They are touting semi-automatic rifles with military-looking furniture ("assault weapons") and nomal-capacity ("high-capacity") magazines as the main danger to us, when in fact their complete disappearance from the country would have almost no effect on crime.
Most people pay more in payroll tax than income tax.
That isn't a regular tax, it's basically forced retirement savings. The rich will be able to get out of the system only to the level that they pay in. If a millionaire wants to live off of only Social Security during retirement, he's going to have to prepare for a much lower standard of living. If you want to extend the tax all the way up the income chain, expect to pay out accordingly.
When you take all taxes into account and look at total tax rate (not marginal like you quoted), then the poor pay the highest percent and the rich pay the lowest.
That would depend on the state of course, since some don't have income taxes, some don't have sales taxes, and Alaska has neither. We do have luxury taxes on expensive cars and boats, adding to the progressiveness of our system. But, yes, taxes popular with the left, such as cigarettes, phone, fuel and energy are extremely regressive.
You have progressive and regressive -- you don't have "fully" one or the other. If it scales up with income, it's progressive, period. The top rate is higher than the bottom rate, and that doesn't even include the standard deductions (self, head of household, kids). With standard deductions the lower 50% pay almost no federal income tax since the deductions bring what they owe to almost zero (actually, zero for most, a few percent for those in the late 40th percentile). The top 1% pay over one third of income taxes, with the standard deductions being virtually meaningless at their income level. That's progressive.
>Sales taxes, especially on things like electricity, fuel, food or clothes are completely inequitable for those on low incomes.
Yet it's the left-wing that's always promoting exorbitant energy and fuel taxes in the name of the environment, and for things like cigarettes.
Banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines may have very little effect on gun homicide rates, but at this point anti-gun lobbyists will take whatever they can get
IOW, they want to ban something, even if it will have no real effect on crime, but they do it in the name of stopping crime. Thus my point.
Oh, and sales of new assault rifles is already banned, and 99.9% of what they want to ban in magazines is normal-capacity, what the guns were designed for, not "egregious" high-capacity.
Some guy uses an AR-variant to shoot some kids, and people are screaming for a ban on such rifles to make the country supposedly much safer.
Two problems: One, such mass murders are an extremely small percentage of total murders, so even if you could stop them with a law, the statistical effect on murder would be negligible. Two, murders by rifle are a small percentage of total gun injuries/murders, and "assault weapons" make up a percentage of those, so even if you could remove every one from civilian hands, the statistical effect on gun injuries/murders would be negligible.
Even with magazine size limits, the vast majority of gun injuries/murders involve the firing of fewer than ten rounds. Completely eliminating magazines, not just banning future sales, of over ten rounds would stop an insignificant number of gun injuries/murders, if any.
> I don't remember him saying that the law should remain in effect, in order to save energy.
Probably because if it saved any gas, it was less than 1%, and it didn't save any lives either. It did cost billions of lost hours of productivity though. It was just a bad law that needed to be repealed. States are now free to set speed limits according to what they should be for any specific road.
We've actually had a successful armed rebellion against a local corrupt government, the Battle of Athens. The corrupt government was thrown out, and it didn't affect the rest of the country. Like you say, it's not so easy or practical to do that when all the power is at the federal level.
That statement would only be true if the US used a progressive taxation system. However, as the US taxation system is the most regressive in the world
Absolutely false. The US has a progressive federal income taxation system, from 10 to 35%. It's just not progressive to confiscatory, punitive levels as you'd like it.
Sales taxes are regressive. Sin taxes such as those on alcohol and cigarettes are regressive. Taxes on fuel and carbon emissions are regressive. Interestingly, such taxes are very popular with liberals.
It's like payola -- make it illegal and it'll just crop up under a different name.
Can't directly donate/bribe? Give a fat contract to a company he's invested in. Build a library and put his name on it. Decide to build a big job-creating plant in his district and credit him with the decision. Give a job to a non-politician he owes a favor to. Promise a lucrative "consulting" job or a spot on a board after he's out. Look at former Senator Chris Dodd, did the movie industry's bidding while in office, now he's the CEO of their lobbying arm.
