It comes down to having two mutually exclusive choices:
Do not tax anyone. Consequently, all the resources - wealth - in the society are concentrated on a few hands, and the rest live a miserable life or outright starve, just like it was during the industrial revolution. Since starving people have nothing to lose but their chains, such conditions can and have led to bloody revolutions.
Tax people, therefore taking some of that concentrated wealth back from those who have it and redistribute it to the poor, thus preventing anyone from starving or getting truly desperate but having to put up with whining libertarians who'd rather "let them eat cake".
This is ridiculous.
The actual choice is an infinite rage that goes from "0% tax" all the way to "100% tax". Your first option in a single point at the beginning of this range while your last one covers everything else. The real question is what is a "acceptable" level for the amount of tax. I say acceptable because while may people (such as youself) would have a problem with 0%, I (and probably most of the population) would be violently against 100%. So, the answer must lie somewhere in the middle.
I personally favor lower taxes. The lower the better. Any argument for higher taxes needs to be based on the notion that the money would be well spent. I have no confidence whatsoever that I would be. For instance, the "great society" social programs that so much of the entitlements are based on have been an utter and abject failure. Rather than combating poverty they have institutionalized it. Throwing more money at this system in the name of "helping the poor" isn't going to change anything. Its ironic that "change" is a theme in the current election since I don't see ANY choice that isn't "more of the same".
The later models had a flat metal band (like a band saw) instead of a chain but the ones I liked the best were the drum printers. A spinning drum had all of the characters repeated for each column position and each column had a hammer. A line could be printed in one revolution of the drum. Both quite fast and impressively deafening.
I grew up in a union family in the 60s and 70s so I have an inside perspective. I don't want to be in a union, ever. What you have to understand is what I have come to call the "union mentality". Geekdom is largely a meritocricy. Individuals are recognized/rewarded based on talent. A union is as far from a meritocricy as you can get. The central basis of a union is the notion of the "collective" (e.g. collective barganing, etc). I am absolutely unwilling to give up being able to strike my own employment bargans. I will on stop doing non-union development only when they pull this keyboard out of my cold, dead fingers.
Slashdot Mirror
It comes down to having two mutually exclusive choices:
This is ridiculous.
The actual choice is an infinite rage that goes from "0% tax" all the way to "100% tax". Your first option in a single point at the beginning of this range while your last one covers everything else. The real question is what is a "acceptable" level for the amount of tax. I say acceptable because while may people (such as youself) would have a problem with 0%, I (and probably most of the population) would be violently against 100%. So, the answer must lie somewhere in the middle.
I personally favor lower taxes. The lower the better. Any argument for higher taxes needs to be based on the notion that the money would be well spent. I have no confidence whatsoever that I would be. For instance, the "great society" social programs that so much of the entitlements are based on have been an utter and abject failure. Rather than combating poverty they have institutionalized it. Throwing more money at this system in the name of "helping the poor" isn't going to change anything. Its ironic that "change" is a theme in the current election since I don't see ANY choice that isn't "more of the same".
There are plenty of full time black hats with what amount to PHDs in breaking security.
The later models had a flat metal band (like a band saw) instead of a chain but the ones I liked the best were the drum printers. A spinning drum had all of the characters repeated for each column position and each column had a hammer. A line could be printed in one revolution of the drum. Both quite fast and impressively deafening.
I grew up in a union family in the 60s and 70s so I have an inside perspective. I don't want to be in a union, ever. What you have to understand is what I have come to call the "union mentality". Geekdom is largely a meritocricy. Individuals are recognized/rewarded based on talent. A union is as far from a meritocricy as you can get. The central basis of a union is the notion of the "collective" (e.g. collective barganing, etc). I am absolutely unwilling to give up being able to strike my own employment bargans. I will on stop doing non-union development only when they pull this keyboard out of my cold, dead fingers.