www.lesswrong.com/posts/QAB3BEDRziBerNAih/whack-a-mole-is-not-a-winnable-game

The post is describing the original minimum tax enacted in 1969 (a predecessor to today’s AMT) as if it worked by taking the amount of preferences, subtracting a $30,000 exemption *and also subtracting the taxpayer’s regular federal income tax paid*, and then charging 10% of what remains. However, descriptions of the 1969 law characterize it as an *add-on* minimum tax: **10% of tax preference items in excess of $30,000**, in addition to regular income tax—not a formula that reduces the minimum-tax base by subtracting regular tax liability. - Wikipedia’s AMT history summary describes Congress’s response as an add-on tax “equal to 10% of the sum of tax preferences in excess of $30,000 plus the taxpayer's regular tax liability,” which contradicts the post’s “subtract … whatever federal taxes they actually paid” description. - Tax Foundation likewise summarizes the original design as a “minimum tax—10 percent of certain tax preferences,” consistent with an add-on tax on preferences rather than subtracting regular tax from the preference base. Because the post’s formula subtracts regular tax paid from the preference amount before applying the 10% rate, it would generally understate (and mischaracterize) how the 1969 minimum tax was structured.

This claim says that “every scheduled chemical compound is specifically named” in the Controlled Substances Act schedules. But 21 U.S.C. § 812 explicitly includes **category/class scheduling** where substances are defined by structure and effect, not just by enumerating specific molecule names: - Schedule I includes **“cannabimimetic agents”**, defined as **“any substance that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist”** within specified structural classes. - Schedule I also includes **“fentanyl-related substance”**, defined as **“any substance that is structurally related to fentanyl”** via specified modifications. - Schedule II includes broad categories such as “Opium and opiate, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium or opiate.” Because the statute schedules substances via these broader definitions, it’s not true that every scheduled compound is “specifically named.”