I've been with SFNB since a few months after they opened (in '97?) and have not a single complaint about them. They constantly give better service, better rates, and better features than anyone else. And I have never, ever, paid them a fee for ANYTHING! This shocks most of my friends, but to me I find it shocking that a bank would charge YOU for the privelege of loaning out YOUR money to others at higher interest rates.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that SFNB seems to have implemented an ATM fee refund scheme as of about 6 months ago, too.
I do wish they had a slightly better deposit system -- notification that they've recieved and are processing deposits would be nice. AS it is you just kinda wait for it to show up in your balance, wondering if they ever got it. So it's not for folks without direct deposit for their paychecks...
You're absolutely right -- we should encourage all new immigrants to completely ignore the political process of their new country. After all, we've established it's cleary an insignificant and annoying part of living here -- they should just bitch about jury duty and lousy candidates while watching reruns of "Friends" and complaining about how high taxes are (when you get nothing in return, goddamit!). Actually getting up off your sorry ass and doing something about it is just too much trouble. Pass the twinkies....
In the 1829 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky's 2nd District, Jackson Democrat Nicholas Coleman defeated National Republican Adam Beatty 2,520 to 2,519.
In the 1847 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 6th District, Whig candidate George G. Dunn defeated Democratic candidate David M. Dobson 7,455 to 7,454. Also in 1847, Whig Thomas S.Flournoy defeated a Democratic candidate named Treadway 650 to 649 in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 3rd District of Virginia.
In the 1854 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 7th District of Illinois, Democratic candidate James C. Allen bested Republican William B. Archer 8,452 to 8,451.
In the 1882 election for U.S. House of Representatives in the 1st District of Virginia, Readjuster Robert M. Mayo defeated Democrat George T. Garrison 10,505 to 10,504.
RECENT EXAMPLES IN NONFEDERAL ELECTIONS
In 1977, Vermont State Representative Sydney Nixon was seated as an apparent one vote winner, 570 to 569. Mr. Nixon resigned when the State House determined , after a recount, that he had lost to Robert Emond, 572 to 571.
In 1989, a Lansing, Michigan School District millage proposition failed when the final recount produced a tie vote, 5,147 for, and 5,147 against. On the original vote count, votes against the proposition were ten more than those in favor. The result meant that the school district had to reduce its budget by $2.5 million.
In 1994, Republican Randall Luthi and Independent Larry Call tied for the seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives from the Jackson Hole area, with 1,941 votes each. A recount produced the same result. Mr. Luthi was finally declared the winner when, in a drawing before the State Canvassing Board, a PingPong ball bearing his name was pulled from the cowboy hat of Democratic Governor Mike Sullivan.
In 1997, South Dakota Democrat John McIntyre led Republican Hal Wick 4,195 - 4,191 for the second seat in Legislative District 12 on election night. A subsequent recount showed Wick the winner at 4192 - 4,191. The State Supreme Court, however, ruled that one ballot counted for Wick was invalid due to an overvote. This left the race a tie. After hearing arguments from both sides, the State Legislature voted to seat Wick 46-20.
I just got my citizenship this year, and havn't been psyched enough about either candidate to really think about voting.
Jesus Christ, you just got citizenship and don't care about voting? What the fuck are you doing here? I can at least ignore the apathetic people who live here by accident of birth, but to go through all the trouble of becoming a citizen just so you can be one more apathetic statistic is unbelievable.
Anyway, what do I need to do to vote? I'd always thought I could leave the choice to do so or not up until the last minute..
You can still vote -- you don't have to register. You can show up, they'll ask for ID (proof of residence) and it doesn't matter if you don't have it. You are an American citizen and you have the right to vote and need no paperwork or proof to exercise that right. They'll have you sign a book that says "I am a citizen and this is where I should vote, and I attest to this under penalty of law" and you get to vote. You may only be able to vote in the national contests by doing this but you're ALWAYS allowed to vote for a federal election by virtue of being a citizen.
Both of the major parties today used to be "third parties". They became major parties in a time when the electoral college/congress was FAR, FAR less responsive to the average citizen's complaints than today. It takes time and many elections, but they're not idiots -- they go whichever way the wind is blowing because they know the only other option is finding a new job...
