" Actually, it's banned out of "national security" reasons. "
That may be the current rational. It's true that smoking anything is bad for your health, and it's also true that pot tends to mellow people out and may have an effect on productivity.
I take issue, however, with your assertation that the country's GDP would plummet if people stopped having to hide their pot habits. While I don't smoke pot, it's not because of the legal status. I just don't like the idea of an "artificial happiness." I don't smoke cigarettes, cigars, take legally subscribed mood altering drugs, or inhale laughing gas. I do dring an occasional beer, and I enjoy a nice glass of vodka every now and then.
Basically, those who want to smoke pot already do so, and not all of them are low productivity "dope heads." I've seen Doctors, Lawyers, and various high income small business owners light up from time to time. Doesn't seem to keep them from making money.
Also, speed and coke don't seem to be legal, even though they have been shown to (temporarily, at least) increase productivity.
Look into the history of cannibus. It was outlawed because of its use in rope-making, not because of the drug use. Why else would ANY form of hemp (even the non-smokable variety) be illegal in the USA. The studies that got written to point out the evils of pot were funded by DuPont right after they created Nylon. They wanted to compete with hemp rope, and used the fact that some (very few, at that time) people smoked one variety of it to get high.
It is all about the money, but not all about "drugs." Hemp could still compete with Nylon rope, cotton cloth, and quite a few other big industries.
This occured to me also. While I agree that economic development is "in the public interest," that seems to be stretching things just a little too far. It appears that this opens the door to petty city councils being able yank land away from private owners, and give it to a small clique of developers, who are likely to be "friends" of most of the members of the council.
I really, really don't like the way this is going. I understand emminent domain, although I don't like it much. The goverment should have a huge burden to prove that it can't do things any other way than to steal someone's cherished property. This is right there in line with seizing cash from someone because their isn't a good reason they should be carrying that much. Nothing illegal, just suspicious.
Now, you don't even have to do anything wrong, just have property that someone else wants. I feel sorry for everyone who owns beachfront property. If any developer wants to build a hotel, they can just have the land seized. No reason to bother being nice about it.
CastrTroy said, " Dragons breathed fire. Dinosaurs did not."
Not all dragons were accounted as fire breathers. Also, from a certain standpoint, it could be said that Dinosaurs had fiery or hot breath. The current theory is that dinosaurs were warm blooded creatures (their bones had more in common with birds than with lizards) and that gave them the ability to function in the cool air of the morning, etc.
While not being technically fire breathing, it could be said by someone that had been chased by a dinosaur, "his fiery breath scorched my neck as I dodged into the cave."
I won't argue whether dinosaurs and humans ever co-existed. There's no point. I've seen evidence that they may have, and I understand that most credible scientists scoff at the idea. Millions of years, and all that.
The point of the list was that we are pretty good at coming up with things that would appear to be purely magical devices to anyone not famillar with our technology.
By the way, I am a glider pilot. It's a "magic chariot" that does not make any noise. I think hot air balloons, helium ballons and to some extent, zepplins or blimps fit that category as well.
Other than the fact that I'd be looking at a four to eight gallon tank (I'm thinking more efficient, communter type vehicle,) I agree with your assessment. I didn't say what I'd like to see was completely feasible, it's just what we need.
We spend entirely too much energy zipping around town today. As long as fuel is cheap, we'll most likely keep doing it. My favorite commuter vehicle today is my motorcycle. It gets 50 miles to the gallon, and has a three gallon tank.
I'd be happy with an electric replacement, as long as I could get a 150 mile range, and a 10 - 15 minute recharge. For a car, I'd like to see double the range. I understand it would take a huge amount of energy to recharge in that short a time period, but much longer would definately lessen the utility.
You do realize that the "oil" industry does more than make gasoline for cars, don't you? They also supply fuel oil for heating, oils for lubrication, penetrating oils for cleaning, petrolium products for the medical industry, paint products, and all of the plastic products we use. Also, the "owners" of the oil companies are the stockholders. I own stock in all of the major oil companies, and in electric utilities, battery companies, car companies, etc., because I own broad based mutual funds and stock index funds. Most of the "Richest people in the world" have diverse portfolios, and would not be significantly hurt by shifting the auto industry from primarily gasoline based to primarily electric. They just adapt their stock buying practices. Really, the whole oil conspiracy is based on FUD, rather than facts.
