Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 February 1

= February 1 =

Lead, follow, or get out of the way
Apparently, Mitt Romney just used the phrase in his victory speech in the Florida primary. He cited Thomas Paine as the source, but I can find no definitive source to confirm the pamphleteer as the originator. We do know that Lee Iaccoca said it in a commercial when he ran Chrysler. Can anybody provide credible documentation for who might have first uttered the phrase?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The earliest Google Books reference is to a 1966 article by a BYU professor. Another source attributes it to George Patton. The earliest news article using the quote in Google's archives is from the 1970s. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I heard a snippet of Romney saying that, on the radio this evening. For what it's worth he said something like "supposedly said by Thomas Paine", or words to that effect. Pfly (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical that the idiom "get out of the way" dates that far back, and Google is turning up nothing. Anyone have any idea how old it is? Antandrus  (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I take that back: Paine himself used it at least once. Antandrus  (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Google seems to disallow viewing of that book for me, and seeing it is a collected edition you are referring to, could you please provide the title of the original work in which the phrase be found? It would be interesting to see which book Romney had read or would refer to in this way. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's on page 27 of The writings of Thomas Paine, vol 1, 1774-1779. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1894. The piece in question is entitled "New Anecdotes of Alexander the Great". (Once again it only uses the idiom "get out of the way"; nothing about leading or following.) Antandrus  (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dumb question from a Brit. What is Mitt Romney doing quoting a radical like Paine anyway? Does he have the faintest clue what Paine stood for? "The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun". :p AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He's most famous for "Give me liberty or give me death", which is a far better catch-phrase than the quote you cited. :) It's worth pointing out that Paine eventually went back to England. I guess he got more liberty here than he could stand. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, I'd check your facts, Bugs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, you're right, I had him confused with Patrick Henry. All them radicals look alike. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * cough, cough. I think he meant to say These are the times to try men's souls. -- Jayron  32  06:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And he probably didn't mean to suggest that Paine went back to England - at least when he was alive. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that Paine did go back to England. He spent a few years in London (after leaving the U.S. over some political dispute) before moving on to France, where he became a supporter of their revolution as well.  He eventually returned to the U.S. and died there, but he did, in fact, live in London for a time after the American Revolution.  -- Jayron  32  06:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes. As you say, Paine returned to England for a time, though I doubt very much (given his support for the French revolution) that he did this because "he got more liberty here [America] than he could stand". In any case, my original point stands. Romney quoting Paine has got to be evidence for just how little understanding there is in contemporary U.S. political discourse of what the 'founding fathers' thought they were founding... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's s rather sweeping generalisation. All it's evidence of is that one man, Mitt Romney, may have little understanding of what you said.  But you'd need somewhat more than one quote to even come to that conclusion. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At least Mitt (or his staff) got the quote right. As compared with Bachmann, whose team thought the Battle of Lexington and Concord occurred in Concord NH rather than Concord MA. Then there's Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere story. And our glorious founding fathers include Thomas Jefferson, who is held in high esteem among most mainstream politicians of both parties. A quote can be good regardless of its source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Perhaps he took the intercontinental railroad to NH from one of the other fifty-six states?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the United States, Thomas Paine is associated with Common Sense almost exclusively, which most children have to read at least part of in their American history education. He is considered one of the Founding Fathers and is thus wrapped up in a dull blanket of warmth and love which obscures most of his real opinions and the fact that he disagreed with a lot of the other "Founding Fathers." Invoking Paine is equivalent to invoking any of the Fathers in most people's minds — they know he was involved in the Revolution and thus must be a good guy to invoke. "You should vote for whomever is quoting me" — Ben Franklin. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My answer is the following: Beware of thinkers whose minds function only when they are fuelled by a quotation. - Emile Cioran, Anathemas and Admirations. Just replace 'thinkers' with 'politicians' (you're well advised to remember that one when you watch populist and pitiful speeches of ambitious politicians - of whatever country you live in.) Flamarande (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So, anyway, I'm guessing nobody else has, so far, had any better luck than I at either substantiating or disproving the attribution of the quote to Paine.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, this may be a silly factoid, but I did some searching and found that the earliest appearance of this exact phrase in Google Books is from a publication issued by BYU in 1966: http://books.google.com/books?id=e6MbAQAAMAAJ&q=%22lead,+follow,+or+get+out+of+the+way%22&dq=%22lead,+follow,+or+get+out+of+the+way%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ncosT8i8LcjbgQfL9NXaDw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA I thought the juxtaposition of a Mormon university and a Mormon presidential candidate was at least interesting, though probably unhelpful in narrowing down the exact source of the words (unless this is it!).  My other attempts at digging proved fruitless, which makes me think that, wherever this phrase began, it's likely of post-WWII origin (it's catchy enough and widely applicable enough that I'd be surprised not to see use of it somewhere prior to the 1960s, if it was out there earlier than that).  In my experience, these "track the quote origin" quests are usually pretty difficult, and I don't know what else to advise.  I had no luck at gutenberg.org.  Good luck! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Boyle by Johann Kerseboom
Four questions:


