It's not true that ethanol is necessarily cheaper than gasoline. You pay less for the same volume but ethanol burns faster. Studies show that ethanol must be _at least_ 30% cheaper than gasoline in order to be more cost effective.
Point taken. In a different post I stated the reasons why I pay taxes: 1. because it's the law and I don't want to go to jail and 2. I want a good public educational system, police on the streets, my garbage picked up regularly, etc.
And yes, I don't like the idea of the british government taking 40% of my gross income every year when oher people simply say "I don't think it's fair. Therefore, I'm not paying". And in the end these people have the same benefits (and complain as much as I do).
I didn't spell it out because I thought the use of tax money was implicit.
You can pay less taxes by finding loopholes in the law, having a pension scheme, becoming a contractor, voting for a candidate that promises lower taxes, etc, etc.
I pay taxes because it's the law, yes, but also because I want someone to pick up my garbage, police on the streets, a good public education and health systems for my kids, etc. Do I expect value for money? Absolutely.
Here in the UK approximately 40% of my gross income goes to the government. Do I like it? No, of course not, it's a huge chunk. But I don't think it's immoral in any way.
Anyway, all I am saying is that people should not knowingly evade taxes. In my always humble opinion that's wrong.
Cheers,
Andre
rhakka,
Your point is excellent but I hope you're not equating morality of a law that tells you to pay taxes with the morality of a law that tells you to hit children.
These messages were written in the context of the subject: "Cisco Offices Raided, Execs Arrested In Brazil". If the topic was about female genitalia mutilation (which I'm sure you know is a common practice in some places) I don't think anybody here would be recriminating those against the immorality of such a horrendous act.
In this topic, and that's what matters here, we're not talking about child abuse, rape, or anything of this sort. We're talking about a bunch of highly paid executives who apparently consciously tried to dupe the Brazilian tax laws. And some people here are trying to justify their acts by suggesting that taxes in Brazil are too high.
*your* point, although valid, is also dangerous because you strike me like a person who is condoning a concerted effort to evade millions in taxes.
So, I will rephrase what I said before just to make sure my point is not taken out of context: you shouldn't choose which tax laws to follow, which tax laws to break.:)
Anonymous Coward,
Point taken and I agree with you. And to be honest, that's one of the reasons why I don't miss living in Brazil. I guess I am lucky I have this option.
But my point is that when good, honest people also stop playing by the rules, that's when things will really start to go downhill. I've been accused of "riding a high horse" (something like being a hypocrite) but I honestly try to do the best I can. Oh, and I vote as well.
A situacao eh foda, meu, eu sei!
Grande abraco,
Andre
Dude, I don't know where you come from (probably not from Brazil, given your obvious confusion about what is and what is not a crime there), but what do you think about Inheritance Tax? I think it's unfair. But I know my parents won't live forever, unfortunately, and one day I'll probably have to pay it. My point is that it doesn't really matter what I think. It's the law and I don't choose the laws I obey.
And you, somehow, accused me of "riding a high horse" for that. (LOL) Are you serious?
You can pick your favorite adjective to qualify unfair taxes: immoral, idiotic (which I used in my initial post), whatever. It doesn't bloody matter. I'll give you another chance to answer my question: are you really saying that people should pay taxes only if they think it's fair? What if I think that ZERO is fair? Should I pay no taxes then? Do YOU pay taxes that, in your opinion, are unfair?
Dude, some of the things you mentioned are not even a crime in Brazil. So, what the hell are you talking about?!?!?
In any case, are you really trying to compare a speeding ticket (which I got in the past, btw) to a concerted effort to evade millions of dollars in taxes? LOL
Let me get it straight...are you really saying that people should only pay taxes if they think it's fair? Is that what YOU do?
You obviously have a pre-conceived idea about this whole thing.
The fact is: some executives have been arrested, accused of evading taxes. That's a GOOD thing. It should happen MORE.
