Progressive, flat, or regressive tax? A lot of people have debated it, but let me present a few reasons why I think a progressive tax would be better.
Society needs some semblance of a government to continue to exist. Governments need money from its people to continue to exist. It seems to me that more money should be taken from the people can more afford it, rather than taking the money away from people who can barely afford to clothe and feed themselves. (This point is mostly based on eliciting an emotional response, but your entire argument is based on that tactic)
Good life decisions and bad life decisions aren't 100% under our control. Various aspects of our environment can cause increased risks or offer less opportunity. Often these circumstances aren't apparent to anyone, or these circumstances aren't easily changed. To the extent that ones good life decisions are based on luck, we should have a more progressive tax.
Better life decisions can be made if one has more knowledge and experience. Those who are less wealthy have less means to educate themselves. To the extent that this is a strong positive feedback loop, we should have a more progressive tax.
Wealth begets more wealth via accruing interest and via political influence. To the extent that this is a strong positive feedback loop, we should have a more progressive tax.
I'm not arguing that everyone should be forced to have the same amount of money, nor am I arguing that a tax system should be highly progressive. I'm just pointing out reasons why taxes should be somewhat progressive rather than strictly flat or even regressive. --
Al Gore: Gore worked to reduce the influence of drugs. The Administration Proposed the Largest Anti-Drug Budgets Ever. The Administration requested $19.2 billion in the FY01 budget to fight the war on drugs.
George Dubya: On the supply side, Governor Bush will improve interdiction and stop drugs before they reach our children. He will use better intelligence and surveillance to track and catch drug smugglers before they reach our borders. He will ensure that the INS hires the full allotment of Border Patrol agents required under law. Right now, the GAO reports that the INS had "a net shortfall of 594 agents for the 3-year period ending September 30, 1999." Governor Bush will hire more agents, and will reform the INS to better focus on its job of defending our border. --
Almost convinced enough to move to Japan. All the coolest and fastest stuff in cell phones happens over there first, I just didn't know they were so far ahead of the US. --
Okay, perhaps things are different in japan (how much do they cost?) Here in the states, the most popular cell phone game is a slow black and white snakes game. --
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Excepts from the above link:
it is small phone that fits in the pocket and has all the features
the phone's features, functions and accessories have been carefully developed to fit an adventurous lifestyle.
The outside of the R310s is reinforced with rubber inlays to withstand harsh treatment and to provide a good grip that prevents the phone from becoming slippery when wet.
One of the first things that might strike you when you see the phone for the first time is the Shark Fin antenna. It is moulded in a flexible rubber material
To avoid getting dirt in the system connector of a phone, a protective rubber cover has been developed. The cover can be opened to facilitate easy mounting of accessories.
The new "shark fin" antennas make cell phones look like even more like a marital aid. Add the vibrate-on-ring feature, and there can be little doubt. --
I think these are called "concept phones". Very few of the cell phones now being released to customers have any of these features:
Large screen size
Color screens
Oval screens
Touch screen
Motion video
Cameras the size of a phone button
It's the type of features that everyone wants but nobody wants to pay the prices for because the technology just isn't there yet. (there are a few commercial phones with some of these features, but not in any significant volume)
The buyer also has to appease the seller to some extent, or all the sellers will go play a different game.
Yeah, SDMI sucks. I was just saying that no matter the alternative, I don't think much music will be released online without copy control. If some organization actually makes a large amount of money with MP3's, then the labels might sit up and listen. Until then, they want some form -- any form -- of copy control before they'll do music online. --
Well, Mike-1024 said record "What you hear". The goal of any watermarking algorithm is to not make a noticable difference in what you actually hear. So as long as you record it and have a proper psychoacustic model and throw out the fluff, it should get rid of the watermark.
If that doesn't work, then the watermark was too audible anyway, and the consumer probably would be disastisfied with the original. --
Geez, my post spawned a lot of conspiracy theories.
