How old are you? I lived through that, and yes, there was prosperity all over the place. Good factory jobs, high wages, low unemployment, etc. You know those statistics they're quoting now for, "Best employment figures in 50 years?" 50 years ago was... the 60's.
And none of that was in response to JFK's tax cut. You can tell because that "boom" did not start with the tax cut.
After the tax cut, there was no change that could be distinguished from noise.
The FairTax is a consumption tax on new items for sale at RETAIL, and services. The businesses don't buy their supplies at retail
You've apparently never purchased anything for a business. An enormous amount of the things they buy are purchased at retail. Since this is Slashdot, let's use the example of every computer they buy is a retail purchase (Assuming they are not a computer store).
Retail purchase, from a tax perspective, just means it is not being bought for resale.
That is not right. There are tons of taxes you're paying, income taxes, when you buy a house right now.
Ok, let's go through your list and see which ones are paid because you bought a house, since that's what you're claiming you're changing.
If you have a 15% personal income tax
Not related to buying a house.
and are paying payroll taxes to the tune of 15.3%
Not related to buying a house...And that's it. Two examples that are utterly irrelevant to buying a house.
But what's even better, and a better illustration of just how bad your analysis is, is this:
In contrast, if you earn $100K to buy a house, you will be able to show up at closing with $100K, not $69.7K, because under the FairTax, the personal income taxes and the payroll taxes are repealed.
YOU ARE PAYING CONSUMPTION TAXES. You do not "show up" with all your income because you paid consumption taxes on the goods and services you bought to stay alive.
You most certainly are taxed on tuition. Same as buying a house above. You have to earn $100 in order to bring $69.70 to pay for an hour of tuition
So....in your fantasy world, do you not have to eat? 'Cause you just transferred the tax burden from income taxes to consumption taxes. Raising the price of food by more than the median taxpayer's income taxes.
In other words, you now only have $55 to pay an hour of tuition, because you're spending $45 more on food and other essential goods and services.
so interest on your saved monies in banks would be higher
Why? Interest rates on savings are market-driven. Banks currently pay what the market will bear, including the cost of income taxes on that interest. If you take away income taxes, why would banks keep paying the same interest rate? They'd lower rates to reach to the same after-tax income because that's what the market will bear.
Same with loans. The interest rate on a loan is what the market will bear. Taking away income taxes on that will simply result in higher profits for banks, because the market has already established the higher interest rate as acceptable.
Also, your plan to exempt banking and investing from being a "service" is rather capricious, and will result in a massive increase in the tax on everything else. Making this proposal even worse for the middle and lower classes.
Businesses aren't taxed under the FairTax, only consumers buying at retail,
BUSINESSES ARE CONSUMERS. Every ream of paper. Every computer. Every desk. Every square foot of office space. Every factory machine. Every cup of coffee. Everything they buy to run the business is a retail purchase. All are taxed under your plan. You can tell because businesses are paying sales tax on all those purchases (in states with s
No, they really don't. The poor consume 100% of their income. That's a big part of why we call them "poor".
The rich consume far less than 100% of their income.
The absolute value of their consumption is higher, but absolute value does not tell you anything about the effect your taxes have on that taxpayer. The percent of their income subject to your taxes does.
All of a poor person's income is subject to your tax, because they're spending all of their paycheck on goods and services. Only a portion of a rich person's income is subject to your tax, because they're not spending all of their "paycheck" on goods and services.
In 1963, with the income taxes only 50 years old at the time, JFK said, "“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.” John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963 " He was right.
[Citation Required]
'Cause JFK did slash income taxes.....and there was not a corresponding boom of economic activity.
If you're going to cite his statement, you also need to include the history of what happened when people followed his plan. And it did not have the effect JFK claimed it would.
he little thing about repealing the corporate income tax would have those companies, and all the rest of the companies on the planet at least WANTING to move their operations to the USA where they could operate without having their profits stolen by the gov't.
Only if you ignore that they're spending more money to buy goods and services to pay your consumption tax.
No taxes on the used car.
Your plan does not repeal property taxes. Also, car dealers are offering a service, thus putting them under your consumption tax.
