-1=e^ipi

Yes, but the less wealthy get more utility out of it than the more wealthy.

I've heard of LGTBQIA+, but what do the D and second I stand for? I suggest we use QUILT BAG because it's far easier to use.

You are mixing up 'relative to resources' with 'relative income'. Notice the word 'to'.

Okay, I get that you guys are slow, so maybe I need to spell it out for you: "there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income." This is just saying that if A is ability to pay and t is the tax rate, then dA/dt is negative. It isn't saying that dA/dI is negative, where I is income.

Relative to resources is in a different sentence. Maybe you are inserting different parts of different sentences in different locations in your head in order to get the sentence you want it to be.

I guess society's attitude is 'we need to protect women from men, who are all evil rapists' so we have to protect female employees from frisking passengers, and female passengers from being frisked by male employees. This is why we are seeing things such as gender segregated swimming pools. To 'protect women'.

Which doesn't refute what I wrote. Perhaps you lack reading comprehension.

Yes, that's the Pigou-Dalton principle. But is 1% of your income worth less to you the less money you have? This is the question I tried to ask people in the thread on marginal elasticity of utility, but you refused to answer.

Which a flat tax doesn't classify as. The flat tax gives equal burden, relative to resources.

Deterrent from what? We aren't Poland. The status quo involves Saudi Arabia funding wahabbism and therefore creating terrorism with it's oil money and the Turks preventing our Kurdish allies from being effective against ISIS. Somehow the status quo doesn't seem very desirable.

We can aid other countries without being in NATO. And call it offense not defense.

Stop calling it defense if it is offense. It's inaccurate.

How is Americans protecting their Sovereignty a threat to Canada?

Canada is not France. We weren't a colonial power and we don't have as many neighbours. These are bad analogies.

Protect us from what? Could you elaborate on how this is? Who is going to militarily attack Canada? The only thing we should be concerned about is domestic terrorism, or helping our allies. Realistically, if it weren't for ISIS, we could probably get away with abolishing our military. Do you mean shared intelligence is to fight terrorism or something else? Please elaborate. Sweden is in a different location on Earth with far more neighbours. In particular, Russia is nearby. Canada has no nearby hostile countries.

I don't really understand the logic here. The United States would benefit from increased economies of scale and lower trade barriers.

Maybe it's best to explain this with an example. Suppose you want to test 2 different types of health care services to see which is more effective: one has users register all their appointments with an online app, and one that has people come in person to register. You might have 2 clinics in Canada try each of these two methods. However, it could be that one clinic had better results because it was in a town with a healthier demographic, or because the weather in one clinic was unusually mild that year, etc. To eliminate these alternate explanations for the difference in outcomes between the two methods, you might want to try to test these two methods across many clinics and randomize which clinic does which method (so that alternative explanatory factors are not correlated with which clinic gets which method). As a result, you eliminate alternate explanations and can conclude with a degree of confidence which method is better.

Solution: merge with the USA and become a single country.

I bring up this topic for a number of reasons. 1. NATO was originally designed to counter the soviets in the cold war. Yet the cold war is long over, so has NATO outlived it's usefulness? 2. Being part of NATO means we are allied with Turkey. Yet Turkey has become more and more Islamist and they are enemies with our allies against ISIS, the Kurds. Not only that, arguably Turkey has let ISIS grow because they are more interested in overthrowing Assad. http://news.yahoo.com/turkish-jets-hit-targets-syria-kurds-iraq-050807038.html 3. Many NDPers have long held the position that Canada should leave NATO. Not quite sure why though. 4. Even if we leave NATO, we are still informally allied with other developed liberal democracies. 5. NATO has some arbitrary requirement that member countries spend 2% of GDP on military expenditure. I get that we are at war with ISIS, but this money could be better spent elsewhere.

Nope. A regressive tax is one where the tax rate is a decreasing function of income.

Let's see, definition of progressive tax: A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. Definition of regressive tax: A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. A consumption tax classifies as progressive if essentials are not subject to the tax. And even if the consumption tax did not have exceptions, it would not classify as regressive. Rather it would classify as neutral (neither progressive nor regressive). A flat income tax classifies as progressive when combined with a guaranteed income and neutral when there is no guaranteed income. It is not regressive. But to 'progressives' like Black Dog, the terms 'progressive tax' and 'regressive tax' don't have clear meanings. Rather, 'progressive tax' is any tax Black Dog agrees with and 'regressive tax' is any tax Black Dog disagrees with. The usage of the term 'progressive' in this context is to play an Orwellian word association game where 'progress' is associated with the tax that Black Dog agrees with in order to get the listener to support that tax system without Black Dog having to justify the tax system on its merits.

What we ultimately need are new political parties because all our options suck. To bad these people don't form a party: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/02/02/whats-the-economist-partys-platform/

This makes sense. Support for the CBC made sense 80 years ago when the market for English media was essentially a natural monopoly, but not today. Sign language is arguably a natural monopoly.