It's popular to blame people for not paying enough, but as long as they're paying what the code asks for, I can't be angry towards them. I can, however, ask that the code be revised.
When those top 400 people have as much as the bottom 150 million people, taxing them at the same rate as everyone else would make a huge difference that would help everyone.
Kinda weird isn't it this guy created a ruthless company and changed into a nice guy with his noble actions while Steve Jobs also created a ruthless company but died as an assh**e.
It's actually a good mix of both. Income taxes, especially for the wealthy are at record lows, despite them holding far more wealth than they did relative to the overall population in the 20th century. You can't give the rich a significantly bigger slice of the pie and then tax them less.
However it should be noted that taxes dropped significantly in the 70's or 60's with major tax reform which closed many loopholes. However since then there has been more and more legistlation each year to create new methods of minimizing taxes for those with the monetary means to hire someone to find a way to do it.
Also making capital gains tax ridiculously low doesn't help since that's where a lot of the income for the wealthy is. Capital gains can essentially act as their wages, and should be taxed fairly as a part of income. Throughout the whole 20th century the average value was around 25-30% at the maximum bracket, and yet for the last few years it was 15%, the lowest is had been since the great depression, and now it is going up to 20% it seems. It has been low since 1997 despite no major economic downturn though, so clearly that isn't helping.
As for spending, we have rampant spending on wars that are in essence unwinnable against an invisible enemy that can hide their goals and feelings, whose hate can spread and numbers can grow just from the civilians we wrongly kill. We are wasting this money fighting an infinitely regenerative invisible beast. On top of that Obama is spending out of control, Bush was spending excessively, and we really need to reign things back in to the end of Clinton's presidency where we had this lovely thing called a surplus
They arent fiscal disasters, and the 50% not paying taxes are either poor, or old. Lets have some humanity and take care of the poor and elderly. Let's also strive to get people into good jobs, by getting better teachers and starting infrastructure projects. The war cost way more than SS and medicare/aid.
Apparently you haven't seen any of the interviews with Gates or Buffet where they explicitly talk about the need to cut spending AND balance out the tax burden.
Yea, why would I work when I can't afford a car, have little food, and live in a run down house? Why would I not want to be poor? It's so much fun living in neighborhoods where I might get shot by a crackdealer. Why is it that you conservatives preach that we are responsible enough not to need regulate anything but somehow if people weren't allowed to become homeless, sick, or dying then we would just all live a lesser quality of life because we don't have to work for it.
They don't. The problem isn't that corporations or charity can't do good things. It's that we currently support these ideas and they don't do enough. Yes it helps to build infrastructure and correct social problems like the overwhelming costs of healthcare in this country. They can donate all day to the Kidney Foundation but if Johnny NoKidney has to pay 3 times as much for medication and medical care then elsewhere in the world, he is fighting a losing battle. Government can be corrupt. Business can be corrupt. People can be corrupt. The problem isn't this truth but the fact that you think we should do nothing because of it. The solution can only be found if we work towards a solution. If every good idea is suddenly bad because it's made by politicians (or people) then how can we ever win?
It was never really ruthless, it was just that most people used it for compatibility reasons.
He was always good to employees, developers and charities. They never did much in the way of retail customer support, but I wouldn't say that they gauged customers the way other corps have done.
MS gave a lot of software tools away for free. Compare to IBM or Apple, who wanted to control every aspect of the home or business computer from hardware manufacture, to software, to support - and have abilities to check, monitor and approve all 3rd party activity (including even developers of cosmetic add-ons). In fact, it was Microsoft's willingness to be as inviting as a corporation could be that led to their early success and adoption.
It was also, in part, Bill's noninterest in being a ruthless company that led to their loss of market share. Imagine how easy it could have been for MS to hold onto the marketshare they had. I don't think MS was every really run in a ruthless kind of way.
dirtyfriesJan 25, 2012Buried
Our tax code needs revision from top to bottom.
It's popular to blame people for not paying enough, but as long as they're paying what the code asks for, I can't be angry towards them. I can, however, ask that the code be revised.