Okay, I'll buy the fact that "battery" actually refers to a collection of cells. Cells, then, are enclosures that contain something. They typically don't contain "energy," but rather a medium for storing energy, such as an electrolite and some method for extracting energy from that storage medium. That having been said, when I go to the store, I don't buy "a collection of energy storage cells," I buy a battery.
It appears that the big difference between this motor and others is the weight to power ratio of the motor. We've already seen some great examples of very lightweight and powerfull electric motors, so I put this one down as a new marketing, rather than some great scientific breakthrough.
I haven't seen any efficiency numbers for this motor, so I don't know if it's better or worse than some of the other current high output motors. If it's powerfull but inefficient, it would be less of an appropriate choice for a mainstream car.
We've seen very efficient electrics (100 Watt cars in the SunRace) and some electric dragsters. What we need is a moderately priced, 300 mile range, 10-15 minute rechargable, pure electric car, and that means better energy cells (batteries.)
They don't need to close it down. The problem with electric cars is not now and has never been the motor. The problem is the energy per pound (or per kilogram for anyone outside the US) that our current crop of batteries can deliver.
The new Lithium Ion batteries from Altair and Toshiba should fix that.
I use the re-broadcast of local channels now because I live in a "radio shadow", where I can only pick up 2 tv stations on an antenna. My neiborhood has covenants against external antennas, so I can't just put up a really big one. When they started offering local channels, I was finally able to watch local news again. I've not tried a Digital Reciever because of the cost and the realative gain. I already get a digital feed from DirecTV for nothing! When I decide to upgrade my TV, I'll look into an HD antenna. Until then, it's worthless to me...
Just a thought, but if corporations are "people," or entities that have been granted an equivelency to people, then "We the People" now includes corporations.
With our system of influence being counted in dollars as much (or more) than votes, the "corporate" entities are speaking more loudly to their representatives than most of the fleshy ones. (Who are, technically also "corporate," since they have bodies.)
Money isn't supposed to sway the judgement of our representatives, but we must be honest with ourselves. Your opinion counts. Your opinion along with a $10,000.00 check counts more.
While I can't be with my children 100% of the time, I (or my wife) do screen just about every single minute of TV or video they watch. Of course, my kids are well behaved enough to know there are certain things we don't want them to watch, and now "self censor," so my job is a lot easier.
I don't really have any issue with them seeing flesh. What I want the protected against is blatant (and disturbing) violence. It's strange to me that it's okay to show people enjoying murder and torture, but one slip of a nipple, and everyone goes into a tizzy.
I've seen things on broadcast TV that give me nightmares, I certainly don't want my kids subjected to that.
I just tried to subscribe, got the same error. You'd think they would be ready for large volume for a subscription launch.
If it was the Slashdot effect, that was really fast. I'd bet there's something else going on, such as a poor implementation of the subscription server. If they crash that soon, then they may not be able to handle a normal web traffic load, much less the/. crowd.
jdbear
It's entirely possible that we are still on the curve that lead us out of the ice age. Just how warm was it at the height of the warm time before the ice age? Does anyone know?
I'd love to see the trend stablize, but without really knowing how hot we are over the long term, we can't know if this is normal or not.
Maybe man just came into prominance during the declining years of the ice age, and we've not gotten to the end of the pedulum swing yet. It's possible that the climate will reverse on its own, a thousand years from now.
I can't wait that long, of course. I hope we don't do anything drastic, though, like trying to force the climate into our idea of what it's supposed to be. Just like trying to contain a meandering river, these things never work out as well as we hope.
The term global warming was coined to describe the phenomenon of the entire weather system heating up, not the lack of snow in New Jersey. When the atmosphere heats up, it has more energy. That means increased activity, such as droughts, hurricanes and yes, snowstorms.
Also, there has been a good bit of discussion that it's possible that the melting of the ice on the polar ice caps is diluting the salt of the oceans, causing the Gulf Stream to change course. That would have the effect of reducing the temperature in the Northeastern United States and Great Brittan. It might just get colder!
Don't confuse state and federal taxes. You currently don't pay federal sales tax. After the change, you still won't pay federal sales tax on used cars. No difference.
Also, remember that the money you buy your car with now is post tax. You've (and/or your employer) have already paid 15% FICA and depending on your tax bracket, perhaps 10% to 15% Federal income tax.
