People don't all start their lives under the same economic situations; there are often factors that influence income that are beyond the control of the people involved
So, what does that have to do with anything?
It creates enormous incentive for black markets (especially for high priced goods; a seller will go an awful long way to help a buyer avoid taxes on a $30 million yacht if he thinks he will get some of the millions of dollars that are saved)
And how exactly is that different from people trying (and succeeding I might add) to avoid current income tax.
the figures used in discussing the tax aren't 'reality based
Depends on who you're discussing it with.
The thing is, everybody pays. All the people who avoid income tax now, rich and poor, buy stuff. Illegal immigrants buy stuff. Foreign visitors buy stuff. It all gets taxed and the money gets paid.
Saying that you are for fair taxation is meaningless, because everybody is for fair taxation (except people who think that society would work without taxation). The disagreement is about what is fair.
At what point does it stop being obvious that you need to take even more money from rich people and even less from poor people? When your tax rates get so high you're starting to cause your most productive workers to leave the country?
Nobody has mentioned it but what about the "Fair Tax"? Tax the spending and not the making. The rich pay more because they buy more, but everybody pays their share. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
You can throw out all the percentages you want, the actual DOLLAR AMOUNT is nothing you wouldn't have spent anyway, on something FAR LESS worthy.
I don't know sir. I think that I put over $6000 into social security last year. That's a nice piece of change that I'd have rather spent on my own personal retirement efforts.
However, on this matter as I understand it, we are talking only about the penalties available to Magistrates for cases heard in a Magistrates' Court, so it's unlikely any cases on this scale would get anywhere near the level where conflicts of interest might arise between the judiciary and legislature/executive government. That would be a bit like the US Supreme Court hearing a case of petty theft, totally disproportionate. So I think it is fair to claim here that while the courts are ultimately administered using public funds etc., there is no direct say by the current administration in the outcome of this sort of case beyond setting the legal and punitive boundaries within which a Magistrates' Court must operate.
Ok, but here in the States, the smaller the court, the more ignorant and distrustful. At least the supreme court takes its time to figure out the background and the implications. The local yokals can be easily fooled and confused. So then my "Yeah, I totally trust the government to make that distinction" is actually more true.
In fact, if the ENTIRE COUNTRY did these LITTLE things, we could WITHOUT A DOUBT save the same amount of Oil McCain's 'Day Dream' of offshore drilling MIGHT produce 10 YEARS from now.
Finally, I'd like to note that all the sources I see say that Obama has called for the US to eliminate its oil dependence in 10 years, but he hasn't promised it will be so. I read it like JFK's call to get to the moon before 1970. It's a goal for the nation, and maybe we'll make it, but it seems unlikely (like the moon landing did, not that I think we'll actually make it this time around).
But JFK had a plan, Oboma has a "vision". Talk is cheap.
I should point out that oil companies not drilling where they have rights is a problem. If government regulations are stopping them, why can't someone like Obama (or McCain) simply change the rules?
The problem is that the places where they have rights to drill have no oil. Do you really think that the "evil" oil companies would leave all that profitable oil in the ground when they had the green light to go and get it?
I think the reason why Republicans end up spending more money than Democrats is because their attitude sucks.
No, the reason the republicans spent more, is that they *could*. They had the executive and legislative branches under their control. That's 2/3. They're politicians trying to bring home the bacon to keep their careers alive. When nobody can oppose you, you spend. The democrats did the same thing. The problem isn't one party or another party, it's the fact that if there isn't opposing powers then one group can run away with all the power. (in this case, spending power)
I've always said that if you *want* to be president, that should disqualify you from the position.
Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire.
I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.
Ok. I'm 30 something. Here's my ONE THING. I will probably never see a dollar of it myself. The system is intended to work for me when I need it. That's the "security" part of it. But now, the way it's headed, I'm really only seeing the "social" part of it. If they continue to fuck it up and leave it business as usual, I'll have paid a lifetime into a system that won't pay me a dime back. That's the problem. Social Security isn't supposed to be about duty and responsibility, it was supposed to be about insurance for the future.
You'd be pretty sour if you knew you paid car insurance all your life without an accident, and when you finally did have an accident, there'd be nothing for you.
These decisions will be made in a court, and in the lowest court at that. The government has no direct say in such cases; government ministers wouldn't even get out of bed to attend this sort of case.
Not totally familiar with your form government but are you saying that your courts are not run by and presided over by your government?
But if you're unwilling to make even a single change or compromise, then no fair complaining about gasoline prices.
I never said I was unwilling to make a change or compromise, I just said that an EV isn't one of them. (that's when you got all offended and started to rant on all my posts)
Does your employer have a charging station for electric cars? Mine doesn't. I doubt that many do.
And the answer was...
They may not have it now, but nothing prevents them from installing charging equipment if electric cars become popular.