The only way to stop the bribes is to remove the reaon for the bribes.
The idea of smaller government means less power over the people. It does not mean less auditing and self-regulation of the government's functions. In fact, it should mean more, since these serve as a check on the power of the government.
And here I considered Europe more enlightened with their attitudes towards this, and now they're sliding down to the US's level. The only difference is motive: instead of puritanical Christians it's liberal political correctness run amok.
This is why these days I don't think the political axis of liberal and conservative is as important as authoritarian and libertarian. A lot of liberals are getting quite authoritarian, and it's just as scary as when the conservatives do it.
I don't like some of Carlos Santana's political views, and he actually preaches these views at his concerts. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give up listening to his great music.
The president "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them"
Come on Obama, grow a pair and keep them in session until they work out a deal. If they decide to adjourn, reconvene them immediately. They'll eventually give in.
The old engines with their boilers took up half the ship below the water line. Throw in one of those new ship diesels and you could easily reclaim half that space. This would be much better than the old Titanic.
If supercharging charges the 85 kWh battery in one hour, that's an 85 kW draw. Only 12 people charging draws over 1 MW. I think we need to get our electric grids straight and add some generating capacity before electric cars get too common.
If there is any sideways motion whatsoever with the rear wheels locked up, you will lose control and spin, and you have no chance of recovering while the wheels are still locked up.
That's a standard part of the ADAC driving course. Part of the course was the instructor pulling the handbrake while in a slight turn, letting you partially lose control, then releasing it so you can try to correct. If you're good enough to perfectly correct each time, as I was (lots of snow driving experience), he will try again and not release the handbrake. No amount of correction worked, I just spun until I stopped.
Actually, it is a law, the DMCA prohibits the circumvention necessary to unlock a phone. The law lets the Librarian of Congress make exceptions to this prohibition.
Slashdot Mirror
They are touting semi-automatic rifles with military-looking furniture ("assault weapons") and nomal-capacity ("high-capacity") magazines as the main danger to us, when in fact their complete disappearance from the country would have almost no effect on crime.
That isn't a regular tax, it's basically forced retirement savings. The rich will be able to get out of the system only to the level that they pay in. If a millionaire wants to live off of only Social Security during retirement, he's going to have to prepare for a much lower standard of living. If you want to extend the tax all the way up the income chain, expect to pay out accordingly.
That would depend on the state of course, since some don't have income taxes, some don't have sales taxes, and Alaska has neither. We do have luxury taxes on expensive cars and boats, adding to the progressiveness of our system. But, yes, taxes popular with the left, such as cigarettes, phone, fuel and energy are extremely regressive.
You have progressive and regressive -- you don't have "fully" one or the other. If it scales up with income, it's progressive, period. The top rate is higher than the bottom rate, and that doesn't even include the standard deductions (self, head of household, kids). With standard deductions the lower 50% pay almost no federal income tax since the deductions bring what they owe to almost zero (actually, zero for most, a few percent for those in the late 40th percentile). The top 1% pay over one third of income taxes, with the standard deductions being virtually meaningless at their income level. That's progressive.
>Sales taxes, especially on things like electricity, fuel, food or clothes are completely inequitable for those on low incomes.
Yet it's the left-wing that's always promoting exorbitant energy and fuel taxes in the name of the environment, and for things like cigarettes.
IOW, they want to ban something, even if it will have no real effect on crime, but they do it in the name of stopping crime. Thus my point.
Oh, and sales of new assault rifles is already banned, and 99.9% of what they want to ban in magazines is normal-capacity, what the guns were designed for, not "egregious" high-capacity.
Some guy uses an AR-variant to shoot some kids, and people are screaming for a ban on such rifles to make the country supposedly much safer.
Two problems: One, such mass murders are an extremely small percentage of total murders, so even if you could stop them with a law, the statistical effect on murder would be negligible. Two, murders by rifle are a small percentage of total gun injuries/murders, and "assault weapons" make up a percentage of those, so even if you could remove every one from civilian hands, the statistical effect on gun injuries/murders would be negligible.
