Gotta Love them Stats!
Actually, I rather grumble at stats in general because they always help make any argument you want. The tricky part is seeing which arguments matter and which ones DON'T.
Let's take a look at "stats" on income and taxes.
A favorite argument of liberals and warmed over lite-socialists who don't like the label is that "The Rich" don't pay enough tax and make too much money compared to everyone else. Therefore, any "stat" that shows "The Rich" making more over a period of time and/or "paying less tax" (careful for context here---watch for percentage stats when absolute stats don't work). Any stat that supports this general outlook is sure to make its way onto a liberal blog with a air of "A-HA....there! SEE?"
For example, Ezra Klein of the American Prospect:
He cites a "discovery" in a post by the Tax Policy Center :
Pay close attention to what they actually take notice of....emphasis mine.....
n 2005, the average tax return in the fabulous 400 reported $213.9 million of income, up from a mere $172.8 million in 2004. They’re even doing better than at the peak of the dot.com bubble in 2000, when the top 400 raked in $173.9 million ($197.1 million in 2005 dollars). Overall, this group, which comprised 0.0003 percent of the tax returns filed, earned 1.15 percent of all income reported.
So, income is up for the top of the top of the top. In itself, a rather non-point, IMO. So what? Good for them. It's not like they took it at someone's else's expense or "stole it" legally through some law. It's earned income from wages and stocks and capital gains. It's also PRE-TAX income.
We continue:
The cool thing about being incredibly well compensated is that you don’t have to pay much tax. Their average income tax bill was 18.23 percent of income. Including payroll taxes, their average rate was still under 19 percent(my calculation, assuming all wages and salaries, business income or loss, and partnership income or loss are subject to the Medicare payroll tax).
Ahhh. No we are on tax percentage of income....and why? Because, thanks ATQB, a look at absolute percentages of total taxes collected on this group shows an INCREASE in total taxes paid and a decrease in percentage on lower income groups. SO, when the share of taxes paid by the rich compared to others doesn't support the narrative that the rich are "getting off easier" than before, these bloggers simply shift the paradigm a bit and scrutinize the percentage paid on those incomes.
The part they ignore is that these higher incomes are symbiotic with lower tax rates. Reported incomes would drop with higher tax rates.
Continuing:
The IRS reported that only 106 out of the 400 paid an average income tax rate over 25 percent...While their pre-tax incomes have been exploding, their tax rates have been falling. From 1993 to 1996, their average tax rate was 28.8 percent. After tax rates on long-term capital gains were cut in 1997, the rate fell to an average of 22.4 percent from 1997 to 2001. (Capital gains average well over half of income for the 400.) Now, after top income tax rates were cut from 39.6 percent to 35 percent and top tax rates on capital gains and dividends slashed to 15 percent, their average income tax rate is 18.2 percent.
Notice that there isn't really any "there there"? The rates on capital gains were cut and the percentage paid dropped but the percentage share of total income collected went UP.
Not to be forgotten in all this is that these income groups shift in composition and number. Many who were in the lower brackets move to higher brackets over time and the numbers of people in each quintile or percentile change.
Bottom line, let's remember what arguments we are making and what arguments tell a worthwhile story. Total taxes paid and share of taxes paid by the highest brackets is UP. That the percentage paid on that income is down for some of these top tier earners is, in itself, irrelevant. They are paying MORE TAX and larger SHARE of TOTAL TAX as a group while the lowest groups are paying LESS in both respects. THAT matters....I suppose, if this is to be an issue.
But hey, if the fact that many of these upper echelon earners are "only paying" 18-25% of their total incomes is such a travesty, I see only one solution:
Lower the tax rates at lower brackets to make it more progressive! But the point remains that these tax rates are lower, in part, because capital gains are taxed differently and in part because the these people have more deductions and assets that figure into accounting. They are looking out for their own interest. If you had millions and billions, you would too.
- John's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Some Points
I agree on the lowering of tax rates at lower brackets, but there isn't much to be done there. At the lowest bracket (<$8000 or so), those people aren't paying federal income tax anyway (I should know; I'm one of them). A standard deduction + 1 exemption eliminates all that from being taxable. You might as well make it 0% for those people. I think there should be more brackets myself, and labor should always be taxed less than any capital gains.
