House Democrats Tell Ajit Pai: Stop Screwing Over the Public (arstechnica.com) 320
slack_justyb shares a report from Ars Technica: The House Commerce Committee is "reassuming its traditional role of oversight to ensure the agency is acting in the best interest of the public and consistent with its legislative authority," Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) said in an announcement yesterday. Pallone, Jr. and Doyle wrote a letter to Pai, saying that he has made the FCC too secretive and has repeatedly advanced the interests of corporations over consumers. They wrote: "Not only have you have failed on numerous occasions to provide Democratic members of this committee with responses to their inquiries, you have also repeatedly denied or delayed responding to legitimate information requests from the public about agency operations. These actions have denied the public of a full and fair understanding of how the FCC under your leadership has arrived at public policy decisions that impact Americans every day in communities across the country. Under your leadership, the FCC has failed repeatedly to act in the public interest and placed the interest of corporations over consumers. The FCC should be working to advance the goals of public safety, consumer protection, affordable access, and connectivity across the United States. To that end, it is incumbent upon the Committee's leadership and its members to oversee the activities of the FCC."
On Thursday this week, the Communications Subcommittee will hold a hearing about the impact of Pai's net neutrality repeal on consumers, small businesses, and free speech. Witnesses who have been invited to testify at the hearing include former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, cable industry chief lobbyist Michael Powell (who is also a former FCC chairman), and representatives of Mozilla, Free Press, and Eastern Oregon Telecom.
On Thursday this week, the Communications Subcommittee will hold a hearing about the impact of Pai's net neutrality repeal on consumers, small businesses, and free speech. Witnesses who have been invited to testify at the hearing include former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, cable industry chief lobbyist Michael Powell (who is also a former FCC chairman), and representatives of Mozilla, Free Press, and Eastern Oregon Telecom.
Reassuming? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But that was just for a weekend. Or are they saying they took the weekend off and they're back to business now?
This has been going on for quite some time now. Not just a weekend in January.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reassuming? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait, if that is your "traditional role", where have you been? On vacation? Too busy?
Haven't you noticed? Republicans have been blocking ALL oversight for several years.
Re: (Score:2)
Oversight you see with rare exceptions is to misdirect from the wholesale fleecing. There isn't a 'good pack' for the sheep.
Since you mentioned one team, the other teams Nancy 'all money is the government's except what we let you ke
Re: (Score:2)
They can both be bad without being the same.
Re:Reassuming? (Score:5, Informative)
Wait, if that is your "traditional role"
Oversight
where have you been? On vacation? Too busy?
In the minority. The Republicans ran the House for the last 8 years, and were not terribly interested in oversight of the FCC.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like there are different committees that have oversight of different parts of the government....
Re: (Score:2)
Too Republican. Now that the Dems control the house, the committee can get back to work.
former verizon (Score:4)
about time but what did you expect when you put a former verizon executive in charge.
att and verizon shold be broken up and stay broken up.
Re:former verizon (Score:5, Funny)
att and verizon should be broken up and stay broken up.
Ajit Pai should be broken up and stay broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
lol, wish I had mod points for you. I'd buy 5% to fertilize my garden.
Re: (Score:2)
You might have a shot at incitement, but not directly threatening, but Pai still totally deserves it.
Re: (Score:2)
Pai is young enough that he knows he'll still need to find a job afterward.
And he cares because?..... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know we can stop that anytime we want (Score:5, Informative)
I'm open to hearing a GOP equivalent but, well, I don't know any. Maybe folks like that jump ship to the libertarian party, IDK. Doesn't matter.
Refuse to vote for anyone who takes corporate PAC money. And vote in your primary. Your vote has orders of magnitude more power in a primary. Politicians don't fear being reelected. They _do_ fear being primaried. Show up and give'em something to be scared of again.
