I'm well aware of the return rate on a mutual fund. A 5% return on $1 million isn't anything amazing. I'm not arguing that you can live off the returns from having $5 million dollars on hand. I don't know why you think this is surprising or impressive. I'm trying to show you what most "millionaires" look like and explain that they aren't somehow exempt from paying a 35% tax rate (+AMT) if their income is from w2 wages.
First of all, Obama's tax had nothing to do with people worth a million dollars. It's people making an income worth that much in a year.
And I'll quote your original post again: "You can be certain that no millionaire pays the full %35 on income tax."
A millionaire is someone who's net worth exceeds 1 million dollars. I think that pretty much covers the rest of your post.
In other words, if your net value is 1 Million and you have all but 50K tied up in one house and cars,
you forgot the 200K retirement savings. so 1/4 of your income is in savings, $500k in a home, the rest in cars. Feel free to play with the numbers. for example, 150k in cars (husband+wife each have 75k cars) and the other 350k in retirement + savings account with a half a million dollar home. I'm not asking you for financial advice, I'm giving you an example of a run-of-the-mill millionaire and then asking you to explain how they're not paying 35% income tax, which you claimed "no millionaire pays".
Actually, Apple retain most the profits because they provide an entire package. When you pay your $1000 (less subsidies) for a smartphone, some goes to hardware, some goes to distribution, some goes to marketing, some goes to R&D. Apple get's all of that.
With Android, Hardware profits go the manufacturer. Software R&D profits go to the Google, Distribution profits go to the Reseller (Carrier). They all pay for marketing.
Nothing you've said regarding this point is relevant. I'm not sure how else to say it so I'll try one more time. Apple could charge you LESS than they do.
The smartphone market is only expanding at the expense of the Legacy Phone market so Android isn't taking any Phone Market Share away from iOS. Android isn't winning against iOS, it is winning against Samsung, Motorola and other legacy phone manufacturers.
You're missing one important component: Android has slowly decreased the rate at which iOS is growing over the last year or two or so. iOS is still expanding, but FAR less rapidly. Unless you'd like to argue that without the introduction of Android, iOS would have grown at the exact same pace?
[repeat moot talking points, whine a lot about copying, regurgitate engadget talking points - "iPad Market is the tablet Market. Consumers don't want Tablets, they want iPads" --etc, Blarffffff]
Nothing that you're saying changes the fact that you pay far more for Apple devices than is required. Even with engineering costs Apple has a huge stockpile of cash. And please save your "Engadget Sound Bites" for someone else. I own a Macbook Air and an iPad. I like Apple products a lot, but I also realize they're overpriced.
When a Cheaply manufactured, overpriced Tablet with copy-cat OS comes out, is an indirect threat to the iPad Market. It may take away a few sales of iPads to start with, but nothing significant. When Manufacturers start practicing predatory sales tactics like copy-cat packaging and pixel-perfect software cloning to unload inferior product to consumers, that can really damage Apple's mindshare. If one idiot consumer thinks they bought an iPad because the sales drone says "it's the same as an iPad" and has a terrible experience, that doesn't just reflect poorly on the idiot customer, sales drone or even the manufacturer pushing crappy product, it ends up damaging Apple's image too.
who are you even talking to here? please save your off topic rants, they're wasted on me.
You said "You can be certain that no millionaire pays the full %35 on income tax."
If someone had a $500k home, $250k in cars and 50k in the bank and $200k in a 401k (aka "a millionaire"), and had an annual salary of 200k, explain how they would pay less than 35% + AMT.
A group called the Tax Relief Coalition said the problem was finding someone willing to talk about their personal taxes on national radio.
Can't find != doesn't exist. Most people carrying $1M on their personal return certainly are smart enough to not want to broadcast it on national radio.
"It's only fair that I put back into the system that is the entire reason for my success," said Burger.
No one disagrees with this, we all just disagree on what that figure should be.
It is the ***same*** mentality that people who want to lose weight so they have a Diet Coke along with a large meal. If ya want to lose weight you must either reduce intake, do more exercise, or both. A Diet Coke is only 0.05% of the big picture. Be a man and have a real coke.
Completely incorrect. Let's look at McDonald's as an example. Let's say you ate the following for lunch every day:
1/4 Pounder with Cheese: 510 calories
Medium French Fry: 380 calories
Large Coke: 310 calories
Total: 1200 calories (source)
In this scenario the Coke accounts for 25.8% of the calories (!!!). If you were to switch from regular to diet coke and change NOTHING ELSE, you would lose 31.5lbs in a year.
310 calories * 365 days in a year / 3500 calories per pound = 31.5 lbs/year
And pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. First they fall into the highest tax bracket of 35% then pay AMT on top of that, plus capital gains on anything else.
