While I get the distinct feeling that governments fear free and unmolested communications, and to a lesser extent corperations, they must also realize it's importance.
In the United States of America, durring it's forming, we included free and open communication as part of the supreem law of the land. Nothing can trump it.
By voicing ideas, by communicating there is no problem that cannot be solved. Sure a good right can also be used by a bad person to some evil ends. That happens. But that is a price of this freedom.
Still the benefits always out weigh any problems.
Help keep alive the right of free and open communication, the right of the people to gather peaceably assemble(online or in person). If you don't have this right where you live. I firmly believe you should have it. Do what you can to insure you keep or gain this right.
Know you rights...
First Amendment
Crongress shall make no law respecing an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You "meant costly in the amount they were paying in the settlement"? What?
You're an artist. Great. Glad to hear it. I didn't see any artist suing anyone, and I'm sure that legal fees will eat all that money. But, they have stopped sharing.
I'm not saying there kids were right or wrong. I was asking you why you think so. To which you explained
"I meant costly in the amount they were paying in the settlement. A little humor which you cannot seem to perceive. Yes, hide behind that "its online... everything is permissible" attitude. Hate the world which tries to fight you for their rights. I am an artist myself, and if you steal my stuff... you will pay.
This is not about corporations vs. the little man but artists vs. the thieves"
Okay, that was joke, or the last one was. Wow, that must have been some of your art. Watch out Google is stealing it right now! Gettem!
> Especially when you are in the wrong. They broke the law and settled to don't have to pay MILLIONS to the industry.
"Especially"? Nope. In the right or not a lawyers hourly fee is about the same. Imagine the foolish lawyer who hangs his shingle and claims to charge $250/hr, $150/hr if your in the right.:)
You'd make an interesting laywer though. Tell me how it works out.
Oh, and I might have missed it, but I do not recall there being any admition of wrongdoing? Do you. Again, mayne I missed it.
Also when you claim something is illegal, unless it's something like murder or theft, please do include some idea why you came to that opinion.
You would have settled also. A student at a university is trying to build a future. The loss of all cash resources would make that goal much harder. They settled, for the simple reason that the fees must have been way too high.
It's costly to defend yourself. This suit might have had no meaning what so ever, but that has little meaning.
We all might be so luck as these guy to stare down the double barrelled laywer weapon being unholstered from deep pockets.
Do what you will, ignore companies which bring these suits, or whatever. No matter. I see a generation ripe for a new non-RIAA/MPAA market.
Someone will step in. And people who were willing to take it up to a point will move on.
Right, "the whom" arguement. That one has been around before. And I apologize, because as I recall using whom in a way that offended the single nitpicker on Slashdot invalidated everything I said.
Damn
Encrypted communication is not needed
on
2002 US Wiretap Report
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There are two main problems at work here. Whom is listening in on your conversations, and who let them?
The person within the law enforcement community listening in on your calls may not be perfect. They could use this information to their own ends. They might tip off a friend as to when you are going on vacation and have the rob you. Or they might let that information slip in a public place, with the same result. They might be a childmolester in the making, or a murderer, or something else. Just because you get a government check does not make you a saint. I wish it did.
Problem one : Unknown people spying on you.
The second problem deals with lazy people. Mainly the public who hjave given our governemnt their passive approval of this abuse. The public agrees and maybe even likes this lack of liberty in their own home. They enjoy their temporary safety, at the expenses of some unseen freedoms.
Problem two : The people.
The people, meaning you reading this, if you want things to change need to change yourself first. Change. Become someone who takes an active role in the shaping of your community and become a letter writing machine. Vote! Get the word out. Get out of that chair. If you don't I really don't want to hear your complaints, because you are the problem.
I have faith in the people. I have greater faith in those that read Slashdot. They are people who "hack" things when they need it. The government needs to hear from us. We have to enlighten people as to the lost freedoms. I see that things will change. The dream of freedom must live in the United States at all costs for the simple reason that without that dream there is little need for the United States.
I know how stupid and corny that sounds, but it's true. When you drive by a school and see those kids playing, know that they are counting on you to correct these problems. Think about what you would tell them about maintaining freedom. What advise you might offer. Take your own advise.
