Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Ends Novell's Anti-Trust Cast Against Microsoft
walterbyrd (182728) writes in with news about the end of the line for a Novell anti-trust claim against Microsoft. "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday brought an end to Novell Inc's antitrust claims against Microsoft Corp that date back 20 years to the development of Windows 95 software. By declining to hear Novell's appeal, the court left intact a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from September 2013 in favor of Microsoft. The court of appeals unanimously affirmed the dismissal of Novell Inc's claims that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when it decided not to share its intellectual property while developing its Windows 95 operating system. Novell was seeking more than $3 billion."
There was more to it than just not sharing its IP, such as deliberately misleading the company, and changing the APIs mid stream to break interoperability.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
What kind of "cast" did they use? Is there a new spell-book that us magicians can buy that where we can learn a spell to make /. editors proofread articles?
Novell is practically nothing in comparison to what it once was in terms of company size and market presence. Even if the SCOTUS had overturned the ruling completely and found 100% in Novell's favor, what could that have possibly changed at this time?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Same as the Old Oligarchy
We won't get fooled again
Meanwhile Google hasn't paid more than $1 billion in taxes to France, and almost all tech firms have done the same thing, not paying taxes to the US, based on legal fictions and tax havens (a fancy term for a way they can make the middle class pay for their infrastructure and legal protections without paying even 1/3 the tax rate you do).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I am not a republican myself. But, waas this court decision really decided by the republican party?
There is no problem with common core itself, just with some of the implementation of it in some areas.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
There is no problem with common core itself, just with some of the implementation of it in some areas.
Yea, yea, sure, Melinda. Your corporate-robot-factory standards are just fine, then, but some bureaucrat messed it up for you?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Who said anything about expecting one company to help another out? What I except is that when I am working with a company they are not going to actively stab me in the back.In this case MS told them what they APIs were, then pulled it out from under them at the last second, to intentionally sink their product. If they would not have not given them the APIs there would not have been an issue, as then MS would not have been working with them and they could have developed something else, however by working with them and then pulling the APIs they intentionally sabotaged the product. By itself that still would not have been an issue, except they intentionally planned that.
As for a monopoly, there certainly was in the desktop, and the current state, after losing the antitrust and having to change practices, is not proof that there was not at the time.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Stop being a dick just for the sake of being a dick. If you don't want your kids measured up against mine, perhaps you should have had smarter kids.
How is a flat tax fair? I used to think it was, but then realized how it actually hurts the poor even more than the current tax structure. I am all for lower taxes, but the problem is neither side wants to give up their toys to make it happen, they just want the other sides toys to go away.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The Republicans are why the software industry was destroyed here in Seattle. http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/2...
Too bad Seattle is such an Republican enclave - you should try to get more Democrats to move there if you prefer their tax policies.
Not that the article doesn't use some pretty skewed statistics. It compares the tax burden with 4 exemptions to that of 1. Hey, guess what, if you're supporting 1 person on 6 figures you pay more taxes than if you're supporting 4. That's what progressive taxes are supposed to do.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
If I wanted to use the mirror to your logical fallacy I might say you just want students to be passed up no matter what they know?
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES?
And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves
When you cant win, ad hominem.
You can't conceivably argue I'm wrong, either, considering the current state of the market and Microsoft's much diminished power due to market changes.
Much diminished? The profits at Microsoft suggest otherwise. The lopsided distribution of platforms that code is written for does as well. The share of new PCs sold with windows on it may have diminished from 99% to 95% in the past 20 years; that is not reasonably "much diminished".
And I say this as a Linux user. I would love to say that far fewer PCs today are running Windows than were 20 years ago, but I know that is not true.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Corporation v. Corporation, SCOTUS decides in favor of Corporation.
"OMG the court is packed with corporate interests!!11!!one!!!eleventyone!!1!"
What?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Novell fucked up when they tried to make everyone pay out the ass for eDirectory, and Microsoft included a reasonable adoption of LDAPv3 in Windows 2000 Server.
That was the beginning of the end for Novell. Today, the world runs on Active Directory.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Are you 12 or do you just live under a rock?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
And what is wrong with Hippies? They were right. Was Vietnam a good war? Is making love not better than war?
If the taxes just came from capital gains, then you eliminate stocks and companies become privately owned -- or they trade stock in other countries. There's no one solution. Economic activity where money is made is where you tax.
