Hahaha. Yea, if only we could get rid of all the Republicans and let the Democrats have full control, all our problems would be solved!!
Nice sources - the New York Times and the Brookings Institute. Real balance there.
Here's a clue for you: The US already has the most progressive tax policy of any first world country, bar none. That means the wealthiest already pay a greater share of the TOTAL tax revenue.
The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession to about half
This class warfare "eat the rich" bullcrap is nothing but all-out war on the middle class. And when they're gone, do you really think the wealthy elites are going to care one whit about taking care of the poor??
You're right about the major criminal element that permeated the riots, and the massive welfare state in the UK. So that's great that there is a decent social safety net, but the situation in England is now such that living in poverty on welfare is the ONLY prospect for many of these kids, who would (like anyone) prefer to work and grow and make their own way - but those opportunities are vanishing, and the future looks very bleak for an entire generation of English.
I think that situation had a lot more to do with creating an environment for unrest than any criminal element deciding they were just going to start rampaging in the streets. Yes, that element took advantage of the situation. But you make it sound like the entire incident was nothing but a bunch of disaffected hooligans deciding to get together and grab themselves some wide-screen TV's. While the scale was much smaller, it reminded me of the Watts riots in the 60's. Yes, there was rampant crime and looting - but it's a lie (or, at best, disingenuous) to claim that the riots were not sparked by legitimate social issues faced by the group involved.
No, Alex Jones is nothing but hyperbole gold-selling crap with very little (if any) substance.
I do like these guys, even though their show is never anything that would persuade anyone, but it's really good if you already have an idea of who the real bad guys are these days. At least they always source everything. They do come up with some crackpot theories, but everything they put out is easily verifiable.
your posts are pretty amusing how you bend over backwards to explain why the rich are just plain better, and therefore shouldn't have to give back to society.
If that's how you decide to paraphrase anything that I've said, you're either not reading my posts or you're completely missing the point. Nothing I've said even approaches this twisted viewpoint you claim I've espoused.
While I've been defending the middle class from further erosion by misguided policy, you and others have actually done your own "bending over backwards to explain why the rich are just plain better", specifically in the name of Warren Buffett. Well, Buffett, for your information, is nothing but a shill for Obama and the rest of the wealthy elites. The first lie is that this proposal even has anything to do with capital gains income, which is what Buffett was referring to when he claimed he pays a lower rate than his secretary. The next lie is that Buffett cares one whit about paying taxes, since his company owes hundreds of millions in back taxes going back at least to 2002. What he is really after is some favorable treatment from the EPA, to avoid more taxes and expenses for his large coal mining companies. And that's exactly what he got when Obama nixed the latest proposal from the EPA for stricter pollution controls.
So you're gonna walk to the local farm with your cart every week. What happens in winter when nothing is growing? Do a Google for "A week without truck transport" if you really don't think it's a big deal.
Please never again compare the arab revolts and the UK 'riots' in such a way, it just shows your ignorance.
There's a difference between political demonstration and looting a new pair of Nike's.
I see you've gotten all of your information about both from the mainstream media. Please do a little research with some decent source information. The kids in the UK are completely in tune with what's happening in their country, and their prospects are looking very hopeless. Even more so when so few will now be able to afford higher education.
And I don't know about Tunisia, but the activities in Libya were entirely orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and her partners in the EU, to get control of Libya's resources away from China.
Way to pick out ONE thing I said, ignore the rest of my post, and then build a straw man out of it. I didn't ignore anything. Other countries have similar taxes, except the payroll taxes and sales taxes and VAT taxes (which the US doesn't have at all), are even HIGHER, thus more regressive.
Only an idiot would bring up North Korea in this context, ignoring all the first world nations that prove him wrong.
I didn't ignore anything - I started with the first country I thought of with a "large public sector", and I addressed other country's taxation policies as well (which YOU then chose to ignore).
We've been accelerating the growth of the public sector and implementing greater and greater interventionist policies (both domestic and foreign-policy related) for about a dozen years now and here we are. Maybe it's time to try going in another direction.
