Taxation

I think that for a source of income, the government should bake metals out of dirt using cheap nuclear energy, and sell those on the world market. Couple that with mild taxation/very small tariffs on imports, and a decent sales tax, and the government should have plenty of money.

I was thinking that as a simple climate change measure a straight sales tax should be replaced with an energy tax. Put simply, every item sold has an estimate made of the energy consumed in production, lifetime use, and end of life recycling and is taxed based on that number.
Obviously the numbers will be wildly different so it the relationship to an actual % tax will likely be logarithmic and initially the estimates will be fairly crude and probably generally calculated for entire industries but once in practice individual companies would have an obvoius incentive to closely calculate their energy use and reduce it to therefore reduce the tax levied on their products.

I disagree, we should nationalize energy production, and make sure that it is clean.

I disagree as well. We should decentralise energy production as much as possible, and have a system for selling excess energy back to the grid. So if Mr Joe Smith or John Bloggs buys solar panels and a wind turbine, or Tidal Power (is this going to be on the coast?) and Hydro, and generates more power than needed, they can sell the excess power to the grid.

Of course, that would only work for homes, but it would protect homes from power outages.

maybe provide each neighborhood with a mini NILFiR reactor?

Assuming Nilfir works, which is not clear.

If it doesn't, there's always uranium nuclear with uranium produced from the Thorium breeder cycle. Nuclear waste is generally over-emphacised anyway, how hard could it be to bury it in little carbon spheres in the desert?

Decentralising power done to individual homes is a nonsense. An entirely new new power grid would need to be designed, you would fall sharply away from the maximum efficiency of production as smaller home power plants would never be as efficient large centralized ones. There would have to be huge amounts of surplus capacity to cover the power troughs of windless overcast days droping solar and turbine power levels across whole swathes of the country. There would have to be extensive climate modeling to even begin to guess at the micro climatic effects of vast numbers of small wind turbines and solar panels across cities and suburbs.
There's nothing wrong with some nice 150mw nuclear batteries but they hardly count as decentralised.
My tax suggestion was meant to provide economic incentive in a market based economy to strive for optimum energy efficiency. Something I thought would be in the interest of the state. The assumption was that energy production as discussed elsewhere would be majority nuclear, as such there is not much cleaner it could be.

This is an important issue, because when you get down to it, America rebelled because of taxes, they need to be addressed.

For power generation

what power source are we using? A Polywell Fusur that is about 3*3*3 metres can generate 100Mw. If they are this small they could be placed around the city, possibly taking the place substaions.

yes, that is very true, of course won't smaller plants be less powerful than large?

Yes, but how much power do we need? Would a 1 Terawatt plant be enough?

I believe the whole earth only uses about 15 terawatts, so 1 terawatt should be "enough"

I may be wrong here, but my understanding of the pollywell technology is that power generation is limited by the strength of the magnetic field containing the electrons, which in turn is limited by your ability to cool the superconducting electromagnets. Thus current technology seems to be limiting power generation to arround 10 gigawatts, or at least that is impression given by much of the published Bussard papers.
Also enough is never enough. The more power we can generate the more use we'll find for it.

I beleive you said something about an entirely new power grid having to be designed, lkm. It *is* a clean slate, you realize. You were the one who suggested a 5 day week (or was that Mike?)

I did list that as one of about five or six top reasons why I thought decentralysed power production was idiocy yes, and your right it only really apllies in the real world.
Your also right that I'm guilty of the five day week.

Tidal Power is constant. The only way it could stop is if the Moon suddenly disappeared.

Today's featured article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

I'd go for a 20% flat rate on income, increasing from 0 to 20 through 1% invcrements, starting at a high enough rate of income to live. So at one income level you wouldn't be taxed, at the second it's 1%, at the third 2%, etc. Of course it would have to be set so it's an advantage to be earning more. The maximum of 20% is in there to retain the wealthy.

Why stop at 20%? An income tax linked to average earnings that adds 10% for every multiple earned. As for a flat tax, it's only really effective in developing economies.

A problem with modern day taxation policies (I'm referring to the U.S. specifically) is the rich think they should be given huge tax breaks. While I don't think they should be paying a huge increase in %income more than lower-classes, they still need to be taxed fairly.

