Yes, because comparing homogenous people group, in a small Scandinavian country to the melting pot country with 39 times greater population always works!

or .. Yes, because it is either total socialism or total Anarachy?

Nice Strawman though. Easy to setup, easy to knock down. I've seen the Somalian Strawman quite a bit, it must be popular with Liberals. Why don't you compare China or Cuba as perfect examples of socialism? Oh right, because they don't fit the narrative you're trying to create.

So you're saying the PURPOSE of government is to tax people, especially the rich? Obviously you think taxes can be progressive to the point of punishing rich people for being successful. What you and people like yourself have failed to realize is that rich people are simply able to avoid taxes, and will do so whenever and however they can. This is not evil, or bad, or even wrong at any level.

However, the premise that taxes can ever be progressive is simply wrong. My prime example is the "luxury tax" enacted early in the Clinton years, that taxed, quite heavily, things like boats, airplanes and expensive cars and whatnot. The idea was to extract extra revenue from these "rich" people's toys. What ended up happening, in classic case of Tax Avoidance, was that section of the economy practically ceased to exist and large numbers of "average" americans lost their jobs, AND the revenue actually dropped. The rich simply stopped buying their toys.

This ended up hurting ONLY the middle class workers. The rich were still rich. The government didn't get the revenue they wanted, and it was quickly and quietly reversed.

The fact is, you tax the rich enough, they leave, and you don't get the revenue you wanted, and the people working to service the rich lose their jobs. Regressive. Period.

We have that now. And it isn't just the "rich" it is those in power that we serve. And yet, you think bigger more powerful government will lesson our serfdom. I actually think big powerful government IS the problem, because of the very reason you say is the cause of the problem. It isn't the cause, it is a symptom of the problem, and making a bigger, more powerful government isn't the solution.

Money will always buy power, however, the role of governance is not to tax, as you suggested, the rich, it is to fairly govern power so that all are equal before government. This meas we have to stop group politics and go back to protecting the rights of the citizen(s). Abuse of power is always done in the name of the group.

You miss my point. The more people make, the more they can spend to avoid taxes, which includes moving. You are correct, in that the more people make, they more they can pay in taxes. but that is not how reality actually works. There is a trade off when taxes become so high, in the name of extracting more taxes from those that can pay, that they start spending money on tax avoidance, which leaves the real tax burden on those that are less able to avoid paying taxes.

When Warren Buffet pays less in percentage in taxes than his secretary, this is all the proof you need to realize that taxes, all of them, are regressive. EVEN taxes designed to be progressive.

And you are right about Spending. It should be the GOAL of government to spend less, and we should reward thrift in government. Unfortunately there is no incentive to spend less, only incentive to spend more. And we wonder why government spending is out of control.

Well, go figure, taxes chase people away, and lack of taxes invites people to stay!

The problem being, that should be the policy for all businesses, not just "substantial" ones. The fact that we are looking at incentives to entice people to come, while taxing people already here beyond their ability to pay, is simply stupid. I see advertisements for New York touting "tax free zones" and whatnot, which to me is simply implied admission that tax rates elsewhere and for existing NY businesses are way too high. But rather than realize what should be obvious, they keep taxing people out of the state, so that they can bring in new businesses.

It is stupid if you ask me.

I'm simply amazed that someone who has thought out taxes and such as much as yourself, hasn't realized that Taxes are Regressive. ALL taxes are regressive.

I have no problem with people seeking to lower tax burdens any way they can, it is their duty to be as efficient as they can with their own money. This is the biggest reason why I think Government waste and inefficiencies should be eliminated by going private whenever possible.

My suggestion is this, Tax Breaks for any company doing public works to improve things like highway improvements to a business park, and government streamlining the process and providing all the permits and such, and letting people (sic) like Tesla build the infrastructure they need to build their businesses. In this case, the tax breaks would be in the form of income deductions for the capital improvements to the Highways.

IMHO, taxes are equivalent to punishment. The language used by the "tax the rich" crowd clearly indicates that they know it is a form of punishment. It should be the goal of govenment to lower taxes, whenever possible. When we realize that taxes are a necessary evil, we ALL should be working towards lowering them.

But here is the the thing, the rich will always tend towards tax avoidance, and the burden of taxes will always fall upon the vast middle and lower edges of society. Thus, taxes (all of them) are regressive.

