z/OS is licensed per CPU (tied to the CPU serial number). Long before TurboHercules, the Hercules community tried to get IBM to provide a "hobbyist/student" license to allow z/OS (or OS/390) to be legally run on Hercules, but IBM was not interested. I don't believe at that time IBM was concerned with IP or patent issues, there just wasn't enough in it for IBM to waste their time with. Having said that, I know IBM "used" to license their OS to run on competitor mainframes such as Amdahl and Fujitsu, mostly because they were forced to as part of the antitrust settlement. I don't know it that's the case anymore. However, even if IBM were to be forced to license z/OS to be run on Hercules, I'm sure no one could afford it (at least for hobby/training purposes). I remember back 20 years ago we used to pay about $6,000 per month just for MVS (about $25,000 per month for all the IBM software we had), and we were a pretty small mainframe shop.
Many F500 companies have legacy mainframe applications that are not critical to the business, but they don't want to spend the $$$ to rewrite them for another platform. For these application, Hercules would make sense (if they could legally run z/OS). Also, whenever I'm engaged in a mainframe development project (yes, they still happen - occasionally - though usually only for maintenance enhancements), I use my local MVS instance to do the development since the "real" mainframe is usually pegged and just getting a compile/link/go through can be frustratingly slow. In my local instance it flies. Since I'm running on a 3.2Ghz quad-core machine, it's acually far, far faster than the "real" mainframe I used to work on.
Hercules emulates the IBM large systems machines (360/370/390/ES9000/zSeries), no AS/400 support here. The AS/400 was (is) a midsize machine (we used to call them minicomputers back in the day). It is a totally different beast from the large systems. If I recall, when it was introduced it had a lot of unique features (variable length words, memory mapped files), at least for it's time. Later machines switched to the Power architecture (iSeries I believe).
However, I never cared for it because (as a developer) I always felt boxed in because everything was done through dialog panels and I never felt I could get close enough to what was going on inside the machine - and RPG III sucked!.
Someone used to sell a software/hardware version of the AS/400 (baby/400 I believe it was called), but I'm sure it's long gone - it was pretty expensive when it was around anyway.
If you could run your mainframe software on a Windows server things would really start to suck for IBM.
Depending on what you are doing on the mainframe, you can do that already. If all you need is to be able to run some mainframe batch jobs or TSO scripts execs, then it's already there now. Simply download Hercules and you can download your choice of MVS 3.8j, DOS Release 34, or VM/370 (maybe even a couple more). These are quite old versions of mainframe operating systems which are in the public domain. I have all of them installed and occasionally play when them just to keep my old mainframe skills fresh. Unfortunately many mainframe systems use products such as IMS or CICS which are not in the public domain (at least not at this time).
The Hercules emulator can actually even run the current version of z/OS (basically, the latest incarnation of MVS), just not legally, which is what the whole problem IBM has with TurboHercules. TurboHercules wants to be able to legally run z/OS on the emulator for purposes of disaster recovery. IBM says no, z/OS can only be run on IBM hardware.
First of all, get a grip! No one is attacking anyone.
I express my opinion the access to healthcare should be a basic right available to everyone out of pure human dignity and from the flood of hateful responses I've recieved you'd think I was advocating child molestation!
Fine, you disagree, I get it. You have your opinion, I have mine. You want to pidgeonhole me (and my buddies) when you don't know me from Adam. Fine. I can do the same. I think you are a greedy bastard who cares more about the thickness of your wallet than human life. How does it feel?
You think the wealthy should not have to pay a higher percentage than eveyone else then fine. We can lower their rate to 34% and raise everyone else to 34%.
Wow, I'm getting so tired of repeating myself. I wish I'd never posted.
I probably wish you'd never posted too.:-)
For the last time (you'd know if you switched away from Fox News once in a while), the Obama healthcare reform is budget neutral. The reforms will result in $622 billion in savings over 10 years (preventative care vs emergency care) so there is no wealth redistribution involved.
That is a giant load of crap. Even the GAO and administration are now admitting that 0care will be extremely expensive. It is already screwing up private insurance (for instance most group plans no longer cover children).
Second, just because it's "budget neutral" there is no guarantee there's no "wealth redistribution". That entirely depends on how 0 plans to finance his monstrosity. It's widely known he plans to increase the tax burden of the wealthy compared with everyone else. That is, by definition, "wealth redistribution".
I won't even comment on the second part regarding tax breaks as I've done this a dozen times already so you can just read my other posts if you are interested.