Re: (Score:2)
The tact should be to use the current system to remove the inflow of money. We just need a lot of money to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: More partisan shilling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
he is universally hated by those both living and dead*
(*) republicans exempted, because...reasons
Re: More partisan shilling (Score:3)
If I were on the plane with Mao Zedong, Hitler and Ajit Pai with two bullets, I would shoot shitpai twice.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of Pai the courts have struck down many of his decisions not purely on political grounds but on procedural and legal ones. For example the last court decision regarding tribal Internet subsidies. The court struck them down for 2 main reasons:
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Trump didn't even get the majority of votes cast, much less have a majority of the people vote for him.
He squeaked by because of quirks in the electoral system.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a "quirk", it's the way the system works. We're a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
If you go by state vote/electoral votes, which is how the country was wisely designed, than Hillary got squashed.
Each individual state maintains a degree of sovereignty, thus we don't go by general population, we're too large a country for that to work in the best interests of everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
When the system was set up, news traveled at the speed of horse when it traveled at all. Most people went their entire lives without a single interaction with the federal government. The bulk of commerce was INTRAstate. The electoral college made good sense under those conditions.
Then times changed, We invented telegraph and interstate commerce became much more common. Now, it's practically impossible to avoid interaction with the federal government. Recognizing that and popular sentiment, all 50 states eit
Re: (Score:2)
He follows the law the way the head of the Mafia does. By hiring other people and then claiming that he never asked them to do what they did.
Re:More partisan shilling (Score:5, Insightful)
Will Slashdot ever again bother to pretend to be impartial journalists?
Dude, I've been here 20 years, this place has never been impartial. Always a strong left-lean with healthy doses of unixlove, windowshate and appledisdain.
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.. and I fully suspect they are paid trolls. Whoever is doing the paying... get a refund, we see right through you.
You must come from some imaginary site.
Re:More partisan shilling (Score:5, Funny)
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.
+1 for use of the word "boors."
Re: (Score:2)
What do you have against Dutch farmers?
Re:More partisan shilling (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More partisan shilling (Score:5, Insightful)
sure seems that right wing opinions have crept up in the past several years.
I don't have a problem with civilized opinions from any side. What gets tiresome is what this very thread is full of, should you read it at -1 (which I do, because I'm a sucker for punishment I guess)
It's the incessant, schoolyard name-calling and stick-hurling that makes me want to line them up against the wall and give them a taste of true jack-booted, foot-stomping authoritarian firing-squad.
Seriously. If all that AC drivel name calling truly reflects America today.. we're so fucked it ain't even funny. It's not even smh funny... it's just... ugh. No intelligence. Just parroting and namecalling.
But y'know? I used to think the same of forums. This place here, this is the last that I visit. I gave up on all others. Pointless exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember there was just less political talk early. Then more vocal liberals, but I'm not sure that actually indicates the population of the forum.
Re: (Score:2)
If all that AC drivel name calling truly reflects America today.. we're so fucked
He have always been this fucked. The difference is that platforms which provide anonymity as well as exposure have become more popular allowing people to unleash their inner arsehole.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that platforms which provide anonymity
Yup. That's the issue with social media, and the precursor forums/comment sections/chat rooms/etc, they remove the threat of getting punched in the mouth when you cock off to the wrong person.
Re: (Score:3)
Americans are the same way now. Politics is about name calling these days, pure and simple. No politician is presenting any ideas on what is a good way to govern, instead they only speak in order to bash the opposing but highly similar party.
Re: (Score:2)
they only speak in order to bash the opposing but highly similar party.
It's almost like they're using the fighting as a front to hide all the corporatist things they are doing that they all agree on.
Re:More partisan shilling (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not matter if opinions are "right" or "left".
It only matters if they are stupid or not. Or scientific wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Go into a bar and watch two drunks debating a topic. Those guys make much better arguments for their side than you will see in politics. Stupidity is inherent in politics based upon an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupidity is inherent in politics based upon an overwhelming amount of evidence.
I don't think that lack of intellect is rampant in politics. I'm not saying there aren't dumb people, but it'd be pretty hard to get into the upper echelons if they were truly dumb. What I'd say there IS a ton of: elitism, posturing, manipulating, back stabbing, sociopathy, ignorance, etc. The majority of the politicians' only true goal is to get re-elected, the only way to do that is keep the people with the money happy. It seems like it would take a pretty intelligent person to be able to do that, wh
Re: (Score:3)
It coincided with the arrival of the alt-right. Not saying that the people here are necessarily alt-right, just that the alt-right popularized a lot of techniques that are used by everyone on the right now.