Freedom is not free. It take time, effort, and sometimes lives. There are peolpe who lied bloody in a field as the life slowly drained from their bodies who all had the same thoughts in their minds as they died. They though that dying was not that high a price if others will live free and keep the dream alive.
With all that is happening sometimes I think that the dream of freedom and liberty will die with us, but then my faith returns. I wil take action. I hope you will also.
That freedom has taken a back seat to congress' lust for power and money.
We should look for other ways to take on the DMCA. IANAL, but the following link is to an interesting case, about fedral powers. I have some doubt, but maybe this is a method to bypass the DMCA.
I only said that I was worried that other countries would see the current US action like the guy on the island with the gun.
You are a little over reactive to a worry. The story was only there to explain how some counties might see things.
Do you think they'll all see it the way you do?
About the Island story:
Sure, okay, add that to the story.
He might even be calling many people evil, and vowing to kill them if they don't change their evil ways.
Better yet, make your own story. They're free if you make them up. It only takes the simple imagination that is required to see things from other people's view points.
I still worry that other will view the US as the guy with the gun. You enlightened message still has not changed my fears.
Imagine you are one of 20 people on a small island. One of the other people has a gun. They are the only one with a gun.
One day there is a loud gun shot, and everyone runs over to find that the guy with the gun shot someone else dead. He claims "He was evil. Trust me."
You might think that he might shoot you next. Everyone treats the guy with the gun nice and all, like Billy Mummy in a Twilight Zone episode. "Yes, you did a good thing. That was really good. Shot the evil people. That's good."
Unlike a TV show, the guy with the gun does need to sleep, and will be killed shortly.
This is how I worry other countries will see us. If we make them worry about the gun we have, they will find unity in taking it away.
Here we'd never be able to trust our government not to track how we voted. I would never enter information like that to vote, they'd add it to their "Total Information."
...your computer. That's where this could easily lead. Like an ID for your point of access to information, so that people are trust you on the net. Why not. It would be a direct usage tax on those planning on using the internet.
If there was a system like this in place on all computers I'm sure there is a chance that it will be talked about in some circles.
That's all well and good, but that does not weigh in on *fair*. What do you think it fair?
Personally I think income tax on people is counter productive, especially if it punishes people for doing better. I've had to manage employes and if I treated them this way they could not do their best.
I want people in the US, and elsewhere, to feel better about doing better. I've have the hardest time understanding why people think that people who make more money should pay a higher tax? If we are punished each time we do better does that not stop us from doing better?
Not all people who make more have more to give. From what I'm hearing it only seems that some people are greedy to get their hands deeper into the higher middle classes pickets and grab all the cash they can. Pork barrel spenders. And their are those that think they can get their share of that. They really end up getting the share often allocated to a pitares loyal parrot, a cracker. Nothing else.
From what I've seen taxes contain a good deal of social engineering.
I'll never feel good about paying income taxes. Our government admits that it assinates people. What percentage of my hard work went to kill someone? I try to be a moral man. I resent being forced to fund murder to stay in my country and out of jail.
I imagine that most people are taxed close to 50-60% when you count in all the hidden taxes, like gas, phone, and other things like social security tax, state tax, and import tarrifs. So you slave away for the goernment for almost half the year, before you get your crumb, and you think others should give more.
Maybe is self esteem. Maybe people just don't think they're worth it. They think "I'm not good enough to keep my own money, and I bet the government will know better." That is just sad. We know better. The people reading here are smarter than that.
The whole thing makes me sick. I'm voting LP from now on. At least they hate income taxes as much as I do. I'll always trust the people before I'll ever trust politicos. Think of it as "open source money." You get the money and you do with it what you will, not having to feel that you are only licensing it.
I see your point, but there is a slight problem. You are assuming the poor will be worse off. They might. But if that is a concern it is a concern which could also be addressed in a flat tax environment.
Let me first state that the rich are running things because the poor have shown that they don't wote, or that they are not voting for the people who will help them. As do the middle class. People wote with a party of not at all. Often it's Coke or Pepsi. Both of which make with the nice words and do nothing, or worse do something.
Cost of living it not uniform around the US. Creating a tax system that is unfair to the poor of higher cost of living areas is stupid, or evil, depending if you know what cost of living is. The US was intended on being fair when it started. But the great masses don't live in the high cost of living states so they don't care. It's like being taxed from England with such a small voice nobody will listen..., oh wait that happened.
