Google Needs Sex - <AUTHOR> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/google-needs-sex/ <comment><USER2> Here we see a search engine in his native habitat, foraging the fields of the world wide web for his sustenance, advertising targets. These beautiful lumbering beasts play an important part in the ecosystem, processing great quantities of flora and excreting them into little packets for the creatures further down the chain.

Master of his niche and with no natural predators, the mighty search engine's greatest threat is the ongoing habitat destruction by Mankind, as slash and burn development techniques replace the verdant fields of pages with cheap plastic knockoffs and gaudy littering, which the mighty search engine haplessly consumes, but grows fat and slow from gorging on the empty calories. If this practice is not soon ended, the search engines may have to be placed on the endangered species list.

But hark! What's that sound? A female search engine in the throes of heat has entered the clearing! Her mating call reaches deep into the soul of the male search engine... "ACK kwire! ACK kwire!" and the male must have her. He unfurls his spectacular page index count to impress the female, and truly this is a virile male, for his index count easily reaches into the trillions! A rare specimen indeed. The female is impressed and approaches the male to exchange their algorithmic details. Soon the deed is done and satiated, the male wanders off in disinterest. Soon four or five baby search engines will be born, each of which to thrive in the harsh environment of the web must eventually kill and consume their parents, a difficult feat that no baby search engine has accomplished in many years, but such is the harsh reality of the untamed wilderness.

Tune in next week when we'll follow the adventures of the cutest little baby search engine as he grows, encounters his first clickbot, and acquires his first distracting side business, all before facing his first mortal threat of acquisition by the trophy-seeking megacorporate hunter who wishes to gut the young search engine and turn it into the something to hang on his intranet to impress his fellow megacorporates.

<comment><USER3> Bravo! You, sir, are an artist.

[Edit] What I originally wanted to comment on is that the metaphor this article uses seems invalid. Google is no stationary target. I presume the engineers working there are not just sitting around getting massages all day long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is quite possibly the dumbest article about technology I've seen in a mainstream publication.

What Google _really_ needs is a willingness to accept a way higher threshold of false negatives in weeding out content. I'd love to have a "known good" version of Google that risked leaving out some content. Let's start by banning all .info domains along with any that include a hyphen.

<comment><USER5> > This is quite possibly the dumbest article about technology I've seen in a > mainstream publication.

Come on, it's in the NYTimes & by Paul Krugman (an economist) - not bad for that combination. After reading lots of articles by technologists, you need to remember to temper your expectations when you visit the website of a mainstream publication.

That said, his theory isn't entirely false - Google may actually need some "outside" ideas to mix in with their own. Then again, perhaps (my instinct says probably) they've been doing that for years, and the spammers are just evolving faster.

<comment><USER6> You mean _former_ economist. He's now a columnist and since seems to have abandoned most of his critical thinking skills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What the author is saying, as I understand it, is that Google needs a way to mix up their algo's so they aren't easily "gamed" by scammers and spammers.

The question is not whether Google is doing this actively but how fast and decisively they do this as well as what specific issue they deem as priority to address.

Google's algo, as I understand it, is an array of knobs that are turned up and down to increase or decrease impact of various factors such as domain age, incoming links, quality of content, etc. Google is always adjusting these knobs and adding/removing knobs. The goals of adjusting these knobs are obviously only known by Googlers but what is clear to many is that the sole object of adjusting these knobs in not to make the results pages more relevant. Don't get me wrong... they definitely care about relevancy (or they wouldn't have the trust of millions) but they are a public company with obligations to meet so they must take many factors into account when making adjustments.

The point? The sex (aka variation over time) that the author refers to will likely come from adjusting existing knobs and introducing new knobs such as social authority, locality, etc... but it doesn't necessarily mean that problems of relevance as we see it will get fixed through these variations. Google will take into account a number of factors when deciding what problems they want to solve and to what extend.

</rambling>

<comment><USER8> > what is clear to many is that the sole object of adjusting these knobs in > not to make the results pages more relevant.

You're implying there is a sole objective. There isn't. And if there was one, it would most certainly be to maximise relevancy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great headline, crappy article. People have been trying to game search engines since a few minutes after they were invented. And other search engines don't appear to be better, or the market share would have shifted by now. It costs nothing to the consumer to switch, and people talk about which websites they like - so if something that is more appealing to Joe Public comes along, it will be noticed. Bing's ascent in the number of searches has not been huge yet. Personally I hope for more than one search superpower in the future.

<comment><USER10> It costs nothing to you and I to switch search engines. The cost is a lot greater for the kind of people who type URLs into Google's search field, to navigate the intertubes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> One could, in theory, manually create a database of a few million (or way more) websites, and rate the content in each of them (including advertisements - just how the page is showed to the end user). This database could then be used to train algorithms, with genetic fitness based on how close the ratings of the algorithm are to the human ratings of value (note that the algorithms would not be aware of the human value ratings).

A second - perhaps slightly smaller - database could then be used to test the performance of the best algorithms in the "real world," or at least on data which they weren't trained on. This would select against algorithms which are adapted solely for the first database. Content ratings generated algorithmically could then be used to modify the ranking of websites in the results, penalizing websites that seem to have bad content.

I'm not sure how I got here from thinking about sex between search engines; I suppose it's because one way to deal with the evolution would be taking the best few algorithms each time and combining them (which I'm sure that there are issues with). Of course, people far more intelligent than I have certainly had this idea before, and probably figured out why it wouldn't work (or, alternatively, that it would work, which would suggest that someone is now busy implementing it).

<comment><USER12> The catch is this database would need to be kept away from spammers, lest they be able to test their site designs against it directly.

<comment><USER11> Not so much the database as the algorithm; if it's sufficiently understood (as seems to be the case with Google's algorithm, or at least a lot of people claim it to be the case), then spammers can target it directly. Merely having the original data used to train it doesn't give much insight into the algorithm itself.

On second thought, though, being able to identify common characteristics of the least spam-like websites would allow spammers to mimic those characteristics. It would take a lot of effort (figuring out the core bits), but they are clearly willing to put that in. So yes, I suppose that you're right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If I was a web search company, I'd allow users to upvote or downvote their search results (this would increase or decrease their prominence on subsequent searches). This could be done on a per-site, or per-page basis.

Then I'd use one person's preferences to alter how other people receive search results (on an optional basis; if people didn't want their results filtered like this, they wouldn't have to.)

But I wouldn't just use an average of all users; it'd be too easy for spammers to create fake accounts to upvote spam. No, a user's search results would only be affected by what their friends upvote and downvote (or possibly their friends of friends as well).

This would make it in a user's interests to link to their friends and have their friends rate websites, as everyone uses web search. So people would want to promote the search engine to their friends.

To give people more of an incentive to proselytise the search engine, I'd add social features such as a twitter-like service (allowing public, friends-only, and named-recipients-only messages), chat (text, voice and video-voice), an extended-length messaging service (you could call it, I don't know, a "blog" or something) that also allows pictures, and RSS feeds of one's own and one's friends' public entries.

I'd also add a "fan" feature (intransitive, as opposed to friendship which is transitive). People could create lists rating websites, and others could fan those lists.

Maybe someone like DuckDuckGo might want to implement something like this?

(Incidentally, DDG market themselves as being privacy-friendly, which coupled with the recent subpoena of Wikileaks' Twitter data, suggests there may be an opportunity for a competitor to Twitter that is more privacy-minded).

<comment><USER14> "I'd allow users to upvote or downvote their search results" Google already did that. But for some reason they were unable to efficiently use results of that project. I think something is broken in Google's mid-management.

<comment><USER15> I'd guess that the clickstream data can yield conclusions that are nearly as accurate as manual voting, if not moreso. It's not worth cluttering the interface for data with such low marginal value.

<comment><USER14> Using clickstream data for defining ranking is a must, but not enough. Manual rating adds value to web site rankings. Google Toolbar's data adds even more value to the ranking. I'd say all that clicking data should be affect search rankings even more than hyperlinks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Google already has "search engine sex", it's called revision control (although I really doubt this is what Krugman had in mind.) To solve Google's spam problem, they either need better business priorities or smarter engineers, depending on which popular explanation of Google's spam problem is accurate.

> And the most persuasive answer, as I understand it, is defense against > parasites.

Probably more likely the general ability to merge in one generation two or more highly advantageous adaptations into one individual, which could include parasite defense but also everything else.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have been thinking a lot about this problem. If indeed it is a problem.

Google is in the business of serving ads. The vast majority of those spammy sites display google ads. So, there is little incentive for google to change things just yet. Joe public is not complaining, yet. It is only the digerati, and a whole bunch of other webmasters who think their sites should be ranking higher because _they_ are just better, who seem to be up in arms over this.

The interesting thing is that half the spammy do provide content that is 'just good enough' for what most people are looking for. The quickest exit from one of these sites, is via a google ad, so google wins, the site wins, and the advertiser targetting a specific niche wins.

The only problem will be when the advertisisers stop getting the bang for their buck when their ads are displayed on these sites. Until then, Google has little incentive to change.

