Well, this certainly makes my brain happy. Finally I can stop hating Google for aiding a communist regime and get back to hating them for being a capitalist empire that is soaking the working class dry with their ad-based system of profits!!! FUCK THE CORPORATE WORLD! POWER TO THE PROLETARIAT! </joke>
I found this line especially poignant: In many cases, Yahoo! does not know the real identity of individuals for whom governments request information, as very often our users subscribe to our services without using their real names.
Might be what they're implying here is most journalist contacts in China aren't stupid enough to supply their real info.
Maybe instead of boycotting a route for information to/from/about a communist dictatorship, the NUJ should try boycotting the dictatorship. Crazy idea, huh?
I disagree. Jack didn't know that Tyler wasn't real. Marla didn't know that Jack didn't know he was Tyler. She could be imaginary and at the same time be pissed at Jack for not knowing who he is- this would just make her a complicated figment of imagination, like Tyler.
The protaginist (he has no name) In the credits he's listed as "Narrator". During production they referred to him as "Jack".
The only person who got fucked was Marla. There are some who assert that Marla was also a figment of Jack's imagination. (But watching the movie again with this in mind, it becomes clear that this would require more people to be imaginary as well. Hell, maybe the whole club was imaginary. But then that'd make doing all the stuff he did a lot harder and practically impossible-er.) Even if she was a figment of his imagination though, this wouldn't make it homo-erotic, just mastabatory.
if I'm required to pay something whether I like it or not, it's a tax Or robbery. But I repeat myself:-p
If it's something I can choose not to pay, it isn't so much. I disagree with you there. Sales taxes, while voluntary, are still taxes. I don't define "tax" as something that I must pay, like cost of living. In this context I define it as something tacked on to the value of things - goods and services for sales taxes, my income for income tax, and the inheritance my granny left me for the estate tax - to fund the government for various projects (like road building, or hair-braiding facilities for likely voters).
taxes in this country just aren't that painful. Some folks are desensitized to it and don't notice things like withholding on their paychecks- they don't know what they make, only what they "take home". Others aren't hurt by it because it doesn't sting them as bad as some. Still others are very much hurt by it. And then there are some like myself who aren't making much now, but plan to make more someday, but see the disincentive of earning more. I'm much more in favor of a system that gets the government's nose out of my income affairs and taxes based on consumption.
real problems like energy consumption and health-care costs That's cool if these are the things you're fighting for- I respect people who are passionate about a cause. But you gotta keep in mind that these things are related to taxes. For example, as energy consumption needs to be refigured and we search for alternative sources of fuel, the government will probably step in at some point and give fabulous prizes to those who are already well on their way down this road, so as to encourage progress. These fabulous prizes will be funded by taxes. If the government is still using a system that wastes hours of 140 million* collection points every year instead of 20 million**, our progress will be a bit more difficult.
last year I paid just shy of 20% in taxes. Does that include Medicare/Medicaid taxes, Social Security taxes, the AMT, and the embedded costs of corporate taxes you pay in everything you buy?
I'll bet with you that it stays on phone bills at first, but when one* phone company gets the idea that the repealed tax gives them freedom to lower their prices to give them an advantage over their competitors, the others will follow. (*:They can't all have not taken some course in economics at some point.)
Ok, calm down, take a few deep breaths, then click the parent link a few times till you get to my orginal post. Here, I'll make it easy for you: Try searching for Tom DeLay, see what ads pop up on the right. Then try searching for Hillary Clinton.
As of a couple days ago, the ads shown for DeLay were anti-DeLay. The ads shown for Clinton were not anti-Clinton. There is your bias. That is what I'm talking about. Clear enough for you?
My point is this: It's not The Google Democratic Party search engine. It's The Google search engine. I'm not Republican or Democrat. Nor do I want to see Google's results based on my or any political party.
From what I can tell, it slams huge sales and use taxes on the general population You're not understanding how it work. The FairTax is revenue neutral- all it does is expose the currrent cost of the federal government. If you are complaining that the tax rate is too high, it's because the government is costing too much, in which case, the tax rate is not the problem.
and "surplus" is redistributed to those that make the least money. Everyone receives the prebate, regardless of what they make. Surplus doesn't enter into it.