In any case, to insure we don't drvie the poor under, and we're going to assume that because people have more money that they'll mind less, and can cope. Why not tax only those that make 100k+ 10%?
But that failure of people who look into taxes is amazing. We all make the same error. We assume that the government needs the money we give it. Any person or government will spend what it's got. They always do. They're so greedy they'll often allocate the same money many times. More money for the government is like more icecream for someone who weighs in at 1,000lbs.
I say let's see something like 3% income tax for everyone earning over the 100% over the poverty line for their area.
But I think by taxing peolpe who earn more is unfair. Treating people differently by their level of productivity is hardly fair. When people use the phrase 'fair share' in regard to taxes I know they don't mean it. I don't treat people different for their income level. Why should someone feel they have to give a much higher percentage if they earn more?
I don't agree with break points where someone keeps less money if they earn more then someone who earns less. In your system a person who earns $67,700 takes home 50,775, while someone who earns $67,701(a single buck more) takes home $47,390.7. Oh, that seems fair. One lousy buck more and you lose $3,384.3. Nice. I've seen this sort of thing happen to people before. I once turned down a raise because I would get less money.
Face it. The graduated system is not fair. It's really unfair, and fucked up beyond repair. How can you agree with such a system with break points and magic number you need to avoid? A system where making more money to take care of your family better is punuished by devaluating your effort and worth? How can you say to someone who works two jobs to get ahead that their effort will only weird 70 cent to the dollar? People make more money for many reasons, such as taking care of a child with cancer, or caring for an elderly parent. And you have the fucking nerve to increase these people's taxes. You are not only unfair, but either sick, or evil.
I hope you will think again. The illusion that all people earning more money can afford to just give half away of perverse, unfair, and moronic. I hope you'll change your mind. Truthfully I think you want the right thing, but I think your system and the existing one is punishing the wrong people who only getting ahead.
PS: I'm glad you have a good job. You are a contributor and not overhead. Don't punish people for doing well, don't devaluate the good efforts of anyone.
Flat taxes are not a problem, but *any* tax change is bad for people who live paycheck to paycheck. Not only taxes, but anything. If property values go up then so will rent, and that is just as bad. Making taxes unfair and not simple is cruel, stupid, and unworkable. It makes those that make less think they are getting more from the rich.
Get a clue the really rich don't pay taxes unless they want too. The poor scream "Tax the rich!" and get those taxes, but they don't hurt the rich, or even thouch them. After all how many "poor" people are there in command of our government? If you had a chance would you cozy up to someone who was rich, or poor? Which might invest in your startup or your politcal race?
Plus there is the concept of fairness. We should not change a system because someone makes more money, or for a person who lives check to check. The people living check to check need help now, not later. Make the tax code as simple as you can. People will adjust. We've had to adjust from the once modest 1% income taxes to this overly complex system where we are slaves to gorvernment greed(the really rich people in the goverment)for about sox months a year.
Any system should be fair, simple, and easy to police. Will the rich of the government allow that? No way. They like the ability to control your money. With a simple system you might know who was paying what. With this complex system it's hard to know how much is going to be collected. They'll over a tax break to the poor, and remove a deduction.
Plus there is one more important reason for a flat tax: Cost of Living! If I live in an area where the cost of living is extremely low I might only need to make 20k/yr to be well off. But if I lived in a place with a high cost of living and making 60k/yr meant I was unable to even care for myself I would get taxes much higher and be even more poor than my 20k/yr low cost of living counterpart.
California has a much higher cost of living and a much higher poverty line than over parts of the US. The people here are not rich? They take home less. State taxes are high, nearly 10%. Sales tax is high. In California people take home less, due to the cost of living. For that honor we get to pay more fedral tax. So in reality federal taxes are different from state to state. An income that might make you rich in Ohio might make you homeless in California. The homes here are 350k for an okay place.
A graduated tax system is making people poor or live check to check, not curing it. A flat tax would save many people from this fate. It would be simple and easy to predict. Predictability brings some comfort and allows us better control.
