This is correct on it's face, but not correct as applied - the classic layman error.
Going from 0% CO2 to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere does, indeed, show a large effect - energy is trapped, as you say.
But that is not where we are - we are going from ~0.0280% to 0.0387%, and expecting to go a little higher. It turns out that the effect is very small - the best estimate is only 1 degree of warming over 100 years, after all. CO2 (at breathable levels) can only absorb so much energy before it saturates - and it is already basically saturated. If the CO2 levels quadrupled, we would not expect much of a change in energy absorption.
For further info, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas. There is a nice little chart about a quarter of the way down that shows that quadrupling the CO2 level would cause a 4-8 degree change in temperature. The atmosphere currently contains 3x10^15 kg of CO2; humans currently generate 3x10^13 kg of CO2 per year; so, if all of the planets stabilization processes were stopped, it would take 400 years to get there. (Of course, Earth has systems that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and as the CO2 levels increase those systems become more effective).
The other thing to realize is that humans are still tiny, insignificant creatures... the seasonal variation in CO2 levels is twice what we put in per year. That doesn't say that we aren't putting in a lot, just that the system has much larger inputs than we do.
So your ideal solution would be a system where the amount you paid in taxes determined how much say you had in the government?
No - that would lead to corporations taking over the government. My solution would be that everyone pays taxes, or if you don't pay taxes and live on the work of others those that pay the taxes decide how to allocate them among the various worthy endeavors.
it's just that McCain's plans are even more magical and he's wary of throwing stones in a glass house.
Very likely - but he would not be able to get crazy things passed through a House controlled by Pelosi. (Probably not even though a Republican house, to be honest!)
I did a quick check on those income tax rates
As I said, they are somewhat difficult to really compare. I pay more than 50% of my income to taxes, so 41% would be great! There is a lot more to taxes than the income tax percentage.
And anyway, as I said, the issue is with having 50% of the people vote themselves into a position of not paying taxes, and voting in people that raise taxes on everyone else. That has already happened... and it will get worse.
You might be happier if you look at taxes as a cost of business.
That would be fine, if everyone paid. It would even be fine if not everyone paid, but you weren't allowed to decide priorities unless you paid. It is a problem when someone can buy an election with my money! Obama isn't hurt by his "tax the rich" rhetoric - I am!
Look at what caused the Revolutionary War - taxation without representation. The next war will be out representation without taxation - deciding how to spend other peoples money, when you have opted out of creating value yourself.
I have worked much harder than anyone I know for decades. I don't mind paying for health care for others - I don't even mind social security. I mind that the majority - the 90% of people that pays only 29.2% of taxes - decides how to spend the money. Or how about this - because we live in a democracy, the 50% of "taxpayers" that pay only 3% of the total tax bill get to decide how to spend the entire amount!
Is it any wonder that spending is so out of control? People that essentially pay nothing, and have no reason to decrease spending, have the controlling vote in our government! If you don't think that is a recipe for disaster, then there is nothing I can do but leave. Of course government is necessary - but so are checks and balances on power, which are completely lacking in this case.
How is Obama going to dictate how you spend money on health insurance for your employees?
He has a "plan". Anyone that tries to provide a plan for a complex subject and force everyone into the plan will cause harm! As a quick example on the second page of his plan pdf: "will also phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT" - so, every medical organization will be required to participate, whether it makes sense or not...
His health plan, like most of his plans, are "magic pony" plans. Everyone will get everything! Noone will pay, except those "large corporations". First of all, that's completely untenable - the costs are going to be born by the richest people with the least political power. That is not large corporations, that is small business owners and others. Corporations can afford to hire someone to look after their interests in Washington - I can't. No matter what he says, when push comes to shove I will end up paying for it.
Who tells you that you are bad person for creating jobs?
Do you live in the same world as I do? Google for "evil rich"... if you really think that is in question. How many times have you heard someone say "kill all the rich guys"? Etc. Etc.
the industrialized nations tend to have similar tax rates.
