backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 207 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Oct 29 at 7:49 PM

EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes
Microsoft finally gives in to the EU's demands

Software juggernaut Microsoft has been involved in an ongoing legal battle with the European Union since a 2004 antitrust ruling was handed down. When DailyTech last looked into the European Union v. Microsoft case, Microsoft was rather reserved after learning that it lost its appeal.

"So, we look forward to continued efforts to implement and comply with today’s decision," said Microsoft senior vice president and general counsel Brad Smith in September. "We welcome the opportunity for continued discussion to adhere to our duties with the European Commission, and we look forward to hopefully continuing to move technology forward to create more jobs on this continent."

It appears now that Microsoft is finally giving up its fight with the European Commission. EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes personally spoke with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer on the phone earlier this morning and reached a definitive agreement in regards to compliance with the ruling.

"I welcome that Microsoft has finally undertaken concrete steps to ensure full compliance with the 2004 decision," said Kroes. "It is regrettable that Microsoft has only complied after a considerable delay, two court decisions, and the imposition of daily penalty payments."

"As of today, the major issues concerning compliance have been resolved," Kroes added. "It is a victory day for the consumer... not the Commission."

According to the agreement, Microsoft will have to comply with three separate changes to its business.

  1. Software competitors must be given access to Microsoft interoperability information.
  2. Royalties for said information will be a one-time payment of €10,000 ($14,348 USD).
  3. Worldwide software license/patent royalties will be reduced from 5.95 percent to 0.4 percent.

Should Microsoft fail to comply with any of these changes, "the agreements will be enforceable before the High Court in London, and will provide for effective remedies, including damages, for third-party developers in the event that Microsoft breaches those agreements," according to the European ommission.

For its part, Microsoft simply stated that it will "work closely with the commission and the industry to ensure a flourishing and competitive environment for information technology."

In July 2006, Microsoft was fined €497 million ($710 million USD) for as a result of the 2004 antitrust ruling. The commission then raised the cap on Microsoft’s daily fines from $2.6 million USD to $3.8 million USD in July 2006. Two days later, Microsoft was fined an additional $375.4 million USD in July 2006 for failing to comply with the ruling. Microsoft lost its appeal on September 17, 2007 and the initial €497 million fine was upheld.

In addition to the fine, Microsoft must also pay 80 percent of the European Commission's legal expenses.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
WTH
By SunAngel on 10/22/2007 9:23:05 AM , Rating: 3
<!--[if !supportLists]--> Software competitors must be given access to Microsoft interoperability information.
Royalties for said information will be a one-time payment of €10,000 ($14,348 USD).
Worldwide software license/patent royalties will be reduced from 5.95 percent to 0.4 percent.

How in the world (EU) can they make MS accept 4 hundreds of a percent euro for something that is entirely negoitable by developers and MS? Seems really harsh.

Of course, many including myself, disagree with MS's business practices, but negotiating is what makes the world market "free".




RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/22/2007 9:27:00 AM , Rating: 2
As we've seen, the EU is not about what is right, and a right to free market.

If i were MS, id pull all MS products off the shelves in europe and stop selling my OS completely there. Give them an all or nothing approach. They have proved they can require you to give other companies access to your information for making your OS available in the country, but they cannot force you to sell your product there.


RE: WTH
By zombiexl on 10/22/2007 9:30:47 AM , Rating: 5
Theres probably some law in the EU that wouldnt allow MS to pull their products. That or they'll invent such a law...


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: WTH
By SunAngel on 10/22/2007 9:51:14 AM , Rating: 1
Obviously, MS would never pull their products from the EU markets. Certainly with the lower royalties, MS will still make money.

My point was to say another freedom (negotiation) has been removed. This is not only going to affect MS but will set a precedent that other companies will have to follow. Otherwise there will be inconsistencies in the law if it is applied to some and not others.

Frontend charges for MS products are surely much less than the royalties they receive (over the product's lifetime). Any company's revenue (not only MS) will be severely resticted assuming they continue to charge current prices and not raise the acquistion price for their products.

Seems to me, and I am by no means an economist, this decision is going to stiffle R&D because the money is just not going to be their to allow engineers to get done what needs to be done.


RE: WTH
By defter on 10/22/2007 9:57:32 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
My point was to say another freedom (negotiation) has been removed. This is not only going to affect MS but will set a precedent that other companies will have to follow. Otherwise there will be inconsistencies in the law if it is applied to some and not others.


This has nothing to with removal of freedom and it isn't a precedent. The law (at least the law of the civilized countries) clearly says that a holder of a patent/rights that are essential for interoperability, must license them for a reasonable price to others. This requirement is essential to encourage competition.


RE: WTH
By SunAngel on 10/22/2007 10:10:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
must license them for a reasonable price to others. This requirement is essential to encourage competition.


Exactly!

Who determines the price as reasonable? Microsoft? The developer? A third party?

How and when did it become a crime to charge what the market is willing to pay? I want to buy a share of Google's stock, but at $600+/share it to rich for my blood. I might be able to persude someone to sell me a share for $1, but they may be losing $599+. Should I run to the EU commission and say, "Hey, I can't purchase a share of stock because the price is too high. Can you please help me out with this?"


RE: WTH
By Xavian on 10/22/2007 10:27:45 AM , Rating: 5
The point was, that Microsoft wouldn't licence interopolity with its software for any price.

Which went against the laws of the EU.


