Is Tech Billionaires' Educational Philanthropy a Bug Or a Feature?

Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Educational philanthropy has nothing to do with philanthropy. The theory of public education has only one blunt response to "why do we teach people how to read?": because they make better factory workers. So now the tech sector is attempting to shift the economy away from making stuff, and to do that they have to buy out all the schools that take kids and turn out factory workers, and replace them with code academies, GM-style.

None of this, not a single iota of it, is actually in any way intended to help mankind.

Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by jellomizer · 2018-09-17 04:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Education by itself in its own little bottle does little to improve human kind. Those are the mythical academics who sit posh furnished college offices and debate the abstract idea of the day. No matter how smart you are if you are not contributing to the rest of the world you are useless.
Education for the longest time had a factor of one degree or an other to prepare people to be useful to the outside world.
Before Public Education, the masses just learned how to do what their parents did. Farming mostly. Then with the move from aquaculture to industrial the general population needed still that was one reserved for the few and rich, Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. So Public Schools were put in to insure we have a workforce able to handle the new jobs. K-8 Education was good enough to get you a job worthy middle class. High school education would get you an office job, or at least a Foreman/Supervisor role. College well that is upper management material.
Now that we are moving from an industrial economy to a technical/service economy. K-8 is worthless, High school will get you some low end job, College Degree you may get Middle Class.
The issue is the fact that these new jobs require less general education and more focused education. In many ways it is unfair to have kids make life decisions at an early age on what direction they should go, however if the Education System was altered to allow for more focused learning with majors before college and even high school. I expect we can get the skills needed a little easier.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:12 · Score: 1

In the 1970s, a high school education got you an entry level job for a few years, then you wound up a supervisor, then could wind up a manager. A college degree of -any- major would get you something decently paying, where you could afford a decent house, etc.
Until 2008, if there were a recession, you could just wait it out, go get yourself a master's, and come out with a higher paying job.
This stopped after 2008. I see college grads in STEM majors getting $35k/year jobs. It matters far more that you know the latest DevOps tool of the moment than have a degree. For example, I've had entire interviews hinge on if I knew how to use Python generators, the latest Atlassian stuff, and having stuff in a public Git repository so interviewers can see my work for better or for worse. The degree I had never was an issue.
There are a lot of people who say that public education must be killed, that we can't afford it. Can we afford to take care of an even more uneducated populace who has zero chance of competing with the Chinese, Germans, Russians, Peruvians, Chileans, and other countries who pay for K-college? Of course, we can go into a police state and have killbots cull the proles if they get too uppety, which I guess is the way our future lies.
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by jellomizer · 2018-09-17 05:37 · Score: 1

For me this seemed to be the case more in 2003 after the Tech-bubble popped and Out sourcing went overboard. Granted I went to try to get my masters degree during this time only to get it after 2008 where I feel like I have to be the jerk (I usually stop myself because it sounds like I am jerk) that says HEY LISTEN TO ME I AM THE GUY WITH THE MASTERS DEGREE IN THIS VERY TOPIC HERE just because the guys who go a foot hold before 2008 are in charge, however are just going the stupid way and not listening to me, because they decided not to value the education.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 06:28 · Score: 0

So you concluded that just because you have a masters you must therefore be more talented and smarter and are somehow entitled to be listened to, regardless the amount of actual professional experience others may have that aren't masters grads. Do I understand you correctly?
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by nine-times · 2018-09-17 06:42 · Score: 1

Those are the mythical academics who sit posh furnished college offices and debate the abstract idea of the day.
Yeah, I like my academics sitting in unfurnished offices!</sarcasm>
Sorry, I'm not trying to make a real argument there, but I don't really agree with you very much. I mean, yes, education needs to have some eventual application to the real world in order to be useful, but that doesn't mean that education should simply be vocational. Some of the effects on the worlds are indirect and take time, but that doesn't make them useless.
I don't even think that the goal of educators should be to "improve human kind". It's enough if they improve the life and the mind of the students. Let the students then "improve human kind", for whatever that means. And in that sense, K-8 isn't "worthless". It's not enough to get a very good job all on its own, but most kids leave 8th grade better, more informed people than if they hadn't gone to school.
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by HornWumpus · 2018-09-17 06:49 · Score: 1

I worked with a guy who's master's thesis was in SQL query optimization. He didn't know how to read a query plan, or even what one was and why you'd want to read it.
Needless to say, he couldn't optimize a query to save his life.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:21 · Score: 0

It means that he's proven that he's done the work, and he probably has a better foundation.
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:23 · Score: 0

Education by itself in its own little bottle does little to improve human kind. Those are the mythical academics who sit posh furnished college offices and debate the abstract idea of the day. No matter how smart you are if you are not contributing to the rest of the world you are useless.
Yet in the long run, it's the philosophers that we remember centuries later, who had far more of an impact of civilization and the way we think than the guy who ran some factory on the edge of town.
Re: Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:51 · Score: 0

Education was originally from pursuit of knowledge, scientific advances and arts. Who changed it into a factory?
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:54 · Score: 0

Out of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of philosophers over the past 3000 years, perhaps a thousand are still remembered by civilization. The rest made no meaningful or lasting influence. That's a damn poor rate of success.
Re: Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:57 · Score: 0

He'll need to wait for the have it alls to die off naturally, just like every other generation of arseholes.
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by Roger+W+Moore · 2018-09-17 08:49 · Score: 1

The issue is the fact that these new jobs require less general education and more focused education.
That's largely not true. The attitude of society has changed considerably but the actual knowledge required has not (although technology means that the details have altered e.g. we no longer show people how to look up stuff in a library - all science papers are now online). Companies used to value university graduates with a deep, broad understanding of a particular subject because these people can draw on their education to handle new situations and come up with innovative and different solutions to problems and opportunities as they arise.

However, such people have some initial, up-front training costs for the precise job that you want them to do plus, with a broader range of skills, they can more easily jump ship to someone else to do a different job if you treat them like crap. With modern companies increasingly focused on short-term profits to fuel the CEO's bonus, investing in long-term human resource development so that you have a high quality, well-educated workforce that will keep the company operating and growing for the next several decades is not a priority. As long as the company lasts as long as the CEO's contract it's fine. Interestingly the companies that eshew this short-termism seem to be the ones that are now doing really well...
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by pots · 2018-09-17 10:31 · Score: 1

Educational philanthropy has nothing to do with philanthropy.
Feeding starving people has nothing to do with philanthropy, it's an entirely selfish act intended to prevent those starving people from killing you and taking your food.

Giving homes to homeless people has nothing to do with philanthropy, it's all about putting them somewhere so you don't have to look at them.

Saving piglets from drowning in a pond has nothing to do with philanthropy, it's a selfish act to ease your guilt.

Etc., etc. Those children who went to school are already well-familiar with this claim, and know of it as the altruism vs. egoism argument. It gives them something to discuss in the factories. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who had a philosophy class at their public high school.)

Here's a thought: maybe the problem isn't education, maybe the problem is philanthropy. As in: the need for the existence of philanthropy, the idea that helping people who need help is optional, is itself the root of this problem.

