Ya, it could be considered a gray area on exempting food. While it's true that the purchaser would pay the tax on their groceries, they would also be getting a monthly check, many call it a prebate, that would cover the taxes on purchases up to the poverty level.
So, it's really a progressive tax at lower incomes, and regressive to middle and higher incomes.
Business to business purchases aren't exempt, either, unless the item is for resale or to be incorporated into another product. The idea being that only that the tax would only be paid once, and at the retail level.
If my company were to buy a ream of paper to feed into our printer, that would be taxed. But, if that ream was going to be sold as part of my company's ream-of-the-month sale, I would owe no tax(the final buyer would end up paying the tax at the time of purchase).
I'd like to propose an alternate alternate solution
I know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes and "user fees"? In particular, let's spend more money on roads and mass transit, education, policing, public safety, regulation of the financial system and providing fair access to decent health insurance.
Because, unlike the original "alternate solution" you quoted, your solution doesn't work. It's been proven over and over in the real world that the higher taxes and fees you propose would result in a lower net income to the government. The economy isn't subject to static analysis.
And what day of the year it is! Some states have annual "tax holidays" where no state sales taxes are due on purchases that occur on specific days of the year.
scrolling though these comments, it amazes me how many people on slashdot have a pretty good idea of what a cluster-fuck sales tax is - yet somehow the "fair" tax idea has traction here.
Maybe because most of us know that that would be like comparing apples to oranges?
He may not have shown the encrypted stuff, but, he did show what appeared to be child porn to a customs agent.
So, it's more like he is preventing the execution of a search warrant (assuming they issued one at some point).
Plus, the 5th Amendment doesn't shield him from providing incriminating evidence under a lawful search, only from being compelled to being a witness against himself in a criminal case.
Though, I agree that just because you waive your right once, you shouldn't be prevented from re-invoking it.
There's also the need to penalize those that were born to riches, and haven't done a single thing on their lives other than let other people invest their money. Is Paris Hilton a hard working American, deserving of every dollar she has?
Well, isn't that the height of arrogance? Why is there a need to penalize somebody when they haven't done anything wrong? Who gets to decide how much is enough to leave them with? And, you say they didn't do a single thing to earn their money, so what? That means you have a valid claim to it? What did you do, or what did the government do to earn it? Even less!
Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized? It is not 'unfair' that some people have higher salaries than others.
I won't argue that different salary levels are naturally an "unfair" thing. But lots of people who couldn't do my job make more than me. That is unfair. Thus, I assert that salary and skill should be related. All to often nepotism and unfair dealings seem to be more rewarded than effort.
As to why high-wage earners should be penalized... because as a medium-wage earner I would prefer to give low-wage earners a disincentive from robbing me. As a high-wage earner... you would probably prefer to give me a disincentive from robbing you.
It is preferable to balance the economy with rules and taxation. Nobody wants a world where power rests in the hands of the most corrupt, least skilled members of society, and that is what happens when it is impossible to live comfortably as a lazy, rotten, unmotivated low-wage worker.
LOL, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, or not!
So, you're saying that high-wage earners should be penalized so you will have less of a reason to steal from them. Um...ok. How about not penalizing them, so they can afford an expensive gun to put a bullet in your head when you try?
The rich no more deserve their wealth than the poor deserve poverty
Ding Ding Ding!!!
You get a cookie!
Are you serious?
Most millionaires in the U.S. are first generation millionaires, they didn't inherit their wealth. Most often, the wealthy are wealthy because of the work that they do and the decisions they have made.
The same is true for much of the poor. Many are where they are because of the choices they have made.
I'm not even saying one is better than the other. There are plenty of miserable wealthy people, just as there are poor and middle-class people whose lives are fine and they are perfectly content. Loads of people are perfectly happy to not vacation in Maui every year in order to not work 70 hours a week in a dull office and be traveling on business three days a week.
I don't believe that wealth is measured entirely with money, either. Having time to spend with your family and friends can be incredibly valuable.
So in an area where they have the only service available they are silencing their critics, how is that not censoring?
Because they still aren't preventing you from speaking out. If you want to criticize them, you can tell your neighbor, call your mom, publish an editorial, post on your blog, etc.
The right to free speech does not include the right to a vehicle for your speech.
As for the rest of your comments, I don't know enough about it to agree or refute. However, I can certainly understand why a company wouldn't want to help someone that is actively trying to harm the company. Why would they? In most cases businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, though I admit AT&T may not have that same right due to the nature of their business.
Don't be ridiculous. Arranging to have someone killed is not only "wrong," but the very act itself is illegal, regardless of how many details you know. However, if I ask a friend to get me a Mt. Dew and he goes to my neighbor, beats the crap out him to get in the house and steals it from his refrigerator, I am not responsible for any of those crimes.
