An interesting issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rednax
  • Start date Start date
Craig said:
Rednax wrote:

What makes Mozilla greedy? That they generate income?
Click to expand...

Well, everybody and his cat seem to have the right to call Microsoft greedy.
So I call Mozilla greedy too.
 
Well, everybody and his cat seem to have the right to call
Microsoft greedy.
Click to expand...

Some cats even back it up with evidence.

So I call Mozilla greedy too.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see links to another site or sites with the 50 million
quote from Mitch Kapor. If it's true, it'll be interesting to see what
they do with the money.
 
Hansen said:
Well, everybody and his cat seem to have the right to call Microsoft greedy.
So I call Mozilla greedy too.
Click to expand...

That line of reasoning doesn't make sense.
 
Hansen said:
Well, everybody and his cat seem to have the right to call Microsoft greedy.
So I call Mozilla greedy too.
Click to expand...

"only the little people pay taxes." ... nice quote, except that it is
has nothing to do with Mozilla. By your reckoning, all charities are
greedy that evade taxes at the expense of the "little people".

Also, the title of the page "Mozilla Foundation evades taxes on its
Google windfall" is misleading. It deliberately chooses the words tax
evasion, which is illegal, as opposed to tax avoidance, which is legal.
AFAIK, what they are doing is perfectly legal.

I will agree that there are things that Google does that are
disconcerting. I've always thought that their whole "don't be evil"
thing was a pile of crap. Also, some people appear to have legitimate
grievances against Google's AdSense.

Nevertheless, articles such as the one you posted just serve to
undermine the credibility of their own viewpoint. It's like Greenpeace,
who seem to want to pump out their own agenda regardless of the merits
or demerits of their case. I for one am tired of the political bullshit
and lack of integrity.
 
Greedy Mozilla is raking in $50 million a year from Google

http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html

Rednax
Click to expand...


And, at what point does a reasonable return on investment
stop and greed begin? I think we may need a definition for
greed here. Could it be that you see someone with more
financial resources then you when you look into their
pockets?

Lugnut
 
If I may toss two pennies into this discussion:

I got two fantastic programs (a browser and an email client) from
Mozilla for free, and I use them everyday. People are writing and
posting some uncommonly useful and valuable extensions for both of
these programs---and no one has ever asked me for a dime.

If Mozilla can make 50 million while giving away software for free,
then may God bless them---and IMHO, they also deserve the 72 virgins in
Paradise too.
 
lugnut said:
And, at what point does a reasonable return on investment
stop and greed begin?
Click to expand...

Ouch. Remember, it's a charity, so there shouldn't really be a "return
on investment".

I think we may need a definition for
greed here.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess greed is subjective. There certainly are charities which
give directors or promoters excessive remuneration, and seem little more
than scams designed to wring money out of an unsuspecting public ...
though I am not aware of any charge that could credibly be made against
the Mozilla Foundation.

My annoyance with the OP is that the cited page was slanted and lacked
objectivity. I looked up Daniel Brandt on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
and whilst his basic motivation seemed a noble one, it appears that a
strange thing happened to him on his way to the forum. In the words of
Nietzsche: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the
process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into
an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
The Elizabeth Baum quote left an especially bad taste in my mouth.

Could it be that you see someone with more
financial resources then you when you look into their
pockets?
Click to expand...

Agreed. The Mozilla Foundation obtaining money seems no more insidious
than any other charity obtaining money; although the relationship
between Google and the search bar puts it in somewhat hazier territory.

BTW, I think that Brandt probably crossed the line here; accusing
the Mozilla Foundation of tax evasion looks like libel to me.
 
Ouch. Remember, it's a charity, so there shouldn't really be a "return
on investment".



Well, I guess greed is subjective. There certainly are charities which
give directors or promoters excessive remuneration, and seem little more
than scams designed to wring money out of an unsuspecting public ...
though I am not aware of any charge that could credibly be made against
the Mozilla Foundation.
Click to expand...

