Someone quits Ubuntu.

[vinodis]

quoting linux blog:

Beranger, whos blog I visit on a regular basis, has been Ubuntu user for quite sometime now. In the last few days he has changed his mind drastically towards this distribution, or rather the business practices of Mark Shuttleworth, and has decided to quit using Ubuntu all together.

Well, I respect his decision, and being frank I even agree with him on certain occasions, but still couldn't find a substancial reason why he opted for such a step. After all apart from Canonical and M.S. there is community that also supports the development of this distro.

Maybe you will also find his arguments convincing enough for you, too, to quit Ubuntu use. If you are still guessing the reasons that made him quit Ubuntu, you can find more from his post.

http://www.beranger.org/index.php?fullarticle=1159

[aysiu]

Here's the relevant excerpt:
I was just reading Ubuntu ready for big biz, when an annoying cliché literrally jumped into my eyes: «Mark Shuttleworth, founder of UK-based Canonical».

No, Canonical is NOT UK-based, it's an Isle of Man-based business! Try this if you didn't know it.

Isle of Man is something that should have not existed. It's a fiscal paradise with a very queer status:

* Self-governing crown dependency, but not part of the United Kingdom under the British Law!
* However, the UK takes care of its external and defense affairs.
* Isle of Man is outside the European Union and outside the European Economic Area, however it can trade goods without non-EU tariffs.
* There is no Manx citizenship, as they're kinda British citizens, but a special endorsement prevents them from freely living or working in EU states (unless they have full UK citizenship).
* UK citizens are required a work permit for the Island of Man!
* Income tax rates: 10% and 18%. Corporate tax: 0%!

Simply put:

* when this is good for them, they're "under the Queen";
* when they want to keep their money, they're "independent"...

Even worse: if you're a regular British citizen, you can't avoid paying your taxes. However, if you own a business, you can try your luck to ask for an Isle-of-Man residence, where you'll pay ZERO corporate taxes!

Of course, the external affairs and the defense is provided by the UK, on your money, dear Briton, because you can't avoid paying your taxes!

Fiscal paradises should not be allowed to exist under the International Law. They are simply cliques of cheaters!

Now, if you were asking how Mark Shuttleworth was able to make that much money, you have a clue. It's better to give some money to some Ubuntu developers and to send free CDs to everyone, instead of giving the same money as taxes for Her Majesty's Government. But this is still cheating.

Why is this cheating? Because this status isn't available to everyone: it's a coterie like the Freemasonry.

This isn't a communist or an anarchist opinion. On the contrary: a free, democratic, capitalist society should have the same law for all. Nowadays, the financially powerful people can avoid the law.

This is why I don't like Mark Shuttleworth. If it is about making business, then Red Hat Inc. are paying their taxes, while Canonical doesn't! I think someone just wants an excuse to hate Mark Shuttleworth.

All I have to say is--boo-hoo. So quit Ubuntu. See if I care.

[rai4shu2]

Fiscal paradises should not be allowed to exist under the International Law. They are simply cliques of cheaters!

Wow. That's an awfully poor reason to stop using Ubuntu. Not cogent at all.

[aysiu]

Wow. That's an awfully poor reason to stop using Ubuntu. Not cogent at all.
And, of course, no corporations based out of the UK, the US, Japan, or other countries cheat on their taxes or find loopholes...

Again... lame.

[Anduu]

Heaven forbid someone actually makes a living off linux :rolleyes:

[Fallom]

Wow that guy gets awfully worked up about something that's none of his business. Not only that, but it's a pretty common and most likely universal practice for companies to pick locations based on tax laws.

[Biltong (Dee)]

Mark - "But I swear I only located Canonical here so I could watch the Isle of Man TT..." :-)

[loell]

what an envious person...

[Malac]

:lol:Strewth, I've seen less villification of child molesters.:lol:

Some people hate successful people that's what this sounds like to me.

He will pay his taxes in the Isle of Man anyway, as soon as he draws a salary or share dividends whatever.
All this means is that any money used for the company to further the company's assets will not be taxed until they are taken out of the company.
This is done by thousands of companies around the world every single day.

In Britain people just pay their P.A.Y.E. and forget it.
If more people did there own taxes then found out that their petrol to work, their work boots, computer at home, were tax deductable expenses that could save them 1000 pounds a year in taxes how many would say, "Oh never mind it's more ethical to pay it." None I suspect. :)

[RAV TUX]

Here's the relevant excerpt: I think someone just wants an excuse to hate Mark Shuttleworth.

All I have to say is--boo-hoo. So quit Ubuntu. See if I care.
It's unfortunate but Mark Shuttleworth bashing has become common place I have seen it in other forums not as blatent. It is mostly from other Linux users, particularly Debain users. I don't know why and please don't overreact to the mention of Debian users.

I don't quite understand the riff, I haven't seen such blatent attacks against an individual since Gates and Jobs.

here is subtle qoute from a Debian group owner:


I find it a bit troubling that Shuttleworth chose a name (Eft) that's very similar to Debian's upcoming Etch, for the next Ubuntu release, especially since both are due to be released at close to the same time.
Besides spending millions on himself for a space vacation, and copying AOL by giving away free CDs, I don't know much about him.
I find all of this a bit odd.