Yes, it gives the government the ability to more exactly do cost-benefit type things. But having the knowledge and actually using it are two different things. Furthermore, the US government's track record about lives indicates it won't do anything of the sort; the US government never tried to do anything about/to senior citizens, even though it could be argued that they cost more than they're worth to society just as you could do with genetics.
So far, US society has chosen to aid those who are less fortunate as long as society thinks that it's not their fault. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
--
I believe market powers want to make money and not give away things for free. Many of the labels believe that releasing music online without something like SDMI is essentially giving away something for free.
--
I agree that it's insurance if you don't know when the event will occur, and the cost of fixing the event (eg. death) varries over time (eg. if I die now, my kids would really suffer. But if I die later, than it's less of a problem). Otherwise, you know how much you're going to have to pay, and you know that you're going to have to pay it.
No, I don't think that insurance is flawed if you know that something bad is going to happen to you. I mean... intuitively, it seems to suck a little because they should have gotten insurance before they knew it would happen.
But it doesn't work that way. If you allow people to get insurance after they know an event will happen, then:
1. If the event hasn't happened yet, people won't buy insurance.
2. As soon as the event happens, the person will go out and buy insurance.
3. As a result, the insurance pool will consist of 100% people that the insurance company has to pay out to. So everyone will have to pay the full amount. There's no point in handing them 100%*X+admin_fees and then they hand you back 100%*X. --
There's an alternative to screening them out. Get insurance on the baby before you have sex. That way, the risk of conceiving a child with a genetic disease is shared.
When a couple decides to have a child, and they decide that they don't want to abort it if then detect a genetic disease, then the pay one lump sum beforehand. They pay {probability of conceiving a child with the disease} * {lifetime cost of treating the child}. Of course, the amount can be payed over time if it's too much to pay at once.
--
Okay, first of all, insurance is where everyone involved pays {probability that an event will happen} * {cost of remedy} whether or not the event occurs to them. When the even occurs, you don't have to pay as much. If the event never occurs, you only have to pay a small amount. It's not insurance if you have to pay the full amount of the remedy when the event happens.
Life insurance is considered insurance, because it's protecting you against an early death when you have dependents. "Whole life insurance" isn't really insurance, but an accumulation and investment of money. Since it's not really insurance, it costs a whole lot more.
standby techie isn't insurance. You have to pay the full cost of the remedy. --
You're almost making an argument abainst being as knowledgable as possible and trying to see things coming so you can plan for them.
Insurance isn't for bad things that happen but that are known in advance. If that were the case, you could get covered for oil changes and gas fillups. (drug prescriptions are covered by the richest people paying for the poorest people's prescriptions)
Insurance is a way to lower the impact of an unknown event. Once it becomes a known event, then you deal with it other ways. Maybe society says "We'll help you out because it's not your fault, but try not to pass those genes on". Or the individuals can plan for the eventuality by saving up. Or several other ways. But it's not insurance's job to cover those instances. --
There's two possible motives for that... covering their butt in a legal sense, or actually trying to protect the consumer. Which one do you think it is? --
Buying a computer without an OS is, for many (most?) customers, kinda useless.
Yes, but if a customer specifically asks for it (which is what this ad is talking about), then why ask them lots of questions?
As much as I hate to admit it, from a business standpoint, there are even a couple GOOD ideas. Warn customers that acquiring the PC "naked" and subsequently pirating the software is never a good option.
Businesses tend to not want to be the enforcers/educators of the law, because that makes people think less of them. Think of the things you've bought that could be used in dangerous ways... do the vedors usually warn you not to do anything dangerous with them? No... you're a grown-up.
If you specifically ask for a naked PC and don't sound like a clueless newbie, then why should they say anything? --
But DMCA only covers devices that allow copying. Watching a region-encoded DVD on a region-free player doesn't allow copying. (macrovision-free does and might be covered under DMCA) --
I think the intent is to provide the service that the user expects.