"Low-wage and just above (service and labor jobs) are plentiful"
Um.. no.
What I meant was that there have been proportionally fewer job losses in that sector than in the better-paying skilled jobs. It's why "underemployment" is so prevalent now.
"The US right now has THE MOST progressive tax system in the world"
The extra caps doesn't make this statement any less ridiculously false.
It's true. Check the stats. Lowest 50% don't pay any income tax, many of those get distribution FROM the tax system, and the payroll taxes in most European countries is much higher, and they are paying VAT taxes which is also paid by every consumer.
I won't link the Wikipedia article (since it's not really a source), but it's even acknowledge there that the US has the most progressive tax policy.
That strikes me as a separate debate. At any rate, even the Roman government gave out bread to the masses in Rome, because the alternatives were food riots, which were nasty affairs.
So, let's put it this way, the government maintains a minimum standard of living simply because the alternatives are ultimately much more unpalatable to the ruling elites.
FTFY
Note that when riots organized by Twitter and Facebook happen in Tunisia, Egypt and "Libya" (oops - that was Hillary), it's all good and they are rebel heroes and the government forces get carpet bombed. But if it happens in England you get 4 years in jail just for encouraging it on Facebook.
The tax is supposed to be based off of Buffet's recommendations, which would include both capital gains AND income. The issue was that capital gains were taxed at a flat 15% versus the graded system for income. Most of the mega-rich don't earn any income, they do however earn millions in capital gains and dividends yearly. Hopefully it makes it through the way buffet suggested without getting too bastardized.
They won't raise capital gains taxes because they know it will reduce revenue from those taxes - it's pretty well-known and even Biden indicated that was the case. It's all a bunch of misdirection to drum up some "tax-the-rich" class warfare, and Buffett is just being a good shill. You know he doesn't really buy the rhetoric because his own company (Hathaway something) doesn't even pay the taxes it's supposed to - they owe about a billion or so going back to 2002. BUT - being a good shill has it's benefits. Buffett owns a major stake in some coal producing companies, which could be hurt by some really tough EPA regulations that are being proposed. Funny how Obama recently nixed those regulations. Coincidence? I think not.
Their fuel costs are not in line with the road damage they do. That again is a place where Mr.Millionaire comes out ahead by stealing from me. My small car does far less road damage but my per mile fuel costs are not lower by that much. Road wear is a function of axle loading and goes up by the 4th power.
I love the way the public schools have created so many kids with this kind of class envy and sense of entitlement.
The trucker contribution of the total dollars going into the federal Highway Trust Fund is equal to 37.7 percent of highway account revenues, which only includes gas taxes, retail taxes, and use/tire taxes. The average annual taxes for a tractor trailer is about $9,000. Add to that state diesel tax, registration fees and weight fees - another $5,000 a year. That's about 35 times the amount of the average passenger car (assuming 25 MPG).
Oh, and without all those trucks moving stuff from where people PRODUCE stuff to your little urban paradise, you would run out of food in less than a week. So, by all means, tax them until nobody will drive them any more - and starve.
The money is their property AFTER taxes. Get over it. You owe society more than society owes you.
How come this only applies to certain people?
And if you claim it applies to everyone, they why are those getting food stamps and public housing and welfare check NOT out on the highways picking up trash and spending their hours helping out at the nursing homes?
The vast majority of this income in this range is "Unearned Income." People aren't earning nor working for multi-million dollar annual incomes, they are enjoying the benefits of others work by collecting dividens and stock profits.
You do know that this plan doesn't change that, right? The rates ONLY apply to earned income. Are you also aware that every economist and politician already knows that the capital gains rate is at the top of the rate/revenue curve?
The greatest period of economic boomtime in our nation's history -- from the end of WWII to the 1970s -- had a top income tax rate generally in the 75-90% range.
Difference is those top brackets were for incomes over about $4 million a year (in today's dollars). The other major difference was that those in charge were actually being responsible with the money and using it to actually pay down the debt as quickly as possible. They knew how important it was, and did it.
