His performance in Beijing totally DESTROYS all the standard "potheads are losers who will never amount to anything" line of bullshit that we have been spoonfed for years.
Who says he was using when he did that? If nothing else, there's a high probability they test for pot along with all the dozens of other performance enhancing drugs they check for in the Olympics and other high level sporting events.
Given how long THC can be detected after use, he'd of had to stop months before any competition.
If you mean you can use a solar water heater to heat water before a tank in conjunction with a point of use heater, then yes it may be more efficient. I thought I said that before, but I went up this tread and didn't see it so maybe I said it in another thread.
Exactly. I was responding to this comment: "No I don't, by keeping water warm you're wasting energy, heating only the water used at the point of use saves energy." in response to my "You WANT the tank to store hot water overnight, even if you never use the electric elements."
Did some quick rechecking - My water comes out at 50F, common quotes for shower temps are 98F-110F. So I need 50 degrees of temperature rise. American Heat Tankless Water Heater ADK-1 60 Amp, $227, a bit cheaper than what I paid for my 55 gallon water heater, much cheaper than the $700 I saw for a tankless heater before. Still, 240V@60A is my ENTIRE electric service, and would only provide sufficient heat at the absolute bottom end for my shower or clothes washer(1.5GPM). Per the chart, I'd need an AH-21($588), 100 amps. An AH-18 might work, at 80 amps, but family wouldn't be happy when they visit.
I think I made the right choice for my situation. I'm looking at an upgrade - installing a heat pump system this summer, assuming I can get good price information and ordering ability on line. Last time they were 'out of stock'. That might be your best option, as well. 3X the heating ability per kwh, even over tankless. 5A@240V, instead of 60A@240V. You still have the tank to store solar heated water. Good surge capacity without blowing your house's main breaker.
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power." Whereas coal generated electricity costs 3.53 cent per KWH and "clean coal" it's 3.55 cents per KWH, without subsidies nuclear power generated electricity cost 5.94 cents per KWH. If the subsidies for coal are removed coal is still cheaper, 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents for clean coal.
And if you put a carbon tax in coal gets slaughtered. Even clean coal - by default, most 'clean coal' plants aren't sequestering, and sequestering leaches 30% of the plant's energy to collect the CO2. "Unfortunately, the capture process consumes a lot of energy itself, reducing the plant's efficiency and requiring more coal to be mined and burned." Hmm, also disagrees with the cost for clean coal - "Power from a new IGCC coal plant with full carbon capture and sequestration should cost 7.3-9.6 cents per kWh (factoring in the capture-related efficiency losses and sequestration expenses)." Another source: "Removing carbon dioxide under current known systems would cut plant capacity by 25 percent to 30 percent, Baxter said in a telephone interview." - though it later notes that he's patenting a system that would be cheaper and only cost 15% efficiency - dropping the cost per kwh from 11 to 8 cents.
So the tech isn't ready. To reduce the waste that's already there I may agree to reprocess it so it can be used in power plants that have already been built but I don't think I could agree to building more nuclear power plants.
Engineering always needs to be done. Basically, we're putting solar, wind, and other experimental electricity generation systems up left and right. I'd settle for a couple(to have some statistical relevance you need more than one) of new nuke plants as a similar test. Thus far, all we have are a bunch of often slanted numbers. Maybe even a breeder, even if it's not economic by the po
This is nowhere near the first time this has been done. The same 'solve/prevent crimes' has been proposed for cameras, ballistic databases, etc... None have been more cost efficient than more traditional police methods. DNA is better as confirmation, not primary investigation.
"It is good technology. It solves crimes," said Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, which has long pushed for DNA tests at the time of arrest.
Figures show that for the past six years the number of crimes solved using DNA evidence has remained static at between 0.34 and 0.36 per cent - about one in 300 of all recorded crimes.
They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets?
Given they specifically mentioned firewalls and not using/distributing the information, they should be aware that no DRM on the machine itself is going to work.
Another topic would be a network with firewall/monitoring systems run by a non-agreeing party. Let's say I'm running a coffeshop that offer free wireless. Customer A comes in with said CNN program installed. Not having agreed to the terms of the EULA, I'm free to analyze the heck out of the stream.
Or the usual fun - 'my 12 year old installed it', or 'the techs in the store did'.
Very good. However, you have the option of, like in the USA. G - pretty much unoffensive to everybody. Ted Nugent might take offense at the potrayal of tasty Bambi, but everybody else is fine with it. R - We really recommend you think twice, maybe watch it by yourself before you expose your kids to it. X/NC17 - why are you even thinking about showing this to kids? Unrated - you take your own shot.
However, the situation in Canada has no 'R' or 'X' rating equivalent for games, and games are not allowed to be sold unrated. Ergo, it's a round-about, yet effective, means of censorship for games. Simply refuse to rate the game, and it can't be legally sold in the country.
The USA, at least, has both the option of an 'everything else' rating and going ahead and saying 'screw you guys, here it is, UNRATED!!!!'. Seriously, I think that they're deliberately releasing 'unrated' as selling points for DVDs.
It sounds like tear down and rebuild would be better for you. Maybe what you could do is keep the shell though.
The foundation doesn't meet modern standards, has some water damage(not a big deal as is, the basement is completely unfinished and is only used for storage and utilities, I just put everything on pallets), and keeping the shell wouldn't fix the problem with the layout due to 3 expansions. I'd have to expand it again to fix some of that, at that point you might as well dissassemble the whole thing. It's not like it's a brick or stone building either.
No I don't, by keeping water warm you're wasting energy, heating only the water used at the point of use saves energy.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant you'd keep a tank to keep water heated from solar energy the day before hot enough to take a shower or whatever the next morning. For example, I'm showering at 5:30 in the morning most days, a couple hours before the sun comes up. If you have a solar water heating system without a tank, that means you have to use the POU heater to get a warm shower, using electricity or other fuel. If you have a hot water tank, perhaps an electric one without the heating elements connected*, you'd have hot water from the day before and have your warm/hot shower without engaging the POU heater much more than heating the cool water between the tank and the unit. I'd be careful with the unit though - you'll want to make sure it's smart about the temperature of the incoming water. Some are 'set and forget'.
*if you buy a 'real' solar water tank, chances are good it's an electric with the electric stuff pulled out, but because it's special order, it's more expensive than getting the electric.
Generation:
That $420 Billion would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts with PV technology, a lot more than even 400 Gigawatts.
Still have the difference between 'subsidy' and 'build' Don't forget the disadvantage solar has over nuclear when it comes to demand and capacity factors.
Currently LNG generates 20% of the electricity in the US, that should be enough for the baseload.
For a typical power system, the rule of thumb is that the base load power is usually 35-40% of the maximum load during the year.
When you look at kwh instead of watts, the percentage will go even higher - those peaks are relatively short, after all.
My memory may be wrong but I think you said you had worked at the Monju reactor in Japan.
