Mark Cuban is bullish on America
blogmaverick.com
blogmaverick.com
What inspires me is that he'll actually change things. Nearly all politicians will give lots of lips service to lots of things and in the end keep everything the same. I (and many others) strongly believe he's different.
That's why people are in the streets. That's why they are excited. That's why this is big.
It's not about the color of his skin but the content of his character.
I take my viewpoint whereby just as Jews are said to receive there religious status through the mother (whether they like it or not) Muslims are said to receive it through the father. As an analogy: Michael Jackson may look white .... but he started off black. He may or may not be in denial about this fact, just as his fans may or may not acknowledge it too.
Some here on this forum may have been misled or duped (either willingly or via manipulation) on the notions now discussed.
"In sum, Muslims puzzle over Obama's present religious status. They resist his self-identification as a Christian while they assume a baby born to a Muslim father and named "Hussein" began life a Muslim. Should Obama become president, differences in Muslim and American views of religious affiliation will create problems."
"I'm also troubled by not what senator McCain says, but what members of the party say - and it is permitted to be said - such things as "you know that Obama is a muslim". The correct answer is that he's not a muslim, he's a christian, he's always been a christian. But the reallyright answer is: what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a muslim in this country? The answer is no. That is not America. Is there something wrong with some 7 year old muslim american kid believing he or she can be president?"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135385 for the underreported Hagee controversy.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_barack_obama_muslim...
Obama is not responsible for the change in mainstream american views on race, but he is commendable for how he has (mostly not) approached race as a political topic in his campaign.
http://rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-...
Slavery, lynchings, poll taxes, segregation. It wasn't until the 1960s that African Americans had a real right to vote.
The election of a black man President of the United States of America is a momentous moment.
Obama's win was hard fought. Despite how electoral math works, I do not consider his victory a landslide. The popular vote spread is around 6 points. That is not a big margin.
I am from south Georgia. I know black-white racism all too well. Despite the fact that Georgia went to McCain, this was an historic win and I think it should be celebrated and the momentum should continue.
I thought that the big deal here was that we see Obama as a politician, not a "black politician." But it seems that many people have yet to get beyond this point. That being said, and as another commenter mentioned, there's a difference between voting based on race and appreciating the historical significance of a minority, let alone a black man, holding office in America. And contrasted with this nation's history, that is remarkable.
Each person sees and hears what he wants, I suppose.
Whether you think about it or not, Obama's skin color is of great importance to many Americans, particularly black Americans. It isn't important to me, but I don't see any reason to deny it or minimize it either.
Inevitably, Wednesday's headlines were all about Obama's skin colour and the historic milestone of the first black presidency. For the United States and the rest of the world, that is a fact of huge symbolic importance, but it is the least of Obama's true credentials. What America has succeeded in doing, against all the odds, and why we cried when it happened, is to elect the most intelligent, canny and imaginative candidate to the presidential office in modern times - someone who'll bring to the White House an extraordinary clarity of thought and temperate judgment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/08/obama-ra...
I moved to the US because it had lower tax rates, but if that gets reversed then the US can say goodbye to my income.
I moved from the UK to the Silicon Valley, because being here gives me a better chance of success as a tech entrepreneur.
Worrying about being taxed a few extra percentage points seems similar to founders fighting over equity: It just distracts you from doing what's necessary to succeed.
You can't tell founders to save every penny they can and scrimp as much as possible and then say a few points of lost income isn't important. Or rather, you can, but to me it seems an inconsistency.
Equity is not income. Early stage, I'll trade equity for all kinds of things. Income is a completely different affair. Income is cash-in-hand, cash for advertising, mortgages, food, operating expenses. Income is precious -- equity not so much.
Later on, the balance shifts and equity is much more important. Income not so much. But there's a long run through a minefield to get to that point.
Cash is power. Power to make choices and provide value. Equity is another matter entirely.
Early stage I'd locate wherever the people and facilities were that could help me grow. But the internet's a great thing -- after early-stage I can choose to operate just about anywhere.
Advertising and operating expenses offset revenues. A higher tax on profit doesn't reduce your ability to navigate any minefield on the way up unless your tax attorney is incompetent.