The "liberal" argument is at times simply an argument to punish people for being too rich, rather than to actually increase revenues or any sort of logical end. I know first hand that in my benevolent dictatorship, I'd simply confiscate most of the assets of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al. I don't believe, in a moral sense that anyone for any reason deserves that much money. I'd be more than happy to simply beat the tar out of them for being too rich; it is immoral to have too much wealth. Chalk that up to envy or something else if you must (we can never know the true nature of our moral compass).
In a political sense this is incredibly wrong headed and counter productive. I'd never advocate this policy in a political context and would actively oppose it if introduced. It simply doesn't work as advertised.
That is the problem with many hard-left policy ideas. They are based on appeals to emotion rather than via cold facts.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
While I hear your overall point, I have to object
to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet being the poster boys for "it is immoral to have too much wealth" because they in particular make excellent use of their money to tackle problems facing humanity as a whole.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
...and both also support a significant estate tax
It's funny how billionaires who are putting their fortunes to good use in real life also see value in an estate tax on large estates. Horrible parents obviously-- why doesn't a guy like Buffett want to give every last red cent of their fortunes to his children and grandchildren, I wonder? What kind of sick demented man doesn't want his heirs to have a life of leisure and never have to work a day in their lives?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Now who's making strawmen?
No one claims they are horrible parents, they should be free to do with their money whatever THEY want. They should be free to pass it on or give it away as THEY see fit. YOU want to take away their choice. YOU are the one making a value judgement here, not me (us).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yes, I am making a value judgment, as is Buffett
Buffett obviously could just give the government an amount equal to what he thinks his estate tax ought to be, but he thinks it ought to be a matter of policy, applying to everybody. Society must have some rules which apply to everybody, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with making "value judgments" in this regard. Some people may "see fit" to outfit a private army with their fortune and use that army to carve out their own separate state from the United States, but at some point, a value judgment was made that such activity would not be permissible, even though it indisputably "takes away choice".
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Keep in mind Skymutt
that the estates of those people have been taxed many times over already piece by piece, year after year.
So what's one more tax then?
All that multiple taxation obvioulsy didn't stop Gates and Buffett from compiling huge fortunes... and yet they remain unopposed to estate taxes. Not that Gates and Buffett are the only voices that ought to be heard on the matter, but when the two richest people in America are vocally in favor of a tax on themselves, I think some heed should be paid.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
You're right. It didn't.
I'm just saying.
The problem with the estate tax to me is:
#1: what I just said above. I mean really. How times is enough, enough?
#2: It's Gates and Buffet that it hurts. It's the lowest ranks of the people it affects who, though wealthy by some measure, may not have as much as you think they do. It could drain away much of any liquid assets once debts are satisfied.
Either way, it's hardly my biggest concern. The revenues from the estate are minimal. And besides, it would simply influence estate tax holders to move their assets around or sell them off in a way that negates the benefits of the estate tax.
Yep.
Like tying them up in corporations and simply passing the mantle of control of the corporation from generation to generation. He who controls the corporation controls the money even though they may not technically "own" it for estate purposes.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yet we collect tens of billions in estate taxes every year
Not everyone is obsessed with making sure that the government doesn't get a thin dime of their money when they die, apparently. And the same people who aim to pay no estate taxes probably have tried to avoid all sales, income, and capital gains taxes as much as possible too.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
You think that they WANT to pay these taxes?
I suspect that if we ask the heirs of these people if they (themselves or the deceased) WANTED to pay the death taxes, not as many would agree with them as you seem to believe. Very few would, in fact. If given the choice how many of these individuals do you think would have actually written a check to government if the tax had not existed?
You'd have a better chance of fending off the Grim Reaper himself than keeping a liberal politician's hands out of your pockets! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
And once again, I will point out
...that few people WANT to pay any tax in any situation-- income tax, sales tax, payroll tax, whatever. So this is not a compelling argument against the estate tax in particular.
I would also point out that it wasn't me who voted for this current clown in office, the man responsible for the largest expansion of Federal spending in history, the biggest borrow and spend Republican we've ever seen. Rather than being somewhat responsible about keeping revenue in line with expenses thru prudent taxation and budgeting, he has put $5 trillion of debt onto the books. If we had been taxed this past 8 years in line with what has been spent, the Republicans hands would have been deeply into our pockets. But they irresposibly chose to defer the pain into the future.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Nor does this observation refute my point ...
The argument does NOT have to be compelling against estate tax in particular, it just needs to be compelling ... which it is.