<comment><USER17> Ahh, I forgot to add the 'solution'.

The 'sex' bit, will be marrying google search results with other sources, and breeding a search ranking algorithm specific to you.

For example, the Facebook 'like' button could turn out to be very useful. Stuff liked by more people gets ranked higher. Since webmasters are already gaming Facebook though, then stuff liked by people who are one or two degrees of separation from you on facebook could count more. Any social network that allows you to indicate some sort of trust in an individual could work.

I bet you though, that if Google did this, the very same people complaining about the bad results now, would be the first to complain about the privacy implications of all this, and how google seems to know so much about us .... _sigh_

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The author is dead wrong about benefits of sex. The key benefit of sex is the ability to preserve huge gene pool and try out multiple combinations. The battle against parasites does not worth huge reproductive complexity that sex introduces.

On the other hand the author is right that Google is inefficient in fighting web spam.

<comment><USER18> yeah, especially considering that a huge chunk of species on this planet reproduces, clonally, just fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think he's suggesting a genetic algorithm... Google-style organisms, competing for fewest retried searches, most-different front-page results, etc., that over time merge and split in various ways. Seems pretty similar to some of the tactics Google's already trying to me.

</comment><comment><USER20>
      I'm not quite sure what search-engine sex would involve.
      But Google apparently needs some.

Wow, Krugman spouts gibberish when he isn't talking specifically about economics. This post is meaningless.

</comment><comment><USER21> "I'm not quite sure what search-engine sex would involve. But Google apparently needs some."

Picture a duck (<http://duckduckgo.com/>).

<comment><USER22> Eww.

<comment><USER23> I said to myself, whatever, DuckDuck's the shit. Then I searched a keyword relevant to my industry, the first five results:

niche.gr niche-factory.fr cn-niche.com myspace.com/russianniche niche.kz

Right, then. Guess the problem isn't specific to Google...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Tech journalist to the rescue.

</comment><comment><USER18> "Why doesn't nature just engage in cloning?

... If each generation of an organism looks exactly like the last, parasites can steadily evolve to bypass the organism's defenses."

Why doesn't nature, indeed?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction>

</comment><comment><USER25> this article screams of linkbaiting _(I guess it worked, it got onto HN and I checked it out)_.

Author concludes that "Google needs sex" because cloning avoided parasites (not strictly true, but whatever) but then signs off with "I don't know what Google sex looks like".

Duh.

</comment><comment><USER26> Binglehoo

<comment><USER27> g + m$ = BOOM</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should I learn and use ROR or stick with what I'm comfortable with? - <AUTHOR>

I've been working for a software company that uses Java Struts for building web applications and I've become very, very good at it. It's boring, verbose but the runtime is efficient and I can crank it out. I started looking at ROR tutorials, but have been a little bit turned off by the hand-waving of scaffolding and usage of GEMs (granted, I bailed mid-way through even the first tutorial).<p>What are your thoughts on building a Java Web Application (using Struts, likely - other suggestions welcomed),   versus building a Ruby on Rails (etc.) <comment><USER2> Nobody really uses the scaffolding generation stuff after they get through with the tutorials and Gems are actually a very nice package system and ruby is a whole heck of a lot more fun to write than Java. Your mileage may vary. I prefer compiling my code onto, small, overpriced, hand-held computers these days :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm also very comfortable using struts (1,2) and spring, have been using it for a very long time.

I think you should learn RoR (or Django) and then decide for yourself. Keep in mind that we are in the middle of another 'change' in web development which lead us to two aspects:

1) Traditional web development: If you are building experiments or software that can change quickly due to some sort of pivoting, you should avoid Java at all costs. It takes way too much time to test/change things using Struts (even 2) or spring.

2) Using AngularJs, Ember et al: Java does great, just use Jersey and you will be fine. But, why not use Go? It is faster than using netty, it is something new (we all like shiny things).

That's my two cents, have a great day!!!

</comment><comment><USER4> If you want to migrate more slowly you might consider getting into Groovy. It's very very Ruby like, but maintains compatibility with most Java syntax. You can start by learning Groovy and applying it in the Struts world that you know and love. Then you can try out Grails and get a feel for a Rails-like framework. Then you if you like it you can jump over to Rails and you'll find a lot of what you learned from Groovy / Grails is very conceptually similar. By doing it this way you can widen your knowledge without ever having to make the big jump that can be so disorienting, and all of the above technologies are worthy of learning in their own right.

<comment><USER5> > all of the above technologies are worthy of learning in their own right

Making the big jump to Rails is the best way - plenty of people do it. There's no point learning Grails programming if youre not going to stick with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is it the rails framework that interests you, or Ruby's syntax?

If it's the former I'd check out other Rails-like frameworks for Java. If it's the latter, then make the change to RoR.

</comment><comment><USER7> Learning new things is always positive! Learn as much as you can, for fun, for knowledge and to just in case. You never know.

</comment><comment><USER8> Stick with the JVM. Look at Play! or something lightweight like Spray or Scalatra.

</comment><comment><USER9> What is your goal?

</comment><comment><USER10> yes</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone want to help me build a browser? - <AUTHOR>

I posted the idea for a browser on my blog a few days ago, you read about it here:
http://ashraful.org/introducing-browsr/ http://ashraful.org/browser-features/
Unfortunately, the programmer working on this left. So I am looking for a someone to take over the lead development. If you happen to be a desktop programmer and are interested in this, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.com
For your convenience, here are the three main features (copy pasted from the second blog post):
AUTOMATIC SIGN-UP
If you have been using the internet for any length of time, chances are you have signed-up for more than one website. In fact, you probably signed up for more than a dozen. Whether its an email service, a social network, a forum or simply a blog, users have to "Sign Up" or "Register" on each website separately, often providing the same data to to each and and every one of them. Browsr hopes to eliminate this by using its built-in identity manager to automatically sign-up and sign-in users.
When the user first launches Browsr they fill up their profile with all their personal information. Now whenever the user visits a website that requires registration, instead of asking the user, the website can ask the browser for the information needed. Browsr provides the data based on the identity selected by the user, and so the user never sees the registration form. Instead everything takes place between the browser and the website, and user is automatically signed in without having to worry about the sign-up process.
In the identity manager, users can choose the edit the data provided to a specific web services, move the service to another identity or remove it entirely.
NATIVE APPS WITH OFFLINE ACCESS
Do you have any website that you visit regularly? Isn't it a waste of bandwidth, and more importantly your time, to load the same website interface again and again? After all, all you really want is the new email you received or the updates from your friends. Using native apps, Browsr eliminates the wasteful nature of downloading the same website interface repeatedly.
In the "Home" screen, users can install apps the same way they do on their iPhones or iPads. Adding an app is simple as click the "+" button and searching for the desired app and clicking "Install". Apps are not simply bookmarks, they are full-fledged applications that you can use instantly. When you install the app for a particular web service you no longer have to load the entire website, all you download is the new data – like your facebook messages or tweets from your friends. And best of all, you don't need to connect to the internet to gain access to your data, you can read all your old messages, or browse all your photos while you're offline.
LOCALLY STORED, PERFECTLY MOBILE DATA
Nowadays almost any website you use has a lot of information about you. Google knows your search history, Microsoft has your emails, Facebook has your social graph and photos, Last.FM has your music history, Foursquare has your check-ins. And even though you are the owner, you cannot take your data with you.
You should be able to take your search history from Google with you, so you can use Bing and still get relevant results. You should be able to take your photos with you from Facebook to Google Plus so you can share it with your friends.  You should be able to take your emails from Hotmail to Gmail so you can search through it more easily. And most importantly you should have the right to deny access to your data to any web service.
Browsr tries to provide you with complete control over your data by storing all our information locally. Instead of storing your information on some server that you don't have access to, all of it is stored on your PC. And you can do whatever you want with it: back it up, put it on Dropbox, or provide access to any web service you choose.  Having control over your data means you can quickly get started with new web services you want to use, with all your past data right there with you.
On top of that, Browsr also lets you keep your social connections with you by using the identity manager. Your entire social graph stays with you regardless of  what social network you are using. <comment><USER2> Can't Chrome or Firefox plus extensions already do these things?

And if not, why not write an extension that will, rather than a whole new browser that no one will use.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not really. There are form-fillers and password managers, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

Similar there are some "apps" and "widgets" available for some browsers, but its not the same thing as the apps with local storage that I'm talking about.

Perhaps I'm not being able to clearly communicate my ideas...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You can do the automatic sign ups with extensions pretty easily.

As for the offline access native apps: does each site then have to write a native app module for your browser for it to work. This doesn't sound like something you can do without work from each site owner.

The same for locally stored data. You could keep a local copy of any files you upload to sites, but if you are uploading, you already should have a copy. But you can't do anything in a browser to make facebook serve images from your computer instead of theirs. This is another feature which requires work from every site to make happen.

</comment><comment><USER4> Making a browser takes alot. This post reminds me the 'I want to build my own MMORPG, it will have X/Y/Z feature and I need developpers to help me.' posts. Great idea but why not fork an existing opensource browser instead of reinventing the wheel?