Seems you're not clueful enough to have a meaningful opinion.;-)
Oh, I'm clueful enough, it's just that I posted basically the same thing about 25 times yesterday responding to the same charges, and being insulted with all sorts of name-calling and childish diatribes.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to this because you are obviously an expert on the subject and I'm the idiot. Not that I give a damn, you'll get what you deserve because the train has already left the station. I mostly feel bad for those who tried to make a difference.
We had 6 years of "the right" in control of all three levers of government and this country went from doing great economically to going completely in the toilet. How'd that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy thing work for ya?
We've had less than 2 years of Obama in the white house with "the right" doing everything it could to block every possible thing, and now our problems are all Obama's fault.
Well, now Republicans have control of the house and, unless something changes the mood of the country we'll be headed for another stint of Republicans controlling all three branches in 2012. I'm happy for ya. Maybe one day you can explain to your children how you supported the party that took a once rich and powerful country and threw it away because you were too brainwashed to be bothered to educate yourself on the issues. My kids at least will know that I tried to persuade folks to do the right thing.
By the way, since the Republicans have now taken over the house, where's all the jobs?? Why aren't we out of the recession yet??? Don't give me that crap about them not being seated yet. Your ilk didn't wait for Obama to be sworn in. The criticism of his handling of issues started in November 2008.
The last election and the last day or so of seeing the load of responses I got from my post "daring" to question the GOP position from/. (which I normally think of as progressive), shows me where this country is going.
The funny thing is, I'm not even a Democrat. I'm an independent with a strong libertarian slant. I wish there was a viable 3rd party I could turn to, but alas we have to choose between the lesser of two evils and in my opinion, the right is far more evil than the left.
Right. We should all pay the same amount percentage wise. Are you willing to move to, say a 30% tax bracket so that the wealthy can move down from 35% to 30%? If the wealthy pay less, then the not so wealthy will pay more (or I guess we could push the debt off to our children). Do the math. The only alternative it to (really) cut spending and no one is going to touch SS (19%) or Medicare (13%) or the Defense (19%). I guess we could get rid of welfare and other entitlements (16%), but we'd probably have to allocate a sizable chunk of money for burial/interment expenses to get rid of the 4 million or so bodies of the unemployed. Bottom line, if you feel everyone should pay the same percentage, then go ahead pay 35%. Maybe if enough of you do we could climb out of this recession.
If your uncle fits into the top 2% bracket, I'd say he hasn't been punished too severely. If he's bitching about having to pay too much in taxes, then he needs only to look at his employees (or many employees like his) that have worked just as hard and just as long only to be able to fend off the bill collectors and keep their families fed, or worse, pushed onto the unemployment line because their corporate overlords decided they could get workers cheaper overseas. But then again, I suppose by your reckoning, they deserve what they get.
You mean like Bernie Madoff? I'm being factitious here. Many wealthy people made their wealth honestly, but let's not fool ourselves. Many of the people that will be affected the most wouldn't know how to make their own tea without a servant doing it for them. To them, the term "earn" is a dirty word reserved for the lower classes.
What I find really interesting is that most of the wealthy people I've heard discuss this topic that were self-made millionaires/billionaires don't mind paying the higher taxes and are actually grateful to the society that allowed them to climb to such a position in life. It's the wealthy that obtained their wealth through the silver spoon that are most indignant about higher taxes. What's even more interesting than that is that most lower/middle income workers subscribe to their viewpoint as well - holding out for the day they become rich I suppose.
Very good point. Let those without die. Wait... what was that about this being a Christian nation???
Barking up the wrong tree there, people in this nation are free to be Christian if they choose but our government is not. I for one don't support any of the sky wizards and don't believe it is the place of government to force me to take responsibility for those who have failed to take responsibility for themselves. If I want to give my money away it should be my choice where it goes, not some kleptocrat living thousands of miles away or some guy in funny clothes claiming he has messages from a god.
Fair enough. At least you're honest. You shouldn't have to help the homeless child dying on the street. At 6 years old he/she deserves what he/she gets for "failing to take responsibility for themselves". I think even most atheists would distance themselves from your attitude. I'm sure you weren't raised in a vacuum and while I have no idea how successful/unsuccessful you are, if you've achieved any level of success it is partially due to SOME help you received along the way (access to education, etc).
Ah.. lets see... daddy's money, patent trolling, mortgage fraud, businesses in the Cayman Islands, etc. Do you actually believe most wealthy people in this country actually worked for their money??? GMAFB.
Yes, in fact, I do believe most wealthy people worked for what they have.
And what is Santa bringing you this year?
At least I can sleep at night knowing I paid my share (not an insignificant amount mind you) and I don't begrudge those less fortunate than me the basic necessities of life.
