No, that's pretty much how things played out before antitrust and anti-monopoly regulations were in place. See Standard Oil or US Steel.

Up to you what to respond to, how, and when. I just ask that whatever arguments you make be solid. But for reference, it seems that you have not responded yet to my post on page 10 and most of my post on page 15.

I actually posted something with similar information earlier (midway down, CTRL+F "please read" if you want the context I referenced it in).

I would if there were obvious flaws, but you can check out the paper it's based on. It seems solid for what it's referenced for.

If the rich guy actually owns the business personally, it's personal income, not corporate. If it's a corporation and he owns the stock, it's capital gains or dividends. Or personal income if he works at the corporation.

Where did you get those numbers?

I'd really like to see the numbers for a realistic situation that you think justifies that supposition.

It's not about being fair. It's about making society work.

Ugh...

Yeah, I don't think I can do this, and if I do it's going to be hurried and not very well-researched. I'll have to do something like 10 pages of actual writing and another 25-30 pages of research or something if I reply to EVERYTHING you've said here.

In summary: You're wrong, end of story. (This statement not based on facts of any sort.)

_________________

How about you pick a single point where you think I'm wrong and take as long as you want to build a solid argument about it?



But for reference, about 30 pages of research went into this post.

Damn, 30 pages went into that? What do you even do for a living?

On the thing about property taxes, I was reading something from New York where it talked about the way they calculate property taxes and it talked about appraisal and the rate at which things were taxed. I can't find it anymore, but I remember it saying something about tax at a 15% rate. Not sure if it was saying they were actually taxing it at that rate, but...

In any case, I actually have heard (rich) people claim they pay 60% of their income on overall taxes. I'm sorry that I can't provide a real link to that source, I'll have to scour the net for a few hours if I am to find one.

Admittedly, I'm somewhat of a novice on economics. So I don't know with 100% certainty how exactly the rich are taxed and on what. I'll do more research on it.

I also don't like being tag-teamed by six different people. When I'm talking to one person and I ask that person a question, I expect that person to respond back. My vice becomes that, when I respond to one person, another person responds to me, and then when I respond to that person, another person responds. Then I respond in turn, and get yet another person's response, and so on and so on. It becomes frustrating. If someone has a legitimate question about what I said, fine. But I'd prefer someone proving me wrong by doing their own research, you know?

Now, I'll try to find something in your posts I want to discuss.

_________________

I checked that I had the names and deeds right for Standard Oil and US Steel, I checked this thread from page 10 to 23 to see what in my posts you had responded to, I checked the earlier reference about wealth and its location in my post again (and that in one part, it references the same paper that influenced the blog DaCrum linked), and I read the blog and the paper (13 pages) where it got the graphic. So 30 pages or so. Most probably took less than 20 seconds, but then I've had practice at that sort of thing.

the reason you are tag teamed by 6 different people is because you are wrong =D
(This statement not based on facts of any sort.)

_________________

I see that. I just don't believe it SHOULD be balanced without it. The cause of the recession and economic collapse is still there, and can still actively add to another collapse. There's no point in waving your arms while you're falling out the airplane while your parachute plug is dandling right next to your face.



??


My guess would be, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
Watch the whole thing, you will love it.


I heard of that in other countries of Europe. That is actually a global problem. As countries develop people seem to be more and more eager to try and reach for white collar jobs, seeing blue collar jobs as bad or for uneducated simpletons. That is usually countered by those specialists being "imported", in a country with working and stable migration situation.


He should run for president man.
"In The Rent is Too Damn High party, our position on homosexual marriage is: if you want to marry a shoe, I'll marry you."


I used to be, as I still am, opinionated and I find it hard to change my mind on things. But a longer while ago I start working hard to learn to "get a hint". When I see many educated and intelligent/respected people disagree with my views coherently, I take a hint that it might be me who is wrong.


You know, usually it's when I get told I'm wrong by a bunch of people as opposed to those who support my views.


Funny how that goes Ruff.



Right?