WhoNewMediaJan 25, 2012Buried
Windows may have sucked in the past but I'll be damned if Bill didn't turn out to be a good guy in the end.
thefirewireJan 25, 2012Buried
As a Mac user I have immesne respect for Mr Bill Gates. A good guy indeed
kingnovaJan 25, 2012Buried
That would be true if it wasn't the same people benefiting who lobbied for the change back in 2007. Bain, as one example...
miklkitJan 25, 2012Buried
When those top 400 people have as much as the bottom 150 million people, taxing them at the same rate as everyone else would make a huge difference that would help everyone.
manicdvlnJan 25, 2012Buried
Kinda weird isn't it this guy created a ruthless company and changed into a nice guy with his noble actions while Steve Jobs also created a ruthless company but died as an assh**e.
apokalyps2547Jan 25, 2012Buried
He didn't say that. Gates is talking about the DEFICIT (which, surprise! requires money to solve, in addition to fiscal discipline)
jill_kJan 25, 2012Buried
Bill Gates != Microsoft Products. He is a true gentleman; regardless of the quality of his company's products.
zeedeoJan 25, 2012Buried
He is still alive you know so it's not the end for him, he becomes awesomer as time goes by
apokalyps2547Jan 25, 2012Buried
He's talking about solving the deficit problem, which cannot be solved by one billionaire writing a check. Don't be dense.
crom99Jan 25, 2012Buried
In before the "WRITE A CHECK" derp-age.
tweenieJan 25, 2012Buried
Why can't all rich people be more like him...........
Romney et al should take a leaf out of his book
ben7337Jan 25, 2012Buried
It's actually a good mix of both. Income taxes, especially for the wealthy are at record lows, despite them holding far more wealth than they did relative to the overall population in the 20th century. You can't give the rich a significantly bigger slice of the pie and then tax them less.
However it should be noted that taxes dropped significantly in the 70's or 60's with major tax reform which closed many loopholes. However since then there has been more and more legistlation each year to create new methods of minimizing taxes for those with the monetary means to hire someone to find a way to do it.
Also making capital gains tax ridiculously low doesn't help since that's where a lot of the income for the wealthy is. Capital gains can essentially act as their wages, and should be taxed fairly as a part of income. Throughout the whole 20th century the average value was around 25-30% at the maximum bracket, and yet for the last few years it was 15%, the lowest is had been since the great depression, and now it is going up to 20% it seems. It has been low since 1997 despite no major economic downturn though, so clearly that isn't helping.
As for spending, we have rampant spending on wars that are in essence unwinnable against an invisible enemy that can hide their goals and feelings, whose hate can spread and numbers can grow just from the civilians we wrongly kill. We are wasting this money fighting an infinitely regenerative invisible beast. On top of that Obama is spending out of control, Bush was spending excessively, and we really need to reign things back in to the end of Clinton's presidency where we had this lovely thing called a surplus
miklkitJan 26, 2012Buried
Oh, we do pay taxes. We pay more federal taxes than corporations, and it can be argued that we pay more total taxes than the 1%.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
critikillJan 25, 2012Buried
He said use half of that money towards the debt and half for infrastructure which would create more jobs.
fucterJan 25, 2012Buried
They arent fiscal disasters, and the 50% not paying taxes are either poor, or old. Lets have some humanity and take care of the poor and elderly. Let's also strive to get people into good jobs, by getting better teachers and starting infrastructure projects. The war cost way more than SS and medicare/aid.
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012Buried
3) Both
Apparently you haven't seen any of the interviews with Gates or Buffet where they explicitly talk about the need to cut spending AND balance out the tax burden.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012Buried
Yea, why would I work when I can't afford a car, have little food, and live in a run down house? Why would I not want to be poor? It's so much fun living in neighborhoods where I might get shot by a crackdealer. Why is it that you conservatives preach that we are responsible enough not to need regulate anything but somehow if people weren't allowed to become homeless, sick, or dying then we would just all live a lesser quality of life because we don't have to work for it.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012Buried
They don't. The problem isn't that corporations or charity can't do good things. It's that we currently support these ideas and they don't do enough. Yes it helps to build infrastructure and correct social problems like the overwhelming costs of healthcare in this country. They can donate all day to the Kidney Foundation but if Johnny NoKidney has to pay 3 times as much for medication and medical care then elsewhere in the world, he is fighting a losing battle. Government can be corrupt. Business can be corrupt. People can be corrupt. The problem isn't this truth but the fact that you think we should do nothing because of it. The solution can only be found if we work towards a solution. If every good idea is suddenly bad because it's made by politicians (or people) then how can we ever win?
theonewhoknowsJan 25, 2012Buried
It was never really ruthless, it was just that most people used it for compatibility reasons.
He was always good to employees, developers and charities. They never did much in the way of retail customer support, but I wouldn't say that they gauged customers the way other corps have done.
MS gave a lot of software tools away for free. Compare to IBM or Apple, who wanted to control every aspect of the home or business computer from hardware manufacture, to software, to support - and have abilities to check, monitor and approve all 3rd party activity (including even developers of cosmetic add-ons). In fact, it was Microsoft's willingness to be as inviting as a corporation could be that led to their early success and adoption.
It was also, in part, Bill's noninterest in being a ruthless company that led to their loss of market share. Imagine how easy it could have been for MS to hold onto the marketshare they had. I don't think MS was every really run in a ruthless kind of way.