Essentially they updated populism for the social media age. Previously it was harder for populists because the media was the primary way that politicians could reach voters, and journalists had seen it all before and didn't let the bullshit slide. Then social media pushed them aside, people started gettin
Re: (Score:2)
And the progressives, the left were too proud to do it, too hung up on principals and bogged down trying to use the truth as their sword when politics had already moved to the post-truth world.
A couple hundred years ago this was already noted:
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.
If you've made the determination that facts are no longer relevant to the position you hold, you have literally decided to disengage from reality. It's not really possible to use reality to deal with that. (How a sizable fraction of the country managed to all come down with the same mental health problem at the same time is baffling to me.)
However, the answer to people trying to create a post-factual political system isn't to fight fantasy with fantasy eithe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
been more like 10 years that the right wingers came here to 'balance' (cough) things out a bit.
a few posters are real, but most are turfers and bots. very annoying.
Re:More partisan shilling (Score:5, Interesting)
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.
I think it goes back further than that. My sense is that it crept up steadily post-9/11, but spiked after Barack Obama was first elected. The target shifted from him to Hillary Clinton (his presumptive successor) over the next 8 years, with "Benghazi", "but her e-mails", and "lock her up" calls from the right-wing chorus. And it spiked yet again during the lead-up to the 2016 POTUS election, I suspect with help from Russian troll-farms.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.
I think it goes back further than that. My sense is that it crept up steadily post-9/11, but spiked after Barack Obama was first elected. The target shifted from him to Hillary Clinton (his presumptive successor) over the next 8 years, with "Benghazi", "but her e-mails", and "lock her up" calls from the right-wing chorus. And it spiked yet again during the lead-up to the 2016 POTUS election, I suspect with help from Russian troll-farms.
I think they've always been here. Slashdot has a large population of Libertarians, both the nutbar total anarchist kind and the less nutty "anrachy for rich people (but police protection from the poor)" kind, we've always had a fair share of right leaners, its the rise of the far right that is the issue, the far right-wing has always been here but they've always been too scared to spew their bile. The problem with /. is the same with almost everywhere. The rebranding of white supremacists rebranded themselv
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the GP forgot that there has always been a large population of Apple fanboys on /.
Apple shilling has gone way down now that anyone who forgets to turn off smart quotes shamefully vomits "Sent from my iPhone" unicode all over their posts.
Re: More partisan shilling (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly I think it's high time we put anonymous coward to rest. The ideal behind it is irrelevant. I can't remember a single time AC was used for legitimate whistle blowing, it's just a plaything for trolls and assholes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: More partisan shilling (Score:2)
That is one stupid overgeneralizing crap of bull.
Re: More partisan shilling (Score:5, Insightful)
Aaaaand my point gets made for me.
Re: More partisan shilling (Score:2)
Exactly. I got tired from being banned fro reddit subs for calling idiots for what they are, so I retreated to the place where I have been for 20 years.
Re: (Score:3)
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up
No way. They've always* been here. They've just been emboldened by cheeto mussolini, and made louder. I've been arguing with them all along.
* At least since high five digit days, when I started reading.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't leave the left. It left me.
Re:More partisan shilling (Score:5, Interesting)
I barely comment here now and I've been here with one username or another since almost the beginning.
I only occasionally bother reading the comments because most threads are so heavily loaded with right wing (hopefully) trolls that I feel like I'm reading Fox News.
The stories are still pretty good, but the conversation is shit.
Combine that with the lack of voting ability and there's really nothing left here to draw you into the comments section.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's plenty of voting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:More partisan shilling (Score:4, Informative)
Always a strong left-lean
Slashdot is, and has been for a long time, the place I come to learn about the latest right-wing talking points from people who believe them and are willing to defend them, at least a little bit. It depends on the story, but the Slashdot userbase does not fit into a single political category. Slashdot users usually deride gun control, and are quite a bit more libertarian than the general populace. These positions are not consistent with a strong left-lean.
