That's not enough taxes. The government spends 13.68% of all income across the country on welfare alone.

As well, this tax excises taxes from the poor and shifts them solely on the rich. Taxing the rich as a cash cow isn't a good proposal, although a progressive tax system has many merits (the largest of which being that high taxes on the poor drive up wages, which acts as an avoidable tax on the rich by way of reducing human resources--eliminating jobs--through process management).

I have a better system already anyway, one with many features beyond "eliminate income inequality." My target was to eliminate poverty and increase economic stability, and I have succeeded in that and more. Now I just need an implementation plan, and a wielding of power to have it pushed into public policy.

You mean from the last 12 years. Come on now, we know this started post-Pentium 4.

It was, at the time, largely speculated to be a marketing ploy to make MACs seem more like friendly PCs than as some weird PowerPC chipset that you play with in primary school. I speculate that virtualization has something to do with it, as it's easier and was more familiar at the time than JIT translation CPU-to-CPU (as LLVM does), and was interesting to the common man to run Windows upon a Mac.

These are RISC cores--occasionally ARM or a modified architecture--running an x86 or x86-64 translation layer as the decode cycle, such that the x86 instructions are cached as RISC instructions. ARM virtualizing x86 would be amusingly fast, too--faster than x86 running x86.

It's only ambiguous in the context of a global political system, and only because the stance that a Liberal Democrat may take in America may be the Conservative stance in some small European country, while the Conservative Republican stance may be the Liberal stance in some South American country.

Consider the socially conservative stance of retaining Catholic religion in society, in the good process of government, in schools, in laws; in ancient Rome, those who pushed for change from Romanism to Catholicism were the liberals. and so would those be in Pakistan or India who seek to throw out Islam!

Liberals seek change, and seek it quickly; Conservatives seek stability, and only implement change in a slow procession. This is how you classify them, same as classifying a Male animal versus a Female animal: although birds have XX males and XY females (called ZZ and ZW), the XX Male is known male when XX Female is a Female in mammals because the Male produces the sperm and the Female the ovum. A political system may seem inverted because the ideals of the Liberals and Conservatives are reversed; yet the political atmosphere may also be inverted, such that conservative policies hold true to the current state of things, whereas the liberal policies seek major change, and where these relations are inverse in the opposite system's establishment.

The term "Liberalism" has a good fifteen different definitions in the study of politics; in the study of political science, it is much more clear. I find simpler frameworks easier on the mind.

You make a terrible assumption: that energy is not scarce.

You cannot measure the energy available by any fuel source. It cannot be done. You can measure its caloric output, its thermodynamic potential, you can measure and calculate and predict all these scientific things; but you cannot measure its availability.

Humans, given infinite energy, will use a lot more energy than of current fashion. We manufacture molybdenum and cesium by fusion now, at great expense of energy; with unlimited energy--or with such ridiculous quantity such as from a dyson sphere, which should provide 13,000 TRILLION times our current energy usage after considering all losses in solar parabolic collection and transmission--we could doubtless fiss any matter by brute force, and then produce nuclear fusion on manufacturing scale to produce any element required in any quantity, at any expedience, for trivial cost.

Imagine a ten-fold or even a hundred-fold increase in consumable energy. I can provide you a thousand-fold increase in energy use, and by that scale you will have only a tenth or a hundredth of the available energy as you do now, and soon find your oceans dried and lifeless.

We deforested the earth because of an endless supply of trees. Oil, similarly, was this thing that you found and it never stopped coming out of the ground; the reserves were estimated so large at one point as to rival the earth's oceans. I've had people as well tell me there is so much water, and so much of anything else we can fuse, that we will never run out if we run the fusion reaction at full force in earnest to supply endless and infinite power for all time.

And in the scholarly pursuit of Political Science, "Liberals" are those who wish to move rapidly through new policies, and who spend money and go into debt sharply to do so (fiscal liberals); while "Conservatives" are those whose policies are slow and metered, and whose finances are concerned with fiscal sustainability.

I don't care that you want to define "Conservative" as synonymous with "Christian Republican" and "Liberal" as synonymous with "Atheist Democrat"; these are religions and party affiliations, not political stances and behaviors. It would be the same as defining any red car as a "Race Car" and any black car as a "Town Car".

