No, they are not. They are taxed on their income. that's why it's called an income tax, as you pointed out.
What do you think profit is, if it is not income? If a business loses money, do they still have income and own income tax?
I actually find it a little funny that you've forgotten how you started this conversation, which was by pointing out that people aren't taxed on profit, but on income.
No, actually, I pointed out that people are taxed on their total income, not income left over.
I pointed out that corporations, inexplicably and unfairly, are taxed on profit, at which point you appear to have forgotten where you were coming from and flipped around.
No, you pointed out that businesses are taxed after expenses.
Uh, no, they don't. Food, for example, is generally an expense, as in, a required thing that people have to buy. You can't deduct that.
People can deduce business expenses. Not 'expenses'.
So, health care is a business expense? Moving is a business expense? Being stolen from is a business expense? Mortgage interest is a business expense? And still, there is the personal exemption, which I suggest you look up.
Businesses do not 'deduct' expenses, because they are already just paying taxes on profit.
Please see amortization of fixed assets and capital depreciation, among other things.
I really suggest you learn how businesses and people pay taxes, and what they are being taxed on. People have all income taxes. Businesses have profit taxed. It's not some debatable concept
Please take Economics 101 and come back when you learn the definitions of income and profit.
If a human being is given $1000 one month,and spends $700 on rent, and $200 on food, he is taxed on the entire $1000 dollars.
If a human being is earns $1,000.00 per month, he is making $12,000 per year and, in 2010, would only pay taxes on about $2,300.00 because there are these things called exemptions and (standard) deductions (assuming this is a single person who does not itemize deductions). It is your blatantly ignoring the exemptions and the standard deductions that is where you are really failing. Those are both taken into account when you fill out form W-4.
If a corporation is given $1000 on month, and spends $700 on rent, and $200 on food, it is taxed on the $100 left over profit. (And, on top of that, might have additional costs it can count against that profit that human beings cannot, like $10 deprecation for furniture or something. I think this is what you mean by business having 'deductions', although they are not called that.)
This makes no sense for a variety of reasons. I will explain it to you below.
It's not debatable. One is an income tax, one is a profit tax. Both of them have additional things that can be excluded from the tax, but that doesn't change the fact that they are starting from very different places. With human beings, they start at the amount of money handed to that person during the year. With corporations, they start at the amount of money left over at the end of the year.
Actually, no. I will explain it to you as you seem to be missing several very important points and differences. I will be simplifing a bit for brevetity and clarity. It will consist of ignoring "Head of Household" and consentrating mainly on single people without dependents.
First off, when one gets a job, one files a W-4 form which determines one's tax status. In it, one lists one's martial status and the number of "e
If all you said were true, then how did you miss the part on your tax return where you had to add the proceeds from the stock sale to your income as well as paying the capital gains?
Yes, I know what capital gains tax is. I also know how it is calculated. Do you? You do know that the rate at which capital gains is taxed is based on one's total income, right? Apparently not. And, your statement of when people pay capital gains if false as well. The only time one doesn't pay capital gains is when one has held the investments for more than one year AND one has had no other income during the years. I suggest you go learn about capital gains tax because what you know is horribly incomplete. Here, let me help you with what is probably your favorite resource.
Why did you invent someone making $16,000.00 a year out of thin air? You did, however, specify a "superrich" individual in your example. I chose an arbitrary, hypothetical "superrich" person making one million dollars a year. Do you suggest that someone making one million dollars a year is not "superrich"? And, I notice you completely ignore the person making $100,000 a year. Why was that?
So, both people are earning $16,000.00 but one should be taxed more because why exactly? Just because one has one million dollars in investments and is living off the $16,000.00 in interest and not working at $8.00/hr? What is if that millionaire is a 69yo retiree?
So, 10 years ago is very recent? Really? I prefer even more recent, and more importantly under the current tax laws. Now, then stop trying to use laws that are no longer in use to justify your arguments.
You really don't have any idea about which you argue, do you? So far, you have tried to justify your positions and statements using hypothetical situations proven false and laws that were changed 4 years ago. You use a hypothetical situation and the say "What the fuck" when I use a hypothetical situation to prove you wrong. And, most importantly, you make statements about a law that are factually incorrect.