<comment><AUTHOR> Forking Chrome is fine by me. But I don't have the programming skills needed to do that, so I need help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Opera does automatic sign-up. (Without extension)</comment>


Show HN: Calibre Test Profiles – Test your sites under real world conditions - <AUTHOR> https://calibreapp.com Hi HN! I'm Ben, the solo founder of Calibre Analytics: https://calibreapp.com. Calibre monitors websites and applications in a clean-room testing environment from all over the world. Up until January Calibre has been an "inbetween other things" / evenings / holidays kind of project. (Only, oops—I did that for four years.). Last year I knuckled down to get into the position where I could work on it full time.
I've spent the last 8 weeks working on "Test profiles" (The launch post is here: https://medium.com/get-calibre/announcing-test-profiles-and-...) — It allows you to emulate hardware devices (cpu speed, user-agents and screen dimensions), as well as limit the bandwidth (latency, download and upload speeds), and set cookies (you could use this to log into your app, test a staff-shipped feature, or maybe turn off advertising and see the performance impact.) I think I've finally got the basis of a really powerful tool, and I'm keen to share it with… everyone! I do everything myself, so if you've any questions, I'm here to answer them! <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! I'm Ben, the solo founder of Calibre Analytics: [https://calibreapp.com](https://calibreapp.com). Calibre monitors websites and applications in a clean-room testing environment from all over the world. Up until January Calibre has been an "inbetween other things" / evenings / holidays kind of project. (Only, oops—I did that for four years.).

Last year I knuckled down to get into the position where I could work on it full time. I've spent the last 8 weeks working on "Test profiles" (The launch post is here: [https://medium.com/get-calibre/announcing-test-profiles- and-...](https://medium.com/get-calibre/announcing-test-profiles-and- budgets-2-0-84667a4e4749)) — It allows you to emulate hardware devices (cpu speed, user-agents and screen dimensions), as well as limit the bandwidth (latency, download and upload speeds), and set cookies (you could use this to log into your app, test a staff-shipped feature, or maybe turn off advertising and see the performance impact.)

I think I've finally got the basis of a really powerful tool, and I'm keen to share it with… everyone! I do everything myself, so if you've any questions, I'm here to answer them!

<comment><USER2> Is it only clean room metrics or can you also collect metrics from actual users?

<comment><AUTHOR> Atm, the focus is clean room, but real time/user metrics are on the horizon—especially when the company is more than just me!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I totally mistook this for Calibre[0], the open-source e-book app.

The site looks really good. This is a very impressive product for an "in- between other things"/evenings/holidays kind of project. My only issue is that the animation of the application window coming up can sometimes be laggy.

0: [https://calibre-ebook.com/](https://calibre-ebook.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah… that animation isn't what it should be for a performance product—luckily, after this (and the lighthouse integration I'm working on right now), I'll have all-new marketing too!

Edit: Thank you! :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Calibre seems to be one of the only website performance testing tools that is keeping up with the new "user centric" website performance stuff coming out of Google aka Lighthouse.

I quite enjoyed watching this brain storm session with Paul Irish around Lighthouse and new metrics for measuring website performance in a meaningful way.

Edit: Forgot to include the link -> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxXGMesq_8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxXGMesq_8s)

</comment><comment><USER5> Test profiles is an especially interesting idea, something that I don't believe other tools in this space (Gomez/Compuware APN, ThousandEyes) have quite yet. Other than test profiles, what sets Calibre apart?

<comment><AUTHOR> Without being super familiar with the tech that any of these companies are running —

The biggest thing that sets Calibre apart is that its entirely built using the Chrome developer tools APIs. I like to think about it as someone on your team who opened devtools after every deploy, and kept a neat spreadsheet of all the changes that had occurred. In short, all the data is ready and available for the taking.

This also has the added benefit that I have the power of the Chrome browser to play with. Projects like Google's Lighthouse ([https://developers.google.com/web/tools/lighthouse/](https://developers.google.com/web/tools/lighthouse/) — Which I'm currently integrating into Calibre!) have meant that a lot more powerful tools/metrics/resources/etc are coming along strongly, and this will only help make Calibre more powerful too.

Calibre is firmly focused on what your users actually experience, and helping you get to the bottom of 'why' quickly and efficiently. So while technically focused tools are imperative for any team, many of them aren't focused on the most important people in the equation.

Also, thanks — Good question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd suggest a name change as calibre is already well established open source e-book management software. From my results you are the 6th result on google searching for "calibre".

</comment><comment><USER7> Congrats on the launch! This is really inspiring to see how polished a solo- founded startup can be :)

</comment><comment><USER8> We've been using calibre app on Vecteezy and its helped us keep track (and improve) our site performance. Its a great tool and continues to improve!

</comment><comment><USER9> Nice product, been watching this for a while. Looking forwards to using it in anger soon.

<comment><AUTHOR> Please do! There's a fairly relaxed 14 day trial. (And you get a fresh trial if you create a new "team"/organisation</comment></comment>


A Virtual Museum of Soviet Everyday Life - <AUTHOR> http://kommunalka.colgate.edu/index.cfm <comment><USER2> There are still a lot of "communalkas" in russia. In Saint Petersburg there were 76 600 of them in 2017 [1] and in Moscow 58 000 in 2008 (down from 118 000 in 1998) [2]. These are only that "communalkas" that are owned by the people that live in them. You can imagine how hard it is to turn a "communalka" into a flat that is owned by a single family. If somebody tries to buy the whole "communalka" any owner can refuse to sell and every owner has the "first right" to any part of the "communalka" so owners that want to sell their part have to get signed refusals of that right from all other owners.

There are also flats that have single owner but rented as "communalkas" to multiple families, and number of these flats is growing.

You can see "communalkas" in many soviet and russian movies, for example in "The Pokrovsky Gate" (1982) [3].

1 [rus] - [https://mirndv.ru/blog/peterburg-gorod-mostov-belyh- nochej-i...](https://mirndv.ru/blog/peterburg-gorod-mostov-belyh-nochej-i- kommunalok/)

2 [rus] - [https://www.cian.ru/novosti-v-rossii-po-prezhnemu-mnogo- komm...](https://www.cian.ru/novosti-v-rossii-po-prezhnemu-mnogo- kommunalok-230249/)

3 [rus] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo5PiDzYQCg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo5PiDzYQCg)

</comment><comment><USER3> The communal housing in USSR appeared mostly as a result of "working class" (in wide sense, i.e. peasants, workers, low level clerks/bureaucrats) moving into the large and very large apartments (like an apartment taking whole floor of a building) where a "class enemy" (aristocracy, rich and/or high positioned people from pre-Revolution who had emigrated if they were lucky or got killed otherwise as result of the Revolution and the Civil War) lived before. Giving whole such an apartment to a family of a worker would be too much from a social and practical point of view. Also the USSR was supposedly building a worker paradise and communal living was like a virtue as well as a virtue building process.

The new and smaller housing, especially the even smaller mass apartments of Khruschev times almost never was communal except for the cases of very tight hosing situation in the town or some other relatively rare situations.

<comment><USER4> Given that the revolution was in 1917, and how much the working class urbanized following the revolution, I'd have a hard time believing that pre- revolution housing stock was sufficient beyond the first decade. Surely much built-to-suit communal housing must have been made in the 60+ years of communist rule.

<comment><USER5> No, gp is right. New-style buildings had other names, like stalinka.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Those Soviet Khrushchyovkas are the most depressing, abysmal buildings built in the history of mankind and I for one cannot wait until the day they demolish the last one of those despicable creations.

<comment><USER7> For me they are beatiful. Because they allowed a lot of people to have their own house. It's incredible achievement. They should be replaced by better houses with time, of course.

<comment><USER8> That's a good point, after WW2 the Soviet Union had the double problem of a rapidly urbanising population and having to rebuild all the destruction. They needed a quick solution and what they chose worked.

<comment><USER9> It came with a high cost. Roughly 20 million died under forced labor camps, collectivization efforts and resulting famines, gulags, and resettlements.

<comment><USER8> I don't doubt it. It was a rapid modernisation and raising of living standards.

<comment><USER9> Are you saying it was necessary or justified? It sounds like your meaning is that such mass murder, combined with murder via incompetence, is a necessary part of modernization.

<comment><USER8> No, I didn't say that. I meant there was a lot of work pushed on the people by a ruthless government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I grew up in CCCP Kazakhstan with my grandparents, we had a 1bd apartment at the 5th floor of a 5 story building. None of my relatives were sharing housing afai remember - it was a small town around Qaraghandy. I still go and visit them time to time.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm fascinated by cold war era details about Russia. It has so many parallels to the west, but it's just different enough that there's a strange uncanny valley effect.

</comment><comment><USER11> Living in Russia is always associated with the Soviet union, like China is always associated with the Communist government. But communism has formed a very small part of these countries' histories. I wonder why the focus on just the communist aspects of these countries.

<comment><USER12> Because the pre-communism period was in most respects, even worse. China had a century of occupation and decades of civil war. Russia was a backwater, with constant repression and terrorism of it's population. Hell, it had _serfdom_ until the mid 19th century. (Which was reintroduced in all but name through the kolhoz system.)