If HTC (for example) only has 10% margins then I understand they can't sell it for less than $200. If Apple has 50% margins then I start to wonder why they're charging so much. It's not an Apple vs Android, it's consumer vs. manufacturer. Second of all, you're only considering iPhones. Let's look at the margins on iPads, Macbooks and iMacs. Again - why are we paying so much? And what the carrier charges is moot. Smartphones aren't even worth arguing when the service cost is 90% of the cost of a 2 year contract.
I guess I'm not seeing anything surprising here - if you are debating the merits of something, you use whatever arguments you have at your disposal. Once one of your arguments is invalidated, you modify it, find new arguments, or rely on your other arguments. That's the way it works.
And then I come along and point that out to keep everyone honest:)
What I always found interesting is that people want to boil it down to who is "winning". When Apple supporters look at Apple's margins they say: "look! apple is winning!". I don't own Apple stock so I don't care if they generate more revenue. So I always wonder how anyone who doesn't benefit financially from Apple's large revenues (eg employees, shareholders, etc) would buy Apple products then say Apple is "winning" because of profit. I'd be thinking the exact opposite! Wow, Apple has huge margins? I'm overpaying! Personally, what/I'm/ interested in is what platform has the broadest adoption. I'm not a day trader, I'm not an economist, I'm just someone interested in technology.
Actually, in the U.S. you pay the same amount for an iPhone that you pay for an equivalent Android phone. The carrier pays a higher subsidy to Apple. The monthly charges are also the same. Why should I care that the carrier has to pay a higher subsidy?
And if they have the largest margins, you should be paying even LESS.
Whoever said that Apple cared about marketshare in either case? If they did, wouldn't they be dropping their prices?
Because I'm responding to "jellomizers" post where he outlined a number of options that Apple had if, and I quote, "Android tables[sic] get too popular". To your second question, Apple typically doesn't drop prices to compete. Prices staying consistent between generations and they add features.
Of course the majority of Americans are OK with it - it doesn't apply to them. Now let's define what "a great deal of millionaires is" (25%? 50%?) and now you show me a poll that backs up that statement.
I'm fairly certain they are, that's why I said that. I don't know what that proves exactly. Does that make Mac a better platform? More popular? I don't understand what that proves, it's just an arbitrary metric. I don't care about companies I care about ecosystems and platforms. I could say BMW sells the most 3.0L turbocharged coupes over $30k. So? What does that MEAN? It's a fairly pointless statement.
Read my post again. Carefully. I asked why didn't "Apple institute any of these to stop Android smartphones (plural) from outselling the iPhone". Never once did I imply that a single manufacturer outsold the iPhone (although Samsung did last quarter).
If you think that the total number of devices running a particular platform is unimportant, great, we'll agree to disagree.
I'm simply asking why the discrepancy between the concern over tablet marketshare vs smartphone marketshare. When iPhone had a larger marketshare than Android, Apple supporters would always point out how large the iPhone marketshare was. When Android overtook Apple in marketshare, it no longer became a concern, and Apple supporters would only talk about profit margins. So again, just for clarification - why the concern over tablet marketshare but not smartphone marketshare.
We're all well aware of Apple's percentage of profits. By the way, Apple's profits tell me one thing: if you buy Apple you're overpaying. But, you're missing the point.
Why do they care about tablet marketshare (and also presumably profit) but don't care about marketshare of smartphones, only profits?
I think its easier to make it almost a "luxury" item and drive it down market than the opposite. Harder to make a super cheap low end electric car and then convince upper-middle class and beyond to buy in to the "cheap electric cars". Not to mention the high relative cost to produce electric vehicles initially can be shouldered mostly by higher income individuals.
It's based on a real helicopter. So it's form over function in the sense that it was designed to carry a pilot. If the airframe was designed from the ground up to not carry a pilot it would look significantly different I'm sure.
Meanwhile Khan Academy offers basically a complete curriculum for free. The model of teaching in this country needs to change dramatically. Why are we not using technology to teach our kids not only less expensively, but more effectively? Let students work at their own page with teachers there to assist as necessary. Then maybe break kids out in groups based on their pace to interact and work collectively. We haven't changed how we teach our children in this country in probably 200 years. We can do this better.
I think their intent is just to stop the majority of it. I think it's safe to assume the vast majority of people pirating movies won't be technically savvy enough to bypass DNS blocking. Nothing is 100%, I think they're just trying to get as close as they can as easily as possible. And with a little luck and word of mouth, hopefully we can make it fail miserably:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm well aware of the return rate on a mutual fund. A 5% return on $1 million isn't anything amazing. I'm not arguing that you can live off the returns from having $5 million dollars on hand. I don't know why you think this is surprising or impressive. I'm trying to show you what most "millionaires" look like and explain that they aren't somehow exempt from paying a 35% tax rate (+AMT) if their income is from w2 wages.
