Steve Wozniak Says Apple Should Pay 50% Tax Rate

[Renzatic]

I think you're right, in that a mixed economy could work "better". Again, not for the reasons you would think. A truly "mixed" economy would allow people to organize and collect voluntarily. If a group of people decided to socialize risk, and therefore reward, they should be allowed to, but not forced to do so.

The problem with this idea is that it'll end up producing the same outcome as our previous voluntary insurance setup. You'll end up with the people who do decide to socialize the risk paying for those who didn't, and suddenly found themselves unable to afford the bill when it comes due.

 

[laurim]

And you sound like an arrogant uneducated person taking my original post to new levels. I am so proud of you for making a lot of money at a part time job, thank god you're a white male that was born with well off loving parents right?

My "limited data" is real world experience, my experience, that I shared. I did not state a hypothesis or proof. In my scenario I am a white male that got the same treatment as a black guy in the same town at the same time by the same police station.

While I love my lily white bubble I step out once again to response to your asinine replies. Yes black, hispanic and whatever else you want to add have some hardship when put side by side with a white person with the same qualifications. That said, so you feel better, this is no longer the mid to late 1900's and white people are becoming the minority in many areas. People act no where near as hateful towards people of color these days yet people of color act as though they are treated the same as their great grandparents.

Since you had to throw in voting, you must be one of those voting for Hilary that will believe whatever your told no matter the evidence. And I'm not voting for trump incase you feel it really is your business.

Actually, I'm a white WOMAN born to blue collar parents (Mom stayed at home and Dad was a mechanic for the railroad). I have a chemical engineering degree (although I retired from that when I got laid off in the early '90s and used the $5k retraining allowance in my package to learn computer graphic design) and an old Mensa membership card from when I joined in college. But I'M uneducated and over-privileged, lol. The only thing you got right is that I'm voting for Hillary. Not because she's a woman but because she is the most-qualified and least anti-science of all the candidates. Her being the first woman president is the cherry on top.

 

[oftheheavens]

Actually, I'm a white WOMAN born to blue collar parents (Mom stayed at home and Dad was a mechanic for the railroad). I have a chemical engineering degree (although I retired from that when I got laid off in the early '90s and used the $5k retraining allowance in my package to learn computer graphic design) and an old Mensa membership card from when I joined in college. But I'M uneducated and over-privileged, lol. The only thing you got right is that I'm voting for Hillary. Not because she's a woman but because she is the most-qualified and least anti-science of all the candidates. Her being the first woman president is the cherry on top.

So here you are, a woman, taking advantage of your poor situations to make something better of yourself yet you argue in the defense of those that refuse to seek out opportunity? Your rebuttal has become shallow and pedantic. You just proved that you are educated (proof by admission) but your arguments to my original point (which is now far lost) are very near sided. So with my conclusion of our enlightening conversation I will reiterate, anyone without handicap preventing them from normal daily life can seek out to better themselves to prevent their family or self from falling into poverty. Almost all actions that leave someone helpless was a reaction to something they did or didn't do in the past.

 

[laurim]

So here you are, a woman, taking advantage of your poor situations to make something better of yourself yet you argue in the defense of those that refuse to seek out opportunity? Your rebuttal has become shallow and pedantic. You just proved that you are educated (proof by admission) but your arguments to my original point (which is now far lost) are very near sided. So with my conclusion of our enlightening conversation I will reiterate, anyone without handicap preventing them from normal daily life can seek out to better themselves to prevent their family or self from falling into poverty. Almost all actions that leave someone helpless was a reaction to something they did or didn't do in the past.

And you are willfully ignorant of the myriad of circumstances that make it harder for certain segments of people to do just that. Your contention, basically, is that poor people are just lazy and deserve to be poor. And that is so wrong. I was able to fix my circumstances for all sorts of reasons. I grew up in Minnesota with Democratic leaders that made sure I had excellent public education. I had a family that supported me emotionally and monetarily when I got laid off and had to start over. I didn't have children to support when I went back to school and started a new career from scratch. I had role models in my life that gave me advice to get ahead. I had a mom who could stay home and teach me the alphabet and how to write. Read me books and do brain games with me to give me a head start in school. I had a father my entire childhood into adulthood who supported me and taught me all sorts of life skills. I am LUCKY. Many people aren't that lucky. I have poor relatives. They are poor for a bunch of reason, mostly from health issues and not having adequate education to have a flexible job availability. They try hard and have multiple low wage jobs (so they aren't lazy and not trying). Their circumstances simply aren't helping them and they haven't been able to find a way out.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

And why should I leave? Why don't you go live on an island with others who enjoy taxes?

I already live there. You're the one who wants to change it. But, that wasn't my point. My point is that there are no urban societies anywhere with a decent standard of living where you don't have to pay taxes and don't have to live with a mixed free-market/socialist economy.

