That's the "human interpretation of the data" part, subject to the various foibles and subjectivity of the humans doing the interpretation.
Same as when we measure the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the earth. Yet we biased scientists manage to get the same answer time and time again. Your big problem is when you don't like the answer.
You can't replicate the gravitational field of Jupiter or the interior of Sirius in a lab, either. Does that mean that everything we know about stars and planets should be discarded because it just interpretation? Let me guess you're an "evolution is a theory" nutjob.
Informative? Are we giving mod points to second graders?
Except I don't buy that "environmental science" is any more an unbiased field of science than I buy that "ethnic studies" is an unbiased field of history.
That's because you are a moron. What is your evidence that "environmental science" is biased? Because you don't like its results? The proof that these "environmental scientists" biasing their results? Let me guess: lots of unproven accusations of fraud. Or will it just be an "I don't like algore"? I've peer reviewed a lot of your posts in the past and found nearly all of them to be lacking. I guess that means I'm not in your peer group. The fact that you're marked insightful is proof that every moron gets to moderate here.
Besides, I don't think the term "environmental science" is what you're looking for. Better terms might be "Climatology", "Atmospheric science", "Geophysics", or "Planetary Science". Your use of the word "environmental" is just so you can bring up the spectre of "goofy environmentalists."
There isn't a science that he didn't misunderstand. And then write 500 pages of incoherent babble about. Climatologists weren't worried about him because he was incompetent to talk about any type of science. Ask anyone who has worked in chaos theory. Or medicine. Or biotech.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Laffer curve and supply side economics are about the impact that taxes have on economic growth. It has nothing to do with tax avoidance. Go find a conversation you understand and participate in that. Leave the tax policy to the grown ups.
I know about the Laffer curve. It has nothing to do with what you were claiming.
Besides, It should be obvious to anyone that we are on the increased taxes=increased revenue side of the Laffer curve, because the past decades of tax cuts lead to reduced economic growth and reduced tax revenues.
That's not what you were saying. You were saying that taxes collected go down when taxes go up because people try to avoid taxes. The idea that taxes rates can effect the economy in ways that will reduce collected taxes is entirely different.
So I repeat my question. Name an economist who says that if you increases taxes, taxes will go down because rich people will avoid them.
So I pay taxes on what I earn this year every single year afterwards? No, thanks. Property tax is possibly the most unfair there is.
No. A wealth tax is the only fair tax that there is. You tax based upon what someone has, not what someone has earned.
Property taxes as they currently exist are unfair, though, because they tax based upon the value of a property rather the ownership interest. If you've got a $450,000 property and a $400,000 loan, you should be taxed upon your $50,000 net worth of the property. The person or persons who own the loan should be taxed at the present net value of the loan which may be more or less than $400,000. There doesn't need to be any corporate or business tax. The corporations and businesses are owned by people who would pay taxes based upon the value of their investment.
Fair is easy to define: A fair tax would be one that is a fixed proportion of the wealth of an individual. Use of wealth is obvious, because a person's wealth is proportional their interest in the stability of society. If society collapses, a destitute man looses nothing. A rich man loses everything.
The mistaken idea of the current income tax is that earned income is a measure of that interest in stability. The wealthy try to make sure it isn't. Taken as broad averages, the current income tax rates do set up something proportional to wealth. But of course those are averages. For individual people, it's not proportional, and nearly everyone is overtaxed or undertaxed proportionate to their wealth. And at the very upper end there's not even an approximate proportion and everyone is undertaxed.
A national sales tax, for example, would eliminate any benefit from basing your companies off shore.
A national sales tax is the equivalent of a zero tax rate on billionaires. It just makes the day when their heads are on poles outside of the NYSE that much sooner.
No. The idea that he's lying when he tells us his tax rate is just another falsehood that Fox News throws out there because their audience tends not to understand their own taxes, much less his. The tax on dividends and capital gains is far less than half what tax on regular income is. The rich play games to get essentially all of their income classified as capital gains. It's not like the burger flippers at Mcdonalds are allowed to work for the option to buy a share an hour at $8 below the market price.
Fox News, and CNBC, and Fox Business will tell you that the capital gains tax rate should be zero. And the inheritance tax, too. That's because they don't want to be taxed at all.
You're mistaking what Kindergarten was when you attended with what it is today. Children entering Kindergarten (at least in this state) are expected to have basic reading and arithmetic skills. If your child can't read and understand simple subject-verb-object sentences and add 2+3 on the first day, they'll end up in the equivalent of remedial courses. If they can't draw their letters, they'll end up in special ed with an occupational therapist.
I'm not claiming that's a good thing, because it gives preferential treatment to parents that could afford a decent academic preschool. Homework is the other plague on elementary school. It just takes time aways from the most important learning experiences children have: outside playing with other children without parents watching. But even if there was no homework modern parental paranoia would prevent that from happening.
It's time for everyone to put up or shut up. Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming can forever opt out of disaster assistance for a $0.50 a year tax reduction. No option of rejoining later, though.
Science is only political if the political ends drove the science. If the results of a scientific investigation result in a call to political action the science can still be apolitical because facts are facts.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the "human interpretation of the data" part, subject to the various foibles and subjectivity of the humans doing the interpretation.
Same as when we measure the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the earth. Yet we biased scientists manage to get the same answer time and time again. Your big problem is when you don't like the answer.
You can't replicate the gravitational field of Jupiter or the interior of Sirius in a lab, either. Does that mean that everything we know about stars and planets should be discarded because it just interpretation? Let me guess you're an "evolution is a theory" nutjob.
