Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 488

by CanHasDIY (#48009115) Attached to: Utilities Should Worry; Rooftop Solar Could Soon Cut Their Profit

Puh-shaw, ever look inside the "tool cabinet" at a BDSM club?

Me neither! But I bet if we did, we might find one or two repurposed buggy whips. Just because the primary use of your product goes out of vogue doesn't mean it stops being useful alltogether. Hell, silly putty started life as a failed plastic explosive.

Comment: Re:Solution (Score 1) 405

So basically what you're saying is that I'm wrong for accepting a certain speculation, which you go on to "prove" your point by introducing more speculation? Or do you have a specific breakdown of what items fall into that "75% tax-free" bracket you mentioned?

How can anyone argue against the statement that taking 4 from 20 leaves less than taking 40 from 200?

Comment: Re:CDC "Estimates" (Score 1) 275

by CanHasDIY (#47978043) Attached to: CDC: Ebola Cases Could Reach 1.4 Million In 4 Months

The CDC lost a lot of street cred with me once I found out how their SAMMEC algorithm determines "smoking-related deaths:" basically, if a person dies, and their medical history shows that they smoked at any point during life, the system calls it a "smoking death." Doesn't matter that the person was morbidly obese and died of a heart attack, he smoked when he was 18.

Comment: Re:Solution (Score 1) 405

The simple answer is to exclude necessity items from the flat tax.

Then it's technically not a 'flat' tax anymore.

I recognize this opens the door to loophole items into tax exemption, but while we're spitballing utopian tax systems, might as well start somewhere.

We've already started there with our existing graduated tax system - I fail to see how throwing the baby out with the bathwater, then replacing it with a brand new baby as we refill the tub, is somehow going to be a more workable solution.

Of course, I come from a long line of people who fix things when they break, rather than just throwing them out and buying new stuff, so that probably colors my view significantly.

Comment: Re:Solution (Score 3, Insightful) 405

Except that the government will just increase taxes on other common goods to make up for the shortfall.
So? Low income people still spend a lower percentage on their income on those "common goods" than the wealthy.

Actually, the opposite - low income people spend less dollars, but a larger portion of income, on those items than rich people. Plus, you really can't limit spending on "must-have" items like food, shelter, utilities, etc.

As OP stated, and I already repeated, a 20% tax on a $20,000/yr income is a much larger chunk of income than a 20% tax hit on a $200,000 income.

With a "flat tax," there isn't any way around that issue.
There are lots of ways around the issue.
You could tweak the system further.

Then it's not a "flat tax," it's a graduated tax system, like the one we already have.

Comment: Re:Solution (Score 1) 405

The only exception would be if you were selling collectibles or some investment item that went up in price, and that's rarely sold at a yard sale.

You must not frequent yard sales, as in reality tons of incredibly valuable collectables are sold at them every weekend - but for far, far less than the item's actual value.

Of course, all that is unimportant (from a legal standpoint), because the fact remains that somebody is profiting, and nobody is paying taxes on those transactions.

Comment: Re:Solution (Score 1) 405

Don't tax food or medicine. OK, the discrepancy just halved.

Except that the government will just increase taxes on other common goods to make up for the shortfall.

Your problem is that you missed the most important sentence in OP's post:

if you make $24,000 a year, a 20% tax that reduces your income to $18,000 a year is a much greater burden than it is to someone who makes $200,000 a year and has their income reduced to $150,000 a year.

With a "flat tax," there isn't any way around that issue.

Comment: Re:Solution (Score 4, Interesting) 405

End income tax.

Better idea: revert the legal definition of "income" to what it meant pre-1913.

Interestingly, before the oft-questioned "passage" of the 16th Amendment, "labor given in exchange for payment" was just that; income was what a business earned as a result of selling a product or service.

Comment: You Know Nothing (Score 1) 3

by CanHasDIY (#47974609) Attached to: Does Marketing stand in the way Fuel Efficient Car Features?

You know nothing about how cars operate. Educate yourself, please and thank you. A primer:

this car wants to creep when idling in drive. That must be burning some fuel.

How Torque Converters Work
How Automatic Transmissions Work

It also doesn't coast but instead engine brakes when I take my foot off the gas.. I've been kicking it into neutral to save but I shouldn't need to do that.

You don't need to do that at all; your car is smart enough to shut down the fuel injectors during engine braking.

How Engine Braking Works

In the future I would recommend actually looking stuff up before posting silly questions based on your misconceptions.

System checkpoint complete.

Working...