It also sends the message that the 3% of "undecided" the candidates are fighting over is nothing compared to the 25% of people who physically could have voted for them but didn't. If you physically go to a ballot box, you're the single most important target they'll have for the next election.
The reverse is true as well -- I think it's unfortunate that european governments have taken such a voluntary back-seat to the US on a lot of issues.
The european microsoft investigation, the AOL/Time-Warner merger, etc -- these are things that Europe could most definitely help with, but for some strange reason they keep saying "well, the US is looking into it, so we'll just follow them".
Seems like the perfect system. There must be a catch?
Yes, it takes energy to extract the hydrogen, and the hydrogen engine won't be 100% efficient, either. But using nuclear power to make the hydrogen, or wind power or whatever, would be perfectly capable of producing enough hydrogen to fuel everything that can't be plugged in...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
I was going to mention a sales tax in my earlier message but deleted it because I didn't have the time to really follow through, so yes I tend to agree that something like a "consumption" tax would be more ideal than an income tax.
It would be tough to make it less regressive than a typical sales tax -- I know in many states they eliminate tax on all necessities (food, clothing, etc) while keeping it on comforts. And we do have the luxury taxes. It would be a tough system to work out, probably MORE complex than the income tax system. The one advantage would be that tax would be charged and collected by merchants, who presumably are using computerized systems that could do all the hard work. But that still places a pretty big burden on small mom-and-pop outlets.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
However, if they are paying tax on their income producing interests, then they should be entitled to a tax break. Just because they are wealthy does not mean they should be taxed on their wealth alone...only on income.
I don't entirely agree or disagree with you -- it's fairly arbitrary that we tax earnings rather than other things (probably becuase most people do have the majority of their money through income).
So while it certainly isn't fair to say we should tax everybody's net worth on an annual basis, it also doesn't seem "fair" that a multi-millionaire who happened to inherit every penny should be able to go through life without paying a penny in taxes. he's still using the roads, and the air traffic control system (probably more than mere laborers are) and other things that taxes go towards. He's still counting on the police and army to defend his wealth, but so long as he never has "income" he can live off of services paid for by those of us required to do actual work.
So there's somethign in-between, which is partly why the estate taxes the Republicans have been trying to eliminate exist. Even though we worship money, Americans still don't tend to think much of someone who inherits it all.
Look at Donald Trump -- he's admired for "making" so much money, but if he had simply invested his inheritance in the DOW or S&P, he would have made just as much as he did from real estate. He's no great deal-maker, but the act of making the deals made him seem to be "earning" the money...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
The vast majority of Slashdot readers are the donkeys on which the rest of society, and especially the bureaucracy ride.
You mean that I, who make as much as the average family of four, and other slashdot readers, have not benefitted more from America than that family of four? Personally I thank my lucky fucking stars every day that I was fortunate enough to be born in a first-world country, and have seen enough of the poverty on this planet to know what a great bargain our taxes are.
It's not a coincidence that so many rich people are in america -- we've got a great system, and we should be putting extra stamps on our tax return every year to make sure it doesn't stop paying out.
Reason number two is the mobility of capital. Don't like the price of government where you are? Move your economic activity elsewhere. This will happen more and more, and if the U.S. wants to continue being prosperous, it must compete against low-tax countries.
Um, yeah -- and Microsoft is moving to Canada, like everyone keeps threatening. The big problem with this is that we don't compete with low-tax countries. Low-tax countries have nothing more than maybe natural resources and cheap labor, which are fine, but we don't want to move there. Feel free to build your Nike factory there, but you'll excuse me if I missed the rush of high-tech startups moving to Costa Rica.
no matter how poor you are, if you don't become an addict, get an education, work hard, get married, and live a stable life, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of you becoming at least middle class, and probably one of those tax donkeys the stoners and slackers get to ride on.
Indeed -- and that wouldn't be true in most countries. There aren't that many places where a poor person can get rich, so when it happens, I would think the person would be more than happy to pay back in the system for the "benefits" they've recieved by living in such a place. Not all of us here on Slashdot, I suspect, were lucky enough to be born middle or upper-class, but here we are...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
They are forced to pay many times more for the same services that the other 99% receive.
And they benefit financially from the country's legal, legislative, and economic systems many time more than the other 99%. So they should maybe pay more to ensure that the system continues to be able allow their fantastic accumulation of wealth.
