Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

reds8n wrote: It only works when you remember that our natural skin tone is a kind of pale blue. And we don't tan, we go from pasty to lobster with no inbetween. The only tans we display are on our teeth, and that is of course entirely the fault of the great dental wars of the late 70s/early 80s depleting the ranks of our enamel controlling overlords. Never have so few flossed for so many.

Frazzled wrote:EDIT: but ayah back to the SUV debate. No one's going to win the global warming fight when everyone is powered by the intranets warp power.

Warp power? WARP power? Warp power leads to dangerous mutations and daemonic incursions! Have you learned NOTHING?

Exactly.

Da Boss wrote:I just can't get over the idea of a worldwide socialist conspiracy. This guy has obviously never met that many proper socialists- they're more facticious than Orks on a bad day.
And obviously the way to force our agenda is....climate...change?
What?

Also, dude. I live in Ireland. We don't have MSM the way you do. I actually learned most of what I know about global warming in university and through reading scientific journals. Unless those have been infiltrated by my sharing is caring brothers too...*gasp*

Normally I wouldn't be this scathing, but your freedom being threatened over your widdle SUV when people all over the world are feeling the real effects of this issue is just freakin' laughable. I'd always thought the stereotype californian conservative didn't exist. But here you are! It's like finding bigfoot.

Firstly it's not a conspiracy, it's an Agenda. There actually is a new agenda for the left, it's called socialism and redistribution of wealth through taxation. You can be completely factitious and still take advantage of it, just like orks can come together in a Waaagh to use your example. Every day there is some new tax or tax increase that legislators propose or even try to sneak through. Heck just recently here in California Democrats tried an end run around the constitution by calling new taxes fees so they wouldn't need a 2/3rds vote to pass the bill. Global warming is just a tool in this agenda, it provides all sorts of new tax and wealth redistribution opportunities. This includes things like the fun new SUV Taxes as mentioned earlier, Cap and trade, a new tax on beef producers because cows produce CO2 and methane. Hell there is even efforts to prevent 3rd world countries from developing to "stop global warming". Oh and how about one of my personal favorites the biofuel fiasco where congress mandated using biofuels and drove the price of food way up, how "laughable" is that to low income families?

Lets talk about "people all over the world are feeling the real effects of this issue", what effects are we talking about here? Cap and trade causing increased energy prices? Biofuel mandates causing increased food prices? Industrialized nations preventing 3rd world countries from development and keeping people impoverished? Or are we talking about some nefarious random event that you want to associate with global warming. I really do love the "OMG its a hurricane it must be global warming" attitude so often depicted in the media these days. Please list these "real effects" and state the proof you have linking them to global warming.

I do admit that CO2 does have some effect on global temperature however that effect is no where near any sort of crisis level. We actually have hundreds of years before anything even resembling a crisis will occur and it's absolutely irresponsible to create the panic that activists have created with regards to Global climate change. Do we need to change, yes. We need to slowly and gradually transition into other forms of fuels and energy production, but we should not shoot ourselves in the foot in a panic to do it.

Okay.
I'm going to come back after my d'n'd game and reply.
But I just wanted to say.
The redistribution of wealth through taxation is not a new idea.
And I'm a socialist. Like, for real. This is not a new political philosophy, and it has been shown to work quite well in various areas, such as my own country.

Ireland right? Didn't your economy only start growing you dropped taxes to the lowest level in the EU?

Corporate taxes.
We have incredibly high income taxes, and VAT.

Ah, taxes... now the ball is in Polonius's court!

First off, while gas taxes have worked well in other countries, the American economy is built around nearly everybody using a car for transport. Until more options are put into place, any gas tax would be highly regressive (meaning lower income taxpayers pay a higher percentage of their total income on taxes), much like nearly all excise taxes (those taxes that are placed on things, not on income). I'm not saying it's an unworkable solution, just one that would devastate the lower middle class and the working poor.

By the same token, a luxury tax on SUV's themselves would be a body blow to the already embattled american auto industry. Luxury taxes never work, they just kill whatever industry they target, or are frought with loopholes.

By the way, income taxes don't redistribute wealth, they redistribute income. Those are dramatically different concepts in taxation, and get radically different treatment. The only time wealth is really taxes is on real property annually by local government, and at death for highly wealthy people. Government as a mechanism for redistribution of wealth is frought with many concerns. Our country is doing a good job, ironically the subprime mortgages that lead to the collapse also allowed many people to own homes for a first time.

