Sorry, this is retribution - Apple sued Motorola (pre-Google buyout) over Xoom. This is Motorola/Google responding. Your little fantasyland of Appledom notwithstanding...
If you want a knife on the plane, just book a first class ticket and request the steak dinner. You'll get a nice, 5" serrated and pointed blade for the steak, a full-size metal butter knife, and a full-size metal fork. Dine and relax before you take on the plane!
but nothing like the most recent Bush tax cuts that even the republican congress intended to be temporary when they were first past.
Citation needed - the only reason there was a 10 year limit on the tax cuts (which have a long, bipartisan history of success) was to get the Democrats in the Senate to not filibuster.
Our problem isn't too little revenue, it's too much spending. Adjusted for inflation (constant dollars), the Federal Government is bringing in the same number of dollars as it did with the Clinton surplus. It's just that spending has shot up 50% since that time. Trying to squeeze more dollars out won't help - we need to count the ones we're spending much more carefully.
So if they're paying the same effective rates and share of taxes - what's the problem? Are they now not paying their fair share - but 30 years ago (at the same ratio) they were? If the system hasn't changed - why is it now bad, yet it was good before? You really have nothing other than simply "kill the rich" type rhetoric.
Perhaps they pay a near-record share of income taxes because they enjoy a near-record share of income?
You know, math?
Apparently you didn't look at the link - they're actually slightly up in terms of income:taxation ratio. And it's virtually the same ratio as back in 1980, when the top tax rate was over twice what it is now.
Perhaps you should learn a little math yourself - not to mention some basic facts...
And now the stupid fucks have show up comparing what percentage to income taxes is paid to what percentage of people pay them, two completely unrelated things.
Hey, asswipe. We don't tax people, you fucktard, we tax income. The reason the top 1% pay twice as much now is that they are making something like eight times the money, and taxes are lower.
Hey asswipe, got a source for your assertion? I know you don't, because the facts speak exactly opposite - the top 1% pay the same ratio of taxes-to-income as they did back in 1980, under President Carter.
Drop the bong, get out from your OWS tent, and try educating yourself.
They also make ~80% of the income. No wonder they're so much happier these days.
BS. Source you can cite? Because a summary of IRS tax returns shows you're full of it. In fact, the top 1% pay about the same ratio of taxes-to-income now as they did in 1980, under President Carter and much higher marginal tax rates.
Your anti-wealth rhetoric is simply without merit.
The top 1% pay a greater portion of taxes now because they "earn" a greater portion of the wealth than in the Carter years. And the amount they "earn" has increased much more than the portion they pay in taxes.
The Laffer curve is junk science at the worst. Its proponents will never admit we're on the left hand side of the curve until the tax rate is 0.
In 1980, the top 1% made 8.46% of the income, and paid 19.05% of the income taxes. Now they make about 17% of the income and pay about 37% of the income taxes. It's about the same now as it was under Carter (source).
Too bad you're an AC, you could stand to use a little education...
Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history.
Maybe the nominal tax rate is low (and it's been lower - try any time pre-1931) but that's just part of the story. The wealthiest 1% pay a near-record share of income taxes. And the top 5% are paying nearly 60% of all income taxes. Compare that to the time pre-Bush tax cuts - it's considerably higher. Just about record levels over the last 30 years, in fact.
From my experience. I lasted about 17 years. I am currently on a different career track and loving it. My biggest frustration was the inability of people in IT/programming to learn. The same mistakes were made repeatedly. I think that is due to the field not having professional standards or best practices.
Or its because all the people who made those mistakes last time have moved on to other careers - institutional memory is lost. Remember, experience is simply remembering what you did wrong last time...
Fields dominated by young, fresh hires tend to have a lot of rookie mistakes - lack of veterans ensures the mistakes are repeated ad nauseam.
How is consulting exclusionary from tech workers? I'm a tech worker and I'm 43. I was a consultant for the previous 12 years, made a lot of money, and just this year finally got enticed back to full-time with a fat offer for a principal position at a large (480 employee) tech company. If anything, consulting is the HEART of the tech world world because consultants are almost hired exclusively for their deep, intimate knowledge in arcane corners of the field.
I can design a desktop computer on my desktop computer - it runs CAD, FEA, compilers and the like. Does my phone have the horsepower and ability and user interface (like an efficient keyboard and input device) to allow me to design a phone on it?
Thanks for the history lesson - I was aware of that (I was alive the whole time). What leads you to believe that we can deploy high speed rail in the US affordably, and run it without heavy subsidies?
