MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

He may take home $40,000 after Obama is through with him. But then again, since Tony and his wife Dani paid big money to the Obama campaign, he may have already known this was coming.

I am special and I am willing to 'advise' Steve for $100K. A real deal I think.

Settlement Agreement? The last few lines look ominious..

You beat me to it. Looks like his new payday won't be too nice in the end...

Nov 05, 08 - 01:21 pm Comment from: HMCIV

I am sure Tony and Apple will be crying all the way to the bank over this one.

Nov 05, 08 - 01:27 pm Comment from: Cubert

He's actually going to be Steve's Special Fashion Advisor.

"Ummm.....I think you should go with the mock black turtleneck and jeans today, Steve."

Good work if you can get it.

Nov 05, 08 - 01:42 pm Comment from: Macintosher

How much do I get paid to advise Tony?

Hopefully he will be taxed higher. He earns more. That's the way it works unless you want the rich to get richer and the poor poorer.

I wouldn't worry about taxes, no-one that high up in Apple can fail to be a multi-millionaire without even trying.

Kind of depressing that the day after the election the first comment about a completely unrelated matter is a big negative about taxes.

Way to go "Manna" :( Must be hard work being a negative jerk.

I can't believe so many conservatives read this site... Freaking disgusting people.

You can make an informed decision about computers, but you spew out the same tired conservative FUD? Freaking. Disgusting. People.

Yeah, those disgusting conservatives. How dare they read a site, especially if they don't agree with every opinion or news item there-in?! Disgusting, that they might be informed about something even if they don't always agree.

Nice job, Luke Dyer. Good thing you know everything and are right about everything, thus you can propogate the popular myths about Apple users...

MW: normal - sad but true, this is normal

Nov 05, 08 - 02:26 pm Comment from: John Gee

@Luke Dyer

Are you kidding me?!

You sound like a conservative just ran over your cat.

Get a life.

By the way, as a conservative, I have great admiration and appreciation for different viewpoints...read: Barack Obama's views. I respect that it takes diversity in opinion sometimes to get this country going in the right direction.

Nov 05, 08 - 02:33 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

@ApplePi

"...Hopefully he will be taxed higher. He earns more. That's the way it works unless you want the rich to get richer and the poor poorer. ..."

If you had even a modicum of economic sense, you'd know just how wrong this ridiculously simple minded adage is.

Consider that I run my own business. By your standards I would be considered wealthy. My business has slowed down recently and the city of Los Angeles is hitting me up for new business taxes as well as the state of California.

As a result, I:

1. Did not start the home improvements I had planned.
2. Reduced the hours of my house keeper to once a week instead of every other day.
3. Let one of the coders I had on staff go and nixed plans to hire a part time iPhone developer.

Did my lifestyle change? No.
Nonetheless, several other people are much poorer due to my increased tax burden. On top of this, I am anticipating more taxes due to the election of Obama. At which point I will let the house keeper go all together, and possibly move the coding side of my business to India, releasing the last two coders I have working for me.

The truth my simple minded friend is that as the rich get poorer, the poor get seriously screwed. As the rich get richer, wealth spreads.

It's not rocket science.

"Hopefully he will be taxed higher. He earns more. That's the way it works unless you want the rich to get richer and the poor poorer."

Can you tell me how taxing him more will keep the poor from getting poorer? There is no correlation. Besides even at a flat percentage, he would already be paying more! 10% (I wish it were that low) of $300,000 is $30,000, 10% of $30,000 is $3000. So why should he be charged at a higher rate?

On the other hand, if he is charged more, then maybe he won't hire a gardening service....and the gardening service may lay an employee off, guaranteeing that employee becomes poorer.

Think about it......

Nov 05, 08 - 02:45 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

@ApplePI

I'll give you another example. One of my clients runs a public relations firm out of Los Angeles. He is extremely successful. He employees over 15 people.

Due to his efforts 15 people make a living, a good one where the average salary is over 45,000 per year. I'm guessing his take home is around 300k per year.