Oh, and before you spout off again, I have let something go, but I suggest you research whether one has to pay capital gains AND income tax on INCOME from stock sale.
Um, no. We were talking about the income taxes paid by people, not businesses. Suddenly, DavidTC asks about the taxes paid by businesses, which is not the same as the taxes paid by people or by corporations. He attempted a red herring and I called him on it.
But, seeing as you asked, like I told him in another post, his assertion is a lie. People do get to deduct expenses in the for of exemptions and either the standard or itemized deductions.
The tax is not on "disposable income", the tax is on all income. You are also using a red herring, specifically changing what is actually taxed.
Oh, and I have already debunked the rates you claim above, and shown someone else how their claim was completely false.
We are talking about people, not businesses. Quit trying to change the subject.
People are taxed on profit, the profit of the work. And, people do get to deduct "expenses". When one files taxes, which you apparently never have, one gets to take either itemized or standard deductions and exemptions. Did you forget about those? Seriously, have you EVER filed your own taxes? Even the 1040EZ form has the standard deduction and exemption listed right on it..
Seriously, you act like business get to deduct everything and people don't get to deduct anything, but neither is true. Both people and business get to deduct items off their income for the purposes of determining tax. I really suggest you actually learn about the tax law because you are really looking like an idiot.
To show you how stupid your comment is, I am now going to do math:
15% of an adjusted gross income (AGI) of US$1,000,000 is US$150,000 which 9.375 times the $16,000.00 income of which you say pays more in taxes. Even if one considers an AGI of $100,000 as one being superrich, at 15%, that is still $15,000.00, almost as much as the $16,000.00.
The tax on an AGI of US$16,000.00, for someone filing as single, is US$1,985.00 or 12.4%. I did not bother to work the math to figure out a gross income of $16,000.
In no way is your "example" correct.
Now, you say "who have managed to wrangle a 15% tax rate for their income, which is in the form of stock gains". First off, what do you mean by "stock gains"? Do you mean an increase in the value of the stock they hold? Do you mean stock options? Do you mean dividend payments from held stock? Did the person in question earn any OTHER income?
No, actually, I don't have to explain that because that has nothing to do with what we are talking about and we are talking about people, not businesses. Quit throwing out red herrings.
And, your statement is a lie. People can deduct many expenses, including but not limited to loss due to theft, charitable contributions, health expenses, and personal business expenses such as work clothing, travel, gas, asset depreciation. Perhaps you should learn the tax law before you spout off. I suggest you start with Itemized Deductions.
Right now, the only idiot in this conversation is you.
Your idea has SS and Medicare as part of the general revenue fund. This is a mistake. SS and Medicare should be spun off into hybrid corporations, the way FannieMae and FreddieMac were. This would be much safer than the later because SS and Medicare don't lend money. Then, the SS and Medicare taxes would be completely separate of income tax and untouchable by Congress, with the tax funds going directly into the SS and Medicare corporation accounts. This would, of course, require the federal government to pay back all the IOUs that currently make up the SS trustfund.
Defaulting on the debt would destroy the value the United States and the value of the dollar. The problem with your idea is that 40% of the U.S. budget is financed. Default on the debt and there would be zero market for U.S. debt AND there would still be a budget deficit. There would have to be a balanced budget amendment, and the revenue would have to be sufficient to pay for all expenditures before defaulting or the U.S. would suffer the same hyperinflation that is seen in countries like Zimbabwe.
Your argument is a red herring. The tax is not on "what is left over". It is on what is earned, that is why it is called an income tax. You are trying to change the argument.
So, if someone makes $1,000,000 and spends $5,000/wk on staff, $5,000/wk on accommodations, $500/wk on food, $500/wk on vehicles, and $500/wk on utilities, then that 10% tax is 25% tax on what they have left over after they pay their "essentials". After all, one generally does not make $1,000,000 a year without spending a lot of money to make that amount.
I always love it when someone uses the doublespeak version of the word fair. Fair is everyone paying the same rate. Unfair is singling out people who have worked hard and become successful to pay not just their share, but the share of others who have not worked as hard or become successful.
I do not concede that it is fair to make a group of people pay a higher rate simply because they were more successful. That is not fair. It is inherently unfair, especially when one considers that the ones paying the lower rates will be getting the highest benefits.