So I said, the power bills. But I guess what I meant to say is that my employer wouldn't love to have charging stations available to 1000+ employees because of the power bills *he'd* have to pay. Dig? It may be cheap. We get it. You love your REVA. Still, doubtful your boss wants to pay for your go_juice.
Stop being an apologist for your gasoline addiction. If you want to bash EVs, pick a legitimate criticism: they're still very expensive and have limited availability.
Show me a viable alternative that doesn't require me to
1. Move my family.
2. Stay within a 50 mile radius of my charging station.
3. Drive a REVA.
What is your agenda? I can't figure anyone would spread such misinformation. Where did you get it? Do you actually believe it?
Here's my agenda. Electric vehicles are less energy efficient than gas vehicles. Don't belive me?
According to the US DOE overall average efficiency from US power plants (33% efficient) to point of use (transmission loss 9.5%), is 29.87% . Accepting 90% efficiency for the electric vehicle gives us a figure of only 26.88% overall efficiency. That is lower than internal combustion engined vehicles which range from 30% to 45%. Plus, they're shitty in range, charge time, looks, overall safety and nobody's got a realistic plan for battery recycling on a large enough scale to make it worth considering it as an alternative on any widespread distribution.
Maybe you're living in crappy cities. I've visited Atlanta a few times, and you couldn't pay me enough to live in that dump. Phoenix has its problems, but you have to be an idiot to buy a house 1.5 hours away from your job here, with decent housing available all over the place.
A. Phoenix isn't in the top 10. Do your research.
B. I guess I'm an idiot then. Move along and good luck with your housing market.
I saw a study done recently showing that the actual number of miles driven per day was far less than expected (can't remember exact numbers) but it showed that most Americans could use even a lead-acid battery electric car for most of their driving trips.
Right, but then there's the whole air conditioning/heating situation which most EV proponents forget to mention. 40 miles goes WAY down when you're cooling your vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
WITHOUT A DOUBT save the same amount of Oil McCain's 'Day Dream' of offshore drilling MIGHT produce 10 YEARS from now.
You honestly believe Social Security will one day, just cease to exist?
Yeah, I think it's a possibility. But more to the point you said
This country will never run out of money BE THIS IS WHERE EVERYONE KEEPS THEIR MONEY
And if you believe that statement, then you're living in the past.
As a rounded figure (I'm not asking for your personal details) out of how much was that $6000 taken from?
Um. I believe you are asking for my personal details sir. Plus, it doesn't matter. $6000 is $6000. You're the one that said
You can throw out all the percentages you want, the actual DOLLAR AMOUNT is nothing you wouldn't have spent anyway, on something FAR LESS worthy.
My point is, it's a nice piece of change.
People don't all start their lives under the same economic situations; there are often factors that influence income that are beyond the control of the people involved
So, what does that have to do with anything?
It creates enormous incentive for black markets (especially for high priced goods; a seller will go an awful long way to help a buyer avoid taxes on a $30 million yacht if he thinks he will get some of the millions of dollars that are saved)
And how exactly is that different from people trying (and succeeding I might add) to avoid current income tax.
the figures used in discussing the tax aren't 'reality based
Depends on who you're discussing it with.
The thing is, everybody pays. All the people who avoid income tax now, rich and poor, buy stuff. Illegal immigrants buy stuff. Foreign visitors buy stuff. It all gets taxed and the money gets paid.
Saying that you are for fair taxation is meaningless, because everybody is for fair taxation (except people who think that society would work without taxation). The disagreement is about what is fair.
I don't know how you can argue against this.
At what point does it stop being obvious that you need to take even more money from rich people and even less from poor people? When your tax rates get so high you're starting to cause your most productive workers to leave the country?
Nobody has mentioned it but what about the "Fair Tax"? Tax the spending and not the making. The rich pay more because they buy more, but everybody pays their share. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Social security can prevent you from dieing because you didn't afford the doctor or the meds to treat you.
No, sadly, it can't.
You can throw out all the percentages you want, the actual DOLLAR AMOUNT is nothing you wouldn't have spent anyway, on something FAR LESS worthy.
I don't know sir. I think that I put over $6000 into social security last year. That's a nice piece of change that I'd have rather spent on my own personal retirement efforts.
This country will never run out of money BE THIS IS WHERE EVERYONE KEEPS THEIR MONEY.
You sir, are living in the past.
However, on this matter as I understand it, we are talking only about the penalties available to Magistrates for cases heard in a Magistrates' Court, so it's unlikely any cases on this scale would get anywhere near the level where conflicts of interest might arise between the judiciary and legislature/executive government. That would be a bit like the US Supreme Court hearing a case of petty theft, totally disproportionate. So I think it is fair to claim here that while the courts are ultimately administered using public funds etc., there is no direct say by the current administration in the outcome of this sort of case beyond setting the legal and punitive boundaries within which a Magistrates' Court must operate.
Ok, but here in the States, the smaller the court, the more ignorant and distrustful. At least the supreme court takes its time to figure out the background and the implications. The local yokals can be easily fooled and confused. So then my "Yeah, I totally trust the government to make that distinction" is actually more true.