RE: WTH
By FITCamaro on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTH
By Murst on 10/22/2007 11:12:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Not selling a license for interoperability should not be illegal. It should be a business decision. The market will determine whether it is a wise one or not.

Your statement does not apply to companies that have been declared monopolies. They do not get the same treatment as companies that have competitors.

BTW, I think that out of all the EU's demands, this is the most reasonable one. Such is the price of being a monopoly, and people can cry and moan about how bad MS is being treated, yet I'd like to see a company that wouldn't want to be in MS's shoes (if MS could have shoes, that is).


RE: WTH
By FITCamaro on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTH
By Murst on 10/22/2007 12:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the ruling. Its far too large to summarize here. Skip to section II ("Relevant Market") for an answer to your question.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#...


RE: WTH
By nofranchise on 10/22/2007 12:20:02 PM , Rating: 1
It might be considered "low", but I'm doing it anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

I mean come on Camaro... I found it more satisfying to read your posts bashing the EU.


RE: WTH
By FITCamaro on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTH
By mars777 on 10/22/2007 1:39:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Software juggernaut Microsoft has been involved in an ongoing legal battle with the European Union since a 2004 antitrust ruling was handed down


Where do you read the word "monopoly" ?
I see only antitrust, which is a set of laws restricting monopolistic behavior (and you don't have to be a monopoly to behave in monopolistic manner, merely have a large chunk of market).

Basically these laws exist to stop MS and the like becoming a monopoly.

Technically having 90% market share is not a definition to monopoly, but is the closest you can get when you round to 1/10 :)


RE: WTH
By Oregonian2 on 10/22/2007 2:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has a monopoly in the 100% Microsoft OS compatible OS market. For that reason, the EU can control Microsoft no matter what.


RE: WTH
By Farfignewton on 10/23/2007 7:01:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is a mute point these days


Uh, "moot" point? ;)


RE: WTH
By rcc on 10/24/2007 6:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uh, "moot" point? ;)


lol, it's the new non-reading do it by rote people. So few actually understand the language they speak/type these days.

they also think it's a "butt load", not a "boat load".

There are a number of similar issues, it's quite humorous at times, and frustrating at others.


RE: WTH
By sxr7171 on 10/22/2007 1:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
A (de facto) monopoly is a situation where there is a market breakdown. There is no market because there is pretty much one supplier only. They can charge any price they want including not selling or licensing their IP. This is just regulation of a monopoly. The terms are just harsh though.


RE: WTH
By defter on 10/22/2007 9:54:22 AM , Rating: 1
Microsoft was only fined because they didn't comply with the ruling, if they had complied from the start, EU wouldn't get any monetary profit from it.


RE: WTH
By FITCamaro on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTH
By Targon on 10/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: WTH
By FITCamaro on 10/22/2007 12:23:39 PM , Rating: 4
How do the wealthy get extra tax breaks here? They pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than those who make less. Yes they are able to take advantage of more existing tax breaks because they have money in places other than just earning income. Things like stocks, real estate investments, etc. Yes there are loop holes that the wealthy take advantage of but the not so wealthy can also take advantage of them, you just have to know about them. My parents have used them and they are far from wealthy.

And you get a tax break on your home because it makes owning homes easier for all of us. You do not have to be wealthy to own a home. If you don't like the cost of homes in your area, get a job elsewhere and move there. Where I live a very nice home can be had for $200,000. I rent an apartment and at no time have I felt that those I work with and do own a home are getting something I don't.

Your mentality is one of "you have more than me so you must be getting a better deal".


RE: WTH
By Spivonious on 10/22/2007 12:32:17 PM , Rating: 3
Since the wealthy pay more taxes than "those who work for a living" they should get more back.

I just bought a house for $25,000 in total closing costs. How is this $300,000? I was renting previously and had to pay zero property/school taxes. Now I get to pay about $500 a month in taxes. Yep, that's a tax break. Or perhaps you're referring to the fact that I can write-off my interest payments? That rarely comes to much more than the standard deduction.

My wife and I make a combined $60,000 a year. Is that wealthy?


RE: WTH
By Locutus465 on 10/22/2007 3:26:12 PM , Rating: 3
Holy crap I wish I could find a house for that in my market!!!! $100,000 is the best I could possibly hope for, and we're talking town house :(


RE: WTH
By Spivonious on 10/23/2007 4:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think you misunderstood. Closing costs include down payment and all the fees and taxes involved in buying a house. The house itself listed for $199,900.


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 4:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah i think he did. I wonder if he was looking up where to buy homes for $25k list price :-)


RE: WTH
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 9:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I did... I was thinking you must have bought in the ghetto or something (I've seen houses list for about that much, just not anywhere I would want to live).

I think when the OP referred the the (stupid) sale price he was refering to the total sale price of the home though, so your $25,000 figure isn't exactly what he's talking about (unless he some how assumes you need to come up with $300,000 up front). Perhaps he did, I do understand that we as americans do have better access to credit than just about anywhere else in the world, though I have no practical knowlege to back up what I've heard.

At anyrate, what the OP posted was still completely stupid and it is very obvious they don't understand real estate... I


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 10:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Thats correct Locutus...he was talking about 300k total on a home, if he was talking about up front, then he is saying that the cheapest house he can find is around 1.5 million dollars. Not likely.

