"while the (rich) only spend a small percentage of what they get, and invest the rest (or move it offshore)."
And what does an investment do for the rich person? All they get out of it are monthly statements with some numbers. The investment itself doesn't actually do anything for the investor until they take their money out and spend it.
Money in and of itself does not make you better off; you have to spend it before things happen for you. $100 bills don't taste very good and the amount of heat you get out of burning them is patheticly small.
Think of money as energy. It's all well and good that the chunk of coal you have has a great deal of energy stored in it, but it won't keep you warm until you actually burn it and release that energy.
"Governments get a whole lot of additional revenue and don't get *any* incentive to operate more efficiently. "
How is this specific to a sales tax scheme and not to government in general? And why should government be more influenced by tax revenues and not... say... voters? After all, the businesses you're using in your analogy are far more influenced by the value of their stock and their relationship with their shareholers than their relationship with their customers.
"Besides, doesn't state tax allegedly pay for various state benefits such as roading,"
Ever hear of federal highways? They're how you're able to ship things between the two coasts, since that traffic doesn't generate any revenue for the states those trucks are just driving through.
"How would you propose to fairly, equiably and *efficiently* distribute federally collected taxes to the various state treasuries"
You don't. How the states make their money is their own business, and they should not be beholden to the national government for all of their revenue. They're under Washington's heel enough as it is.
Now, as for how that federal money is spent among the states, that's Congress' job to dicker about, as it has been for over 210 years.
"This is good and bad. it shouldnt be filed under pros because if people dont spend money then the economy doesnt move."
If American businesses rely that much on disposable income and impulse shopping then they are at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. If that's the case, it's better to let those businesses go down in flames down rather than painfully prolong the inevitable at an even greater cost.
It is not my job as a consumer to be all but forced to prop up poorly-run businesses.
How? Are different people charged different sales tax rates?
Or is it because then rich people would have more money in their bank or under their mattress or whatever? But if they're only spending as much as a poor person, they're also living as a poor person as well. Why should the richer person be penalized solely because of the size of the lump they have to sleep on?
"There are two reasons for having taxes the way we do. One is raising money and the other is social engineering. The government provides all kinds of tax benefits for behavior they want to encourage. (like marriage)"
All the more reason to abandon income taxes then. The people are supposed to be telling the government how to live their lives, not the other way around.
"That's how they caught Al Capone. Not for a crime but for not declaring (illegally gotten) income on his taxes. Can't do that with a sales tax."
While the government wouldn't see any taxes from Al Capone's liquor sales under a sales tax scheme, they'd still collect quite a bit in taxes for every luxury car or mansion he buys for himself with the ill-gotten funds.
People keeping money under their mattress drives up the value of the (fewer) dollars actually in circulation.
Also, other than getting moldy, what does that money under the mattress do for the person who earned it? If you're not actually spending it and increasing your standard of living why should you be penalized reguardless?
And when did it become the consumers fault that businesses aren't making things worth buying? Sounds like RIAA-thought to me...
"Actually, most (all?) of the September 11 hijackers entered the USA legally."
Depends on how you define "legally." IIRC their applications were horribly out of order and if the people in charge of reviewing the applications did their jobs they wouldn't have gotten into the country. It's like saying that driving at 90 MPH is legal because you didn't get pulled over/tire spiked/whatever.
All in all, it's just another example of Congress passing new laws when what we really need is better enforcement of existing ones.
"They give Doug Church credit for three of his biggest projects and all they can up with for freaking Shigeru Miyamoto is "he made Donkey Kong"? Where's the love?"
If you don't already know what Miyamoto is famous for odds are you won't recognize any of his other accomplishments.
"Unfortunately, but not indefinitely, the USA's weapons of mass destruction make it the most powerful country in the world"
Actually the nuclear arsenal is a red herring when you look at the grand scheme of things. I'm not seeing anybody else's conventional forces being on par with the US either (which is why so many people are looking to get their own nuclear weapons to begin with).
"Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank,"
Yeah, and we can eliminate auto theft by making cars illegal.
"To really feel a part of American society, you must lose all knowledge of the world. Forget where Poland is."