Once upon a time, Mizilla was a .org. I note that now, it
is a .com which usually would signify profit or gain if
possible. As far as excessive remuneration, I don't think
that would be so in the case of someone who brought great
benefit or returns to the entity in excess of what would
normally be expected because of something they cause to
happen in the marketplace.
My annoyance with the OP is that the cited page was slanted and lacked
objectivity. I looked up Daniel Brandt on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
and whilst his basic motivation seemed a noble one, it appears that a
strange thing happened to him on his way to the forum. In the words of
Nietzsche: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the
process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into
an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
The Elizabeth Baum quote left an especially bad taste in my mouth.



Agreed. The Mozilla Foundation obtaining money seems no more insidious
than any other charity obtaining money; although the relationship
between Google and the search bar puts it in somewhat hazier territory.

BTW, I think that Brandt probably crossed the line here; accusing
the Mozilla Foundation of tax evasion looks like libel to me.
Click to expand...


I think so. The term "evasion" in this case is a legal one.
Avoidance is a perfectly acceptable tactic to reduce one's
taxes. The thing that is most often not mentioned in
reducing taxes is that the money remains in public
circulation where it can be, and usually is, used for the
purpose of increasing wealth somewhere along the line. I
know of no entity that simply takes the wealth and buries it
in the back yard. It is continually reinvested and I am
sure that will be the ultimate fate of any wealth
accumulated by the Mozilla Foundation or .org or whatever.
Excess remuneration or profits are terms that defy any
logical definition for those who understand supply and
demand in even it's most elementary forms.

Lugnut
 
lugnut said:
Excess remuneration or profits are terms that defy any
logical definition for those who understand supply and
demand in even it's most elementary forms.
Click to expand...

Now you're annoying me.

I used the term "excessive remuneration", not "excess remuneration". And
I didn't even mention profits. By excessive remuneration I meant that
some charities rake in a lot of money. There is little accountability to
any particular body of people, so the directors of the charity are in a
strong position to set their own remuneration levels. In sham charities,
this will be excessive.

Furthermore, I meant the word "excessive" to be interpreted in a
common-sense way, not from an economist's viewpoint. But, if we have to
be pedantic (and it sadly looks like we do have to), then the term
"excessive profit" can be interpreted as "supernormal profits", which
you can find out more about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_profit

BTW, I qualified as a chartered accountant, so let's not get into a
pecker contest about who does and doesn't understand supply and demand.
 
If I may toss two pennies into this discussion:

I got two fantastic programs (a browser and an email client) from
Mozilla for free, and I use them everyday. People are writing and
posting some uncommonly useful and valuable extensions for both of
these programs---and no one has ever asked me for a dime.

If Mozilla can make 50 million while giving away software for free,
then may God bless them---and IMHO, they also deserve the 72 virgins in
Paradise too.
Click to expand...
When they get up to Heaven's Gate they may be shocked to hear that the
supply of virgins has run out - never see the cartoons that caused so
much shit? It's all fine and dandy that these fellers gave you a browser
and e-mail client, but calling them a charity is far fetched. I could
send away for documents to start up POKO's Church of Wayward Web
Designers, but that wouldn't make me a full-fledged priest - same
concept! It's called misrepresentation and today's version of creative
accounting is the same one used by Capone and the mob back in Chicago.
All contributions to my Church are appreciated,
 
When they get up to Heaven's Gate they may be shocked to hear that the
supply of virgins has run out - never see the cartoons that caused so
much shit?
Click to expand...

Good one! Now that you mention it, I *haven't* yet seen those cartoons
yet. I need to spend some time this morning searching for them on the
Net because I forgot about them.
It's all fine and dandy that these fellers gave you a browser
and e-mail client, but calling them a charity is far fetched. I could
send away for documents to start up POKO's Church of Wayward Web
Designers, but that wouldn't make me a full-fledged priest - (snip)...
Click to expand...