Not me. I work around, but not particularly close to, devices measured in tons of TNT, not watts.
which I'll grant may be wrong, the only breeder reactors that were commercially operating was Monju and the BN-600 [wikipedia.org] reactor in Russia.
I'm aware they have problems; the superphoneix closed down, never really having operated, though the phoneix was still operating last I'd heard. They're liquid sodium cooled, which is good for safety(they operate at ambient pressure, so they won't explode) and efficiency(higher temps = better carnot cycle efficiency), but frankly speaking, exceeded our engineering capabilities and material science at the time. We're talking about when I was a kid, after all.
Or is more research needed before they are put into production? If there are any in production can use the waste sitting in casks and cooling ponds at operating power plants be used as fuel for them?
I'd say more engineering needs to be done; yes, they can use the waste sitting in casks and cooling ponds as fuel. Depending on design, you can even pull rods/fuel/waste from the plant and reprocess it to provide MORE fuel to the more standard plants.
What I'm puzzled about is I found this webpage that says BN-600 is France's. It also mentions France's Super-Phenix but it doesn't say whether it's in commercial operation or if it is a test reactor.
The Super-phenix was sort of a 'test-commercial' reactor. Scaled up from the phenix.
I moved from Florida. I really miss being within an hour of the coast. What is you latitude? Solar hot water works in Oregon and Washington state. It works in Maine as well. But maybe it's out of your financing.
North Dakota, just south of the border. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't work, it's just that I'd have to use vacuum tube radiators and a secondary loop w/antifreeze, and STILL get no benefit from it for 3 months out of the year. As a result my system would cost ~10X as much as one for my family down in Florida.
I've thought of that, using geothermal energy to provide hot water, but I think I'd use a tankless point of use water heater. Perhaps a solar hot water heater can be used to preheat the water.
You have to be careful, a number of those tankless jobs are actually LESS efficient than a well insulated tank. Most solar systems refit into a standard electric water heater. You WANT the tank to store hot water overnight, even if you never use the electric elements.
There's a personal tax credit, property tax exemption, sales tax exemption, state grant and loan programs, as well as others.
My grandparent's house is a lot like mine... Besides, they're on social security pretty much as their sole income. It'd have to make a LOT of sense and work well in order for me to recommend it. It'd pretty much have to start saving them money in year 1, because they'd have to finance the upgrade.
That $420 Billion would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts with PV technology, a lot more than even 400 Gigawatts.
Source? I was simply using the number quoted by the 'grand plan'.
Do you have a link for this? I thought LNG could be ramped up or reduced quickly whereas nuclear could not.
In addition, both new-build CANDU designs, Enhanced CANDU 6 (EC6) and ACR-1000, are capable of deep, planned load-following. For EC6 this means an ability to cycle down to 60% full power and back (or 50% full power by bypassing excess steam directly to the condensers). For ACR-1000 this means an ability to cycle down to 75% and back (or 50%, using condenser bypass).
It's not as fast or as far as purpose designed peak power NG plants, but they can do it. It's just that due to their high capital and low fuel costs, like coal and hydro they tend to be used as baseload. Hydro is a bit weird - you only get so many kwh worth of water a year, and depending on your load balance it can make sense to use it for higher demand times.
I'm not sure if retrofitting or a tear down and rebuild is better, older buildings already have a lot of embedded energy.
My house also has things like cloth-wrapped electrical wiring, plaster and lathe walls, an overcomplicated roof, was already expanded three times, poorly laid out, etc... It'd be far cheaper and more efficient to bring it up to code by demolishing it and building a new one - at most reusing some of the wood. For ~$50k I could get a new double wide manufactured house(not trailor) with a proper basement, more floor space, a good bathroom, better laid out, foam insulation, etc...
Thing is, they aren't even being hit. They're being sucked into the low pressure zone behind the blade and having the blood vessels in their lungs burst.
Still, same principal; evolution will favor bats that either avoid the turbines or can survive the passage...
You mean government lack of policy. The crisis happened because the laws which were put in place to prevent it after the last one were repealed under the reaganite/libertarian montra of "govt intervention = bad"
No, I mean encourage. They passed legislation that encouraged lending to minorities; despite their lower credit scores. Along with repealing/rewriting legislation that should have stayed in place.
Gotta love the whole progressive/regressive thing. It's not even static; it's defined in terms of what it's compared to.
It wasn't that many years ago that I was in the first couple brackets, and I certainly knew what a lightbulb was. Try again.
This will certainly keep our economy flying.. straight at the ground and into a colossal crater.
You mean a different crater than the one it's in now? I figure the sales tax system would help encourage evenness - we won't shoot quite as high, but we won't bottom out like this either.
not going to happen. I've shipped in from overseas thousands of times and been socked with a surcharge only once.
When there's only a very few things charged tariffs/import duties. This would change.
Sorry for the delay, had work to do and felt the need to review your linked material. I was listening to NPR talking about how reducing CO2 emissions 80% by 2050 won't be enough. Coal->NG doesn't save 80% on CO2 emissions, and I'm still skeptical about the practicality of various sequestriation activities. Basically, I view them as time bombs as large or larger than nuclear waste would be.
They are after all only meant to serve for when alternative sources do not provide enough energy
You're touching on part of the problem for renewable energy - once you start getting above 20%, you need substantial amounts of standby power generators. The highest efficiency NG turbines are both too expensive and don't start fast enough. Nuclear power CAN scale up and down fairly quickly, just not off and on - it's like an idling car motor, you can still coast on it.
Between hydro, wind, and solar, we should be able to supply ~50-60% of our electricity needs. Why not supply the other 40% with nuclear?
Properly insulated building reduce if not eliminate the need to heat with LNG. There are other ways to heat as well. Former President Bush used geothermal heating to heat his Crawford, Texas ranch. People in New York City use geothermal heating. People also use solar thermal heating, even in Northern Europe.
I'm all for insulating buildings, I think I even mentioned tearing down and rebuilding houses occasionally making a lot of sense. Still, that's a long term solution at the fastest. My house already has all the insulation that's practical given it's design(though new windows would help some), I honestly assess it to be at the 'tear down and build fresh' state(for a multitude of reasons). I'm just saving up a practical downpayment to do it. It'll not only be highly insulation(thinking about earthen construction, actually), it'll also have a ground source heat pump for heating/cooling. I've recommended solar water heating to my relatives down in florida, but given my latitude and the resulting extra costs for solar water heating, I think I'll stick to using the heat pump to provide hot water. Especially since they make ones now that can turn on to provide the hot water when necessary. If I stay in the state when I leave my current job, I won't need the cooling part often, so it'll help when I want hot water in the summer.
Another point would be that I think we should concentrate on getting people off of oil heating first - like my grandparents in upstate New York. By the way, they live on a mountain, so you can't get very deep before you hit bedrock, making geothermal a bit difficult. Given the lattitude and weather, they'll need a backup over solar heating. So what would you suggest?