The British aristocracy understood that to have the right to rule, they would be taxed. Why can't American "aristocracy" (that term sounds ridiculous being applied to the likes of some American celebrities, doesn't it?) understand that too?

Because it's unamerican, the country was founded on tax avoidance.

Taxation without representation.

From the point of view of the British, perhaps tax evasion is the right phrase

Well, although idealogically the war came out of the same seed bed as the English civil war, Cromwell and all that, in actual motivation it started with businessmen sitting round a coffee house discussing ways to make more money. And one said, "I know, here's one, lets have our OWN government, then we won't every have to pays those dastardly taxes." And it caught on. And they got their own government, and they still have, the hence massive input big business has on legisalation and regulation in America. It's there country, you just live in it.

For taxation, I think it would be wise to use a direct tax system. By this I mean taxation in the spirit of the system currently in place in the U.K. where taxes are withdrawn directly from paychecks.

This would eliminate quite a bit of government bureaucracy. Plus tax evasion would be much more difficult.

As for percentages, what Tobias mentioned above is appealing. We need to make sure taxes aren't a burden on the lower class and we need to make sure that the wealthy pay a fair share too.

I definitely agree. Although, maybe only a gov't tax, nothing else, that then gets distributed throughout all of the branches and levels of gov't.


I don't really see why the IRS has to be so big, can't they just use one big computer?

Dealing strictly with the federal government and income tax, I think that our present system could be presented better.
First eliminate all loopholes and deductions. You make what you make, you pay what you pay. Next, income tax would be based on flat tax of your DISPOSABLE income. A baseline of let's say $10,000 for subsistence. After that 50% of your disposable income is paid. This is actually quite close to how things already are just for different reasons!
The $10k figure adjusts with inflation and/or the CPI. The poor can maintain a subsistence and the rich can't weasle out.
Minimum wage is also adjusted with inflation and/or CPI to maintain subsistence.

First we would need an entire revamp of the CPI. Currently their calculations are not very accurate, there's plenty of research about it if you look around.

Or why not just use a Fair Tax? Tax is levied on all goods and services.

That's why I proposed basing the increases on both inflation and CPI, but if we were to just use inflation as the reference then that could work well enough.

Fair Tax sounds good but there are certain aspects that are UNfair. A significant amount of income is generated through investments. Unless a sales tax is levied on stock, bond or other security purchases, this is where the rich get richer and the poor end up holding the bag. A simple way to evade this tax is to just not buy stuff in this country. A corporate executive WORKS in this country, but LIVES in the Bahamas. During the week he lives in a humble apartment, but on the weekend he takes the corporate jet to his Palacial estate in the Bahamas. Total income earned in the US, let's say $1 million dollars/year. Total purchases within the US $50,000. Sales tax paid at let's say 10%, approximately $5000/year. Total purchases outside the US, $900,000. Taxes paid to the US $0.

Problem is though, there aren't enough goods and services in the Bahamas alone for the man to spend $900,000 a year.

But I see your point. Which is why I like the direct tax system.

Basing taxes on inflation and a generalized index of commodities that everyone uses (electricity, fuel, etc) will give better accuracy than inflation alone.

Using a commodities index with inflation sounds like a good way to go

A consumption tax is the only fair tax because it puts the choice in the hands of the consumer.

But you also have to provide the consumer with options to shield themselves from taxation in exchange for less dependance on a collective.

You can have a straight percentage sales tax, but give them reductions for producing their own energy, educating themselves, serving their community, ect. The more you use public resources, the more you have to give back.

That's the only way to drive people to better themselves.

Check out my post on 11-09-08 @19:29.

As for people bettering themselves, no matter how much people strive, somebody will always have to come in second, third, fourth and ultimately last. Those people are just as deserving of compensation as well. No matter what there will always need to be someone to do the grunt work and without the grunt work being done a society comes to a screaching halt. Executives like to call themselves leaders and consider themselves the most important part of a business. The reality is these people are no more than resources coordinators, and without resources to coordinate they are useless.

The other shortcoming in your theory is this. National security and national defense are the biggest part of of our budget and the more you have the more you have at risk, therefore the more the government has to protect of yours the the more you should have to pay in taxes.

davamanra wrote:

Check out my post on 11-09-08 @19:29.

50% of disposable income? My cold dead hand... start prying.

