etc.). It's not the guns we need to worry about. Guns are very safe in the hands of someone who went through any type of firearm safety training. It's the idiots and criminals we have to be concerned about. And criminals don't have any want or need to obtain a gun through legal channels. So, all you'd get when you ban guns is a bunch of criminals with guns that no one can protect themselves from. And if you'd make safety training mandatory for gun buyers (particularly the idiots), this world would become a much safer place.
But not everything can be replaced by an insurance policy. Perhaps the OP has items with sentimental value that they would like to protect, rather than just replace with insurance money. For most things, insurance claims work just fine. But insurance doesn't work for everything.
Why should it matter that the same device can be used to view or copy a disc? People can still break encryption to view the Blu-Ray (and even make personal backup copies). You just can't go around selling the copies for a profit or charge for a viewing. How is it really much different than a dual-deck VCR or a CD/DVD copier?
If you'd read TFA, it says they're $765 each. No need to even browse their store for a price.
Re:Yes, but can they fix my Karma?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure where these "smarter people" are you're referencing. Seems to me that most people these days haven't gotten very good educations (due largely in part to politics destroying educational institutions/systems), resulting in dumber people, if there's any change at all.
It seems we're more on the same page than previously believed. I'll admit I get a bit defensive at times, and it's tough to guess inflection through words on a screen. You've apparently done more research into the tax world than I have, what with well-thought-out and sensible arguments. I assume we can both agree there are considerable flaws in the current system. It's just a matter of how to go about fixing them, without causing all sorts of other problems. Well-played, sir.:)
Unfortunately, as it stands right now, no tax system is going to help pay for everything the government is spending, so it does no good for me to argue with you on that point. Maybe when politicians stop spending money like it grows on trees (in mints?)..?
Again, I said nothing of taking more money from the poor to even things out. The other proposed tax systems have a significantly lower cost to run than the current system does. That right there should help considerably. The serious amount of waste in the current tax system is a big part of the problem.
And how can you say the rich don't pay taxes? Perhaps the super-rich don't pay a good PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes, but they do pay quite a bit in taxes. (They also pay their tax agencies a lot to find loopholes, I'm sure. That doesn't help.) But the "rich" as the government defines it certainly pay quite a bit in taxes. The only way you can say that the middle class bears the brunt of our taxes is because it's the largest group of taxpayers.
If you want to take money from anyone, how about taxing corporations a bit more? They have more loopholes to escape paying taxes than anyone.
You make a lot of assumptions in your post about me.
1. Governments have tax brackets because it's a patchwork solution for a system that didn't work. People cry and whine about what's fair and not fair, back and forth, and this ends up as a compromise. But there are way too many loopholes for rich and poor to make anything work because of all the patches to the system. Yes, they have tax brackets, but that doesn't mean they are the best system for taxing the people.
2. I don't have a problem with helping the poor sustain themselves with some government benefits. My issue is that people like you say, "he can afford to have more of his income taken away, so it's fine." No, it's NOT fine. Whether you earn $50k or $1M, I see no reason to go money-grabbing from the rich simply because they can afford it. Do I wish I was rich? Hell yes. But with something like flat tax or Fair Tax, the rich will end up paying more in taxes than poor people anyway. If there were a flat tax of 20%, rich people pay more. If there's a national sales tax, rich people will still pay more. They tend to spend considerably more than poor people do.
3. You're implying I'm saying that people should pay more than they can afford. That's retarded. Again, poor people will always get breaks on taxes and such. My point was: just because I can do just fine if you snatch an extra half-million dollars from me in taxes doesn't make it right to do so. All you're doing is taking more from the rich and giving it to the poor in tax breaks and gov't programs. Again, distributing the wealth more evenly.
4. Again, poor people will always get tax breaks. No one wants to drive people into starvation and crime because they cannot live on what they earn. There will be rebates, exemptions, stamps, etc. My issues are less with the poverty-stricken, and more to do with the huge distinction between middle and upper classes when it comes to income taxes.
Being taxed a larger percentage of income just because you earn more is ridiculous. The only purpose this serves is to even out the distribution of wealth. To take from the rich and give to the poor. It sounds good in theory, but is really just a dick move.
