28 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzOne of the worst cases of state worship I've seen. The guvamint taxes people and companies thereby limiting the resources they can spend on R and D. They use some of that money for their own R and D then say look at us, isn't this great. Guvamint can't give anything it hasn't first taken. A company can't give anything it hasn't first earnt.
Ah, okay. So you think that Universities should be filled with academics who don't do research? Or perhaps that only do industrially funded research? You know, there would be an aweful lot less educated people out their in the world if that were the case.
[edit; I actually find it both amusing and strange that you call me a parasite yet I've act ...[text shortened]... jor provider in most countries of the type of money required to run major research projects.]
If your project were profitable try to get private sponsorship, if it were really, truly, honestly profitable, companies would be beating your door down with offers. Only there's a problem, it's not profitable or you don't have the balls, safer sucking on nanny states tit eh, better to live off the productive whether they like it or not.
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by Sambo69If it were arguable then make your point.
That's arguable and what about points 2 and 3 above ?
2/ Aren't computers used in the development of cures etc. If Bill should sacrifice his life on the altar of "the greater good" then he should carry on doing what he does best...creating wealth, developing his product. Rich folk don't just stuff their mattress with money then sleep on it, they're looking for ways to reinvest and build.
IMHO Bill should do what he darn well pleases.
3/I don't think thoser guys need anty advice from you on how to run their company. If it's beneficial in the ways you say, they've got whole teams (who know what they're talking about) researching (who know what research is) ways to improve every aspect of the company.
28 Jun 06
Originally posted by WajomaOf course, your argument is crap, but since it annoys you so I'll just agree. Keep paying, sucker!
One of the worst cases of state worship I've seen. The guvamint taxes people and companies thereby limiting the resources they can spend on R and D. They use some of that money for their own R and D then say look at us, isn't this great. Guvamint can't give anything it hasn't first taken. A company can't give anything it hasn't first earnt.
If your proj ...[text shortened]... on nanny states tit eh, better to live off the productive whether they like it or not.
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by Sambo69You make it sound like they (Gates and Buffett) are parasites.
1. No-one makes tens of billions of dollars without it being at someone else's expense !
2. Donations can fund cures for illness. With tens of billions of dollars to spare, how many lives could have been saved if even half was donated earlier ?
3. Imagine the tax concessions, goodwill and return on investment they'll make !
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by Sambo69"velcro glove"?...LOL...that's my "original" saying, thief! You don't see me helping anyone because you have no vision...STANG!
I've travelled and done work helping people in South America and Asia.
I don't imagine you hiding under a rock.
I see you wearing velcro gloves and running across green fields chasing sheep.
I don't see you helping anyone.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by chancremechanicThe question is what is a charity? And I don't mean the definition of the word.
And, I did mention that most Americans give $$ to charities
Is a religion that builds a church costing around $90million a charity? Would I have to be brainwashed to think that is a good way to spend my charitable donation?
A breakdown of u.s. "charity" giving in 2005...
Social Services: $25.4b
International: $6.39b, including aid for the tsunami. Without that, international aid giving actually fell during 2005 by 5.1%
Environment: $8.9b
Education: $38.6b
Religion: $107.2b
http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2006/06/2006061901.htm
The biggest recipient by far is religion. This couldn't be viewed as a "charity" in the wider sense, as its really a service that is being paid for. Who benefits from this "charity"? Where's the altruism of me donating money to buy comfier seats for my church?
Also, an interesting article about the use of the tax break Foundations.
http://news.zdnet.com/5208-9595-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=20490&messageID=392741&start=-1
D
19 Jul 06
Originally posted by WajomaI watched a talk on this the other day.
One of the worst cases of state worship I've seen. The guvamint taxes people and companies thereby limiting the resources they can spend on R and D. They use some of that money for their own R and D then say look at us, isn't this great. Guvamint can't give anything it hasn't first taken. A company can't give anything it hasn't first earnt.
If your proj ...[text shortened]... on nanny states tit eh, better to live off the productive whether they like it or not.
R&D has an annual return of 17% on investment. Meaning, you invest $100 in R&D and you get $17, on average, back into the economy every year. Seems like a good long term investment to me. Whilst business R & D has a better short term return than this, it totally precludes "blue skies" research. Never mind, NZ only contributes 0.04% of the total Hi-tech exports for the OECD. Go farm some more sheep, ya hick.
19 Jul 06
Originally posted by Sambo69God forbid anyone should be happy or nice to them for giving so much money. Regardless of tax stuff, they would both have more money if they don't donate anything. That is the point. They give up money, for the good of other people. And how can you honestly criticize them for waiting too long to donate money. Gates has been giving tons to charity for years. He basically personally funds the whole polio erradication effort. Not only is this not their first donation, but it is a big one. It takes time to earn that money, and it takes money to make money, so the world is probably better off now.
2. Donations can fund cures for illness. With tens of billions of dollars to spare, how many lives could have been saved if even half was donated earlier ?
3. Imagine the tax concessions, goodwill and return on investment they'll make !