Europe's new front in the browser battle

[tower]

Europe has won a battle for the right to choose the browser rather than just use the one bundled with Microsoft OS
This is hot on the heel of the IE6 vulnerability problems and a big ad campaign by Google for Chrome.
See this story for more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... brows.html
Now all we need is the right to choose what operating system is on the PC!

[FedoraRefugee]

Go Europe!

Not like I didnt choose to use Firefox (and also Safari) on Windows...

[tower]

You would be surprised how much inertia there is in the market place, most folks will just stick with what was supplied.

[monkeyboy]

Tower posted "Europe has won a battle for the right to choose the browser rather than just use the one bundled with Microsoft OS"

Wow, I didn't know Microsoft was forcing people to use IE. What did they use force of law or armed troops?

[tower]

It has been a long battle,I am surprised you don't know the history!

http://news.cnet.com/Netscape-Microsoft ... 21946.html

[FedoraRefugee]

I know the battle, and for once I have to side with Microsoft.

I am going to be blunt here, and I am probably going to piss everyone off, but I simply do not care. I tell it like it is.

Europe is going to hell in a handbasket! Not that we Americans have much room to talk because we are following your lead. But you are leading. The problem with all this socialism crap and level playing fields is it ends up biting the hand that feeds it. Let me give an example of how this works. In America the progressives are always complaining about the rich fat cats. They make million dollar bonuses, they have all the money, they hold everyone else down...capitalism sucks...The thing is most people do not realize that the top 1% of the wealthy in this country pay 90% percent of the taxes!!! While everyone is shouting, "tax the rich" they are stupidly oblivious to the fact that 70% of the people in this country pay less than 2% of the total taxes. The more you raise the taxes on the upper 5% the more they simply pull their money out of the market and take it overseas somewhere or find other shelters. When you pay more taxes you hire less people, you produce fewer goods, and the economy takes a dump. People do not understand that wealth creates wealth, poverty creates poverty, and that instead of bringing everyone up to the level of the upper classes socialism drags everyone down to the level of the lowest classes. Let me give a further illustration. You always hear the saying, "he has the biggest slice of the pie." A socialist sees the economy as a pie, there is a limited amount of money, or any resource for that matter, and everyone only can get so much. Instead of a few people getting all the pie and the rest of the masses getting crumbs they want to divide the pie up. The thing is, this is simply not true! There is no limit to wealth! Everyone can have as much pie as they want! The more pie you make the more ingredients that are available for more pies and for others to make pie. Wealth creates wealth. There is no limit, only each person's desire for pie.

What has all this got to do with Microsoft? It sheds light on the basic perspective of the European market philosophies. I fully understand the desire to level the playing field. There is no doubt that Microsoft holds the entire market sector hostage. I am not going to argue for them, they are evil and need to be whipped into line. They flaunt the law, when you have the capital they do you can simply litigate people, and even countries to death. But in this case Europe would be better off to just leave Microsoft alone, let them bring money into each country's economy.

I wish Microsoft would call the EU's bluff and just pull out of the European market! Sure, it would hurt MS, it would hurt the American economy, but the truth is it would hurt Europe much worse! It would devastate their economy. If the socialists over there want to be freed from the shackles of big business I say fine! Leave them in peace. Anyone who knows anything about history knows where that will lead, just look at Greece. I do not have any ill will towards anyone in this world. I wish we could all live in peace and prosperity and help each other out. I have been to Ireland, England, France, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, and Germany. They are all beautiful places and the people I have encountered have mostly been decent and friendly. I suspect most of the world is this way. But until people learn to play fairly there really is no reason to even join the game. Microsoft has the advantage, the position of power here. There is nothing wrong with them bundling IE8 with their OS. If you do not want to use it then don't. Just the same if you do not like MS Paint, then just install Gimp or Photoshop or whatever. This is a stupid argument. OS X comes with Safari, Linux comes mostly with Firefox and Windows comes with IE. Period. If you do not like it then don't use it. In my mind what the EU is doing is like telling Chevy that they need to also offer Chrysler and Ford motors in their cars. Bull!

[tower]

Wow you seem to think that the commies had take over Europe.
Study American monopoly law and why they were brought in to protect innovation and consumer choice!
M$ had a monopoly of the OS market IE was brought out to foil competition, at that time Netscape.
Bill Gates dismissed the internet as unimportant in many of his speeches
http://www.businessweek.com/1996/29/b34842.htm

[viking777]

Like FedoraRefugee, for once I side with Microsoft as well, but not for the same reasons as he states.

