But it is.

Apple has owned the profit margin for years. It's not only this one quarter.

They get even harder to develop and replace when no one wants to invest in the development of such people. They generally don't just pop in fresh from a 4 year program.

You might want to review that statement, Apple appears to be cleaning house on the money side, taking 87% of the profit in the market.

I'm pretty sure we already considered what the rights of man are, as we only gave limited powers to the federal government via this document, the Constitution. Regulating encryption is not in the list, therefore it is reserved for the state or us.

The idea would be that he's paying more than he is now.

That is true - a lawyer should be consulted if he's truly concerned about legal ramifications. Companies use them to protect themselves, so should he if he believes he has valuable items that could be included.

The problem is the last mile would only be run competitively in high density population centers outward, until it is no longer profitable to add more people. The incumbents would then moan and complain that they cannot continue to support those low density areas, even though there's this universal access fee thing everyone pays, and stop serving them.

Because your boss's boss (assuming he's in the top5+%) is already paying less proportionally, and perhaps in total.

Consumption tax and income tax have to go hand in hand. If you only do consumption, there's nothing keeping the rich from gaining incredible wealth. If you only do income, the burden becomes too heavy on the rich or winds up taxing everyone, much like today, except for tons of loopholes that allow individuals to pay little tax. A consumption tax, globally applied, evens the playing field somewhat. Income tax on the richest 20 (x) % can lower the effective consumption tax rate some, or offset it for the bottom y%.

A) The income tax restricted to the top 20% is merely to tax disparate income. There should still be a consumption tax IMHO.

B) Capital tax, as I understood it, is on current wealth. After skimming TFA again, it appears that is how capital is used in TFA. I'd imagine to encourage savings, etc, this again would be applied to the top 20% percent

FYI - 20% is an arbitrary number between the top 100% and 0%. Slide as necessary to balance the budget or achieve whatever is necessary. That, of course, can allow the current situation to continue, or achieve a lowered rate of income inequality and a more robust economy.

Did you see any such statement above? No? I wonder why.

First, I'm not 100% sure what he means by a "progressive" consumption tax, perhaps the more you consume, the higher your tax rate? How would that work? Ideally, income tax would only hit the top 20% of income earners, plus a capital tax if your goal is to reduce wealth. However, note that a capital tax can most likely be gotten around precisely via such vehicles as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, because it's a philanthropic entity run by, whom again? And IIRC no tax was ever levied against that wealth nor its "transfer".

Well done, Bill!

I do believe income inequality is the inevitable result of unchecked capitalism. It's not necessary by any means.

Heck, all of the majors and even some minors have this capability built in or via a plugin (I don't know about IE thought). Who runs without one? Some of us want more than just click to play, however.