"Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech."*
"Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all."*
"Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public."*
*Disclaimer: The above is only applicable if your view and opinions are only the ones we approve.
I personally disagree with Mr. Eich, but I find it worrying that we are at a point where it has become acceptable to punish someone for a belief, without any action on his part. He clearly stated he wasn't changing Mozilla policy in anyway and would not seek to do anything that would alter the employment of anyone. This guy is basically being burnt at the stake because other employees are mad he doesn't share *their* view... How inclusive and diverse is that mentality?
It's because of idiots like this that we can't have nice toys. Guns get banned and people who buy them get looked on with suspicion. All because a few morons misuse them.
How about we punish the idiots, and let the rest of us have our toys?
Our culture celebrates those that came to money all on their own, and generally keeps quiet about the sad fact that they are a small minority. Most people classified as rich either inherit or marry into money. As a result, their motivation to work is typically of the level of "minimal needed to keep the money coming and keep relatives satisfied".
That is actually incorrect. Only 16% of millionaires inherited their fortune, the vast majority (the overwhelming portion actually) are self made, as others commenting here have already stated. 23% alone became that way from being paid professionals, and I highly doubt they were compensated so well for doing the 'minimum'. Anyway... I just wanted to be factually correct here, as many won't believe me and I am certain to be modded into oblivion, but nonetheless here is a reference:
The Economist: A special report on global leaders, More millionaires than Australians, 20 January 2011, pp. 4–7.
Our culture celebrates those that came to money all on their own, and generally keeps quiet about the sad fact that they are a small minority. Most people classified as rich either inherit or marry into money. As a result, their motivation to work is typically of the level of "minimal needed to keep the money coming and keep relatives satisfied".
That is actually incorrect. Only 16% of millionaires inherited their fortune, the vast majority (the overwhelming portion actually) are self made. 23% alone got that way through paid work as professionals, and I don't think they were compensated that way for just doing the 'minimum'. Don't believe me, check the research, here is one example:
The Economist: A special report on global leaders, More millionaires than Australians, 20 January 2011, pp. 4–7.
When Obama was elected I remember so many people talking about how soon we were going to be out of these wars. I for one thought the sooner the better, but I took a more pragmatic approach. I always thought Obama would be the partisan figurehead he has turned out to be, and would wait to do anything meaningful in an attempt to win re-election.
Now he finally gets around to withdrawing troops, towards the end of his first term, when it serves him best politically. I am really appreciating that change we got, he definitely breaks the mold of a politician!
I guess I should say I don't want to start a generational fight, or really get flamed a lot. I am just simply trying to state a simple observation. A system like Social Security is entirely dependent on the number of contributors always being much greater than the number of recipients. A system like this can never work, at least not in the long run. It is never going to be easy for a workforce to support the retirement of a previous workforce of about it's own size, no matter how many ways to play with the numbers.
I for one will never see any SS payments even though I pay in. Do I really care? No, not really. I will just plan my future and retirement accordingly. I hope to retire off personal investments and my own (hopefully good) business decisions over the years, as I don't want to depend on a government for my needs. However, that said, I do not fault anyone who wants to, or will depend on a SS type system. I would just say to not be surprised if things don't always work out as planned.
There is also the problem that arises from the number of people contributing vs. the number withdrawing from SS. You have lightly touched on it, but It probably needs to be explicitly stated. It was easy to run Social Security when the Baby Boomers, who drastically outnumbered their parents, contributed to Social Security to support a limited number of recipients. ie: Social Security will work when there are 5 baby boomers paying in for each one of their parents withdrawing. (These numbers are a fictional example, don't take them as fact). One of the problems arising today is the population is not swelling at a rate to maintain that status quo. It becomes increasingly difficult to to support the retirement of an individual when the ratio of contributor to recipient approaches 1:1. The only way for a Social Security system to work and have a minimal impact on the job force is to have exponential population growth. I doubt that is something to many of us want these days. There are already enough people on this planet as it is.
He is forgetting FICA and all the other taxes. You would no longer have state income tax, social security taxes, medicare/medicaid taxes, property tax, car tag taxes.
Factor those into his numbers above, and you will see the Fairtax saves you money.
Sorry, you are right. Probably not the best response to name calling, with name calling. Unfortunately, I cannot edit my post.