First of all, Obama's tax had nothing to do with people worth a million dollars. It's people making an income worth that much in a year.
And I'll quote your original post again: "You can be certain that no millionaire pays the full %35 on income tax."
A millionaire is someone who's net worth exceeds 1 million dollars. I think that pretty much covers the rest of your post.
In other words, if your net value is 1 Million and you have all but 50K tied up in one house and cars,
you forgot the 200K retirement savings. so 1/4 of your income is in savings, $500k in a home, the rest in cars. Feel free to play with the numbers. for example, 150k in cars (husband+wife each have 75k cars) and the other 350k in retirement + savings account with a half a million dollar home. I'm not asking you for financial advice, I'm giving you an example of a run-of-the-mill millionaire and then asking you to explain how they're not paying 35% income tax, which you claimed "no millionaire pays".
Actually, Apple retain most the profits because they provide an entire package. When you pay your $1000 (less subsidies) for a smartphone, some goes to hardware, some goes to distribution, some goes to marketing, some goes to R&D. Apple get's all of that. With Android, Hardware profits go the manufacturer. Software R&D profits go to the Google, Distribution profits go to the Reseller (Carrier). They all pay for marketing.
Nothing you've said regarding this point is relevant. I'm not sure how else to say it so I'll try one more time. Apple could charge you LESS than they do.
The smartphone market is only expanding at the expense of the Legacy Phone market so Android isn't taking any Phone Market Share away from iOS. Android isn't winning against iOS, it is winning against Samsung, Motorola and other legacy phone manufacturers.
You're missing one important component: Android has slowly decreased the rate at which iOS is growing over the last year or two or so. iOS is still expanding, but FAR less rapidly. Unless you'd like to argue that without the introduction of Android, iOS would have grown at the exact same pace?
[repeat moot talking points, whine a lot about copying, regurgitate engadget talking points - "iPad Market is the tablet Market. Consumers don't want Tablets, they want iPads" --etc, Blarffffff]
Nothing that you're saying changes the fact that you pay far more for Apple devices than is required. Even with engineering costs Apple has a huge stockpile of cash. And please save your "Engadget Sound Bites" for someone else. I own a Macbook Air and an iPad. I like Apple products a lot, but I also realize they're overpriced.
When a Cheaply manufactured, overpriced Tablet with copy-cat OS comes out, is an indirect threat to the iPad Market. It may take away a few sales of iPads to start with, but nothing significant. When Manufacturers start practicing predatory sales tactics like copy-cat packaging and pixel-perfect software cloning to unload inferior product to consumers, that can really damage Apple's mindshare. If one idiot consumer thinks they bought an iPad because the sales drone says "it's the same as an iPad" and has a terrible experience, that doesn't just reflect poorly on the idiot customer, sales drone or even the manufacturer pushing crappy product, it ends up damaging Apple's image too.
who are you even talking to here? please save your off topic rants, they're wasted on me.
You said "You can be certain that no millionaire pays the full %35 on income tax."
If someone had a $500k home, $250k in cars and 50k in the bank and $200k in a 401k (aka "a millionaire"), and had an annual salary of 200k, explain how they would pay less than 35% + AMT.
A group called the Tax Relief Coalition said the problem was finding someone willing to talk about their personal taxes on national radio.
Can't find != doesn't exist. Most people carrying $1M on their personal return certainly are smart enough to not want to broadcast it on national radio.
"It's only fair that I put back into the system that is the entire reason for my success," said Burger.
No one disagrees with this, we all just disagree on what that figure should be.
Sounds like a lot of work to never work a day in your life, along with somehow stumbling into $5M in assets somehow.
A millionaire is someone who has a million dollars. You're assuming everyone with over a million dollars doesn't earn w2 wages.
It is the ***same*** mentality that people who want to lose weight so they have a Diet Coke along with a large meal. If ya want to lose weight you must either reduce intake, do more exercise, or both. A Diet Coke is only 0.05% of the big picture. Be a man and have a real coke.
Completely incorrect. Let's look at McDonald's as an example. Let's say you ate the following for lunch every day:
1/4 Pounder with Cheese: 510 calories
Medium French Fry: 380 calories
Large Coke: 310 calories
Total: 1200 calories
(source)
In this scenario the Coke accounts for 25.8% of the calories (!!!). If you were to switch from regular to diet coke and change NOTHING ELSE, you would lose 31.5lbs in a year.
310 calories * 365 days in a year / 3500 calories per pound = 31.5 lbs/year
And pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. First they fall into the highest tax bracket of 35% then pay AMT on top of that, plus capital gains on anything else.