No taxes on the used (existing) house, only taxes if you build a new house
Your plan does not repeal property taxes. Also, there are currently no taxes paid when you buy a house, new or "used" (there are various recording fees). However you did just massively jack up the price of all of the components of the house, massively driving up home prices.
No taxes on the money you make and use for savings
Only if your savings is under your mattress. If you invest your savings, guess what? You're using a service and the tax man cometh.
tuition
....isn't taxed today.
money used to pay your state taxes, car license fees
Were deductible until the Republicans decided to raise individual income taxes to offset a fraction of their corporate tax cut.
because of the lack of at least the Federal gov't tromping thru the door to steal a portion of the business' profits each year.
Instead, the Federal government would tromp through the door to raise the cost of all the goods and services those companies buy.
Money's fungible, yo. Tax income or tax consumption, you're still taking money from the business.
Pssst....state law enforcement is not responsible for enforcing federal laws. Even if it isn't a "sanctuary city". Heck, it could be argued that state law enforcement detaining a person on behalf of federal law enforcement is not legal since the person has not broken any state laws, thus denying the state any probable cause.
How are you going to like it when "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" ignore your fucking gun control laws?
"2nd Amendment sanctuary city": State law enforcement would not enforce federal gun control laws. Rest of the country: State law enforcement.....would not enforce federal gun control laws.....'cause they're state law enforcement.
Aren't you guys the ones who are supposed to love federalism?
People who claim to have it were tested in environments where the experimenter lied about the current conditions. For example, telling them the EM field was off when it was on, and telling them the EM field was on when it was off.
The subjects claimed they could feel it when the experimenter said the field was on, regardless of the actual state of the EM field. Demonstrating that they were reacting to the experimenter and not the EM field.
The idea of this proposal is not to abandon p values. It's to stop using p less than 0.05 as a magical threshold.
Loosening that limit is also far more useful in studies involving the "softer" sciences, where it's not possible to control all confounding variables. I wouldn't expect much of a benefit in astrophysics as you'd get in nutrition.
So you'd still report p values, and something with a p-value that indicates the result is basically random probably wouldn't get published. But there'd also be more papers and discussion around things where a particular experiment only reached, say, p=0.1. And that discussion could lead to further research and better designs that get a better p-value.
Or several different approaches to study the subject at hand, each of which with a p over 0.05 because it's studying something where controls are limited or not possible (eg, can't kill your test humans). Several studies with p a bit over 0.05 that show the same result is probably as significant as one study with a p less 0.05 when you're talking about complex and uncontrollable interactions.
The significance value is essentially a measurement of how good a researcher is at their job
Oh dear god no.
Proving something is not true (aka, results are not significant) is an incredibly valuable thing.
Demanding that all researchers produce experiments that prove their hypothesis true and only true is awful, and how you get p-hacking. And it is also what you are demanding here.
Unfortunately, because of the similarity of the 737 Max to the older 737, two aircrews apparently assumed the new plane operated the same as the old one
With Boeing explicitly saying it operated the same, and not including MCAS in the differential training, I don't think you should blame the pilots for assuming Boeing wouldn't lie to them.
The theory is that eggs are bad for you because of their effects on serum cholesterol.
It has yet to be established (afaik) what the effects on serum cholesterol actually are. It's presumed that eating eggs raises it. It has been shown elsewhere that eating cholesterol does not actually raise serum levels, and so far no evidence that eggs do not follow that.
Nutritional scientists keep trying to run correlation/population studies with these "controversial" foods.
How 'bout this: - Gather a small group of people. Split into two groups. - Take blood samples. - Feed "group A" an egg. Feed "group B" no-cholesterol egg substitute. - Wait an hour. - Take blood samples - Wait another hour - Take blood samples - Wait 4 hours - Take blood samples - Thank the subjects for their time
Now, go take your samples to a lab and measure serum cholesterol levels. You now have some pretty good evidence of what this controversial food does to serum blood cholesterol.
The fact that these population studies keep being the ones that are published and PR-ed into widespread coverage would seem to indicate this simple experiment doesn't reveal anything particularly interesting. Thus indicating there isn't a direct link, and that egg consumption is really correlating with something else like lack of exercise.
Most of these are very old systems that have zero security, triggered by a particular RF signal that pretty much anyone could transmit with some gear.
