You said social programs, but then you bring up Ford.
That's sort of the opposite.
You strike me as a prime example of a really smart person (your economics are great, and I am your humble student), who couldn't be more wrong in their politics. People like you fascinate me.
They don't have to. All those regulations only apply to those with 50 employees or more. Not always 50, but never (well, usually) a one-man business, or a wage earner for sure.
And you propose that only the rich, that can afford a tax lawyer/accountant, should have access to the law of the land, and thus to profits?
And the rest of us masses should have no access to the law, or profit, because we can't afford it?
Actually, the ads didn't run in New York. So while some tiny spending for production did happen in NY, most of that money was spent on airtime down here in FL and everywhere but NY.
So no, that money was not just turned over in the state. It is gone.
Mr. Kennedy is not a credible source. You know that, right?
Not accusing him of lying outright; he's a politician; I'm sure there is some logic to that claim for a program that we've all been watching ads on close to two years now.
Another thing though that no one else is bringing up; how much tax revenue have they given up for 10 years? What's that number that gets added to the $53M spent so far?
You bring up property rights. The very most basic foundation of any society, ever.
And yet you would hold that over a rich person's head like we're selling him something. As if you could take back property rights, if they don't pay up.
Most of those 47% get a significant yearly tax return against those $0 taxes paid in. Thousands of dollars each in most cases.
I see now the brilliance of this plan: It makes any meaningful tax reform impossible.
It would amount to a 33% welfare cut in many cases. The simple flat(er) tax we crave (or insert any tax code that's not thousands of pages), would now be instantly and truly devastating to many poor. Deficit hawk that I am, I don't want to directly hurt the poor like that. And it would be political suicide to try.
Nerds here on/. can discuss moving the EIC directly to Social Services, converting it to a check, etc., but I don't think our media would allow a reasoned discussion of options.
We are well and truly screwed I think.
(And attempting to outlaw being poor with a $15/hm min wage won't work out as well as you think.)
But one, and only one, personal existence deduction would solve all of the flat tax issues.
That deduction is at the line between poor, and... less poor. Then everything after that is a flat tax. That way the poor pay no or trivial tax, and the rich get no or trivial deductions.
But you didn't mean the question sincerely in the first place did you?
Actually, the Hawaiians weren't that bad. The had their share of drama and history to be sure, but not all that that you said. At least not any moreso than the Anglo-Saxons...
Worst idea ever. Seems like equality under the law is a concept that has gotten lost.
And as the guy above said; AT&T didn't do this. Criminals that lied and got a job with them under false pretenses did this.
I'm IT in a company that accepts credit card payments. I might could make off with the whole list with nobody noticing. Our salespeople have even more direct contact with customers cc info, somewhat similar to AT&Ts probably. They wouldn't even have to steal anything; the cc info is given to them on a daily basis.
If individuals turn into criminals, how is that my companies fault? Or does that company just have to be as evil as AT&T? And don't get me wrong, they are currently third most evil, just behind Verizon and Monsanto.
Now that I think about it, what exactly is the fine for? My company wouldn't be on the hook for my crimes; in this country, we depend on jail to be the deterrent. Unless there was some negligence on their part.
Which I could believe in the case of AT&T. Oh and btw you are a communist. Save yourself before it's too late.
We're discovering how to prevent deadly earthquakes. Within your lifetime, the state of California will begin fracking all up and down the San Andreas fault. (They will leave the oil in the ground though.)
They will look back on the days when we just ignorantly allowed big earthquakes to happen, killing thousands in our apathy, just like we do now at the Romans for using lead pipes.
Concrete and steel are cheap. Refining uranium to the point it will heat up is easy, if somewhat energy intensive.
2000 years? Ah, you might mean the 'nuclear waste' sitting in water pools at reactors all over. Yes, that's nasty stuff. Can't even bury it under the Rocky Mountains.
What to do... what to do with it?...
Nuclear fuel, that's still radioactive as hell. Huh.