It does.

Whichever way you look at it, you don't need $0.5 million for food every month.
The ability to move capital for charities, investments, or unnecessary self development and luxuries should be a privilege, not a right.

I won't respond to the rest of what you're posting now, cause I think Val will crush you without my help. No point in wasting my time.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

@ Q.U. (and only Q.U.): So the assertion is that I'm wrong, just because I choose to believe that the rich are not automatically evil because they are wealthy? Because I don't believe that the rich are under-taxed?

If the rich want to buy gourmet food for ten or twenty times what it's really worth, why should I have a problem with that? My parents are poor; they don't call in favor of higher taxes for the rich.

I'm well-off enough that I'm satisfied with what I have right now. Even so, I know that I could be wealthier some day, and I know it's important to strive towards that goal.

I am not "wrong" for thinking that the rich are important in society. The more money someone makes, the more likely he is to spend it (read: recycle it into the economy). If someone takes home $50 million a year, and he spends $48 million of it and saves the last 2 million, why do I care? What is wrong with that? It's his money. He can damn well do what he wants. And think about the people on the receiving end of his spending. That's $48 million that went to other, less-wealthy people.

So now let's say that these less-wealthy people petition the government for higher taxes for the rich. Now he takes home about $40 million. And then he spends $38 million and keeps the remaining 2. The government gets $10 million dollars more, and the economy loses $10 million. So as a result, this rich guy can't spend as much on the things that he used to, and the people who used to get that money no longer do. What about the jobs lost because of that? What about the people whose lives will be ruined because of that? You're so damn concerned about who has the wealth in this country that you're forgetting that this also negatively affects the "poor" by destroying jobs.

And what's to say that the extra money that goes into the government will be spent productively, towards improving the economy? Maybe it'll go into increasing the wages of currently-existing workers. So they're happy, and you're fucked! Is that what you want?

And Q.U., I realize that you're not from America and yet you have a decent idea of how things work over here. But you're not thinking about cause and effect; you just see a problem and the solution you have would do more harm than good. And then you tell me that I'm wrong because I don't see eye to eye with you? Most of the time, it's not just me that disagrees with you, either. I'm not sure if half the things you say are just rhetoric, but if half the ideas you present were to be used, the system in question would collapse around itself.

You say we should raise taxes on the rich? I say we should fix current tax loopholes. You say the rich are too wealthy, I say they're probably not wealthy enough. What makes you right and me wrong?

_________________

I'm amazed at what kind of reasoning lets you sleep at night.


You forgot to add "...and I base this conclusion on... absolutely nothing."

Anyway, here, let's make it realistic now.


If a rich person after taxation has $50 million a year, he will spend ~$2 million on necessities (food, clothes, electricity, heating etc), further ~$12 million on luxuries (3 new cars, new jacuzzi, 2 new villas he will visit once), he will save up ~$2 million as savings (or invest normally), he will spend ~$3 million on charities, just to be thought of as good, further send ~$24 million to his other rich friends through bets, favours, phony investments, buying politicians/lobbying for his income source, and finally remaining ~$7 million on travel and other expenses. And that's an actual estimate.

Now try and see how much do the little guys get.
From the $2 million spent on food or clothes, well I'm guessing he's rich so he only buys the rich and expensive stuff, so after taking away the profit margin (the rich restaurant owner/etc getting over 50%) you're left with the not-so-poor chefs getting some as wages, and even less for the the poor people who actually cultivated the food (wheat/vegetables) or made the clothes (maybe even from sweatshops overseas).
$12 million spent on luxuries, still profit margins are very high, so the people who actually MAKE the things or who make the parts get less than 15% of the price of the product (and that's being optimistic), while the rest goes again, to the CEOs and company owners/shareholders who are mostly made up of millionaires like him.
$3 million spent on charities will most likely go to the ones that need it almost entirely.
from $7 million of other expenses about 30% will go to the actual workers, the rest going into the pockets of oil companies or companies hiring the workers.
And lastly, from the $24 million, next to none will go to the little guys.