Take a look at historical maps from throughout the Twentieth Century. Poland doesn't know where Poland is! I wonder whose fault that was...
However I can understand your desire to learn more about international geography. You have so little of your own to look at on that tiny little island you apparently call home.
"Spout on about the Constitution, and then make drastic changes to it."
What "drastic changes" have been made to it in the past century? Perhaps you're just jealous that your own country hasn't been able to fit in countless "constitutional acts" into one accessible document.
"Talk about "freedom of speech" and watch TV programmes about the Ku Klux Klan."
They can speak too, you know. Freedom of speech isn't meant to be pretty.
"About anything. Someone step on your toe? Get some hotshot downtown lawyer to sue their ass!"
I'd rather live in a society where I have the ability to seek recompense myself instead of having to whine to my government to buy steel-toed shoes for everybody.
"Your ideal night in is with your gun, six cheeseburgers and a Friends box set."
If it's so abysmal why is it you as a non-American know what Friends is to begin with? Is it perhaps your own locally-produced television programs are even worse?
To whom? How much does the average voter's personal life change when there's a new president in the White House or a new judge on the bench?
"If abused, it upsets the balance of power between the branches of government."
I fail to see how. There is nothing preventing an impeached official from holding office again in the future and those that do the impeaching can be taken to task by the voters every two years. In a worst case scenario things will be back the way they were before impeachment after two years.
What the politicians essentially said: "Money has too much undue influence in an election, especially close to election day. We want to political control away from moneyed interests and give it back to you."
What they really meant: "People are too easily influenced by shady attack ads near election day. They are too stupid to be entrusted with something as important as democracy (i. e. "our continued employment"). We want to limit the information you see (whatever its true value) and take political control away from the unwashed and give it to ourselves."
Of course you wouldn't be in office to begin with if you didn't know how to work a crowd.
The biggest sign that those in political office in the US are primarily interested in their own position is the way impeachment is currently viewed. What happens if you get impeached? You're fired. Nothing else. BFD. Heck, it's such a non-penalty that our federal constitution makes sure to let Congress do it whenever they damned well please. You're not even barred from running for office again if the people so choose. But that sounds too much like regicide to the politicians (and, as they made sure, to everybody else) and so Congress instead makes vague complaints about "imperial presidents" and "activist judges" instead of doing their God damned job and taking individuals they're not happy with to task.
(Sorry, I've been too distracted lately to write political rants and I needed a vent.)
"If you think the pen (or keyboard) is mightier than the sword, let's perform a little experiment, shall we?"
You're missing the point. With a pen I can convince other people (perhaps many other people) to pick up their own swords in support of my stated cause.
Example:
"The pen did not repel the Turks from Vienna or drive them out of Greece."
Would the Turkish soldiers have even been there, far from home, killing and/or getting killed if they weren't first convinced by Somebody Else that they're God's favorite and are supposed to be doing all that?
Would Europeans have had centuries of warfare with each other during the past milennium if Gutenberg hadn't come along and given the Protestant movement a leg to stand on?
Would Stalin have been able to butcher his own people if Marx and Lenin hadn't come along first and made the Russian people more pliable with thier words? Uncle Joe himself certainly wasn't much of a wordsmith.
And speaking of others from that time period would Hitler have been able to cause the death of millions if he hadn't been able to write and publish Mein Kampf Or Mao and this own book?
Or, to be more current and more blunt, I somehow doubt bin Laden knows the first thing about flying an airplane.
Re:Mach Freakin' 5
on
NASA Tests X-43A
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Somebody wasn't paying attention to their fluid mechanics and/or thermodynamics classes.
Speed of sound at 1 atm pressure != speed of sound at obnoxiously high altitudes and near vacuum pressures. And that doesn't even begin to consider the non-uniform variations in temperature with altitude or the different mix of gasses in the air that high up.
At the very least you have way too many decimal places in both your numbers.
Re:launch it allready! *dammit*
on
NASA Tests X-43A
·
· Score: 1
"Also, why waste money sending two (one with a camera) when you're not even sure one would even be successful?"
Because if it works you can then take the video to Congress and say "Look! Shiney! Now gimme money!"