Make $20k/yr? Oh, that's okay. You can't afford to pay taxes. (And I'm okay with people in poverty not paying taxes, for the record.) But, make $1M/yr? Yeah, we'll just take half of that, thanks! That IS unfair. Just because they can afford to pay more (which, by definition, would be true simply because they have more disposable income) they SHOULD pay more? I think that's taking "all men are created equal" in a completely wrong direction.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to get it. A private company can refuse to do business with someone, especially if the other party doesn't follow the rules (contract) that they agreed to. That's not denying free speech. The guy can still go out on a street corner and piss people off. But Rackspace has no obligation to continue hosting his page to facilitate his right to free speech. Just as no publisher is required to publish someone's book just because no one else will in order for that person to exercise free speech. They could just as easily print it out themselves and have it bound at Kinkos and sell it on their own. They're not preventing him from exercising free speech. They just don't want to facilitate it for him.
So, this guy can go burn his books if he wants to. But Rackspace doesn't need to continue doing business with him. He violated the contract they agreed to when the church began putting their site up on Rackspace's servers. Therefore, Rackspace can exit without concern of breaking the contract. This church already broke it.
Just as the customer can go elsewhere, Rackspace can, too. It goes both ways. They could even refuse to renew their contract with this church, if they felt like it. It's the right of private companies to refuse to do business, just as it's this jackass's right to go burn books and get blown up by impending jihad over this.
Why's that..? People still buy the gas, they jack up prices (claiming short supply), and reduced production means they don't need to pay their workers as much. Of course, on the other hand, if they jack up prices and sell MORE gas, well... that helps their cause, too. Greedy bastards...
The person may not be a criminal, but they may not have implemented good security practices. So it's good to look over what they've put in place anyway. There may be accounts they forgot about lingering, awaiting deletion. Extra equipment that could be put to use. Extra equipment you don't need. And changing passwords is just plain common sense.
It depends on why they've been canned. But we're assuming it was "under duress", so it's not a happy parting. If their relationship with the company was going south for some time, it's good to investigate a bit to ensure they didn't leave anything behind that might be a problem.
Considering many IT staff have full control over your infrastructure, it's good to take the cautious route of assuming they've planted a back door or some other problem. After all, they likely had the root passwords to your systems. Better get those changed ASAP!
It may seem strange, but think about it... The oil companies are all about making record profits, and don't really seem to function by standard economics principles. So, if people begin buying fewer petroleum products or less gasoline, they'll probably start reducing production and jacking up prices to keep making a ton of money. It's just what they do.
Doesn't mean it SHOULDN'T be the case. Most of us understand that DRM and other restrictions put on personal use are a load of crap. Unfortunately for all of us, you're correct. But the gov't isn't going to come charging into my house for applying a crack to my game to play without a CD. So he can likely get away with doing what he wants (short of distributing copies).
Have you seen any nitrous oxide engines being produced..? The only engines I'm aware that use NO2 are the ones that inject it along with gasoline (i.e. rice burners, drag racers, etc.).
My assumption is that they want a rocket to increase consumption of the NO2, which a rocket would burn considerably faster than a simple internal combustion engine. An NO2 ICE still needs to be designed, which will cost money. And a rocket would burn much hotter, allowing for faster use of energy. You could use this to generate steam or something. I'm not saying it's the most efficient method, but things seemed to fall into place. Plus, if necessary, they could bottle and store the NO2 for later use in actual rockets, I suppose...
He's likely referring to the methane, CH4.
N2O doesn't contain any carbon. And as for the methane, when you burn it it gives off water and carbon dioxide. But the vast majority of the combustion reaction creates water. It's far better than releasing methane into the atmosphere without burning it. If environmentalists flip out over this, then fine... just release the methane into the atmosphere and see how happy they are. It's a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
Besides, these "self-powered" plants will cut down on energy consumption and very likely offset any CO2 being given off, thereby making the EPA happier than just releasing methane or causing more pollutants from coal-burning power plants.
As for oil companies... who even gives a shit about them, anyway? Why even bring them up? They have no place in this discussion.
I learned quite a bit from reading your rebuttal. Thank you for taking the time to post! It's much-appreciated, and very informative.
Again, does not mean you can ignore posted speed limits just because there's no traffic or you think the speed is too slow. Ignore the signs and you may be fined/arrested.
Just because a cop doesn't obey it doesn't mean you don't have to. It's a LAW. If you don't like the law, either run the risk of a fine/arrest by breaking it, or write a letter to your congressman/local politician/local police chief/whatever to have the speed changed. Sure, a cop speeding looks bad. But again, it's not an excuse to do it yourself.
You're making an assumption by "extrapolating" from "evidence". Just because a sign is put up or taken down doesn't mean the sign doesn't need to be followed. You can choose to ignore the sign and assume you know what the posted speed SHOULD be. But you run the risk of fine/arrest by doing so.
