Re: An interesting issue

de lugnut 05/08/2006 05:52

On Mon, 08 May 2006 15:05:01 +0100, Mark Carter
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

>lugnut wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 May 2006 02:45:12 +0200, Rednax
>> <Xander2005rednax@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Greedy Mozilla is raking in $50 million a year from Google
>>>
>>>http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html
>>>
>>>Rednax
>>
>>
>>
>> And, at what point does a reasonable return on investment
>> stop and greed begin?
>
>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.
>
>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.

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

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