>>54739151

Neutrality is a Trojan horse. All content, including advertising, can't be discriminated against.

dont worry, the invisible hand of the free market will solve the problems. government stepping in to something like this would only hurt the consumer, because ISP's have shown time and time again that they will adjust to help out their customers at the cost of their bottom line.

and that 69 million dollars will surely put a huge dent in our debt! you know, the debt that liberals naturally cause 100% of and not republicans by any way at all.

>thinking the FCC has your best interest at heart
Remember when they swore that rule about router power output wasn't to bully router manufacturers into closing off their hardware to open source firmware, then it happened to conveniently do exactly that?

Fuck the FCC, this is good.

where have you been OP

net neutrality is already out of the window with the TPP

>Fuck the FCC, this is good.
Yeah just how abolishing that nasty death tax will really help out those poor folk.

I love when idiots cheer and encourage politicians who actively try and take away anything that could ever potentially help them.


When mitt romney announced to a crowed of poor southerners he would abolish the death tax and then got a round of enormous applause was mind boggling. The death tax only applies to estates worth over $5M USD, so 95% of people in the US will never be effected by it. Yet those retards cheering on "their guy" will never see more than $40,000 a year in their life.


This is just another example

>if it doesn't negatively affect me, it can't be bad!
This is why liberals disgust me. I'm sorry, but "fuck rich people" shouldn't be a guiding principle to your ethos. There's more to a moral legal code than what's best for you, you fucking sociopath.

It's not fuck rich people you dumb cunt, it's call economics, if you have money it is MUCH easier to get more money, that money should be taxed at a higher rate since it is much easier for you to get more of it.

If you have $50M sitting a bank, you make enough money off the INTEREST alone you can live the rest of your days perfectly comfortably without ever spending a dime of that $50M, and if you invest that money even moderately well, average market return on investment will have you making significant chunks of money.

We already know humans are greedy fucks, so is this rich guy making millions a year doing fuckall but letting his money work for him, do you HONESTLY think he is going to stimulate the economy with that money? Nope, he's reinvesting it right back and sitting on it to get more money.

There is a reason we have seen wealth shift DRASTICALLY to the top 0.1% of earners.

64 people, SIXTY FOUR people have more money than the bottom 3.5 BILLION people.

There needs to be some form of wealth distribution and it's obvious even to economists.

Way to not address the part where the FCC are snakes in the grass with a hidden agenda to control mediums of communication in every supposedly beneficial decision they reach.

GUBMINT GUD

Oh I wont deny the FCC can't be trusted, but I believe the FCC is our best chance at keeping the cable industry in check, if I had my way internet would be a public utility in this country. It's retarded they've been allowed to create regional monopolies LEGALLY.

Reminder that Chairman Wheeler was a cable exec.
Someone who was a higher up in cable companies up until a decade ago isn't fighting for you, he doesn't care about your rights, and he has many friends who are still high up in telcom corporations. Who do you think is more relevant to him? You or someone he knows?

>i am entitled to your money!
get fucked, commie.

>I believe the FCC is our best chance at keeping the cable industry in check,

Or you know, if the FCC and all that regulation went away we might see local telcom companies start to pop up again, giving incumbent ISPs actual competition again.
Oh wait that's capitalism which is BAD and REPUBLICAN. Only uneducated people want competition in the marketplace.

>if you have money it is MUCH easier to get more money
This is how I know you're a kid. Because you don't understand capital investment or risk.

>that money should be taxed at a higher rate since it is much easier for you to get more of it
Please provide an ethical reasoning for this beyond "RICH PEOPLES GOT TOO MUCH MONEYS GIB US SUM".

>There is a reason we have seen wealth shift DRASTICALLY to the top 0.1% of earners.
Oh look, it's one of those idiots who think "income inequality" is a bad thing and doesn't understand wealth and economics aren't zero sum. Why don't you go move to Ukraine? Their income is super equal.

How the fuck is that supposed to work? Most cable companies have agreements with your local towns and cities making them the sole provider. The city has agreements saying they wont let anyone else come in and build infrastructure.

So how exactly are these competitors supposed to do anything? The mutli billion dollar companies already own all the lucrative markets and will be VERY aggressive at making sure others can't come in to compete, especially since there will be no regulation on them.


Capitalism never works because humans are greedy cunts at heart and the corporate mentality of quarterly profits are good and ANY negative quarter is TERRIBLE.

