A free marketplace with absolutely no restrictions leads to the tragedy of the commons. (From agricultural town commons, if all the farmers can feed all the cows they want on the town commons, then they will feed cows there until the grass is gone from the commons, because none of the farmers individually lose by stripping the commons) Better to screw with the marketplace a bit.
Um, that would be Nixon, in his 4th term. If you look carefully at the bits of scenes in NORAD, you can spot Henry Kissinger, Gerald Ford tripping on his way out of Air Force 2, and G. Gordon Liddy. Also, in the first issue, when the cops are investigating the death of the Comedian, check out the picture with Vice President Ford. That is such a great story, too. Take a look at issue 6, comparing the first page to the last page, working towards thie middle...
No, the corvair is fine if you aren't a moron. But the same holds true of every car. If you don't drive too fast in a car you don't know how to drive on a road you don't know, you have a greater chance of dying. The point is, his criticisms of the Corvair were not valid. The car was redesigned in 1964, and he released his book in 65, I belive. The Corvair is not the deathtrap that Nader claimed.
He knew that the problems he described were non-existant or minor, but he destroyed sales of the Corvair. Now, he should have either found a flawed car, or made his arguments in an alternate fashion, because lies are lies.
No, dude, when a someone commits a criminal act, they are wasting the government's (and therefore the public's) time and money. We wouldn't need cops if nobody broke the law. Appealing the ruling when you know you're in the wrong anyway is absolutely a waste of time and money.
yeah, but Gates and Ballmer are wasting my taxed cash with appeals, and repeated violations of anti-trust law. And then with the "oh mr govt, please make those pirates stop stealing our software" and so forth. The WTO helps me, but it's called upon at the request of the CEOs and such.
See my earlier post with regards to income distribution and taxes. The richest 20% of U.S. citizens earn half of the total income. All based on fresh new US Census data, with links and stuff.
Um, I would say beauracracy? My point is that govt. services require govt. employees, and they need govt. salaries. And imho, as an H1B, you should pay based on where you earn. It sort of makes sense that way, i think.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
If taxation is theft, then asking a cop to stop a theif, or asking for the local Fire Dept. to extinguish your abode, etc, is theft. Taxes are a fee for services rendered. Enforced insurance, sort of. But most of the governments services are the sort you never want to need. Like the cop, the ambulance, the medical research, etc.
Please remember, the top quintile has half of the income.(1) The bottom quintile has less than five percent of the income.(2) There is a huge disparity of wealth and income in the U.S. There is a small population that controls an overwhelming majority of the money as either income or savings. The lowest earner in the 95th percentile (with an income greater than almost every other U.S. citizen, mind you) makes $142,021 a year. That is 8.3 times as much as people on the upper edge of the 20th percentile. And way lower than people in the 99th percentile. (3) Now, 20% of the population earning half the money is a bit odd. Especially with the median income (4) being $40,816 (5 - really just 1 again). come on, we all know math. What does that mean? Someone up in those top few percentiles can afford to be paying 1/3 of the taxes is what it tells me...
Tax levied at a rate that decreases as its base increases. Regressivity is considered
undesirable in taxation because it forces poorer persons to pay a greater percentage
of their income in tax than wealthier persons.
progressive tax
Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.
Devised to collect a greater proportion of tax revenue from wealthy people,
progressive taxes reflect the "ability-to-pay" principle.
-end britannica bit-
So you are/were correct. And a flat tax tends to be more regressive, and our system is not progressive enough (hint on how you tell: there are homeless people, hungry people, and people who have to choose between food and medicine). Although it could be possible to make a neutral or progressive flat tax, it would be really really hard and really easy for people to cheat...
A flat tax is regressive as several other people have already explained, although it could be fixed to be both a flat tax and neutral/progressive. Rather than the tax being applied on salary/wage income, if the tax were applied on any type of income (like taxable earned income, inheritance, etc), regardless of source, then it would be non-regressive. Of course, then it loses all of it's support, because it is no longer a tax dodge for the rich that has a BS populist appeal. Also, the existing Earned Income Tax Credit program is too good to kill. It really only benefits the poorest of the poor, and absolutely needs to be kept, flat tax or no flat tax.
