I get how he does it. What I don't get is how raising the regular income rate and not the capital gains rate will cause someone making the majority of their income as capital gains pay more.
This is such an absurd concept.
In some ways perhaps, but if you bought a $10,000 house in 1960 and basically only maintained it rather than improved it and you sell it today for $300,000 you have not made $290,000 in income/profit in my mind.
Sure, if you could buy the 1960's $10,000 house on the lot next to yours for $10,000 on the day you just sold your house for $300,000 ok, but if that house next door is going to cost you $300,000 then you haven't made a thing. You put one house's worth of money into the house when you bought it in 1960 and you get one house's worth of money out of it when you sell it today.
To treat that as regular income would be a rip off of major proportions.\\all the best,
It sometimes still amazes me when I meet liberals who don't understand that many people who "make $1M" actually don't keep most of it even before taxes because they run sole proprietorships or partnerships
If they don't keep it (i.e., plow it back into their business - and more power to them!), then they shouldn't be taking it out as income, but should instead structure their business accounting differently.
I think his point is that the "gross revenue" of their business is treated as their personal income. Is this really the case and if it is, why do they not incorporate to avoid this "trap"?
It sometimes still amazes me when I meet liberals who don't understand that many people who "make $1M" actually don't keep most of it even before taxes because they run sole proprietorships or partnerships.
I see this explanation made often.
Why do they structure their business like this instead of incorporating? Why is this point made without laying out the facts/evidence to back up the point. I have paying some attention for a good while now and have not seen this.
Isn't his "official" rate already higher? And yet he is described as actually paying less. If you raise his "official" rate but he ends up paying the same amount as now and so still pays less, how does that help?
I still think neither side of this debate puts all of the cards on the table when explaining their position.
"The OED is a descriptivist dictionary, as opposed to a prescriptivist dictionary. That means that the OED includes words that are actually being used, rather than prescribing which words should and should not be used. This means including words that many people object to, but too bad, there are a large number of people who use the word regardless of any official position about the word."
The problem is, we *want* to use slang when we use some of those words. If you go and make it an official word, we just have to start the laborious process of finding and spreading a new slang word all over again... ~;-)
"Actually if one reads the link you will see that Slashdot is at it again. They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking. This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen."
Perhaps, but it is a coding error in a production system of some importance right? Should this have not been dealt with before going live? To me, this sort of error would invalidate an election. Not a good thing.
I got what you meant, but I still think there needs to be an exception for claims on works put under a Free License. Anyone may claim a copyright in a photograph that does not rise to the level to get a copyright. Do you want this law to apply to claiming a copyright on a photograph which you put under a Free license but which is not worthy of a copyright?
You don't always know what you have the copy "rights" to. You get them automatically. But if they go there, there should be an exception to works "Free"ly licensed...
Under some takes on this license, no for profit corporation (the idea is that everything such an entity does is by definition for profit) would be allowed to make use of the licensed work. And who will trust MS not to take such a view, now or at some point in the future once the damage is done...
they need to develop and then provide the code to a program which the others can compile and test. it should identify works to which they hold copyright while not claiming works to which others hold copyright and without any mistakes either.
1. regular patents. put the fees up all you want. make them harder to get. 2. defensive only patents. can only be brought out when you (or a "partner" are being sued for some reason.) low to no fees, fast tracked ahead of regular patents in the grant process, easier to get.
Unless I missed something in the reading, it needs this improvement at least.
All patents in the pool are granted, royalty free for use by all Free Software, whether produced by members of the pool or not if the non-members have no patents. (Or perhaps just to copyleft Free Software? if needed to block gaming the system by patent holders who will not join.)
Slashdot Mirror
I get how he does it. What I don't get is how raising the regular income rate and not the capital gains rate will cause someone making the majority of their income as capital gains pay more.
This is such an absurd concept.
In some ways perhaps, but if you bought a $10,000 house in 1960 and basically only maintained it rather than improved it and you sell it today for $300,000 you have not made $290,000 in income/profit in my mind.
Sure, if you could buy the 1960's $10,000 house on the lot next to yours for $10,000 on the day you just sold your house for $300,000 ok, but if that house next door is going to cost you $300,000 then you haven't made a thing. You put one house's worth of money into the house when you bought it in 1960 and you get one house's worth of money out of it when you sell it today.
To treat that as regular income would be a rip off of major proportions.\\all the best,
drew
If they don't keep it (i.e., plow it back into their business - and more power to them!), then they shouldn't be taking it out as income, but should instead structure their business accounting differently.
I think his point is that the "gross revenue" of their business is treated as their personal income. Is this really the case and if it is, why do they not incorporate to avoid this "trap"?
all the best,
drew
It sometimes still amazes me when I meet liberals who don't understand that many people who "make $1M" actually don't keep most of it even before taxes because they run sole proprietorships or partnerships.
I see this explanation made often.