And it's not particularly clear that locking them down is all that good a plan. That ancient, simple system will go off when needed whereas a more "secure" system has many, many more failure modes.
There is a danger that such a system might fail in the event of an emergency
This angle needs to be given far more thought when people talk about "securing" these systems.
Assuming the current extremely-low false alarm rate, the risk of the sirens not going off due to "whops, the cert expired" or similar is greater than the risk of false alarms.
If the false alarm-rate goes up enough that people start ignoring the warning, then the calculus changes.
Clearly, you also can't tell the difference between a job that the government should do well, and a civilian who, knowing that they can't do the job, would have hired someone who is competent.
It appears that in your world "civilians" have infinite money.
The vast majority of "look at how incompetent the government was here!!" stories are actually financial problems caused by our many decades of attempting to defund all government.
Why do you think it's nearly impossible to fire an incompetent government worker?
Because 99% of the time, they're doing all that can be done within current policy and current funding levels. Your attempts do demonize the workers doesn't alter current policy or raise current funding levels.
You're creating a far too complex plan for corruption.
Lots of laws mean lots of ways to trip up and get caught. So the corrupt do not pass anti-corruption laws because they don't want to increase the risk getting caught. After all, one "not-corrupt" governor gets in office and suddenly all those laws have teeth and he has plenty of incentive to remove you from office using those laws.
So no, they don't pass more anti-corruption laws. If the need arises to show an anti-corruption attitude, they do it verbally. In the very rare cases where that is not enough, they rely on inter-party friction to stop the laws from passing. "Oh, I'd totally have voted for our bill, but those evil bastards across the aisle changed the bill to include $awful_stuff so I had to vote against it".
The county with the most laws mentioning X is the country with the worst problems with X, not the least problems. They keep making up new laws only when it is clear the old ones have completely failed at doing anything and invariably the new ones will fail as well.
You're mistakenly assuming the passage of laws is logical. It's not, it's a political process that is primarily driven by fear. And much of the time, that fear is overblown.
For example, it's not like we had a problem with marijuana consumption when states and the feds passed laws banning it. Or laws to fight the horrors of "crack cocaine" weren't based on it being a problem, but on racism.
Heck, the Satanic panic in the 80's generated a ton of laws regulating day care centers to ensure they weren't sacrificing children, a problem that didn't exist at all and is already illegal via murder statues.
The car dealers that are behind these efforts want to force Tesla to set up dealerships, owned by the existing dealers.
First, they want a cut from sales, and the high-profit service work.
Second, they want to prevent other car manufacturers from seeing Tesla keeping that cut and making that profit. GM would make a lot more money if dealers weren't skimming every sale and keeping most of the profit from service.
Now... If Tesla were, instead of just superchargers which really only solve the "road trip" problem, to buy one of the major gas station brands and convert it to superchargers chain-wide... I think *THAT* will be the watershed moment that will cause the quick switch of the general masses to electric.
Far more likely is that rental properties will install chargers. First as a way to attract higher-paid customers, then eventually it will become a norm to have it, as much as it is a norm to provide parking.
The chargers aren't a whole lot of money (like $1-2k for an outdoor unit), and the installation is very basic electrical work as long as there is an easy route to run the power.
As for places without parking, well first the garages where you can rent parking will get chargers, probably at a faster rate than properties with parking. After that, there should be enough of a critical mass for people to start installing on-street chargers, vaguely like parking meters.
Slashdot Mirror
How old are you? I lived through that, and yes, there was prosperity all over the place. Good factory jobs, high wages, low unemployment, etc. You know those statistics they're quoting now for, "Best employment figures in 50 years?" 50 years ago was... the 60's.
And none of that was in response to JFK's tax cut. You can tell because that "boom" did not start with the tax cut.
After the tax cut, there was no change that could be distinguished from noise.
The FairTax is a consumption tax on new items for sale at RETAIL, and services. The businesses don't buy their supplies at retail
You've apparently never purchased anything for a business. An enormous amount of the things they buy are purchased at retail. Since this is Slashdot, let's use the example of every computer they buy is a retail purchase (Assuming they are not a computer store).