He's earned this comfortable lifestyle. What more does he need that money can buy?
Who the hell are you to determine what someone else needs/doesn't need? That's incredibly arrogant.
First, make sure everyone has food, shelter, clothing, and health care. Then we can worry about computers, music, art, season tickets to whatever, cars, etc. I think that's the point. And once you have enough money that you have no worries re: the basics, a little of that Robin Hood action to make sure that everyone does have the basics is OK with me. But that's just me. Far be it from me to tell you not to be a greedy, self-centered weasel. In fact, I would be okay with a tax policy that let people exempt themselves in exchange for a big forehead tattoo saying "I feel no need to pay my share for government services". But again, that's just me.
Dude, national sales tax would be regressive (unfairly paid out by poorer taxpayers) due to the fact that a person with a lower income has to spend a larger percentage of their income on minimum expenditures for life (food, shelter, etc). People who can afford to save can afford to pay less in taxes. Now, it would be possible to create a progressive (taxes increasing with income) sales tax, but that still misses taxable interest income (money you make by keeping money in the bank, or CDs, or other interest-earning holdings, essentially). The easiest way to do it is to add up total income, and cut a percentage off of that. Pretty much the way it is done now, although with Earned Income Credit, the poorest of the poor end up with complete tax relief or even a negative tax rate. Now, to create a progessive sales tax, you'd have to basically have no sales tax on some things, and excessive tax on others, but then the rich guy who buys the cheap stuff isn't paying his share, right? And soon the "luxury goods" that have the higher tax associated with them lose sales, the companies stat hurting, and they want you to re-arrange the taxes or reclassify the goods. You'd also have to have a banking/savings/investment tax, so that people who can afford to save don't get unfair tax relief by saving.
I dunno, the cabin might also be Ruby Ridge, the title is a little vague. Although Ted K. is my first choice as well, given the mention of early spring.
Using whose definition of tyranny? I would say that the Sandanistas would count, definitely. Ditto Castro and the overthrown of Batista (sp?). The Viet Cong probably count. There have been a variety of coups or armed insurrections that I can think of, but the question for most of them is the tyranny bit. I mean, Rwanda or Somalia, for instance. Whose definition? Whose judgement?
Dude, even if the chances are remote, be prepared. Sure, my OpenBSD box isn't likely to get rooted by some kiddie, but that doesn't meant that I have taken no security precautions with it. I'll make my backups, and read the logs, and keep it behind a firewall, and I probably will be wasting time and energy. But for something that matters as much as political freedoms, I really am going to tak a few more precautions. And if that means letting Bob Milita own a rifle, that's okay with me. Talking about who has the scariest government isn't the issue, it's making sure that on the off chance _my_ government gets too scary, I'll be living in a place where we can do something about that.
itachi
Okay, just to close the gaping hole in what I said, I would argue that once a government gets n scary, for some value of oppresiveness n, you have lost your chance to use the ballot to bring about change. I don't know what n is equal to. I think it varies.
Not that I agree with the NRA, but you're hardly making a valid argument there. There is a difference between gun ownership and gun violence. Frankly, handguns are not really a good thing. They are small, easily concealed, and just as lethal at short range. They also account for the majority of today's urban gun violence in the U.S. However, a rifle, even an assault rifle, is a different story. The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment is that should the need for another bloody revolution arise, the colonists/citizens could go for it. True, it might not be the best method of bringing about change, but looking at history books, you can see an established pattern of freedom being tied to warfare. At this point, a vast majority of nations have either overthrown an unwanted government or repelled invaders by way of violence and firearms. Personally, I don't own a gun. I don't want to own a gun. But I want to live in a nation where there are privately owned firearms. Or at least privately held (see a variety of european militias or military reserves where Bob & Jane Citizen have a govt. issued assault rifle in the attic, etc.) firearms.
itachi, who thinks we need a good revolution every now and then.