First, that is not entirely true - Ireland, New Zealand, Mexico, and Korea have significantly lower income taxes. (Though taxes are very difficult to really compare.) Secondly, like I say, the problem is not taxation, it is representation without taxation - there are many countries that are quite livable that do not have that. (Typically, younger democracies - as a democracy ages, it falls into the "bread and circuses" trap)
These are deals that have been in the works for quite a while - and these are my friends, I know why they are selling. (For that matter, I know why I am selling).
I understand what you are saying - it's only 3% of income, plus another 8% or so of capital gains, so what? Surely if we can take 50%, 55% isn't so bad?
Two issues arise:
First, to be honest, I'm rather furious that this is even considered - essentially, what you are saying is that my gang is really big, so we are going to take your stuff away and give it to those that vote for me as gang leader. Simple game theory dictates that this will lead to war - one side makes stuff, the other side takes the stuff away and gives it to the gang members - eventually the producers will get fed up with it. Over simplified, of course - but as long as the "net receivers" outnumber and out vote the "net producers", you have an unstable system. Isn't this the classical end of a true democracy - a minority is voted into slavery for the majority, until you run out of new people to enslave? I find it unlikely that this will end nicely for anyone involved, and do not want my children to be raised in such a country. So if we see Obama and Pelosi et al. going off the deep end, we will leave.
Second, you are looking only at the direct taxes - which, although annoying, are relatively insubstantial. Obama and his supporters have this idea that they can run my businesses better than I can (even though he has never even worked in one!). He is going to dictate how I should pay for health insurance for my workers - if I don't comply with his dictates, I have to pay. I already supply my workers with health insurance, but he is saying that he knows what is needed better than I do. This mindset applies in almost every policy, look at Social Security for example. I am a very smart guy. My businesses outperform everyone else in our spaces. And under Obama, I am not going to be allowed to manage my own businesses!
In addition to this, for me personally there are other concerns. I want to start yet another business, in a market that the Democrat party has a history of (over)regulating. Absent the other issues, I would not be looking at moving out of the US - but with liberals every day telling me what a bad person I am for creating jobs, and with the most likely next president saying how much better he would be at allocating my resources than I am, I am seriously looking at it. Right now, I am merely liquidating my assets and putting off hiring people until I know the direction the country will go - and if creating businesses is worth it anymore.
(Perhaps another thing worth noting - my wife and I did not grow up in the US. I have lived in many places, and do not have the "fear of the unknown" that prevents most people from leaving their country. Really, the rest of the world is not some terrible place - it's just different.)
It is the taxes - currently, we small business owners pay over 50% of our income to taxes. Obama wants more... my margins are small enough already (recession thingy going on and all).
As for this: "I'm a little lost as to why every small business owner should be selling their business and fleeing the country"
That doesn't really matter. I'm not saying "they should do this" or "they will do this", I am saying "they have already started this". Look at the small business sales - they are skyrocketing at a time when everything is collapsing and no one can get credit! If you can't understand why the likely President promising to raise your taxes above the 50% you already pay would drive businesses out, I am not going to convince you.
But I will leave you to rot in the hell you are creating... or are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to leave and create my businesses elsewhere?
Interestingly enough, I am a small business creator (a serial entrepreneur, they call me) - I've created 9 small businesses, of varying success levels. I dislike larger corporations, and think much good could be accomplished by limiting them - especially forcing the government to only deal with small companies, not big ones (but of course I'd think that!).
I do know that some small business owners are Democrats (not most by any means) - but I don't really understand that. Everyone I know is leaving the game now. I'm on a fence about it - I think Obama may just be saying whatever is necessary to get elected - but I have to admit, my wife and I were discussing what country we will relocate to if Obama and Pelosi follow through.
I think people don't realize how much damage is being done just by the campaign to our society. Everyone is trying to sell their companies right now. No one seems to be starting anything new. This does not bode well for jobs...
But really, these things are different in every State - the parties are made of lots of little groups with different goals working together. The way you define the parties says more about which sub-group you belong to than the parties themselves.
Hm, I don't think that is entirely accurate. What if she just had her official account BCC her own account? So an official record was kept, but the email she actually checks (her personal email) get a copy so that she can know when she needs to fire up the VPN and respond officially?