If HTC (for example) only has 10% margins then I understand they can't sell it for less than $200. If Apple has 50% margins then I start to wonder why they're charging so much. It's not an Apple vs Android, it's consumer vs. manufacturer. Second of all, you're only considering iPhones. Let's look at the margins on iPads, Macbooks and iMacs. Again - why are we paying so much? And what the carrier charges is moot. Smartphones aren't even worth arguing when the service cost is 90% of the cost of a 2 year contract.
I guess I'm not seeing anything surprising here - if you are debating the merits of something, you use whatever arguments you have at your disposal. Once one of your arguments is invalidated, you modify it, find new arguments, or rely on your other arguments. That's the way it works.
And then I come along and point that out to keep everyone honest :)
/I'm/ interested in is what platform has the broadest adoption. I'm not a day trader, I'm not an economist, I'm just someone interested in technology.
What I always found interesting is that people want to boil it down to who is "winning". When Apple supporters look at Apple's margins they say: "look! apple is winning!". I don't own Apple stock so I don't care if they generate more revenue. So I always wonder how anyone who doesn't benefit financially from Apple's large revenues (eg employees, shareholders, etc) would buy Apple products then say Apple is "winning" because of profit. I'd be thinking the exact opposite! Wow, Apple has huge margins? I'm overpaying! Personally, what
Actually, in the U.S. you pay the same amount for an iPhone that you pay for an equivalent Android phone. The carrier pays a higher subsidy to Apple. The monthly charges are also the same. Why should I care that the carrier has to pay a higher subsidy?
And if they have the largest margins, you should be paying even LESS.
Whoever said that Apple cared about marketshare in either case? If they did, wouldn't they be dropping their prices?
Because I'm responding to "jellomizers" post where he outlined a number of options that Apple had if, and I quote, "Android tables[sic] get too popular". To your second question, Apple typically doesn't drop prices to compete. Prices staying consistent between generations and they add features.
Of course the majority of Americans are OK with it - it doesn't apply to them. Now let's define what "a great deal of millionaires is" (25%? 50%?) and now you show me a poll that backs up that statement.
I'm fairly certain they are, that's why I said that. I don't know what that proves exactly. Does that make Mac a better platform? More popular? I don't understand what that proves, it's just an arbitrary metric. I don't care about companies I care about ecosystems and platforms. I could say BMW sells the most 3.0L turbocharged coupes over $30k. So? What does that MEAN? It's a fairly pointless statement.
Read my post again. Carefully. I asked why didn't "Apple institute any of these to stop Android smartphones (plural) from outselling the iPhone". Never once did I imply that a single manufacturer outsold the iPhone (although Samsung did last quarter).
If you think that the total number of devices running a particular platform is unimportant, great, we'll agree to disagree.
I'm simply asking why the discrepancy between the concern over tablet marketshare vs smartphone marketshare. When iPhone had a larger marketshare than Android, Apple supporters would always point out how large the iPhone marketshare was. When Android overtook Apple in marketshare, it no longer became a concern, and Apple supporters would only talk about profit margins. So again, just for clarification - why the concern over tablet marketshare but not smartphone marketshare.
We're all well aware of Apple's percentage of profits. By the way, Apple's profits tell me one thing: if you buy Apple you're overpaying. But, you're missing the point.
Why do they care about tablet marketshare (and also presumably profit) but don't care about marketshare of smartphones, only profits?
So why didn't Apple institute any of these and stop Android smartphones from outselling iPhones?
Yes and using that logic Macbooks are the most popular laptop. What does that "mean" exactly? What's your point?
My average speed according to my car's computer is 30.2 mph.
I think its easier to make it almost a "luxury" item and drive it down market than the opposite. Harder to make a super cheap low end electric car and then convince upper-middle class and beyond to buy in to the "cheap electric cars". Not to mention the high relative cost to produce electric vehicles initially can be shouldered mostly by higher income individuals.
It's based on a real helicopter. So it's form over function in the sense that it was designed to carry a pilot. If the airframe was designed from the ground up to not carry a pilot it would look significantly different I'm sure.
Meanwhile Khan Academy offers basically a complete curriculum for free. The model of teaching in this country needs to change dramatically. Why are we not using technology to teach our kids not only less expensively, but more effectively? Let students work at their own page with teachers there to assist as necessary. Then maybe break kids out in groups based on their pace to interact and work collectively. We haven't changed how we teach our children in this country in probably 200 years. We can do this better.
I think their intent is just to stop the majority of it. I think it's safe to assume the vast majority of people pirating movies won't be technically savvy enough to bypass DNS blocking. Nothing is 100%, I think they're just trying to get as close as they can as easily as possible. And with a little luck and word of mouth, hopefully we can make it fail miserably :)
This is the last one I heard of. Feel free to dig around, there have been HIPAA fines in the millions.