patrick.net

Reality says

Editing what I wrote and making it look like I actually wrote what you put there (and opposite to what I had actually written) constitute libel.

Libel against whom? You're anonymous!

A guy I know at Facebook pointed out that Facebook doesn't have these problems because you just don't piss off your Facebook friends, or else they rapidly unfriend you.

But anyway, I found a better solution so no need to change any more comments. There will be a no-holds-barred Politics Forum, where users can zap each other's comments for $1. Not sure it will work, but worth a try.

Vicente says

Zero or tiny/spineless central government will achieve the same effect. All they need do is stand by while the warlords or the financiers establish monopolies. Pinkertons operated pretty freely during the Gilded Age. Is it cheaper for a Robber Baron to hire thugs, or to engage in regulatory capture operations and bribe cops? Well it depends.

Pinkerton service was extremely expensive, and did not even succeed in the most notorious strikes. It would cost the Robber Barons much more money to hire their own thugs than using taxpayer funded thugs. How many oil companies would be able to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on the scale that's been taking place in the past decade? or would be willing to? Most people don't realize that, even the slave owners had/have to rely on tax-payer funded fugitive return law enforcement to keep the slavery system in place. Even in today's world, sex slavers would confiscate the hapless victims' passports and documents first . . . why? Because transferring the cost of hiring of thugs to the taxpayers is much less expensive than paying for their own thugs.

The use of violence and coercion is very expensive. A big and powerful government transfers the cost of initiating violence to the hapless tax payers.

Reality says

How much would you pay for the ability to delete my comments, or to change them?

See this new thread about that idea:

http://patrick.net/?p=1086952

Near-zero. I wouldn't want to delete or change anyone else' comment. People come to this website for meaningful discussions.
...Messing with people's posts, especially without proper indications of editorial footnotes or new attributions is not only a quick way to lose traffic and eyeball time...

Wow, I almost never agree with Real, but this time I do. Just so that I can remain in consistent disagreement how much would it cost to change his post so that I can disagree with it?

I think that a better model may be a scaled membership system.

I am just spit balling here but perhaps something like this:

Free
- Can post 5 comments a month
$1/month
- Can post 10 comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
$5/month
- Can post 50 comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
- Can start threads
$10/month
- Can post 100 comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
- Can start threads
- Can view the Link Submission forum and add links (gives a preview of what's to come)
$30/month
- Can post unlimited comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
- Can start threads
- Can view the Link Submission forum and add links
- Gives access to the Pnet data service

You could even give the different membership levels snappy names, and perhaps a small icon to indicate the membership level of the poster.

Libel against whom? You're anonymous!

A consistently used user name is an identity. It's not the same as posting under "anonymous."

A guy I know at Facebook pointed out that Facebook doesn't have these problems because you just don't piss off your Facebook friends, or else they rapidly unfriend you.

"ignore" button in forums serve the same purpose. OTOH, I haven't ignored anyone, 'cuz really want to hear what people have to say.

But anyway, I found a better solution so no need to change any more comments. There will be a no-holds-barred Politics Forum, where users can zap each other's comments for $1. Not sure it will work, but worth a try.

In that case, almost all posts with substantive content would be deleted quickly, and soon enough nobody would post there.

Here's a better business plan: let people set up accounts with you that start at $10, and can be added to in $10 increments (so you don't get nickel-and-dimed to death on transaction cost). Then people can spend 0.1 cent to rank posts on a 1-to-10 scale. Then allow readers to use a filter based on average rankings; i.e. posts with really low rankings wouldn't show unless reader choose to lower the threashold. At the same time, Patrick, try to keep your own posts as non-partisan as possible, so you can get audience of all stripes.

hmm, I think I may just have saved your website. LOL. You can thank me later, and send me some free shares when the site goes public.

Reality says

A consistently used user name is an identity. It's not the same as "anonymous."

How were you harmed though? Nobody knows who "reality" is. What damages could you possible provide?