This is/was just a gigantic waste of money, you have always had the choice to use another browser, why you should waste millions (because I am sure that is what it cost) to protect the 'interests' of those who are too dumb to protect their own I fail to see. Linux Mint comes with Firefox. Should I sue them because I want to use Opera (or anything else)?

This is typical of the bureaucratic nonsense that streams out of the EU in floods.

[FedoraRefugee]

Wow you seem to think that the commies had take over Europe.
Study American monopoly law and why they were brought in to protect innovation and consumer choice!
M$ had a monopoly of the OS market IE was brought out to foil competition, at that time Netscape.
Bill Gates dismissed the internet as unimportant in many of his speeches
http://www.businessweek.com/1996/29/b34842.htm

I am sure I know more about American law than you do. I am NOT a libertarian, I do believe in government regulation. But only to the extent that it prevents unfair takeovers like the steel and railroad barons of the late 19th century. We have more to fear from government then we do any business. Free market principles work. If someone creates a browser that is better than Microsoft's offering then people will use it. If someone creates a better operating system than Windows then Windows will take a hit.

Read my previous post very carefully, I will reiterate, I am not going to argue in favor of Microsoft not being a monopoly. Technically, they are not. But we all know the truth; the strong arm tactics, if you cant buy them out you litigate them to death. We all realize that Microsoft's deals with hardware manufacturers puts them at an unfair advantage. They have pretty much locked in their market. But unfortunately this browser thing does not pan out. If the EU wants to hit them then pass laws that prevent MS from strong arming computer manufacturers AND THEN set up some European manufacturers with other OS offerings. And please...please offer these systems in the US too! Let the market decide what it wants to buy.

Do I think Europe is overrun with commies? I tend to say "no" but the truth is I am really starting to worry about this world. I was just in a thread talking about the Apple Iphone Che app. People look up to and admire Che Guevara. To someone as old as me, and living in Florida where I encounter many Cubans who actually fled under Castro and this man, this is so unbelievable to me. I read the stupidest comments, mostly from young college types that really have no clue. This is as unthinkable as people admiring Hitler or Stalin. They look up to Mao Zedong...Why? Do these people even have a clue what Mao has done to his people? I think that a new generation is coming up who has been taught progressive revisionist history. I do not think they fully understand or believe who these people were. They see them as liberating heroes. Socialism is becoming the new Utopia. They refuse to look to the past, to learn from history. They forget what America once was, what it meant to the world. They forget that people from all over the globe flocked to MY country for freedom and a chance at success. A chance at a better life, to make their fortunes. The more government has intervened the worse things have gotten. Do you know why the American economic system is in as bad a shape as it is? Because capitalism was tampered with, it was fettered with unnatural restraints. It was not allowed to seek equilibrium. It is to the credit of the free market that as hindered as it is our economy WANTS to bounce back. It wants to equal out. The current administration is holding it back, creating more artificial bubbles. We don't need bailed out, we need to go under! Take the hit, repair the damage, and move on!

I do not have to wait and see who is right, I know from history. Unless those in power, in all of our countries, learn these lessons then things are only going to keep declining. No one is too big to fail, not the Soviet Union, not Greece, and certainly not America. And if you believe that our separate economies do not have any affect on each other you are going to be in for a bad shock. What we all need is for government to back off and allow the entrepreneurs to start creating without tying their hands. This applies to the UK as well as to the US.

[adrianx]

To Whom It May Concern
The Cold War is over...

Viva my European comrades, viva!


...I'm running for cover now

[DrHu]

I know the battle, and for once I have to side with Microsoft.

Unless I had shares in the business monopoly, and even then I might have an ethical problem in deciding, I would never be supporting a monopolist position

The thing is most people do not realize that the top 1% of the wealthy in this country pay 90% percent of the taxes!!! While everyone is shouting, "tax the rich" they are stupidly oblivious to the fact that 70% of the people in this country pay less than 2% of the total taxes.

The stats are incorrect
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

• Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.
  
  Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.
  
