I already stated specifically not an IT company... despite the lives slashdotters live, there's far more non-IT companies than IT companies. The company that cuts my grass doesn't have to give me documents in word format, they just use computers for resource allocation, scheduling, and billing and other accounting.
The people that maintain my furnace and air conditioner don't need to give me computer documents, either. Neither do the painters nor the other home repair people - these are the bulk of small businesses. Even a retailer only needs to keep track of stock and accounting... a closed system.
The vast, vast majority of small (and large) businesses have nothing to do supplying IT, they just use it.
I wouldn't say 80% income tax on the top tier is unreasonable.
And that's why I'll never agree with you.
Personally if I did earn that much I wouldn't mind paying more.
Something oft recited by people who don't "earn that much."
Anyway, back to the original point, rich people don't even pay proportionately more.
Actually, yes they do. 47% of the income earners in the U.S. pay NO federal income taxes. If the wealthy aren't taking up the slack, who is?
The top 1% make 20% of the money and pay nearly 40% of the taxes. Your assertion that they simply "avoid" taxes is crazy - completely narrow minded focusing in on some tiny fraction that avoid taxes but get the most press because of it.
Your position seems to me to not just be "fairness" in taxation, but punitive.
We still have to learn how it works, and integrate it into the system we're deploying.
I promise you that in my situation, I would save a LOT of money by solely using Linux instead of Windows; in my own home, we save a lot of money on our four computers by people using OpenOffice.
The stupidness of this "learning" argument are only that people learn how to use MS products, and so it's not necessarily that OS products are more difficult to learn or use, it's that people already know MS, and the OS software is not better or worse or harder or easier... it's just "different."
It's a terrible chicken/egg argument, but unfortunately is valid in a large company that already has a large IT infrastructure based around MS products.
If I were starting a NEW company (let's say not an IT company, just any company), I would use an OS solution for a HUGE number of reasons that are not limited to mere upfront costs - for one thing, you are much less prone to disruptions from viruses. For another, it's harder for most people to install junk programs on your work computers. Another plus is that a Linux solution scales as your company grows with little extra expense, while MS requires higher licensing fees for more users.
So I'm not just going to go off and be an OS "fanboy," I can see the merit in the argument... but I disagree that in the long term your costs would be higher - it would seem training costs would be more of an upfront cost and that new employees would be trained slowly but surely by existing employees over time, with the occasional class or two on software packages - this is exactly the same as it is where I work and they use MS and Windows based products almost entirely.
As a developer (mostly intranet web apps) I get to pick what I use - and I use Linux and cost the company nothing extra on top of hardware costs. In fact, most of my servers are repurposed high-powered desktops (formerly used by 3D artists) that are more than good enough for any tasks I throw at them.
No, because you're not breaking anything just so you can pay to fix it - it's money that's going to be spent either way, and when you spend it "locally," you get the advantage of the software being tailored to meet your needs at no extra cost (assuming, in the example, you're paying $75k either way).
I see... despite the fact that under the current scheme (and my suggested scheme) that wealthy people would pay a lot more in taxes, and the more ostentatiously they live the more they'd pay, that's still not good enough.
I have a question... this has nothing to do with taxes. Where I work we are fortunate enough to have a selection of health insurance plans. However, both the premium and deductibles are scaled with pay level.
Do you think it's "fair" that someone pays twice as much as someone else for less (because of the higher deductible) because they make twice as much money?
Do you think someone who makes twice as someone else should pay twice as much for gasoline?
Let's start with a basic one: rich people should pay more tax than middle class or poor people.
They do and they still will, nothing I said changes that - I included car registrations, for example, and wealthy people (again, electric vehicles notwithstanding) by more expensive vehicles = higher registration prices (in my state, for example, we pay an ad valorem tax based on vehicle value). And as far as homes go, you've got the tax structure completely wrong.
It doesn't matter who owns the property, the property has a value and taxes are paid on the value by whomever owns it, there are no "deductions," (there may deduction on income taxes, but that's why we should have a consumption tax instead). And again, if someone owns multiple homes they pay multiple property taxes.... you don't get deductions on property taxes (you may get some exemptions for a primary residence, but you're still paying MORE for your primary residence if you live in a more expensive home than someone else).
The house is empty most of the time and there are fewer people living in the town which brings its own economic problems.
But the owner is still paying property taxes even though he's not using the services they're paying for - a BONUS for the town.