Education is a matter of public policy, these billionaires are essentially using their money to undermine democracy. And they're getting away with it because our democracy is apparently not up to the task.
Re: Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 11:18 · Score: 0

And there are precisely 0 workers who most remember
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 11:33 · Score: 0

Bullshit.
Andrew Carnegie endowed more than 3000 public libraries across the English-speaking world, and established departments and a couple of whole universities that maintain excellent reputations to this day. He was no more selfless than Bezos, yet those institutions unquestionably did a great deal to improve the general state of education for the common people.
There is nothing inherently wrong with philanthropy. Sure, it's unaccountable - but look at Betsy deVos, and tell me how much better publicly administered education is.
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by sexconker · 2018-09-17 12:30 · Score: 1

More accurately, they want to get the government to pay to teach people to read so that we have more people who meet the bar to be a factory worker and can thus lower wages in a more competitive (for workers) job market. They almost never put their own actual money on the line, and when they do it's because they're buying influence and power (see Gates donating money on the condition that a school use all MS products).
Re: Are you being deliberately dense or what by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 14:26 · Score: 0

Hope it wasn't a masters degree in humility! Seriously though, your input should be considered, but not automatically favored based on credentials.
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by cas2000 · 2018-09-18 16:36 · Score: 1

That's an extremely bad example you've used there - devos was given that job so that she could destroy public education, to remove it as an alternative to corporate and religious charter schools.
Corruption is not the definition of democracy, it is the bane of it.
BTW, you missed the previous poster's point. which was not that philanthropy is inherently bad (although it often is - whether it's a self-serving sham for tax-dodge purposes, or to dress up religious or corporate indoctrination as some kind of selfless educational cause).
No, the point was that the NEED for philanthropy is the problem. That poverty and lack of resources and lack of opportunity are the problem. This is especially true when we don't live in a world that is even remotely poor, this modern world has an enormous abundance - a massive excess - of food and resources and wealth...the problem is that almost all of it is "owned" and/or controlled by a tiny handful of people. If the resources of society were used to benefit the people rather than just further enrich those who are already rich, then philanthropy would be irrelevant.
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by slashdot_commentator · 2018-10-01 04:52 · Score: 1

A nominal summary of the evolution of the concept of education, but your conclusion implies that the previous paradigm can still be applied in the near future.
Advancements in AI just means that there will be less entry level educational level jobs available, and even less blue collar level jobs. (e.g. - AI will remove the need for human MD degrees, and already is impacting the paralegal field; with more fields to come. When self-driving vehicles become reality, that's 15% of the overall employment economy.) Where public education used to certify the graduate to a basic reading and math level, and enough behavioral and vocational knowledge to manage an entry level job, future public schools will have to vastly exceed current academic levels, while educating children in basic critical thinking skills, autodidactic skills, and for lack of a better description, entrepreneurial skills. Specialized education (what you called "focused" education) will be pointless, because technology will make that specialization obsolete within a few years of completing an advanced degree in the field.
The most useful and rewarding skills that could be conveyed in primary schooling would be the ability to take on any new occupation or starting one's own business, with advanced degrees merely certifying a person is intellectually qualified to take on a more mentally challenging profession (or a unique position that would be resistant to knowledge automation).

--
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by slashdot_commentator · 2018-10-01 04:57 · Score: 1

There are a lot of people who say that public education must be killed, that we can't afford it.

What fucked up community do you hang out with? A lot of people may be saying that public education needs to radically change, but almost no one is saying the nation should stop funding public schooling to save tax dollars.

--
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by slashdot_commentator · 2018-10-01 05:03 · Score: 1

I guess no one explained to him that advanced education is an investment, and can be a bad investment from a practical standpoint. The reason why no one explained it to him was because the education system is a business which prioritizes completion of one's payments towards an advanced degree, but in no way ensures ROI.

--
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Re:Are you being deliberately dense or what by slashdot_commentator · 2018-10-01 05:09 · Score: 1

perhaps a thousand are still remembered by civilization.

Are you one of those people who completed a "useless" degree in philosophy, and can list a thousand philosophers off the top of your head? I'd guestimate there's probably less than 100 names that could be considered philosophers (and that's throwing in prominent religious figures) that actually had significance in the advancement of that field.

--
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Re: Are you being deliberately dense or what by slashdot_commentator · 2018-10-01 06:04 · Score: 1

Capitalists.
Originally, they only cared about being able to hire workers that could manage the basic tasks in a factory. They invested "leadership" in public schools to produce said workers. Eventually society decided that primary schools were most economically run training their children to be factory workers, because that would ensure they would be hired for a job. Now, capitalists are disgusted with the factory workers coming out of public education, because they're useless for their knowledge factories.

--
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon

Preschool by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:16 · Score: 0

The absolute, most critical part of preschool is getting young kids to learn to sit still and do something for an extended period of time. Also, to work with others, to wait your turn, etc... The "educational" portion of preschool is tertiary, or barely matters at all. The positive effects of preschool aren't from educational curriculum but from learning "soft skills" like maintaining interpersonal relationships and time management.

Re:Preschool by jellomizer · 2018-09-17 04:59 · Score: 1

That and having a a full 6 hours away from your parents without crying.
At this age, most learning is from exploring and not so much structured classes. A good preschool would be setup for allow a lot of learning, with the teacher using gentile guidance to prevent the child from making false connections. Such as seeing a turtle and thinking it is a rock, and learning some rocks can grow feet and a head and walk away.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Preschool by CanHasDIY · 2018-09-17 08:03 · Score: 1

The absolute, most critical part of preschool is getting young kids to learn to do what they're told and not question authority.
You and I appear to have attended different preschools.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Futile attempt by no-body · 2018-09-17 04:17 · Score: 2

to soothe the guilt one feels when looking at the facts of bilking millions of normal folks for their hard earned $$'s...

Re:Futile attempt by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 04:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

How did Jeff Bezos bilk "millions of normal folks for their hard earned $$'s"? I'm curious how he conned people into giving them his money via fraud.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Futile attempt by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:28 · Score: 0

"Bilking"
You don't sound jealous of successful people AT ALL.
Re:Futile attempt by GuB-42 · 2018-09-17 04:47 · Score: 1

Why would they feel guilty? They created something people wanted to buy and got rich for it. They have no guilt to soothe, but they have money and they need to invest in something.
And they know that poor, uneducated people won't produce the employees they need in the future, they may not even produce interesting customers. So they invest in education not only to improve their public image, but also to ensure a brighter future for the world their company and themselves will be part of, preferably a big part.
Re:Futile attempt by CanHasDIY · 2018-09-17 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

How did Jeff Bezos bilk "millions of normal folks for their hard earned $$'s"?

Tax abatements and shelters, lobbying for legislation that equates to special treatment, regulatory capture - you know, the typical Evil-American-Corporation stuff.
In fairness, all that stuff is only half on him, the other half of blame lies with our elected "representatives" who would rather make sweetheart deals with corporations than actually, you know, represent their constituents.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Futile attempt by no-body · 2018-09-17 05:05 · Score: 1

<quote>How did Jeff Bezos <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bilk">bilk</a> "millions of normal folks for their hard earned $$'s"? I'm curious how he conned people into giving them his money via fraud.</quote>

Just in case, you have not realized - system is designed, probably by accident and self-perpetuating with all kinds of fairy tails - trickle down theory, work hard and you succeed, etc. with the dreams showing perpetually on flat screens.

Research on normal folks happiness showed that in societies where the spread of wealth is smaller, i. e. difference between rich and well, normal folks is small, people are more happy. This probably falls under the event horizon in the US-hype.

But look at the inner cities, where people - humans like you (if you are not a machine) and me fall through the grid, camp on road sides, beg on corners and are so wasted that they cannot even think straight.....

Those facts visually recognized have to be compensated somehow by labeling in some way blaming the individuals seen for their condition.

I'd say, this is a system failure.... not even thinking globally.

I think, there was a formula once for this planet - (well being + suffering) = constant.

Wish you well!
Re:Futile attempt by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:17 · Score: 0

If we were to do it your way, then you in the inner city who fell through the cracks to the sound of the smallest violin in the world would by paying out the ass because the REALLY poor people don't live in the 10% of the world population comprised of USA, EU and Japan. How would you like that?
Oh? You don't want THOSE poor people to get the rich people's money? If you're not willing to pay to poorer people why do you want the richer people to pay for you?
Re:Futile attempt by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 05:30 · Score: 1, Troll

So those are features available only to Bezos and Amazon, they don't apply to all businesses and/or individuals?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Futile attempt by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 05:31 · Score: 1

So you've described what you fear is the result - but how did Bezos cause that to happen? Bilk is defined in my link - what fraud did Bezos commit in building Amazon?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Futile attempt by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 06:44 · Score: 0

Exactly.
Re:Futile attempt by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 07:13 · Score: 1

i'll need to see a citation for that...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Futile attempt by CanHasDIY · 2018-09-17 08:04 · Score: 1

So those are features available only to Bezos and Amazon, they don't apply to all businesses and/or individuals?

... typical Evil-American-Corporation stuff.
Did you even read past the first three words of my post? Doesn't seem like it.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Futile attempt by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 08:06 · Score: 0

I cite the US tax code. All of it, in its entirety. The code itself is some 6500 pages long. There is an additional 60,000 pages of case law that modifies those. It is not possible for any individual or small business to comprehend such a document. Only megacorporations can afford the legal departments necessary to read and game every useful loophole in such a system. The immense size of our government and its regulations is a defacto subsidy to megacorporations, as smaller players cannot possibly play by the rules of the game.