No, don't tell me; it will come to me...
Stuck, saddled even, with tons of nuclear fuel, in an age where we need carbon free electricity...
Nah, I thought I was on to something, but I got nothin.
Can't just dump extra power into the grid; you'll over volt it. Tallahatchie Valley burned out my dryer timer doing that. (I'm still bitter.) And I don't think you can let a generator that size, already connected to the grid, freewheel and not take power off of it.
They must have a way to dump power spikes; fifteen minutes is too slow when Jordainian Idol goes off, and everybody goes to bed.
Somebody here must know; how do they avoid voltage spikes if everybody turns their shit off at once?
"I'm saying they're equally corrupt and not working for the benefit of their constituents"
That's Washington. What you say is not true (largely) for the lower levels of politics. The pinnacle of those lower levels of politics is State Governor. Generally, governors can still be men (or women) of the people, Largely uncorrupted. (you owe favors the moment you enter politics; I hope you didn't mean that.)
Compare Senators vs. Governors in our recent history for one thing. Once you're President, you seem to get corrupted pretty quickly; some quicker than others. Some have to be shot to get the message... But even after that, they still make decent executive administrators.
For another thing, as they enter the national arena is your chance to pick your uncorrupted constituent based politician. The primaries.
I should get to vote for Elizabeth Warren over that shrew-woman Hillary, AND; I should get to vote for Scott Walker over disqualified-himself-over-Terry-Shaivo Jeb. Then, after seeing the two of them debate each other, solidify positions, etc, hopefully, I get to cast my vote for president with a clear choice and conscience.
Hell, in my state, I have to register with one or the other long before I will even know who the candidates are. Meh, the way they do it, all staggered out; the candidate is likely to be decided before I get to vote.
"Uh-uh. Many of the poor don't file taxes, and it's perfectly legit. "
Not anymore it's not. Seriously, that's new: You 'have' to file now since the ACA. I have yet to hear of an exception for the homeless to at least file the form for your exemption. So the homeless are technically in violation of tax law.
I see now, the real plan: They are just going to outlaw being poor. Seattle is at the forefront of this trend.
Fucking brilliant! Why didn't we think of this years ago?
How are these people even serious? We already have a consumption tax of around 8%, depending on where you live.
The money just stays in the state though instead of going to Washington. But that's more of a left pocket - right pocket thing; the tax is being levied now.
What would happen is that the people that own that business pay the tax. To your point; none of that business craftiness you describe would matter then. Just to be clear, we are talking about an income tax, and it's not income until a person gets it.
On a side note, by taxing business income, you are then making businesses a lot like people, and making businesses into 'people' is not good for society. I don't believe in taxation without representation, and businesses can't vote. I'm aware that large businesses get plenty of representation through their lobbyists. I'm against that also.
What fraud? If I want to buy that water, and you have some to sell, and we both know exactly what it is, how can that be fraud?
I guess you'll say the fraud is in the claim itself. Are people not allowed to be wrong? Ah; maybe it's okay to be wrong, as long as long as you don't profit from it?
What about $100 HDMI cables? Would you have the FCC forbid that? Set a maximum price with specs to which manufacturers are forced to adhere? Come down on them like a ton of Federal bricks?
Remember, both the buyer and the seller swear that the picture is better.
Slashdot Mirror
You said social programs, but then you bring up Ford.
That's sort of the opposite.
You strike me as a prime example of a really smart person (your economics are great, and I am your humble student), who couldn't be more wrong in their politics. People like you fascinate me.
"Wage earners can't do that."
They don't have to. All those regulations only apply to those with 50 employees or more. Not always 50, but never (well, usually) a one-man business, or a wage earner for sure.
And you propose that only the rich, that can afford a tax lawyer/accountant, should have access to the law of the land, and thus to profits?
And the rest of us masses should have no access to the law, or profit, because we can't afford it?
That is what you just said.