The goal is to work to the point were subsistence cost is as low as possible, preferably just some Saturday afternoon elbow grease.

davamanra wrote:

As for people bettering themselves, no matter how much people strive, somebody will always have to come in second, third, fourth and ultimately last. Those people are just as deserving of compensation as well. No matter what there will always need to be someone to do the grunt work and without the grunt work being done a society comes to a screaching halt. Executives like to call themselves leaders and consider themselves the most important part of a business. The reality is these people are no more than resources coordinators, and without resources to coordinate they are useless.

They can strive, they can succeed, or they can fail, based solely on the quality of whatever they were striving for. The point is that if they do fail, they have an unchanging life support system that provides the necessities of life that doesn't require a public handout. That's the sort of thing that people work for. Thats what grunt work is for. And once they is achieved they are free to invest further in whatever suits their fancy. It doesn't become the governments because they don't "need" it to get by.

davamanra wrote:

The other shortcoming in your theory is this. National security and national defense are the biggest part of of our budget and the more you have the more you have at risk, therefore the more the government has to protect of yours the the more you should have to pay in taxes.

Militaries protect general geographic areas, not individual properties. If somebody gets rich and gets a lot of stuff, they don't get a platoon of Marines at the front gate and a Coast Guard Cutter in their pool. They hire private security guards.

First you read the wrong post NOT 6:59, 19:29.
Second, a person who is working for minimum wage can't afford anything more than basic essentials. Some kind of disaster comes along and he loses everything he needs a safety net, thus social security. with minimum wage there IS nothing left over to invest in whatever suits their fancy. With your plan if a person gets injured they are screwed.
The military protection is in proportion to your wealth. If a bomb hits a poor guy's apartment he's out a couple thousand dollars if a bomb hits a wealthy guy's palatial estate he's out millions. The military's protective "umbrella" encompasses all of this. the rich guys recieves a greater portion of this protection.

As a rule of thumb, it should be noted, that the greater the diference between minimum and maximum wages in a society, the greater the social unrest.

lkm wrote:

As a rule of thumb, it should be noted, that the greater the diference between minimum and maximum wages in a society, the greater the social unrest.

Due in no small part to politicians inciting class warfare to gain power.

davamanr wrote:

Fair Tax sounds good but there are certain aspects that are UNfair. A significant amount of income is generated through investments. Unless a sales tax is levied on stock, bond or other security purchases, this is where the rich get richer and the poor end up holding the bag. A simple way to evade this tax is to just not buy stuff in this country. A corporate executive WORKS in this country, but LIVES in the Bahamas. During the week he lives in a humble apartment, but on the weekend he takes the corporate jet to his Palacial estate in the Bahamas. Total income earned in the US, let's say $1 million dollars/year. Total purchases within the US $50,000. Sales tax paid at let's say 10%, approximately $5000/year. Total purchases outside the US, $900,000. Taxes paid to the US $0.

I haven't read the fine print of the proposed Fair Tax bills, but I think you underestimate the insidiousness of the tax collector.

For one thing, it only replaces personal income taxes, the corporations still pay taxes. So even if the company covers all their expenses as compensation and they goes back to the Bahamas with their entire salary, the company pays taxes on anything they buy.

If not, an apartment is a technically a service, thus likely taxable. I have a hard time believing someone with that much money would live in something you or I would call humble. They'll probably have multiple stateside assistants, drivers and vehicles. They'll want entertainment and need to entertain clients and associates.

And god knows they'll need to buy jet fuel to get home.

That's the great thing about a consumption tax, if it gets consumed, it gets taxed.

davamanr wrote:

Second, a person who is working for minimum wage can't afford anything more than basic essentials. Some kind of disaster comes along and he loses everything he needs a safety net, thus social security. with minimum wage there IS nothing left over to invest in whatever suits their fancy. With your plan if a person gets injured they are screwed.

Again, the idea of the Fair Tax is to replace the Federal income taxes, including Social security deduction, so the SS would still be there, just funded differently.

davamanr wrote:

The military protection is in proportion to your wealth. If a bomb hits a poor guy's apartment he's out a couple thousand dollars if a bomb hits a wealthy guy's palatial estate he's out millions. The military's protective "umbrella" encompasses all of this. the rich guys recieves a greater portion of this protection.