>Most cable companies have agreements with your local towns and cities making them the sole provider.
See
>Or you know, if the FCC and all that regulation went away
Are you intentionally obtuse or just illiterate? Your government created the problem, now you want more government to come fix it. Great plan, dipshit.

That's not federal regulation which is what the FCC is. That is local regulation your city/state/town/county etc has enacted without any federal oversight.

>having the government tell you what to do with your money

Must be yuropeen

>all that regulation
Notice the absence of the word federal? State government is just as shitty and protectionist as federal government, they both need to be reigned in.

...okay? So how does getting rid of the FCC do any of that?

Not to mention, with how many people are in this country and the resources we have, we can't have small government, it will never happen and can never happen, stop pretending you live in a fantasy world.

That's unlikely to be true for every city/town/county/etc.
It only takes a few success stories to become bigger news, and if officials start considering the upsides to dumping their contracts with big ISPs it would start happening in more places. Either way, the problem is over regulation. The FCC is regulation, so why would more regulation suddenly start making things better?

>Capitalism never works because humans are greedy cunts
Actually that's exactly why it works.

>the corporate mentality of quarterly profits are good and ANY negative quarter is TERRIBLE.
Yes, why would any company want to be losing money? Little losses over time accumulate into small losses, so you better be trying to figure out how to fix that if you're running a business.

holy shit you're retarded

who do you think builds the 5million dollar home?
what about the billions invested into large commercial buildings.

those don't magically grow from the ground.

its not "easy" to make money when you have money, you have to spend a fucking lot.

you make it seem no one loses from stocks or investments.

>if you have money it is MUCH easier to get more money, that money should be taxed at a higher rate since it is much easier for you to get more of it.
That literally doesn't make any fucking sense

thats like saying i should be taxed more as a software engineer than someone who works at mcdonalds because some would call my job "eaiser".

It gets rid of half the problem, idiot. You're probably too young to know this, but the FCC used to have a pretty reasonable role in the federal government, controlling use of radio spectrum, which is a limited common. Then everyone stopped giving a shit about the radio and over-the-air television and the FCC started muscling its way into cable television and the internet where its regulatory powers weren't ever needed to begin with.

>Yes, why would any company want to be losing money?
Okay let me explain, constant growth is unsustainable, period. You can not have quarterly profits every quarter forever, that isn't possible, the only way you do it is by cutting pay, benefits, or employees.

The minute you can be replaced by robot labor, guess what, that next quarterly statement will look a whole .5% better, your job's now fucked.

Capitalism only works when the workers are real people who you're paying, they then take that paycheck and stimulate the economy. But we're moving to robot workers and capitalism simply wont work in this type of society. The robots aren't spending their hard earned paycheck. and you certainly aren't getting it now that the robot is doing your job.

Who's the 0.1% that's paying all these GOP shills, SRSLY there can't be that many .1%ers in the entirety of the chans combined. Do you guys even make more than 100k let alone 1 million dollars?

>thats like saying i should be taxed more as a software engineer than someone who works at mcdonalds because some would call my job "eaiser".
That's exactly how it works... you make far more as a software engineer and are taxed at a higher rate because of it.


>Do you guys even make more than 100k let alone 1 million dollars?
shhhhh they're just down trodden millionaires, they'll be in the 1% themselves one day. just wait.

>Please provide an ethical reasoning for this beyond "RICH PEOPLES GOT TOO MUCH MONEYS GIB US SUM".
From an utillitarian standpoint, 1M to a billionaire means jack shit but 50k to 20 poor people could mean the world. Isthat ethical enough for you?

>GOP
Fuck the GOP, fuck the Democrats, fuck Obama, fuck the FCC and fuck your little televised sporting event. The fact that you think the GOP is the only enemy shows just how young and naive you really are.

But then he would only have .999 billion D:

You can't buy multiple jumbo jets with only .999 billion. How is he supposed to maintain his life style?

>internet not needing regulation
>only a single provider in most areas
>be me living in the Midwest DSL lands and paying $50 a month
50 cents have been deposited unto your account pajeet

Your story SEEMS logical, but it's LAUGHABLE.

In any real economic sense, if you have any marginal rates above about 25-30% - it is more profitable to offshore, use tax loopholes, and hire lawyers than pay taxes.

You will make your perceived problem WORSE, not better.

