Absolute caps are... odd, given inflation and the life expectancy of the average law. At least income tax brackets are readjusted periodically... but the AMT brackets also need to get tweaked, otherwise the upper middle-class is going to get smacked pretty soon IIRC.
Most of my assets are in equities -- probably too much, but that's besides the point. They've been fluctuating quite a bit lately...
However, until I sell (I trade rather infrequently. I should probably put much of it in an aggresive growth fund instead.), these gains and losses do not, if memory serves, affect my tax liabilities. Hence, my net assets may, on paper, change rather more significantly in either direction than this fiscal year's tax return may reflect. Until I sell...
Some of us look at it from a moral standpoint -- one in which property is a basic, fundamental right.
As someone who is NOT in the top 1% of wage-earners, it MAY benefit me to have a confiscatory tax system -- say, 100% income tax above $X, to be redistributed evenly. However, whether or not I would get a material benefit from this should be irrelevant if I fundamentally believe that seizing such property is wrong in and of itself -- and I would oppose such.
It would be silly for Mr. Gates to spend his entire fortune on Pez dispensers, and then to have them interred with himself, but that does not justify taking his wealth -- since it is, fundamentally, his barring any judicial determination that it was acquired unlawfully.
Gain is not the only issue here. Morality is another.
And which party controlled the Congress, and thus had control over the budget, during that recession?
Keep in mind that the GOP took control towards the tail end. And that economic policies take time to work -- it can be argued we're seeing the benefit of trickle-down now.
a) Put a floor on it.
That is, any income below $X is not subject to income taxes, period.
b) Retain a very few tax credits/exemptions.
Child care credits and those relating to education and buying a first home are the main ones mentioned, IIRC.
If $X is fairly large, then even those with less income (not necessarily disadvantaged; probably, not not necessarily... since this ignores *prior* savings) would be reasonably treated fairly.
The fairness versus just a flat amount period comes in that
1) flat amounts need to be constantly adjusted over time for inflation / changing expenses and what-not, and
2) arguably the Gov't is a bit responsible for income, and this provides for *some* redistribution of the wealth (an arguably unfair, but necessary, partial correction to an unfair state.)
Mr. Greenspan and the rest of the FOMC are much closer to "steering" the economy than any President ever is.
At best, a President can seriously foul it up (pushing for protectionism and thus causing a trade war, screwing up and starting a conflict in the Middle East) or offer *slight* benefit (acquiesce to a sane budget from Congress, make headway with a trade treaty / diplomacy).
FWIW, I'd rather somebody be there who is aware he does not have all the answers and is thus more cautious, than somebody who considers himself a policy guru and starts pushing buttons. Even Greenspan and crew do not twiddle the controls that much, and they've got a LOT more experience and knowledge of finance than any President.
It was the Democratic Congress under a Republican administration that clamored most for the "peace dividend" -- back when they were looking at large budget deficits and wanted to spend even MORE money, and coming up with silly schemes like the luxury tax (which *decreased* revenue, and hence was revoked in a heartbeat... Demand for luxuries is elastic.). They, largely, started the cuts, as long as they were properly focused (namely, no Congressman wants to close the base or plant in HIS district).
Erm. If memory serves, there are higher caps for farm and small businesses in that the values have to be higher before the estate tax affects them.
Selling the farm would a) invoke the more normal (lower) threshold, and b) it's just shifting money... so the inheritance tax still applies unless it was sold at such a massive loss that the estate has dropped below the threshold.
So, if they cannot pay the estate tax on the farm, they have to sell it AND pay (higher) estate tax on the cash proceeds.
Ummm, not all non-profits are equal in terms of benefit to society.
I'd suggest, say, that were Gates to accumulate vast quantities of Impressionist paintings and donate them to the Louvre, the main benefit would be to those rich enough to travel to France and spend their time looking at art. Arguably, society as a whole -- particularly the poor -- would benefit more if the money were used to start companies and provide jobs, or alternately to provide an endowment for job training and financial planning.
But charity does not necessarily imply good for the disadvantaged -- far from it.
If memory serves, the number comes from a now-discarded accounting practice.
Overhead -- the expenses you describe, for instance -- was allocated evenly across items, which looks strange to reporters who don't bother to look for reasons why. IIRC this practice was halted sometime in the last decade or so.
Many European countries have more "progressive" -- that is, liberal -- tax and economic policies, particularly France (with such high taxes that many businesses move to the UK...) and the Scandinavian countries (at least one of which, if memory serves, even puts a cap on the ratio between max and minimum income in a company).
It's not completely coincidental that their economies are less than booming.