As for geothermal off of NG provided electricity - the top NG plants are only about 60% efficient at transforming NG into electricity, vs 97% for direct burning for heat. You get about a 3-1 advantage with geothermal, so we're at 180% - but we have the cost of building the power plant and tens of thousands for the heat pump, to only get double the heat per unit of NG. It's far cheaper, only a couple thousand, for putting in a burner system at the home. Things get worse if you're using a 40% or lower efficiency NG plant like most converted coal facilities.
Keep in mind that I'm also looking towards how we're going to power a future generation of electric vehicles.
Only if LNG were to replace coal and nuclear, but not if it is only used as a baseload.
What do you think Nuclear/Coal is used for? As the cheapest sources of electricity they're used almost universally for baseload. Natural Gas is the biggest source of peak power at this time. I'm somewhat disregarding hydro, of course, since it's pretty much maxed in this country.
It's distracting to those of us who understand the difference, because I was wondering how the heck you manage to get by on around 12 cents of electricity a month. Or even daily. Sure, a moment later I realized what you really meant, but I still had to mentally shift gears to resolve that issue.
One thing to keep in mind is that you can't just model your usage of power as an averaged wattage - peoples demands not only change through the day, they're somewhat synchronized so that when you demand more power is also when other people demand more power, resulting in peaks and valleys.
They may not be photovoltiac cells, but they're still solar cells in the sense that they have individual 'cells' that pick up energy from the sun. It's just that they're pumping water through them to use the heat more directly.
Somehow, I doubt seriously we'd need 1000% of our current electrical generation capacity to replace oil alone....
We use oil for some stuff like lubrication that, assuming we insist on using nuclear power to provide it, wouldn't be too efficient.;)
I haven't seen an estimate either on how many kwh a year it'd take if we went to 100% EVs. Don't feel like building one at the moment either - though.3kwh a mile is one figure I've seen. You'd have to get trucks and trains as well.
3 Trillion highway miles a year - 900 Billion kwh required - a Gigawatt plant can be expected to produce ~7.8 Billion kwh a year.
We have just over a hundred reactors now, to supply 20% of our power. Call it 500 to supply all of our electricity, and another 100-200 to provide the power for vehicles. 700 reactors in total, for relatively carbon-free transportation and electricity. Utilize cogeneration and we'd be able to eliminate a lot of heating bills as well. Reactors by the ocean could use the ocean for cooling and desalinate water while they're at it.
We'd burn through our uranium reserves pretty quickly doing it that way with traditional reactors, but using breeders and such we'd be good for thousands of years before we'd need to start filtering the stuff from ocean water or switching to Thorium. Still, I'd definitely use wind/solar where it makes sense.
It's also suspected that with increased use of nuclear fuel and the depletion of fuel coming from weapons stockpiles that a price spike would result in more exploration ala oil and find lots more of the stuff.
That's because dakrats and other carrion eaters drag them away;)
I've heard is that some efficiency improvements dramatically decreased the bird kills - the older, smaller, faster, and louder turbines killed far more birds than the bigger slower(quieter) turbines of today - though those edges still end up moving pretty quick, birds evolved to at least try to dodge falcons and such are plenty fast enough to avoid them. A lot easier than they avoid our nice clear windows, at least...
The latest though, is that they kill more Bats than birds - Personally, while I don't want bats too close to me due to the whole rabies problem, I do love the little mosquitoe eaters a little further away.
Still, put the turbines up high enough and you should avoid the bats - I don't imagine that skeeters fly that high, after all, there's no prey at that altitude, and why would bats be up there if their food isn't?
Income taxes are currently progressive. this means that under the "fair tax" people will get progressively poorer as you move further and further below the median income.
www.Fairtax.org
let me know when balancing your budget involves weighing food vs heat, medication vs gas to get to work. I don't think you quite understand how limited funds are to those below the median income brackets.
Didn't start life making $50k, started at less than $12k.
Don't blame the government, blame corporate greed.
Corporations are supposed to be greedy; government is supposed to reign them in a bit. Government policies encouraged that stuff. As for people's wages being static - well, we've had all that downward pressure because of the low costs of labor and other things in places like China and India. It's put downward pressure all over the first world countries. Frankly, I'm surprised we've done as well as we have.
Honestly enough, I believe that the progress of technology has kept us more or less even, with the caveat that we can do a heck of a lot MORE with medicine, and that's expensive. If we were to restrict ourselves to things they could do back when my grandparents were young it'd be a whole lot cheaper. The 'poor' of today have televisions and frequently cable. The 'poor' of yesterday had to make do with a radio.
I've seen my cousins grow up and make their own choices, some putting them in the income brackets you complain about. They manage to find ways to get food and medicine for their kids, and frequently (illegal)drugs for themselves. Would I have done things differently? Probably so. I honestly believe that the 'poor' are mostly that way due to spending habits, not income. I've known poor people, IE no assets, with $50k/year jobs. My mom, the CPA, has known people declaring bankruptcy with $250k+ incomes. Meanwhile, every so often you hear about the guy or gal with the low wage job passing on and leaving a million, saved up over the years, to charity.
remove taxes on products below a certain price cap? Mercedes will just sell their cars in small, separate parts, then the "service" of putting it together. Remove taxes on certain classes of products? now you have the government determining what other people can buy AND you are dependent on the government to update these things. Current medicaid income thresholds in my state are 3k/yr
Now I KNOW you didn't look it up. It involves rebating all US Citizens and legal resident aliens amounts equivalent to the tax on poverty line spending. Spend less? You get extra income, spend more? Your effective tax rate goes up as you spend more. One thing about the fairtax site I don't necessarily agree with would be taxing raw food/medical care, but I understand their point. It's not like it doesn't get exempted with the rebate.
current sales taxes are not significant enough to outweigh the convenience of immediate receipt of product. Jack it up to "fair tax" levels and you will suddenly see a lot of orders made to online companies offshore and shipped in via normal post.
All hail the return of the third world. (explative deleted) the poor by making everything cost 25% more! they're "inferior" anyway, right?
Did you miss the part about eliminating income taxes, making everybody about 25% richer?
I'd call that sheltered. Two parents in the upper professional echelons means never facing hard times. You are in no position to be demanding everything cost 25% more.
It also means that I bloody well know how to balance a budget and such.
damn right! You only get extended a loan if you already have the money sitting in an account somewhere, and now since the credit crunch not even that. Heck, i can't even consolidate the citi private student loans despite the fact i can never, ever walk away from them in a bankruptcy!
Lenders are in it to make money. It makes no sense for them to make dangerous loans where they can't even expect to get principal back; much less interest.
The POINT is a tax system which deliberately penalizes consumption will kill revenue streams to manufacturers, resulting in depressed wages or lost jobs while at the same time raising the cost of products by 25%. My, how very "fair" this tax is to the lower 50% of the income distribution.
As opposed to this one, in which saving was penalized and spending encouraged to the point that most people are more in hock than their income? To the point that we have this economy? Give me the steadyness of people investing in economic infrastructure(stocks, bonds, that stuff).
