There is no democracy in the world that would allow a television station that participated in an illegal coup of a democratically elected leader to be on the air. It was amazing it wasn't stricken of its license immediately -- it was allowed to run until the end of its current license. You think if ABC tried to participate in an illegal coup of President Bush today -- someone who's far less popular in the US than Chavez is in Venezuela -- that they would still be allowed to operate? Are you serious?
I agree, but I think you've misunderstood what wealth tax means. Wealth tax, as its commonly known, refers to taxes on the accumulation of wealth, not on existing wealth itself. Capital gains is not income, but it's an accumulation of wealth. I think this is exactly what you are advocating when you suggest we "tax all income as income". The whole point of a wealth tax is to treat wealth accumulation as income. It seems the difference here is only semantic.
Your setting up a straw man by suggesting a specific implementation of a tax on wealth that I never proposed. It's not at all "tricky" to devise some reasonable rules. For example, we could start by treating capital gains as income. That would help address the huge wealth disparities in this country. It would also greatly simply tax preparation, without resorting to a regressive flat tax.
That is the income tax burden, not the tax burden. Why aren't you factoring in payroll taxes? Are you intentionally being deceptive? Despite your selective numbers, the top 1% of Americans still only pay 30% of the incomes taxes, even though they own more than 30% of the nation's wealth. So they are paying a smaller percentage of their wealth than the bottom 99%.
No it isn't. The role of graduate schools is research, not product development. Graduate researchers and professors rarely produce software that can be used by other researchers, forget the average consumer, because their focus is on proof-of-concept innovation. The focus of these government-funded Software Development Corps would be to develop usuable software products, not engage is raw science.
First she's teaming up with Newt Gingrich and now this. The point is to curry favor with social conservatives before her inevitable run for president. Just the sound of her name makes the fundamentalists empty out their wallets and pocketbooks. Look for more of this to come.
When the corporate takeover of the government ends. The USPTO is acting in the interest of the technology industry, not the public. Same with the FDA. The FDA sees pharmaceutical companies as clients -- it doesn't even know it's supposed to be a regulatory agency. OSHA is basically asleep. Until public campaigns are financed by public dollars, the situation will only get worse.
Becuase they do not benefit from state and local services such as police and fire.
I'm sure Borders is raking in all the corporate welfare (tax breaks, write-offs, exemptions, etc.) that California has to offer. State "services" aren't limited to police and fire.
Santorum is not clueless. He knows exactly what he's doing, i.e. favors for corporations in exchange for massive campaign contributions later. It's against the public's will, but that's never stopped him before. The money in politics problem is systemic, and the only real hope for change is full public financing of campaigns so elected officials respond to the public instead of corporate interests.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no democracy in the world that would allow a television station that participated in an illegal coup of a democratically elected leader to be on the air. It was amazing it wasn't stricken of its license immediately -- it was allowed to run until the end of its current license. You think if ABC tried to participate in an illegal coup of President Bush today -- someone who's far less popular in the US than Chavez is in Venezuela -- that they would still be allowed to operate? Are you serious?
I agree, but I think you've misunderstood what wealth tax means. Wealth tax, as its commonly known, refers to taxes on the accumulation of wealth, not on existing wealth itself. Capital gains is not income, but it's an accumulation of wealth. I think this is exactly what you are advocating when you suggest we "tax all income as income". The whole point of a wealth tax is to treat wealth accumulation as income. It seems the difference here is only semantic.
Your setting up a straw man by suggesting a specific implementation of a tax on wealth that I never proposed. It's not at all "tricky" to devise some reasonable rules. For example, we could start by treating capital gains as income. That would help address the huge wealth disparities in this country. It would also greatly simply tax preparation, without resorting to a regressive flat tax.
I know overall wealth is not taxed in the US. That's the problem. We should be shifting the tax burden from work to wealth.
That is the income tax burden, not the tax burden. Why aren't you factoring in payroll taxes? Are you intentionally being deceptive? Despite your selective numbers, the top 1% of Americans still only pay 30% of the incomes taxes, even though they own more than 30% of the nation's wealth. So they are paying a smaller percentage of their wealth than the bottom 99%.
No it isn't. The role of graduate schools is research, not product development. Graduate researchers and professors rarely produce software that can be used by other researchers, forget the average consumer, because their focus is on proof-of-concept innovation. The focus of these government-funded Software Development Corps would be to develop usuable software products, not engage is raw science.
no, they actually migrated to the US, but they now call themselves "Republicans" . . . go figure.
First she's teaming up with Newt Gingrich and now this. The point is to curry favor with social conservatives before her inevitable run for president. Just the sound of her name makes the fundamentalists empty out their wallets and pocketbooks. Look for more of this to come.
When the corporate takeover of the government ends. The USPTO is acting in the interest of the technology industry, not the public. Same with the FDA. The FDA sees pharmaceutical companies as clients -- it doesn't even know it's supposed to be a regulatory agency. OSHA is basically asleep. Until public campaigns are financed by public dollars, the situation will only get worse.
I'm sure Borders is raking in all the corporate welfare (tax breaks, write-offs, exemptions, etc.) that California has to offer. State "services" aren't limited to police and fire.
Santorum is not clueless. He knows exactly what he's doing, i.e. favors for corporations in exchange for massive campaign contributions later. It's against the public's will, but that's never stopped him before. The money in politics problem is systemic, and the only real hope for change is full public financing of campaigns so elected officials respond to the public instead of corporate interests.