Well, no bull market rolls on forever -- the economy's been cyclic for as long as we can remember. All we can do is roll with the punches, and try to beat MonkeyDex.
There are always reasons -- expectations that got WAY too high (like companies that have insanely large expected growth rates -- and then get pounded when they do not *exceed* those expectations...), surprises overseas (trouble in the Mideast affects oil prices, which affects, well, just about everything), and so forth.
The artist willingly signs a contract that provides rights to the publishing company; in turn, the publishing company handles numerous tasks ranging from advertising to duplication and distribution.
If the rights are usurped by J. Random User, the publishing company has gotten the shaft -- because it has not been compensated for what was purchased by it, in a voluntary transaction. The rights are the full basis for the contract.
Consequently, the artist's position has been weakened, because if the rights CANNOT be defended legally, then why should the publishing company buy them? It would, essentially, be paying something for nothing -- which is rather unbusinesslike.
That is, if distributing music without a license is legal, then why should Sony etc. *not* simply do the same thing -- take the artist's music and publish it without the artist's consent, and without compensation?
Now if an artist does NOT sign a contract, and chooses to distribute his music on his own, that's his right. But the rights are HIS to transfer or grant, and his alone.
If memory serves, in the second debate Gore stated that he opposed raising the gasoline tax (Lehrer had asked about that, probably noting that it had been advocated in Gore's prior writings). That's probably a vital flip-flop...
("Yes! I'm going to make your gasoline even MORE expensive, because in the long run it's good for you! Muhahahahahahaha!" does not seem to be a smart thing to announce right now.)
Gore's answer certainly seems to ignore the alleged technical problems.
Napster claims ignorance in what's being transferred -- which, to some degree, is correct in that they know primarily what is being searched for, but they aren't (IIRC) being a middleman in the actual transaction.
Given that, the radio licensing fee system (money changes hands for the privilege of broadcasting songs, IIRC) does not apply too well, since their are now an arbitrary, ever-changing number of broadcasters. There'd need to be some significant architectural changes in the system if he wants to, say, allow for fees imposed per transaction.
Yes, "Battlefield Earth". Read the novel and found it perhaps the silliest, most completely corny novel I've ever read, with the possible exception of the maybe two or three Piers Anthony books I've tried.
If you're in the mood for ca. 1000 (IIRC) pages of, IMHO, very exuberant silliness (Sonic stunners, hordes of Scottish engineers, aliens that relish eating Earth trees by the grove, man-portable world-destroying bombs, a primitive protagonist who liberates the dozen universes...), it's a decent read. Just don't expect to find, oh, science in it.
It's the job of the holder of the IP to improve the product, not yours, unless they've explicitly permitted you to do this.
Or are you saying that, say, Photoshop today is no different than Photoshop 1.0? The Pentium III is no better than a Z80? Because that's all closed design, NOT driven by open development models.
But if you think that's stagnation, well, I'll be happy to trade a 90 Mhz Pentium if you buy me a quad-Xeon workstation, because it's all stagnant and there was no improvement, eh?
Seems the article mentions physical countermeasures like "antifuses" that apparently make it difficult for a user to probe a system without destroying the device...
Perfect for protecting your proprietary teleportation consoles from the prying hands of Hockners, Chatovarians or even lowly man-animals. =)
Use magic numbers, not extensions. Perhaps you've been wandering in the Windows world too much, but you must not have tested your ideas on a 'nix box. Try renaming, for instance, a JPEG file to have a.txt extension -- and xv handles it fine.
Why?
Because the first few bytes in the file conform to what is expected of a JPEG. Open one up -- and there's a header inside. It really DOES NOT CARE about the extension.
And, this is much saner than altering the filesystem...
Every Gov't dollar is a bit more leverage. And when the dollars are finite (that is, always...), and there are questions about how to allocate money...
The only way for locals to avoid the strings of conditions that come with the money is to avoid it altogether. It's the same deal as, say, arts funding; recall the whole spat between NYC mayor Giuliani and the museum (Was it the Brooklyn MOA? Don't recall which) over controversial art in a building tied to a city lease?
They can't legally, AFAIK, mandate censorware on ALL libraries (it'd be tricky to find a clause that permits this; even 'necessary and proper' does not seem to apply, since why must it be done by the Feds and not at the state/local level...), but they can probably legally set this condition, given that this deal isn't likely a guaranteed entitlement...
Maybe the AFA doesn't want this being done at
the Federal level, and prefers local control... might easily be the case if they feel they're stricter about what should be banned than they think the Washingtonians are.
