OK fun thread but maybe we should all get "Back to the Mac"?
"Fun" isn't exactly the word I have for this.
WTF is it with Mac/Apple users and politics anyway? This wouldn't be the first "Apple" forum I've had to abandon because it degenerated into a cage of monkeys throwing turds at each-other. Even Ballmer is above that.
Admins, I don't care if you do get great ad revenue off the soapboxing. If the case is nobody's forcing anyone to visit this site, then that's very correct. Perhaps it's time to help drive hits & ads somewhere else.
WTF is it with Mac/Apple users and politics anyway? This wouldn't be the first "Apple" forum I've had to abandon because it degenerated into a cage of monkeys throwing turds at each-other. Even Ballmer is above that.
Admins, I don't care if you do get great ad revenue off the soapboxing. If the case is nobody's forcing anyone to visit this site, then that's very correct. Perhaps it's time to help drive hits & ads somewhere else.
Yes, most people use the word "should" when standing on soapboxes and pulpits.
And did you just say nobody needs Apple's products? Who are you to declare what mankind's needs are? A century ago, people like you would've argued that nobody needed electricity, sound recording, refrigeration, the telephone, or the internal combustion engine. Or the first mass market personal computer, the Apple ][. They're all luxuries for wealthy people. In fact, we don't need money, we can go back to barter economies...
And yet, look at how these unnecessary inventions have reshaped the world, and the economies they have sustained! The same is true in the information age, with the Internet and ubiquitous personal computing. It will transform civilization, and we will need these things.
Maybe you can go back to the stone age, but I'm staying right the fuck here in the 21st Century. I need my iPod, iPad, MacBook Air and 24/7 connection to the Internet.
Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but I am not saying these things have not improved the quality of our lives (though the statement that being always connected is an improvement is certainly debatable). Just as sure as the billions of dollars that are being donated to charity will improve other people's lives. But if someone can say a person doesn't need more than an arbitrary amount of money, it is a bit hypocritical when said person is a moderator on a fan site forum for a company whose products are decidedly luxury.
But as recent posters have argued, we are far beyond the scope of this site's coverage with this debate.
If someone wins the lottery and gives a portion away, I wouldn't describe it as an achievement.
Nor would I. However, your implied comparison between Mr. Buffet and "someone who wins the lottery" is insulting beyond description.
His success had had little to do with luck. You should educate yourself about him - I suggest the book "The Warren Buffet Way". I'm not being facetious - it's a very good read.
His investment decisions were hardly even speculative. He's not a gambler. He's made himself and thousands of others unspeakably wealthy. I would describe this as an achievement - one of the most spectacular ones in my lifetime. The benefits of this achievement are incalculable. To compare it to winning a lottery are... well, words fail to describe, but insulting, sickening, depressing, frustrating... and others all come to mind.
Quote:
No single individual should be able to accumulate and control $44b.
Really?
Where does wealth originate? Who should be able to accumulate and control it? How much should one be able to accumulate and control? Is there a wealth limit? What is it? Who decides what this limit should be? Hundreds of millions of people live on about a dollar a day. Perhaps they should decide?
Quote:
If It's nice that he decided to donate over $37b to charity but that doesn't make him charitable - he's essentially paying other people to be charitable with money he made from other money that he doesn't need.
Yikes.
It's clear you don't understand his actions - past, present, or proposed.
Yeah, but if the big earners paid some more tax, we might have a decent education system. Then people like you might know that it's "capitalist" and not "capitalistic".
Do you think Balmer will "drive the economy forward" with the taxes he saves. Maybe ... in the Bahamas, or southern France. I don't see him buying lots of Fords.
Is in the dictionary and was used correctly. Ironic huh?
Hard to imagine how you think you're qualified to pass judgment on something of which you've only been allowed the barest preliminary glimpse.
If Apple's flagship OS on their flagship computers still gets smoked by netbooks and $500 acer laptops in graphics tests... then Lion will miss the mark with a lot of people.
I think that unearned income should be taxed just like earned income. If not the same, then higher.
I also think that we need to index capital gains against inflation, to avoid distorting the reality of the underlying ownership decisions.