It's not coincidental that the vast majority of the world's wealthiest people are in America -- they succeed because our way of life and government encourage and support financial success. To suggest that someone making $100,000,000 a year doesn't owe a little more back to the infrastructure than someone who could be getting a better minimum wage elsewhere is, I think, shortsighted.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
And, if the wealthiest 1% are paying 34% of the taxes, then there is obviously something wrong with our tax structure...Don't you think?
You raise a lot of interesting points -- but this one stuck out. Why shouldn't the wealthiest 1% pay 34% of all taxes when they own 40% of the wealth in the country?
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Well, for one thing, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about criminals, it just says "the people". Are convicted felons stripped of their First Amendment rights?
Convicted criminals do have fewer rights under the law -- depending on the crime. For example, I don't believe felons can vote at all...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Apparantly, character is only important when a Republican that has done something naughty is under your guns. I have yet to hear any reason for algore being better than bush. Keep in mind that the reasons must be unique to bush.
Huh? While I'm no left-wing zealot, you certainly have to admit that the republicans are the party constantly talking about moral character (and later being arrested for masturbating in public, etc).
And, I'm curious why being against the death penalty isn't a legitimate reason to vote for/against someone? I'm personally all for it, but it's no less a devisive issue than abortion, and people should consider a person's view on both topics when considering who to vote for.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Note: "most government agencies." Which ones are the exeption? Surely Ralph knows that federal law prohibits the use of the SSN as an identifier for any purpose other than Social Security benefits?
I'm sure he's well aware of the laws -- that regulate how the FEDERAL government can use the SS#. There are no federal laws regulating what numbers the state governments may use, Which is potentially what he's talking about.
And no, the laws aren't ignored -- any time you see a piece of paper from a federal agency, it will have a statement on it somewhere declaring whther or not you are required to give your SS#, and by what specific law that agency has the right to ask you.
As for the "most" government agencies, I would suspect the SS Administration themselves might have use for the number (duh) and the IRS would likely continue to use it as a way to compare your income to SS benefits. Aside from them (and potentially the VA or other organizations that give benefits based in part on SS elegibility) there's really no need for it to be used by other agencies. So there are a few obvious and legitimate exceptions.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
deja only keeps text posts (not binaries) so the data volume and the copyright issues aren't that big of a deal. You're still talking about many megabytes a day, but it's far short of the gigabytes flowing in binary groups...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Well, it's legal because congress can pass any laws they like. They are congress, after all -- they are in charge of making the laws, and it's up to the executive and judicial to enforce and rule on them.
There have been several attempts to make rules within congress that limit bills in their scope, but they've been consistently beaten. I believe that some states DO have rules within their own legislatures regarding riders and such so that you can't tack on completely new subjects to a bill.
This is also why the line-item veto has been so strongly favored -- traditionally the Republicans have supported the presidential line-item veto, because it can be used to reign in pork-barrell spending in appropriations bills, but they have strangely stopped their support of it with a Democrat in office, which is a shame. With line-item veto, Clinton could pass the bill and simply cross out the part about library filters. As it is, the government is close to another shutdown, though, so vetoing it would have a large effect...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
But government programs are not efficient. If they were, then socialism would work. Instead, most people are better off under capitalism even with the disparate amount of wealth at the top
The government is efficient in some things, inefficient in others. Socialism doesn't work because it provides no motive for people to work harder than necessary, and it is incapable of responding to change as quickly as industry. it also assumes that the government is 100% capable, which of course it isn't.
So let's get rid of inefficient things, and keep the efficient ones. Let's NOT just cut taxes and assume we've saved money.
This makes me think of the metrocard story a few days ago -- in order to save money, NYC contracted with a private company, which now has the city by the balls. For the sake of false efficiency, the city has lost capability and flexibility...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
I understand the assumption, I just disagree that in 100% of the services provided, that the government is and must be inherently less efficient than private industry. I find that a high bar to set, and thus challenge anyone who seems to believe it is met.
If we have less efficient programs, let us scrap them, but don't say foolish things like "if we only reduced taxes by 10% everyone would be better off". It's just a blanket statement that doesn't mean anything. Having more money doesn't mean it will be worth more, or that you'll have the same spending power, or that we won't miss the service lost. But if we can find ways to save money, I'm all for it...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Do you understand anything about corporate accounting? Typically what a business pays you is ~2X what you actually receive in take home pay before your personal taxes.