I always find it interesting to see how certain topics interact with Slashdot's technically-minded population. Climate change denial, for example, conflicts with a science-positive outlook, and even those people here who are strongly right wing have pretty well rejected certain talking points along those lines. I've seen people elsewhere repeating claims that climate scientists are living the high life, and that climate change is really all about pulling in that sweet sweet research money. That's a real claim that some deniers make, but it's so ridiculous that when I've seen it here it's never gotten much traction. Likewise claims that nebulous unspecified "jobs" are more important than droughts / hurricanes / loss of coastline / etc. The only denier claims that have legs here are ones which give the appearance of being science-positive.
But they do have legs, because Slashdot does not have a strong left-lean. I'm sure there are trolls, but there's a fair share of true believers as well.
Re: (Score:2)
and I fully suspect they are paid trolls. Whoever is doing the paying... get a refund, we see right through you.
What an absurd suspicion. Do you honestly think anyone in the world gives enough of a crap about us to pay someone to post something on Slashdot? ... wrong opinions, but then opinions nonetheless. You said it yourself, Slashdot has never been impartial so it stands to reason there are people out there impartial in a different direction.
A far more realistic suspicion: People have different opinions
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly think anyone in the world gives enough of a crap about us to pay someone to post something on Slashdot?
Yes, yes I do think that. But only as a grain of sand in a larger beach.
In other words: No one's targeting /. specifically, alone, in a vacuum. But you can't deny there is a campaign to further split this country, and it seems /. is caught in it indirectly, as part of a larger effort.
It can't be coincidence that ALL comments section, from youtube to /. to newspapers all across the country have the same language, the same namecalling, the same unwillingness to listen, and it all started at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're missing the number of ACs (and named accounts but mostly ACs) also posting extreme left wing rhetoric. It's gone way up on both counts.
I've been here about 18 years, and while I agree slashdot was usually left leaning, I think the way the left is now tilting extremely to the left (AOC, Ilhan Omar, open borders, abolish the electoral college, 90% taxes, everything is racist and sexist, etc.) has gotten more people to move more center or even right.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your comments on the biases of Slashdot generally (although I've only been here about 12 years).
But I highly doubt the right-wing trolls are being paid, I've seen paid trolls at work and they usually do a half decent job, most people wouldn't even label them as trolls, they employ things like subtlety, nuance, cunning and long-term strategic thinking. I've seen none of those qualities on Slashdot (apart from a few notable exceptions) for a long time. If someone is paying them, damn straight t
Re: More partisan shilling (Score:2)
You are a typical left wing troll
Re: More partisan shilling (Score:2)
Slashdot has always been more right wing libertarian with a socialist commenter community 20 years ago when we were poor and young.
5 years ago some of us got rich old and started caring more about keeping their money and having the government fuck off as we hit 40. I am a Democrat still but if I made $180K and 1 million in savings I could see myself being right wing.
People grow up as demographics change. Cute mellinials aren't on here and are on mobile cell phone oriented places.
Re: (Score:2)
TIL accurately portraying someone's statement is "bias".
Re: (Score:3)
Wow in my decades, now, of slashdot I’ve never...
Beau has shattered all my confidence /. will ever recover.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow in my decades, now, of slashdot I’ve never...
Beau has shattered all my confidence /. will ever recover.
Is that even the real BeauHD? It looks like his username is actually something like "BeauHD++(5555555)" which somehow doesn't link to an actual user profile: https://slashdot.org/~BeauHD++... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I just figured you just forgot to remove the sig.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok Cartman calm down, it was a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you asked, a few more of these high caliber comments (found a few comments down at the time of my posting): https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13354260&cid=58076268 [slashdot.org]
I can appreciate that. There has definitely been an increase in stupid responses like that. But Slashdot has always been that way to an extent. There's that guy, or guys, who used to keep posting about anal sex with black people, and we used to have lots of sneaky goatse links. I kind of like that Slashdot takes all comers, even the stupid ones.
