Warren Buffet, one of my personal heroes, once said, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”

Buffet, who was once the world’s richest man, now holds the number-three spot, and has made his fortune based on doing things differently. His philosophy on business could perhaps best be described by taking the time to do things right and treating people right along the way — something the world could use more of. This same viewpoint led Buffet to question why he, a multi-billionaire, was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary — a question that has now been echoed across the country.

Everyone hates taxes. Well, except for Uncle Sam. But we all agree that they are a necessary evil. Another thing that most people agree on is that people who earn more money should pay a higher tax rate. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In 2011, the income tax bracket for a Head of Household went like this:

10%:  $0-$12,150
15%:  $12,150-$46,250
25%:  $46,250-$119,400
28%:  $119,400-$193,350
33%:  $193,350-$379,150
35%:  $379,150+

Clearly the intention is that the more money you earn, the higher rate you pay. In practice, however, this objective is rarely achieved with the super rich because tax brackets only affect earned income and not investments, which is where most of the rich’s wealth comes from.

Let’s take Warren Buffet as an example. In 2011, Buffet declared a taxable income of about $40 million. This is well over $379,150, so clearly he should pay 35 percent amounting to $14 million, right? Well, as much as President Obama would love that, Buffet only had to pay about $7 million, which amounts to 17.4 percent of his income. So what’s going on here? The reason Buffet pays so little is that the vast majority of his income comes from investments, where the tax rate is a flat 15 percent, regardless of the amount of money earned.

Tax rates on investments are kept low for a variety of reasons, the chief among them being to encourage investment. While this logic is sound in theory, many argue that, in practice, it falls apart. Say, for example, you have an investment that could potentially net $10 million. Some argue that if the tax rate on that investment increases from 15 percent to 25 percent, the knowledge you’re going to pay $1 million more on that $10 million you just earned is going to stop you from making that investment.

A second argument for keeping tax rates on the rich low is that they are the “job creators,” and if their tax rate is too high, job creation will plummet. This is an outstanding argument because while it is nearly impossible to prove, it is also incredibly difficult to disprove. Those who argue against it cite examples, such as that between 1980 and 2000, roughly 40 million jobs were added. Since the dawn of the George W. Bush era in 2000, there have been lower tax rates and far fewer jobs created. However, while this is a good point, it does not really “prove” anything, as nobody can say for certain that without the lower taxes, job creation would not have been even worse. Thus lies the beauty in basing an argument on a counterfactual.

Personally, I think it’s rather shortsighted to say that higher taxes hurt job creation, because rationally it just does not make sense. The logic is very similar to that of raising the investment tax rate. If a company is currently taxed at 35 percent, on the surface it makes sense to say, “Well, if the rate is increased to 40 percent, they will have less money and therefore hire fewer people.” As any economist will tell you, however, this is the wrong focus. The correct question to ask is whether hiring another worker will be a profitable decision for the company.
This is a decision independent of the tax rate.

Warren Buffet agrees with me, or rather, I agree with him, and that is why he has called on the government to take action — a call that has fallen on deaf ears. Over the past few decades, Buffet has repeatedly voiced his opinion that the super rich like him should pay more taxes.

He has said, “But I think that people at the high end — people like myself — should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it.”

You would think that when it comes to financial advice from Warren Buffet, somebody would listen.

DANNY BRAWER would like to thank all his readers for their great questions and comments throughout the quarter. If you have any more, let him know one last time at dabrawer@ucdavis.edu.

Earlier this month, the UC Davis Police Department (UCDPD) added 11 new bicycle cop positions to current force members, increasing the number of bike cops on campus.

Ironically, this move was made to better community relations between campus members and the police by increasing the direct contact people share with officers — a likely response to the Nov. 18 pepper-spraying incident. Furthermore, the new bike cops will continue to promote bike safety, which will ultimately reduce the number of citations.

While more cops will unquestionably be annoying, what this really means is all bikers will have to be a little more cautious when it comes to riding around campus. More bike cops means a higher chance of getting caught after you roll through a stop sign or while biking without a light.