BTW, the answer that would have worked for you is: releasing our software open source is the tech equivalent of free advertising. We cast a really wide net with open source, and that attracts to us the few big contracts that are available. They go with us because we are the best, which is also why anyone uses our code anyway!
The problem is that you are ignoring how inovation happens:
1) Guy comes up with idea 2) Guy works on idea, mortgages his house, gets idea almost ready - and runs out of money 3) Guy gets investors to buy into his idea 4) Guy finalizes idea, releases to market... 5) Profit!
The problem is #3 - without patents, no innovation would take place that costs more to develop than an inventor has access to. Either 1) the investors wouldn't invest because they know the idea would be copied before they made a return, or 2) the investors would copy the idea, and eliminate the inventor (stopping any future inventions).
Patents are the only way small businesses can survive. One of the first questions a competent investor will ask is: "What prevents someone else from doing this?"
These guys are not trying to kill you, and are working with virii.
Nature IS trying to kill you, and created these virii.
If these viri could mutate into something that would kill everyone, they already would have. Humans survive only because they are hard to kill - nature wants us dead.
Oh, it was WAY worse than that... just off the top of my head:
1) When landing on the moon, during the final (and most tricky) phase the computer controlling the LEM effectively turned off - Neil landed manually, with the computer yelling abort all the way.
2) Apollo 15 (I think) they tried decreasing the number of thrusters used to separate the stages - the stages almost collided, nearly killing everyone aboard.
3) Apollo 13, the center engine entered a pogo oscillation on launch that was about to destroy the craft until the computer shut it off.
It is very complex - my accountant hands me a book (a very expensive book, by the way) each year that is my taxes. To be honest, I really only know the bottom line - I have to pay half my money to the government (state and federal), and Obama has decided that I don't pay enough.
I'm just sick of it - when did I become his slave?
By the way, in case you are wondering, most times you can sell a company for about 5 times the profit - so you can sell a company making $100K/yr for $500K. (There are caveats, etc, but the average is 5-8 times - and it would be pretty hard to get 8 times right now!)
If I held the company longer, I could get a reasonable income - but at the cost of eliminating all the new jobs I could create by making a new company.
Well, that is true as far as it goes. However, in business (especially startups) you will find that the people that are really good at first stage startups are typically not good at later stage startups - so markets are more efficient if the original starter (typically an engineer-type) can sell the company to someone that takes it mass market (typically a marketing type). The proposed tax laws will kill this, and eliminate a large number of startups - and therefore eliminate jobs (small companies provide most jobs, especially to those that really need them).
I am not alone - everyone I know in the industry is doing the same thing. Look at the M&A industry! Everyone is selling now to avoid the "Obama tax" - and no one is starting new businesses. This will be a big deal in a few years - the new jobs of tomorrow are being eliminated today in the interest of funding more government BS.
(And you seem to be saying, "you're not like me, and this doesn't effect me, so eat s*** and die." This is not the optimal way to run an economy, where we are all better off by allowing each other to excersize our differences.)
And yet they still won't just redirect it all to me - after all, it is only 0.6%, why not give it to me?
If your logic doesn't work for me, it doesn't work for NASA either. Yes, we should audit our largest budget item closely. But also, yes, we should audit $2B budgets closely also.
While I appreciate the sentiment, you ignore the reality of government work.
If you are a government employee, success is just as bad an outcome as failure - either one gets you fired or reassigned. That's why government projects so seldom accomplish their goal, but just as rarely fail. The ideal situation for government employees - and therefore what happens most often - is that the project goes on forever, showing just enough progress towards the goal to make the public not want to cancel the project - but never actually accomplish the goal.
It is amazing that NASA got us to the moon - but after that, Congress gave them the ax, they learned their lesson and have made no real progress since....
Slashdot Mirror
This is correct on it's face, but not correct as applied - the classic layman error.
Going from 0% CO2 to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere does, indeed, show a large effect - energy is trapped, as you say.
But that is not where we are - we are going from ~0.0280% to 0.0387%, and expecting to go a little higher. It turns out that the effect is very small - the best estimate is only 1 degree of warming over 100 years, after all. CO2 (at breathable levels) can only absorb so much energy before it saturates - and it is already basically saturated. If the CO2 levels quadrupled, we would not expect much of a change in energy absorption.
