Op Ed

Cliffski's Blog - Kickstarting inequality.
Kickstarter is the absolute poster-child for inequality amongst gamers, based on income. Now I am definitely not a raging socialist, but I know a lot of gamers are, and I find it a bit weird that it doesn’t bug them that when these kickstarter games ship, not only will gamers with more money that them be swanning around with better outfits and weapons, (This already happens in F2P games), but some of the NPC’s will have the names of the ‘wealthy’ backers. Some will even have their digitized faces in the game. Elite is actually naming PLANETS after people who back the game with a lot of money.

Gamers say they hate in-game product placement and advertising. It compromises the game design for the sake of money. I agree. So why are we deciding that the best way to name our planets or design the appearance of our NPC’s is to put that part of game design up for auction? Why should gamers who are wealthy get more influence over a game that those who flip burgers for a living? The cold hard economic reality of the real world is bad enough without shoehorning it into games too.

View : : :
82.
 
Re: Op Ed
Nov 25, 2012, 17:54
82.
Re: Op Ed Nov 25, 2012, 17:54
Nov 25, 2012, 17:54
 
Axis wrote on Nov 25, 2012, 16:19:
What matters is the FACT that Cutter (and most of you liberals) think socialism is "rich paying fair share". What's also FACT is the IRS records indicating the rich pay 4x more than the middle class.

The rich may pay 4 times the middle class, but they make, pretty much by definition, 5-10 times minimum what the middle class makes (average household income being 50k a year, and the average "middle class" salary is 27k a year, and the definition of the top 5% of income is around 250k a year). So... yeah... fair share.

But the IRS tax code isn't about fair share, it's about equal burden. What I pay at 50k is supposed to "hurt" about as much as someone who makes 20 million a year. The number will be different, but the intent is to have equal burdens across the field. If you make 20 million a year (like Mittens), paying 15k a year in taxes is unnoticeable except in an empirical way. I feel that 15k a year on my 50k a year salary quite a bit. On someone who makes 25k a year, 15k in taxes would be crushing, to the point where you couldn't really live.

So, someone who makes 25k a year will pay around 5k in taxes total and feel it. I'll pay 15 and feel it, and Mittens, if the system worked as intended, should probably pay around 10 million to feel the same burden.

Or, if you go by the Eisenhower tax rates, he should be paying about 19 million in taxes on that 20 million dollar income.

Edit: Let's also not forget that the commons cost money to run too. What are the commons? Our legal system (both criminal and civil), state, local, and federal governments, our roads, our airways, emergency services, and so on and so forth. Wealth people, and I'm talking about the top 1% and higher, the people who make immense amounts of money, *constantly* use the commons. Whether it's using the civil system and state and county and city government for real estate, the regulated and functioning stock exchange system, or just the ability to safely defend themselves in a court of law, they use the commons *constantly*, and they use them at the highest levels and most expensive functions. It's only fair that they contribute more to the infrastructure that helped make them wealthy.

Unless, of course, you're an Ayn Rand-bot who believes the commons actually hurt business and man, in which case I will (seriously!) offer you a one-way plane ticket to Botswana where there are no commons and no government intervention, and you'll be free to create your fortune there as Nature intended it. Caveat: You're not allowed to bring anything with you. Clothes on your back, your passport, and 20 dollars cash. That's it. A true tycoon of business should be able to create a fortune in no time.

This comment was edited on Nov 25, 2012, 18:02.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
23.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
24.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
26.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
27.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
   Re: Op Ed
41.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
   Re: Op Ed
44.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
    Re: Op Ed
45.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
     Re: Op Ed
47.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
      Re: Op Ed
48.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
       Re: Op Ed
50.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
        Re: Op Ed
52.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
         Re: Op Ed
53.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
          Re: Op Ed
57.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
           Re: Op Ed
58.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
            Re: Op Ed
70.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
             Re: Op Ed
71.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
              Re: Op Ed
77.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
               Re: Op Ed
78.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                Re: Op Ed
80.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                 Re: Op Ed
79.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                Re: Op Ed
81.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                 Re: Op Ed
83.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                  Re: Op Ed
54.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
       Re: Op Ed
55.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
        Re: Op Ed
56.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
         Re: Op Ed
59.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
          Re: Op Ed
60.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
           Re: Op Ed
62.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
            Re: Op Ed
64.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
             Re: Op Ed
67.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
              Re: Op Ed
65.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
           Re: Op Ed
66.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
            Re: Op Ed
72.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
             Re: Op Ed
73.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
              Re: Op Ed
74.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
               Re: Op Ed
75.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                Re: Op Ed
76.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                 Re: Op Ed
 82.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
               Re: Op Ed
85.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                Re: Op Ed
86.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                 Re: Op Ed
87.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                  Re: Op Ed
88.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                   Re: Op Ed
89.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
                    Re: Op Ed
46.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
     Re: Op Ed
49.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
     Re: Op Ed
51.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
      Re: Op Ed
61.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
       Re: Op Ed
63.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
        Re: Op Ed
68.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
         Re: Op Ed
69.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
          Re: Op Ed
94.
Nov 26, 2012Nov 26 2012
    Re: Op Ed
25.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
29.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
38.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
2.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
3.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
4.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
6.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
19.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
   Re: Op Ed
20.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
    Re: Op Ed
5.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
7.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
8.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
9.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
11.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
   Re: Op Ed
13.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
    Re: Op Ed
21.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
     Re: Op Ed
10.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
12.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
14.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
15.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
16.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
17.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
18.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
22.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
28.
Nov 24, 2012Nov 24 2012
31.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
30.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
32.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
33.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
34.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
35.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
36.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
40.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
37.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
39.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
42.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
43.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
99.
Nov 26, 2012Nov 26 2012
100.
Nov 26, 2012Nov 26 2012
   Re: Op Ed
101.
Nov 26, 2012Nov 26 2012
    Re: Op Ed
102.
Nov 26, 2012Nov 26 2012
     Re: Op Ed
103.
Nov 27, 2012Nov 27 2012
      Re: Op Ed
104.
Nov 27, 2012Nov 27 2012
       Re: Op Ed
84.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
90.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
91.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
92.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
93.
Nov 25, 2012Nov 25 2012
95.
Nov 26, 2012Nov 26 2012
96.
Nov 26, 2012Nov 26 2012
97.
Nov 26, 2012Nov 26 2012
98.
Nov 26, 2012Nov 26 2012