  To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

That just shows how much they are making, by whatever means
The trend over the last twenty years is to make the super-rich (that 1%) pay more, so the tax burden switched from the bottom paying 58% of the total tax to a more even balance of paying 39.4%; so the bottom 95% of the taxable population, were able to pay 18.6% less over those twenty years
We can see how good the rich and super rich had it for so long, and even now their burden in twenty years has increased by 18.6 %,---> that the balance while more even (and in a progressive system shouldn't be anywhere near the 50/50 position still means they are not paying their full share tax on 100% of income, which obviously and almost exclusively only affects employees/workers [/list]

• And even if they happened to be correct, it would only show that the people with the most money paid the most as a group (in fact that is not the case); in other words the tax system is progressive, the more you make, the more you can afford to pay
  --this is as opposed to the flat tax method always being presented by the conservatives as the fair way to handle taxes (most people do understand that the progressive method is the fairer system), in proposing that everyone form the billionaire to the dish-washer pay the same tux rate as a percentage of income (ignoring the fact that the rich can prevent much of their income appearing as income for tax purposes
  An employee already likely pays on 100% of their total income, a rich person likely pays far less as a percentage
  Warren Buffet notes this is a true fact, when he did a quick audit of the percentages with one of his staff within the last few years..

http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010020 ... ecretaries

Not only socialists: even capitalists are concerned about the excesses of capitalism

• Exploit workers (low wages, working conditions, safety, illegitimate or exploitative or corrupt governments)
• Engage with low wage regimes
• Engage in low wage capital trade (the money follows the lowest cost regimes)
• Blackmail governments and trade them off against one another to the benefit of the company
  --exploit trade imbalances

When multiple business face a monopoly and are being ruined or forced to kw-tow to that business, then everyone loses and eventually even that monopoly loses in the long term, as they stifle innovation on order to mainlining their exploitation (their business advantages).

• A government whether local or national has the right to determine whether or not a business can abuse its power in the market place

--when they fail, we get something like the real-estate/financial crisis that happened in 2008-2009 in America (USA), which affected every mayor financial center in the world: Europe (West and East), Asia, The Americas (North and South).[/list]

Business has to be regulated to prevent the excesses they are prone to, when they think they can get away with it

• Toxic dumping
• Unsafe or illegal working conditions
• Low or illegal wage methods (company store, company housing--->employee/worker costs with little or no true audit or accounting)
  Hollywood as an example, is famous for exploiting their actors, and the music business is similar, and that is just in the more normal civilized enlightened social democratic states, as they exist in the USA.

About that business (aka capitalism) creates the jobs myth..
--it is another myth that business only means capitalism; there are other models of socially responsible business that also work
Yes, everyone understands that a business employs workers and therefor creates jobs

The only question then becomes, what kind of jobs and where in the world do they create them
--even high value or value added jobs (there you go again; with those business-speak terminologies), such as doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer, animator, filmmaker

• A business that doesn't depend on its customers to see them, can be off-shored or exported by that business owner group to the lower or lowest wage regimes in the world, it depends on how greedy they want to be
  --so we have the Simpson's or Futurerama being done by Rough Draft Studio is Korea, and should China or some other regime do it cheaper, that business will simply move elsewhere
  --leaving all the part time, contract, temporary jobs to be done where people can't be replaced by technologies or virtual connections

So yes business creates jobs (to benefit their bottom line--> it is in their interest to multiply the amount of work/products used/produced to make more of the same, aka PROFIT), but they don't support them or the workers

[FedoraRefugee]

Unless I had shares in the business monopoly, and even then I might have an ethical problem in deciding, I would never be supporting a monopolist position

I do not consider Microsoft bundling its own browser to be a monopolistic position.

Not only socialists: even capitalists are concerned about the excesses of capitalism

• Exploit workers (low wages, working conditions, safety, illegitimate or exploitative or corrupt governments)
• Engage with low wage regimes
• Engage in low wage capital trade (the money follows the lowest cost regimes)
• Blackmail governments and trade them off against one another to the benefit of the company
  --exploit trade imbalances

When multiple business face a monopoly and are being ruined or forced to kw-tow to that business, then everyone loses and eventually even that monopoly loses in the long term, as they stifle innovation on order to mainlining their exploitation (their business advantages).

• A government whether local or national has the right to determine whether or not a business can abuse its power in the market place

--when they fail, we get something like the real-estate/financial crisis that happened in 2008-2009 in America (USA), which affected every mayor financial center in the world: Europe (West and East), Asia, The Americas (North and South).

I agree!

