hi sanjeev/ghane/gupta.
thanks for your response. (what's your name, btw?).
your response is quite insightful and made me learn and look from a new angle.
On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:15 am, you wrote:
>
> Excise, Duties, and other taxation should be an instrument of fiscal
> policy, and should not be used to shape public policy.
[snip]
>
> The two things are orthogonal. Taxes are levied to raise funds for the
> Government. If something has to be discouraged, taxing it is the wrong
> way. It allows the "rich" to get away with it, right? Fines are not taxes.
in that light, why should commercial software not be taxed?
fiscally, a hardware box with a bundled software that is difficult to
unbundle at purchase time should be taxed. do explain why not?
else the same logic goes to the other extreme: why even tax hardware?
the hardware industry usually goes into a loss or works on wafer thin
margins, while software is where the real fat fat fat profits are, and not
just profits, the power is given in the hands who make software, to shape,
distort, destroy, mould, control, and do whatever with the captive audience
who are made captive.
and if software should not be taxed, then the industries which are not as
profitable as software, should not be taxed at all either. why this unusual
preference?
>
> The revenues from taxes may be used as an instrument of public policy, of
> course.
bang on! and nothing like a public policy that taxes the rich, and creates a
new wealth of sharing, opportunity, and freedom, through the adoption and
development of freedom-based software.
sound like good government.
:-)
LL
================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header.
Check archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org