The repression of the regimes that followed didn't spring up in a vaccum, but was a natural evolution of the political environment they operated in.

<comment><USER11> Did the pre-communism period engage in widespread religious persecution and send millions of Russians to the gulags to be worked to death?

<comment><USER13> Yes:

From Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom)

> _A pogrom is a violent riot aimed at the massacre or persecution of an > ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews. The Russian term > originally entered the English language in order to describe 19th and 20th > century attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire (mostly within the Pale of > Settlement)._

<comment><USER11> While that is religious persocution, it is persecution of a particular religion. The Soviets oppressed _all_ religions since theism threatened the state's power. Same as in China today.

<comment><USER13> Maybe [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#Russian...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#Russian_Empire) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide) then?

<comment><USER11> Certainly bad, but does not seem at the scale or intent of the gulags.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag)

At least it is hard to see how the Soviets were an improvement on the past.

<comment><USER13> Peasants, workers and people from non-aristocratic families could rise to the top?

<comment><USER11> Could they? Seems like everyone became a serf of the state. Plus, the millions sent to the gulags couldn't rise.

<comment><USER13> Yes, they could. The state was formed by people from non aristocratic backgrounds and it is undeniable there was upward mobility compared to the rigid caste system of the Russian Empire.

You can argue that it was a totalitarian government ruled by dictators, but you cannot argue that it was ruled by an aristocracy or that a peasant couldn't rise up to rule the country.

A well connected Party member or apparatchik could live relatively decently regardless of his ancestry, on "merit" (connectedness) alone. Yes, he could also get shot or imprisoned, but the same was true with the Empire, where he'd never rule.

Stalin was born in a poor family. Lenin's was wealthy middle class, but not aristocratic. Trotsky was born to (wealthy) farmers. Kruschev was the son of peasants and Brezhnev the son of workers. Just to name a few...

<comment><USER11> Sounds like they just created a new aristocratic class that was even more brutal. Still hard to see an improvement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I lived in one of these for 3 years. It wasn't too bad but only because I happened to have a room with a very tall ceiling (easily 3m) and was young. Think of it as a small studio with a shared kitchen and bathroom, or a better variant of a dorm, except your neighbors are mostly hostile to you, and some of them are alcoholics.

Another saving grace was that it was 10 minute leisurely walk from the university I was attending at the time. How people raised families in the worse variants of these I will never know, thankfully. The only real snag was, I eventually had to move my fridge into my room, because neighbors would steal my food otherwise. Not because they didn't have their own, but because of "Soviet mentality" where private property wasn't really respected, and everyone stole what they could.

This is the period of my life I recall when some latte-sippin' macbook pro totin' millenial here in the US tells me that socialism wouldn't be too bad.

</comment><comment><USER15> I know that we are all supposed to be "communism is teh bad", but the history of the Soviet Union is more complicated than just saying it was Communist, right? I'm actually kind of asking in hopes that someone who knows something about the subject can respond. I don't think that you can divorce what happened in the Soviet Union from the term Communism, just like you can't say that "real capitalism" has never been tried. I just imagine that it's way more complicated than "Commie == Bad".

<comment><USER16> It's already been mentioned in this thread that the pre-1917 Russia had a lot of people living in poor conditions and had fallen behind Western Europe.

I am also not an expert, but my understanding is that they made some progress on things like education and literacy rate. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Soviet_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Soviet_Union)

It doesn't excuse the many things that went wrong during the period. But my intuition is you cannot say it was composed 100% of bad actors and total maliciousness or even incompetence.

<comment><USER17> And human rights, actually.

No-fault divorce, universal suffrage, equality of races - at least in official policy - all at once, by the 1920s. It was unprecedented.

And it worked, to a certain extent at least. Women got education and entered the (educated, professional) work force (and, during the war, combat divisions). The change for Jewish people (officially oppressed with race- specific laws in Imperial Russia) was immense (Trotsky, one of the top guys, was Jewish - as were many others, before Stalinism).

There was an explosion in arts: a revolution in cinema, music, literature, poetry, architecture, visual arts.

Basically, a lot of the bad things that people associate with Communism are Stalinism, but that came in the 30s, and went away by the 60s.

Now, a lot of other bad things were there from day 0, and some developed post- Stalin. But there were a lot of changes from 1917 to the 20s, to Stalinism, to WW2, and then to Khruschev and Brezhnev.

The country stabilized in the Kruschev-Brezhnev era, and remained static for so long that even those who liked the regime got tired of it. But it's important to see what the changes were.

<comment><USER18> But equality of race (or really nationality, at the time) is relative, in the sense that quality of life was worse than probably what most minorities experienced in most other Western countries at the time.

And equal suffrage in a single party system? What is that worth?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've spent a lot of time in hostels. It's not so bad. Difference is, that was by choice.

</comment><comment><USER20> You must also watch Ushanka Show:

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClXTAMdHwvWdmFyOlQmEtpQ/vid...](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClXTAMdHwvWdmFyOlQmEtpQ/videos)

</comment><comment><USER21> Most ordinary Russians in large cities still live in very cramped conditions with multiple families sharing a 3-bedroom apartment. I've visited such an apartment that my friend was living in, in the suburbs of Moscow. All the rooms became bedrooms due to lack of space in the evening, no such thing as a living room etc.

<comment><USER22> Yeah... I currently live in Russia. This is not even close to true. Maybe there's a few communal apartments still in St Petersburg. But most Russian families not only have their own private apartment, buy they outright own it (no mortgage) unlike Americans who are up to their eyeballs in debt.

<comment><USER23> Several generations living in very cramped conditions in the same apartment is extremely common in Russia. Precisely because they can't afford to buy anything, mortgage or not.

<comment><USER24> Several generations of one family in the same apartment and communal apartments are two very, very different things.

<comment><USER23> Yes and the GP post wasn't referring communal apartments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This website appears to have been designed in about 1997

</comment><comment><USER26> So, slightly better than current San Francisco situation!

</comment><comment><USER27> But basically every family also had a Dacha outside of the city: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha#Soviet_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha#Soviet_Union) .

<comment><USER28> Basically every family? That doesn't seem right. The wikipedia page you linked says that nearly all _affluent_ families had dachas, making up about a third of the overall urban population.

<comment><USER29> Most families living in urbanised locations had access to "communal gardens". For the general public, it'd be a tiny patch of land where you may build a tiny shack to put your tools in.

Now if you're working for a prestigious institution in high-up position, that patch of land gets bigger, you may be able to pull together resources to build a summer house there and the whole communal garden might be a prime location surrounding a lake, bordering a forest and so on.</comment></comment></comment>


John Nimmo, Internet Troll, Jailed Again - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/10/internet-troll-who-sent-labour-mp-antisemitic-messages-is-jailed?CMP=twt_gu <comment><USER2> The guy threatened to kill a politician and blow up a mosque. I'm not sure "internet troll" is a sane description. It's not like he was posting about emacs on a vim mailing list. He committed real crimes that are illegal whether the internet is involved or not.

<comment><USER3> The term "internet troll" could be used as defusing terminology by the defense to imply that the comments were solely made to elicit response, rather than threaten or harm. The Guardian would then use the term in the title to show how even a self-described internet troll isn't safe from repercussions, regardless of stated intention.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The MP mentioned in this article has been subjected to a lot of vicious anti- Semitic trolling.

Here's another person who was targeting her for harassment.

[https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks- of...](https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of-mr- justice-spencer-r-v-joshua-bonehill-paine-harassment-of-luciana-berger-mp/)

<comment><USER4> better link: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/07/racist- troll...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/07/racist-troll-guilty- harassing-labour-mp-luciana-berger-joshua-bonehill-paine)

<comment><AUTHOR> The Guardian report misses out a lot of information, which is available in the linked to sentencing remarks.

Here's one example:

Guardian: "Throughout, Bonehill-Paine, of Yeovil, Somerset, was on bail awaiting sentence for making claims on Twitter that several people were paedophiles."

In fact, it's much worse:

"You are currently serving a sentence of 40 months imprisonment, imposed on 17th December 2015 for stirring up racial hatred against the Jewish community in Golders Green. "

and

[On] "28th October, you appeared in court at Yeovil, your home town, and pleaded guilty to six offences of sending malicious communications and an offence of harassment, all arising from false and hateful allegations against innocent members of the public that they were paedophiles. Sentence was adjourned, and your bail was renewed. "

The Guardian says she got 2500 tweets. The sentencing remarks say that at its worst she got 2500 tweets in just 3 days, meaning she got more than 2500 tweets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So... mentally ill, or just a sociopath? It's hard to tell at a distance, but he's clearly a broken man.

<comment><USER6> the dude is 28, if he cant figure it out by the time he's 15...... maybe he needs more guidance.....

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The guy is Asperger.

I wonder why twitter still can't have a filter that changes the phrase "I will rape you" for "this was against twitter policy. One more and you are out for 24 hour" or so? Maybe its time to implement the "wash_your_mouth" filter.

