Linux-Advocacy Digest #628, Volume #28 Fri, 25 Aug 00 10:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Andrew J.
Brehm)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: What I like about linux. (2:1)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:20:50 -0300
Matthias Warkus escribió:
>
> It was the Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:57:29 -0400...
> ...and Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sandrews wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roberto Alsina
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have more sides than the average icosahedron. So do you, probably.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What`s a icosahedron ???
> >
> > a 12(?) vertex regular solid.
>
> Nope. You mean a dodecahedron. An icosahedron's got twenty vertices.
Actually, the dodecahedron has way more than 12 vertexes. I am not sure
if the icosahedron has 20 vertex, I am sure it has 20 faces, though.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:37:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <399f0303$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel
> > > >along
> > > >the
> > > >lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use
> > > >your
> > > >meaningless word).
> > >
> > > The US Congress has used the word too. But I suppose you think the
> > > people's
> > > representatives are meaningless too. Eh?
> >
> > Where has the U.S. Congress stated that companies shouldn't be allowed
> > to protect their own intellectual property and should face civil
> > injunctions for charging too much (both of these are positions you've
> > taken).
>
> Actually, it is quite within the power of the courts of confiscate
> private property (intellectual or otherwise) and place it in the public
> domain if such an action should be essential to the public interest or
> to national security.
That's true.
It's also quite irrelevant to letour and T.Max's position that the
government should routinely do this when a company uses their
intellectual property to make lots of money
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:37:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > I'm certainly for reforming the system. But starving it for cash is
> > > _not_ the way to do that.
> >
> > It's the only way to do it. You call it "starving it for cash" others
> > call
> > it reducing government waste. A businessman would be in prison if he
> > mismanaged his finances as poorly as government does.
>
> If you starve it to death, millions of people who have been paying in
> won't get anything out. That's straight-out theft.
Actually, "theft" is a pretty good way to describe Social Security.
The vast majority of the money you've paid in has been spent on previous
benefits -- it's not being saved for your retirement.
I thought even "tax and spend"ers knew that.
Even if I get what I've been promised, my lifetime return on investment
will probably be negative or in the very low single digits. If I had
been able to invest my Social Security "contribution" in any reasonable
investment, I'd retire extremely wealthy -by almost any standards.
That IS theft
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:38:03 GMT
In article <cofp5.293$v3.4018@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(david raoul derbes) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <Az%o5.250$v3.3240@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >(david raoul derbes) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> First off, are you really so certain that "the dollar amounts.. [paid]
> >> by the wealthy are a hell of a lot more"?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >>
> >> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in
> >> this
> >> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
> >
> >A very small number.
>
> To be sure, a very small number of people. But maybe a hell of a lot
> of dollars.
No, a very small number of dollars in the grand scheme of things.
>
> >Statistically, the wealthy pay a far, far higher percentage of their
> >income in taxes than the poor. I can't believe anyone would even
> >question that fact.
>
> What percentage do the wealthiest pay in this country? According to my
> father-in-law, who used to work for H. & R. Block, 39.3%. Last year,
> my wife and I were in the 32% bracket, and believe me, we earn a
> hell of a lot less than most people we know; I'm a schoolteacher
> and my wife is an artist. We have investments. No one would call
> us wealthy.
They pay a lot more than 39.3%.
First, the "top" bracket is 39.6%.
Then, add in the fact that your deductions get phased out by AMT, so
your effective rate goes up even more.
Then, add in the Social Security taxes you pay. Something like 7.5% of
your income and an extra 7.5% from the employer up to around $70 K, then
an extra 2-3% of your income at all income levels.
Of course, that doesn't even include all the other taxes you're paying
directly or indirectly--state income tax (8% in my case), property,
sales, import duties, corporate taxes, etc.
>
> >> people can avail themselves of, which poor people have no chance of.
> >> For one, as you know, mortgages. There is a substantial tax benefit to
> >
> >Oh, I see. So mortgages are a tax loophole that only the rich can get?
> >
> >You might want to check into reality some day.
>
> You might want to read what I said, which is immediately below.
>
> >> having a large mortgage. Poor folk can't qualify for home ownership,
> >> so
> >> fat lot of good that does them. (OK, you don't have to be wealthy,
> >> thank God, to qualify for a mortgage; but you have to be to qualify
> >> for a *large* mortgage.) But a poor person can't find a down payment,
> >
> >Let's see if I get this right.