The legendary skymutt army of strawmen! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
"Double tax" arguments are inconsequential
I get taxed on my income. Then when I go to the store and spend that money, I have to pay a sales tax. I have no problem with this double tax at all. Taxes are generally made on some exchange or transferr of wealth. Well, during the settlement of an estate, money is transferred from the deceased to their heirs. What makes this exchange so sacred, so speical, that there should be no tax on it in principle? So you could make your argument here against just about any tax.
Again, what tax does not put a financial pinch on some of the people who have to pay it? All taxes "drain away liquid assets". I know what you're saying here would be true for some people, but we have to look at the big picture. Estate tax opponents have focused on isolated cases where a family farm must be sold to pay the tax, but these cases are far from the rule, and most people with enough wealth to be hit by estate taxes would be able to plan for the tax and pass down a small enterprise intact to their heirs, if they so desired.
Revenues, depending on the exact nature of the tax, will be $30 to 60 billion / year. Certainly, the estate tax is not the panacea to put the budget on the path to balance, (especially since we already collect it!) but it's a piece of the puzzle and worth discussion.
Once again, this is an argument that can be applied to any tax. Black markets avoid sales taxes. People evade income taxes. We are obviously able to collect billions in estate taxes currently, so not everybody is avoiding them.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Keep in mind
that folks like this are afforded the luxury of a country with the option to become very wealthy by using the infrastructure provided by taxes. Roads, stop lights, electricity, clean water, police, a fire dept., courts, a justice system, etc.
Paying a portion of your wealth in the form of taxes is a small price to pay for living in the greatest country on earth, that affords you the luxury of becoming wealthy and feeling safe.
Also keep in mind that anyone this rich, has many options, afforded to them by high priced tax attorneys, on how to maximize their profits, by going offshore, and various tax loopholes.
Show me one very very wealthy person that actually pays a high percentage 35%, of their profits in taxes.
It is the economy, stupid.
Yes, yes yes.
They had help. Just like everyone else.
The things you mention are peanuts and much of it is paid for with user fees...or on a local level.
Yes, of course. I learned this weak and bland platitude when I was a liberal. It's true. OK. Fine. The devil is in the details however. How much of a portion is needed? How best should we obtain it?
Besides, people don't sit around on hands to become wealthy. People like Gates and Buffet earned it and created that wealth. For every Paris Hilton silver spoon, there are thousands earning their wealthy livings and adding to the country's wealth pool. Money doesn't grow on trees or come spontaneously out of infrastructure.
How do you know that?
For every Paris Hilton silver spoon, there are thousands earning their wealthy livings and adding to the country's wealth pool.
This seems like the sort of thing that is easily checked. What we need is a list of wealthy Americans, not by income but by assets, and then we need to establish what percentage of them are adding to the country's wealth pool.
I would bet it's somewhat less than 99.95% ;-)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Go check it then, my friend.
Let me know how many waste of flesh millionaire socialites are out there compared to those who worked for it.
Especially in light of the current death taxes ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ok, here are some numbers
This
is a list of the 400 richest Americans (by net worth, not income). The source of the wealth is given in the right-most column. For 14 of them it is only "inheritance" (3.5%, ie 96.5% "worked for [a significant chunk] of it") and for a further 6 it is "inheritance" plus something else (totals to 5%, ie 95% "worked for [basically all] of it").
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
thanx
I'd be curious to see the top 1000, 2000 and so on.
Yes, me too
I wonder whether the percentage goes up or down =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I suspect it would weed out more socialites and silver spoons
being Walton-rich is tougher to do than just being a successful entrepreneur who builds a good quiet living. Not that that is a cinch either.
So does this discredit skymutt's claims ...
about how the rich mostly inherited their money? :)
What say you, skymutt?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I never made that claim.
I never have said that the rich "mostly inherited their money". Get it right, man!
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Well, what DID you say then?
Many? Let's quantify that, OK? Does many mean 99.995%? 75%? 50%? 25%? What were you honestly thinking before you saw these numbers?
Here is your most recent cut I think, so how many is "many"?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Something else to consider
is the oft-repeated rule-of-thumb that it's a lot easier to go from one to two million than it is to make that first million.