When he states that he cannot buy a $300,000 home, he is probably not fully understanding the real estate business process. The total cost of a home may be $300,000, but as a first time home buyer (considering you do not want to pay mortgage insurance), you would need to provide 20% down, and take out 80% of the home price on a mortgage loan. Therefore, to buy a $300,000 home, you would need to provide $60,000 down, plus other fees associated with the closing of the property. The monthly payback - not using a calculator - would probably be in the vicinity of $1700-$2000/mo factoring in nominal property taxes in the monthly payment.

Most people rent not because they cannot afford the monthly mortgage price, but because they do not have the down payment. Its the same reason people lease cars. Its easier to lease the car and come up with $2000 down and a higher monthly payment, than it is to buy the car in your monthly payment range because the amount you would need to put down would be so high.

Also, the OP is probably in their mid 20's, just from observation on his posts - and i could be wrong. But there arent too many mid 20's people out there who have have enough for a down payment on a 300k house. Thats why many live at home for a few years after college, rent, or purchase a "starter home" for cheap. It allows them to build equity in the starter home for the next down payment, build up credit to get a lower percentage on your next loan, as well as keep saving for a bigger home.

Too many people think you get out of school, get a job for 35k/year, and can go out and buy a house. It just doesn't work like that.


RE: WTH
By Kuroyama on 10/24/2007 12:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
Most first time home buyers these days buy with very little down and pay mortgage insurance on the second mortgage. Don't know where this guy lives, but if it's a high cost state then a $300K purchase will qualify for an FHA mortgage which requires only ~3% down. Down payments are really not much of an issue these days, which is partly why so many speculators piled into the real estate market in recent years since they could speculate sometimes with $0 down.

As far as rent goes, many people such as myself rent because we think housing is overpriced. I pay $1100 a month for a very large two bedroom loft in a converted mill building with 14 ft ceilings, huge wood beams, a river view, free heat+A/C (heat is worth a lot in MA), and I can even walk to work. To buy a comparable apartment would cost me over $250,000 for which interest+taxes+the $300 monthly maintenance fee common for converted mills would run up to about $1600. And that's before even accounting for principle. Even taking into account tax deductions, it's hard to justify spending more money on non-principle amounts than my current rent payment, even though I do have the money to buy if I wanted to. Perhaps I'll buy in a year or so when the glut of recent mill conversions here drives the price down further.


RE: WTH
By Locutus465 on 10/24/2007 11:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
This guy clearly does not live in the USA at all, and is probably making wildly incorrect statements about the US realestate market based on what his buddy's tell him. I can understand making incorrect assumptions based on bad information, but there's no excuse to go around trying to state this bad info as absolute fact when you know you don't have first hand knowlege.

I, forinstance, like most other reasonble people usually go through great pains to try and qualify opinions I have that I'm making based on information I don't know first hand... Such as "I have heard americans have better access to credit than any where else in the world, though I don't have first hand information to back that up"...

If this guy had at least stated his opions as "I've heard from people that you can't find homes in the US for less than $300,000. If that is true then that is completely insane"... If he had said something like that he would have been corrected, but not thought of as a complete moron.


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/24/2007 2:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most first time home buyers these days buy with very little down and pay mortgage insurance on the second mortgage. Don't know where this guy lives, but if it's a high cost state then a $300K purchase will qualify for an FHA mortgage which requires only ~3% down. Down payments are really not much of an issue these days, which is partly why so many speculators piled into the real estate market in recent years since they could speculate sometimes with $0 down.


Not anymore my friend, why do you think the recent housing busts?????

People bought with zero down arm loans or interest only loans. Then when that period was up, they could no longer afford the mortgage price, were forced to sell, but since everyone is selling for this reason, the values have decreased to 10's of thousands of dollars less than what they paid for the house. Now they just walk away from the house - they dont sell, they dont pay. This way, the bank forecloses, takes back ownership, and cannot sell the house for as much as these people owe on the loans. Thats why the big fiasco today.

So in short - 3% down, no interest, or nothing down loans are stupid. Any lender who wants to sell you a 200k, 300k, etc home with you putting nothing to very little down is only hurting YOU!.


RE: WTH
By Kuroyama on 10/24/2007 2:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I should have qualified with that by saying "most first time home buyers (until the past year) ...". However, my FHA comment was correct, and the limits are not income based (it's a federal program):

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/ins/sfh203b.cfm

My little sister used one of these to buy her town house in Laguna Beach (LA area) last year (squeezed by at $330K, just under the $360K limit). Put in your state and county here

https://entp.hud.gov/idapp/html/hicostlook.cfm

to find the limits for your area.


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/24/2007 2:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, ill look into that for my little sister who is actually trying to afford a new townhome. Not too familiar with FHA programs, as like i said - since most programs out there are "need based", i fall way out of that range and thus never look into them.


RE: WTH
By Locutus465 on 10/24/2007 11:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
True, though these days it's becoming very common for first time home buyers to actually take out a "second mortage" of sorts to cover the down payment, plus in every state there are programs to help first time home buyers in addition to federal programs run by HUD.

While I wouldn't say I'm an expert in the process, I've been studying it in detail as I'm in my late 20's now and am starting to get (very) interested in buying a home v. renting. Some of these programs even offer down payment assitance which in some cases actually completely remove your obligation to pay any sort of down payment (or at the very least significantly reduce it). Unforutnetly I make just enough not to quailify for this assitance in North Carolina :(

At any rate, the OP has no clue...


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/24/2007 2:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the programs are need based - meaning you make little money, and can only buy a dump. Perhaps not politically correct, but you get the jist.