BTW, the American Frontier-- vacated by Native Americans who were removed or died, (largely, died of contagious diseases), was actually rather libertarian. Which might partially explain why some Libertarians I've known loved westerns. Ask yourself what happened. Private property versus open range. Overgrazing on open range. Railroads exercising monopoly power over freight transportation. (Oh, and, a high murder rate in ranching and mining areas, too. src) Eventually, as population density grew, people felt the need for more regulation, policing, public health (still a big deal when/where I was small), public education, and so on. Paid for with taxes.

If your system is so great, let it run in parallel with mine.

We already have public roads, public fire departments, public police departments. Tell me how that works alongside an untaxed private system. What stops you from using public roads? If there is a fire, does the fire department let your place burn down? What if it is adjacent to my place? I don't know how it could possibly work unless there is geographic separation. Like, if you live in Texas or Tennessee, and, I don't.

That is an interesting way to look at it, but it also reveals some fallacies I think you've absorbed, and you're making assumptions based on that.

I don't give personal health details here (some folks are comfortable giving personal details; I'm not), but, it is actually directly based on my personal experience. You can make up your own realistic examples. It is a fact that if you have a serious medical problem, it is a seller's market, and, some hospitals will abuse that.

you go for auto service, you don't have to negotiate your price in real time. The negotiation has actually occurred over years, decades, as the auto business as a whole has discovered based on market signals what people will pay. You choose off a menu for common procedures, or you review an estimate for larger ones. You're not negotiating in real time, for the first time each time, just because your standing in the middle of the free market.

And, if my car breaks down in Podunkville, I can walk away from it if I have to. If my SO's health breaks down, I pay what I have to.

This did not spring up overnight. It happened over the past 100 years, organically.

You still haven't acknowledged how some industries are very different from others, and, that makes a difference. I don't have to buy any particular cell phone today or tomorrow. I can shop for the phone with the best LTE radio, the carrier with the best coverage, the phone with the best security (at least today I can), etc. It is always a buyer's market, because I can live without a cell phone if it is too expensive. If I don't have the money, I don't "need" a new phone. Healthcare is very different from this in almost every aspect. That is why there are no examples of true libertarian healthcare markets in any developed country-- healthcare just doesn't fit the libertarian model. And, the reason I brought up the cost/life expectancy data (again) is that we have many countries demonstrating that socialized medicine is both cheaper and reasonably effective-- because, if that were not so, people would not live longer than the U.S. But, you can't show a single country where the pure Libertarian model works better for healthcare.

Something a little closer to health care would be the scuba diving industry.

I don't follow your analogy. If I don't trust the compressor/air quality, I can walk away. That isn't true if you are bleeding out. In healthcare, the people who need the care most urgently can't walk away and can't negotiate, and the people who need the most healthcare can afford it the least.

A good thing to bring up, but not for the simplistic reason you're stressing here. You're pointing out that one statistic and using it to justify government health care as if that is the sole reason those people have longer life expectancies.

No, the reason for bringing it up is to demonstrate that socialized medicine can be effective for its purpose.

You're making the grand assumption that the life expectancy is a direct result of the government health care in each country.

No, I'm not. I'm making the grand assumption that government-sponsored health care can't be that bad-- in almost every developed country!!

So... in the absence of those grants and think tanks and universities, you're insisting that none of those things would happen?

I never said that, either. But, the U.S. research university system became, and, still is, the envy of the world, through a quite modest (% of GDP-wise) government investment.

You have a poor understanding if thats what you think libertarianism is about.

I was exposed to Libertarianism very early in life -- and, it didn't add up then, or, now. I've heard all these arguments since I was 8 years old. And, you know what -- I agree with part of what you say-- that people should control themselves, to the maximum extent possible. The problem I have is with the insistence on purity. I have the same problem with any variant of fundamentalism. We actually know that pure socialism and pure free markets never, ever exist, yet some folks insist that their chosen way "should". Why?

As I said above, people who seek to push people away instead of debate over issues are exhibiting religious zealot tendencies. The next greatest free market bastion after private property rights is the exchange of ideas. You tell me to go live on an island, and then later proclaim "Libertarianism" to be a religious belief. I'd say its you who is looking at these issues in a religious context.

I'm not telling you to go live on a desert island. I'm telling you that is the only place you can find without taxes and without a mixed free-market/socialist economy. And if you believe that 100% pure free-market society can exist, then, that is a religious belief, unsubstantiated by reality.