If I have 100K in income as a business, and I have to pay my employees an extra 20K in salary just to make up for extra taxes, that comes out of my bottom line -- money that could go elsewhere. The categorization of the expense doesn't make it magically go away. People still have to eat. 200K a year, if I remember correctly, is about the average wage for working founders in a startup businesses that are funded and on the way to profitability.
Edit: now that I re-read that article I think we might be talking about different things. I don't think it's common for the founders to pay themselves that much, although I can imagine having to pay that much for executives that you hire early on.
According to nonpartisan TPC estimates, a single earner, no kids, making $200K would receive a $2900 tax break under Obama's plan.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid...
I didn't say it wasn't important, just that it's nowhere near as important as being in the right location.
Further, from what I understand, Obama's plan would benefit you on the way up to that $250K/year in profit. I don't know the statistics, but my gut tells me that most small businesses in America are turning less than $250K/year in profit.
And its not like Australia has a super low tax rate, you'll still pay 30% in taxes. So ask yourself this, is the extra 5-10% in profit worth it to you to lose x% of your customers who don't want to do any business with a company outside United States?
I see the additional tax rate under Obama as an investment. I lose a little bit off the top, but I'll get more than compensated by my users actually having money to spend.
And payrolls, sales, and real property -- even if there's no profit.
Wait. When have you ever not done business with a web services company on the grounds that it was located outside the US? Do you think that kind of thing actually goes on? And that the problem is so endemic it should be cause to stick around, lest you lose all your US-based customers?
It may be so with a brick-and-mortar, or with a business that involves high-cost shipping. But for a traditional web services company -- Freshbooks (Cananda), Netvibes (France), Problogger (Australia) -- I don't think that argument holds any water.
1) Is my connection secure and encrypted, 2) Is either of Authorize.net, PayPal, or Google acting as a payment gateway 3) Is the site established, and does it have verifiable feedback from people I trust, 4) Does a Google search show other people talking about the site, What are they saying, 5)Does the site's content converge to norms I've come to know and expect from credible companies I've patronised
And 6) Is it located in the continental United States (if Yes that's icing on the cake... nothing more). I won't speak for most (I don't think you should either) because I have no grounds for basing an assumption of the "most people" magnitude.
But I think there are a lot of measures people check before swiping the credit card on a virtual transaction. The US/non-US piece is one consideration, but that's my point: It's just one item on a list of important credibility checks.
1: The higher the tax, the harder you have to work to achieve your dreams and goals => the decision to leave certainty for a venture is harder => less people will do it.
2: A tax increase counts twice when you're hiring e.g. cleaning help for your home, since both you and the cleaner is paying the higher tax. Thus, it get harder to pay for cleaning (gardening, construction, mechanics etc), and you're more likely to do it yourself, devoting less time to your family, start-up or work.
3: Finally, higher taxes will make it harder to promote/be promoted. In a promotion, you get more money and more responsibilities. The higher the tax, the less money will be in your pocket after the promotion, and the incentive to accept is lower. Coupled with no. 2, if you're busy building a new bathroom and a garage at home, you don't have the time to accept more responsibilities at work.
By the way - watch out for "95% won't be affected" rhetoric. A functioning democracy can't just be 95% fleecing the 5% - or the 55% fleecing the 45%.
As it is I can only conclude that you are really bad at math.
In the interest of making everyone smarter, rather than throwing mud, might you care to share where my math is wrong?
If the desired goal is "more money in your pocket" then the equation should be
money I make - taxes = money in my pocket
and assuming we are talking about a guy with a business and not someone taking a salary, the money you make is probably affected by the overall state of the economy.
If the action that causes of increasing your taxes also substantially improves the economy, don't you think maybe .. just maybe .. you might make more money overall?
What is better? To have a bigger slice of a shrinking pie or to have a smaller slice of a pie thats getting bigger and bigger?
Cuba makes European countries look like the Mises institute, just as Norway or France would deem Obama's policies to be tilted right wing/laissez-faire. But Cuba has one doctor--the gold standard of skilled labor--for every 175 citizens, compared to the US's one for every 300.
