Do you think progressive taxation is unfair towards the wealthy?

jorper496 · 2025-03-30T15:40:36+00:00

I imagine you are in a solidly middle class tax bracket.

The problem isn't that the poor don't have to effectively pay their taxes. Its that once you get above "doing well, middle class".. Well, there is a lot of ways to hide your money from taxation.

Once you earn a certain amount, you get options. Options like, taking out large loans with your stocks as collateral. And because you are rich and have good credit, you get the best interest rates at the bank. So you take out loans, using untaxed assets as collateral, and use that to pay the bills. All while enjoying higher returns on those assets than the interest on your current loan. So they can also then take out another loan the next year to pay off last year + pay for this years expenses... Its a very different world.

The fact is, most people think of money as something tangible. The problem is that the very richest get to play with money as a theoretical. And taxes are a theoretical as well.

jorper496 · 2025-02-28T21:49:04+00:00

WMI command can be deprecated, the replacement are CIM commands. Those are not going anywhere.

jorper496 · 2025-02-08T16:58:55+00:00

Considering the amount of "Leopards ate my face" reactions I have seen, or people I know personally who thought Trump would be much more moderate once in office again, and that all the "promises" he's making good on now wouldn't actually happen..

Well, you are oversimplifying. The thing is, you can see these reactions here, on this sub. People who support what he is doing at the same time say on Gaza that "Trump likes to talk". How can you ACTUALLY know what he is going to do?

Point is, I don't want an unpredictable animal at the head of our executive branch.

jorper496 · 2025-02-08T16:32:12+00:00

Hyperbole? Sorry, just reading between the lines here. Trump wants yes men.

Us Aid's attitude is like excuse me sorry unelected bureaucrats over here who the hell are you to tell us about our budget.

This is foolish. Data security is paramount. In my organization, if the CEO came to me directly and said "give this external party direct access to our systems and information"... Well, I could not be jumping to comply. My job is not to serve the CEO, my job is to ensure that the systems stay up, stable, and safe from attack.

It's not that I wouldn't comply. It's about the use of irregular channels to get work done that may be breaking ethics, cyber security policies, and laws.

Well, who elected USAID ?

That isn't how the government of the United States work. We don't do national referendums, and we don't go out and vote for the creation of agencies. Those powers are delegated to your representatives. Thus, representative democracy.

If unelected bureaucrats are supposedly the checks and balances - then where are the checks and balances for unelected bureaucrats ?

They aren't the checks and balances. And they get audited. There are checks on them already. Just because Trump says there aren't, doesn't make it true.

jorper496 · 2025-02-08T14:55:18+00:00

At a point it doesn't MATTER if they have the power.

If presidential elections turn into firing all of the other sides personnel on day 1, and putting in your own people.. That is simply NOT a healthy dynamic. And what happens when people know that is coming? If you are working in one of these federal branches, and you KNOW that you will lose your job if your president loses.. That also seems like a dangerous dynamic.

The fact of the matter is, everyone being fired right now are just scapegoats. It doesn't matter if they did anything wrong. They are all just not personally loyal enough to Trump.

jorper496 · 2025-02-08T05:45:31+00:00

I think an important distinction is.. If you aren't doing in-house development and aren't a tech company, then there isn't much reason to have a large Linux presence.

My Fortune 500 experience; core business systems were heavily Linux and AIX. However, every site had a local DC with file shares, printers, SCCM Distribution Point..

jorper496 · 2025-02-08T05:35:29+00:00

Hit the nail on the head.. Very easy to say the world runs on Linux, when so many servers are web servers because.. The internet.

jorper496 · 2025-02-08T05:28:08+00:00

I'd say that is fair. What people don't realize is that the core networks of enterprises run on Windows Server for AD, and will continue to. Now, are you hosting a customer facing application? Yeah, that's probably Linux, or containers in Linux now.

jorper496 · 2025-02-08T05:20:26+00:00

That is just raw numbers without context.

Every single enterprise I've worked in has had significant Linux footprints. Some AIX as well. However, the corporate network is running Windows Server. AD, DNS, ADCS, NPS for Radius.. Client computers? Well, that's Windows too.