I wish this individual would just simply peruse the relevant documentation before commenting to see that what he is arguing for, does not happen under the proposed system.
Poverty guidelines differ by state, but you are right, at a minimum is 10,830. You also forget though, that if you make above the poverty limit, you still get a refund up to the poverty limit for that share of your income.
So while you would pay 23% of your income, you would get a refund on the first $10,830.
Lets say for example, you made $30,000.
$30,000 x.23 = $6,900 in taxes
$2490.90 refund up to poverty limit.
Total taxes - refund, so 6,900 - 2490.90 = 4409.10
Your yearly tax burden would be $4409.10, assuming you spent every single penny you earned.
Thats effectively a 14.697% tax rate. Is that more than you currently pay in taxes? Does that cost you more than the current system?
Remember you are only taxed on what you spend, not what you save, so any savings would be untaxed. So if you save any of that 30,000 your tax burden would be even lower. If you made less than 30,000 then your tax burden % would also be lower.
The refund is the exact percentage of the tax rate. There is no way to whittle it away to nothing.
If you would read actual reports, when major companies were asked if they would relocate to the US under this law, 80% said they would, because it simplifies the tax structure. No more need for an army of tax lawyers and accountants to figure it all out. No new laws to have to brace for.
This past year, Chevron-Texaco paid 9.8 billion in taxes, but only 200 million of that to the US government. A similar situation with Microsoft, because they sell their licenses to a foreign subsidiary, who in turn licenses the products back to the US company for almost all the profit they made. That way they can export their profits, but still claim them in stock reports.
The fair tax would make this type of system impossible to continue. In other words, major companies would pay their taxes for once. How is this a lack of contribution from the rich?
Also, you argue the rich will buy their luxury products abroad. How can they? The sale will have taken place in the US, and thus taxed. Read the bill.
You, moron, need to read the national fairtax bill. It reduces the taxes on the poor to absolute 0. If you make below the poverty limit, you get a 100% refund of the taxes, with an increase for each dependent. If you did not work at all this year, you would get a refund of taxes up to the poverty limit, as if you had worked (the same refund, for doing nothing). So your argument is null. Under that tax system, the poor would pay absolutely nothing, and would even get paid, if they didn't work.
Now if you are rich on the other hand, the tax would apply to all kinds of luxury expenses. Buying a ferrari? Well then you are paying 23% of the purchase price in a tax. Buying a plane? The same.
By all means, keep supporting the progressive tax system. I will be more than happy to make millions I can keep shifting through tax loopholes because you are unwilling to close them. The reason a consumption tax is better, is because you can determine your tax overhead at the beginning of the year. No need to manage taxes for your employees paycheck, figure out your deductions, find tax credits, buy your car with your company, buy your vacation home as a company asset. It would no longer matter, because all of these things would become moot points. You would pay taxes on them, end of story.
I would kill to pay 400k in taxes - it means I made a shitload, and really didn't need to make anymore.
So you wouldn't progressively offset the cost of your tax increase on your customers or employees? Remember that 400k in taxes you paid came from collections you made from others, do you feel they deserve to pay it?
State welfare has to end, not fair to punish those who DO PAY.
So no more bailouts ?
I am good with that. Bailouts are a waste of money that do nothing. These businesses made their decisions, so let them deal with the consequences. If that means failing, let them fail.
Laissez faire:)
If you would read the proposed national bill, it refunds 100% of the consumption tax to everyone making below the poverty limit, with an increasing amount for each dependent. Even if you are unemployed you would get a refund equal to the amount you would have paid, if you had worked. This effectively reduces the tax burden of the poor to absolute 0, and even gives them money had they not worked.
I love how politicians (mainly democrats) who don't support it say it will hurt the poor. The reality is, if this bill passed it would help everyone, and politicians could no longer play class warfare with taxes. Why would a politician give away his greatest tool? Especially a group of politicians so dependent on the poor.
I am on the other side of that coin. I would support a sales tax across the board if income tax was eliminated. It would finally make it to where people paid their share based on what they spent. No more hiding money. People don't realize it, but the progressive tax system is broken, in favor of the rich. The cattle believe that if a sales tax was implemented instead it would hurt the average man at the benefit of the rich, when in reality the opposite is true.