Well by nospam007 · 2018-09-17 04:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you'd vote people to congress who'd be willing to actually tax the 1%, they wouldn't need to do this.

Re:Well by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 04:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

Here is the actual data about taxation and the 1%; what would you change, given they are taxed at a rate over twice that of their share of income (40% of income taxes, 20% of income) and at a rate well ahead of any other group?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Well by warm_warmer · 2018-09-17 04:31 · Score: 0

It's simple: people just don't like the rich, so nothing they do with their money will make people happy. About the only thing people want to see is the rich being forced, by government, to have their wealth confiscated.

Anything else is seen as "vain" or "futile" or "just an attempt to deflect attention" from something.
Re:Well by pem · 2018-09-17 04:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Umm, no. Or yes, only if you define taxes narrowly. Social security takes a huge bite out of the poor, and the highest marginal rate is the poor schmuck who cannot earn another dollar without losing his medicaid benefits.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:49 · Score: 0

If you'd vote people to congress who'd be willing to actually tax the 1%, they wouldn't need to do this.
People who use the politics of envy try to convince people that if you have enough, it's still not enough.
If you have enough, then regardless if person next you has more or less than you, you still have enough.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:53 · Score: 0

Bezos doesn't give a shit about income tax.
"Almost all of Bezos’s income comes from the value of Amazon stock. He owns about 16 percent of the company, which is why his wealth surges with any perceived Amazon good news. If Washington had an income tax, Bezos would pay a tax on this wealth only when he sold some of his stock. The increased value on these stock sales is referred to as a capital gain—a loftier and less taxable form of wealth than the meager hourly wage or salary most Americans receive.
In the last two years, Bezos has sold about $2.78 billon worth of Amazon stock, according to Nasdaq."
No tax for me I'm Jeff Bezos
Re:Well by blahplusplus · 2018-09-17 04:55 · Score: 1

Here is the actual data...
I think everyone should see the following before believing anything about what is published about tax rates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:59 · Score: 0

...what would you change...
Me, I'd like to see tax rates similar to Denmark. We know that works. Ordinary people in Denmark are much happier and financially secure than people in the USA.
The fundamental point of capitalism is that you give up on any notion of fairness in order to maximize economic productivity. That is, in a capitalist system rich people get richer simply for being rich: in a capitalist system rich people don't deserve to be rich and poor people don't deserve to be poor.
As far as I'm concerned, no one needs a combined family income of more than a few hundred thousand dollars. At that point the marginal tax rate may as well be 90%.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:00 · Score: 0

If you'd vote people to congress who'd be willing to actually tax the 1%, they wouldn't need to do this.
In case we were wanting to actually table a discussion and propose some actual solutions that will work, it's best to identify the REAL fucking problem.
Taxing the rich isn't the problem.
Closing the tax loopholes that the rich abuse the shit out of, is.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:34 · Score: 0

Why? Because you are poor, will always be poor, and want everybody to have a similarly poor lifestyle?
Re:Well by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 05:35 · Score: 0

Social Security has a flat rate for everyone up to about $128,000; everyone's income is taxed at the exact same rate to that point, no one has a "bigger bite" or a higher marginal rate to that point. Above $200K, there is a special tax (which does NOT increase a person's retirement benefits) applied to income.
And of course this all assumes we consider Social Security as a plain tax (which it is) rather than as a forced retirement program (which many like to claim it is, but in fact it is not).

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:35 · Score: 0

And if you don't have enough, there are people who will try to convince you that you really do have enough and anything more would just be wasted on you.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:38 · Score: 0

This. The tax system is fine. The problem is once you have so much money it becomes increasing easier to keep it all through loopholes. Close all that shit down and there would be extra billions more in tax revenue.
Re:Well by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 05:44 · Score: 1

Bezos probably paid at least 20% on those capital gains, meaning about $556 million in capital gains taxes.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:48 · Score: 0

Who cares what their income is taxed at? Certainly not them. Taking a 1$ paycheck is not selfless, it's pragmatic.
I worry about capital gains when I liquidate. If I borrow against my assets, I never have to worry about that.
Pointing to this data like it's some watershed realization means you are clearly a poor person trying to fool yourself.
Re:Well by Solandri · 2018-09-17 06:32 · Score: 1

Social Security is forced retirement savings - on average you get the money back after you retire. If you're going to call it a tax, then you have to call the money people put into 401ks, IRAs, and long-term investments a tax. And rich people put a helluva lot more money into those than the bottom 90%. Medicare and FUTA (unemployment) are insurance - they're managed so the amount paid out equals the amount paid in on average. The states manage their unemployment funds and the rate charged to each company so each company pays in as much as its ex-employees collect (yes your employer pays for unemployment, not the government). So for all three of these, on average you get back as much as you put in, resulting in a net zero tax rate.

The problem with the 1% underpaying is visible in the 2016 IRS tax stats (latest for which stats are available). Column T - income taxes as a percentage of AGI minus deficit. You'll notice that percentage gradually ramps up, indicating a progressive tax structure, up until a 29.1% rate for those making $2-$5 million. Then it starts to go down. 28.6% for those making $5-$10 million. 25.2% for those making $10+ million.

This is actually improved from before - changes to tax rates under Obama mitigated this downward trend. it used to begin ramping down at a bit above $1 million+ (anyone making more than about $500,000 is in the top 1%). So the problem has been pushed from about the top 0.5% up to the top 0.1%. We should probably add an additional tax brackets above $5 million and $10 million to get the percentage those people pay above 29.1%.

That said, the 85% tax rate proposed by GP is impractical fantasy. The top tax bracket in California is 13.3%, which would put the combined tax rate at 98.3%.. Add in other required payments and a 85% Federal tax rate is basically saying you're not allowed to keep any money above a certain income.
Re:Well by bluefoxlucid · 2018-09-17 06:40 · Score: 1

Actually, with the income the top 1% have divided among the other 99%, you get $135 per person per year. It's not a lot until you start deciding who gets it and who doesn't.
We can build a universal dividend that pays $6,000 per person per year, make Social Security stronger (and solvent), and create a foundation under our welfare system, obliterating all homelessness and hunger almost immediately. That's actually a $300 billion tax cut (2016 model).
It's also not hitting the distribution problem, although it's an important program.
The big secret is the rich haven't been taking all the money; it's been going to the poor. Minimum wage has increased with inflation--that is: more-slowly than productivity gains. That means instead of twice as much bread per mouth, we have twice as much bread and twice as many mouths: we spread the wages around to a poverty class which has become an ever-growing portion of our economy.
You work, you make more per hour of work than workers did 20 years ago, and we pay you enough to buy the same amount that workers 20 years ago could. What about the gains? Well... the gains have spread among the working class... which has gotten bigger, so the amount each person gets hasn't increased by as much as the amount each person produces.
The rich only get like $135 per person. Okay. There are also a lot of not-rich people.
You fix this by tying minimum wage to some correlate of the per-capita GNI--the amount of income earned in total per person. I've proposed 25% of the per-adult GNI--about $10.20/hr in 2018, and just over a third of the per-capita GNI--and it might make sense to approach 33% of the per-adult GNI. My 25% proposal, when you include the Dividend, is equivalent to a single minimum-wage worker earning 45% of the per-capita GNI; but minimum wages drive median household incomes, and a demogrant like the Dividend doesn't.
In other words: you make your labor force grow more-slowly so productivity gains spread among the workers instead of spreading out to a larger (and poorer) workforce.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Well by bluefoxlucid · 2018-09-17 06:43 · Score: 1

Don't forget Dividends are from corporate profits--they're not deductible--and are taxed at 35% first.
Well, they were before the horrible TCJA.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:13 · Score: 0

I would flatten the tax and increase the standard deduction to maybe $75k for individuals or $150k for married filing jointly.
Re:Well by Tablizer · 2018-09-17 07:21 · Score: 1

They are kind of the same thing. "Tax law" includes or excludes any rules that can lead to "loopholes". "Loophole" is not a formal thing with an objective metric. It's generally considered a practice that looks like somebody is trying to circumvent the intention of the law-makers.
One way to reduce loopholes is to require a minimum payment. Thus, if the minimum percent for a billionaire is say 35%, and they take a bunch of deductions that would otherwise go beyond the 35%, they still pay 35%.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Well by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 07:29 · Score: 1