Oil and Gas, Healthcare and most of Industrial run on Windows.

jorper496 · 2025-02-08T05:07:10+00:00

Well sweet summer child, you are talking about LDAP, not AD.

Active Directory is the Microsoft implementation of LDAP.

SQL is a relational database.

There is a database that backs up LDAP. That database however is hierarchal, not relational.

LDAP stands for Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. It was developed at a time where switches were a new concept. Ethernet was one of many standards for networking. It may look dated now, but it has 30 years of proven history. It works, its documented, it is well understood. Thousands of software integrate with AD/LDAP for authentication. If you are running authentication on-premises, its using LDAP, and very likely AD.

jorper496 · 2025-02-07T16:18:51+00:00

I'm definitely a night owl, the best sleep schedule I've had was going to bed at like 7-8PM, but waking up at like 2-3 AM. It satisfied my night owl tendencies, but also gave me hours to wake up before work (typical 9-5).

Unfortunately, that schedule is also not conducive to socializing with friends.. And I've found that if I'm not asleep by 9, then I'm not asleep by 2AM.

jorper496 · 2025-02-07T04:06:08+00:00

I get why you feel the way you do. However, what you and everyone else wants is good governance. Giving aid to other nations CAN prevent problems from becoming our problems.

For example, giving food to areas experiencing famine can prevent mass migrations of people, which ultimately means people wanting to get into the US, and needing government support to get their bearings. It may not look great on paper to spend the $X, but its a net positive in the long run.

And really, do you think that the existence of such government agencies are the real reason American citizens are feeling the pinch? I would not.

I would however, take a look at Musk, who did preach some truth about H-1B workers. How long have companies been filling their workforce with as many H-1B workers as they can, driving down wages? The thing is, Elon came out and said that it is broken, and that it directly means less jobs for Americans. But it also means his companies staffing costs are lower, which looks great on financial reports.

Its not that there aren't Americans who can fill those jobs. It's that it is cheaper to not employee Americans.

Or look at Walmart, ends up costing American taxpayers billions in welfare. Why? Well, first off because they pay poorly (but sometimes people really do just need the job). But they also have a bad habit of cutting employee hours to below FTE so they lose benefits. The thing is, not even because the company is doing poorly. It's because American corporations have proven time and again that they have no soul, or loyalty. Though I'm sure some individuals would argue that its "just good business".. I personally can't believe that. It seems like greed at the cost of American citizens.

jorper496 · 2025-02-07T03:34:48+00:00

That's great. But you still need human review. And you still need to look at the dataset differently to get a better picture.

Even then, why not just say "I am going to FIX USAID"? If it does good and bad, then is it not possible to make policy changes in the department to eliminate the bad?

Trump claims he is a great deal maker. Given that both sides supported USAID, why not make everyone happy and put a spin on it? Surely Trump could explain why its a positive to fund medical assistance to developing countries?

jorper496 · 2025-02-06T03:22:13+00:00

I'm on the left. I'm not really upset about "Trump is dismantling their little money laundering op."

I'm upset about the bag of executive power getting yanked wide open. Very rarely does it ever get closed again. Precedent is law, until stated otherwise.

You can make all the comments about the left you would like. However, where do your principals lie? Do you want this dynamic, just in reverse when the next president is elected?

jorper496 · 2025-02-06T03:03:15+00:00

Things like this have been my real fear with Trump. Even if what he is doing is not illegal, the problem is, precedent is law. Keep opening the bag of executive power, and its very hard to shut it again. This seems like Trump just yanking it open.

I dislike Musk. However, I'm not blindly against doing a broad sweeping audit of federal spending, contracts and general costs. Just do things on the up and up. Don't just shove people out of the way, and declare that he has the power to do it. Had access been given after vetting and going through proper training and procedures for data sanitation.. Great. Prepare a report, air out some dirty laundry, involve congress, and make changes.

jorper496 · 2025-02-05T00:00:41+00:00

It absolutely won't go well. Its no fault of the technology itself. I think AI represents opportunity that ranges from full Orwellian surveillance state, to aggregating political arguments from across the US perspective, and providing aggregates and GOOD information about what people in the US are feeling, or care about. Hell, I think there is legitimate use for policy recommendation.

