jackson33

bascule; Well if they are found guilty of encrypting to defraud (not yet charged), that would be pretty serious and one point I've tried to make, the charge is Civil, not criminal. Since I can barely keep my little computer from getting infected, it's hard for me to argue what could be done with an entire system, designed to inform. I understand, google accepts a fee from advertisers, to place some clients first on certain 'searches', which is deceptive, but not illegal. Anyway, Beck is advertising his show today has something to do with GS, which might be interesting. 5PM ET on your favorite Cable News channel...

Genecks; The top 300,000 people, assume you mean in the world and with the most wealth (opposed to annual earnings) are also the top investors in anything requiring capital. You wouldn't have to kill anybody, just somehow confiscate, take their wealth and get the same result, total financial chaos around the world, for maybe 50 years, while another group of 300,000 (probably going to be the current 300,000 to 600,000) worked their way up to the top.

iNow; It's somewhat ironic, you bring back this very old thread, a couple days after Glenn Beck had the 'Wall Builders' founder (David Barton) on his program. He certainly can back up his viewpoints. The one thing that worried me about Bush II in 2000, was his mentioning of his "salvation" via the Christian Religion, not so much for what it obviously meant to him, but in running for a National Office, to govern more than Christians. Sarah Palin, has got off on much the same path, knowingly giving birth to a downs syndrome baby, seemingly as testimony, which also bothers me. Then of course, I do believe the Countries Founders were primarily Christian and the Society today remains primarily Christian, which as it did for Bush, could be a positive for her. On this I do think either in 2012 or 2016 (whichever a new President is placed) will either have lady P or VP on the ticket. I'm really looking at Ms. Bachmann, a new face Representative from Minnesota. Ms. Palin, has already made a small fortune and I get the feeling she is not really interested. On your offered link; Aside from coming from a couple obviously partisan individuals, likely atheist (you admittedly agnostic, IMO) is full of arguable opinions. The only real error (not arguable), was the right of States to determine who is qualified for placing on their State Ballot for a Presidential Election. They all have their own rules and none allow just any person to be placed on that ballot.Then if they want proof or verification for birth of a Presidential Candidate, that is a Constitutionally required mandate and no Court would strike down that requirement or could the SCOTUS, claim it unconstitutional, IMO. Also McCain, was eligible....

D H; I've been waiting for a little more to work with on the issue and my point, that what GS has been and being charged with (civil action) was not only in their right, but part of any and all 'at risk' transactions. However to answer your complaint;

The Value Added Tax (VAT) is being highly talked about for the US, to cover current and pending expenses for the Federal Government. To the consumer, it simply would raise (inflate) the price on all goods purchased or the price paid to the distributor of any item, built into the cost, then the Federal, probably the IRS. There is no discussion on it replacing any current Tax, thereby being an additional tax. Of course there is nothing new in this, with a good many Countries already using this program to raise revenues for Social Programs, a couple at 25%*, 12 of which are 20% up to 25%, today. *http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_val_add_tax_sta_rat-value-added-tax-standard-rate A couple thoughts on this; In the US, most every program, from Welfare to SS on to contracted pay raises are based on 'Inflation', which is based on the 'Consumer Price Index' (CPI), which is the average cost of certain goods to the consumer. That is if the inflation rate goes up 4% during a year period, the following years benefit, pay and so on, will be automatically raised at least 4%, in some cases these increases are 'inflation+annual amounts'. It would be my opinion, to raise additional revenues to cover the projected deficits, including programs that are already in progress (not including HC), in the US there would be a need to START with a 20% VAT, to compensate, however some are suggesting 10 to 15%. I don't believe other consequences are being considered (the above), the cost to manage and enforce the program or the actual loss in consumption which anything less than 20% would be progressively meaningless to the increased revenues required. Current public opinion, is certainly opposed to such a tax, but it is being considered and the US Congress would have the authority to enact this program. More important in the US, most our tax obligation to Government, currently goes to State or Local authorities, which would lose revenues, based on consumption or an available base for taxing.

Actually Severian, it's the same in the US with our Congressional House (lower chamber). The reason being, that person elected is intended to represent those in that district (geographical area), not necessarily any other district or in fact necessarily the interest of the Nation. The end result for the decisions of that Chamber then the consensus of the NATION, not any particular district, State or Nationality, the total governs for...Reverse your scenario a bit, and assume that spread out 30% (Lib/Dems) was concentrated, then they would in deed vote in near 30% of the seats. Skeptic, as mentioned in the UK's case, it's not really a wasted vote. Some districts will elect Lib/Dems or potentially in the US 'Independent' Candidates', can by choice "caucus" (work with), with any party they choose. In the US, feel sure by demographics in the UK, they have many districts with the different demographics (age, race, religions, interest etc.) which are then REPRESENTED, which is democracy for themselves. If anything is unfair in the UK System from what I understand, are in the choosing of Candidates, which tend to follow personal heritage, status, maybe even the sense of entitlement, which if correct would be a cultural thing, not necessarily a procedural problem. My opinion...

iNow post 29, this thread;

That's exactly what the Republicans were accused of planning in our 2008 elections, cutting NASA and Science projects, then exactly what has happened with the Democratic Majority in Congress. It's was not or is now, exactly unpredictable, since growth in both the UK and US economies are going to be slow, additional revenues limited, borrowing power exhausted and social programs will be THE priority. I do know enough of your taxing process to understand, your not going to be able to handle much more, yet maintain economically viability. Anyway this AP Article hit this morning, may be of interest for anyone following your elections;

On Limbaugh "Savings", for charitable contributions; I haven't the slightest idea, what his personal or his 'BUSINESS', tax structure might look like. I will guess, he files both under the Itemized personal tax system and the Corporate System and both are well into the maximum brackets, approximately 35% net profit or net taxable income. In any event, allowed deductible for charity, as gifts or to whom and how are very complicated and NEVER 100% of the donation. On the "letter"; There was no value, for the item and that value set with the 2.1M$ price received by the Limbaugh Show, received then as income for sale of an asset, 100% net since it had no pre-set value. If you pay 1K$ for an item, turn around selling it for 2K$, you then have a 1K$, net gain and taxable under "gained income". The Business then probably paid 35% on the income, deducting nothing for the cost of that item. Limbaugh, normally pay's any sales tax or incidental cost involved, when he gives away an object, which would also be deductible, under Company expense. The show PROBABLY, also footed the 2.1M$ additional donation, which would be simple charity, but I don't know what portion 'Corporate Tax' allows for charity. Normally, folks with great wealth, have there own "Charitable Trust". They are highly regulated and must redistribute anything placed in that Trust, at some point 5% per year of the value January 1st of the taxable year. They can be set up with items, stocks, bonds cash or any saleable asset. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/tax13.htm Skeptic; I had this written for another thread, decided it was too complicated for me to argue, but will post on this thread, as informational, from my understanding.....

Here might be another place to get a good understanding. I've followed (off-on) UK politics since the days of Ms. Thatcher and am an admirer or Tony Blair, whom I can assume you are not.