Extremism is what happens when desperate people fail by moderate means
No, extremism is people thinking that visiting the wrong priest is bad, or that teaching your daughter to read is bad.
A government "willing to listen" didn't make the IRA finally settle down. In fact, you'll notice that it was the attacks of 9/11 that actually played a big role in the IRA realizing that they were behaving like asshats.
People willing to kill other people over religious differences is their own problem of cultural and personal immaturity. The shocks to the system and condemnation by fellow citizens that have helped in the UK (in that regard) have not happened to sufficient numbers in large swaths of the middle east. Millions of people there still think the Taliban's cultural objectives (a mysoginistic, medieval theocracy armed with Pakistan's nukes and what's left of the region's oil) are just fine. And there's the problem.
the US propaganda machine tells the world to dislike the current crop of boogeymen
Right, because until the US said otherwise, the Taliban were actually well liked for burning teachers alive, killing mothers for teaching their daughters to read or for working to feed their families since their husbands were shot for listening to music or having the wrong beard length. And when they strap explosives onto mentally challenged young women and send them into a vegetable market to kill other women and children, that was really quite OK and euphoric and whatnot until the US started calling it bad.
Nah, I know exactly what he's saying - directly and indirectly. He comes right out and tells us that Apple's profits are absurd and that (by implication) hostage-like people who don't know their own minds on the subject are defending them. He dissaproves of Apple's earnings, and he's derisively complaining about the people who buy things from Apple. It's not exactly complicated.
You're right. Apple shouldn't be allowed to make any profit.
Or do you think that they should be able to, but you think that the actual amount of profit they should be able to earn should be decided by someone else, like you?
The Stockholm syndrome comes to mind...
What should we call the syndrome that makes whiny haters trot out boring, over-used, poorly-applied mems like that, phrased in a way to make it sound like they're really clever and just thought it up? Really? You were betting your see-how-cool-I-am comment on the hopes that people hadn't already seen that misplaced bit of snarkiness a thousand times already? Let me guess, you also use "M$" when referring to Microsoft, because that is just so damn inventive on your part, right?
Anyway, back to profit. Please mention the correct profit number that Apple should make so that you won't hate them. A precise number would be ideal, thanks.
"the rich" pay nearly all of the income taxes. If you're making $15k, you're confusing FICA and Medicare with anything close to a substantial payment of actual income tax. The lower-earning 50% of the country pays roughly 2% of the income taxes. You're in that group. So the problem here is your use of the word "plenty," and the fact that you haven't "demonstrated" anything like what you've said. The numbers are widely available. The "rich" people you say don't pay income taxes actually almost all of them. Further, the lower income brackets that still do pay some SS and MC consume wildly more of each than they contribute, which means it's the upper income people who also pay that bill.
You'd have a point, if what you were saying wasn't a disengenuous bit of nonsense - a deliberate, knowing lie, actually.
Capital gains have already been taxed as earnings before they are again taxed as gains. And, of course, poor people don't pay taxes at a higher rate because they do not pay any income taxes. Are you saying that the corporate tax rate, combined with the captical gains tax rate, are less than zero? Poor people get refunds on taxes they didn't pay. They pay less than zero income taxes. Of course, you know all of this, and you're just a trolling shill for the power hungry leftists who seek power by promising to continue to keep that half of the country that pays no income taxes not only still not paying, but getting a piece, in cold hard cash, of the taxes collected from the other half.
Do you feel like you're being punished for working by being taxed?
Yes. Why? Because I use to work 50 hours a week, and made a given amount of money. I now work about 90-100 hours a week, and make more. But my taxes have gone up per dollar I make. I still have the day job, and its salary. I also make money running my own business on the side. My day job's salary is now taxed at a higher rate than it was before I took on even more work and generate more economic activity than before. I am being punished for doing and producing more.
You're saying that at 15%, they're able to become ultra-wealthy, but at 35% they'd be broke and working in fast food or just give up as it isn't worth it.
No, you said that. Some will find it to be worth it, but many will find that having twice as much money taken away after they risk their money to invest in a business is dis-incentive enough, by simple math, to make that sort of risk indeed not worth it. It's a market. People with something to invest split hairs, looking for the smartest place to put that money to work. If you more than double what you take from them when they are smart and make a sound investment, you will be chasing their money and their energy somewhere else. You lose that tax revenue, and you lose the much, much larger tax revenue that is generated by the companies, employess, and customers of those companies that are able to grow through that investment.