Reality says

The use of violence and coercion is very expensive. A big and powerful government transfers the cost of initiating violence to the hapless tax payers.

It's not very expensive in many places in the world. Here's your AK, a cot, and you get a share of the loot. A non-existent or tiny/ineffective government is at least no longer in the way when you want to pillage and you can do it openly.

Reality says

Mental anguish is easy to establish when you insist on ascribing to other people what they never said.

Good luck with that. Until your identity leaks out, you have no case.

Reality says

Then people can spend 0.1 cent to rank posts on a 1-to-10 scale. Then allow readers to use a filter based on average rankings; i.e. posts with really low rankings wouldn't show unless reader choose to lower the threashold.

Too rational to be exciting. What we're talking about here is hate, and the ability to slightly injure someone you hate.

But maybe paying 0.1 cents to mark a comment as "Left" or "Right" would be a sufficient insult to make it worth paying. Perhaps I should physically shift a comment to the left or right on each vote!

leoj707 says

I think that a better model may be a scaled membership system.

Yes, it's just a matter of what exactly is worth paying for. I suspect it's the things that make someone else turn purple, more than the things that make their own online home a little nicer. Though Farmville has proven that people will pay to make their online home nicer.

leoj707 says

Have there actually been any cases of libel suites between members on a forum? Have any been successful? From what I understand even relatively "clear cut" libel suits can be difficult to win, and that is when there are actual provable monetary damages. "Pain and suffering" can be difficult to prove on it's own.

"Pain and suffering" is only a few visits to the psychiatrist away; lost productivity and income is another venue of proof. Most of anything approaching libel between members on forums are resolved by hosts and editorial staff because the hosts and editorial staff do not wish to be liable to libel charge with the continued presence of libelous posts on their website. Web-based content providers are usually very quick to make corrections if any mis-attribution shows up. Intentional mis-attribution on the part of the editorial staff would be quite different from the norm in online-publishing. Newspapers do get sued and sued successfully when they mis-attribute statements by celebrities and refuse to retract.

Reality says

"Pain and suffering" is only a few visits to the psychiatrist away;

Good luck here is a legal definition of what you would need to prove to a judge or jury (emphasis mine):
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mental-anguish-and-suffering-law/

Mental anguish and suffering refers to emotional disturbances such as distress, anxiety, depression, grief and/or psychosomatic physical symptoms. It is a separate factor sometimes argued in awarding damages for physical injury due to a defendant's negligence or intentional infliction of harm. It is possible to recover damages without a physical injury if it is reasonable to presume mental trauma would naturally flow from the incident. Examples: holding a pistol to one's head, or witnessing injury or death to a loved one.

Damages for mental suffering and anguish are sometimes awarded in cases of embarrassment or damage to one's reputation through libel. However, there are limits: in general, breach of contract judgments cannot include damages for mental anguish due to the loss of a deal or employment. The term "mental anguish" implies a relatively high degree of mental pain and distress. It is more than mere disappointment, anger, resentment, or embarrassment, although it may include all of these. It includes a mental sensation of pain resulting from such painful emotions as grief, severe disappointment, indignation, wounded pride, shame, despair and/or public humiliation.

So, if you can prove something akin to seeing a loved one murdered then you should be able to win your suit. Make sure that you start crying openly in the work place, and are often found curled up in the fetal position in the break room sobbing about those meanies on Patrick.net. You will need all that eye witness evidence as proof in your suit.

Reality says

Because that results from direct intentional editorial action instead of any computer glitch or misquoting, it is very much libel. It is the same as if I said "corntrollio says that mass rape of women is a good thing and should be encouraged by government" when you never said such thing.

There's a difference between those two. It's odd that you don't understand the difference, because it's not like this is subtle.

Reality says

Mental anguish is easy to establish when you insist on ascribing to other people what they never said.

BS. This is nonsense. You dish out at least as much mental anguish from your affirmative posts as you could possibly suffer from someone accidentally misquoting you.

