You are kitchen sinking and mixing taxes.

The discussion on Federal Income tax (federal tax burden in my OP) is not based on wealth but on income.
State taxes tend to be less progressive, even here in California.

AS for the calculation, you are not taking into account benefits such as SSI, Food Stamps, etc, that the poor receive as part of the redistribution of taxes.

You are taxed on income, not wealth.

Just because you don't get into a war of words with people who buy ink by the barrel, not because reporters are special.

It is a little more grey than you think:
"If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place. "

Methinks an officer would object on principle... he does not want to be recorded.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...

and this is very interesting read too:

http://www.videomaker.com/arti...

and this:
http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-...

Although a credentialed reporter is going to get more leeway than an average citizen.

When the DEC Alpha was killed, many of the engineers were picked up by AMD.

so many programmers think that programming is a cool and important job that requires a ton of skill and talent and dedication.

That remains true.

and then they learn at around 40 that is all a load of old bollocks, hence the reason companies have outsourced much of it to 3rd world places.

Who are mostly neither talented nor dedicated and produce crap...

so to keep being employed in IT, you need to change with it,

No, you need to leave IT and be hired back at a far higher rate to fix the mess caused by people who think they are programmers but are neither talented or dedicated.

No worse hell that managing an offshoring project and watching future failure being built into the system. I will not do it and neither should anyone.

I want it made clear, as some jurisdictions, such as California, consider it wiretapping if you record voice without the other person's consent, even in public.

It is already the case, it is called Spoliation of Evidence.

IRS found that out when they "lost" the emails ordered turned over. They discovered that a prosecutor did not even have to prove it was intentional, it is presumed to be intentional if it happens after the request is made.

Suddenly, those emails are just rilly rilly hard to find, not lost.

It is, as the IRS is finding out about missing emails.

Too fucking bad police.

If you want us to give up our rights so you can protect the greater society at large... you will do what we fucking want you to do.

Or are the wrong person for the job, go do something else.

Disabling the camera would be Spoliation of Evidence, and is a crime in most places.

That is an odd argument. If you suppress a state right, you oppress all the citizens of that state.

Well, we have been so successful at lowering taxes half the population pays only 2.5% of the tax burden. Not per person, the whole group.
You can't reduce the federal tax burden effectively unless someone makes 66K or more. The top 10% pays 70% of the bill.

So all tax reduction bills tend to benefit the "rich" by definition.

You must be joking. Google 55mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act was a bill in the U.S. Congress that enacted the National Maximum Speed Law.[10] States had to agree to the limit if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair. The uniform speed limit was signed into law by President Nixon on January 2, 1974, and became effective 60 days later,[11] by requiring the limit as a condition of each state receiving highway funds, a use of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.[12]

The term is "Spoliation of Evidence" and is criminal in many jurisdictions.

As a Republican, I 100% agree with the idea and want it to happen.

I also want codified in that same law that all citizens are able to video officers for any reason at any time if they can do so from pubic property or private property they are allowed to do so, and are not physically hampering what is going on.

Any attempt to keep the public from recording or interfering with that recording is de facto proof of violating the civil rights of the photographer and the person that the officers are engaging.