--> Mobility is much, much, much increased since 1951. I did a quick google to look for how much it cost to make long distance phone calls in '51 and this came up: "The first customer-connected long-distance telephone call was made on November 11, 1951... was the first call dialed with an area code, using what would now be called 10-digit dialing, and was connected automatically within 18 seconds."
Getting up and going wasn't as viable back then for most people. Likely almost all of the people in the top tax bracket have friends, connections, and associates in at least a couple countries these days.
1. That tax money doesn't vanish down a hole. It gets spent, largely on American businesses.
2. By collecting more we reduce the deficit, so it also saves on inevitable future taxes plus interest..
3. The cleaner isn't paying a higher tax, unless the cleaner makes $250k a year. In fact since the cleaner is probably making 1/8th of that, he is paying a lower tax and could therefore charge me less while still making the same amount himself, and the free market will make that happen.
4. A rising tide lifts all boats. If there's one thing we can be sure of, it's that the middle class isn't going to save that extra money, that's just not the American way. They're going to spend it. A retailer's after tax margins might drop a bit, but their volume will increase. (I think that's what Obama was trying to say in response to the infamous Joe the Plumber question, but he didn't explain it well.)
I don't see the logic behind your number 3. Salaries are, of course, a deduction, so higher taxes should have little effect on them. Any employees making less than $250k (and that's the overwhelming majority of non self-employed people) will require less salary due to paying less taxes to maintain the same quality of life. And increased volume will make up for decreased margins at least to some extent (probably varying by industry).
Also, one of my blog readers sent me a neat economics paper he had written in college (I think at Harvard) that showed that sensible tax increases (like the Clinton years) have no impact on business creation. He used EINs issued, among other metrics.
It does not get spent on American businesses. I wish it did, but a large share (~40%) goes to entitlement programs (Medicare, SS). Then you've also got defense spending, which benefits some companies, and also you've got other things like debt interest, homeland security, etc.
http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ is a pretty good visualization.
If there is any FICA surplus, it's saved to help pay for the huge amount of retirees we'll have in 10 years.
Yeah, tell that to Arnold and all the other first-gen immigrants. :\
It's sad to see so many dissenting opinions downmodded just because the majority disagree. Yes some of them were deserving of it, but others made legitimate points.
Also, he's as much white as he is black. Everyone is pretending like the one drop rule from the slavery-era south is still in effect.
Come on people!!!!!!!!!!
It is clear that race is still a factor. Obama has no problem discussing race issues openly. I don't either. I think it is healthy and about time we start talking more openly about race issues, it may enable us to make further progress. I feel race issues have stagnated the last 30 years. Its gotten a little better, but crawlingly so relative to what it could be.
Both among blacks and whites, there were people who admitted voting for him because of his "race".
Now, I myself don't believe in this "race" concept that other people seem so obsessed with, but I still find that a disturbing thought -- just as disturbing as the thought that some people were voting against him for his "race".
I feel like I can finally start believing that we as a nation are overcoming the old and poisonous biases that were alive and well in my grandparents' time.
The guy who bases his vote on a coin flip has as much right to vote as the person who runs detailed financial simulations of the candidates declared policy initiatives.
That's what makes it a democracy.
...our amazing country once again reinvigorated the dream that any child in this country, no matter what circumstances they are born into, can grow up to be anything they want...
It seems that "no matter what circumstances" is intended to mean, among other things, "black", since that is what Cuban is talking about in the rest of the piece. Presumably, since Obama is not a scion of oil money or an Admiral's son, he also implies that "poor blacks" will start thinking that they can become anything they want.
I'm pretty sure that's what Cuban means. Now, if you state it as bluntly as possible, here's what you get:
"I believe that Obama will inspire poor, criminally-inclined inner city black people to straighten up, study, work hard, etc."
or
"Apparently Cuban's reasoning is that with a black President, suddenly inner-city wannabe gangsters will start writing Rails apps."
Now, that is NOT THE SAME AS SAYING "All black people are inner-city gangsters". That's a logical error, and your peers are upmodding you in celebration of your logical error, which pisses me off because that's how politics always works: Opinion trumps reason.
The OP is basically right. But we'll just have to see whether Cuban is.
I think it says a lot about a person's intelligence if they still carry around these weird racial biases in this day and age; especially as hackers - you would think people would know better.