How can you "redistribute wealth" WITHOUT force and WITHOUT cost?

>From an utillitarian standpoint, 1M to a billionaire means jack shit but 50k to 20 poor people could mean the world. Isthat ethical enough for you?
No, and you should probably take a philosophy class if you think one person needing something entitles them to take it from someone else. Additionally, you forget that by the very virtue of you being able to post here, you're in the top global 1%. Why don't you send some of your income over to Darfur, if you're so caring. Unless you're only so generous when it comes to other people's money.

>it is more profitable to offshore, use tax loopholes, and hire lawyers than pay taxes.
that's already happening despite tax breaks for the rich.

Not to mention in the 30's and 40's tax rate on the rich was effectively over 80%

Nice projections m8, I was just trying to follow the subject matter

My only enemy is you, cause we don't work together to change shit and instead shit on each other. Fuck you.

>Capitalism only works when the workers are real people who you're paying
this is pretty much true, everyone wants to pretend it isn't but how can capitalism keep up with a robot work force?

>only single provider in most areas
Did you know that's because of local regulations preventing more from existing? Probably not, because you're a dipshit statist.

Less technology

more Sup Forums

t. jew

Of course, which goes back to the point. LOOK UP the origins of the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) in 1969. The old tax code was so laughable and so full of holes that many of the top earners paid NO TAX back then, despite a top 94% and later 70% bracket.

>local regulations
yeah so better get rid of all federal regulation to make sure there is nothing stopping them from total take over...

>ITT literally millionaires

Large companies establishing monopolies is not capitalism. Regulation is needed to keep the market free.

>yeah so better get rid of all federal regulation to make sure there is nothing stopping them from total take over...
I don't think you know how competition works.

Are you saying we need MORE regulation from the COMCA...I meant the FCC?

This is so irritating, you are deflecting - Comcast is an establishment liberal corporation - they own MSNBC.

Not yet :^)

Despite the fact 300M+ americans before them didn't get there, they will.

>what are lobbyists for 100 jim

my job is to sit alone in a room with a robot, and program and operate that one robot. 40+ hours a week.

Net neutrality is essential to a free market on the internet. Without it, a few large sites would control everything.

>he doesn't differentiate between natural and unnatural monopolies
Monopolies are absolutely capitalism and they aren't necessarily a bad thing if they result from one company providing the best product or service. A bad monopoly is one that only exists because the government disallows competition in the industry. Like the cable industry. Or the post office.

Having conservative values has nothing to do with personal wealth. Wouldn't expect an ideologue to understand that, though.

Uhhhh, user if the local towns and governments have already signed away their rights to future development (as many towns, counties, and cities have already done) then the big cable co who signed that deal will take anyone to court who decides to come in and provide your competition, they have legally binding arrangements that say they are the only ones allowed to provide internet/cable access.

And the town/city/county can't just reneg on this agreement either without going to court.

The very opposite. In practice, regulations protect large companies at the expense of new entrants. COMCAST comes to mind - which is why I am happy for internet TV.

>From the South
>Want to defend my region
>Secretly know you're absolutely right and everyone here is a poor retard.

>it's the lobbyists fault the government is bought and paid for, not our supreme overlords for being corrupt pieces of shit willing to sell our government!
Suck that state dick some more.

>retards at Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T successfully kill net neutrality
>Google, Apple, and Microsoft say fuck it, uses their $3 trillion cash pile to build nationwide fiber-to-the-home network
>Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T don't have enough capital to compete with Google and other tech firms
>Comcast goes bankrupt, and Google gets the enjoy being the market monopolist like Comcast wanted

So...regulations are the problem? This has literally been addressed like 10 times in this thread.

It depends on the nature of the regulation. If it's passed with lobbying from large cable companies, you can bet it'll be to their benefit.

>Okay let me explain, constant growth is unsustainable, period.
No duh.

>You can not have quarterly profits every quarter forever, that isn't possible, the only way you do it is by cutting pay, benefits, or employees.
Right. You do have to make sure your business is sustainable over the long term though. To do that you need to mitigate any losses you have though profits or stuff like you said. Plenty of companies have been going for hundreds of years without the need for sustained growth.

>The minute you can be replaced by robot labor, guess what, that next quarterly statement will look a whole .5% better, your job's now fucked.
No it's not, because I work for a company which can't afford automation on that level. This is true for most companies. Ironically the people most at risk right now are people who have no-skill jobs like cashiers. The combination of dying small businesses (who would not be affording automation) and increased cost of labor are both the result of regulation. Looks like there's a pattern forming here.

