typodupeerror

That's a regressive tax. Poor people spend more of their income on "stuff", so end up paying more tax (proportionally) than the rich, who use tier money in other ways (stock, shares etc).

You say "regressive tax" as though that is somehow morally wrong and shocks the conscience of the Universe. You might choose a cutoff that income tax starts on all income above a basic subsistence rate, but there is no absolute moral authority stating "regressive tax bad, progressive tax good." Besides, many low income people currently pay no income taxes at all. Even if they paid a pittance and had some skin in the game they might start taking a much greater interest in how their tax monies were being spent -- which would be a Good Thing.

A flat income tax with no deductions? Seriously? You know that'd benefit the rich. Right now, a lot of poor people pay no income tax. I pay no income tax. I just have to worry about self-employment tax (equivalent to FICA taxes for employed persons) and that's it. I don't earn enough to pay income tax, and I don't think I ever have. Came close while in college given my grants.

A flat tax that somehow benefits the rich? Wow, how did you arrive at that?

Let me see here. Under a flat tax I make X dollars and pay Y tax on them where Y = some% of X.
Another person makes 2X dollars and pays 2Y in taxes.
Uncle Money Bags makes 100X dollars (I hope I'm in his will) and pays 100Y in taxes.

You know, that really sounds very fair to me -- although truly fair would be that everybody pays the same amount of tax each year because everybody benefits the same from roads, schools and other provided services.

Anything else is punitive from envious people who hate that someone else had more than they do.

People are weird that way. Take the social experiment where the researcher offers you \$50, which you can take or refuse. But there's a condition: If you take the \$50 then I get \$100. But if you take nothing then I get nothing either. While you'd think that it's a no-brainer that you now have \$50 that you didn't have before, you'd be amazed how many people will refuse to take their money because someone else "unfairly" is getting more in the process. And that attitude carries over into other areas.

## Comment: Re:well... (Score 1)246246

Microsoft employs >40K employees in the Seattle Metro area, while the other 3.6M residents (literally the 99%) get screwed.

So tell me, if Microsoft left and took the 40k jobs with them, they would then NOT get tax breaks in Seattle.

How would the other 99% of the Seattle residents be better off?

Would they somehow be less screwed?

How dare you attempt Logic on Slashdot?

## Comment: Electricity is Complex (Score 1)442442

So ignorant.
He probably doesn't even understand Power Factor -- let alone any real complexities in electrical generation and distribution.
He seems like a guy who added up all generation and all consumption, said that those numbers are essentially equal, meaning that this is just a question of distributing the power to where it's needed. It it were only so simple.

## + - Netflix Stealthy Reduces Service, Keeps Prices the Same

Nom du Keyboard writes: After seeing a drop in my DVD service from Netflix I got a customer service representative tonight to confirm that Netflix has ceased processing DVD returns on Saturdays nationwide. And that they did this without either notifying their customers, nor reducing prices to compensate for the reduced service. Given that the DVD selection still far outstrips their streaming selection, this may be news to others like myself who don't find streaming an adequate replacement for plastic discs. My experience up until recently, unlike Netflix's promise of a 1-3 day turnaround at their end which gives them lots of wiggle room to degrade service even further, had been of mailing in a DVD on day one, having them receive it and mail out my next selection on day two, and receiving it on day three. Now with them only working 5 days and many US Post Office holidays, they're still getting the same money for significantly less. Is Netflix still the good guy here?

## Comment: Re:Remind my why they are being sued (Score 1)484484

Because when (I think it was) CBS was in a dispute with the cable companies they didn't let their content be carried over the cable as leverage for insanely higher re-transmission fees. Some desirable sports are only shown on CBS. People got around the CBS action by receiving over-the-air broadcasts. Aereo let everybody in the country who wanted to put it to CBS. CBS didn't like that.

## Comment: Aereo is 1-to-1 (Score 1)484484

Cable is a one-to-many system.
Aereo is 1-to-1.
That is a Major difference.
The Supreme Court are a bunch of technologically backward morons!

## Comment: Just Your Friendly Ultra-Liberal Democrat (Score 1, Interesting)157157

Who still buys into that garbage that only Republicans protect big business that the nice and friendly, warm and fuzzy, Democrats are the party of the People?
(Hint: They're the party of the Union bosses and every corporate lobbyist with a checkbook. At least the Republicans don't lie about it.)

## Comment: Totally Flawed Premise (Score 1)189189

Just because computers can send and receive data very fast doesn't at all mean that they would necessarily comprehend it at a conscious level any faster than we can without hour own highly parallel human brains.
Nor is there any reason to believe that an AI would experience boredom. That's projecting human quirks on non-human intelligences, which the author has no basis to validly do.

## Comment: Re:Applause for Google (Score 1)129129

Hey, what about Verizon FiOS? I got fiber to my house and get as good of service as you can expect from Verizon....