This is a forum and misattribution doesn't matter that much (and is probably not even actionable in almost every case). Context always matters. Go ahead and sue if you disagree. You will fail. Trying to compare this to news with celebrity situations is absolute nonsense.

You're just trying to shut down debate. The irony is that your ideological beliefs about "pain and suffering" are clouding your ability to make a good argument about libel.

Bap33 says

who is "we"?

This is the key to almost all right-vs-left argument on the forum, IMHO.

Whether people include themselves in the relevant "we" determines what facts and evidence they will accept. Well, it does for Republicans anyway. This makes it useless to use facts and evidence, unless the facts and evidence already agree with their desired conclusion.

Obama's being excluded from the Republican "we" means that everything he says is wrong. Even if he tries to agree with every point in the Republican platform. Even before he opens his mouth. Obama = black man with Muslim name in Democratic party = wrong.

When I got laid off from Schwab back in 2004, the CEO at the time announced that "We will be a stronger company after this round of layoffs." Not my "we" anymore.

Bellingham Bob says

there's gotta be a deeper game here. People can't be this stupid about things, can they?

That's what I think the game is. Just straight "my team vs your team".

People can be infinitely stupid if it gives their team points, contributing to their vision of glory and hope for the future.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and continuously increasing, but there is no limit to the ability to reject it because it's against the fundamentalist Christian team, and their vision of paradise.

You'd have to offer them something better than paradise to get them to accept evolution.

good post Patrick.

This makes it useless to use facts and evidence, unless the facts and evidence already agree with their desired conclusion.

anyone hear from Code Pink lately about dead soldiers and killing for oil over in the sand lands? Seen any bussed in professional protestors chanting "shame shame shame" for Barry O going to war in Libya?? And why not? See Patrick's post for clues.

As per my tax issue. A flat tax on net increase each year is pretty easy to follow. The tax I speak of is all tax that should be paid - period, and all other taxes, including property taxes, gas taxes, sugar taxes, phone taxes should be removed and the EPA unfunded.

A good starting point for the breakdown of the flat tax into the city/county/state/national splits may be something like this:
Each voter will be asked to pay X% of net annual increase.
City gets 50% of X
County gets 25%
State gets 15%
Fed gets 10%.
(these are just really rough examples, but someone who knows what numbers should go where can smooth it out)
Reducing spending is step one.
No more taxing to the top and then hoping for some to come back to the local level as long as you follow the rules the feds tie to the money. Cut off the money supply to the handouts.

there is no proof of a Godless evolution (if you like that term), nor is there proof of a single cell life form becoming an advanced life form. THere is only proof of selective breeding by animals with close DNA.

The proof there is God is in the universe around us all. Male and female created he them.

Have a fantastic day.

The Catholic Church now accepts evolution, except in maintaining that was directed by God to create humans. So it's no problem for that team anymore.

Bap33 says

there is no proof of a Godless evolution (if you like that term)

There is also no proof of a godded evolution.

Bap33 says

nor is there proof of a single cell life form becoming an advanced life form.

There is a mountain of evidence for this, and it is only growing. If you are unaware of this evidence then you probably choose to remain in the dark on the subject of evolution, and that is your prerogative.

Bap33 says

THere is only proof of selective breeding by animals with close DNA.

While there is proof of this, it is not the only thing that there is proof of.

Bap33 says

The proof there is God is in the universe around us all.

There is no proof of this. If there was actual proof of the existence of god(s) then whichever religion could provide the proof would be flooded with converts. It is funny to me that you choose to ignore actual physical evidence, and tons of scientific data providing proof for evolution, yet you believe in the vaguest ethereal "proofs" in gods.

If you could even prove god(s), what good is faith?

Bap33 says

Have a fantastic day.

You too.

leoj707 says

It is funny to me that you choose to ignore actual physical evidence, and tons of scientific data providing proof for evolution, yet you believe in the vaguest ethereal "proofs" in gods.

If you could even prove god(s), what good is faith?