You could tax the annual earnings of everyone who makes $1m a year at a rate of 100% and it would barely put a scratch in the defecit. But slowing down what happens when they invest money (in the way of all of the resulting taxable economic activity) or speeding up all of that activity by working the opposite direction will have a huge impact on the deficit. Regardless, no changes in that area will come close to impacting the debt, compared to reigning in overblown entitlement spending.
why is being taxed on capital gains punishment?
Because such taxes only hit people who are smart and do the exact things that make other businesses and employees (who are also taxed) successful. It is a direct dis-incentive to do the exact thing that enables the economy to grow to and put capital where it's most effectively used. If they want to enable companies to grow, they should reduce capital gains taxes, not raise them. Nothing keeps investment money locked up in one place more than taxing the act of moving it from one place to another.
Please don't trouble us with the strawman argument of "If the ultra-wealthy have their investments taxed so heavily, then they won't invest." What else are they going to do with all their extra money?
You're missing the point. If they are punished for making investments, they won't BE ultra-wealthy, and a lot of smart risk-takers who might become wealthy will likewise not become so. The only way those people who make those capital gains see a dime of that money back (let alone MORE it back than they risked) is if the people in whom they invested grow, hire, and spend in ways that are HEAVILY TAXED. The wealthy investor types are getting back their cash after it has been taxed in several other ways. Penalize them for risking the money and other assets they put into play as other companies are trying to grow, and you absolutely will reduce tax revenue in countless other areas.
but try to avoid placing the additional burden on small businesses
Too late. The ObamaCare bill that we had to pass in order to know what was in it has passed, and businesses are starting to understand what was in it (a crushing new payload that will stifle more jobs, etc). And the continuing avalanche of regulations that make starting and running even a small business nearly impossible - that's not going away, but is rather being made far, far worse by the current administration. The effective tax rate on the owner of a proprietorship is certainly meaningful, but actually it's the least of their worries. That's just mosquito bites, compared to the regulatory shark that's chewing their legs off.
You want to protect and encourage more small and mid-sized businesses? Don't punish them for taking chances. And don't punish "the rich" for investing money in those companies. That's the other part people can't seem to grapple with. Small companies that grow quickly, hire people, and buy things from other companies generally do so because some Eeeeevil Rich Person (or a group of them) has risked a pile of money to get them from "small" to "mid-sized." Punish those people for risking that money, and they won't take as many risks. And Mr. Small Business Guy will be stuck in Small-ville, and that's the end of his hiring, his buying, and the TAX REVENUE that comes from all of that activity.
Everyone wants to confiscate the rich guy's earnings for having taken that risk, but forget that he won't see a dime of income from that risk (or pay taxes on it) unless a LOT of other new and very taxed activity successfully takes place. You want to avoid a burden on small businesses? Don't punish the people that help them survive and grow when they have no chance of otherwise going public or attracting institutional financing (and these days, that's pretty much every small business).
Clinton didn't cause those conditions, or even act wisely to preserve them. He benefitted from those conditions, and those conditions were rapidly running out of steam (in part due to his policies) by the time he left office. You're confusing good luck with some sort of shrewdness or wisdom on his part. Not the case.
You've fallen for the usual class-resentment/eat-the-productive cognitive dissonance and ill-logic trap. Your entire rhetorical question is built on the premise that the economy is a fixed pie, and that everything involves changing the slice-size per capita. That's a completely false model of how economic growth works, but it's certainly a favorite meme among people who see the world as owing them personally something for having been born.
There is no "the wealth" like there is "the available spectrum."
You're confusing "only allowing" non-embryonic research with "not using tax dollars for embryonic research." Not that I have a problem with it, but at least frame the debate in terms that actually represent the issue that some people have with it.
Um, those people are dead, or lost their houses and possessions. They've already taken the brunt of the responsibility.
No, they've experienced a lot of consequences, but they want someone else to be held responsible, in the form of lots of cash. Typical.
Everything bad that ever happens is always the fault of someone else who happens to have money or represent an entitiy with money available to confiscate/demand. This is modern western civilization.
If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck
So... other people that suck would be Avedon, Adams, Leibovitz, and all of the others that used substantial darkroom work (and later, digital post work) to finish up their work? Yeah, those people suck.
So, you're saying that artists who start their own record labels, and make their own decisions, aren't about themselves and the other artists they hire and promote? Artists who run their own labels are milking themselves? Please be specific.