Re:You First! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'm glad the politicians are through with me after I vote. I'd hate to see that level of idiotic political advertising year round.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why it's *better* to not fix NN so Dems can visibly fight the righteous fight.
Back in the mid 2000s looking at the CNN vs Fox news anchors I thought the only difference between liberal and conservative news anchors is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes.
Over time I began to think that it's true for liberals and conservatives in general, at least the prominent ones.
In 2016 I understood that the difference was more important than I had thought, and that I'd rather deal wi
Re:You First! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most liberals and conservatives are not assholes. The new problem is that the left and right are being mislabeled as liberal/conservative. All of these terms have been turned on their heads.
The origin of the word Liberal is from Liberty... and today's liberals are anti-liberty to the core. Suppression of free speech, public vilification to ruin people, anti-gun rights, pro-heavy regulation... none of which sounds like liberty.
The origin of the word Conservative is "generally" to preserve what is currently already present and to not change that. Desire to change government institutions, shrink government, repeal laws, and facilitate a police states... none of which sounds like conservatism.
That said... Liberals and Conservatives can get along... if you find out that you cannot get along... then it is more likely that you belong to either the extreme right or extreme left... and there is low chance that being extreme is healthy for either you or your enemies!
Re: (Score:2)
pro-heavy regulation... none of which sounds like liberty.
While you may disagree you should at least accept that they think it is liberty. As in there is a massive power imbalance between individuals and corporations, so regulation is needed to maintain individual liberty. After all if you need protection from the government due to a power imbalance, it follows that other large organizations, often multinational in scale, are also a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the mid 2000s looking at the CNN vs Fox news anchors I thought the only difference between liberal and conservative news anchors is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes.
TV news is more sensationalist than just about anything in writing. Both take extreme views to pump up viewership, while i just want to get my news and get out - TV doesn't work for me in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, there have been more than enough Democrats in power over time to have solved this problem as well.
You seem to not understand the basics of our system of government. Congress has to pass legislation through both houses of Congress. And thanks to filibuster abuse, not a whole lot passed through the Senate while the Democrats had control.
The problems could have been fixed a long time ago.
Ok, describe how. And remember, you have to get McConnell to agree to your fix.
We have nearly had almost a Century of Telecom regulations and guess what... the monopolies are still here and there is an endless supply of ignorant apologist's to defend these morons.
Hmmm....I wonder if there was some famous president in the 1980s who massively rolled back regulations and enforcement.....followed by his vice president.....followed by a DLC "we love deregu
Re: (Score:2)
While it is true that the Constitution is generally shat upon by both sides with zero hesitation, the "General Welfare" clause does actually pass muster to allow Government to regulate telecom to a "certain degree". What that "certain degree" is is the real argument.
So yes, Federal Regulations on Communications is most definitely constitutional the question is just how much of it would be. Example, they can definitely regulate the amount of power your equipment can produce so you cannot use it as a weapon
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously attempting to argue that telecommunications does not cross state lines?
Re:See you at the gallows nazi Trump faggots! (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Snopes? That's your rebuttal?
Well, it's quicker than citing every single history book written on the subject.
Oh, and if you actually bother reading the Snopes article, they all but admit that yes, the Nazis were left-wing socialists
You really need to work on your literacy. The only parts that make this claim are the ones being debunked, as well as the things the NAZIs promised early in the party's history, but failed to deliver once they were actually in power. Who'd have thunk you couldn't trust NAZIs to deliver on campaign promises. (That last sentence is sarcasm BTW. Just making sure to label it since you're having trouble understanding simple English).
But since it's not written in your native language, I suppose we should give you some leeway in your inability to understand it.
It's one of the reasons why they're no longer considered a trusted fact checker by Facebook.
You got the direction backwards there. They left Facebook, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
The modern origin of this myth is kinda interesting too. The far right realized that the 1940s Nazis were tarnishing their image. The optics of Hitler and the Holocaust were not good. First they tried pretending that while they shared the same basic goals as the Nazis they planned to reach them through a non-violent, peaceful ethnic cleansing of the United States. When that failed they tried the opposite - "we are far right identarians, you are confusing us with those left-wing Nazis!"