Yeah, that much is clear from what Bap said. This is like the "it's just a theory" people -- there's a focus on form instead of substance, but also that certain forms are given more weight than other forms. In this case, religious theory ("someone said something many years ago") is given more weight than scientific theory ("we can design experiments that are consistent with how things act, today") even though there's little substance behind the former other than faith, and tons of substance behind the latter in the form of tons of scientific evidence.

leoj707 says

severe disappointment, indignation,

There you said it. Considering the amount of time some of us put into writing posts (probably more than the amount of time spent with many of our relatives outside the immediate family members), having the content arbitrarily edited and then attributed to us with exactly the opposite of what wrote would indeed be "severe disappointment, indignation and anguishment."

corntrollio says

There's a difference between those two. It's odd that you don't understand the difference, because it's not like this is subtle.

What difference? Both are attributing statements to someone holds dear the exact opposite sentiment. Are you telling me that you don't think mass raping of women is abominable?

BS. This is nonsense. You dish out at least as much mental anguish from your affirmative posts as you could possibly suffer from someone accidentally misquoting you.

So long as I do not attribute those posts to you, it's freedom of expression.

This is a forum and misattribution doesn't matter that much (and is probably not even actionable in almost every case). Context always matters. Go ahead and sue if you disagree. You will fail. Trying to compare this to news with celebrity situations is absolute nonsense.

We are not talking about accidental misattribution here, but intentional mis-attribution with explicit malicious intent to cause anguishment. Celebrities usually enjoy less protection from comments and reports than private citizens.

You're just trying to shut down debate. The irony is that your ideological beliefs about "pain and suffering" are clouding your ability to make a good argument about libel.

Me trying to shut down debate? Are you out of your mind? How is randomly changing what posters write to exactly the opposite of what they write a debate??? Doing that would indeed be attempt to shut down debate.

Reality says

There you said it.

Actually I did not say it I was just quoting a definition.

Reality says

...having the content arbitrarily edited and then attributed to us with exactly the opposite of what wrote would indeed be "severe disappointment, indignation and anguishment."

But I did say:
leoj707 says

So, if you can prove something akin to seeing a loved one murdered then you should be able to win your suit. Make sure that you start crying openly in the work place, and are often found curled up in the fetal position in the break room sobbing about those meanies on Patrick.net.

You need to convince a judge or jury not yourself.

Reality says

We are not talking about accidental misattribution here, but intentional mis-attribution with explicit malicious intent to cause anguishment.

Nonsense. Any anguish is contrived, and you haven't even told us which post was allegedly edited and how it was edited to mean something different than you originally intended. In either case, it still wouldn't meet the standards of libel in any court unless it were particularly egregious and caused real damages. As I said, if you think it's actionable, go ahead and sue. I'd love to see that.

Barring that, I'm done with this discussion -- again you're trying to shut down debate, because taken to its logical extreme, if I bona fide misinterpret what you said in debate, you would call that libel for misinterpreting you, which is not a good policy. In addition, you're shutting down debate by making us focus on a spurious claim, and we're all dumber for it -- simple misdirection from a crappy argument.

Too rational to be exciting. What we're talking about here is hate, and the ability to slightly injure someone you hate.

Perhaps it's time to take a break or vacation, Patrick. Maintaining a site like this is not easy, especially under the current economic environment. It is however important to be mindful of whether you are still yourself, and still the person that the Mrs married. Sometimes I can get over-worked and become wistful too. When one senses oneself is being animated by the darker angels within us, perhaps it's time for a break or vacation.

Back to the topic at hand. Hate is a very self-destructive emotion. Dealing in hate is a little like dealing in terminal drugs: the addicts die from the products that you are pushing and the customer base shrinks. You really don't want your website populated by unemployed self-haters that want put jackboots on their neighbors all the time; they can't pay your bills because they don't have money (unable to provide valuable service to their neighbors).