Frankly, your counterargument makes little sense. You seem to me to be conflating property taxes and income taxes. While I think what's "fair" is that people pay for what they use, if you insisted you could have tiered property taxes, too. We're not talking about existing tax law, we're talking about something new.
The way I see it, your problem is you think some rich guy will hoard his money, live in a hovel and buy 10 year junker cars to avoid paying taxes... I think you're sadly mistaken. In fact, I advocated a consumption tax, and while I gave examples of gasoline and property taxes, I didn't say it ended there. If someone hoards their money, they've wasted their lives earning it. At some point, when they die, it goes to someone else... and at some point, it's used to consume something.
If you honestly think rich guy will not buy a boat for 25% more in exchange for paying no income taxes on 100% of his income, I want some of what you're smoking.
I already said that... if you indirectly use the roads, you indirectly pay for them - shipping/mail would be the most obvious case. The more you use them (directly or indirectly), ultimately the more you'd pay.
Again, how is that not fair?
As far as your complaint (it seems from your context) that you'd be paying through hundreds of channels instead of one, this is no different than the current state of taxation anyway. Where do you think businesses get the money to pay for payroll taxes? Corporate income taxes? They get it from you - the customer, directly or indirectly. You already pay (in the U.S.) an average embedded tax of around 21% on every good and service you buy already.
Well, I don't agree entirely with your post, but I think there is some merit.
It's a good case in favor of consumption taxes instead of income taxes, and legislation requiring taxes collected in one area can ONLY be used in that area.
Yes, I like roads - roads should be paid for solely through gasoline and vehicle registration taxes, and those tax revenues should not be allowed to be used on anything but transportation infrastructure. After all, the more you use the road (and the larger the vehicle), the more you pay in taxes. How would that not be "fair?" I realize this may need adjustment for the advent of electric vehicles, but the premise is still sound.
Yes, I like having police and fire protection... property taxes should entirely pay for both; after all, the more you have to protect, and the more valuable it is, the more you pay for the protection - much like homeowners insurance.
And again "yes," everybody would pay these taxes, no exemptions (because that where you get people braking the rules). If mail and package delivery costs more, so be it - it costs what it costs. By utilizing delivery services you are indirectly using the roads and therefore indirectly paying for it. That's how it should be.
Consumer Reports says it based on surveys of Consumer Reports subscribers... below average problems and exemplary customer service, and I say that as someone who likes Apples but doesn't own one because I do believe they're overpriced (of course, I generally roll my own new systems for a few hundred bucks, so I'm just generally cheap).
Wow... just skipped right past everything else (where I was discussing how the best alternative is competition) to whine about the 1/100th of the people in the U.S. who have no competition in their market...
The solution the government should pursue is that of encouraging more competition; creating market conditions that make competition attractive.
Good point... and you can't legislate chaos into order. The world is a chaotic place. People desire order, so they allow their governing bodies to regulate it until the point the people don't like it. The problem is that every person is willing to accept a differing amount of compromise, and no one will ever agree when enough is enough.
I agree... I want the net to be wide open, but I'd rather have it through competition; the government needs to stick to regulations making sure that healthy competition exists (anti-monopoly and price collusion, for example).
I don't like mandates like the ones proposed.
The companies that are affected could be more vocal to their customers, for example. Netflix should rightfully be telling it's customers that recent problems may have been due to Comcast interfering with the transmission instead of paying Comcast's extortion, and ought to promote providers that don't throttle ("We recommend....")
It's true most people will stick with whatever they have because of attractive prices on bundled services or because of long term contracts, but that just makes things move more slowly, it doesn't prevent positive change from happening.
Yeah, I'd say it's mostly kids... kids who have no respect for other people's property. I'm not particularly religious, but I don't trash religion in front of my kids... I'm a live and let live kind of person; but children who have no respect and grow up in households where angry dad continuously trashes religion is a recipe for this kind of behavior.
And unlike the AC who responded, the fact is that if you are brought up to be a good Christian, you respect other religions; if you are brought up to be a good Jew, you respect other religions... only a complete moron thinks every church preaches hate against all other forms of worship.
It's the same down South. As a matter of fact, back in 2008, someone wrote to the editor of the Economist saying how they liked Sarah because "she is just like me."
She's a witch? Oh... wrong one, sorry.
To write Palin off as a "nut" or as "unelectable" would be a mistake. I see a lot of Democrats hoping that Palin runs in '12 - they should be careful of what they wish for.
Of course underestimating people is generally a stupid idea... I am surprised (I live in the south, too) at how many people think she should run.
