Global Warming

[FCP Bob 1,312]

No I am not. I did not spend 7 years in University getting a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Engineering, then work very hard for 20 years to get my career to the point where it is at, so that I could piss away my hard earned money on stupid taxes. I grew up with very modest means and through hard work have managed to build a nice life for my family. The opportunity to work hard is open to most everyone - some just choose not to pursue that path and instead bleat about wealth redistribution (directly or indirectly).

I assume you went to University here in Canada which means the majority of the cost for your education was paid by taxes since tuition only covers a small percentage of the cost.

[SCYUKON 0]

I assume you went to University here in Canada which means the majority of the cost for your education was paid by taxes since tuition only covers a small percentage of the cost.

Not sure what percentage was covered by the government (do you have any stats for the 1983-1990 period?) but all I recall is that the tuition was in the order of $1000/term + approx $750/term for books for a total cost of around $3500/year. Which was a heck of a lot for my family at that point in time. But anyways, back to the question about the taxation of posting in an internet poker forum. You are welcome FCP Bob or VB to share you views on how you would react to that as well.

[SCYUKON 0]

I stopped reading when one of my favorite smart guys on this board made some crazy point about taxes.Think of it this way.You go to school and you do well in school.Then one day the board at your college says that in order to keep the school running, they are going to increase the amount of credits you need to get your degree based on the quality of your work. If your GPA is above3.9, then you will need to have 75 credits, but if your GPA is below 2.0, then you only need 30 credits.Their reasoning is that the smarter kids can handle taking more classes, which means more tuition for the school, and the dumber ones will drop out if they are forced to earn more credits, so they make their load as light as possible.Now explain in my framed argument why you like this system.Show your work.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Not sure what percentage was covered by the government (do you have any stats for the 1983-1990 period?) but all I recall is that the tuition was in the order of $1000/term + approx $750/term for books for a total cost of around $3500/year. Which was a heck of a lot for my family at that point in time. But anyways, back to the question about the taxation of posting in an internet poker forum. You are welcome FCP Bob or VB to share you views on how you would react to that as well.

I did a quick google search and this article from CBC has a little info box that says the percentage of overall post-secondary education costs that are covered by tuition fees is 11 per cent. That covers a lot of things not directly related to educating an undergrad but it does illustrate the point that the general taxpayer paid for most of our University education and we have benefited from that. Especially since we grew up with Families with modest means who wouldn't have paid a lot of money in taxes.http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/higher-education/Your point about taxing reading an internet forum is a bad one when comparing it to taxing things for environmental reasons. There are no negative externalities with reading an internet forum while there are with many other activities including you driving a big ass SUV. If you aren't familiar with the economic concept of externalities this wiki article isn't a bad introduction.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExternalityTake the question about how bad man made carbon is of the equation and I personally think Cap and Trade is probably the worst way to reduce it's release and to put a price on the externality of releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

[SCYUKON 0]

Your point about taxing reading an internet forum is a bad one when comparing it to taxing things for environmental reasons. There are no negative externalities with reading an internet forum while there are with many other activities including you driving a big ass SUV. If you aren't familiar with the economic concept of externalities this wiki article isn't a bad introduction.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

I am not worried about negative externalities. The question is how you would react to the scenario I presented. My guess is that you, VB, and Yorkie would protest strenuously against paying extra taxes for such nonsense. Am I right or wrong?So if we can assume that you all would agree that you would protest against a tax related to a nonsensical concept like taxing people who post on internet forums, then this AGW debate really simplifies to whether or not you agree with the AGW proof or not. My sense is all of you do agree, otherwise I don't see how you could be willing to pay the extra taxes related to cap and trade, etc if you don't believe in the AGW proof. You have excess cash to burn for chit and giggles?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So then to spin back to the question at hand which I posed, if someone said that N had to be higher due to people posting on internet poker forums, what would be your reaction? Obviously this is a bizarre example, but useful for making my point, since I am trying to illustrate what I see as the lack of proof behind AGW (which you disagree with) as parallel with the obvious lack of proof that posting on an internet poker forum is bad for the world (you don't believe that posting on an internet poker forum is bad for the world, do you?).I mean - would you take the word of the "experts" who said that posting on the internet took away from the time you should be spending looking for a job, or doing that job once you land it, or doing charity work, or sleeping? These "experts" say they know better than you, so go ahead and start paying way more in taxes if want to keep posting on the internet - they are trying to incent you to stop since it is better for the world.How do you react to that scenario? Hopefully the same way I am reacting to the AGW initiative and the potential taxation impact.

To answer your question, yes, I'm against taxes that have no merit. If someone for some arbitrary reason wanted to tax my internet time, I would be against that. My posting on the internet does no harm to others, so I don't believe that the government should deny my that right through excessive taxes or laws or whatever.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I am not worried about negative externalities. The question is how you would react to the scenario I presented. My guess is that you, VB, and Yorkie would protest strenuously against paying extra taxes for such nonsense. Am I right or wrong?So if we can assume that you all would agree that you would protest against a tax related to a nonsensical concept like taxing people who post on internet forums, then this AGW debate really simplifies to whether or not you agree with the AGW proof or not. My sense is all of you do agree, otherwise I don't see how you could be willing to pay the extra taxes related to cap and trade, etc if you don't believe in the AGW proof. You have excess cash to burn for chit and giggles?