Retail purchase, from a tax perspective, just means it is not being bought for resale.
That is not right. There are tons of taxes you're paying, income taxes, when you buy a house right now.
Ok, let's go through your list and see which ones are paid because you bought a house, since that's what you're claiming you're changing.
If you have a 15% personal income tax
Not related to buying a house.
and are paying payroll taxes to the tune of 15.3%
Not related to buying a house ...And that's it. Two examples that are utterly irrelevant to buying a house.
But what's even better, and a better illustration of just how bad your analysis is, is this:
In contrast, if you earn $100K to buy a house, you will be able to show up at closing with $100K, not $69.7K, because under the FairTax, the personal income taxes and the payroll taxes are repealed.
YOU ARE PAYING CONSUMPTION TAXES. You do not "show up" with all your income because you paid consumption taxes on the goods and services you bought to stay alive.
You most certainly are taxed on tuition. Same as buying a house above. You have to earn $100 in order to bring $69.70 to pay for an hour of tuition
So....in your fantasy world, do you not have to eat? 'Cause you just transferred the tax burden from income taxes to consumption taxes. Raising the price of food by more than the median taxpayer's income taxes.
In other words, you now only have $55 to pay an hour of tuition, because you're spending $45 more on food and other essential goods and services.
so interest on your saved monies in banks would be higher
Why? Interest rates on savings are market-driven. Banks currently pay what the market will bear, including the cost of income taxes on that interest. If you take away income taxes, why would banks keep paying the same interest rate? They'd lower rates to reach to the same after-tax income because that's what the market will bear.
Same with loans. The interest rate on a loan is what the market will bear. Taking away income taxes on that will simply result in higher profits for banks, because the market has already established the higher interest rate as acceptable.
Also, your plan to exempt banking and investing from being a "service" is rather capricious, and will result in a massive increase in the tax on everything else. Making this proposal even worse for the middle and lower classes.
Businesses aren't taxed under the FairTax, only consumers buying at retail,
BUSINESSES ARE CONSUMERS. Every ream of paper. Every computer. Every desk. Every square foot of office space. Every factory machine. Every cup of coffee. Everything they buy to run the business is a retail purchase. All are taxed under your plan. You can tell because businesses are paying sales tax on all those purchases (in states with s
Dude...I'm not the one making the claim that income tax cuts massively boost the economy.
There were several studies, including double-blind studies. I was summarizing.
the rich consume like hell
No, they really don't. The poor consume 100% of their income. That's a big part of why we call them "poor".
The rich consume far less than 100% of their income.
The absolute value of their consumption is higher, but absolute value does not tell you anything about the effect your taxes have on that taxpayer. The percent of their income subject to your taxes does.
All of a poor person's income is subject to your tax, because they're spending all of their paycheck on goods and services. Only a portion of a rich person's income is subject to your tax, because they're not spending all of their "paycheck" on goods and services.
In 1963, with the income taxes only 50 years old at the time, JFK said, "“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.” John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963 " He was right.
[Citation Required]
'Cause JFK did slash income taxes.....and there was not a corresponding boom of economic activity.
If you're going to cite his statement, you also need to include the history of what happened when people followed his plan. And it did not have the effect JFK claimed it would.
he little thing about repealing the corporate income tax would have those companies, and all the rest of the companies on the planet at least WANTING to move their operations to the USA where they could operate without having their profits stolen by the gov't.
Only if you ignore that they're spending more money to buy goods and services to pay your consumption tax.
No taxes on the used car.
Your plan does not repeal property taxes. Also, car dealers are offering a service, thus putting them under your consumption tax.
No taxes on the used (existing) house, only taxes if you build a new house
Your plan does not repeal property taxes. Also, there are currently no taxes paid when you buy a house, new or "used" (there are various recording fees). However you did just massively jack up the price of all of the components of the house, massively driving up home prices.
No taxes on the money you make and use for savings
Only if your savings is under your mattress. If you invest your savings, guess what? You're using a service and the tax man cometh.
tuition
....isn't taxed today.
money used to pay your state taxes, car license fees
Were deductible until the Republicans decided to raise individual income taxes to offset a fraction of their corporate tax cut.
because of the lack of at least the Federal gov't tromping thru the door to steal a portion of the business' profits each year.
