Page 3 of 19
Posted on April 15 at 7:44 a.m.
Actually, government revenue collection is *regressive*, when *all* aspects are considered… sales tax, social security, property tax, etc. Income above about $117,000 is not charged Social Security at all; self employed who earn up to $117,000/year pay 15% or so.
Then there is carried interest, by which the wealthy avoid income tax.
So an unexpected reason for a flat tax: get the wealthy to pay up.
And also: any US Corporation that has foreign income: they would pay the flat tax on all that income.
As long as the tax were totally impossible to get out of, no exceptions, applying to all capital gains, dividends, municipal bonds, etc, a flat tax might actually be an improvement, but not for the reasons pointed out in this article.
On A Fair American Flat Tax
Posted on April 11 at 12:46 p.m.
Mrs Dover Sharp it right on target. Her logic is flawless, and it may well be that the Shorts edited out the first 5 minutes of the video.
What a hoot that the intolerant Shorts criticize UCSB for insufficient tolerance. That they forgot to check the regs means Miller-Young will be acquitted.
On UCSB Professor Pleads Not Guilty to Theft and Battery
Posted on April 7 at 11:13 a.m.
Regents regulations say nothing about `safety' personnel. They say `officer or employee'.
The advice given to faculty is: enforce the rules, unless you feel a need for backup from UCSB police, in which case don't hesitate to call them.
Faculty enforce a multitude of campus rules, in the class room, on field expeditions, in the library, etc. Hard to believe that so-called conservatives expect *no* enforcement of rules, except by sworn safety officers.
What an absurd concept. Imagine the local kindegarten teacher in IV school having to call the police because Jimmy stole Betsy's cup of juice.
Posted on April 6 at 7:01 a.m.
The Shorts failed to obtain prior written approval for their signs. They failed to obey the rules. It will be internal UCSB committees, not the courts, that will decide whether they are banned from the UCSB campus.
The County DA decided to prosecute Miller-Young for enforcing a Regents regulation. Most likely the US Civil rights team will undertake an investigation as to whether race was a factor. The County has a poor record on fairness w/r to blacks. How many deputies or DA office staff are black? Recall the Anaconda, or the crackdown in IV after North Hall?
Posted on April 5 at 7:37 p.m.
In accordance with UC Regulation 100002, faculty are employees who are authorized to maintain order on campus.
Note that the Shorts' video omitted the earliest portion of the interaction with Miller-Young, so there is no public data on whether Miller-Young warned or advised the Shorts' to remove or seek approval for their sign.
Posted on April 5 at 7:09 p.m.
Faculty are authorized to maintain order on UC Campuses.
Reagan and his appointed Regents in the late 1960's made sure that complete freedom of expression was against the rules on UC campuses. Ability to speak and distribute small flyers was allowed. Large signs like those displayed by the Short sisters were restricted.
A number of students and non-students were prosecuted at Berkeley in the late 1960's for violating the Reagan-approved rules. A small sign saying `F**K' resulted in a non-student spending 30 days in Alameda County jail.
Anyone who supports Reagan also should support the same treatment for the Shorts that Berkeley free-speech advocates received in the late 1960s: 30 days in County jail.
Posted on March 30 at 9:26 p.m.
Well, looks like the anti-abortion protestors violated UC regulations concerning signs that were too big.
Perhaps all Miller-Young was doing was enforcing the regulations.
And then these protestors resisted a campus faculty member who was merely enforcing the regulations. The protestors perhaps were openly disrespectful of both the regulations and a faculty member who was enforcing the rules.
On UCSB Professor Charged with Theft and Battery
Posted on March 27 at 10:48 a.m.
All the pre-March 2014 comments are quite positive. After that, probably mostly sock puppets and trolls who never took her class posted.
Posted on March 24 at 12:05 p.m.
Sure, a `graphic image' zone could be placed anywhere on campus 1000' from any establishment that sells or prepares food, or any place where food is regularly consumed (like picnic tables put out for public use).
You'll quickly find that any spot like that has no foot traffic.
It is not at all clear to me that graphic images are speech in the first place, but that is splitting legal hairs. It took a huge long set of court cases for flag burning to fall under `free speech'. I'm not at all sure I agree with that, simply because a flag has a very special significance during battle, and burning one inflames soldiers who have been through real battles.
In any case, the disgusting images posted in the Arbor Mall were incompatible with the normal activity of that particular place at that particular time. I think that is a normal restriction on `free expression'. But I"m no attorney.
Posted on March 24 at 11:43 a.m.
@DrDan, I disagree. Barf-inducing posters right next to a cluster of restaurants and food trucks is *not* within the realm of free speech or free expression. The extremity of the posters is amplified by the fact that neither the Independent nor any other media outlet has published the actual photos… (here is a link, don't click it unless you are prepared and have a strong stomach):
Getting that poster out of the Arbor Mall was most certainly the proper thing.
Miller-Young's method of doing so was most probably illegal and certainly rude. Indeed she should have known how to do it right, by lodging proper complaints. But this was not a story of an out-of-control liberal professor subjecting meek but stalwart protestors to a whomping. It was the story of agents provocateurs putting an absolutely disgusting giant image next to a lunch spot where hundreds of people might well barf due to the image.
Miller-Young's basic logic was sound. Disgusting images like that have no place in the public space next to a lunch spot. There are limits on free expression… people can't decide to butcher a few cattle on the street outside your house, DrDan. One can go on and on with other examples. Making people barf by a restaurant falls squarely over the line.
So for me, I have to agree that Miller-Young did the right thing but in the wrong way. She will pay, just like police who make minor mistakes when arresting a murderer have to pay with the agony of seeing the murderer go free. But like the police, Miller-Young mostly did the right thing.