Gravity is an explanation for something that happens. Although unlikely given current evidence, it's possible that the reason you fall when stepping off a cliff is caused by something else entirely.
But there is very little science indeed as to the optimal response.
Indeed. Personally I'd favor just using pigovian taxes to ensure that all costs are internalized and then using the money to fund tax credits for energy efficiency improvements. That would likely solve the majority of the problem right there.
Further, people won't listen to scientists, but they will listen to news anchors and politicians, because fiction is far easier to understand than facts.
I like science, I'm a science kind of guy but don't confuse technical opinion based on solid evidence with fact. Case in point, are eggs good for you or bad for you? Scientists have changed their minds at least twice on this issue during my lifetime. Science evolves, consensus changes. Basing our decisions on the latest science is still the best option but it's not perfect.
Bonus points if you include several giant red buttons throughout the room with clear plastic safety covers over them with red sirens mounted over them. People will be reassured knowing you can hit the big red button when you need to.
For bonus points they should be hooked to the network cabling so that hitting the red button air gaps every machine you have.
The blanket trick might work if you managed to clog the air intakes for the engine, though that would just cause them to stop in place so you'll need something else to go with it. The flaming part isn't going to help you any.
Both the commander and loader weapon stations have armored gun shields nowadays so suppressing them by fire is a lot harder than it sounds. Getting them to close the hatches does mean that they can't shoot at you anyways. They still have the coax machine gun, though admittedly it does have some minor blind spots if you can get close enough without getting run over. Unless you're right on top of them they can also use the main gun which has a heck of a blast using HE rounds, not to mention the concussion effect of firing.
Although modern tanks still throw tracks from time to time, it's generally due to poor maintenance or driver error rather than enemy action. I won't say the iron bar trick is impossible, but the chances of success are quite low. You'd have to get it wedged just right and hope you snap one of the track linkages or pop the track off the road wheels before the bar gets snapped, bent or spit out.
Tanks are by no means invulnerable, in fact they almost never operate without infantry support precisely because they are vulnerable, just not to the sort of weapons that you're suggesting. To do any real damage you're going to need explosives or some sort of large armor piercing round.
It does involve secondary market activity, because the only reason investors would hold a stock that doesn't pay dividends and instead reinvests in the company is because they can look forward to eventually realizing those gains in the secondary market.
That's true but doesn't affect my point. Currently capital gains enjoy preferential tax treatment with respect to dividends but that is by no means necessary in order for capital markets to function.
and that's wrong: capital gains on secondary market transactions fund economic activity the same way as primary market transactions.
Nonsense. If I buy a stock from another investor the company gets zero dollars.
the more you tax dividends and capital gains, the less motivated people are to buy in the primary market.
Currently if you buy in the primary market and sell in the secondary you pay the same capital gains as someone who buys in the secondary and sells in the secondary. There is no reason why that pattern has to be retained. One could make buying in the primary and selling in the secondary tax free while secondary to secondary transactions were taxed.
Well, we've been involved in anti-insurgent activity since at least 2003. Feel free to provide even one example of where this was attempted successfully.
The conclusion of that should not be to tax capital gains more, it should be to tax income less. If you tax capital gains more, people will invest less in things that produce capital gains, which means less economic activity, fewer jobs, lower wages, etc.
That would be true if capital gains were mostly paid on primary market transactions, instead they're mostly paid on secondary market transactions which have nothing to do with funding economic activity whatsoever. The correct policy would be zero taxes on the primary market, while the secondary market should pay the same rates as ordinary income.
Ahahaha you people. Seriously, which do you think is more important to the 99% or whatever, the fact that their standard of living is continually improving, or that someone is shopping for her third sports car, somewhere out there.
If the standard of living for normal people was improving then I agree they probably wouldn't care much if the rich are doing a Scrooge McDuck swan dive through their accumulated wealth. For the middle class in developed nations though, things aren't steadily improving and that makes them a bit more cranky.
Strangely, many don't see this as a service worth paying for, which is largely a semantic problem.
Why pay for it yourself when you can get someone else to do it for you? If they didn't know how externalized costs worked they likely wouldn't be wealthy in the first place.
A wealth tax is taxing money that has already been taxed, and the fact that it's taxing an amount instead of a rate makes it impossible to synchronize with other income taxes - i.e. examples like the one I just gave are inevitable. It's inherently unfair. If you want to tax richer people more, just crank up the income tax rate on higher income brackets.
The problem with your suggestion is that it wouldn't really target the wealthy, merely those with large earned incomes, not the same thing at all. We already have a variety of double taxation methods, sales tax for example is paid on purchases made with after-tax dollars, so I don't see why this one is any more heinous. Look, taxation in any form sucks, none of us like it but the responsible ones accept that it's a necessary evil in order to fund the state which does useful things like provide for the common defense and rule of law. (even libertarians support those two functions) What we want is a tax system that is as simple, non-distorting and fair as possible, meanwhile realizing that you can never perfectly optimize a three variable system.