Negative Externalities are at the heart of this whole thing and if you want to convince people that you know what you're talking about you may want to make sure that you understand the concept.We get that you are convinced that the release of carbon by human activities has no negative consequences and nothing anybody says or does can possibly change your position. You are as much a true believer in your position as the people you deride as warmists are in theirs.Am I surprised that there some people on the opposite side of yours that have made stuff up and done some bad science to support their positions ? Of course not. Whenever big money, egos and strong beliefs are involved humans will lie cheat and steal. Just like it isn't shocking that there is a large group of people who for whatever reason won't ever believe that human created carbon is bad.Me, I don't know to what extent human carbon release is bad. There is enough credible science out there to make me concerned about it. To me if we are going to tax the release of carbon the most important thing is to come up with a system that works the best. To me Cap and Trade isn't that system.

[SCYUKON 0]

So I guess we are back to determining whether or not sufficient proof exists for or against AGW. Good luck with your efforts (you folks are going to make an effort, I would assume?)

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I stopped reading when one of my favorite smart guys on this board made some crazy point about taxes.Think of it this way.You go to school and you do well in school.Then one day the board at your college says that in order to keep the school running, they are going to increase the amount of credits you need to get your degree based on the quality of your work. If your GPA is above3.9, then you will need to have 75 credits, but if your GPA is below 2.0, then you only need 30 credits.Their reasoning is that the smarter kids can handle taking more classes, which means more tuition for the school, and the dumber ones will drop out if they are forced to earn more credits, so they make their load as light as possible.Now explain in my framed argument why you like this system.Show your work.

I'm not going to comment on how well this analogy describes taxes in the United States. And I'm not quite convinced that analogies are necessary to understand the implications of a progressive taxation scheme. But anyway...I don't know, it seems to me that your hypothetical university would maximize the number of A's received and minimize the number of F's for a fixed number of total required credits. To me, having everybody take the same amount of credits would mean that a lot of bad students are overwhelmed with work and good students become bored and aren't stretched to their capacity. Your system above seems to be a pretty efficient use of resources. Am I crazy?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So I guess we are back to determining whether or not sufficient proof exists for or against AGW. Good luck with your efforts (you folks are going to make an effort, I would assume?)

I'm not exactly sure that we ever left that place.Luckily, I don't have to do too much effort. There are hundreds of scientists that have done the work for me. Their results are splattered all around the internet.You, on the other hand, believe that these scientists are wrong, and base your claims on some research you've done on the side and on the statements of fringe, unreviewed websites.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not going to comment on how well this analogy describes taxes in the United States. And I'm not quite convinced that analogies are necessary to understand the implications of a progressive taxation scheme. But anyway...I don't know, it seems to me that your hypothetical university would maximize the number of A's received and minimize the number of F's for a fixed number of total required credits. To me, having everybody take the same amount of credits would mean that a lot of bad students are overwhelmed with work and good students become bored and aren't stretched to their capacity. Your system above seems to be a pretty efficient use of resources. Am I crazy?

And now you have clarified why the US education system has lower and lower standards, resulting in dumber and dumber kids.Just remember what Alan Keyes said in his presidential debate with Steve Forbes:"No one ever joined a gang because of a graduated income tax"

Partial History ofU.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax RatesSince 1913ApplicableYear Incomebrackets / First bracket / Top bracket / Source1913-1915 - 1% 7% IRS1916 - 2% 15% IRS1917 - 2% 67% IRS1918 - 6% 77% IRS1919-1920 - 4% 73% IRS1921 - 4% 73% IRS1922 - 4% 56% IRS1923 - 3% 56% IRS1924 - 1.5% 46% IRS1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% IRS1929 - 0.375% 24% IRS1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% IRS1932-1933 - 4% 63% IRS1934-1935 - 4% 63% IRS1936-1939 - 4% 79% IRS1940 - 4.4% 81.1% IRS1941 - 10% 81% IRS1942-1943 - 19% 88% IRS1944-1945 - 23% 94% IRS1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% IRS1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% IRS1950 - 17.4% 84.36% IRS1951 - 20.4% 91% IRS1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% IRS1954-1963 - 20% 91% IRS1964 - 16% 77% IRS1965-1967 - 14% 70% IRS1968 - 14% 75.25% IRS1969 - 14% 77% IRS1970 - 14% 71.75% IRS1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS2003-2009 6 brackets 10% 35% Tax Foundation

There was a time when we took over 90% of a person's income. 90%

[LongLiveYorke 38]

And now you have clarified why the US education system has lower and lower standards, resulting in dumber and dumber kids.Just remember what Alan Keyes said in his presidential debate with Steve Forbes:"No one ever joined a gang because of a graduated income tax"There was a time when we took over 90% of a person's income. 90%

And the decades directly following that time were some of the most economically strong for the US. And they had some of the highest percentage of people in the middle class, some of the lowest poverty levels. And most of our infrastructure came from that time. Schools were built, cars made, roads bridges. Those horrible 1950's and 1960's.