Which one? Don't you see? The GP seems to be suggesting that an artist retaining copyright is theft. If that's true, why is it theft X years after the artist creates the work, but not X-1? Please be specific.
I'm pretty sure the OP clearly specified that the extension is the theft, not "All copyright". Maybe you missed title...
And I'm pretty sure that if it's "theft" for an artist to own his copyright when he's 80 years old, then it's absurd to content that it's not theft when he's 60 years old.
This music is being (preemptively) removed from the public domain; it's being stolen from the people.
Right. ALL copyright is theft. Artists should have absolutely no protections along these lines. Authors should only be allowed to make money by reading their books out loud to audiences in theaters. The moment that someone who creates somethings is allowed to decide when and how it can be reproduced, they stop being our pet entertainment slaves, and that is just intolerable.
Maybe not good enough, though. Who knows what sort of holes that gear may have left on networks, or what sort of issues it may introduce in a mission critical setting. To say nothing of the rampant financial shenanigans and who knows what sort of tax evasion and other little details. No, five years for that sort of ongoing, large-scale fraud isn't enough.
an agreement between you and him that you have no knowledge of his Internet activities
Which, of course, is not true, since he clearly does. Solving the problem by lying won't solve the problem.
Having that agreement in place ahead of time would really be a Good Thing
And also won't for a moment prevent the OP from needing a lawyer if a lawsuit comes knocking. Even if he has to pay a lawyer to present that piece of paper in an attempt to fend off the demand for a settlement/trial.
Make the reckless roomate get his own damn broadband connection, and carry the consequences himself.
I'd like to know just who is typically picking up the tab on some or most of those purchases. My guess is that those of us who pay insurance, and those of us who carry most of the burden for medicare/aid (in the US, mind you), are doing most of the buying for a lot of the people wearing them.
$8k may indeed me a couple or three month's average household income, but that has very little to do with the financing mechanisms that are really in play. And this is a great example of why health care costs are so high. Everyone gets more than everyone put together can afford without going into debt. And, here we are.
Slashdot Mirror
Extremism is what happens when desperate people fail by moderate means
No, extremism is people thinking that visiting the wrong priest is bad, or that teaching your daughter to read is bad.
A government "willing to listen" didn't make the IRA finally settle down. In fact, you'll notice that it was the attacks of 9/11 that actually played a big role in the IRA realizing that they were behaving like asshats.
People willing to kill other people over religious differences is their own problem of cultural and personal immaturity. The shocks to the system and condemnation by fellow citizens that have helped in the UK (in that regard) have not happened to sufficient numbers in large swaths of the middle east. Millions of people there still think the Taliban's cultural objectives (a mysoginistic, medieval theocracy armed with Pakistan's nukes and what's left of the region's oil) are just fine. And there's the problem.
the US propaganda machine tells the world to dislike the current crop of boogeymen
Right, because until the US said otherwise, the Taliban were actually well liked for burning teachers alive, killing mothers for teaching their daughters to read or for working to feed their families since their husbands were shot for listening to music or having the wrong beard length. And when they strap explosives onto mentally challenged young women and send them into a vegetable market to kill other women and children, that was really quite OK and euphoric and whatnot until the US started calling it bad.
Oh, I get it, you were joking.
40% and no more
Can I dictate how much you're allowed to make? Please?
Good job missing the entire point.
Nah, I know exactly what he's saying - directly and indirectly. He comes right out and tells us that Apple's profits are absurd and that (by implication) hostage-like people who don't know their own minds on the subject are defending them. He dissaproves of Apple's earnings, and he's derisively complaining about the people who buy things from Apple. It's not exactly complicated.
Funny to see what an absurd profit Apple makes
You're right. Apple shouldn't be allowed to make any profit.
Or do you think that they should be able to, but you think that the actual amount of profit they should be able to earn should be decided by someone else, like you?
The Stockholm syndrome comes to mind...
What should we call the syndrome that makes whiny haters trot out boring, over-used, poorly-applied mems like that, phrased in a way to make it sound like they're really clever and just thought it up? Really? You were betting your see-how-cool-I-am comment on the hopes that people hadn't already seen that misplaced bit of snarkiness a thousand times already? Let me guess, you also use "M$" when referring to Microsoft, because that is just so damn inventive on your part, right?
Anyway, back to profit. Please mention the correct profit number that Apple should make so that you won't hate them. A precise number would be ideal, thanks.