He's also been hit by the city tinkering with business taxes to increase revenues. His business is also slowing down. I'm going in to his office today to consult on security issues of his letting 4 people go this Friday.

He's doing the same thing. He's getting ready as much as responding to current economic realities.

You "ApplePi" say that this is how things should work. He makes more so he should pay more. Consider that sense he pays more, suddenly people who earned about $200k in combined salaries will now be unemployed. Those taxes will not get paid. They will also cut back, drastically as they look for work.

When wealth at the top expands, wealth at the bottom expands. When wealth at the top contracts, wealth at the bottom contracts.

I'm not saying that there aren't ridiculously over paid people in this world like the infamous hedge fund managers example, but even in that case, what they make is NONE of my business.

The vast majority of people in this country are employed by small businesses. Instead of punishing small business owners, they ought to be given TAX BREAKS based on the number of people they employ.

Such a concept would never occur to an Obammacrat though.

When people work to create wealth, those people should be rewarded. When they create wealth for others, provide health care, etc. the state should not step in and respond with essentially punitive measures.

A few important points. theloniousMac noted it is not rocket science, but in fact people in general are remarkably poorly educated about economics. In addition we all have our blind spots, where even if we know better we make wrong decisions. Some factors people should be aware of:

-Government is very inefficient at redistributing wealth. They don't do a good job of it, the return on investment is poor. In fact, government tends to reduce wealth (of everyone, not of the rich)

-wealth is not a zero-sum game. That is, the wealthy getting richer does not equal some number of people getting poorer by the same amount. This is where our intuition falls down big-time. In fact, it often works in reverse - again as theloniousMac pointed out, wealth can expand at the top and at the bottom together in a causal relationship (not that it always does). Wealth contracting at the top also usually results in wealth contracting further down. Is it worth "sticking it to the man" when in fact, that will guarantee that it will be stuck to you even worse?

-Policy for a country is not a simple matter. If it was, we wouldn't all be fighting so hard over it. There are a lot of factors to the overall equation, and the "right" answer isn't always clear (like the current bailout situation).

Nov 05, 08 - 03:07 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

@Luke Dyer

I doubt you even know what a conservative is. You sound terribly ignorant.

I am a conservative. I am a so called "African-American." As a conservative I believe in smaller government. I do not believe that government should meddle in the free market. I believe that in most cases government regulation is bad, but that it is warranted in some situations, particularly in making sure there is a level playing field with regard to business competition.

I believe in a strong defense for the nation. If the country is not secure, then we are all in trouble. I want every other nation on the planet to know that to attack America is to risk annihilation. I believe that our power should be used for defense, but that sometimes defense can take the form of intervention in matters not directly associated with us.

I believe in personal responsibility. My successes are my own. My failures are my own. If I lose everything and wind up pushing a basket down Sunset boulevard tomorrow afternoon, it is not YOUR responsibility. It is mine. It is mine to deal with, mine to recover from. I do not expect a hand out from the state or the people.

Unlike some conservatives, I am an atheist. My only religion is rational thought. My philosophy is based on the scientific method.

I do not believe that abortion should be banned. I believe that abortion is a decision that should be made by both parents and that a father should have some say, but barring that, I'll be the first to protest any serious attempt at banning abortion. That is government overstepping its boundaries.

As a conservative and a black person, I am not a racist. I do not judge people individually based on the color of their skin. Ironically, as a black person, I find that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is the MOST RACIST institution in this country. The Democratic party seeks to perpetuate my status as some kind of VICTIM. As long as I think that racism holds me down, I'm one of theirs.

When it came time to vote for President, I did not look at Obama's color nor McCain's color. I agonized over the decision because, in my humble opinion, they all sucked. Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin, all of them.

I had to look at Obama and the possibility of large congressional majorities and realize that we are talking about a possible MASSIVE EXPANSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS INTRUSION INTO THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS. I had to hold my nose and vote for McCain.

When I look at Barrack Obama, I do not see a black man. You probably do as you are a liberal and racism and liberal thinking go hand in hand.