Yes, I do -- and yes, that's true. But if the company has half that cost (the HR cost) disappear, it doesn't mean they're going to give you the difference.
1) prices drop and your salary stays the same or drops
2) prices stay the same and your salary increases
Or 3) Prices go up, and your salary goes up, or any combination thereof. The net result will be that you'll likely still be able to buy the same stuff you did before, because while you may have 40% more money (or the company does, or whoever), so does everyone else. The relative buying power of everyone in the country would stay the same, because everyone still has the same realtive amount of money (ie, everyone's salary or costs would be adjusted by x%).
Now of course this is not literal -- the reality is if you eliminated all taxes tomorrow there would be a big period of adjustment during which slaries and prices would be all over the place as people tried to figure out whether to pass on the savings, hold them as profit, etc.
In the end, the final result (most likely) is that you will have a larger amount of relative spending power
Which I'm not sure I agree with -- if everyone in the country gets a 40% raise, I don't see how my spending power will increase relative to anyone else's.
But you will lose out on some of the "services" the government provides you. You may have to use some of that spending power to purchase the same sort of services elsewhere. But these should be cheaper cause you don't have the loss of the inefficieny of government.
Which is ultimately the basis of this argument -- if someone believes there is an inherent inefficiency in the government (as compared to any other large organization) then we should keep as much money away as possible.
But it's not inherently inefficient -- there are some products and services it can get (or provide) at far lower cost than a private citizen or corporation could. So ultimately what we're getting at is that lowering taxes will not magically make people richer -- but eliminated inefficient parts of the government (and either passing on the tax savings or spending them efficiently elsewhere) will...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been with SFNB since a few months after they opened (in '97?) and have not a single complaint about them. They constantly give better service, better rates, and better features than anyone else. And I have never, ever, paid them a fee for ANYTHING! This shocks most of my friends, but to me I find it shocking that a bank would charge YOU for the privelege of loaning out YOUR money to others at higher interest rates.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that SFNB seems to have implemented an ATM fee refund scheme as of about 6 months ago, too.
I do wish they had a slightly better deposit system -- notification that they've recieved and are processing deposits would be nice. AS it is you just kinda wait for it to show up in your balance, wondering if they ever got it. So it's not for folks without direct deposit for their paychecks...
---------------------------------------------
You're absolutely right -- we should encourage all new immigrants to completely ignore the political process of their new country. After all, we've established it's cleary an insignificant and annoying part of living here -- they should just bitch about jury duty and lousy candidates while watching reruns of "Friends" and complaining about how high taxes are (when you get nothing in return, goddamit!). Actually getting up off your sorry ass and doing something about it is just too much trouble. Pass the twinkies....
---------------------------------------------
There are benefits to being a citizen other than voting! Anyway, thanks for the info, guess I'll just turn up on the day!
There are other benefits, but few other responsibilities. I really do hope you go to the polls on the 7th!
---------------------------------------------
(from the Federal Election Commission FAQ )
EXAMPLES IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS
In the 1829 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky's 2nd District, Jackson Democrat Nicholas Coleman defeated National Republican Adam Beatty 2,520 to 2,519.
In the 1847 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 6th District, Whig candidate George G. Dunn defeated Democratic candidate David M. Dobson 7,455 to 7,454. Also in 1847, Whig Thomas S.Flournoy defeated a Democratic candidate named Treadway 650 to 649 in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 3rd District of Virginia.
In the 1854 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 7th District of Illinois, Democratic candidate James C. Allen bested Republican William B. Archer 8,452 to 8,451.
In the 1882 election for U.S. House of Representatives in the 1st District of Virginia, Readjuster Robert M. Mayo defeated Democrat George T. Garrison 10,505 to 10,504.
RECENT EXAMPLES IN NONFEDERAL ELECTIONS
In 1977, Vermont State Representative Sydney Nixon was seated as an apparent one vote winner, 570 to 569. Mr. Nixon resigned when the State House determined , after a recount, that he had lost to Robert Emond, 572 to 571.
In 1989, a Lansing, Michigan School District millage proposition failed when the final recount produced a tie vote, 5,147 for, and 5,147 against. On the original vote count, votes against the proposition were ten more than those in favor. The result meant that the school district had to reduce its budget by $2.5 million.