Besides, look up the fairtax proposals - there's ways to make it progressive.
yes, he does, or are you a real accountant?
Didn't follow my parents into the accounting field.
good luck stopping the smuggling! Oh look i just found a big hole that can be used for tax evasion under this "fair tax" which will screw everyone below the median income!
Most states already have a sales tax, how much smuggling is going on? Well, otherwise than illegal drugs? Look at the huge ass cargo containers our shit is hauled in on. They couldn't smuggle that much stuff in. Unlike drugs, consumer goods tend to be bulky.
When you pay a plumber or electrician in cash, what makes you think he actually declares that income? When you buy some goods off market stall, do you think they write it all down and pay taxes? Do they fuck.
As you say, this already happens, I've heard it called 'working under the table'. IE Electricians doing side jobs and not declaring it as income is effectively no different than not charging sales tax for the job.
Think about all that imported duty-free tobacco, now imagine that applied to all easily-traded goods. More will be sold under the counter than over it!
Why doesn't this happen now in all the states with sales taxes? Hell, going by the example of tobacco, the market must be huge because in many areas the 'sales tax' on them is over 100%!
Buyer pay the sames tax though, an income tax the corporation will pay. Actually either way buyers pay.
Agreed. At least with the 'sales tax' option the buyer sees what he's paying.
It will at that. You could tax electricity and or tires but I don't know how that would work out. However it's done I see a problem, it more than likely will require a bureaucracy and bureaucracies tend to grow.
Make it the same authority that licenses cars and taxes gasoline and tires. In my state they tax tire purchases to pay for disposal. Build a tire house and they'll even pay you money for recycling/disposing of them.
Along with user fees or taxes I'm all for that. Because they get limited liability the only things that should pay income taxes are corporations. If you drive on the roads you pay a tax on the fuel.
I prefer the sales tax factor - makes it difficult for a compnay to hide income/claim extra deductions to decrease tax costs. It's simpler, basically.
As for the roads - add in 'or built into the real estate taxes', IE the neighborhood pays to keep up the roads in the area. Though if we ever get electric cars up to a significant percentage, it's going to become more complicated. Right now we can just write that off as 'encouraging usage of alternate fuel vehicles'. We get double digit usage, we'll have to figure something out.
Clothes tax free? Ok mr gates, let's go get that custom fit armani.
Many proposals I see have exemptions for stuff under a dollar amount. I see that as leading to people buying 3 4 packs of underwear instead of a 12 pack*, so I'm opposed. The rich can still get their $25 shorts tax free, they just buy them individually instead of in a 3 pack or whatever. Regardless, clothing doesn't have to be a significant expense, the lowest tiers can shop at goodwill stores and such, underwear isn't that expensive, etc... Clothing - taxed.
Then there's the fact that food, water, and shelter are not the only portions of a first-world lifestyle. It would be quite a bit easier for these same poor people to just move to a developing nation if that's all they need.
"If they want first world lifestyle, they need to earn first world lifestyle!"/meanie with nose in air with oddly russian accent.;) My list of 'necessities': Food, shelter, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and a bit of entertainment. I include water in along with food. Of all these, I'm fond of the midwestern tendency to tax restaurant food and not grocery food. Rich people DO tend to eat out a lot more than the poor... And when the poor eat out, it tends to be at unhealthy places like fast food joints. Regardless - of that list, all that I wouldn't tax would be some of the food and medical care.
the more in include in this exemption list the greater loopholes become for those who wish to evade it.
And the more you have to charge on other items to make up for the lost revenue, increasing the drive to avoid it.
*I really dislike running out, and like getting all new occasionally.
Then introduce pay as you earn, where taxes are taken out of your paycheque before you get it. Take out all the deductions, rebates etc. This will make tax evasion harder to revenues will increase without taxes actually going up.
We already have that in the form of withholding, it's just there's an annual 'make up' like balancing the checkbook. Or having estimated meter readings through the year, with once a year actual reading.
The other option either means the government doesn't get to play social engineering with taxes as much, or 'correctly' apply progressive taxes on people with multiple jobs nearly as easily.
Great, but before you do that, let me know so I can invest my entire net worth in companies that make safes. I can see a sudden mysterious upsurge in the use of cash.
Audit the companies collecting sales tax; don't worry about Grandma and her hobby of making & selling doll clothes. Most business goes through retail channels. Don't sell goods to anybody without charging sales tax unless they have a business ID and are therefore subject to audit. In some ways you could go with VAT like in Europe, but I'm convinced there are better ways.
sorry but modern western society is not defined by food shelter and water, and as soon as you start to expand it from there it becomes open to exploitation.
Agreed, which is why I'd only exempt medical care; maybe food/water.
I dont know what sheltered life you live, but in the real world people maintain a specific lifestyle by assuming debt in harder times and paying it off in better times. Punishing the assumption of debt by increasing the principle 20+% will kick people financially when theyre down and will discourage economic growth overall by punishing spenders.
Sheltered life? Raised by two accountants, maybe. Ideally people stay mostly out of debt; during good years they build a reserve to use during lean years. For example, I have 3 months income in a mutual fund. Used to be six, but *shrug*. Other tax sheltered investments stretch that to a couple years. Given my life I also have a far different idea of what minimum lifestyles are. Being to some of the poorest regions of the world can do that.
Are you one of those that also complain about how those who need credit the most can't get it?
Except people have to buy and sell new goods for revenue to flow and salaries to be paid.
And the feds need money to run their operations, your point? Remember, under my scheme you'll also be keeping about 25% more of your pay.
See my answer to number 1, add to that the fact that governmental policies never track properly with inflation or account for debt to income ratios, which are much more important than nominal income.
Then they occasionally adjust the scales. Not actually a huge deal.
And trump spends far less in comparison to his income than his secretary spends on her son's allowance. The "fair tax" would allow him to pay even less.
He does? On the other hand, his income is generally reinvested in the economy resulting in increased economic infrastructure, which is a good thing.
no, you'd lose domestic companies because everyone would buy from online vendors across the border. Introduce tariffs and face economic sanctions from the WTO.
Suggest you read up more; European countries, Australia charge VAT on incoming goods all the time. You'll face no economic sanctions as long as you're even handed - If you're taxing goods regardless of their type and origion, there'll be no sanctions. IE you're not allowed to slap a $1/pound tax on beef from Australia but not Japan, but you are allowed to charge a 10% VAT/sales tax fee on everything, beef included, whether it comes from Australia or Japan.
Slashdot Mirror
His performance in Beijing totally DESTROYS all the standard "potheads are losers who will never amount to anything" line of bullshit that we have been spoonfed for years.
Who says he was using when he did that? If nothing else, there's a high probability they test for pot along with all the dozens of other performance enhancing drugs they check for in the Olympics and other high level sporting events.
Given how long THC can be detected after use, he'd of had to stop months before any competition.
If you mean you can use a solar water heater to heat water before a tank in conjunction with a point of use heater, then yes it may be more efficient. I thought I said that before, but I went up this tread and didn't see it so maybe I said it in another thread.