...A twist for supporters of Federal hate-crimes legislation:
Why is it under Federal jurisdiction? The original justification for the Civil Rights Act and its ilk was that it was necessary and proper ('elastic' clause) under the 14th Amendment (equal protection) because many local jurisdictions were refusing to enforce their laws, and sometimes conspired with the criminals. This does not appear to be the case anymore.
Is there a SINGLE state or local jurisdiction today where this is a significant problem? If not, then why is it Constitutional at *all* anymore?
a) What is your opinion on the balance of power between the three branches?
Some would argue that the executive branch has usurped legislative authority via executive orders -- will you use them as vigorously as did other recent administrations?
b) Why do you matter?
Seriously. Bills, nominally, should originate in the Congress. Before any major legislative action, like a budget, gets accepted -- a LOT of people on the Hill have to agree. Why should we care so much about the Presidency, and so little about the Congress -- so much so that the reelection rate for the latter is incredibly high?
c) Everybody seems to be talking about prescription drugs. Should these benefits take into account the frequently substantial life savings?
Right now, Mr. Gates could resign and forfeit all his retirement benefits -- should he qualify for drug assistance? It appears extremely disingenuous to talk about the elderly's low income, and yet to ignore the often significant income they should have accrued over their working years -- if memory serves, the retired may be the wealthiest sector in the country.
They were probably doomed before Buchanan saw an opportunity.
Between the Perotistas and the Ventura partisans, there was plenty enough bickering... if Hagelin -- a fellow who seems to view TM as a viable solution to many, many problems -- is the best they can come up with, *Mondale* might have crushed him in a landslide.
More important than the fairly paltry amount of money would probably have been a) participation in the debates, and b) more media coverage, which the former would certainly have forced. Right now, a reporter can get away with ignoring Nader and Buchanan, because for all practical purposes they do not matter. If, for instance, they bothered to shine a light on all the ideas espoused by the Association of State Green Parties[*], or those by the Buchanan Brigades, things might get a bit more interesting and images may change.
[*] Like immediate disarmament of all nuclear weapons, school choice (which I happen to agree with, but is a tough sell...), universal health care (perhaps the largest of all possible Federal programs...), a more socialistic tax system... and so forth, well beyond the consumer and environmental issues normally associated with Nader. It's a pretty extreme platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it should be indexed to the CPI.
Absolute caps are... odd, given inflation and the life expectancy of the average law. At least income tax brackets are readjusted periodically... but the AMT brackets also need to get tweaked, otherwise the upper middle-class is going to get smacked pretty soon IIRC.
Most of my assets are in equities -- probably too much, but that's besides the point. They've been fluctuating quite a bit lately...
However, until I sell (I trade rather infrequently. I should probably put much of it in an aggresive growth fund instead.), these gains and losses do not, if memory serves, affect my tax liabilities. Hence, my net assets may, on paper, change rather more significantly in either direction than this fiscal year's tax return may reflect. Until I sell...
Some of us look at it from a moral standpoint -- one in which property is a basic, fundamental right.
As someone who is NOT in the top 1% of wage-earners, it MAY benefit me to have a confiscatory tax system -- say, 100% income tax above $X, to be redistributed evenly. However, whether or not I would get a material benefit from this should be irrelevant if I fundamentally believe that seizing such property is wrong in and of itself -- and I would oppose such.
It would be silly for Mr. Gates to spend his entire fortune on Pez dispensers, and then to have them interred with himself, but that does not justify taking his wealth -- since it is, fundamentally, his barring any judicial determination that it was acquired unlawfully.
Gain is not the only issue here. Morality is another.
And which party controlled the Congress, and thus had control over the budget, during that recession?
Keep in mind that the GOP took control towards the tail end. And that economic policies take time to work -- it can be argued we're seeing the benefit of trickle-down now.
The obvious workaround is roughly as follows.
a) Put a floor on it.
That is, any income below $X is not subject to income taxes, period.
b) Retain a very few tax credits/exemptions.
Child care credits and those relating to education and buying a first home are the main ones mentioned, IIRC.
If $X is fairly large, then even those with less income (not necessarily disadvantaged; probably, not not necessarily... since this ignores *prior* savings) would be reasonably treated fairly.
The fairness versus just a flat amount period comes in that
1) flat amounts need to be constantly adjusted over time for inflation / changing expenses and what-not, and
2) arguably the Gov't is a bit responsible for income, and this provides for *some* redistribution of the wealth (an arguably unfair, but necessary, partial correction to an unfair state.)
Call it more pragmatic than anything else.
Mr. Greenspan and the rest of the FOMC are much closer to "steering" the economy than any President ever is.