[CaneBrain 95]

There was a time when we took over 90% of a person's income. 90%

yes, of course, with the deduction system set up as it was, those people were actually paying more like 25% or less (if they had a good accountant).

[SCYUKON 0]

I'm not exactly sure that we ever left that place.Luckily, I don't have to do too much effort. There are hundreds of scientists that have done the work for me. Their results are splattered all around the internet.You, on the other hand, believe that these scientists are wrong, and base your claims on some research you've done on the side and on the statements of fringe, unreviewed websites.

So you are back to bleating that the science is settled. You are right, I guess we never did leave that place.If hundreds of scientists had determined that posting on the internet poker forum was bad for the world, would you do a bit more work on your own? You have enough confidence in the work of others in the case of AGW, since it kind of aligns with what you think, but if it didn't (like the internet posting tax), then you would do the work.So it is as simple as you agree with the AGW science without doing any work on your own. Ok.

[SCYUKON 0]

I hope Yorkie and VB don't watch find out about this training film.

[SCYUKON 0]

oh well, if nothing else good comes from all the recent hoopla, at least folks are starting to check their work a little bit betterhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010...retract-siddall

[vbnautilus 48]

I hope Yorkie and VB don't watch find out about this training film.

LOL! excellent.

[akoff 0]

And the decades directly following that time were some of the most economically strong for the US. And they had some of the highest percentage of people in the middle class, some of the lowest poverty levels. And most of our infrastructure came from that time. Schools were built, cars made, roads bridges. Those horrible 1950's and 1960's.

You obviously know very little about the tax structure of the past. There used to be a thing called a deduction….actually there massive amounts of them. Not an expert but I would guess the real tax rate including deductions would have been closer to 30 percent in todays terms. Maybe it was higher but it was nowhere near 90% in current way taxes are accounted for.

[akoff 0]

And the decades directly following that time were some of the most economically strong for the US. And they had some of the highest percentage of people in the middle class, some of the lowest poverty levels. And most of our infrastructure came from that time. Schools were built, cars made, roads bridges. Those horrible 1950's and 1960's.

yes, of course, with the deduction system set up as it was, those people were actually paying more like 25% or less (if they had a good accountant).

You obviously know very little about the tax structure of the past. There used to be a thing called a deduction….actually there massive amounts of them. Not an expert but I would guess the real tax rate including deductions would have been closer to 30 percent in todays terms. Maybe it was higher but it was nowhere near 90% in current way taxes are accounted for.

should have read your post before responding i guess...common ground is good.

[Balloon guy 158]

And the decades directly following that time were some of the most economically strong for the US. And they had some of the highest percentage of people in the middle class, some of the lowest poverty levels. And most of our infrastructure came from that time. Schools were built, cars made, roads bridges. Those horrible 1950's and 1960's.

So let me get this straight.You are here telling everyone that just because there is a record setting cold season going on, it in no way discounts global warming because two things can happens at the same time and not be related.Then you are telling me that because we had a good economic period that it must be related to a single incident such as taxes being ridiculously high.I think you are ridiculously high if you think I am going to give you this pass on logic.

[Balloon guy 158]

yes, of course, with the deduction system set up as it was, those people were actually paying more like 25% or less (if they had a good accountant).

ORLY?So bad laws are fine as long as we have the ability to pay people to find ways for us to circumvent them.Boy the elitist instilled in you from them fancy schools is still alive and well

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I think you are ridiculously high if you think I am going to give you this pass on logic.

Lol, okay fair enough. I'll change my languageLet's say this, then:Large levels of income taxation certainly didn't cripple the economy or turn the country into Red China. Having the rich pay a very large fraction of their income in taxes has worked in America and has worked in countries all around the world. It's not the end of the world.And, yes, I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about the details of tax history. Does anyone have a link to a table or graph or whatever that shows, for example, what the top 5% pay in taxes that would INCLUDE deductions, etc. “The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” — Albert Einstein

[85suited 0]

Why should I, who has worked my ass off to get where I am pay a different % than those who don't?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Why should I, who has worked my ass off to get where I am pay a different % than those who don't?

Because if everyone paid the same percentage, a lot of people wouldn't be able to afford to live. I'm not sure the numbers work out, but think about it this way. The top earners pay the majority of taxes in this country, right. If one were to switch to a system where everybody pays the same percentage, you would only be lowering the percentage that the top earners pay slightly. But you would be dramatically raising the percentage that the poorest and the lower middle class and the middle class people pay. So, by saying that you want to pay the same percentage, you are saying you want a slight tax cut on the super wealthy and a massive tax increase on the poorest and on the middle class.I, on the other hand, DON'T want that.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

These are the best I could find for now:http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2009/0...come-group.htmlhttp://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2007/0...ian-income.html-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------