If you could keep research paid for by the US tax payers in the public domain for use only by US companies, then I would agree with you, but to make research I paid for... Free for companies/people in other countries to then turn around and use that research on products that get imported to the US is just silly.
The problem with saying that making Texas a no fly zone is a burden would then also lead to why the Federal Government can mandate that I can't fly my ultralight out of my driveway. Sure, I could drive to an airport, find parking, go through all the security, but that takes an additional couple of hours vs pulling out of my driveway.
Odd because that is exactly what I did for the first few years out of college and built a multimillion dollar company around it. Guess your theory was wrong.
What makes it worth 10k? How about developing software that takes a team of 5 people 3-7 years to write, for a target market of 200-500?
You and 4 of your buddies may be willing to work for the next 7 years for a possible income of (500*100 = 50,000), and you can split it between yourselves. Sounds fair. What number can I call you to schedule when you can start?
I'm sure it's simple, so please enlighten me. If I order powdered vitamin water packets, and I have them delivered to my work address in Chicago, but I'm ordering from my house in Oakbrook, DuPage county, please tell me the tax that should get applied since it's simple.
Please remember: Illinois base Sales Tax is 6.25%. Dupage County Sales Tax is 1%. Oakbrook Sales tax is.5% Cook County Sales tax is 2%. The Chicago Municipal Tax is 1.5%. The use tax in Chicago is 1% for anything bought from a retailer. There is a 2.25% tax applied to drugs and groceries in Chicago. There is an additional 3% tax on soft drinks. There is a 1% tax on prepared foods and beverages.
Is Amazon a retailer? Do they need to apply the 1% use tax? Is powdered vitamin water considered a prepared beverage? Or is it a soft drink? Does the grocery tax apply? Or all of the above? Does the sales tax get applied to my shipping address, my residence address, or my ordering address? What if I have the package is rerouted, or if I pick the package up at the local UPS depot which is in a different city or a different county? Does UPS then charge me the difference in sales tax?
And sadly, this is a simplified example. I didn't even get into whether I shipped it to a specific district in the city of Chicago which can/often does have different sales taxes, and I haven't tried to outline all the Oakbrook specific exceptions.
Well in Chicago, it's currently 9.75%, unless you are at a restaurant that prepares your food, then it's 10.75%. Or you are buying groceries, then it's 12.00%, unless those groceries are a soft drink, then it's 12.75%. I'm not exactly sure what it is if you are at a restaurant that serves you a soft drink, it's either the 9.75% + 1% (prepared food/drink) + 3% (soft drink), or perhaps they don't consider soft drinks prepared.
FICA is mostly for social security (some small portion is for medicare). Considering that social security benefits are also capped at ~$24,000 per year, it seems quite fair. Are you trying to suggest that the cap be lifted? It's not as if any of it (supposedly) goes to paying for anything but his retirement anyhow. Are you trying to say that the rich need a better retirement plan? Even if they remove the $106,800 cap, it's not going to affect YOU in any way at all, nor will it reduce your federal tax burden AT ALL.
If they still insist that I lie, then, they have to proof that I lie.
I think you mean prove.
On a side note, the judge would just throw you in jail for contempt of court. Judges don't have to put up with crazy antics like this, and NO, they don't have to prove you are lying. You aren't charged with not providing a password. The judge can do whatever he feels like in his court pretty much, including throwing you into jail for being an ass.
Assume that the grandparents both have to work until they're 65, because after all, on $24k a year, they're not going to be able to raise a family on one paycheck, right?
Your assumption was that both grandparents needed to work until they were 65 because they were raising a family. That would imply that at 64 they were still raising their family. How old do you think a pair of 64 year old's children are if they are still raising them?
I'm sorry if you have difficulty thinking a complete thought that makes sense, and writing it down. Please continue your rant about how evil the world is, and how everyone owes you everything because you're so special.
First, grandparents shouldn't still be raising their 30-something year old kids, so I'm not sure why you would expect them both to still have full time jobs. My mother is semi-retired, working from home on projects as they come up and as she wants them.
You can do like my grandparents did. My grandmother worked the night shift, and watched both my mothers and her own daughter during the day.
Or you could do like me and my wife did; She took the early shift (5am-2pm). Plenty of time to be home before the kids get out of school.
