A lot of people are already monitoring their stuff with Kill-A-Watt. This is a networked, managed version of that. If the price was low (like less than $30 US per appliance, plus maybe $100 for the central box or software), people would get it. The problem would be getting to that price point.
A pure sales tax with no external correction penalizes the poor by forcing them to spend a larger percentage of their income on taxes on necessities. This is why a graduated tax system makes sense; those who can best afford the burden shoulder more of it.
NO. A sales tax works perfectly well in this regard by simply NOT TAXING NECESSITIES. Many states do this.
As well, the top taxpayers in the US (as in, those cutting the largest checks to the IRS) pay taxes on only about 50% of their income. That's right, the wealthiest among us manage to dodge 50% of their obligations by playing games with capital gains.
Well, they're still cutting the largest checks, aren't they? That you don't see the contradiction between those two adjacent sentences tells me how badly you have been infected by the "eat the rich" mentality. Here's an actual figure for you: the top 10% of earners paid 71% of the taxes in 2007.
I know this sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but what you're calling a libertarian is probably a conservative who thinks he's a libertarian. I can't say for sure because you failed to cite any specific social liberties.
Guess what, the currencies are backed by the systems that tax you. I think Jesus said it best: render unto Caesar.
I'm in Jesus's camp, but at least in Caesar's day the currency had intrinsic value; Caesar's image was certification of its validity. Today's currency is fiat, and its value is truly placed on the back of the taxpayer.
Well, if you earn another $100,000 and pay $59,000 of that in taxes, you still have $41,000 to spend as you please.
Or, I can do just enough to get by (because nearly every western government has PROGRESSIVE taxation now) and keep a greater portion of my income. Heck, I may even get money BACK from the treasury.
This smacks of a straw man argument. The original poster was modded down "troll", and for good reason. Even the founders saw the need for a federal government to provide for the "common defence".
For instance lowering the income tax and increasing the sales tax is a net loss of revenue typically because sales tax inhibits the resource that it taxes.
Weren't we just talking about the Laffer curve? We've already established that raising income taxes discourages investment and encourages the use of shelters. In other words, it also inhibits the resource that it taxes-- income.
I wonder how many more countries will go bankrupt before they realize that it doesn't work, and that they are not an exception?
I don't know... maybe the number of free economies that have already gone bankrupt? Like zero? Please tell me which free markets are currently involved in the crisis-- because I can't think of any that aren't heavily regulated.
The interesting thing about this theory (aside from the fact that it assumes only a single independent variable) is that it is only ever trotted out to suggest that taxes are too high and that lowering them will increase revenue. Never to suggest that taxes are too low and that increasing them will increase tax revenue, although unless somebody has successfully plotted the curve (nobody has) then it supports either theory just as well (unless you are already at the 0% or 100% point).
How it's used is irrelevant to whether the Laffer curve is a good economic theory. The reason it's normally used to criticize high taxes is because TAXES ARE TOO HIGH NEARLY EVERYWHERE.
Our records show that you are entitled to $20,000 thousand US dollars. Email me at ministeroffinance152342@hotmail.com for details of how to make a claim.
I'm surprised that doesn't go to the Redundancy Minister of Redundancy instead.
Again, if you read the linked article, you'd find out that Republican turnout was too high for this to be the case. However, I wouldn't put it "passed" a Slashdotter to waste our time with partisan speculation when we have real problems to discuss.
I had an expensive text book on "Quality" and the author misquoted John Kennedy.
On page 135, it should say, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Instead it reads, "We eat beluga caviar with dodo eggs spread on the backs of beautiful hookers by chimp butlers."
1500 RPM? I don't think the engine in my current car spins that fast at highway speed in overdrive! You must have had some serious stalling problem to keep your idle that high.
It's too bad I just used up my modpoints; because while the parent post has a few good points, I could not in conscience mod up a post that's so full of profanity, ad homs, red herrings, and insults like others have done here. It's difficult to read and letting anger overwhelm a perfectly good argument doesn't serve anyone.
Unfortunately for you, I actually read the article you cited and found that since the ban in 1977, VIOLENT CRIME WENT UP AND UP. There was a small downtick for 1995, but that wasn't a gun ban-- it was a gun turn-in program. Regardless, violent crime started inching up again until 2003-2004... which I would attribute to the anti-gang initiative they started in 2003.
Three police officers saw him kill, but didn't do anything because police batons don't stand much of a chance against someone with a firearm.