Instead, the Federal government would tromp through the door to raise the cost of all the goods and services those companies buy.
Money's fungible, yo. Tax income or tax consumption, you're still taking money from the business.
Don't create bogus "sanctuary cities".
Pssst....state law enforcement is not responsible for enforcing federal laws. Even if it isn't a "sanctuary city". Heck, it could be argued that state law enforcement detaining a person on behalf of federal law enforcement is not legal since the person has not broken any state laws, thus denying the state any probable cause.
How are you going to like it when "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" ignore your fucking gun control laws?
"2nd Amendment sanctuary city": State law enforcement would not enforce federal gun control laws.
Rest of the country: State law enforcement.....would not enforce federal gun control laws.....'cause they're state law enforcement.
Aren't you guys the ones who are supposed to love federalism?
No, it's still complete nonsense.
People who claim to have it were tested in environments where the experimenter lied about the current conditions. For example, telling them the EM field was off when it was on, and telling them the EM field was on when it was off.
The subjects claimed they could feel it when the experimenter said the field was on, regardless of the actual state of the EM field. Demonstrating that they were reacting to the experimenter and not the EM field.
The idea of this proposal is not to abandon p values. It's to stop using p less than 0.05 as a magical threshold.
Loosening that limit is also far more useful in studies involving the "softer" sciences, where it's not possible to control all confounding variables. I wouldn't expect much of a benefit in astrophysics as you'd get in nutrition.
So you'd still report p values, and something with a p-value that indicates the result is basically random probably wouldn't get published. But there'd also be more papers and discussion around things where a particular experiment only reached, say, p=0.1. And that discussion could lead to further research and better designs that get a better p-value.
Or several different approaches to study the subject at hand, each of which with a p over 0.05 because it's studying something where controls are limited or not possible (eg, can't kill your test humans). Several studies with p a bit over 0.05 that show the same result is probably as significant as one study with a p less 0.05 when you're talking about complex and uncontrollable interactions.
The significance value is essentially a measurement of how good a researcher is at their job
Oh dear god no.
Proving something is not true (aka, results are not significant) is an incredibly valuable thing.
Demanding that all researchers produce experiments that prove their hypothesis true and only true is awful, and how you get p-hacking. And it is also what you are demanding here.
Unfortunately, because of the similarity of the 737 Max to the older 737, two aircrews apparently assumed the new plane operated the same as the old one
With Boeing explicitly saying it operated the same, and not including MCAS in the differential training, I don't think you should blame the pilots for assuming Boeing wouldn't lie to them.
I'm just not sure whose responsibility that part was (Boeing's, airline's, or pilots')
Well, Boeing did say that you didn't need to retrain 737 pilots for this part of the 737 Max 8, so.....looks pretty much on Boeing.
So odd you did not provide citations for your claims, yet demand them from others. Almost like you've got a belief without any actual backing....
The theory is that eggs are bad for you because of their effects on serum cholesterol.
It has yet to be established (afaik) what the effects on serum cholesterol actually are. It's presumed that eating eggs raises it. It has been shown elsewhere that eating cholesterol does not actually raise serum levels, and so far no evidence that eggs do not follow that.
Nutritional scientists keep trying to run correlation/population studies with these "controversial" foods.
How 'bout this:
- Gather a small group of people. Split into two groups.
- Take blood samples.
- Feed "group A" an egg. Feed "group B" no-cholesterol egg substitute.
- Wait an hour.
- Take blood samples
- Wait another hour
- Take blood samples
- Wait 4 hours
- Take blood samples
- Thank the subjects for their time
Now, go take your samples to a lab and measure serum cholesterol levels. You now have some pretty good evidence of what this controversial food does to serum blood cholesterol.
The fact that these population studies keep being the ones that are published and PR-ed into widespread coverage would seem to indicate this simple experiment doesn't reveal anything particularly interesting. Thus indicating there isn't a direct link, and that egg consumption is really correlating with something else like lack of exercise.
Most of these are very old systems that have zero security, triggered by a particular RF signal that pretty much anyone could transmit with some gear.
And it's not particularly clear that locking them down is all that good a plan. That ancient, simple system will go off when needed whereas a more "secure" system has many, many more failure modes.