Even a "modest" (by these standards) head start in the form of inherited wealth can be a big help towards becoming rich.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
For instance
Bill Gates Jr. got a nice present from Bill Gates Sr. in the form of $1,000,000 start-up capital for what was then called MicroSoft.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I have no idea exactly how many
That's why I used the word "many" and not a particular number. I am well aware that the strict dollar amount of inherited wealth is a small compared to total current wealth, but you have to take that with a large grain of salt, because the compounding effects of investment would allow that inherited money to grow over time.
For instance, let's imagine Mr. Jones inherited $10000 in 1970 and is worth $2 million today. Inflaton adjusted, that $10,000 is worth roughly $60,000 in today's dollars, so Mr. Jones has inherited about 3.3% of his total wealth according to the stats. However-- when Mr. Jones received the $10,000 in 1970, he was able to put a 10% down payment on a beautiful $100,000 home ($100k bought a lotta home back in the day). That property is now worth $1.7 million.
If we just want to look at the 10% equity in the home that the initial $10,000 downpayment represents, we can see that it is now worth $170,000, or about 9% of his net worth. But Mr. Jones wouldn't have even been able to buy the house at all without a down payment. He may have had to wait 5 years or more to save that much money on his own. House prices may have doubled by then, and perhaps he wouldn't have been able to get as nice a house. It's pretty easy to see that the initial $10,000 is really responsible for much more than 10% of the $1.7 million equity Mr. Jones now has in his house.
I also am quite positive that the percentage of inherited wealth would get larger as the amount of the current estate gets smaller. The percentage cited here for the super-wealthy sounds about right to me, and does not surpise me at all.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Oh, well, enough said then ...
:) If you have no idea then I can pretty much disregard your previous points, right?
I didn't ask you for an exact number, I asked for a ballpark figure that was consistent with what you were thinking when you made the above statement. Hiding behind weasel words like "many" and later claiming to "have no idea" isn't bolstering your previous position, IMHO. :)
Sigh, well I guess I have to tie you down on that point too then. So how rich is rich to you? Top 1%? Top 5%? Top 10%? Top 50%? What were you honestly thinking when you made you previous claim (ballpark, obviously, order of magnitude-ish)?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
facts and figures
My arguments have not only included inherited wealth, but also wealth transferred to the next generation before death, and also "privilege", which I have attempted to define previously. A lot of wealth and privelege transfers won't be captured in data that only looks at inheritance. My guess would have been that something like 10% of all wealth is inherited, but like I say, that stat only captures part of the story.
Let's just stipulate from now on that when I'm talking about the rich, I'm talking about estates big enough to get hit by the estate tax-- so, maybe $3 million+. Super-rich will be defined from now on as $100 million+.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
It may not be representative
but look at the top ten list from 2006:
Bill Gates
Warren Buffett
Sheldon Adelson
Larry Ellison
Paul Allen
Jim Walton
Christy Walton & family
Rob Walton
Michael Dell
Alice Walton
Four of them are Waltons, inheriting their wealth from Walmart founder Sam Walton.
Bill Gates can be said to have worked for his money (assuming you qualify organized crime as work). Although it should be noted the Gates family was already wealthy, just not obscenely super wealthy.
Buffett worked up from fairly humble beginnings. Ditto Adelson and Ellison.
Allen, like Gates (his partner), came from money but grew that sum extensively. Dell too.
So we have 3 rags to riches, 3 riches to super riches, and 4 cases of "damn, daddy was rich!"
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Just to connect this with my post above
The Forbes list has those 4 Waltons in the top 15 but 3 of these are categorized as earning their money from Wal Mart and 1 is categorized as earning the money from both Wal Mart and inheritance.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Right
IMO, if you were anything above middle class and you're on that list "inheritance" is the reason why you're there.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Not afforded anything ...
They weren't afforded anything. They earned it through hard work. They also paid the bulk of the taxes that paid for the infrastructure you are talking about, so they didn't get a free ride by any means. If anyone is getting a free ride in this respect it is the poor. They use all of these same services and yet pay (almost) nothing. The top 50% of taxpayers cover over 96% of the tax revenue that pays for that infrastructure.
You do realize that this isn't possible, right? The rich pay taxes the same way as everyone else, by moving progressively up through the tax brackets. Just because they are in the 35% tax bracket doesn't mean that they are paying 35% on every dollar, only on those dollars that exceed the maximum of the next lower bracket. In the lower bracket they payed the lower percentage like everyone else.
Factor in that the capital gains rate is lower than this as well and there is no way anyone is ever going to pay 35% unless they just volunter to write an extra check to the government.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So, you think you should be able to push your values on me?