But somehow you managed to see this as an illustration of how corruption is tolerated in Brazil by jumping to the conclusion that if the arrests happened, it was only because someone wasn't bribed.
My father joined the Brazilian navy when he was 16 years old and retired around 35 years later. My mother worked as an occupational therapist for Brazil's Ministry of Health for 30 something years as well.
I was born and I grew up in Brazil. I was 25 years old when I first put my feet out of the country. I then lived in NYC for 4 years and I've been living in London for 3 and a half.
If Cisco wants they can refuse to sell any gear, pull out all operations and say "fuck you".
Interesting how people spin this. Now, somehow, CISCO, who apparently BROKE a number of laws and owes millions of dollars, is the victim in the story.
At some point in this discussion, sending people to jail for braking laws and evading taxes became a practice that can scare off foreign investments.
Who are these people who are scared of doing business in a country that finally shows signs that corruption may not be tolerated as it was before? Sending corrupt people to jail should ATTRACT businesses, don't you think?
I am brazilian as well and I agree that the tax system there is idiotic. The distorted logic is that high import tariffs somehow foster the development of a national industry. It's a game of vested interests, bribes, corruption, etc.
However, if CISCO is found guilty I will commend the authorities for what they're doing.
Reality, my friend, is that people shouldn't choose which laws to follow, which laws to break. The involved executives, if proven guilty, are not preaching civil disobedience. Instead, they want to increase the bottom line and have a fat bonus at the end of the year. That's exactly the reason why Brazil is what it is today. And by somehow condoning or justifying their business practices we're simply perpetuating the problem. Can't we just be honest and obey the freaking law? Really... is that too much to ask?
Finally, your characterization of the problem with public servants in Brazil wasn't exact, I'm afraid. It's true that we don't have the entrepreneurial spirit seen in countries such as the US, and many people do grow up to work for the government, partly because of also distorted labour laws, who give these people the so called "stability", which can be understood as "I can be a slack and not get fired".
However, many public servants are responsible citizens and you shouldn't hold that against them. Both my parents were public servants (they retired after 30-something years working) and they are some of the most hard working people I've ever seen. I have many friends who work for the government, some by choice, and they are all responsible, hard-working people. And just to clarify, I believe only congressmen and senators retire after 8 years. Statistically speaking they are the vast minority.
"I would solve this by making companies show that there are NO Americans at all who can do the job before getting an H1B. Also, I would love to see companies that are shipping jobs away boycotted."
H1B holders are in the US only temporarily and the number of issued visas is determined (or should be) based on statistics that indicate the shortage in skilled workers. So, these people will leave the country sooner or later, and to say they are responsible for the american decline in CS is silly.
If these people want to get a green card the process is already very strict.
I applied for my green card 4 years ago. I had to place an advertisement in a major newspaper (NYT) for 1 month and the HR of my company had to review ALL CVs sent.
The criteria to determine if someone can do my job is also very strict. I could not advertise anything that I knew before I went to the US but I wasn't using in my job. I also could not advertise anything that I learned during my 4 years AFTER I entered the country.
The idea is that if I was trained on certain skills an american could be trained as well (let alone the fact that it took my company 4 years).
In the end, nobody applied with all the skills I had, and the first stage was gone. Then the INS (the name changed, but who cares) put my application in a big pile and forgot about it. To this date they haven't touched it due to the backlog that increased after 9/11.
As a result, 2 years ago I moved to London and in 2 years time I'll probably get my green-card equivalent here.
Long term consequence: my son was born 7 weeks ago and he will be a f@*%$# genius that could have an American passport (and I would be happy if that was the case -- I have nothing against the US, on the contrary). But instead, he'll dominate the world eating fish and chips and looking at the Thames River.
I know some of you couldn't care less. But I do. And lots of friends of mine are no longer looking for jobs in the US. They're either staying home because american companies are setting up research centers there, or they're coming to Europe, which is a place that is used to embrace other cultures without suspecting they are there to screw them up.
