Er who does drug research?

The idea that corporations shy away from long term research is simply absurd, they fund long term/blue sky research all the time.

You have to be resident in Canada (not just a citizen) to be subject to worldwide taxation. The same in true of all other developed nations, they will tax your worldwide income but only if you are resident there normally. Another oddity of US tax law is the repatriation rule whereby US based corporations are subjected to US corporation taxes on income earned elsewhere and already subjected to taxation in that jurisdiction (in effect double taxation), no one else does that either.

You presume there is something automatically unethical about following the law to minimize your tax liability. If HMRC/IRS said you could choose between paying $1000 or $800 in taxes which would you choose to pay? Why do you presume to hold other people to a higher standard?

I live in a state where I don't have to wear a seat belt, have a horn or even working turn signals, those riding motorcycles don't have to wear helmets and those learning to drive don't need a permit. The state road mortality rate is significantly lower than the national average (6th lowest) so your assertion that these rules have an impact on mortality rates is provably false.

People wear seat belts because it's safe to not because the law tells them they have to, over regulation acts as a revenue measure and makes it seem like our political masters are doing something worthwhile when they are treating us like children. I am quite capable of putting on my seatbelt without being told to and the idiot who doesn't deserves precisely what he gets.

Regulations such as this seek to penalize everyone at the expense of a minority who are idiots (it doesn't matter if that expense is $2 or $2000) and surprisingly those who will drive drunk will do so irrespective of what a breathalyzer tells them so the measure will be entirely ineffective anyway.

Its none of your, or anyone else's, business what I have in my car or what I have had to drink unless I am driving dangerously.

There is no federal statute requiring the pat downs, USC simply states that TSA deal with airport security under direction from DHS. As such the supremacy clause does not come in to effect as there is no conflicting federal statute.

NH passed http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB0628.html earlier this year. The current language only allows for citizens to make complaints, the original version made TSA pat downs a felony. I expect it will be updated next year re include that.

I am about as far from a conservative as you can get. The fact you put stock in an absurd concept of all ideas belonging to one of two poles instead of coming to rational decision on the source and quality of data you are presented speaks volumes about who you are. If you are incapable of critical thought and rationality why do you even bother reading?

Charter schools are not self-selecting, they have to accept everyone who applies up to the number of places available, if more people apply then there are places available then they are required to have a lottery to select students for places.

Charter schools are not permitted to charge an entrance or application fee.

To cite one example Harlem Success Academy actually has higher than the average special needs students compared to surrounding public schools. In any case they must accept special needs students to get a charter, again this idea they somehow get to pick and choose students is just FUD organizations like ACORN, AFT and NEA publish.

There is no resolve to fix the system, they have had decades to do something about it and haven't. Asking us to continue sacrificing children to a system that fails them on the hopes that maybe someone will fix it is both repugnant and the opposite is suggested based on the history of attempted reform.

Also on the issue of vouchers and private schools I consider it hugely advantageous to provide a mechanism for highly performing students to have a curriculum and environment that nurtures their abilities instead of one that seeks merely mediocrity. While it might make us feel all warm and fuzzy dedicating more resources to students who are failing is insane, teach everyone up to a base but provide a mechanism for those who can go beyond that base to do so.

Yes, because the evil rich people want the poor workers to work for pennies a day. Wages are set by the market, if you don't like what a job pays then improve your skills to move up. Ultimately it doesn't matter what happens with the tax system, to close the deficit you would need to impose a 100% tax on incomes over $276k and this doesn't even begin to account for the extra $500b we need to find for medicare & social security over the next 8 years. Either the programs will be fixed and tax rates go down for everyone or the tax rates on the wealthy will increase so much that they will be driven out of the country,

You are citing an article from a magazine that celebrates its bias as evidence performance related pay doesn't work? Here let me fix your hypocrisy for you, http://web.missouri.edu/~podgurskym/papers_presentations/reports/Podgursky%20and%20Springer.pdf is a peer reviewed overview of studies in to performance related pay. You know, real evidence instead of a magazine and newspaper.

Next time you decide to attempt to make a point about sources perhaps cite some real sources asshole.

Its based on filers, returns with AGI's lower then $8,500 account for 0.77% of the total so the unemployed, students and those existing only on SS are not significantly distorting to the total.

Yes, then the number moves up to 49%. Total effective rate for the bottom 50% is 1.85% which accounts for income, capital gains and payroll.

There is no number which suggests this, feel free to check the data yourself http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=98123,00.html

On effective rates bottom 50% pay 1.85% from all sources (income taxes, capital gains, payroll) while the top 1% pag 24.01%.

On share of taxes the bottom 50% pay 2.3% of the burden (on an income share of 13.5%) while the top 1% pay 36.7% of the burden (on an income share of 16.9%).

On dollar amounts the bottom 50% contribute $19.5b while the top 1% contribute $318b.

How are they paying proportionally unfairly from any number?

This is false, trickle up is as economically unsound as trickle town. Unless they keep the additional wealth as cash then its invested somewhere, this extra capital is what provides liquidity for corporate and consumer credit. Suggesting it is "wasted" or not as productive is pure ignorance.

The performance related bonuses were related to test scores, the firing would have been up to the principals so problems with bad students would have been part of the consideration. This is no different to what occurs in the real world, if you have a legitimate reason why you can't meet targets then you generally won't be fired for not meeting those targets, if you don't meet those targets because you were slacking or are incompetent then you get fired.

This was tried in DC with Rhee. The teachers were offered a contract which would have seen their starting salary rise from $32k to $72k with performance related bonuses capable of taking it up to $185k (previously the cap was $79k and was based on seniority). In exchange tenure, rubber rooms and seniority pay had to go and there has to be a process for firing underperforming teachers that didn't take a year. They rejected the contract, apparently keeping bad teachers is more important to them then good pay.

Relevant: http://reason.com/assets/db/12639308918768.pdf

While they are still cliquey charters generally don't have a focus on sports like public schools so you don't end up with "untouchable" jocks.