People give lip service to it but the shit hasn't even come close to hitting the fan yet. If the flat tax (I mean a real no deductions flat tax) ever comes to the floor all those republicans will immediately fall on their knees and suckle on the industry lobbyists spreading suitcases full of money. Trust me it will never happen.
A couple will get way more then 20K worth of tax breaks and goodies from the govt if they have the kid why would they settle for 20K not to have a kid? You need to make it more like 200K to make it worthwhile.
Also if the poor people stop having kids they will be more prosperous and will move into the middle class. Who will clean the toilets, pick the cucumbers, bus the tables and babysit your kids?
"Only if you assume that the local government directly facilitates them making the money in the first place."
But it does. By providing security, enforcement of contracts, roads, public transportation, and a countless other services.
"If the economically productive residents of CA did not exist, the poor would not be richer, rather the entire state would be poorer."
Nobody is asking for that. I am simply stating that those people who earn 90% of the income ought to pay 90% of the income taxes. What is wrong with that?
"Economics is not a zero-sum game."
It depends on your scale of thinking. On a global scale it is a zero sum game. In the end the economy depends on natural resources like fuel, food, clean water, minerals etc. Since those resources are not infinite neither is the global economy. If your scale of thinking is the entire planet then econimics is a zero sum game.
" 10% of income earners are paying for some 75% of California government. "
Do you know what percentage of the california income they are earning? Usually the to 10% makes over 90% of the money and pays only 75% of the taxes. A pretty good deal if you ask me.
DOn't kid yourself. 100K is not rich it's just upper middle class. If you ride the bus you are poor, if you ride the plane you are middle class, if you fly first class you are upper middle class. You are not rich till you own your plane.
"We need a flat tax with a high minimum deductable (to keep all the kids / summer jobs out of the paperwork). Perhaps a $20k deductible with a flat percentage after that. Treat everyone as an individual (no lumping spouse in with you / marriage penalty). No deductible for children or interest on homes (we want people to save after all). Do not tax interest on savings (need more money for people to borrow)."
It would never work. Too many powerful and rich people benefit from the current tax system.
"These parents (who should be called 'gene donors') should not be allowed to breed. Plain and simple."
Well this certtainly does not seem like a liberterian ideal. How would you prevent people from reproducing?
"But heart disease and diabetes are not 100% self inflicted in most cases."
And yet those along with cancer are where most of the health care dollars are spent. Unfortunately there is no way to hold polluters responsible for the cancer they cause.
Liberterians are too idealistic and less then 10% of the country agrees with them. That's a fact.
The reason capitalism works and communism doesn't is because everybody is greedy but very few people are altruistic. If people were altruistic and generous then there would be no need for th welfare system. Why do you think programs like welfare and social security were invented in the first place? Becasue people said "the govt ought to do something about these poor starving people" not "I ought to give my money to these poor starving people".
Sorry but people are not good, generous, and charitable. If everybody in the country who claimed to be a christian gave 10% of their money to the poor there would be no poor in this country.
"How much money does the government need to operate? Do we need the thousands of programs that the government runs or would it be better to have a minimalist government that only handles defense and basic needs?"
Need is a funny word. Certainly the people will always vote out any politician who does not bring home the bacon and vote in any politician who promises to bring it home.
We created our current system because we wanted it that way. Just ask a farmer to give up his subsidies or ask a senior to give up social security and see what happens.
Did you ever receive money from the govt? Buy a subsidized item? OF course you did.
All your comments seem to indicate that the tax reduction will be revenue neutral which we know won't be the case. The demand for govt services continue to grow as the population ages, as war fronts are opened up on multiple fronts etc.
In our current situation a tax reduction will inevitably lead to greater deficits and greater debt neither of which is sound economic policy. Whatever additional revenue may or may not be made up buy increased economic activity will not be able to compensate for a war with iraq, iran, north korea and possibly saudi arabia not to mention continuing occupation of afghanistan and chasing terrorists all around the world.
Come now how many people earn enough interest on saving to make that a factor? For the vast majority of Americans the interest on saving is a handful of dollars and the tax that they pay on it can't buy a cup of cofee at starbucks.
A flat tax will never happen. Give up that dream. The current complicated tax structure exists because it benefits the rich and the powerful. Do you really think they would get rid of their loopholes and govt welfare?
" There was not one iota of "hype". Not one. You can't find. Opinion, yes (in that section). Fact, yes. Speculation, yes. No hype. No glorification. No unfounded joy. No adulation. You are making stuff up to suggest elsewise."
I think that any rational human who read your post would conclude that it was indeed hype. If you think what I said qualifies as "horrific abuses of decency and ettiquitte" and then make a comparison to my posts in this thread with the criminal and sleazy actions of MS executives then that speaks for itself.