When I look at Barrack Obama I see a politician and a lawyer, two things we ought no better than to trust by now!

Do I like the man? On face value yes. Would I like to sit down, have dinner and a bottle of wine with him? Yeah. He looks like he'd be a very interesting person to talk to and debate. Would I like to sit down and talk with McCain? No, not really. Kinda boring in my opinion.

You see, nothing is as simple as you seem to paint it.

As a conservative I believe in the free market and supply side economics. I see the effects of supply side demonstrated every single day.

So when you call me a "disgusting" person I have to wonder just what kind of person are you. Are you just an ill-informed teenager or a completely ignorant adult? I wonder why liberals are so full of hate. Why do they think they know me?

Maybe now with the election of Obama liberals can relax and we can all get back to work.

"I had to look at Obama and the possibility of large congressional majorities and realize that we are talking about a possible MASSIVE EXPANSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS INTRUSION INTO THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS. I had to hold my nose and vote for McCain."

As opposed to the previous "conservative" government that's all but nationalized the banking system. That's rich!

"MASSIVE EXPANSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS INTRUSION INTO THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS"

Isn't that what we just had with the Bush administration? A huge increase in government spending (it must be true, because Fox News said so) and the Patriot Act and FISA Court-free electronic communications snooping. I'm hoping that the next President will reverse several of the Bush policies and find a sensible way of protecting the nation while keeping government out of my email.

Clinton/Gore reduced the size of government. Perhaps it's too much to hope that Obama/Biden will do the same.... but, I'm willing to give them the chance to act before I start All Caps shooting my mouth off on Mac-related forums.

Now....if there was only a way to get Pres-elect Obama to abandon his Blackberry and come to the light that is iPhone

DR

Well, I bet you are sure happy that your conservative friend Bush decided to bail out the free market since it can't take care of itself with 700 billion.

And your housekeeper, you obviously don't deserve if you aren't making enough money to afford her/him. Like other execs you choose your life style over your company which is what got us into this mess. Thanks...

But hopefully since you are an atheist as myself, you had common sense to vote No on 8, since the biggest travesty of our government is not nearly enough separation of church and state.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:30 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

"...sn't that what we just had with the Bush administration? A huge increase in government spending (it must be true, because Fox News said so) and the Patriot Act and FISA Court-free electronic communications snooping. I'm hoping that the next President will reverse several of the Bush policies and find a sensible way of protecting the nation while keeping government out of my email...."

No argument from me, though I think misguided liberals will be very disappointed in how little of the Bush's "policies" get reversed by Obama. Sometimes the realities of the world interfere with our idealism.

George W. Bush was the worst possible example of a conservative. In fact he did nothing like a conservative at all. When I want to point to a real conservative, I usually tell people to look at either John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. They are my two favorite Presidents.

There is a commonality for the 90% - everybody thinks he is right; everybody thinks he is in the minority and being persecuted; everybody feels righteous about their beliefs and arguments and everybody else is one-dimensional and stupid; everybody's got anecdotal evidence to prove his point which someone else can easily pull out opposite anecdotal example to counter.

Guess what? The world is more complicated than that. That's why you are all partially wrong.

The other 10% only cares about making more money first. Then worry about taxes but can afford to hire the people to bend the law in their favor.

@ theloniousMac

Well thought out and logical responses as opposed to many responses on this topic that let emotions run high and instead are filled with words that resemble hatred.

Well said!

Nov 05, 08 - 03:37 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

@edward...

The administration, as screwed up as it is, had little to do with the current banking situation and economy. If anything the Bush tax cuts helped to prevent us from going into a recession right after 9/11.

If you really wish to learn, please look at the collusion between the Democratic Congress, including Barrack Obama, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The policy of the day as pushed by Democrats, was grant loans based on reverse red-lining, not ability to pay.

Start here... this is quickly and easily digested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8

"As opposed to the previous "conservative" government that's all but nationalized the banking system. That's rich!'

Especially considering that the "nationalizing of the banking system" has been going on since before the Great Depression.