In fact, if the ENTIRE COUNTRY did these LITTLE things, we could WITHOUT A DOUBT save the same amount of Oil McCain's 'Day Dream' of offshore drilling MIGHT produce 10 YEARS from now.
Please provide STATISTICS to prove your POSITION.
Finally, I'd like to note that all the sources I see say that Obama has called for the US to eliminate its oil dependence in 10 years, but he hasn't promised it will be so. I read it like JFK's call to get to the moon before 1970. It's a goal for the nation, and maybe we'll make it, but it seems unlikely (like the moon landing did, not that I think we'll actually make it this time around).
But JFK had a plan, Oboma has a "vision". Talk is cheap.
I should point out that oil companies not drilling where they have rights is a problem. If government regulations are stopping them, why can't someone like Obama (or McCain) simply change the rules?
The problem is that the places where they have rights to drill have no oil. Do you really think that the "evil" oil companies would leave all that profitable oil in the ground when they had the green light to go and get it?
I think the reason why Republicans end up spending more money than Democrats is because their attitude sucks.
No, the reason the republicans spent more, is that they *could*. They had the executive and legislative branches under their control. That's 2/3. They're politicians trying to bring home the bacon to keep their careers alive. When nobody can oppose you, you spend. The democrats did the same thing. The problem isn't one party or another party, it's the fact that if there isn't opposing powers then one group can run away with all the power. (in this case, spending power)
I've always said that if you *want* to be president, that should disqualify you from the position.
Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire. I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.
Ok. I'm 30 something. Here's my ONE THING. I will probably never see a dollar of it myself. The system is intended to work for me when I need it. That's the "security" part of it. But now, the way it's headed, I'm really only seeing the "social" part of it. If they continue to fuck it up and leave it business as usual, I'll have paid a lifetime into a system that won't pay me a dime back. That's the problem. Social Security isn't supposed to be about duty and responsibility, it was supposed to be about insurance for the future.
You'd be pretty sour if you knew you paid car insurance all your life without an accident, and when you finally did have an accident, there'd be nothing for you.
These decisions will be made in a court, and in the lowest court at that. The government has no direct say in such cases; government ministers wouldn't even get out of bed to attend this sort of case.
Not totally familiar with your form government but are you saying that your courts are not run by and presided over by your government?
Exactly what model EV are you currently rocking?
Only if the person who owns the site, and the person who posted the copyrighted content are the same person I'd surmise.
Yeah, I totally trust the government to make that distinction.
But if you're unwilling to make even a single change or compromise, then no fair complaining about gasoline prices.
I never said I was unwilling to make a change or compromise, I just said that an EV isn't one of them. (that's when you got all offended and started to rant on all my posts)
Perhaps the botnets are busy fighting amongst themselves, vis a vis the Georgia v. Russia conflict.
Does your employer have a charging station for electric cars? Mine doesn't. I doubt that many do.
And the answer was...
They may not have it now, but nothing prevents them from installing charging equipment if electric cars become popular.
So I said, the power bills. But I guess what I meant to say is that my employer wouldn't love to have charging stations available to 1000+ employees because of the power bills *he'd* have to pay. Dig? It may be cheap. We get it. You love your REVA. Still, doubtful your boss wants to pay for your go_juice.
Stop being an apologist for your gasoline addiction. If you want to bash EVs, pick a legitimate criticism: they're still very expensive and have limited availability.
Show me a viable alternative that doesn't require me to
1. Move my family. 2. Stay within a 50 mile radius of my charging station. 3. Drive a REVA.
What is your agenda? I can't figure anyone would spread such misinformation. Where did you get it? Do you actually believe it?
Here's my agenda. Electric vehicles are less energy efficient than gas vehicles. Don't belive me? According to the US DOE overall average efficiency from US power plants (33% efficient) to point of use (transmission loss 9.5%), is 29.87% . Accepting 90% efficiency for the electric vehicle gives us a figure of only 26.88% overall efficiency. That is lower than internal combustion engined vehicles which range from 30% to 45%. Plus, they're shitty in range, charge time, looks, overall safety and nobody's got a realistic plan for battery recycling on a large enough scale to make it worth considering it as an alternative on any widespread distribution.
So, what's yours?
Maybe you're living in crappy cities. I've visited Atlanta a few times, and you couldn't pay me enough to live in that dump. Phoenix has its problems, but you have to be an idiot to buy a house 1.5 hours away from your job here, with decent housing available all over the place.
A. Phoenix isn't in the top 10. Do your research. B. I guess I'm an idiot then. Move along and good luck with your housing market.
I saw a study done recently showing that the actual number of miles driven per day was far less than expected (can't remember exact numbers) but it showed that most Americans could use even a lead-acid battery electric car for most of their driving trips.
Right, but then there's the whole air conditioning/heating situation which most EV proponents forget to mention. 40 miles goes WAY down when you're cooling your vehicle.