That is how it works, the lower you are in the chain of wealth and power the lower % of the sold product/service goes to you. The employee in Ferrari factory will get a measly couple of bucks per hour, the Ferrari salesman will get a % of the price of the car he sold, and the company owner will make the biggest profit there. And I won't try to say that it shouldn't be that way, cause this is normal, this is how rich people are and stay rich, by getting more money.

If the rich guy had $10 million less, well, he won't stop eating, heating his house or the like, so the amount he spends on things that actually go to the little workers will not go down significantly. Charity may go down, though unlikely. Most likely he will cut the $24 million spending on the "rich club", which wouldn't go to the poor people or workers anyway.

But comparing to 1000 people, each spending $50.000 a year, now these will spend in total even more on the basic needs than that one rich guy. And they will be buying second grade necessities cause they cannot waste money on unnecessarily expensive stuff. They still contribute more to the MAIN LINE products and services.

Let's not discuss how much goes to who for a minute, and ask yourself this:
How many people make a living packaging some cheap crap in a factory?
How many people make a living providing some basic services, like a cashier at the store or a janitor?
How many people make a living producing food or cultivating plants in general?

And now compare to how many people make a living by giving massages to rich people?
How many make a living as butlers for rich people? Or maids?
How many people are limo drivers, or private jet pilots?

You will see a disparity there, MOST of Americans earn their living by providing products and services to the other non-millionaires in the society.

Now since the amount of wealth in a country can grow, but it's getting redistributed unevenly to the rich, poor people are getting poorer and rich are getting richer. Poor people can afford less and less, decreasing the demand while the rich can afford more and more buying more of what they need.

This makes people in those most populated sectors lose jobs due to unnaturally low demand, and they have to try and find ways to get to the sectors where demand grows. A farmer cannot become a jet pilot just like that, so they end up unemployed.

THIS is the problem here. There should be poor and rich. In a capitalist economy there HAVE to be rich and poor. The problem is the growing inequality between the two groups. And seeing that there are a LOT more extremely poor people than extremely rich people, you may want to start asking yourself where will that lead to.

That's exactly what this graph is all about. You need to have reasonably even income growth in all income groups to have a stable and sustainable economy and population.

So stop trying to cry and argue that we hate rich people, cause we don't and that argument is ridiculous. All people here who are "discussing" things with you simply agree that the current state is unbalanced, unstable and heading in the wrong direction. And that ideal wealth distribution would have benefited EVERYBODY (hence it's called "ideal", or "model distribution").

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

I have to agree with Q.U on this point, rich people spending profits mostly other rich people, the money circulation is not as big as you think.

_________________

@Q.U.: Fine, I'll give you that there is inequality between poor and rich (I wasn't arguing that anyway). That graph you just showed me even proves that the Democrats are more responsible for it than Republicans, which is counter to what you've been saying about Republicans. But even so, why is the solution to "distribute the wealth" to the poor? Doesn't that just mean that the poor can do little to no work since they'd just be given a handout anyway? Why is that a good thing?

"You don't have to worry about working anymore, we're taking money from someone at the top and giving it to you! Yaaay!"

It's about as stupid as it sounds. What about those of us who actually like our jobs and have satisfaction in them, and who take in enough to be happy (as I said, I am one of these people)? Just because someone else doesn't like their job or doesn't make as much as they like means they should be allowed to quit but still draw what is essentially a paycheck?

Instead of just giving everyone a handout, why not put that money to good use? Like nonprofit, low-cost or even government programs (although government programs tend to be less effective) to train people into skill sets that are needed in the economy?

And in terms of taxation, have you ever heard of the Fair Tax? It's a tax that replaces income and sales tax and grades taxation according to spending, not income. I think, at least in theory, this sounds like a better option.