 * 1) What type of chair is Boyle sitting upon?
 * 2) What does the pillar in the background represent?
 * 3) What is he pointing at?
 * 4) What book is on the table?

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no expertise here, but I'd suggest he's not pointing at anything - just assuming what was deemed a suitable pose for an erudite gentleman. (It does look a little like he's demonstrating Fleming's Right-hand rule, but at the time this was painted, it hadn't been invented yet - and wouldn't be for more than a century!) And if the book isn't easily identifiable, I'd suggest it's there to represent learning and academia generically. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the pillar isn't the thing that's the allegory, but the curtain which is pulled back, as if to say Boyle drew back the curtain and allowed us to see what had previously been hidden. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This gesture in paintings almost always indicates that the painting was one of a pair, and that there's a pendant painting of his wife or colleague somewhere, making the same gesture at him. 78.147.136.64 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like he is pointing at the book that possibly contains one of his written works or an important work of one of his predecessors in the field. Some of his own works did contain etchings, and it can be seen that it is an illustrated work, so it could very well be one of his own books. It is a quite common gesture on paintings from that period, that the persons depicted point or holds objects signifying that persons achievements (learning, scholarship and science in this case). It looks like he is actually narrating the contents of the book to the specator. The chair is just a fancy high-backed baroque chair. The idea stated above, that he has pulled away the veil of ignorance to reveal the foundation of the world sounds about right. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The chair is a damasked chair - see |Link Long Robin 79 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Slavery: How did a slave owner pay for his slave?
A slave in the 18 th. and early 19th. Century was expensive, about $20,000 in today's money. How did a purchaser of a slave pay for the slave? Did he borrow the money, finance the purchase, or was there means of purchase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.138.114.55 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He sold the products of the other slaves. They paid for themselves, really.  That's what happens when someone can be owned. --78.92.81.13 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You could mortgage a slave. Jefferson did this, often.  I believe all of his slaves were mortgaged at his death.  A local bank might give you financing too.  You have to remember, antebellum southern farmers were no different than any others, that is, accumulate debts against the harvest and hope prices are good.  Most slaves were not on huge plantations, either.  Obviously there were risks in slaveowning as well as profits; it was a large and risky capital investment, one often insured against loss (death, runaway).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A wealthy relative might loan the money to buy slaves. A banker or other wealthy person might make a personal loan. On a plantation or a farm, the slaves might be more valuable than all the personal property, the house, or even the land. Edison (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that in fact most slaves were on large plantations. Most slaveowners were not plantation owners, but the obverse was not true. The owner of a large and successful plantation might have had a treasury of coins with which to pay for slaves or other large purchases.  According to this site, the highest value coins widely circulating in colonial Virginia were French or Spanish coins known as pistoles and worth about 18 shillings of English money.  For a slave selling for £60 (an average amount), or 1200 shillings, a buyer could hand over a pouch containing around 66 gold pistoles. More commonly, according to this site, large purchases were settled in pounds of tobacco, with 240 pounds of tobacco per pound of English money.  So a £60 slave would have cost 14,400 pounds of tobacco.  According to this source an acre in Georgia yielded about 480 pounds of tobacco in 1919, before the widespread introduction of chemical fertilizer or horseless mechanization.  Assuming half that yield for colonial Virginia, or 240 pounds per acre, a slave would have cost the equivalent of a year's yield from 60 acres of tobacco.  Marco polo (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Marco, that may be true of Virginia; it was less true in the Trans-Mississippi.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean Trans-Appalachia, I'm guessing? (yikes, that article needs some help!) Pfly (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I meant Trans-Mississippi, which is what the states and territories west of same were commonly called then. Although it was also true of the northwestern counties of Virginia, which contributed to them winding up with the Union.