The real-estate/financial situation in my country was caused by what we term as "crony capitalism." Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government controlled mortgage companies. They underwrote massive amounts of bad mortgages that were eventually foreclosed on. As of 2008 they actually owned about half of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market! This was the biggest part of the collapse, though by any means not the only cause. Most banks were forced by the government to make bad housing loans. It is part of the philosophy that everyone has the right to own a home, even when they cannot afford one.

Other examples abound of our government actually FORCING monopolies rather than preventing them! One example is serious windows. In spite of the fact that other window companies produce as good if not better products our president Obama not only provided this company stimulus money but his administration has also singled them out in a couple speeches.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/serio ... nergy.html

This is just one tiny example of how the government causes the corruption it is supposed to be preventing.

Business has to be regulated to prevent the excesses they are prone to, when they think they can get away with it

• Toxic dumping
• Unsafe or illegal working conditions
• Low or illegal wage methods (company store, company housing--->employee/worker costs with little or no true audit or accounting)
  Hollywood as an example, is famous for exploiting their actors, and the music business is similar, and that is just in the more normal civilized enlightened social democratic states, as they exist in the USA.

Oh yeah! I heartily agree! This is why I am not a libertarian! But the government needs to be an impartial referee, not a biased player!

edit: You edited your post while I was writing mine!

The stats are incorrect
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

You are right, I was using figures pulled from my memory. But I am not off by much! Your source claims the top 1% paid a staggering 40.4% of ALL taxes! As you go down the number grows. The top 10% pay most of the taxes. This is EXACTLY what I am saying!

That just shows how much they are making, by whatever means
The trend over the last twenty years is to make the super-rich (that 1%) pay more, so the tax burden switched from the bottom paying 58% of the total tax to a more even balance of paying 39.4%; so the bottom 95% of the taxable population, were able to pay 18.6% less over those twenty years
We can see how good the rich and super rich had it for so long, and even now their burden in twenty years has increased by 18.6 %,---> that the balance while more even (and in a progressive system shouldn't be anywhere near the 50/50 position still means they are not paying their full share tax on 100% of income, which obviously and almost exclusively only affects employees/workers

Why?

If you make $100 you pay $7 in tax. If you make $10,000 you pay $700 in tax. Why is this not fair? Why do the poor deserve to get a bigger break? If anything the government should lower or do away with income tax and tax goods. The more you buy the more you pay.

I am not totally against progressive taxes though, only taking it to excessive extremes. Again, read my previous post again. The actuality of taxes is that it is counter-intuitive. The more you tax the rich the more they will dodge the taxes and the less they will put back in the system. They will hoard instead, this is proven fact. Reagan showed this clearly, Bush's tax cuts were successful. Look at American tax history, every time they lower taxes revenue increases!

And even if they happened to be correct, it would only show that the people with the most money paid the most as a group (in fact that is not the case); in other words the tax system is progressive, the more you make, the more you can afford to pay
--this is as opposed to the flat tax method always being presented by the conservatives as the fair way to handle taxes (most people do understand that the progressive method is the fairer system), in proposing that everyone form the billionaire to the dish-washer pay the same tux rate as a percentage of income (ignoring the fact that the rich can prevent much of their income appearing as income for tax purposes
An employee already likely pays on 100% of their total income, a rich person likely pays far less as a percentage
Warren Buffet notes this is a true fact, when he did a quick audit of the percentages with one of his staff within the last few years..

The rich hide their income no matter the system you use! The thing is, why tax in the first place? If government would cut spending it would not need to tax at these rates.

I am not against a safety net for a nation's poor or unemployed. What I am against is the abuse of the system. Again, I am not libertarian, it is not every man for himself. But the system we have is being abused. It is not up to the top 10% to care for the rest. If that were the case then why bother? Why should I slave for minimum wage when I can make more leeching off the government sitting on my porch and drinking beer all day?

It is always those who have little that want to spread the wealth. This is greed, they are too lazy to earn it themselves.

Look at Bono (Boner) of U2. Ireland puts a ceiling on tax free income and the oh so progressive Bono moves his company to the Netherlands.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152580/

Hypocrisy runs rampant through the progressives. Michael Moore should donate all HIS money to the homeless in our country and move to Cuba where he wouldn't have to deal with the ugly capitalism that allowed his fat ass to become rich and (in)famous! Think he would ever do it? If he does he should take Sean Penn with him.

[adrianx]

You are right, I was using figures pulled from my memory. But I am not off by much! Your source claims the top 1% paid a staggering 40.4% of ALL taxes! As you go down the number grows. The top 10% pay most of the taxes. This is EXACTLY what I am saying!