_________________

Thought you guys might like this:

_________________

Fair tax penalizes the poor. $4,000 out of a $40,000 income hurts a lot more than $20,000 out of a $200,000 income. There is a minimum consumption rate people have, and with prices rising on commodities such as food, they can't make up the difference as easily. A rich person can choose to live in a modest home to make up for the difference. A poor person doesn't have the same option to trade down without sacrificing quality of life. Fair tax is a misnomer in a way. A progressive tax lets the poor keep more of their money, because most of their spending goes to necessities, which isn't the case with the rich, who easily cover the necessities such as shelter and food.

However there are merits to it, because the American economy does need to cut down on imports. Food prices are rising, but people still do spend a lot on crap they don't really need. If anything, it could teach the middle class to be more conscious of what they spend their money on, instilling in them the habits necessary to become rich.

I'd love to see an explanation as to why it proves that.


Here's a homework for you. Check the income rates and assets held by each quantile of the US population in 2001 when Bush took office. Then look up the same data from year 2009 when Bush left. Add up the amount of money lost in total by the bottom 80% of the society and compare to the amount gained by the top 20%. Look up and consider the GDP growth throughout those years.

Then answer me this, did the growing GDP benefit every quantile as they respective shares in the total country income were? (I already know the answer is no, the rich had their income increased, the rest had it decreased.) If not then tell me, what is it that takes money from one social group and gives to another? That's right genius, that's called redistribution of wealth. You know the thing all those ignorant tea party members seem to be protesting against? It's funny but, didn't Bush like, move money from the poorer 80% to the richer 20% through his tax cuts and other policies? Funny how nobody seemed to object. And now Obama came along and wants to revert it. And what do we get? I find all that hilariously ironic.


Please tell me you're just making up bullshit arguments cause you're out of good ones? Please don't tell me you actually mean that? Calculate the total worth of all billionaires and divide all that money on all the people in US who would need more, see how much you get. Really, stop working cause they get a tiny little more? Money for a new stove or a working refrigerator? Really, that's incentive to stop working in your opinion?

Hey, tell you what. I'll pay you $30 a month if you quit your job. Permanently. Good offer?


I don't even see how you managed to get from that^, to this. Really... what? We're giving money to people who have all they need? I don't think that was the plan man. I think it was more on the lines of "help those who can barely afford to live". But hey, seems I don't know crap.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

If we use the $1.3T figure for US billionaires and those below the poverty line for "all the people in US who would need more" it's about $30k per needy person, or about 109k needy people per billionaire.

i disagree, there's plenty of facts to support that at least a few of the positions RuffDraft is advocating are not supported by factual evidence, and instead by the gut feeling of wanting to impose a fair morality without knowing the complete set of circumstances that would lead to a fair morality, and has been told his whole life that trusting other people AS THE MODERATING RULE to not be lazy or exploitative is bad. Since most people are poor, the common sense assumption is that these poor people must inherit the burden of the responsibility for not only their actions and beliefs, but circumstances in life (no matter how little control they have in those circumstances), to the exclusion of accepting aid, no matter the personal cost, to maintain one's dignity as a hard-working, principled person.

(This belief, I would assert in a highly circumspect counterpoint of belief, is based on early indoctrination, and enhanced through negative reinforcement. How many parents justify cruelty to their children in hopes that it will "better" them? How many comedians insist that they're stronger because they had to suffer? How common is the theme of "tough love"? As someone who suffers on a day to day basis, I really dispute the claim that suffering can only make someone better. >:\

THIS argument isn't really based on anything, and frankly can be ignored.)

The facts presented are constantly pointing to the idea that the rich benefit too much at present to the exclusion of poor people, so the policies we implement should specifically burden the rich to dampen the benefit they receive, and specifically ease the burden of the poor.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Except that $40k is currently taxed at 25% which is $10k, and $200k is taxed at 33%, which is $66k. Fair Tax is currently proposed at 23%. Top tax bracket for people making about $379K and up is about 35%. But considering how much the rich are basically required to spend and invest in order to stay rich, I find it hard to believe that most rich people will end up paying a lower effective tax rate than people who make $40k a year and pay for a mortgage (payments for things like mortgages and rent etc. are not taxed under the Fair Tax; presently, the money is taxed before you make the payment).