IMHO, people post here because they want to be heard. Although sometimes many of us can be quite antagonistic towards each other, it is not out of genuine hatred towards each other, but simply can't stop responding because every response is positive proof that someone is reading your post! Expressions of disagreement illicit more responses! LOL. As a new media venue, your website will be better off channelling that positive desire instead of channelling wanton hatred. Letting people vote multiple times and letting people vote on their own posts would generate revenue for you quickly. BTW, just to be a step ahead, no it's not a good idea to print fiat credit of your own to thumb down on posts that you do not personally agree, Patrick; i.e. you probably shouldn't vote. The dealer in a market place (even of opinions) has to maintain at least a semblance of neutrality and fairness lest he loses customers and counter-parties. The goal here is to attract more votes, not to drive people away.

But maybe paying 0.1 cents to mark a comment as "Left" or "Right" would be a sufficient insult to make it worth paying. Perhaps I should physically shift a comment to the left or right on each vote!

Many issues are not at all one-dimensional left vs. right. Nolan Chart style 2D graph makes somewhat more sense, but gets complicated very quickly.

A flat tax defies all logic.

Say a family without paying any tax, can not even afford a remotely decent life on their income, should they pay that flat rate ?

Okay, say someone (a family) makes just 10K more than this. Should they pay that flat rate on that 10K ? Exactly when does the flat rate kick in ? At what level of income ? Isn't that judgement arbitrary ? Who is to say when someone is poor enough that they don't have to pay that rate ?

And then what, once you determine that, it's the same on up to billions?

I don't see how that's fair.

If our income (job) markets are wide open, then you will have people making 100s and even 1000 times the average income.

I believe it's arguable, that even though a persons income is 1000 times above the average income, that maybe their lifestyle and investment outcome should only be 600 times as good as average.

But on this particular issue, I am at the core of the reason why I am a progressive.

Where as people such as some posters here, they are at their core with the right wing team for reasons having to do with religion, guns and other social and cultural reasons. When it comes to taxes, they're just backing their way into an irrational argument that fits with their team's position. (what their wealthy overlords tell their gullible servants to believe)

Too bad this type of person can't see through their own BS.

corntrollio says

Nonsense. Any anguish is contrived, and you haven't even told us which post was allegedly edited and how it was edited to mean something different than you originally intended.

Patrick already stated what editing was done. In that particular post each instance of "government" was replaced with "corporation." It would be as if you wrote an anti-rape article, and someone went in there and substituted every instance of "rape" with "sex," and make it look like you were anti-sex when you have repeated made the point that you are pro-sex, voluntary/consensual sex, but anti-rape.

(btw, in case anyone wonders why so much analogizing to sex, I'm trying to jazz up the discussion at little for Patrick's eyeball/traffic/excitement needs. LOL).

marcus says

A flat tax defies all logic.

Say a family without paying any tax, can not even afford a remotely decent life on their income, should they pay that flat rate ?

Okay, say someone (a family) makes just 10K more than this. Should they pay that flat rate on that 10K ? Exactly when does the flat rate kick in ? At what level of income ? Isn't that judgement arbitrary ? Who is to say when someone is poor enough that they don't have to pay that rate ?

And then what, once you determine that, it's the same on up to billions?

The logic there is two fold:

1. Votes matter, even votes from low income people. It is important for voters of moderate means to understand what tax is. It is not some selfless God redistributing wealth for the benefit of the poor but a bite out of the economy due to the inefficiency of monopoly (government by definition is monopoly). Two or more competing "rich" business owners can be far more beneficial to the poor (as they have to bid up the wage price of the poor in the competition and/or deliver better goods/service) than a "government" taking the money from all the same "rich" business owners and give it to one of the assembled rich men. That's all government tax/transfer really is; it's not a transfer to the poor but a transfer to the contractor chosen by the government instead of letting the poor decide which of the numerous rich men they'd like to do business with.

2. Flat tax is easier to administer than tax tiers, hence less resources will be wasted on tax collection and compliance.

The necessity of a cut-off lower boundary is not a "fairness" issue but a political issue. The sooner people realize that tax on any income is illegitimate and counter-productive, the sooner we can get rid of income tax altogether and therefore obviate the need for cut-off boundary at all.