Then again, there's the story of an experiment in cooperative living at a small, rural midwest liberal arts college that may or may not appear in my email address...
So Un-named Liberal Arts College (henceforth ULAC) has co-op living available for students. Good deal, as long as everyone does their part and cooks and cleans, yadda yadda. So one year, at one co-op, someone has the bright idea that the rules are too complicated. So they're going to fix the co-op. So at the next co-op meeting, they decide to abolish all of the old rules, and then only add new rules as needed. Needless to say, this is not the sort of experiment you want to try at home. But they did. It didn't work so good. After about a month or two, they decide to go back to the old rules... But the point still carries, eh?
i shouldn't be criticized because i can't find orkney island dark anywhere in california... it's certainly not my fault, and all, all my friends are with me on this.
Is that the same brewery that makes the Skull Splitter? Wicked good, if it is. But you should be able to get Bert Grant's in California, also Sierra Nevada. Both of those will outshine whatever you can import normally...
Pot brownies. Cheap, no needles, no lung damage, and easy to make. I've always been a believer in the idea that you can't pass judgement on something until you've tried it. That way you wont miss the good stuff just because others don't like it.
No, the rfc1918 are non-routed addresses, but they aren't specifically localhost like 127. Now if someone is in a network where rfc1918 addresses are in use up to the point of contact with the outside world, then you might get them. Or _something_ on their network... If they aren't on a rfc1918 network, it'll probably get dropped at the first router, and definitely get dropped at the first well admined router.
Yes, but the cops wait until you break the law. And the legality and ethics of speedtraps aren't crystal clear. If given the choice, I'd rather not involve myself in any questionable ethical actions. Sniffing around the network connections of students (including a whole herd of lawyers-in-training) just seems to iffy to me...
itachi
(who should make it clear that he doesn't work at Oberlin, he works at U of Penn)
Slashdot Mirror
A free marketplace with absolutely no restrictions leads to the tragedy of the commons. (From agricultural town commons, if all the farmers can feed all the cows they want on the town commons, then they will feed cows there until the grass is gone from the commons, because none of the farmers individually lose by stripping the commons) Better to screw with the marketplace a bit.
itachi
Um, that would be Nixon, in his 4th term. If you look carefully at the bits of scenes in NORAD, you can spot Henry Kissinger, Gerald Ford tripping on his way out of Air Force 2, and G. Gordon Liddy. Also, in the first issue, when the cops are investigating the death of the Comedian, check out the picture with Vice President Ford. That is such a great story, too. Take a look at issue 6, comparing the first page to the last page, working towards thie middle...
itachi
No, the corvair is fine if you aren't a moron. But the same holds true of every car. If you don't drive too fast in a car you don't know how to drive on a road you don't know, you have a greater chance of dying. The point is, his criticisms of the Corvair were not valid. The car was redesigned in 1964, and he released his book in 65, I belive. The Corvair is not the deathtrap that Nader claimed.
itachi
"Unsafe at Any Speed"
He knew that the problems he described were non-existant or minor, but he destroyed sales of the Corvair. Now, he should have either found a flawed car, or made his arguments in an alternate fashion, because lies are lies.
itachi
No, dude, when a someone commits a criminal act, they are wasting the government's (and therefore the public's) time and money. We wouldn't need cops if nobody broke the law. Appealing the ruling when you know you're in the wrong anyway is absolutely a waste of time and money.
itachi
yeah, but Gates and Ballmer are wasting my taxed cash with appeals, and repeated violations of anti-trust law. And then with the "oh mr govt, please make those pirates stop stealing our software" and so forth. The WTO helps me, but it's called upon at the request of the CEOs and such.
itachi
See my earlier post with regards to income distribution and taxes. The richest 20% of U.S. citizens earn half of the total income. All based on fresh new US Census data, with links and stuff.
itachi
Um, I would say beauracracy? My point is that govt. services require govt. employees, and they need govt. salaries. And imho, as an H1B, you should pay based on where you earn. It sort of makes sense that way, i think.