A free society can handle income inequality, it can handle wealth inequality, what it can't handle and last as a free society is growing inequality of opportunity. Eventually you reach a situation where the non-privileged participants realize the game is rigged and there is no legitimate way to succeed, at that point first crime spikes, then civil unrest and finally revolution. In order to preserve society it's necessary to ensure that things don't get too unbalanced in favor of the elite, some imbalance is inevitable but you have to keep it within limits. Ancient Rome faced exactly this problem in the form of Latifundia, and it helped to bring down the Republic and then eventually assisted in bringing down the empire itself by destroying the middle class of free landholders who made up the bulk of the legions. Slaves make very poor soldiers.
I'm not sure a direct wealth tax is the best way to approach the problem, but the intent is a good one and we should probably be rationally considering alternatives with the same objective.
Example, smog regulations can spur research into electric cars or better mass transit
Which is a good kind (less bad?) of regulation because it attempts to re-internalize costs that have been externalized. A tax would be better than a regulation but I suppose that's a different discussion.
You are seriously blaming the government and regulation for the inequality we see, and suggesting we do LESS of it?
Some kinds of regulation can create inequality by creating barriers to entry problems. That doesn't mean all regulation is bad, but it does mean that we need to carefully consider the unintended side effects of regulations we create and more isn't necessarily better.
I can't imagine a tanker driving onto a huge pile of tires and then sitting there while they're lit on fire long enough to cause problems. Tires don't burn particularly fast you know.
That's going to be one damn big pit, you're going to have trouble camoflaging it properly. That method doesn't seem particularly practical, especially in an urban environment. (barring use of explosives, say set off in an underlying sewer tunnel or something like that)
Yes, you can jam a tank track but they've got one heck of an engine so it better be jammed pretty solid and made of tough materials or it'll just get spit out or busted, getting close enough won't be much fun either.
There are plenty of ways to delay a tank or irritate the crew, for example paint some dinner plates camo green and place them across a roadway the tank wants to use. It's pretty likely the crew will worry that they're mines and stop to call for support or sweep them with a main gun round. If you can sneak up to one while it's turned off and parked you can put sugar in the fuel tank for nasty later results. Dumping a big load of sand from an overhead building onto the air intakes will slow them down. If you want to piss off the crew then toss molotov cocktails on their gear which is usually strapped to the outside. Have a sniper shadow the tank and take potshots any time they stick out their heads will certainly get their attention if you have more time on your hands.
It would be a lot easier to just get your hands on some anti-tank rockets, heck you can build a crude bazooka yourself if you work at it a bit. Don't expect a high success rate with homemade systems though. As an insurgent, if you can't capture any anti-tank weapons you're better of just creating a big IED. From the side you can probably knock loose a track, from the bottom you might actually be able to take the thing out. Tanks are maintenance and fuel intensive so attacking their supply lines is also good tactics.
*shrug* It's been a few years but when I was in the Marines we focused on using either the TOW wire guided system or the Dragon shoulder launched one (they were just bringing in the Javelin when I was getting out). Obviously, calling for our own tanks, copperhead artillery rounds, hellfire missiles from cobra attack helicopters or close air support (A-10s if available, those things rock!) were great options if you had them on call.
Which would result in greater policing efforts and more people actually obeying the traffic laws, yet everyone would be pretty happy about it due to the rebate checks. I'm not seeing a lot of downside here.
Most of the non-special weapons methods are essentially desperation measures. Tanks are essentially impervious to small arms fire. To achieve something as minor as knocking off a track, let alone destroying the thing you're going to need heavier weapons or explosives. There are of course man portable anti-tank systems, and the Marines have them but that's not the same thing as saying they're going to achieve something with their rifles. (which are M16s by the way not AR-15s) All that said, against a properly armed light infantry opponent in an urban environment tanks operating alone are in serious trouble.
I don't know what "society" means to you, but to me it's the structure by which we all agree that other people exist and have rights; martial law means that society has already fallen.
Under martial law we'd bitch about how oppressive the government is and how much we hate martial law. Under the collapse of society scenario we wouldn't bitch about anything because we'd be dead of disease, starvation or random violence.
Slashdot Mirror
Gravity is an explanation for something that happens. Although unlikely given current evidence, it's possible that the reason you fall when stepping off a cliff is caused by something else entirely.
But there is very little science indeed as to the optimal response.
Indeed. Personally I'd favor just using pigovian taxes to ensure that all costs are internalized and then using the money to fund tax credits for energy efficiency improvements. That would likely solve the majority of the problem right there.
AGW is not a fact, it is an opinion.
Conclusions are never facts, that doesn't necessarily invalidate them. Gravity is not a fact, are you suggesting it doesn't exist?
Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
The general point is that things can have unintended side effects. DDT was once considered so safe we sprayed it on people directly, now not so much.
Further, people won't listen to scientists, but they will listen to news anchors and politicians, because fiction is far easier to understand than facts.
I like science, I'm a science kind of guy but don't confuse technical opinion based on solid evidence with fact. Case in point, are eggs good for you or bad for you? Scientists have changed their minds at least twice on this issue during my lifetime. Science evolves, consensus changes. Basing our decisions on the latest science is still the best option but it's not perfect.
Thats why you have free market, capitalism and democracy!
Pick any two.
Bonus points if you include several giant red buttons throughout the room with clear plastic safety covers over them with red sirens mounted over them. People will be reassured knowing you can hit the big red button when you need to.
For bonus points they should be hooked to the network cabling so that hitting the red button air gaps every machine you have.
The blanket trick might work if you managed to clog the air intakes for the engine, though that would just cause them to stop in place so you'll need something else to go with it. The flaming part isn't going to help you any.
Both the commander and loader weapon stations have armored gun shields nowadays so suppressing them by fire is a lot harder than it sounds. Getting them to close the hatches does mean that they can't shoot at you anyways. They still have the coax machine gun, though admittedly it does have some minor blind spots if you can get close enough without getting run over. Unless you're right on top of them they can also use the main gun which has a heck of a blast using HE rounds, not to mention the concussion effect of firing.
Although modern tanks still throw tracks from time to time, it's generally due to poor maintenance or driver error rather than enemy action. I won't say the iron bar trick is impossible, but the chances of success are quite low. You'd have to get it wedged just right and hope you snap one of the track linkages or pop the track off the road wheels before the bar gets snapped, bent or spit out.
Tanks are by no means invulnerable, in fact they almost never operate without infantry support precisely because they are vulnerable, just not to the sort of weapons that you're suggesting. To do any real damage you're going to need explosives or some sort of large armor piercing round.
It does involve secondary market activity, because the only reason investors would hold a stock that doesn't pay dividends and instead reinvests in the company is because they can look forward to eventually realizing those gains in the secondary market.
That's true but doesn't affect my point. Currently capital gains enjoy preferential tax treatment with respect to dividends but that is by no means necessary in order for capital markets to function.
and that's wrong: capital gains on secondary market transactions fund economic activity the same way as primary market transactions.
Nonsense. If I buy a stock from another investor the company gets zero dollars.
the more you tax dividends and capital gains, the less motivated people are to buy in the primary market.
Currently if you buy in the primary market and sell in the secondary you pay the same capital gains as someone who buys in the secondary and sells in the secondary. There is no reason why that pattern has to be retained. One could make buying in the primary and selling in the secondary tax free while secondary to secondary transactions were taxed.
Well, we've been involved in anti-insurgent activity since at least 2003. Feel free to provide even one example of where this was attempted successfully.
That's why most companies choose to simply reinvest the profits directly in themselves.
Which doesn't require any market activity at all, simply use retained earnings.
Decreasing inequality means you get richer, even if you are in the top 1% globally.
Not necessarily, it could just mean you're getting relatively poorer. Not all solutions to inequality are good solutions.
The conclusion of that should not be to tax capital gains more, it should be to tax income less. If you tax capital gains more, people will invest less in things that produce capital gains, which means less economic activity, fewer jobs, lower wages, etc.
That would be true if capital gains were mostly paid on primary market transactions, instead they're mostly paid on secondary market transactions which have nothing to do with funding economic activity whatsoever. The correct policy would be zero taxes on the primary market, while the secondary market should pay the same rates as ordinary income.
Ahahaha you people. Seriously, which do you think is more important to the 99% or whatever, the fact that their standard of living is continually improving, or that someone is shopping for her third sports car, somewhere out there.
If the standard of living for normal people was improving then I agree they probably wouldn't care much if the rich are doing a Scrooge McDuck swan dive through their accumulated wealth. For the middle class in developed nations though, things aren't steadily improving and that makes them a bit more cranky.
Strangely, many don't see this as a service worth paying for, which is largely a semantic problem.
Why pay for it yourself when you can get someone else to do it for you? If they didn't know how externalized costs worked they likely wouldn't be wealthy in the first place.
A wealth tax is taxing money that has already been taxed, and the fact that it's taxing an amount instead of a rate makes it impossible to synchronize with other income taxes - i.e. examples like the one I just gave are inevitable. It's inherently unfair. If you want to tax richer people more, just crank up the income tax rate on higher income brackets.