I know the rules for a roundabout. That is not the problem. The problem is that no driver is required to know the rules of the roundabout. It is NOT required. Additionally you have people like my wife who thinks they know the rules, but give wrong instructions ... AND won't believe me when I correct her .. who won't read the rules for herself.

So, you'd spend huge amounts of time, stealing words off a screen, in order to not buy a book, because you're too fucking stupid to spend the same amount of time doing something legitimate work for pay and have change left over for the coffee you consume while stealing said book?

"Whats so hard about a roundabout that Google's famed engineers couldn't program the requirements into the car?"

Nothing. It isn't the roundabout that is likely the issue, it is the other drivers doing stupid shit because they don't know how to handle the roundabout. There is no instructions on roundabout protocols, people are just expected to "know" them. AND they don't and guess wrong all the time. In our city, they are mostly wrong all the time. You can't program a car to do what is right, when everyone else is doing it 100% wrong.

I never said it was dead. And the HVAC systems I've seen still use Serial, which requires a serial to USB dongle. I carry one in my laptop back for just such an odd occasion. Haven't used it in about a year.

#1 Web (box, dropbox, Drive, OneDrive ...)
#2 Printing? What am I printing again? I email documents or links to documents. I rarely print any longer.
#3 Wired Networking standard on my Laptops. My cell phone does Wifi tethering (for iPad other WiFi only devices) . There is also Bluetooth for other things.
#4 Odd Peripherals are connected to my docking station, full of USB. I don't need them typically on the road. Most of the other "odd" peripherals have Bluetooth these days.

Seriously, I use USB daily, but typically only using the plugs as a power source for recharging my devices. Perma-attached items like Mouse/Keyboard etc excepted.

I'm in IT. When I travel I have iPad, Laptop and CellPhone with me. Additionally, I have a Spare battery that can run both my phone and iPad for a few extra hours apiece. I carry all the cables I might need in my bag. I have a TSA approved bag that opens up wide and zips up when done passing through the XRAY.

I still don't need USB Sticks. I have a dozen or two from Six years ago, if you want them.

USB port? Why is that important? I don't carry mice, keyboards or even thumbdrives. USB is the new Floppy. About the ONLY thing I use USB for these days is charging my peripherals. Wireless (Bluetooth, WI-FI) are much more important features to have, and quite honestly, are ubiquitous on devices. Heck properly configured Projector uses Ethernet for displaying, no Display Port dongle needed.

And having used an iPad and Surface, I always go back to my Android tablet, as it just gets everything right. Size is right, keyboard (Swype) is perfect for one handed fast typing. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, optional 4G for connectivity. Plenty of apps. iPad keyboard and the onscreen Surface keyboard is unusable for me after using Swype. And let me know when Surface speech to text is as good as Android, and is as usable across all applications like Android's.

I get a giggle out of Surface commercials when they tout "Photoshop" on a tablet. It is woefully underpowered for running Photoshop for anything more than basic tasks. Because I can tell you, nobody doing Photoshop work professionally, is going to go Surface, and casual users aren't gonna buy Photoshop to run on Surface.

I'd rather have a full Laptop for when I need it, AND an Android Tablet for when I need something bigger than my phone on the go. And for the cost of a fully setup Surface Pro, with all the bits needed to be a "real" computer, is more expensive than a Tablet and better laptop (with touch screen). Midrange Surface Pro 3 (no keyboard) is $999. Lenovo IdeaPad with similar specs is $729.99, A decent Android Tab is 200-250 depending on features. I think Surface is a product that is neither a Tablet (too big) nor a Laptop (too small).

Aspirin is a trademark or Bayer.

As I watch the NFL games this past weekend, I saw plenty of Surface tabs all around the studio as props. Most of them unused and sitting pretty on the desktop, one in front of every commentator, announcer or personality. They were UNUSED. The guys(and gals) were using paper notes, behind the props.

The real issue with Technology, is that unless you USE it to do your job all the time (constantly), as part of doing your job, you don't and won't use it. And surface has a steep learning curve, being Windows 8 and Metro. There is little or no need for using Surface in a Broadcast of a football game. Microsoft would have had better luck striking a deal with Fox and MSNBC news operations, where they might actually get used.