Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 1) 67

by ScentCone (#49749787) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

If you pick a black person and then pick a random victim, it's more likely the victim will be white than black, because there are more white people than black people.

Then why are there more murders committed by black people (against all sorts of victims) then would be accounted for by their percentage of the population? What is your point, exactly? Yes, there are more "white" people than "black" people in the general population. That's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the rate of crime coming out of specific demographics.

Comment: Re:Said and unsaid (Score 1) 67

by ScentCone (#49749777) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

"After we found out he is a black man that allegedly killed a white family - oh, and their maid, I guess."

Well, sure. Because the SJWs are insisting that police do less to hunt down black guys who are responsible for the plague of murders the commit within their own demographic. Since, you know, it's racist and oppressive to attempt to arrest those guys.

Comment: Re:If the rich carried their fair share... (Score 1) 67

by ScentCone (#49749639) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect
So you're already attributing this to mental health problems? They guy worked for the company owned by the victim. This isn't a case where families like those of the victim (who pay the vast majority of the country's income taxes - well more than "their fair share" in terms of the income they make) somehow short-changed the guy who decided to murder them. The bad guy, in this case, decided to extort $40,000 in cash from his employer by holding the family hostage and torturing a ten year old boy until the cash was delivered by the employer's personal assistant.

Your whole "this is the fault of rich people" narrative is a bunch of SJW BS.

Comment: Re:there aren't that many high paying wage (Score 1) 1056

by ScentCone (#49747943) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Naming an extraordinarily unusual retailer does not bolster your point.

Of course it does. It's AN example of what I'm talking about. There are plenty of retailers who pay entry-level employees more than minimum wage. Why? Because they want to keep them around - churn is expensive, even at the stock/clerk level. Flipping burgers isn't supposed to be a career. You're not supposed to do things like have babies while you're on your first, menial job.

Comment: Re:Bad Solution (Score 1) 803

by ScentCone (#49739521) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax
Leaving aside the fact that your plan is to punish success, destroy incentive, and force people who are successful to hide their money ... taxing "wealth" is such a capricious activity that it, even more than the current system, is essentially designed to be divisive. As it stands, the wealthy people pay the vast majority of the income taxes, and the poorer HALF of the country pays essentially no income tax at all. You're proposing that every year you take away some of a successful person's assets until they are as poor as the lower half, right? Or would you just keep taking some of everyone's assets, every year, until nobody has anything left?

Your goal, rather than doing any of the things that actually create prosperity, is to simply tear down anything successful in the name of resentment. Which also happens to kill the goose laying the golden tax revenue egg that currently pays the bills.

Comment: Re:Bad Solution (Score 1) 803

by ScentCone (#49738489) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

If it is fair to say the person using the roadway should pay it's cost because they get the benefit, it's fair to point out that 70-90% of the benefit is gotten by their employer.


The employer personally uses the road to drive to his business. Done.

The employees use the road the same way. Done.

The business' customers also use the road the same way (when visiting that store). Done.

All of them spend a bit of time on the road, and pay taxes on the fuel they burn in order to pay for the service of having the road available to them.

When the business owner receives a shipment of new shoes, he's paying the freight company (or his supplier is, and passing that cost along in one way or another) to make that delivery. That's a different use of the road. Big rigs and busy commercial operators are (in most places) taxed differently because they are buying a different class of service from the city, county, state, or federal agency that maintains the road they're using. The business owner picks up a portion of that higher wear-and-tear cost by being a paying customer of the freight company that is being taxed based on their heavy vehicles/use.

Your world view, which includes the government being involved in the running of the shoe store and going over everyone's books to decide when a shoe sale is profitable so that the shoe store owner (who may actually lose money that year, even while his employees earn taxable income) can be capriciously taxed at a much higher rate as he drives his Hyundai the same 5 miles to work as his sales people, is just a thinly veiled dose of contempt for people who own businesses. The guy is already paying property taxes as he locates and operates his store, and countless other fees.

You want to use MORE tax dollars to keep a running tally on what percentage of the value of a road's use is reflected in the ebbing and flowing profitability of all of the businesses that might be located somewhere along or connected to a given municipality's various types of roads? Wow, it's a Progressive's wet dream! That would require enormous numbers of new bureaucrats, funded by whole new tax schemes, just to allow that to (badly) take place. All so that you punish the business owner, or his better-than-average sales person, for making more money than someone else at the end of exactly the same commute.

Even if your fantasy of "percentage of value" could EVER be calculated as millions of people and businesses use the roads in different ways on different days, what would be the point? I know: your point is that you don't like the idea of government being thought of as a service provider, you like it when they are directly involved in people's personal business decision making, as a forced partner in their budgeting and profit considerations. All of this in the service of what ... trying to prop up the false picture of prosperity as a fixed pie, with the government's role being the arbiter of slice sizes in the name of Social Justice? Please. Your attempt to hide a confiscatory/redistributionist agenda behind a loopy road value formula based on impossibly intrusive and subjective measurements of personal achievement is just laughable. Or would be if it didn't represent such a toxic wider philosophy.

Comment: Re:Numbers (Score 0) 803

by ScentCone (#49736477) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

Then you are compensating for the guy who only does 90% of his miles in Oregon, but the car is registered outside of the state.

Who cares? Because if you do 20k miles across the state line, you're going to be paying $6,000 to the state for activity you didn't conduct there. I don't care if it's the opposite for some other guy. I would care that this year, presto, my disposable income just dropped by $6,000 for no good reason.

Comment: Re:Bad Solution (Score 1) 803

by ScentCone (#49736333) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

This tax, and the one it replaces, would charge people commuting to McDonalds equally with the owners of McDonalds even though the owners get somewhere between 70-90% of the economic benefit from that road use.

So? The government is providing a service: a way for both the owner and the employee (and the customers, and the vendors/contractors, and the police if they're needed, etc) to get to that restaurant. If you use that service (by driving on the road), you should pay some amount towards the maintenance of the road. Why someone is using the road should be absolutely none of your business, or the government's. Your notion that road taxes should be higher if you make more money than someone when you get where you're going is ... preposterous.

What about two shoe salesmen who drive down the same road to the same store to go to work? One is a poor communicator, never takes a shower, and can never seem to handle more than one customer at a time. His co-worker has his act together, and customers respond well by buying more shoes. He makes three times the commission, which translates to a much better income. You're suggesting that he (the better shoe salesman) should be charged more to use the same road because he's not a lazy idiot. Smart? Productive? Eeeeevil! Quick, tax that evil person for being more productive! Utter foolishness, and I'd just laugh it off ... but you just provided another case study in everything that's wrong with the lefty view of economics and prosperity.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.