> Federal law already took care of this! Section 12 here - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/t...

Not sure what California wants to change but the following points from your link sure make it look like current commercial practices need to change:

  260.3 General principles.
(a) Qualifications and disclosures. To prevent deceptive claims, qualifications and disclosures should be clear, prominent, and understandable. To make disclosures clear and prominent, marketers should use plain language and sufficiently large type, should place disclosures in close proximity to the qualified claim, and should avoid making inconsistent statements or using distracting elements that could undercut or contradict the disclosure.

  260.13 Recycled content claims.
Example 8: A packaged food product is labeled with a three-chasing-arrows symbol (a Möbius loop) without explanation. By itself, the symbol likely conveys that the packaging is both recyclable and made entirely from recycled material. Unless the marketer has substantiation for both messages, the claim should be qualified. The claim may need to be further qualified, to the extent necessary, to disclose the limited availability of recycling programs and/or the percentage of recycled content used to make the package.

One difference is the reason for the incarceration.

> I am saying moving towards the environment Kennedy rightfully criticizes would not be a good move. And I’m not sure why we would want to other than envy or to persist in our of control spending. I’m not seeing the more rational reason for 640K and 1M needing different brackets.

I'm not saying increasing tax brackets is a good way to tackle the increasing disparity of compensation, productivity increases profiting less and less lower economic classes, and assets moving upwards.

But if lowering taxes for the past 50 years doesn't seem to have stopped the above, how is Kennedy's push for lowering taxation even more going to help.

Though I agree with some other of Kennedy's ideas and that government spending decisions are a problem.

> Our economy is checkreined today by a war-born tax system at a time when it is far more in need of the spur than the bit.

Are you saying income tax should come down even faster than it has been in the past 50 years?

If so, how could that reverse the increasing movement of assets upwards?

> You have yet to provide a rationale for greater taxation on the wealthier brackets.

I didn't make that claim.

I questioned why the income tax system wasn't more progressive considering the perspective of those in the lower economic classes.

But if you are asking, I guess an answer to the rational would be the same as it but adjusted to the current economic reality.

> Protesting "AI" and spinning wild narratives about how it will doom the world is just silly.

Is a good plan for AI to use democratic control and "first do no harm" ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

We're misunderstanding each other too much. So rather than respond to your points, I read some other stuff.

Some other suggestions instead of only looking at income tax rates:

"Most tax policy experts argue that if the goal is to fight income disparity, it is far more effective to close modern loopholes and adjust capital gains tax rules than it is to pass a massive headline income tax rate that looks tough on paper but forces money out of the country." -said some LLM

Those loop holes also seem to make income tax rates regressive for some at higher levels.

But back to my original qualm. Taxing disposable revenue is more of a real loss on lower income workers than on high revenu earners and the relative loss gets worse the higher income you compare it too.

For example, a low income worker family of 4 is left yearly with 800$ disposable income for their yearly vacation. Supposing 1000$ is the minimum needed for a reasonable vacation for 4. Their tax rate hurts the money available for their vacation more than those with higher bracket rates because those with more disposable income can more easily afford a 1000$ vacation.

If anything, I'm suggesting this might be felt as unfair at a gut level and that critiques of wage disparity can be unrelated to envy.

> At the low end the reduced tax rates are an accommodation for those "too close" to the poverty line.

Interesting, I've never seen progressive taxation portrayed downwards rather than upwards.

> So if we starting creating additional higher tax brackets above $50K we are no longer fulfilling the role of assisting those "too close" to the poverty line. We are no longer dealing with the bottom 30% of households.

Not sure your point, the bottom 30% top revenue is about 50 000 but there are additional tax brackets up to about 500 000.

> Also consider that tax brackets of a punitive nature ...

I don't think framing them as punitive is helpful or would you also consider calling today's lower economic class wages punitive?

> ... just incentivize the wealthier to pay accountants and lawyers rather than the taxman. And (1) these accountants and lawyers always seem to be smarter than those working for the government and (2) tax deductions, credits, etc are probably the #1 vehicle for political corruption and abuse in the USA.

I don't see this being true before the 1970s?

> And a history nerd moment ... Supporters of extremely high tax brackets like to point to the 1950s

Possibly some do. But that doesn't mean higher taxes, depending on how they are done, are not a good idea for everyone.

Interesting.

Thanks for your comments.

> Tolerance Handling: Variables can be assigned as ranges rather than absolute values.

I'm guessing that doesn't work with this kind of data. Too much false positives or false negatives without enough of a reliable area in between.

AI can probably help look for a pattern in how input parameters drift in relation to one and other.

> 640K and above have a higher tax rate than those below 640K, how is paying at a lower rate progressively worse?

I don't have a clear argument.

But lets say the rate is 10% for 10 000, 20% for 20 000 and so on till 50% to 50 000.

Lets say I make 50 000. If it makes sense to tax me more the more my revenue goes for 10 000 to 50 000, why does that logic not continue to apply to those making above 50 000?

That seems related to ideas like that the cost of living reasonably doesn't go up with revenue and cutting into discretionary income is a a greater burden the less discretionary income you have.

> We already have a progressive tax system in the USA.

I'm not sure I get this, but why does the marginal tax system stop progressing at an income of $640,600, doesn't that mean lower income earners are getting a progressively worse deal compared to those the further up they are above the 640,600 threshold?

> I did go full-on in on it and this person still noticed nothing.

Not sure why you say they noticed nothing.

If I assume they did get it, I can see a few ways their reply, especially in a public forum, is appropriate.

> Are computer purchases not consensual? Nobody is forcing you to buy overpriced RAM if you don't want to, so the rape analogy doesn't work.

"In both law and ethics, consent requires the freedom to choose without pressure, threats, or negative consequences"

> Recent estimates put total global installed peak computing capacity (smartphones, PCs, data centers, AI accelerators, etc.) at roughly 3x10^{22} FLOPS. A single human brainâ(TM)s equivalent throughput is estimated in the 10^{15} to 10^{18} range depending on the model used. That puts collective human technology at roughly 10,000Ã-- to tens of millions of times the FLOPS capacity of any one brain, with the gap still widening in the compute domain.

I understand the comparison but I don't think it captures how the brain or biological systems more generally get their work done.

> The interesting question is how we define and measure âoecomplexityâ going forward â" raw operations per second, integrated autonomous systems, energy efficiency, self-repair and self-assembly, or something else?

Agreed, all of those and more.