The ones in charge now (on both sides) cannot be trusted to do that at all. They play word games and accounting tricks and will continue to borrow and any extra revenue they get will just be spent on more bogus crap shoring up their own power. Even this plan, with the best possible outcome, will increase the debt from $16 trillion today to something like $30 trillion (!!!) in 10 years. Sure, better than $32 trillion, but not by much, and with all that activity leaving the private sector for redistribution to "those most in need", the revenue is likely to continue to drop.
There are other countries with larger public sectors. They obviously have higher tax rates to fund it.
True, but living in North Korea sucks, unless you're one of the elites. That's where this ultimately will lead. The only real policy battles taking place these days among the politicians and the corporate executives is over their position in the ruling class, and making sure their kids are part of the global leadership in the NWO.
Oh, and don't forget - right now, America puts virtually the entire tax burden on the upper middle classes, and the rest on the middle class. About 1/2 the population doesn't pay any taxes at all, and a significant portion of them have a net gain from the tax system. The US right now has THE MOST progressive tax system in the world.
Note the segment where the unemployment is all concentrated - right in the middle class. Low-wage and just above (service and labor jobs) are plentiful, very low unemployment there. If you have a Masters degree or a decent college degree and professional experience, you're likely to have an easy time getting work. It's the middle class that's going away. Many of those jobs are gone forever.
Well, good. It was stupid and useless. And Apple played right into their hands so they could have an inflammatory news story to promote their "back to hunter-gatherer lifestyle" agenda.
Maybe next time they can create one called Pencil Story.
In any event the reason that we're still using heat engines is that the energy coming from reactors is heat.
Not directly. The energy initially created is purely kinetic - the neutrons (or electrons, depending on the isotopes being fused) come flying off at a high rate of speed. The heat is generated by the particles slamming into the reactor / container wall, which is then dispersed across the surface, and eventually heats up by absorbing all that kinetic energy.
I'm guessing that there must be a way to use seawater to cool the condensers externally, because you're right, there are plenty of reactors close to coast lines that would only have access to briny water, at best. Lots of concrete, maybe?
What is needed is a plentiful supply of cold (relatively) water. So long as it doesn't mess up the condensers I don't expect cleanliness/saltiness is a deal-breaker; quantity is more important than quality.
Yea, I just meant "fresh" as in not seawater. Trust me, seawater is WAY to corrosive to use in pretty much ANYTHING that can get hot (that is, any kind of metal). If you don't believe me, try filling up your radiator with it and sell how long your cooling system lasts.
Well there are no "working" fusion reactors at all, right now. But there are many ideas for converting fusion plasma directly into electrical power. I've heard electrostatic conversion (selective leakage and conversion), as well as compression-expansion techniques. Either one seems like they would be much more efficient, once you have that reaction going, than just letting the released particle bombard the reactor walls until it heats up enough to boil some water...
Why do you think there would be no radiation or pollution?
Do you think it is powered by magic? The containment vessel would become radioactive waste.
Yes, the fusion reactions, based on the fuel being used, will create toxic radiation requiring sophisticated containment vessels that need careful handing. However, the problem with fission waste - it has a half-life of thousands of years - doesn't exist for the fusion vessels. That type of radiation decays very quickly. In fact, it may even be shorter than the working lifespan of the containment wall itself.
the problems lie in setting up the system for long term operation, and partly in heat transfer.
This is the part of fusion research that I still don't get. It seems that all the (well-funded) ideas are all looking at an end-game that involves heating water to power a steam generator to produce electricity. Compared to all the technical issues they've been dealing with getting the fusion going, and the potential energy they are talking about generating, it seems somehow short-sighted and inefficient to still be focused on hooking the whole thing up to a bit of 18th century technology that will need a huge fresh water supply to operate.
Slashdot Mirror
That Republican lie again.
Hahaha. Yea, if only we could get rid of all the Republicans and let the Democrats have full control, all our problems would be solved!!
Nice sources - the New York Times and the Brookings Institute. Real balance there.
Here's a clue for you: The US already has the most progressive tax policy of any first world country, bar none. That means the wealthiest already pay a greater share of the TOTAL tax revenue.