I can only assume that you work as a tax accountant or something in that area. Only those people would lose out should taxes be made sane and accessable to the common person. You'd be out of work. I'm sure that's the check to check person you are talking about. The tax professional. Well, yes a flat tax would hurt them. But it's the kind of hurt the rest of us might find easy to live with.
Really, though this is a good story in some way, but the spam aspect does worry me. I hate spam in my email even if it's for a good cause. On the other hand it does sound like a good person won the race.
Good point. A person with a mental problem that did not allow of a legal level of insanity, or an inability to distinguish between right and wrong, would be fair game to the criminal courts.
The twinkie defense is nowhere near liberal, it is a whole subject in itself.
I don't give a damned about leberal or not, I opt for the solutions that are fair and keep people safe. If someone is harmed, then I hope the law is there to help them. I hope the offender is taken care of in such a way that they will not reoffend and harm someone else.
If no harm was done, the there is no problem. But not even that is true I guess. Sometime people like to see an example made.
But, the thing I'm most tried of is everyone needing to go far out of their way letting everyone know how "Tough" their going to be on crime. I don't care. Be tough. Don't be tough. Just make sure they people don't do it again. But, when it comes to entertainment companies or media giants they're always as tough as they can be and they always see to have the government in their pocket.
This all lead some to cheer for the black hat now and again. in short, I agree with your point.
I agree. Start with the assumption that you have no rights, and see how great that makes you feel. Then right it down, and put it in a safe. Tell your friends that you've done this, and that they have no rights to it.
Listen: Without information being free on some level the world see freeze and stop. What would have happened if Henry Ford had not come up with standardized parts. What is the internet was a parented. Things would have happened slower. Much slower. We'd all be paying a high tax for something which would only retard us are a race.
We have too many problems in this world to solve to bwe tied up in the information sideshow. Information needs to be free, if it can help man, if it can save lives, or any part of our world. That is something no entity has the right to: The restriction of our survival.
Our legal system can be cruel. It looks at issue in a black & white fashion. Either you knew what you were doing or you didn't. This is a 19 year old kid. He's in the shade of grey area, I suspect. Most likely looking for a thrill, or striking our at a large corp, most likely for weilding overly broad laws used to jail people like him.
Who knows, he could be a jerk?! But he didn't get any money for his trouble, so I'm more inclined to think he's not that bright.
I'm not going to post solutions to our legal system here. What a useless time suck that would be. After all our tangled legal system is born of know-it-alls coming up with "solutions."
I had a job where I was paid the same as the data entry people, except I was writing some very advanced programs, shell scripts, and SQL. I did fuzzy matching to discover which item were in our database, thereby reducing data entry by 10 fold.
I found a new job. One where the I would be rewarded in time, and paid better. Really it was the pay that made me go.
What is "pay"? It's what they think you are worth??? NO! An employeer pays you exactly the ammount that will keep you at you job(or someone like you), and not a penny more. Just enough money to keep you from leaving.
In your case you seem to have help them correct that number.
In my case when I left my job I was told by the owner of the company "We should have paid you twice as much." as I was leaving on my second to last day. I replied "Yes, you should have."
It's a coin toss. There is no one way which is better. For me, I'd turn my back on someone who needed that kind of prodding to pay me my due. Shows me that they are not keeping track of things.
Me? I'd leave, but keep my options open.
Good luck, and I hope that the choice you make is the right one.
Congress was worried when cars started to become popular, and horses where on the way out. They passed some laws and found ways to prop up the horse based businesses. They stopped when the car business was on it's way to becoming much lager.
That is the case here. Information hardware and software are much bigger a deal than it music of movies. Just compare the infmormation tech sector to the money made in moves and music.
Had I more time I would have alot more to write on this subject. Sorry for such a short post.
Slashdot Mirror
While I get the distinct feeling that governments fear free and unmolested communications, and to a lesser extent corperations, they must also realize it's importance.
In the United States of America, durring it's forming, we included free and open communication as part of the supreem law of the land. Nothing can trump it.
By voicing ideas, by communicating there is no problem that cannot be solved. Sure a good right can also be used by a bad person to some evil ends. That happens. But that is a price of this freedom.
Still the benefits always out weigh any problems.
Help keep alive the right of free and open communication, the right of the people to gather peaceably assemble(online or in person). If you don't have this right where you live. I firmly believe you should have it. Do what you can to insure you keep or gain this right.