If this is a zero-sum game someone has to lose. Thus, to say that they don't have the right to win at the expense of the USA is to say they don't have the right to compete. If someone will be thrown down the toilet, as you said, why not the USA?
That being said, I don't think this has to be a zero-sum game.
Countries like Russia, India, China, Brazil and Israel have plenty of talent that YES, charge less. And if you simply prevent those people from entering the USA (which is what the vast majority want to do) to "protect" the jobs of americans, the idea of being more strict in the issuing of H1B visas will probably backfire, as that will simply drive the jobs away.
That is one of the main points of letting qualified immigrants in the country.
I work for a company that offers SAAS in the finance industry and I'd like to give you a different perspective on this matter.
What you say is not wrong. However, you sound like cost-cutting is the unique benefit/motivation of ASP/SAAS. It is important to note that focusing on the core competency is, in and of itself, a big advantage.
Imagine a CEO of mid-sized company, strugling to take his company to the next level, having to spend his time with the head of IT because of the various issues that arise naturally when you're managing your IT infra-structure. This CEO will not only save money by "outsourcing" the management of this application, but it will also have more time on his hands to work on the things he cares, which means he'll be more productive and make more money.
We were recently involved in a RFP and when the company checked the action items on their side, there were so many things "missing" (things we were going to take care of for them) that they thought there was something wrong.
We'll buy the hardware, we'll configure the application for them, we'll send them a link via email and they will download the application via Java WebStart and after a few weeks of data setup it's a GO!
And then, we'll make sure the application is running 24x7, we'll perform the database backups and all maintenance windows. Upgrades are now transparent (thanks to WebStart) and we have a 24x7 support hotline they can call at any time.
They will not have to pay any upfront fees. Instead, they pay a monthly subscription to use our system. They can get out of the contract whenever they want, which gives *ME* the incentive to provide a great service (otherwise I'll lose my job).
And when it's time to upgrade hardware, they will not have to worry about it. All they care is that the SLA is clear about how long certain tasks must take, when the environment needs to be up and running, and when certain reports should be available. And if don't hit the target we pay penalty fees (another incentive to make sure things run smoothly).
The customers (can) review our contingency plans before they start using the service if they want to make sure we can conform to their own standards. We have been audited by various consulting companies hired by potential/current clients and although sometimes they make a few recommendations (wich we usually take on board happily) we never had any problems with them.
One can say that an internal IT department can do exactly the same thing. However, from my experience, they do not have the incentives that we have. It's not their application that they are supporting and they can always point their fingers to the vendors. In the end, they don't take as much responsibility for the problems that come up.
SAAS/ASP (whatever you want to call it) *DOES* make sense not only because of the money you will save, but also because of the headaches you will no longer have.
It could also show that the browser's widely publicised security flaws have begun to undermine the foundation's argument that people should switch from IE to be safer
The news about the security flaws have pretty much just been released and we already people associating them to the slowdown in the downloads? Sounds a bit premature to me.
"The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history." -Hegel (1770-1831)
I think hummassa meant that what's common between Brazil and UK is the fact that both countries have this clear distinction between rich and poor. I don't think he tried to compare the conditions in which the poor live in each country. In my opinion that would be silly.
I might be completely wrong but I would say that in UK there is also a very clear aristocratic social division, which is not necessarily related to having money, even though the aristocrats, as far as I know, tend to be wealthy (again, I might e completely wrong here).
"Corporation" software running on Access? Whatever this application is, it can't be too complicated, otherwise Access would scream and die.
I agree with you, though, when you say that the migration is not as easy as some people would like it to be. More so in the client side.
In any case, the migration process should be gradual. No sane person would advocate an overnight switch of operating systems.
Perhaps more bandwidth would, infact, make possible the creation of an incredible number of video broadcasts (TV, whatever) over the network. It's even better, don't you think? Broadband Internet access won't be that expensive, I hope.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not true that ethanol is necessarily cheaper than gasoline. You pay less for the same volume but ethanol burns faster. Studies show that ethanol must be _at least_ 30% cheaper than gasoline in order to be more cost effective.
rhakka,
Point taken. In a different post I stated the reasons why I pay taxes: 1. because it's the law and I don't want to go to jail and 2. I want a good public educational system, police on the streets, my garbage picked up regularly, etc.