Why do you need a government to tell you to support the less fortunate/less motivated/less intelligent/etc.? Who are you or anyone else to decide what someone's "share" is? It's not your money.
It's certainly not for me to decide, but I retain the right to discuss it. Someone will certainly decide. The alternative you seem to suggest is to let everyone decide how much to pay. I'd like to see how long the government holds together under that scenario. Besides, is it really ALL "your" money? Didn't society at least partially provide you with the means to attain whatever wealth you have? Don't you owe something back?
How's the tea today?
How hard one works has precious little to do with how wealthy you are. Plenty (most) hard working people never manage to accumulate any wealth and many (if not most) wealthy people wouldn't know a hard day's work if it bit them in the ass.
The reason for the progressive tax rate is simple. If everyone had to pay the same amount across the board, most of us would have to pony up more than we make in an entire year.
I won't belabor on this any longer other than to say we're already paying for healthcare for the uninsured though E/R treatments. Of course covering the uninsured will cost money, but it's money we're already spending. Secondly, nearly all hospitals "used" to be not-for-profit. It's only in the last 20-30 years that many have become corporate "for-profit" entities (the rise in for-profit hospitals curiously follows the trajectory of the rise in healthcare costs).
Besides all that, any decent society owes it's members, at a minimum, the right to live (especially a country that claims to be based on Christianity).
I have no desire to punish the rich, in fact I'd like to BE rich one day, but I can promise you this: If I ever am, I won't begrudge providing comfort to the sick and poor. I wasn't brought up that way.
I just don't see the progressive tax system with a 39% top tax rate (it was 50% under Reagan and 35% now) that much of a burden to those that fall into the income brackets affected. You can call me self-righteous if you choose, but I'm just speaking my mind. How I choose to support the less fortunate of the world is my own concern (though I can promise you I do my part) and I won't question what you do to help. However, if through the (long) day's worth of postings today I've managed to change one person's point of view, or at least made them think about it, then I suppose it was a day well spent.
I disagree. It IS their job, just as it is mine to take care of those unable to care for themselves. Is it too much to ask that they pay a larger percentage since they get to enjoy a larger percentage of the benefits this country has to offer (fancy cars, yachts and the like).
No, healthcare is not pixie dust, but should it really cost $25,000 to have a broken leg set and put in a cast? If the "for profit" parts of healthcare were confined to reasonable profit margins (insurance companies, both health and malpractice, and pharmaceuticals) the actual cost of treatment might even border on reasonable. But alas, that won't happen because this is a country of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.
It's even cheaper when I don't have to pay for either their antibiotics or their "breathing machine". Get your hand out of my pocket.
Very good point. Let those without die. Wait... what was that about this being a Christian nation???
I realize this is/. and all, and pedantry is the new black, but where do you think wealth comes from, if not income?
Ah.. lets see... daddy's money, patent trolling, mortgage fraud, businesses in the Cayman Islands, etc. Do you actually believe most wealthy people in this country actually worked for their money??? GMAFB.
Good for you, enjoy the afterglow on tax day.
At least I can sleep at night knowing I paid my share (not an insignificant amount mind you) and I don't begrudge those less fortunate than me the basic necessities of life.
Wow, I'm getting so tired of repeating myself. I wish I'd never posted.
For the last time (you'd know if you switched away from Fox News once in a while), the Obama healthcare reform is budget neutral. The reforms will result in $622 billion in savings over 10 years (preventative care vs emergency care) so there is no wealth redistribution involved. I won't even comment on the second part regarding tax breaks as I've done this a dozen times already so you can just read my other posts if you are interested.
First off, the healthcare reform is budget neutral (don't believe me - check with the OMB). Basically , the savings in emergency care (which we are already having to pay) will offset the cost of preventative care.
Second, since when is access to healtcare considered a part of one's wealth (perhaps you should look up the definition of wealth).
Lastly, the progressive tax system is based on the amount of disposable income one has. Obviously, a much larger percentage of average joe's income goes toward basic living necessities than does joe moneybags. I'm sorry if the additional tax burden will prevent joe moneybags from purchasing that new Ferrari and will have to settle for a Corvette, but if that prevents average joe's child from dying from a perfectly preventable illness then I say it's completely fair.
No, wrong again. The money to pay for this is coming from the savings derived from preventative care vs emergency care (it's not me saying this - the OMB has produced the report stating this - $622 billion over 10 years). When a person can go to a doctor and get an antibiotic when they get sick (cost ~$75.00) rather than wind up on a breathing machine in E/R (cost ~$50,000), you can understand how this is the case. It been stated time and time again (although you'll never hear this on Fox News), the healthcare reform is budget neutral.
