You must be thick. The point of a 20% flat tax is that there is no way to do that. Income coming in to an entity is taxed at 20%. Doesn't matter if its a foreign entity (as long as the transaction involves an american) or shell corp or whatever, if it passed through your hands its taxed at 20%. In fact, using shell corps and foreign entities would become a bad thing as you would risk double taxation then. So routing all of your income directly to bank account would become the most tax efficient tactic. But it will never happen as tax attorneys, accountants, politicians and CEOs would all band together to stop it.

In total amount of taxes paid yes, as a percentage of income, hell no. On average, the rich pay only 1/3-1/4 of their share of taxes (12-15%) as the "average american" (33.5-36%) as a percentage basis. And since the rich are receiving ~90% of the income in the US, they should be paying ~90% of the taxes. See how that works? But they are not even close to that. When you come in to suggest that since they pay 51% (or whatever) of the taxes that's OK, even though they make 90% of the "income". How that even seems fair in your brain is beyond me. If you are rich, you are just a greedy person but I can understand your motivations. If you are not rich, you are truly a fool so please turn in your voter card.

Seems like this is exactly the type of polarizing click bait that the Internet specializes in. Its the cockfighting of debate.

A guess

And another guess. Guess what, neither of you have any idea as to the actual number. So quit making decisions based upon non-facts, look up the actual number. You have an internet and are currently using it for something, but clearly in aid of making factual points. Based upon your experience of SF fans/writers, what do you think the actual number is? Al Al, most of the people who read your post will have an opinion on what that number actually is. And the guesses you post go against their life experience. This is why you won't get any traction for your ideas here as you are asking people to take what you say at face value against their life experience. If you are going to do that, you will have to provide better proof than a guess you pulled from what your underwear covers.

Thanks for proving the GPs point for her. That wooshing sound over your was logic leaving the room you are in.

Ah, so its just like the cloud then.

If that was really the case then people who were given morphine drips in hospitals would have high rates of addiction after leaving the hospital. But this doesn't happen. People who get addicted to Opioids either are in constant, on-going pain (due to injury or other reason) or are purely recreational users who are likely responding to external stresses. Basically, the entire model of addiction you are using is wrong and the numbers on addiction bear this out quite clearly. And before you tell me about "soldier's sickness" after the Civil war, remember that most of those soldiers had on-going, serious pain management issues (due to missing limbs and poor quality surgery at the time). This is why our "war on drugs" has been such a monumental failure, our basic model of addiction is wrong and leads you to believe non-sense (like your post). Heroin is certainly addictive but addiction is a response to stress and pain, not a moral failing or a bio-chemical crutch. A better model is provided by the Rat Park research. Policy using this model as a basis will be much more effective if for no other reason than its a far more accurate model of how humans behave than the practically medieval way we deal with addiction right now.

Most security crews at nightclubs (I moonlight at one sometimes) must have at least 1 woman on them for dealing with problematical females. And generally the female bouncers are quite tough (but not always). Still wouldn't expect the same number of women in those jobs as generally males cause more problems depending on the crowd and thus more male bouncers. Police forces (where many bouncers come from) and other security fields are primarily male so this all works out.

Tell that to my bank account, and my email account that receives at least unsolicited one job offer each day (which generally have a higher salary than a doc or CPA or a lawyer outside of a few select firms plus things they don't generally get like bonuses and options). All that and I can look at myself in the mirror each day (making lots of $$ is law generally requires you giving this up unless you are really lucky or good or both).

Actually, dumb policies like this help me as it will ultimately reduce the number of qualified programmers in the world. Please keep up your mis-information campaign. My banker and descendants thanks you...

Dude, reread his original post. And substitute the word 'learn' for the words 'be told'. Then it will make sense to you. He was a rude asshole, but you are still being either intentional dense or the idiot he says you are.

Funny you should mention that. At Berkeley High (in CA), they had only a girls computer club despite the fact that dozens of boys wanted a computer club. There were no girls who signed up for computer club but they still wouldn't have a boys computer club (or a students computer club which is what it should be). So rather than teaching those that are interested, they denied everyone rather than have an out of balance club. Sad considering Berkeley High used to be an excellent high school. Its now behind the high school I attended in rural Kentucky that has less than 1/20th the budget.

Great strawman, but your strawman happens to actually be a nuclear powered, armor plated tank...with sharks and laser beams!!! Turns out way back in the 60's, when they started to think about what problems computers could one day solve, they listed many: beat world champion at chess, drive cars, etc...one of them was medical diagnosis. It took decades longer than thought to solve the ones they have been able to solve with one exception: medical diagnosis. By the early 80s we had "expert systems" that were more accurate than human doctors at medical diagnosis (especially 24 hrs in to a 36 hr shift). The AMA and insurance companies have basically blocked this tech for decades despite overwhelming evidence that they were killing people by doing so. Today we have started to slowly role out this type of tech for things like drug interaction but not yet for medical diagnosis. Ironic huh?

Every year the city of Philadelphia along seizes $5.8m in civil forfeitures. Less than what robbers steal in that city. Right now, I'm more scared of being robbed by cops than by crooks. That's because cops are currently stealing more than the criminals on a dollar for dollar basis. Stuff like this...http://articles.philly.com/2014-08-14/news/52772884_1_forfeiture-program-drug-trafficking-property

Can you see why we don't trust them? Now tell me why again I should expose my personal information to them, (and ID thieves) to make their job easier? Maybe I'm not certain who I'm more scared of? And maybe I'm not sure them doing their job making my life better or safer. Maybe I think they are worse than the criminals. And it doesn't seem to matter what level of government we are talking about, local, state, or federal. Might be time to start over again with LE, and this time not exclude people with an IQ higher than 102.

It's widely believed that Henry Ford also upped wages to expand his market — paying employees enough to buy the cars they made. While that wasn't Ford's main motivation, it was a welcome byproduct, and a game changer, says University of California, Berkeley, labor economist Harley Shaiken.

I think IBM was initially known for this. It spread to most other major technical companies during the era when IBM was dominate. Sadly this seems to have stopped in many places now. Many software firms do still do this but not nearly as should.