Stay clear of those 80/20 loans - 80% mortgage, 20% personal to cover the down payment. Those are bad, bad news!

Your best bet is to save up for a down payment of at least 20% to avoid paying PMI (mortgage insurance) which can run up to several hundred dollars a month and is basically a scam because you have nothing to put down. If you have to , save 10% and ask family to help you out with 10% and you'll pay them back.

Buying a house with nothing down is very bad news once you start figuring out how much you pay in the long run. Remember - nothing is free, and if they are offering you somthing for nothing, then there is ALWAYS a catch.


RE: WTH
By Locutus465 on 10/24/2007 5:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not enterily, I do qualify for loan assitance... just not down payment, you'd be supprised how high up in the income level you can still keep getting some level of assitance ..


RE: WTH
By Spivonious on 10/25/2007 2:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
PMI isn't that bad. Plus it goes away once the value of the house goes up by the percentage below 20% you paid. Me for instance, PMI adds about $100 a month, but since we put 8% down, it will probably only be 2-3 years until the house appreciates that extra $24k. Even after 3 years, we've only paid an extra $3600.


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/25/2007 2:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Appreciation isn't going to happen anytime soon though, not with todays housing markets. Homes are going down in value drastically because of the mortgage crisis. I wouldnt plan on NOT having that PMI payment in 2-3yrs.


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/22/2007 1:31:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This compared to things in the USA where the wealthy get extra tax breaks while those who work for a living and don't own their own homes get screwed.


The wealthy actually pay a higher percentage income tax than middle class, who also pay a higher percentage income tax than low income...all while there are people on welfare & living on section 8 who pay NO income tax.

People who do not own homes do not get screwed - they do not pay property taxes. THere are large tax write offs on homes to allow people to afford a home. If you cannot afford a home in your area because of the cost of living, its completely easy to get a job in a different area with a lower cost of living. Not everyone can live in upper middle class suburbia. You need to EARN your way up - by working hard and being smart with your finances. Its not rocket science, it just means you have to get off your lazy ass if you want to be successful.

quote:
I don't agree with all programs provided to help those without money, but socialism isn't the problem, poorly designed programs are.


Many poorly designed programs do create a problem, that part i will agree. But to the middle class and upper class, yes socialism is the problem Its the "robin hood" take from the rich, give to the poor mentality. It offers no reward for being successful, and no penalty for being lazy.

quote:
If you own your own home in the USA, there are a lot of tax breaks, but if you rent and don't own, you are SCREWED. In a way, you can almost say that those who own their own homes(even if you pay mortgage payments) are the wealthy compared to those of us who have to rent because it costs over $300,000 to buy a house.


Again, if you rent, you are not screwed. You do not pay property tax. There is a different cost of living for all area's. No one makes you live in an area that costs 300k for a house, if you dont like it, then move somewhere else. If you dont want to move, then work harder, get a better job, get a second job, save money, invest money, etc and get to the point where you can afford to buy a house in that area. Complaining that everyone else makes more money than you is a stupid point if you are pinning them for not allowing you to buy a house.


RE: WTH
By Keeir on 10/22/2007 3:22:28 PM , Rating: 3
A generel response

#1. While the weathly pay a greater percentage of thier income in income taxes... that percentage has been on the decline while thier share of the income pie has become greater

#2. Something like 97% of income tax is paid from 50,000 on up... why do we even bother to tax the first 50,000?

#3. Some areas have experienced house price explosion without income explosion. One area I can think of in particular has home prices increasing at close to 2x in 5 years but only a 1.2x increase in average wage.

I think the original poster is most likely in his first few years from school.

Due to fast rising tutition costs (what like 7% a year every year?), rising home prices/rent prices, and relatively flat income rate increases in several key industries, today's graduates are facing a problem...

I remember my first year out of school, if my car had broken down, I would had to go into debt to fix it because I really did not have enough money and my good job (paying more than the area average) which I got after working hard both academically and working jobs to help pay for my Top-50 school just barely let ends meet. The easiest thing to blame (because it was the most visible) was the 30%+ of my income paid to the government. Now that I have moved geographically and career wise, I make enough money and get to keep enough, but I still remember how silly it seemed I could barely afford to eat more than ramen some months trying to balance my apartment, car, student loan, etc payments. I imagine it even worse for today's new graduates. I mean, I live in an area where a reasonable home (2000 sqf with .1 acre lot) costs in excess of 400,000 even far away from good employement

As a part solution to this problem (which is growing quickly), I recommend we completely drop all income tax below 50,000 (no one needs to pay any income tax on the first 50,000 dollars of income nor fill out tax forms to make it so) and we uptick the other brackets by .1% to pay for it. We can dispense with silly tax credits for healthcare etc etc


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: WTH
By Keeir on 10/29/2007 7:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with the participation factor. I am not suggesting getting rid of Social Security or Medicare taxes (since social security if only up to around 90,000 obviously the first 50,000 is actually a meaniful contribution). But income taxes on the first 50,000 of income is pretty much meaningless in terms of the total pie.

What happens when it costs you and the government more time and money to file taxes then the actual value of the taxes? Its actually the case on around the first 50k of income and income taxes.

Between the hundreds of tax breaks for a myriad of things we hand out so people making less than 50k can make ends meet... it requires hours (or like $150+ dollars at HRBlobk etc) to fill out tax forms and larger IRS to collect, document, keep track of, etc....