At best, a President can seriously foul it up (pushing for protectionism and thus causing a trade war, screwing up and starting a conflict in the Middle East) or offer *slight* benefit (acquiesce to a sane budget from Congress, make headway with a trade treaty / diplomacy).
FWIW, I'd rather somebody be there who is aware he does not have all the answers and is thus more cautious, than somebody who considers himself a policy guru and starts pushing buttons. Even Greenspan and crew do not twiddle the controls that much, and they've got a LOT more experience and knowledge of finance than any President.
It was the Democratic Congress under a Republican administration that clamored most for the "peace dividend" -- back when they were looking at large budget deficits and wanted to spend even MORE money, and coming up with silly schemes like the luxury tax (which *decreased* revenue, and hence was revoked in a heartbeat... Demand for luxuries is elastic.). They, largely, started the cuts, as long as they were properly focused (namely, no Congressman wants to close the base or plant in HIS district).
Erm. If memory serves, there are higher caps for farm and small businesses in that the values have to be higher before the estate tax affects them.
Selling the farm would a) invoke the more normal (lower) threshold, and b) it's just shifting money... so the inheritance tax still applies unless it was sold at such a massive loss that the estate has dropped below the threshold.
So, if they cannot pay the estate tax on the farm, they have to sell it AND pay (higher) estate tax on the cash proceeds.
Ummm, not all non-profits are equal in terms of benefit to society.
I'd suggest, say, that were Gates to accumulate vast quantities of Impressionist paintings and donate them to the Louvre, the main benefit would be to those rich enough to travel to France and spend their time looking at art. Arguably, society as a whole -- particularly the poor -- would benefit more if the money were used to start companies and provide jobs, or alternately to provide an endowment for job training and financial planning.
But charity does not necessarily imply good for the disadvantaged -- far from it.
If memory serves, the number comes from a now-discarded accounting practice.
Overhead -- the expenses you describe, for instance -- was allocated evenly across items, which looks strange to reporters who don't bother to look for reasons why. IIRC this practice was halted sometime in the last decade or so.
Many European countries have more "progressive" -- that is, liberal -- tax and economic policies, particularly France (with such high taxes that many businesses move to the UK...) and the Scandinavian countries (at least one of which, if memory serves, even puts a cap on the ratio between max and minimum income in a company).
It's not completely coincidental that their economies are less than booming.
Taxes are nominally on income, not on accumulated assets. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Well, no bull market rolls on forever -- the economy's been cyclic for as long as we can remember. All we can do is roll with the punches, and try to beat MonkeyDex.
There are always reasons -- expectations that got WAY too high (like companies that have insanely large expected growth rates -- and then get pounded when they do not *exceed* those expectations...), surprises overseas (trouble in the Mideast affects oil prices, which affects, well, just about everything), and so forth.
The artist willingly signs a contract that provides rights to the publishing company; in turn, the publishing company handles numerous tasks ranging from advertising to duplication and distribution.
If the rights are usurped by J. Random User, the publishing company has gotten the shaft -- because it has not been compensated for what was purchased by it, in a voluntary transaction. The rights are the full basis for the contract.
Consequently, the artist's position has been weakened, because if the rights CANNOT be defended legally, then why should the publishing company buy them? It would, essentially, be paying something for nothing -- which is rather unbusinesslike.
That is, if distributing music without a license is legal, then why should Sony etc. *not* simply do the same thing -- take the artist's music and publish it without the artist's consent, and without compensation?
Now if an artist does NOT sign a contract, and chooses to distribute his music on his own, that's his right. But the rights are HIS to transfer or grant, and his alone.
If memory serves, in the second debate Gore stated that he opposed raising the gasoline tax (Lehrer had asked about that, probably noting that it had been advocated in Gore's prior writings). That's probably a vital flip-flop...
("Yes! I'm going to make your gasoline even MORE expensive, because in the long run it's good for you! Muhahahahahahaha!" does not seem to be a smart thing to announce right now.)
Gore's answer certainly seems to ignore the alleged technical problems.
Napster claims ignorance in what's being transferred -- which, to some degree, is correct in that they know primarily what is being searched for, but they aren't (IIRC) being a middleman in the actual transaction.
Given that, the radio licensing fee system (money changes hands for the privilege of broadcasting songs, IIRC) does not apply too well, since their are now an arbitrary, ever-changing number of broadcasters. There'd need to be some significant architectural changes in the system if he wants to, say, allow for fees imposed per transaction.
Yes, "Battlefield Earth". Read the novel and found it perhaps the silliest, most completely corny novel I've ever read, with the possible exception of the maybe two or three Piers Anthony books I've tried.