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, 66 pistoles, if they're the same as the older Louis d'or weight, is 66*6.75 = 405 grams of gold, now worth $56*405 = $22600. The flue-cured tobacco price is $1.68 per pound in one recent instance. so 14400 pounds = $24192.  So I'm sorely tempted to say that, in modern terms, based on Marco polo's informative comments, an average slave cost about $23000.  Which actually doesn't surprise me, because the one common thing that turns up when looking at slave deals in modern societies is that they're amazingly cheap, considering. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This website I spent about 10 seconds Googling puts the average price of a new car at also about $23000. Not sure what this implies, but it's probably something. Thedoorhinge (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound that cheap to me, from a purely business perspective. Remember, you had to pay for their food and lodgings (and you had to feed and house your slaves reasonably well or they wouldn't be fit to work). If you take the average unskilled wage at the time (about $1 a day, according to some quick Googling, but I couldn't find any particularly reliable sources - please feel free to correct me if you can find one), the cost of living (say, $0.50 a day, based on a little googling and a lot of guessing), and assuming 300 working days a year (365 minus Sundays, minus the odd sick day, etc, and mostly to make it a round number) gives you about $150 a year in production by a slave. If we assume a slave has 20 years of working life (a guess) and interest rates of 8% p.a. (more Googling), that works out to a capital value of about $1,500 (or £330, based on an exchange rate of £1=$4.50, which I got from more Googling). So, having actually done the calculation, I've proven you right: £60 is cheap! My calculation is extremely sensitive to the assumptions, though. Increase cost of living to $0.60 a day, and the value comes down to £260. Increase the interest rate to 9% and it comes to £300. Decrease the working lifetime to 15 years and it comes to £270. Combine all three and it comes to £215. It's entirely possible my assumptions are far enough off that £60 is the "fair" value. (Of course, these days we rather frown upon things like putting an actuarial value of a person's life, but at the time it was just considered business and this is the way they would have thought.) --Tango (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the guests on Who do you think you are? was appalled to learn that one of his ancestors was a slave owning plantation owner in the Caribbean. He was even more appalled (almost to tears) to learn that he first received some slaves from his father as a 4th birthday present.  Astronaut (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For reference, that was Ainsley Harriott (ref., with video). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the irony crossed his mind, that if not for his slave-owning white ancestor, he himself would not exist. The past "is what it is." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't access the video, but how reliable is this? I can't imagine a slave being trusted with a 4-year-old, nor can I imagine a 4-year-old getting a 200,000 dollar gift.  --140.180.15.97 (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the programme, and the original documents were shown referencing the purchase of slaves as a gift for the son. The past is a different country: they do things differently there. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really just a case of rich people transferring assets to minor children. I'm sure then, as now, that the assets owned by a minor are legally controlled by their parent until they reach majority. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many farmers owned a few slaves such as women to serve as cook/washerwoman/maid/child minder, and men to work as field hands, alongside the farmer and his sons.  The white folks lived in the farmhouse, which might be of  log construction and not at all reminiscent of Scarlett O'Hara's Tara, while the slaves lived in a small and crude cabin. The farmer acted as his own "overseer." Edison (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, a new plantation owner could obtain the backing of a wealthy investor (in the linked case, a bishop), or get a loan from a merchant bank. Pretty much the same as if you were starting a business today. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The financing of slavery was an issue even after the war. Politicians like Thomas Ewing, Jr. of the Greenback Party "wanted the nation's money supply used to expand commerce and fund westward expansion of the nation, not repay in gold the interest on civil war bonds Eastern bankers had bought to fund much of the civil war effort but whose antebellum lending practices to the South had helped slavery flourish."John Z (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