This is exactly my point. Even if you don't agree with it, it's a LAW. Follow it, or be prepared to deal with the consequences of breaking it. There's really no gray area here.
Yes. But simply saying, "I know it's wrong!" doesn't constitute proof. As my original post was stating (and as RichiH seemed to be saying the same thing, despite attempting to argue with me for some reason), ignoring a posted sign means assuming a risk. You could get fined or arrested, requiring a court appearance. If you're correct, great! But you'd better know your stuff before assuming anything. And you'd better be prepared to defend your position in court. I'd rather just drive the posted speed limit or follow the signs and avoid a fine than assume it's an incorrect sign.
Of course, context is everything. But the issue with your original statement is that the context that matters is the one of the policeman watching you. (Of course, if there isn't a cop, then it really doesn't matter, since you won't get a ticket.) Violate the sign, you get a ticket. Doesn't matter what your context is, unless you can prove that you were right when you take the issue to court. But if there's a posted speed limit (whether it's correct or not), I can't imagine how you'd argue the ticket simply by saying, "I know it's not the right speed limit!"
Again.. so you're special so you can ignore posted signs? How can you be sure they were left up by mistake? Even if you're 99% sure, I wouldn't be surprised if you were pulled over for violating a posted sign, despite the fact that it "shouldn't be there". No one's saying we have never been speeding or that we've never broken the rules of a posted sign. All we're stating is that you can't just assume a sign is incorrect just because you feel like it. You can't break the law just because you disagree with it without having consequences.
From what I've read and family members driving them, a VW Jetta TDI would get you about the same MPG over highway miles. (Probably more into the 40's for mixed driving.) Which is pretty respectable. No need to fiddle with battery packs, extra electrical circuitry and whatnot.
For me, a hybrid always seemed to be a waste. I don't want to deal with extra systems that can have problems, plugging anything in, poor acceleration/power, etc. Why not improve gasoline/diesel cars? It's not that we can't improve mileage on gasoline/diesel cars. The manufacturers just don't want to. Sure they improve it a little at a time hoping to look good in the public eye. But they don't make any major leaps because of monetary reasons.
Plus, hybrids have other environmental issues besides fossil fuels and emissions. There's the impact of producing batteries. My understanding is mining for the resources to produce rechargeable batteries produces considerable toxic pollutants/waste. They may not be wasting fossil fuels (oh, wait... they ARE using fossil fuels to mine these materials), but the toxicity can sure harm the environment in other ways.
The biggest issue is the definition of an "assault weapon" in general. A REAL assault weapon is a fully-automatic firearm used to launch an assault. As in war/battle. The term "assault weapon" gets tossed around an awful lot by idiots who don't understand what that term really means. And sure, you can buy a fully-automatic "assault weapon". If you don't mind the extensive background checks, paying for a permit, registering it, writing your local police chief for his blessing, and paying out the ass for the gun (full-auto weapons are EXPENSIVE!!). But to those looking to increase gun control, an "assault weapon" is just a gun that can hold more than 10 bullets and looks mean.
Guns were invented to kill or injure for food, protection, or war. This is true. But banning a gun because it looks mean, while allowing an equally dangerous firearm to be purchased because it's a "hunting rifle" makes no sense at all. Guns can be used for all kinds of things. Not everyone can afford separate firearms for every use, so they tend to be multitaskers. I use my shotgun for hunting as well as trap and skeet shooting. Who's to say you can't hunt for deer with an AR-15? (It might look kind of "bubba", but so what?) How is it any different than hunting with a magazine-fed, semi-automatic, wood-stocked "hunting" rifle? It's not. Just because one gun was originally designed for a particular purpose, doesn't mean it doesn't have other uses. AR-15's are used all the time in shooting competitions, as hunting guns, range guns, etc. Any lunatic could just as easily pick up a hunting rifle or pump shotgun and shoot a bunch of people.
So, why not ban semi-auto firearms all-together, while you're at it? They're basically all the same. They just look different on the outside. But banning all semi-auto firearms won't happen, so the gun control idiots just go after the easy-to-pick-on guns that "look mean".
Why people are so afraid of guns eludes me. I still say anyone who's afraid of a gun has never shot one. They're not scary or mysterious. They're just tools that can be dangerous when mishandled, just like lots of other things in this world (e.g. cars, heavy machinery, chemicals, lasers, alcohol/drugs, etc.). It's not the guns we need to worry about. Guns are very safe in the hands of someone who went through any type of firearm safety training. It's the idiots and criminals we have to be concerned about. And criminals don't have any want or need to obtain a gun through legal channels. So, all you'd get when you ban guns is a bunch of criminals with guns that no one can protect themselves from. And if you'd make safety training mandatory for gun buyers (particularly the idiots), this world would become a much safer place.