Anyone else see what's wrong with this picture? For one, why aren't police allowed to carry guns? Or pepper spray? Or tasers? Just so they can say, "Oh LOOK! GUNS ARE UNSTOPPABLE! Therefore, we must make guns illegal, and possession a crime in itself."
Not only does it NOT work, as illustrated by the "whack-a-mole" effect where the criminals moved to the next available weapon, but that's irrelevant-- because our freedoms are being eroded in the name of "safety".
Slashdot Mirror
Bogus!
Technically, a football field is 120 yards due to the two 10-yard end zones.
A lot of people are already monitoring their stuff with Kill-A-Watt. This is a networked, managed version of that. If the price was low (like less than $30 US per appliance, plus maybe $100 for the central box or software), people would get it. The problem would be getting to that price point.
NO. A sales tax works perfectly well in this regard by simply NOT TAXING NECESSITIES. Many states do this.
Well, they're still cutting the largest checks, aren't they? That you don't see the contradiction between those two adjacent sentences tells me how badly you have been infected by the "eat the rich" mentality. Here's an actual figure for you: the top 10% of earners paid 71% of the taxes in 2007.
I know this sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but what you're calling a libertarian is probably a conservative who thinks he's a libertarian. I can't say for sure because you failed to cite any specific social liberties.
I'm in Jesus's camp, but at least in Caesar's day the currency had intrinsic value; Caesar's image was certification of its validity. Today's currency is fiat, and its value is truly placed on the back of the taxpayer.
Or, I can do just enough to get by (because nearly every western government has PROGRESSIVE taxation now) and keep a greater portion of my income. Heck, I may even get money BACK from the treasury.
This smacks of a straw man argument. The original poster was modded down "troll", and for good reason. Even the founders saw the need for a federal government to provide for the "common defence".
Weren't we just talking about the Laffer curve? We've already established that raising income taxes discourages investment and encourages the use of shelters. In other words, it also inhibits the resource that it taxes-- income.
I don't know... maybe the number of free economies that have already gone bankrupt? Like zero? Please tell me which free markets are currently involved in the crisis-- because I can't think of any that aren't heavily regulated.
How it's used is irrelevant to whether the Laffer curve is a good economic theory. The reason it's normally used to criticize high taxes is because TAXES ARE TOO HIGH NEARLY EVERYWHERE.
Our records show that you are entitled to $20,000 thousand US dollars. Email me at ministeroffinance152342@hotmail.com for details of how to make a claim.
I'm surprised that doesn't go to the Redundancy Minister of Redundancy instead.
Again, if you read the linked article, you'd find out that Republican turnout was too high for this to be the case. However, I wouldn't put it "passed" a Slashdotter to waste our time with partisan speculation when we have real problems to discuss.
According to the site referenced in this article, Republican turnout was too high for this to have occurred.
Clearly, we need to repeatedly examine the punch cards for "hanging" or "pregnant" chads to determine "voter intent".
Damn. Already used all my mod points today.
On page 135, it should say, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Instead it reads, "We eat beluga caviar with dodo eggs spread on the backs of beautiful hookers by chimp butlers."
I'm sure we could fit some blackjack in there somewhere. Maybe the cards would be made out of rhino skin parchment.
1500 RPM? I don't think the engine in my current car spins that fast at highway speed in overdrive! You must have had some serious stalling problem to keep your idle that high.
It's too bad I just used up my modpoints; because while the parent post has a few good points, I could not in conscience mod up a post that's so full of profanity, ad homs, red herrings, and insults like others have done here. It's difficult to read and letting anger overwhelm a perfectly good argument doesn't serve anyone.
Whoosh.
Shaguar baby, YEAH!
Unfortunately for you, I actually read the article you cited and found that since the ban in 1977, VIOLENT CRIME WENT UP AND UP. There was a small downtick for 1995, but that wasn't a gun ban-- it was a gun turn-in program. Regardless, violent crime started inching up again until 2003-2004... which I would attribute to the anti-gang initiative they started in 2003.
Anyone else see what's wrong with this picture? For one, why aren't police allowed to carry guns? Or pepper spray? Or tasers? Just so they can say, "Oh LOOK! GUNS ARE UNSTOPPABLE! Therefore, we must make guns illegal, and possession a crime in itself."
Not only does it NOT work, as illustrated by the "whack-a-mole" effect where the criminals moved to the next available weapon, but that's irrelevant-- because our freedoms are being eroded in the name of "safety".