Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Regardless of who wins in November, prepare to say goodbye to the payroll tax cut   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, fragile state, Senate Budget Committee, tax cuts, Capitol Hill, Christine Lagarde, wage earners  
•       •       •

2854 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 11:24 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-01 01:13:33 PM  

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: Good thing the recession is over. So you're on board with increasing taxes now right?

lulz. I love when people find themselves smart because they adhere to the technical, textbook definition of "recession". What do you think suddenly taking $1,000 out of the hands of the average American worker will do to our non-recessionary economy?

Going by the figures someone posted above, you would have to make $100k to see a $1000 increase. That is not "average American."
The average American will get most or all of the payroll tax back in April. Please don't conflate upper-middle class with "average."

going by the figure from the 3 paragraph of TFA

"Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs. That is because the typical American family had $1,000 in additional income from the lower tax. "

I'm not


Alright I'm convinced. This is one of those things where Democrats and Republicans both agree on ending the extension. I pretty much never trust anything that has the support of both parties (SOPA NDAA etc).
 
2012-10-01 01:13:56 PM  
Ah, politics at its purest: government trying to bribe us with our own money.
 
2012-10-01 01:15:10 PM  

Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: Good thing the recession is over. So you're on board with increasing taxes now right?

lulz. I love when people find themselves smart because they adhere to the technical, textbook definition of "recession". What do you think suddenly taking $1,000 out of the hands of the average American worker will do to our non-recessionary economy?

Going by the figures someone posted above, you would have to make $100k to see a $1000 increase. That is not "average American."
The average American will get most or all of the payroll tax back in April. Please don't conflate upper-middle class with "average."

going by the figure from the 3 paragraph of TFA

"Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs. That is because the typical American family had $1,000 in additional income from the lower tax. "

I'm not

Alright I'm convinced. This is one of those things where Democrats and Republicans both agree on ending the extension. I pretty much never trust anything that has the support of both parties (SOPA NDAA etc).


now you're learning! :)
 
2012-10-01 01:24:50 PM  

Dr Dreidel: We're going from 4% to 6.2% (and the self-employeds are going from 10% to 12.2%) IIRC. And because we were all paying attention, we know that the payroll tax only applies to income up to $110k.


oh shiat.. i totally forgot that... holy crap
 
2012-10-01 01:32:10 PM  

Dr Dreidel: wotthefark: Why not just lift the Social Security Wage Base from $110100 to all payroll like medicare??? Everybody gets 4.2% including employers.

Because SS payouts are capped, too. The typical response to that proposal is that removing the contribution cap makes SS even more of a wealth-transfer type of program. Keeping payouts capped while uncapping contributions means it's a guaranteed screw-job for people making above the cap. Removing the cap on payouts as well would defeat the purpose of uncapping contributions.

I think it'd be a great idea to remove the cap on contributions, but (once again) the rich'd scream bloody murder if they had to live by the rules that normal folks do.

// did I just say the same thing 4 times?
// maybe, and also perhaps, perchance and conceivably


Social Security has what it calls "bend points" above which every additional dollar of earnings yields a smaller increase in your monthly benefit. For instance, in 2012, the first $767 of average monthly earnings produces a benefit of $0.90 per dollar, while additional earnings up to $4,624 boosts monthly payments by $0.32 and income above that increases a payment by $0.15.

If the assumption that benefits will continue at their current levels left unchecked, benefits would have to drop by about a quarter in the year 2033 because of shortfalls between the amount of payroll taxes collected and benefits owed to retirees.

So add another bend point on those that make above $110100. Make it .05 it still is more cost effective to cut lower income contributions. If they give a shiat about "the job creators" then cutting payroll tax contributions to lower income workers from the employer is beneficial to everyone. You get higher demand form the "middle class" and lower tax expenses in which companies can invest in more capital and use more employees.

"It ain't rocket surgery". Social Security is a bad deal for anyone who has been in the job market since 1995.

www.blogcdn.com

The only "benefit" is to single earner couples because of spousal benefits. Increase the amount with no limit on the $110100 and the "benefit" becomes greater with more solvency. You are getting screwed any way. The majority of employees on payroll are making less than $60,000 a year. Cut that by 2 percentage points to the employer and increase the limit. Tada.

It's a "tax cut" for employers and employees. It's a tax hike for those making over $110100.
 
2012-10-01 01:32:38 PM  

Marine1: [crybaby stoner]


get a job, and a life.
 
2012-10-01 01:40:38 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: and what would that accomplish?

It would keep people's after-tax incomes relatively steady instead of reducing it.

revenue neutral though... why not just extend the payroll tax cut?