Da Boss wrote:Okay.
I'm going to come back after my d'n'd game and reply.
But I just wanted to say.
The redistribution of wealth through taxation is not a new idea.
And I'm a socialist. Like, for real. This is not a new political philosophy, and it has been shown to work quite well in various areas, such as my own country.

Hmm quite well eh? How are those health care waiting lists coming along? Are they as bad as say Canadian 10 month Maternity ward waiting lists yet? If not just give it some time you'll there soon enough.

ChaosDave wrote:
Firstly it's not a conspiracy, it's an Agenda. There actually is a new agenda for the left, it's called socialism and redistribution of wealth through taxation. You can be completely factitious and still take advantage of it, just like orks can come together in a Waaagh to use your example. Every day there is some new tax or tax increase that legislators propose or even try to sneak through. Heck just recently here in California Democrats tried an end run around the constitution by calling new taxes fees so they wouldn't need a 2/3rds vote to pass the bill.

No, its called the use of taxes as an incentive structure to prioritize investments in small corporations, and start-up businesses. That's the origin of all this 'redistribution' business.

In all of modern history the Federal tax revenue has never deviated from 20% of GDP by more than 1-2%. The differences are not in the overall amount of taxes, but who pays them.

ChaosDave wrote:
Global warming is just a tool in this agenda, it provides all sorts of new tax and wealth redistribution opportunities. This includes things like the fun new SUV Taxes as mentioned earlier, Cap and trade, a new tax on beef producers because cows produce CO2 and methane. Hell there is even efforts to prevent 3rd world countries from developing to "stop global warming". Oh and how about one of my personal favorites the biofuel fiasco where congress mandated using biofuels and drove the price of food way up, how "laughable" is that to low income families?

The price of food had less to do with biofuels than it does with issues of aggregate demand in places like China, India, and Indonesia. As well as matters concerning the overall cost of transport, and the manner in which commodities are traded.

ChaosDave wrote:
Lets talk about "people all over the world are feeling the real effects of this issue", what effects are we talking about here? Cap and trade causing increased energy prices? Biofuel mandates causing increased food prices? Industrialized nations preventing 3rd world countries from development and keeping people impoverished? Or are we talking about some nefarious random event that you want to associate with global warming. I really do love the "OMG its a hurricane it must be global warming" attitude so often depicted in the media these days. Please list these "real effects" and state the proof you have linking them to global warming.

You mean besides the obvious one that an increase in nominal temperature in the oceans has lead to the formation of larger, and longer lasting, tropical storms and, therefore, hurricanes?

ChaosDave wrote:
I do admit that CO2 does have some effect on global temperature however that effect is no where near any sort of crisis level. We actually have hundreds of years before anything even resembling a crisis will occur and it's absolutely irresponsible to create the panic that activists have created with regards to Global climate change. Do we need to change, yes. We need to slowly and gradually transition into other forms of fuels and energy production, but we should not shoot ourselves in the foot in a panic to do it.

I agree. But I suspect that your idea of shooting ourselves in the foot is very different from mine.

ChaosDave wrote:Hmm quite well eh? How are those health care waiting lists coming along? Are they as bad as say Canadian 10 month Maternity ward waiting lists yet? If not just give it some time you'll there soon enough.

Dropping by the day. In England 9 out of 10 patients are sen for non emergency treatment like cataracts, hernies etc are treated within 18 weeks, with most people seen much quicker than that. My nan waited just over a week for her eye op. It's astonishing what happens when things are funded correctly.

I agree that there is no THEWORLDENDSTOMORROW , but that isn't what most proponents of climate change are saying. Syre there's a lunatic fringe who want us all picking brries and living in caves, just as there's people who refute that there is any change going on whatsoever. Both extremes are equally deluded.

I think the hundreds of years timeline you appear to (now) be proposing is wrong- sooner than that, but we're not looking at a Day after tomorrow nonsense affair either.

Did he double post and quote himself? Someone shoot this man.

dogma wrote:
No, its called the use of taxes as an incentive structure to prioritize investments in small corporations, and start-up businesses. That's the origin of all this 'redistribution' business.

In all of modern history the Federal tax revenue has never deviated from 20% of GDP by more than 1-2%. The differences are not in the overall amount of taxes, but who pays them.

For now, but the CBO(Congressional Budget Office) projects that it will most likely increase to as much as 40% by 2075See here. This is just federal taxes, not including the ever increasing State and local taxes.

