RE: Tierred pricing (was Tiger tools...)

--
[ 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.