Well, currently, with taxes being taken out before you spend your money, and because you have less money to spend in the first place, and because there is also an added sales tax to most things, you are taxed twice, once when you earn and once when you spend, and you end up with less money. If you are only taxed by a flat--and lower--rate as you spend, you do wind up with more money. Simple math.

...and your point is what? That a person who has had more success in life and maybe has a better skill set than another guy is a bad person for living in a better home? I don't understand what you're trying to argue here.

So the rich are able to spend more, and we desire a system in which the rich spend more and the poor are permitted to save more, correct? So how much more would the rich spend in a system where they're taxed as they spend rather than as they earn? Currently there are deductions that the rich can get on their taxes by employing tax accountants. Many big earners pay a lot less in taxes because of tax loopholes and deductions, things of that nature. In the Fair Tax, those loopholes and deductions would not exist, so they would be forced to pay their due on what they spend as graded by a higher average tax rate.

Yes. And if they're more conscious on what they spend, they wind up with more money, don't they? So if they're not taxed on what they earn, but they are on what they spend, and they spend less, they save more, isn't that right?

@Valhallen: If the government did as you say they should, and raise taxes (let's say that the deficit would be fixed if they raised the top income tax bracket to 60%, for the sake of this), what would the negative repercussions be?

_________________

Also, Net Neutrality. Video. Discuss.

_________________

Lol that video.

So the whole argument of no-net-neutrality case is: if right now we don't have a law that says you're not allowed to use a high-tech magnetic satellite to grab a meteor from the meteor belt and lunge it at your neighbour's back yard ruining his lawn, and still nobody does it, then it's clearly not a problem to be looking at? Well, not now perhaps, does that also mean that there won't be a case like that EVER in human history? You'd have to be an idiot to be confident that there won't. It's all a matter of progress and technology.
So now what, just because no ISP ever tried to abuse lack of net-neutrality laws (which is still not true 1 2) then we don't need them and never will? Put the damn law in place and relax, right now it won't change anything because there already IS net-neutrality, more of a self-imposed one. But if that law doesn't change anything, and only limits cases that might be moving away from that standard then why is it a problem? We don't like an extra new law to be put in place?

Also, that guy is greatly misinformed. Net neutrality does not mean every site has to load as slowly as all others. It says you cannot ban or limit access to sites in any way. The fact that SNAFU runs on a slow and shitty server that makes it slow in peak traffic hours, does not concern the ISP, who grants access to that site of the same size and speed at all times anyway. There's a difference between limiting access by the ISP, and limited speed due to the server you're accessing.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Sounds fair enough. I also had the thought that if all taxes went to consumption, companies would be a lot more motivated to cut the price on their final product, spurring more competition (hopefully without corner cutting in safety and regulations, but oh well), whereas a tax on one's property doesn't motivate anything.


I was just saying that if a rich person has too much of a financial burden, it's probable he can just trade down to a lower standard of living while still maintaining a comfortable life. A $500,000 house to a $250,000 for instance. A person already living in an apartment is only going to be able to trade down to crap. But if the effective tax rate ends up to be lower for poor/middle class people than this example doesn't matter. I can see why you're confused, I was thinking about taxation in general, whereas property value would be irrelevant in a fair tax scheme. So you can discount this.


I may be only using cursory knowledge of the fair tax system, but it sounds good enough. The biggest problem I have with the tax code currently is its complexity, not necessarily how it taxes the rich or poor. The tax code inherently favors the rich who can afford to hire people to do their taxes, rich corporations that can have a whole team of accountants, and so on, due to its complexity. A fair tax I suppose would involve basically zero thought and work on the part of the taxpayer, so I can favor it for that. Occam's razor has generally held true for me throughout my life.

In this system as well, you wouldn't suddenly have taxes popped up on you either.

One concern I have about it though is a black market forming to avoid taxes, but your points seem solid.