That doesn't sound fair at all. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if capitalism really exists.

[DrHu]

I do not consider Microsoft bundling its own browser to be a monopolistic position

I do...

It comes down to what is an OS and how they are able to maintain their monopoly
--is it as Microsoft seems to think, anything they want to include (browser(IE), multimedia, antivirus (bitkeeper), as part of their product sales

I wouldn't object so much, if Microsoft said here is our OS and here are our applications for that OS

• At least we would not be deceived into thinking that IE was part of their OS (as they initially claimed in that EU suit)
• Now Apple also does this
  --is ITunes, IMovie part of their OS

The only difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft has in hand 90% of the world's PC market, that is a monopoly, in anyone's terms
--which means to me, that everything they do either enhances or detracts from that monopoly position: so far they have done little to detract from it (as a business, even a monopoly, they won't have to, unless they overstep their bounds and are found out); but common sense shows the picture is just that clear

• Their fight against ODF formats
• Their fight against the bundling of IE (browser) as part of their OS packaging
• Many others, too numerous to find or mention

They are a monopoly and act as such

[FedoraRefugee]

It comes down to what is an OS and how they are able to maintain their monopoly
--is it as Microsoft seems to think, anything they want to include (browser(IE), multimedia, antivirus (bitkeeper), as part of their product sales

I wouldn't object so much, if Microsoft said here is our OS and here are our applications for that OS

• At least we would not be deceived into thinking that IE was part of their OS (as they initially claimed in that EU suit)
• Now Apple also does this
  --is ITunes, IMovie part of their OS

Does not Mint include a browser, multimedia, and other apps?

The only difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft has in hand 90% of the world's PC market, that is a monopoly, in anyone's terms

Actually...No. Look at it this way; Comcast owns 100% of the cable television market in my area. SECO electric owns 100% of the electric service in my area. Are these monopolies? I grew up in a small town where there were only a MacDonalds and a Burger King. Did these franchises own a monopoly in my town? No. There is nothing preventing another OS manufacturer to compete with Microsoft...

except...

I will agree with you here that Microsoft has taken several steps that have guaranteed their position in the market and these tactics SHOULD be illegal.

--which means to me, that everything they do either enhances or detracts from that monopoly position: so far they have done little to detract from it (as a business, even a monopoly, they won't have to, unless they overstep their bounds and are found out); but common sense shows the picture is just that clear

• Their fight against ODF formats
• Their fight against the bundling of IE (browser) as part of their OS packaging
• Many others, too numerous to find or mention

They are a monopoly and act as such

Not much to argue with you here.

[DrHu]

It is always those who have little that want to spread the wealth. This is greed, they are too lazy to earn it themselves.

This is greed, they are too lazy to earn it themselves..
No, it would be better called envy or the American Dream
--come to America, live your dream (anyone can be president, anyone can be rich). That might be overselling the movie (Hollywood) romantic ideal of what is possible

As for laziness
Not necessarily or even mostly true. The migrant workers in the California fields whether that is tomatoes, oranges, strawberries or other are treated abysmally by owners (they might be rich or they might be upper middle-class, I don't know for sure)
--you spray pesticide while employees/workers are in the field picking the crops

• The poor or poorly paid, who might lack a minimum wage rate (which is not even a living wage), have to fight for every dime
  The rich or richly paid, who might only lack a maximum wage rate, have to fight for very little.

Now about that flat tax rate
--just to avoid abuses by the rich or quasi-rich (middle/upper middle class)
It might seem mathematically fair to say, if earn 100.00 and pay 7%, I pay 7.00 and if I earn 7,000 and pay 700.00, but this ignores what is being counted as income, and what exceptions are allowed

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/ ... enDocument
For if the richer person can hide most of their real income (because they are getting it) in real-estate or investments (they can mitigate their risk), and don't have to pay the tax for that cash, that they would otherwise pay, if it were able to be treated as income

• In the current system, the richer person's tax rate is 16.62 % of income

• The long-term data show that under current tax and economic rules, the incomes of the top earners rise when the economy expands and contract during recessions, only to rise again. Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007.
  That 6 figure income is 100,000.00 or less
  Now what percentage of taxpayers are in the 100,000.00 bracket, and does that matter. I wouldn't call anyone who earns less than 100,000.00 lazy; for if you are a dish-washer struggling at below 10.00 wage rates for 40-60hour weeks
  
  Adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the top 400 enjoyed a 27 percent increase in their income, or nine times the rate of increase for the bottom 90 percent

This is the reason a flat tax is unfair to the 90% at the bottom, not the 10% at the top
--unless exemptions are excluded, then whether a flat tax exists or an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), then nothing apart from tax law changes can address or adjust this balance between rich and poor (who no one will deny it, want to be rich as well). Unfortunately keeping the poor as poor is the means that enables the rich to be richer.