I hope this person who left Ubuntu has a wonderful time elsewhere and don't let the door hit you in the tuchus because I like our door.

[aysiu]

AOL's CDs are weak.

Ubuntu's CDs are an entire operating system... and they don't arrive unsolicited.

[vinodis]

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -
-- Mahatma Gandhi

[crane]

This is silly. Every large corp. will actively seek the best place to set up factories and what not. Many set up a tax free for x number of years with a city. The city gets a large boost in employment and the company gets a tax break.
I only hate that someone would pick such a silly reason to stop using a distro.

[dtfinch]

I'm pretty sure MS reduces their taxes by donating their software to schools and charities, which costs them nothing, while at the same time ensuring that fewer organizations on tight budgets will use alternatives. Loopholes deserve to be exploited though.

[Malac]

Yep absolutely, every time some company gives away software OR discounts software for schools or charities to use they claim the whole cost back off their taxes.

[raublekick]

In order to preserve ANY corporation, you need funds. Even non-profit organizations need much of their funds just to sustain their ability to provide. Nothing is different with Canonical/Ubuntu. Mark is trying to provide not only a free product, but a quality product. He is also helping in many other ways, like sending free CDs. In order to do all this, he has to sustain his funds. This is especially important since Ubuntu is relatively new in the market.

All of the money he got from selling Thawte, well, that's his money, if he wants to fly into space with it then so be it. I don't think anyone would appreciate being scrutinized for their spending habits. Money could always be better spent, but it seldom is.

The point is that Mark made his money the same way anyone else does: hard work. He just happened to get paid a lot more for it. He's doing a hell of a lot more for the world than most billionaires, so cut him some slack.

[aysiu]

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Isle_of_Man):
Offshore banking, manufacturing, and tourism are key sectors of the economy of the Isle of Man. The government's policy of offering incentives to high-technology companies and financial institutions to locate on the island has paid off in expanding employment opportunities in high-income industries. As a result, agriculture and fishing, once the mainstays of the economy, have declined in their shares of GDP. Banking and other services now contribute the great bulk of GDP. Trade is mostly with the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man has access to European Union markets.

[vayu]

I share that persons outrage at corporations receiving tax breaks, but Canonical is probably the last place I would look to change. If all corporations were as benevolent as that one they might not be source of societal and environmental oppression and destruction that they are.

[zugu]

I just don't get it. As long as Canonical respects the local laws, I see no problem. Laws vary by country/territory.

Obviously, this man wants a global Constitution :D

[KiwiNZ]

To disagree with someones opinion is OK but lets not get personel thanks

[sabredog]

Even if a company was located where such tax incentives were not common, a company and individual executives of that company could certainly afford good accountants to exploit tax loopholes so as to minimise tax.

[ZephyrXero]

Ok, so some random blogger no one's ever heard of before just decided to stop using Ubuntu because they don't pay taxes to the UK....is that what all this fuss is about?

Now, I hate multinational corporations for the most part myself, and I suppose if one day Ubuntu swelled up to the size of Microsoft or IBM then it really would be a problem, but in the open source world I don't think we will ever really have to worry about something like this ever happening. If one company grows too large and tries to throw its weight around people will just take their source and move on, just like when everyone jumped ship from XFree and started Xorg. Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth are some of the last people anyone should be worrying about.

And if the UK wants to give these Isle O' Man guys special treatment, then they've got no one to blame but themselves for any lack of funds.

[nocturn]

And, of course, no corporations based out of the UK, the US, Japan, or other countries cheat on their taxes or find loopholes...

Again... lame.


Yeah, indeed. I used to work for Siemens and they are holier then the pope; </sarcasm>

Most big corporations are cheating big time, not just by avoiding taxes through legal loopholes but by having people in poor countries work as economic slaves for them.

I don't think RedHat inc. is any better or worse then Canonical or Novell, they see a chance to duck taxes, they take it.

If I were the author, I would take on the government on this for allowing such a place to exist, not the ones that legally use this loophole.

[nocturn]

I share that persons outrage at corporations receiving tax breaks

I agree 100%, but it's up to the governments to plug these holes.
If I had a legal way of paying almost no taxes on my income, I would do it too. Again, governments should not allow such things to exist is they like to extract money from the people that use it.

I find the fact that Canonical uses this loophole only logical and I would only be shocked if they were found to use economic slaves in third world countries like most big companies do.

[KiwiNZ]

Take a small Island , with a high percentage of the population unemployed.
You then give Businesses tax breaks to set up on said Island. The percentage unemployment drops.The Tax take on the Island grows as more and more individuals gain emploment. The economy grows and more and more businesses startup........ and so on........

Get my point.It works ,very well.

[prizrak]

I have no problem with the money that is saved from not paying taxes going to the developers and the Ship It program. I don't see how Canonical has a huge advantage over RedHat. RedHat is an established and a very old Linux developer and is used by many companies, Ubuntu doesn't have even near the numbers of RedHat in the corporate world. Even if Ubuntu becomes more widely used than RHEL it won't be because of it's price alone and even the blogger himself mentions that support is cheaper so Mark is passing the savings on to the consumer. Now tell me you don't wish all companies would do that.