itachi
"promote the general Welfare"
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
itachi
If taxation is theft, then asking a cop to stop a theif, or asking for the local Fire Dept. to extinguish your abode, etc, is theft. Taxes are a fee for services rendered. Enforced insurance, sort of. But most of the governments services are the sort you never want to need. Like the cop, the ambulance, the medical research, etc.
itachi
Please remember, the top quintile has half of the income.(1) The bottom quintile has less than five percent of the income.(2) There is a huge disparity of wealth and income in the U.S. There is a small population that controls an overwhelming majority of the money as either income or savings. The lowest earner in the 95th percentile (with an income greater than almost every other U.S. citizen, mind you) makes $142,021 a year. That is 8.3 times as much as people on the upper edge of the 20th percentile. And way lower than people in the 99th percentile. (3) Now, 20% of the population earning half the money is a bit odd. Especially with the median income (4) being $40,816 (5 - really just 1 again). come on, we all know math. What does that mean? Someone up in those top few percentiles can afford to be paying 1/3 of the taxes is what it tells me...
itachi
From the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA:
regressive tax
Tax levied at a rate that decreases as its base increases. Regressivity is considered
undesirable in taxation because it forces poorer persons to pay a greater percentage
of their income in tax than wealthier persons.
progressive tax
Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.
Devised to collect a greater proportion of tax revenue from wealthy people,
progressive taxes reflect the "ability-to-pay" principle.
-end britannica bit-
So you are/were correct. And a flat tax tends to be more regressive, and our system is not progressive enough (hint on how you tell: there are homeless people, hungry people, and people who have to choose between food and medicine). Although it could be possible to make a neutral or progressive flat tax, it would be really really hard and really easy for people to cheat...
itachi
A flat tax is regressive as several other people have already explained, although it could be fixed to be both a flat tax and neutral/progressive. Rather than the tax being applied on salary/wage income, if the tax were applied on any type of income (like taxable earned income, inheritance, etc), regardless of source, then it would be non-regressive. Of course, then it loses all of it's support, because it is no longer a tax dodge for the rich that has a BS populist appeal. Also, the existing Earned Income Tax Credit program is too good to kill. It really only benefits the poorest of the poor, and absolutely needs to be kept, flat tax or no flat tax.
itachi
He's earned this comfortable lifestyle. What more does he need that money can buy?
Who the hell are you to determine what someone else needs/doesn't need? That's incredibly arrogant.
First, make sure everyone has food, shelter, clothing, and health care. Then we can worry about computers, music, art, season tickets to whatever, cars, etc. I think that's the point. And once you have enough money that you have no worries re: the basics, a little of that Robin Hood action to make sure that everyone does have the basics is OK with me. But that's just me. Far be it from me to tell you not to be a greedy, self-centered weasel. In fact, I would be okay with a tax policy that let people exempt themselves in exchange for a big forehead tattoo saying "I feel no need to pay my share for government services". But again, that's just me.
itachi
Dude, national sales tax would be regressive (unfairly paid out by poorer taxpayers) due to the fact that a person with a lower income has to spend a larger percentage of their income on minimum expenditures for life (food, shelter, etc). People who can afford to save can afford to pay less in taxes. Now, it would be possible to create a progressive (taxes increasing with income) sales tax, but that still misses taxable interest income (money you make by keeping money in the bank, or CDs, or other interest-earning holdings, essentially). The easiest way to do it is to add up total income, and cut a percentage off of that. Pretty much the way it is done now, although with Earned Income Credit, the poorest of the poor end up with complete tax relief or even a negative tax rate. Now, to create a progessive sales tax, you'd have to basically have no sales tax on some things, and excessive tax on others, but then the rich guy who buys the cheap stuff isn't paying his share, right? And soon the "luxury goods" that have the higher tax associated with them lose sales, the companies stat hurting, and they want you to re-arrange the taxes or reclassify the goods. You'd also have to have a banking/savings/investment tax, so that people who can afford to save don't get unfair tax relief by saving.
itachi
I dunno, the cabin might also be Ruby Ridge, the title is a little vague. Although Ted K. is my first choice as well, given the mention of early spring.