More useful to know is the minimum wage rate in the various states; especially the right-to-work rule states, that are against unions and union organizing, even for whole industries
--if you don't get paid enough to be a consumer, which a large part of the USA's economy depends, you drive down the economy

A reasonable minimum wage is a necessity to ensure consumerism and a possible living as an employee/worker
--that is no overtime wage rate abuses or safety issues should be tolerated

• Of course the 24x7 society has perhaps allowed businesses, by putting every employee into a shift mode of operation be able to eliminate many overtime rates or extend the normal day rate

Heh!, that's just business, nothing personal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages

• This is a list of the minimum wages (per hour) in each state and territory of the United States, for jobs covered by federal minimum wage laws. If the job is not subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, then state, city, or other local laws may determine the minimum wage
  Under the federal law, workers that receive a portion of their salary from tips, such as wait staff, are only required to have their total compensation, including tips, to meet the minimum wage, so often their hourly wage, not including tips, is less than the minimum wage.
  
  Currently, Washington has the highest minimum wages of all 50 states, followed by Oregon and Vermont. Kansas for many years had the lowest state approved minimum wage, set at $2.65, but that changed to $7.25 on January 1, 2010. The lowest currently are in both Georgia and Wyoming. Five states have no minimum wage enacted under state law.

[FedoraRefugee]

You are right, I was using figures pulled from my memory. But I am not off by much! Your source claims the top 1% paid a staggering 40.4% of ALL taxes! As you go down the number grows. The top 10% pay most of the taxes. This is EXACTLY what I am saying!

That doesn't sound fair at all. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if capitalism really exists.

Hey adrianx, how they hangin'?

No, pure capitalism is as elusive as pure socialism. This argument ALWAYS raises its ugly head when talking about economic/political systems. America was never a "democracy" either, it is a republic.

No, pure capitalism is as dangerous as pure socialism is perfect. The thing is, human nature tends to be capitalistic. That is what produces the most incentive in the majority of people. Because of this it provides a better base for a system. Socialism can never live up to its ideals mainly because human nature is corrupt. It takes the government to run everything and the government will always become corrupt. Eventually. Though Sweden does have a good thing going, I will not deny that. But it is different running a country of 9 million swedes as compared to 305 million Americans of every ethnicity imaginable. Our government is corrupt enough as it is, it certainly does not need any more power.

Maybe I will move to Sweden...

[FedoraRefugee]

It is always those who have little that want to spread the wealth. This is greed, they are too lazy to earn it themselves.

This is greed, they are too lazy to earn it themselves..
No, it would be better called envy or the American Dream
--come to America, live your dream (anyone can be president, anyone can be rich). That might be overselling the movie (Hollywood) romantic ideal of what is possible

Why? It is possible. More so than anywhere else in the world. Look at Bill Clinton's history. Or Ophra Winfrey for that matter.

As for laziness
Not necessarily or even mostly true. The migrant workers in the California fields whether that is tomatoes, oranges, strawberries or other are treated abysmally by owners (they might be rich or they might be upper middle-class, I don't know for sure)
--you spray pesticide while employees/workers are in the field picking the crops

• The poor or poorly paid, who might lack a minimum wage rate (which is not even a living wage), have to fight for every dime
  The rich or richly paid, who might only lack a maximum wage rate, have to fight for very little.

No one is forcing the workers in the field to work there! Of course many of these are illegal Mexicans. A big (and growing) problem here. Hmmm...Wonder why all those Mexicans are coming HERE?

As for the spraying thing, I have not heard this so I don't know what you are talking about. But I don't doubt it has happened. And hopefully the person responsible was fined. But despite what the liberal media might try to imply working conditions in this country are as good if not better than anywhere else. Sure, stupid things happen, as they do everywhere. But to argue a point you made earlier, capitalism ensures workers are treaded fairly and paid a decent wage. Otherwise they simply go somewhere else. Likewise a business will support its product and ensure its quality. Otherwise no one would buy the product.