Exactly. I was responding to this comment: "No I don't, by keeping water warm you're wasting energy, heating only the water used at the point of use saves energy." in response to my "You WANT the tank to store hot water overnight, even if you never use the electric elements."
Did some quick rechecking - My water comes out at 50F, common quotes for shower temps are 98F-110F. So I need 50 degrees of temperature rise. American Heat Tankless Water Heater ADK-1 60 Amp, $227, a bit cheaper than what I paid for my 55 gallon water heater, much cheaper than the $700 I saw for a tankless heater before. Still, 240V@60A is my ENTIRE electric service, and would only provide sufficient heat at the absolute bottom end for my shower or clothes washer(1.5GPM). Per the chart, I'd need an AH-21($588), 100 amps. An AH-18 might work, at 80 amps, but family wouldn't be happy when they visit.
I think I made the right choice for my situation. I'm looking at an upgrade - installing a heat pump system this summer, assuming I can get good price information and ordering ability on line. Last time they were 'out of stock'. That might be your best option, as well. 3X the heating ability per kwh, even over tankless. 5A@240V, instead of 60A@240V. You still have the tank to store solar heated water. Good surge capacity without blowing your house's main breaker.
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power." Whereas coal generated electricity costs 3.53 cent per KWH and "clean coal" it's 3.55 cents per KWH, without subsidies nuclear power generated electricity cost 5.94 cents per KWH. If the subsidies for coal are removed coal is still cheaper, 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents for clean coal.
And if you put a carbon tax in coal gets slaughtered. Even clean coal - by default, most 'clean coal' plants aren't sequestering, and sequestering leaches 30% of the plant's energy to collect the CO2.
"Unfortunately, the capture process consumes a lot of energy itself, reducing the plant's efficiency and requiring more coal to be mined and burned."
Hmm, also disagrees with the cost for clean coal - "Power from a new IGCC coal plant with full carbon capture and sequestration should cost 7.3-9.6 cents per kWh (factoring in the capture-related efficiency losses and sequestration expenses)."
Another source: "Removing carbon dioxide under current known systems would cut plant capacity by 25 percent to 30 percent, Baxter said in a telephone interview." - though it later notes that he's patenting a system that would be cheaper and only cost 15% efficiency - dropping the cost per kwh from 11 to 8 cents.
So the tech isn't ready. To reduce the waste that's already there I may agree to reprocess it so it can be used in power plants that have already been built but I don't think I could agree to building more nuclear power plants.
Engineering always needs to be done. Basically, we're putting solar, wind, and other experimental electricity generation systems up left and right. I'd settle for a couple(to have some statistical relevance you need more than one) of new nuke plants as a similar test. Thus far, all we have are a bunch of often slanted numbers. Maybe even a breeder, even if it's not economic by the po
This is nowhere near the first time this has been done. The same 'solve/prevent crimes' has been proposed for cameras, ballistic databases, etc... None have been more cost efficient than more traditional police methods. DNA is better as confirmation, not primary investigation.
"It is good technology. It solves crimes," said Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, which has long pushed for DNA tests at the time of arrest.
I dispute Don Pierce's statement. It's simple enough, England has had this system up for years. They even have the more extreme DNA collection method - DNA is collected for all arrestees, no conviction or charges required.
Crimes solved by DNA evidence fall despite millions being added to database.
Figures show that for the past six years the number of crimes solved using DNA evidence has remained static at between 0.34 and 0.36 per cent - about one in 300 of all recorded crimes.
Heck, I was shocked the other day to hear that newborn babies are NOW pretty much always issued a SSN at birth???
How old are you? Where have you been hiding? I'm over 30 and got my number at birth.
Wish I'd opted out back then....*sigh*
You'd have still had to pay the taxes, and wouldn't get the benefits you'll theoretically get now.
They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets?
Given they specifically mentioned firewalls and not using/distributing the information, they should be aware that no DRM on the machine itself is going to work.
Another topic would be a network with firewall/monitoring systems run by a non-agreeing party. Let's say I'm running a coffeshop that offer free wireless. Customer A comes in with said CNN program installed. Not having agreed to the terms of the EULA, I'm free to analyze the heck out of the stream.
Or the usual fun - 'my 12 year old installed it', or 'the techs in the store did'.
Very good. However, you have the option of, like in the USA. G - pretty much unoffensive to everybody. Ted Nugent might take offense at the potrayal of tasty Bambi, but everybody else is fine with it. R - We really recommend you think twice, maybe watch it by yourself before you expose your kids to it. X/NC17 - why are you even thinking about showing this to kids? Unrated - you take your own shot.
However, the situation in Canada has no 'R' or 'X' rating equivalent for games, and games are not allowed to be sold unrated. Ergo, it's a round-about, yet effective, means of censorship for games. Simply refuse to rate the game, and it can't be legally sold in the country.
The USA, at least, has both the option of an 'everything else' rating and going ahead and saying 'screw you guys, here it is, UNRATED!!!!'. Seriously, I think that they're deliberately releasing 'unrated' as selling points for DVDs.
House stuff:
It sounds like tear down and rebuild would be better for you. Maybe what you could do is keep the shell though.
The foundation doesn't meet modern standards, has some water damage(not a big deal as is, the basement is completely unfinished and is only used for storage and utilities, I just put everything on pallets), and keeping the shell wouldn't fix the problem with the layout due to 3 expansions. I'd have to expand it again to fix some of that, at that point you might as well dissassemble the whole thing. It's not like it's a brick or stone building either.
No I don't, by keeping water warm you're wasting energy, heating only the water used at the point of use saves energy.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant you'd keep a tank to keep water heated from solar energy the day before hot enough to take a shower or whatever the next morning. For example, I'm showering at 5:30 in the morning most days, a couple hours before the sun comes up. If you have a solar water heating system without a tank, that means you have to use the POU heater to get a warm shower, using electricity or other fuel. If you have a hot water tank, perhaps an electric one without the heating elements connected*, you'd have hot water from the day before and have your warm/hot shower without engaging the POU heater much more than heating the cool water between the tank and the unit. I'd be careful with the unit though - you'll want to make sure it's smart about the temperature of the incoming water. Some are 'set and forget'.
*if you buy a 'real' solar water tank, chances are good it's an electric with the electric stuff pulled out, but because it's special order, it's more expensive than getting the electric.
Generation:
That $420 Billion would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts with PV technology, a lot more than even 400 Gigawatts.
Still have the difference between 'subsidy' and 'build' Don't forget the disadvantage solar has over nuclear when it comes to demand and capacity factors.
Currently LNG generates 20% of the electricity in the US, that should be enough for the baseload.
For a typical power system, the rule of thumb is that the base load power is usually 35-40% of the maximum load during the year.
When you look at kwh instead of watts, the percentage will go even higher - those peaks are relatively short, after all.
My memory may be wrong but I think you said you had worked at the Monju reactor in Japan.