Let's assume that you end up paying 10% of your income in Federal Taxes. Add that to the FICA that you and your employer pay. That's 25% tax on the money that you are going to use to buy that new car. If you decide to go to Canada to get it, you've already paid those taxes, so add import duties to that.
Now think about buying one that has a 23% tax added to it. That's, um, 2% less in taxes, even assuming that the cost of the car didn't drop AT ALL.
Yes is is possible that your employer won't be generous enough to give you a raise for the 7% or so that they have to pay in federal wage taxes for you, and you've not been able to get a better paying job from someone who decided to use that 7% to gain a better employee at the same cost they were paying before. In that case, you will have a 5% higer cost for the car, assuming market forces don't force the prices down at all.
I'm betting they will go down somewhat, and your employer will be inspired enough to pass along some of the savings to you in the form of a raise. Some combination of those things, and the additional investment capitol the general public will have will conspire to erase that 5%. Voila, the car is as cheap as it's always been.
The difference is that you get to control when and how you pay taxes. If you absolutely don't want to pay taxes, buy a used car. Hell, buy a used Mercades! Buy a nice, shiny red used BMW. Used cars don't have to be 1973 Impala Station Wagons.
The only time when you will be forced to spend taxable dollars will be things like food, motel rooms, and entertainment. I'd love to see food and medicine exempted. That would make the most sense from a social standpoint.
Yes, some things would be taxed to the point where we would not be able to buy them. It would hurt some large ticket sales. But I believe that the difference in real dollars would not be as large as it seems. After the transition, when we stop worrying about the "before" costs versus the "after" costs, buy habits will return to normal.
Turbo Tax and the tax professionals will have to go find something else to do, and the money we spend on them (complience) can be instead spent on taking the wife out to dinner, or buying toys for the kids. It would be a better world.
I do remote suppport. We fix a huge number of problems without having to resort to "pulling" the server. Of course, I support AIX, HP-UX, and Sun Solaris systems, so we use a remote connection to the console (datakit, an XN-10 networking system.)
We've been able to fix boot drives, firmware upgrades, take system boards out of service, etc, all without being present. We can usually get a low cost "operator" to be on-site for the occastional repower or hard drive replacement, but we do the system admin from a remote location. It's a log quicker, since I support 1600 locations across 9 states.
Sometimes there's a need to touch the equipment, but often everything can be done remotely, even at the firmware level.
There are several options for on-site terminals. If serial connections is all that one needs, then a laptop with a null modem cable is enough. Sounds like that may not be the situation.
If the problem is gui console access to a Windows NT box, then you might do better to build a small suitcase with an LCD monitor, keyboard and mouse. A laptop battery should be able to power the LCD for an hour or so, and the cable set could be connected in the back. It wouldn't be hard to set up, and would be pretty portable.
The idea that the Fairtax is great for the rich and the dirt poor but hurts the middle income people (you and me) is well thought out, but wrong. In fact, taxes will go down for just about everybody. The reason is that a good bit of our economy is in "underground" markets that never sees the light of day. In the Fairtax model, the money that would currently never be reported on a 1099 or by an employer will end up being used in the retain market somewhere. It will then be taxed.
The other reason is that it takes a huge amount of money for most people and corporations to comply with the current tax code. When this burden is removed, those dollars will go right into the pockets of the stockholders (earned by the corps, which are owned by Americans) and can then be used to grow the economy.
One thing that many people miss is that our economy is not static. There is not a fininte amount of money in the US. Our system is dynamic, and grows or shrinks in response to how much money is being spent. Spend a lot, it grows. A rising tide lifts all boats. If there's more money in your pocket, there's more to spend. With a 20% increase in corporate profits, a 15% decrease in payroll taxes (FICA, etc) and no tax on capitol gains, I'd say that Americans in general will have a lot more money to spend.
Again, more money to spend, more money gets spent. The more money that gets spent, the larger the economy grows. You do the math.
If you want, I can help you do the math for any income level, and show you just how your taxes will go down. It works for everyone. The only people who would be paying higher taxes are those who have and spend lot of money, but don't report any income at all. They are cheating the system now, and can't cheat after the Fairtax.
The comment about borders makes sense. I'm not sure what the laws are today, are you? Can you buy a car in Canada or Mexico today to avoid taxes? I doubt it.