Of course it doesn't h
Re: (Score:2)
If failing to deliver automatically makes one right wing, then no far left regime qualifies as far left. They don't get off that easily
When you have absolute power over a country, you get to "deliver" the policies that you actually want. Failure to deliver on those early promises indicates the NAZIs didn't actually want those policies.
Re:We don't need Democrat's "help"` (Score:4, Insightful)
90% marginal tax rates?
You mean like the 1950s?
Remind me again....that was a massive economic wasteland for the US, right? It must have been from that tax rate. Why, if something else happened it might indicate a particular school of economics isn't actually based in reality.....
Legalized post-birth abortion?
Nah, that's you folks and your gun fetish. So many dead, but it'll be worth it when you get to re-enact Red Dawn. Any day now. Any day. Real soon now....
Geez, you'd think the Democrats would be forced to call their opponents "Hitler!" and "Nazis", those ideas are so fucking lame.
You need to catch up on your talking points. You're supposed to pretend the NAZIs were left-wing. Remembering that they were a right-wing party is double plus ungood.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the 1950s?
It is much easier for capital to move around than in the 1950's. Even the SPLC [washingtontimes.com] moved millions to offshore tax havens. Money moves faster (hello bitcoin). Faster than a government can tax. Even if a government taxes more doesn't mean increase revenue [freebeacon.com]. It's a great talking point to hear about when we had a higher tax rate but many things have changed since then but many things are still the same (raising taxes doesn't mean raising revenue).
Now when talking about taxes, what percentage should the 1% represent
Re: (Score:2)
(Here I'm talking about taxing income, which is
not where the rich earn their money, while not taxing places where they do. And not, say, taking away the insider trading exemption for congress. They don't leave office poor for a reason.)
That said
Re: (Score:3)
It is much easier for capital to move around than in the 1950's. Even the SPLC [washingtontimes.com] moved millions to offshore tax havens. Money moves faster (hello bitcoin). Faster than a government can tax. Even if a government taxes more doesn't mean increase revenue [freebeacon.com]. It's a great talking point to hear about when we had a higher tax rate but many things have changed since then but many things are still the same (raising taxes doesn't mean raising revenue).
So, in Chicago economic theory, high marginal tax rates are massively destructive to an economy, while low marginal tax rates are supposed to create an economic boom.
The fact that it was harder to escape the high marginal tax rates in the 1950s, yet the economy was not crippled by those tax rates, indicates the Chicago school has a wee bit of a problem with their theories. But we already knew that since their theories claimed the 2008 collapse couldn't happen.
The fact that tax avoidance is easier today doe
Re: (Score:2)
marginal tax
I quoted an average. Because as the article pointed out that few people do pay the top marginal rate because of avoidance and other factors. High marginal tax claims decreased when the rate was increased which was my point in the ability for capital to move. They are not paying unusually low taxes by historical standards. Meaning, we have record highs of tax collections.
Because the top 0.1% own more than the bottom 50% combined.
And? Amazon is worth a lot of money that has no bearing on a poor persons house being worth 50k. Wealth is created and that means Amazon an
Re: (Score:2)
few people do pay the top marginal rate because of avoidance and other factors
No, the total effective tax paid is lower than the marginal rate, because it's marginal. It only applies to the income above the threshold, not all of your income.
Wealth is created and that means Amazon and the person who started it get really rich. That doesn't mean poor people have it worse because Amazon is successful or that somehow Amazon scammed the poor person.
Wealth is not created. It is taken. There should be societal limits to greed or it all breaks down and returns to feudalism if we aren't there already. If you want capitalism instead, you have to keep the money flowing at all levels and not let it concentrate at the top to stay.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not going to respond to everything because it is too crazy (wealth is taken!!!! Tell that to Amazon the next time you choose to use their service) or you didn't read my comment or the article.
not let it concentrate at the top to stay.
Sure. That alone doesn't convince me that we need to raise taxes. It's a platitude that has no insight on proper tax levels or justification on why current levels are not "fair".