Not me. I work around, but not particularly close to, devices measured in tons of TNT, not watts.
which I'll grant may be wrong, the only breeder reactors that were commercially operating was Monju and the BN-600 [wikipedia.org] reactor in Russia.
I'm aware they have problems; the superphoneix closed down, never really having operated, though the phoneix was still operating last I'd heard. They're liquid sodium cooled, which is good for safety(they operate at ambient pressure, so they won't explode) and efficiency(higher temps = better carnot cycle efficiency), but frankly speaking, exceeded our engineering capabilities and material science at the time. We're talking about when I was a kid, after all.
Or is more research needed before they are put into production? If there are any in production can use the waste sitting in casks and cooling ponds at operating power plants be used as fuel for them?
I'd say more engineering needs to be done; yes, they can use the waste sitting in casks and cooling ponds as fuel. Depending on design, you can even pull rods/fuel/waste from the plant and reprocess it to provide MORE fuel to the more standard plants.
What I'm puzzled about is I found this webpage that says BN-600 is France's. It also mentions France's Super-Phenix but it doesn't say whether it's in commercial operation or if it is a test reactor.
The Super-phenix was sort of a 'test-commercial' reactor. Scaled up from the phenix.
I moved from Florida. I really miss being within an hour of the coast. What is you latitude? Solar hot water works in Oregon and Washington state. It works in Maine as well. But maybe it's out of your financing.
North Dakota, just south of the border. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't work, it's just that I'd have to use vacuum tube radiators and a secondary loop w/antifreeze, and STILL get no benefit from it for 3 months out of the year. As a result my system would cost ~10X as much as one for my family down in Florida.
I've thought of that, using geothermal energy to provide hot water, but I think I'd use a tankless point of use water heater. Perhaps a solar hot water heater can be used to preheat the water.
You have to be careful, a number of those tankless jobs are actually LESS efficient than a well insulated tank. Most solar systems refit into a standard electric water heater. You WANT the tank to store hot water overnight, even if you never use the electric elements.
There's a personal tax credit, property tax exemption, sales tax exemption, state grant and loan programs, as well as others.
My grandparent's house is a lot like mine... Besides, they're on social security pretty much as their sole income. It'd have to make a LOT of sense and work well in order for me to recommend it. It'd pretty much have to start saving them money in year 1, because they'd have to finance the upgrade.
That $420 Billion would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts with PV technology, a lot more than even 400 Gigawatts.
Source? I was simply using the number quoted by the 'grand plan'.
Do you have a link for this? I thought LNG could be ramped up or reduced quickly whereas nuclear could not.
In addition, both new-build CANDU designs, Enhanced CANDU 6 (EC6) and ACR-1000, are capable of deep, planned load-following. For EC6 this means an ability to cycle down to 60% full power and back (or 50% full power by bypassing excess steam directly to the condensers). For ACR-1000 this means an ability to cycle down to 75% and back (or 50%, using condenser bypass).
It's not as fast or as far as purpose designed peak power NG plants, but they can do it. It's just that due to their high capital and low fuel costs, like coal and hydro they tend to be used as baseload. Hydro is a bit weird - you only get so many kwh worth of water a year, and depending on your load balance it can make sense to use it for higher demand times.
I'm not sure if retrofitting or a tear down and rebuild is better, older buildings already have a lot of embedded energy.
My house also has things like cloth-wrapped electrical wiring, plaster and lathe walls, an overcomplicated roof, was already expanded three times, poorly laid out, etc... It'd be far cheaper and more efficient to bring it up to code by demolishing it and building a new one - at most reusing some of the wood. For ~$50k I could get a new double wide manufactured house(not trailor) with a proper basement, more floor space, a good bathroom, better laid out, foam insulation, etc...
Thing is, they aren't even being hit. They're being sucked into the low pressure zone behind the blade and having the blood vessels in their lungs burst.
Still, same principal; evolution will favor bats that either avoid the turbines or can survive the passage...
You mean government lack of policy. The crisis happened because the laws which were put in place to prevent it after the last one were repealed under the reaganite/libertarian montra of "govt intervention = bad"
No, I mean encourage. They passed legislation that encouraged lending to minorities; despite their lower credit scores. Along with repealing/rewriting legislation that should have stayed in place.
Gotta love the whole progressive/regressive thing. It's not even static; it's defined in terms of what it's compared to.
It wasn't that many years ago that I was in the first couple brackets, and I certainly knew what a lightbulb was. Try again.
This will certainly keep our economy flying.. straight at the ground and into a colossal crater.
You mean a different crater than the one it's in now? I figure the sales tax system would help encourage evenness - we won't shoot quite as high, but we won't bottom out like this either.
not going to happen. I've shipped in from overseas thousands of times and been socked with a surcharge only once.
When there's only a very few things charged tariffs/import duties. This would change.
Sorry for the delay, had work to do and felt the need to review your linked material. I was listening to NPR talking about how reducing CO2 emissions 80% by 2050 won't be enough. Coal->NG doesn't save 80% on CO2 emissions, and I'm still skeptical about the practicality of various sequestriation activities. Basically, I view them as time bombs as large or larger than nuclear waste would be.
They are after all only meant to serve for when alternative sources do not provide enough energy
You're touching on part of the problem for renewable energy - once you start getting above 20%, you need substantial amounts of standby power generators. The highest efficiency NG turbines are both too expensive and don't start fast enough. Nuclear power CAN scale up and down fairly quickly, just not off and on - it's like an idling car motor, you can still coast on it.
Between hydro, wind, and solar, we should be able to supply ~50-60% of our electricity needs. Why not supply the other 40% with nuclear?
Properly insulated building reduce if not eliminate the need to heat with LNG. There are other ways to heat as well. Former President Bush used geothermal heating to heat his Crawford, Texas ranch. People in New York City use geothermal heating. People also use solar thermal heating, even in Northern Europe.
I'm all for insulating buildings, I think I even mentioned tearing down and rebuilding houses occasionally making a lot of sense. Still, that's a long term solution at the fastest. My house already has all the insulation that's practical given it's design(though new windows would help some), I honestly assess it to be at the 'tear down and build fresh' state(for a multitude of reasons). I'm just saving up a practical downpayment to do it. It'll not only be highly insulation(thinking about earthen construction, actually), it'll also have a ground source heat pump for heating/cooling. I've recommended solar water heating to my relatives down in florida, but given my latitude and the resulting extra costs for solar water heating, I think I'll stick to using the heat pump to provide hot water. Especially since they make ones now that can turn on to provide the hot water when necessary. If I stay in the state when I leave my current job, I won't need the cooling part often, so it'll help when I want hot water in the summer.
Another point would be that I think we should concentrate on getting people off of oil heating first - like my grandparents in upstate New York. By the way, they live on a mountain, so you can't get very deep before you hit bedrock, making geothermal a bit difficult. Given the lattitude and weather, they'll need a backup over solar heating. So what would you suggest?