<comment><USER8> Because every previous filter has worked so well. And what is it for this constant cry for censorship? Censorship doesn't work. People always find a way around it, but now it's less obvious. That's why we said we'd stop censoring.

Next time, before you ask for censorship, consider the wider ramifications. How is the filter going to work with jokes/sarcasm? E.g. do you know any people who've threatened the current US president (even in jest), and would the rules apply for them, too? Of course, "threatening" a state of head could just mean asking for his removal in other countries. Oops.

Censorship is plain stupidity, and history shows this time and time again.

<comment><USER9> Filtering has worked pretty well with email for spam. I don't see anything fundamentally different about harassment that would make it less responsive to filtering than spam, nor anything fundamentally different about an incoming social media stream than an email inbox.

Spam filtering works because the spam email has characteristics such as word frequencies that differ significantly from your non-spam email. E.g., none of my friends, acquaintances, co-workers, or companies that I correspond with ever have occasion to discuss my penis size, and so it was easy for my spam filters to learn that mail about my penis is spam.

I would expect that most people who get harassed on their social media feeds do not normally receive messages from friends or other wanted senders describing how they are going to rape them or kill their pets or children or things like that, so why can't a filter learn to block those?</comment></comment></comment>


Marijuana residue found in 400 year old pipes belonging to William Shakespeare - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/william-shakespeare-high-cannabis-marijuana-stoned-plays-hamlet-macbeth-romeo-juliet-stratford-10446510.html

<comment><USER2> You don't suppose they considered the hypothesis that in modern times someone who had access to those 4 pipes didn't say "Let's get high using Shakespeare's pipes!"</comment>


A New Kind of Platform for Building Actually Social Apps. - <AUTHOR> http://qbix.com/blog/index.php/2013/04/a-new-kind-of-platform/

<comment><USER2> Its really hard to get any idea of what this platform actually is. I had to read the whole blog post to even get a hint of what the platform is supposed to do for me, and was left with more questions than answers:

1) Is this a centralized platform hosted in your 'cloud'? 2) Is this a decentralized set of libraries/framework/libraries that I deploy myself? 3) Am I still in the situation of building my business on your platform and when your business goals change I have to worry about you disabling my application?

I really should be clear on at least these main points after reading the blog but I am not, I am guessing that all three are true, but I really am not 100% sure.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. Well, first off I should say that there are many sides to a platform. The blog post was meant to give an overview of what today's social apps have in common, and how things could and should be done better. You'll hear a lot more about it in the coming weeks.

The list there is just an overview of what sets our platform apart from everything else out there, and what makes our team excited to work on it for the past 2 years. We believe we're making a difference. And the size of our user base lets us really test if we're right, and iterate until we hit our goals.

If you want to learn more about our business strategy and what our long term roadmap looks like, get in touch with us, or follow us. We are not yet at the stage where we are inviting other developers to build on our platform. We are building it out for ourselves and our users.

That said, you're correct. These are valid concerns and you can only learn about these kinds of things as the platform gets opened up and policies get put in place. Pay attention to the incentive structure of the platforms you are building on, and you will have answers as valid as ones the platform developers themselves can tell you. The short and simplistic answer to your question is that, IF everything goes as we plan, in a few years this will be a completely decentralized social network (think Wordpress of social networks), that does right by its users and developers.

<comment><USER3> These ideas are similar to the 'personal cloud' concepts being advanced, for example, by members of the Respect Network [1]. Are you associated with them or a similar organization?

[1] <http://respectnetwork.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> I've seen a few personal cloud startups present, but I haven't had a close look at Respect Network. I think personal cloud is in its infancy, and in a few years we'll have redundant encrypted data stored on many different servers where only we can access it using our key.

When that happens, we'll want to integrate it with our platform, but until then, we're focusing on the other aspects: user signup, contact management, invitations, granular access controls, subscriptions and filters, offline notifications, realtime collaboration, scalability, working on any device, etc. These are hard problems to solve and now that we've built something that solves all of them in one place, we think we have something valuable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seriously? Do we need _more_ social apps?

This isn't directed at the OP, but rather the general trend where everyone and their mother wants to develop social features. I can't wait for the day when it actually disappears (and gets replaced with another fad, presumably).

/le sigh</comment>


Blow Up the Tax Code and Start Over - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/blow-up-the-tax-code-and-start-over-1434582592 <comment><USER4> TLDR: Rand Paul pushes for a 14.5% flat tax.

And of course when asked about how this would create a larger deficit, he never actually asserts that his flat 14.5% tax across the board would actually balance the budget.

But here's the crazy thing: his proposal _isn 't even a flat-tax policy_! He agrees that the first $50,000 for a family of four shouldn't be taxed. That's a _progressive tax plan._ And it makes sense right - up to a certain amount of income, one makes so little money that need a bit more help than others to get by. Makes sense...but then you could logically assert the converse - <USER2> those making so much money need far less help than others to get by, and therefore could be taxed more without affecting their lifestyles.

And this is why a progressive tax plan works in the United States - <USER3> exists an income level based on the cost of consumer staples, housing, and transportation, that allows one to be a productive member of society. And so the further away from you get from that magic number (or delta of that number), the more that taxes have an effect either on the individual or the community as a whole. A family cannot get by on $1 a year. A billionaire simply does not need a billion dollars. The burden on them is far different - which is why their tax burden should reflect that.

<comment><USER5> >He agrees that the first $50,000 for a family of four shouldn't be taxed.

I live in an expensive part of Chicago. $50k for me has nothing in common with some rural Alabama family making $50k. This is one of the reasons why the flat tax is wrong. It lacks the flexibility and subtlety of a more complex tax system. In a nation this large with so many different wealth levels, a non- progressive tax is just asinine. But it engages conservative low information voters who just want easy cowboy-ish answers to complex problems, especially if they're the ones in he rural south who will benefit from this kind of plan more than northern Democratic urban dwellers.

<comment><USER6> The current federal system doesn't change thresholds based on where you live either, so that criticism seems a bit unfair? How would a system that _did_ change the thresholds even work? If there were some tax benefit involved with owning or renting residential property in really expensive areas, prices for those areas would just increase even more to compensate.

Keep in mind, the income tax rate would still be marginal, so you'd only be paying tax on your income _beyond_ $50k. (I don't recall this specifically from TFA, but it did say Arthur Laffer helped out and I really doubt he'd approve a system with a $7250 discontinuity.)

I think I speak for everyone in Alabama (which I'm not) when I say "if you want a cheaper apartment, move out of the Loop and ride the subway!"

<comment><USER5> >The current federal system doesn't change thresholds based on where you live either, so that criticism seems a bit unfair?

It does, in a way. I submit my mortgage interest, what I paid in property taxes, etc and a million other things itemized specifically about me and my income/expense level. A flat tax removes those things for that 14% which is fine, but it shouldn't be after 50k, it should start at 1 dollar of income.

Not to mention the rebates I get due to current law like adoption credit, electric car credit, home insulation credit, home office business expense, etc. Losing those incentives will have a non-trivial effect on society. It will, for example, make adoption financially impossible for most folks who current are able to do it and probably strangle the electric car in the cradle. For reference, our adoption was $40,000 out of pocket and x percentage will be returned to us over y years. How many people can drop that kind of money and not get any of it back? Its challenging for many as-is.

<comment><USER7> So you're complaining because you'll lose privileges that have been granted to you, that you get to take advantage as a upper-middle class individual. Boo hoo.

People in the bottom tier (making under 50k) are generally not taking adoption credits, electric car credits, home insulation credits, etc.

It's doubtful that the electric car will be strangled. Tesla owners are not buying teslas for the credit. Likewise, Prius/Insight owners were not buying those for the credit (when that existed) either.

The only electric cars that will die without the credit are the leaf and the volt.

<comment><USER5> Actually, the kinds of people who adopt are often not well off. They borrow from friends, family, church, etc. Then they pay it back using these credits.

> electric car credits,

Lets talk in 5 years when even the poorest will be driving EV's. They'd be stupid not to considering how cheap electricity is compared to gas.

Not to mention in a country of high class mobility putting in "donut holes" in the tax code is just stupid. Now you'll be incentivized to not go past making $50,000 unless you suddenly want to be hit with taxes. Employers will cap salaries at arbitrarily $50,000 to avoid tax concerns. These kinds of "one fits all" caps are often economically destructive. Look at India, where if a company is larger than x employees, it is illegal to fire anyone. You need to petition the government to fire that person. That's why there are so many small companies there and why they struggle to compete with China and other nations in their development class who don't have weird one-size-fits all legislation.

<comment><USER7> > Actually, the kinds of people who adopt are often not well off. They borrow > from friends, family, church, etc. Then they pay it back using these > credits.

Yes, these people aren't helped by the _process_ of taking deductions because they are basically covered by the standard deduction to have zero tax anyways.

>Now you'll be incentivized to not go past making $50,000 unless you suddenly want to be hit with taxes.

Huh? if you make 50,010 you're not going to be paying 14.5% of 50,010, you're going to be paying $1.45 in taxes.