"the rich" pay nearly all of the income taxes. If you're making $15k, you're confusing FICA and Medicare with anything close to a substantial payment of actual income tax. The lower-earning 50% of the country pays roughly 2% of the income taxes. You're in that group. So the problem here is your use of the word "plenty," and the fact that you haven't "demonstrated" anything like what you've said. The numbers are widely available. The "rich" people you say don't pay income taxes actually almost all of them. Further, the lower income brackets that still do pay some SS and MC consume wildly more of each than they contribute, which means it's the upper income people who also pay that bill.
You'd have a point, if what you were saying wasn't a disengenuous bit of nonsense - a deliberate, knowing lie, actually.
Capital gains have already been taxed as earnings before they are again taxed as gains. And, of course, poor people don't pay taxes at a higher rate because they do not pay any income taxes. Are you saying that the corporate tax rate, combined with the captical gains tax rate, are less than zero? Poor people get refunds on taxes they didn't pay. They pay less than zero income taxes. Of course, you know all of this, and you're just a trolling shill for the power hungry leftists who seek power by promising to continue to keep that half of the country that pays no income taxes not only still not paying, but getting a piece, in cold hard cash, of the taxes collected from the other half.
Do you feel like you're being punished for working by being taxed?
Yes. Why? Because I use to work 50 hours a week, and made a given amount of money. I now work about 90-100 hours a week, and make more. But my taxes have gone up per dollar I make. I still have the day job, and its salary. I also make money running my own business on the side. My day job's salary is now taxed at a higher rate than it was before I took on even more work and generate more economic activity than before. I am being punished for doing and producing more.
You're saying that at 15%, they're able to become ultra-wealthy, but at 35% they'd be broke and working in fast food or just give up as it isn't worth it.
No, you said that. Some will find it to be worth it, but many will find that having twice as much money taken away after they risk their money to invest in a business is dis-incentive enough, by simple math, to make that sort of risk indeed not worth it. It's a market. People with something to invest split hairs, looking for the smartest place to put that money to work. If you more than double what you take from them when they are smart and make a sound investment, you will be chasing their money and their energy somewhere else. You lose that tax revenue, and you lose the much, much larger tax revenue that is generated by the companies, employess, and customers of those companies that are able to grow through that investment.
You could tax the annual earnings of everyone who makes $1m a year at a rate of 100% and it would barely put a scratch in the defecit. But slowing down what happens when they invest money (in the way of all of the resulting taxable economic activity) or speeding up all of that activity by working the opposite direction will have a huge impact on the deficit. Regardless, no changes in that area will come close to impacting the debt, compared to reigning in overblown entitlement spending.
why is being taxed on capital gains punishment?
Because such taxes only hit people who are smart and do the exact things that make other businesses and employees (who are also taxed) successful. It is a direct dis-incentive to do the exact thing that enables the economy to grow to and put capital where it's most effectively used. If they want to enable companies to grow, they should reduce capital gains taxes, not raise them. Nothing keeps investment money locked up in one place more than taxing the act of moving it from one place to another.
Of course it won't pass. He knows it won't pass. He doesn't want it to pass. This is strictly theater, and part of his campaign activity.
Please don't trouble us with the strawman argument of "If the ultra-wealthy have their investments taxed so heavily, then they won't invest." What else are they going to do with all their extra money?
You're missing the point. If they are punished for making investments, they won't BE ultra-wealthy, and a lot of smart risk-takers who might become wealthy will likewise not become so. The only way those people who make those capital gains see a dime of that money back (let alone MORE it back than they risked) is if the people in whom they invested grow, hire, and spend in ways that are HEAVILY TAXED. The wealthy investor types are getting back their cash after it has been taxed in several other ways. Penalize them for risking the money and other assets they put into play as other companies are trying to grow, and you absolutely will reduce tax revenue in countless other areas.
but try to avoid placing the additional burden on small businesses
Too late. The ObamaCare bill that we had to pass in order to know what was in it has passed, and businesses are starting to understand what was in it (a crushing new payload that will stifle more jobs, etc). And the continuing avalanche of regulations that make starting and running even a small business nearly impossible - that's not going away, but is rather being made far, far worse by the current administration. The effective tax rate on the owner of a proprietorship is certainly meaningful, but actually it's the least of their worries. That's just mosquito bites, compared to the regulatory shark that's chewing their legs off.