Please see when the study was done - well before the GM/Chrysler bailouts. And note too that cars are a NET REVENUE provider. More excise taxes are taken in from cars/trucks than are paid back out. They're a money source, not a money sink.
Sorry, road taxes - taxes on cars and trucks, fuel excise taxes - bring in more revenue than States and the Federal Government spend. The highway system is a net moneymaker for the Governments - and we're not even talking about the fact our economy literally runs on those roads. Passenger rail on the other hand? Big-time money loser - and it's losses are covered by those same road taxes.
Next time you're riding along in a train, look over at those cars and thank them because they're heavily subsidizing your ticket.
Read the report - it's passenger subsidies, not freight. The only time it includes freight is when it's freight rail lines being used by passenger rail - thereby cutting costs for passenger rail since new rights-of-way do not need to be procured.
Anonymous Coward is also ignorant - probably why he's anonymous. The BTS report is for PASSENGER use, not freight. Freight costs are not factored into the equation at all - it's subsidies of passenger rail only.
I don't think you know about the report, or how to use those things called "links". Highway excise taxes bring in more money than is spent on them. Airlines are slightly subsidized. Trains are massively subsidized - and they're predominantly subsidized with that excess tax from cars and trucks. Those are the facts, straight from the Federal Government.
So, if we compare it to a mythical beast that doesn't exist in the US, then it's a bad deal... You know, I live half-time in Shanghai and ride the high speed trains out of Hongqiao all the time - but the difference is they're built over completely flat land, are packed with passengers all the time, and were built for a fraction of this rail we're trying to put in CA. I know what rail COULD be, but I also know what rail - and the Federal Government/TSA/regulatory world - in the US is, and what this will end up as: a total FUBAR that will cost close to $300 billion and carry 1/4 the number of estimated passengers - and save maybe 30 minutes off the current rail times between SF and LA (I watch that train roll by a few times a day - I live in Santa Barbara down by East Beach, not far from the tracks).
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, this is retribution - Apple sued Motorola (pre-Google buyout) over Xoom. This is Motorola/Google responding. Your little fantasyland of Appledom notwithstanding...
Try the Unicorn Tears upgrade - it's at least a 30% increase in throughput.
Of course - there's an app for that!
But think of the extra legroom we could have!
If you want a knife on the plane, just book a first class ticket and request the steak dinner. You'll get a nice, 5" serrated and pointed blade for the steak, a full-size metal butter knife, and a full-size metal fork. Dine and relax before you take on the plane!
give everyone a rapier.
Jerry Sandusky is waiting for trial he is not available...
but nothing like the most recent Bush tax cuts that even the republican congress intended to be temporary when they were first past.
Citation needed - the only reason there was a 10 year limit on the tax cuts (which have a long, bipartisan history of success) was to get the Democrats in the Senate to not filibuster.
Our problem isn't too little revenue, it's too much spending. Adjusted for inflation (constant dollars), the Federal Government is bringing in the same number of dollars as it did with the Clinton surplus. It's just that spending has shot up 50% since that time. Trying to squeeze more dollars out won't help - we need to count the ones we're spending much more carefully.
So if they're paying the same effective rates and share of taxes - what's the problem? Are they now not paying their fair share - but 30 years ago (at the same ratio) they were? If the system hasn't changed - why is it now bad, yet it was good before? You really have nothing other than simply "kill the rich" type rhetoric.
Perhaps they pay a near-record share of income taxes because they enjoy a near-record share of income?
You know, math?
Apparently you didn't look at the link - they're actually slightly up in terms of income:taxation ratio. And it's virtually the same ratio as back in 1980, when the top tax rate was over twice what it is now.
Perhaps you should learn a little math yourself - not to mention some basic facts...
And now the stupid fucks have show up comparing what percentage to income taxes is paid to what percentage of people pay them, two completely unrelated things.
Hey, asswipe. We don't tax people, you fucktard, we tax income. The reason the top 1% pay twice as much now is that they are making something like eight times the money, and taxes are lower.
Hey asswipe, got a source for your assertion? I know you don't, because the facts speak exactly opposite - the top 1% pay the same ratio of taxes-to-income as they did back in 1980, under President Carter.
Drop the bong, get out from your OWS tent, and try educating yourself.
They also make ~80% of the income. No wonder they're so much happier these days.
BS. Source you can cite? Because a summary of IRS tax returns shows you're full of it. In fact, the top 1% pay about the same ratio of taxes-to-income now as they did in 1980, under President Carter and much higher marginal tax rates.
Your anti-wealth rhetoric is simply without merit.