Or we could just stop paying banks to make loans -- and just pay all the people, which I think is the only viable solution for a future where most labor gets replaced by robots.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I dunno whether you're being facetious - doesn't show in your post, but Seattle voted some 60+% for Dems election after election. They are essentially San Francisco, North. Republicans would be lucky to win votes for dog catcher in that city
Not just that, had Novell defined IPX in a way that would have allowed them to globally define & extend it, they could have been the de facto IANA and laid out the Internet assignments, instead of letting IPv4 mushroom until it became a pain. Also, had they created a Netware subset OS that could have been a desktop OS, they'd have done fine there as well. Instead, by switching to Linux, they just handed things over to Microsoft by putting a UNIX like OS into the equation.
It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.
Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare. They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class. The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.
Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest income brackets. They favor government spending on social programs and enforcement of environmental, safety and financial regulations. This sort of redistributes the money from the wealthy to the working class. Since in theory the wealthy pay more taxes and the poor receive more government benefits. Also the working class benefit from safer and cleaner working conditions and from cleaner conditions at home with safer places to place their money.
A political system with a healthy political discourse usually moderates between the two extremes. Unfortunately the vocal participants within the US political system are mainly the extremists of both parties and the public who can't be troubled with listening to anything more than a sound bite are reduced to cheering for their favorite team.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
A long time ago.
Novell owned the network File/Print market and pioneered the e-Directory (NDS) environment. Microsoft was playing catch-up the whole way.
The biggest problem with Novell was that you couldn't develop applications on the Netware platform. Microsoft offered ISVs the ability to develop software on the platform (Windows) on which it would run. When Novell purchased Unix, I thought that they would fully integrate NCP (Netware Core Protocol) into Unix. This would allow ISVs to develop software on the same platform on which their software would run. Had they done so, Microsoft would have lost the server wars and been relegated to the desktop.
But Novell didn't do the necessary integration, and the rest is history.
As I recall, Word Perfect was better than Microsoft Word in almost every respect. In fact, Word Perfect 5.0 is probably better in many ways than the current incarnation of Word. Sigh.
tl;dr version: Novell killed themselves and Microsoft moved into the vacuum created when Novell imploded. The resolution of this lawsuit just puts the cherry on top of the whole mess.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
And if we had good public education in this country that would be a good plan. The problem is that by Federalizing the education system, we've only been spreading the pain... and most large inner cities still have third-world level education systems. Mississippi brags at least they aren't Louisiana and Louisiana still brags at least they aren't Mississippi. A majority of the public still believes in astrology. To listen to a lot of people the country's leading biochemist is Jenny McCarthy. And the average voter can't explain how our government works at a 6th grade Civics class level.
The voucher system at least offers the potential for competition, something that doesn't exist today at the primary or secondary levels unless you are in the top 5-10% income bracket and can afford private school.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
True, but when it comes to markets where Microsoft's monopoly couldn't help so much, phones and tablets, they aren't doing so well. Those markets show what happens when there's a more level playing field and Microsoft's market share is negligible in the mobile market. It might not stay that way, but they are currently way behind Apple, Google and others. That could not have happened in the PC world in the last 20 years.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Damn kids.
I'd agree with you about that behavior being malicious and "over the top" ... but then there's the question of whether or not it was legal. That's really all the court system is supposed to determine. It might be a fine line, but ultimately, I think the courts did the right thing here.
If you volunteer information to a competitor and then it turns out the info you provided was bogus ... it was still information you VOLUNTEERED. There would be a clear legal case here if Novell signed a deal to PAY for this information from Microsoft, and it turned out they received bad info because of a willful intent to mislead and fail to live up to the terms of the contract.
This whole scenario is really not one you'd expect would play out the same way today, either. These days, interoperability has a net benefit to all parties involved. If Microsoft (for example) makes a concerted effort to ensure Linux or BSD or a Mac running OS X can't connect properly to its shared files and folders, it just makes itself look like a less attractive option. (If I have Macs on my network, or a BSD based FreeNAS or what-not, I'm just as likely to start trying to eliminate my Windows clients or servers from the environment as I am my NAS server or Mac clients, if this issue causes me hassles.)
Regardless, at the time, Novell went from "the only game in town" for a reliable server product to a costly option that was beginning to look like it might not be worth continuing to pay for. Hindsight is 20-20, obviously ... but if I was calling the shots at Novell back then, I would have probably tried to lock in a paid contractual arrangement to obtain access to Microsoft's APIs for networking, since that was very much key to my product's future success.