"Label tells- motorcycle Chezet, 26hp, 343cc, price 1050 rubles... Chezet! that was a dream bike for all young people in a Soviet Union. Crowd of boys have been hunging around in those stores dreaming of what they could do with 26 hp bike if Grandpas had only 15 ponnies and how can you afford it,"
I would have thought that the worker's paradise (of all places) would be selling engines rated in kilowatts.
" 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?""
In what way? Are you referring to the US imposing its values on other countries by making it a "trade issue," or perhaps the way the congresscritter is complaining about international meddling in a domestic issue while at the same time meddling in a state issue? If the "US values" this congressman from Nevada touts are so great, why doesn't he try forcing them on his own state?
We're a federal republic for a reason. If all issues had a one-size-fits-all solution we wouldn't need states (or countries, for that matter). Or is the concept of "the majority is always right" only bad when you're not a part of the majority?
And people wonder why Puerto Rico is skittish about statehood...
To be really picky about Newton's third law, moons don't orbit the planet itself, but instead both tend to revolve around a point between the two centers of mass (ie. the center of mass of the planet-moon system) because of mutual gravitational attraction. For example, the reason we're able to find (disgustingly massive) extrasolar planets is that the planets pull on its parent star enough for the star's motion to be visible from here.
I don't know off the top of my head whether the mass ratio between the earth and the moon is enough to pull the center of mass of the earth-moon system outside of the earth, but I do know the center of mass of Pluto-Charon is well outside of Pluto.
So that might throw a wrench into the works of a "it has a moon so it's a planet" idea.
Slashdot Mirror
"while the (rich) only spend a small percentage of what they get, and invest the rest (or move it offshore)."
And what does an investment do for the rich person? All they get out of it are monthly statements with some numbers. The investment itself doesn't actually do anything for the investor until they take their money out and spend it.
Money in and of itself does not make you better off; you have to spend it before things happen for you. $100 bills don't taste very good and the amount of heat you get out of burning them is patheticly small.
Think of money as energy. It's all well and good that the chunk of coal you have has a great deal of energy stored in it, but it won't keep you warm until you actually burn it and release that energy.
"Governments get a whole lot of additional revenue and don't get *any* incentive to operate more efficiently. "
How is this specific to a sales tax scheme and not to government in general? And why should government be more influenced by tax revenues and not... say... voters? After all, the businesses you're using in your analogy are far more influenced by the value of their stock and their relationship with their shareholers than their relationship with their customers.
"Besides, doesn't state tax allegedly pay for various state benefits such as roading,"
Ever hear of federal highways? They're how you're able to ship things between the two coasts, since that traffic doesn't generate any revenue for the states those trucks are just driving through.
"How would you propose to fairly, equiably and *efficiently* distribute federally collected taxes to the various state treasuries"
You don't. How the states make their money is their own business, and they should not be beholden to the national government for all of their revenue. They're under Washington's heel enough as it is.
Now, as for how that federal money is spent among the states, that's Congress' job to dicker about, as it has been for over 210 years.
"This is good and bad. it shouldnt be filed under pros because if people dont spend money then the economy doesnt move."
If American businesses rely that much on disposable income and impulse shopping then they are at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. If that's the case, it's better to let those businesses go down in flames down rather than painfully prolong the inevitable at an even greater cost.
It is not my job as a consumer to be all but forced to prop up poorly-run businesses.
"It is disproportionately hard on poor people."
How? Are different people charged different sales tax rates?
Or is it because then rich people would have more money in their bank or under their mattress or whatever? But if they're only spending as much as a poor person, they're also living as a poor person as well. Why should the richer person be penalized solely because of the size of the lump they have to sleep on?
"There are two reasons for having taxes the way we do. One is raising money and the other is social engineering. The government provides all kinds of tax benefits for behavior they want to encourage. (like marriage)"
All the more reason to abandon income taxes then. The people are supposed to be telling the government how to live their lives, not the other way around.
"That's how they caught Al Capone. Not for a crime but for not declaring (illegally gotten) income on his taxes. Can't do that with a sales tax."
