"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" wrote in message
5.247...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" wrote in
message 5.250...
"Scout"
"John Smith"
On 5/24/2011 11:38 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John Smith
On 5/24/2011 10:45 AM, gfn wrote:
...
Impossible to implement.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

Regards,
JS
Yeah, a lot of things are "impossible", up until someone does it
...
Let's put it another way.......the cost of a system to do that would
be a
magnitude more cost than any resultant tax received. You don't
think things through very far, do you. Typical Democrat, if we can
find a way
to
stick it to some wealthy guy, we don't give a damn what it costs.



Flat tax ... with exemptions for those who can't afford housing,
food, medical, etc.

You say flat tax, and then turn right around and make it an unflat
tax.

You need to make up your mind which it's going to be. Flat or not.


Space isn't flat, why should tax be?

Prove space isn't flat.

You do understand what a "theory" is, right?


Not theory.
Experimental fact without which
GPS satellites would not keep the correct time.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970610.html

What evidence is there that supports the theory of curved space? What does
General Relativity predict about the shape of space-time near a large mass
(eg, a star)?

The Answer
There has been experimental evidence for the curvature of spacetime by a
massive object since the early part of this century (1922), when observers
set out to test the predictions of general relativity.

Sorry, but you're attempting to prove curvature by measuring something else.
It's entirely within the realm of possibility that relativity has nothing to
do with "curved space" and is simply an "optical illusion" on the part of
the observer.

Much like a man might claim that a mirage is real, even though in reality
it's just an illusion created by other forces.