To the second point: no new math required. You just should have paid attention the first go around. Wealth is not the same thing as income. Income is the money that people receive from work, government benefits, or investments. Wealth, or net worth, refers to savings, real estate, retirement funds, stocks, bonds, and trust funds. I find it completely fair that those who have enough wealth to enjoy the luxuries and pleasures this country has to offer should pay a larger percentage of their income as compare to those who work 80 hours a week their entire life just to feed their families. However, you are free to feel differently.
It's called "ability to pay". A lower income person requires a larger percentage of his income just to meet basic living expenses while the wealthier person has more disposable income. Also it's a fallacy to assume because one has more wealth than another it's because they somehow they worked harder , so they deserve it more. There are plenty hard working people who spend their entire life struggling to make ends meet, people that the Steve Forbes of the world couldn't hold a candle to in terms of diligence, honesty and work ethic. Having said all that, I agree with you that the tax system is unfair. I'm all for doing away with income tax altogether and going to a national sales tax where the amount of sales tax would be graduated based on the category of item purchased (i.e. food would be taxed at a much lower percentage rate than a yacht).
First, I don't agree that providing care to the uninsured is taking ANYTHING from another person. It is not a zero-sum game. Just because a person with the flu can get treatment for their condition before they wind up in E/R with pneumonia does necessarily mean that Steve Forbe will pay any more for his green fees. In fact, it likely will result in all of us paying LESS for healthcare.
As to your second comment,
Who are you kidding? ANY change in monetary policy has the effect of redistributing wealth. Changing income tax rates based on ability to pay is not seizing anyone's wealth, only taxing the income of those with higher incomes at a higher rate than those of lower incomes.
I call bullshit on this. I have a son that is working full time and trying to take care of his family. His job does not provide healthcare and he can't afford it. He was recently in an auto accident and was treated at a nearby hospital. He now has a 25,000 debt that he will likely never recover from since he only brings in around 30K/yr.
Who the hell do you think pays for your girlfriends healthcare? We (taxpayers) do, only it costs us tons more because uninsured people only seek treatment when their situation becomes an emergency (which is vastly more expensive) instead of seeking preventative care.
Where is the dishonesty? How is requiring the wealthier among us to pay a larger percentage of the tax burden than the less wealthy taking money from them? How is providing medical care to a sick child giving them money?
Everyone pays taxes (well, except the wealthy that escape much of this by hiding their money in offshore accounts). So someone pays 300,000 in taxes on their 5 million dollar income while someone else only pays 3,000 on their 50,000 income. The guy with the 5 million dollar income still has 4.3 million to spend on (mostly) luxury items and sending his kids to Harvard, while the 50,000 income guy has 47,000 left to feed his family. Not quite enough left over to pay for medical care or a decent education for his kids.
Maybe the idea of "fair" doesn't enter the equation, but I guess my point is, "maybe it should".
I guess it depends on whether one considers access to healthcare a part of one's wealth. I am a US citizen and our declaration of independence declares life (as in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") an inalienable right. "Life" should not be something that is available to only those that can afford it. I don't understand the moral equivalence of a sick child getting medical care to a fat-cat getting a new yacht.
Regarding the tax-break for the wealthy: The structure of our economy is nothing that is written in stone and given by the gods. It is made up by men and is basically of a set of rules that were originally designed to provide a way for members of a capitalist society to raise themselves up if they were willing to work hard enough for it (or so in theory). The rules that were set up (and which have been tweaked time and time again since) do not have to have an equal percentage of income down through the ranks to be fair. Someone lower on the income scale who works 80 hours a week and uses 90% of their income just to feed their family and put a roof over their head should not have to pay the same amount of tax (percentage wise) as someone who is sitting on billions of dollars, spending their time deciding whether to drive their Ferrari or just let the chauffeur drive.
Any change in the rules (i.e. taxes) of the economy has the effect of redistributing wealth, either to the benefit of the wealthy or of the lower/middle class. I don't dispute that. My comment was only that I find curious the attitude that if if benefits the wealthy it's a good thing, but if it benefits the poor or middle class it's bad (or socialism in FoxNews parlance).
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
Are you kidding? If the last election didn't show that crazy wingnuts can be elected I don't know what will.
In case no one noticed, the "left/left leaning middle" did not show up to the last election. Not to mention that the middle is where the right used to be and the right is off the charts...