What hurts about a check from the Government? We already give the poor a discount on their taxes. We give really poor people an Earned Income Credit, which is sometimes greater than their entire contributions for the year. We also discount their tax rate until nearly half of the population pays almost no taxes at all.
How do you mean that the progressive tax works. Do you mean that it works by slowing down growth? That's certainly true. Do you mean that it works by punishing the "evil rich."
The progressive nature of the taxes sets in place a situation where we have a built in "diminishing rate of return for growth. The more money we make, the bigger bite they take. It does not encourage savings, it does not encourage investing, it does not encourage taking on extra work.
On the idea of holding stock, the Fairtax is absolutely better. What would be better, a 15% tax on capitol returns, or a 0% tax. Or are you one of those people who don't hold stock, and wish to punish those of us who do?
I read a great explaination of this the other day. It was based on the question of whether we should be taxing the "seed" or the "harvest." If a king went to his subjects to tax the grain, would it make more sense for him to tax it just before the planting, or just after the harvest?
We "plant" the seed of money in our economy by spending it. The harvest would be much higher if we allow the money to used go grow the economy before it's harvested.
the FairTax would be regressive, and would hurt poor people, if it was simply a tax on everything you buy. The truth is a little more complex (just as our system isn't simply a tax on income.) The lower income people will not have to pay any tax, or very little, in the current proposal because the Government will advance them the equivalent of the taxes they would have to pay for taxes up to the poverty line.
In other words, at the beginning of the month, Joe Paycheck will receieve all of the money he would be expected to pay for taxes all month for the basic neccessities of living. For a single person, no kids, this would be based on about $8000, or around $153.00. For a family of four, that's $460.00 per month.
That makes a family of four with an income of $35000 per year actually pay only about $2500 in taxes, or have about a 7% tax rate. That 7% is LESS than the money that's taken out of their paycheck for FICA today, so in reality, all other things being equal, they pay MUCH LESS in taxes compared to today's system.
Because only new retail items are taxed, those who are not spending a large percentage of their income at retail don't pay a large percentage of their income in taxes, see?
It works because lower income folks (those making less than $50,000 - $70,000 per year) most of their tax burden forgiven, while higher wage earners do not benefit so much from the breaks. This is the way our current system is supposed to work, but often fails.
The hidden benefits of the system are that it encourages savings, removes the complexities of the system that allow for corruption and waste, and collects large amounts of money from the underground markets, where no taxes are currently being collected.
No one need ever be fined or go to jail again for hiring a day laborer or maid and paying that person "under the table." We can hire people at will, negotiate a wage that is agreeable to both parties and pay cash without the government ever needing to be involved. The taxes get paid when that worker buys lunch at McDonalds or gets clothes at Walmart.
If a drug dealer sells cocaine for $2000, then uses the money to buy a nice new watch, the taxes get paid (as long as he buys it from a store. Stolen goods will still be outside the tax revenue stream, but that's no surprise.)
High rollers, like movie stars and business tycoons who spend money like water will still buy whatever they want, and they will still end up paying lots of money in taxes. They will buy EVERYTHING at retail, with the taxes accepted as part of the bill. Truly poor folks might buy a used car instead of a new one, saving the tax money. They might even shop in Thrift Stores (like they do now) which will be essentially tax free zones (because they are not new retail.)
I know it sounds like a troll, but I wonder if he doesn't have a point. Standard deviation in IQ is, I believe, about 15 or 16 points. We know there are plenty of people out there with over 148 IQs. That's three standard deviations. We also agree that there are not very many people who have IQs less than 62. They are considered very, very slow.
How many IQ 80 people does it take to balance the IQ 160 people out there? How many IQ 40 people do you really think there are?
100 is the average, yes, but the curve is not a perfect bell. It takes a numerically superior below average group to offset the effects of a few large IQs. We can't through out all of the really smart guys, just as we can't through out all of the true idiots.
I used to check Discovery Wings every day, until I realized that they spent WAY too much time on the history of this or that World War II airplane. It's become the Discovery Flying Weapon of War channel. I want to see new discoveries in flight! Ultralights, hang gliders, rocket propelled composits (oh, they did that one:o)
Slashdot Mirror
" Actually, it's banned out of "national security" reasons. "
That may be the current rational. It's true that smoking anything is bad for your health, and it's also true that pot tends to mellow people out and may have an effect on productivity.