itachi
Right, but you missed the point of the argument, which is that who takes the guns away from the police?
itachi
Using whose definition of tyranny? I would say that the Sandanistas would count, definitely. Ditto Castro and the overthrown of Batista (sp?). The Viet Cong probably count. There have been a variety of coups or armed insurrections that I can think of, but the question for most of them is the tyranny bit. I mean, Rwanda or Somalia, for instance. Whose definition? Whose judgement?
itachi
Dude, even if the chances are remote, be prepared. Sure, my OpenBSD box isn't likely to get rooted by some kiddie, but that doesn't meant that I have taken no security precautions with it. I'll make my backups, and read the logs, and keep it behind a firewall, and I probably will be wasting time and energy. But for something that matters as much as political freedoms, I really am going to tak a few more precautions. And if that means letting Bob Milita own a rifle, that's okay with me. Talking about who has the scariest government isn't the issue, it's making sure that on the off chance _my_ government gets too scary, I'll be living in a place where we can do something about that.
itachi
Okay, just to close the gaping hole in what I said, I would argue that once a government gets n scary, for some value of oppresiveness n, you have lost your chance to use the ballot to bring about change. I don't know what n is equal to. I think it varies.
Not that I agree with the NRA, but you're hardly making a valid argument there. There is a difference between gun ownership and gun violence. Frankly, handguns are not really a good thing. They are small, easily concealed, and just as lethal at short range. They also account for the majority of today's urban gun violence in the U.S. However, a rifle, even an assault rifle, is a different story. The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment is that should the need for another bloody revolution arise, the colonists/citizens could go for it. True, it might not be the best method of bringing about change, but looking at history books, you can see an established pattern of freedom being tied to warfare. At this point, a vast majority of nations have either overthrown an unwanted government or repelled invaders by way of violence and firearms. Personally, I don't own a gun. I don't want to own a gun. But I want to live in a nation where there are privately owned firearms. Or at least privately held (see a variety of european militias or military reserves where Bob & Jane Citizen have a govt. issued assault rifle in the attic, etc.) firearms.
itachi, who thinks we need a good revolution every now and then.
Then again, there's the story of an experiment in cooperative living at a small, rural midwest liberal arts college that may or may not appear in my email address...
So Un-named Liberal Arts College (henceforth ULAC) has co-op living available for students. Good deal, as long as everyone does their part and cooks and cleans, yadda yadda. So one year, at one co-op, someone has the bright idea that the rules are too complicated. So they're going to fix the co-op. So at the next co-op meeting, they decide to abolish all of the old rules, and then only add new rules as needed. Needless to say, this is not the sort of experiment you want to try at home. But they did. It didn't work so good. After about a month or two, they decide to go back to the old rules... But the point still carries, eh?
itachi
i shouldn't be criticized because i can't find orkney island dark anywhere in california... it's certainly not my fault, and all, all my friends are with me on this.
Is that the same brewery that makes the Skull Splitter? Wicked good, if it is. But you should be able to get Bert Grant's in California, also Sierra Nevada. Both of those will outshine whatever you can import normally...
itachi
Pot brownies. Cheap, no needles, no lung damage, and easy to make. I've always been a believer in the idea that you can't pass judgement on something until you've tried it. That way you wont miss the good stuff just because others don't like it.
itachi
No, the rfc1918 are non-routed addresses, but they aren't specifically localhost like 127. Now if someone is in a network where rfc1918 addresses are in use up to the point of contact with the outside world, then you might get them. Or _something_ on their network... If they aren't on a rfc1918 network, it'll probably get dropped at the first router, and definitely get dropped at the first well admined router.
itachi
Yes, but the cops wait until you break the law. And the legality and ethics of speedtraps aren't crystal clear. If given the choice, I'd rather not involve myself in any questionable ethical actions. Sniffing around the network connections of students (including a whole herd of lawyers-in-training) just seems to iffy to me...
itachi
(who should make it clear that he doesn't work at Oberlin, he works at U of Penn)