Summations Only

That would leave two questions up to him --- whether we are dogpiling, and whether he deserves to be an object of your pity.

Having read your posts over, you seem to be employing a new sort of fallacy which there isn't yet a name for.You seem to believe:(1) That the tax system should be less progressive.
(2) That the total amount of GDP paid to the government should be smaller.Now, it is fair enough that you should believe both these things. But you also seem to believe that they are connected. When I argue for progressive taxation you come back at me by arguing for small government. But the only connection between flat-rate taxation and small government is that right-wingers like them both. In principle we could have a really small government which was funded exclusively by millionaires. Indeed, that stipulation would help to keep government small.

What do the Greeks have to do with it? Millions and billions were invented by the French. That the Greeks later went on to get it wrong as well is besides the point.To avoid wasting two posts on a topic derail: I was born after the government switched to using the shorter system, and I was still brought up with the older way*. And David Attenbrough always uses the old system, which is a stamp of approval I'm happy with.And it's all well and good going by the English-language consensus if you only speak to English people. It's confusing as all fuck if you live on the continent and have to switch back and forth.*(ABE) Although, to be fair, I think this was only because it was drilled into me by my union-rep father on the erroneous belief that it was Maggie who made the switch in the first place.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Why don't we all just use scientific notation?Yunno...10^9, 10^6, 10^12 - that sort of thing.And the beauty of it is we are using scientific notation, which does not have a cultural bias.

Lets say your barley making ends meat 50000 simolens a year and your expenditures are the same paying 10% takes away 5000 simolens thats quite a lot for someone that does not have a lot to begin with its probably digging in to your food money, but if you are making 5 000 000 simolens a year you will hardly be any poorer if you give 1 000 000 up youl have enough to eat enough for a fine house enough for everything you need.

Well, the Teabaggers have come up with a well-thought out response. They're going to destroy capitalism. One business at a time. Specifically, their own businesses.

Capitalism is not about hiring workers, perse. It's about making a profit. The link itemizes the reasons that it would not be profitable for small businesses to hire in a progressive socialistic economy.

No.

I gotta admit, that link is absolutely the funniest thing I've read in a long, long time.I wonder if the author has ever had a job in the first place.

The link actually does not list even a single reason why it would not be profitable for small businesses to hire in an economy that doesn't exist; it itemizes only reasons that it's important for Tea Party fanatics to sabotage the economy until a Republican takes office.In other words, it's another Tea Party shakedown. "Awful nice country you got here; shame if something were to... happen to it."

Seems to me they're doing something like this...

Ok I concede the point it makes more sense to take the money from those who have money to use on frivalous expendentatures than to take it from those who need it for their necessities. I believe that this satement,

quote:

---

You wish to suggest that some government spending is useless --- but the more that this is the case, the greater the moral case for taking it from the rich rather than the poor.
  —Dr. A

---

makes the most sense to me. However that doesn't change my mind any that the government is a bunch of incompetent boobs. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

Thank you for saying so. I think that every association of human beings is a bunch of incompetent boobs. It's just that we don't have any other options, like hiring Martians.Nonetheless, there is something to be said for the government. People like to run it down, but I notice that those people (let's call them conservatives for the sake of convenience) still turn to the government when they actually want something done. When, for example, they wanted to invade Iraq, they didn't put their hands in their own pockets to hire an army of private mercenaries. They put the government's hands in taxpayers' pockets to pay for that most federal of institutions, the U.S. Army, to do the job that they wanted doing.So by and large I find their rhetoric inconsistent. When they want something doing, and want it done well, they do in fact want it to be done by the government and funded by the taxpayer. When I hear any conservative advocating the abolition of the Army, I shall start to think that he is sincere.But what happens instead is that if I suggest in the mildest tones that maybe we could try to fight against disease the same way we fought against Saddam Hussein and his imaginary WMDs, then the conservative will denounce me as an un-American Marxist. But my solution to disease is exactly the same as his solution to the imaginary WMDs --- I say, let the government do it. The only difference is that I want to tackle a real problem that actually kills Americans rather than an imaginary problem that someone made up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sorry but I have worked maintaing to much infrastructure built by the Army Corp of Engineers to say that it will be done well. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

But could we not admit that nothing is done particularly well?"There is no straight thing made out of the crooked timber of humanity."Let's admit our shared cynicism about the capacity of human beings to be competent. But that doesn't get us anywhere --- it doesn't allow us to decide between anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-syndicalism or comunism or fascism or social democracy or direct democracy or representative democracy or anything else. Because once we've admitted the problem, we still do not have the option of putting our society in the hands of hyper-intelligent Martians. Alas. Everything we do will in fact be decided by fallible human beings, one way or the other.Now, if you had actual data suggesting that mercenaries paid by private investors would be better at war than the U.S. Army paid for by taxpayers ... then this would be a great time for you to present that data.But no-one believes that. The people who shout about how government is ineffecient and how they want free markets and low taxes and small government still wanted Iraq to be invaded by a government agency controlled by the government and paid for through taxes levied by the government. Perhaps you're an exception, but 99% of them don't even believe what they're saying.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.