Eh, I'll reply anyway AC.

The argument I was responding to was that with Apple I'm forced to by the OS with the HW, therefore I'm paying for the OS (read the original post I responded to). This is stilly as almost everyone gets an OS with their HW. Dell, Toshiba, Gateway, HP, Best Buy, Apple...

Its not about anyone dictating anything, just stating that the supposed issue that you HAVE to pay for the OS with Apple applies in almost all cases to Windows as well.

My MacBook Pro (non retina) is exactly as upgradable as my work issued Dell laptop. I can replace the battery, HDD, and RAM myself. If you go to a Air or Retina you can replace the HDD, I think, but nothing else. The trade there is very slim vs upgradability. As to upgrading... as I said I have a Win desktop and a MBP (and the stupid work laptop that I hate for various work IT related reasons). Usually with my desktop, by the time its so outdated I really feel the need to upgrade, its better cost benefit to just get a new box. "Broken items should be fixed". Ya... but my desktop right now runs a Core 2, and there is no upgrade path there... unless I get a new CPU and a new MoBo. I could then get a new GFX card, and use my current HDDs. So... I've saved the case and the PSU and the RAM, maybe. Meh....

No, I said I paid $20 for the OS upgrade.. which follows me to my new(er) Mac. Can you buy a Dell or Toshiba at Best Buy or some similar outlet store with no OS on it? So again your argument doesn't work because I pay for the OS on my Windows desktop as well when I bought my Dell. My more important point is that the Apple version of office SW was greatly cheaper and follows me to any Mac(s) that I own, thus differentiating from the MS Office experience. (I also own MS Office).

Your 30% number is vague as I can find Dell laptops with configurations that match the price of a macbook, and I can price out desktops from dell or alien ware that are comparable and in the same cost area. I'd also argue that even with some % upper for Apple, I am getting additional features that I'm willing to pay for. Namely outstanding service at the local Apple store.. in person. And a nicely curated App store for OSX. Its convenient for a lot of things. And my purchases follow me and I can reinstall without having to remember where I put the activation code, work on any mac I own. Kind of like the Steam model, which is also very nice. We could compare the price of Apple's version of Word, Excel, and PPT, which would cost a total of $60, vs the price of MS Office. So while you supposedly saved on your HW, I could equally claim I saved on office SW...

(Yes, there are some machines with options for Linux that let you reduce the OS cost, and yet, some houses like AVA Direct let you buy a no OS box, but thats not a "typical" PC user's go to place)

What? Apple is no better because the MS Office Lic applies equally to PC or Mac hardware? The problem is the license, nothing to do with the hardware.

In fact my $20 upgrade to Mountain Lion travels with my Apple ID. I sold an older MacBook and bought a new(er) one that had Lion on it. After I signed into the AppStore my Mountain Lion install worked fine...

Or the $20 Pages or $20 Numbers applications I bought.. once... that work on any Macs I own... at the same time.

Lets say top end rates go back to some of the historically high ones that have existed.. say 70% to 90% on income above $X, what possible incentive would there be to earn that money in the US? Someone with the ability to earn that money will choose to do it in a region where its not taxed like that.

Look at Google, Starbucks, etc, that are doing just that by taking that income in places like Ireland. So no they dont say "I just wont make more", they do it outside the US where they dont pay taxes on it and that money leaves our economy.

Lol. Sorry, the numbers make your argument total "fucking bullshit". You don't pay FICA on SS benefits. FICA is what funds your benefits, you ignorant twit. FICA is not a traditional tax in that you get it back in the form of those SS benefits you seem to like so much. Its essentially a forced savings account for retirement that is administered by the Gov and half funded by your employer.

Whereas the income taxes some of us pay are directly funneled to others via a huge series of defined benefits and other hand outs. If your beloved "47%" is really largely Sr Citizens living off SS, they dont pay income taxes (as has already been demonstrated) nor do they pay FICA.

Learn2research.

> The problem since 1980, is that those with the most money have voted that they pay a lower share of taxes than their share of wealth.

No. What is "their share" and why should it be more simply because they are more successful? In fact the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all taxes and the top 50% pay 98% (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html).

The problem is we continue to take from the top 50% and give it away to the bottom 50% who pay essentially nothing and in many cases get a refund check anyway for various credits. This does little to motivate anyone to try and make more money.

>the bottom 98% woke up and said, "wow! The top 1% is taking everything

I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%. Everyone should pay something if they have an income. If you have no skin in the game you have no reason to care if taxes go up on everyone else and you will continue to vote yourself more money.

This sums up the real problem nicely:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
-- Alexander Fraser Tyler

Tax Rates != quality of civilization. People engaging in work, contributing to the economy and paying fair taxes along the way for the government to provide essential services to allow people the freedom to continue working and making money builds civilization.

Why should it go to social programs? Why cant I just keep my hard earned money for my favorite social program: buying ME beer...

I have had ATT for a while and found it particularly frustrating. The "4G" is unreliable and even if you have several bars you can have zero data throughput. I travel frequently to LA and Florida and had poor service both places. Last LA trip we had a biz dinner at a place near the beach and I had no service, my buddy had full Verizon LTE.

Switched the iPhone 5 about a week ago and went to Verizon and its insanely better. LTE feels about as fast as WiFi at home, and actually faster than some hotel WiFis. I was back in LA the last few days and had great service in areas I had zero on ATT. Would deff recommend Verizon, eps with an LTE phone.

Other cool note: VZ lets you tether free, ATT makes you pay additional.

So you are saying the Comcast cable line into my condo is owned by ATT? And the Fiber line into my office that is owned by CenturyLink is actually owned by ATT? Not arguing for the sake of it, but seems a giant over statement to say ATT owns the last mile everywhere.

Qwest bought USWest, which was a baby bell. Qwest was purchased by CenturyLink, which is not connected to ATT at all.... ya, it WAS all ATT back when the phone system was first rolled out, but it is completely inaccurate to say that now.

I'd point to Level3 or (what used to be) Qwest or Global Grossing or other companies that own their own nation wide fiber network. Qwest bought a bunch of railroad right of ways and laid fiber all over the place. So no, all the back haul from towers isnt ATT.