If I sell an item, then the buyer sells it, then the second buyer sells it, each transaction gets a sales tax applied unless each buyer has a tax exemption. Lemme rephrase your comment: "Are items taxed more than once?" Good question. No, the FairTax is imposed only on the retail sale of new items. Used items are not taxed under the FairTax.
it requires everyone to be honest AND active participants. And this differs from our current income tax system how? I'll tell you how: Under the current system, tax evasion requires only one person to lie on their tax forms (or just not submit them). Under the FairTax, it requires collusion of both the payor and the payee.
Now, I'm sure there are forms and crap that have to be filled out. Correctomundo! Except whereas the forms have to be filled out by everyone under our current income tax system, the forms only have to be filled out by tax collectors- the seller, payees- under the FairTax. This drops the count of tax collection points from about 140 million to about 20 million. Makes it a bit easier to reduce the amount of tax evasion, wouldn't you say?
How are you going to apportion to "the poor people" if you don't know how much they make? Ah! Another beautiful part of the FairTax- it doesn't matter how much you make. The amount apportioned is dependent on how much is spent. Under the current income tax system, you can be rich and pay zero taxes to the IRS on April 15th because you make no income, living off inheritance or "living off the land" as you say. The FairTax on the other hand doesn't let people get away with this. It doesn't tax based on income.
unfit people do not deserve welfare or kickbacks. The FairTax does not increase or decrease welfare benefits. If you want welfare to be reduced, vote accordingly.
I'd go on responding to this, but I don't have time and besides have given you a lot to think about, AC.
It's not The Google Democratic Party search engine. It's The Google search engine. I'm not Republican or Democrat. Nor do I want to see Google's results based on my or any political party. And you're right, I can use another search engine and they totally are free to do whatever they want as long as they're not breaking any laws. This freedom also comes with responsibility of dealing with repercussions of their choices. Repercussions like me using my freedom of speech to speak out against their heinous policies.
In our fucking dreams. The same thing was once said about women voting, slavery abolition, civil rights, and the like.
No fucking lie... Yeah, thanks AC. I'll just add a grain of salt to your story... Mmm, that's some salty anecdote.
sales taxes are by economists' definition regressive OK, I'll bite. True, sales taxes are by economists' definition regressive. The FairTax is a sales tax. However (and this is a tricky part, so to anyone who doesn't look at the facts, try to stay with me), the prebate part of the plan makes it progressive and makes it the only tax reform plan that completely removes the federal tax burden from Americans living at the poverty level.
Awesome. Wow. That argument blows me out of the water. No way I find anything missing in your solid rebuttal. You sure told me. Wanna try that again with some details?
While you're at it, try quantifying and qualifying the flaws with the FairTax, then compare and contrast with the current income tax system. Let me know what you come up with.
You don't need to bring up the list of the unlimited ways someone can circumvent the new tax system, but be sure and mention ALL of the (few) ways you can with the current system. From here:...whereas tax evasion under the current income tax system requires only one person (the payor) to lie on their tax forms, tax evasion under the FairTax requires collusion of both the payor (the retail purchaser) and the payee (the retail seller). Furthermore, the number of individuals required to file taxes drops from approximately 140 million to 20 million. This ~86% drop in the number of collection points will allow the federal tax administration to assess tax fraud with greater scrutiny.
Read more, then reconsider your implied objections. If you still have them, come back and state them explicitly.
If passed, the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act would prevent states from taxing income earned by nonresidents who telecommute to an in-state employer while working from home. Why not just go all the way and not tax income?
BlueFrog: No. We're doing good here. Our users know we're doing good and they'd know we were doing bad if we caved in to your petty demands.
SpamKing: You can stop it and save face if you tell your users that you realized you were doing wrong and you're closing your doors for ethical reasons.
BlueFrog: No.
SpamKing: Stop it or we'll threaten your users.
BlueFrog: So? If our users are smart enough to use the blue frog, they're smart enough to see thru your threats.
SpamKing: Stop it or we'll kill you after we kill everyone you love.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this certainly makes my brain happy. Finally I can stop hating Google for aiding a communist regime and get back to hating them for being a capitalist empire that is soaking the working class dry with their ad-based system of profits!!! FUCK THE CORPORATE WORLD! POWER TO THE PROLETARIAT!
</joke>
I found this line especially poignant:
In many cases, Yahoo! does not know the real identity of individuals for whom governments request information, as very often our users subscribe to our services without using their real names.
Might be what they're implying here is most journalist contacts in China aren't stupid enough to supply their real info.
Maybe instead of boycotting a route for information to/from/about a communist dictatorship, the NUJ should try boycotting the dictatorship. Crazy idea, huh?