Slashdot Mirror
z/OS is licensed per CPU (tied to the CPU serial number). Long before TurboHercules, the Hercules community tried to get IBM to provide a "hobbyist/student" license to allow z/OS (or OS/390) to be legally run on Hercules, but IBM was not interested. I don't believe at that time IBM was concerned with IP or patent issues, there just wasn't enough in it for IBM to waste their time with.
Having said that, I know IBM "used" to license their OS to run on competitor mainframes such as Amdahl and Fujitsu, mostly because they were forced to as part of the antitrust settlement. I don't know it that's the case anymore.
However, even if IBM were to be forced to license z/OS to be run on Hercules, I'm sure no one could afford it (at least for hobby/training purposes). I remember back 20 years ago we used to pay about $6,000 per month just for MVS (about $25,000 per month for all the IBM software we had), and we were a pretty small mainframe shop.
Many F500 companies have legacy mainframe applications that are not critical to the business, but they don't want to spend the $$$ to rewrite them for another platform. For these application, Hercules would make sense (if they could legally run z/OS). Also, whenever I'm engaged in a mainframe development project (yes, they still happen - occasionally - though usually only for maintenance enhancements), I use my local MVS instance to do the development since the "real" mainframe is usually pegged and just getting a compile/link/go through can be frustratingly slow. In my local instance it flies. Since I'm running on a 3.2Ghz quad-core machine, it's acually far, far faster than the "real" mainframe I used to work on.
Hercules emulates the IBM large systems machines (360/370/390/ES9000/zSeries), no AS/400 support here. The AS/400 was (is) a midsize machine (we used to call them minicomputers back in the day). It is a totally different beast from the large systems. If I recall, when it was introduced it had a lot of unique features (variable length words, memory mapped files), at least for it's time. Later machines switched to the Power architecture (iSeries I believe).
However, I never cared for it because (as a developer) I always felt boxed in because everything was done through dialog panels and I never felt I could get close enough to what was going on inside the machine - and RPG III sucked!.
Someone used to sell a software/hardware version of the AS/400 (baby/400 I believe it was called), but I'm sure it's long gone - it was pretty expensive when it was around anyway.
If you could run your mainframe software on a Windows server things would really start to suck for IBM.
Depending on what you are doing on the mainframe, you can do that already. If all you need is to be able to run some mainframe batch jobs or TSO scripts execs, then it's already there now. Simply download Hercules and you can download your choice of MVS 3.8j, DOS Release 34, or VM/370 (maybe even a couple more). These are quite old versions of mainframe operating systems which are in the public domain. I have all of them installed and occasionally play when them just to keep my old mainframe skills fresh. Unfortunately many mainframe systems use products such as IMS or CICS which are not in the public domain (at least not at this time).
The Hercules emulator can actually even run the current version of z/OS (basically, the latest incarnation of MVS), just not legally, which is what the whole problem IBM has with TurboHercules. TurboHercules wants to be able to legally run z/OS on the emulator for purposes of disaster recovery. IBM says no, z/OS can only be run on IBM hardware.
First of all, get a grip! No one is attacking anyone.
I express my opinion the access to healthcare should be a basic right available to everyone out of pure human dignity and from the flood of hateful responses I've recieved you'd think I was advocating child molestation!
Fine, you disagree, I get it. You have your opinion, I have mine.
You want to pidgeonhole me (and my buddies) when you don't know me from Adam. Fine. I can do the same. I think you are a greedy bastard who cares more about the thickness of your wallet than human life. How does it feel?
You think the wealthy should not have to pay a higher percentage than eveyone else then fine. We can lower their rate to 34% and raise everyone else to 34%.
Wow, I'm getting so tired of repeating myself. I wish I'd never posted.
I probably wish you'd never posted too. :-)
For the last time (you'd know if you switched away from Fox News once in a while), the Obama healthcare reform is budget neutral. The reforms will result in $622 billion in savings over 10 years (preventative care vs emergency care) so there is no wealth redistribution involved.
That is a giant load of crap. Even the GAO and administration are now admitting that 0care will be extremely expensive. It is already screwing up private insurance (for instance most group plans no longer cover children).
Second, just because it's "budget neutral" there is no guarantee there's no "wealth redistribution". That entirely depends on how 0 plans to finance his monstrosity. It's widely known he plans to increase the tax burden of the wealthy compared with everyone else. That is, by definition, "wealth redistribution".
I won't even comment on the second part regarding tax breaks as I've done this a dozen times already so you can just read my other posts if you are interested.
Seems you're not clueful enough to have a meaningful opinion. ;-)
Oh, I'm clueful enough, it's just that I posted basically the same thing about 25 times yesterday responding to the same charges, and being insulted with all sorts of name-calling and childish diatribes. I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to this because you are obviously an expert on the subject and I'm the idiot. Not that I give a damn, you'll get what you deserve because the train has already left the station. I mostly feel bad for those who tried to make a difference.