In 1994, Republican Randall Luthi and Independent Larry Call tied for the seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives from the Jackson Hole area, with 1,941 votes each. A recount produced the same result. Mr. Luthi was finally declared the winner when, in a drawing before the State Canvassing Board, a PingPong ball bearing his name was pulled from the cowboy hat of Democratic Governor Mike Sullivan.
In 1997, South Dakota Democrat John McIntyre led Republican Hal Wick 4,195 - 4,191 for the second seat in Legislative District 12 on election night. A subsequent recount showed Wick the winner at 4192 - 4,191. The State Supreme Court, however, ruled that one ballot counted for Wick was invalid due to an overvote. This left the race a tie. After hearing arguments from both sides, the State Legislature voted to seat Wick 46-20.
---------------------------------------------
I just got my citizenship this year, and havn't been psyched enough about either candidate to really think about voting.
Jesus Christ, you just got citizenship and don't care about voting? What the fuck are you doing here? I can at least ignore the apathetic people who live here by accident of birth, but to go through all the trouble of becoming a citizen just so you can be one more apathetic statistic is unbelievable.
Anyway, what do I need to do to vote? I'd always thought I could leave the choice to do so or not up until the last minute..
You can still vote -- you don't have to register. You can show up, they'll ask for ID (proof of residence) and it doesn't matter if you don't have it. You are an American citizen and you have the right to vote and need no paperwork or proof to exercise that right. They'll have you sign a book that says "I am a citizen and this is where I should vote, and I attest to this under penalty of law" and you get to vote. You may only be able to vote in the national contests by doing this but you're ALWAYS allowed to vote for a federal election by virtue of being a citizen.
---------------------------------------------
Both of the major parties today used to be "third parties". They became major parties in a time when the electoral college/congress was FAR, FAR less responsive to the average citizen's complaints than today. It takes time and many elections, but they're not idiots -- they go whichever way the wind is blowing because they know the only other option is finding a new job...
---------------------------------------------
Well it certainly doesn't vote!...
---------------------------------------------
It also sends the message that the 3% of "undecided" the candidates are fighting over is nothing compared to the 25% of people who physically could have voted for them but didn't. If you physically go to a ballot box, you're the single most important target they'll have for the next election.
---------------------------------------------
If I haven't found a presidential candidate that I like I'll just write in my name for the time being (is that possible?)
Of course it is -- have fun. Get a few thousand freinds to do it and you might make a splash on the evening news...
---------------------------------------------
The reverse is true as well -- I think it's unfortunate that european governments have taken such a voluntary back-seat to the US on a lot of issues.
The european microsoft investigation, the AOL/Time-Warner merger, etc -- these are things that Europe could most definitely help with, but for some strange reason they keep saying "well, the US is looking into it, so we'll just follow them".
---------------------------------------------
The fact is that that this level of reporting of democrats is new, and despite the fact that the media STILL has the gloves on it smarts
Uh, yeah -- 'cause no one has printed anything mean about Clinton in the past decade. Good thing we've kept the kid gloves on...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Seems like the perfect system. There must be a catch?
Yes, it takes energy to extract the hydrogen, and the hydrogen engine won't be 100% efficient, either. But using nuclear power to make the hydrogen, or wind power or whatever, would be perfectly capable of producing enough hydrogen to fuel everything that can't be plugged in...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
I was going to mention a sales tax in my earlier message but deleted it because I didn't have the time to really follow through, so yes I tend to agree that something like a "consumption" tax would be more ideal than an income tax.
It would be tough to make it less regressive than a typical sales tax -- I know in many states they eliminate tax on all necessities (food, clothing, etc) while keeping it on comforts. And we do have the luxury taxes. It would be a tough system to work out, probably MORE complex than the income tax system. The one advantage would be that tax would be charged and collected by merchants, who presumably are using computerized systems that could do all the hard work. But that still places a pretty big burden on small mom-and-pop outlets.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
However, if they are paying tax on their income producing interests, then they should be entitled to a tax break. Just because they are wealthy does not mean they should be taxed on their wealth alone...only on income.
I don't entirely agree or disagree with you -- it's fairly arbitrary that we tax earnings rather than other things (probably becuase most people do have the majority of their money through income).