But not the other way around? Hmmm....
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You're calling my strawman, and then raising another strawman
I obvioulsy can't push my values on you. I can only put forth my opinion, and hope that one day that enough people will see the wisdom in those opinions so that they get reflected in the law of the land. You are free to do likewise :-)
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
What strawman?
I don't know, that sounds an awful lot like you making "value judgements" and wanting them to "apply to everybody". My position is that everyone should decide for themselves. This pushes nothing on anyone.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
that sounds like
something Osama bin Laden would say. :)
It is the economy, stupid.
As one of his most faithful followers ...
I guess that you should know. :)
(joking)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
moreover,
the idea of pillaging somone like Gates or Buffet only works once. Then you have nothing and you'll destroy sources of jobs, philanthropy, funding for innovation and so on.
Besides, the idea, in a free society, that any one person's moral compass about the personal and private affairs of others should matter is ridiculous. Gates's wealth, in and of itself, does not hurt anyone....quite the opposite in fact.
Stinerman's hypothetical dictatorship is the kind for which walls are needed to keep people IN.
A perfect example
Gates became wealthy by robbing others, really it is just that simple. The man is a thug who mugged the world a few billion times over.
Now you want to hold that having him pay a higher rate would "destroy sources of jobs, philanthropy, funding for innovation and so on."
The problem there is that Gates took that money from a few billion people who would have otherwise, you know, created jobs, donated to charities, innovated...
There's no reason in the world to let Bill Gates, a man who is scum, decide which charities get funded, which jobs get created, which innovations prosper (and which should get quietly strangled to death).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Wow. You're scary sometimes.
Moreover, read the context of what I said. Stinerman wanted to take everything they had so that they would have about as much as everyone else. You do that and you destroy future wealth....like I said.
And you're zero sum thing is, again, a sophism. I will not respond to it anymore unless you logically show me why it isn't. Good luck, there. It's never been done by anyone. EVER.
Glad to frighten you
when you champion the reckless consumption of america by the super elite you need to have someone scare you a bit. :)
And the problem is?
Bull. Spreading wealth doesn't destroy it, in fact quite the opposite. When more people have a share they are more capable of creating infrastructure and new businesses. By concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few you stifle innovation.
it is, again, math. If you want me to prove mathematics (specifically division) isn't a sophism I think I'll pass.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Oh boy.
And the problem is that you destroy the generation of wealth with such heavy handed confiscation and then we have nothing because neither Gates nor Buffet nor anyone will have the initiative to generate that kind of wealth if it's just gonna all gonna taken away. And we come full circle to what I already said.
#2
You are responding to someone else with that one. Stinerman was talking about confiscation to the point of forced quasi-equality. Go ahead and see how much wealth that "generates". That's what I answered to.
#3
Whatever. Like I said, prove it then. You'll be the first.
confiscation and "quasi-"equality
if the Wealthy pay an appropriate amount of tax then they will slowly but surely come down a bit as everyone else comes up a lot to meet at a happy medium.
It doesn't have to be a strict equality. You can have a small range of variation to reward diligence. What you can't have is a situation in which millions are in poverty while a few can literally buy small countries. The reason you can't have this is because it is unstable. Sooner or later the millions decide they are tired and they simply kill the wealthy and take their stuff.
I doubt you'd like to see what happened in France or Russia happen here, so why do you champion causes sure to bring it about?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I don't champion such causes
intentionlly or unintentionally.
What is this, zen?
You *are* here championing the cause of concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. I don't really care if you are doing intentionally or unintentionally or some semi-mystical inbetween state.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Wrong.
Your twisted perception of my views perhaps has me championing such causes but not my real ones.
if your views are in any way
if your views are in any way libertarian (working from a capitalist base) then yes, Tlaloc is right, you support the concentration of wealth (or at very least the system which produces this nomena)
far too vague and simplistic
you're going to have to do better than that.
Accusations
of vagueness and simplicity might be more compelling, John, if you hadn't answered every challenge so far with a short dismissal completely devoid of substance.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well, to be fair ...
he DID put all the substance he needed right up front in his original post. You're just picking around the bones of his argument here and there without refuting anything.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Gosh, thanks.
I thought I was the only one hearing the surreal twilight zone music.
:)
devoid of substance
rich. really rich.
These discussions are actually rather easy. tedious but easy. I'm just watching you jump all over the place.