Reality says

Patrick already stated what editing was done.

Okay, then you're high, because there were no posts edited above when I view this thread. I cannot find any spot where "government" was replaced with "corporations in control of government."

Anyway, what Patrick *proposed but didn't do* still wouldn't be libel. It fits within obvious defenses, especially when in the context of a political discussion.

Again, I dare you to sue.

corntrollio says

Okay, then you're high, because there were no posts edited above when I view this thread. I cannot find any spot where "government" was replaced with "corporations in control of government."

Anyway, what Patrick *proposed but didn't do* still wouldn't be libel. It fits within obvious defenses, especially when in the context of a political discussion.

That's because I had edited it back, and expanded on "government" to a set of phrases that both Patrick and I can agree (so I hope).

Again, I dare you to sue.

Am I missing something here? Are you asking to have your posts edited to mean exactly the opposite of what have been writing?

Reality says

Flat tax is easier to administer than tax tiers, hence less resources will be wasted on tax collection and compliance.

How exactly is it easier? You look at a tax table to see how much you owe in either case.

All the deductions and loopholes are a completely different topic than flat vs. progressive tax code.

marcus,
if the fair flat tax is found to be 20%, then the 10K incomer owes $200.

the Rush types that make 50mil pay 1mil.

they only get one vote each, and you find that to be fair? Shouldn't Rush's vote be weighted to match his tax burdan? (im kidding, but im right)

On weighted votes: It would be nice if a voters percentage of participation in elections was tied to the value of their vote.

The Catholic Church now accepts evolution, except in maintaining that was directed by God to create humans. So it's no problem for that team anymore.

they also pray to dead people and to things other than God. Both are no-no's.

Bap33 says

if the fair flat tax is found to be 20%, then the 10K incomer owes $200.

the Rush types that make 50mil pay 1mil.

That's insanity (tying votes to money). Although we are moving in that direction (toward fascism) very rapidly.

And 20% of 10K is 2000. 20% of 50million is 10 million.

I find the idea of a flat tax to be absurd. But it is close to what we have already (not including capital gains tax being lower).

That is, not including that we have a relatively flat tax, that kicks in gradually.

10% on income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]
10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50

And then basically the government spends payroll taxes (issuing IOUs) because these taxes don't cover our spending.

OH, and we need to cut entitlements !!!

Bap33 says

Shouldn't Rush's vote be weighted to match his tax burdan? (im kidding, but im right)

Just curious--do you really feel that way? That seem un-American to me.

no, one vote, one nation, as seen above. But, I also see it only fair to pay a flat tax. Can't possibly be seen as fair allowing weighted tax burdan and unweighted voting... can it?

Bap33 says

Can't possibly be seen as fair allowing weighted tax burdan and unweighted voting... can it?

Your acting like you ARE Ruch Limbaugh, but I never thought you were anywhere near that stupid. And no I'm not calling you names (except maybe a troll).

Because I don't believe that you believe that.

Money already has TONS of extra influence through supporting candidates and lobbyists. This needs to be undone to a great extent.

The additional tax burden for "the rich" is fair, because money grows exponentially, and because beyond a certain point (when bills are paid), additional discretionary income is far different than the income that takes one up to where they can afford a good education for their kids, and a good retirement.

If you were to (or could) graph a function that valued the "need" for more money, or the possibility of using money productively, as a function of income level, you find that once a persons net worth gets beyond certain point, this need is decreasing.

tatupu70 says

How exactly is it easier? You look at a tax table to see how much you owe in either case.

Entire armies of accountants are hired and numerous volumes are written on revenue recognitions and asset depreciation schedule options/choices . . . why? Because contrary to the steady-state economic model, businesses have ups and downs due to economic cycle. "Progressive" tax makes revenue recognition and asset depreciation in different years result in different tax liabilities.