And don't forget that what debt reduction was in there, was due to Newt, and in spite of Clinton.
Newt burned his career over that shutdown, and Clinton came out smelling like a rose, as usual. Clinton's budget. Hell, I guess he signed it.
It should go in the history books as the most costly political victory ever.
Actually, the ads didn't run in New York. So while some tiny spending for production did happen in NY, most of that money was spent on airtime down here in FL and everywhere but NY.
So no, that money was not just turned over in the state. It is gone.
Mr. Kennedy is not a credible source. You know that, right?
Not accusing him of lying outright; he's a politician; I'm sure there is some logic to that claim for a program that we've all been watching ads on close to two years now.
Another thing though that no one else is bringing up; how much tax revenue have they given up for 10 years? What's that number that gets added to the $53M spent so far?
You bring up property rights. The very most basic foundation of any society, ever.
And yet you would hold that over a rich person's head like we're selling him something. As if you could take back property rights, if they don't pay up.
I guess it's been done before, hasn't it?
It's worse than that.
Most of those 47% get a significant yearly tax return against those $0 taxes paid in. Thousands of dollars each in most cases.
I see now the brilliance of this plan: It makes any meaningful tax reform impossible.
It would amount to a 33% welfare cut in many cases. The simple flat(er) tax we crave (or insert any tax code that's not thousands of pages), would now be instantly and truly devastating to many poor. Deficit hawk that I am, I don't want to directly hurt the poor like that. And it would be political suicide to try.
Nerds here on /. can discuss moving the EIC directly to Social Services, converting it to a check, etc., but I don't think our media would allow a reasoned discussion of options.
We are well and truly screwed I think.
(And attempting to outlaw being poor with a $15/hm min wage won't work out as well as you think.)
Almost no one would, and you know that.
But one, and only one, personal existence deduction would solve all of the flat tax issues.
That deduction is at the line between poor, and... less poor. Then everything after that is a flat tax. That way the poor pay no or trivial tax, and the rich get no or trivial deductions.
But you didn't mean the question sincerely in the first place did you?
Keep up please. The 1.7M is what the companies have spent.
The state spent 53M.
I don't always use my mod points, but when I do, I mod up posts like yours.
Actually, the Hawaiians weren't that bad. The had their share of drama and history to be sure, but not all that that you said. At least not any moreso than the Anglo-Saxons...
Because it's obvious to any thinking person that there was a Creator.
Which ghosts live in which volcano is... somewhat less obvious.
That's the distinction.
Worst idea ever. Seems like equality under the law is a concept that has gotten lost.
And as the guy above said; AT&T didn't do this. Criminals that lied and got a job with them under false pretenses did this.
I'm IT in a company that accepts credit card payments. I might could make off with the whole list with nobody noticing. Our salespeople have even more direct contact with customers cc info, somewhat similar to AT&Ts probably. They wouldn't even have to steal anything; the cc info is given to them on a daily basis.
If individuals turn into criminals, how is that my companies fault? Or does that company just have to be as evil as AT&T? And don't get me wrong, they are currently third most evil, just behind Verizon and Monsanto.
Now that I think about it, what exactly is the fine for? My company wouldn't be on the hook for my crimes; in this country, we depend on jail to be the deterrent. Unless there was some negligence on their part.
Which I could believe in the case of AT&T. Oh and btw you are a communist. Save yourself before it's too late.
Don't stand in the way of science man.
We're discovering how to prevent deadly earthquakes. Within your lifetime, the state of California will begin fracking all up and down the San Andreas fault. (They will leave the oil in the ground though.)
They will look back on the days when we just ignorantly allowed big earthquakes to happen, killing thousands in our apathy, just like we do now at the Romans for using lead pipes.
Yes, that's just in the USA.
Concrete and steel are cheap. Refining uranium to the point it will heat up is easy, if somewhat energy intensive.