I suggested a tax bracket of 0% for the 0-50,000 dollars of income and then adding a .1% to all existing tax brackets. Giving more money to the wealthy is a good idea to stimulate the economy... but so is giving money to the cosumers of the world to purchase goods and services. The difference is the .1% of income probably won't mean alot of a wealthy business owner (especially if he has potentially larger sales figures) but the extra 2,000-3,000 in income tax reduction might mean ALOT to someone making only 40,000 a year. And the 4,000 dollar tax break (IE not paying taxes on the first 50,000 anymore) from those households making between 50,000-100,000 would be very helpful.


RE: WTH
By Ringold on 10/22/2007 9:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
. While the weathly pay a greater percentage of thier income in income taxes... that percentage has been on the decline while thier share of the income pie has become greater


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/10/09/tax-shar...

Truth is stranger than fiction. Taxes for all groups, thanks partly to the Bush Tax cuts (which I suspect would be only 1/10th as controversial if not referred to with the word Bush) directly and largely to the resulting economic boom, has been falling as a percentage of income. You didn't say otherwise, but omitting that the rich weren't alone is a mild form of propaganda.

<qoute>d relatively flat income rate increases in several key industries, today's graduates are facing a problem...</qoute>

Starting salaries for all the top 10 or so most popular degrees have been rising fast for years. If you bothered to listen to the national news at all last May it was the news for about a week that college recruiters were saying it was the best job market they had seen in their entire lives. People I knew personally were getting multiple counter-offers from employers, with the interview process at times seemingly reversed.. and this has been the general case for several years. We are talking about America, right?

That said, to be fair with your example, graduates just years apart but one graduating in a boom and another in a bust can see a 10% difference in lifetime income.. Also, you could of gone to Harvard and if you got a degree in an out-of-demand field, like History, you'll be boned no matter what the economy is doing.

As for eliminating taxes, I suggest the FairTax. :)


RE: WTH
By Keeir on 10/29/2007 7:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Starting salaries for all the top 10 or so most popular degrees have been rising fast for years. If you bothered to listen to the national news at all last May it was the news for about a week that college recruiters were saying it was the best job market they had seen in their entire lives. People I knew personally were getting multiple counter-offers from employers, with the interview process at times seemingly reversed.. and this has been the general case for several years. We are talking about America, right?


The Mayflower data I have seen suggests a very healthy 4%+ rise in Starting Salary excluding One-Time Bonus/Special Incentives

Thats actually really really good! (Usually you see this figure barely matching inflation) But housing is increasing 10%+ in some regions (exluding the last year) and tutition is increasing 7%.

Oh, and my point was that the Top 1% are paying a smaller percentage of the total income tax net by the government while recieving a greater share of total earned income. Yes, all groups are recieving lower tax rates on income.

Oh, and by your own link, the bottom 50% is what like 31,000 and less? and they paid 432.5 per person on average? (Not counting earned income tax credit)


RE: WTH
By sinful on 10/22/2007 8:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The wealthy actually pay a higher percentage income tax than middle class, who also pay a higher percentage income tax than low income...all while there are people on welfare & living on section 8 who pay NO income tax.


Ummm, no. Not quite. The wealthy actually pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes. They may pay more, but it's a MUCH smaller percentage of their income.

Look up Warren Buffet's quote about this:
quote:
Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.


It is the middle class that pays the most, by far, in taxes in terms of percentage of their income.

This is one reason why it is said the middle class in America is disappearing. You either become wealthy (and stay that way) or you become poor (and stay that way).

People seem to think "how it should work" is that the wealthy would pay the greatest percentage, but that's not the way it is.


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/22/2007 8:39:13 PM , Rating: 1
You are not stating the entire truth on this matter.

There are income tax brackets for federal taxes that range from 10% (for $0-$78xx) up to 35%($350,000+).

You are failing to state the entire truth of the matter, which effects all people paying taxes. Much of Buffets income came from Capital Gains (investments) which are taxed at 15%. That goes for everyone - and the most notable way for this is selling stock at a profit. If the secretary had invested in stocks, or other capital gains, then her percentage in comparison to Buffets would have decreased as well.

Warren Buffet makes most of his money from investments, aka capital gains, and not from salary like most people's paychecks.

Also, if you are citing 30% federal income tax, you also need to know that you are in a tax bracket that is consistent with the secretary (filing as single status) making roughly $100,000/yr - not bad for a secretary.

So in short, Buffet is comparing apples to oranges. He is not citing a federal income tax due to a paycheck, he is comparing how much tax he paid on his investments versus how much a secretary pays from a salaried paycheck. He would be paying 35% if his paycheck was over $350,000, and she would be paying 15% on her investments if she had any.

Here is some proof if you need it.
http://marylandconservatarian.blogspot.com/2007/06...


RE: WTH
By Kuroyama on 10/25/2007 1:07:01 AM , Rating: 2
You've explained why his tax rate is lower, but you haven't explained why Buffett's dollar of investment profit should be taxed less than my dollar of income from working hard. Obviously he knows why his taxes are lower, he just doesn't think it's appropriate.

If your family makes the US median household income of $48K a year and has the average of say 2 children then you're not going to have much more than peanuts to invest at the low investment tax rate, but if you have $1 billion then you can invest all but peanuts of your money, so "everyone can do it" hardly expresses the reality. Double taxation, "stimulating the economy by investment", etc are largely red herrings. All income is multiple taxed (income tax when you earn it, then sales, property, etc when you spend it, for instance) and spending my money buying a shiny new car will stimulate the economy by encouraging the auto factory to invest in new equipment to meet higher demand, so why don't I get a tax break when I buy a car? Ever heard of "supply and demand"? Supply will not go up without demand, and when demand goes up then companies will invest and increase supply, so I am in fact causing investment to occur by spending my money.