Reality says

Entire armies of accountants are hired and numerous volumes are written on revenue recognitions and asset depreciation schedule options/choices . . . why? Because contrary to the steady-state economic model, businesses have ups and downs due to economic cycle. "Progressive" tax makes revenue recognition and asset depreciation in different years result in different tax liabilities.

That has nothing to do with progressive taxation, and everything to do with an overly complicated tax code.

Bellingham Bob says

Um, stores won't post their prices if they are higher that the guy across the street.

To clarify, gasoline is the only good that you can comparison shop while driving b

I still wouldn't be that sure of that. I have two convenience stores right next to each other and both advertise tobacco, milk, coffee and eggs in the windows. Granted is also a gas station (which also has higher prices on tobacco).If I drive around the corner the drug store has milk prices advertised.

Sometimes there can be local signage laws. I know of a town that does not allow for electric signs (and that includes backlight). 711's all over the region here have displays of basics of the above items in windows.

Maybe things are different in the Bay Area but in New England it has been this way for decades.

Before 1990 retailers could not open on sundays so maybe advertising was allowed to attract people.

We have a concept here called "package stores". Supermarkets generally are not allowed to sell alcohol (they allow a few). Package stores sell alcohol, tobacco (sometimes cigars due to competition) and lottery tickets. Because of this they kinda HAVE to advertise from the street. The only time advertising in papers occurs is around holidays (memorial, 4th, labor, Christmas, NYE). For the most part they are not chains.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/08/30/tobacco_signs_still_target_citys_poorer_areas/
They have tried to zone out tobacco ads but they still occur

If you just search anywhere in new england on google maps and go to street view you can find tobacco and alcohol advertising on the street level. I just searched one area and they had seven different alcohols advertised on their store front which is across the street from a tobacco store with two prices in their windows.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Entire armies of accountants are hired and numerous volumes are written on revenue recognitions and asset depreciation schedule options/choices . . . why? Because contrary to the steady-state economic model, businesses have ups and downs due to economic cycle. "Progressive" tax makes revenue recognition and asset depreciation in different years result in different tax liabilities.

That has nothing to do with progressive taxation, and everything to do with an overly complicated tax code.

"Progressive" taxation is the only reason why deciding the year of revenue recognition and asset depreciation (choosing different schedules) matter. It is quite apparent that you have no tax filing / income experience beyond basic steady wage income. For many small busienss owners / job creators, revenue/income can fluctuate dramatically from year to year. Say if you have a business that has $300k revenue in one year but only $100k the next year (or vice versa), in which year to expense a $50k capital investment would make a huge difference in tax liablity; in fact, any accountant worth his salt would recommend looking closely into if there's any justifiable reason to shift revenue recognition of part of the fat year to the lean year. Different sets of numbers have to be run over and over again for comparison. A flat tax would obviate much of the economically non-productive effort for tax collection and compliance.

In any case, the even more important reason for flat taxation is this:

Votes matter, even votes from low income people. It is important for voters of moderate means to understand what tax is. It is not some selfless God redistributing wealth for the benefit of the poor but a bite out of the economy due to the inefficiency of monopoly (government by definition is monopoly). Two or more competing "rich" business owners can be far more beneficial to the poor (as they have to bid up the wage price of the poor in the competition and/or deliver better goods/service) than a "government" taking the money from all the same "rich" business owners and give it to one of the assembled rich men. That's all government tax/transfer really is; it's not a transfer to the poor but a transfer to the contractor chosen by the government instead of letting the poor decide which of the numerous rich men they'd like to do business with.

Can you predict ahead of time which year will be $300K and which will be $100K? Otherwise, how can you plan as you suggest??

Reality says

Votes matter, even votes from low income people. It is important for voters of moderate means to understand what tax is.

That is a highly offensive statement.

Reality says

It is not some selfless God redistributing wealth for the benefit of the poor but a bite out of the economy due to the inefficiency of monopoly (government by definition is monopoly).

Wrong. It is a method of ensuring a healthy economy. The larger the wealth disparity, the sicker the economy.