Know you rights...
First Amendment
Crongress shall make no law respecing an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You "meant costly in the amount they were paying in the settlement"? What?
You're an artist. Great. Glad to hear it. I didn't see any artist suing anyone, and I'm sure that legal fees will eat all that money. But, they have stopped sharing.
I'm not saying there kids were right or wrong. I was asking you why you think so. To which you explained
"I meant costly in the amount they were paying in the settlement. A little humor which you cannot seem to perceive. Yes, hide behind that "its online... everything is permissible" attitude. Hate the world which tries to fight you for their rights. I am an artist myself, and if you steal my stuff... you will pay.
This is not about corporations vs. the little man but artists vs. the thieves"
Okay, that was joke, or the last one was. Wow, that must have been some of your art. Watch out Google is stealing it right now! Gettem!
>>It's costly to defend yourself.
> Especially when you are in the wrong. They broke the law and settled to don't have to pay MILLIONS to the industry.
"Especially"? Nope. In the right or not a lawyers hourly fee is about the same. Imagine the foolish lawyer who hangs his shingle and claims to charge $250/hr, $150/hr if your in the right.
You'd make an interesting laywer though. Tell me how it works out.
Oh, and I might have missed it, but I do not recall there being any admition of wrongdoing? Do you. Again, mayne I missed it.
Also when you claim something is illegal, unless it's something like murder or theft, please do include some idea why you came to that opinion.
You would have settled also. A student at a university is trying to build a future. The loss of all cash resources would make that goal much harder. They settled, for the simple reason that the fees must have been way too high.
It's costly to defend yourself. This suit might have had no meaning what so ever, but that has little meaning.
We all might be so luck as these guy to stare down the double barrelled laywer weapon being unholstered from deep pockets.
Do what you will, ignore companies which bring these suits, or whatever. No matter. I see a generation ripe for a new non-RIAA/MPAA market.
Someone will step in. And people who were willing to take it up to a point will move on.
Right, "the whom" arguement. That one has been around before. And I apologize, because as I recall using whom in a way that offended the single nitpicker on Slashdot invalidated everything I said.
Damn
There are two main problems at work here. Whom is listening in on your conversations, and who let them?
The person within the law enforcement community listening in on your calls may not be perfect. They could use this information to their own ends. They might tip off a friend as to when you are going on vacation and have the rob you. Or they might let that information slip in a public place, with the same result. They might be a childmolester in the making, or a murderer, or something else. Just because you get a government check does not make you a saint. I wish it did.
Problem one : Unknown people spying on you.
The second problem deals with lazy people. Mainly the public who hjave given our governemnt their passive approval of this abuse. The public agrees and maybe even likes this lack of liberty in their own home. They enjoy their temporary safety, at the expenses of some unseen freedoms.
Problem two : The people.
The people, meaning you reading this, if you want things to change need to change yourself first. Change. Become someone who takes an active role in the shaping of your community and become a letter writing machine. Vote! Get the word out. Get out of that chair. If you don't I really don't want to hear your complaints, because you are the problem.
I have faith in the people. I have greater faith in those that read Slashdot. They are people who "hack" things when they need it. The government needs to hear from us. We have to enlighten people as to the lost freedoms. I see that things will change. The dream of freedom must live in the United States at all costs for the simple reason that without that dream there is little need for the United States.
I know how stupid and corny that sounds, but it's true. When you drive by a school and see those kids playing, know that they are counting on you to correct these problems. Think about what you would tell them about maintaining freedom. What advise you might offer. Take your own advise.
Freedom is not free. It take time, effort, and sometimes lives. There are peolpe who lied bloody in a field as the life slowly drained from their bodies who all had the same thoughts in their minds as they died. They though that dying was not that high a price if others will live free and keep the dream alive.
With all that is happening sometimes I think that the dream of freedom and liberty will die with us, but then my faith returns. I wil take action. I hope you will also.
That freedom has taken a back seat to congress' lust for power and money.
We should look for other ways to take on the DMCA. IANAL, but the following link is to an interesting case, about fedral powers. I have some doubt, but maybe this is a method to bypass the DMCA.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260
I am very interested in what people think. Any ideas?
Ps: Why aren't techies lawyer? Oh, and why look at http://www.lp.org They hate the DMCA also.