I take issue, however, with your assertation that the country's GDP would plummet if people stopped having to hide their pot habits. While I don't smoke pot, it's not because of the legal status. I just don't like the idea of an "artificial happiness." I don't smoke cigarettes, cigars, take legally subscribed mood altering drugs, or inhale laughing gas. I do dring an occasional beer, and I enjoy a nice glass of vodka every now and then.
Basically, those who want to smoke pot already do so, and not all of them are low productivity "dope heads." I've seen Doctors, Lawyers, and various high income small business owners light up from time to time. Doesn't seem to keep them from making money.
Also, speed and coke don't seem to be legal, even though they have been shown to (temporarily, at least) increase productivity.
Look into the history of cannibus. It was outlawed because of its use in rope-making, not because of the drug use. Why else would ANY form of hemp (even the non-smokable variety) be illegal in the USA. The studies that got written to point out the evils of pot were funded by DuPont right after they created Nylon. They wanted to compete with hemp rope, and used the fact that some (very few, at that time) people smoked one variety of it to get high.
It is all about the money, but not all about "drugs." Hemp could still compete with Nylon rope, cotton cloth, and quite a few other big industries.
This occured to me also. While I agree that economic development is "in the public interest," that seems to be stretching things just a little too far. It appears that this opens the door to petty city councils being able yank land away from private owners, and give it to a small clique of developers, who are likely to be "friends" of most of the members of the council.
I really, really don't like the way this is going. I understand emminent domain, although I don't like it much. The goverment should have a huge burden to prove that it can't do things any other way than to steal someone's cherished property. This is right there in line with seizing cash from someone because their isn't a good reason they should be carrying that much. Nothing illegal, just suspicious.
Now, you don't even have to do anything wrong, just have property that someone else wants. I feel sorry for everyone who owns beachfront property. If any developer wants to build a hotel, they can just have the land seized. No reason to bother being nice about it.
This sucks.
CastrTroy said, " Dragons breathed fire. Dinosaurs did not."
Not all dragons were accounted as fire breathers. Also, from a certain standpoint, it could be said that Dinosaurs had fiery or hot breath. The current theory is that dinosaurs were warm blooded creatures (their bones had more in common with birds than with lizards) and that gave them the ability to function in the cool air of the morning, etc.
While not being technically fire breathing, it could be said by someone that had been chased by a dinosaur, "his fiery breath scorched my neck as I dodged into the cave."
I won't argue whether dinosaurs and humans ever co-existed. There's no point. I've seen evidence that they may have, and I understand that most credible scientists scoff at the idea. Millions of years, and all that.
The point of the list was that we are pretty good at coming up with things that would appear to be purely magical devices to anyone not famillar with our technology.
By the way, I am a glider pilot. It's a "magic chariot" that does not make any noise. I think hot air balloons, helium ballons and to some extent, zepplins or blimps fit that category as well.
Other than the fact that I'd be looking at a four to eight gallon tank (I'm thinking more efficient, communter type vehicle,) I agree with your assessment. I didn't say what I'd like to see was completely feasible, it's just what we need.
We spend entirely too much energy zipping around town today. As long as fuel is cheap, we'll most likely keep doing it. My favorite commuter vehicle today is my motorcycle. It gets 50 miles to the gallon, and has a three gallon tank.
I'd be happy with an electric replacement, as long as I could get a 150 mile range, and a 10 - 15 minute recharge. For a car, I'd like to see double the range. I understand it would take a huge amount of energy to recharge in that short a time period, but much longer would definately lessen the utility.
Not infinte torque at 0 RPM. The best you could claim is undefined torque at 0 RPM.
You do realize that the "oil" industry does more than make gasoline for cars, don't you? They also supply fuel oil for heating, oils for lubrication, penetrating oils for cleaning, petrolium products for the medical industry, paint products, and all of the plastic products we use.
Also, the "owners" of the oil companies are the stockholders. I own stock in all of the major oil companies, and in electric utilities, battery companies, car companies, etc., because I own broad based mutual funds and stock index funds. Most of the "Richest people in the world" have diverse portfolios, and would not be significantly hurt by shifting the auto industry from primarily gasoline based to primarily electric. They just adapt their stock buying practices.
Really, the whole oil conspiracy is based on FUD, rather than facts.