There are two ways to match reality with expectations: bring reality closer to expectations (through legal and/or technical measures), or bring expectations closer to reality (through education).
Certainly it'd be nice to be able to permanently delete some things sometimes. But in general, it might hamper the industry if we force them to implement everything the user expects (and burn tax dollars for enforcement). Alternatively, the government could simply educate the user as to what's really happening, and explain to them how to get the desired results if they still deem it necessary.
This is one nice feature of a sensational press. The wider the gap between expectation and reality, the more of a scandal it will be when the press exposes it. So the press is encouraged to work hard to find the widest gaps and "educate" the citizens about them. And the citizens don't end up paying taxes for strict enforcement of relatively minor gaps. They just "pay" by viewing advertisements, and they only "pay" for the things that really matter to them. --
National Public Radio yesterday aired a story about the status of copyrights in Russia. (audio available here).
NPR is almost as objective as they get.
Basically, the story was this: copyrights in Russia aren't protected very well. Pirates sell CDR copies of music for much less than bands sell them for, and as a result, 90% of the music is pirated.
Artists end up spending more time trying to figure out ways to make money and to get the pirates to pirate less than they do writing music. The successful bands are forced to tour at a strenuous pace. Even the most popular band spends most of their money on instruments and have to record in a very cramped apartment. The bands that are playing are basically doing it because they really really love to make music, not because they care about being able to do more than scrape by.
Maybe this is a sob-story, but it's an accurate reprentation of the situation in Russia. Listen to the story yourself, I may not have told it completely accurately.
Anyway, Napster opens up the possibility that America will be like that. Maybe you don't think musicians should make the enourmous amount of money they do now, but I don't think anyone wants the situation to get quite that bad. --
Re:Everyone says the same thing...
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 2
What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work.
Actually, US Copyright Code says nothing at all about third parties profiting from your works. It says almost nothing about money. The exclusive rights given to the author include right to copy, right to perform, etc...
The reason is that an increase of sales in one product often indirectly increases sales of a separate product. For instance, if madonna's CDs become 10 times more popular, you can bet that CD player sales will shoot through the roof. (yeah, the destination organizations in this case are the same, but they don't have to be) And it's impossible to calculate exactly how much one product affects another.
Yes, it seems ethical that the person who authors a work should be the one who benifits from it most. But the law says nothing of the sort because the line is fuzzy. --
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not arguing that everyone should be forced to have the same amount of money, nor am I arguing that a tax system should be highly progressive. I'm just pointing out reasons why taxes should be somewhat progressive rather than strictly flat or even regressive.
--
Also:
Al Gore: Gore worked to reduce the influence of drugs. The Administration Proposed the Largest Anti-Drug Budgets Ever. The Administration requested $19.2 billion in the FY01 budget to fight the war on drugs.
George Dubya: On the supply side, Governor Bush will improve interdiction and stop drugs before they reach our children. He will use better intelligence and surveillance to track and catch drug smugglers before they reach our borders. He will ensure that the INS hires the full allotment of Border Patrol agents required under law. Right now, the GAO reports that the INS had "a net shortfall of 594 agents for the 3-year period ending September 30, 1999." Governor Bush will hire more agents, and will reform the INS to better focus on its job of defending our border.
--
Almost convinced enough to move to Japan. All the coolest and fastest stuff in cell phones happens over there first, I just didn't know they were so far ahead of the US.
--
Okay, perhaps things are different in japan (how much do they cost?) Here in the states, the most popular cell phone game is a slow black and white snakes game.
--
the phone's features, functions and accessories have been carefully developed to fit an adventurous lifestyle.
The outside of the R310s is reinforced with rubber inlays to withstand harsh treatment and to provide a good grip that prevents the phone from becoming slippery when wet.
One of the first things that might strike you when you see the phone for the first time is the Shark Fin antenna. It is moulded in a flexible rubber material
To avoid getting dirt in the system connector of a phone, a protective rubber cover has been developed. The cover can be opened to facilitate easy mounting of accessories.