As for geothermal off of NG provided electricity - the top NG plants are only about 60% efficient at transforming NG into electricity, vs 97% for direct burning for heat. You get about a 3-1 advantage with geothermal, so we're at 180% - but we have the cost of building the power plant and tens of thousands for the heat pump, to only get double the heat per unit of NG. It's far cheaper, only a couple thousand, for putting in a burner system at the home. Things get worse if you're using a 40% or lower efficiency NG plant like most converted coal facilities.
Keep in mind that I'm also looking towards how we're going to power a future generation of electric vehicles.
Only if LNG were to replace coal and nuclear, but not if it is only used as a baseload.
What do you think Nuclear/Coal is used for? As the cheapest sources of electricity they're used almost universally for baseload. Natural Gas is the biggest source of peak power at this time. I'm somewhat disregarding hydro, of course, since it's pretty much maxed in this country.
A So
It's distracting to those of us who understand the difference, because I was wondering how the heck you manage to get by on around 12 cents of electricity a month. Or even daily. Sure, a moment later I realized what you really meant, but I still had to mentally shift gears to resolve that issue.
One thing to keep in mind is that you can't just model your usage of power as an averaged wattage - peoples demands not only change through the day, they're somewhat synchronized so that when you demand more power is also when other people demand more power, resulting in peaks and valleys.
Yes, it hashed my vibe a bit. ;)
but the companies might even be able to live without right now
Without the German subsidies, maybe. But from what I've seen they're simply moving to different government subsidies in other countries.
Makes sense though, you sell your product to the highest bidder/payer first.
They may not be photovoltiac cells, but they're still solar cells in the sense that they have individual 'cells' that pick up energy from the sun. It's just that they're pumping water through them to use the heat more directly.
Somehow, I doubt seriously we'd need 1000% of our current electrical generation capacity to replace oil alone....
We use oil for some stuff like lubrication that, assuming we insist on using nuclear power to provide it, wouldn't be too efficient. ;)
I haven't seen an estimate either on how many kwh a year it'd take if we went to 100% EVs. Don't feel like building one at the moment either - though .3kwh a mile is one figure I've seen. You'd have to get trucks and trains as well.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2004/html/table_01_32.html
3 Trillion highway miles a year - 900 Billion kwh required - a Gigawatt plant can be expected to produce ~7.8 Billion kwh a year.
We have just over a hundred reactors now, to supply 20% of our power. Call it 500 to supply all of our electricity, and another 100-200 to provide the power for vehicles. 700 reactors in total, for relatively carbon-free transportation and electricity. Utilize cogeneration and we'd be able to eliminate a lot of heating bills as well. Reactors by the ocean could use the ocean for cooling and desalinate water while they're at it.
We'd burn through our uranium reserves pretty quickly doing it that way with traditional reactors, but using breeders and such we'd be good for thousands of years before we'd need to start filtering the stuff from ocean water or switching to Thorium. Still, I'd definitely use wind/solar where it makes sense.
It's also suspected that with increased use of nuclear fuel and the depletion of fuel coming from weapons stockpiles that a price spike would result in more exploration ala oil and find lots more of the stuff.
That's because dakrats and other carrion eaters drag them away ;)
I've heard is that some efficiency improvements dramatically decreased the bird kills - the older, smaller, faster, and louder turbines killed far more birds than the bigger slower(quieter) turbines of today - though those edges still end up moving pretty quick, birds evolved to at least try to dodge falcons and such are plenty fast enough to avoid them. A lot easier than they avoid our nice clear windows, at least...
The latest though, is that they kill more Bats than birds - Personally, while I don't want bats too close to me due to the whole rabies problem, I do love the little mosquitoe eaters a little further away.
Still, put the turbines up high enough and you should avoid the bats - I don't imagine that skeeters fly that high, after all, there's no prey at that altitude, and why would bats be up there if their food isn't?
Income taxes are currently progressive. this means that under the "fair tax" people will get progressively poorer as you move further and further below the median income.
www.Fairtax.org
let me know when balancing your budget involves weighing food vs heat, medication vs gas to get to work. I don't think you quite understand how limited funds are to those below the median income brackets.
Didn't start life making $50k, started at less than $12k.
Don't blame the government, blame corporate greed.
Corporations are supposed to be greedy; government is supposed to reign them in a bit. Government policies encouraged that stuff. As for people's wages being static - well, we've had all that downward pressure because of the low costs of labor and other things in places like China and India. It's put downward pressure all over the first world countries. Frankly, I'm surprised we've done as well as we have.
Honestly enough, I believe that the progress of technology has kept us more or less even, with the caveat that we can do a heck of a lot MORE with medicine, and that's expensive. If we were to restrict ourselves to things they could do back when my grandparents were young it'd be a whole lot cheaper. The 'poor' of today have televisions and frequently cable. The 'poor' of yesterday had to make do with a radio.
I've seen my cousins grow up and make their own choices, some putting them in the income brackets you complain about. They manage to find ways to get food and medicine for their kids, and frequently (illegal)drugs for themselves. Would I have done things differently? Probably so. I honestly believe that the 'poor' are mostly that way due to spending habits, not income. I've known poor people, IE no assets, with $50k/year jobs. My mom, the CPA, has known people declaring bankruptcy with $250k+ incomes. Meanwhile, every so often you hear about the guy or gal with the low wage job passing on and leaving a million, saved up over the years, to charity.
remove taxes on products below a certain price cap? Mercedes will just sell their cars in small, separate parts, then the "service" of putting it together.
Remove taxes on certain classes of products? now you have the government determining what other people can buy AND you are dependent on the government to update these things. Current medicaid income thresholds in my state are 3k/yr
Now I KNOW you didn't look it up. It involves rebating all US Citizens and legal resident aliens amounts equivalent to the tax on poverty line spending. Spend less? You get extra income, spend more? Your effective tax rate goes up as you spend more. One thing about the fairtax site I don't necessarily agree with would be taxing raw food/medical care, but I understand their point. It's not like it doesn't get exempted with the rebate.
current sales taxes are not significant enough to outweigh the convenience of immediate receipt of product. Jack it up to "fair tax" levels and you will suddenly see a lot of orders made to online companies offshore and shipped in via normal post.
And promptly be taxed at the border? Have you ever seen international shipping rates? It'll end up being MINOR. US bound goods already come on . Foreign shipping of individual packages would outweigh the tax.
All hail the return of the third world. (explative deleted) the poor by making everything cost 25% more! they're "inferior" anyway, right?
Did you miss the part about eliminating income taxes, making everybody about 25% richer?
I'd call that sheltered. Two parents in the upper professional echelons means never facing hard times. You are in no position to be demanding everything cost 25% more.
It also means that I bloody well know how to balance a budget and such.
damn right! You only get extended a loan if you already have the money sitting in an account somewhere, and now since the credit crunch not even that. Heck, i can't even consolidate the citi private student loans despite the fact i can never, ever walk away from them in a bankruptcy!
Lenders are in it to make money. It makes no sense for them to make dangerous loans where they can't even expect to get principal back; much less interest.
