No no, it's when you give them to 2 friends that they are worth $75000. Because then they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and by then you're responsible for giving the music away a thousandfold.
To clarify: I said what they are worth to the company, not what they are worth. That's the important distinction that makes it a matter of morals and ethics. And I'd hate to even get started with you on discussing how your excessively profitable business is probably exploiting leverage over your customers to overcharge them.
Lots of things work very effectively in our economy to keep the whole process going. But each of us has to make choices in life to participate in that or not. If you're living a life of luxury while your employees are stretching each paycheck to pay the rent, it should be obvious that you're doing something wrong. If it isn't I'm sorry for you. Maybe greater insight later in life will lead you down a better path.
Hey, it's not my fault you needed a janitor to make your 10 million dollars with your idea. It may be that his contribution is the least, and so he may be deserving of the smallest share. It's hard to say where exactly the line belongs, but as an arbitrary position, I think it is safe to say that if anyone is earning 10x the hourly rate of anyone else, you have an ethical problem for sure. No one's contribution is that small. So if you work 4x the hours at 10x the effectiveness, you might have someone make 40x as much as someone else. But realistically 20x is the limit because 4x the hours is pretty much impossible to really be maintaining.
I am sure you took the risks involved in starting your business. However, being a risk-taker does not excuse you from acting ethically or morally. Nor does it entitle you to become wealthy on the labor of others.
Finally, I certainly agree that people are paid what they are worth to the company, for the most part. That doesn't make it right.
An extreme magnetic field will cause your brain to cease to function as certain chemicals rip from certain cells. I'm not sure what you watched, but it wouldn't take a very intense field to levitate a frog, assuming he was sitting on an appropriate metal plate. On the other hand if the frog was being levitated by the randomly oriented iron poles in its cells, I guarantee you that frog was dead or dying.
In other words, from each according to their ability to each according to their need?
No, not at all. From those who benefit the most, the most. That simple. And I'm not suggesting we need to 'to' anyone.
Again, I must say, HOLY CRAP! Do you really believe it's immoral for me to pay someone to work for me?
No, not at all. As long as the relationship isn't exploitative. Which you can assure by making sure that for people who do reasonably equivalent levels of work, are reasonably equivallently paid. In many businesses, the highest paid make more than 100 times that which the lowest paid makes. That's exploitation: making profit from the work of someone else.
So as long as you are giving all of your workers a fair share of the profits coming from their work, and are not giving yourself an extra large slice of the pie just for being in charge, then you are acting perfectly ethically in paying those people to work for you. And if so, I congratulate you, because you are truly a rare gem in the world.
So please, open a small business, hire people, and pay them all their fair share of the profits from their work. It would be a wonderful world to live in if more people would do so!
So it appears you're basically in complete agreement with me. Whatever we do with taxes, the goal should be to reduce, preferably to 0, the taxes that the poor pay. How you want to go about that in tax policy, I don't really care. Taxing wealth (my original suggestion) would be one way to redistribute the tax in this way. There are lots of different ways you can accomplish this goal. Again, I don't really care by what strategy we do it, nor do I think it is likely to happen. But I do think it is a more moral and ethical position.
And having been to both the bad areas of tijuana and georgia, I can tell you there are people just as badly off here.
And thankfully, they won't get much of one. HD-DVD has won. Anyone who buys bluray will just be buying an HD-DVD and repurchasing all their media in 3 years. Bluray is dead in the water thanks to microsoft's vista terms. (Ouch how it hurts to say thanks to microsoft, and for using their monopoly power no less!)
That's an odd requirement. You could use gcj for most projects. I mean, if you're doing that, you're talking about needing to strip your c programs and such, I don't know much of anyone who does that.
It is taxing the poor, those who do not benefit at all, or who least benefit from our society that is immoral. There is no need to punish the rich, it is merely more moral and ethical for those who benefit most from our society to bear the burden of maintaining it.
Consider that slavery is the ultimate way in which one man can exploit the labors of another for his own benefit. Now try to understand that most people who can use a computer well enough to post to slashdot are so far from poor that it may be difficult to understand just how close to slavery the current condition of the poor is. The wealth of the rich is built on the backs and the effort of the poor through highly immoral exploitation. That the poor have agreed to be exploited in exchange for enough food to live (mostly, in this country) and shelter doesn't change the fact of exploitation, nor the wrongness of it.
You'd be right in your initial point if we agreed on the definition of 'benefit'. I don't consider those receiving food, etc. as receiving the benefit of our society. The ultra wealthy, whose wealth is not taken by force by the masses are receiving the largest benefit.
I can certainly agree that a flat tax makes calculation easy. Except for the exceptions. And of course figuring all the exceptions is what makes a progressive tax hard too (seriously: does having to look up your % in the tax table take you that much effort?)
So having a flat tax just to be flat is pointless: it doesn't really make things easier, and it doesn't make things fairer.
Not sure if you're joking or not, but it's fairly clear that Twain is expression admiration for Cooper's accomplishments in the guise of criticism. Typical Twain really, very clever, I was just a bit unsure from your post whether you got it or not.