Sure, but the rich guy is well insured and can get someplace to go. If a bomb falls on a bungalow, the residence, and probably a handful of closest neighbors are homeless.

One thing I don't do is underestimate the insidiousness of the wealthy tax dodger. This was just one example and I assure you the tax dodger can be a hell of a lot more creative than I can with their army of lawyers and accountants.
Social Security was set up as a separate entity to be a safety net for all. Unless there is a fool proof system to fund social security (and obviouly the present system isn't completely fool proof either) I wouldn't trust our present government to get it right.

The rich guy can afford insurance since he has all this disposable income. The poor guy can't even be sure where his next meal is coming from.

Lets not mistake taxation for charity.

Those who like to levy taxes think its the charitable thing to do. Those who have to pay them wouldn't mind so much if the money spent effectively.

The burden of proof falls on those who levy the taxes.

Surely taxation should pay for the duties and burden of a state, and charity should pay for what the majority of the voters feel show not be the responsibility of the state. If charity is providing services that should be provided by the state, there is something very wrong with the state.

lkm wrote:

Surely taxation should pay for the duties and burden of a state, and charity should pay for what the majority of the voters feel show not be the responsibility of the state. If charity is providing services that should be provided by the state, there is something very wrong with the state.

Yes, but charity is the giving of time and resources with no expectation of a reward. And indeed, that is often exactly what we get for our tax dollars, but that's not the way its suppose to be.

The government has a responsibility to provide a common, proactive defense, collaboration with friendly peoples abroad, domestic tranquility, oversight of our rights, resources and industries, investment in our common transportation, health, education, energy, financial, and agricultural infrastructures, and research in technologies that give hope to the future. In other words, a clear return on their investment.

What we get instead is social pandering and electoral engineering to preserve power for party and politician. And that is why people are unwilling to part with their hard earned cash.

How do you measure a clear return on investment for government spending?
I could imagine spending on health could decrease work loss due to illness which could be equated to a dollar value, except you would consider that to be social pandering.
But how do find the value of a robust military, which you clearly value, in dollar terms?

So basically charity is kind of like what we're doing for the lending industry right now with this bailout, or what we did for the airlines after 9/11 or for the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund, or the savings and loans. Or is this different from what we try to do with public assistance programs for people who have fallen on hard times.

davamanra wrote:

So basically charity is kind of like what we're doing for the lending industry right now with this bailout, or what we did for the airlines after 9/11 or for the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund, or the savings and loans. Or is this different from what we try to do with public assistance programs for people who have fallen on hard times.

No, I'm quite certain that we have clear expectations for this. We expect the banks to continue function as they would had they not been encumbered by hundreds of billions of bad loans we made them take. We expect the flawed assets we take on to be refinanced to get as much of our investment back as possible. We expect that the institutions we have bolstered will continue to function free of those poisoned assets and to pay us back.

What kind of expectations are in place for those on public assistance?

We didn't expect payback from the savings and loans and they all folded anyway. Many of the airlines did as well.
As for public assistance I will stipulate that point, but let's make sure that it is understood that the idealistic belief that public assistance wouldn't be abused is as idealistic as believing that deregulation wouldn't be abused.

As I understand it, the federal reserve is going to purchase $700 billion of structured debt at twice the market value. I'm not sure how you expect the fed to be paid back unless you think it could make money flipping the reposed properties it now owns.

lkm wrote:

How do you measure a clear return on investment for government spending?
I could imagine spending on health could decrease work loss due to illness which could be equated to a dollar value, except you would consider that to be social pandering.
But how do find the value of a robust military, which you clearly value, in dollar terms?

Fair question. Lets break it down.

I wrote:

The government has a responsibility to provide a common, proactive defense, collaboration with friendly peoples abroad, domestic tranquility, oversight of our rights, resources and industries, investment in our common transportation, health, education, energy, financial, and agricultural infrastructures, and research in technologies that give hope to the future. In other words, a clear return on their investment.

I consider the roles of government to roughly fall along the lines of a presidential cabinet. Of course since the cabinet is not well defined in the Constitution, its been subject to a lot of bloat. The bolded areas above represent the 12 areas that I believe the government has any business in.

Defense: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Command, Defense Intelligence Agency, Corps of Engineers, Defense Advanced Research and Production Agency, Army National Guard, Air National Guard, Coast Guard.