List of people who have mysteriously disappeared and then later have been found/their remains have been recovered
This question is in relation to the list of people who disappeared mysteriously - I understand a question was already asked about whether people could name examples of people who were once considered disappeared but were later found, but does anyone know of a comprehensive (or even uncomprehensive) list of people who were once considered disappeared but were later found, alive or dead? Black-Velvet 15:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Steve Fosset springs to mind. Although he wasn't missing for years it took quite a while before he was located (not much of him remained though). SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The "findings" are sometimes wishful thinking. Searchers often find something like a small bone on an island in the Pacific and announce without any proof that they have "found Amelia Earhart." (Or maybe the bone was from a turtle ). Or someone spills the beans that Judge Crater's body was buried under the boardwalk at Coney Island, only after the area had been dug up and any possible remains destroyed. Edison (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Or more often they themselves make no such claim but the media add a catchy headline like "Earhart mystery solved?", which then becomes "Earhart mystery solved" in the minds of some readers. When talking about it, it's much easier to say "Hey, did you hear they've found Amelia Earhart" than to say "Hey, did you hear they've found a tiny fragment of bone on a remote Pacific atoll that, after exhaustive testing, might have a minutely small chance of maybe perhaps possibly being from Amelia Earhart".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the people in List of premature obituaries fit your requirements. E.g. Anthony John Allen, Graham Cardwell. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The list also links to Faked death, which has its own list. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can think of two, off the top of my head: Aimee Semple McPherson and Agatha Christie. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chandra Levy was eventually found.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are quite a lot of kidnap victims who are found alive years later - Natascha Kampusch and Steven Stayner are probably the most famous. 78.147.136.64 (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bill Barilko disappeared...he was on a fishing trip. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Martin Bormann is another example - he was thought to have escaped in 1945 and was tried in his absence at Nuremberg, but in 1972 his remains were discovered in Berlin not far from the bunker exit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * George Mallory is a pretty good example. He died as a result of a fall while trying to climb Everest, and his body lay there, in the open, patiently awaiting discovery, which came 75 years later. His climbing partner, Irvine, has yet to be found. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can ever get anything close to a comprehensive list, although it depends what you mean by 'considered disappeared'. For example, in the George Mallory case, I think it quick became obvious he was probably dead even if his body took a long time to be uncovered. Are you including these? If so, it's not that uncommon that someone will uncover a remains which turns out to be some long lost tramper or something (occasionally a murder victim). And speaking of murder victims, there are plenty who's body or remains is not found that soon, and there may be insufficient evidence they are dead (like sufficient blood) but where it may be suspected they are dead. In these cases someone does usually know where they are. Most of these aren't even notable although off the top of my head the murder committed by Hans Reiser and the Death of Caylee Anthony are examples of cases where it took a while for the body or remains to be found. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

pie charts of language use in europe
Someone deleted the previous incarnation of this question. (See logs). I am looking for:

1) (easier, it must exist, I'm sure) a pie chart that would show the percentage of users of each language (as their native language) in Europe, as a percentage of all people in Europe.

I'm pretty sure this must be out there as an existing image, I just can't find it.

2) (Trickier, might not exist) not as easy but maybe there is a pie chart that has some indication of GDP represented in Europe by at least the major languages (English, German, French) as a percent of Europe's total GDP? I'm not 100% sure an image like this would exist.

Thank you if anyone is able to find something like that or has ever seen it. I'm not sure what software creates pie charts but I would think this already exists somewhere, the data is easy to find. 78.92.81.13 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that you will find a ready-made pie chart for 1) and even less likely that you will find one for 2), but you can collect the data and generate one yourself, using this source for detailed population data by country, and MS Excel's chart generator. Now, not every country collects statistics on language use, and you may have to rely on estimates from other sources, but for certain countries such as Belgium, it's possible to come up with a rough estimate based on geography.  Where languages fall within political regions (which isn't always the case), you can use this table for regional GDP within the EU.  Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, a complicating factor is the use of non-European languages such as Arabic and Turkish by immigrant groups. As I've said, not every country is good at gathering data about such groups.  Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't Wolfram Alpha not utterly incapable of converting human language requests for data in a given format into the desired output? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Every person in the world has one native language. Some people outside of Europe migrated to Europe and are now European citizens or residents. The pie charts would need to include almost every extant language in the world except Esperanto and other constructed languages. Sleigh (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Canadian French and French the same language? Is Portuguese a dialect of Spanish? Sleigh (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A language is a dialect with an army and navy. -- Jayron  32  19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why exclude Native Esperanto speakers? --rossb (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Isn't Wolfram Alpha not utterly in capable ... - the triple negative has thrown me into a vortex of confusion. What actually are you asking?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wolfram Alpha can do it, right?" spoken with little confidence. :) 20.137.18.53 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Simple-speak is always best when dealing with simpletons like me.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nay, that's wrong! "Can't Wolfram Alpha do it?" is the right number of negatives, which makes a huge difference. ;) Wnt (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