The premise for your response is flawed. No one (including Mozilla) has
ever said or implied that Mozilla was a charity organization. Mozilla
gives away some of its products for free and made a profit somewhere
else without asking for compensation for the gifts. Expressing thanks
for free gifts is not implying nor inferring that the source was a
charity.

If I may ask: What exactly has Mozilla done to motivate this response?
I mean, if they are stealing someone else's operating system while
lobbying in Congress for tougher anti-piracy laws; or running
competitors out of the commercial market by bundling competing software
with their operating systems and signing exclusivity contracts with
hardware retailers---or something along those lines---then you have a
legitimate reason to blow the Caps-Lock text...
 
Good one! Now that you mention it, I *haven't* yet seen those cartoons
yet. I need to spend some time this morning searching for them on the
Net because I forgot about them.


The premise for your response is flawed. No one (including Mozilla) has
ever said or implied that Mozilla was a charity organization. Mozilla
gives away some of its products for free and made a profit somewhere
else without asking for compensation for the gifts. Expressing thanks
for free gifts is not implying nor inferring that the source was a
charity.

If I may ask: What exactly has Mozilla done to motivate this response?
I mean, if they are stealing someone else's operating system while
lobbying in Congress for tougher anti-piracy laws; or running
competitors out of the commercial market by bundling competing software
with their operating systems and signing exclusivity contracts with
hardware retailers---or something along those lines---then you have a
legitimate reason to blow the Caps-Lock text...
Click to expand...

I didn't call it a charity, it was:
From: Mark Carter <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware
Ouch. Remember, it's a charity, so there shouldn't really be a "return
on investment".
I'm not against them - I love folks that put out free software. But if I
receive 50 million from someone, I expect to have to pay a bit of tax on
it. Today's "creative accounting practices" piss me off. Big business
should be paying more taxes to take some of the pressure off us little
guys. The days of companys with a soul are long gone - Corporate America
only concerns itself with paying as little tax as they can without
having to go to jail and to hell with everyone else.
/rant,
 
POKO said:
I didn't call it a charity, it was:
From: Mark Carter <[email protected]>
Click to expand...

If it's not a charity, then I humbly apologise. Admittedly, I didn't go
into the why-and-wherefors, and assumed that if it had tax-exempt
status, then it was probably a charity or charity-like organisation.
But if I
receive 50 million from someone, I expect to have to pay a bit of tax on
it.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure they pay as much as they "need" to. I have no fear that
the IRS isn't getting what it considers to be its "fair" share.
Today's "creative accounting practices" piss me off.
Click to expand...

Agreed - although I'm from Britain, so we probably do our creative
accounting practices slightly differently here. And I'd probably be more
concerned with the practices as regards giving investors meaningful
information about the state of the company's affairs, rather than the
taxman.

It's difficult to guage to what extent manipulated earnings affect the
final tax bill. Earnings are adjusted by the IRS in all sorts of ways -
and the IRS will have excellent access to the books - so once again,
please don't lay awake at night worrying that the IRS are not getting
their full whack.


Big business
should be paying more taxes to take some of the pressure off us little
guys. The days of companys with a soul are long gone - Corporate America
only concerns itself with paying as little tax as they can without
having to go to jail and to hell with everyone else.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe, but look at it this way: when was the last time *you*
voluntarily paid more tax than you needed to?
 
If it's not a charity, then I humbly apologise.

Agreed - although I'm from Britain, so we probably do our creative
accounting practices slightly differently here.

Well, maybe, but look at it this way: when was the last time *you*
voluntarily paid more tax than you needed to?
Click to expand...
snippage

I pay what they demand when all the figures are filled out on their damn
form. You know, if it wasn't for that damn world war when we came and
saved your ass there wouldn't be any income tax at all. :) You Brits
caused this!
Best wishes from your old friend Canada,
 
Back
Top