As for the rest of your post I don't care what you think of me. You can ramble on all you want about
As I said before. What you posted was for all practical purposes and advertisement for MS. You did this is typical manner of PR agencies and AD agencies namely by presenting one side of the argument and a limited version of the truth. For example you used your "weasel words" (which most PR agencies do) to suggest that.NET was a cross platform strategy. You made similar comments about all the other.NET components. I called you on it and now you are upset. Too bad.
"You troll not for anything positive but for destruction, interruption, and hate."
I am simply trying to counteract an organized effort by the MS trolls on slashdot. All pro MS posts get moderated up to 5 due to your and your fellow MS astroturfers efforts. When a corporation organizes an attack like this on a community it's destructive.
I don't hang out at gotdotnet or other pro MS sites and hype open source or java and you should not hang out here and hype MS.
Destructive and hateful describe Microsoft not me. I didn't call you a communist, I did not call you a cancer, I did not refer to you as a virus, I did not try to paint you as a terrorist. If I had done any of that then maybe you could accuse me of being hateful.
I also don't get paid by anybody to hype open source, nor do I make any sort of a profit from open source. I dont' sell any OSS products and I don't offer any OSS services. My "trolling" for open source is purely altruistic. Can you say the same about your trolling?
You continue to troll for MS and I continue to troll for open source. The difference between you and me is that you troll for a corporation and I troll for an ideal.
I am so tired of hearing this and so tired of this comment being moderated up as interesting. It is not interesting, it is not informative, it is not insightful. There is no reason to mod up this tired old argument anymore ok people.
"A corporation is legally the same type of entity as an individual (or a married couple) -- it's the context of the speech which is important, not who said it."
Don't you find it demeaning that a being with no soul is compared to you. Are you the same as a dog? as a plant? as a rock?
Whenever someone says that a corporation is the same as me I cringe. I have soul, a moral imperitive, a life, and a divine creator. A corporation has none of that. I find it profoundly disturbing that a being created by a cadre of lawyers is somehow equated with a human being.
Dogs have some rights (for example there are laws against animal cruelty) and yet they don't have the rights as humans.
Dogs have owners and so do corporations.
If a dog misbehaves or bites somebody then the owner is held responsible. If a corporation misbehaves or hurts people then the shareholders should be fined or punished.
Sometimes if a dog is especially viscous and kills somebody then the dog is put down at the owners expense and the owner may be tried and jailed. IF corporations act especially vile then they should be dismantled and the shareholders should lose ALL of their investment.
Dog owners are responsible for care, feeding, sheltering, leashing, controlling, and containing their dogs and shareholders should be responsible for what their corporations do.
Once we actually punish shareholders for the acts of their corporations the corporations will act ethically.
" To clarify, the issue is whether a corporation can make statements that it believes are true"
What an interesting and an odd thing to state. How does a soul-less amoral immortal entity actually believe anything? What is it that holds a belief or an opinion? Is the belief of the CEO the belief of the corporation? Is it done via a poll?
MS as usual wins big and escapes punishment because they have really good lawyers and bribe so many politicians. As usual crime does pay.
To me what will be interesting is the tax return MS fills fills out. How will they note the 1.1 billion dollars. Will they deduct it as a loss? will they deduct 1.1 billion as a loss even though it actually cost them pennies? Given the murky tax laws I would not be sruprised if MS actually made money on this deal.
" The guy asked for clarification and I gave a precise valid list! You provide nothing to the conversation! And who is the troll?"
What you did was to post an advertisement for Microsoft. You played with words, you painted an overly optimistic picture, you told some of the truth but not the whole truth and certainly not "nothing but the truth".
"But that doesn't mean that entirprising individuals won't come along and make it work without MS's help or approval."
If those individuals are succesful they will be stopped by hook or by crook. That's what Bill Gates does. He destroys his competition using whatever means are his disposal (which are prodigious). Lying, cheating, stealing, intimidating, suing and so on just a matter of course at Microsoft. The reason for this of course is because Gates, Ballmer, Allchin, and the rest of the mafioso at the head of MS are all sleazy immoral bastards.
" You continue to lie to people on here and pretend like you know I work for MS, even though on numerous occasions I have offered to provide you notarized proof to the contrary."
Microsft is evil but they are not stupid. They are not going to hire astro turfers that work directly for them.
Slashdot Mirror
"As I said in another post, I know people that don't give to charities because they pay welfare. "
At one time there was no welfare. If during that time people gave enough money to charity to help the poor welfare would not have been invented.
It't nice that you are idealistic though.