Deception, fraud, and outright lying aren't always "wrong from the get-go," either. For example, if a nutcase with a machete comes to my house and asks to see my wife, I just might lie and tell him he's got the wrong address. There's nothing wrong with deceiving him.
So, while I probably agree with the sentiment behind your remarks, I feel compelled to point out that the world isn't as black & white as you might think.
People are instinctually selfish, and it will never change.
Exactly, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It is precisely because of self interest that others are willing to offer us their goods and services. One of my favorite quotes puts it much better than I can:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -- Adam Smith
I actually agreed with what you were saying until the criticism of "what they've done to our economy."
From all indicators that I have seen, that's the one thing they have done pretty well with. This administration came into office with a recession inherited from the previous administration, and turned it around into a strong economy.
Unemployment is low, inflation is low, new home construction is up, the markets are healthy. What's wrong with the economy?
I do take issue with their out-of-control spending, but the economy is fine.
Yeah, thanks for the tip. It was a problem I noticed just a couple of days ago when I used my PowerBook instead of my Windows box.
I'll check that tonight.
Now, I don't know what I'm talking about, since I didn't do any research. Having said that, it would seem to me to be far cheaper and more sensible to build a new airport on the mainland, where the majority of the people are, rather than a bridge to the island.
I actually agree with your post, but, there is something else to consider regarding point 3: it's not the 175mph wind you have to defend against... it's the 150mph steel drums, 2x4s, etc. being carried by the wind:)
My source is what they themselves say. Who are "they?" Well, "they" are the ones this discussion was about. It's a story involving the organization al Qaeda.
The us versus them shit is going to end up killing us all. I've had enough of it.
Me, too. But, it's not going to end until "they" stop thinking it's us versus them and we must die.
We criticize terrorists for choosing violence over speech to make their point. Then we take away their ability to speak.
Oh, come on now, let's not be naive. Yes, we would rather they use words than blowing things up, but, they have no such desire.
They've had free speech on those sites this whole time, and they used it help teach each other how to kill people. The sites weren't vehicles for ongoing discussions and debates on how to end the conflicts. Not to mention that the shutting down of some web sites does not take away their ability to speak. With one phone call they could have the world's media at their doorstep.
What most people don't seem to want to believe, is that they don't want to talk things out. They don't want peace-achieving dialog, they want to kill their "enemies"/non-believers.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, it could be considered a gray area on exempting food. While it's true that the purchaser would pay the tax on their groceries, they would also be getting a monthly check, many call it a prebate, that would cover the taxes on purchases up to the poverty level.
So, it's really a progressive tax at lower incomes, and regressive to middle and higher incomes.
Business to business purchases aren't exempt, either, unless the item is for resale or to be incorporated into another product. The idea being that only that the tax would only be paid once, and at the retail level.
If my company were to buy a ream of paper to feed into our printer, that would be taxed. But, if that ream was going to be sold as part of my company's ream-of-the-month sale, I would owe no tax(the final buyer would end up paying the tax at the time of purchase).
I'd like to propose an alternate alternate solution
I know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes and "user fees"? In particular, let's spend more money on roads and mass transit, education, policing, public safety, regulation of the financial system and providing fair access to decent health insurance.
Because, unlike the original "alternate solution" you quoted, your solution doesn't work. It's been proven over and over in the real world that the higher taxes and fees you propose would result in a lower net income to the government. The economy isn't subject to static analysis.
And what day of the year it is! Some states have annual "tax holidays" where no state sales taxes are due on purchases that occur on specific days of the year.
I lieu of mod points, attaboy!
scrolling though these comments, it amazes me how many people on slashdot have a pretty good idea of what a cluster-fuck sales tax is - yet somehow the "fair" tax idea has traction here.
Maybe because most of us know that that would be like comparing apples to oranges?
Debian is popular for servers. Admittedly, I only admin a half-dozen boxes, nothing compared to what some of you guys work with. But, they work great.
Which others did you have in mind?
He's just been conditioned to be unnecessarily politically correct. He meant "illegal aliens."
He may not have shown the encrypted stuff, but, he did show what appeared to be child porn to a customs agent.
So, it's more like he is preventing the execution of a search warrant (assuming they issued one at some point).
Plus, the 5th Amendment doesn't shield him from providing incriminating evidence under a lawful search, only from being compelled to being a witness against himself in a criminal case.
Though, I agree that just because you waive your right once, you shouldn't be prevented from re-invoking it.
There's also the need to penalize those that were born to riches, and haven't done a single thing on their lives other than let other people invest their money. Is Paris Hilton a hard working American, deserving of every dollar she has?
Well, isn't that the height of arrogance? Why is there a need to penalize somebody when they haven't done anything wrong? Who gets to decide how much is enough to leave them with? And, you say they didn't do a single thing to earn their money, so what? That means you have a valid claim to it? What did you do, or what did the government do to earn it? Even less!
Sheesh!
Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized? It is not 'unfair' that some people have higher salaries than others.