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/25/2007 7:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You've explained why his tax rate is lower, but you haven't explained why Buffett's dollar of investment profit should be taxed less than my dollar of income from working hard. Obviously he knows why his taxes are lower, he just doesn't think it's appropriate.


One reason they are taxed less is because as an investment, it takes much time to earn your money. They factor in items like inflation to offset the captial gain when you cash out. Also, when you purchase capital gains, your original purchase has to come from somewhere - yes, the money you purchase the capital gain with is coming from your taxed income! This isn't rocket science.

quote:
If your family makes the US median household income of $48K a year and has the average of say 2 children then you're not going to have much more than peanuts to invest at the low investment tax rate, but if you have $1 billion then you can invest all but peanuts of your money, so "everyone can do it" hardly expresses the reality.


If your family of four - two people working - makes the median of $48k per year, then no you wont be investing. But just as you have the right to invest, you also had the right to make different life decisions in the past so that you would make more than a total of 48k/yr. Dont blame successfull people for unsuccessful peoples inability to make better decisions or for the fact that they have less motivation.

quote:
Ever heard of "supply and demand"? Supply will not go up without demand, and when demand goes up then companies will invest and increase supply, so I am in fact causing investment to occur by spending my money.

Yes I have heard of supply and demand. And your example is a dumb one. You are not investing in the auto company, in fact you are paying them for the money they already spent to produce your car (materials, R&D, wages, etc), as well as giving THEM the money to invest. You are not making an investment, you are making a purchase. An investment into a company like that is when you buy stocks and give them money to use without taking anything in return.

You must first understand the system before you go out and make comments and examples that do not correctly portray whatever point it is that you're trying to make.


RE: WTH
By Kuroyama on 10/25/2007 12:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand a tax benefit for starting a company, and perhaps corporate deductions for investments and R&D. However, my buying stock in IBM is not an investment that will increase employment in the US, and so there is no reason why my profit off stock increasing in value should be taxed less than someone else's income from a regular job.


RE: WTH
By Kuroyama on 10/25/2007 12:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify things, in keeping with the language of your post, let's restrict my stock comments to post-IPO, since buying stock at the IPO or during later share issuance does directly result in corporate investment.


RE: WTH
By rcc on 10/24/2007 7:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People seem to think "how it should work" is that the wealthy would pay the greatest percentage, but that's not the way it is.


And why is this? Do they get more out of the system/government than someone that makes less? Even a flat rate tax isn't fair, but they'd be happy to have it. Bottom line, if you make $30,000 and I make $60,000, why should I pay more tax? What do I get out of it? If we had a 10% flat tax you'd be paying 3000, I'd be paying 6000, what do I get for my extra $3000?

Yes, there are some questionable loopholes in tax law that the wealthy are in a position to take advantage of, but they still end up paying more in taxes overall.

Now, 'splain why?


RE: WTH
By Kuroyama on 10/25/2007 12:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
The US government this year is spending $9300 for every human being alive in America. How do you expect to raise that money if the rich don't pay more than the poor?

And in answer to your question, yes the rich benefit the most because without a stable country they would never be able to make such huge sums of money. Paying more of the tax burden helps keep the masses from getting too upset and doing something drastic, whether through peaceful action like changing the laws to soak the rich for all they're worth, or violent action like rioting or attempting to overthrow the government.

There's an interesting study on the human notion of fairness:

http://economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?stor...

They find that when you split the cake too unfairly then humans are willing to give up everything rather than accept peanuts, whereas animals will take whatever you give them. Even in countries with huge inequality like Brazil, the rich rarely try to rub it in poor people's faces by trying to collect much taxes from them, because eventually they'll decide they're not willing to take peanuts and will ruin the party for everyone.

Anyways, to put it in language you probably approve of when directed in the other direction, "If the rich don't like America then they're free to move to Europe."


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/25/2007 7:17:09 AM , Rating: 2
Please show me anywhere in the Constition or Declaration of Indenpendence that states all people living in the country should be given a fair life to live through means of Redistribution of Wealth.

It promises things like liberty, justice, and OPPORTUNITY. What you do with the opportunity is up to you.

The point is not to be against the rich or the poor, the point is that if you are not pulling your own weight, then you are in fact "dead weight" and a burden on the rest of the society. Therefore, if you are not going to put into the system to make it work, then you should to Europe where you are benefitted from being a lazy ass.


RE: WTH
By Kuroyama on 10/25/2007 12:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
Recall my response was regarding why the rich need to pay more taxes than the poor or even median household. An easy calculation makes this quite clear. The feds spend over $9K per capita, and the median family has income under $50K and 3-4 family members, so the feds spend effectively $27-36K for them.
quote:
the point is that if you are not pulling your own weight, then you are in fact "dead weight" and a burden on the rest of the society.

In other words, 50% of American households are dead weight? Or do you propose that our median family should spend 50-75% of their income on federal taxes, plus ???% on state and local taxes, leaving probably only a few thousand for food and housing per year?

FYI, I never referred to any sort of rights, but only said that for a stable society it is necessary that noone feel like that are getting such a small piece of the pie that they have little to lose by upsetting the party. Look around Latin America to see what kind of governments you'll get if you don't make a decent effort to keep the lower classes from feeling like they're getting shafted.