It is this belief which is fundamental to conservative politics. What I said about not leaping if there is a ladder holds true in two ways: a set of metered steps, even deployed rapidly and sequentially, is better than one giant leap; but, at times, a policy is impossible or even catastrophic without at least a central upheaval, and so one should reason determinedly about the policy and the plan before accepting the need for such an undertaking. Such undertakings may be occasionally necessary, but they should be taken only when so, and only once having considered the dangers and the planning to contain them.

It's the look of a person who believes appearance and flamboyance wins friends, because he read it in some self-help book or he's just that stuck on himself. It's the way people who think they're so great that they can set trends or simply stand apart and make themselves a unique image, and people will praise them over it.

You can see it right there: he claims he's worked with many people, his service is great, and that he's doing his client a great favor by being such a great guy giving them a refund when his company doesn't actually do that, yet simply ignores all other complains about other costs incurred by his company's mismanagement and failure to keep promises and meet contractual obligations. "I'm so fucking great though! Don't you see how great I am?!"

The $2300/mo number was probably one guy somewhere whose BitCoin ATM provided a big spike of output when it first showed up due to novelty and a temporary crowd come to ooh and ahh over the spectacle. I'd bet money that's not typical.

This is the kind of guy who would rape a college girl and then tell her she should quit bitching about it because he's got such awesome muscles and a big dick and is rich and totally awesome and she should feel awed by his awesome schlange.

Well, yeah, okay. That works.

Look at that Jordan guy. Just look at him. Are you fucking kidding me? With a haircut like that, you know he's a vacuous retard.

No, it doesn't work that way. Taxes are aggregate. I used to file my own taxes for my business.

That you bought and re-sold a license for $100 doesn't matter; that you sold a license for $100 profit, but bought furniture for the office and it depreciated by $100, will get you a net $0 profit.

Yes, and this will be a conservative vs. radical argument as always, with conservatives who want to take it in small increments, and radicals who want to slash it all and implement a 9-9-9 plan. Of course we have very few conservatives in our countries; in truth, we have radical liberals who want to slash welfare and corporate taxes haphazardly, and other radical liberals who want to raise taxes and boost welfare haphazardly.

Today, radical liberals have the public ear: the Democrats are in favor now, but the Republican opposition holds a large clout of power, and third-parties who gain the most attention are largely those wishing for immediate, sweeping upheavals of law to create a fantastic new nation. In all of these are fad policies falling under different ideals, but all holding the same liberal drive of making changes, now, immediately, to a direct end goal which we wish to see tomorrow in full.

This is not the way of the conservative. The way of the conservative is to look before you leap--and to not leap at all if there is a ladder. We need in our political system a new generation of great conservatives whose aims are focused on correcting the deficiencies of our system, and whose methods are taken in close but metered steps so as to implement changes in a timely manner. Each year, we should carefully examine our system of laws, of taxes, of entitlements, so that we might detangle some small part of it and pass new law to excise that small complexity for something simpler, less costly, and more effective. Year after year, the effects of these changes should add up, so that in a decade our system is much better and more cleanly operating, so that the poor are less impoverished, so that our laws are less draconian, so that our social services are better and our taxes are lower because they are applied more efficiently.

Instead, year after year, we bicker and rage, we demand immense and startling action, we propose whole systems not as plan but as policy. We propose an end result as a bill to pass, rather than as the final result of a few short years of a senator's term passing smaller measures and adjusting each in accordance with the results of the former, until he has at last with the whole of Congress implemented the whole of their great plan by small degrees. Accordingly, we see the risks are high in passing a sweeping measure as whole, rather than by parts; and the political opponents of those senators rage to the public on those risks, and frighten the public into moving power one way or the other, and by this oscillation prevent any real work from coming about.

There will come an age when America either collapses or finds itself tired of running radicals against radicals, with the alternative of up-and-coming radicals.

You now know why some of us become independent consultants instead of full-time workers. Company vehicle (tax deduction), company meal plan (tax deduction), employee housing as a benefit (tax deduction), write off 90% of your income and pay 10% taxes on the last 10%. Pay 1% taxes.

I think that's how it works, and the companies just move their HQ to somewhere with lower income tax to save money on the second round of taxation.