For further info, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas. There is a nice little chart about a quarter of the way down that shows that quadrupling the CO2 level would cause a 4-8 degree change in temperature. The atmosphere currently contains 3x10^15 kg of CO2; humans currently generate 3x10^13 kg of CO2 per year; so, if all of the planets stabilization processes were stopped, it would take 400 years to get there. (Of course, Earth has systems that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and as the CO2 levels increase those systems become more effective).
The other thing to realize is that humans are still tiny, insignificant creatures... the seasonal variation in CO2 levels is twice what we put in per year. That doesn't say that we aren't putting in a lot, just that the system has much larger inputs than we do.
So your ideal solution would be a system where the amount you paid in taxes determined how much say you had in the government?
No - that would lead to corporations taking over the government. My solution would be that everyone pays taxes, or if you don't pay taxes and live on the work of others those that pay the taxes decide how to allocate them among the various worthy endeavors.
it's just that McCain's plans are even more magical and he's wary of throwing stones in a glass house.
Very likely - but he would not be able to get crazy things passed through a House controlled by Pelosi. (Probably not even though a Republican house, to be honest!)
I did a quick check on those income tax rates
As I said, they are somewhat difficult to really compare. I pay more than 50% of my income to taxes, so 41% would be great! There is a lot more to taxes than the income tax percentage.
And anyway, as I said, the issue is with having 50% of the people vote themselves into a position of not paying taxes, and voting in people that raise taxes on everyone else. That has already happened... and it will get worse.
You might be happier if you look at taxes as a cost of business.
That would be fine, if everyone paid. It would even be fine if not everyone paid, but you weren't allowed to decide priorities unless you paid. It is a problem when someone can buy an election with my money! Obama isn't hurt by his "tax the rich" rhetoric - I am!
Look at what caused the Revolutionary War - taxation without representation. The next war will be out representation without taxation - deciding how to spend other peoples money, when you have opted out of creating value yourself.
I have worked much harder than anyone I know for decades. I don't mind paying for health care for others - I don't even mind social security. I mind that the majority - the 90% of people that pays only 29.2% of taxes - decides how to spend the money. Or how about this - because we live in a democracy, the 50% of "taxpayers" that pay only 3% of the total tax bill get to decide how to spend the entire amount!
Is it any wonder that spending is so out of control? People that essentially pay nothing, and have no reason to decrease spending, have the controlling vote in our government! If you don't think that is a recipe for disaster, then there is nothing I can do but leave. Of course government is necessary - but so are checks and balances on power, which are completely lacking in this case.
How is Obama going to dictate how you spend money on health insurance for your employees?
He has a "plan". Anyone that tries to provide a plan for a complex subject and force everyone into the plan will cause harm! As a quick example on the second page of his plan pdf: "will also phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT" - so, every medical organization will be required to participate, whether it makes sense or not...
His health plan, like most of his plans, are "magic pony" plans. Everyone will get everything! Noone will pay, except those "large corporations". First of all, that's completely untenable - the costs are going to be born by the richest people with the least political power. That is not large corporations, that is small business owners and others. Corporations can afford to hire someone to look after their interests in Washington - I can't. No matter what he says, when push comes to shove I will end up paying for it.
Who tells you that you are bad person for creating jobs?
Do you live in the same world as I do? Google for "evil rich"... if you really think that is in question. How many times have you heard someone say "kill all the rich guys"? Etc. Etc.
the industrialized nations tend to have similar tax rates.
First, that is not entirely true - Ireland, New Zealand, Mexico, and Korea have significantly lower income taxes. (Though taxes are very difficult to really compare.) Secondly, like I say, the problem is not taxation, it is representation without taxation - there are many countries that are quite livable that do not have that. (Typically, younger democracies - as a democracy ages, it falls into the "bread and circuses" trap)
These are deals that have been in the works for quite a while - and these are my friends, I know why they are selling. (For that matter, I know why I am selling).
I understand what you are saying - it's only 3% of income, plus another 8% or so of capital gains, so what? Surely if we can take 50%, 55% isn't so bad?