The price of food had less to do with biofuels than it does with issues of aggregate demand in places like China, India, and Indonesia. As well as matters concerning the overall cost of transport, and the manner in which commodities are traded.

Really? Then why has biofuel production been frozen to 2007 levels. Since the 2005 mandate food prices have risen as much as 40%. When you divert 20-30% of your total crop away from food what did you think would happen? Supply going down has just as much affect on price as demand going up.

I agree. But I suspect that your idea of shooting ourselves in the foot is very different from mine.

Would you consider causing the entire coal industry to collapse over night, putting hundreds of thousands out of work from it and related industries shooting ourselves in the foot. I would, especially since it provide 45% of the US energy not to mention what it would do world wide. In fact Obama has gone on record saying that he intends to do just that using cap and trade.

reds8n wrote:
Dropping by the day. In England 9 out of 10 patients are sen for non emergency treatment like cataracts, hernies etc are treated within 18 weeks, with most people seen much quicker than that. My nan waited just over a week for her eye op. It's astonishing what happens when things are funded correctly.

Wow then all those reports of elderly people having to pull out their own teeth must be absolute lies.

ChaosDave wrote:

reds8n wrote:
Dropping by the day. In England 9 out of 10 patients are sen for non emergency treatment like cataracts, hernies etc are treated within 18 weeks, with most people seen much quicker than that. My nan waited just over a week for her eye op. It's astonishing what happens when things are funded correctly.

Wow then all those reports of elderly people having to pull out their own teeth must be absolute lies.

So you've held onto that link for a year then?

While that situation is a crying shame, it isn't fair to throw that up like it's the typical result. Or you can just ignore me and carry on fighting the godless liberal scum. How's the War on Christmas going?

ChaosDave wrote:
For now, but the CBO(Congressional Budget Office) projects that it will most likely increase to as much as 40% by 2075See here. This is just federal taxes, not including the ever increasing State and local taxes.

Yeah, it probably will. That's what happens when the state debt spends for 30 years.

ChaosDave wrote:
Really? Then why has biofuel production been frozen to 2007 levels. Since the 2005 mandate food prices have risen as much as 40%. When you divert 20-30% of your total crop away from food what did you think would happen? Supply going down has just as much affect on price as demand going up.

Because biofuel has been proven to be worthless as an alternative to oil, and it worsens the much larger problem of increasing global demand for all consumables.

Incidentally, the US produces massive surpluses of most foodstuffs. As such, to say that a contraction in domestically produced supply of those few crops usable in the production of biofuel is responsible for the huge upswing in prices is fairly inaccurate as much of the remaining crop was sold via export to begin with.

ChaosDave wrote:
Would you consider causing the entire coal industry to collapse over night, putting hundreds of thousands out of work from it and related industries shooting ourselves in the foot. I would, especially since it provide 45% of the US energy not to mention what it would do world wide. In fact Obama has gone on record saying that he intends to do just that using cap and trade.

Actually, he went on record as saying that he planned to do that in the event that they wouldn't utilize emissions scrubbers. Nice try though.

ChaosDave wrote:
Wow then all those reports of elderly people having to pull out their own teeth must be absolute lies.

Yes, far better to have health care costs as the number one cause of bankruptcy.

Socialism FTW. The Age of Reagan is coming to an end!

Polonius wrote:Ah, taxes... now the ball is in Polonius's court!

First off, while gas taxes have worked well in other countries, the American economy is built around nearly everybody using a car for transport. Until more options are put into place, any gas tax would be highly regressive (meaning lower income taxpayers pay a higher percentage of their total income on taxes), much like nearly all excise taxes (those taxes that are placed on things, not on income). I'm not saying it's an unworkable solution, just one that would devastate the lower middle class and the working poor.

I pointed out earlier, though, that you shouldn’t just look at a fuel tax in isolation. It can be put in place in conjunction with progressive tax and welfare measures to maintain the tax burden. For instance, if you expected to raise $500 per year per taxpayer, you could increase the tax free threshold by an equivalent amount. The policy would be revenue neutral and wouldn’t effect the tax burden.

By the same token, a luxury tax on SUV's themselves would be a body blow to the already embattled american auto industry. Luxury taxes never work, they just kill whatever industry they target, or are frought with loopholes.