No reason - just going on the assumption that the payroll tax cut will expire.
 
2012-10-01 01:40:41 PM  

NateGrey: ultraholland: oh, damn it

Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.


Going to need a judge's ruling.

Judge: They are exhausted = you sound tired.

Drink!
 
2012-10-01 01:47:07 PM  

wotthefark: can invest in more capital and use more employees.


companies hire when they need additional workers, not when they have spare money laying around. trickle down economics don't work - we have farking 30 years of evidence for that. stop being a jackass.
 
2012-10-01 01:50:12 PM  

Cletus C.: NateGrey: ultraholland: oh, damn it

Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

Going to need a judge's ruling.

Judge: They are exhausted = you sound tired.

Drink!


You have my sympathy Cletus, you have to spend all day across so many threads defending Romney.

Have you talked to the campaign about hiring more help?
 
2012-10-01 01:54:08 PM  

Kazan: crybaby stoner


attacking Obama's backwards stance on marijuana is what legitimate criticism looks like.
 
2012-10-01 01:55:15 PM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: and what would that accomplish?

It would keep people's after-tax incomes relatively steady instead of reducing it.

revenue neutral though... why not just extend the payroll tax cut?

No reason - just going on the assumption that the payroll tax cut will expire.


oh gotcha
 
2012-10-01 01:57:00 PM  

NateGrey: Cletus C.: NateGrey: ultraholland: oh, damn it

Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

Going to need a judge's ruling.

Judge: They are exhausted = you sound tired.

Drink!

You have my sympathy Cletus, you have to spend all day across so many threads defending Romney.

Have you talked to the campaign about hiring more help?


You need to pay attention. Defending Romney isn't the same thing as laughing at the predictable liberal outrage spilled here or finding fault with Obamallmighty.
 
2012-10-01 01:57:55 PM  

Kazan: wotthefark: can invest in more capital and use more employees.

companies hire when they need additional workers, not when they have spare money laying around. trickle down economics don't work - we have farking 30 years of evidence for that. stop being a jackass.


cutting the cost of labor would make the threshold for increased hiring lower.
 
2012-10-01 02:01:35 PM  

Cletus C.: You need to pay attention. Defending Romney isn't the same thing as laughing at the predictable liberal outrage spilled here or finding fault with Obamallmighty


You really are just a plain old mouthbreather, aren't you?
 
2012-10-01 02:12:40 PM  

Cyclometh: Cletus C.: You need to pay attention. Defending Romney isn't the same thing as laughing at the predictable liberal outrage spilled here or finding fault with Obamallmighty

You really are just a plain old mouthbreather, aren't you?


No - he's a mouthbreather with the stamina of a marathon runner.
 
2012-10-01 02:23:42 PM  

skullkrusher:

cutting the cost of labor would make the threshold for increased hiring lower.


Hmm so you favour the south-east asian model for your country? Extremely low wage workers in vast numbers with a tiny oligarchy of rich ruling classes?

Nice to know what your end-game is. The only question I have to ask is what new first-world economy is going to buy the products of your vast new second-world manufacturing economy? Your current consumer base is going to earn fark all in this mode.
 
2012-10-01 02:24:59 PM  

gaspode: skullkrusher:

cutting the cost of labor would make the threshold for increased hiring lower.

Hmm so you favour the south-east asian model for your country? Extremely low wage workers in vast numbers with a tiny oligarchy of rich ruling classes?

Nice to know what your end-game is. The only question I have to ask is what new first-world economy is going to buy the products of your vast new second-world manufacturing economy? Your current consumer base is going to earn fark all in this mode.


that was an explanation of how cuts to payroll taxes could boost demand for labor. Do you favor being an idiot?
 
2012-10-01 02:33:03 PM  
NateGrey: Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

huh?
 
2012-10-01 02:33:20 PM  

skullkrusher: Do you favor being an idiot?


What's it pay?
 
2012-10-01 02:38:13 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: skullkrusher: Do you favor being an idiot?

What's it pay?


I'm afraid it is payment in kind in the form of lead paint chips. You smart, Soup. You don't want that job.
 
2012-10-01 02:49:35 PM  

ultraholland: NateGrey: Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

huh?


Apologies, highlighted the wrong post to reply, the one under:

Hey, guys, I read EnviroDerp's post at 11:42, and it looks to me like he's having a stroke. Do you suppose we should call for help?

No, I didn't think so, either, Carry on.
 
2012-10-01 03:01:19 PM  

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: Basically, fark people. Especially fark people who say shiat like "Y U raise taxes?" They get spurned now. I'm out of energy as far as that conversation's concerned. When that person is a CPA, they get super-spurned. And when that person is a tax professional, they get laughed at. Brazenly.

largely a function of public goods schools, I think. People like them but figure someone else can pay for them


Fixed that for you.