Completely agree.
I am also curious as to how personal bank account holding in the UK are coming under scrutiny? The way I understand tax law of various countries (UK included), is that every country OTHER than the US, does NOT tax it's citizens based on foreign income. Hence any income derived from foreign assets in their accounts in the UK are not subject to UK taxation.
Now any income they derive from the UK is a different story, but shouldn't officials in the UK have access to someones salary information or income if derived in the UK without having to resort to bank statements? I just don't understand why this is notable news. So what if they have a few million in their account, as long as it came from foreign income or foreign assets, it is not subject to taxation.
Using different networks is one way the US carriers can avoid having the market be as competitive as in Europe.
As competitive as Europe? Unlimited plans were almost unheard of when I was there, and cost per call and SMS/MMS is much higher than here in the US. I actually fear we are moving towards the European model, which definitely does not benefit the consumer.
When I was living in Spain a few years back, we would send our friends 1 text message, and often did not expect a reply, because the cost was enormous. No "How are you" re: "Fine" re: "What are you doing tonight?" re: "Ohh I don't know".... You also did not see people walking down the street chatting it up all the time, because the cost per minute was insane and the plans they had were not that great.
It has effectively shaped the culture there differently. People there would send incredibly long winded texts, and not that many of them, because of the cost, and would also avoid making calls because the 1 long winded text would be cheaper than a call. Here in the US the average teenager probably sends thousands of texts each month, in europe it is probably less than 5% of this due to restrictive plans. I would imagine actual airtime usage would reflect the same.
I remember there was a carrier in the UK offering unlimited SMS plans, and the competition refused to peer with them to freeze them out of the market. In other words, using the carrier that offered unlimited messaging meant you could only message users on that carrier. Messages sent to users on other networks would be undeliverable. So much for European fair market competition.
I know this is specifically referring to SMS/MMS plans, but I also remember Vodafone did not have an unlimited data plan at the time I was there either. I doubt the European market has become as competitive as the US market to date, let alone more competitive. They have a market that clearly benefits the company over the consumer, because it seems that everything is metered. Minutes, data, SMS, MMS, etc.....
Slashdot Mirror
"Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech."*
"Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all."*
"Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public."*
*Disclaimer: The above is only applicable if your view and opinions are only the ones we approve.
I personally disagree with Mr. Eich, but I find it worrying that we are at a point where it has become acceptable to punish someone for a belief, without any action on his part. He clearly stated he wasn't changing Mozilla policy in anyway and would not seek to do anything that would alter the employment of anyone. This guy is basically being burnt at the stake because other employees are mad he doesn't share *their* view... How inclusive and diverse is that mentality?
Actually, lowest minimum wage is $2.13/hr for service industry jobs.
It's because of idiots like this that we can't have nice toys. Guns get banned and people who buy them get looked on with suspicion. All because a few morons misuse them.
How about we punish the idiots, and let the rest of us have our toys?
There.. fixed it.
Our culture celebrates those that came to money all on their own, and generally keeps quiet about the sad fact that they are a small minority. Most people classified as rich either inherit or marry into money. As a result, their motivation to work is typically of the level of "minimal needed to keep the money coming and keep relatives satisfied".
That is actually incorrect. Only 16% of millionaires inherited their fortune, the vast majority (the overwhelming portion actually) are self made, as others commenting here have already stated. 23% alone became that way from being paid professionals, and I highly doubt they were compensated so well for doing the 'minimum'. Anyway... I just wanted to be factually correct here, as many won't believe me and I am certain to be modded into oblivion, but nonetheless here is a reference:
The Economist: A special report on global leaders, More millionaires than Australians, 20 January 2011, pp. 4–7.
Our culture celebrates those that came to money all on their own, and generally keeps quiet about the sad fact that they are a small minority. Most people classified as rich either inherit or marry into money. As a result, their motivation to work is typically of the level of "minimal needed to keep the money coming and keep relatives satisfied".
That is actually incorrect. Only 16% of millionaires inherited their fortune, the vast majority (the overwhelming portion actually) are self made. 23% alone got that way through paid work as professionals, and I don't think they were compensated that way for just doing the 'minimum'. Don't believe me, check the research, here is one example:
The Economist: A special report on global leaders, More millionaires than Australians, 20 January 2011, pp. 4–7.