Your IPX comments may have some merit but the idea of a desktop OS based on Netware is ludicrous. Netware was all about pumping packets with very high efficiency and stability. Because of this writing code for Netware was incredibly painful. There was no graphics capability...essentially there was nothing that wasn't about pushing packets, directory services, and networking. You would have been better off trying to write a desktop OS on a Cisco router.
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
That's not really a good description of common core - it doesn't really do that. States can impose certain testing requirements on top of it, optionally, like Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), but you won't find any kind of requirement for "knowing" any objective facts in the Common Core.
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES? And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves.
That's a pretty big topic. The Common Core advocates seem to do a lot of marketing around their process for creating the standards, which includes taking a lot of existing standards (really bad ones), and pretending they're worthy of expanding upon.
I'll bring up a few of the basic issues and let you research more yourself.
Seventy-two CEOs hailing from corporations that usually like to stay out of the political fray, including Harley-Davidson, General Mills and Xerox, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times claiming that the curriculum will meet the “business community’s expectations.” That should tell you something right there: Are these companies interested in educating Americans to pursue their highest potential, or in creating a workforce beholden to the Corporate ladder?
The fundamental theme of Common Core’s English language arts (ELA) standards is a focus on non-fiction “informational texts.” The ELA standards were fashioned so that elementary students read no more than 50 percent classic literature and high school students may read only 30 percent classic literature. The other 70 percent is comprised of informational texts. The curriculum advocates a “close reading” of a text in which students are asked to analyze what they’ve read strictly from the available text without a whiff of historical context. This method teaches students to accept the information that they are given without question. It's an indoctrination technique writ large, through years of barraging students with lesson plans produced by government bureaucracies.
You can also check out some of the writing by Carol Burris, an award-winning educator that was a big proponent of Common Core until she started seeing the ugly details. Very enlightening.
Have you seen how they are teaching math under the Common Core now? The premise is that students should learn "estimating" instead of math or number theory. I guess that makes sense if you're a bureaucrat dealing with multi-million dollar budgets - as long as you're within 1 or 2% you're good. But that's not really good enough if you're trying to really learn the core principles. You should see if this makes any sense to you as a way to teach 5th graders math. I don't think it does.
You'll probably dismiss these issues as "growing pains" and issues that can be fixed over time. But we should not be experimenting on our children this way. Or they won't be able to contribute anything to the next generation of learners.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
im not saying one is better than the other just that the current way of doing this is bad. Id be for a consumption tax, where all FINISHED goods are taxed , supply line products (componants, unfinished wood etc would not be) and only charge a tax based on consumption. If you own a jet, you get taxed more than if you own a car. you dont own are car? you get taxed even less. Roll ALL taxes into the final sales and leave it at that.
The current tax structure is unsustainable, even to the pro tax and spend crowd and the less taxes are better crowd, we have to start over and the best first step should be abolish the IRS
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
All excellent points, I make those same points quite often, I was mainly just talking about on their face. You are 100% correct however
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I think the top brackets of wage earners face an undue burden imposed by the tax lawyer industry. I favor a flat tax (on both wages and capital gains) for the top 2.5% of income recipients at the same percentage rate as for those in the bracket just under that of the top 2.5%. The benefits of filing EZ really ought to be extended upwards.
People will say that without tax incentives, why would the "job creators" invest? But, the fact is, that everyone invests for the same reason, because it will turn a profit. If the investment won't be profitable, then easy borrowing and low taxes don't help create it. No one will invest if it's just throwing away money. If the investment is a net gain, then taxation doesn't prevent it. You still want more, and so will invest in a profitable venture to get more even if you're taxed at a higher rate.
Probably, if such a tax were imposed, personal corporations would be formed by those who haven't done so already.
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
That's not really a good description of common core - it doesn't really do that. States can impose certain testing requirements on top of it, optionally, like Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), but you won't find any kind of requirement for "knowing" any objective facts in the Common Core.
So you are stating that is not what it does, and then as evidence state something that is part of the implementation, not the standards themselves, which was exactly the point I was making... The standards dictate what should be learned, not the how they learn and how they evaluate what they learn..
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES? And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves.
That's a pretty big topic. The Common Core advocates seem to do a lot of marketing around their process for creating the standards, which includes taking a lot of existing standards (really bad ones), and pretending they're worthy of expanding upon.
Which bad ones? Really hard to debate something if you are being vague possibly intentionally
I'll bring up a few of the basic issues and let you research more yourself.