Even with magazine size limits, the vast majority of gun injuries/murders involve the firing of fewer than ten rounds. Completely eliminating magazines, not just banning future sales, of over ten rounds would stop an insignificant number of gun injuries/murders, if any.
Legislating on emotion rather than fact.
I know a few people who still call remotes "clickers."
Why is it that people making hybrids usually seem to need to make them look stupid?
> I don't remember him saying that the law should remain in effect, in order to save energy.
Probably because if it saved any gas, it was less than 1%, and it didn't save any lives either. It did cost billions of lost hours of productivity though. It was just a bad law that needed to be repealed. States are now free to set speed limits according to what they should be for any specific road.
We've actually had a successful armed rebellion against a local corrupt government, the Battle of Athens. The corrupt government was thrown out, and it didn't affect the rest of the country. Like you say, it's not so easy or practical to do that when all the power is at the federal level.
Absolutely false. The US has a progressive federal income taxation system, from 10 to 35%. It's just not progressive to confiscatory, punitive levels as you'd like it.
Sales taxes are regressive. Sin taxes such as those on alcohol and cigarettes are regressive. Taxes on fuel and carbon emissions are regressive. Interestingly, such taxes are very popular with liberals.
It's like payola -- make it illegal and it'll just crop up under a different name.
Can't directly donate/bribe? Give a fat contract to a company he's invested in. Build a library and put his name on it. Decide to build a big job-creating plant in his district and credit him with the decision. Give a job to a non-politician he owes a favor to. Promise a lucrative "consulting" job or a spot on a board after he's out. Look at former Senator Chris Dodd, did the movie industry's bidding while in office, now he's the CEO of their lobbying arm.
The only way to stop the bribes is to remove the reaon for the bribes.
"Allowed"
Allowed by whom?
The idea of smaller government means less power over the people. It does not mean less auditing and self-regulation of the government's functions. In fact, it should mean more, since these serve as a check on the power of the government.
And here I considered Europe more enlightened with their attitudes towards this, and now they're sliding down to the US's level. The only difference is motive: instead of puritanical Christians it's liberal political correctness run amok.
This is why these days I don't think the political axis of liberal and conservative is as important as authoritarian and libertarian. A lot of liberals are getting quite authoritarian, and it's just as scary as when the conservatives do it.
I don't like some of Carlos Santana's political views, and he actually preaches these views at his concerts. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give up listening to his great music.
General rule, if it says all three, it's none. Even if it just says "democratic" it likely isn't.
If it really can't, then Apple could be sued by customers and fined by the government. I don't think Apple's that stupid.
It's having a car designed to carry four people, but we fitted it out to carry six, the actual maximum it can carry at this time. But we wanted eight.
And it's not sold as carrying eight either. Back to actuals, it's not sold as a Lightning to HDMI cable, but a Lightning to digital AV cable.
The president "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them"
Come on Obama, grow a pair and keep them in session until they work out a deal. If they decide to adjourn, reconvene them immediately. They'll eventually give in.
The old engines with their boilers took up half the ship below the water line. Throw in one of those new ship diesels and you could easily reclaim half that space. This would be much better than the old Titanic.
The Sprint missile designed in the early 70s could hit mach 10 in 5 seconds, maximum intercept time to 30 km was 15 seconds.
If supercharging charges the 85 kWh battery in one hour, that's an 85 kW draw. Only 12 people charging draws over 1 MW. I think we need to get our electric grids straight and add some generating capacity before electric cars get too common.
If there is any sideways motion whatsoever with the rear wheels locked up, you will lose control and spin, and you have no chance of recovering while the wheels are still locked up.
That's a standard part of the ADAC driving course. Part of the course was the instructor pulling the handbrake while in a slight turn, letting you partially lose control, then releasing it so you can try to correct. If you're good enough to perfectly correct each time, as I was (lots of snow driving experience), he will try again and not release the handbrake. No amount of correction worked, I just spun until I stopped.
"look like" == "appear to be"
"You may look less stupid." == "You may appear to be less stupid."
But no chance of that now.
Actually, it is a law, the DMCA prohibits the circumvention necessary to unlock a phone. The law lets the Librarian of Congress make exceptions to this prohibition.