I only said that I was worried that other countries would see the current US action like the guy on the island with the gun.
You are a little over reactive to a worry. The story was only there to explain how some counties might see things.
Do you think they'll all see it the way you do?
About the Island story:
Sure, okay, add that to the story.
He might even be calling many people evil, and vowing to kill them if they don't change their evil ways.
Better yet, make your own story. They're free if you make them up. It only takes the simple imagination that is required to see things from other people's view points.
I still worry that other will view the US as the guy with the gun. You enlightened message still has not changed my fears.
Imagine you are one of 20 people on a small island. One of the other people has a gun. They are the only one with a gun.
One day there is a loud gun shot, and everyone runs over to find that the guy with the gun shot someone else dead. He claims "He was evil. Trust me."
You might think that he might shoot you next. Everyone treats the guy with the gun nice and all, like Billy Mummy in a Twilight Zone episode. "Yes, you did a good thing. That was really good. Shot the evil people. That's good."
Unlike a TV show, the guy with the gun does need to sleep, and will be killed shortly.
This is how I worry other countries will see us. If we make them worry about the gun we have, they will find unity in taking it away.
I see this as a method to send false informaiton. Now that people understand what is happenning, can MS trust the information they are getting?
People could write perl scripts to connect, pretend to be a Windows box and send false into during the "update".
Worse yet a software company could up it's numbers and gain MS special attension and become aquired.
But, more than likely it would be a movie studio using the MS media player to pump up it's numbers.
Or, who knows. This might be a good way to setup a man-in-the-middle attack and preform a "special" update to Windows?
Time will tell.
-- James Dornan
Here we'd never be able to trust our government not to track how we voted. I would never enter information like that to vote, they'd add it to their "Total Information."
-- James Dornan
If there was a system like this in place on all computers I'm sure there is a chance that it will be talked about in some circles.
Personally I really hope not.
-- James Dornan
That's all well and good, but that does not weigh in on *fair*. What do you think it fair?
Personally I think income tax on people is counter productive, especially if it punishes people for doing better. I've had to manage employes and if I treated them this way they could not do their best.
I want people in the US, and elsewhere, to feel better about doing better. I've have the hardest time understanding why people think that people who make more money should pay a higher tax? If we are punished each time we do better does that not stop us from doing better?
Not all people who make more have more to give. From what I'm hearing it only seems that some people are greedy to get their hands deeper into the higher middle classes pickets and grab all the cash they can. Pork barrel spenders. And their are those that think they can get their share of that. They really end up getting the share often allocated to a pitares loyal parrot, a cracker. Nothing else.
From what I've seen taxes contain a good deal of social engineering.
I'll never feel good about paying income taxes. Our government admits that it assinates people. What percentage of my hard work went to kill someone? I try to be a moral man. I resent being forced to fund murder to stay in my country and out of jail.
I imagine that most people are taxed close to 50-60% when you count in all the hidden taxes, like gas, phone, and other things like social security tax, state tax, and import tarrifs. So you slave away for the goernment for almost half the year, before you get your crumb, and you think others should give more.
Maybe is self esteem. Maybe people just don't think they're worth it. They think "I'm not good enough to keep my own money, and I bet the government will know better." That is just sad. We know better. The people reading here are smarter than that.
The whole thing makes me sick. I'm voting LP from now on. At least they hate income taxes as much as I do. I'll always trust the people before I'll ever trust politicos. Think of it as "open source money." You get the money and you do with it what you will, not having to feel that you are only licensing it.
-- James Dornan
I see your point, but there is a slight problem. You are assuming the poor will be worse off. They might. But if that is a concern it is a concern which could also be addressed in a flat tax environment.
Let me first state that the rich are running things because the poor have shown that they don't wote, or that they are not voting for the people who will help them. As do the middle class. People wote with a party of not at all. Often it's Coke or Pepsi. Both of which make with the nice words and do nothing, or worse do something.
Cost of living it not uniform around the US. Creating a tax system that is unfair to the poor of higher cost of living areas is stupid, or evil, depending if you know what cost of living is. The US was intended on being fair when it started. But the great masses don't live in the high cost of living states so they don't care. It's like being taxed from England with such a small voice nobody will listen..., oh wait that happened.