There is a danger that such a system might fail in the event of an emergency
This angle needs to be given far more thought when people talk about "securing" these systems.
Assuming the current extremely-low false alarm rate, the risk of the sirens not going off due to "whops, the cert expired" or similar is greater than the risk of false alarms.
If the false alarm-rate goes up enough that people start ignoring the warning, then the calculus changes.
The odds that these were "backed" locally over RF seem long
Based on......? Your preference for telling the story you'd like?
Just a couple weeks ago the former mayor....
I'm not seeing any incompetence by the mayor...stupidity, yes, but there's no incompetence there.
What the hell was the city manager doing?
Could you point out where "surveil the mayor's personal life" is in the city manager's job description?
They have no problem getting certificates of obligation without voter approval
So, did you forget that different cities have different laws?
Clearly, you also can't tell the difference between a job that the government should do well, and a civilian who, knowing that they can't do the job, would have hired someone who is competent.
It appears that in your world "civilians" have infinite money.
The vast majority of "look at how incompetent the government was here!!" stories are actually financial problems caused by our many decades of attempting to defund all government.
Why do you think it's nearly impossible to fire an incompetent government worker?
Because 99% of the time, they're doing all that can be done within current policy and current funding levels. Your attempts do demonize the workers doesn't alter current policy or raise current funding levels.
To make it seem like they were not corrupt
You're creating a far too complex plan for corruption.
Lots of laws mean lots of ways to trip up and get caught. So the corrupt do not pass anti-corruption laws because they don't want to increase the risk getting caught. After all, one "not-corrupt" governor gets in office and suddenly all those laws have teeth and he has plenty of incentive to remove you from office using those laws.
So no, they don't pass more anti-corruption laws. If the need arises to show an anti-corruption attitude, they do it verbally. In the very rare cases where that is not enough, they rely on inter-party friction to stop the laws from passing. "Oh, I'd totally have voted for our bill, but those evil bastards across the aisle changed the bill to include $awful_stuff so I had to vote against it".
The county with the most laws mentioning X is the country with the worst problems with X, not the least problems. They keep making up new laws only when it is clear the old ones have completely failed at doing anything and invariably the new ones will fail as well.
You're mistakenly assuming the passage of laws is logical. It's not, it's a political process that is primarily driven by fear. And much of the time, that fear is overblown.
For example, it's not like we had a problem with marijuana consumption when states and the feds passed laws banning it. Or laws to fight the horrors of "crack cocaine" weren't based on it being a problem, but on racism.
Heck, the Satanic panic in the 80's generated a ton of laws regulating day care centers to ensure they weren't sacrificing children, a problem that didn't exist at all and is already illegal via murder statues.
Hey now, don't knock Alabama of their perch.
The dealer makes money. Repairs have a high profit margin, and the dealer would like a cut of every car sold.
Why should we be upset? Well, probably not mad at Tesla over this. I'd expect people should be upset by the rent-seeking of the dealers.
It would seem to me that logically, the more corrupt a state become the more anti-corruption laws it will have.
Why would corrupt politicians make laws to block their own corruption?
The car dealers that are behind these efforts want to force Tesla to set up dealerships, owned by the existing dealers.
First, they want a cut from sales, and the high-profit service work.
Second, they want to prevent other car manufacturers from seeing Tesla keeping that cut and making that profit. GM would make a lot more money if dealers weren't skimming every sale and keeping most of the profit from service.
Now... If Tesla were, instead of just superchargers which really only solve the "road trip" problem, to buy one of the major gas station brands and convert it to superchargers chain-wide... I think *THAT* will be the watershed moment that will cause the quick switch of the general masses to electric.
Far more likely is that rental properties will install chargers. First as a way to attract higher-paid customers, then eventually it will become a norm to have it, as much as it is a norm to provide parking.
The chargers aren't a whole lot of money (like $1-2k for an outdoor unit), and the installation is very basic electrical work as long as there is an easy route to run the power.
As for places without parking, well first the garages where you can rent parking will get chargers, probably at a faster rate than properties with parking. After that, there should be enough of a critical mass for people to start installing on-street chargers, vaguely like parking meters.