Seventy-two CEOs hailing from corporations that usually like to stay out of the political fray, including Harley-Davidson, General Mills and Xerox, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times claiming that the curriculum will meet the “business community’s expectations.” That should tell you something right there: Are these companies interested in educating Americans to pursue their highest potential, or in creating a workforce beholden to the Corporate ladder?
correlation/causation issue with your statement. It does not really tell me anything on its own, however on the flip side what those companies are interested in has little baring on it, however the purpose of the schools is to prepare you for work/higher ed when you graduate
The fundamental theme of Common Core’s English language arts (ELA) standards is a focus on non-fiction “informational texts.” The ELA standards were fashioned so that elementary students read no more than 50 percent classic literature and high school students may read only 30 percent classic literature. The other 70 percent is comprised of informational texts.
and what is the problem with this? On the face it does not really seem to be a problem. However just like before THIS IS IMPLEMENTATION
The curriculum advocates a “close reading” of a text in which students are asked to analyze what they’ve read strictly from the available text without a whiff of historical context. This method teaches students to accept the information that they are given without question. It's an indoctrination technique writ large, through years of barraging students with lesson plans produced by government bureaucracies.
You mean like how we were required to say the pledge of allegiance every day, without being allowed to opt out, while growing up is indoctrination?
What you claiming is indoctrination is not necessarily so. It is also used to be able to break apart the grammar to pick out subject, verbs, nouns, and the like as it was when we were kids. There is no evidence that I have seen to point to indoctrination, and seeing how this is part of the IMPLIMENTATION, not seeing how it is part of the standard itself.
You can also check out some of the writing by Carol
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I don't know what group of idiots was managing Novell at that time, but they screwed that company up just about every way that they could. They owned the PC networking space for years, there was nothing on the market with the capabilities or stability of Netware 3.1x for years and a Novell Netware certification was a ticket to the big paycheck. The move from Netware 3 to Netware 4 was years late, a huge amount of work, a complete paradigm shift, horrendously expensive, extremely risky, and notoriously flaky if it did manage to somehow successfully upgrade. And required IPX/SPX and did not support TCP/IP out of the box. In comparison Windows NT networking was easy, fairly reliable, free, and supported all the major networking protocols of the time, even Banyan Vines. Windows 2000 and Active Directory pretty much put the final nails in Novell's coffin as it delivered everything that Novell had been promising for years, did it easily, and did it much cheaper. Novell had no one to blame but themselves.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Your memory of AD and my memory are completely off. The first release of AD was horrible when compared with NDS.
--WooooHoooo--
I used AD before I used NDS, and remember an awful lot of head scratching while thinking "Why the hell did they do it this way?" Having used Windows first I also tend to do the same when trying to work on a Mac or Linux machine, a lot of it is just what one uses first.
NetWare had a lot going for it, it must have taken a lot of work to sabotage that much of a head start. There were several other companies in that same time frame where management insisted on maintaining revenue levels or not adjusting pricing to match a changing market, and have ended up on the dust heap of history. Too bad that Novell was one of them.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I'd agree with your legal take on it. However, regardless of legality, there is still the incentive for a company in Microsoft's position (controlling both the OS - Windows - and competing software - Word) to pull this sort of dirty trick to the detriment of the market and the consumer, but for their own self-benefit. It wasn't a part of this trial, but Microsoft had already pulled this type of trick before. It told all the software companies that OS/2 was going to be the GUI successor to DOS. So companies like WordPerfect got busy porting their DOS apps to OS/2. Then at the last minute, Microsoft dumped their partnership with IBM, declared that Windows was now the successor to DOS, and oh by the way here's a nice new word processor we made called Word which runs on Windows, since WordPerfect hasn't got their Windows version ready yet...
The cleaner solution, which allows companies to volunteer info this way but which eliminates the incentive to hurt the consumer (and competitors) for their own self-benefit, is something those of us opposed to Microsoft's tactics back then have always called for. Break Microsoft up into two separate companies - one which makes operating systems, and one which makes applications. If they had been broken up, Office for iOS and Android would have been released years ago instead of just recently. It's pretty obvious Microsoft was holding it back in hopes of using it to steer people towards Win Phone 8 and Win RT, and slowing down abandonment of Windows as their OS for productivity apps.
You see the same problem playing out in ISPs - where the companies which own the wires are also providing content, and deliberately throttling the content of competitors (e.g. Netflix's speeds on Comcast improved immediately after their agreement to pay Comcast, long before any new infrastructure could have been installed). Or how cellular service providers are able to lock down the phone you buy to their network - forcing you to buy your phone from them or from a third party who is getting their phones from them.