Add two new pairs of pants, two bottles of shampoo, $300 of car repairs, a cell phone, and four dinners at a pizza restaurant watching a game and you're hosed. $0 raw income left before facing that governmental $2000 in "fair tax".
Here, let me fix that for you:
One pair of pants. No car repairs or gas because one takes the bus or rides a bike and does not own a car. No cell phone, unless one does not have a, probably cheaper, home phone. No dinners at restaurants because it is a luxury.
You, like a growing number of idiots, don't have a clue as to what "necessities" actually are. One does not go out and buy clothing every week, or even every month. One doesn't need a car if one lives and work near a bus line. One does not go out to eat four days a week or a month. I suggest you get a clue, you overly-entitled, middle-class loser and learn what you can live without.
I support lowering Congress', the President's, and the Justices of the Supreme Court's pay to 1938 levels adjusted by applying the same increases as the minimum wage received, then tying any future increases to the lesser of the minimum wage increase or the mean income increase.
That is a fallacy. Everyone paying the same rate is fair. You just think it is unfair because you have been raised to believe that it is OK to be unfair to people who work hard and are successful.
Poverty line people would still be collecting food stamps and other forms of welfare, so that argument is invalid.
You do know that one used to be able to deduct one's credit card interest, right? And, before that deduction went away, people said that removing it would cause everyone with a credit card balance to go bankrupt, right? The government should not be in the business of helping people pay the interest on their mortgages. So, explain why that should be a deduction. My best guess is that you have a mortgage and get the deduction, so you have a vested interest in keeping the deduction. That is what is known as a conflict of interest.
The problems with GP's suggestion are: the rate is wrong, it should be whatever it would take to pay for current expenses plus 5% to pay towards the debt; and it doesn't take into account non-corporeal entities, such as corporations. There should be a 5% non-corporeality tax.
I would support an excess income tax, where the rate is the logarithm of one's income to the base of the average income.
They did not "just buy the right to sue over a piece of IP", they bought the rights to IP. They effectively bought the IP and all control over said IP as allowed by law. Someone made "Progress of Science and useful Arts", patented said progress, and then sold the patent and all associated rights to someone else. You are trying to change the facts.
They ask for 0.575% of U.S. revenue for the products using the patent.
FTFY.
They get 0.575% of all U.S. revenue from Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc., but rather only the revenue from products that use the patent in question. There is a BIG difference.
I see. So, it is your suggestion that criminals should be allowed to substitute their judgement as to what constitutes a stupid law and be the arbiters of right and wrong. Interesting idea, but we have something called a "government", maybe you have heard of it. It is this this group of people elected by the whole of the people, not just the criminals, to make the laws.
Tell me, are you one of those people who believes they are better equipped than all the rest of society to determine what is right and wrong and thus should be immune to the laws you believe to be wrong?
I am a thinking person. Should I do what I believe is right regardless of what is legal? Keep in mind, I may believe it is right to kill certain people or classes of people, such as drug dealers, drug abusers, child molesters, and possibily people like you.
The problem with your argument is that it allows a person's subjective belief to override the collective belief of society. Judging from your post, I would have to say you are a selfish, narcissistic megalomaniac.
Did they break in to a computer system without the owner's permission? Yes? Then, they are crackers with no respect for anyone or anything else. They, by definition, can not be trusted because they don't care what about the effect their actions have on others. All they care about is doing what they want and fuck everyone else.
Here it the big problem with your post: Most criminals don't believe they are evil or have done anything wrong; even murderers and serial killers. Just ask any prisoner.
That the crackers don't see themselves as criminals does not mean they are not criminals or that they are not evil. In fact, it argues for believing they are evil. I know someone who was arrested, jailed, tried, convicted, and put in prison for delivery and sale of heroin. She says she didn't do anything. She and her husband delivered and sold heroin to a friend how set them up. She handled the communications and driving. He took the heroin into the house and completed the transaction. She managed to repeatedly violate her probation all the while claiming she didn't do anything. That is why she is in prison.
My stepbrother, who is a habitual thief and drug abuser who can't hold a legitimate job, is the same. He didn't do anything when he was arrested for breaking into cars. And, he didn't deserve to be put in prison when he violated his probation by driving around in a stolen car.