Free as in "click and find out".
I disagree. Jack didn't know that Tyler wasn't real. Marla didn't know that Jack didn't know he was Tyler. She could be imaginary and at the same time be pissed at Jack for not knowing who he is- this would just make her a complicated figment of imagination, like Tyler.
The protaginist (he has no name)
In the credits he's listed as "Narrator". During production they referred to him as "Jack".
The only person who got fucked was Marla.
There are some who assert that Marla was also a figment of Jack's imagination. (But watching the movie again with this in mind, it becomes clear that this would require more people to be imaginary as well. Hell, maybe the whole club was imaginary. But then that'd make doing all the stuff he did a lot harder and practically impossible-er.) Even if she was a figment of his imagination though, this wouldn't make it homo-erotic, just mastabatory.
if I'm required to pay something whether I like it or not, it's a tax
Or robbery. But I repeat myself:-p
If it's something I can choose not to pay, it isn't so much.
I disagree with you there. Sales taxes, while voluntary, are still taxes. I don't define "tax" as something that I must pay, like cost of living. In this context I define it as something tacked on to the value of things - goods and services for sales taxes, my income for income tax, and the inheritance my granny left me for the estate tax - to fund the government for various projects (like road building, or hair-braiding facilities for likely voters).
taxes in this country just aren't that painful.
Some folks are desensitized to it and don't notice things like withholding on their paychecks- they don't know what they make, only what they "take home". Others aren't hurt by it because it doesn't sting them as bad as some. Still others are very much hurt by it. And then there are some like myself who aren't making much now, but plan to make more someday, but see the disincentive of earning more. I'm much more in favor of a system that gets the government's nose out of my income affairs and taxes based on consumption.
real problems like energy consumption and health-care costs
That's cool if these are the things you're fighting for- I respect people who are passionate about a cause. But you gotta keep in mind that these things are related to taxes. For example, as energy consumption needs to be refigured and we search for alternative sources of fuel, the government will probably step in at some point and give fabulous prizes to those who are already well on their way down this road, so as to encourage progress. These fabulous prizes will be funded by taxes. If the government is still using a system that wastes hours of 140 million* collection points every year instead of 20 million**, our progress will be a bit more difficult.
*: income tax
**: FairTax
last year I paid just shy of 20% in taxes.
Does that include Medicare/Medicaid taxes, Social Security taxes, the AMT, and the embedded costs of corporate taxes you pay in everything you buy?
Are they ever going to repeal income tax
Maybe someday, if people get mad enough and fight for change
I'll bet with you that it stays on phone bills at first, but when one* phone company gets the idea that the repealed tax gives them freedom to lower their prices to give them an advantage over their competitors, the others will follow.
(*:They can't all have not taken some course in economics at some point.)
Ok, calm down, take a few deep breaths, then click the parent link a few times till you get to my orginal post. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
Try searching for Tom DeLay, see what ads pop up on the right. Then try searching for Hillary Clinton.
As of a couple days ago, the ads shown for DeLay were anti-DeLay. The ads shown for Clinton were not anti-Clinton. There is your bias. That is what I'm talking about. Clear enough for you?
Great.
When the tax is instituted, you have to pay it or men with guns come to your home.
When the tax is repealed, you have to fill out a form to get your money back. That's fair.
Why not just repeal the whole damn thing and replace it with something that makes more sense?
Well, if your results are accurate, then apparently they've noticed the previous political bias in their ads and fixed it. That's gratifying.
My point is this:
It's not The Google Democratic Party search engine.
It's The Google search engine.
I'm not Republican or Democrat. Nor do I want to see Google's results based on my or any political party.
Some species, such as Shewanella oneidensis
Hey I think I went to highschool with her.
From what I can tell, it slams huge sales and use taxes on the general population
You're not understanding how it work. The FairTax is revenue neutral- all it does is expose the currrent cost of the federal government. If you are complaining that the tax rate is too high, it's because the government is costing too much, in which case, the tax rate is not the problem.
and "surplus" is redistributed to those that make the least money.
Everyone receives the prebate, regardless of what they make. Surplus doesn't enter into it.
If I sell an item, then the buyer sells it, then the second buyer sells it, each transaction gets a sales tax applied unless each buyer has a tax exemption.