>These kinds of "one fits all" caps are often economically destructive.

No doubt, and the US idiotically implements these, too, like in the ACA where small businesses are exempt below certain sizes, unless you are wal-mart and can obtain a backdoor administrative exemption.

Now, if you want to rail against "donut holes" the american welfare system has plenty of those, but that's a separate debate.

>Lets talk in 5 years when even the poorest will be driving EV's. They'd be stupid not to considering how cheap electricity is compared to gas.

If the lowered expense of the cars is matched by the cheapness of the electricity to make it economical for 'the poorest', then there would be no need for a credit. As it is, the credit (like most tax credits) only helps rich people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You know what I'd like to see? Fewer total laws in America.

The law is so complex in America, that you probably break several laws a day, without knowing.

And it costs law makers little to make new ones, and it's a pain to get rid of old ones.

I'd love to see

a) a huge clean up of out-dated and unnecessary laws.

b) then a cap on the total number of laws. If they want to add a new one, they need to repeal an old one.

(Allow for very minor growth over time as society becomes more complex).

<comment><USER9> What significant law do you think is outdated and unnecessary, the repeal of which wouldn't be controversial? Let's limit discussion to the federal level since we're talking about a Presidential candidate.

<comment><USER10> Why the restriction on "significant" laws? Most laws are significant to _some_ people, and a vast morass of insignificant laws is arguably worse than a single law that affects everyone, since they greatly increase the cost of doing anything without hiring expensive counsel and hoping that the courts and IRS will agree with his/her interpretation of your particular case.

<comment><USER9> If someone is spending money trying to comply with an outdated law, I'd call that significant. If there is a provision in the tax code that talks about how to properly depreciate horse-drawn carriages, that's not really increasing anyone's cost of compliance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've always wondered exactly where the line is between ignorance and messaging for politicians. Like, when he says, "[Obama's] redistribution policies have led to rising income inequality and negative income gains for families."

He can't _actually_ believe that is a strictly true statement. I'd think that any Republican politician with an understanding of economics would have to believe that a president's policies are at best contributory rather than a distinct cause. I get it as messaging; if one believes that progressive taxation has side effects that cause inequality, then they'd want to gloss over things to blame the presidency for it. So, I tend to believe that most politicians have private meetings where they talk about what they actually think is going on, and then translate it into brain-deadening messaging for the public. But sometimes I wonder if for a lot of these politicians, how much of what they say is actually because of willful ignorance rather than messaging.

Like that guy with the snowball that argued against global warming, that almost definitely has to be chutzpah rather than stupidity, right? Like, he would understand the concept that just because a stock price spikes down, it could still be true that the stock market is going up over time. So he has to secretly understand the argument about global warming, right? And then we waste our time trying to explain how a snowball doesn't disprove anything, and he doesn't care because he already knows that. There's got to be a term more accurate than chutzpah for someone that deliberately lies and plays dumb, knowing they can get away with it.

<comment><USER12> >most politicians have private meetings where they talk about what they actually think is going on, and then translate it into brain-deadening messaging for the public

Yes, sort of, but the reality of these things are so well understood all politicians that there's not often that much of a reason to discuss these things outright.

When a politician (and by "politician," I do not mean a single person. I mean an amalgam of the politician, their staffers, and their advisers) are weighing an issue, the actual merits of the arguments are just a part of the equation. They're weighing the interests of various groups and constituencies, they're considering coalitions and alliances and favors, and making a pragmatic decision. Usually a mix of their conscience, their constituents, their fundraisers, and their party.

Rand is a bit of an outlier on this front because he is a legitimate True Believer, but he's still a pragmatic true believer.

Then they hire someone like me to turn it into the soul deadening messaging.

But, yes, these people understand both sides of the issue. They are usually very smart. And if they don't understand the other side of the issue, their close advisers do.

<comment><USER11> Oh, so _you 're_ the problem. ;-)

It's too bad, really. The general public gets more engaged for presidential elections, and they start caring about the actual issues, but then there's no resource to allow the citizen to drill down into the actual argument as deeply as they'd like, so they can try to understand it to the depth that a close adviser would. So instead they hear a bunch of bull and they get disillusioned and go back to voting while uninformed. Which is really what the politicians want, anyway.

<comment><USER12> Ehhh gonna have to nitpick again

> there's no resource to allow the citizen to drill down into the actual > argument as deeply as they'd like, so they can try to understand it to the > depth that a close adviser would.

There are tons of resources [one example: [http://www.vox.com/cards](http://www.vox.com/cards)]. But the reason we have a republic is so that individuals don't need to become policy experts. They can rely on heuristics and the system is robust enough to handle it. This usually works pretty well

>go back to voting while uninformed. Which is really what the politicians want, anyway.

Most pols don't want this. Politicians want informed voters so people will be aware of the extreme efforts they go through to make their constituents happy. Election positions are determined based on polls, and extreme rigorous scientific effort goes into shaping candidates who are able and want to represent the policy desires of their constituents. (sure, the politicians might not actually believe these things, but to me that's usually irreverent. They want to be hired to do a job, which is representing the views of other people) The problem is, uninformed voters are more willing to switch sides based on emotion, ruining the math.

Informed citizens would be bad for some politicians (for example, blue state republicans who have to walk the line between the demands of their extremely conservative donors and their more moderate constituents). While some would do better with more informed voters (conservative red state democrats, for example, would be more able to shed the reputation of their national party and run on their conservative values if fewer people voted on policy as opposed to heuristics)

Basically, it's complicated

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13>
      And every year the Internal Revenue Code grows absurdly more
      incomprehensible, as if it were designed as a jobs program
      for accountants, IRS agents and tax attorneys.

I think this is a point people across the political spectrum agree with. It does not follow, however, that simplifying the tax code would require a regressive flat tax. One could easily imagine a simplified tax code that still has progressive tax brackets.

      The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the
      wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were
      designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the
      rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they
      won't have special provisions to avoid paying lower than
      14.5%.

This would be a massive tax cut for the wealthy, unequivocally – a 25.1 % lower tax rate for the top bracket. The idea that this cut would be offset by closing unnamed loopholes is disingenuous at best. A 14.5% tax rate also conveniently matches the current maximum capital gains tax rate of 15%, which is the effective tax rate the ultra wealthy already pay.

<comment><USER14> > A 14.5% tax rate also conveniently matches the current maximum capital gains > tax rate of 15%

Well, except that 15% is the next tier down from the top capital gains tax; the top tier is 20%.

Plus the fact that 14.5% _does not_ match 15%. If you don't believe me, I'll give you $14.50 for the "matching" $15.00 and repeat that until you're convinced.

<comment><USER7> Taxes aren't arbitrarily iterative (they only hit once a year), so your "repeat until you're convinced" is kind of a poor analogy. 14.5% is _comparable_ to 15%, and lower (which incentivises people to quit using the capital gains cheat), but not much lower. That level of sophistication in and of itself shows that this is not total crackpottery, but at least somewhat well-thought out.

<comment><USER14> You seem to have read the part about 14.5% not matching 15%, but not the part about 15% not actually being the top capital gains tax rate to start with, 20% is.

14.5% doesn't match 15%, though maybe it "close enough" for some purpose, but it even moreso doesn't match 20%, and its not even particularly close.

<comment><USER7> Long-term capital gains are at 15%. If you know how to set up a corporation, you can basically strategically convert short-term gains into long term, by taking an equity position in your company and (I think, I have not done this myself) withdraw salary as 'dividends', and this is taxed as ltcg as long as you hold a stake in your company for longer than a year.

<comment><USER14> > Long-term capital gains are at 15%.

No, long-term capital gains taxes are on different rates based on the same brackets as regular income tax; for the top income tax bracket, the long-term capital gains rate is 20%. For other income tax brackets from 25% up, the long-term capital gains rate is 15%. For the income tax brackets 15% and below, the long-term capital gains tax rate is 0%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yay, tax code simplification.

Oh crap, "flat tax."

This is the fundamental problem. Everybody wants a simpler tax system. But nobody can agree on which parts to remove, or how to change it. The current system is close to what you get when everybody tries to get what they want. Even if you blew it up and started over, I think you'd get back to the current state pretty fast.

Edit: everybody can stop replying to my comment proposing your favorite simplified tax system and explaining why it's great. You're missing the point here. If you want to discuss your favorite tax system, make a top-level comment.

<comment><USER16> Flat tax + basic income is the only sane way forward. Most other systems lead to stupid incentives, unjust inequality, and over priced accountants.

For example. Assume a household of two people. one earns $20k per year, the other earns $80k per year. With a 50% tax and a $10k (after tax) per year basic income you get the following:

        2*$10k + 0.5 * ($20k + $80k) = $70k

Now if each partner earned the same you would get:

        2*$10k + 0.5 * ($50k + $50k) = $70k

Which is exactly what you want. The problem with income splitting measure that try to replicate this is that they lead to a perverse disincentive to divorce. So in the first example, the person earning $80k would no longer be able to offload part of his income to the lower paying person, and the two persons effective income decreases just when their expenses double. Furthermore it discriminates against people that are single, which is politically expedient, but unjust.