And yes, I don't like the idea of the british government taking 40% of my gross income every year when oher people simply say "I don't think it's fair. Therefore, I'm not paying". And in the end these people have the same benefits (and complain as much as I do).
I didn't spell it out because I thought the use of tax money was implicit.
Andre
Hey, no need to apologize for anything. Cheers, Mate!! Andre
Hi there (David?),
You can pay less taxes by finding loopholes in the law, having a pension scheme, becoming a contractor, voting for a candidate that promises lower taxes, etc, etc.
I pay taxes because it's the law, yes, but also because I want someone to pick up my garbage, police on the streets, a good public education and health systems for my kids, etc. Do I expect value for money? Absolutely.
Here in the UK approximately 40% of my gross income goes to the government. Do I like it? No, of course not, it's a huge chunk. But I don't think it's immoral in any way.
Anyway, all I am saying is that people should not knowingly evade taxes. In my always humble opinion that's wrong. Cheers, Andre
rhakka, Your point is excellent but I hope you're not equating morality of a law that tells you to pay taxes with the morality of a law that tells you to hit children.
:)
These messages were written in the context of the subject: "Cisco Offices Raided, Execs Arrested In Brazil". If the topic was about female genitalia mutilation (which I'm sure you know is a common practice in some places) I don't think anybody here would be recriminating those against the immorality of such a horrendous act.
In this topic, and that's what matters here, we're not talking about child abuse, rape, or anything of this sort. We're talking about a bunch of highly paid executives who apparently consciously tried to dupe the Brazilian tax laws. And some people here are trying to justify their acts by suggesting that taxes in Brazil are too high.
*your* point, although valid, is also dangerous because you strike me like a person who is condoning a concerted effort to evade millions in taxes.
So, I will rephrase what I said before just to make sure my point is not taken out of context: you shouldn't choose which tax laws to follow, which tax laws to break.
Regards, Andre
Anonymous Coward, Point taken and I agree with you. And to be honest, that's one of the reasons why I don't miss living in Brazil. I guess I am lucky I have this option. But my point is that when good, honest people also stop playing by the rules, that's when things will really start to go downhill. I've been accused of "riding a high horse" (something like being a hypocrite) but I honestly try to do the best I can. Oh, and I vote as well. A situacao eh foda, meu, eu sei! Grande abraco, Andre
Dude, I don't know where you come from (probably not from Brazil, given your obvious confusion about what is and what is not a crime there), but what do you think about Inheritance Tax? I think it's unfair. But I know my parents won't live forever, unfortunately, and one day I'll probably have to pay it. My point is that it doesn't really matter what I think. It's the law and I don't choose the laws I obey.
And you, somehow, accused me of "riding a high horse" for that. (LOL) Are you serious?
You can pick your favorite adjective to qualify unfair taxes: immoral, idiotic (which I used in my initial post), whatever. It doesn't bloody matter. I'll give you another chance to answer my question: are you really saying that people should pay taxes only if they think it's fair? What if I think that ZERO is fair? Should I pay no taxes then? Do YOU pay taxes that, in your opinion, are unfair?
C'mon, be real. LOL
Dude, some of the things you mentioned are not even a crime in Brazil. So, what the hell are you talking about?!?!?
In any case, are you really trying to compare a speeding ticket (which I got in the past, btw) to a concerted effort to evade millions of dollars in taxes? LOL
Let me get it straight...are you really saying that people should only pay taxes if they think it's fair? Is that what YOU do?
Dude, get real.
You obviously have a pre-conceived idea about this whole thing.
The fact is: some executives have been arrested, accused of evading taxes. That's a GOOD thing. It should happen MORE.