I do, however, think she is unelectable (and I'm neither a democrat nor republican).
I agree... as both a comcast and netflix subscriber, I would likely have just gone to AT&T for DSL (I have a few other options, though). I have no annual contract and I'm essentially just using comcast for internet anyway.
But being a fat, lazy bastard, if they're going to pay, then I don't need to do anything.
All these anecdotal stories are great, here's mine: when I lived in an apartment about ten years ago, someone came and cut a square out of the screens on my porch, about 1 foot by 1 foot. I called the landlord who said he wouldn't fix it without a police report. I called the police, they showed up and took a report without complaining I was wasting their time.
I've been hit from behind twice while in heavy traffic. Both times there wasn't enough damage to even consider wasting my time getting it fixed. Both times an officer showed up and never complained about having to take a report.
One time my adult brother was having an argument with my mom and threw a roll of pennies across the room, which ended up going all over the place. I asked him to leave and he refused, so I called the police. They showed up and made a report and asked him to leave (I suspect the only reason he didn't was because he didn't think I'd actually called). That wasn't even in the same state as the things I described above.
So I love all these coworker stories and friends and friends of friends... most of whom were probably at fault and didn't want to admit it, or were quite possibly the ones who, in a hurry, said "just forget about it."
Still, for every anecdote you guys come up with, I can come up with another where the police were courteous, respectful, and came and did their jobs without complaining about it.
What I think is you guys watch too much TV. The police are, by and large, courteous, respectful, patient, and don't whine because you ask them to take a report. I'm 43, I've lived long term in 3 different states, and short term in several others, and while there are jerk police out there, they are the minority.
Well what exactly do you want them to do? Is the government supposed to supply everyone with a body guard?
As for not taking a police report because of lack of insurance, I find the claim dubious. While I don't doubt it very well was a likely waste of time (again, what exactly do you want them to do?), they certainly keep a database of stolen goods in the event they DO catch someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait... so there's no layout software on OS platforms?
There's no compatibility at all between doc formats? Where have you been the last decade?
Despite understanding a lot of the impossibility of many of the premises, I still like it.
I already stated specifically not an IT company... despite the lives slashdotters live, there's far more non-IT companies than IT companies. The company that cuts my grass doesn't have to give me documents in word format, they just use computers for resource allocation, scheduling, and billing and other accounting.
The people that maintain my furnace and air conditioner don't need to give me computer documents, either. Neither do the painters nor the other home repair people - these are the bulk of small businesses. Even a retailer only needs to keep track of stock and accounting... a closed system.
The vast, vast majority of small (and large) businesses have nothing to do supplying IT, they just use it.
I wouldn't say 80% income tax on the top tier is unreasonable.
And that's why I'll never agree with you.
Personally if I did earn that much I wouldn't mind paying more.
Something oft recited by people who don't "earn that much."
Anyway, back to the original point, rich people don't even pay proportionately more.
Actually, yes they do. 47% of the income earners in the U.S. pay NO federal income taxes. If the wealthy aren't taking up the slack, who is?
The top 1% make 20% of the money and pay nearly 40% of the taxes. Your assertion that they simply "avoid" taxes is crazy - completely narrow minded focusing in on some tiny fraction that avoid taxes but get the most press because of it.
Your position seems to me to not just be "fairness" in taxation, but punitive.
We still have to learn how it works, and integrate it into the system we're deploying.
I promise you that in my situation, I would save a LOT of money by solely using Linux instead of Windows; in my own home, we save a lot of money on our four computers by people using OpenOffice.
The stupidness of this "learning" argument are only that people learn how to use MS products, and so it's not necessarily that OS products are more difficult to learn or use, it's that people already know MS, and the OS software is not better or worse or harder or easier... it's just "different."
It's a terrible chicken/egg argument, but unfortunately is valid in a large company that already has a large IT infrastructure based around MS products.
If I were starting a NEW company (let's say not an IT company, just any company), I would use an OS solution for a HUGE number of reasons that are not limited to mere upfront costs - for one thing, you are much less prone to disruptions from viruses. For another, it's harder for most people to install junk programs on your work computers. Another plus is that a Linux solution scales as your company grows with little extra expense, while MS requires higher licensing fees for more users.
So I'm not just going to go off and be an OS "fanboy," I can see the merit in the argument... but I disagree that in the long term your costs would be higher - it would seem training costs would be more of an upfront cost and that new employees would be trained slowly but surely by existing employees over time, with the occasional class or two on software packages - this is exactly the same as it is where I work and they use MS and Windows based products almost entirely.