When Obama was elected I remember so many people talking about how soon we were going to be out of these wars. I for one thought the sooner the better, but I took a more pragmatic approach. I always thought Obama would be the partisan figurehead he has turned out to be, and would wait to do anything meaningful in an attempt to win re-election. Now he finally gets around to withdrawing troops, towards the end of his first term, when it serves him best politically. I am really appreciating that change we got, he definitely breaks the mold of a politician!
The government fails at providing a service properly again? Well that is breaking news!
I guess I should say I don't want to start a generational fight, or really get flamed a lot. I am just simply trying to state a simple observation. A system like Social Security is entirely dependent on the number of contributors always being much greater than the number of recipients. A system like this can never work, at least not in the long run. It is never going to be easy for a workforce to support the retirement of a previous workforce of about it's own size, no matter how many ways to play with the numbers. I for one will never see any SS payments even though I pay in. Do I really care? No, not really. I will just plan my future and retirement accordingly. I hope to retire off personal investments and my own (hopefully good) business decisions over the years, as I don't want to depend on a government for my needs. However, that said, I do not fault anyone who wants to, or will depend on a SS type system. I would just say to not be surprised if things don't always work out as planned.
There is also the problem that arises from the number of people contributing vs. the number withdrawing from SS. You have lightly touched on it, but It probably needs to be explicitly stated. It was easy to run Social Security when the Baby Boomers, who drastically outnumbered their parents, contributed to Social Security to support a limited number of recipients. ie: Social Security will work when there are 5 baby boomers paying in for each one of their parents withdrawing. (These numbers are a fictional example, don't take them as fact). One of the problems arising today is the population is not swelling at a rate to maintain that status quo. It becomes increasingly difficult to to support the retirement of an individual when the ratio of contributor to recipient approaches 1:1. The only way for a Social Security system to work and have a minimal impact on the job force is to have exponential population growth. I doubt that is something to many of us want these days. There are already enough people on this planet as it is.
Actually, it is only the businesses that do pay taxes under the Fairtax.
Workers pay absolutely nothing, they get to keep their wages.
The tax is incorporated in the sale price of an item. So at the end of the year, a business owes the government 23% of it's revenue.
He is forgetting FICA and all the other taxes. You would no longer have state income tax, social security taxes, medicare/medicaid taxes, property tax, car tag taxes.
Factor those into his numbers above, and you will see the Fairtax saves you money.
Sorry, you are right. Probably not the best response to name calling, with name calling. Unfortunately, I cannot edit my post.
I wish this individual would just simply peruse the relevant documentation before commenting to see that what he is arguing for, does not happen under the proposed system.
Poverty guidelines differ by state, but you are right, at a minimum is 10,830. You also forget though, that if you make above the poverty limit, you still get a refund up to the poverty limit for that share of your income.
So while you would pay 23% of your income, you would get a refund on the first $10,830.
Lets say for example, you made $30,000. .23 = $6,900 in taxes
$30,000 x
$2490.90 refund up to poverty limit.
Total taxes - refund, so 6,900 - 2490.90 = 4409.10
Your yearly tax burden would be $4409.10, assuming you spent every single penny you earned.
Thats effectively a 14.697% tax rate. Is that more than you currently pay in taxes? Does that cost you more than the current system?
Remember you are only taxed on what you spend, not what you save, so any savings would be untaxed. So if you save any of that 30,000 your tax burden would be even lower. If you made less than 30,000 then your tax burden % would also be lower.
If you would read actual reports, when major companies were asked if they would relocate to the US under this law, 80% said they would, because it simplifies the tax structure. No more need for an army of tax lawyers and accountants to figure it all out. No new laws to have to brace for.
This past year, Chevron-Texaco paid 9.8 billion in taxes, but only 200 million of that to the US government. A similar situation with Microsoft, because they sell their licenses to a foreign subsidiary, who in turn licenses the products back to the US company for almost all the profit they made. That way they can export their profits, but still claim them in stock reports.
The fair tax would make this type of system impossible to continue. In other words, major companies would pay their taxes for once. How is this a lack of contribution from the rich?