Wealth disparity is the problem. And I've had plenty of economics. A tax on wealth would work just fine after an initial transition period. (Granted, an immediate changeover would be horribly disruptive). But ultimately, a tax on wealth would be more moral and ethical, and frankly, that's what is important to me, more so than convenience.
The main problem with consumption tax is again avoiding taxing the poor. You pretty much have to exclude taxing food, rent, energy to make it workable. And I'm guessing many economists will argue about whether Frugal or HighRoller are better for the economy, and who therefore ought to be encouraged. I certainly don't see where you can claim that one creates more long term jobs. New car buyers hold up thousands of long term automotive industry jobs.
In any case, I think it is fairly safe to say that the current system is imperfect, and that whatever system we might transition to should place more tax burden on the wealthy in one way or another.
The flat tax doesn't work well, particularly toward the bottom of the income chain. Taking $1000 from a guy making $10k per year does a lot more harm than taking $10k from a guy making $100k. It seems fairly clear that taking an increasing percentage as your earnings go up is fairer (the more benefit you get from the system, the more you pay to support the system).
And yes, I certainly agree that rather than taxing income, we ought to tax wealth. A flat tax on wealth at the end of each year would work comparatively well: the guy making 10k per year has basically no wealth, and so pays no tax. The guy making millions per year with hundreds of millions in assets pays for the government that protects him from getting lynched by the 10k guy.
Not one link away: Bobbinet, very pretty, but Miss Monson bought one not quite as pretty, at Lace's; and SHE payed SIXTY- FIVE, if I am not mistaken. Autobiography of a Pocket-Handkerchief by Cooper, James Fenimore
Slashdot Mirror
Backing up the other poster, Insaniquarium is as completely original as any game can get. Who knew feeding fish could be so much fun!
No no, it's when you give them to 2 friends that they are worth $75000. Because then they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and they give them to 2 friends, and by then you're responsible for giving the music away a thousandfold.
6 to 8 thousand? I laugh at your puny half-size system. You need to pay at least $15000 to have a competitive system at a lan party these days:
0 90
e .asp?article=articles%2Farchive%2Fc0601%2F14c01%2F 14c01.asp&articleid=29318&guid=972259F0597543C89D8 154D4FF63D608
http://www.voodoopc.com/showroom.aspx?productID=1
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/articl
8 grand. ha ha ha.
e .asp?article=articles%2Farchive%2Fc0601%2F14c01%2F 14c01.asp&articleid=29318&guid=972259F0597543C89D8 154D4FF63D608
0 90
This months CPU (computer power user) features a gold-dipped voodoo system selling for a base price of $15000 (and going up with options).
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/articl
http://www.voodoopc.com/showroom.aspx?productID=1
Enjoy!
To clarify: I said what they are worth to the company, not what they are worth. That's the important distinction that makes it a matter of morals and ethics. And I'd hate to even get started with you on discussing how your excessively profitable business is probably exploiting leverage over your customers to overcharge them.
Lots of things work very effectively in our economy to keep the whole process going. But each of us has to make choices in life to participate in that or not. If you're living a life of luxury while your employees are stretching each paycheck to pay the rent, it should be obvious that you're doing something wrong. If it isn't I'm sorry for you. Maybe greater insight later in life will lead you down a better path.
Hey, it's not my fault you needed a janitor to make your 10 million dollars with your idea. It may be that his contribution is the least, and so he may be deserving of the smallest share. It's hard to say where exactly the line belongs, but as an arbitrary position, I think it is safe to say that if anyone is earning 10x the hourly rate of anyone else, you have an ethical problem for sure. No one's contribution is that small. So if you work 4x the hours at 10x the effectiveness, you might have someone make 40x as much as someone else. But realistically 20x is the limit because 4x the hours is pretty much impossible to really be maintaining.
I am sure you took the risks involved in starting your business. However, being a risk-taker does not excuse you from acting ethically or morally. Nor does it entitle you to become wealthy on the labor of others.
Finally, I certainly agree that people are paid what they are worth to the company, for the most part. That doesn't make it right.
An extreme magnetic field will cause your brain to cease to function as certain chemicals rip from certain cells.
I'm not sure what you watched, but it wouldn't take a very intense field to levitate a frog, assuming he was sitting on an appropriate metal plate. On the other hand if the frog was being levitated by the randomly oriented iron poles in its cells, I guarantee you that frog was dead or dying.
Yeesh, it's GPL, what are you, lazy?
In other words, from each according to their ability to each according to their need?
No, not at all. From those who benefit the most, the most. That simple. And I'm not suggesting we need to 'to' anyone.
Again, I must say, HOLY CRAP! Do you really believe it's immoral for me to pay someone to work for me?
No, not at all. As long as the relationship isn't exploitative. Which you can assure by making sure that for people who do reasonably equivalent levels of work, are reasonably equivallently paid. In many businesses, the highest paid make more than 100 times that which the lowest paid makes. That's exploitation: making profit from the work of someone else.