The POINT is a tax system which deliberately penalizes consumption will kill revenue streams to manufacturers, resulting in depressed wages or lost jobs while at the same time raising the cost of products by 25%.
My, how very "fair" this tax is to the lower 50% of the income distribution.
As opposed to this one, in which saving was penalized and spending encouraged to the point that most people are more in hock than their income? To the point that we have this economy? Give me the steadyness of people investing in economic infrastructure(stocks, bonds, that stuff).
Besides, look up the fairtax proposals - there's ways to make it progressive.
yes, he does, or are you a real accountant?
Didn't follow my parents into the accounting field.
good luck stopping the smuggling! Oh look i just found a big hole that can be used for tax evasion under this "fair tax" which will screw everyone below the median income!
Most states already have a sales tax, how much smuggling is going on? Well, otherwise than illegal drugs? Look at the huge ass cargo containers our shit is hauled in on. They couldn't smuggle that much stuff in. Unlike drugs, consumer goods tend to be bulky.
When you pay a plumber or electrician in cash, what makes you think he actually declares that income? When you buy some goods off market stall, do you think they write it all down and pay taxes? Do they fuck.
As you say, this already happens, I've heard it called 'working under the table'. IE Electricians doing side jobs and not declaring it as income is effectively no different than not charging sales tax for the job.
Think about all that imported duty-free tobacco, now imagine that applied to all easily-traded goods. More will be sold under the counter than over it!
Why doesn't this happen now in all the states with sales taxes? Hell, going by the example of tobacco, the market must be huge because in many areas the 'sales tax' on them is over 100%!
Buyer pay the sames tax though, an income tax the corporation will pay. Actually either way buyers pay.
Agreed. At least with the 'sales tax' option the buyer sees what he's paying.
It will at that. You could tax electricity and or tires but I don't know how that would work out. However it's done I see a problem, it more than likely will require a bureaucracy and bureaucracies tend to grow.
Make it the same authority that licenses cars and taxes gasoline and tires. In my state they tax tire purchases to pay for disposal. Build a tire house and they'll even pay you money for recycling/disposing of them.
Along with user fees or taxes I'm all for that. Because they get limited liability the only things that should pay income taxes are corporations. If you drive on the roads you pay a tax on the fuel.
I prefer the sales tax factor - makes it difficult for a compnay to hide income/claim extra deductions to decrease tax costs. It's simpler, basically.
As for the roads - add in 'or built into the real estate taxes', IE the neighborhood pays to keep up the roads in the area. Though if we ever get electric cars up to a significant percentage, it's going to become more complicated. Right now we can just write that off as 'encouraging usage of alternate fuel vehicles'. We get double digit usage, we'll have to figure something out.
Clothes tax free?
Ok mr gates, let's go get that custom fit armani.
Many proposals I see have exemptions for stuff under a dollar amount. I see that as leading to people buying 3 4 packs of underwear instead of a 12 pack*, so I'm opposed. The rich can still get their $25 shorts tax free, they just buy them individually instead of in a 3 pack or whatever.
Regardless, clothing doesn't have to be a significant expense, the lowest tiers can shop at goodwill stores and such, underwear isn't that expensive, etc...
Clothing - taxed.
Then there's the fact that food, water, and shelter are not the only portions of a first-world lifestyle. It would be quite a bit easier for these same poor people to just move to a developing nation if that's all they need.
"If they want first world lifestyle, they need to earn first world lifestyle!" /meanie with nose in air with oddly russian accent. ;)
My list of 'necessities': Food, shelter, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and a bit of entertainment. I include water in along with food. Of all these, I'm fond of the midwestern tendency to tax restaurant food and not grocery food. Rich people DO tend to eat out a lot more than the poor... And when the poor eat out, it tends to be at unhealthy places like fast food joints.
Regardless - of that list, all that I wouldn't tax would be some of the food and medical care.
the more in include in this exemption list the greater loopholes become for those who wish to evade it.
And the more you have to charge on other items to make up for the lost revenue, increasing the drive to avoid it.
*I really dislike running out, and like getting all new occasionally.
Then introduce pay as you earn, where taxes are taken out of your paycheque before you get it. Take out all the deductions, rebates etc. This will make tax evasion harder to revenues will increase without taxes actually going up.
We already have that in the form of withholding, it's just there's an annual 'make up' like balancing the checkbook. Or having estimated meter readings through the year, with once a year actual reading.
The other option either means the government doesn't get to play social engineering with taxes as much, or 'correctly' apply progressive taxes on people with multiple jobs nearly as easily.
Great, but before you do that, let me know so I can invest my entire net worth in companies that make safes. I can see a sudden mysterious upsurge in the use of cash.
Audit the companies collecting sales tax; don't worry about Grandma and her hobby of making & selling doll clothes. Most business goes through retail channels. Don't sell goods to anybody without charging sales tax unless they have a business ID and are therefore subject to audit. In some ways you could go with VAT like in Europe, but I'm convinced there are better ways.
you mean exempting "necessities?".
sorry but modern western society is not defined by food shelter and water, and as soon as you start to expand it from there it becomes open to exploitation.
Agreed, which is why I'd only exempt medical care; maybe food/water.
I dont know what sheltered life you live, but in the real world people maintain a specific lifestyle by assuming debt in harder times and paying it off in better times. Punishing the assumption of debt by increasing the principle 20+% will kick people financially when theyre down and will discourage economic growth overall by punishing spenders.
Sheltered life? Raised by two accountants, maybe. Ideally people stay mostly out of debt; during good years they build a reserve to use during lean years. For example, I have 3 months income in a mutual fund. Used to be six, but *shrug*. Other tax sheltered investments stretch that to a couple years. Given my life I also have a far different idea of what minimum lifestyles are. Being to some of the poorest regions of the world can do that.
Are you one of those that also complain about how those who need credit the most can't get it?
Except people have to buy and sell new goods for revenue to flow and salaries to be paid.
And the feds need money to run their operations, your point? Remember, under my scheme you'll also be keeping about 25% more of your pay.
See my answer to number 1, add to that the fact that governmental policies never track properly with inflation or account for debt to income ratios, which are much more important than nominal income.
Then they occasionally adjust the scales. Not actually a huge deal.
And trump spends far less in comparison to his income than his secretary spends on her son's allowance. The "fair tax" would allow him to pay even less.
He does? On the other hand, his income is generally reinvested in the economy resulting in increased economic infrastructure, which is a good thing.
no, you'd lose domestic companies because everyone would buy from online vendors across the border. Introduce tariffs and face economic sanctions from the WTO.
Suggest you read up more; European countries, Australia charge VAT on incoming goods all the time. You'll face no economic sanctions as long as you're even handed - If you're taxing goods regardless of their type and origion, there'll be no sanctions. IE you're not allowed to slap a $1/pound tax on beef from Australia but not Japan, but you are allowed to charge a 10% VAT/sales tax fee on everything, beef included, whether it comes from Australia or Japan.