You want to protect and encourage more small and mid-sized businesses? Don't punish them for taking chances. And don't punish "the rich" for investing money in those companies. That's the other part people can't seem to grapple with. Small companies that grow quickly, hire people, and buy things from other companies generally do so because some Eeeeevil Rich Person (or a group of them) has risked a pile of money to get them from "small" to "mid-sized." Punish those people for risking that money, and they won't take as many risks. And Mr. Small Business Guy will be stuck in Small-ville, and that's the end of his hiring, his buying, and the TAX REVENUE that comes from all of that activity.
Everyone wants to confiscate the rich guy's earnings for having taken that risk, but forget that he won't see a dime of income from that risk (or pay taxes on it) unless a LOT of other new and very taxed activity successfully takes place. You want to avoid a burden on small businesses? Don't punish the people that help them survive and grow when they have no chance of otherwise going public or attracting institutional financing (and these days, that's pretty much every small business).
Clinton didn't cause those conditions, or even act wisely to preserve them. He benefitted from those conditions, and those conditions were rapidly running out of steam (in part due to his policies) by the time he left office. You're confusing good luck with some sort of shrewdness or wisdom on his part. Not the case.
You've fallen for the usual class-resentment/eat-the-productive cognitive dissonance and ill-logic trap. Your entire rhetorical question is built on the premise that the economy is a fixed pie, and that everything involves changing the slice-size per capita. That's a completely false model of how economic growth works, but it's certainly a favorite meme among people who see the world as owing them personally something for having been born.
There is no "the wealth" like there is "the available spectrum."
You're confusing "only allowing" non-embryonic research with "not using tax dollars for embryonic research." Not that I have a problem with it, but at least frame the debate in terms that actually represent the issue that some people have with it.
Um, those people are dead, or lost their houses and possessions. They've already taken the brunt of the responsibility.
No, they've experienced a lot of consequences, but they want someone else to be held responsible, in the form of lots of cash. Typical.
Everything bad that ever happens is always the fault of someone else who happens to have money or represent an entitiy with money available to confiscate/demand. This is modern western civilization.
If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck
So ... other people that suck would be Avedon, Adams, Leibovitz, and all of the others that used substantial darkroom work (and later, digital post work) to finish up their work? Yeah, those people suck.
You're an idiot.
So, you're saying that artists who start their own record labels, and make their own decisions, aren't about themselves and the other artists they hire and promote? Artists who run their own labels are milking themselves? Please be specific.
the straw man you've created
Which one? Don't you see? The GP seems to be suggesting that an artist retaining copyright is theft. If that's true, why is it theft X years after the artist creates the work, but not X-1? Please be specific.
I'm pretty sure the OP clearly specified that the extension is the theft, not "All copyright". Maybe you missed title...
And I'm pretty sure that if it's "theft" for an artist to own his copyright when he's 80 years old, then it's absurd to content that it's not theft when he's 60 years old.
This music is being (preemptively) removed from the public domain; it's being stolen from the people.
Right. ALL copyright is theft. Artists should have absolutely no protections along these lines. Authors should only be allowed to make money by reading their books out loud to audiences in theaters. The moment that someone who creates somethings is allowed to decide when and how it can be reproduced, they stop being our pet entertainment slaves, and that is just intolerable.
Cisco is being protected, yes. But so is the market, from fraudulant participants selling fake goods.
Maybe not good enough, though. Who knows what sort of holes that gear may have left on networks, or what sort of issues it may introduce in a mission critical setting. To say nothing of the rampant financial shenanigans and who knows what sort of tax evasion and other little details. No, five years for that sort of ongoing, large-scale fraud isn't enough.
an agreement between you and him that you have no knowledge of his Internet activities
Which, of course, is not true, since he clearly does. Solving the problem by lying won't solve the problem.
Having that agreement in place ahead of time would really be a Good Thing
And also won't for a moment prevent the OP from needing a lawyer if a lawsuit comes knocking. Even if he has to pay a lawyer to present that piece of paper in an attempt to fend off the demand for a settlement/trial.
Make the reckless roomate get his own damn broadband connection, and carry the consequences himself.
I'd like to know just who is typically picking up the tab on some or most of those purchases. My guess is that those of us who pay insurance, and those of us who carry most of the burden for medicare/aid (in the US, mind you), are doing most of the buying for a lot of the people wearing them.
$8k may indeed me a couple or three month's average household income, but that has very little to do with the financing mechanisms that are really in play. And this is a great example of why health care costs are so high. Everyone gets more than everyone put together can afford without going into debt. And, here we are.
WikiLeaks Live Action
But only if we get to use it on Assange, too.