Do you want another one of those end-all-debate timelines of quotes to show what I mean?
Not quite
I'd throw Gates out on the street and let him starve. I'll agree with Tlaloc on this one. He's a bastard.
I should have been easier on Buffet. He's doing an adequate job of divesting himself of his wealth, but he should be doing it much faster ... and certainly not handing it over to the Gates Foundation.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Bullcrap on my right, bullcrap on my left
Bill Gates is not scum. Bill Gates is not a thug. I can look past the bugs in Vista and see that overall, the man has been responsible for the creation of a great enterprise that produced tens of thousands of good, well-paying jobs while providing software that (usually) makes life easier and more productive. Microsoft isn't as pure as the driven snow, and Gates has no halo, but let's not be ridiculous.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
No, really, Skymutt
the man is scum. I work with no shortage of people who have direct knowledge of his history and actions. Look at his history and it is no exaggeration to say he personally was the worst thing to happen to the information age. He's set us back so far you have to put him on par with the burning of the library at Alexandria to find a comparable tragedy in the history of knowledge.
Not exaggerating even the slightest. Again what the general public knows is bad, but the inside industry stuff is worse.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
good stuff
It is the economy, stupid.
Throw your computer away then...
childish answer
It is the economy, stupid.
hardly
it's a reaction to childish thinking masking as thoughtful.
eye for an eye.
:)
It's a childish temper fit
and a ridiculous response to noticing how some people come by their wealth.
No one is perfect.
With your that attitude, I am surprised about you haven't moved out of the country since you think our govt and tax system is so unfair.
It is the economy, stupid.
temper fit??
:)
See that smile? It's pretty accurate.
As for rest, you're so cute when you're obtuse. ;)
Its hard to fight with a monopolist
Another release like Vista and with Mark Shuttlesworth throwing his money at Ubuntu, she'll have a chance at buying a PC at a store with a choice of OS. Apple is making great inroads as well due to their marketing strategy and the incredible incompetence of Microsoft.
You shouldn't like Mr. Gates, John. He's a rent seeker and a monopolist, both of which create sub-optimal markets.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Pfft.
I work in the software industry and have inside industry knowledge of his history and actions, and I think you're full of crap (as usual).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Fiddlesticks
Otherwise known as hearsay.
Unsupported assertion.
Hyperbole.
All inside industry stuff, which the rest of us couldn't possibly understand, of course...
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
sticky fiddle
So let's get this straight. Do you personally know Bill Gates? I mean do you have personal knowledge of the man? I'm assuming not. So you are fine saying the man is not scum based on what is most likely at best fourth or fifth hand accounts. But when I assure you he is based on second hand accounts (coupled with his documented history) you call "hearsay"?
True. But a quick look at the matter provides an awful lot of supporting data, if you care. As one simple example look at the Y2K rigamarole. Not a problem for Macs or Unix. Huh. How many billions of dollars did we spend (rhetorical question the answer is over 300 billion dollars).
Maybe. I'm willing to entertain suggestions of other disasters in the field of human knowledge that exceed Mr. Gates.
Well the general gist of the stories is pretty much always this:
you have a cross industry group get together to settle on a standard or something. The MS rep arrives at least half an hour late and berates everyone else for wasting his time. He then dictates how everything will go and ignores everyone else's opinion. Finally if you point out that what he wants will be decidedly subpar he threatens to run you out of business (a threat MS has fulfilled on more than one occasion).
Why do they pretty much all behave this way? because that is what Gates wanted, he wanted his people to be thugs and he created a corporate culture to ensure it worked that way. It is, no surprise, exactly how he operated when he used to be the one meeting with the industry.
As a result time and again you have the field retarded by Microsoft. Bad solutions are implemented because MS says so and because they have the power and ill temper to browbeat those who say differently (ask netscape). That has cost humanity hugely. As impressive as the computer revolution has been it would have been better had Gates never existed (assuming someone else hadn't just stepped into the role).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well, yea.
I think that actually IS the definition of hearsay
, isn't it? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Funny stuff, man
But since you have all this second-hand knowledge of Gates, I'll soon be upgrading to third-hand accounts :-) Hell, I dunno, maybe Gates beats his wife. So if it will make you happier, I'll revise my statement to say that I have never seen any evidence that Gates is scum. I suspect you won't be providing any such evidence.
Well, it *is* hearsay! What do you want me to tell you, bud?