Disclaimer
Please note that my opinions are my own, and the opinions of the anyone or any institution quoted are theirs. The opinions expressed herein do not reflect the opinion of North Carolina State University, its board of directors, the College of Management or any other college, Student Media Authority, or WKNC Raleigh.
This time of year my mind always wanders to the income tax. I just want to collect a few short thoughts, and comments are welcome.
A flat tax disproportionately burdens the poor. Yes, the percentages are the same, but who can more afford the flat 10 or 15 percent? The person making six figures, not the one below the poverty line. The distinguishing factor here is how we define subsistence.
That's why our income tax is called a progressive tax.
And it's a pain to file. But without withholding, the people put most at risk of defaulting on their tax bill, otherwise productive members of society if by meager means, would be thrown into debtor's prison. Or jail, I guess we don't have debtors prison anymore. Without withholdings, the poorest members of society would not receive an injection of "unexpected income" and people of modest means would be hit with an "unexpected debt" that may be hard to pay.
Don't mess with something if it ain't broke.
Why is it that narcissistic secular hedonist feel the need to mock the Holy Bible? I ask this not out of frustration, but out of sheer sadness.
Are they really that ignorant? Do they mock the works of Plato, Aristotle, and (what we know of) Socrates? Or is it just contemporary transcendental contemplation they make their target?
There is something to be gained from the contemplation of that beyond ourselves. Some of the aforementioned ignoramuses may, in fact, find themselves terribly clever and witty. It's a shame the greatest gift of intelligence should go to such a waste.
"I should've been a philosopher..."
Since I'm taking elementary German and Spanish, I've been trying to figure out how to word things I say in normal conversation. Bad thing about that is (as if that is translatable), my grammar and vocabulary are too limited to express my thoughts completely.
Thinking about the ambiguous meaning of present tense in both languages, I pondered on a few English words I've found terribly interesting recently.
Since the past tense, in English, of "have" is "had" and sometimes I use "had" in place of "ought," is there another English verb with "had" as a correct conjugate, in any tense? Furthermore, in English I use the following words interchangably:
"could" with "can" or "able", "would" with "will", "should" with "ought"
So are they equivalent? What is the etymolgy of could/would/should and are they all related? In a foreign language, how do I express "could" except with "able?" &c.
Answer:
And it's embarassing. "Would" is actually a past participle of "will," "could" of "can," and "should" of "shall." Simple enough, and to note "ought" is but a synonym to "shall" (as an interrogative only, or with intended action? Is "intended action" what we call a "subjunctive?")
But...
since I'm in a pondering mood, how do I digram:
"I have had..." or furthermore "I should/would/could have had..."
in returning to my original thought?