Lemme rephrase your comment: "Are items taxed more than once?" Good question. No, the FairTax is imposed only on the retail sale of new items. Used items are not taxed under the FairTax.
it requires everyone to be honest AND active participants.
And this differs from our current income tax system how? I'll tell you how: Under the current system, tax evasion requires only one person to lie on their tax forms (or just not submit them). Under the FairTax, it requires collusion of both the payor and the payee.
Now, I'm sure there are forms and crap that have to be filled out.
Correctomundo! Except whereas the forms have to be filled out by everyone under our current income tax system, the forms only have to be filled out by tax collectors- the seller, payees- under the FairTax. This drops the count of tax collection points from about 140 million to about 20 million. Makes it a bit easier to reduce the amount of tax evasion, wouldn't you say?
How are you going to apportion to "the poor people" if you don't know how much they make?
Ah! Another beautiful part of the FairTax- it doesn't matter how much you make. The amount apportioned is dependent on how much is spent. Under the current income tax system, you can be rich and pay zero taxes to the IRS on April 15th because you make no income, living off inheritance or "living off the land" as you say. The FairTax on the other hand doesn't let people get away with this. It doesn't tax based on income.
unfit people do not deserve welfare or kickbacks.
The FairTax does not increase or decrease welfare benefits. If you want welfare to be reduced, vote accordingly.
I'd go on responding to this, but I don't have time and besides have given you a lot to think about, AC.
It's not The Google Democratic Party search engine.
It's The Google search engine.
I'm not Republican or Democrat. Nor do I want to see Google's results based on my or any political party.
And you're right, I can use another search engine and they totally are free to do whatever they want as long as they're not breaking any laws. This freedom also comes with responsibility of dealing with repercussions of their choices. Repercussions like me using my freedom of speech to speak out against their heinous policies.
Try searching for Tom DeLay, see what ads pop up on the right. Then try searching for Hillary Clinton.
In our fucking dreams.
The same thing was once said about women voting, slavery abolition, civil rights, and the like.
No fucking lie...
Yeah, thanks AC. I'll just add a grain of salt to your story... Mmm, that's some salty anecdote.
sales taxes are by economists' definition regressive
OK, I'll bite.
True, sales taxes are by economists' definition regressive. The FairTax is a sales tax. However (and this is a tricky part, so to anyone who doesn't look at the facts, try to stay with me), the prebate part of the plan makes it progressive and makes it the only tax reform plan that completely removes the federal tax burden from Americans living at the poverty level.
Awesome. Wow. That argument blows me out of the water. No way I find anything missing in your solid rebuttal. You sure told me.
Wanna try that again with some details?
While you're at it, try quantifying and qualifying the flaws with the FairTax, then compare and contrast with the current income tax system. Let me know what you come up with.
Could be if this FairTax thing passes, folks will start demanding a similar system from their states. Stranger things have happened.
You don't need to bring up the list of the unlimited ways someone can circumvent the new tax system, but be sure and mention ALL of the (few) ways you can with the current system. ...whereas tax evasion under the current income tax system requires only one person (the payor) to lie on their tax forms, tax evasion under the FairTax requires collusion of both the payor (the retail purchaser) and the payee (the retail seller). Furthermore, the number of individuals required to file taxes drops from approximately 140 million to 20 million. This ~86% drop in the number of collection points will allow the federal tax administration to assess tax fraud with greater scrutiny.
From here:
Read more, then reconsider your implied objections. If you still have them, come back and state them explicitly.
If passed, the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act would prevent states from taxing income earned by nonresidents who telecommute to an in-state employer while working from home.
Why not just go all the way and not tax income?
SpamKing: Stop the blue frogging!
BlueFrog: No. We're doing good here. Our users know we're doing good and they'd know we were doing bad if we caved in to your petty demands.
SpamKing: You can stop it and save face if you tell your users that you realized you were doing wrong and you're closing your doors for ethical reasons.
BlueFrog: No.
SpamKing: Stop it or we'll threaten your users.
BlueFrog: So? If our users are smart enough to use the blue frog, they're smart enough to see thru your threats.
SpamKing: Stop it or we'll kill you after we kill everyone you love.
BlueFrog: Hmmm... Okay.
What about a slashdot discussion about the latest advance in VR technology that devolves into a discussion about what irony is? Is that ironic?
"What if I-95 announced an exclusive deal with General Motors to provide a special "rush-hour" lane for GM cars only?"
Furthermore, I-95 is an interstate highway. Last time I checked, roads don't make announcements.