Here is another source, in case you don't like Wikipedia: http://www.econlib.org/library...

"Tax brackets are the divisions at which tax rates change in a progressive tax system (or an explicitly regressive tax system, although this is much rarer). Essentially, they are the cutoff values for taxable income — income past a certain point will be taxed at a higher rate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

It's called marginal taxation and it's the underpinning of progressive taxation. This is not a fairy tale, it's reality.

I agree with everything else in your post, I just wanted to correct this misconception.

It's harmful, especially to children, when there are people living on such low wage that they can't afford to eat or go to the doctor.

Many people believe that it is an ethical imperative when such conditions exist in a country where billionaires also exist that the inequality be reduced to the point where the poorest people are no longer starving or dying of easily preventable illness.

"Consider that up until Nixon, anyone making 1,000,000 a year in personal pay was paying 90% income tax (true since income tax was implemented)."

This is not exactly true and is a common misconception. In reality, anyone making $1 million or more a year was paying 90% income tax only on the income exceeding $1 million. All income below $1 million was taxed at a rate corresponding to each income bracket.

This is how it works now too. If you get a raise and it puts you over the line into a new tax bracket, only the income that exceeds that line will be taxed in the new bracket. All other income below the line will be taxed in its original bracket.

That is very cool.

This is nonsense. The crash of 2008 certainly impacted production of greenhouse gases, but if that was the only factor, why did so many other countries fail to meet targets?

The USA has done a great deal to reduce carbon emissions under the Obama administration and it's all been done under the Clean Air Act without any new action from Congress. So yes, America is doing something about this. As for your proposed solution, what do you think the chances are that a 5% tariff on Chinese products would pass the US Congress right now? It'd never happen. Your post is just concern-trolling. We're doing what we can and we're asking China to do what they can because we're expecting that the upcoming UN climate treaty will not exempt developing nations (China & India) like the Kyoto treaty did. If those large developing nations don't get on board, it becomes a much harder sell.

The Antarctic has land. The Arctic does not. Hence different processes occur.

Cap and Trade is not the same thing as a Carbon Tax. They're two distinct approaches to the same problem. Under a Carbon Tax, a company could emit unlimited carbon as long as they paid the tax. Under Cap and Trade, their carbon emissions would be limited to their "cap". They could then buy rights to emit more carbon from other companies, reduce the amount that they're emitting sell their rights to emission, or offset their emissions in some way (planting trees, etc.).

Cap and Trade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Carbon Tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

I think a Carbon Tax is the wrong approach because it does not explicitly limit emissions in any way; as long as its still profitable, emissions will occur. Cap and Trade, on the other hand, explicitly limits industry-wide emissions and requires individual companies to set a value on their limited emissions in the free market.

That said, UN Agenda 21, as mentioned by a previous poster, has nothing to do with which of these approaches is better.

"Gamers also lack the PR money to respond" "because gamers are an easier and more lucrative target" Which is it?

This sounds like overbearing government intrusion into the private market to me. Employers should be free to demand whatever they want as a condition of employment, from high-school transcripts to semen samples! If you don't like it, find another place to work!

School Administrator responsible, Robert Colby: rcolby@lewiscassisd.org

It is not accurate. That is my point.

theblaze.com's sole source is the Alliance for Natural Health's article which grossly misrepresent the FDA's case, as you can see if you read the FDA's motion for summary judgement:

http://www.hpm.com/pdf/blog/GovernmentSupportforSummaryJudgmentMotion.pdf

The article is about as useful as if it had come from the National Enquirer.

Glenn Beck's "theblaze.com" is your sole source for this front page post? Thanks slashdot.