clarification
VERY GOOD POINTS GUYS!!! (OP HERE). But as you can see from question 2, I'm really interested in countries more than actual individual people, since on a daily basis they're in their host country, where everything is printed in that language (for the most part), their workplace language would be that language (for the most part), etc! Thus for (1) and even for (2) I wouldn't mind seeing a chart that counted as "English" EVERY current inhabitant of the UK, "French" for EVERY current inhabitant of France, etc! I do realize the numbers will be distorted for hte reasons you've cited, but it would still be a useful indicator for me!!! --78.92.81.13 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that you're in Hungary, which (along with Portugal) is one of only two countries in the EU with no linguistic minority. (The raw data is on page 7 of this report). I think you may have an incomplete view of how linguistic boundaries relate to national borders. While Europe has some monoglot countries (of which the UK is certainly not one), most countries contain a number of linguistic groups, and assuming that every inhabitant of a country speaks the same language is going to give a wildly distorted result (Belgium, Latvia and Cyprus, for instance, each have extremely large linguistic minorities). 78.147.136.64 (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, but any chance of the pie? 78.92.81.13 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

British laws that aren't enforced
What British laws that are not arcane are known to not be enforced? I'm not planning to break them, I'm just curious. I know some senior police officers have made comments implying that possession of cannabis isn't truly illegal anymore as far as they are concerned. Are there other laws like this or truly not enforced at all? Preferably ones that aren't tiny and technical, but I'll take any. Thanks. 130.88.172.34 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find any with my (very shaky) google skills. But it might be interesting to note that until the August 2011 amendment to the Digital Economy Act - it was illegal to copy the contents (performed a 'format-shift') of a CD or DVD that you legitimately owned onto another device (iPod, MP3 player, PC etc). Nanonic (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect all laws are capable of being enforced in particular circumstances (though maybe there's some that the police aren't confident would stand up to a challenge under the Human Rights Act, etc). Speeding (in a car) apparently isn't generally prosecuted if you're only slightly over (e.g. 34 in a 30 mph limit), according to police guidelines, see e.g., but there are stories of people being prosecuted for less. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the old guideline of "10% + 3mph" was abandoned when more accurate speed measurements became possible. 34 in a 30 mph limit would now be prosecuted in some circumstances, and anything over 79 mph will often attract at least a fixed penalty even on the motorway.    D b f i r s   22:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll be pursued for setting your chimney on fire, yet it is both a summary and an indictable offense. Then there's stuff like sale of game by persons not licensed to kill or sell game, or private individuals etc buying game from persons not licensed dealers, predicated under the Game Act 1831, which is probably not much applied. Wearing a political uniform, outlawed under the Public Order Act 1936, seems pretty much to have gone by the board. Pedal cycles without brakes or reflectors probably don't arouse interest anymore. There are more. But like anything, if you get too much in the face of your local constabulary, they'll have you for any and all of these if they can. Oh. Assaults to prevent sale of corn, from the Offences Against The Person Act 1861; still on the books. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also that a lot of people come to grief thinking "this law is unenforced". Your cannabis example springs to mind; despite the number of people who think it's been decriminalized, if a cop sees you smoking a joint you're highly likely to pay an unwanted visit to your local police cells. Unlike some countries, Britain has no provision for desuetude other than in the very specific case of Scottish feudal laws that weren't formally repealed during the Act of Union, and even the most obscure law can be enforced if you come across a police officer having a bad day. (It's worth noting that most of the laws people hold up as obsolete, like "it is legal to shoot a Welshman in Chester after midnight", either never existed or have been long since repealed.) Some traffic laws, particularly regarding cyclists, are generally ignored, but I can't think of one that's never enforced. The "political uniform" one Tagisimon cites above isn't enforced very often because the fascist groups it was aimed at are well aware of it, but it's why the BNP and their ilk no longer wear black shirts.78.147.136.64 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, those examples are excellent and the point about the Welshman and so on is very true, it's what I was trying to refer to with my arcane comment. This is perfect for my purposes (which are evenly split between personal interest and a possible conversation in a university lecture coming up). 130.88.172.34 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the law on selling refreshments to police officers is ever enforced. I can't see the police arresting someone for selling them or their colleagues food. See Pc banned from buying snack. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk about entrapment.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That offence was repealed by the Licensing Act 2003. Proteus (Talk) 14:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would the Buffett rule raise only $50 billion in taxes?
The wealthy in the U.S. hold a large chunk of the wealth (see we are the 99%). The wealthy in the U.S. famously pay very little in taxes. So why is the Buffett rule predicted to raise only $50 billion in yearly tax revenue? United States income tax is a trillion dollars yearly, and I'd be expecting to see something closer to half of half of that from the Buffett rule. Wnt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse political rhetoric with reality. No politician who can do math really believes that the rich do not already pay a lot in taxes. If you believe that the wealthy in the US actually "pay very little in taxes", you've been duped. If you believe that rich company owners usually pay a smaller tax rate than their secretaries, you've been purposefully duped.