Also, you argue the rich will buy their luxury products abroad. How can they? The sale will have taken place in the US, and thus taxed. Read the bill.
Now if you are rich on the other hand, the tax would apply to all kinds of luxury expenses. Buying a ferrari? Well then you are paying 23% of the purchase price in a tax. Buying a plane? The same.
By all means, keep supporting the progressive tax system. I will be more than happy to make millions I can keep shifting through tax loopholes because you are unwilling to close them. The reason a consumption tax is better, is because you can determine your tax overhead at the beginning of the year. No need to manage taxes for your employees paycheck, figure out your deductions, find tax credits, buy your car with your company, buy your vacation home as a company asset. It would no longer matter, because all of these things would become moot points. You would pay taxes on them, end of story.
I would kill to pay 400k in taxes - it means I made a shitload, and really didn't need to make anymore.
So you wouldn't progressively offset the cost of your tax increase on your customers or employees? Remember that 400k in taxes you paid came from collections you made from others, do you feel they deserve to pay it?
State welfare has to end, not fair to punish those who DO PAY.
So no more bailouts ?
I am good with that. Bailouts are a waste of money that do nothing. These businesses made their decisions, so let them deal with the consequences. If that means failing, let them fail. Laissez faire :)
If you would read the proposed national bill, it refunds 100% of the consumption tax to everyone making below the poverty limit, with an increasing amount for each dependent. Even if you are unemployed you would get a refund equal to the amount you would have paid, if you had worked. This effectively reduces the tax burden of the poor to absolute 0, and even gives them money had they not worked. I love how politicians (mainly democrats) who don't support it say it will hurt the poor. The reality is, if this bill passed it would help everyone, and politicians could no longer play class warfare with taxes. Why would a politician give away his greatest tool? Especially a group of politicians so dependent on the poor.
hahaha. great.
I am on the other side of that coin. I would support a sales tax across the board if income tax was eliminated. It would finally make it to where people paid their share based on what they spent. No more hiding money. People don't realize it, but the progressive tax system is broken, in favor of the rich. The cattle believe that if a sales tax was implemented instead it would hurt the average man at the benefit of the rich, when in reality the opposite is true.
Completely agree. I am also curious as to how personal bank account holding in the UK are coming under scrutiny? The way I understand tax law of various countries (UK included), is that every country OTHER than the US, does NOT tax it's citizens based on foreign income. Hence any income derived from foreign assets in their accounts in the UK are not subject to UK taxation. Now any income they derive from the UK is a different story, but shouldn't officials in the UK have access to someones salary information or income if derived in the UK without having to resort to bank statements? I just don't understand why this is notable news. So what if they have a few million in their account, as long as it came from foreign income or foreign assets, it is not subject to taxation.
Using different networks is one way the US carriers can avoid having the market be as competitive as in Europe.
As competitive as Europe? Unlimited plans were almost unheard of when I was there, and cost per call and SMS/MMS is much higher than here in the US. I actually fear we are moving towards the European model, which definitely does not benefit the consumer. When I was living in Spain a few years back, we would send our friends 1 text message, and often did not expect a reply, because the cost was enormous. No "How are you" re: "Fine" re: "What are you doing tonight?" re: "Ohh I don't know".... You also did not see people walking down the street chatting it up all the time, because the cost per minute was insane and the plans they had were not that great. It has effectively shaped the culture there differently. People there would send incredibly long winded texts, and not that many of them, because of the cost, and would also avoid making calls because the 1 long winded text would be cheaper than a call. Here in the US the average teenager probably sends thousands of texts each month, in europe it is probably less than 5% of this due to restrictive plans. I would imagine actual airtime usage would reflect the same. I remember there was a carrier in the UK offering unlimited SMS plans, and the competition refused to peer with them to freeze them out of the market. In other words, using the carrier that offered unlimited messaging meant you could only message users on that carrier. Messages sent to users on other networks would be undeliverable. So much for European fair market competition. I know this is specifically referring to SMS/MMS plans, but I also remember Vodafone did not have an unlimited data plan at the time I was there either. I doubt the European market has become as competitive as the US market to date, let alone more competitive. They have a market that clearly benefits the company over the consumer, because it seems that everything is metered. Minutes, data, SMS, MMS, etc.....