If you're in the mood for ca. 1000 (IIRC) pages of, IMHO, very exuberant silliness (Sonic stunners, hordes of Scottish engineers, aliens that relish eating Earth trees by the grove, man-portable world-destroying bombs, a primitive protagonist who liberates the dozen universes...), it's a decent read. Just don't expect to find, oh, science in it.
It's the job of the holder of the IP to improve the product, not yours, unless they've explicitly permitted you to do this.
Or are you saying that, say, Photoshop today is no different than Photoshop 1.0? The Pentium III is no better than a Z80? Because that's all closed design, NOT driven by open development models.
But if you think that's stagnation, well, I'll be happy to trade a 90 Mhz Pentium if you buy me a quad-Xeon workstation, because it's all stagnant and there was no improvement, eh?
Seems the article mentions physical countermeasures like "antifuses" that apparently make it difficult for a user to probe a system without destroying the device...
Perfect for protecting your proprietary teleportation consoles from the prying hands of Hockners, Chatovarians or even lowly man-animals. =)
Use magic numbers, not extensions. Perhaps you've been wandering in the Windows world too much, but you must not have tested your ideas on a 'nix box. Try renaming, for instance, a JPEG file to have a .txt extension -- and xv handles it fine.
Why?
Because the first few bytes in the file conform to what is expected of a JPEG. Open one up -- and there's a header inside. It really DOES NOT CARE about the extension.
And, this is much saner than altering the filesystem...
Every Gov't dollar is a bit more leverage. And when the dollars are finite (that is, always...), and there are questions about how to allocate money...
The only way for locals to avoid the strings of conditions that come with the money is to avoid it altogether. It's the same deal as, say, arts funding; recall the whole spat between NYC mayor Giuliani and the museum (Was it the Brooklyn MOA? Don't recall which) over controversial art in a building tied to a city lease?
They can't legally, AFAIK, mandate censorware on ALL libraries (it'd be tricky to find a clause that permits this; even 'necessary and proper' does not seem to apply, since why must it be done by the Feds and not at the state/local level...), but they can probably legally set this condition, given that this deal isn't likely a guaranteed entitlement...
Maybe the AFA doesn't want this being done at the Federal level, and prefers local control... might easily be the case if they feel they're stricter about what should be banned than they think the Washingtonians are.
...A twist for supporters of Federal hate-crimes legislation:
Why is it under Federal jurisdiction? The original justification for the Civil Rights Act and its ilk was that it was necessary and proper ('elastic' clause) under the 14th Amendment (equal protection) because many local jurisdictions were refusing to enforce their laws, and sometimes conspired with the criminals. This does not appear to be the case anymore.
Is there a SINGLE state or local jurisdiction today where this is a significant problem? If not, then why is it Constitutional at *all* anymore?
a) What is your opinion on the balance of power between the three branches?
Some would argue that the executive branch has usurped legislative authority via executive orders -- will you use them as vigorously as did other recent administrations?
b) Why do you matter?
Seriously. Bills, nominally, should originate in the Congress. Before any major legislative action, like a budget, gets accepted -- a LOT of people on the Hill have to agree. Why should we care so much about the Presidency, and so little about the Congress -- so much so that the reelection rate for the latter is incredibly high?
c) Everybody seems to be talking about prescription drugs. Should these benefits take into account the frequently substantial life savings?
Right now, Mr. Gates could resign and forfeit all his retirement benefits -- should he qualify for drug assistance? It appears extremely disingenuous to talk about the elderly's low income, and yet to ignore the often significant income they should have accrued over their working years -- if memory serves, the retired may be the wealthiest sector in the country.
They were probably doomed before Buchanan saw an opportunity.
Between the Perotistas and the Ventura partisans, there was plenty enough bickering... if Hagelin -- a fellow who seems to view TM as a viable solution to many, many problems -- is the best they can come up with, *Mondale* might have crushed him in a landslide.
More important than the fairly paltry amount of money would probably have been a) participation in the debates, and b) more media coverage, which the former would certainly have forced. Right now, a reporter can get away with ignoring Nader and Buchanan, because for all practical purposes they do not matter. If, for instance, they bothered to shine a light on all the ideas espoused by the Association of State Green Parties[*], or those by the Buchanan Brigades, things might get a bit more interesting and images may change.
[*] Like immediate disarmament of all nuclear weapons, school choice (which I happen to agree with, but is a tough sell...), universal health care (perhaps the largest of all possible Federal programs...), a more socialistic tax system... and so forth, well beyond the consumer and environmental issues normally associated with Nader. It's a pretty extreme platform.