Re: (Score:2)
The rich, right now, own 50% of the world's weath.
Re: (Score:2)
And? See my other comment.
Re: (Score:2)
And likely close to 50% of the income. So paying less than 50% of the taxes to run the country that makes them rich makes no sense. And really, it should be a little more than that because taxes should only come off above and beyond the amount required for basic food/clothing/shelter. And if they're directly benefiting from low wages to the poorest, then they should understand and get over the fact that the poorest might only be paying an effective 10% tax rate or less.
Re: (Score:3)
In the 50's you were able to deduct all kinds of things.
Having just completed my Schedule A, I can assure you that you can still deduct all kinds of things.
Almost nobody EVER paid those rates.
That is always true of the top marginal rate.
Repealed two-earner deduction
Married filing separately
long-term capital gains exclusion
Instead, we now have a different rate.
state and local sales tax deduction
Was repealed last year.
income averaging
Instead, you can carry expenses forward via an easy-to-create shell company.
income averaging
Very few extremely rich people made wildly different incomes year-to-year.
and exclusion of unemployment benefits
.....you really think the top 10% of the income distribution was collecting unemployment? And that it was a significant part of th
Re: (Score:3)
You are aware that right now you're basically sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALALALA about the whole 90% marginal tax rate thing, right? As another poster already pointed out, the effective tax rate for those in the 90% income bracket in the 50s was 42%.
You do realize that "effective tax rate" is over someone's entire income, right? And that a 90% top marginal rate does not mean that all of their income is taxed at 90%, right?
But I bet your effective tax rate isn't less than half of your income tax bracket.
You lost that bet, quite badly. Again, effective tax rate is over the entire income, "income tax bracket" is only determined by the last $1.
You might be able to convince a bunch of low information idiots, but when you make arguments like you did in your above post, you just make those of us familiar with history think you're a blithering idiot.
You appear to not understand how marginal tax rates work. Best be careful when claiming others are uninformed.
And a study of ultra high tax rates in Europe showed that typically for every 1% increase in income tax rate, a 3% decrease in taxable assets was shown among those who were effective.
And assets are the same thing as income, right? Oh wait....
Also, perhaps one of th
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know how marginal brackets work? You're only taxed the higher rate on the income above the previous bracket. And anyone making 10s of millions is making it off the backs of other Americans anyway. I don't have sympathy for that. Nobody needs to make that much profit.
Re:Sure the Trump admin will stop screwing the pub (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure they're pretending. I've met many in person, including a few fairly intelligent and well educated I really thought would know better. I think a lot of them really are that gullible and/or stupid. Or at least angry and desperate enough to believe anyone who says they'll make things better. Tell them the government is corrupt (which I think we all know), and that you're going to do something about it, you get a lot of people's attention. Then start feeding them increasingly unhinged conspiracy theories, and giving them permission to be ever-larger assholes to... basically anyone whoisn't 100% on board with your agenda... some get turned off, but the ones that stick around, they get more committed to the cause than ever, and increasing lose connection with reality. I've met some who, when confronted with video of Trump's more obviously heinous or stupid statements or actions, simply dismiss them as fakes. And once someone is convinced that the propaganda office is the only source of real news, I really don't know how you can possibly shake their faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure - but for the average American that's the difference between "Someone I'm doing business with is a crook", versus "My employees are stealing from me"
Re:Public to House Democrat party: (Score:5, Informative)
We OVERWHELMINGLY voted for the Republicans
2% is not OVERWHELMINGLY.
who gained a LOT of seats in the senate
Pre-election polls had you gaining 6 seats. You gained 4. And those 4 were quite close instead of the forecasted blow-out. The Democrats were defending twice as many seats, and many in "red" states, so we lost some. But good news! That flips in 2020, and Republicans will be defending far more seats, many in "blue" states.
Also, you seem to have forgotten that the House had the largest swing since Watergate. How'd that happen if the public OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Republicans?
Almost like it wasn't actually a Republican wave election.....
Re: (Score:2)