As a developer (mostly intranet web apps) I get to pick what I use - and I use Linux and cost the company nothing extra on top of hardware costs. In fact, most of my servers are repurposed high-powered desktops (formerly used by 3D artists) that are more than good enough for any tasks I throw at them.
No, because you're not breaking anything just so you can pay to fix it - it's money that's going to be spent either way, and when you spend it "locally," you get the advantage of the software being tailored to meet your needs at no extra cost (assuming, in the example, you're paying $75k either way).
I see... despite the fact that under the current scheme (and my suggested scheme) that wealthy people would pay a lot more in taxes, and the more ostentatiously they live the more they'd pay, that's still not good enough.
I have a question... this has nothing to do with taxes. Where I work we are fortunate enough to have a selection of health insurance plans. However, both the premium and deductibles are scaled with pay level.
Do you think it's "fair" that someone pays twice as much as someone else for less (because of the higher deductible) because they make twice as much money?
Do you think someone who makes twice as someone else should pay twice as much for gasoline?
Let's start with a basic one: rich people should pay more tax than middle class or poor people.
They do and they still will, nothing I said changes that - I included car registrations, for example, and wealthy people (again, electric vehicles notwithstanding) by more expensive vehicles = higher registration prices (in my state, for example, we pay an ad valorem tax based on vehicle value). And as far as homes go, you've got the tax structure completely wrong.
It doesn't matter who owns the property, the property has a value and taxes are paid on the value by whomever owns it, there are no "deductions," (there may deduction on income taxes, but that's why we should have a consumption tax instead). And again, if someone owns multiple homes they pay multiple property taxes.... you don't get deductions on property taxes (you may get some exemptions for a primary residence, but you're still paying MORE for your primary residence if you live in a more expensive home than someone else).
The house is empty most of the time and there are fewer people living in the town which brings its own economic problems.
But the owner is still paying property taxes even though he's not using the services they're paying for - a BONUS for the town.
Frankly, your counterargument makes little sense. You seem to me to be conflating property taxes and income taxes. While I think what's "fair" is that people pay for what they use, if you insisted you could have tiered property taxes, too. We're not talking about existing tax law, we're talking about something new.
The way I see it, your problem is you think some rich guy will hoard his money, live in a hovel and buy 10 year junker cars to avoid paying taxes... I think you're sadly mistaken. In fact, I advocated a consumption tax, and while I gave examples of gasoline and property taxes, I didn't say it ended there. If someone hoards their money, they've wasted their lives earning it. At some point, when they die, it goes to someone else... and at some point, it's used to consume something.
If you honestly think rich guy will not buy a boat for 25% more in exchange for paying no income taxes on 100% of his income, I want some of what you're smoking.
I already said that... if you indirectly use the roads, you indirectly pay for them - shipping/mail would be the most obvious case. The more you use them (directly or indirectly), ultimately the more you'd pay.
Again, how is that not fair?
As far as your complaint (it seems from your context) that you'd be paying through hundreds of channels instead of one, this is no different than the current state of taxation anyway. Where do you think businesses get the money to pay for payroll taxes? Corporate income taxes? They get it from you - the customer, directly or indirectly. You already pay (in the U.S.) an average embedded tax of around 21% on every good and service you buy already.
Well, I don't agree entirely with your post, but I think there is some merit.
It's a good case in favor of consumption taxes instead of income taxes, and legislation requiring taxes collected in one area can ONLY be used in that area.
Yes, I like roads - roads should be paid for solely through gasoline and vehicle registration taxes, and those tax revenues should not be allowed to be used on anything but transportation infrastructure. After all, the more you use the road (and the larger the vehicle), the more you pay in taxes. How would that not be "fair?" I realize this may need adjustment for the advent of electric vehicles, but the premise is still sound.
Yes, I like having police and fire protection... property taxes should entirely pay for both; after all, the more you have to protect, and the more valuable it is, the more you pay for the protection - much like homeowners insurance.
And again "yes," everybody would pay these taxes, no exemptions (because that where you get people braking the rules). If mail and package delivery costs more, so be it - it costs what it costs. By utilizing delivery services you are indirectly using the roads and therefore indirectly paying for it. That's how it should be.