 

[oftheheavens]

And you are willfully ignorant of the myriad of circumstances that make it harder for certain segments of people to do just that. Your contention, basically, is that poor people are just lazy and deserve to be poor. And that is so wrong. I was able to fix my circumstances for all sorts of reasons. I grew up in Minnesota with Democratic leaders that made sure I had excellent public education. I had a family that supported me emotionally and monetarily when I got laid off and had to start over. I didn't have children to support when I went back to school and started a new career from scratch. I had role models in my life that gave me advice to get ahead. I had a mom who could stay home and teach me the alphabet and how to write. Read me books and do brain games with me to give me a head start in school. I had a father my entire childhood into adulthood who supported me and taught me all sorts of life skills. I am LUCKY. Many people aren't that lucky. I have poor relatives. They are poor for a bunch of reason, mostly from health issues and not having adequate education to have a flexible job availability. They try hard and have multiple low wage jobs (so they aren't lazy and not trying). Their circumstances simply aren't helping them and they haven't been able to find a way out.

By your logic, you were brought up by a seemingly loving family and don't seem to have really had any hardships you actually had to work through, so I don't expect you to understand. I have been poor and homeless, uneducated and without drive but I became an adult and did what I had to do. By your explaination all poor people deserve some type of bail out just because their poor... I think that is called communism I am sure there are many countries that have the exact type of government you are searching for.

 

[Renzatic]

...I think that is called communism...

You obviously didn't have access to any political theory books growing up.

This is why I'm such a huge supporter of widespread education, people.

 

[laurim]

By your logic, you were brought up by a seemingly loving family and don't seem to have really had any hardships you actually had to work through, so I don't expect you to understand. I have been poor and homeless, uneducated and without drive but I became an adult and did what I had to do. By your explaination all poor people deserve some type of bail out just because their poor... I think that is called communism I am sure there are many countries that have the exact type of government you are searching for.

Don't put words in my mouth. Poor people don't need a bail out. They need support and that doesn't always mean money. It means better-paying jobs, more access to good education and training, no racism, better law enforcement (e.g., no racism), new drug policies that emphasize healthcare and counseling instead of incarceration, no voting restrictions, etc. etc.

I don't know anything about what you actually overcame, other than you saying all that happened before you were an adult. good on you for overcoming whatever you overcame but recognize that your singular story doesn't represent the whole of humanity's abilities and opportunities.

 

[oftheheavens]

You obviously didn't have access to any political theory books growing up.

This is why I'm such a huge supporter of widespread education, people.

Oh you sly fox, you caught my speed error and I sincerely apologize that my college education is what is failing this country. Please except my sincerest apologies on your way to socialism (better smart guy?)

 

[Renzatic]

Oh you sly fox, you caught my speed error and I sincerely apologize that my college education is what is failing this country. Please except my sincerest apologies on your way to socialism (better smart guy?)

That wasn't sincere at all!

But seriously, forks. The things that the vast majority of the quote unquote socialists are advocating are things that we've already had in place for decades now. No one wants a new form of government, or a replacement of our market capitalist system. They just want to see the New Deal come back into play after 30 years of it being slowly gimped by Reaganomics.

Whoever decided to call welfare state policies socialism needs to be smacked, cuz all it's done is confuse the hell out of people. I mean yeah, it's a fitting world, because it's a socially oriented standard of government, but there was already something else called socialism around that had an entirely different set of connotations. Now we all these people running around on messageboards screaming about communism when it's nothing of the sort.

 

[oftheheavens]

Don't put words in my mouth. Poor people don't need a bail out. They need support and that doesn't always mean money. It means better-paying jobs, more access to good education and training, no racism, better law enforcement (e.g., no racism), new drug policies that emphasize healthcare and counseling instead of incarceration, no voting restrictions, etc. etc.

I don't know anything about what you actually overcame, other than you saying all that happened before you were an adult. good on you for overcoming whatever you overcame but recognize that your singular story doesn't represent the whole of humanity's abilities and opportunities.

This was actually a very good response. You approached it in a much more educated way than the previous. I'm on my phone but I wanted to agree with you on a lot of the points you made drug policies and incarceration being one of the main points I will agree on you with. Until recently a small amount of cannabis in the wrong place/wrong time could land you serious jail time for something very insignificant. Then afterwards your life is screwed with little chance of redemption. There is also a lot of things I don't agree with that is going on in our government that if changed would help those in poverty and those that would slip into it otherwise. Anyway good points.

 

[SHNXX]

Why? In the U.S. democracy-in-a-republic, we have a system for making rules regarding the economy. We get to decide on those rules. If we want 50% tax rate, why not? Further, corporations are legal entities and we can make rules for them however we want.

I'm not saying 50% is good or bad. I'm saying we are legally and morally empowered to figure out the best way to tax in our unprecedentedly interconnected economy.



In any case, you forget that consumers create demand for products. With the 50% of my paycheck remaining after taxes, I decide if I want to buy an iPhone 6S or a Nexus 6P.

If people decide to have 100% tax rate, that would also be fine, right?
We are legally and morally empowered to figure out the best way to tax shareholders (people), and if 100% is what people want, why the hell not?

 

[mazz0]

Dunno. I didn't make the original graph.

It looks like it is though, don't you think? I wonder why they chose that!