/. (which I normally think of as progressive), shows me where this country is going.
We had 6 years of "the right" in control of all three levers of government and this country went from doing great economically to going completely in the toilet. How'd that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy thing work for ya?
We've had less than 2 years of Obama in the white house with "the right" doing everything it could to block every possible thing, and now our problems are all Obama's fault.
Well, now Republicans have control of the house and, unless something changes the mood of the country we'll be headed for another stint of Republicans controlling all three branches in 2012.
I'm happy for ya. Maybe one day you can explain to your children how you supported the party that took a once rich and powerful country and threw it away because you were too brainwashed to be bothered to educate yourself on the issues.
My kids at least will know that I tried to persuade folks to do the right thing.
By the way, since the Republicans have now taken over the house, where's all the jobs?? Why aren't we out of the recession yet??? Don't give me that crap about them not being seated yet. Your ilk didn't wait for Obama to be sworn in. The criticism of his handling of issues started in November 2008.
The last election and the last day or so of seeing the load of responses I got from my post "daring" to question the GOP position from
The funny thing is, I'm not even a Democrat. I'm an independent with a strong libertarian slant. I wish there was a viable 3rd party I could turn to, but alas we have to choose between the lesser of two evils and in my opinion, the right is far more evil than the left.
Have a nice day.
the DEA has moved to make spice illegal, so we have to go back to using the extremely toxic chemicals to make our gold nanoparticles...
Right. We should all pay the same amount percentage wise. Are you willing to move to, say a 30% tax bracket so that the wealthy can move down from 35% to 30%?
If the wealthy pay less, then the not so wealthy will pay more (or I guess we could push the debt off to our children).
Do the math. The only alternative it to (really) cut spending and no one is going to touch SS (19%) or Medicare (13%) or the Defense (19%). I guess we could get rid of welfare and other entitlements (16%), but we'd probably have to allocate a sizable chunk of money for burial/interment expenses to get rid of the 4 million or so bodies of the unemployed.
Bottom line, if you feel everyone should pay the same percentage, then go ahead pay 35%. Maybe if enough of you do we could climb out of this recession.
If your uncle fits into the top 2% bracket, I'd say he hasn't been punished too severely.
If he's bitching about having to pay too much in taxes, then he needs only to look at his employees (or many employees like his) that have worked just as hard and just as long only to be able to fend off the bill collectors and keep their families fed, or worse, pushed onto the unemployment line because their corporate overlords decided they could get workers cheaper overseas. But then again, I suppose by your reckoning, they deserve what they get.
Did not the upper 2% EARN that money?
You mean like Bernie Madoff?
I'm being factitious here. Many wealthy people made their wealth honestly, but let's not fool ourselves. Many of the people that will be affected the most wouldn't know how to make their own tea without a servant doing it for them. To them, the term "earn" is a dirty word reserved for the lower classes.
What I find really interesting is that most of the wealthy people I've heard discuss this topic that were self-made millionaires/billionaires don't mind paying the higher taxes and are actually grateful to the society that allowed them to climb to such a position in life. It's the wealthy that obtained their wealth through the silver spoon that are most indignant about higher taxes. What's even more interesting than that is that most lower/middle income workers subscribe to their viewpoint as well - holding out for the day they become rich I suppose.
Very good point. Let those without die. Wait... what was that about this being a Christian nation???
Barking up the wrong tree there, people in this nation are free to be Christian if they choose but our government is not. I for one don't support any of the sky wizards and don't believe it is the place of government to force me to take responsibility for those who have failed to take responsibility for themselves. If I want to give my money away it should be my choice where it goes, not some kleptocrat living thousands of miles away or some guy in funny clothes claiming he has messages from a god.
Fair enough. At least you're honest. You shouldn't have to help the homeless child dying on the street. At 6 years old he/she deserves what he/she gets for "failing to take responsibility for themselves". I think even most atheists would distance themselves from your attitude. I'm sure you weren't raised in a vacuum and while I have no idea how successful/unsuccessful you are, if you've achieved any level of success it is partially due to SOME help you received along the way (access to education, etc).
Ah.. lets see... daddy's money, patent trolling, mortgage fraud, businesses in the Cayman Islands, etc. Do you actually believe most wealthy people in this country actually worked for their money??? GMAFB.
Yes, in fact, I do believe most wealthy people worked for what they have.
And what is Santa bringing you this year?