Okay, I'll buy the fact that "battery" actually refers to a collection of cells. Cells, then, are enclosures that contain something. They typically don't contain "energy," but rather a medium for storing energy, such as an electrolite and some method for extracting energy from that storage medium. That having been said, when I go to the store, I don't buy "a collection of energy storage cells," I buy a battery.
It appears that the big difference between this motor and others is the weight to power ratio of the motor. We've already seen some great examples of very lightweight and powerfull electric motors, so I put this one down as a new marketing, rather than some great scientific breakthrough.
I haven't seen any efficiency numbers for this motor, so I don't know if it's better or worse than some of the other current high output motors. If it's powerfull but inefficient, it would be less of an appropriate choice for a mainstream car.
We've seen very efficient electrics (100 Watt cars in the SunRace) and some electric dragsters. What we need is a moderately priced, 300 mile range, 10-15 minute rechargable, pure electric car, and that means better energy cells (batteries.)
They don't need to close it down. The problem with electric cars is not now and has never been the motor. The problem is the energy per pound (or per kilogram for anyone outside the US) that our current crop of batteries can deliver. The new Lithium Ion batteries from Altair and Toshiba should fix that.
I use the re-broadcast of local channels now because I live in a "radio shadow", where I can only pick up 2 tv stations on an antenna. My neiborhood has covenants against external antennas, so I can't just put up a really big one.
When they started offering local channels, I was finally able to watch local news again. I've not tried a Digital Reciever because of the cost and the realative gain. I already get a digital feed from DirecTV for nothing!
When I decide to upgrade my TV, I'll look into an HD antenna. Until then, it's worthless to me...
Just a thought, but if corporations are "people," or entities that have been granted an equivelency to people, then "We the People" now includes corporations.
With our system of influence being counted in dollars as much (or more) than votes, the "corporate" entities are speaking more loudly to their representatives than most of the fleshy ones. (Who are, technically also "corporate," since they have bodies.)
Money isn't supposed to sway the judgement of our representatives, but we must be honest with ourselves. Your opinion counts. Your opinion along with a $10,000.00 check counts more.
While I can't be with my children 100% of the time, I (or my wife) do screen just about every single minute of TV or video they watch. Of course, my kids are well behaved enough to know there are certain things we don't want them to watch, and now "self censor," so my job is a lot easier.
I don't really have any issue with them seeing flesh. What I want the protected against is blatant (and disturbing) violence. It's strange to me that it's okay to show people enjoying murder and torture, but one slip of a nipple, and everyone goes into a tizzy.
I've seen things on broadcast TV that give me nightmares, I certainly don't want my kids subjected to that.
It was probably one of the kids. They tend to do things like that, and are not always charged if no harm was done.
jdbear
I just tried to subscribe, got the same error. You'd think they would be ready for large volume for a subscription launch. If it was the Slashdot effect, that was really fast. I'd bet there's something else going on, such as a poor implementation of the subscription server. If they crash that soon, then they may not be able to handle a normal web traffic load, much less the /. crowd.
jdbear
It's entirely possible that we are still on the curve that lead us out of the ice age. Just how warm was it at the height of the warm time before the ice age? Does anyone know?
I'd love to see the trend stablize, but without really knowing how hot we are over the long term, we can't know if this is normal or not.
Maybe man just came into prominance during the declining years of the ice age, and we've not gotten to the end of the pedulum swing yet. It's possible that the climate will reverse on its own, a thousand years from now.
I can't wait that long, of course. I hope we don't do anything drastic, though, like trying to force the climate into our idea of what it's supposed to be. Just like trying to contain a meandering river, these things never work out as well as we hope.
jdbear.
The term global warming was coined to describe the phenomenon of the entire weather system heating up, not the lack of snow in New Jersey. When the atmosphere heats up, it has more energy. That means increased activity, such as droughts, hurricanes and yes, snowstorms.
Also, there has been a good bit of discussion that it's possible that the melting of the ice on the polar ice caps is diluting the salt of the oceans, causing the Gulf Stream to change course. That would have the effect of reducing the temperature in the Northeastern United States and Great Brittan. It might just get colder!
jdbear
Don't confuse state and federal taxes. You currently don't pay federal sales tax. After the change, you still won't pay federal sales tax on used cars. No difference.
Also, remember that the money you buy your car with now is post tax. You've (and/or your employer) have already paid 15% FICA and depending on your tax bracket, perhaps 10% to 15% Federal income tax.