So as long as you are giving all of your workers a fair share of the profits coming from their work, and are not giving yourself an extra large slice of the pie just for being in charge, then you are acting perfectly ethically in paying those people to work for you. And if so, I congratulate you, because you are truly a rare gem in the world.
So please, open a small business, hire people, and pay them all their fair share of the profits from their work. It would be a wonderful world to live in if more people would do so!
So it appears you're basically in complete agreement with me. Whatever we do with taxes, the goal should be to reduce, preferably to 0, the taxes that the poor pay. How you want to go about that in tax policy, I don't really care. Taxing wealth (my original suggestion) would be one way to redistribute the tax in this way. There are lots of different ways you can accomplish this goal. Again, I don't really care by what strategy we do it, nor do I think it is likely to happen. But I do think it is a more moral and ethical position.
And having been to both the bad areas of tijuana and georgia, I can tell you there are people just as badly off here.
That site is hilarious. Have a look at:
a lity/lv18_22.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/homosexu
There are two issues:
t ml?articleID=175400242
1) vista will not ship with an interface for blueray.
2) vista will come with discounts for computers containing hd-dvds.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jh
And thankfully, they won't get much of one. HD-DVD has won. Anyone who buys bluray will just be buying an HD-DVD and repurchasing all their media in 3 years. Bluray is dead in the water thanks to microsoft's vista terms. (Ouch how it hurts to say thanks to microsoft, and for using their monopoly power no less!)
Yeah, your quote I have to say you are misreading if you think that is criticism. Keep trying though. :-)
That's an odd requirement. You could use gcj for most projects. I mean, if you're doing that, you're talking about needing to strip your c programs and such, I don't know much of anyone who does that.
It is taxing the poor, those who do not benefit at all, or who least benefit from our society that is immoral. There is no need to punish the rich, it is merely more moral and ethical for those who benefit most from our society to bear the burden of maintaining it.
Consider that slavery is the ultimate way in which one man can exploit the labors of another for his own benefit. Now try to understand that most people who can use a computer well enough to post to slashdot are so far from poor that it may be difficult to understand just how close to slavery the current condition of the poor is. The wealth of the rich is built on the backs and the effort of the poor through highly immoral exploitation. That the poor have agreed to be exploited in exchange for enough food to live (mostly, in this country) and shelter doesn't change the fact of exploitation, nor the wrongness of it.
You'd be right in your initial point if we agreed on the definition of 'benefit'. I don't consider those receiving food, etc. as receiving the benefit of our society. The ultra wealthy, whose wealth is not taken by force by the masses are receiving the largest benefit.
I can certainly agree that a flat tax makes calculation easy. Except for the exceptions. And of course figuring all the exceptions is what makes a progressive tax hard too (seriously: does having to look up your % in the tax table take you that much effort?)
So having a flat tax just to be flat is pointless: it doesn't really make things easier, and it doesn't make things fairer.
Not sure if you're joking or not, but it's fairly clear that Twain is expression admiration for Cooper's accomplishments in the guise of criticism. Typical Twain really, very clever, I was just a bit unsure from your post whether you got it or not.
Wealth disparity is the problem. And I've had plenty of economics. A tax on wealth would work just fine after an initial transition period. (Granted, an immediate changeover would be horribly disruptive). But ultimately, a tax on wealth would be more moral and ethical, and frankly, that's what is important to me, more so than convenience.
The main problem with consumption tax is again avoiding taxing the poor. You pretty much have to exclude taxing food, rent, energy to make it workable. And I'm guessing many economists will argue about whether Frugal or HighRoller are better for the economy, and who therefore ought to be encouraged. I certainly don't see where you can claim that one creates more long term jobs. New car buyers hold up thousands of long term automotive industry jobs.
In any case, I think it is fairly safe to say that the current system is imperfect, and that whatever system we might transition to should place more tax burden on the wealthy in one way or another.
The flat tax doesn't work well, particularly toward the bottom of the income chain. Taking $1000 from a guy making $10k per year does a lot more harm than taking $10k from a guy making $100k. It seems fairly clear that taking an increasing percentage as your earnings go up is fairer (the more benefit you get from the system, the more you pay to support the system).
And yes, I certainly agree that rather than taxing income, we ought to tax wealth. A flat tax on wealth at the end of each year would work comparatively well: the guy making 10k per year has basically no wealth, and so pays no tax. The guy making millions per year with hundreds of millions in assets pays for the government that protects him from getting lynched by the 10k guy.
Not one link away:
Bobbinet, very pretty, but Miss Monson bought one not quite as pretty, at Lace's; and SHE payed SIXTY- FIVE, if I am not mistaken.
Autobiography of a Pocket-Handkerchief by Cooper, James Fenimore
I'll not whine about such company.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTem plate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22
0 50
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2
While the Top 20% may pay 60% of the tax, they hold 80% of the wealth.
The bottom 50% hold less than 5%.
So maybe the tax burden on the top 20% should be a little higher, as they are currently being taxed at a low rate in proportion to their benefit.
Maybe I should have included a ;-)
I don't consider 33MB acceptable as it is.
Now come on, lets all be fair to firefox, I've been browsing for hours today, and my firefox is only tying up 33MB of ram.