Correct. And dividends are taxed as either regular income or capital gains, meaning those with appreciable income from dividends (more than $38,600 per year) will pay at least 20% capital gains tax, if not a full 37% income tax.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Well by jd · 2018-09-17 07:29 · Score: 1

Sweden opts for 60%.
Exemptions mean the billionaires pay less than their secretaries. Exemptions are supposed to encourage good behaviour. In fact, they don't. Besides, we pay government to look after civics and we can hold them responsible. We can't hold billionaires responsible and we have no stake in their vision.
Exemptions must be eliminated and taxes adjusted accordingly so that the working and middle classes aren't hurt.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Well by jd · 2018-09-17 07:31 · Score: 1

$1 to those on the margins is a big bite.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Well by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 07:31 · Score: 1

Capital gains are taxed at 20% after $38.600 IF they are qualified long-term capital gains. Unqualified long-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. The concept that a person pays no taxes on capital gains is a myth - it only applies in very limited cases, and for amounts above $38,600 you are paying tax on all capital gains - long or short, qualified or unqualified.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:39 · Score: 0

Are you deliberately dense in this manner?
Let's say I'm a Rich Guy (TM). My company makes, say, $100B in profits every year, and gives it all to me, where it is taxes at RichGuyAverage 40%. I keep $60B and spend it all on philanthropy. Woo.
Okay, let's say that we raise the taxes from RichGuyAverage 40% to 95%. Cool. Whatever. ...
Neat SideStep!
Now my company makes $100B profits. I spend *company money* on philanthropy. Now philanthropy gets $100B. You can set my tax rate to whatever you want... ...
This is how it works now.
You don't honestly think that these philanthropic efforts are being pursued with *post* tax money, do you?
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:46 · Score: 0

Trump removed tax write offs for state income taxes over $10,000.
ONLY the rich are paying more than $10k in state income taxes. So we voted your person in, he did it, and the DNC is running on reversing it.
Not sure what your point is. I'm sure you are one of those screaming that this tax increase on the rich needs to be reversed, just like Pelosi is.
Re:Well by bluefoxlucid · 2018-09-17 07:49 · Score: 1

It's notable that any stock awards are taxed as income at the award price: if Amazon gives him $1M in equity, he pays full income tax on $1M. If it's worth $1.2M later and he sells it, then he pays capital gains on $0.2M of income.
It is infuriatingly-difficult to escape the tax man. This is by design.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:57 · Score: 0

And if you don't have enough, there are people who will try to convince you that you really do have enough and anything more would just be wasted on you.
Yep. And that is why you have to decide when you have enough. You don't have to take other people's word for it.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-18 03:16 · Score: 0

Your naivety is adorable. :)

The real question: what's the real motivation? by Rick+Schumann · 2018-09-17 04:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is it being done purely to provide educational opportunities for whatever direction in life the student is interested in, or is it only to make good little workers for whoever (Bezos, in this case) is footing the bill? Beware the Privatization of Education, lest we end up with a generation that's trained like slaves would be trained, to do specific jobs not of their choosing, and to hell with whatever the students are interested in.

Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by iggymanz · 2018-09-17 04:43 · Score: 0

rubbish, the public school system also is turning out mostly slaves and crowd followers
if a student is interested in being a terrorist, they should be free to pursue that?
Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:48 · Score: 0

1. We're not talking about the public school system here, that's a totally different subject.
2. RE: 'terrorists': You are an IDIOT, please STFU.
Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by blahplusplus · 2018-09-17 04:57 · Score: 1

Beware the Privatization of Education, lest we end up with a generation that's trained like slaves would be trained
You've already been voting against your own interests since the new deal if you are in the US. Most modern citizens are politically ignorant. If anyone has been voting for any establishment party they don't know how government works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by jellomizer · 2018-09-17 05:12 · Score: 2

The real motivation.
1. To lower his tax bill.
2. Good PR for the Tech Billionaires
3. Make some sort of political statement
Trying to train kids today to be Tech Employees for your company in 20 years would be a failing goal. The industry changes too fast 20 years ago. Amazon.com sold books nearly exclusively 20 years ago. If Amazon was to do this 20 years ago to bring up future low level amazon employees, they would be focused on a Lot of Library Science Skills with some HTML and server side programming, where they would be finding ways to categorize books better.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:56 · Score: 0

You're not looking at the bigger, longer-term picture, nor are you looking backwards a few decades at the direction that education has been going.
Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by jd · 2018-09-17 07:10 · Score: 1

For-profit education will only ever be to boost profit, never education.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by scourfish · 2018-09-17 08:03 · Score: 1

The only way they would someone would be trained the way that "slaves" would be trained is if they were forced to receive an education against their will. There are also plenty of private, expensive, liberal colleges that wealthy liberal parents send their children to. Are they also part of the "training to be slaves?"
Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by Rick+Schumann · 2018-09-17 09:46 · Score: 1

When you don't have any choices, how is that any different than being forced? You either accept what's being offered or you go without entirely.
Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by iggymanz · 2018-09-17 09:54 · Score: 1

AH, so you're a product of the public school system I see. Also you react like a terrorist.
Re:The real question: what's the real motivation? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 20:32 · Score: 0

And you are the product of no education at all, but after reading the utter rubbish you write, that would surprise anyone. Troll, begone!

Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

The bug is not how billionaires waste their money. At least someone else gets a slice of the pie. The bug is the media's excessive coverage of celebrities, including billionaires. The assumption that celebrities know more than your average expert in a field that the celebrity is not in, is pervasive and pernicious in idiot-centered celebrity culture.

Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 08:13 · Score: 0

I think the media is laughable, but theyre mostly following the markets, cuz you know, they're a business and coffers must be refilled.
If people werent so dumb, the demand wouldnt be there.

Food and shelter? by fluffernutter · 2018-09-17 04:20 · Score: 2

When I saw the headline 'Jeff Bezos starts $2B fund for the homeless' I assumed he was going to feed and shelter them. Why would he be allowed to have his own preschool curriculum when this is already laid out by people who know much much more about childhood education? If he wants to open preschools, that's great, but stick to the current curriculum. Anything else is just scary.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.

Re:Food and shelter? by JeffOwl · 2018-09-17 04:38 · Score: 2

... Why would he be allowed to have his own preschool curriculum when this is already laid out by people who know much much more about childhood education? If he wants to open preschools, that's great, but stick to the current curriculum. Anything else is just scary.
Because public schools today are just so overly awesome there couldn't possibly be room for improvement, right? We just need to throw more money at them. Or maybe, with those billions of dollars he might just do what a lot of rich, successful people do and hire some folks who know what they are doing to manage the details. Now, he may very well have some ideas of his own about what sort of things youngsters might need to know in order to grow up to be successful, you know, being rich and successful himself. But then that would imply that a person would have some potential ability to have an impact on their own success in life, but we probably don't want to go there.
Re:Food and shelter? by fluffernutter · 2018-09-17 05:03 · Score: 1

Then make the school systems better if you care about it so much. Don't allow companies to dictate the curriculum.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Food and shelter? by swb · 2018-09-17 05:25 · Score: 1

Teaching people to read, write and do math is a mostly solved problem.
The real problem seems to be teaching kids who are poor, have a parent in jail, a parent who is chemically dependent and with neither parent having much of an education to begin with.
A lot of education has been corrupted trying to educate those kids, plus all the behavior management problems when schools are loaded up with all poor kids with behavior problems.
Re:Food and shelter? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 06:46 · Score: 0

Teaching people to read, write and do math is a mostly solved problem.
The real problem seems to be teaching kids who are poor, have a parent in jail, a parent who is chemically dependent and with neither parent having much of an education to begin with.
A lot of education has been corrupted trying to educate those kids, plus all the behavior management problems when schools are loaded up with all poor kids with behavior problems.
Not better to have one kid with behavior problems disrupting a whole classroom either. Plus some kids really do just have behavioral problems that are more biologically driven.
My son had a kid in his class who just had a really really hard time learning things or would fixate on one rule without being able to adapt it to new situations. A bit sad to see all the other kids learning and one kid and his parents struggling. Poor little guy didn't intend to be "bad" or anything like that but he did get frustrated and teachers had to spend a lot of time with him to the detriment of other kids and the behavioral issues were somewhat "contagious" in the sense of learned behavior and jockeying for attention.
So he left and things are better... and as a parent I feel some sense of survivors guilt that for whatever reasons our school just couldn't handle it without it taking away from everyone else's experience. No kid left behind... but one kid was. Maybe he is better off in a specialized setting where more focused attention can better take care of his needs. I don't know.
I think that more of the school system is better equipped to deal with individual needs outside the norm than at any other point in history... and that is encouraging to see school systems and the teaching profession responding to address special needs.
I think there is plenty of room for improvement to try new approaches, as long as they are building on the science of what has been observed to work well.
Re:Food and shelter? by JeffOwl · 2018-09-17 09:45 · Score: 1

