|
-- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] I'm sorry... Wazzat? A libertarian in Georgia? You must be a pretty lonely guy, Carl! <GD&R> - Dan Bale Carl Galgano <cgalgano2@ediconsulting.com> wrote: David: With all due respect... Your model is the basis of socialism. Give according to your ability, take according to your need. I am not sure if you are in the US, but in my (never) humble opinion, this is the same crap that has our ridiculous tax system in place. You make more, you pay more. Not just more based on a flat percentage, but a higher percentage at that! How is that fair? How does that encourage new ideas and achievement? It discourages achievement when you can look at someone who working less and being a less productive member of society, and they receive the same (if not more) benefits of society. I pay through the ass for my health insurance, have a 5K deductible to keep in "reasonable", and there are plenty of Americans who pay nothing for health insurance and go to the emergency room every time they have a damn hang nail. My insurance requires me to be more frugal (read: not reckless) with my health care and perceived need. My church/kids school is now underway to build a new building that we need. My plan would be to take the cost of the project, divide it by the number of families and that is the amount each family is responsible for raising. But of course, I am being hounded to contribute more and more and more. Will I get more benefit than other families, probably not. I am asked for more only because it is perceived that I have more. The argument is: I must not need the money as much. Pure poppy cock. I am tired of being made to feel guilty for achievement and the dumb masses (say that fast) feeling like they are entitled to something for nothing, ride on the back of MY hard work. Software pricing should be based on some model that makes sense. In my past example for IBM Comm utilities (CM1). I should pay 30K to support 1 stinking connection? Maybe a limit to the number of connections that can be configured might be a more fair way to price that software. some software makes sense to charge per seat, or per user. No model fits all. But the argument that you pay more because you can afford more is utterly ridiculous. Frankly, I do not care if the poorest nation can afford the newest drugs.... what incentive does that give the poorest nations to do what it takes (work, achievement, etc) to remove themselves from the poorest nations list? I haven't been this fired up since the thread about Ayn Rynd and Atlas Shrugged. Carl (I guess you can tell I am a libertarian) --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.