Or a dozen other scenarios. You just seem to be looking for the perfect world, which is easy. There are solutions; You just don't want to hear them.
Yes barbara, I've raised 2 kids, so I'm quite well aware of how much daycare costs. Don't have parents, neighbors, or other family who can help?
Funny how previous generations were able to do it on one income.
Funny how we aren't living in the same conditions 20 years ago. Odd, my grandparents watched me when I was younger. My grand mother worked the night shift so she could watch me during the day for my parents.
what sort of problem do you have with people earning enough to get them out of poverty so they can, you know, live better and pay more taxes?
I don't have any problem with people making more, if they deserve it. You obviously want to make more, but have no grounds on which to stand for as to why you SHOULD be making more. You can't just keep raising the minimums to help those poor people at the bottom. There will ALWAYS be people at the bottom, ALWAYS. Well, unless everyone in the whole world makes exactly the same amount. Yeah, good luck with that, what a utopia that would be when the lazy dumb asses make the exact same as those who work their asses off.
And BTW - the rich aren't paying those taxes - they're paying it out of money they got by NOT paying the underclass a living wage.
And BTW -- the lazy aren't paying those taxed at all, and they are just jealous little bitches trying to take what they haven't earned.
I guess I should have listed the US in both lists if that would make you feel better. I looked that the top 10% countries, not who pays more/less than the US as where they fall above or below the US isn't a relevant cut off point.
Can you even read? I did say $50k a year (you do have a wife do you not?). I guess I should have said significant other. And yes, you can raise a family with both parents making $24k/year each.
As for your AIG/Moody Warren Buffett rant. You do realize that the top 25% of the the income earners pay over 85% of the taxes. Your income puts you in the bottom 30%, so worry less about what everyone else is paying. It doesn't really affect you since you're never going to pay for any of it.
You could save yourself some embarrassment if you didn't name your account tom.
If you can't raise a family on $50k a year (You do have a wife do you not?) then you are doing something wrong.
I hate to break it to you, but the current economic crisis was CAUSED by individuals like yourself who think they deserve more than they do. Buying houses they couldn't afford, and then defaulting on them causing responsible people like myself to eat the costs of your stupidity. You want to know why companies can't afford to pay their employees what they would have? Take a long hard look in the mirror.
I think your mother appreciates not having to go back to work at her age because the house isn't paid off and there is a nest egg to cover some/most/all of her expenses. But you should ask her yourself. Would she rather go back to the factory line (or whatever job would take her at her age with no relevant skills) or to not have taken a few vacations when she was younger?
BTW, I am sorry to hear about your father, but as sad as that may be, that simply isn't the norm, and shouldn't be used to base every decision a person makes. Bad things happen to good people sometimes.
Entry level is entry level, but forcing labor costs on the bottom up will generally have benefits all around - increased markets, less inequality, etc.
I've seen this first hand, and while you seem to paint this is a pretty light, the reality is far grimmer. Incompetent people hold titles they shouldn't and get paid the same as those who form the backbone of the company until they get fed up and leave. I've seen good companies die out this way many times in the name of "fairness". Life isn't fair, and typically those who cry the most are the lazy, incompetent ones who kill off a company. Better to let them whine, fire them and replace them with someone who actually wants to do their job, and do it better and for less.
I can't count the number of times I've heard "that's not my job" at a company. They use it as excuse as to why they can now slack off since they've "completed their duties", not realizing the fair thing is then for the company to cut your hours (and/or pay) since obviously you have no more work to do.
And this is a good part of the reason why we don't have manufacturing jobs in the US. Greedy slimeballs like yourself that think that doing these jobs are actually worth $50k a year. They aren't. Most of them got shipped overseas, and the workers are doing the same thing for a fraction of the cost. You've collectively priced yourselves out of your own jobs.
There is no requirement that you dominate the market to be guilty of antitrust violations.
Yes it is. It's the very definition of antitrust.