I won't argue that different salary levels are naturally an "unfair" thing. But lots of people who couldn't do my job make more than me. That is unfair. Thus, I assert that salary and skill should be related. All to often nepotism and unfair dealings seem to be more rewarded than effort.
As to why high-wage earners should be penalized... because as a medium-wage earner I would prefer to give low-wage earners a disincentive from robbing me. As a high-wage earner... you would probably prefer to give me a disincentive from robbing you.
It is preferable to balance the economy with rules and taxation. Nobody wants a world where power rests in the hands of the most corrupt, least skilled members of society, and that is what happens when it is impossible to live comfortably as a lazy, rotten, unmotivated low-wage worker.
LOL, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, or not!
So, you're saying that high-wage earners should be penalized so you will have less of a reason to steal from them. Um...ok. How about not penalizing them, so they can afford an expensive gun to put a bullet in your head when you try?
The rich no more deserve their wealth than the poor deserve poverty
Ding Ding Ding!!! You get a cookie!
Are you serious?
Most millionaires in the U.S. are first generation millionaires, they didn't inherit their wealth. Most often, the wealthy are wealthy because of the work that they do and the decisions they have made.
The same is true for much of the poor. Many are where they are because of the choices they have made.
I'm not even saying one is better than the other. There are plenty of miserable wealthy people, just as there are poor and middle-class people whose lives are fine and they are perfectly content. Loads of people are perfectly happy to not vacation in Maui every year in order to not work 70 hours a week in a dull office and be traveling on business three days a week.
I don't believe that wealth is measured entirely with money, either. Having time to spend with your family and friends can be incredibly valuable.
You must not leave Slashdot often enough ;)
It's a pretty common phrase in western media, such as TV shows and movies. Usually by law enforcement at the scene of a crime.
Because they still aren't preventing you from speaking out. If you want to criticize them, you can tell your neighbor, call your mom, publish an editorial, post on your blog, etc.
The right to free speech does not include the right to a vehicle for your speech.
As for the rest of your comments, I don't know enough about it to agree or refute. However, I can certainly understand why a company wouldn't want to help someone that is actively trying to harm the company. Why would they? In most cases businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, though I admit AT&T may not have that same right due to the nature of their business.
Don't be ridiculous. Arranging to have someone killed is not only "wrong," but the very act itself is illegal, regardless of how many details you know. However, if I ask a friend to get me a Mt. Dew and he goes to my neighbor, beats the crap out him to get in the house and steals it from his refrigerator, I am not responsible for any of those crimes.
Deception, fraud, and outright lying aren't always "wrong from the get-go," either. For example, if a nutcase with a machete comes to my house and asks to see my wife, I just might lie and tell him he's got the wrong address. There's nothing wrong with deceiving him.
So, while I probably agree with the sentiment behind your remarks, I feel compelled to point out that the world isn't as black & white as you might think.
Exactly, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It is precisely because of self interest that others are willing to offer us their goods and services. One of my favorite quotes puts it much better than I can:
I actually agreed with what you were saying until the criticism of "what they've done to our economy."
From all indicators that I have seen, that's the one thing they have done pretty well with. This administration came into office with a recession inherited from the previous administration, and turned it around into a strong economy.
Unemployment is low, inflation is low, new home construction is up, the markets are healthy. What's wrong with the economy?
I do take issue with their out-of-control spending, but the economy is fine.
Yeah, thanks for the tip. It was a problem I noticed just a couple of days ago when I used my PowerBook instead of my Windows box. I'll check that tonight.
their - indication of possession
they're - contraction of 'they are'
While they're getting the ready, put their picnic basket over there.
Learn it and use it.
Heh, that's funny. Looks likes youz lerned it reel good! LOL, sorry, I just couldn't resist!
The parent post deserves better than Flamebait. He is absolutely correct. If only I had mod points....
But, hey, that's just me.
I actually agree with your post, but, there is something else to consider regarding point 3: it's not the 175mph wind you have to defend against... it's the 150mph steel drums, 2x4s, etc. being carried by the wind :)
If I had some mod points, I'd help ya out. Some people just have no sense of humor.
The us versus them shit is going to end up killing us all. I've had enough of it.
Me, too. But, it's not going to end until "they" stop thinking it's us versus them and we must die.
Oh, come on now, let's not be naive. Yes, we would rather they use words than blowing things up, but, they have no such desire.
They've had free speech on those sites this whole time, and they used it help teach each other how to kill people. The sites weren't vehicles for ongoing discussions and debates on how to end the conflicts. Not to mention that the shutting down of some web sites does not take away their ability to speak. With one phone call they could have the world's media at their doorstep.
What most people don't seem to want to believe, is that they don't want to talk things out. They don't want peace-achieving dialog, they want to kill their "enemies"/non-believers.
Otherwise, you make some good points ;)
When I first saw it, I mentally pronounced it like "kooks".