If it was as simple as just make them better, it would have been done. It has been shown over and over that just adding more money doesn't solve the problem until you get to such a ridiculous level that you can't afford to do it at more than a few places. And gradually the bureaucracy takes over to consume the available funds. Thus the "throwing money at them" comment. I don't think anyone has ruled out taking the things learned in this experiment back to public schools to make them better. Well, except maybe the career education bureaucrats. Nobody is talking about letting the guy take over public schools. But I do think it is worth letting others try things differently, especially if they are bringing their own money.
Re:Food and shelter? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-18 01:51 · Score: 0

If he wants to open preschools, that's great, but stick to the current curriculum.
Where did you get the idea that there is a "current curriculum"? We're talking about preschool, not school.

Gotta try it by MobyDisk · 2018-09-17 04:22 · Score: 1

The only way to find out what works is to try things. I find the statement about accountability ironic, because The Gates Foundation is highly data driven. The linked summary there demonstrates it.

Bill Gates has a(nother) plan for K-12 public education. The others didn't go so well, but the man, if anything, is persistent.

Isn't that exactly what you are supposed to do if your first plan doesn't go well? The fact that you know it didn't go well means they are keeping account!

Are private preschool chains really the path we want to pursue, particularly if we believe that access to excellent early childhood education is so incredibly crucial?

New ideas are always tried privately first.

"use the same set of principles that have driven Amazon" might look like, considering Amazon's own labor practices.

That's an ad-hominem attack. If there is a specific problem with the plan, bring it up. In all fairness though, the statement about using the same principles as Amazon is marketing hype. So it's garbage on both sides.

Re:Gotta try it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2018-09-17 16:22 · Score: 1

New ideas are always tried privately first.
That's... just not true. Sure, there is a lot of experimentation in private industry. But there's also a some well done governmental experimentation, and certainly excellent "trying of ideas" in public universities.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!

no accountability in private schools? by micahraleigh · 2018-09-17 04:24 · Score: 0

If a private school fails, the parents can just pull their kids out.

If a public school fails, it means it is doing better than most public schools which are beyond failure and protected by unions and rules against firing teachers.

Yes it is. by houghi · 2018-09-17 04:24 · Score: 5, Informative

The answer is yes.

The bug is that you have an education where help is needed from outside.
The feature is that programs like these can be used as a tax deduction and/or a way to influence.

Having companies have influence in schools is something that is bad, as far as I can see it. When I was young, representatives of TetraPack came to the schools to explain to the kids how their package was better than bottles. Yep, throweing was away better than keeping it.

I was too young to doubt adults, so I believed them. No doubt that many other kids did the same. The goal was that the kids would talk at home how they learned about this great new way of throwing away things was better than old fashioned glass. (Better for the enviroment as well, somehow)

So kids where used directly to influence.

I do not trust companies about the information they give me as an adult. They have been lyinh and cheating enough for me not to trust them. So I certainly not trust them in educating these small humans.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:Yes it is. by warm_warmer · 2018-09-17 04:58 · Score: 0

Still holds up if you change "companies" to "government".

The answer is yes.
The bug is that you have an education where help is needed from outside. The feature is that programs like these can be used as a tax deduction and/or a way to influence.
Having companies have influence in schools is something that is bad, as far as I can see it. When I was young, representatives of TetraPack came to the schools to explain to the kids how their package was better than bottles. Yep, throweing was away better than keeping it.
I was too young to doubt adults, so I believed them. No doubt that many other kids did the same. The goal was that the kids would talk at home how they learned about this great new way of throwing away things was better than old fashioned glass. (Better for the enviroment as well, somehow)
So kids where used directly to influence.
I do not trust companies about the information they give me as an adult. They have been lyinh and cheating enough for me not to trust them. So I certainly not trust them in educating these small humans.
Having government have influence in schools is something that is bad, as far as I can see it. When I was young, representatives of government came to the schools to explain to the kids how the drug war was good for people. Yep, imprisoning drug users was better than allow people to use drugs.

I was too young to doubt adults, so I believed them. No doubt that many other kids did the same. The goal was that the kids would talk at home how they learned about this great new way of performing cavity searches in airports to check for drugs was better than old fashioned allowing people to do what they want. (Better for the enviroment as well, somehow)

So kids where used directly to influence.

I do not trust government about the information they give me as an adult. They have been lyinh and cheating enough for me not to trust them. So I certainly not trust them in educating these small humans.
Re:Yes it is. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:38 · Score: 0

Having companies have influence in schools is something that is bad, as far as I can see it.
Why? At least their agenda is out in the open, rather than those who strictly donate to candidates and PACs.
Re:Yes it is. by jd · 2018-09-17 07:04 · Score: 1

That is why government should fund schools and provide a list of minimal standards at age 18, but otherwise have no say in how they are run. Only governments have the money needed and only governments have the power to ensure education of high quality is available to all regardless of circumstances.
Is this how it is done?
To an extent, yes, in Europe. It needs improving, but they have the right general idea.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Yes it is. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 20:38 · Score: 0

To an extent, yes, in Europe. It needs improving, but they have the right general idea.
Pssst... Never tell Americans how things are done right in Europe. They will do the total opposite just out of spite.

Preschool doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:26 · Score: 0

particularly if we believe that access to excellent early childhood education is so incredibly crucial?

Who actually believes that? Prenatal and early childhood nutrition matter, not being exposed to lead matters, but "excellent early childhood education"?!

Re:Preschool doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:33 · Score: 0

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/0...
Re:Preschool doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:07 · Score: 1

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/early_years/2012/12/head_start_advantages_mostly_gone_by_third_grade_study_finds.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/21/we-have-no-idea-if-universal-preschool-actually-helps-kids/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.97da5f555210
https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/01/preschool_helps_kids_but_how_m.html
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/05/studies-shed-light-on-fleeting-benefits-of-early-childhood-education
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/14/childhood-stimulation-key-brain-development
https://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/want-to-raise-kids-who-thrive-science-says-do-thes.html

student loan 75k at k12 what the hell go masters by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:37 · Score: 0

So you don't get stuck in a 29 h m. Job

Add more income brackets by Atmchicago · 2018-09-17 04:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here are the tax brackets in the US. Why stop at 37% for income greater than $500,000? We could several more brackets, for example:

45% for income greater than $1 million
65% for income greater than $10 million
85% for income greater than $100 million.

Then, maybe we could fund our civic institutions without having to resort to "charity" from billionaires, and in a way which is held accountable. Even more effective, however, would probably be to root out tax evasion and offshore banking.

--

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

Re:Add more income brackets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem is that people with over $1 million annual revenue seldom have "income"... they have at best capital gains... often those are overseas and in tax shelters. Many "buy" things with "loans" which they "default" on by loosing a security (stock or a bond). The have huge cash flows with no tax liability. Magic how that works.
Once you can afford to pay your accounts and lawyers $100k/year, taxes seem to disappear.
Oh, they do pay for lobbying congress and buying local politicians however. That isn't cheap.
Re:Add more income brackets by avandesande · 2018-09-17 04:54 · Score: 2

No shit what does OP think they deposit millions of dollar in their checking account?