--
The new "shark fin" antennas make cell phones look like even more like a marital aid. Add the vibrate-on-ring feature, and there can be little doubt.
--
- Large screen size
- Color screens
- Oval screens
- Touch screen
- Motion video
- Cameras the size of a phone button
It's the type of features that everyone wants but nobody wants to pay the prices for because the technology just isn't there yet. (there are a few commercial phones with some of these features, but not in any significant volume)Links to other concept phone galleries:
ZDNet - Road to 3G
FutureZone - Telecom 99 Photo Gallery
CeBIT 1999
Wireless Review - Future Phone
WSJ - Staying in Touch
BW - The Latest Web-Phone Wonders Are...Still Out of Reach "Clearly, somewhere between the trade fairs and the marketplace, Ericsson runs into troubles"
If you look hard enough, you can find references to all sorts of fantastic phones that won't exist for quite a while.
--
Yeah, SDMI sucks. I was just saying that no matter the alternative, I don't think much music will be released online without copy control. If some organization actually makes a large amount of money with MP3's, then the labels might sit up and listen. Until then, they want some form -- any form -- of copy control before they'll do music online.
--
If that doesn't work, then the watermark was too audible anyway, and the consumer probably would be disastisfied with the original.
--
Yes, it gives the government the ability to more exactly do cost-benefit type things. But having the knowledge and actually using it are two different things. Furthermore, the US government's track record about lives indicates it won't do anything of the sort; the US government never tried to do anything about/to senior citizens, even though it could be argued that they cost more than they're worth to society just as you could do with genetics.
So far, US society has chosen to aid those who are less fortunate as long as society thinks that it's not their fault. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
--
I believe market powers want to make money and not give away things for free. Many of the labels believe that releasing music online without something like SDMI is essentially giving away something for free.
--
People don't pay attn to the mod strings, mostly to just "+1" or "-1".
And there's no way to mod "Funny but true".
--
No, I don't think that insurance is flawed if you know that something bad is going to happen to you. I mean... intuitively, it seems to suck a little because they should have gotten insurance before they knew it would happen.
But it doesn't work that way. If you allow people to get insurance after they know an event will happen, then:
1. If the event hasn't happened yet, people won't buy insurance.
2. As soon as the event happens, the person will go out and buy insurance.
3. As a result, the insurance pool will consist of 100% people that the insurance company has to pay out to. So everyone will have to pay the full amount. There's no point in handing them 100%*X+admin_fees and then they hand you back 100%*X.
--
When a couple decides to have a child, and they decide that they don't want to abort it if then detect a genetic disease, then the pay one lump sum beforehand. They pay {probability of conceiving a child with the disease} * {lifetime cost of treating the child}. Of course, the amount can be payed over time if it's too much to pay at once.
--
Insurance = events uncertain, everybody pays a small percentage
Not Insurance = when the event occurs, the person pays the full amount
There IS a time when getting Huntingdon's Chorea is uncertain. So perhaps there are two good alternatives for diseases that can be tested genetically:
1) At time of conception, abort babies that have the disease, or join many babies and pick the best one.
2) get insurance BEFORE conception that covers concieving a baby that has the genetic problem.
--
Okay, first of all, insurance is where everyone involved pays {probability that an event will happen} * {cost of remedy} whether or not the event occurs to them. When the even occurs, you don't have to pay as much. If the event never occurs, you only have to pay a small amount. It's not insurance if you have to pay the full amount of the remedy when the event happens.
Life insurance is considered insurance, because it's protecting you against an early death when you have dependents. "Whole life insurance" isn't really insurance, but an accumulation and investment of money. Since it's not really insurance, it costs a whole lot more.
standby techie isn't insurance. You have to pay the full cost of the remedy.
--
The economic definition of risk is: an uncertain event
eg. once you're sure something bad is going to happen, it's no longer a risk. It's then a known problem.