Bobby Joe Long, a serial killer, kept a diary of his conquests. In it, he talks about how the 13yo girl was really into it as he held a knife to her and ass raped her. He didn't see anything evil in kidnapping, raping, and killing women. He was convicted because a 15yo victim convinced him she wouldn't tell the cops and was would be his girlfriend.
Every criminal I have met or seen has been the exact same way and say the exact same thing "I didn't do anything! I l didn't do anything wrong!"
They think the law does not or should not apply to them and that is the thought pattern and behavior that will lead them to commit fraud and embezzel and take kickback at their companies. They go from petty criminal to cracking to get CC numbers and commit fraud to embezzelment, fraud, and insider trading. And, all the while, they do not see themselves are evil or as criminals.
Yes, let us reward cheaters, griefers, crackers, and theives. That will show them. Yes, yes it will. And, when they steal, we can throw them a prarade too.
No, but it would not debunk statistics as we would need more sets of coin flips to determine if the 8H/2T result were an anomoly or if there were a flaw in the science. That is why this wager is over a 10 year period. Ten sets ten flips.
According to Climate "Science", there are plenty of data available in the past, so one should be able to look at the next 10 years and say "For each 1% rise in CO2, we should see between x and y increase in temperature.". There is no reason an actual science can not say "if you change this by x, then that will change by y". If the system is too chaotic to do that, then it is too chaotic to make any predictions at all, so it is not a science.
That is where you strayed from science. If one cannot say what the change will be in 10 years, how can one say what the change will be in 100 years? If one CAN say what the change will be in 100 years, how can one be unable to say what the change will be in 10?
Really, your entire post shows why it is NOT science, let alone settled science. You, yourself say there are too many unknowns to consider any of it settled.
If climatology can not predict a change in the climate, then how is it a sicence?
A volcanic eruption that would significantly effect the average global temperature over 10 years would be so large as to make global warming moot.
That brilliantnew techology would also make the wager moot.
If it is a science, I see no reason why it can not make a prediction of "barring any major changes such as some brilliant new technology that extracts huge amounts of CO2 and methane from the air, or some massive change in human behavior or a massive volcanic eruption, over the next decade the average global temperature will rise by.2C."
And, remember, there were at least 2 eruptions in the last 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they are not. They are taxed on their income. that's why it's called an income tax, as you pointed out.
What do you think profit is, if it is not income? If a business loses money, do they still have income and own income tax?
I actually find it a little funny that you've forgotten how you started this conversation, which was by pointing out that people aren't taxed on profit, but on income.
No, actually, I pointed out that people are taxed on their total income, not income left over.
I pointed out that corporations, inexplicably and unfairly, are taxed on profit, at which point you appear to have forgotten where you were coming from and flipped around.
No, you pointed out that businesses are taxed after expenses.
Uh, no, they don't. Food, for example, is generally an expense, as in, a required thing that people have to buy. You can't deduct that.
That is part of the personal exemptions. I suggest you look it up.
People can deduce business expenses. Not 'expenses'.
So, health care is a business expense? Moving is a business expense? Being stolen from is a business expense? Mortgage interest is a business expense? And still, there is the personal exemption, which I suggest you look up.
Businesses do not 'deduct' expenses, because they are already just paying taxes on profit.
Please see amortization of fixed assets and capital depreciation, among other things.
I really suggest you learn how businesses and people pay taxes, and what they are being taxed on. People have all income taxes. Businesses have profit taxed. It's not some debatable concept
Please take Economics 101 and come back when you learn the definitions of income and profit.
If a human being is given $1000 one month,and spends $700 on rent, and $200 on food, he is taxed on the entire $1000 dollars.
If a human being is earns $1,000.00 per month, he is making $12,000 per year and, in 2010, would only pay taxes on about $2,300.00 because there are these things called exemptions and (standard) deductions (assuming this is a single person who does not itemize deductions). It is your blatantly ignoring the exemptions and the standard deductions that is where you are really failing. Those are both taken into account when you fill out form W-4.
If a corporation is given $1000 on month, and spends $700 on rent, and $200 on food, it is taxed on the $100 left over profit. (And, on top of that, might have additional costs it can count against that profit that human beings cannot, like $10 deprecation for furniture or something. I think this is what you mean by business having 'deductions', although they are not called that.)