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:Add more income brackets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

no wealthy individual pays that 37 percent rate. with deductions, exemptions, loopholes and funneling money overseas, they pay much, much less. less as a percentage of gross income than most with incomes far less.
one high-profile example: warren buffet (who i suspect plays 'by the book' with regards to taxes, with no shady bullshit conjured up by wall street criminals) is noted as saying his secretary pays higher percentage of income to tax than he does. (buffet has also said people like him should pay more)
(and don't forget about capital gains rates. most wealthy get the majority of their 'income' from investments that are taxed at that much lower rate)
Re:Add more income brackets by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 05:41 · Score: 1

Capital gains are taxed once you break $38,600 in income - long or short term capital gains. And for many people, capital gains taxes are at a level about the same as their regular income tax rates.
For overseas income, IF you live exclusively overseas then you MAY get up to your first $97,000 in income tax-free in the US, provided you paid taxes overseas. All income above that rate is taxable in the US, regardless of where you live. So overseas income is still taxable.
And loans that are forgiven are taxable income; if you default on a secured loan and lose stock/assets because of it, then it is considered income and can be subject to income tax (exclusion for the first $500K in home value). Get a loan against $1MM in shares, and default and have to sell those shares to cover the loan? You also have to pay any capital gains taxes due on that sale.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Add more income brackets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:51 · Score: 0

Here's the problem with that: if you ACTUALLY manage to tax those people at those levels they'll find a way to move away from the taxation, either by moving their business to somewhere with more reasonable taxation levels, fraud, or reducing their business to a tax level they're comfortable with. Why work your ass to earn 100 million a year if someone else's going to get the 85%?
BTW, that 85% you're taking away won't even get to where it needs to go. A good chunk will be lost to bureaucracy. Charity is more efficient because if the people giving charity sees the charity doesn't work like they do they switch charity. The state on the other hand RARELY shuts down institutions that don't work as needed.
Re:Add more income brackets by turbidostato · 2018-09-17 06:44 · Score: 2

"Here's the problem with that: if you ACTUALLY manage to tax those people at those levels they'll find a way to move away from the taxation, either by moving their business to somewhere with more reasonable taxation levels, fraud, or reducing their business to a tax level they're comfortable with."
Here's the problem with that: yours is a nice theory. What about hard facts? All along the 50's top tax stayed at 90%. Repeat with me: 90%. Did the rich guys fly to Germany, Australia, Japan, UK...? nope!
More: the year before Ronald Reagan reached White House, top rate still was 70% The news? no richmen rush out of USA.
That's not *if*. These are hard facts.
Re:Add more income brackets by jd · 2018-09-17 07:21 · Score: 1

Why have brackets? Seems stupid and creates anomalies on the boundaries.
Have a function that is asymptotic to both 0 (at the low end) and 60% (at the high end). A single function. Tax the nth dollar/pound/zlotty at the nth point on the curve, excluding benefits.
There are now no discontinuities, you don't have to have a book the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica to do your taxes, and you have an absolute guarantee you don't lose money by getting a raise.
Seems simple.
But won't people leave? Sweden charges 60% for the middle classes and plenty of rich people are moving there. My suggestion would approach 60%, for those earning $54 million or above (and people do get paid that).
Traditionally, this is offset by making the second house in government meritocratic. Those earning that much aught to have merit, so aught to have their stakeholder's say in governance. Someone without merit who earns a lot just pays the tax.
Problem solved?

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Add more income brackets by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 07:23 · Score: 2

If you look at my original post from actual taxpayer data, you will see that the top 1% pay around 27% effective income tax rate; well above any other group of people (for example, the bottom 50% average around 3.5%). As far as Warren Buffet, Buffet does NOT have to take every tax deduction he is legally entitled to, and in fact he can donate even more if he would like. Additionally capital gains are taxed up to 20% rate, so not too much lower than the average income tax rate for the top 1% (who pay a typical income tax rate around 27%).

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Add more income brackets by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-17 07:27 · Score: 1

The average tax load in the 50s, adjusted for inflation, was about half of what it is today. The Federal Government in the 1950s took in about the tax dollars that it does today, per capita and adjusted for inflation. Yes, the nominal tax rates were higher but exemptions and deductions were much higher as well. Effective tax rates are what matter, and we're near our historical peak in the US.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Add more income brackets by cascadingstylesheet · 2018-09-17 07:41 · Score: 1
Here are the tax brackets in the US. Why stop at 37% for income greater than $500,000? We could several more brackets, for example:
1. 45% for income greater than $1 million
2. 65% for income greater than $10 million
3. 85% for income greater than $100 million.
Then, maybe we could fund our civic institutions without having to resort to "charity" from billionaires, and in a way which is held accountable. Even more effective, however, would probably be to root out tax evasion and offshore banking.
Because we tried that before. Didn't work so hot. (ref the Beatles "Taxman")
There aren't enough people that rich to make that much of a difference. And the situation isn't static; they won't keep making taxable income just so you can take it all.
Re:Add more income brackets by Atmchicago · 2018-09-17 07:54 · Score: 1

Why have brackets? ... Have a function that is asymptotic to both 0 (at the low end) and 60% (at the high end).
I actually like this idea (continuous function) a lot, but even though plugging in 1 number into a single equation is a lot simpler, it might actually be easier in practice to amend the laws by just adding a few more discrete brackets. However, I'd argue that a continuous function should be asymptotic to 100%. For example, if you earned a trillion dollars a year, then most of the income in the multi-multi-billion range would be taxed at > 99%. Yes, this is a disincentive to maximize income, and since there's more to life than making obscene amounts of money, that's an acceptable side-effect of this kind of revenue generation.
If the IRS just sends people how much they think should be paid, then we mightn't have to worry about the complexity of making the calculation, either.
However, a lot of people below the poverty line don't even qualify to pay income tax (which, as others have mentioned, doesn't mean they don't pay taxes, just that those taxes are collected in other ways, e.g. sales taxes etc.). It would make sense for the lower bound (0%) to reach this same value. The bureaucratic overhead in taxing poor people's income is just not worth it, especially when they already pay a disproportionate amount of their earnings on taxes anyway.

... and you have an absolute guarantee you don't lose money by getting a raise.
That's already the case. The brackets only charge a higher rate on income in that bracket. If you make $210,000, you only pay 35% on that final $10,000 beyond the $200,000.

--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Re:Add more income brackets by turbidostato · 2018-09-17 18:11 · Score: 2

You are comparing apples to oranges. Yes: today the government gets more per capita than back in the fifties... because it basically didn't collect money but from a minority.
Today it collects much more... and the bulk of it is from middle class earning. Both the top marginal tax -and the effective percentage for people earning more than 200.000 2018 US$ is at an historical minimum -and that's what we were talking about here.
Re:Add more income brackets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 20:26 · Score: 0

[...]and in fact he can donate even more if he would like. [...]
Uhhh... You could donate more too. In fact, everyone could donate 100% of their income and the public debt would be no more very quickly.
That you base so much on rich people being generous to fund someone elses healthcare, education, etc tells me your system is inherently broken. Or at least if you want to be seen as a humane society. If you want to be seen as a "winner-gets-all" society, you have pretty much already nailed it down.
Re:Add more income brackets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 21:12 · Score: 0

Here are the tax brackets in the US. Why stop at 37% for income greater than $500,000? We could several more brackets, for example:
45% for income greater than $1 million
65% for income greater than $10 million
85% for income greater than $100 million.
Then, maybe we could fund our civic institutions without having to resort to "charity" from billionaires, and in a way which is held accountable. Even more effective, however, would probably be to root out tax evasion and offshore banking.
Sure, let's just take money from these super rich people, it's not like they need so much of it, right? They must have done immoral things to get it anyway, right?
You talk about taking away the legacy that people spend lifetimes building up in order to replace charities, but is it really an improvement when you're taking it away from them under the threat of jail time? It's sad that you find it so easy to rationalize taking money away from "those people" that you're dehumanizing, because charities are superior precisely because people enter those social contracts willingly, while the majority of problems in modern society are a result of frivolous government spending, crony capitalism, and government-protected monopolies. These problems won't be cured by giving the government more money to waste on inefficient and mostly ineffective social programs, and furthermore, these people you hope to tax will simply leave the country to protect their fortunes.
Re:Add more income brackets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-18 01:52 · Score: 0

Disagree - one of the most beneficial way to help mankind (presumably what this debate started about) is in fact high tax rates with deductions for "beneficial" investments. We can argue all day whether a particular tax deduction is a beneficial - solar panels, cancer research, donations to the Catholic church, aid to Palestine refugees, aid to Israel, yachts, etc) but the the theory of deductions is soundly base. Unlike the poor, the rich especially those with inherited wealth are excessively risk adverse. That is they are desperately afraid of losing capital so they shun investments that would be are justified on an more objective basis. So the rich need prodding.