The UCDPD has stressed bike safety with its warning-first policy and the educational program individuals can participate in to reduce fines. This is good and should continue. As long as the new bike cops are respectful and focus on promoting education, life on campus shouldn’t change too much. Furthermore, we hope the officers have learned something from the past few months and respect the students’ desire for an unarmed police force.

The easiest way to make UC Davis a safe biking campus is for all riders to make sure they know how to ride a bike. Too many accidents are caused by individuals who are not experienced in manning a two-wheeled moving apparatus. These inexperienced individuals are usually so worried about not falling that they develop tunnel vision and ignore their surroundings, causing accidents and unsafe biking conditions.

Obviously, the UCDPD can’t force people to learn how to ride a bike. There’s only so much a citation or mandatory online training can do. Like driving a car, individuals need to get on the road and practice in a safe environment that isn’t Hutchison Drive at one o’clock in the afternoon on a Monday.

So, if you’re thinking about breaking out that new beachcruiser with handlebars as wide as the bike lane for your first ride to campus, think again. Perhaps walking is a better option.

Somebody broke up with me once, so I completely identify with Adele and her music. Even one year later, listening to the powerhouse crescendos and vocal fire of “Rolling in the Deep” still takes me back to the memories of that one person who said he didn’t find me attractive. It’s nice to know that, in terms of heartbreak, someone else out there is on the same level as I am.

Actually, I’ve always carried a torch for strong female vocalists who need no man. Even for someone who’s never been spurned by a lover there’s something so vicariously empowering about seeing a chanteuse turn her romantic crises into multiplatinum-selling discs. After all, nothing speaks louder than a lyrical middle finger and a stack of record profits higher than Big Ben. Well, except for maybe the legions of fans like me.

It’s hard to pinpoint any single trait that draws us to Adele so magnetically. For me, it was initially her ability to pull off lumpy oatmeal-hued sweaters as well as her prominent chin, with the music itself coming in a close third place. In any case, whether it’s some form of powerful cockney voodoo or simply the maternal charm of her ponytails keeping the rest of the world’s attention, it’s working: 21 has held the top position on the Billboard charts for 23 weeks and Adele’s fan base continues to swell.

If I had to venture a guess on behalf of the fans, however, I would say that the common reason for our devotion is that we didn’t even realize we had all suffered our own love life traumas until Adele came along. Before songs like “Someone Like You” there was still the possibility of recalling our past breakups as amicable and mutual, but that’s no longer an option.

Thanks to the intense emotional content of her record, as well as my desire to associate with it, I now regularly find myself looking back misty-eyed at three-week-long relationships and one-night stands, thinking “we could have had it all…” I assume — because Adele seems to really resonate with a vast audience and also because I like to think everyone emulates me to a certain extent — that this style of thinking is a popular one.

It’s certainly an easy mindset to adopt; with ballads like Adele’s, all it takes is one listen before you start to remember all of your previous relationships as tumultuous, heart-rending affairs. Perhaps it’s the lyrical content or the gusto of her delivery, but there’s something about her style that just makes the listener feel understood.

Never mind the fact that I’ve never watched an old flame move on and get happily married, when I’m listening to “Someone Like You,” the piano alone is so poignant I could swear that I’m the one who has just endured a soul-crushing breakup. I still can’t tell you what exactly it means to “Set Fire to the Rain,” but when that song comes on the radio I create my own definition of the phrase and belt it out as though I coined it. Therein lies the beauty of lyrics that are just vague enough that I can find a way to make them about me.

Personally, my favorite thing about Adele’s sophomore album is that she never makes it too explicit she’s telling a story about herself and her own life. Since the lyrics center around the highly-relatable topic of breaking up/romantic issues without ever being too case-specific, listeners are left with plenty of room to interpret the songs’ material in a way that best matches their own lives.

In my eyes, Adele is like the fairy godmother of scorned lovers everywhere, guiding us toward the realization that we’re perpetual victims but simultaneously teaching us to own it. So what if sometimes “owning it” entails taking memories of perfectly harmonious breakups and/or insignificant failed relationships and re-imagining them for dramatic effect? This columnist has certainly never lost any winks over a little exaggeration.