This makes no sense for a variety of reasons. I will explain it to you below.
It's not debatable. One is an income tax, one is a profit tax. Both of them have additional things that can be excluded from the tax, but that doesn't change the fact that they are starting from very different places. With human beings, they start at the amount of money handed to that person during the year. With corporations, they start at the amount of money left over at the end of the year.
Actually, no. I will explain it to you as you seem to be missing several very important points and differences. I will be simplifing a bit for brevetity and clarity. It will consist of ignoring "Head of Household" and consentrating mainly on single people without dependents.
First off, when one gets a job, one files a W-4 form which determines one's tax status. In it, one lists one's martial status and the number of "e
If all you said were true, then how did you miss the part on your tax return where you had to add the proceeds from the stock sale to your income as well as paying the capital gains?
Have you ever had to file your own tax return? Have you ever had to file something other than the 1040EZ?
Do you own any stock? Have you ever sold any stock you own? Have you ever had to claim capital gains?
I make around $100,000 a year, rent, own a 4 year old car, own stock, have sold stock, and have had to pay capital gains tax. Have you?
Yes, I know what capital gains tax is. I also know how it is calculated. Do you? You do know that the rate at which capital gains is taxed is based on one's total income, right? Apparently not. And, your statement of when people pay capital gains if false as well. The only time one doesn't pay capital gains is when one has held the investments for more than one year AND one has had no other income during the years. I suggest you go learn about capital gains tax because what you know is horribly incomplete. Here, let me help you with what is probably your favorite resource.
Why did you invent someone making $16,000.00 a year out of thin air? You did, however, specify a "superrich" individual in your example. I chose an arbitrary, hypothetical "superrich" person making one million dollars a year. Do you suggest that someone making one million dollars a year is not "superrich"? And, I notice you completely ignore the person making $100,000 a year. Why was that?
So, both people are earning $16,000.00 but one should be taxed more because why exactly? Just because one has one million dollars in investments and is living off the $16,000.00 in interest and not working at $8.00/hr? What is if that millionaire is a 69yo retiree?
So, 10 years ago is very recent? Really? I prefer even more recent, and more importantly under the current tax laws. Now, then stop trying to use laws that are no longer in use to justify your arguments.
You really don't have any idea about which you argue, do you? So far, you have tried to justify your positions and statements using hypothetical situations proven false and laws that were changed 4 years ago. You use a hypothetical situation and the say "What the fuck" when I use a hypothetical situation to prove you wrong. And, most importantly, you make statements about a law that are factually incorrect.
Oh, and before you spout off again, I have let something go, but I suggest you research whether one has to pay capital gains AND income tax on INCOME from stock sale.
Um, no. We were talking about the income taxes paid by people, not businesses. Suddenly, DavidTC asks about the taxes paid by businesses, which is not the same as the taxes paid by people or by corporations. He attempted a red herring and I called him on it.
But, seeing as you asked, like I told him in another post, his assertion is a lie. People do get to deduct expenses in the for of exemptions and either the standard or itemized deductions.
The tax is not on "disposable income", the tax is on all income. You are also using a red herring, specifically changing what is actually taxed.
Oh, and I have already debunked the rates you claim above, and shown someone else how their claim was completely false.
We are talking about people, not businesses. Quit trying to change the subject.
People are taxed on profit, the profit of the work. And, people do get to deduct "expenses". When one files taxes, which you apparently never have, one gets to take either itemized or standard deductions and exemptions. Did you forget about those? Seriously, have you EVER filed your own taxes? Even the 1040EZ form has the standard deduction and exemption listed right on it..
Seriously, you act like business get to deduct everything and people don't get to deduct anything, but neither is true. Both people and business get to deduct items off their income for the purposes of determining tax. I really suggest you actually learn about the tax law because you are really looking like an idiot.
To show you how stupid your comment is, I am now going to do math:
Now, you say "who have managed to wrangle a 15% tax rate for their income, which is in the form of stock gains". First off, what do you mean by "stock gains"? Do you mean an increase in the value of the stock they hold? Do you mean stock options? Do you mean dividend payments from held stock? Did the person in question earn any OTHER income?