The problem with your suggestion is that it wouldn't really target the wealthy, merely those with large earned incomes, not the same thing at all. We already have a variety of double taxation methods, sales tax for example is paid on purchases made with after-tax dollars, so I don't see why this one is any more heinous. Look, taxation in any form sucks, none of us like it but the responsible ones accept that it's a necessary evil in order to fund the state which does useful things like provide for the common defense and rule of law. (even libertarians support those two functions) What we want is a tax system that is as simple, non-distorting and fair as possible, meanwhile realizing that you can never perfectly optimize a three variable system.
A free society can handle income inequality, it can handle wealth inequality, what it can't handle and last as a free society is growing inequality of opportunity. Eventually you reach a situation where the non-privileged participants realize the game is rigged and there is no legitimate way to succeed, at that point first crime spikes, then civil unrest and finally revolution. In order to preserve society it's necessary to ensure that things don't get too unbalanced in favor of the elite, some imbalance is inevitable but you have to keep it within limits. Ancient Rome faced exactly this problem in the form of Latifundia, and it helped to bring down the Republic and then eventually assisted in bringing down the empire itself by destroying the middle class of free landholders who made up the bulk of the legions. Slaves make very poor soldiers.
I'm not sure a direct wealth tax is the best way to approach the problem, but the intent is a good one and we should probably be rationally considering alternatives with the same objective.
Example, smog regulations can spur research into electric cars or better mass transit
Which is a good kind (less bad?) of regulation because it attempts to re-internalize costs that have been externalized. A tax would be better than a regulation but I suppose that's a different discussion.
You are seriously blaming the government and regulation for the inequality we see, and suggesting we do LESS of it?
Some kinds of regulation can create inequality by creating barriers to entry problems. That doesn't mean all regulation is bad, but it does mean that we need to carefully consider the unintended side effects of regulations we create and more isn't necessarily better.
I can't imagine a tanker driving onto a huge pile of tires and then sitting there while they're lit on fire long enough to cause problems. Tires don't burn particularly fast you know.
That's going to be one damn big pit, you're going to have trouble camoflaging it properly. That method doesn't seem particularly practical, especially in an urban environment. (barring use of explosives, say set off in an underlying sewer tunnel or something like that)
Yes, you can jam a tank track but they've got one heck of an engine so it better be jammed pretty solid and made of tough materials or it'll just get spit out or busted, getting close enough won't be much fun either.
There are plenty of ways to delay a tank or irritate the crew, for example paint some dinner plates camo green and place them across a roadway the tank wants to use. It's pretty likely the crew will worry that they're mines and stop to call for support or sweep them with a main gun round. If you can sneak up to one while it's turned off and parked you can put sugar in the fuel tank for nasty later results. Dumping a big load of sand from an overhead building onto the air intakes will slow them down. If you want to piss off the crew then toss molotov cocktails on their gear which is usually strapped to the outside. Have a sniper shadow the tank and take potshots any time they stick out their heads will certainly get their attention if you have more time on your hands.
It would be a lot easier to just get your hands on some anti-tank rockets, heck you can build a crude bazooka yourself if you work at it a bit. Don't expect a high success rate with homemade systems though. As an insurgent, if you can't capture any anti-tank weapons you're better of just creating a big IED. From the side you can probably knock loose a track, from the bottom you might actually be able to take the thing out. Tanks are maintenance and fuel intensive so attacking their supply lines is also good tactics.
*shrug* It's been a few years but when I was in the Marines we focused on using either the TOW wire guided system or the Dragon shoulder launched one (they were just bringing in the Javelin when I was getting out). Obviously, calling for our own tanks, copperhead artillery rounds, hellfire missiles from cobra attack helicopters or close air support (A-10s if available, those things rock!) were great options if you had them on call.
Which would result in greater policing efforts and more people actually obeying the traffic laws, yet everyone would be pretty happy about it due to the rebate checks. I'm not seeing a lot of downside here.
Lets just say that the force disparity has grown just a tad since then.
The problem with cutting their budget is that traffic enforcement(writing tickets) generates revenue, solving crimes doesn't.
Fixing that would make a great initiative petition. "Henceforth all ticket revenue will be rebated to the taxpayers directly on a quarterly basis".
That's what allies are for, then you swap forces for suppression efforts.
Most of the non-special weapons methods are essentially desperation measures. Tanks are essentially impervious to small arms fire. To achieve something as minor as knocking off a track, let alone destroying the thing you're going to need heavier weapons or explosives. There are of course man portable anti-tank systems, and the Marines have them but that's not the same thing as saying they're going to achieve something with their rifles. (which are M16s by the way not AR-15s) All that said, against a properly armed light infantry opponent in an urban environment tanks operating alone are in serious trouble.
I don't know what "society" means to you, but to me it's the structure by which we all agree that other people exist and have rights; martial law means that society has already fallen.
Under martial law we'd bitch about how oppressive the government is and how much we hate martial law. Under the collapse of society scenario we wouldn't bitch about anything because we'd be dead of disease, starvation or random violence.
Anarchy != Happy Fun Peaceful Cooperation Land