Informative? Are we giving mod points to second graders?
Except I don't buy that "environmental science" is any more an unbiased field of science than I buy that "ethnic studies" is an unbiased field of history.
That's because you are a moron. What is your evidence that "environmental science" is biased? Because you don't like its results? The proof that these "environmental scientists" biasing their results? Let me guess: lots of unproven accusations of fraud. Or will it just be an "I don't like algore"? I've peer reviewed a lot of your posts in the past and found nearly all of them to be lacking. I guess that means I'm not in your peer group. The fact that you're marked insightful is proof that every moron gets to moderate here.
Besides, I don't think the term "environmental science" is what you're looking for. Better terms might be "Climatology", "Atmospheric science", "Geophysics", or "Planetary Science". Your use of the word "environmental" is just so you can bring up the spectre of "goofy environmentalists."
There were droughts in Texas at least this bad, long before the argument started.
Name one.
Yeah, ask a palaeontologist how the grants got bigger after Jurassic Park. Oh what, they didn't?
There isn't a science that he didn't misunderstand. And then write 500 pages of incoherent babble about. Climatologists weren't worried about him because he was incompetent to talk about any type of science. Ask anyone who has worked in chaos theory. Or medicine. Or biotech.
That doesn't mean tax receipts go down when you raise taxes on the wealthy.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Laffer curve and supply side economics are about the impact that taxes have on economic growth. It has nothing to do with tax avoidance. Go find a conversation you understand and participate in that. Leave the tax policy to the grown ups.
I know about the Laffer curve. It has nothing to do with what you were claiming.
Besides, It should be obvious to anyone that we are on the increased taxes=increased revenue side of the Laffer curve, because the past decades of tax cuts lead to reduced economic growth and reduced tax revenues.
That's not what you were saying. You were saying that taxes collected go down when taxes go up because people try to avoid taxes. The idea that taxes rates can effect the economy in ways that will reduce collected taxes is entirely different.
So I repeat my question. Name an economist who says that if you increases taxes, taxes will go down because rich people will avoid them.
So I pay taxes on what I earn this year every single year afterwards? No, thanks. Property tax is possibly the most unfair there is.
No. A wealth tax is the only fair tax that there is. You tax based upon what someone has, not what someone has earned.
Property taxes as they currently exist are unfair, though, because they tax based upon the value of a property rather the ownership interest. If you've got a $450,000 property and a $400,000 loan, you should be taxed upon your $50,000 net worth of the property. The person or persons who own the loan should be taxed at the present net value of the loan which may be more or less than $400,000. There doesn't need to be any corporate or business tax. The corporations and businesses are owned by people who would pay taxes based upon the value of their investment.
Fair is easy to define: A fair tax would be one that is a fixed proportion of the wealth of an individual. Use of wealth is obvious, because a person's wealth is proportional their interest in the stability of society. If society collapses, a destitute man looses nothing. A rich man loses everything.
The mistaken idea of the current income tax is that earned income is a measure of that interest in stability. The wealthy try to make sure it isn't. Taken as broad averages, the current income tax rates do set up something proportional to wealth. But of course those are averages. For individual people, it's not proportional, and nearly everyone is overtaxed or undertaxed proportionate to their wealth. And at the very upper end there's not even an approximate proportion and everyone is undertaxed.
A national sales tax, for example, would eliminate any benefit from basing your companies off shore.
A national sales tax is the equivalent of a zero tax rate on billionaires. It just makes the day when their heads are on poles outside of the NYSE that much sooner.
The higher your make the tax rate, the more people will find ways to not pay it and you will generally collect less.
Find me one economist that actually claims that.
Let them move to China. Seize all their assets in US banks and brokerages houses when they're boarding the plane.
No. The idea that he's lying when he tells us his tax rate is just another falsehood that Fox News throws out there because their audience tends not to understand their own taxes, much less his. The tax on dividends and capital gains is far less than half what tax on regular income is. The rich play games to get essentially all of their income classified as capital gains. It's not like the burger flippers at Mcdonalds are allowed to work for the option to buy a share an hour at $8 below the market price.
Fox News, and CNBC, and Fox Business will tell you that the capital gains tax rate should be zero. And the inheritance tax, too. That's because they don't want to be taxed at all.
You're mistaking what Kindergarten was when you attended with what it is today. Children entering Kindergarten (at least in this state) are expected to have basic reading and arithmetic skills. If your child can't read and understand simple subject-verb-object sentences and add 2+3 on the first day, they'll end up in the equivalent of remedial courses. If they can't draw their letters, they'll end up in special ed with an occupational therapist.
I'm not claiming that's a good thing, because it gives preferential treatment to parents that could afford a decent academic preschool. Homework is the other plague on elementary school. It just takes time aways from the most important learning experiences children have: outside playing with other children without parents watching. But even if there was no homework modern parental paranoia would prevent that from happening.
Wish I could.
Freedom?
Science and Michael Crichton always had a hate-hate relationship.
So stupid... you are so stupid.
Guess that's why they put you on a respirator at night. In case you forget how to breathe.
When being an asshole is a crime, only criminals will have assholes.
If being an asshole is a crime, everybody but me will go to jail.
It's time for everyone to put up or shut up. Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming can forever opt out of disaster assistance for a $0.50 a year tax reduction. No option of rejoining later, though.
Alternatives to evolution? As in none?
Science is only political if the political ends drove the science. If the results of a scientific investigation result in a call to political action the science can still be apolitical because facts are facts.