Who wrote this? Bezos' PR department? by CustomSolvers2 · 2018-09-17 04:44 · Score: 2

When I firstly saw this, I thought that it was just the typical billionaire's charitable action for the usual reasons (see some of the previous posts to get ideas). After reading "a stark opportunity to be a traitor to his class, to actually think about giving in ways that transform the system atop which he stands", I have changed my mind and started building a big Bezos statute in my own living room. LOL.

--
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.

Seems like more indoctrination by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 04:47 · Score: 0

Hard to say until we see what they are teaching, but I am wary.

Buying a Reputation by nagora · 2018-09-17 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

1: Steal money off people by getting them to pay your share of the tax bill
2: Give some of that money back as a "gift" with your name in big lights.
3: Go back to blackmailing states to not implement minimum wage laws.
4: Count the money!

It's an ancient scam.

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

Re:Buying a Reputation by PPH · 2018-09-17 06:59 · Score: 2

getting them to pay your share of the tax bill
That's not how taxes work. If I do a bit of artful tax planning and manage to pay less, you don't have to pay more. The gov't just has to get by on less.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Buying a Reputation by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:47 · Score: 0

...
Then the Government just makes cuts in spending in order to reign in the budget! ...
Then they balance the budget. ...
And pay off the federal deficit.
Re:Buying a Reputation by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 08:06 · Score: 0

What have you been smoking?
Re:Buying a Reputation by nagora · 2018-09-17 18:22 · Score: 1

getting them to pay your share of the tax bill
That's not how taxes work. If I do a bit of artful tax planning and manage to pay less, you don't have to pay more. The gov't just has to get by on less.
That's quite far from the truth.

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

Looks like by N_Piper · 2018-09-17 04:52 · Score: 1

For all the searching through her Bio and CV and Personal posts couldn't find any evidence Audrey Watters is a parent.
Which doesn't surprise me considering she thinks preschool franchise chains are a new concept or aren't wide spread already.
That said if any of the upper class actually wanted to actually help make a difference they would just DO it and not make a publicity stunt about announcing the consideration of starting discussions about forming a committee to pick a team to asses the idea of starting a preschool.

Just like Bill Gates before him... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:13 · Score: 0

...Bezos is a fucking douche who is only 'giving' now after being shamed into it by the publication of his incredible Scroogeness.
Its also laughable when people refer to Gate's 'philanthropy' now. Wealthiest fucking guy in the world at the time (early 1990's), who didn't give a motherfucking red cent to charity...or anything for that matter.... until it was pointed out in the media.
And even now, Bezos' $2 Billion pledge is like a working stiff with an annual salary of $100k giving $1k. Big fucking whoop... over giving fucking 1%????

You have to be shitting me.

Re:Yes it is. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:18 · Score: 0

Reductio ad absurdum...
Having people have influence in schools is something that is bad, as far as I can see it. When I was young, people came to the schools to explain to the kids how the drug war was good for them. Yep, imprisoning drug users was better than allow people to use drugs.

I was too young to doubt adults, so I believed them. No doubt that many other kids did the same. The goal was that the kids would talk at home how they learned about this great new way of performing cavity searches in airports to check for drugs was better than old fashioned allowing people to do what they want. (Better for the environment as well, somehow)

So kids where used directly to influence.

I do not trust people about the information they give me as an adult. They have been lying and cheating enough for me not to trust them. So I certainly not trust them in educating these small humans.

Headstart may not actually help significantly by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:19 · Score: 0

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/head-start-programs-have-significant-benefits-children-bottom-skill-distribution

"Overall, our study supports the Head Start program in its positive and significant impact on school readiness of preschool children, particularly those at the bottom of the achievement distribution and Spanish speakers. While these gains do decline as children enter elementary school, other research points to gains that appear later in life. Initiatives to change or restrict the Head Start program should consider that it may be supporting poor children in ways that aren’t currently fully understood or documented."

"decline" is too modest - the claimed/measured benefits disappear. Advocates are now looking for benefits that persist.

Maybe other early childhood programs will do better.

However, tiger moms and the like don't ignore the competition - if something works, they'll get in on it AND keep doing what they're doing.

If you don't see tiger moms clamoring to get their kids into a program....

Re:Relative to what? by jellomizer · 2018-09-17 05:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am not disagreeing that their are problems with today's unions. But the real issue is all the political pressure put on teachers.
They have to walk tight ropes around History and the roll of religion, racism, the times we have done bad things and good things, then Science coverage of Evolution, Geology, and now if the earth is even round! They are politicians elected into office and the school board, who have no idea about education and push sweeping changes, trying to cut the budget. There are parents who think they are Mr(s) bigwig and try to fire the Teachers just because their kid isn't as special as they thought, or the kid needed to be punished for their actions.
Unfortunately without the union taking a lot of the political heat for the teachers, we would just see massive turnaround in teachers, just because it would be a matter of time until anyone did something to piss someone off politically or personally.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Child education done by tech companies by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:36 · Score: 0

I for one, would never ever want any child of mine to be educated by Facebook, Amazon etc!
IMHO, they have a LOT to gain (exploit!) from raising humanity's children (especially USA's) in the way(s) they want/need!

Child education done by (ANY) tech companies? Thanx but no thanx (at least for me)!

Lynnfag is an apologist for the richest being bums by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 05:47 · Score: 0

You don't define social security you Putin cock kissing traitor faggot. You are an apologist for the rich paying less of their income to taxes than the poorest, and you should hang from your faggot neck.

Curious... by argStyopa · 2018-09-17 06:00 · Score: 1

...there seems to be a concerted effort in the media to deprecate what's an astonishing act of generosity.

"Oh that? That's only like $1500 to him!" Well, I can tell you, not a lot of people even give $1500, so it's still generous, to say nothing of the fact that money is absolute: his dollars have the potential to do MASSIVE good even though they aren't individually meaningful to him. They're still meaningful and useful to others.

And let's be clear: the wealthy have ALWAYS donated to try to polish their reputation - formerly with god (chapels, monasteries, churches, poorhouses, hospitals, etc) now with the public. If you think the Carnegie Endowment is more than that family trying to wash away the blood of dead steelworkers you haven't paid attention to your history.

Nevertheless, it's still better than them NOT donating.

--
-Styopa

Re:Curious... by jd · 2018-09-17 06:58 · Score: 1

It's not the amount that concerns people. It's the stunning and abysmal failure of for-profit education and the disaster that are academy schools.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Interpratation ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 06:25 · Score: 0

The problem is one of interpretation. Does 0x0000 mean Null or Black.
You can't decide if what Boaz is doing ( Bug or Feature) unless you can first decide WHY you educate people.
Do we education them:
1) To make the 'better' citizens ( define better, better for what, better how, how do you measure it).
2) Do we educate people 'for THIER good' ( define good, why do you think you should decided? Is that why we force it on people).
3) Do we educate people so they can 'make more money' , 'be more productive' for US, for 'society'. Should 'we the people' control the destiny of other 'citizens' especially when we the people invariably means a small minority of elected officials?

The western education system was founded by the catholic monks in the middle ages, public education became an important thing so that 'Every man could read and interpret the bible for themselves' as was the ideal of Protestantism. Until the 1930 education was viewed as existing for the 'betterment of the individual, mind, body and soul' and as such an important universal right due to 'all those who are images of God'. Since the 1940's and especially since the 1960's education has been in an identity crisis, with some groups even within education view school as a proper way to control what people think and do.
The what , why , when and how of education are all being quickly remade and technology has stepped in to make it easier for a person to learn nearly any skill, without the necessity of an 'expert' to teach you.

As I society we need to do some serious 'soul searching' as to why we try mostly unsuccessfully to force people to learn things they are interested in learning. How can we be more effective and teaching those who do want to learn, and documenting people abilities so they can be safely marketed.

Or just create money and give it to people. by bigpat · 2018-09-17 06:25 · Score: 1

The US Federal Reserve can create as much money as the US Treasury needs to borrow and is obligated to buy US Treasury bonds from the US Federal government as a buyer of last resort... meaning unlimited money with the "cost" of free money being the potential for inflation, especially on imported goods.

