Good point. Essentially, prior to iTunes, TV did not have a "buy the show" model. iTunes brought a new sales vehicle. Movies, with DVD purchases, do and iTunes would be a threat to replace that.
I don't have any data but it seems the TV Shows on iTunes would have been starting from the same situation the movies were, maybe even worse because everybody already has free or unlimited access to the shows. The TV Show selection started out limited but has rapidly grown. There is a ton of stuff now. I don't know how many they are selling but I have to think it is doing well.
So I'm not sure their analysis holds up.
I agree.
Although I haven't thought about it completely I'm not sure there is any taxation that creates a net positive effect on the economy. It may be that any and all taxation does create a drag but that we, as a society, accept that to achieve some of the communal good that couldn't be achieved another way. But certainly some uses of tax money are better / or worse for the economy coupled with the more or less inefficiency of government to manage and apply the tax revenue.
Through taxes Americans ARE giving a ton of money to help others! A large portion of our taxes goes to aid fellow Americans, and others around the world. Some taxes go to shared services that many or most people use and whether or not the government should provide these services is another debate. But there is no doubt a big part of our budget goes toward providing things to other Americans. Not things everyone can share in like libraries, highways, etc. but money directly to individuals in the form of socical security, food stamps, housing assistance, medicare, medicaid, prescription drugs, etc.
There certainly are Americans who say they do their giving through the government and are not giving in other ways but I think they are the minority. So on top of the mandated charity the governemnt requires most of us give a bit more. Why? Because we are generous and WE can DIRECT the additional money where we want. To the types of aid we believe are best and agree with our chosen morals, faith, or philosophy.
Just because certain countries with higher tax burdens did better than others, by some metric ( productivity, growth, whatever ) than some with lower tax burdens means nothing. There are way too many factors influencing these economies to draw a cause-effect relationship. Otherwise the conclusion would be higher tax rates increase productivity ( the metric you referenced ). By that data, assuming higher productivity was the goal, we should increase the tax burden.
As someone who does believe in giving and sharing, not just from my excess but even when it is not there, I also wish people would be more charitable and generous if they aren't already. Much good could be done, especially if used in the right way with the right programs. But individuals should decide that for themselves, not the government. I believe in the continued generosity of private individuals, American or otherwise, and that they can best decide how to spend their money to help others
You've gotta be kidding me with those statements.
Do you think nothing is being given now by Americans? Do you think the middle and upper class refuse to give anything? It's not the.5% that is objected to. It is that the middle and upper class are already giving a TON of money to help others in taxes alone. And Americans in all classes give a ton more through charities and tithes to their church. Don't forget what we do when major disaster's strike here and abroad.
The fact is when poverty still exists after another.5% is given then another.5% will demanded. And if poverty at some definition was defeated there would be another cause, like broadband access or something that can be provided to the needy.
Where does it stop? Seriously. Where does it stop? How do you decide how much of someones income they have to forfeit to help others?
Apple is providing technical information and support for accessories that want to electronically interface with the iPod. There are no charges for cases and other types of products. Apple is also standardizing on the iPod connector and including form factor adapters with iPods to allow them to continue working with existing accessories.
These services and adapters will cost Apple money. Maybe they are charging too much, maybe not, but it is not unreasonable to charge them. Both parties will benefit. The vendors get to continue to ride the iPod phenomenon and Apple gets to offset some, or maybe all, of the cost of supporting and accomodating these guys.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Essentially, prior to iTunes, TV did not have a "buy the show" model. iTunes brought a new sales vehicle. Movies, with DVD purchases, do and iTunes would be a threat to replace that.
I don't have any data but it seems the TV Shows on iTunes would have been starting from the same situation the movies were, maybe even worse because everybody already has free or unlimited access to the shows. The TV Show selection started out limited but has rapidly grown. There is a ton of stuff now. I don't know how many they are selling but I have to think it is doing well. So I'm not sure their analysis holds up.
I agree. Although I haven't thought about it completely I'm not sure there is any taxation that creates a net positive effect on the economy. It may be that any and all taxation does create a drag but that we, as a society, accept that to achieve some of the communal good that couldn't be achieved another way. But certainly some uses of tax money are better / or worse for the economy coupled with the more or less inefficiency of government to manage and apply the tax revenue.
Through taxes Americans ARE giving a ton of money to help others! A large portion of our taxes goes to aid fellow Americans, and others around the world. Some taxes go to shared services that many or most people use and whether or not the government should provide these services is another debate. But there is no doubt a big part of our budget goes toward providing things to other Americans. Not things everyone can share in like libraries, highways, etc. but money directly to individuals in the form of socical security, food stamps, housing assistance, medicare, medicaid, prescription drugs, etc. There certainly are Americans who say they do their giving through the government and are not giving in other ways but I think they are the minority. So on top of the mandated charity the governemnt requires most of us give a bit more. Why? Because we are generous and WE can DIRECT the additional money where we want. To the types of aid we believe are best and agree with our chosen morals, faith, or philosophy. Just because certain countries with higher tax burdens did better than others, by some metric ( productivity, growth, whatever ) than some with lower tax burdens means nothing. There are way too many factors influencing these economies to draw a cause-effect relationship. Otherwise the conclusion would be higher tax rates increase productivity ( the metric you referenced ). By that data, assuming higher productivity was the goal, we should increase the tax burden. As someone who does believe in giving and sharing, not just from my excess but even when it is not there, I also wish people would be more charitable and generous if they aren't already. Much good could be done, especially if used in the right way with the right programs. But individuals should decide that for themselves, not the government. I believe in the continued generosity of private individuals, American or otherwise, and that they can best decide how to spend their money to help others
You've gotta be kidding me with those statements. Do you think nothing is being given now by Americans? Do you think the middle and upper class refuse to give anything? It's not the .5% that is objected to. It is that the middle and upper class are already giving a TON of money to help others in taxes alone. And Americans in all classes give a ton more through charities and tithes to their church. Don't forget what we do when major disaster's strike here and abroad.
The fact is when poverty still exists after another .5% is given then another .5% will demanded. And if poverty at some definition was defeated there would be another cause, like broadband access or something that can be provided to the needy.
Where does it stop? Seriously. Where does it stop? How do you decide how much of someones income they have to forfeit to help others?
Apple is providing technical information and support for accessories that want to electronically interface with the iPod. There are no charges for cases and other types of products. Apple is also standardizing on the iPod connector and including form factor adapters with iPods to allow them to continue working with existing accessories. These services and adapters will cost Apple money. Maybe they are charging too much, maybe not, but it is not unreasonable to charge them. Both parties will benefit. The vendors get to continue to ride the iPod phenomenon and Apple gets to offset some, or maybe all, of the cost of supporting and accomodating these guys.