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/25/2007 1:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Recall my response was regarding why the rich need to pay more taxes than the poor or even median household. An easy calculation makes this quite clear. The feds spend over $9K per capita, and the median family has income under $50K and 3-4 family members, so the feds spend effectively $27-36K for them.

Actually there is much more to it than that. And no, the $9 is an average, not what they spend on each person. Persons on welfare, foodstamps, medicare, medicaid, etc get much more benefits than the average middle class family. In fact, the average middle class family gets none of that. THe low income families are responsible for getting almost all of the money from social services.

quote:
In other words, 50% of American households are dead weight? Or do you propose that our median family should spend 50-75% of their income on federal taxes, plus ???% on state and local taxes, leaving probably only a few thousand for food and housing per year?

No that is not what i said. What i am saying is that people who do not pay taxes - due to low income - yet get much money from goverment assistance (out of the taxpayers dollar) are dead weight. And they are not only getting this money in the forms of welfare. There is also goverment funded education help - like grants and scholarships which come out of the taxpayers dollar and are only available to "need based" persons, aka low income. Therefore i am also paying for these people to go to college, yet i have to take out loans and pay interest on those loans. So i am in turn not only paying for my own education, but for these low income people to get a high school education as well as a college education.

What I propose is that there is a national sales tax to take the place of income (aka FairTax). For example, 15% - i buy $100,000 worth of goods, i pay 15,000 in taxes. The low income person spends 1000 on goods, and he pays 15. This way, everyone contributes to the goverment based on how much you spend - because you should be able to control your own money, and it makes the low income contribute - at least a little.

quote:
FYI, I never referred to any sort of rights, but only said that for a stable society it is necessary that noone feel like that are getting such a small piece of the pie that they have little to lose by upsetting the party.

Well, we already are, and have been a stable society. By taking more and more from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful, all you are doing is "harboring" laziness. What is the incentive for them to change and start bettering themselves if they can sit back and reap the benefits of me working?

quote:
Look around Latin America to see what kind of governments you'll get if you don't make a decent effort to keep the lower classes from feeling like they're getting shafted.

They lower class is not getting shafted. They are shafting themselves by being lazy and making bad decision, and then punishing the wealthy who are successful by having to pick up the slack. A well oiled machine is where everyone works together - and in this society, the low income is not working together with the rest of society, they are sitting back and watching everyone else do the group work while still get the A grade for it. Survival of the fittest is what i like to use - light a fire under these peoples asses to do something. No more of this "the more kids you have, the more the government will give you" kind of crap.

Remember there are two ways to look at this:

Democrat: Give everyone a fish per day (and make them depend on your for everything)
Republican: Teach everyone how to fish (and teach them independance)


RE: WTH
By Locutus465 on 10/22/2007 3:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Please refrain from making comments about the priceing of homes when you obviously don't understand the realestate industry... There are different markets, you will pay different averages amounts depending on your desired market (there are many markets with in a single geographic region)... If you read through the posts you'll notice that one poster bought their house for $25,000... My market is more expensive than that, but I'm also in a rapidly growing suburban market, different conditions will apply for the other poster...


RE: WTH
By nofranchise on 10/22/2007 11:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
That's priceless.

Go fifth graders! Go!

Suggestion: Read something
2nd suggestion: Read something not posted online

I can only guess that your daddies must be working for poor MS. *Snivel* Awwww. Less billions to go around... better keep 'em safe before the EUuuuuUUuuuu STEALS it all!


RE: WTH
By Eckstein on 10/22/2007 11:50:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:

AMEN!

laziness + U.S. of A. + monopolism = screw people with money
FIXED!


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: WTH
By mars777 on 10/22/2007 1:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think you didn't understood him.
He was trying to say that MS screws people WITH money since the poor countries have a high percentage of pirate copies of its products or use other free/cheaper software :)


RE: WTH
By mdogs444 on 10/22/2007 1:49:59 PM , Rating: 1
I dont read it that way. He was speaking against the USA and claiming that we support monopolies, while EU does not.

It had nothing to do with Microsoft, but more of an outlast against Capitalism vs. Socialism.


RE: WTH
By Murst on 10/22/2007 11:14:46 AM , Rating: 1
Thank god most people (and businesses) aren't as spiteful as you are.


RE: WTH
By FITCamaro on 10/22/2007 12:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know man. More people might have to work for a living and shit right? And businesses wouldn't cry foul anytime someone else's product was better than theirs. Or try to obtain patents on generic, vague ideas that they only plan to use to sue other companies who might develop something that falls underneath it.

It would be horrible.


RE: WTH
By Talcite on 10/22/2007 10:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EU is just a bunch of scam artists out to create laws, screw companies from free market, and make a profit while doing so.

You seem to think free market just means a market devoid of government influence.

If that were the case, we'd all be screwed. You should be happy we have institutions like the treasury or the bank of Canada. This ruling isn't about stifling free market activity, it's about breaking monopoly power of large corporations, and they're doing it very well.

If you had taken economics you should know that monopoly power actually is worse for the free market than certain government controls. The EU definitely knows what they're doing by putting restrictions on Microsoft. Besides, you should be happy. As a consumer, any anti-trust action benefits your side of the supply/demand curve.


RE: WTH
By SunAngel on 10/22/2007 10:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
Alright sir!