Two issues arise:
First, to be honest, I'm rather furious that this is even considered - essentially, what you are saying is that my gang is really big, so we are going to take your stuff away and give it to those that vote for me as gang leader. Simple game theory dictates that this will lead to war - one side makes stuff, the other side takes the stuff away and gives it to the gang members - eventually the producers will get fed up with it. Over simplified, of course - but as long as the "net receivers" outnumber and out vote the "net producers", you have an unstable system. Isn't this the classical end of a true democracy - a minority is voted into slavery for the majority, until you run out of new people to enslave? I find it unlikely that this will end nicely for anyone involved, and do not want my children to be raised in such a country. So if we see Obama and Pelosi et al. going off the deep end, we will leave.
Second, you are looking only at the direct taxes - which, although annoying, are relatively insubstantial. Obama and his supporters have this idea that they can run my businesses better than I can (even though he has never even worked in one!). He is going to dictate how I should pay for health insurance for my workers - if I don't comply with his dictates, I have to pay. I already supply my workers with health insurance, but he is saying that he knows what is needed better than I do. This mindset applies in almost every policy, look at Social Security for example. I am a very smart guy. My businesses outperform everyone else in our spaces. And under Obama, I am not going to be allowed to manage my own businesses!
In addition to this, for me personally there are other concerns. I want to start yet another business, in a market that the Democrat party has a history of (over)regulating. Absent the other issues, I would not be looking at moving out of the US - but with liberals every day telling me what a bad person I am for creating jobs, and with the most likely next president saying how much better he would be at allocating my resources than I am, I am seriously looking at it. Right now, I am merely liquidating my assets and putting off hiring people until I know the direction the country will go - and if creating businesses is worth it anymore.
(Perhaps another thing worth noting - my wife and I did not grow up in the US. I have lived in many places, and do not have the "fear of the unknown" that prevents most people from leaving their country. Really, the rest of the world is not some terrible place - it's just different.)
It is the taxes - currently, we small business owners pay over 50% of our income to taxes. Obama wants more... my margins are small enough already (recession thingy going on and all).
As for this:
"I'm a little lost as to why every small business owner should be selling their business and fleeing the country"
That doesn't really matter. I'm not saying "they should do this" or "they will do this", I am saying "they have already started this". Look at the small business sales - they are skyrocketing at a time when everything is collapsing and no one can get credit! If you can't understand why the likely President promising to raise your taxes above the 50% you already pay would drive businesses out, I am not going to convince you.
But I will leave you to rot in the hell you are creating... or are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to leave and create my businesses elsewhere?
Interestingly enough, I am a small business creator (a serial entrepreneur, they call me) - I've created 9 small businesses, of varying success levels. I dislike larger corporations, and think much good could be accomplished by limiting them - especially forcing the government to only deal with small companies, not big ones (but of course I'd think that!).
I do know that some small business owners are Democrats (not most by any means) - but I don't really understand that. Everyone I know is leaving the game now. I'm on a fence about it - I think Obama may just be saying whatever is necessary to get elected - but I have to admit, my wife and I were discussing what country we will relocate to if Obama and Pelosi follow through.
I think people don't realize how much damage is being done just by the campaign to our society. Everyone is trying to sell their companies right now. No one seems to be starting anything new. This does not bode well for jobs...
I find that it is better described thusly:
Those that create lean Republican.
Those that consume lean Democrat.
But really, these things are different in every State - the parties are made of lots of little groups with different goals working together. The way you define the parties says more about which sub-group you belong to than the parties themselves.
Hm, I don't think that is entirely accurate. What if she just had her official account BCC her own account? So an official record was kept, but the email she actually checks (her personal email) get a copy so that she can know when she needs to fire up the VPN and respond officially?
Heh!
BTW, the answer that would have worked for you is: releasing our software open source is the tech equivalent of free advertising. We cast a really wide net with open source, and that attracts to us the few big contracts that are available. They go with us because we are the best, which is also why anyone uses our code anyway!
The problem is that you are ignoring how inovation happens:
1) Guy comes up with idea ...