While the government wouldn't see any taxes from Al Capone's liquor sales under a sales tax scheme, they'd still collect quite a bit in taxes for every luxury car or mansion he buys for himself with the ill-gotten funds.
People keeping money under their mattress drives up the value of the (fewer) dollars actually in circulation.
Also, other than getting moldy, what does that money under the mattress do for the person who earned it? If you're not actually spending it and increasing your standard of living why should you be penalized reguardless?
And when did it become the consumers fault that businesses aren't making things worth buying? Sounds like RIAA-thought to me...
"Actually, most (all?) of the September 11 hijackers entered the USA legally."
Depends on how you define "legally." IIRC their applications were horribly out of order and if the people in charge of reviewing the applications did their jobs they wouldn't have gotten into the country. It's like saying that driving at 90 MPH is legal because you didn't get pulled over/tire spiked/whatever.
All in all, it's just another example of Congress passing new laws when what we really need is better enforcement of existing ones.
What are they going to sell? My CD burner that's the equivalent of 5 or 6 burners?
Will it be 5 or 6 times the price tag?
"They give Doug Church credit for three of his biggest projects and all they can up with for freaking Shigeru Miyamoto is "he made Donkey Kong"? Where's the love?"
If you don't already know what Miyamoto is famous for odds are you won't recognize any of his other accomplishments.
" You are Michael Jackson. You must save the children from the clutches of Mr. Big."
Um... isn't that backwards?
If you ignore Einstein then fusion (and fission) does get away with violating those laws.
November 1 1952 on (what was once) Elugelab Island
"Unfortunately, but not indefinitely, the USA's weapons of mass destruction make it the most powerful country in the world"
Actually the nuclear arsenal is a red herring when you look at the grand scheme of things. I'm not seeing anybody else's conventional forces being on par with the US either (which is why so many people are looking to get their own nuclear weapons to begin with).
"Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank,"
Yeah, and we can eliminate auto theft by making cars illegal.
"To really feel a part of American society, you must lose all knowledge of the world. Forget where Poland is."
Take a look at historical maps from throughout the Twentieth Century. Poland doesn't know where Poland is! I wonder whose fault that was...
However I can understand your desire to learn more about international geography. You have so little of your own to look at on that tiny little island you apparently call home.
"Spout on about the Constitution, and then make drastic changes to it."
What "drastic changes" have been made to it in the past century? Perhaps you're just jealous that your own country hasn't been able to fit in countless "constitutional acts" into one accessible document.
"Talk about "freedom of speech" and watch TV programmes about the Ku Klux Klan."
They can speak too, you know. Freedom of speech isn't meant to be pretty.
"About anything. Someone step on your toe? Get some hotshot downtown lawyer to sue their ass!"
I'd rather live in a society where I have the ability to seek recompense myself instead of having to whine to my government to buy steel-toed shoes for everybody.
"Your ideal night in is with your gun, six cheeseburgers and a Friends box set."
If it's so abysmal why is it you as a non-American know what Friends is to begin with? Is it perhaps your own locally-produced television programs are even worse?
"Impeachment is a dangerous thing,"
To whom? How much does the average voter's personal life change when there's a new president in the White House or a new judge on the bench?
"If abused, it upsets the balance of power between the branches of government."
I fail to see how. There is nothing preventing an impeached official from holding office again in the future and those that do the impeaching can be taken to task by the voters every two years. In a worst case scenario things will be back the way they were before impeachment after two years.
"And what do you choose to do with that power? Stand aside and let professional politicians hand the power right back to the ruling class."
Ah, but only after being convinced by them that it was what we truly wanted.
Perfect example: McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
What the politicians essentially said: "Money has too much undue influence in an election, especially close to election day. We want to political control away from moneyed interests and give it back to you."
What they really meant: "People are too easily influenced by shady attack ads near election day. They are too stupid to be entrusted with something as important as democracy (i. e. "our continued employment"). We want to limit the information you see (whatever its true value) and take political control away from the unwashed and give it to ourselves."
Of course you wouldn't be in office to begin with if you didn't know how to work a crowd.