At least I can sleep at night knowing I paid my share (not an insignificant amount mind you) and I don't begrudge those less fortunate than me the basic necessities of life.
Why do you need a government to tell you to support the less fortunate/less motivated/less intelligent/etc.? Who are you or anyone else to decide what someone's "share" is? It's not your money.
It's certainly not for me to decide, but I retain the right to discuss it. Someone will certainly decide. The alternative you seem to suggest is to let everyone decide how much to pay. I'd like to see how long the government holds together under that scenario.
Besides, is it really ALL "your" money? Didn't society at least partially provide you with the means to attain whatever wealth you have? Don't you owe something back?
How's the tea today?
How hard one works has precious little to do with how wealthy you are. Plenty (most) hard working people never manage to accumulate any wealth and many (if not most) wealthy people wouldn't know a hard day's work if it bit them in the ass.
The reason for the progressive tax rate is simple. If everyone had to pay the same amount across the board, most of us would have to pony up more than we make in an entire year.
I won't belabor on this any longer other than to say we're already paying for healthcare for the uninsured though E/R treatments. Of course covering the uninsured will cost money, but it's money we're already spending.
Secondly, nearly all hospitals "used" to be not-for-profit. It's only in the last 20-30 years that many have become corporate "for-profit" entities (the rise in for-profit hospitals curiously follows the trajectory of the rise in healthcare costs).
Besides all that, any decent society owes it's members, at a minimum, the right to live (especially a country that claims to be based on Christianity).
I have no desire to punish the rich, in fact I'd like to BE rich one day, but I can promise you this: If I ever am, I won't begrudge providing comfort to the sick and poor. I wasn't brought up that way.
I just don't see the progressive tax system with a 39% top tax rate (it was 50% under Reagan and 35% now) that much of a burden to those that fall into the income brackets affected. You can call me self-righteous if you choose, but I'm just speaking my mind. How I choose to support the less fortunate of the world is my own concern (though I can promise you I do my part) and I won't question what you do to help. However, if through the (long) day's worth of postings today I've managed to change one person's point of view, or at least made them think about it, then I suppose it was a day well spent.
I disagree. It IS their job, just as it is mine to take care of those unable to care for themselves. Is it too much to ask that they pay a larger percentage since they get to enjoy a larger percentage of the benefits this country has to offer (fancy cars, yachts and the like).
No, healthcare is not pixie dust, but should it really cost $25,000 to have a broken leg set and put in a cast?
If the "for profit" parts of healthcare were confined to reasonable profit margins (insurance companies, both health and malpractice, and pharmaceuticals) the actual cost of treatment might even border on reasonable. But alas, that won't happen because this is a country of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.
It's even cheaper when I don't have to pay for either their antibiotics or their "breathing machine". Get your hand out of my pocket.
Very good point. Let those without die. Wait... what was that about this being a Christian nation???
I realize this is /. and all, and pedantry is the new black, but where do you think wealth comes from, if not income?
Ah.. lets see... daddy's money, patent trolling, mortgage fraud, businesses in the Cayman Islands, etc. Do you actually believe most wealthy people in this country actually worked for their money??? GMAFB.
Good for you, enjoy the afterglow on tax day.
At least I can sleep at night knowing I paid my share (not an insignificant amount mind you) and I don't begrudge those less fortunate than me the basic necessities of life.
Wow, I'm getting so tired of repeating myself. I wish I'd never posted.
For the last time (you'd know if you switched away from Fox News once in a while), the Obama healthcare reform is budget neutral. The reforms will result in $622 billion in savings over 10 years (preventative care vs emergency care) so there is no wealth redistribution involved.
I won't even comment on the second part regarding tax breaks as I've done this a dozen times already so you can just read my other posts if you are interested.
First off, the healthcare reform is budget neutral (don't believe me - check with the OMB). Basically , the savings in emergency care (which we are already having to pay) will offset the cost of preventative care.
Second, since when is access to healtcare considered a part of one's wealth (perhaps you should look up the definition of wealth).
Lastly, the progressive tax system is based on the amount of disposable income one has. Obviously, a much larger percentage of average joe's income goes toward basic living necessities than does joe moneybags. I'm sorry if the additional tax burden will prevent joe moneybags from purchasing that new Ferrari and will have to settle for a Corvette, but if that prevents average joe's child from dying from a perfectly preventable illness then I say it's completely fair.
No, wrong again. The money to pay for this is coming from the savings derived from preventative care vs emergency care (it's not me saying this - the OMB has produced the report stating this - $622 billion over 10 years). When a person can go to a doctor and get an antibiotic when they get sick (cost ~$75.00) rather than wind up on a breathing machine in E/R (cost ~$50,000), you can understand how this is the case. It been stated time and time again (although you'll never hear this on Fox News), the healthcare reform is budget neutral.
