ydoaPs

Sweet. Thanks for the awesome citation method, dood. Um, no. Not even close. In fact, they said the opposite. Perhaps you should learn to read your own statistics before you make stuff up. No, you didn't. You said that they made no distinction. What is their definition of "poor"? Is it the people below actual poverty line to which I linked, or is it some other number. Your actual source made no such explication. If they are not the same, then you are equivocating as well as lying with statistics. I already did. You know that long post you nearly completely brushed off. Full of math and numbers and showing that your statistics are irrelevant at best and go directly against what you said at worst....you know, that one?

So, YOUR source was not the Census Bureau. Thanks for confirming what I said. You used a secondhand source. Then again, I like your style. I'm gonna start quoting wikipedia and claiming its sources are my own. That greatly depends on how you define 'refute'. Did I show that they were irrelevant, out of context, and actually went against what you said? Yes. Did I show that you were blatantly wrong? Yes. Did I show that the cited numbers were incorrect? No. You were completely unable to show that the average person below the poverty had either a flat screen or two cars, let alone both. The Census Bureau doesn't define what they mean by poor? o.O I doubt they randomly select a portion of the population and declared them poor. To what you were saying, it makes a world of difference. You were claiming that the poor weren't really poor, but had a great standard of living. But if quality doesn't make a difference, I'll trade you my car for yours. You can have your straw man back, thank you. I already did. Your "facts" are devoid of anything of the sort. The numbers you provided proved you wrong. And for many people, transportation is required to get food or employment. And I'm gonna call you dishonest. Thanks. How don't we? We have tax records and we have ballpark numbers for basic needs. The Census Bureau isn't the one dishonestly trying to imply a high standard of living using statistics that are completely out of context. That's you; you're the one lying with statistics. So, they're disproportionately burdened. I didn't even take into account state taxes or healthcare, let alone the gas and insurance for the two cars you say each of them has. That means they have no safety net at all. Even without any extraneous goods and living in horrible conditions, they're still completely and utterly screwed if they have get hurt and have to go to the hospital. Do you know the average cost of an ambulance ride and a few stitches? You said it's the worst model ever. So, presumably, you'd rather pay the direct cost.

Have fun paying the actual price for the government goods. Yay for all roads being toll roads!

Tax withheld=(Income-cost of basic needs)(flat tax rate) I thought that was quite clear, but I'm often wrong about what I think is clear. I thought it was payment for goods and services provided by the government.

I wasn't talking about a traditional flat tax. I was talking about a flat tax on surplus alone. It was invented by the devil. And it's socialism and communism and stalinism and nazism.

The math I just did shows that the middle class benefits almost as much as those at the poverty line. Or am I missing something? A progressive system is an evil socialist communist stalinist plot hatched by Satan himself.....or something like that.

! Moderator Note Consolidated these from the Spending cuts and flat tax threads How about we cut the crap, Pangloss? Your source was not the Census Bureau. Your source was an ideologically biased site for an organization whose stated purpose is This is a secondhand source which fails to make the distinction between poor and below the poverty line. Does the census bureau define poor as below average or does it define poor as below the poverty line? Your source does not say and it doesn't give a link to the actual report so you can quickly find out yourself. Now, let's take a look at your pretty little list there. Does the average person below the poverty line own two cars? Let's look at the numbers you gave. Even if(and that's a big if) 'poor' here does mean a person below the poverty line, you're incorrect. Only 31% have two cars. Almost 3/4 of the 'poor' have any car at all. What is the average condition of the car; is it a brand new Lexus, or is it a '84 Ford POS whose doors must be tied shut with string and whose engine barely makes it through the ride between multiple minimum wage part time jobs? That means over a quarter of those below the poverty line(and presumably more if the 'poor' here is in fact not defined by the Census Bureau to be those below the poverty line) don't even have the '84 Ford POS that's about to die. How many regions of low income housing are both within walking distance of available employment and a store(think walking home from the store in the middle of summer hoping your milk doesn't go bad). How many of these people are driving without car insurance? The majority of the 'poor' have a colour television. Ok, is it a brand new flatscreen like you said, or is it an ancient hand-me-down? Maybe it was a christmas gift for the person when they were in high school and lived in an upper middle class family and they just happen to still have it now that they're on their own below the poverty line. Maybe it was bought before mommy and daddy got laid off. Maybe daddy used up his whole tax check to get an old TV so Suzie can watch cartoons and have a sense of normalcy. The statistics lack vital context. Perhaps that number about the VCR can give us a bit more info on the state of technology of these televisions. As for the DVD players, I bought a DVD player 5 years ago at Walmart for less than $15(and I still have it). We aren't still living in the days where DVD players cost hundreds of dollars. If they already have the television, is it too much for daddy to spend less than $15(probably less than $10 by now) on a DVD player for the family for Christmas? The average dietary consumption of 'poor' children is on par with that of the middle class ones? You know, that'd make sense if they eat half their meals at school and public schools all have essentially the same food. The last two(air conditioning and average footage) don't really say much at all about poverty; it's more about the state of the modern American housing market. The vast majority of houses in the US have air conditioning and happen to be larger than most European houses. That means if anyone(poor or not) lives somewhere in the US, they more than likely live in a place with air conditioning and square footage more representative of America than Europe. Or should the poor specifically seek out cramped housing with no air conditioning as punishment for not being rich? You know what, most 'poor' also eat on a significantly raised surface like normal Americans rather than at floor level like the traditional Japanese; HOW DARE THEY! The numbers you presented lack all vital context of origin and condition, many of them are completely irrelevant as they aren't really indicative of poverty, and some of them even go so far as to prove the point opposite of what you want to make. So, not only are you (and your admittedly biased source) lying with statistics, you're doing so poorly. I'll be sure to tell the TEA Party to shut up because Pangloss says the poor aren't really poor. Now, how does any of this impact what I said about flat taxes disproportionately burdening the poor? Oh, wait, it doesn't. Let's look at some numbers(we'll analyze for a couple at the poverty line): I(Income at Poverty Line for households of two people): 1,214.17/month US Federal Payroll Tax: 15.3% Rent for a dilapidated unsafe efficiency from a slumlord: $350/month Grocery for a weeks worth of meals and leftovers: $35 Water: $40/month Lights: $40/month Federal taxes withheld(poverty line times tax rate): $185.77 Income after taxes: $1028.40 Income after taxes and vital expenses above: $458.40 Note the absence of any state tax, health insurance, or That's a 37% cushion from a normal flat tax. Now, let's look at a couple with someone making $40,000/yr with the same basic needs. Income: $3333.33/month Withheld: $510 After taxes: $2823.33 After expenses: $2253.33 Cushion: 68% That's a 31% difference in cushion between the poverty line and the middle class(not to mention the difference between the poverty line and the rich). Keep in mind that many of the 'poor' are under rather that at the poverty line. How does a normal flat tax not disproportionately burden the poor? Now, let's look at a modified flat tax for the same two cases. This raises the cushion of the poverty line case to 45% and the middle class cushion to 70% which is only a difference of 25%. Everyone is taxed less, but the effect diminishes as income increases; that means everyone's surplus is taxed the same, but it results in help for those who need it. The obscenely rich aren't really affected by the change at all, but they don't need any extra help; the upper class are helped a little; the middle class more; and those below the poverty line most. If the poor are so well off as you imply, what's the big deal? It's effectively a tax cut for the vast majority of the population.