Let's assume that you end up paying 10% of your income in Federal Taxes. Add that to the FICA that you and your employer pay. That's 25% tax on the money that you are going to use to buy that new car. If you decide to go to Canada to get it, you've already paid those taxes, so add import duties to that.
Now think about buying one that has a 23% tax added to it. That's, um, 2% less in taxes, even assuming that the cost of the car didn't drop AT ALL.
Yes is is possible that your employer won't be generous enough to give you a raise for the 7% or so that they have to pay in federal wage taxes for you, and you've not been able to get a better paying job from someone who decided to use that 7% to gain a better employee at the same cost they were paying before. In that case, you will have a 5% higer cost for the car, assuming market forces don't force the prices down at all.
I'm betting they will go down somewhat, and your employer will be inspired enough to pass along some of the savings to you in the form of a raise. Some combination of those things, and the additional investment capitol the general public will have will conspire to erase that 5%. Voila, the car is as cheap as it's always been.
The difference is that you get to control when and how you pay taxes. If you absolutely don't want to pay taxes, buy a used car. Hell, buy a used Mercades! Buy a nice, shiny red used BMW. Used cars don't have to be 1973 Impala Station Wagons.
The only time when you will be forced to spend taxable dollars will be things like food, motel rooms, and entertainment. I'd love to see food and medicine exempted. That would make the most sense from a social standpoint.
Yes, some things would be taxed to the point where we would not be able to buy them. It would hurt some large ticket sales. But I believe that the difference in real dollars would not be as large as it seems. After the transition, when we stop worrying about the "before" costs versus the "after" costs, buy habits will return to normal.
Turbo Tax and the tax professionals will have to go find something else to do, and the money we spend on them (complience) can be instead spent on taking the wife out to dinner, or buying toys for the kids. It would be a better world.
jdbear
I do remote suppport. We fix a huge number of problems without having to resort to "pulling" the server. Of course, I support AIX, HP-UX, and Sun Solaris systems, so we use a remote connection to the console (datakit, an XN-10 networking system.)
We've been able to fix boot drives, firmware upgrades, take system boards out of service, etc, all without being present. We can usually get a low cost "operator" to be on-site for the occastional repower or hard drive replacement, but we do the system admin from a remote location. It's a log quicker, since I support 1600 locations across 9 states.
Sometimes there's a need to touch the equipment, but often everything can be done remotely, even at the firmware level.
There are several options for on-site terminals. If serial connections is all that one needs, then a laptop with a null modem cable is enough. Sounds like that may not be the situation.
If the problem is gui console access to a Windows NT box, then you might do better to build a small suitcase with an LCD monitor, keyboard and mouse. A laptop battery should be able to power the LCD for an hour or so, and the cable set could be connected in the back. It wouldn't be hard to set up, and would be pretty portable.
jdbear
about your sig, is there really a DNA? I'd join. Been dyslexic for all my life. Thank Dog I've learned to cope.
The idea that the Fairtax is great for the rich and the dirt poor but hurts the middle income people (you and me) is well thought out, but wrong. In fact, taxes will go down for just about everybody. The reason is that a good bit of our economy is in "underground" markets that never sees the light of day. In the Fairtax model, the money that would currently never be reported on a 1099 or by an employer will end up being used in the retain market somewhere. It will then be taxed.
The other reason is that it takes a huge amount of money for most people and corporations to comply with the current tax code. When this burden is removed, those dollars will go right into the pockets of the stockholders (earned by the corps, which are owned by Americans) and can then be used to grow the economy.
One thing that many people miss is that our economy is not static. There is not a fininte amount of money in the US. Our system is dynamic, and grows or shrinks in response to how much money is being spent. Spend a lot, it grows. A rising tide lifts all boats. If there's more money in your pocket, there's more to spend. With a 20% increase in corporate profits, a 15% decrease in payroll taxes (FICA, etc) and no tax on capitol gains, I'd say that Americans in general will have a lot more money to spend.
Again, more money to spend, more money gets spent. The more money that gets spent, the larger the economy grows. You do the math.
If you want, I can help you do the math for any income level, and show you just how your taxes will go down. It works for everyone. The only people who would be paying higher taxes are those who have and spend lot of money, but don't report any income at all. They are cheating the system now, and can't cheat after the Fairtax.
jdbear
The comment about borders makes sense. I'm not sure what the laws are today, are you? Can you buy a car in Canada or Mexico today to avoid taxes? I doubt it.