The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession to about half
Bull Crap. It's a figure that's been steadily rising for decades. Here's another wake-up call for you: Oh, look, it seems the bottom 50% have been steadily paying less and less for at least 20 years!
This class warfare "eat the rich" bullcrap is nothing but all-out war on the middle class. And when they're gone, do you really think the wealthy elites are going to care one whit about taking care of the poor??
You're right about the major criminal element that permeated the riots, and the massive welfare state in the UK. So that's great that there is a decent social safety net, but the situation in England is now such that living in poverty on welfare is the ONLY prospect for many of these kids, who would (like anyone) prefer to work and grow and make their own way - but those opportunities are vanishing, and the future looks very bleak for an entire generation of English.
I think that situation had a lot more to do with creating an environment for unrest than any criminal element deciding they were just going to start rampaging in the streets. Yes, that element took advantage of the situation. But you make it sound like the entire incident was nothing but a bunch of disaffected hooligans deciding to get together and grab themselves some wide-screen TV's. While the scale was much smaller, it reminded me of the Watts riots in the 60's. Yes, there was rampant crime and looting - but it's a lie (or, at best, disingenuous) to claim that the riots were not sparked by legitimate social issues faced by the group involved.
No, Alex Jones is nothing but hyperbole gold-selling crap with very little (if any) substance.
I do like these guys, even though their show is never anything that would persuade anyone, but it's really good if you already have an idea of who the real bad guys are these days. At least they always source everything. They do come up with some crackpot theories, but everything they put out is easily verifiable.
your posts are pretty amusing how you bend over backwards to explain why the rich are just plain better, and therefore shouldn't have to give back to society.
If that's how you decide to paraphrase anything that I've said, you're either not reading my posts or you're completely missing the point. Nothing I've said even approaches this twisted viewpoint you claim I've espoused.
While I've been defending the middle class from further erosion by misguided policy, you and others have actually done your own "bending over backwards to explain why the rich are just plain better", specifically in the name of Warren Buffett. Well, Buffett, for your information, is nothing but a shill for Obama and the rest of the wealthy elites. The first lie is that this proposal even has anything to do with capital gains income, which is what Buffett was referring to when he claimed he pays a lower rate than his secretary. The next lie is that Buffett cares one whit about paying taxes, since his company owes hundreds of millions in back taxes going back at least to 2002. What he is really after is some favorable treatment from the EPA, to avoid more taxes and expenses for his large coal mining companies. And that's exactly what he got when Obama nixed the latest proposal from the EPA for stricter pollution controls.
So you're gonna walk to the local farm with your cart every week. What happens in winter when nothing is growing? Do a Google for "A week without truck transport" if you really don't think it's a big deal.
Ah, so whatever the BBC says, I guess.
What about 4 years for a Facebook posting?
Please never again compare the arab revolts and the UK 'riots' in such a way, it just shows your ignorance.
There's a difference between political demonstration and looting a new pair of Nike's.
I see you've gotten all of your information about both from the mainstream media. Please do a little research with some decent source information. The kids in the UK are completely in tune with what's happening in their country, and their prospects are looking very hopeless. Even more so when so few will now be able to afford higher education.
And I don't know about Tunisia, but the activities in Libya were entirely orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and her partners in the EU, to get control of Libya's resources away from China.
Way to pick out ONE thing I said, ignore the rest of my post, and then build a straw man out of it. I didn't ignore anything. Other countries have similar taxes, except the payroll taxes and sales taxes and VAT taxes (which the US doesn't have at all), are even HIGHER, thus more regressive.
True, but living in North Korea sucks
Only an idiot would bring up North Korea in this context, ignoring all the first world nations that prove him wrong.
I didn't ignore anything - I started with the first country I thought of with a "large public sector", and I addressed other country's taxation policies as well (which YOU then chose to ignore).
We've been accelerating the growth of the public sector and implementing greater and greater interventionist policies (both domestic and foreign-policy related) for about a dozen years now and here we are. Maybe it's time to try going in another direction.