Graduated sales tax, graduated income tax, graduated property tax. GRADUATE ALL TAX.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

@DaCrum: Present the tax with its High School diploma?

Um. Okay?

The Meteor Metaphor notwithstanding, I think you're kind of missing the point. Right now, we have no such "Net Neutrality" laws and Neutrality on the Net is exactly what we have. The issue is that the government wants to have the ability to control the function of the internet. At the core, it's a rehash of the Fairness Doctrine applied to the internet. For example, I find it very telling that proponents of Net Neutrality are saying things such as "We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it." [-Robert McChesney]

As for the above, even if you agree with the above statement, how does a statement such as that apply to neutrality on the internet? If he really cared about neutrality, he would be letting everyone say what they wanted. But here he's calling for a restriction on free speech in this form. This is not neutrality. This is a clear bias.

Except, those two links are not related to this issue.

1) Comcast tries to block file-sharing because it is used to share music, which is against the law. They're trying to protect themselves by appeasing those who, under the idea that the ISP is permitting illegal acts by simply not doing anything, could sue them (I know it's not likely, but if they wanted to I'm sure the RIAA would find a way). Whether or not I agree with this practice, this is simple port blocking. They're not being paid to do it, and they're not even doing anything illegal.

2) Q.U., it may come as a surprise to you, but I actually work with network and internet security. Please trust me when I say that Deep Packet Inspection by ISPs has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Privacy and security are mutually exclusive to one another when an ISP wishes to protect its assets. It is especially so if an ISP has rules in its terms of use (of which, most ISPs have readily available for download from its website or in print from its service centers) that govern the use of its service as well as their rights to monitor.

Net Neutrality, as pushed by its proponents is little more than a veil for their true intentions. They use the misleading, aesthetically pleasing name "Neutrality" to try and convince us that there is a problem with the current system. Then, once everyone they need is on their side, they enact laws that try to change the flow of information on the internet in their favor. People like Robert McChesney, who wants to prevent the spread of "capitalist propaganda," and who would probably not have a problem with "socialist propaganda." Obviously, that's just speculation on my part, but from what I can tell, there is evidence that says what his true intentions are.

The problem is that we would be trusting the government with more control over how the current system would work, and ultimately what can and cannot be put on the internet. Essentially we'd be giving them free range to decide whether or not the bandwidth for one website is fair compared to any other website. That would mean that an FTP site, which often requires much more bandwidth due to its primary duties, would have the same bandwidth as a news site, which often transfers very small files, usually no more than 100kb.

I'm sorry, but that's not right. Do you recall that woman who was trying to use the car example of an 18-wheeler going 100 miles per hour down the highway? That's analogous to bandwidth, not to access. The ideas pushed by proponents of Net Neutrality include restricting bandwidth to sites that have more bandwidth than others. Meaning they would force ISPs to limit bandwidth on high-bandwidth sites because it's unfair to low-bandwidth sites.

Exactly. Nothing about the arrangement needs to be changed. Snafu being slow does not affect anyone (or at least, negligibly). No one is arguing that.

Except that no one's ISP is limiting access to them because someone else gives them more money to. That's what people who are pushing Net Neutrality are trying to claim is/might happen/ing. And they want to enact laws that give the government the authority to control bandwidth if they feel that there's too much bandwidth going to one site over another.

Keep in mind that most ISPs have more than enough bandwidth to support any amount of traffic. You can't run a web server with even 100 users off of a laptop (unless the laptop weighs sixty pounds).

_________________

GRADUATE THAT MOTHERFUCKER.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

I know we don't have laws for it now, and there's still neutrality. I pointed it out. Why do you take that away and try to make it your point? I mentioned already that the fact that RIGHT NOW nobody abuses a system which is not properly regulated does not mean nobody ever will.


Beck's conspiracy theories don't work with me well.

Let me put it this way. I am against the net neutrality as these people are proposing it right now. Because I believe it infringes on the "unrestricted competition" in the online world. On the other hand, I see and believe there is a need for a basic regulation that will act as a safeguard to prevent abuses of the system, to which it is currently vulnerable.

