Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1091

by AK Marc (#49384677) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

A right is a protection against government oppression and abuse, nothing else.

So the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means the government can't murder you, but your neighbor can? You deserve no protections from your neighbor, as he can't impinge on your rights.

Comment: Re: Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1091

by AK Marc (#49384613) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory
An affirmative defense is a defense that, if accepted, wins. Like the "insane" plea. If determined and accepted as insane at the time, then you "win". Period. Same with the statute of limitations, and all other affirmative defenses. It's just trivial to prove the date of the crime and the date of being charged, so it's treated more absolutely than the others.

Comment: Re:Nah, go TRULY flat (Score 1) 318

by AK Marc (#49383965) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You
Benefits for the poor are mainly for the poor. But someone with $100k of net debt, and no job would lose little if China invaded and nationalized all the industry and land. But would Bill Gates lose anything? So yes, the rich receive about 100% of the benefit of a standing military. The poor only benefit if they enlist to fight the rich-man's wars.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 299

by AK Marc (#49383773) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail
I can find nothing that indicates she failed to comply with any Congressional request. She provided 900 pages of emails in response to a Congressional request, and provided "all" emails later.

I followed the conversation, but that law can only be broken by failing to respond to a request. You identified no such request. Thus, by your statements, it would be impossible for her to have broken that law. That's why I wasn't following. The first "email request Hillary congress" I found was in regards to Benghazi. So, that's where I got that. In direct reply to your statement, and as on topic as I could be.

If you think she broke a law by failing to follow a Congressional demand, you should specify which one you mean.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 318

by AK Marc (#49381789) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You

in the fair tax book which explains the proposed system, they explain that the initial rate is designed to be revenue neutral.

What I proposed is "revenue neutral" to the government as well. What Fair Tax does is link the tax to government spending, but I haven't seen it link the payout to inflation. I'm stating that the prebate should be linked to a livable payout, adjusted by inflation. And, like the Fair Tax, the tax rate should then be used to balance the budget. Though I'd go father and prohibit deficit spending, and instead adjust the taxes to cover spending increases.

Though I'd expect that it would make recessions worse, as when the economy gets worse, the taxes would go up (as consumer spending would go down, and government spending would go up). But that's a problem with Fair Tax as well.

Comment: Re: I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 318

by AK Marc (#49380209) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You
The only pickup I can think of that would be close is the VW Rabbit Pickup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

But that's significantly like the El Camino, so not without precedent. Some others had a removable partition between the cab and the storage, so you could put a cap on the back and it'd be like it was inside the cab.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 299

by AK Marc (#49380175) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

I'm not sure what the bolded part means.

That it's exeedingly rare when the gun-nuts say "rather than that unconstitutional legislation, why don't you try to change the Constitution so it would be legal?"

I think because the gun-nuts are worried that the gun haters would actually try it.

For all the lawsuits on guns, it would make sense to "clarify" the right in the Constitution. It's obviously a point that needs clarification. But I see the gun nuts backing down from that stance because they don't want the Amendment process to weaken it.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 318

by AK Marc (#49380127) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You
So you are saying that pushing a social agenda through legislation isn't an idea that the conservatives whine about the liberals doing constantly? (yes, deliberately worded so that "constantly" is ambiguous, it could be the conservatives constantly whining, or the liberals constantly pushing legislation that pushes a social agenda, or both)

Or are you saying that passing legislation to "encourage" an act, like saving isn't pushing a social agenda through legislation?

Comment: Re: I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 318

by AK Marc (#49377399) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You
But if I make $100k at 10% tax, and I save 10%, I'm left with $9k. If I'm taxed on spending, not income, then I have $1000 more at the end of the year.

The temporarily embarrassed Millionaires like to think that they'll have millions in savings return income, and so long as they don't spend it, they will make more money.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 318

by AK Marc (#49377355) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You
If income tax was abolished, then the IRS should go with it. The IRS exists solely to administer Income tax. So abolish that, and the IRS is dead. Though the organization that replaces it may share the same name, it won't be the same.

Even if the income tax changes to PAYE, that would eliminate more than half the work of the IRS, even if an income tax still remained. The enforcement arm could be 1/100th of today with PAYE. That changes the IRS fundamentally.

The IRS doesn't need to change. The laws that generate income for the US should be changed. Of course, that would necessarily change the IRS as well.

Live free or die.

Working...