The guy sweating for $40 grand a year should pay taxes, and so should the old guy earning $40 grand from his investments.
Index long term capital gains for inflation, so no tax is paid on the portion of gain that results from differences in currency values. That is only fair.
But don't give preferential tax treatment to equity positions over fixed income positions, and especially don't give equity positions preferential treatment over wages, because wages are income earned from productive activity. We need more productive activity.
I really like the idea of indexing the gains against inflation - if you take a long-term investment that made 15% over 5 years, I'm not sure that's something you should be able to take a loss on, but certainly having to pay 18->???% of that as 'gain' isn't really right either. Though the government is likely to come up with some even more distorted view of inflation to justify taking your income anyway - don't you know, inflation is just about 0 even if every thing you need to buy goes up in price?
And it's not unusual at all for corporate executives to regularly buy and sell their corporation's stock. This is nothing new and shouldn't even be an article.
I think you're in the wrong place. See, this forum is for bashing all things non-Apple, and then praising all things Apple.
I really like the idea of indexing the gains against inflation - if you take a long-term investment that made 15% over 5 years, I'm not sure that's something you should be able to take a loss on, but certainly having to pay 18->???% of that as 'gain' isn't really right either. Though the government is likely to come up with some even more distorted view of inflation to justify taking your income anyway - don't you know, inflation is just about 0 even if every thing you need to buy goes up in price?
Weird. We have a single income tax scale here and capital gains are effectively added to your assessible tax (your gain is halved if you carry the asset for longer than a year). There's no riots in the streets here.
Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but I am not saying these things have not improved the quality of our lives (though the statement that being always connected is an improvement is certainly debatable). Just as sure as the billions of dollars that are being donated to charity will improve other people's lives. But if someone can say a person doesn't need more than an arbitrary amount of money, it is a bit hypocritical when said person is a moderator on a fan site forum for a company whose products are decidedly luxury.
But as recent posters have argued, we are far beyond the scope of this site's coverage with this debate.
How are you even connected to the Internet right now without luxury technology? I thought the only way you communicated with anyone outside of your subsistence-living commune was by goat courier.
No single individual should be able to accumulate and control $44b.
You seem to have assumed that the act of controlling such wealth is inherently negative. What about all the positive derivative impacts of that wealth?
Successful people don't get to be successful without benefiting others along the way. Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, etc. All these people have greatly benefited others directly and indirectly. Sure they give lots of money away, but thats not even the most important part. Its the impact of the actions they took to make the money that contribute the most back to society.
Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates brought us the modern age that know today. Steve Jobs gave consumers mobile electronics that have changed our lives. He also helped wrestle control away from stuffy record labels and put control back in consumers' hands. Warren Buffet invested in companies that had strong core fundamentals and thrived while growing, providing jobs, tax base, economic growth,etc. He saved many companies from going bust and instead created more jobs and more wealth for employees and shareholders.
The issue is not whether is it right for someone to control great wealth. The issue is how they get it and what they do with it. Steve, Bill, Steve and Warren have benefited us all. In contrast, the bankers on Wall Street gave out poisoned candy on Halloween. We thought it was yummy as we relished in our big hauls, but then it made us sick.
Here's a thought. Imagine what Steve Jobs could have accomplished as Microsoft CEO. Jobs took a (somewhat) struggling company and made it into a Godzilla. Ballmer did the reverse. Well, MSFT isn't struggling. But it's like the USA, rich, underperforming and in need of a new strategy.
Here's a thought. Imagine what Steve Jobs could have accomplished as Microsoft CEO. Jobs took a (somewhat) struggling company and made it into a Godzilla. Ballmer did the reverse. Well, MSFT isn't struggling. But it's like the USA, rich, underperforming and in need of a new strategy.
"the last company to make buggy-whips was probably the best of its kind. Still, no matter how talented the employees or how well-made the buggy-whip, the business is dead."
Comments
didn't see that coming.
The only way fats will change their self-destructive behavior is through shame and ridicule.
Vote Tea Party!
OK fun thread but maybe we should all get "Back to the Mac"?
"Fun" isn't exactly the word I have for this.