> >
> >Let's say you make a million dollars per year. You have a choice of a
> >mortgage for $1,000 per month or $10,000 per month.
> >
> >Depending on where you are in the amortization schedule, a different
> >amount of that counts as interest. For convenience, let's say the first
> >mortgage costs you $10 K per year in interest and the latter is $100 K
> >per year in interest.
> >
> >In the 28% incremental bracket, you pay $7,200 after tax for the former
> >and $72 K after tax for the latter. So, the larger mortgage costs you
> >more money.
>
> Yeah, and it saves you a lot more, too; in one case, you save 28K,
> and in the other case, 2.8 K. I don't see the difference of 25.2K
> as pocket change, but I'm not wealthy.
But you have to spend $90 K more to save $25.2 K more. No one is going
to do that merely as a tax "loophole". It _does_ make real estate more
affordable. But it's not putting any money in your pocket. Furthermore,
most people making a million dollars a year (your example, not mine) are
into AMT territory and they're not going to save anywhere near that
amount.
That's the problem with think of things in dollars instead of
percentages.
>
> >Of course, you're also ignoring the AMT which phases out deductions like
> >the mortgage deduction so you really get _less_ tax break than if you
> >made less money.
>
> Phases out? It had no effect on my taxes. None. It was just a nuisance
> to have to figure out, even courtesy of MacinTax.
Then you don't fall into the appropriate category.
Or are you making the absurd statement that AMT doesn't do anything for
anyone?
>
> >As I said, you really ought to check your facts.
>
> And maybe you should read more carefully.
You're the one asserting that AMT doesn't increase anyone's taxes.
>
> >
> >> and doesn't have the income to qualify for the loan. And that is only
> >> the most obvious example. There are scandalous examples of laws passed
> >
> >Not to mention obviously wrong.
>
> Ah. It is "obviously wrong" that poor people cannot qualify for a
> mortgage,
> and it is "obviously wrong" that the mortgage I have does not save me
> some money in taxes.
I didn't say that.
Of course, lots of low income people _do_ qualify for mortgages. That's
why there are so many low income mortgage programs.
But the point is that you assert that this program is something that
only the wealthy benefit from. That's absurd.
>
> Please, point out the obvious errors!
I have. Several times.
>
> >
> >> by our Congress that have, no kidding, exactly *one* beneficiary, who
> >> turns out to be (a) wealthier than Yoko Ono and (b) a significant
> >> contributor and probably constituent of the guy sponsoring the
> >> legislation.
> >
> >There are abuses--no doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that the
> >vast majority of "wealthy" individuals and families pay a huge tax
> >burden.
>
> The fact that you put "wealthy" in quotes tells me that despite your
> antagonism, you and I are much closer to each other's positions than
> you grant. The majority of the tax burden in this country falls on
> what I would call middle class. I have no problem bearing my current
> tax bill. I wish *only* that people far wealthier than I bear an
> equal *percentage* of their income tax. You think they are doing so.
> I fear that they are not. I am pretty confident that I am getting
That's because you rely on fear rather than facts.
When you look at percentage of income paid in taxes, the percentage
increases very steadily as income goes up. The wealthier you are, the
higher a percentage you're paying -- on average (you can always find a
few exceptions).
At some level (the several million dollar figure, IIRC), the wealthiest
people start to drop off. But that's because a higher percentage of
their income is capital gains which is taxed differently.
> a better break (because I figure my income tax out, and I see the
> breaks put in for people with mortgages, investments in real
> estate, etc etc) than lots of people earning 25 or 30K. And I don't
> think that's fair. I suspect the breaks I am getting are even
Mostly because it's not real.
Check out the IRS' statistics. On average, people earning $60 K are
paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than people
earning $30 K. And people making $100 K pay even more (percentagewise).
> more pronounced at the upper end. I suspect *you* suspect that
> yourself, judging by the "wealthy" in quotes.
Nope. The higher the income, the higher the average tax level (in most
cases).
>
> >> I have no problem at all paying people a tax refund even if they paid
> >> no taxes, if they are working and trying to support a family. Would
> >> you
> >> rather they started robbing banks? Robbing *you*? Are you opposed to
> >> welfare in all its forms? Try doing without it... I don't mind paying
> >> *these* taxes: it's the money we use to support e.g. the helium
> >> stockpile
> >> (no kidding) that bothers me...