The incentive for this anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior disappears if you simply prohibit companies from owning both the platform/pipes and the content that runs on that platform/goes through the pipes. Can you imagine what the automobile market would've been like if Standard Oil and Ford had been one company, and only Ford cars had been allowed to fuel up at Standard Oil gas stations?
Before AD, Microsoft started including the Exchange client with Windows, making it much easier to just use Exchange for email. And that required a Windows server. And once you have your first Windows server, well, it's just easier to go whole hog. All of which would be okay (i.e. legal), i guess, except the bit about bundling with Windows. But Windows' monopoly status hadn't been established yet.
As far as Mac's and Linux systems attaching to Windows shares. It took an antitrust action in the EU to guarantee that one. Otherwise, the Samba guys would still be reverse-engineering deliberately obtuse (and frequently changing) MS protocols.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Actually you could attach Macs to an NT domain, it actually was a lot easier than plugging them into the Netware network IIRC. Of course that was when Apple still did all of their own OS work, rather than slap their GUI on someone else's kernel.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
You are aware that the top 10 percent pay some 70 pecent of taxes right now correct? Oh, of course not http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/1...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.
Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare.
This isn't fair. Republicans in general want lower taxes because they want less burden on businesses to stimulate the economy (especially difficult on small businesses), and smaller federal government with less bloat (except on defense, point taken). The constitution calls for a federal government that provides for a common currency and a national defense, but shouldn't be much more than the mortar that supports the bricks which are the separate states. This is what the right wing wants. The left wing wants a monolithic government with ever increasing federal powers, where the states are little more than provinces under central control.
Republicans would prefer lower taxes for the working class too, not just the rich. No one is looking to tax the crap out of the working stiff and give it to the rich, because you can't get blood from a stone; and the more the middle class shrinks, the more this holds true. It's unsustainable.
There is no logic in the notion of wealth redistribution; "wealth" is not a finite zero sum game of some kind where if I have more, you must have less (unless I specifically work for you, and you give yourself huge bonuses from the company coffers while I get boned..but both Rs and Ds happily do that.) If you believe otherwise, you'd believe simply printing more money makes the country richer.
The most ridiculous claims I've heard lately accuse rich people of "hoarding" their money, as though this ties up the money other people need; in fact, that money is in full circulation, since the banks use that money for loans, and stock investments are used by corporations. It's not the 1930s anymore when people literally stashed their cash under their mattress.
They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class.
Wait, didn't you just state that republicans prefer to, in essence, give money to the rich via taxing the working class and subsidizing powerful corporations? If this doesn't work because most of these employers are small business owners, then why would they justify it? Sounds like they're trying to help out small business owners, to me.
The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.
Agreed that globalization does change the rules of the game, as it's no longer as closed a system as it was. That's going to take decades to level out -- if ever. Still, the basic idea that, if a company is doing well it expands and in doing so means hiring and promoting more workers, is sound. Except that offshoring labor for dirt cheap wages is mucking with that.
Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest inc
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Gee, sure are a lot of problems with the IMPLEMENTATION of these standards. I wonder why, if the standards are so fine, there are so many implementation problems.
Kind of like Communism, then, right? It's a perfect standard, and all of the murders, starvation, suffering and oppression are just implementation issues, right? Or, you know, like "spreading freedom in the Middle East" - the standard is just fine, but the IMPLEMENTATION was bad ...
Semantic arguments are just semantics.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I provided sources, you did not. so excuse me if I take your word on it coward
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I don't think you really want to believe what the Heritage Foundation is telling you.
Their premise is that the rich pay the majority of the federal tax, so let's really look at the numbers to make sure if their premise is correct.
According to the Federal Income Tax Data from 2011. The top 10% paid 68.3% of all the federal taxes. So far so good...
What makes up the top 10%? The Tax Foundation was nice enough to tabulate this report.
Top 1% includes all households that made over $388,905/year and they paid 35.1% of the federal tax burden.
Top 5% includes all households that made over $167,728/year and they paid 56.5% of the federal tax burden.
Top 10% includes all households that made over $120,136/year and they paid 68.3% of the federal tax burden.
Using the exact same information that the Heritage Foundation used I can factually say:
64.9 % of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $388,905/year.
43.5% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $167,728/year.
31.7% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $120,136/year.
My point being that Heritage Foundation used statistics to make a point that is not close to being factual. Their assertion that the rich pay the most taxes is most definitely false. The first clue should have been when they talked about percentage of income without actually showing the income bracket for each percentage.
Go read the actual Tax Stat reports at the IRS's Tax Stats and you will be surprised how small a percentage people who make over $800,000/year pay.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...