/Three available courses on the evolution of rock n roll.
//One available course on "social studies" covering the history of earth from 1200 AD to present day.
 
2012-10-01 03:01:32 PM  
Meaningful defense cuts still off the table?
All walls, no castle.
how could this plan go wrong?
 
2012-10-01 03:04:16 PM  

Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.


Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.
 
2012-10-01 03:05:41 PM  

BSABSVR: RobertBruce: You assholes who are ok with this actually think you're going to get a dime back when you retire? Tards....

Some of us are actually fiscally responsible. Not just idiots who don;t think certain constitutional amendments were ratified and stomp around loudly come debt ceiling votes. Bills need to be paid, you tool.


Get back to me when the cap gains tax is the same rate as the payroll tax.
Paying the bills isn't just for the working class.
 
2012-10-01 03:06:25 PM  

meat0918: It was nice while it lasted, but it needs to go.

Plus we need to raise the cap on contributions.


How about we keep it and raise the contribution cap to $200,000? After all, that's where Romney says middle income starts.
 
2012-10-01 03:14:01 PM  

Cletus C.: NateGrey: Cletus C.: NateGrey: ultraholland: oh, damn it

Like most Fark Cons, they are exhausted.

Going to need a judge's ruling.

Judge: They are exhausted = you sound tired.

Drink!

You have my sympathy Cletus, you have to spend all day across so many threads defending Romney.

Have you talked to the campaign about hiring more help?

You need to pay attention. Defending Romney isn't the same thing as laughing at the predictable liberal outrage spilled here or finding fault with Obamallmighty.


U guys realize ultraholland's post was about him posting in the wrong thread right?

Little bit above the 'oh damnit' comment was about the airsoft assasination attempt.

/thnx for the lulz anyway
 
2012-10-01 03:28:34 PM  

Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.


i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.
 
2012-10-01 03:29:56 PM  

Kazan: Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.

i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.


pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.
 
2012-10-01 04:15:33 PM  

skullkrusher: Kazan: Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.

i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.

pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.


I would settle for it being decriminalized at least.
 
2012-10-01 04:19:45 PM  
It's been said up-thread, but I think it merits restatement:

farking GOOD.

Kazan: i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.


So which side is which? Because from what I've seen the folks in favor of the drug war are both whiny and controlling, and the people in favor of complete deregulation of currently illegal drugs are too dim to manage either.

I'm assuming those are how you're defining the "sides", since like 90% of the people with an opinion just thing that simply doing a ctrl+c/ctrl+v with alcohol or tobacco law would be fine and primarily object to the drug war on the grounds that it's stupid expensive and has had no impact on the prevalence of drugs beyond redirecting the money to organized crime instead of legit farmers and chemists.
 
2012-10-01 04:28:40 PM  

mrshowrules: skullkrusher: Kazan: Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.

i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.

pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.

I would settle for it being decriminalized at least.


better than the status quo. I'd prefer something similar to alcohol. Homegrown is tax free and can share with your friends.
 
2012-10-01 04:36:52 PM  

skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: Kazan: Marine1: Kazan: Marine1: [crybaby stoner]

get a job, and a life.

Dude... I don't touch weed and have a job.

It's just a fact that there are some good policies that Obama has just ignored.

i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.

pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.

I would settle for it being decriminalized at least.

better than the status quo. I'd prefer something similar to alcohol. Homegrown is tax free and can share with your friends.


I think they should use weed in sentencing. Your 4th arrest for D&D or assault? Instead of court-mandated anger management, chill out in the back with these two doobs (take 'em to the face, brah) and DVDs of either Disney or porn.

// not both, because EWWWWWW
// maybe Judd Apatow or Monty Python
 
2012-10-01 04:55:45 PM  

skullkrusher: pot should be legalized, regulated like alcohol and taxed. Next.


as long as you don't turn it into a persistent aerosol (primarily through combustion) then I don't really care, legally.

Jim_Callahan: It's been said up-thread, but I think it merits restatement:

farking GOOD.

Kazan: i dislike both sides of the drug argument.. one is whiny, and the other is controlling. and neither side's solution is acceptable for me.

So which side is which? Because from what I've seen the folks in favor of the drug war are both whiny and controlling, and the people in favor of complete deregulation of currently illegal drugs are too dim to manage either.

I'm assuming those are how you're defining the "sides", since like 90% of the people with an opinion just thing that simply doing a ctrl+c/ctrl+v with alcohol or tobacco law would be fine and primarily object to the drug war on the grounds that it's stupid expensive and has had no impact on the prevalence of drugs beyond redirecting the money to organized crime instead of legit farmers and chemists.