It also solves the welfare and old age security paperwork problem. There are some other problems: like having a higher tax rate to pay for all this basic income, but ultimately I think it would unleash more minds on problems that matter instead of setting up family trusts for the wealthy.

<comment><USER17> Another way to go is get rid of income tax altogether and replace with a national sales tax. Nice thing about that is that you can exempt essential things like unprepared food. That way the effective tax rate is much lower if you're a low earner, since most of your money will be spent on essentials.

No more IRS is another bonus, and since most states already have a sales tax the infrastructure is already there.

<comment><USER18> Then the wealthy make all of their big purchases outside the country and import them in. If the country starts taxing purchases made outside the country, then those purchases become "gifts from a good friend."

There's also the fact that the ultra rich get unbelievably rich because they spend only small fractions of their income, meaning the rich would be paying pretty much nothing in taxes ever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Taxes are complicated" translates to: "People don't understand the rules for tax brackets that don't apply to them and think they are getting screwed over. So let's change the tax laws to save those(people or businesses) making more than $100k a year some money while doing nothing to help those making less."

<comment><USER20> I'm not in favor of any of the flat tax proposals... but this is the tax system where receiving a 1099 for from-home software development means you literally have to get out a tape measure and _measure the room where you did the work_. The exemption allowance worksheet on the W-4 is similarly insane. There's a lot that could be done to make the tax system here less complicated without touching the tax rates themselves.

<comment><USER19> Yeah? You don't know if your room is a 10X20? You make it sound like this is some crazy task that requires some special ability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Saving you a click: Rand Paul advocates for the 'flat tax'.

<comment><USER22> There's some interesting bits like the earned income tax credit for the working class stays, and the first 50,000$ of income of a family of 4 wouldn't be taxed.

Capital gains are left unmentioned (probably because they're being abolished, and this is most likely going to reduce the effective tax rate on capitalists to ~0.0% -- no capital gains, no estate tax, no gift tax, so in essence taxes will finally be 0% for the oligarchy. Policy like this helps pave the way for what we all know is true: we're going to meet the first trillionaires in our lifetime).

The other critical problem they don't mention is:

* $2 trillion dollar tax cut = $2 trillion dollar revenue cut.

There is no mention of cutting spending, and there IS mention of "growing economy", so there is only one conclusion: "Liberal Stimulus". When you cut revenue by $2 trillion and leave spending the same, you end up issuing debt to cover the deficit. It's the same debt-driven tax scheme literally every republican has proposed since Reagan (who did the exact same thing perfectly: tax cuts + spending increases = growing economy and growing debt).

<comment><USER23> Debt isn't that bad for a state. A state isn't a company and has to make a profit. It's there to provide infrastructure, stability, and security. As long a state can afford to pay the interest rates, how high the debt is matters less. Especially for the major economies in the world today it's even less problematic. The USA, China, Japan or any other G7 state is basically safe from bankruptcy, because it would disrupt the world economy too much. Just look at the banking crisis and the bailouts there.

<comment><USER15> I wouldn't mind so much if they would be honest about it. "We will cut taxes and increase the deficit and thereby stimulate the economy." OK, cool. But instead what people like Paul say is, "We will cut taxes and this will result in a net increase in revenue by stimulating the economy."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Oh, another right-wing "flat tax" guy. Somehow, these simplified tax schemes always result in lower taxes for rich people.

The tax code is complicated because of lobbying for exceptions. Propose removing some of those exceptions, and the lobbyists will line up in the House and Senate office buildings. (There's a book about that, "Showdown at Gucci Gulch". The cover picture is of lobbyists lining up.)

</comment><comment><USER9> I love the idea of a flat tax, but flat taxes don't get rid of the complexities of the tax code. The tax code is definitely full of random cruft, but the bread and butter that keeps the IRS and all those tax attorneys busy are a few _principled_ features of the system: taxing net rather than gross income, deducting the value of depreciating capital assets over an amortization schedule, taxing income internationally, taxing capital gains differently than income, not taxing certain intra-familial transfers, etc.

Most of the complexity of tax accounting is complexity that's intrinsic to accounting itself.

NB: If you want to learn more about the theory of the U.S. tax code, I can't recommend this book enough: [http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Income-Taxation- Concepts-Insig...](http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Income-Taxation-Concepts- Insights/dp/1599419378/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434653971&sr=1-3&keywords=federal+income+taxation)

<comment><USER25> > flat taxes don't get rid of the complexities of the tax code

Most flat tax proposals don't allow for exemptions. You pay your taxes off your gross salary, full stop. That would eliminate 99% of the tax code complexity for most individuals.

<comment><USER26> Gross income isn't income for purposes of taxing. Consider that after expenses a person may actually have lost money. Tax her anyway?

<comment><USER14> > Gross income isn't income for purposes of taxing.

It is for _personal_ income (business income is different.)

Well, strictly, _adjusted_ gross income is income for purposes of taxing, but AGI is gross income after deductions allowed in the tax code, and "flat" tax proposals -- including Paul's -- almost without exception call for eliminating most deductions or all deductions (Paul expressly states that he will eliminate all except for charity and mortgage-related deductions.)

(Keeping one of the complexities of the current tax code, Paul continues to allow more deductions for businesses than individuals.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I might add as a former lobbyist, everything he said in the article about my former profession is absolutely correct. Every day we analyzed policy to find ways for our clients (corporations) to increase profits, decrease costs, and eliminate taxes. On the other hand we did a lot of good for small and medium sized business. Unfortunately working for small and mid-sized businesses, and average citizens, doesn't pay the bills. I just bought my first house, and I'm starting to save and budget wisely for my family. Anything anyone - be it the President, congress, or otherwise - can do to reduce my tax burden, reduce government involvement in my life, and increase money for my family, is a good thing in my book. Like I said in my last comment: I'm so sick of both parties that I'm less interesting in "Republican" or "Democrat" and more interested in the actual person.

</comment><comment><USER28> Observation 1: Nice idea, but what remains to be filled in is why people who earn 1M per year will want to give $145,000 to the gov. every year, instead of continuing to use N levels of ownership indirection and contribute-money-to- the-budget-like-right-now-this-year half of this amount? Or maybe even less if Investment gains or holding company? Not sure how income from rent counts.

So in terms of "let's cleanup the API" its a great idea, but how do you make the real estate owners and corporates pay all of a sudden? [1]

Observation 2: the minimum income before you start to get taxed, is a very interesting number. A half-step towards having a guaranteed minimum income for everyone, is to set this "target number" as the income where taxation starts. Thought experiment. If the tax-exempt portion of your income were increased to $15k, or $20k, how would that affect people's choice of occupation? The Hipsters will definitely be in---they're like "$20k tax-free, I'm like a lunberjack/lumberjess living out in the wilderness who pays no taxes; that's my beer and bike money and I don't need more." (Such an increase in the "personal amount" will make a big hole in the budget, but ask your self this, why are we taxing people who make $14k per year?)

__________________

[1] [http://www.blue-route.org/blog/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/3-...](http://www.blue-route.org/blog/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/3-individual-and-corporate-income-taxes-as-share-of- total-federal-revenue-1934-to-2015-national-priorities-project.png)

</comment><comment><USER29> United States tax complexity isn't because of the shape of the tax(income) function. That function is the _most_ important part of tax to most Americans, but the complexity comes from two other places:

1) Some people will game the system for economic advantage. Of the 321M Americans, a certain portion are both extremely clever and amoral. A lot of the code is a response to "They did what‽"

2) Americans tend to have an inbuilt belief that everyone should make it on their own which manifests into the government not "giving" things to people, even if it is to induce a person to accomplish the government's goal. Since it is politically difficult for the government to use payments to change people's behavior it is easier to "not take as much" instead and accomplish the same end with a tax credit. This pushes all sorts of policy and governance into the tax code.¹

␄

¹ As an example, I have in the past claimed "historic building renovation" tax credits. I have never renovated a historic building. My state wants to spend $X to preserve historic buildings, but they politically can't give $X to people preserving buildings. So instead, they give transferable tax credits worth $X to the renovators, who probably aren't paying much tax (because they are in the business renovating historic buildings, like that pays) and don't have a use for the credit. If you know the right finance person, you will find there is a quiet market that connects sellers and buyers, so you can buy credits and split the savings with the seller 80/20 if I recall. It's a stupidly complex system that only puts 80% of the state's cost into what it wanted done, but at least they didn't _give_ anyone money to preserve buildings.

</comment><comment> trimble-alum Bernie Sanders is the only 2016 candidate serious about kicking out the plutocracy.

<comment><USER30> Yes, and if he even comes close to getting the nomination it will signal a huge change in American politics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Some Notes: Pull out that IRS booklet you might have hidden if you examine the graph:

Over 65% of gov receipts are from income tax and payroll taxes.

from SBA there are only 35 million businesses

US pop is 307 million(2007 numbers)

It is not a simple solution where you say A or B group is not paying enough..flat tax is simplistic band-aid suggested by simpletons

</comment><comment><USER32> I say we axe income tax completely. Two reasons: 1) even a progressive income tax is highly regressive when one considers that the wealthy mostly don't even earn employment income and therefore don't pay tax on it, and 2) taxation on income is the source of most discontent with redistributive policies.

