Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
Hi, With apologies to the topic fairies .. Crist Clark wrote: It matters how you look at income taxes (figures never lie, but liars figure). The top 3% of earners pay about 40% of all income taxes. The top 1/12% pay about 10% of the taxes. Why do the super rich guys want a flat tax? And the other obvious problem, you pay a lot of taxes, probably more than you realize, besides income tax. The top few percent will pay a lower _percentage_ of their income to the government in tax than a middle earner would (a high earner will typically save more, or in other words their marginal propensity to save is higher) - they are also able to save more and afford better accountants who will help them avoid paying tax ! In the UK, income tax is hugely regressive - a middle earner may end up paying 51% of some proportion of their income in direct tax alone (combining NHIS contributions and income tax) - this then falls to 41% (combined) when the NHIS contributions hit a certain level. The tax burden on high earners is further reduced when one considers that indirect sales tax in the UK is 17.5%. -a
RE: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
Responding to all previous messages in this and the original thread: I note that "Way OT" was added to my original subject heading, and indeed for good cause because this discussion has veered off the course it could have taken in some ways, and that's okay, too. My associating the name "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and the news release about former cable ISP @Home's sale of its domain names was more a matter of curiosity than it was actually suggesting there was a connection between the two. Although, the timing of both leaves me wondering, still, because up to this past week I had not seen the name @home, or even @work for that matter, used in almost five or six years, anywhere outside the context of discussions that were historical in nature. IMO, there's more to be considered here than whether this is just another example of pork distribution, which I suspect it is, in the accepted vernacular. Meaning, the spending of funds that result from marathon congressional horse trading and voting in order to get rid of funds that have been allocated for certain (in some cases, new) causes, lest those funds be lost forever in the spirit of "use it or lost it," both now and forever more. Sometimes the ends to these rituals actually turn out to be noble, and sometimes they can be seen as a cause for outrage. In the case at hand I'm neither showering Rubin and Clinton with praise nor condemning their motivations in any way. Rather, I have serious questions as to what they are doing and how they have set out to accomplish their goals, and probably just as importantly, the fact that have they labeled their initiative as one that would bridge the digital divide. I see two issues I may want to pursue further --elsewhere of course, since this is indeed "Way OT" for this venue-- because they may prove detrimental to the cause of end-to-end networking, even if a relatively few more broadband lines do get built in the process. If you have been following the tightening noose around anything that smacks of being open lately, and view the timing of this action against the backdrop of recent FCC rulings, which are causing some ISPs to seriously begin wondering about their very survival and where they will get their next HSI lines from to provide to their customers, you must then conclude that the secondary beneficiaries of the initiative will at some point be incumbent service providers. For, who else will be left to provide fiber and cable services by the time these homes are built and ready to be inhabited, save for the small number of muninets that have already been built, and maybe to a similar degree, those of WISPs? When such an initiative is announced proclaiming that $1 Billion dollars will be spent on "bridging the digital divide," when in fact it is federal housing and urban development projects that happen to include the installation of residential inside wiring and an undisclosed plan for how "broadband" service providers would be paid, (without also mentioning that it will ensure that structural foundations, carpentry, plastering, plumbing, lighting and electrical work will also be covered), it gives cause to detractors of municipal networking to shoot down further, legitimate proposals that are relatively "undiluted" in comparative terms, efforts to promote Internet access. In effect, it gives the nay sayers of muninets something to point to when proclaiming "enough is enough", and that sufficient public funds have already been spent on such programs. As a consultant who at times receives feelers and RFIs from landlords of housing complexes, community leaders and apartment owners' boards of directors who are applying for local, state and federal development funding to upgrade their properties (which are sometimes nothing more than slums that they picked up for a song), I can state unequivocally that one of the first bullet points to appear in their executive summaries in order to receive meritorious recognition from those who hold the purse strings is the fact that their newly re-done units will be "Internet ready." Internet read is a euphemism that means that those units will be fully wired with Cat6 and coaxial cabling. It's gotten competitive to the point where some take it a step farther and enter into agreements with the incumbent telco and cable operators, or they go to both the telco and the National Cable Television Cooperative (NCTC) and create their own private cable companies (PCOs) to ensure that residents who desire triple play services can have it delivered to them at the stroke of a couple of keys and a credit check. Which leads me to my last point of skepticism in this post. Where and what percentage of the funds being allocated under this [EMAIL PROTECTED] initiative is the money going? I'd be surprised if the in-home wiring went above 1% of the total Billion cited. How much of it will be spent on recurring rental fees for broadband lines? Computer hardware and terminal gear? Will said funding
Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
[I know, I know, don't feed the trolls. But some are just too cute not to. Just this once.] Matthew Black wrote: It's kind of funny that people keep making these general claims as though the money is wasted or goes to some unproductive purpose. Personally, I don't consider subsidized housing for the lower-class to be wasteful or a misuse of money. I wonder how many people who decry wasteful government spending would consider road and highway construction a waste of money. > If traffic moves to slow to work for your pleasure, get a job > closer to home or vice versa. After all, this is the land of > opportunity and nobody FORCED you to buy a home far from work. > Highway spending is all government financed, but few complain > about that as a waste. Funny you should say that with the pork laden highway bill that just went through Congress. There were 6371 individual special (i.e. pork) projects in the huge bill. I'd say spending $223 million to build one of the largest bridges in the country to an island Alaska with 50 residents is a severe misallocation of limited resources. That kind of spending IS a waste. Discussion of government spending often spins into a discussion of simplifying the tax code or attempts to make it fairer. Keep in mind that almost all of the tax code consists of rules lobbied by and for corporate Amerika. Very little of the income tax code applies to individuals. As to the fairness question, most of the lower and middle class class are in a higher marginal tax bracket than the well-to-do. The latter get a 7.6% marginal tax break (no FICA or Medicare). So the middle class pay 32.6%; the wealthy pay 20% or less. Talk about disincentives! It matters how you look at income taxes (figures never lie, but liars figure). The top 3% of earners pay about 40% of all income taxes. The top 1/12% pay about 10% of the taxes. Why do the super rich guys want a flat tax? And the other obvious problem, you pay a lot of taxes, probably more than you realize, besides income tax. A nice reference from the definitive source: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Globalstar Communications(408) 933-4387
Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
It's kind of funny that people keep making these general claims as though the money is wasted or goes to some unproductive purpose. Personally, I don't consider subsidized housing for the lower-class to be wasteful or a misuse of money. I wonder how many people who decry wasteful government spending would consider road and highway construction a waste of money. If traffic moves to slow to work for your pleasure, get a job closer to home or vice versa. After all, this is the land of opportunity and nobody FORCED you to buy a home far from work. Highway spending is all government financed, but few complain about that as a waste. Funny, when government spends money on something from which an individual doesn't receive an immediate and personal gain and suddenly it's labeled a government pork project. As far as people looking to government to solve some social ills and inequities, I don't see many people volunteering their income to help the less fortunate. Many people seem to have money to burn when donating to their favorite P.A.C. or a nonprofit "charity" that sponsors their child's sports or music program. What about donating money to something from which they receive NO individual gain? I live in a collective society and accept the fact that some government spending does not improve my neighborhood. If government cancelled programs to which there was any objection, nothing would ever get accomplished. Discussion of government spending often spins into a discussion of simplifying the tax code or attempts to make it fairer. Keep in mind that almost all of the tax code consists of rules lobbied by and for corporate Amerika. Very little of the income tax code applies to individuals. As to the fairness question, most of the lower and middle class class are in a higher marginal tax bracket than the well-to-do. The latter get a 7.6% marginal tax break (no FICA or Medicare). So the middle class pay 32.6%; the wealthy pay 20% or less. Talk about disincentives! matthew black california state university, long beach Note: Opinions expressed herein are totally mine and may not represent those of my employer. On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:43:49 -0500 "Brian Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK. Wasted was a poor choice of words, but even if the money does get back to the people in some way, it is not doing so in a way that really accomplishes something. Private companies do not invest in something that will not have a return that benefits them. Political spending sometimes will have no return other than political capital. It's like buying candy. You can buya a ton of it, and either eat it or give it away, but in the end it will be gone and very little will be accomplished other than the kids who now love you for doing it. So wasted was a bad term to use. How about used with little return if any. - Brian J. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Black Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:20 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:57:25 -0500 "Brian Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Holy communist manifesto batman! Let's let the government fix everything. Hold on, hasn't that been tried already? Oh yeah the USSR. That was a blazing success. Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. - Brian J. Wasted? Please elaborate. It's not like the money vanishes. The money goes somewhere, usually to pay non-government salaries. Corporate Amerika is wasteful too: WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, and Halliburton. These are companies that hurt the lives of millions of Americans, including 40,000,000 citizens of California who pay double the national average for electricity because Enron gamed the system. We pay 15 cents per kilowatt! That wasn't completely the government's fault. matthew black california state university, long beach Note: Options expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent my employer.
RE: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
OK. Wasted was a poor choice of words, but even if the money does get back to the people in some way, it is not doing so in a way that really accomplishes something. Private companies do not invest in something that will not have a return that benefits them. Political spending sometimes will have no return other than political capital. It's like buying candy. You can buya a ton of it, and either eat it or give it away, but in the end it will be gone and very little will be accomplished other than the kids who now love you for doing it. So wasted was a bad term to use. How about used with little return if any. - Brian J. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Black Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:20 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:57:25 -0500 "Brian Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Holy communist manifesto batman! > > Let's let the government fix everything. Hold on, hasn't that been tried > already? Oh yeah the USSR. That was a blazing success. > > Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO > ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government >largely > screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up >wasted > anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. > > - Brian J. Wasted? Please elaborate. It's not like the money vanishes. The money goes somewhere, usually to pay non-government salaries. Corporate Amerika is wasteful too: WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, and Halliburton. These are companies that hurt the lives of millions of Americans, including 40,000,000 citizens of California who pay double the national average for electricity because Enron gamed the system. We pay 15 cents per kilowatt! That wasn't completely the government's fault. matthew black california state university, long beach Note: Options expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent my employer.
Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:57:25 -0500 "Brian Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Holy communist manifesto batman! Let's let the government fix everything. Hold on, hasn't that been tried already? Oh yeah the USSR. That was a blazing success. Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. - Brian J. Wasted? Please elaborate. It's not like the money vanishes. The money goes somewhere, usually to pay non-government salaries. Corporate Amerika is wasteful too: WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, and Halliburton. These are companies that hurt the lives of millions of Americans, including 40,000,000 citizens of California who pay double the national average for electricity because Enron gamed the system. We pay 15 cents per kilowatt! That wasn't completely the government's fault. matthew black california state university, long beach Note: Options expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent my employer.
Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
> The Internet started out as a pork project. > I'm just sayin'. I think it was more a research project... which, maybe, is just pork by another name... Eric :)
RE: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
Don't get me wrong. They aren't all bombs. ;-) - Brian J. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:04 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale On 08/11/05, Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO > ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely > screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up wasted > anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. The Internet started out as a pork project. I'm just sayin'. -- J.D. Falk a decade of cybernothing.org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> registered 24 June 1995
Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
On 08/11/05, Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO > ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely > screws up these sorts of "initiatives" and most of the money ends up wasted > anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. The Internet started out as a pork project. I'm just sayin'. -- J.D. Falk a decade of cybernothing.org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> registered 24 June 1995