Should have just provided this citation: The biggest losses during the Great Recession were jobs paying $19.05 to $31.40 an hour. By contrast, the biggest gains over the past year have been jobs paying an average of $9.03 to $12.91 an hour.
"Low-wage and just above (service and labor jobs) are plentiful"
Um.. no.
What I meant was that there have been proportionally fewer job losses in that sector than in the better-paying skilled jobs. It's why "underemployment" is so prevalent now.
"The US right now has THE MOST progressive tax system in the world"
The extra caps doesn't make this statement any less ridiculously false.
It's true. Check the stats. Lowest 50% don't pay any income tax, many of those get distribution FROM the tax system, and the payroll taxes in most European countries is much higher, and they are paying VAT taxes which is also paid by every consumer.
I won't link the Wikipedia article (since it's not really a source), but it's even acknowledge there that the US has the most progressive tax policy.
That strikes me as a separate debate. At any rate, even the Roman government gave out bread to the masses in Rome, because the alternatives were food riots, which were nasty affairs.
So, let's put it this way, the government maintains a minimum standard of living simply because the alternatives are ultimately much more unpalatable to the ruling elites.
FTFY
Note that when riots organized by Twitter and Facebook happen in Tunisia, Egypt and "Libya" (oops - that was Hillary), it's all good and they are rebel heroes and the government forces get carpet bombed. But if it happens in England you get 4 years in jail just for encouraging it on Facebook.
The tax is supposed to be based off of Buffet's recommendations, which would include both capital gains AND income. The issue was that capital gains were taxed at a flat 15% versus the graded system for income. Most of the mega-rich don't earn any income, they do however earn millions in capital gains and dividends yearly. Hopefully it makes it through the way buffet suggested without getting too bastardized.
They won't raise capital gains taxes because they know it will reduce revenue from those taxes - it's pretty well-known and even Biden indicated that was the case. It's all a bunch of misdirection to drum up some "tax-the-rich" class warfare, and Buffett is just being a good shill. You know he doesn't really buy the rhetoric because his own company (Hathaway something) doesn't even pay the taxes it's supposed to - they owe about a billion or so going back to 2002. BUT - being a good shill has it's benefits. Buffett owns a major stake in some coal producing companies, which could be hurt by some really tough EPA regulations that are being proposed. Funny how Obama recently nixed those regulations. Coincidence? I think not.
Their fuel costs are not in line with the road damage they do. That again is a place where Mr.Millionaire comes out ahead by stealing from me. My small car does far less road damage but my per mile fuel costs are not lower by that much. Road wear is a function of axle loading and goes up by the 4th power.
I love the way the public schools have created so many kids with this kind of class envy and sense of entitlement.
The trucker contribution of the total dollars going into the federal Highway Trust Fund is equal to 37.7 percent of highway account revenues, which only includes gas taxes, retail taxes, and use/tire taxes. The average annual taxes for a tractor trailer is about $9,000. Add to that state diesel tax, registration fees and weight fees - another $5,000 a year. That's about 35 times the amount of the average passenger car (assuming 25 MPG).
Oh, and without all those trucks moving stuff from where people PRODUCE stuff to your little urban paradise, you would run out of food in less than a week. So, by all means, tax them until nobody will drive them any more - and starve.
The money is their property AFTER taxes. Get over it. You owe society more than society owes you.
How come this only applies to certain people?
And if you claim it applies to everyone, they why are those getting food stamps and public housing and welfare check NOT out on the highways picking up trash and spending their hours helping out at the nursing homes?
The vast majority of this income in this range is "Unearned Income." People aren't earning nor working for multi-million dollar annual incomes, they are enjoying the benefits of others work by collecting dividens and stock profits.
You do know that this plan doesn't change that, right? The rates ONLY apply to earned income. Are you also aware that every economist and politician already knows that the capital gains rate is at the top of the rate/revenue curve?
The greatest period of economic boomtime in our nation's history -- from the end of WWII to the 1970s -- had a top income tax rate generally in the 75-90% range.