Now about that flat tax rate
--just to avoid abuses by the rich or quasi-rich (middle/upper middle class)
It might seem mathematically fair to say, if earn 100.00 and pay 7%, I pay 7.00 and if I earn 7,000 and pay 700.00, but this ignores what is being counted as income, and what exceptions are allowed

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/ ... enDocument
For if the richer person can hide most of their real income (because they are getting it) in real-estate or investments (they can mitigate their risk), and don't have to pay the tax for that cash, that they would otherwise pay, if it were able to be treated as income

• In the current system, the richer person's tax rate is 16.62 % of income

• The long-term data show that under current tax and economic rules, the incomes of the top earners rise when the economy expands and contract during recessions, only to rise again. Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007.
  That 6 figure income is 100,000.00 or less
  Now what percentage of taxpayers are in the 100,000.00 bracket, and does that matter. I wouldn't call anyone who earns less than 100,000.00 lazy; for if you are a dish-washer struggling at below 10.00 wage rates for 40-60hour weeks
  
  Adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the top 400 enjoyed a 27 percent increase in their income, or nine times the rate of increase for the bottom 90 percent

This is the reason a flat tax is unfair to the 90% at the bottom, not the 10% at the top
--unless exemptions are excluded, then whether a flat tax exists or an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), then nothing apart from tax law changes can address or adjust this balance between rich and poor (who no one will deny it, want to be rich as well). Unfortunately keeping the poor as poor is the means that enables the rich to be richer.

This is just going around in circles. The rich will find tax shelters no matter what you do. There comes a breaking point though where a business man, who is paying his fair share due to honesty, will say enough is enough. He will QUIT paying! This is happening right now in California. All the business are moving to Texas. Why? Because California taxes have become unacceptable. The state is now bankrupt, it is broke.

More useful to know is the minimum wage rate in the various states; especially the right-to-work rule states, that are against unions and union organizing, even for whole industries--if you don't get paid enough to be a consumer, which a large part of the USA's economy depends, you drive down the economy

You should actually compare minimum wage versus average wage! It is an extremely low percentage of US citizens who earn minimum wage. And the cool thing is...If you do not like what you make...CHANGE IT!

A reasonable minimum wage is a necessity to ensure consumerism and a possible living as an employee/worker
--that is no overtime wage rate abuses or safety issues should be tolerated

• Of course the 24x7 society has perhaps allowed businesses, by putting every employee into a shift mode of operation be able to eliminate many overtime rates or extend the normal day rate

Heh!, that's just business, nothing personal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages

• This is a list of the minimum wages (per hour) in each state and territory of the United States, for jobs covered by federal minimum wage laws. If the job is not subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, then state, city, or other local laws may determine the minimum wage
  Under the federal law, workers that receive a portion of their salary from tips, such as wait staff, are only required to have their total compensation, including tips, to meet the minimum wage, so often their hourly wage, not including tips, is less than the minimum wage.
  
  Currently, Washington has the highest minimum wages of all 50 states, followed by Oregon and Vermont. Kansas for many years had the lowest state approved minimum wage, set at $2.65, but that changed to $7.25 on January 1, 2010. The lowest currently are in both Georgia and Wyoming. Five states have no minimum wage enacted under state law.

er...what is the point? You do realize though that there is a FEDERAL minimum wage? State minimum wages surpass this. But the whole minimum wage argument is stupid anyway, we really do not need one.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/minimum_wage.htm

DrHu, this is a great conversation and I respect your point of view. But we kind of hijacked this thread. Let's just agree to disagree on this. None of these issues are black and white and men much smarter than us are fighting this too. I also would bet there is a big culture difference in play here. For some reason I imagine that you are in France? At any rate, I am sure that there are undercurrents in the US that you are not aware of as I am not aware of all the nuances of life in Europe. The fact that the media is usually biased as heck does not help matters either. Most Europeans probably imagine Americans dieing in hospital waiting rooms and crowds of homeless people standing in soup lines. Americans have much the same picture of life in Europe. I am pretty certain this view is highly exaggerated on all sides. If you are happy with where you live and whatever political system you live under then you are better off than many people in this world. As for me, I believe in what America once was and I want to see it achieve that again. I feel our current administration is taking it in the wrong direction, and I believe the majority of Americans agree. Let's just hope we can patch the holes before she sinks.

[Husse]

This debate has strayed a bit (a bit? ) from the subject - please stay on the browser subject