WTF is it with Mac/Apple users and politics anyway? This wouldn't be the first "Apple" forum I've had to abandon because it degenerated into a cage of monkeys throwing turds at each-other. Even Ballmer is above that.
Admins, I don't care if you do get great ad revenue off the soapboxing. If the case is nobody's forcing anyone to visit this site, then that's very correct. Perhaps it's time to help drive hits & ads somewhere else.
Two thumbs down to everyone's damn politics.
"Fun" isn't exactly the word I have for this.
WTF is it with Mac/Apple users and politics anyway? This wouldn't be the first "Apple" forum I've had to abandon because it degenerated into a cage of monkeys throwing turds at each-other. Even Ballmer is above that.
Admins, I don't care if you do get great ad revenue off the soapboxing. If the case is nobody's forcing anyone to visit this site, then that's very correct. Perhaps it's time to help drive hits & ads somewhere else.
Two thumbs down to everyone's damn politics.
Spoken like a fat liberal.
Fat people are disgusting.
Who can love a fat person?
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Yes, most people use the word "should" when standing on soapboxes and pulpits.
And did you just say nobody needs Apple's products? Who are you to declare what mankind's needs are? A century ago, people like you would've argued that nobody needed electricity, sound recording, refrigeration, the telephone, or the internal combustion engine. Or the first mass market personal computer, the Apple ][. They're all luxuries for wealthy people. In fact, we don't need money, we can go back to barter economies...
And yet, look at how these unnecessary inventions have reshaped the world, and the economies they have sustained! The same is true in the information age, with the Internet and ubiquitous personal computing. It will transform civilization, and we will need these things.
Maybe you can go back to the stone age, but I'm staying right the fuck here in the 21st Century. I need my iPod, iPad, MacBook Air and 24/7 connection to the Internet.
Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but I am not saying these things have not improved the quality of our lives (though the statement that being always connected is an improvement is certainly debatable). Just as sure as the billions of dollars that are being donated to charity will improve other people's lives. But if someone can say a person doesn't need more than an arbitrary amount of money, it is a bit hypocritical when said person is a moderator on a fan site forum for a company whose products are decidedly luxury.
But as recent posters have argued, we are far beyond the scope of this site's coverage with this debate.
I don't care even if you're SJ himself, the system that allows those kinds of payouts is sickening.
Such misguided people.
If someone wins the lottery and gives a portion away, I wouldn't describe it as an achievement.
Nor would I. However, your implied comparison between Mr. Buffet and "someone who wins the lottery" is insulting beyond description.
His success had had little to do with luck. You should educate yourself about him - I suggest the book "The Warren Buffet Way". I'm not being facetious - it's a very good read.
His investment decisions were hardly even speculative. He's not a gambler. He's made himself and thousands of others unspeakably wealthy. I would describe this as an achievement - one of the most spectacular ones in my lifetime. The benefits of this achievement are incalculable. To compare it to winning a lottery are... well, words fail to describe, but insulting, sickening, depressing, frustrating... and others all come to mind.
No single individual should be able to accumulate and control $44b.
Really?
Where does wealth originate? Who should be able to accumulate and control it? How much should one be able to accumulate and control? Is there a wealth limit? What is it? Who decides what this limit should be? Hundreds of millions of people live on about a dollar a day. Perhaps they should decide?
If It's nice that he decided to donate over $37b to charity but that doesn't make him charitable - he's essentially paying other people to be charitable with money he made from other money that he doesn't need.
Yikes.
It's clear you don't understand his actions - past, present, or proposed.
Please read. It's not difficult to learn.
Yeah, but if the big earners paid some more tax, we might have a decent education system. Then people like you might know that it's "capitalist" and not "capitalistic".
Do you think Balmer will "drive the economy forward" with the taxes he saves. Maybe ... in the Bahamas, or southern France. I don't see him buying lots of Fords.
Is in the dictionary and was used correctly. Ironic huh?
Hard to imagine how you think you're qualified to pass judgment on something of which you've only been allowed the barest preliminary glimpse.
If Apple's flagship OS on their flagship computers still gets smoked by netbooks and $500 acer laptops in graphics tests... then Lion will miss the mark with a lot of people.