Sort of. Luxury taxes are really only used for two things. Raising easy money from a market that doesn’t really care about the bottom line for their product (custom built mega-yachts, for instance, are generally bought by people who don’t care if the boat costs an extra $20,000). The second is to tax something out of existence, and is basically an excise, but is called a luxury tax for political purposes.

4WDs don’t belong in the first category. While they’re a status symbol, they’re a status symbol of the middle class and for the middle class cost really matters. 4WDs definitely don’t belong in the second category, not with the US car industry in its current position.

So yeah, luxury taxes would be a big mistake. A better plan would be a steady, measured increase in fuel tax offset by tax breaks and welfare changes.

By the way, income taxes don't redistribute wealth, they redistribute income. Those are dramatically different concepts in taxation, and get radically different treatment. The only time wealth is really taxes is on real property annually by local government, and at death for highly wealthy people. Government as a mechanism for redistribution of wealth is frought with many concerns. Our country is doing a good job, ironically the subprime mortgages that lead to the collapse also allowed many people to own homes for a first time.

You’re absolutely right, and the ignorance of the distinction is used all the time for political gain (witness all the socialists who always talk about the concentration of wealth among the top few percent, ignoring that the primary determinant of living standard is income).

ChaosDave wrote:Firstly it's not a conspiracy, it's an Agenda. There actually is a new agenda for the left, it's called socialism and redistribution of wealth through taxation.

That’s not new. 200 years ago Henry George, a powerful figure among classical economists (the source of most policy in conservative or right wing economics) outlined the four canons of tax, and included redistribution. That’s right, the redistribution effect of tax has been a fundamental tenant of right wing economics for more than 200 years. The socialists differed in that they wanted the state to control wages and productive assets, but no-one was ever debating that some redistribution was to take place.

No democracy currently has flat taxes, they are all progressive. A few South American countries tried flat taxes, but they all went bankrupt very quickly (if you set the flat tax rate low enough so that the poor can still afford to eat, you can’t raise enough revenue to pay for roads and soldiers).

You can be completely factitious and still take advantage of it, just like orks can come together in a Waaagh to use your example. Every day there is some new tax or tax increase that legislators propose or even try to sneak through. Heck just recently here in California Democrats tried an end run around the constitution by calling new taxes fees so they wouldn't need a 2/3rds vote to pass the bill.

US Democrats are socialists now? Heh.

I’m sorry, you obviously have a lot of passion and interest in politics, but you really need to read more. I agree with your concluding statement that we need to approach the transition to new energy sources in a sensible and measured approach (though I’d likely disagree on how slow ‘measured’ is).

But that gets drowned out in the reactionary rhetoric, especially when there are so many basic errors in your political understanding. Your comment later in this post about the socialist agenda aiming to prevent economic growth in the third world is, well, bizarre. I’m honestly not having a go, I just think you probably need to start reading some foundational material, or else you’re not going to do anything but provide some mild chuckles for people on the internet.

That sounds harsh, but I’m just being honest with you.

ChaosDave wrote:
Wow then all those reports of elderly people having to pull out their own teeth must be absolute lies.

That is indeed a sad story. And yes, we do still need more NHS dentists. You're not actually claiming that's representative of Britain as a whole are you ?

Note from the article

"Where NHS dental services are available, people are happy with the quality of treatment provided but many find the NHS fee system confusing and expensive, with some patients taking out loans to pay for treatment or more worryingly taking matters into their own hands."

So, all we really need to is sort out the funding and we're sorted. We could stop wasting money on illegal wars for example.

From the Right wing Times newspaper Ten years ago it was NHS waiting times that were the main driver for people turning to the private sector, but delays have plummeted. In the Nineties patients of mine were regularly waiting up to 18 months to have a cataract operation; today some of them are operated on within a fortnight.

Perfect ? No, of course not. But it's better than the system that you've got.

And what you do offer people aint sounding all that either

If you like I can pull links up and make tabloid sounding titles for them as well. How about the babies are dying !111

You've got what ? Around 47 million people with no insurance and another 15-20 million with inadequate insurance. That's about a fifth of your population. That's terrible. In a civilised nation you don't just let people rot away from cancer

Things like that embarrass you as a nation.

[quote=reds8n You've got what ? Around 47 million people with no insurance and another 15-20 million with inadequate insurance. That's about a fifth of your population. That's terrible. In a civilised nation you don't just let people rot away from cancer

Things like that embarrass you as a nation.

Once we start talking about letting people die from cancer in the streets the thread has moved beyond its useful date.