The idea is simple, you cannot slow down or limit access to any website below its capacities, unless that limit applies to all websites as described by your internet connection speed. There should be no selectivity and no activity to "adjust" the access speeds to different websites.
What the guy in that video is saying, is that if I make a website on a slow shitty server, net neutrality will mean that the ISP will have to make all sites as slow as mine. But I don't think that's the case. Not to mention I'd obviously be against it. There should be no action on the ISP's part, to regulate anything. If my website is run on server that can serve 4 hits per minute, then that is the speed I'd expect every ISP to provide. What I don't want is a provider saying "this website is non-important, we can save up money by decreasing the bandwidth allocated to it by a half, since nobody will be accessing it anyway". Hey, if there is no traffic there and the bandwidth can do better when allocated elsewhere where traffic is high, then that's not the problem for me. The problem is the ISP gains the ability to decide the accessibility to different websites, and they are NOT restricted to follow any kind of a common denominator to determine the accessibility. In other words they can use any reason, including their own wants and likes, to tell people how much access will be possible to which website.

Some people argue that bandwidth cap is against net neutrality. I'd say it isn't. It's okay to cut costs by having "dynamic bandwidth" that can shift depending on the traffic. Just like dynamic IP ISP providers have fewer IPs than clients, and exploit the fact that all their clients won't be using the internet at the same time. Hey, that's fine man, I don't have any quarrel with that, just like I don't have a quarrel with speeding up access to a website that is currently under a lot of traffic in exchange for the access to other websites.
But here's the point. Right now they do it to ease access and even out the traffic. To increase the efficiency and speed of service for their clients. But there is no clear law that would prevent them from abusing this, should they want to, in order to limit accessibility to websites/servers they don't like (like the competing ISP's website for instance). Sure you can trust that they never will do such a thing, but I don't trust them on it. That's why we need a basic form of regulation that will tell the ISPs the common standards and rules with which they can alter their bandwidth and accessibility, and for what reasons/purpose.

Also, net neutrality is a big term, it encompasses a lot of issues. You seem to be focusing on those little details that even I am not in favour of. But the general form of some law or limitation is still needed. As well as a limitation that will once and clearly state that websites cannot be given access to in different packets and with different prices. When you buy internet connection you buy the access to ALL of the internet, and let's keep it that way. And that's another issue falling under net neutrality, equalising internet access to that of TV channels, where you often have to pay extra for some more exotic channels. What would you feel like if I, as a cable provider, were to take FOX News channel off of all channel packs and sell it separately for a ridiculous amount of additional money? I can understand how sports channel can be used for that, but no news channel should be underprivileged in any situation. And similarly with the internet.

Finally, no. The last thing we want is government running the internet. That's how it works in China and we know how they like to ban whole websites whenever they see anything bad being said bout the Chinese government. All I want is simple and clear limits for ISPs as to how much they can do in that department. Because we don't want the ISPs to have the power to ban a website, without stating a legitimate reason, even if they don't use that power at all.

Think about it Ruff. You argued just a day ago that you want the government to patch up the tax loopholes. What if there was a loophole that nobody used, but could use? Don't patch it up cause nobody uses it right now? I think it's better to be safe than sorry.


So to sum up, I'm against this. Just as I'm against penalising any website for having a fast/better server/bandwidth than others. What I want is for the ISP to give as much bandwidth to each server as they can handle. To allow all websites run as fast as they can. I'm against slowing down the faster sites, just as I'm against slowing down the already slow and unused sites.


It might happen someday. But that's also besides the point. I don't want the government to have the right to tell ISPs how to treat each case. I want one simple bill to state clear boundaries and limitations for ALL ISPs to prevent potential abuse. After putting out a standardised bill the government is out of the picture. Cause that's all it's good for anyway.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

literally: net neutrality is what we have. taking it away is corporate incentive;

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.