So while it certainly isn't fair to say we should tax everybody's net worth on an annual basis, it also doesn't seem "fair" that a multi-millionaire who happened to inherit every penny should be able to go through life without paying a penny in taxes. he's still using the roads, and the air traffic control system (probably more than mere laborers are) and other things that taxes go towards. He's still counting on the police and army to defend his wealth, but so long as he never has "income" he can live off of services paid for by those of us required to do actual work.
So there's somethign in-between, which is partly why the estate taxes the Republicans have been trying to eliminate exist. Even though we worship money, Americans still don't tend to think much of someone who inherits it all.
Look at Donald Trump -- he's admired for "making" so much money, but if he had simply invested his inheritance in the DOW or S&P, he would have made just as much as he did from real estate. He's no great deal-maker, but the act of making the deals made him seem to be "earning" the money...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
The vast majority of Slashdot readers are the donkeys on which the rest of society, and especially the bureaucracy ride.
You mean that I, who make as much as the average family of four, and other slashdot readers, have not benefitted more from America than that family of four? Personally I thank my lucky fucking stars every day that I was fortunate enough to be born in a first-world country, and have seen enough of the poverty on this planet to know what a great bargain our taxes are.
It's not a coincidence that so many rich people are in america -- we've got a great system, and we should be putting extra stamps on our tax return every year to make sure it doesn't stop paying out.
Reason number two is the mobility of capital. Don't like the price of government where you are? Move your economic activity elsewhere. This will happen more and more, and if the U.S. wants to continue being prosperous, it must compete against low-tax countries.
Um, yeah -- and Microsoft is moving to Canada, like everyone keeps threatening. The big problem with this is that we don't compete with low-tax countries. Low-tax countries have nothing more than maybe natural resources and cheap labor, which are fine, but we don't want to move there. Feel free to build your Nike factory there, but you'll excuse me if I missed the rush of high-tech startups moving to Costa Rica.
no matter how poor you are, if you don't become an addict, get an education, work hard, get married, and live a stable life, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of you becoming at least middle class, and probably one of those tax donkeys the stoners and slackers get to ride on.
Indeed -- and that wouldn't be true in most countries. There aren't that many places where a poor person can get rich, so when it happens, I would think the person would be more than happy to pay back in the system for the "benefits" they've recieved by living in such a place. Not all of us here on Slashdot, I suspect, were lucky enough to be born middle or upper-class, but here we are...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
They are forced to pay many times more for the same services that the other 99% receive.
And they benefit financially from the country's legal, legislative, and economic systems many time more than the other 99%. So they should maybe pay more to ensure that the system continues to be able allow their fantastic accumulation of wealth.
It's not coincidental that the vast majority of the world's wealthiest people are in America -- they succeed because our way of life and government encourage and support financial success. To suggest that someone making $100,000,000 a year doesn't owe a little more back to the infrastructure than someone who could be getting a better minimum wage elsewhere is, I think, shortsighted.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
And, if the wealthiest 1% are paying 34% of the taxes, then there is obviously something wrong with our tax structure...Don't you think?
You raise a lot of interesting points -- but this one stuck out. Why shouldn't the wealthiest 1% pay 34% of all taxes when they own 40% of the wealth in the country?
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Well, for one thing, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about criminals, it just says "the people". Are convicted felons stripped of their First Amendment rights?
Convicted criminals do have fewer rights under the law -- depending on the crime. For example, I don't believe felons can vote at all...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Apparantly, character is only important when a Republican that has done something naughty is under your guns. I have yet to hear any reason for algore being better than bush. Keep in mind that the reasons must be unique to bush.
Huh? While I'm no left-wing zealot, you certainly have to admit that the republicans are the party constantly talking about moral character (and later being arrested for masturbating in public, etc).
And, I'm curious why being against the death penalty isn't a legitimate reason to vote for/against someone? I'm personally all for it, but it's no less a devisive issue than abortion, and people should consider a person's view on both topics when considering who to vote for.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Note: "most government agencies." Which ones are the exeption? Surely Ralph knows that federal law prohibits the use of the SSN as an identifier for any purpose other than Social Security benefits?
I'm sure he's well aware of the laws -- that regulate how the FEDERAL government can use the SS#. There are no federal laws regulating what numbers the state governments may use, Which is potentially what he's talking about.