The natural measure of our moneys worth is deterring an attack, but that is succesful until we are, even if its not. A far better measure is combat readiness of units and logistical capacity. More importantly the National Guard should have a far larger role in civil defense, border patrol, sea and airport security, responds to natural disasters, etc. Giving the Corps of Engineers full branch level and putting more focus on natural defenses of communities and homes from the forces of nature also puts the return on our investment on display and tested regularly.

Towards this end it makes sense to dramatically increase the National Guard, and perhaps instituting the draft for it. I would change it's purpose slightly so that its not given a combat role on foreign soil, though posting in support roles in overseas bases is still an option. But having a large pool of young people to draw from is handy, and not just from a crisis standpoint. Putting these kids to work in lower level governments positions (think toll booth operators, DMV clerks, janitors, teachers aids, orderly's, prison guards, ect) that would normally go to over priced bureaucrats and unionized public employees. Saves the public money and gives them the kind of on the job, real world prospective that is painfully lacking in universities these days.

State: Pretty self explanatory. I think it's effectiveness is determined by the missions its given. You can't talk dictators out of being dictators. That's a job for the DoD. I do think that a lot of our foreign, humanitarian, and development aid should be done directly by something like the Peace Corps. Its a whole lot better than parachuting food into areas for collection by the local strongman.

Finance: The biggest change here needs to be the sacking of the Federal Reserve, and the establishment of the 3rd National Bank. Eliminate the IRS and put in a National Sales tax at a level to cover local, state and federal needs, the counties determine their needs, have that budget passed by the state, and then the State budgets are passed by Congress. Put some tariffs back up, nothing big, and offer to pay the same into other countries, each country needs its own independent base, this drives competition and innovation. Get rid of pennies and dollar bills, and replace with dollar coins. And for god sake make the dime bigger.

Interior: the regular natural resource management, park service, ect. Additionally, recreational vehicle, hunting, and gun licenses will be handled here. Also, this were the EPA, and environmental and housing standards control go, as a reformed welfare system. This time unless physically unable, they get surplus military equipment they have to work for, at the very least by helping those who are not physically able.

Justice: Two major changes here, a dramatic increase in forensic investigation capability, and a version MI5. I suppose we could save some money though updating regulation on alcohol, tobacco, and certain plant based recreational drugs. Requiring licenses to purchase, consume, produce, or grow would generate considerable revenue, and provide an additional stick for the judiciary should use get out of hand. Really, I'm not sure if it could be done with the required regulation to make it safe without automatically creating a black market and be back where we started.

Transportation: Quite possibly the easiest government agency to keep track of. Just count the potholes. But we need a lot of infrastructure upgrades here. A newly designed roadway system that incorporates fresh, gray and sewage water movement, pedestrian, bike, and recreational vehicle paths, power, voice and data lines. Also major inter and state highways with semi lanes in the median. Local light cargo and commuter rail service on a county level, and updated state and nationwide heavy cargo rail. A commuter level airport in every county. Vastly upgraded seaports. I'd like to see desalinization plants set up on the coasts and fresh water piped inland for use and to replenish groundwater reserves.

Health: I covered most of this in the health thread. what he have now is and ad-hoc money pit. The infrastucture has to be built from the ground up to control costs. Operational and doctor salary costs can be covered on a per use basis, everything else is and maintained by the only payroll tax left. The system is maintained by the current workforce, because unlike the Social Security System and Medicaid/care, the infrastructure is far less vulnerable to demographic shifts.

Industry: Keeps an eye business and industry on a sector by sector basis, cause each ones a little different. Keeps an eye on workers rights, product safety (imports too, Sorry China), environmental impact. Using recyclable materials and setting up the systems to collect that material at the end of a products life. Also, companies need to provide the means in terms of parts and knowledge base to allow consumers to repair their durable goods.

Education: I covered most of this in the education thread. Actually its quite similar to Health. The infrastructure more or less needs to be built from the ground up. Primary, Middle, High schools in every town with full range of vocational, and athletic, library, and local pediatric health service facilities open to the local population after normal school hours, and associate level specialized college classes spread out on a country level. Full undergrad and post grad on state level. The biggest change will be the curriculum. Its got to be hands on, and its got to be taught in a matter that the kids can use it out side of class. Teach math in shop, Biology in the greenhouse and so on.