So basically - as long as you don't smoke it, i'm legally fine with it. Smoking it makes it affect other people, violating the rights of those people. If druggies want their right to be druggies respected, they need to respect the right so others to NOT be druggies.

I take issue with them turning anything (cannabis, tobacco, etc) into a persistent aerosol (that is, an aerosol that hangs around for a bit - doesn't swiftly settle out of the air). particularly ones laced with a large number of non-threshold toxicants and carcinogens (inb4butbutCARS! cars exhaust, and grilling, etc release different chemicals that all have known levels of safety. cannabis and tobacco combustion release many chemicals that have no level at which they've been able to find no effect)
 
2012-10-01 04:57:02 PM  

Citrate1007: Cyclometh: Cletus C.: I read this to say Obama wants to tax the middle class more.

Thanks, Obummer.

Look at how stupid you are.

Actually according to what we've been told about both tax policy plans both parties want to tax the middle class more.......yay me!


But one of the two wants to cut taxes for the wealthy.
 
2012-10-01 05:03:22 PM  

Kazan: as long as you don't turn it into a persistent aerosol (primarily through combustion) then I don't really care, legally.


don't start this shiat again ;)
 
2012-10-01 05:08:57 PM  

Kazan: wotthefark: can invest in more capital and use more employees.

companies hire when they need additional workers, not when they have spare money laying around. trickle down economics don't work - we have farking 30 years of evidence for that. stop being a jackass.


And I as I pointed out the tax cut would be for those making under the threshold thus creating more demand within the market place currently as they have access to more funds. I'm stating that businesses and consumers benefit from raising the threshold. The only people getting farked under lifting the maximum taxable wage are individuals that currently make over $110100.

www.aei.org

Only around 6 percent of earners have earnings above the tax max in a given year. Reduce Social Security benefits for middle and high earners while encouraging greater individual saving and longer work lives. Don't tax any SS income (which is bullshiat). If you do both then SS survives and less burden is placed on low income and employers. It is shifted to higher income workers.

This is the opposite of trickle down.
 
2012-10-01 05:27:47 PM  

skullkrusher: Kazan: as long as you don't turn it into a persistent aerosol (primarily through combustion) then I don't really care, legally.

don't start this shiat again ;)


once upon i time i actually posted about 3 posts worth of citations for it. didn't make a difference, all the farkwits just ignored the science.

someday i'll be pissed enough to do full citations again. then i'll save that biatch in a txt file, and every time it comes up again. BOOM KNOWLEDGE BOMB.

wotthefark: ....


i misread your post, apologies.
 
2012-10-01 05:32:33 PM  

Kazan: once upon i time i actually posted about 3 posts worth of citations for it. didn't make a difference, all the farkwits just ignored the science.

someday i'll be pissed enough to do full citations again. then i'll save that biatch in a txt file, and every time it comes up again. BOOM KNOWLEDGE BOMB.


you find a citation that proves risks to your health if someone is smoking a joint in their house and we'll talk. You've never done that.
 
2012-10-01 05:38:26 PM  

skullkrusher: you find a citation that proves risks to your health if someone is smoking a joint in their house and we'll talk. You've never done that.


actually i did. dunno if you were in the thread.

here's the in short:

a) no known lower limit threshold for harm [cited]
b) nose is far less sensitive than scientific instruments [obvious]
c) if can smell, being harmed [a+b=>c]
e) can smell neighbor being a skank ass in my house [direct observation.. not the only person to report this. could get EPA concentration numbers to back it up]
f) therefore being harmed. [c+e=>f]


unless your house has a negative pressure filtration system.....
 
2012-10-01 05:49:56 PM  

Kazan: skullkrusher: you find a citation that proves risks to your health if someone is smoking a joint in their house and we'll talk. You've never done that.

actually i did. dunno if you were in the thread.

here's the in short:

a) no known lower limit threshold for harm [cited]
b) nose is far less sensitive than scientific instruments [obvious]
c) if can smell, being harmed [a+b=>c]
e) can smell neighbor being a skank ass in my house [direct observation.. not the only person to report this. could get EPA concentration numbers to back it up]
f) therefore being harmed. [c+e=>f]


unless your house has a negative pressure filtration system.....


yeah I think that was our bone of contention. You claimed to be able to smell your neighbor smoking a cigarette in his house with the windows closed which is obviously not true.
 
2012-10-01 05:52:44 PM  
Wait...cigarettes or joints? Because this matters.
 
