Here's a question for you...

I have a patent (well, several, actually). I used this patent to make product at my own factory, and sold the product for 6 years. Then I wanted to get out of the manufacturing business, and back to my true love - engineering. I now license that patent to many other companies, and have taken action against infringement of my patent.

Given that I no longer actively market or produce a product with my patent, am I a patent troll? I did produce at one time, and other companies produce with my patent - but I, the sole patent holder, simply market and sell licenses to my patent. Am I a patent troll?

Nice twist. Jefferson's writing about progressive taxes was explaining how it works in France and the alternatives they were considering, during his tenure as ambassador. During his Presidency Jefferson eliminated taxes, cut the military, and pushed to eliminate the national debt. Specifically for taxes, he fully believed you could fund the US Federal Government on import duties alone.

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.

The sad thing is, that's exactly how it is for US citizens today. We're the only developed nation (1st/2nd world) that does this - taxes our citizens on a dollar they make anywhere in the world... Kind of blows the whole "but teh infrastructurz" argument away...

Please see the US Constitution - 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. They give rise to the legal foundation of presumption of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. As a foundational concept of our legal system, yes - if you have not evidence you are in fact innocent.

A better question - why should they be illegal? They were already set up as a legal construct, why should that now immediately switch and be illegal?

I thought the argument was that people earned their income from the infrastructure the Government built. I assume we all use the electric grid, the sewer/water systems, the roads, the phone system, etc...

In this case, the wealth is earned OVERSEAS, not in the US. They pay taxes on it overseas where it was earned. But I guess the US Government should get a cut of it as well, even though it didn't use the US infrastructure...

EXACTLY. It is no longer socially acceptable to save for yourself, you must put it into the communal pot and let others dictate what you can keep/receive. If only we remembered the words of Judge Learned Hand:

Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.

Do you have a 401K, or non-Roth IRA? How DARE you not pay taxes on that money you're saving for the future, you horrible person you!

Here's the thing - this profit is held overseas, where it was earned. It wasn't made with the US infrastructure, but with the Chinese (predominantly) infrastructure. And they've paid taxes on it overseas already. The issue is that some in our Government would like them to also pay US taxes on it as well... Even when it wasn't earned here. Kind of like the US does if you work overseas - you get to pay taxes in your country of residence, and if you earn a decent amount (which most /.ers probably earn above) you also get to pay US taxes as well. Even if you didn't set foot in the US for the entire year.

No need to deny an application if you can keep it in limbo for 3+ years. Then you can claim "we didn't deny anybody!" and technically be right.

However, it's not quite that simple. Because of the ACA, there are specific things that a person's insurance must cover to be considered valid insurance. Thus the IRS will need to know not just if you bought insurance, but where you bought it, what it covers, and how much you pay for it - because all of that will affect whether or not you're "covered" per ACA rules.

Eight years, eh? I guess Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was a Republican, and of course no one ever remembers Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Between them, 5 years of those 8 are gone...

That's only because Steve Jobs used his time machine in 2010 to go back and push Corning to make it...

Remember and WANTING to remember are two different things...