The biggest sign that those in political office in the US are primarily interested in their own position is the way impeachment is currently viewed. What happens if you get impeached? You're fired. Nothing else. BFD. Heck, it's such a non-penalty that our federal constitution makes sure to let Congress do it whenever they damned well please. You're not even barred from running for office again if the people so choose. But that sounds too much like regicide to the politicians (and, as they made sure, to everybody else) and so Congress instead makes vague complaints about "imperial presidents" and "activist judges" instead of doing their God damned job and taking individuals they're not happy with to task.
(Sorry, I've been too distracted lately to write political rants and I needed a vent.)
"If you think the pen (or keyboard) is mightier than the sword, let's perform a little experiment, shall we?"
You're missing the point. With a pen I can convince other people (perhaps many other people) to pick up their own swords in support of my stated cause.
Example:
"The pen did not repel the Turks from Vienna or drive them out of Greece."
Would the Turkish soldiers have even been there, far from home, killing and/or getting killed if they weren't first convinced by Somebody Else that they're God's favorite and are supposed to be doing all that?
Would Europeans have had centuries of warfare with each other during the past milennium if Gutenberg hadn't come along and given the Protestant movement a leg to stand on?
Would Stalin have been able to butcher his own people if Marx and Lenin hadn't come along first and made the Russian people more pliable with thier words? Uncle Joe himself certainly wasn't much of a wordsmith.
And speaking of others from that time period would Hitler have been able to cause the death of millions if he hadn't been able to write and publish Mein Kampf Or Mao and this own book?
Or, to be more current and more blunt, I somehow doubt bin Laden knows the first thing about flying an airplane.
Somebody wasn't paying attention to their fluid mechanics and/or thermodynamics classes.
Speed of sound at 1 atm pressure != speed of sound at obnoxiously high altitudes and near vacuum pressures. And that doesn't even begin to consider the non-uniform variations in temperature with altitude or the different mix of gasses in the air that high up.
At the very least you have way too many decimal places in both your numbers.
"Also, why waste money sending two (one with a camera) when you're not even sure one would even be successful?"
Because if it works you can then take the video to Congress and say "Look! Shiney! Now gimme money!"
"How much delta-v would it take to push it into a stable orbit."
Probably just enough to trigger the "No nukes in space!" protesters.
Hey, I liked Armageddon! It's been forever since Bruce Willis has been in a good comedy like that!
Nah, he'd still be scratching his head at the whole "precession of Mercury" thing.
"Label tells- motorcycle Chezet, 26hp, 343cc, price 1050 rubles... Chezet! that was a dream bike for all young people in a Soviet Union. Crowd of boys have been hunging around in those stores dreaming of what they could do with 26 hp bike if Grandpas had only 15 ponnies and how can you afford it,"
I would have thought that the worker's paradise (of all places) would be selling engines rated in kilowatts.
Yeah. Everybody knows that Mongol-Tartars have a far better grasp of English than the average Slashdotter.
" 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?""
In what way? Are you referring to the US imposing its values on other countries by making it a "trade issue," or perhaps the way the congresscritter is complaining about international meddling in a domestic issue while at the same time meddling in a state issue? If the "US values" this congressman from Nevada touts are so great, why doesn't he try forcing them on his own state?
We're a federal republic for a reason. If all issues had a one-size-fits-all solution we wouldn't need states (or countries, for that matter). Or is the concept of "the majority is always right" only bad when you're not a part of the majority?
And people wonder why Puerto Rico is skittish about statehood...
Yes they can! Their passwords are their email addresses!
"Both even have satellites of their own."
Ehhh...
To be really picky about Newton's third law, moons don't orbit the planet itself, but instead both tend to revolve around a point between the two centers of mass (ie. the center of mass of the planet-moon system) because of mutual gravitational attraction. For example, the reason we're able to find (disgustingly massive) extrasolar planets is that the planets pull on its parent star enough for the star's motion to be visible from here.
I don't know off the top of my head whether the mass ratio between the earth and the moon is enough to pull the center of mass of the earth-moon system outside of the earth, but I do know the center of mass of Pluto-Charon is well outside of Pluto.
So that might throw a wrench into the works of a "it has a moon so it's a planet" idea.