>Capitalism only works when the workers are real people who you're paying, they then take that paycheck and stimulate the economy.
Again, small businesses keep the money local, and operate on profit margins that wouldn't allow for them to drop a few million dollars on automation, meaning more human jobs. Ironically, by trying to regulate big business so much, we've created an environment hostile to small business, where only established large companies have enough resources to deal with all the regulatory nonsense. The only way many smaller businesses can operate now is to be a part of a franchise, which is pretty scummy in itself.

Of course, that's what tends to happen. "Smart" regulation is almost a unicorn.

>Comcast is an establishment liberal corporation
>they own MSNBC

Actually, Comcast is very Republican and has been for decades.

MSNBC came with NBC Universal when GE sold their media holdings to Comcast.

It's not surprising MSNBC has slowly moved back to center after Comcast acquired it. I wouldn't be surprised it turned into Fox News 2 in a few years.

Only major U.S. media holding company that actually leans liberal is Univision.

....user what are you going to do about it? It's a legally binding agreement... you can't just up and decide one day, oh well this agreement we made, actually we don't like regulation anymore soooo yeah, anyone can build here now lol, sorry comcast, that was our bad.

Yeah, not gonna fucking happen.

They may develop naturally, but one company having all the power is not good. If they decide to raises prices or cut quality, consumers have no choice but to buy from them.

Holyshit! Good Goyim of the year goes to this guy! Here, enjoy this new pencil holder! Maybe after 30 yes of hard labor you'll get to where I am! By the way, I'm putting my nephew feingold shecklestein as your new senior manager :^) make sure to treat him well, he just graduated!

>small businesses
you know how I can tell you live in the south or the midwest?

Go to any major costal city and point out all those small businesses for me.

>They may develop naturally, but one company having all the power is not good. If they decide to raises prices or cut quality, consumers have no choice but to buy from them.
It's like none of you Bernie Panders idiots understand that without government licensing and regulatory loopholes, you could start your own competing business and undercut the monopoly that just raised the prices.

>sucking big business dick instead
Good goyim! 50 cents have been credited to you account

I said establishment liberal - it's a different term. It's the Starbucks, Twitters, Targets, Googles of the world.

I'm not even using the proper definition of "liberal." I'm using the retarded SJW modern liberal variant.

Just enforce anti trust laws against comms companies, problem solved really

>you know how I can tell you live in the south or the midwest?
Because the liberals haven't killed all our mom and pop shops yet, and we aren't taxed at 45% of our income to line the pockets of useless bureaucrats?

I've never met a masculine white male Democrat voter in my entire life

not the guy you were responding to, but i live in the mid west and people brag about the small town im in because it has a walmart. they dont brag about having small businesses, they brag about wallmart and runnings and bernards

>OBAMAS DOING A BEN GA Z ON MY BALLZ
yeah youre way more rational

>you could start your own competing business and undercut the monopoly that just raised the prices
with what capital? You're talking BILLIONS of dollars. Not to mention, if comcast owns the lines in the area you can't just throw up your own line on their pole and call it a day. You have to lease the rights from them, or build your own infrastructure entirely which requires you to get right of ways, contractors, etc.

You're talking hundereds of billions of dollars for a densely populated state, and far more for the whole country, there is no way for competition to spring up unless someone like google or similar with a LARGE bank roll wanted to get started.

That's because you swear that guy either isn't white because (random retarded reason like tan or face shape) or that he is sissy because he is democrat.

You don't know the difference between federal and state taxes, do you? I only ask because your 45% number seems to point to that.

>he thinks supporting government regulation doesn't help big business
There's a reason why the tobacco companies love the regulations the government put on tobacco products in the 90s. Can you guess why? Because even though it costs them money to pay for bullshit televised propaganda campaigns designed to lower medicare costs, they still make more money because it locks small competitors out of the market. Big business and government are literally two sides of the same coin, you chucklefuck.

>liberals haven't killed all our mom and pop shops yet
yeah because walmart and others are such a bastion of the liberal left.

Get the history straight - most of the lack of competition comes from "regulated" monopolies due to federal legislation. The "break up" of Bell system and ATT came from revoking these similar restrictions.