And before people get all snippy with me... that is exactly what the Federal Government has been doing up to hundreds of billions of dollars or even a trillion dollars each year for a period of time without raising taxes on anyone. Just tapping the Federal Reserve and almost never borrowing less than is needed to pay back the Federal Reserve.

0 on the Federal budget for all practical purposes is somewhere in the range of a $300 to $400 billion deficit. If we run less than that deficit then we risk taking a net amount of money out of the economy as most of it would go back to the Federal Reserve.

As we come to rely on imports less and less it might make more and more sense to inflate our way out of debt. And a good equitable way to do that would be to just start giving people money as tax refunds or higher deductions or even giving people money as a Universal Basic Income.

I am a big believer in the power of free market capitalism to create an efficient non-crony economy... but in order to have demand in a market you need to have the ability to pay for goods and services. As the value of many people's labor has fallen below the cost of living in America we face a fundamentally broken free market moving forward that relies a great deal on government subsidies. And will more so in the future. It is way too late to worry about paying back the Federal Debt, might as well embrace that fact, understand the societal impact and make the best of an economic situation where we have a big enough economy to be able to manage the downsides of inflation.

Re:student loan 75k at k12 what the hell go master by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 06:36 · Score: 0

I'm wondering why I haven' read of the SJW class calling out Bezos over the fact that with $2 billion he could easily increase wages of his homeless employees enough to allow them to get into an apartment.

Maybe because he owns the Washington Post and that is one of the primary opposition outlets against Trump?

Hypocrites, anyone?

Education is essential. by jd · 2018-09-17 06:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

It is vital to produce better workers, yes, but it's also vital to improving life expectancy (polyglots are resistant to dementia, for example), improving democracy and preventing blind subservience promotions.

An educated person can walk through the woods and know what is safe to eat. Yes, bushcraft is education. Those who think otherwise restrict education in order to create a category they can hate. I say can, because education isn't restrictive. Education is anything that shines a light on the ignorance and turns it to understanding.

An educated person has the skills to learn any new skill they so choose, for their own use or any other.

Education can never be achieved through for-profit schools. Their focus is on maximizing income, not learning.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:Relative to what? by jd · 2018-09-17 07:09 · Score: 1

Unions are why you know how to type and aren't dying from a lung disease acquired down a mine.

Technology has moved on, yes, but it wasn't moved on by industry. It was moved on by the democratization of knowledge.

If you get health benefits (probable in the U.S.), remember that unions started off as health insurance brokers who made money by reducing accidents at work. So your health insurance is really from a (traditional) union.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Half-Lying with Statistics by Tablizer · 2018-09-17 07:11 · Score: 1

There are generally 4 kinds of taxes that affect billionaires or their families directly:

1. Personal income tax
2. Capital gains tax (stocks)
3. Inheritance tax
4. Sales tax

Sometimes various statistics exclude one or more, often to mislead the reader. Therefore, one has to check to make sure all are considered.

--
Table-ized A.I.

The cool thing about the interent by rsilvergun · 2018-09-17 07:12 · Score: 1

is that Wikipedia has articles on just about everything.

As for what I would change, bring back the 90% marginal tax rate on income over $21 million a year, make stock buybacks illegal again (Reagan legalized them in the 80s leading to CEOs paid in stock so they could use lower capital gains to dodge higher income, that wouldn't work if you couldn't pump & dump).

Money is power. We're letting too few people have too much power. To counterbalance the government getting some of that power make voting mandatory to end voter suppression and use basic mathematical algorithms to end Gerrymandering. Once that's done do away with the Senate and Electoral college and replace them with a parliamentary system.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

It's a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-17 07:23 · Score: 0

Its what wealthy people do yo think good about themselves anderen a way to counter balance their wrongdoings or unethical practices.

Example: NestlÃ© steals water from some people, later they make people buying their products to give 50 cents for their own phylantropic company.

Remember: Just because is a non-profit doesn't mean their employees can't get 90% of their income... Like The Red Cross did in Haiti.

Bezos doesn't care about the homeless by oh_my_080980980 · 2018-09-17 07:42 · Score: 2

If he did he wouldn't have opposed Seattle's small tax to help the homeless. https://www.vanityfair.com/new...

Re:Bezos doesn't care about the homeless by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-18 03:13 · Score: 0

So anyone who opposes a specific proposed solution to problem X doesn't care about problem X?

Public education has no accountability either by bkedersha · 2018-09-17 08:54 · Score: 0

The current educational - industrial complex has zero accountability to its students and parents

Victorian Factory Owner by Roger+W+Moore · 2018-09-17 09:00 · Score: 1

In fairness, all that stuff is only half on him...

You are missing a part though that is entirely on him. If he wants to really help low-income people a good place to start would be by paying his employees a living wage instead of a minimum wage. His attitude smacks of the old Victorian factory owners in the UK who would make tons of money off the back of their workers while paying them a pittance and would then turn around with their profits and fund "charitable" initiatives e.g. decent housing which came with additional requirements such as no drinking, regular church attendance etc. to get them to behave as the factory owner thought they should behave.

Strategic philanthropy by KingAlanI · 2018-09-17 09:43 · Score: 1

Charity related to the business, seems like a win win
Tech companies funding education seems like a prime example
Grocery stores supplying food banks or sports teams promoting physical fitness programs also fit the concept.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.

You can't undermine your power by Karmashock · 2018-09-17 10:55 · Score: 1

The issue with giving to the point where you render yourself impotent is that you've rendered yourself irrelevant.

Now what comes after you might carry on the good work or whatever but they may not. in fact, what comes after may totally subvert everything you were trying to do.

But you can't stop it once that happens because you started by rendering yourself impotent.

If Bezos is a good guy... theoretically... then you want him to retain power. If he's a bad guy then he's not going to give up his power.

You see? The good cannot afford to give up their power and the evil are not inclined to do it.

Now you can create something perhaps that you give your power to that you are sure will be better at carrying on the torch than you.

But that is very hard. Typically such ventures fail unless very carefully designed. It typically requires hard coded, psychologically and politically wise rules set up in the organization that anticipate corruptions and block them off at the spore level.

Even then, such organizations are only resistant. We've never made something that was immune. At best what we can make is something that lasts a few hundred years before it starts showing extreme signs of infection.

The best and most sustainable systems are the most cynical ones because they accept the unavoidability of corruption and the need for various organizations to die simply to recreate them fresh.

It is what we see in life. To last in time you have to base your legacy on replication and adaptability.

The problem with most of these "think of the weak and helpless" movements is that they're not adaptable. Yes, a wealthy society can afford to spend large sums of money giving a high quality of life to many people that cannot earn that money in the open market.

However, that can't be the touch stone of the society because the ability to help people is first founded on the wealth which is required to help those people.

If you undermine the systems that generate the wealth then the wealth will not be there to be dispensed.

Here some will say, the money needed to help people will be less in a more equal society because there will be less hording of resources.

This position has been empirically contradicted many times by various societies that have put this principle into practice. If you eat the golden goose... there are no more golden eggs.

Does that mean that any level of extreme class stratification is good? No. But inequality is good. Because how else do you encourage and discourage behavior in the market? The unequal earnings are a all the market has to persuade people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.

Who wants to go into a coal mine or cut down trees for lumber or harvest fish for the market? Who wants to do insurance adjusting or QA for spaghetti code?

We have to pay people.

Now you could say that "people will do these things out of community solidarity and brotherly love"... but even in the soviet union that didn't work. People that did more in demand jobs had to be given special perks to reward them for doing things.

This dream of the totally equal society is silly. I know a lot of people are religiously invested in it... but it is a stupid religion that needs to stop.

What we all care about is the best life we can have for ourselves and our families. The blend of ideological and moral paradigms that keep advocating for an end to meritocracy and inequality on the basis of contribution to the logistical system... it is all toxic.

We've known it was a stupid idea at least since Jamestown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Let it die.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

FIGHT THE SYSTEM by JBMcB · 2018-09-17 11:07 · Score: 1

No one is going to tell ME where I can deposit my urine, MAN!

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

Re:Lynnfag is an apologist for the richest being b by Shalhav · 2018-09-18 11:08 · Score: 1

Hate filled. Devoid of facts. Wrong in the only verifiable claim you made.

Slashdot Mirror

Is Tech Billionaires' Educational Philanthropy a Bug Or a Feature?

154 comments