Why do they structure their business like this instead of incorporating? Why is this point made without laying out the facts/evidence to back up the point. I have paying some attention for a good while now and have not seen this.
all the best,
drew
Isn't his "official" rate already higher? And yet he is described as actually paying less. If you raise his "official" rate but he ends up paying the same amount as now and so still pays less, how does that help?
I still think neither side of this debate puts all of the cards on the table when explaining their position.
all the best,
drew
"The OED is a descriptivist dictionary, as opposed to a prescriptivist dictionary. That means that the OED includes words that are actually being used, rather than prescribing which words should and should not be used. This means including words that many people object to, but too bad, there are a large number of people who use the word regardless of any official position about the word."
The problem is, we *want* to use slang when we use some of those words. If you go and make it an official word, we just have to start the laborious process of finding and spreading a new slang word all over again... ~;-)
all the best,
drew
"by all ethical and civic standards, its position is unsound"
Well, there is always:
"No taxation without representation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
So, I don't know about Amazon's position, but there exists an ethical reason for not collecting taxes from those who cannot vote.
Oh but it does hold water, even if for some it is only the "Fool me once..." principle.
Your post made me think you might be interested in these two links:
Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive"
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
Packet In's Income Thoughts, plans, possibilities, etc.
http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Income
all the best,
drew
"Okay, so my mom uses a program to help her with her quilting. Who in the hell is going to write that for her if no one is paid to do it?"
You. You love your mom, right? ~;-)
Failing that, she and her quilting friends can pay a programmer and have it written as Free Software.
It is possible.
all the best,
drew
Perhaps Palin will switch to be a Democrat and Republicans will "Crowdsource To Vote Palin In Democratic Primaries" ???
Gotta be careful starting these kind of games...
Indeed.
Or:
reallysucks.com
reallytrulysucks.com
reallytrulysucksbigtime.com
superreallytrulysucksbigtime.com
and so on....
Lots of buying to do there... I don't see how such defensive strategies can work... Am I missing something?
Imagine if your paper ballot came pre-ticked and you had to erase the default if you did not like it.
While I agree that people should read, how many will cast a mistaken vote because of this? We do not know. Do we really think it will be zero?
all the best,
drew
"Actually if one reads the link you will see that Slashdot is at it again.
They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.
This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen."
Perhaps, but it is a coding error in a production system of some importance right? Should this have not been dealt with before going live? To me, this sort of error would invalidate an election. Not a good thing.
all the best,
drew
Try one of cc's Free licenses and I would love to. If you need to use NC though I will pass on that.
all the best,
drew
http://freemusicpush.blogspot.com/
I got what you meant, but I still think there needs to be an exception for claims on works put under a Free License. Anyone may claim a copyright in a photograph that does not rise to the level to get a copyright. Do you want this law to apply to claiming a copyright on a photograph which you put under a Free license but which is not worthy of a copyright?
(Is what I am saying clear yet?)
all the best,
drew
You don't always know what you have the copy "rights" to. You get them automatically. But if they go there, there should be an exception to works "Free"ly licensed...
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
Under some takes on this license, no for profit corporation (the idea is that everything such an entity does is by definition for profit) would be allowed to make use of the licensed work. And who will trust MS not to take such a view, now or at some point in the future once the damage is done...
all the best,
drew
they need to develop and then provide the code to a program which the others can compile and test. it should identify works to which they hold copyright while not claiming works to which others hold copyright and without any mistakes either.
go for it.
meanwhile: http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
Are athletes air hogs? Should we encourage the couch potato lifestyle to reduce air usage and cut down on CO2 emissions?
~;-)
all the best,
drew
How much data would the average family pull if they did all of their TV watching via IP and not regular cable/sat/broadcast?
They are pushing broadband aren't they? And the benefits of high speed access?
all the best,
drew
I was thinking along the lines of untrue boasts myself.
You can have the obvious kind:
Man, I was driving down Bay Street yesterday doing about 5,000 miles per hour, weaving in and out of traffic and jumping over jitneys.
Or the not so obvious kind:
I was clocking 50 yesterday on my way home.
Odd to think of even being investigated on such boasts much less convicted.
Now a video shot from the moving car and posted online might be different.
all the best,
drew
Shhhh, don't give them any ideas....
~;-)
Sure. But I hear the breakage on downloads is terrible.
1. regular patents. put the fees up all you want. make them harder to get.
2. defensive only patents. can only be brought out when you (or a "partner" are being sued for some reason.) low to no fees, fast tracked ahead of regular patents in the grant process, easier to get.
thoughts?
Unless I missed something in the reading, it needs this improvement at least.
All patents in the pool are granted, royalty free for use by all Free Software, whether produced by members of the pool or not if the non-members have no patents. (Or perhaps just to copyleft Free Software? if needed to block gaming the system by patent holders who will not join.)
I need to think on this some more.
all the best,
drew