I propose a multi-layered tax code operating in coordination at each level of government.

1) Land Value Tax collected by local governments, with land valuations determined at the state level and the revenue redistributed as Universal Basic Income by the Federal government (your SSN becomes your UBI account number). Local governments may in turn add a percentage to the LVT to replace property tax revenues. Minor recipients of UBI (below age of 18) receive their income as a school voucher. The LVT replaces income and payroll taxes as the majority of aggregate national tax revenue, and the UBI replaces SS, EITC, and a host of other safety net programs.

2) a Progressive VAT to be collected by the states with Federal revenue sharing. This becomes the second largest source of tax revenue and funds the majority of state functions, with the Congress taxing a portion of state VAT revenues to fund the Federal government. Most domestic spending programs would be devolved to the states to fund and manage directly rather than redistribute as block grants. The VAT would be progressive in that it would primarily target non-essentials (not food, for example).

3) the rest of Federal revenue sources would come from taxing financial instruments (capital gains, etc), as well as its traditional sources like corporate tax, tariffs, duties, etc. It would also have the option of increasing its share of the VAT. The Federal budget would be significantly smaller than it is today but would be free of the large domestic spending programs (which it would still regulate), as well as from pork barrelling which would instead never leave state borders to begin with. Federal spending would instead focus on interstate and international commerce, defense, national initiatives (nasa, nih, etc).

So yea, just a simple adjustment ;)

</comment><comment><USER23> Flat tax benefits the top incomes more than the bottom ones. But we now know for certain that trickle down just doesn't work and that increasing income for the poorest benefits the economy the most.

[http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on- low...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on-low-income- families-to-boost-economic-growth-says-imf-study)

Getting rid of exemptions and special rules is a good idea to reduce bureaucracy. You can replace tax exemptions with direct subsidies to make the amount spent on it more transparent. A progressive income tax makes a lot of sense and has lots of configuration levers.

<comment><USER33> _Flat tax benefits the top incomes more than the bottom ones._

Not under Paul's proposal...."I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest."

Take a look at what tax rate the high-earns are paying. It can often be a small percentage than lower income earners. If the rate was flat at 14.5% for _all income_ (also removing a lot of the current exemptions), I think you'd see high income earner's overall tax rate increase.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you get the paywall, either use a Google search result, or use this link - [https://archive.is/mfEvt](https://archive.is/mfEvt)

</comment><comment><USER34> Interestingly, the 14.25% tax rate is not new. Donald Trump proposed in his 2000 presidential bid. At the time, 14.25% one -time wealth tax on personal wealth with $10MM or more would collect $5.7 trillion, which wipe the ENTIRE U.S. debt.

[http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Tax_Reform.htm](http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Tax_Reform.htm)

<comment><USER6> "One-time" taxes feel a bit like theft, though, don't they? The follow-on effects wouldn't be pretty either, after the billionaires realize how foolish it is to keep their money in USA accounts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> 1991 Master Tax Guide versus 2012 Master Tax Guide [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1510099/linked/MasterTax...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1510099/linked/MasterTax%20Comparison.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER27> I like this guy more and more each day. I've grown so weary of the political parties that I'm desperately seeking a really different candidate who can push a more libertarian agenda. I just hope he sticks to his word.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is good spin-doctoring. The financial sector always wants to point the finger at taxes. The problem is still the banks. Declare debt amnesty, regulate the banks. Watch the economy soar.

</comment><comment><USER14> > So on Thursday I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut

Apparently, Rand Paul thinks he's a dictator, not a Senator: he is _proposing_ , not _announcing_ a tax cut.

> The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal > taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all > duties and tariffs. I call this "The Fair and Flat Tax."

Which is odd, since the proposal is _neither_ fair _nor_ flat.

> The Fair and Flat Tax eliminates payroll taxes, which are seized by the IRS > from a worker's paychecks before a family ever sees the money. This will > boost the incentive for employers to hire more workers, and raise after-tax > income by at least 15% over 10 years.

Abolishing payroll taxes might be a good idea, though since federal payroll taxes are dedicated levies to support certain programs, one needs to address whether this is abolishing the _programs_ (Social Security and Medicare) or changing their funding source to draw from general revenues. Any evaluation of the proposal to eliminate these taxes is obviously strongly affected by this, which Paul does not address.

Eliminating the _employer_ share of payroll taxes (combined with the minimum wage, which limits the minimum payroll cost before payroll taxes) does increase the incentive to hire workers at the low end of the pay scale, and increase the nominal pay level that employers can offer for employees that they would already be fully incentivized to hire at higher levels; eliminating the employee share has no impact on incentive to hire or nominal wages, but does increase after tax income at any nominal wage level.

The claim that doing this would raise after tax income by "at least 15%" over any time period is in serious need of some justification; certainly, at the low-end of the scale, that seems to be well within the direct effect, but for employees at the higher-end of the wage scale (after the Social Security cap), it would have a much smaller direct effect; so, what does this number really refer to and how is it justified?

> I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax > applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, > dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a > mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for > a family of four would not be taxed.

While I like the idea of eliminating distinctions between different sources of income -- particularly capital income subject to reduced capital gains tax, labor income subject to normal income tax _plus_ payroll tax, and miscellaneous income subject to normal income tax but not payroll tax, these sentences also reveal that the proposal is not _flat_ , and also (unless major features related to what is described here exist that are omitted in the description) its also not _fair_.

Its not _flat_ , but a two-tier progressive tax system, because it has a range with a 0% marginal rate, and a range with a 14.5% marginal rate. That's progressive, not flat.

Its not _fair_ (with the caveat above) because its a progressive system in which income earned over several year period but realized at a particular point is treated the same as income earned in the period realized. This is a fairness issue that is addressed (poorly, to be sure, and a better mechanism is definitely needed) by the existing distinction between other income (including short-term capital gains) and long-term capital gains.

The current system is roughly fair (ignoring the disparate impact of payroll taxes and payroll tax supported programs, just considering income/capital gains taxes) between pure wage earners and those who supplement wages with some long-term capital holdings but who don't have enough long-term capital to structure trades to derive substantial continuous year-over-year income from different batches of long-term holdings, but unfair between both those groups and those who _are_ major capitalists, who are favored over both the other groups.

Rand's proposal (assuming it doesn't have major relevant features that are not described) is roughly fair between workers and large-scale capital holders, but unfair between both those groups and small-scale capital holders, who are _disfavored_ compared to either other group. As such, it is most unfavorable to the group moving out of the laborer category into the capitalist category.

> The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy.

Because it is, enormously.

> But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and > politically connected.

As, for that matter, was Rand's plan. The people he refers to helping him right it are both rich and politically connected, as is Rand himself. So what?

Who designed it is a different question than how it distributes tax burden relative to Rand's plan. And while the present system may have been predominantly designed by the "rich and politically connected", and may even excessively favor the rich, Rand's plan is still a tax cut that disproportionately favors the rich.

> Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won't > have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.

The rich won't be able to control legal entities outside US tax jurisdiction that are the actual recipients of income and expend it for the benefit of the owners? Because that's one of the main ways they have of evading tax now -- not being the legal recipient of income. No matter how you structure a tax on income, as long as people can benefit without being the legal recipient of income, they can avoid it. I'll trust claim that you've actually got a plan that eliminates all avenues to evasion when the details of how you plan to do that are subject to scrutiny. Until then, its just puffery.

Also, both the mortgage and charity deductions are tools for evading taxes, particularly the charity deduction. But Paul plans on keeping those. He also addresses only deductions, but not credits -- many credits are popularly seen as loopholes used for evasion by the rich, and other credits are distinctly major tools of aiding those on the lower end of the income distribution, particularly EITC. Is he using sloppy language and meaning deductions and credits when he talks about deductions, or does he plan to leave credits alone preserving the "loopholes" that take that form, or has he just omitted an explanation of how he would handle existing credits?

The handwaving here that the elimination of "tax loopholes" would somehow shift this from the obvious disproportionate pro-wealthy tax burden shift into something more fair needs some quantitative support.

> The immediate question everyone asks is: Won't this 14.5% tax plan blow a > massive hole in the budget deficit?

Well, duh, of course it will.

> Here's why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the > nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, > and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis > is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the > Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business > creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase > gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new > jobs.

While the Tax Foundation is a "non-partisan" right-wing think tank that hasn't ever seen a tax cut for the wealthy that it doesn't like, I'll note that even Rand's claim about the Tax Foundation's findings actually doesn't address deficit/revenue claims at all.

> my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over > time when combined with my package of spending cuts.

Over how much time? And, of course, if your only statement of deficit impact one way or the other is "when combined with my package of spending cuts", I then can't even begin to consider the merits of your tax plan without first having bought into your particular package of spending cuts.

</comment><comment><USER37> Disrupt the tax system! woohoo! ;p</comment>