I know many such people who have none of those things. Where's your evidence that the average person below the poverty line has a flat screen TV and two cars?

We've known for ages that Darwinism is false. Modern Synthesis is what we deal with now.

So, he fails at Philosophy of Language; what's your point? The mathematics is how we know "what is happening in nature". Mathematics is the proper language with which to gain this information in that it is more specific and can be more easily compared to nature. Disregarding the mathematical explanation as being devoid of ontology is akin to claiming Ontology of Time is devoid of ontology because it is written in Russian. Mathematics does a far better job of giving us ontological truth in this case than does English. Through mathematics, we see that time acts exactly as distance does. In fact, they are so similar, we can extremely precisely treat them as one entity. Where do you think the Raisin Bread model came from?

Religion is more funnerer to talk about, so no one will talk about aborting bunny fetuses unless we are to sacrifice them to Cap'n Refsmmat.

What a mighty fine hyperlink you have there. Mind tellin us more about it?

We might need to cover what these basic needs are. I think that the obvious ones are average rent for minimally sufficient(sufficient based on number and age of children) housing in the area, the cost of public school(based on number and age of children) including the cost of school lunches, heat, enough power to cover lights in the evening for a minimally sufficient house(assumes the existence of windows add half the same amount for daytime lights given a large enough family), and the cost of enough inexpensive food for the household. These would, imo, be the bulk of the pre-tax deductions. I do think that the cost of health insurance(if the people have it) should be in there as well, but some people don't think healthcare is a basic need. After these deductions are taken from the income, the remaining income is taxed. So, anyone beside Mr Skeptic and the Johns want to weigh on whether or not this type of plan for a flat tax that does not make the rich richer and the poor poorer would work? Since basic needs take up a considerable portion of the income of a considerable portion of the population, would we not be able to increase the total tax percent and still have the effect of tax cuts for the majority of the people? MrSkeptic's version has a sort of built-in welfare system explicated whereas mine does not.

But that's redistribution of wealth, you commie socialist fascist anti-American traitor! I like a system like this, because they can't claim redistribution of wealth or whatever. Everyone is taxed the same; it's just that the only thing that is taxed is the surplus.

Could you elaborate?

The problem with a flat tax is that it disproportionately burdens the poor due to the fact that the cost of basic needs does not go up with your income. Could an overhaul of the tax system fix that? What if by filing your taxes, you not only provide information for correcting last year's taxes, but also provide information to inform the next year's taxes? Could gathering information like city of residence and number of children then using that information to calculate the actual needs of the household reduce the burden on the poor while maintaining a flat tax. If we take that amount of basic needed to live and make it non-taxable income then tax the rest, would that allow us to have a higher flat tax percentage with the majority of the people actually paying less in taxes? Obviously data gathered by filing taxes would be used for corrections(like having a baby, paying for a funeral, moving, etc).

This looks like some variation of Skitt's Law.

Let's say there are 5 unique objects. The first slot in the order can be any of the five. Now, we've eliminated a possible object for the second slot(the second object cannot be the first object). This means that there are only four possible object for the second slot after we have chosen a first. Choosing the second slot similarly limits the number of objects for the third slot and so on until you arrive at only one possible object for the last slot. So, if X is the number of all possible orders of the five unique objects, then X=5x4x3x2x1=120.

Why'd you turn off the lights in the video?

A fiddle of gold against your soul says I'm better than you.

You've convinced me. I'm gonna go sign that petition now.

How do you know the universe's net energy is greater than zero?

The old forum software did it. I don't know if it's an incompatibility issue, or if they just didn't think about it after the switch.

This looks pretty epic. It also has free 3G. It would be amazing if it had color e-ink and a Kindle app. I think this might be the start of the next generation of tablet tech. Imagine a non-backlit iPad that will flex instead of crunch, but has the full power of a laptop.