People give lip service to it but the shit hasn't even come close to hitting the fan yet. If the flat tax (I mean a real no deductions flat tax) ever comes to the floor all those republicans will immediately fall on their knees and suckle on the industry lobbyists spreading suitcases full of money. Trust me it will never happen.
A couple will get way more then 20K worth of tax breaks and goodies from the govt if they have the kid why would they settle for 20K not to have a kid? You need to make it more like 200K to make it worthwhile.
Also if the poor people stop having kids they will be more prosperous and will move into the middle class. Who will clean the toilets, pick the cucumbers, bus the tables and babysit your kids?
"Only if you assume that the local government directly facilitates them making the money in the first place."
But it does. By providing security, enforcement of contracts, roads, public transportation, and a countless other services.
"If the economically productive residents of CA did not exist, the poor would not be richer, rather the entire state would be poorer."
Nobody is asking for that. I am simply stating that those people who earn 90% of the income ought to pay 90% of the income taxes. What is wrong with that?
"Economics is not a zero-sum game."
It depends on your scale of thinking. On a global scale it is a zero sum game. In the end the economy depends on natural resources like fuel, food, clean water, minerals etc. Since those resources are not infinite neither is the global economy. If your scale of thinking is the entire planet then econimics is a zero sum game.
" 10% of income earners are paying for some 75% of California government. "
Do you know what percentage of the california income they are earning? Usually the to 10% makes over 90% of the money and pays only 75% of the taxes. A pretty good deal if you ask me.
DOn't kid yourself. 100K is not rich it's just upper middle class. If you ride the bus you are poor, if you ride the plane you are middle class, if you fly first class you are upper middle class. You are not rich till you own your plane.
"We need a flat tax with a high minimum deductable (to keep all the kids / summer jobs out of the paperwork). Perhaps a $20k deductible with a flat percentage after that. Treat everyone as an individual (no lumping spouse in with you / marriage penalty). No deductible for children or interest on homes (we want people to save after all). Do not tax interest on savings (need more money for people to borrow)."
It would never work. Too many powerful and rich people benefit from the current tax system.
I still say it's better to tax consumption then income.
"These parents (who should be called 'gene donors') should not be allowed to breed. Plain and simple."
Well this certtainly does not seem like a liberterian ideal. How would you prevent people from reproducing?
"But heart disease and diabetes are not 100% self inflicted in most cases."
And yet those along with cancer are where most of the health care dollars are spent. Unfortunately there is no way to hold polluters responsible for the cancer they cause.
Liberterians are too idealistic and less then 10% of the country agrees with them. That's a fact.
The reason capitalism works and communism doesn't is because everybody is greedy but very few people are altruistic. If people were altruistic and generous then there would be no need for th welfare system. Why do you think programs like welfare and social security were invented in the first place? Becasue people said "the govt ought to do something about these poor starving people" not "I ought to give my money to these poor starving people".
Sorry but people are not good, generous, and charitable. If everybody in the country who claimed to be a christian gave 10% of their money to the poor there would be no poor in this country.
"How much money does the government need to operate? Do we need the thousands of programs that the government runs or would it be better to have a minimalist government that only handles defense and basic needs?"
Need is a funny word. Certainly the people will always vote out any politician who does not bring home the bacon and vote in any politician who promises to bring it home.
We created our current system because we wanted it that way. Just ask a farmer to give up his subsidies or ask a senior to give up social security and see what happens.
Did you ever receive money from the govt? Buy a subsidized item? OF course you did.
All your comments seem to indicate that the tax reduction will be revenue neutral which we know won't be the case. The demand for govt services continue to grow as the population ages, as war fronts are opened up on multiple fronts etc.
In our current situation a tax reduction will inevitably lead to greater deficits and greater debt neither of which is sound economic policy. Whatever additional revenue may or may not be made up buy increased economic activity will not be able to compensate for a war with iraq, iran, north korea and possibly saudi arabia not to mention continuing occupation of afghanistan and chasing terrorists all around the world.
Come now how many people earn enough interest on saving to make that a factor? For the vast majority of Americans the interest on saving is a handful of dollars and the tax that they pay on it can't buy a cup of cofee at starbucks.
A flat tax will never happen. Give up that dream. The current complicated tax structure exists because it benefits the rich and the powerful. Do you really think they would get rid of their loopholes and govt welfare?
" There was not one iota of "hype". Not one. You can't find. Opinion, yes (in that section). Fact, yes. Speculation, yes. No hype. No glorification. No unfounded joy. No adulation. You are making stuff up to suggest elsewise."
I think that any rational human who read your post would conclude that it was indeed hype. If you think what I said qualifies as "horrific abuses of decency and ettiquitte" and then make a comparison to my posts in this thread with the criminal and sleazy actions of MS executives then that speaks for itself.