But somehow you managed to see this as an illustration of how corruption is tolerated in Brazil by jumping to the conclusion that if the arrests happened, it was only because someone wasn't bribed.
Oh well... what can I say. Have a good day sir.
Hi there.
My father joined the Brazilian navy when he was 16 years old and retired around 35 years later. My mother worked as an occupational therapist for Brazil's Ministry of Health for 30 something years as well.
I was born and I grew up in Brazil. I was 25 years old when I first put my feet out of the country. I then lived in NYC for 4 years and I've been living in London for 3 and a half.
Cheers, Andre
therefore I submit to you: why pay? at all?
Because it's the freaking LAW!
If Cisco wants they can refuse to sell any gear, pull out all operations and say "fuck you".
Interesting how people spin this. Now, somehow, CISCO, who apparently BROKE a number of laws and owes millions of dollars, is the victim in the story.
At some point in this discussion, sending people to jail for braking laws and evading taxes became a practice that can scare off foreign investments.
Who are these people who are scared of doing business in a country that finally shows signs that corruption may not be tolerated as it was before? Sending corrupt people to jail should ATTRACT businesses, don't you think?
Unbelievable.
I am brazilian as well and I agree that the tax system there is idiotic. The distorted logic is that high import tariffs somehow foster the development of a national industry. It's a game of vested interests, bribes, corruption, etc.
... is that too much to ask?
However, if CISCO is found guilty I will commend the authorities for what they're doing.
Reality, my friend, is that people shouldn't choose which laws to follow, which laws to break. The involved executives, if proven guilty, are not preaching civil disobedience. Instead, they want to increase the bottom line and have a fat bonus at the end of the year. That's exactly the reason why Brazil is what it is today. And by somehow condoning or justifying their business practices we're simply perpetuating the problem. Can't we just be honest and obey the freaking law? Really
Finally, your characterization of the problem with public servants in Brazil wasn't exact, I'm afraid. It's true that we don't have the entrepreneurial spirit seen in countries such as the US, and many people do grow up to work for the government, partly because of also distorted labour laws, who give these people the so called "stability", which can be understood as "I can be a slack and not get fired".
However, many public servants are responsible citizens and you shouldn't hold that against them. Both my parents were public servants (they retired after 30-something years working) and they are some of the most hard working people I've ever seen. I have many friends who work for the government, some by choice, and they are all responsible, hard-working people. And just to clarify, I believe only congressmen and senators retire after 8 years. Statistically speaking they are the vast minority.
My 2 cents.
Regards,
Andre
H1B holders are in the US only temporarily and the number of issued visas is determined (or should be) based on statistics that indicate the shortage in skilled workers. So, these people will leave the country sooner or later, and to say they are responsible for the american decline in CS is silly.
If these people want to get a green card the process is already very strict.
I applied for my green card 4 years ago. I had to place an advertisement in a major newspaper (NYT) for 1 month and the HR of my company had to review ALL CVs sent.
The criteria to determine if someone can do my job is also very strict. I could not advertise anything that I knew before I went to the US but I wasn't using in my job. I also could not advertise anything that I learned during my 4 years AFTER I entered the country.
The idea is that if I was trained on certain skills an american could be trained as well (let alone the fact that it took my company 4 years).
In the end, nobody applied with all the skills I had, and the first stage was gone. Then the INS (the name changed, but who cares) put my application in a big pile and forgot about it. To this date they haven't touched it due to the backlog that increased after 9/11.
As a result, 2 years ago I moved to London and in 2 years time I'll probably get my green-card equivalent here.
Long term consequence: my son was born 7 weeks ago and he will be a f@*%$# genius that could have an American passport (and I would be happy if that was the case -- I have nothing against the US, on the contrary). But instead, he'll dominate the world eating fish and chips and looking at the Thames River.
I know some of you couldn't care less. But I do. And lots of friends of mine are no longer looking for jobs in the US. They're either staying home because american companies are setting up research centers there, or they're coming to Europe, which is a place that is used to embrace other cultures without suspecting they are there to screw them up.