 * In reality, the rich pay a huge chuck of the taxes in the US. Almost everyone making above $500,000 already pays a higher effective percentage in taxes than the rest of us. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/chart-of-the-day-do-the-rich-really-pay-less-in-taxes/245531/) Buffett, who's not rich but mega-rich, is an exception because he's so rich he can afford not to pay himself a salary. Buffett himself has said that the "Buffett rule" would apply to very few people. The "Buffett rule" is not a serious proposal to raise a lot of revenue; it's meant as a distraction. 24.210.254.97 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's a distraction. It's simply populism. --Tango (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the scary, 1890s sense of the word.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think Warren Buffett is some kind of scary anti-capitalist fundamentalist out to destroy American industry, you don't need the reference desk, you need psychiatric help. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I heard of this one politician who had the totally crazy idea to set the capital gains rate at the same level as ordinary wages. He must have been some kind of socialist! --Mr.98 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It might make sense to do that &mdash; if the cost basis of the asset is indexed for inflation. Otherwise you're taxing people on "gains" that are a pure artifact of the fact that the unit in which the asset is being measured is shrinking.  I'm surprised this compromise isn't suggested more often. --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice that even according to the graph in 24.210's link, the US tax code is only progressive up to incomes of 4 million. For the ultra-rich who earn more than that, it becomes regressive.  --140.180.15.97 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't fully grok the USian tax regie, but there are comments in the Atlantic article to which 24.210 links suggesting that the graph ignores payroll tax, and amounts to GOP shilling. Who knows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say the Buffett rule is populism, exactly. It's throwing a bone to the economically illiterate, to create the illusion of doing something important while not really doing much at all. Faux-populism, perhaps? 24.210.254.97 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't lambast it like that - $50 billion is more than the entire NIH budget. And 30% is much less than maximum tax rates from pre-1980s.  It was just less revenue than what I'd hoped for. Wnt (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, $50 billion is real money, but as one wag put it: "With the Buffett Rule in effect, the deficit in fiscal year 2011 would have been $1,240,000,000,000 instead of $1,280,000,000,000." It's a few drops in the bucket, meant to distract us from the real challenges of fiscal reform, which politicians would rather not discuss honestly during campaign season. 24.210.254.97 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the rest of you, but $50b is a whole lot of money. Something is better than nothing.  It might be a drop in the bucket, but the bucket still needs drops to be filled. Mingmingla (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is not true that the rich in the United States "pay very little" in taxes. Even when they are taxed at a low rate, the vast incomes of the superrich ensure that they collectively pay billions.  What the Buffett rule is designed to rectify is the advantage enjoyed by some very rich people — such as Romney and Buffett — whose income comes mainly from investments rather than salary.  For the very wealthy, much of their income comes in the form of capital gains, which in the United States is taxed at just 15%, whereas the highest marginal tax rate on earned income is 35%. The marginal tax rate even on middle-class earned incomes is 25%-33%.  This can result in a lower tax rate for very wealthy people than middle class people, but the number of wealthy people in this category is rather small, and the additional 20% or so of the incomes of this small number of individuals "only" amounts to tens of billions of dollars.  While this additional revenue will not balance the U.S. budget by itself, it can be seen as a matter of fairness.  Marco polo (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And there are principles involved beyond fairness. Taxing the middle class more than the very wealthy, when the marginal utility is quite different for the two, is a recipe to guarantee that the rich stay rich and those who are not rich don't become rich. It's the opposite of a progressive tax system and is not insubstantially related to the issues with income inequality in the United States over the last 30 years or so. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Income inequality issues and deficit issues are not the same thing. Don't confuse them. They have overlaps — stringent deficit cutting measures can affect many sectors of the economy negatively, which can increase income inquality, for example — but this isn't one of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OP didn't bring up any deficit issues though.99.245.35.136 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be besides the point or even POINT or POV or whatever, but it should be noted that anyone willing to pay more taxes is free to do so. Here's all the information you need. It's kind of weird that all the people whining to be taxed more somehow didn't know they can easily make donations to the United States without someone telling them to do so. Personally I'd like the super rich to spend their money on causes they like to spend it on better (like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation does) and I simply don't believe they think government would do a better job spending it. But if they do, "Gifts to the United States" is the perfect solution. Joepnl (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. It is entirely besides the point. The solution to "the rich should be taxed more" is not "it is possible to volunteer to pay more tax". --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Name one person whose sole complaint is that they're not being taxed enough, and not that rich people in general are not being taxed enough. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought one of Bill Gates' complaints was that he isn't being taxed enough. He obviously will have other complaints, like "I think streetlights should be more yellowish instead of white" or even "I think other wealthy people should get taxed more", but the very complaint not being taxed enough himself can easily be addressed. But I guess you assume that Gates wants to be taxed more if and only if other rich people get taxed more, too. Unless he doesn't say so in a reliable source I don't think we should jump to conclusions. Joepnl (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you're the one making the claim, surely you should be providing the .... It's very easy to demonstrate that Bill Gates thinks there rich should probably pay more tax   . (I can't help wondering if you're getting confused with Warren Buffet who's statements could be naïvely intepreted in the way you've done. If this is the case, I think this even more supports the idea you need to provide references to what you're saying and not just mention random poorly remembered stuff in hot political issues on the reference desk.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your second reference, which is the citation needed, so I don't have to google it. Bill Gates: I don't pay enough tax. "People like myself aren't paying enough like we should". You could "naïvely" interpret this as "Really rich people should get taxed more", which may be part of the message, but it obviously does imply he also has a problem, which is not being taxed enough himself. At least that problem could be solved within minutes. What if he had said "People like myself aren't exercising enough". Fortunately he is not putting his money where his mouth is, he's sending the money not stolen by the IRS to very good causes, saving literally millions of lives. I do applaud him for that! Joepnl (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well for starters (I didn't mention this early because your comment was already so flawed but since you persisted with it), it's questionable if something sent voluntary to the IRS is really tax. Our article says:
 * A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."[1]
 * And guess what? Your own ref, the only ref you've provided so far talks about gifts to the IRS not voluntarily paying more tax. If you have a belief that anything paid to the IRS is tax, that's your problem that you shouldn't bring to the RD when your own source disputes your claim. So your so called solution to the so called problem, isn't actually a solution according to commonly understood definitions of the words. (I haven't see anyone saying the rich aren't paying enough tax and/or gifts to the US.)
 * More importantly, as 140 said, Bill Gates sole complaint is clear not that he is not paying enough tax not that he isn't paying enough tax as you original implied. If it is a concern, it's only a minor one. It's clear he is more concerned with the current system where people like himself (which clearly implies he is concerned with a large number of people not just himself). Perhaps he will be happy if this is entirely addressed by people like himself voluntary paying more 'tax', but until and unless this happens, it seems his concerns remains. Since this isn't happening, and him and Warren Buffet voluntary paying more 'tax' isn't rather unlikely to solve the problem of people like him not paying enough tax, you've provided no solution that addresses his concerns even if we accept it as 'tax' despite not meeting the common definition of the word. (I'm not saying his ideas are right, simply that if you accept they are, your suggestions don't help anything except to try to make a stupid political point.)
 * In fact, despite your claims to the contrary, it's isn't clearly specified if he is including himself in 'people like myself'. It may be likely he is, but perhaps he feels he is paying enough tax, however most people like him are not. (I don't believe this is the case, but you've provided no evidence to the contrary, solely a naïve intepretation of what he said.) This clearly wasn't an indepth interview so going in to such level of detail is unlikely.
 * Of course, this applies to the exercise thing as well. If someone says people like themselves aren't exercising enough, suggesting they themselves exercising more will solve the problem just shows you've misunderstood the point as you did here, it's clear their concern has little to do with them themselves, if they were, they would just say 'I'm not exercising enough' or something of that sort. (Why they may such a thing will obviously depend on context.)
 * In other words, over a month later you still have not provided the requested ref for your original or any of your subsequent claims.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)