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 : : :
86.
 
Re: Op Ed
Nov 25, 2012, 18:10
86.
Re: Op Ed Nov 25, 2012, 18:10
Nov 25, 2012, 18:10
 
Axis wrote on Nov 25, 2012, 18:01:
Flatline wrote on 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.

Then go out and work and make fucking more!

If I want more money, I work more hours, get more education, people network more, ask questions, get grants, light a fire under my ass.

It's those 5-10 times guys who give the majority of us a fucking job. Don't wanna make what you're making? Figure out how to make more! My immigrant family tree did. Koreans and Indians today are, so are a ton of other ethnic groups leaving their countries to come here making a KILLER living over here from nothing.

It's up to the individual to make something of themselves. Americans are happy to help those who truly cannot, but the majority truly can.

So go out and "Can". Nothing is stopping you but yourself.

Nice how you completely ignore the argument bro.

You're not just "not right", you're not even wrong. You're on a different conversation.

But anyway, I'm 100% self-employed so go fuck yourself. I do it *all* by myself, with no assistance other than the rather considerable education that the state of California helped provide me with at an affordable rate, and I'm perfectly wiling to reinvest into the infrastructure. That's where my future employees, and more importantly future customers come from.

I don't want a freebie or a handout, I want a fair crack at earning something. And I have yet to see how making a rich motherfucker richer is going to give me a fair crack at anything. It's the same pitch as the scummiest religion: Give me your money, your obedience, and your political power, and at some future point (after you die in the case of religion) you too will be rewarded.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the economy should be faith-driven.

Edit: Yes, I will agree creating a fortune is tough, but guess what, most of the top .5% didn't create their fortunes, they inherit it. Mitt Romney has so much goddamn money that he earns 20 million a year doing NOTHING. The Koch brothers? Worth Billions? Inherited from their fathers who did the real work. The Walton family? Worth as much as the bottom 43% of the US? Inherited from Bud & Sam Walton. Eisenhower tax rates were aimed at these people. And there were still ways to get around that high a tax rate: we created new millionaires during that time. The high tax rate was meant to punish people who just sat on their money and let it accumulate. Reinvesting, putting the money back into the system, creating jobs, that was where the tax breaks were.

So your idea that the rich motherfuckers being job creators isn't far off... but only when you have a stinking high tax rate and explicit incentive not to sit on your money and to put it back in the system. Which is exactly what we *don't* have today. It's more rewarding to take money *out* of the economy and sit on it and bet with it on the derivative market than it is to put back into the economy.

This comment was edited on Nov 25, 2012, 18:15.
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