In any case, to insure we don't drvie the poor under, and we're going to assume that because people have more money that they'll mind less, and can cope. Why not tax only those that make 100k+ 10%?
But that failure of people who look into taxes is amazing. We all make the same error. We assume that the government needs the money we give it. Any person or government will spend what it's got. They always do. They're so greedy they'll often allocate the same money many times. More money for the government is like more icecream for someone who weighs in at 1,000lbs.
I say let's see something like 3% income tax for everyone earning over the 100% over the poverty line for their area.
But I think by taxing peolpe who earn more is unfair. Treating people differently by their level of productivity is hardly fair. When people use the phrase 'fair share' in regard to taxes I know they don't mean it. I don't treat people different for their income level. Why should someone feel they have to give a much higher percentage if they earn more?
I don't agree with break points where someone keeps less money if they earn more then someone who earns less. In your system a person who earns $67,700 takes home 50,775, while someone who earns $67,701(a single buck more) takes home $47,390.7. Oh, that seems fair. One lousy buck more and you lose $3,384.3. Nice. I've seen this sort of thing happen to people before. I once turned down a raise because I would get less money.
Face it. The graduated system is not fair. It's really unfair, and fucked up beyond repair. How can you agree with such a system with break points and magic number you need to avoid? A system where making more money to take care of your family better is punuished by devaluating your effort and worth? How can you say to someone who works two jobs to get ahead that their effort will only weird 70 cent to the dollar? People make more money for many reasons, such as taking care of a child with cancer, or caring for an elderly parent. And you have the fucking nerve to increase these people's taxes. You are not only unfair, but either sick, or evil.
I hope you will think again. The illusion that all people earning more money can afford to just give half away of perverse, unfair, and moronic. I hope you'll change your mind. Truthfully I think you want the right thing, but I think your system and the existing one is punishing the wrong people who only getting ahead.
PS: I'm glad you have a good job. You are a contributor and not overhead. Don't punish people for doing well, don't devaluate the good efforts of anyone.
-- James Dornan
Flat taxes are not a problem, but *any* tax change is bad for people who live paycheck to paycheck. Not only taxes, but anything. If property values go up then so will rent, and that is just as bad. Making taxes unfair and not simple is cruel, stupid, and unworkable. It makes those that make less think they are getting more from the rich.
Get a clue the really rich don't pay taxes unless they want too. The poor scream "Tax the rich!" and get those taxes, but they don't hurt the rich, or even thouch them. After all how many "poor" people are there in command of our government? If you had a chance would you cozy up to someone who was rich, or poor? Which might invest in your startup or your politcal race?
Plus there is the concept of fairness. We should not change a system because someone makes more money, or for a person who lives check to check. The people living check to check need help now, not later. Make the tax code as simple as you can. People will adjust. We've had to adjust from the once modest 1% income taxes to this overly complex system where we are slaves to gorvernment greed(the really rich people in the goverment)for about sox months a year.
Any system should be fair, simple, and easy to police. Will the rich of the government allow that? No way. They like the ability to control your money. With a simple system you might know who was paying what. With this complex system it's hard to know how much is going to be collected. They'll over a tax break to the poor, and remove a deduction.
Plus there is one more important reason for a flat tax: Cost of Living! If I live in an area where the cost of living is extremely low I might only need to make 20k/yr to be well off. But if I lived in a place with a high cost of living and making 60k/yr meant I was unable to even care for myself I would get taxes much higher and be even more poor than my 20k/yr low cost of living counterpart.
California has a much higher cost of living and a much higher poverty line than over parts of the US. The people here are not rich? They take home less. State taxes are high, nearly 10%. Sales tax is high. In California people take home less, due to the cost of living. For that honor we get to pay more fedral tax. So in reality federal taxes are different from state to state. An income that might make you rich in Ohio might make you homeless in California. The homes here are 350k for an okay place.
A graduated tax system is making people poor or live check to check, not curing it. A flat tax would save many people from this fate. It would be simple and easy to predict. Predictability brings some comfort and allows us better control.
I can only assume that you work as a tax accountant or something in that area. Only those people would lose out should taxes be made sane and accessable to the common person. You'd be out of work. I'm sure that's the check to check person you are talking about. The tax professional. Well, yes a flat tax would hurt them. But it's the kind of hurt the rest of us might find easy to live with.