No, actually, I don't have to explain that because that has nothing to do with what we are talking about and we are talking about people, not businesses. Quit throwing out red herrings.
And, your statement is a lie. People can deduct many expenses, including but not limited to loss due to theft, charitable contributions, health expenses, and personal business expenses such as work clothing, travel, gas, asset depreciation. Perhaps you should learn the tax law before you spout off. I suggest you start with Itemized Deductions.
Right now, the only idiot in this conversation is you.
This is neither cool nor interesting. What is the concept, that browsers can be made to do more things they were never intended to do?
Your idea has SS and Medicare as part of the general revenue fund. This is a mistake. SS and Medicare should be spun off into hybrid corporations, the way FannieMae and FreddieMac were. This would be much safer than the later because SS and Medicare don't lend money. Then, the SS and Medicare taxes would be completely separate of income tax and untouchable by Congress, with the tax funds going directly into the SS and Medicare corporation accounts. This would, of course, require the federal government to pay back all the IOUs that currently make up the SS trustfund.
Defaulting on the debt would destroy the value the United States and the value of the dollar. The problem with your idea is that 40% of the U.S. budget is financed. Default on the debt and there would be zero market for U.S. debt AND there would still be a budget deficit. There would have to be a balanced budget amendment, and the revenue would have to be sufficient to pay for all expenditures before defaulting or the U.S. would suffer the same hyperinflation that is seen in countries like Zimbabwe.
Your argument is a red herring. The tax is not on "what is left over". It is on what is earned, that is why it is called an income tax. You are trying to change the argument.
So, if someone makes $1,000,000 and spends $5,000/wk on staff, $5,000/wk on accommodations, $500/wk on food, $500/wk on vehicles, and $500/wk on utilities, then that 10% tax is 25% tax on what they have left over after they pay their "essentials". After all, one generally does not make $1,000,000 a year without spending a lot of money to make that amount.
I always love it when someone uses the doublespeak version of the word fair. Fair is everyone paying the same rate. Unfair is singling out people who have worked hard and become successful to pay not just their share, but the share of others who have not worked as hard or become successful.
I do not concede that it is fair to make a group of people pay a higher rate simply because they were more successful. That is not fair. It is inherently unfair, especially when one considers that the ones paying the lower rates will be getting the highest benefits.
Here, let me fix that for you:
You, like a growing number of idiots, don't have a clue as to what "necessities" actually are. One does not go out and buy clothing every week, or even every month. One doesn't need a car if one lives and work near a bus line. One does not go out to eat four days a week or a month. I suggest you get a clue, you overly-entitled, middle-class loser and learn what you can live without.
I support lowering Congress', the President's, and the Justices of the Supreme Court's pay to 1938 levels adjusted by applying the same increases as the minimum wage received, then tying any future increases to the lesser of the minimum wage increase or the mean income increase.
That is a fallacy. Everyone paying the same rate is fair. You just think it is unfair because you have been raised to believe that it is OK to be unfair to people who work hard and are successful.
Poverty line people would still be collecting food stamps and other forms of welfare, so that argument is invalid.
You do know that one used to be able to deduct one's credit card interest, right? And, before that deduction went away, people said that removing it would cause everyone with a credit card balance to go bankrupt, right? The government should not be in the business of helping people pay the interest on their mortgages. So, explain why that should be a deduction. My best guess is that you have a mortgage and get the deduction, so you have a vested interest in keeping the deduction. That is what is known as a conflict of interest.
The problems with GP's suggestion are: the rate is wrong, it should be whatever it would take to pay for current expenses plus 5% to pay towards the debt; and it doesn't take into account non-corporeal entities, such as corporations. There should be a 5% non-corporeality tax.
I would support an excess income tax, where the rate is the logarithm of one's income to the base of the average income.
You misread the article. Specifically, you read into it instead of reading it.
They did not "just buy the right to sue over a piece of IP", they bought the rights to IP. They effectively bought the IP and all control over said IP as allowed by law. Someone made "Progress of Science and useful Arts", patented said progress, and then sold the patent and all associated rights to someone else. You are trying to change the facts.
They ask for 0.575% of U.S. revenue for the products using the patent.
FTFY.
They get 0.575% of all U.S. revenue from Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc., but rather only the revenue from products that use the patent in question. There is a BIG difference.