It isn't just economics that people in this country need educating about, but history as well.

If they had, they wouldn't be "spewing out the same tired leftwing FUD," because the last century's history of the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China is all the proof necessary to show a rational mind that those politics and policies of those systems do not work.

Of course, the tired old response (by apologists of those systems) to that observation is that it was the leaders of those systems, and not the system itself, that were responsible for their abject failure.

Yeah... and if pigs had wings.

"Isn't that what we just had with the Bush administration? A huge increase in government spending"

Yup, and I disagreed with most of that growth as well.

"Clinton/Gore reduced the size of government."

Not quite, they expanded government (except the military and hiked taxes. It wasn't until the new congress came in that we saw less expansion. Technically, it kept growing, but at a smaller rate.

"Perhaps it's too much to hope that Obama/Biden will do the same"

The difference is that they have come into power promising that there WILL be huge expansions of government.

Nov 05, 08 - 03:49 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

This is an example of the liberal mind:

"Well, I bet you are sure happy that your conservative friend Bush decided to bail out the free market since it can't take care of itself with 700 billion.

And your housekeeper, you obviously don't deserve if you aren't making enough money to afford her/him. Like other execs you choose your life style over your company which is what got us into this mess. Thanks...

But hopefully since you are an atheist as myself, you had common sense to vote No on 8, since the biggest travesty of our government is not nearly enough separation of church and state."
-------------------------

Wow. No one could have made a more concise example of the liberal mindset than that comment. Wow. Unfortunately, I fear this is the kind of thinking that put Obama into office.


Concerning bailouts, unfortunately, I suspect there will be more bailouts coming and though they will occur under the Obama administration, he is no more responsible for them than Bush was. Watch for the automobile industry next.


Incidentally, I personally campaigned against Prop 8. There is much to be learned from California's rejection of gay marriage. I found countless people that supported Obama on the one hand, but sounded like complete homophobics when it came to Prop 8. Go figure.

Perhaps cognitive dissonance is just part and parcel of liberalism.

Here's another explanatory piece about the feds involvement from the perspective of an economist.

More about how "interference" rather than "regulation" or as claimed "de-regualtion" is responsible.

http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/open_letter.htm

Considering the US Tax Rates aren't 100% - he's still netting a gain. Case closed.

Nov 05, 08 - 05:43 pm Comment from: HeartMan

Losing your housekeeper? Oh life is a bitch! How about the families that are losing their homes because of the sleazy sub-prime mortgages? Or workers who have been laid off because of the crash in the economy, thereby losing health care benefits and going bankrupt because of trying to pay the bills for a seriously ill child or spouse? And very likely losing their house with any kind of mortgage in the bargain as well?

Oh, dear! The very thought of having to vacuum your own carpets and clean your own bathrooms. I am really so sorry. How will you ever get by?

Nov 05, 08 - 05:49 pm Comment from: Connor MacBook

As a moderate conservative I like Obama, but the hype and rhetoric were starting to wear thin. Let's hope the words can be matched by action.

"Considering the US Tax Rates aren't 100% - he's still netting a gain. Case closed."

Absolutely, as long as it isn't 100% it's OK. Brilliant.

And while we're at at, as long as Hitler wassn't killing EVERYONE, we should have left him alone.

I like theloniousMac's thinking about exporting jobs or even better bringing some foreigners to do the same job for less.

If been saying it, we ran the numbers and Obama won't be as bad as you think...

Can you say cheap foreign labor? I can!

Nov 05, 08 - 08:15 pm Comment from: knowhowe

My advice for free: in the face of a deluge of bloody "I'm a PC" ads, advertise Macs properly in the 51st state! (that's the UK if you weren't sure)

@TheloneusMac for President! Oh wait, the elections are over. Well stated responses!. Where is your blog? Time for some Camel Milk

By the way, isnt this the same type of rediculous CEO compensation that Obama was railing against in his speeches? I think the new administration needs to do something about the looting of the stockholders money for "Special Advisors" such as Tony Fadell.