2) Guy works on idea, mortgages his house, gets idea almost ready - and runs out of money
3) Guy gets investors to buy into his idea
4) Guy finalizes idea, releases to market
5) Profit!
The problem is #3 - without patents, no innovation would take place that costs more to develop than an inventor has access to. Either 1) the investors wouldn't invest because they know the idea would be copied before they made a return, or 2) the investors would copy the idea, and eliminate the inventor (stopping any future inventions).
Patents are the only way small businesses can survive. One of the first questions a competent investor will ask is: "What prevents someone else from doing this?"
To me the telling thing was the first major decision made by each candidate - both of whom said they were "change" candidates.
Say what you want, but Biden is not change - Palin is. Perhaps not ideal change, but change...
So, in essence, you believe penguins are religious...
The report I read about this included the items seized by police - including caches of hatchets, machetes, molitov cocktails, and body amour.
Um, look, any protesters using that kind of gear I want the FBI arresting, OK?
Yes - remember, if she becomes President, she can always get Biden to be her VP to bring in some experience to the team...
Hint:
These guys are not trying to kill you, and are working with virii.
Nature IS trying to kill you, and created these virii.
If these viri could mutate into something that would kill everyone, they already would have. Humans survive only because they are hard to kill - nature wants us dead.
Oh, it was WAY worse than that... just off the top of my head:
1) When landing on the moon, during the final (and most tricky) phase the computer controlling the LEM effectively turned off - Neil landed manually, with the computer yelling abort all the way.
2) Apollo 15 (I think) they tried decreasing the number of thrusters used to separate the stages - the stages almost collided, nearly killing everyone aboard.
3) Apollo 13, the center engine entered a pogo oscillation on launch that was about to destroy the craft until the computer shut it off.
There are lots more...
you won't see much empathy from most of the electorate.
Then I guess they won't miss the jobs I was providing either.
It is very complex - my accountant hands me a book (a very expensive book, by the way) each year that is my taxes. To be honest, I really only know the bottom line - I have to pay half my money to the government (state and federal), and Obama has decided that I don't pay enough.
I'm just sick of it - when did I become his slave?
Correct - the killer is that Obama wants to double the capital gains tax.
By the way, in case you are wondering, most times you can sell a company for about 5 times the profit - so you can sell a company making $100K/yr for $500K. (There are caveats, etc, but the average is 5-8 times - and it would be pretty hard to get 8 times right now!)
If I held the company longer, I could get a reasonable income - but at the cost of eliminating all the new jobs I could create by making a new company.
Well, that is true as far as it goes. However, in business (especially startups) you will find that the people that are really good at first stage startups are typically not good at later stage startups - so markets are more efficient if the original starter (typically an engineer-type) can sell the company to someone that takes it mass market (typically a marketing type). The proposed tax laws will kill this, and eliminate a large number of startups - and therefore eliminate jobs (small companies provide most jobs, especially to those that really need them).
I am not alone - everyone I know in the industry is doing the same thing. Look at the M&A industry! Everyone is selling now to avoid the "Obama tax" - and no one is starting new businesses. This will be a big deal in a few years - the new jobs of tomorrow are being eliminated today in the interest of funding more government BS.
(And you seem to be saying, "you're not like me, and this doesn't effect me, so eat s*** and die." This is not the optimal way to run an economy, where we are all better off by allowing each other to excersize our differences.)
It is the profit from the sale.
Look, stupid, my businesses do not go under - I sell them.
Moron.
And yet they still won't just redirect it all to me - after all, it is only 0.6%, why not give it to me?
If your logic doesn't work for me, it doesn't work for NASA either. Yes, we should audit our largest budget item closely. But also, yes, we should audit $2B budgets closely also.
While I appreciate the sentiment, you ignore the reality of government work.
If you are a government employee, success is just as bad an outcome as failure - either one gets you fired or reassigned. That's why government projects so seldom accomplish their goal, but just as rarely fail. The ideal situation for government employees - and therefore what happens most often - is that the project goes on forever, showing just enough progress towards the goal to make the public not want to cancel the project - but never actually accomplish the goal.
It is amazing that NASA got us to the moon - but after that, Congress gave them the ax, they learned their lesson and have made no real progress since....