But not everything can be replaced by an insurance policy. Perhaps the OP has items with sentimental value that they would like to protect, rather than just replace with insurance money. For most things, insurance claims work just fine. But insurance doesn't work for everything.
Why should it matter that the same device can be used to view or copy a disc? People can still break encryption to view the Blu-Ray (and even make personal backup copies). You just can't go around selling the copies for a profit or charge for a viewing. How is it really much different than a dual-deck VCR or a CD/DVD copier?
If you'd read TFA, it says they're $765 each. No need to even browse their store for a price.
I'm not sure where these "smarter people" are you're referencing. Seems to me that most people these days haven't gotten very good educations (due largely in part to politics destroying educational institutions/systems), resulting in dumber people, if there's any change at all.
It seems we're more on the same page than previously believed. I'll admit I get a bit defensive at times, and it's tough to guess inflection through words on a screen. You've apparently done more research into the tax world than I have, what with well-thought-out and sensible arguments. I assume we can both agree there are considerable flaws in the current system. It's just a matter of how to go about fixing them, without causing all sorts of other problems. Well-played, sir. :)
Unfortunately, as it stands right now, no tax system is going to help pay for everything the government is spending, so it does no good for me to argue with you on that point. Maybe when politicians stop spending money like it grows on trees (in mints?)..?
Again, I said nothing of taking more money from the poor to even things out. The other proposed tax systems have a significantly lower cost to run than the current system does. That right there should help considerably. The serious amount of waste in the current tax system is a big part of the problem.
And how can you say the rich don't pay taxes? Perhaps the super-rich don't pay a good PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes, but they do pay quite a bit in taxes. (They also pay their tax agencies a lot to find loopholes, I'm sure. That doesn't help.) But the "rich" as the government defines it certainly pay quite a bit in taxes. The only way you can say that the middle class bears the brunt of our taxes is because it's the largest group of taxpayers.
If you want to take money from anyone, how about taxing corporations a bit more? They have more loopholes to escape paying taxes than anyone.
You make a lot of assumptions in your post about me.
1. Governments have tax brackets because it's a patchwork solution for a system that didn't work. People cry and whine about what's fair and not fair, back and forth, and this ends up as a compromise. But there are way too many loopholes for rich and poor to make anything work because of all the patches to the system. Yes, they have tax brackets, but that doesn't mean they are the best system for taxing the people.
2. I don't have a problem with helping the poor sustain themselves with some government benefits. My issue is that people like you say, "he can afford to have more of his income taken away, so it's fine." No, it's NOT fine. Whether you earn $50k or $1M, I see no reason to go money-grabbing from the rich simply because they can afford it. Do I wish I was rich? Hell yes. But with something like flat tax or Fair Tax, the rich will end up paying more in taxes than poor people anyway. If there were a flat tax of 20%, rich people pay more. If there's a national sales tax, rich people will still pay more. They tend to spend considerably more than poor people do.
3. You're implying I'm saying that people should pay more than they can afford. That's retarded. Again, poor people will always get breaks on taxes and such. My point was: just because I can do just fine if you snatch an extra half-million dollars from me in taxes doesn't make it right to do so. All you're doing is taking more from the rich and giving it to the poor in tax breaks and gov't programs. Again, distributing the wealth more evenly.
4. Again, poor people will always get tax breaks. No one wants to drive people into starvation and crime because they cannot live on what they earn. There will be rebates, exemptions, stamps, etc. My issues are less with the poverty-stricken, and more to do with the huge distinction between middle and upper classes when it comes to income taxes.
Maybe a dollar is worth considerably more to a rich person, which may just be how they became rich to begin with.
Being taxed a larger percentage of income just because you earn more is ridiculous. The only purpose this serves is to even out the distribution of wealth. To take from the rich and give to the poor. It sounds good in theory, but is really just a dick move.
Make $20k/yr? Oh, that's okay. You can't afford to pay taxes. (And I'm okay with people in poverty not paying taxes, for the record.) But, make $1M/yr? Yeah, we'll just take half of that, thanks! That IS unfair. Just because they can afford to pay more (which, by definition, would be true simply because they have more disposable income) they SHOULD pay more? I think that's taking "all men are created equal" in a completely wrong direction.