2000 years? Ah, you might mean the 'nuclear waste' sitting in water pools at reactors all over. Yes, that's nasty stuff. Can't even bury it under the Rocky Mountains.
What to do... what to do with it?...
Nuclear fuel, that's still radioactive as hell. Huh.
No, don't tell me; it will come to me...
Stuck, saddled even, with tons of nuclear fuel, in an age where we need carbon free electricity...
Nah, I thought I was on to something, but I got nothin.
I don't think it's the cost.
Can't just dump extra power into the grid; you'll over volt it. Tallahatchie Valley burned out my dryer timer doing that. (I'm still bitter.) And I don't think you can let a generator that size, already connected to the grid, freewheel and not take power off of it.
They must have a way to dump power spikes; fifteen minutes is too slow when Jordainian Idol goes off, and everybody goes to bed.
Somebody here must know; how do they avoid voltage spikes if everybody turns their shit off at once?
Yes. And the summary is a lie: TFA doesn't explain 'how' the universe expands FTL; just that it does.
"I'm saying they're equally corrupt and not working for the benefit of their constituents"
That's Washington. What you say is not true (largely) for the lower levels of politics. The pinnacle of those lower levels of politics is State Governor. Generally, governors can still be men (or women) of the people, Largely uncorrupted. (you owe favors the moment you enter politics; I hope you didn't mean that.)
Compare Senators vs. Governors in our recent history for one thing. Once you're President, you seem to get corrupted pretty quickly; some quicker than others. Some have to be shot to get the message... But even after that, they still make decent executive administrators.
For another thing, as they enter the national arena is your chance to pick your uncorrupted constituent based politician. The primaries.
I should get to vote for Elizabeth Warren over that shrew-woman Hillary, AND; I should get to vote for Scott Walker over disqualified-himself-over-Terry-Shaivo Jeb. Then, after seeing the two of them debate each other, solidify positions, etc, hopefully, I get to cast my vote for president with a clear choice and conscience.
Hell, in my state, I have to register with one or the other long before I will even know who the candidates are. Meh, the way they do it, all staggered out; the candidate is likely to be decided before I get to vote.
Fix the primaries, and you fix our politics.
"Uh-uh. Many of the poor don't file taxes, and it's perfectly legit. "
Not anymore it's not. Seriously, that's new: You 'have' to file now since the ACA. I have yet to hear of an exception for the homeless to at least file the form for your exemption. So the homeless are technically in violation of tax law.
I see now, the real plan: They are just going to outlaw being poor. Seattle is at the forefront of this trend.
Fucking brilliant! Why didn't we think of this years ago?
I wouldn't hold my breath for write-ins or third parties.
Mandatory voting takes us from a 2 party system to a 1 party system; the Democrats.
That is plain to see, no?
How are these people even serious? We already have a consumption tax of around 8%, depending on where you live.
The money just stays in the state though instead of going to Washington. But that's more of a left pocket - right pocket thing; the tax is being levied now.
As did the US for the first 100+ years of existence.
What would happen is that the people that own that business pay the tax. To your point; none of that business craftiness you describe would matter then. Just to be clear, we are talking about an income tax, and it's not income until a person gets it.
On a side note, by taxing business income, you are then making businesses a lot like people, and making businesses into 'people' is not good for society. I don't believe in taxation without representation, and businesses can't vote. I'm aware that large businesses get plenty of representation through their lobbyists. I'm against that also.
What fraud? If I want to buy that water, and you have some to sell, and we both know exactly what it is, how can that be fraud?
I guess you'll say the fraud is in the claim itself. Are people not allowed to be wrong?
Ah; maybe it's okay to be wrong, as long as long as you don't profit from it?
What about $100 HDMI cables? Would you have the FCC forbid that? Set a maximum price with specs to which manufacturers are forced to adhere? Come down on them like a ton of Federal bricks?
Remember, both the buyer and the seller swear that the picture is better.
There is still the notion that: A known compound that other people have already taken...
So, some notion of safety.