I see. So, it is your suggestion that criminals should be allowed to substitute their judgement as to what constitutes a stupid law and be the arbiters of right and wrong. Interesting idea, but we have something called a "government", maybe you have heard of it. It is this this group of people elected by the whole of the people, not just the criminals, to make the laws.
Tell me, are you one of those people who believes they are better equipped than all the rest of society to determine what is right and wrong and thus should be immune to the laws you believe to be wrong?
I am a thinking person. Should I do what I believe is right regardless of what is legal? Keep in mind, I may believe it is right to kill certain people or classes of people, such as drug dealers, drug abusers, child molesters, and possibily people like you.
The problem with your argument is that it allows a person's subjective belief to override the collective belief of society. Judging from your post, I would have to say you are a selfish, narcissistic megalomaniac.
Did they break in to a computer system without the owner's permission? Yes? Then, they are crackers with no respect for anyone or anything else. They, by definition, can not be trusted because they don't care what about the effect their actions have on others. All they care about is doing what they want and fuck everyone else.
Here it the big problem with your post: Most criminals don't believe they are evil or have done anything wrong; even murderers and serial killers. Just ask any prisoner.
That the crackers don't see themselves as criminals does not mean they are not criminals or that they are not evil. In fact, it argues for believing they are evil. I know someone who was arrested, jailed, tried, convicted, and put in prison for delivery and sale of heroin. She says she didn't do anything. She and her husband delivered and sold heroin to a friend how set them up. She handled the communications and driving. He took the heroin into the house and completed the transaction. She managed to repeatedly violate her probation all the while claiming she didn't do anything. That is why she is in prison.
My stepbrother, who is a habitual thief and drug abuser who can't hold a legitimate job, is the same. He didn't do anything when he was arrested for breaking into cars. And, he didn't deserve to be put in prison when he violated his probation by driving around in a stolen car.
Bobby Joe Long, a serial killer, kept a diary of his conquests. In it, he talks about how the 13yo girl was really into it as he held a knife to her and ass raped her. He didn't see anything evil in kidnapping, raping, and killing women. He was convicted because a 15yo victim convinced him she wouldn't tell the cops and was would be his girlfriend.
Every criminal I have met or seen has been the exact same way and say the exact same thing "I didn't do anything! I l didn't do anything wrong!"
They think the law does not or should not apply to them and that is the thought pattern and behavior that will lead them to commit fraud and embezzel and take kickback at their companies. They go from petty criminal to cracking to get CC numbers and commit fraud to embezzelment, fraud, and insider trading. And, all the while, they do not see themselves are evil or as criminals.
I guess that makes it OK, right?
Yes, let us reward cheaters, griefers, crackers, and theives. That will show them. Yes, yes it will. And, when they steal, we can throw them a prarade too.
No, but it would not debunk statistics as we would need more sets of coin flips to determine if the 8H/2T result were an anomoly or if there were a flaw in the science. That is why this wager is over a 10 year period. Ten sets ten flips.
According to Climate "Science", there are plenty of data available in the past, so one should be able to look at the next 10 years and say "For each 1% rise in CO2, we should see between x and y increase in temperature.". There is no reason an actual science can not say "if you change this by x, then that will change by y". If the system is too chaotic to do that, then it is too chaotic to make any predictions at all, so it is not a science.
If we don't know "that", then how can we know for certain that it is happening at all?
That is where you strayed from science. If one cannot say what the change will be in 10 years, how can one say what the change will be in 100 years? If one CAN say what the change will be in 100 years, how can one be unable to say what the change will be in 10?
Really, your entire post shows why it is NOT science, let alone settled science. You, yourself say there are too many unknowns to consider any of it settled.
If climatology can not predict a change in the climate, then how is it a sicence?
.2C."
A volcanic eruption that would significantly effect the average global temperature over 10 years would be so large as to make global warming moot.
That brilliantnew techology would also make the wager moot.
If it is a science, I see no reason why it can not make a prediction of "barring any major changes such as some brilliant new technology that extracts huge amounts of CO2 and methane from the air, or some massive change in human behavior or a massive volcanic eruption, over the next decade the average global temperature will rise by
And, remember, there were at least 2 eruptions in the last 10 years.