I'm not trying to nitpick. I just remembered it because it was a trick question on a quiz in my Econ class.
--
Insurance isn't for bad things that happen but that are known in advance. If that were the case, you could get covered for oil changes and gas fillups. (drug prescriptions are covered by the richest people paying for the poorest people's prescriptions)
Insurance is a way to lower the impact of an unknown event. Once it becomes a known event, then you deal with it other ways. Maybe society says "We'll help you out because it's not your fault, but try not to pass those genes on". Or the individuals can plan for the eventuality by saving up. Or several other ways. But it's not insurance's job to cover those instances.
--
There's two possible motives for that... covering their butt in a legal sense, or actually trying to protect the consumer. Which one do you think it is?
--
Yes, but if a customer specifically asks for it (which is what this ad is talking about), then why ask them lots of questions?
As much as I hate to admit it, from a business standpoint, there are even a couple GOOD ideas. Warn customers that acquiring the PC "naked" and subsequently pirating the software is never a good option.
Businesses tend to not want to be the enforcers/educators of the law, because that makes people think less of them. Think of the things you've bought that could be used in dangerous ways... do the vedors usually warn you not to do anything dangerous with them? No... you're a grown-up.
If you specifically ask for a naked PC and don't sound like a clueless newbie, then why should they say anything?
--
Slashdot - Napster Clone With Pay Per Download [July 30, 2000]
But I guess it's good to dig up topics from time to time in case anybody missed them last time 'round.
They've gotten a lot of press in the last four months, mostly good.
--
But DMCA only covers devices that allow copying. Watching a region-encoded DVD on a region-free player doesn't allow copying. (macrovision-free does and might be covered under DMCA)
--
There are two ways to match reality with expectations: bring reality closer to expectations (through legal and/or technical measures), or bring expectations closer to reality (through education).
Certainly it'd be nice to be able to permanently delete some things sometimes. But in general, it might hamper the industry if we force them to implement everything the user expects (and burn tax dollars for enforcement). Alternatively, the government could simply educate the user as to what's really happening, and explain to them how to get the desired results if they still deem it necessary.
This is one nice feature of a sensational press. The wider the gap between expectation and reality, the more of a scandal it will be when the press exposes it. So the press is encouraged to work hard to find the widest gaps and "educate" the citizens about them. And the citizens don't end up paying taxes for strict enforcement of relatively minor gaps. They just "pay" by viewing advertisements, and they only "pay" for the things that really matter to them.
--
NPR is almost as objective as they get.
Basically, the story was this: copyrights in Russia aren't protected very well. Pirates sell CDR copies of music for much less than bands sell them for, and as a result, 90% of the music is pirated.
Artists end up spending more time trying to figure out ways to make money and to get the pirates to pirate less than they do writing music. The successful bands are forced to tour at a strenuous pace. Even the most popular band spends most of their money on instruments and have to record in a very cramped apartment. The bands that are playing are basically doing it because they really really love to make music, not because they care about being able to do more than scrape by.
Maybe this is a sob-story, but it's an accurate reprentation of the situation in Russia. Listen to the story yourself, I may not have told it completely accurately.
Anyway, Napster opens up the possibility that America will be like that. Maybe you don't think musicians should make the enourmous amount of money they do now, but I don't think anyone wants the situation to get quite that bad.
--
Actually, US Copyright Code says nothing at all about third parties profiting from your works. It says almost nothing about money. The exclusive rights given to the author include right to copy, right to perform, etc...
The reason is that an increase of sales in one product often indirectly increases sales of a separate product. For instance, if madonna's CDs become 10 times more popular, you can bet that CD player sales will shoot through the roof. (yeah, the destination organizations in this case are the same, but they don't have to be) And it's impossible to calculate exactly how much one product affects another.
Yes, it seems ethical that the person who authors a work should be the one who benifits from it most. But the law says nothing of the sort because the line is fuzzy.
--