Are you kidding? Do you own your own home? Did you need to have your water heater fixed? Likely done by a small business. Get Chinese food lately? Likely a small business. Wedding photography? Animal care? Automotive repair? Bought a car? All likely small businesses. You should really stop thinking every business is a multi-billion dollar multi-national with a CEO who makes $10,000 an hour, that's completely wrong.

>That's exactly how it works... you make far more as a software engineer and are taxed at a higher rate because of it.

The key take away is that with a tiered tax system, like the US has, that software engineer is taxed the same rate on their first 20k as a McDonald's employee would be. Only the income that places them in a higher bracket will see the increases rate. Historically the top tax bracket was as high as 70%+ now this is in the 30s.

Then you have capital gains capped at 15%. Doctors who make 200,000 are actually taxed at a higher rate than people who make millions from investments. As a sysadmin I paid a higher tax rate than Romney and I'm sure Trump if he ever releases.

IRAs and 401ks are not a joke - fucking start that shit asap or work till your dead.

It boils down to conservatives think regulation has caused the problems (and it has but only because our politicians are oligarchs and owned by the big businesses taking advantage of the regulation)

Liberals think there needs to be a lot more regulation to stop big businesses from having as much influence on the oligarchs.


No regulation is stupid and the current political elite will never allow enough regulation to keep them in check. Both sides are wrong.

You haven't disputed his point though

>with what capital? You're talking BILLIONS of dollars. Not to mention, if comcast owns the lines in the area you can't just throw up your own line on their pole and call it a day. You have to lease the rights from them, or build your own infrastructure entirely which requires you to get right of ways, contractors, etc.
You realize that there's more than one cable company, right? Maybe if they were allowed to serve the same area, rather than the government limiting it to just one, they'd have to fight for your business or something.

Liberals hate Walmart, which is why they pass laws which hurt small businesses and bring them more business, right? Get a clue, Walmart fucking loves the Clintons.

>Unironically arguing against net neutrality on Sup Forums

I want /r/The_Donald to leave

>rather than the government limiting it to just one
Oh you mean the companies who collude amongst themselves? They specifically coordinate it so they don't overlap and have to compete with each other if you think its because of government regulation and not the businesses wanting it that way for themselves I cant help you.

Capital gains is only capped if you hold a security longer than one year. Also, it initially comes from discretionary income earned at normal income tax rates anyway, which can reach a 50% marginal rate depending on the state.

You realize back in the 2000s there were lots of local ISPs starting up, right? Even fucking Family Video had their own ISP at one point.
MVNOs also exist, which is basically the cellular version of leasing lines.
No one is talking about some new ISPs taking over the entire country, it'd be local/regional ISPs providing better service because they only have to focus on a small area. They don't exist though because of regulations both at federal and local levels.

If your daddy voted red and you're voting red you're most likely just mirroring your upbringing and haven't actually put much original thought into your political positions.

>Freetards can't make good firmware
>Muh gubmint :-(

>Oh you mean the companies who collude amongst themselves? They specifically coordinate it so they don't overlap and have to compete with each other if you think its because of government regulation and not the businesses wanting it that way for themselves I cant help you.
And what happens if one of them breaks rank from the collusion? They make way more money and snipe business from all the other companies. But clearly big business cares more about being evil cartoon villains than profit, so that would never happen.

Leftards are leftarded. They don't even know history of the "regulated monopolies" of the telephone companies to understand that monopolies come from government most of the time, probably about 80-90%.

t. enlightened college liberal

If your daddy voted red and you're voting blue you're most likely just rebelling against your upbringing and haven't actually put much original thought into your political positions.

I'm guessing you don't leave the basement much or else you'd encounter plumbers, electricians, home improvement contractors, food trucks, bakeries, dry cleaners, locally owned coffee shops and grocery stores and restaurants, etc.

Fuck most colleges, I want to see "more smart regulations" for these dishonest shits.

AT&T was a REGULATED monopoly, ding-dong. The word "REGULATED" appears in the fucking term.

With actual competition we would get internet pricing like europe and asia, $20/month for 1gbps.

But that's actual competition and it would require comcast and others to invest in their infrastructure regularly to keep it robust.

However if they wanted to do that they could have done so already, they've proven time and again they dont give a fuck about the customers as long as they keep turning quarterly profits.

"Progressive" I think might be more descriptive than "liberal"

??? of course, you are just repeating what I said.