All things considered, what matters most is the fact that associating with Adele’s music in this way provides us with an avenue to turn the listening experience into one of self-discovery. It may be the case that all we’re really discovering is how effectively we can draw parallels between our brief flings and the lengthy romance documented in 21, but hey, since when was music about the artist’s story anyway?

How bad was your breakup on a scale of 1 to Adele? Let DYLAN GALLAGHER know at dylaaaaan@gmail.com.

My first computer was an iMac. It was purple, I was eight and it was love at first sight. I only used Macs then, and I still only use Macs now.

Although lately, it seems that a transformation is brewing within Apple, and my allegiance is not as strong as it once was. Both the company and the industry are moving in a new direction. Last Wednesday, at the new iPad unveiling, CEO Tim Cook declared that we now live in a “post-PC” world, a world of tablets, e-readers and smartphones. It has been less than 20 years since Steve Jobs returned to Apple and built the brand we know today. And yet, the world is already something entirely different.

I’m not sure that it’s the post-PC era yet, but fairly certain that in the near future it will be. Whatever the case, Tim Cook’s prophecy got me thinking: Could I still remain devoted to Apple under new management, in a new era? In a post-Jobs, post-PC world? Is brand allegiance like hereditary politics? Do we just buy into the products and ideas that we grew up with?

Apple, and all that it stood for, undoubtedly shaped my worldview on technology. I had already committed myself to the cult of Mac by the time I had reached reading age and was ready to use computers. It was the same year the “Think Different” campaign was launched, featuring portraits of Ghandi, Einstein and other “round pegs in square holes.”

I went to see if Apple’s company culture lived up to its campaign message for myself. At 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino, California — the address of Apple’s main campus — there aren’t many suits, ties or polished leather shoes. In fact, when I visited, there were none. There was no corporate uniform to speak of. Apple, right down to its dress code, championed individuality above all else.

Apple and its products seemed so contrary to the status quo which, for me, was its main appeal. The company was the scrappy, under-appreciated underdog of the tech industry taking on Microsoft’s authoritarian rule of the PC market. And, honestly, who doesn’t love an underdog.

The tables have since turned, with Apple leading the pack in profits as the dominant force in smartphone and personal computer sales. The authoritarian rule now belongs to Apple. It’s a scary thought, seeing how some companies veer off course when drunk with power (see current financial crisis).

A couple months ago, NPR’s “This American Life” dedicated an entire episode on labor malpractice at Foxconn, Apple’s manufacturing site in China. The narrator Mike Daisey was also a self-proclaimed “worshipper in the cult of Mac.” What Daisey uncovered — the sweatshop conditions, the underage laborers — was disturbing. A week later, The New York Times ran a front page story on the allegations. Apple was in the spotlight, and it didn’t look pretty. It was the first time my devotion had wavered at all.

Marco Arment, creator of the site Instapaper, wrote a blog post on the derogatory term “fanboys” (well, in my case, fangirl) which he defined as someone who is “blindly and irrationally devoted to a product” and “whose opinions and arguments can therefore be completely disregarded”. This quote has been ringing in my ears ever since.

So, I’ve resolved to put an end to my fangirl tendencies and look at technology with some clarity. Two of my friends now have Windows phones which, upon closer inspection, I found to be one of the most beautiful user interfaces I’ve seen in a while. I always thought Apple had a leg up on the competition at the very least in terms of aesthetic. But the Windows phone was so graceful and animated — something I had never associated with Windows, ever. For a moment, I wondered if I had just found an iPhone alternative.

My stubborn commitment to Macs has everything to do with growing up Apple. The platform you started on is probably the platform you’ll return to time and time again.

But now that the platform is changing, and the industry is shifting its attentions to mobile and the web … I think allegiances will too. The post-PC era may just break this one infinite loop.

If the iPhone, iPad or iPod is the apple of your eye, let NICOLE NGUYEN know at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.