How is Microsoft going to recoup their lost (missing revenue/profits) from this ruling? They can't charge developers because those rates are now set in stone. They can't just print money because that is not the business their in. So, given these facts, where do you suppose Microsoft is going to increase their revenue? The governments of the world? Businesses that license their software/hardware products? Home users that purchase a copy of the OS and other applications? T-shirts sales (just kidding, had to throw that in there)?

I'm not against government, but some things in life can't be corrected by government intervenion alone. A man wants a child, a woman wants an abortion. The law states there needs to be consent from both parties if an abortion is to take place. Thus, in order for them to agree, either way, they will have to communicate their sides harder to each other until one wins (or the baby is born).


RE: WTH
By Murst on 10/22/2007 11:19:35 AM , Rating: 1
You do realize that MS doesn't need to "recoup" their losses here. They've more than paid for their "losses" during the course of the trial.

Although I do think the EU fines are rather severe, MS is a business. They realize that by not complying with the initial ruling and appealing until the appeals are exhausted, they'll make more money.

The EU loss is just another expense. Its the price of doing business, and judging from MS's profits, they seem to have it figured out pretty well.


RE: WTH
By Ringold on 10/22/2007 9:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you had taken economics you should know that monopoly power actually is worse for the free market than certain government controls. The EU definitely knows what they're doing by putting restrictions on Microsoft. Besides, you should be happy. As a consumer, any anti-trust action benefits your side of the supply/demand curve.


You make the (fatal) assumption that the natural free market outcome is not, in fact, monopoly power.

One simply has to look at the costs involved in developing an OS and it's environment (drivers, making sure its as backward compatible with apps as possible, etc) and it becomes clear that a highly competitive agricultural-sector like outcome is even remotely possible.

I'll echo Milton Friendman and simply say that the free market gives people what they desire, not what we think people desire or what we want people to desire.

At any rate, therefore, if the natural outcome is monopoly or as is the present case a slowly shrinking oligopoly then busting it up would drive up costs for replicating work done at individual resulting spin-off corporations with economies of scale being destroyed. If the outcome is punishment by market manipulation (as is occuring here) then the outcome is still similar; MS makes less money, less to invest in the long run.. ambiguous impact on prices but lower quantity of "utils" being supplied in the long run seems likely.


RE: WTH
By Mitch101 on 10/22/2007 10:03:19 AM , Rating: 2
All this means is Higher Prices for the EU consumers.


RE: WTH
By PitViper007 on 10/22/2007 4:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
And probably not just for EU consumer either, but EVERYONE that uses MS products. Come to think of it, I wonder if that isn't why Vista is so expensive? MS knew they were going to lose (or just decided to hedge their bets) so boosted the price of their latest and "greatest" OS. If you don't think the consumer is going to pay off this fine in the end, you should think again.


RE: WTH
By Orpheus333 on 10/22/2007 10:07:49 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm sure Europe will enjoy paying more for their Microsoft products. It only hurts the consumers in the end.


RE: WTH
By zzebi on 10/22/2007 10:48:10 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sure there isn't a law that would force MS to sell their products in the EU. Actually there are several companies and products that are sold only in specific parts of the world.

Anyway, the reason why the commission is so harsh with MS is that Microsoft is a monopoly. EU and US federal judges have ruled that MS is indeed a monopoly and in certain occasions it used it's market share (>90%) to explicitly force competitors out of business by slashing prices, buying up and hoarding supplies, and intimidating other players on the market.

When the EU commission rules that MS has to let others develop for it's operating system, it simply tries to force Microsoft not to take advantage of it's monopoly.
It is obvious that monopolies are not good for the free market so these actions against MS are justified.

One can argue that for example Apple has similar exclusive business practices with it's OS X so the same judges and commissions should act against Apple as well. However Apple is not a monopoly on the OS market, so it cannot for example force companies out of business by not allowing them to develop for it's OS.

On the other hand Apple is very close to be a monopoly on the MP3 player market so the EU commission has already started bugging them for it.


RE: WTH
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/22/2007 11:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
I've been developing for Windows since Windows for Workgroups, never had any problem. I think your misinterpreting the case. They are complaining because they can't make it "as good" as the windows stuff, stating that Microsoft uses "secret" API's to make their products better than their competitors. I will trump this bullshit idea by pointing out that Firefox works just fine on Windows and competes with IE quite well. I don't hear the Mozilla team complaining about Windows API's or anything.


RE: WTH
By Murst on 10/22/2007 11:29:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
They are complaining because they can't make it "as good" as the windows stuff, stating that Microsoft uses "secret" API's

Well, I don't care how long you've been developing, cause you obviously weren't programming with the things in question.

I have ran into an issue with Active Directory before where we just could not figure out how MS does something, yet we knew AD had to do it. Nothing online showed up. We even submitted one of those ticket items where we paid MS something like $1200 to get an example of how to do something... nothing (I think we did get the money back).

Fortunetaly, a person at work knew someone at MS and we ended up getting the example from them. But we couldn't even get it from MS by paying them. (after receiving the code, I searched google for some of the methods... 0 results for each one. It was never released by MS)

You should never claim a problem does not exist because you've never had to deal with it. It just makes you look foolish.


RE: WTH
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/22/2007 11:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
I've done plenty of work with AD, still no problems. I would ask for specifics rather than broad accusations on your part. Now given your example I can make the argument that my dev teams were better than yours and we were able to figure it out without this "secret" method.

There's programming, and then there is "skilled programming". Not all developers are equal.


<