To the second point: no new math required. You just should have paid attention the first go around. Wealth is not the same thing as income. Income is the money that people receive from work, government benefits, or investments. Wealth, or net worth, refers to savings, real estate, retirement funds, stocks, bonds, and trust funds.
I find it completely fair that those who have enough wealth to enjoy the luxuries and pleasures this country has to offer should pay a larger percentage of their income as compare to those who work 80 hours a week their entire life just to feed their families. However, you are free to feel differently.
It's called "ability to pay". A lower income person requires a larger percentage of his income just to meet basic living expenses while the wealthier person has more disposable income.
Also it's a fallacy to assume because one has more wealth than another it's because they somehow they worked harder , so they deserve it more. There are plenty hard working people who spend their entire life struggling to make ends meet, people that the Steve Forbes of the world couldn't hold a candle to in terms of diligence, honesty and work ethic.
Having said all that, I agree with you that the tax system is unfair.
I'm all for doing away with income tax altogether and going to a national sales tax where the amount of sales tax would be graduated based on the category of item purchased (i.e. food would be taxed at a much lower percentage rate than a yacht).
First, I don't agree that providing care to the uninsured is taking ANYTHING from another person. It is not a zero-sum game. Just because a person with the flu can get treatment for their condition before they wind up in E/R with pneumonia does necessarily mean that Steve Forbe will pay any more for his green fees. In fact, it likely will result in all of us paying LESS for healthcare.
As to your second comment,
Who are you kidding? ANY change in monetary policy has the effect of redistributing wealth. Changing income tax rates based on ability to pay is not seizing anyone's wealth, only taxing the income of those with higher incomes at a higher rate than those of lower incomes.
I call bullshit on this. I have a son that is working full time and trying to take care of his family. His job does not provide healthcare and he can't afford it. He was recently in an auto accident and was treated at a nearby hospital. He now has a 25,000 debt that he will likely never recover from since he only brings in around 30K/yr.
Who the hell do you think pays for your girlfriends healthcare? We (taxpayers) do, only it costs us tons more because uninsured people only seek treatment when their situation becomes an emergency (which is vastly more expensive) instead of seeking preventative care.
Where is the dishonesty? How is requiring the wealthier among us to pay a larger percentage of the tax burden than the less wealthy taking money from them? How is providing medical care to a sick child giving them money?
Everyone pays taxes (well, except the wealthy that escape much of this by hiding their money in offshore accounts). So someone pays 300,000 in taxes on their 5 million dollar income while someone else only pays 3,000 on their 50,000 income. The guy with the 5 million dollar income still has 4.3 million to spend on (mostly) luxury items and sending his kids to Harvard, while the 50,000 income guy has 47,000 left to feed his family. Not quite enough left over to pay for medical care or a decent education for his kids.
Maybe the idea of "fair" doesn't enter the equation, but I guess my point is, "maybe it should".
I guess it depends on whether one considers access to healthcare a part of one's wealth. I am a US citizen and our declaration of independence declares life (as in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") an inalienable right. "Life" should not be something that is available to only those that can afford it. I don't understand the moral equivalence of a sick child getting medical care to a fat-cat getting a new yacht.
Regarding the tax-break for the wealthy: The structure of our economy is nothing that is written in stone and given by the gods. It is made up by men and is basically of a set of rules that were originally designed to provide a way for members of a capitalist society to raise themselves up if they were willing to work hard enough for it (or so in theory). The rules that were set up (and which have been tweaked time and time again since) do not have to have an equal percentage of income down through the ranks to be fair. Someone lower on the income scale who works 80 hours a week and uses 90% of their income just to feed their family and put a roof over their head should not have to pay the same amount of tax (percentage wise) as someone who is sitting on billions of dollars, spending their time deciding whether to drive their Ferrari or just let the chauffeur drive.
Any change in the rules (i.e. taxes) of the economy has the effect of redistributing wealth, either to the benefit of the wealthy or of the lower/middle class. I don't dispute that. My comment was only that I find curious the attitude that if if benefits the wealthy it's a good thing, but if it benefits the poor or middle class it's bad (or socialism in FoxNews parlance).
unfairly redistributing wealth (healthcare).
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
She is unelectable
Are you kidding? If the last election didn't show that crazy wingnuts can be elected I don't know what will.
In case no one noticed, the "left/left leaning middle" did not show up to the last election. Not to mention that the middle is where the right used to be and the right is off the charts...