See: antitrust/anttrst/ Adjective: Of or relating to legislation preventing or controlling trusts or other monopolies, with the intention of promoting competition in business.
even have managed to be officially labeled as a monopoly by a court of law
Uh, no. They have been deemed to be wielding monopoly power in a specific market. Pretty big difference. A true monopoly would mean that OS/X, OS/2, VMS, AIX, UNIX, and linux didn't exist and/or weren't available anywhere. Even then, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly AT ALL. It's when you use monopoly power to corrupt a different market or use that monopoly power to directly (and sometimes even indirectly) cause harm to consumers that it is illegal.
Easily. Where do you buy licenses for the ARM version of Windows 8?
Same place you buy other Microsoft OS's. You can buy it from the Microsoft Store, leading retailers (newegg, CDW, etc), a corporate volume license, or a 3rd party.
those who do just choose the alternatives.
While such alternates are available. Microsoft is working hard to ensure they cease to be.
The alternatives aren't going anywhere. I didn't see Microsoft Windows Tablet Edition ruining the sales of the iPad, nor Windows Phone 6.5 ruining iPhone/Android sales.
Do you seriously think that MS is going to let a vendor ship Windows on a device without their logo on it? Doubtful.
Sure, you know how many OEMs sell Windows PCs without the logo? Tons. I made my own PC, and it's not "Built for Windows xx" certified either, and yet it's running Windows 7 just fine.
We've said that with PCs as well. Look where that went.
Almost all the major manufacturers tried, and it wasn't worthwhile. Demand just wasn't there for desktops running linux. However, many DO sell servers with linux either preinstalled or designed for it.
Go do it. I asked you to go find me core system hardware that doesn't have the Windows logo on it.
I listed 3 motherboards above, I can easily find a TON of more components without the logo. Some actually is complaint but the manufacturers never bothered to get it certified, but most do because it is worth it for the major manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
If you could keep research paid for by the US tax payers in the public domain for use only by US companies, then I would agree with you, but to make research I paid for... Free for companies/people in other countries to then turn around and use that research on products that get imported to the US is just silly.
The problem with saying that making Texas a no fly zone is a burden would then also lead to why the Federal Government can mandate that I can't fly my ultralight out of my driveway. Sure, I could drive to an airport, find parking, go through all the security, but that takes an additional couple of hours vs pulling out of my driveway.
Odd because that is exactly what I did for the first few years out of college and built a multimillion dollar company around it. Guess your theory was wrong.
What makes it worth 10k? How about developing software that takes a team of 5 people 3-7 years to write, for a target market of 200-500?
You and 4 of your buddies may be willing to work for the next 7 years for a possible income of (500*100 = 50,000), and you can split it between yourselves. Sounds fair. What number can I call you to schedule when you can start?
I'm sure it's simple, so please enlighten me. If I order powdered vitamin water packets, and I have them delivered to my work address in Chicago, but I'm ordering from my house in Oakbrook, DuPage county, please tell me the tax that should get applied since it's simple.
Please remember: .5%
Illinois base Sales Tax is 6.25%.
Dupage County Sales Tax is 1%.
Oakbrook Sales tax is
Cook County Sales tax is 2%.
The Chicago Municipal Tax is 1.5%.
The use tax in Chicago is 1% for anything bought from a retailer.
There is a 2.25% tax applied to drugs and groceries in Chicago.
There is an additional 3% tax on soft drinks.
There is a 1% tax on prepared foods and beverages.
Is Amazon a retailer? Do they need to apply the 1% use tax?
Is powdered vitamin water considered a prepared beverage? Or is it a soft drink? Does the grocery tax apply? Or all of the above?
Does the sales tax get applied to my shipping address, my residence address, or my ordering address? What if I have the package is rerouted, or if I pick the package up at the local UPS depot which is in a different city or a different county? Does UPS then charge me the difference in sales tax?
And sadly, this is a simplified example. I didn't even get into whether I shipped it to a specific district in the city of Chicago which can/often does have different sales taxes, and I haven't tried to outline all the Oakbrook specific exceptions.
Well in Chicago, it's currently 9.75%, unless you are at a restaurant that prepares your food, then it's 10.75%. Or you are buying groceries, then it's 12.00%, unless those groceries are a soft drink, then it's 12.75%. I'm not exactly sure what it is if you are at a restaurant that serves you a soft drink, it's either the 9.75% + 1% (prepared food/drink) + 3% (soft drink), or perhaps they don't consider soft drinks prepared.