> >
> >Excuse me, but what's the difference if they rob me directly or rob me
> >via the Government (other than the obvious difference that it costs me
> >more if the government is involved due to beaurocratic inefficiency)?
>
> Joe, how likely is it that the government is going to pull the trigger
> after you give them your wallet? It happens all the time on the street.
So much for hyperbole.
>
> I regard many forms of welfare as cheap insurance, frankly. People who
> become justifiably angry and who in this country can easily get a gun
> scare the hell out of me.
So you believe in encouraging blackmail.......
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:45:48 +0200
Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One way is the method Ted Kennedy uses: the blind trust. Another way to
> reduce your taxes is charitable contributions. If someone wants to argue
> that Bill Gates should have given 22 billion dollars to the Government
> rather than a charitable trust that actually gets results they should take
> the argument elswhere.
Can you provide statistics that show that charitable trusts provide
better results than government spending welfare money?
> These same news sources repeat the Democrat's mantra that getting rid of
> inheritance taxes is "a tax break for the rich". I'm sure that the family
> farms that are unable to break even because the people running them
> inherited a huge tax bill that they will spend their lives trying to pay
> off will disagree.
I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
farmers.
> The fact is both sides are full of it. You want real progress and change
> vote Libertarian.
Oh yes, _change_ you will get. This is the sort of change that, if you
propose it, will get you less than 1% of the popular vote.
> One other thing, if you want to see what American government run health
> care looks like, visit a VA hospital.
If you want to see what government run health care looks like look at
some statistics. You will see that for example Germans pay less than
Americans (in percent of GDP) for health care, and interestingly enough
everybody is covered by the system too.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:51:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Re: welfare
>
> > The current system of welfare is completely useless.. it doesn't help
> > anyone
> > do to no incentive to actually go out and get a paying job.
>
> I suspect that you are behind the times. Furthermore, we're
> arguing about peanuts. Why get all in a rile over peanuts
> when there are issues where SERIOUS MONEY is at stake? Look
> at the Federal Budget. We can talk later... MUCH LATER!...
> about AFDC.
Peanuts?
The current welfare system is costing taxpayers BILLIONS Of dollars.
Lots of billions.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I like about linux.
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:52:51 GMT
>
> > > We used to use Unix, and send the data to our PCs for processing.
NT is
> a
> > > better, and cheaper, solution for us.
> >
> > For us, NT is certainly mopre expensive (how can it beat free) and
the
> > lack of a good scripting language is a real hinderance. Again, they
are
> > avaliable, but that becomes more time spent finding them and more
money
> > buying them.
> A. Like the free PC, free is a matter of where and how you account for
> costs.
Just because the OS is free doesn't mean there are other, hidden costs.
And vice-versa. Which costs am I missing. With either OS I wouldn't be
using tech support. And assuming that they give similar performance on
similar hardware, there are no costs other than the cost of the OS, the
cost of the software and the time needed to maintain it.
The `Free PC' came with an obligation to buy expensive service from an
ISP for 2 years. That cost is quite clear.
> B. Perl. Python.
I know; read the previous post, but:
Like I said, that's time and money spent getting them. We have metered
internet access over here. The cost can become significant, as well as
the time.
> > PS what it this, a dicussion about different OS's without flames?
>
> Apparently not, judging from your response.
How was my response a flame? I did not insult you or your opinion. I
disagreed. That is allowed without it counting as a flame. If I was
flameing, I would have asserted that what ever you said was clearly
worng, because I am right. I doid not do that.
Are you refering to the slight swipe at win9x? I would not consider that
stable enough (neither would you, it seems, since you are using NT).
Mabey you are refering to the content of the origional post. This is a
linux advocacy group, no?
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:03:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:39:59 GMT, Mike Marion wrote:
>
> >The current system of welfare is completely useless.. it doesn't help
> >anyone
> >do to no incentive to actually go out and get a paying job. And that's
> >just
> >_one_ of the screwed up gov't programs that waste our tax money.
>
> If you're talking about the US, that is just plain wrong. There is an
> incentive to go out and get a paying job, namely that they are required
> to go out and find one.
Only in the past couple of years.
That's why there are so many 4th generation welfare families.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************