If this is a zero-sum game someone has to lose. Thus, to say that they don't have the right to win at the expense of the USA is to say they don't have the right to compete. If someone will be thrown down the toilet, as you said, why not the USA?
That being said, I don't think this has to be a zero-sum game.
Countries like Russia, India, China, Brazil and Israel have plenty of talent that YES, charge less. And if you simply prevent those people from entering the USA (which is what the vast majority want to do) to "protect" the jobs of americans, the idea of being more strict in the issuing of H1B visas will probably backfire, as that will simply drive the jobs away.
That is one of the main points of letting qualified immigrants in the country.
Hi there The-Bus,
I work for a company that offers SAAS in the finance industry and I'd like to give you a different perspective on this matter.
What you say is not wrong. However, you sound like cost-cutting is the unique benefit/motivation of ASP/SAAS. It is important to note that focusing on the core competency is, in and of itself, a big advantage.
Imagine a CEO of mid-sized company, strugling to take his company to the next level, having to spend his time with the head of IT because of the various issues that arise naturally when you're managing your IT infra-structure. This CEO will not only save money by "outsourcing" the management of this application, but it will also have more time on his hands to work on the things he cares, which means he'll be more productive and make more money.
We were recently involved in a RFP and when the company checked the action items on their side, there were so many things "missing" (things we were going to take care of for them) that they thought there was something wrong.
We'll buy the hardware, we'll configure the application for them, we'll send them a link via email and they will download the application via Java WebStart and after a few weeks of data setup it's a GO!
And then, we'll make sure the application is running 24x7, we'll perform the database backups and all maintenance windows. Upgrades are now transparent (thanks to WebStart) and we have a 24x7 support hotline they can call at any time.
They will not have to pay any upfront fees. Instead, they pay a monthly subscription to use our system. They can get out of the contract whenever they want, which gives *ME* the incentive to provide a great service (otherwise I'll lose my job).
And when it's time to upgrade hardware, they will not have to worry about it. All they care is that the SLA is clear about how long certain tasks must take, when the environment needs to be up and running, and when certain reports should be available. And if don't hit the target we pay penalty fees (another incentive to make sure things run smoothly).
The customers (can) review our contingency plans before they start using the service if they want to make sure we can conform to their own standards. We have been audited by various consulting companies hired by potential/current clients and although sometimes they make a few recommendations (wich we usually take on board happily) we never had any problems with them.
One can say that an internal IT department can do exactly the same thing. However, from my experience, they do not have the incentives that we have. It's not their application that they are supporting and they can always point their fingers to the vendors. In the end, they don't take as much responsibility for the problems that come up.
SAAS/ASP (whatever you want to call it) *DOES* make sense not only because of the money you will save, but also because of the headaches you will no longer have.
It could also show that the browser's widely publicised security flaws have begun to undermine the foundation's argument that people should switch from IE to be safer
The news about the security flaws have pretty much just been released and we already people associating them to the slowdown in the downloads? Sounds a bit premature to me.
"The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history." -Hegel (1770-1831)
I think hummassa meant that what's common between Brazil and UK is the fact that both countries have this clear distinction between rich and poor. I don't think he tried to compare the conditions in which the poor live in each country. In my opinion that would be silly. I might be completely wrong but I would say that in UK there is also a very clear aristocratic social division, which is not necessarily related to having money, even though the aristocrats, as far as I know, tend to be wealthy (again, I might e completely wrong here).
"Corporation" software running on Access? Whatever this application is, it can't be too complicated, otherwise Access would scream and die. I agree with you, though, when you say that the migration is not as easy as some people would like it to be. More so in the client side. In any case, the migration process should be gradual. No sane person would advocate an overnight switch of operating systems.
Perhaps more bandwidth would, infact, make possible the creation of an incredible number of video broadcasts (TV, whatever) over the network. It's even better, don't you think? Broadband Internet access won't be that expensive, I hope.