As for the rest of your post I don't care what you think of me. You can ramble on all you want about
As I said before. What you posted was for all practical purposes and advertisement for MS. You did this is typical manner of PR agencies and AD agencies namely by presenting one side of the argument and a limited version of the truth. For example you used your "weasel words" (which most PR agencies do) to suggest that .NET was a cross platform strategy. You made similar comments about all the other .NET components. I called you on it and now you are upset. Too bad.
"You troll not for anything positive but for destruction, interruption, and hate."
I am simply trying to counteract an organized effort by the MS trolls on slashdot. All pro MS posts get moderated up to 5 due to your and your fellow MS astroturfers efforts. When a corporation organizes an attack like this on a community it's destructive.
I don't hang out at gotdotnet or other pro MS sites and hype open source or java and you should not hang out here and hype MS.
Destructive and hateful describe Microsoft not me. I didn't call you a communist, I did not call you a cancer, I did not refer to you as a virus, I did not try to paint you as a terrorist. If I had done any of that then maybe you could accuse me of being hateful.
I also don't get paid by anybody to hype open source, nor do I make any sort of a profit from open source. I dont' sell any OSS products and I don't offer any OSS services. My "trolling" for open source is purely altruistic. Can you say the same about your trolling?
You continue to troll for MS and I continue to troll for open source. The difference between you and me is that you troll for a corporation and I troll for an ideal.
It's called capitalism, look into it.
AOL Failed? When did that happen? What did I miss that bit of news on WSJ?
" It's too bad nobody listens, then maybe linux would actually start getting some marketshare."
The linux market share grows every day. What the hell are you talking about.
I am so tired of hearing this and so tired of this comment being moderated up as interesting. It is not interesting, it is not informative, it is not insightful. There is no reason to mod up this tired old argument anymore ok people.
Once again. As a human being don't you find any of that demeaning.
"A corporation is legally the same type of entity as an individual (or a married couple) -- it's the context of the speech which is important, not who said it."
Don't you find it demeaning that a being with no soul is compared to you. Are you the same as a dog? as a plant? as a rock?
Whenever someone says that a corporation is the same as me I cringe. I have soul, a moral imperitive, a life, and a divine creator. A corporation has none of that. I find it profoundly disturbing that a being created by a cadre of lawyers is somehow equated with a human being.
Corporations should be treated like dogs.
Dogs have some rights (for example there are laws against animal cruelty) and yet they don't have the rights as humans.
Dogs have owners and so do corporations.
If a dog misbehaves or bites somebody then the owner is held responsible. If a corporation misbehaves or hurts people then the shareholders should be fined or punished.
Sometimes if a dog is especially viscous and kills somebody then the dog is put down at the owners expense and the owner may be tried and jailed. IF corporations act especially vile then they should be dismantled and the shareholders should lose ALL of their investment.
Dog owners are responsible for care, feeding, sheltering, leashing, controlling, and containing their dogs and shareholders should be responsible for what their corporations do.
Once we actually punish shareholders for the acts of their corporations the corporations will act ethically.
" To clarify, the issue is whether a corporation can make statements that it believes are true"
What an interesting and an odd thing to state. How does a soul-less amoral immortal entity actually believe anything? What is it that holds a belief or an opinion? Is the belief of the CEO the belief of the corporation? Is it done via a poll?
MS as usual wins big and escapes punishment because they have really good lawyers and bribe so many politicians. As usual crime does pay.
To me what will be interesting is the tax return MS fills fills out. How will they note the 1.1 billion dollars. Will they deduct it as a loss? will they deduct 1.1 billion as a loss even though it actually cost them pennies? Given the murky tax laws I would not be sruprised if MS actually made money on this deal.
" The guy asked for clarification and I gave a precise valid list! You provide nothing to the conversation! And who is the troll?"
What you did was to post an advertisement for Microsoft. You played with words, you painted an overly optimistic picture, you told some of the truth but not the whole truth and certainly not "nothing but the truth".
"But that doesn't mean that entirprising individuals won't come along and make it work without MS's help or approval."
If those individuals are succesful they will be stopped by hook or by crook. That's what Bill Gates does. He destroys his competition using whatever means are his disposal (which are prodigious). Lying, cheating, stealing, intimidating, suing and so on just a matter of course at Microsoft. The reason for this of course is because Gates, Ballmer, Allchin, and the rest of the mafioso at the head of MS are all sleazy immoral bastards.
" You continue to lie to people on here and pretend like you know I work for MS, even though on numerous occasions I have offered to provide you notarized proof to the contrary."
Microsft is evil but they are not stupid. They are not going to hire astro turfers that work directly for them.