Moiraine

I kind of want to but I don't want the image in my head of knapp waving his cane to be shattered.

I thought Barney Cotton was the only thing holding this offense back? The Dude is the only one holding this offense back. He keeps spreading these "Barney sucks" rumors to take the focus off himself.

And one of the newbies

And for the record, I didn't mention whether it's regressive. Or regressive enough. I was merely pointing out that your stats were meaningless. So the top 10% pay 75% of the country's taxes. That tells us absolutely nothing about how regressive our taxes are without more data. So here's another attempt at an explanation: Bill makes $100 a year Bob makes $1 a year Bill is taxed 5% Bob is taxed 30% Bill is paying $5, or 94% of the taxes Bob is paying $0.30, or 6% of the taxes So Bill is paying a crapton of the country of Billybob's taxes, AND it's regressive. But more to the point, if we only know that Bill pays 94% and Bob pays 6% (as with your statistics) we know nothing. It could be that they're both paying 10% and that Bill earned $940 and Bob earned $60. It could be that they're only slightly regressive, say 30% and 25%, in which case Bill may have earned $376 and Bob earned $20. Admittedly I don't know a hell of a lot about this, so I might be looking like an idiot now, but the point stands that you cannot know whether or not our taxes are regressive (or too regressive, or not regressive enough) just because you know that the highest earners are paying 3/4 of the taxes. Therefore the data you provided is useless. You gave us no information that we could actually discuss.

That's deep. I'm too busy watching a tantrum unfold to really contemplate Nietzsche right now. Oh, shut up.

That was a great explanation to a question I didn't ask. You both realize there is a difference between wealth and income, right? If either of you would like to explain how that distribution is regressive, please feel free. you did ask that question. that was the point i was making and you asked to explain. wealth begets wealth (just as poverty begets poverty). the problem is with capital gains taxes and other protections investments receive. i am sure moiraine can better explain this. The percentages have nothing to do with wealth (which is what Moiraine said). It has to do with income. They are related but not the same thing. His explanation was wrong. Then he veers off into a rant on meritocracy. That is an extreme oversimplification of success. I could work 10^10 times harder than anyone on the planet but I still couldn't beat out Rex Burkhead for the starting RB spot or beat Usain Bolt in a sprint. Trying to explain success as "screwing others" is pretty childish. The question I asked is how is the current tax system regressive. I still haven't seen an answer. It has almost everything to do with wealth. I would wager that most people in the top 10% income in any given year are the same people who are in the top 10% in wealth. You're going to see very little difference there. I prefaced the tangent by saying it was only semi-related and I put it in parenthesis. Part of the reason I went on that "rant" is because I assumed someone would reply with the tired "they worked hard to earn that much money, so they shouldn't have to pay millions in taxes" schtick. I did not explain success as screwing people over. You're oversimplifying my so-called oversimplification. I said that screwing people over is one variable in the equation for most billionaires in becoming billionaires. Here's a better graph, by the way: Also, I can give birth.

just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax. Taxes Paid by Earning Percentiles (2009): Top 1% - 36.7% Top 5% - 58.7% Top 10% - 70.5% Bottom 50% - 2.25% How can that possibly be considered regressive? How much more progressive would you like it to be? that is more of an issue regarding wealth inequality than anything. that has nothing to do with tax rates or what the super rich actually pay. Please explain. I will explain. The wealthiest 10% are paying 75% of the taxes because they are that much wealthier than the average person. Your post doesn't really make any point about tax rates. If the wealthy were taxed 5% they would still be paying a huge portion because the gap in wealth is that astronomical. (On a semi-related note, meritocracy does not account for billionaires. How can one billionaire have worked thousands of times harder than everyone who isn't a millionaire? People don't get that loaded just from "working hard." Screwing other people and luck are also variables most of the time). Anyhow, if the following data wasn't the case, the top 10% would be paying a lower % of the taxes and the bottom 50% a higher: Keep in mind that the graph is top 1% vs bottom 80%. Imagine how big the difference would be if it was top 10% vs bottom 50%. And it's from 10 years ago.

Dunno. It should be in between the two car lanes.

The biggest difference for me is when I'm walking into Avery. I rarely even thought about the stadium before but now it's so tall and in your face.

This is more of a general complaint about annoying drivers. I just happened to be on my bike at the time. I was in the bike lane on a one way street, and there was an suv slightly ahead of me in the lane to my right (I was even with his back tires). We were approaching an intersection with a one way street going to our left. The guy has no turning signal on so I assume I can keep going. But the idiot turns left, right across me. The only reason I didn't get my face smashed in is because I assume the worst in other drivers. I hate it when people don't signal. If he had signalled I would have gladly slowed down. I think the only time I don't is when I'm pulling into a driveway in a secluded neighborhood with no traffic. It's like people somehow miss the fact that one of the purposes of the turn signals is for those times when you might not be able to see everything that's going on around you.

I thought I read that's what they did last year and that they got a new nutritionist/dietician. I hadn't heard anything about them doing it this year.

So much for your inability to lie. The Three Oaths mean nothing to you now, is that it? Have you actually read WoT and never bothered to tell me (in which case I'm putting you on ignore), or did you just look it up today because of the fictional character topic? Anyhow, I wasn't lying. I like pony posts if they're timed well. I've read some of them, but it was years ago. I knew your nym sounded familiar but I couldn't place it for a long time. That pic you posted in the fictional character thread jogged my memory. Hmph. Well, the last book is coming out in January. Hopefully not on the same day as the national championship game, which I will be paying close attention to because Nebraska will be in it.

So we just decided to pretend we still had the same amount of money coming in. That's not as grabby though.

Prostate and prostrate annoy me. They come up a lot in every day conversation, so it can sometimes get embarrassing.

It won't be fixed. People bitch over a $1 per month tax increase. That's why taxes are used so much in campaign commercials. People are stupid. No politician who wants to be re-elected will ever do anything to fix it because it will piss off their ignorant, whiney constituents. This is a major problem with democracy. What is right is not always popular. The person who does the right, unpopular thing is not going to stay in office. And fixing the economy requires a large # of politicians doing the right, unpopular thing and then actually agreeing on it. No congress is going to want to be the one that cut these things and increased taxes, even if it's what needs to be done. Also, politicians are not exempt from that defense mechanism of avoiding thinking about negative things. That video was scary and depressing, so I'm going back to the football forum until I forget that I ever watched it.

So much for your inability to lie. The Three Oaths mean nothing to you now, is that it? Have you actually read WoT and never bothered to tell me (in which case I'm putting you on ignore), or did you just look it up today because of the fictional character topic? Anyhow, I wasn't lying. I like pony posts if they're timed well.

Where's the none of the above option? I think they should be revered, glorified, worshipped.

Uh... Tough one: Moiraine Damodred Runners up: Jayne Cobb Severus Snape

Blossom

Reported. Edit: Hm. I should learn to read all posts before I reply.

I don't agree with this. If they're dead even, redshirt the freshman. I don't think burning a redshirt just in case Martinez is injured is a good idea. If Armstrong is a lot better than Carnes, then maybe.

Wow. No one is going to want to go there if that happens.

I honestly thought of Mathieu yesterday. We just took a guy from Auburn who also had problems. He just wasn't as high profile. (on the other hand Mathieu has probably had more chances)

It was really hard cheering for Iowa to beat Iowa State.