What hurts about a check from the Government? We already give the poor a discount on their taxes. We give really poor people an Earned Income Credit, which is sometimes greater than their entire contributions for the year. We also discount their tax rate until nearly half of the population pays almost no taxes at all.
How do you mean that the progressive tax works. Do you mean that it works by slowing down growth? That's certainly true. Do you mean that it works by punishing the "evil rich."
The progressive nature of the taxes sets in place a situation where we have a built in "diminishing rate of return for growth. The more money we make, the bigger bite they take. It does not encourage savings, it does not encourage investing, it does not encourage taking on extra work.
On the idea of holding stock, the Fairtax is absolutely better. What would be better, a 15% tax on capitol returns, or a 0% tax. Or are you one of those people who don't hold stock, and wish to punish those of us who do?
I read a great explaination of this the other day. It was based on the question of whether we should be taxing the "seed" or the "harvest." If a king went to his subjects to tax the grain, would it make more sense for him to tax it just before the planting, or just after the harvest?
We "plant" the seed of money in our economy by spending it. The harvest would be much higher if we allow the money to used go grow the economy before it's harvested.
David
the FairTax would be regressive, and would hurt poor people, if it was simply a tax on everything you buy. The truth is a little more complex (just as our system isn't simply a tax on income.)
The lower income people will not have to pay any tax, or very little, in the current proposal because the Government will advance them the equivalent of the taxes they would have to pay for taxes up to the poverty line.
In other words, at the beginning of the month, Joe Paycheck will receieve all of the money he would be expected to pay for taxes all month for the basic neccessities of living. For a single person, no kids, this would be based on about $8000, or around $153.00. For a family of four, that's $460.00 per month.
That makes a family of four with an income of $35000 per year actually pay only about $2500 in taxes, or have about a 7% tax rate. That 7% is LESS than the money that's taken out of their paycheck for FICA today, so in reality, all other things being equal, they pay MUCH LESS in taxes compared to today's system.
Because only new retail items are taxed, those who are not spending a large percentage of their income at retail don't pay a large percentage of their income in taxes, see?
It works because lower income folks (those making less than $50,000 - $70,000 per year) most of their tax burden forgiven, while higher wage earners do not benefit so much from the breaks. This is the way our current system is supposed to work, but often fails.
The hidden benefits of the system are that it encourages savings, removes the complexities of the system that allow for corruption and waste, and collects large amounts of money from the underground markets, where no taxes are currently being collected.
No one need ever be fined or go to jail again for hiring a day laborer or maid and paying that person "under the table." We can hire people at will, negotiate a wage that is agreeable to both parties and pay cash without the government ever needing to be involved. The taxes get paid when that worker buys lunch at McDonalds or gets clothes at Walmart.
If a drug dealer sells cocaine for $2000, then uses the money to buy a nice new watch, the taxes get paid (as long as he buys it from a store. Stolen goods will still be outside the tax revenue stream, but that's no surprise.)
High rollers, like movie stars and business tycoons who spend money like water will still buy whatever they want, and they will still end up paying lots of money in taxes. They will buy EVERYTHING at retail, with the taxes accepted as part of the bill. Truly poor folks might buy a used car instead of a new one, saving the tax money. They might even shop in Thrift Stores (like they do now) which will be essentially tax free zones (because they are not new retail.)
I know it sounds like a troll, but I wonder if he doesn't have a point. Standard deviation in IQ is, I believe, about 15 or 16 points. We know there are plenty of people out there with over 148 IQs. That's three standard deviations. We also agree that there are not very many people who have IQs less than 62. They are considered very, very slow.
How many IQ 80 people does it take to balance the IQ 160 people out there? How many IQ 40 people do you really think there are?
100 is the average, yes, but the curve is not a perfect bell. It takes a numerically superior below average group to offset the effects of a few large IQs. We can't through out all of the really smart guys, just as we can't through out all of the true idiots.
Not that I'm claiming to be in either category...
I used to check Discovery Wings every day, until I realized that they spent WAY too much time on the history of this or that World War II airplane. It's become the Discovery Flying Weapon of War channel. I want to see new discoveries in flight! Ultralights, hang gliders, rocket propelled composits (oh, they did that one :o)
Land firmly, the ground can take it.
What makes you say that hedonism is counter to learning?