It's so much simpler in the suburbs.
FICA is mostly for social security (some small portion is for medicare). Considering that social security benefits are also capped at ~$24,000 per year, it seems quite fair. Are you trying to suggest that the cap be lifted? It's not as if any of it (supposedly) goes to paying for anything but his retirement anyhow. Are you trying to say that the rich need a better retirement plan? Even if they remove the $106,800 cap, it's not going to affect YOU in any way at all, nor will it reduce your federal tax burden AT ALL.
If they still insist that I lie, then, they have to proof that I lie.
I think you mean prove.
On a side note, the judge would just throw you in jail for contempt of court. Judges don't have to put up with crazy antics like this, and NO, they don't have to prove you are lying. You aren't charged with not providing a password. The judge can do whatever he feels like in his court pretty much, including throwing you into jail for being an ass.
Assume that the grandparents both have to work until they're 65, because after all, on $24k a year, they're not going to be able to raise a family on one paycheck, right?
Your assumption was that both grandparents needed to work until they were 65 because they were raising a family. That would imply that at 64 they were still raising their family. How old do you think a pair of 64 year old's children are if they are still raising them?
I'm sorry if you have difficulty thinking a complete thought that makes sense, and writing it down. Please continue your rant about how evil the world is, and how everyone owes you everything because you're so special.
First, grandparents shouldn't still be raising their 30-something year old kids, so I'm not sure why you would expect them both to still have full time jobs. My mother is semi-retired, working from home on projects as they come up and as she wants them.
You can do like my grandparents did. My grandmother worked the night shift, and watched both my mothers and her own daughter during the day.
Or you could do like me and my wife did; She took the early shift (5am-2pm). Plenty of time to be home before the kids get out of school.
Or a dozen other scenarios. You just seem to be looking for the perfect world, which is easy. There are solutions; You just don't want to hear them.
Yes barbara, I've raised 2 kids, so I'm quite well aware of how much daycare costs. Don't have parents, neighbors, or other family who can help?
Funny how previous generations were able to do it on one income.
Funny how we aren't living in the same conditions 20 years ago. Odd, my grandparents watched me when I was younger. My grand mother worked the night shift so she could watch me during the day for my parents.
what sort of problem do you have with people earning enough to get them out of poverty so they can, you know, live better and pay more taxes?
I don't have any problem with people making more, if they deserve it. You obviously want to make more, but have no grounds on which to stand for as to why you SHOULD be making more. You can't just keep raising the minimums to help those poor people at the bottom. There will ALWAYS be people at the bottom, ALWAYS. Well, unless everyone in the whole world makes exactly the same amount. Yeah, good luck with that, what a utopia that would be when the lazy dumb asses make the exact same as those who work their asses off.
And BTW - the rich aren't paying those taxes - they're paying it out of money they got by NOT paying the underclass a living wage.
And BTW -- the lazy aren't paying those taxed at all, and they are just jealous little bitches trying to take what they haven't earned.
I guess I should have listed the US in both lists if that would make you feel better. I looked that the top 10% countries, not who pays more/less than the US as where they fall above or below the US isn't a relevant cut off point.
All of those I listed are in the top 10% of the countries, minimum wage wise.
Can you even read? I did say $50k a year (you do have a wife do you not?). I guess I should have said significant other. And yes, you can raise a family with both parents making $24k/year each.
As for your AIG/Moody Warren Buffett rant. You do realize that the top 25% of the the income earners pay over 85% of the taxes. Your income puts you in the bottom 30%, so worry less about what everyone else is paying. It doesn't really affect you since you're never going to pay for any of it.
You could save yourself some embarrassment if you didn't name your account tom.
Oh, and Germany has no minimum wages except in a few select industries, and they are by far the strongest of the EU countries financially.
Here's a list for you, of some of the countries with the highest Minimum wages:
Greece
Portugal
Ireland
Cyprus
Italy
Slovenia
Spain
Oh, let's compare.. Here's another list, this time of European countries in financial crisis, on the brink of going bankrupt:
Greece
Portugal
Ireland
Cyprus
Italy
Slovenia
Spain
Hmm....Odd, they seem like the SAME LIST.
If you can't raise a family on $50k a year (You do have a wife do you not?) then you are doing something wrong.
