I don't think it's hard to argue the rich don't get more from US taxes at all. The rich tend not to have to rely on social services as much and often bypass government funded services for private ones (schools, security, medical, etc..).

They definitely benefit more from tax BREAKS but not necessarily the taxes themselves. Tax breaks are just a byproduct of a the very scaled tax system you deem fair because in a system where everyone is treated differently, everyone believes they should be paying less in tax than someone else is and will do everything in their power to try and make that happen; the rich just tend to have more power and therefore have more chances to tailor the tax code to their needs.

The easiest flat rate plan that also doesn't hurt the poor or middle class would be simply to have an adequate personal exemption limit. For example, the first $20k any person makes is entirely tax free and then you pay 20% on ALL income after that.

Politicians don't like flat taxes though because it cuts out a very large part of their funding; special interest groups looking for favorable tax breaks for their members. No tax breaks = less money spent on bribing (excuse me, lobbying) pols to pass legislation favoring one group over another.

The end result was Netflix placing their server directly on Comcast's network, hence the not so miraculous disappearance of the problem.

Comcast is free to upgrade or not upgrade the lines as required, as is the other involved ISP. Neither were willing to pay the cost because Comcast didn't want to foot the bill to provide extra service to another ISPs client (Netflix).

They didn't degrade the service, just decided not to upgrade it when the other ISP wouldn't foot part of the bill.

So if i decide to host a Netflix like service off my home computer but don't bother paying my ISP for a full business line then you feel you can blame Comcast for my not wanting to pay up?

All internet traffic has a sender and receiver and both have a part in ensuring adequate speeds. In this case Netflix's ISP wasn't willing to spend the extra money to cover the overage their traffic was causing on the line between them and Comcast's network.

They had an agreed upon bandwidth agreement and because Netflix was in such demand they were exceeding it. Comcast could of, out of the kindness of their hearts, shouldered the cost and allowed the extra bandwidth but that's not the way almost any real business works. They told Cogent they wanted to be paid to expand the agreed upon bandwidth limit and Cogent said no so they went to Netflix and made a deal directly with them. End result, everyone's happy except the people who wanted Comcast to foot the bill for another ISPs cost cutting measure.

The new FCC rules have absolutely no impact on this type of dealing. They can't force an ISP to improve their performance only dictate that they don't unjustly modify the traffic once it's on their network. In Netflix's case, it was the getting the traffic onto their network where the problem was occurring.

Netflix's ISP and Comcast couldn't reach an agreement to increase their bandwidth allotment so when demand increased a bottleneck occurred. Netflix simply went around their own ISP and paid for direct access to Comcast's network.

Actually, it was Netflix running out of bandwidth, or rather their ISP(s). Basically they went above and beyond the data limits set by their peering policy and refused to pay the overage fees so Comcast didn't expand their bandwidth. Netflix got around this by signing a contract to allow them to host some servers on Comcast's network and essentially bypass their ISP(s). That is all still perfectly legal under the new FCC rules.

So it had nothing to do with your agreement with Comcast, or Netflix agreement with the ISP, it was a failure to reach an agreement between multiple ISPs. It also would impact all data and not just Netflix traffic between those networks but it's harder to see if your web page takes and extra 2 tenths of a second to load then if your HD streaming movie gets jumpy.

If I can only use Canada Post because of my location and buy something from you and you exclusively use Fed EX (which has no location near me) then any money I happen to pay Canada Post or you has no real impact on the fact Fed Ex, at some point during shipping, has to have a separate contract for delivery through CP to get me my parcel. If their willing to foot the bill they can pay for next day delivery or they can cheap out and pay for normal land delivery. Nether of us really gets much say in what choice Fed Ex makes.

From my understanding Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix, they just didn't upgrade the lines between their network and Netflix servers to handle the extra load. Netflix then paid to have their servers added directly to Comcast's network. That is still legal under the new FCC rules.

That's the same as me living on a dirt road 5 miles off the main highway and complaining that the mail truck slows to 20 mph when coming down the road to deliver to me whereas he drives 55 mph on the main road when delivering to other people. The county isn't 'throttling' my mail because they won't pave my driveway. If I want to get my mail faster I can either put a mailbox at the end of my road near the highway or move my house.

But to too many US "law enforcement" agencies the fact a criminal may also do something similar gives them enough leeway to seize your money and use it as their own.

Civil forfeitures laws in the US are so ridiculous that if you happen to get pulled over for speeding on the way back from selling your motorcycle for cash, the cops can seize the money "just in case", or more related to this depositing issue, if you happen to run a small store and do nightly deposits under 10k (because that's what was in the till at the end of the day) they will seize your accounts.

Even when they know with certainty there was no crime committed and you have all the legal justification in the world to have done what you did with your money they will gladly seize it and make you spend the next 6 months+ fighting to get it back.

Wasn't that NCIS proper? NCIS NO (easily the worst of the bunch) was all about a morgue hostage crisis.

I was just shocked they mentioned Fast and Furious by name at all.

And then they just ordered the companies servers shut down on their own presumed authority.

I believe the case was solved because the criminals used an XBox to threaten them to restart the service.

You may be unaware but there are people who live outside of the US, I happen to be one of them.

I think you also have anger issues since nothing I said implied or stated any bigotry, just an understanding that it's a bad idea to try and regulate behavior. If a person wants to not provide service for someone else I say go ahead because it's not societies job to make you a good person. As long as the government isn't involved with artificially propping you up and creating barriers against competition, if you treat any group of people unfairly the laws of supply and demand will eventually lead to someone else moving in to take up that slack; especially in today's internet age where Amazon or similar companies can get you almost anything next day.

That's not to say there can't be some laws about how your business operates, but when it comes to choosing clientele that should be left up to the owner and let the people in the community decide if they want to patronize their establishment or not.

I happen to have a little more faith that in general, communities can fix their own problems if left to themselves but I'm sure your way works well too, since nothing bad has ever happened when big brother decides to put their nose in peoples business.

A lot, if not most, of the segregation in the south was due to government intervention, not business decisions. Jim Crow laws dictated the layouts of restaurants, public transport, washroom access etc..

In general, businesses go where the money is and as soon as any segment of society has disposable income either existing businesses will adjust to cater to that new clientele or new businesses will open to provide the demanded service.

I would say go ahead. Refuse to service whoever you want for whatever reason you want, it's your right and should remain your right whether you run a business or not.

Unless you are using the government to restrict others from competing against you, if you choose to be intolerant of any group then someone will most likely come along to provide a similar service to those you exclude. If enough people find your actions offensive than your new competitor will most likely run you out of business. That's the way things are suppose to work. The markets will usually find an answer unless the government steps in to prevent them.

I used to buy all my hard drives and occasional RAM upgrades at FS and BB because of their price match policy. While they won't price match real computer stores directly (because real computer stores don't sell retail versions) occasionally one would have a sale where their prices were comparable or even better and then I'd go to whichever ones didn't have the sale and get their 110% price match.

Because of their astronomical markups, when one would actually sell something for real market prices, it wasn't unusual to have a price match that would result in an extra $10 - $15 in your pocket compared to a real computer store.