Warren Buffet: stop coddling the richest Americans

[Vladimir]

Well obviously taxes were lower in the early 20th century. Heck, personal income taxes topped out in the single digits. You think that's appropriate?

Yes.

[Montmorency]

Quelle surprise.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well obviously taxes were lower in the early 20th century. Heck, personal income taxes topped out in the single digits. You think that's appropriate?

The horror! Responsible fiscal leadership, budget surpluses more often than deficits, and genuine (and successful) efforts at paying down the debt - hardly an era we would want to emulate!

Why are tax rates in excess of 50% any more appropriate? Why should we accept continually growing rates as the most beneficial social and/or economic scheme? Because we're now forced to pay for ever more crippling entitlements? It seems pretty clear where the problem lies, and it's not with the rates.

Edit: The high tax rates lasted longer than the low ones, and therefore are not anomalous (41 years of 40% or more highest).

I count 60 years of tax rates below 40%.

[Montmorency]

Responsible fiscal leadership, or just lack of spending? Emulate? So WW3 then?

Top rate 40% or higher - years: 1942-5, 1950-87.
Top rate below modern - years: 1909 - 1941

Entitlements aren't the only things the government pays for. The extra revenue from high(er) taxes would be useful for those.



And I still don't get why the top tax bracket doesn't have the highest rate these days.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The US patent office needs more money for staff. I just read an article saying that the 8th millionth patent was just approved, but it was filed by the inventor in 2007. 4 years to get a patent approved is waaaay too long.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No. The US patent system needs a major overhaul so the vast majority of applications submitted can be sent to /dev/null, the shredder etc. etc. since they're invariably trivialities or invalid; and so it is not left to the courts to separating the wheat from the chaff. Additionally, the USPTO budget could do with a major overhaul so it doesn't actively reward doing a botched job on the part of the USPTO staff (it currently does).

[a completely inoffensive name]

No. The US patent system needs a major overhaul so the vast majority of applications submitted can be sent to /dev/null, the shredder etc. etc. since they're invariably trivialities or invalid; and so it is not left to the courts to separating the wheat from the chaff. Additionally, the USPTO budget could do with a major overhaul so it doesn't actively reward doing a botched job on the part of the USPTO staff (it currently does).

I don't understand. I was under the impression that engineers and scientists at the patent office look over and determine if an idea is good enough for a patent or not. Where do the courts come in except for enforcing the patents?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't understand. I was under the impression that engineers and scientists at the patent office look over and determine if an idea is good enough for a patent or not. Where do the courts come in except for enforcing the patents?

Many of those denied patents promptly sue to have the decision reversed and/or for damages resulting from lost protection of revenue. Think of it as a jobs program. We are talking a lot of families to feed here and a lawsuit is the best means to keep little Lilith happy in her Peg Perego.

[drone]

At the risk of taking this off-topic, software patents need to go. Software is, at the base level, mathematical algorithms, which are already unpatentable. Source code can already be protected under copyright. Business model patents are also ridiculous.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't understand. I was under the impression that engineers and scientists at the patent office look over and determine if an idea is good enough for a patent or not. Where do the courts come in except for enforcing the patents?

Seamus answered a part, I'll answer another: in the US of A, the patent office is not just supposed to rubber stamp patent applications. It is supposed to determine if these applications have merit in the first place. This requires expertise, or time to get expertise from the outside -- none of which is available with the current deluge of patents. Additionally it is possible for patent applications to be invalid because, say, there is prior art or because other patents already cover the topic. Software patents and hardware (design) patents are notorious for this because there are so many iterations of a given innovation and the industry moves very fast with at the same time a particularly voracious appetite for patents, patent litigation, patent trolling (litigation by a non-practicing entity), and awash with cash to pursue these goals.

So the USPTO is in the habit of rubberstamping patent applications instead, and then let the courts decide retroactively about the merits of the application when inevitably somebody gets sued over the granted patent. Quite a few patents have simply been thrown out like that in court cases this way.

But on the other hand when it comes to patents, courts and in particular juries in the USA tend to defer to the USPTO. “That's not our job to sort out, that was theirs. It was granted so it must be valid.” For instance the East District of Texas is a favourite hangout place for patent trolls because the jury almost always takes this somewhat dimwitted view.

EDIT: Just to give an example: meetings over lunch breaks are actually covered by a patent in the USA. The patent was filed and granted to IBM. Another one: SUN employees used to have a game which was “who can get the wackiest patent past the USPTO?”