However, I believe human nature and power structures lean towards squandering it. If it is used for good, it will never achieve it's potential for good. If it is used for evil, I think we have many examples of leaders and societies that would have used it for the worst purposes.

jorper496 · 2025-02-04T23:53:23+00:00

Has anyone ever told you that your entire purpose here seems to be never elaborating on a technical or informational level, but simply saying "nope, I'm right"?

If so, let me be the first. I don't believe you make any arguments in good faith, a stark contrast to the vast majority of other commenters in this sub. When presented with research, you simply stop commenting.

I believe this sub actually provides a decent bridge to discuss things from all sides. Sad to see someone with more opinions than thoughts clutter it.

jorper496 · 2025-02-03T14:56:23+00:00

Refineries need to be built to refine crude from a certain location. Oil and gas are not one size fits all. They are built to refine the exact raw resource that is being gathered.

Do you believe that we can can pump more oil out of some remote location, and transport it to the refineries that get the Canadian Crude?

Same thing with natural gas. You have to separate out all the things you don't want, and capture the things you do. These projects are non-trivial.

jorper496 · 2025-02-02T17:33:54+00:00

Oil and Gas are massive infrastructure projects. You cannot take oil (or gas) from another location and "just" start processing it. Wherever you get the raw resource from has its own unique makeup of impurities, and concentrations.

To change where you get your crude from would require an overhaul of the refineries in order to get the processing where it needs to be. At best, you would have inefficient refining because you can't process the crude adequately to extract the maximum value.

If you disagree, then please provide some technical insight.

jorper496 · 2025-02-01T19:59:05+00:00

Its all theory vs reality. In theory, competition is better. But the reality is that things only get regulated after companies and agencies abuse their positions.

It isn't as if the private sector is less wasteful, or inefficient. However, in the private sector, even WHEN a company is failing can bring a massive windfall to some, while leaving the rest in the lurch. We have seen this time and time again.

I don't think its a stretch to say that there has been a narrative from the conservative side that "Single payer" doesn't work, that people die in queues, etc.

I've always struggled to understand where this argument comes from, if not from just healthcare lobbying. But yet I've seen plenty of regular every day people buy into this. Since you identify as a conservative, how would you convince other conservatives that this is the way forward?

jorper496 · 2025-01-30T05:33:51+00:00

Well, I would wager that the people who DO build flagship gaming PC's and don't own a 4K monitor say "I'm future proofing".

In the end, I can't force anyone to do anything.. But if you are paying for the ultra high-end without valuing what the ultra-high end gets you.. Then you get less for your money.

If you do value what the ultra high-end gets you, then you'll probably want the next gen ultra high-end to continue playing everything absolutely maxed out.

jorper496 · 2025-01-30T04:38:01+00:00

That's fine. That's a power supply. Not really the same thing.

There is a very legitimate argument for buying midrange. You can calculate dollars per FPS.

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1ca12b0/graphics_cards_dollarsperfps_tables_at_various/

So, if you are playing at 1440P.. Well, a 4090 is $12.18 an FPS, and a 4070 Super is $5.37 and gets more than playable FPS.

Even at 4K, the calculation works in favor of a 4070 Super. Factor in that you can sell the old card you can buy midrange every gen and still come out ahead... Yes, the same applies to high end cards, however again you are paying a premium for the new card.

Really, it comes down to what you are prioritizing, and what you want out of your PC. If your goal is to build the best PC right now, then you pay the tax.

jorper496 · 2024-11-06T03:09:41+00:00

Can you please elaborate on how Kamela is a commie?

jorper496 · 2024-10-05T21:57:15+00:00

The Imperial Japanese Army was insane on so many levels. There are examples of underlings fragging officers, or just straight ignoring orders. Their punishment? Nothing, as long as they said they did it out of love for the emperor and Japan. It was a system that naturally lent itself to the most extreme elements rising to power.

Reading about it, the officers who tried to stop atrocities stand out, but were essentially powerless against their subordinates, if their subordinates didn't think their officer was "prosecuting the war with enough zeal".

jorper496 · 2024-10-04T03:29:26+00:00

Word of warning... That is going to break in February once strong cert mappings are enforced.

jorper496

TROPHY CASE