I think that unearned income should be taxed just like earned income. If not the same, then higher.
I also think that we need to index capital gains against inflation, to avoid distorting the reality of the underlying ownership decisions.
The guy sweating for $40 grand a year should pay taxes, and so should the old guy earning $40 grand from his investments.
Index long term capital gains for inflation, so no tax is paid on the portion of gain that results from differences in currency values. That is only fair.
But don't give preferential tax treatment to equity positions over fixed income positions, and especially don't give equity positions preferential treatment over wages, because wages are income earned from productive activity. We need more productive activity.
I really like the idea of indexing the gains against inflation - if you take a long-term investment that made 15% over 5 years, I'm not sure that's something you should be able to take a loss on, but certainly having to pay 18->???% of that as 'gain' isn't really right either. Though the government is likely to come up with some even more distorted view of inflation to justify taking your income anyway - don't you know, inflation is just about 0 even if every thing you need to buy goes up in price?
Microsoft is not a dying company.
And it's not unusual at all for corporate executives to regularly buy and sell their corporation's stock. This is nothing new and shouldn't even be an article.
I think you're in the wrong place. See, this forum is for bashing all things non-Apple, and then praising all things Apple.
Your outside opinion is not welcome here.
I really like the idea of indexing the gains against inflation - if you take a long-term investment that made 15% over 5 years, I'm not sure that's something you should be able to take a loss on, but certainly having to pay 18->???% of that as 'gain' isn't really right either. Though the government is likely to come up with some even more distorted view of inflation to justify taking your income anyway - don't you know, inflation is just about 0 even if every thing you need to buy goes up in price?
Weird. We have a single income tax scale here and capital gains are effectively added to your assessible tax (your gain is halved if you carry the asset for longer than a year). There's no riots in the streets here.
Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but I am not saying these things have not improved the quality of our lives (though the statement that being always connected is an improvement is certainly debatable). Just as sure as the billions of dollars that are being donated to charity will improve other people's lives. But if someone can say a person doesn't need more than an arbitrary amount of money, it is a bit hypocritical when said person is a moderator on a fan site forum for a company whose products are decidedly luxury.
But as recent posters have argued, we are far beyond the scope of this site's coverage with this debate.
How are you even connected to the Internet right now without luxury technology? I thought the only way you communicated with anyone outside of your subsistence-living commune was by goat courier.
No single individual should be able to accumulate and control $44b.
You seem to have assumed that the act of controlling such wealth is inherently negative. What about all the positive derivative impacts of that wealth?
Successful people don't get to be successful without benefiting others along the way. Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, etc. All these people have greatly benefited others directly and indirectly. Sure they give lots of money away, but thats not even the most important part. Its the impact of the actions they took to make the money that contribute the most back to society.
Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates brought us the modern age that know today. Steve Jobs gave consumers mobile electronics that have changed our lives. He also helped wrestle control away from stuffy record labels and put control back in consumers' hands. Warren Buffet invested in companies that had strong core fundamentals and thrived while growing, providing jobs, tax base, economic growth,etc. He saved many companies from going bust and instead created more jobs and more wealth for employees and shareholders.
The issue is not whether is it right for someone to control great wealth. The issue is how they get it and what they do with it. Steve, Bill, Steve and Warren have benefited us all. In contrast, the bankers on Wall Street gave out poisoned candy on Halloween. We thought it was yummy as we relished in our big hauls, but then it made us sick.
Here's a thought. Imagine what Steve Jobs could have accomplished as Microsoft CEO. Jobs took a (somewhat) struggling company and made it into a Godzilla. Ballmer did the reverse. Well, MSFT isn't struggling. But it's like the USA, rich, underperforming and in need of a new strategy.
"the last company to make buggy-whips was probably the best of its kind. Still, no matter how talented the employees or how well-made the buggy-whip, the business is dead."
Ah yes, the Wall Street Brain trust really allocated capitol efficiently.
"Nope"
The subject is Warren Buffet.
Spain has enough solar power to replace one nuclear plant..
Best.
What do they do on rainy days?
I can hardly imagine M$ stockholders would be too happy about this.
Why would M$ shareholders be unhappy about it?