The high rates in the US were after the wars (50s-70s). Cold war, perhaps.

And sure, mobility and communication was far more difficult then. Many things have changed besides just the taxes. I'm just saying that if someone says "X causes Y" and the quick evidence says "the relationship, without adjustments, looks kinda like the opposite" then you need something stronger than faith and religious fervor to make your case. Thus, "citation needed".

So say what you mean. When someone says one thing but then says "no, actually I mean this rather different thing" we accuse them of "spin" if they are a politician and "lying" if they are anyone else.

Also, how would the new IRS differ? What policies of the current IRS do you think should be changed? Because it seems to me that as long as someone has to enforce tax collection, they have to look much like the current IRS.

Citation needed. I hear this a lot but never seem to hear any evidence of it.

The US used to have a maximum tax rate of over 90%, but fewer millionaires left the country than now when the tax rates are historically very low.

I'm rather happy that those who make more (including me, though I'm nowhere near rich) pay a higher percentage than those who make less. Another percent tax on me will not change much, though I may go out to eat less or have fewer options on my new motorcycle. Another percent on people living near me will mean that they will have trouble eating or paying for healthcare or heating.

Not to worry. I don't own anything; my house and cars are owned by KqsCo and leased to me for a nominal fee. And since they are business expenses for the company...

If you assume that there is any plan which cannot be gamed, you don't have enough imagination.

I'm fine with a combination of income, sales, business and property taxes. You may be able to avoid one of them, but avoiding all of them at the same time may be more expensive than paying the damn taxes.

My religion says that anyone who enters my business is subject to sharia law. I should move to Indiana now!

As far as I know, you can put whatever sign you want in your window, but you generally cannot refuse service if the only reason is that someone is in a protected class. So you can refuse service to anyone if they are drunk, barefoot, tall, or wearing white after labor day, etc, but not because they are muslim, african-american, or female. LGTB folks are not a protected class in Indiana, so this bill gives you a defense if you discriminate against them for any reason whatsoever.

Well, that, and they'd kinda like to not be fired from their job because they are gay, beaten (sometimes to death) because they are gay, not be able to adopt because they are gay, be able to inherit from their life partner and be able to make and-of-life decisions for their life partner, etc, etc, etc. But sure. feeling normal is way more important than all that.

I'd prefer if a requirement for using this law as a defense were putting a sign on your store and your website and advertising materials saying "No Gays Allowed", just so that I'd know what bigoted businesses to avoid at all costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... , though in that case the email was hosted by the Republican National Committee.

I'm generally a Clinton supporter, and I'm really unhappy with the email thing. But it is the same as has been done before and will be done again.

Not to worry though, I'm sure that we'll have EVEN MORE investigations into this than we had into Benghazi, with the exact same results.

In history, the Spartans were the despotic enemies of democracy who constantly tried to defeat Athens. They could have stopped the Persians at the sea crossing, but delayed because they had a religious festival and finally sent a tiny troop to Thermopylae (too little too late). Those troops did acquit themselves well, but Greece would have been overrun if the Athenians hadn't brought up their army and crushed the Persians.

So yeah, an appropriate name for Microsoft (and for people who know movies but not history).

Well, the 90% figure is based on 90% more facts than homeopathy. Or astrology, for that matter.

This depends on the doctor. My doctor is very good at explaining things and going through the details and side effects of treatments, which greatly improves my mental status. I know some doctors don't do that though, which is a problem. And some people need more help from their provider than others.

Also, many people have mental issues which are not tied with their physical symptoms, and those people are poorly treated both by the US health care system (which treats mental issues as second class) and by the US culture (which treats mental issues as "your fault").

Note that the ACA is a major step forward here; now, all health plans have to cover mental illnesses and rehabilitative services.

Huh. In the US, the conservative party IS the silly party.

The Republican primaries?

I disagree. As far as I can tell, left-leaning people hate terrorism. The difference is that some people believe that "most current terrorists are Muslim" means the same thing as "most current Muslims are terrorists", and some see that those statements are different.

I hate terrorism. I'm not fond of Islam, but then I'm not fond of Christianity either. Both want to control how I live and who I can marry. But I don't blame Islam for terrorism; I blame terrorists for terrorism. Which do you blame?

Note that I blame Christian bigots for the (now being dismantled) anti-gay movement, but I don't blame Christianity or all Christians for it; I blame bigots. And if people thought that they could still get away with KKK-style lynchings in the US, I suspect that we would see more Christian terrorism. Fortunately, the governments which turned a blind eye to that practice in the 1900s have gotten better. I hope that the governments in the middle east will also improve over time.