Energy: Every county has a nuclear power plant attached to the grid modular to accept growth. Grid is designed to allow energy to pass both way, and property owners are encouraged by a set percent discount on their sales tax rate to make their own juice. Mobile fuels are either directly store electric batteries, hydrogen, or algae based bio diesel, again encouraged to be home grown.

Agriculture: Vertical farms. Cities independent in terms of produce and cereal crops. Suburban communities built around personal produce and cereal independence with livestock raised on common land, rural completely independent.

Science: A combination of agencies devoted to straight research or the engineering that applies it. NASA, NOAA, USGS, Weather Service, so on and so forth. NASA is easily the most visible of both ends, with amazing pure planetary and astronomical science and fantastic engineering in manned side of things. But would imagine that similar feats could be done in the oceans, or maybe in Antarctica as an analog of planetary colonization.

So that's what I look for in getting my moneys worth.

A lot of interesting thoughts, I'll need to think a bit for a proper response to most of it, but two things strike me right off, firstly tariff's, to my understanding, don't encourage competition or innovation but generally just protect an inefficient and uncompetitive local market from from global competition and innovation. Plus you would seriously upset the rest of the world. Secondly, as a general observation, you really are just using the same metric of gocernment success as anyone else, is what they are doing on the ground what I think they should be doing, for the sum I think they can do it for?

Commodore,
I would really like to know a little bit about you, because, as I have discovered from talking to other people on this forum a person's perspective is very dependent on the background. Without this it is very easy to get ones wires crossed.
I'll go first. I am a fifteen year veteran of the US Air Force. I served this country both as an aircraft mechanic and as an intelligence analyst. I was discharged as a result of injuries sustained will on active duty. I have seen the world from both the consevative side and the liberal side. I acknowledge that there is validity to a lot of what the conservatives say, but there is Also a lot that is not valid. The same is true of the liberal side. I am a gun owner and do not believe that gun prohibition is the answer, but reasonable legislation should be put in place. I am also a disabled veteran and am very grateful for the safety net that the Veterans Adminstration has provided for myself and my fellow injured veterans.
I assure you I am not some pinko-commie-faggot liberal, but I'm also not some redneck-fascist-jesus freak conservative either.

As for your comments above here's a few brief responses:

First, government along the lines of the presidential cabinet?? This is exactly why the separation of powers is so important, to prevent one individual and his cronies from hijacking this government.
Defense: In a desire to keep this brief, military is one thing, civil service is another starting a civil service corps for domestic, non military projects would probably be a good option, but definitely not under the military umbrella.
State: I believe it's time for the US to take a smaller role in foreign affairs. Let the UN do the job it was designed for and let the world discover for itself that being a super-power isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Finance: Treasury modified to Finance. Interesting... The First and Second national banks didn't work very well so iI have little faith in a Third.
I am in complete agreement with you on the coin issue, but I would like to take it even further. No pennies, nickles or quarters. Just larger dimes and dollar coins. In the interim perhaps steel pennies like were used during WWII as well as nickles. Also, make the bills of different sizes. The smaller the denomination the smaller the bill. This has two immediate benefits. Primarily to minimize counterfeiting, and second as a benefit to the blind.
Interior: This will take too long to analyze so I'll leave it for now
Justice: There is a lot that I would like to say here, but in the interest of brevity updating the "Bureau" is good but not just alcohol, tobacco AND firearms and explosives, but drugs prostitution and gambling. Strict licensing for these areas to minimize problems. Would SO much like to get into this deeper.
Transportation: I like what you said here. Again could use further discussion.
Health: No Human Services? Hmm... This calls for a lot of further discussion too.
Industry: But no Labor? Hmm...
Education: I like most of this, but still more discussion.
Energy: SOME good stuff here. Commodore, I suspect you live on a farm based on a lot of your comments. Non-landowners need to be given equal consideration.
Agriculture: I kind of see this under Dept. of Interior myself, but a lot of discussion needed here too.
Science: Interesting inclusion. A lot of potential here again lots of discussion.
The departments you omitted say a lot. The other thing is there are a lot of othe aspects that our government deals with that are not on the executive branch's menu and this cannot be ignored. Also it needs to be point out that to put this type of power in the hands of either a tyrant or an incompetent is a very destructive recipe.