-- James Dornan
As I recall he invented cell phone messaging!
Really, though this is a good story in some way, but the spam aspect does worry me. I hate spam in my email even if it's for a good cause. On the other hand it does sound like a good person won the race.
-- James Dornan
Too true! I was a fool. Henry Ford had a good short name for a card company, but you are right about interchangeable parts. Thanks.
Some information on Interchangeable parts!
-- James Dornan
Are their any existing laws that would prevent me from bringing something back here for personal use?
-- James Dornan
Good point. A person with a mental problem that did not allow of a legal level of insanity, or an inability to distinguish between right and wrong, would be fair game to the criminal courts.
The twinkie defense is nowhere near liberal, it is a whole subject in itself.
I don't give a damned about leberal or not, I opt for the solutions that are fair and keep people safe. If someone is harmed, then I hope the law is there to help them. I hope the offender is taken care of in such a way that they will not reoffend and harm someone else.
If no harm was done, the there is no problem. But not even that is true I guess. Sometime people like to see an example made.
But, the thing I'm most tried of is everyone needing to go far out of their way letting everyone know how "Tough" their going to be on crime. I don't care. Be tough. Don't be tough. Just make sure they people don't do it again. But, when it comes to entertainment companies or media giants they're always as tough as they can be and they always see to have the government in their pocket.
This all lead some to cheer for the black hat now and again. in short, I agree with your point.
-- James Dornan
LOL, good point. I guess I was dreaming a little. I don't know the guy.
But, we don't lock up people with mental problems. I'm not implying he has some, but he might.
We try only to punish based on mental state, or intent.
-- James Dornan
I agree. Start with the assumption that you have no rights, and see how great that makes you feel. Then right it down, and put it in a safe. Tell your friends that you've done this, and that they have no rights to it.
Listen: Without information being free on some level the world see freeze and stop. What would have happened if Henry Ford had not come up with standardized parts. What is the internet was a parented. Things would have happened slower. Much slower. We'd all be paying a high tax for something which would only retard us are a race.
We have too many problems in this world to solve to bwe tied up in the information sideshow. Information needs to be free, if it can help man, if it can save lives, or any part of our world. That is something no entity has the right to: The restriction of our survival.
Now, let the sideshow continue.
-- James Dornan
Our legal system can be cruel. It looks at issue in a black & white fashion. Either you knew what you were doing or you didn't. This is a 19 year old kid. He's in the shade of grey area, I suspect. Most likely looking for a thrill, or striking our at a large corp, most likely for weilding overly broad laws used to jail people like him.
Who knows, he could be a jerk?! But he didn't get any money for his trouble, so I'm more inclined to think he's not that bright.
I'm not going to post solutions to our legal system here. What a useless time suck that would be. After all our tangled legal system is born of know-it-alls coming up with "solutions."
Cheers!
-- James Dornan
I had a job where I was paid the same as the data entry people, except I was writing some very advanced programs, shell scripts, and SQL. I did fuzzy matching to discover which item were in our database, thereby reducing data entry by 10 fold.
I found a new job. One where the I would be rewarded in time, and paid better. Really it was the pay that
made me go.
What is "pay"? It's what they think you are worth??? NO! An employeer pays you exactly the ammount that will keep you at you job(or someone like you), and not a penny more. Just enough money to keep you from leaving.
In your case you seem to have help them correct that number.
In my case when I left my job I was told by the owner of the company "We should have paid you twice as much." as I was leaving on my second to last day. I replied "Yes, you should have."
It's a coin toss. There is no one way which is better. For me, I'd turn my back on someone who needed that kind of prodding to pay me my due. Shows me that they are not keeping track of things.
Me? I'd leave, but keep my options open.
Good luck, and I hope that the choice you make is the right one.
-- James Dornan
Congress was worried when cars started to become popular, and horses where on the way out. They passed some laws and found ways to prop up the horse
based businesses. They stopped when the car business
was on it's way to becoming much lager.
That is the case here. Information hardware and software are much bigger a deal than it music of movies. Just compare the infmormation tech sector
to the money made in moves and music.
Had I more time I would have alot more to write on this subject. Sorry for such a short post.