Consumer Reports says it based on surveys of Consumer Reports subscribers... below average problems and exemplary customer service, and I say that as someone who likes Apples but doesn't own one because I do believe they're overpriced (of course, I generally roll my own new systems for a few hundred bucks, so I'm just generally cheap).
Wow... just skipped right past everything else (where I was discussing how the best alternative is competition) to whine about the 1/100th of the people in the U.S. who have no competition in their market...
The solution the government should pursue is that of encouraging more competition; creating market conditions that make competition attractive.
There's no utopia thing. People don't learn.
Good point... and you can't legislate chaos into order. The world is a chaotic place. People desire order, so they allow their governing bodies to regulate it until the point the people don't like it. The problem is that every person is willing to accept a differing amount of compromise, and no one will ever agree when enough is enough.
I agree... I want the net to be wide open, but I'd rather have it through competition; the government needs to stick to regulations making sure that healthy competition exists (anti-monopoly and price collusion, for example).
I don't like mandates like the ones proposed.
The companies that are affected could be more vocal to their customers, for example. Netflix should rightfully be telling it's customers that recent problems may have been due to Comcast interfering with the transmission instead of paying Comcast's extortion, and ought to promote providers that don't throttle ("We recommend ....")
It's true most people will stick with whatever they have because of attractive prices on bundled services or because of long term contracts, but that just makes things move more slowly, it doesn't prevent positive change from happening.
Of course it's a scam; it's a misuse and abuse of the system for something it wasn't intended for and paid for with taxpayer (my) money.
Tell your friends an anonymous online acquaintance gives them a hardy FUCK YOU.
That's why my non-union work place switched from sick days/vacation days to just PTO (paid time off), because "help me, help me, I'm being oppressed!"
Yeah, I'd say it's mostly kids... kids who have no respect for other people's property. I'm not particularly religious, but I don't trash religion in front of my kids... I'm a live and let live kind of person; but children who have no respect and grow up in households where angry dad continuously trashes religion is a recipe for this kind of behavior.
And unlike the AC who responded, the fact is that if you are brought up to be a good Christian, you respect other religions; if you are brought up to be a good Jew, you respect other religions... only a complete moron thinks every church preaches hate against all other forms of worship.
Most are conservatives... just not "staunch republicans."
I guess I've only lived there 15+ years... and where I work is mostly people from somewhere else.
She's a witch? Oh... wrong one, sorry.
Of course underestimating people is generally a stupid idea... I am surprised (I live in the south, too) at how many people think she should run.
I do, however, think she is unelectable (and I'm neither a democrat nor republican).
I agree... as both a comcast and netflix subscriber, I would likely have just gone to AT&T for DSL (I have a few other options, though). I have no annual contract and I'm essentially just using comcast for internet anyway.
But being a fat, lazy bastard, if they're going to pay, then I don't need to do anything.
Yes, fine, do you really think they do that on purpose? You think they put you on hold and then giggle about the guy on hold?
The anger towards the police is almost wholly displaced.
All these anecdotal stories are great, here's mine: when I lived in an apartment about ten years ago, someone came and cut a square out of the screens on my porch, about 1 foot by 1 foot. I called the landlord who said he wouldn't fix it without a police report. I called the police, they showed up and took a report without complaining I was wasting their time.
I've been hit from behind twice while in heavy traffic. Both times there wasn't enough damage to even consider wasting my time getting it fixed. Both times an officer showed up and never complained about having to take a report.
One time my adult brother was having an argument with my mom and threw a roll of pennies across the room, which ended up going all over the place. I asked him to leave and he refused, so I called the police. They showed up and made a report and asked him to leave (I suspect the only reason he didn't was because he didn't think I'd actually called). That wasn't even in the same state as the things I described above.
So I love all these coworker stories and friends and friends of friends... most of whom were probably at fault and didn't want to admit it, or were quite possibly the ones who, in a hurry, said "just forget about it."
Still, for every anecdote you guys come up with, I can come up with another where the police were courteous, respectful, and came and did their jobs without complaining about it.
What I think is you guys watch too much TV. The police are, by and large, courteous, respectful, patient, and don't whine because you ask them to take a report. I'm 43, I've lived long term in 3 different states, and short term in several others, and while there are jerk police out there, they are the minority.
How does that "protect" you?
Well what exactly do you want them to do? Is the government supposed to supply everyone with a body guard?
As for not taking a police report because of lack of insurance, I find the claim dubious. While I don't doubt it very well was a likely waste of time (again, what exactly do you want them to do?), they certainly keep a database of stolen goods in the event they DO catch someone.