birdog1960

ruths chris is overrated. there would still be plenty of people able to buy a tesla (or even a rolls, bentley, masserati, ferrarai... with what i proposed or even a VAT or punitive luxury tax.

all my expenses go through my pc. not on my individual return. don't see why that couldn't apply to everyone.

ah and there lies the source of our disagreement. what is essential and what is disposable? i would argue that essentials should be the same for all. if someone making 50k is expected to survive on 35 or 40k depending on dependents, then the high earner should be held to the same standard. everything else is disposable. and i would argue that fair would be the current progressive scale minus the bush tax cuts on disposable income.

because tesla is the leader and its roadster is what can be accomplished now. at $110000 for a supercar it's really not outrageously priced. if chevy made it rather than a boutique company it might approach the cost of a corvette eventually. tesla is salient to any discussion of the volt and gm.

so what do you figure the disposable income of each is? assuming the guy making 50k is being taxed on this alone, the assumption would be 15k. using that same number (35k) for necessities. the 500k earner has a disposable income of465k. so the guy payin 5k on his 15k disposable income is paying more as a percentage than the guy making 500k. how is that fair?

ever heard of a paradigm shift? and once again, why would i ever look to you bozo's for a definition of manhood?

the people using the charge stations pay, obviously. systems have already been designed and in some places implemented. to me this problem seems much less complex than refining, shipping, storing and selling gasoline. right now the electricity would come mostly from coal, hydroelectricl and nuclear power. not very satisfying environmentally but would potentially result in a lot less dependence on foreign oil and stem a large outflow of dollars to the middle east. and then there's 0-60 in 3.1 secs! the idea of a nearly silent engine knocking my head into the headrest while accelerating from a stop sign is the best reason for moving ahead on this.

no, because of loopholes. just 2 examples (i'm certain you can think of many more): mortgage interest deduction and health savings accounts. both disproportionally benefit high earners. the guy with the million$ house has the ability to benefit much more from mortgage interest deductions than the guy with the 100k house or rental. many low earners can't afford the risk of an hsa but if you can they're a great deal tax wise, saving potentially 10's of thousands. and then of course capital gains.... the "fair amount" mentioned is a starting point from a level that last resulted in a budget surplus. admittedly many other factors were involved.

definitely not watching. i like the beach too much to put those thoughts in my head. how many shark related deaths last year? pretty sure it' was less than lightning strikes.

outperforms in any conditions

a little hyperbole maybe? not at all what i said. but yes, ridiculous wealth (100's-1000's of times average compensation) is unjustifiable, not to mention inefficient. you're familiar with Deming, right? not exactly a pillar of socialism but he agreed with this. and with such vast separation it become ever more difficult to maintain a middle class. it's happening before your very eyes. do you really not see it or only choose to not see it? how much incentive is enough? there is a reasonable level and now is not it.

you're absolutely correct i work for people on welfare...and rich people too. on medicare, they all pay the same (or nearly- those with medicaid and medicare pay less). the problem with your philosophy is that the "winners" are never satisfied. if they could get away with paying 3$/ hour (and they do in third world countries) they would. that's how they became "winners" in the first place...we need checks and balances...that's what liberals mean when they say "fair".

here's an answer: a sliding scale percentage ( the current progressive tax scheme would do minus the bush tax cuts) of disposable income. after paying a median rent/mortgage, buying food and transportation and without loopholes

gm has been disappointing here ....the volt was sposed to come in at 35k or less- not! on the other hand, tesla is building awesome products (very cool). i'd buy a roadster tomorrow if the price came down a bit and it will. rumor has it tesla's working with honda on a new crv electric with an extended range. gm needs to step up to the plate or they will get their just deserts.

even accepting your argument, wouldn't 32.8% of the worlds military expenditures be enough to accomplish these benefits effectively? didn't see israel on that list but most consider them formidable in their region. are we really getting the value we should from our massive expenditures? we scrutinize waste in other areas much more closely.

why not start here

only took 7 posts to invoke the redskins...actually thought it would be sooner

if i had to pick, it would be corporate country...they'd be best equipped to put down the revolts that were sure to occur. but even with obama in charge i'm thinking were pretty close to corporate country now.

did you really think through this idea? would you then rather there be one awful restaurant in town with inexpensive food than no restaurants? i'd rather eat in or go to some other town. even better, no one would go and this restaurant would bring in a new chef or owner. more to the point, i'd rather watch a few games on tv and cheer a winner than see every miserable game of a perennial loser in person....or pay double to see half as many games of a good team. so you eat bad food and pretend you're happy and i'll abstain, watch games on tv (until it's once again obvious that this is one of the worst teams of the season) and complain about the owner and the chefs.

agree completely. wasn't arguing that. magox appears to dismiss their entire existence...guess it doesn't match his portrait of american politics/industry...or maybe i misunderstood his entire post. those labels can easily be attached to those of many political persuasions.

sure, things like astroturfing are just figments of the house loons' imagination.

most are lawyers...they can go back to ambulance chasing

want change? get the money out of elections: (limited govt funded campaigns),term limits and NO consultant/lobbyist jobs forever after holding office. would vastly improve things overnight.

still gotta think that money talks, even with highly competitive athletes. these guys must realize that their careers can be over any given practice much less any game. and if they hold back and play it safe they're not worth keeping and get cut or get hurt anyway.. what's the average nfl career ? offer enough money and they will come, even to buffalo.