The top 1% pay a greater portion of taxes now because they "earn" a greater portion of the wealth than in the Carter years. And the amount they "earn" has increased much more than the portion they pay in taxes.
The Laffer curve is junk science at the worst. Its proponents will never admit we're on the left hand side of the curve until the tax rate is 0.
In 1980, the top 1% made 8.46% of the income, and paid 19.05% of the income taxes. Now they make about 17% of the income and pay about 37% of the income taxes. It's about the same now as it was under Carter (source).
Too bad you're an AC, you could stand to use a little education...
Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history.
Maybe the nominal tax rate is low (and it's been lower - try any time pre-1931) but that's just part of the story. The wealthiest 1% pay a near-record share of income taxes. And the top 5% are paying nearly 60% of all income taxes. Compare that to the time pre-Bush tax cuts - it's considerably higher. Just about record levels over the last 30 years, in fact.
Facts trump rhetoric every time...
From my experience. I lasted about 17 years. I am currently on a different career track and loving it. My biggest frustration was the inability of people in IT/programming to learn. The same mistakes were made repeatedly. I think that is due to the field not having professional standards or best practices.
Or its because all the people who made those mistakes last time have moved on to other careers - institutional memory is lost. Remember, experience is simply remembering what you did wrong last time...
Fields dominated by young, fresh hires tend to have a lot of rookie mistakes - lack of veterans ensures the mistakes are repeated ad nauseam.
How is consulting exclusionary from tech workers? I'm a tech worker and I'm 43. I was a consultant for the previous 12 years, made a lot of money, and just this year finally got enticed back to full-time with a fat offer for a principal position at a large (480 employee) tech company. If anything, consulting is the HEART of the tech world world because consultants are almost hired exclusively for their deep, intimate knowledge in arcane corners of the field.
Or snowomen, depending upon how you swing....
I can design a desktop computer on my desktop computer - it runs CAD, FEA, compilers and the like. Does my phone have the horsepower and ability and user interface (like an efficient keyboard and input device) to allow me to design a phone on it?
Never seemed to affect Charlie, at least as far as his Angels were concerned!
Thanks for the history lesson - I was aware of that (I was alive the whole time). What leads you to believe that we can deploy high speed rail in the US affordably, and run it without heavy subsidies?
Please see when the study was done - well before the GM/Chrysler bailouts. And note too that cars are a NET REVENUE provider. More excise taxes are taken in from cars/trucks than are paid back out. They're a money source, not a money sink.
The problem with your chart is that it is only federal dollars, not state and local dollars.
Airports are generally financed with almost entirely local money.
Citation required.
Come back with a graph that shows federal + state + local monies, and I'm relatively positive highways will be on top by a large margin.
State and Federal tax revenues for roads run about $60 billion per year.
State spending on roads averages about $20 billion per year.
The Federal Highway Administration spends about $25 billion per year on roads.
Sorry, road taxes - taxes on cars and trucks, fuel excise taxes - bring in more revenue than States and the Federal Government spend. The highway system is a net moneymaker for the Governments - and we're not even talking about the fact our economy literally runs on those roads. Passenger rail on the other hand? Big-time money loser - and it's losses are covered by those same road taxes.
Next time you're riding along in a train, look over at those cars and thank them because they're heavily subsidizing your ticket.
Read the report - it's passenger subsidies, not freight. The only time it includes freight is when it's freight rail lines being used by passenger rail - thereby cutting costs for passenger rail since new rights-of-way do not need to be procured.
Anonymous Coward is also ignorant - probably why he's anonymous. The BTS report is for PASSENGER use, not freight. Freight costs are not factored into the equation at all - it's subsidies of passenger rail only.
I don't think you know about the report, or how to use those things called "links". Highway excise taxes bring in more money than is spent on them. Airlines are slightly subsidized. Trains are massively subsidized - and they're predominantly subsidized with that excess tax from cars and trucks. Those are the facts, straight from the Federal Government.
So, if we compare it to a mythical beast that doesn't exist in the US, then it's a bad deal... You know, I live half-time in Shanghai and ride the high speed trains out of Hongqiao all the time - but the difference is they're built over completely flat land, are packed with passengers all the time, and were built for a fraction of this rail we're trying to put in CA. I know what rail COULD be, but I also know what rail - and the Federal Government/TSA/regulatory world - in the US is, and what this will end up as: a total FUBAR that will cost close to $300 billion and carry 1/4 the number of estimated passengers - and save maybe 30 minutes off the current rail times between SF and LA (I watch that train roll by a few times a day - I live in Santa Barbara down by East Beach, not far from the tracks).