And no, the laws aren't ignored -- any time you see a piece of paper from a federal agency, it will have a statement on it somewhere declaring whther or not you are required to give your SS#, and by what specific law that agency has the right to ask you.
As for the "most" government agencies, I would suspect the SS Administration themselves might have use for the number (duh) and the IRS would likely continue to use it as a way to compare your income to SS benefits. Aside from them (and potentially the VA or other organizations that give benefits based in part on SS elegibility) there's really no need for it to be used by other agencies. So there are a few obvious and legitimate exceptions.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
deja only keeps text posts (not binaries) so the data volume and the copyright issues aren't that big of a deal. You're still talking about many megabytes a day, but it's far short of the gigabytes flowing in binary groups...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Well, it's legal because congress can pass any laws they like. They are congress, after all -- they are in charge of making the laws, and it's up to the executive and judicial to enforce and rule on them.
There have been several attempts to make rules within congress that limit bills in their scope, but they've been consistently beaten. I believe that some states DO have rules within their own legislatures regarding riders and such so that you can't tack on completely new subjects to a bill.
This is also why the line-item veto has been so strongly favored -- traditionally the Republicans have supported the presidential line-item veto, because it can be used to reign in pork-barrell spending in appropriations bills, but they have strangely stopped their support of it with a Democrat in office, which is a shame. With line-item veto, Clinton could pass the bill and simply cross out the part about library filters. As it is, the government is close to another shutdown, though, so vetoing it would have a large effect...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
But government programs are not efficient. If they were, then socialism would work. Instead, most people are better off under capitalism even with the disparate amount of wealth at the top
The government is efficient in some things, inefficient in others. Socialism doesn't work because it provides no motive for people to work harder than necessary, and it is incapable of responding to change as quickly as industry. it also assumes that the government is 100% capable, which of course it isn't.
So let's get rid of inefficient things, and keep the efficient ones. Let's NOT just cut taxes and assume we've saved money.
This makes me think of the metrocard story a few days ago -- in order to save money, NYC contracted with a private company, which now has the city by the balls. For the sake of false efficiency, the city has lost capability and flexibility...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
I understand the assumption, I just disagree that in 100% of the services provided, that the government is and must be inherently less efficient than private industry. I find that a high bar to set, and thus challenge anyone who seems to believe it is met.
If we have less efficient programs, let us scrap them, but don't say foolish things like "if we only reduced taxes by 10% everyone would be better off". It's just a blanket statement that doesn't mean anything. Having more money doesn't mean it will be worth more, or that you'll have the same spending power, or that we won't miss the service lost. But if we can find ways to save money, I'm all for it...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Do you understand anything about corporate accounting? Typically what a business pays you is ~2X what you actually receive in take home pay before your personal taxes.
Yes, I do -- and yes, that's true. But if the company has half that cost (the HR cost) disappear, it doesn't mean they're going to give you the difference.
1) prices drop and your salary stays the same or drops
2) prices stay the same and your salary increases
Or 3) Prices go up, and your salary goes up, or any combination thereof. The net result will be that you'll likely still be able to buy the same stuff you did before, because while you may have 40% more money (or the company does, or whoever), so does everyone else. The relative buying power of everyone in the country would stay the same, because everyone still has the same realtive amount of money (ie, everyone's salary or costs would be adjusted by x%).
Now of course this is not literal -- the reality is if you eliminated all taxes tomorrow there would be a big period of adjustment during which slaries and prices would be all over the place as people tried to figure out whether to pass on the savings, hold them as profit, etc.
In the end, the final result (most likely) is that you will have a larger amount of relative spending power
Which I'm not sure I agree with -- if everyone in the country gets a 40% raise, I don't see how my spending power will increase relative to anyone else's.
But you will lose out on some of the "services" the government provides you. You may have to use some of that spending power to purchase the same sort of services elsewhere. But these should be cheaper cause you don't have the loss of the inefficieny of government.
Which is ultimately the basis of this argument -- if someone believes there is an inherent inefficiency in the government (as compared to any other large organization) then we should keep as much money away as possible.
But it's not inherently inefficient -- there are some products and services it can get (or provide) at far lower cost than a private citizen or corporation could. So ultimately what we're getting at is that lowering taxes will not magically make people richer -- but eliminated inefficient parts of the government (and either passing on the tax savings or spending them efficiently elsewhere) will...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.