Difference is those top brackets were for incomes over about $4 million a year (in today's dollars). The other major difference was that those in charge were actually being responsible with the money and using it to actually pay down the debt as quickly as possible. They knew how important it was, and did it.
The ones in charge now (on both sides) cannot be trusted to do that at all. They play word games and accounting tricks and will continue to borrow and any extra revenue they get will just be spent on more bogus crap shoring up their own power. Even this plan, with the best possible outcome, will increase the debt from $16 trillion today to something like $30 trillion (!!!) in 10 years. Sure, better than $32 trillion, but not by much, and with all that activity leaving the private sector for redistribution to "those most in need", the revenue is likely to continue to drop.
Maaaaybe one of the reasons is that we don't spend half our GDP on military.
Right. After all, if you get in a scuffle with a neighbor, the US will bail you out, or at least support the UN or NATO troops to do so.
There are other countries with larger public sectors. They obviously have higher tax rates to fund it.
True, but living in North Korea sucks, unless you're one of the elites. That's where this ultimately will lead. The only real policy battles taking place these days among the politicians and the corporate executives is over their position in the ruling class, and making sure their kids are part of the global leadership in the NWO.
Oh, and don't forget - right now, America puts virtually the entire tax burden on the upper middle classes, and the rest on the middle class. About 1/2 the population doesn't pay any taxes at all, and a significant portion of them have a net gain from the tax system. The US right now has THE MOST progressive tax system in the world.
Note the segment where the unemployment is all concentrated - right in the middle class. Low-wage and just above (service and labor jobs) are plentiful, very low unemployment there. If you have a Masters degree or a decent college degree and professional experience, you're likely to have an easy time getting work. It's the middle class that's going away. Many of those jobs are gone forever.
Well, good. It was stupid and useless. And Apple played right into their hands so they could have an inflammatory news story to promote their "back to hunter-gatherer lifestyle" agenda.
Maybe next time they can create one called Pencil Story.
In any event the reason that we're still using heat engines is that the energy coming from reactors is heat.
Not directly. The energy initially created is purely kinetic - the neutrons (or electrons, depending on the isotopes being fused) come flying off at a high rate of speed. The heat is generated by the particles slamming into the reactor / container wall, which is then dispersed across the surface, and eventually heats up by absorbing all that kinetic energy.
I'm guessing that there must be a way to use seawater to cool the condensers externally, because you're right, there are plenty of reactors close to coast lines that would only have access to briny water, at best. Lots of concrete, maybe?
What is needed is a plentiful supply of cold (relatively) water. So long as it doesn't mess up the condensers I don't expect cleanliness/saltiness is a deal-breaker; quantity is more important than quality.
Yea, I just meant "fresh" as in not seawater. Trust me, seawater is WAY to corrosive to use in pretty much ANYTHING that can get hot (that is, any kind of metal). If you don't believe me, try filling up your radiator with it and sell how long your cooling system lasts.
Well there are no "working" fusion reactors at all, right now. But there are many ideas for converting fusion plasma directly into electrical power. I've heard electrostatic conversion (selective leakage and conversion), as well as compression-expansion techniques. Either one seems like they would be much more efficient, once you have that reaction going, than just letting the released particle bombard the reactor walls until it heats up enough to boil some water...
Why do you think there would be no radiation or pollution? Do you think it is powered by magic? The containment vessel would become radioactive waste.
Yes, the fusion reactions, based on the fuel being used, will create toxic radiation requiring sophisticated containment vessels that need careful handing. However, the problem with fission waste - it has a half-life of thousands of years - doesn't exist for the fusion vessels. That type of radiation decays very quickly. In fact, it may even be shorter than the working lifespan of the containment wall itself.
the problems lie in setting up the system for long term operation, and partly in heat transfer.
This is the part of fusion research that I still don't get. It seems that all the (well-funded) ideas are all looking at an end-game that involves heating water to power a steam generator to produce electricity. Compared to all the technical issues they've been dealing with getting the fusion going, and the potential energy they are talking about generating, it seems somehow short-sighted and inefficient to still be focused on hooking the whole thing up to a bit of 18th century technology that will need a huge fresh water supply to operate.