I hate to break it to you, but the current economic crisis was CAUSED by individuals like yourself who think they deserve more than they do. Buying houses they couldn't afford, and then defaulting on them causing responsible people like myself to eat the costs of your stupidity. You want to know why companies can't afford to pay their employees what they would have? Take a long hard look in the mirror.
I think your mother appreciates not having to go back to work at her age because the house isn't paid off and there is a nest egg to cover some/most/all of her expenses. But you should ask her yourself. Would she rather go back to the factory line (or whatever job would take her at her age with no relevant skills) or to not have taken a few vacations when she was younger?
BTW, I am sorry to hear about your father, but as sad as that may be, that simply isn't the norm, and shouldn't be used to base every decision a person makes. Bad things happen to good people sometimes.
Entry level is entry level, but forcing labor costs on the bottom up will generally have benefits all around - increased markets, less inequality, etc.
I've seen this first hand, and while you seem to paint this is a pretty light, the reality is far grimmer. Incompetent people hold titles they shouldn't and get paid the same as those who form the backbone of the company until they get fed up and leave. I've seen good companies die out this way many times in the name of "fairness". Life isn't fair, and typically those who cry the most are the lazy, incompetent ones who kill off a company. Better to let them whine, fire them and replace them with someone who actually wants to do their job, and do it better and for less.
I can't count the number of times I've heard "that's not my job" at a company. They use it as excuse as to why they can now slack off since they've "completed their duties", not realizing the fair thing is then for the company to cut your hours (and/or pay) since obviously you have no more work to do.
And this is a good part of the reason why we don't have manufacturing jobs in the US. Greedy slimeballs like yourself that think that doing these jobs are actually worth $50k a year. They aren't. Most of them got shipped overseas, and the workers are doing the same thing for a fraction of the cost. You've collectively priced yourselves out of your own jobs.
There is no requirement that you dominate the market to be guilty of antitrust violations.
Yes it is. It's the very definition of antitrust.
See:
antitrust/anttrst/
Adjective:
Of or relating to legislation preventing or controlling trusts or other monopolies, with the intention of promoting competition in business.
even have managed to be officially labeled as a monopoly by a court of law
Uh, no. They have been deemed to be wielding monopoly power in a specific market. Pretty big difference. A true monopoly would mean that OS/X, OS/2, VMS, AIX, UNIX, and linux didn't exist and/or weren't available anywhere. Even then, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly AT ALL. It's when you use monopoly power to corrupt a different market or use that monopoly power to directly (and sometimes even indirectly) cause harm to consumers that it is illegal.
Why not? How can they control who buys Windows?
Easily. Where do you buy licenses for the ARM version of Windows 8?
Same place you buy other Microsoft OS's. You can buy it from the Microsoft Store, leading retailers (newegg, CDW, etc), a corporate volume license, or a 3rd party.
those who do just choose the alternatives.
While such alternates are available. Microsoft is working hard to ensure they cease to be.
The alternatives aren't going anywhere. I didn't see Microsoft Windows Tablet Edition ruining the sales of the iPad, nor Windows Phone 6.5 ruining iPhone/Android sales.
Do you seriously think that MS is going to let a vendor ship Windows on a device without their logo on it? Doubtful.
Sure, you know how many OEMs sell Windows PCs without the logo? Tons. I made my own PC, and it's not "Built for Windows xx" certified either, and yet it's running Windows 7 just fine.
We've said that with PCs as well. Look where that went.
Almost all the major manufacturers tried, and it wasn't worthwhile. Demand just wasn't there for desktops running linux. However, many DO sell servers with linux either preinstalled or designed for it.
Go do it. I asked you to go find me core system hardware that doesn't have the Windows logo on it.
I listed 3 motherboards above, I can easily find a TON of more components without the logo. Some actually is complaint but the manufacturers never bothered to get it certified, but most do because it is worth it for the major manufacturers.
Go find me a motherboard or graphics card that don't have the logo. Go on, do it. I doubt you can.
First try:
http://www.evga.com/products/pdf/270-WS-W555.pdf
Second try:
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Socket_2011/P9X79_DELUXE/#overview
Hmm... Third try:
http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4046
Can you find a motherboard that actually has the logo?