2012-10-01 05:54:05 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Wait...cigarettes or joints? Because this matters.


the discussion we had a while back was tobacco but it is apparently being applied to pot too.
 
2012-10-01 06:10:30 PM  

skullkrusher: . You claimed to be able to smell your neighbor smoking a cigarette in his house with the windows closed which is obviously not true.



for all you claiming "obviously not true" - it farking happened. unless you're arguing houses are air tight?

now.. i will point out these houses are in older homes in a state with shiattier building regs....

i don't think that same thing would happen in my new house. however I should be able to go out in my yard without having to partake in someone else' drug habit.

fortunately none of my direct neighbors are smokers.. and there is only one smoker in the entire cul-de-sac .. and she is trying to quit i believe (and their house was damaged by a tree and they don't live in it right now)
 
2012-10-01 06:10:35 PM  
What is this "payroll tax" to an employee? It's an income tax. It's a tax of a percentage of the employee's income. An employee doesn't have a payroll. He has an income. And that's what's taxed.

The employer has a payroll and a payroll tax. The employee has an income and an income tax that's called something else to hide the fact that they pay shiat tons in income tax to the federal government.
 
2012-10-01 06:18:04 PM  

Kazan: skullkrusher: . You claimed to be able to smell your neighbor smoking a cigarette in his house with the windows closed which is obviously not true.


for all you claiming "obviously not true" - it farking happened. unless you're arguing houses are air tight?

now.. i will point out these houses are in older homes in a state with shiattier building regs....

i don't think that same thing would happen in my new house. however I should be able to go out in my yard without having to partake in someone else' drug habit.

fortunately none of my direct neighbors are smokers.. and there is only one smoker in the entire cul-de-sac .. and she is trying to quit i believe (and their house was damaged by a tree and they don't live in it right now)


No, houses aren't airtight but unless you're sitting on his porch with him or your houses are 10 feet apart and he's smoking next to an opened window and you also have an open window, I say bullshiat. The escaping smoke from a crack in the foundation that crosses the air between houses and sneaks in your old window is not gonna be detectable
 
2012-10-01 06:18:57 PM  

Kazan: a) no known lower limit threshold for harm [cited]
b) nose is far less sensitive than scientific instruments [obvious]
c) if can smell, being harmed [a+b=>c]


Um, you fail at step c. I'm gonna be charitable and say you realize that "we don't know the lower limit for harm" in no way implies that said limit is below the detection range of smell and you're just intentionally trolling, because the thought that our education system has failed you so badly that you're incapable of basic logic would just be depressing.
 
2012-10-01 06:21:23 PM  
Even in the incredibly unlikely scenario that this is true, it is not reason to ban smoking. It's reason for your neighbor to not smoke in conditions you can smell. Which is apparently a vacuum sealed bubble made of kryptonite on the moon
 
2012-10-01 06:42:46 PM  

skullkrusher: No, houses aren't airtight but unless you're sitting on his porch with him or your houses are 10 feet apart and he's smoking next to an opened window and you also have an open window, I say bullshiat. The escaping smoke from a crack in the foundation that crosses the air between houses and sneaks in your old window is not gonna be detectable


leaky windows bro, leaky windows.


Jim_Callahan: Um, you fail at step c. I'm gonna be charitable and say you realize that "we don't know the lower limit for harm" in no way implies that said limit is below the detection range of smell and you're just intentionally trolling, because the thought that our education system has failed you so badly that you're incapable of basic logic would just be depressing.


no.. because you would be in error - we know the limit of harm is below the limit of the sensitivity of the human nose. we know the limit of harm is below the threshold of the limit of sensitivity of the canine nose

because the limit of the threshold of harm is below the level at which scientific instruments can measure that the chemical is present at all.

but given the lack of context i can see why you thought i was committing argumentum ad ignorantium

"The Threshold Theory"

Although some have argued that tobacco smoke cannot cause cancer below a certain level, there is no evidence that this threshold exists. In the absence of such evidence, carcinogens at any level are considered by EPA to increase risk somewhat, although the degree of risk certainly is reduced as exposure decreases. The increased risks observed in the secondhand smoke epidemiology studies are further evidence that any threshold for secondhand smoke would have to be at very low levels.

Link


Thesmall airway epitheliumdetectsandresponds to low
levels of tobacco smoke with transcriptome modifications. This
provides biologic correlates of epidemiologic studies linking lowlevel
tobaccosmokeexposure to lung health risk, identifies the genes
most sensitive to tobacco smoke, and defines thresholds at which
the lung epithelium responds to low levels of tobacco smoke.

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/182/12/1524.full.pdf
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report