[blueturtl]

Quite a few "everyone else does it too so it's ok" responses. :confused:
Mark alone knows if he has indeed done something wrong. Taxes differ around the world, it's a fact. The original poster seems almost bitter that Mark would still be very well off even if he had paid high taxes typical in scandinavian countries. I'd say the fact that there are wealthy people in scandinavia too kind of breaks this argument.

The other arguments are mostly just poor also. I mean I didn't stop using Windows because Ballmer and Gates do unethical things. I stopped using Windows because it didn't work for me. I mean let's say we find that one of the developers of Ubuntu is an *******. Unlikeable. Unethical, whatever. If he still works on something as good and great as Ubuntu why should I care?

Many people think Linus Torvalds is an idiot but he's still the one who started Linux. Many people have no problem using Linux even if they dislike him.

Comparisons between Canonical and Nike, Coca-Cola, or McDonald's are in my humble opinion, rubbish. None of these companies actually contribute to making the world a better place, but I can see Ubuntu making a very big difference in places where people can't afford to pay for high-end hardware or Microsoft operating systems and applications.

Of course I'm not saying that having Mark an icon for us would be bad, but there'll always be people who'll judge him, no matter what he does and it won't always be because there's something wrong with him.

[curuxz]

What aload of bull ****, pure and simple. As a British man who has friends from the isle of man i know that guy is talking complete and total crap. He has done the worst thing in any debate in my view, he has taken a few truths and combined them with a complete lack of understanding of the issues to make up a faulse impression.

Firstly: The isle of man is a widely used tax haven, but there are better ones, the registration of ubuntu there is because ubuntu is free, what kind of retard thinks its a good idea to pay tax you can avoid when your only making money from the support contracts.

Secondly: Shuttleworth did not "make all his money not paying tax" thats total b/s he paid normal tax on all his way up the ladder making a good business. Ubuntu was founded on the isle of man as a company but VeriSign WAS NOT.

Thirdly: all conical staff pay normal tax rates, so they idea that ubuntu does not pay tax is again stupid.


As for all this defence stuff comming from British tax that again is a misunderstanding of basic govenance. They are a crown dependancy and like many other islands that the queen govens they are British islands NOT UK islands because the United Kingdom is a term that applys to the Unification of England, Northen Island (formaly all of Island before the revolt) and Scotland.

This is a simple case of someone being too retarded to understand the diffrence between Great Briton and the United Kingdom (with is part of Briton, hence its full name being The United Kingdom OF GREAT BRITON). The isle of Man is British hence why we protect it for free and its Tax rates are because its ecconomy is in the crapper and needs all the help it can get.

God the ignorance of some people on the internet is so fustraiting, why cant they just all go live in a cave.

[Jucato]

Hmm... if you can't discredit/destroy the distro, you discredit/destroy the people/man behind it. Can't find fault in Ubuntu? Find fault in the company/man who made Ubuntu. Very simple logic. (Here ends my sarcasm).

So his main line of reasoning is: the Isle of Man, although being legal, is immoral. Canonical is based on the Isle of Man therefore, it is immoral. Mark Shuttleworth established Canonical and is very rich, therefore, he is immoral. Mark started Canonical and produced Ubuntu, therefore, he will stop using Ubuntu. Hm... if he were to stop using anything that is produced by any company that has made any immoral act, I guess he'd be better of living in the jungles. Oh wait, how can he be sure that the jungle wasn't planted, in some distant past, through an immoral act/situation?

He also seems to hate the fact that Mark "stole" from Debian and made money out of it. Stealing, by definition, is taking something without proper permission. Since when did Ubuntu deny that they took from Debian? Also, since when has it become illegal, or even immoral, to make money out of selling support for Linux? The GPL makes it pretty clear that it's perfectly alright to sell support of GPLed products. And this is GPL, coming from a man whose moral standards are higher than Mt. Everest.

Someone commented on that blog entry that the Ubuntu community has this "holier than thou" attitude, that it's either Ubuntu or nothing else. My God! I must have been staying in the wrong community, because I can't find any reference that would prove that. Given that there might be one or two, or even twenty posts that would show that, does this reflect the feelings/thoughts of the Ubuntu Community, or just the opinions of certain individuals?

Anyway, let's not all get hyped about this. So another user refuses to use Ubuntu and needs to justify that by vehemently raising doubts about Mark Shuttleworth's morality. It's he's choice. If he chooses his distribution based on the morality of the people behind it, let him be. This is the FOSS world. Everybody's free to make a choice. We lose users, too, for more important reasons like hardware support, software, etc. Let's focus on those things and let the dogs bark wherever they choose to, even if it's on the wrong tree.

[Arktis]

I've read through this thread, and I just have one thing to say: Way to go, guys. Wow.

So what if you people don't agree? At least he's thinking for himself. That's more than I can say for most of the rest of you right now. I smell insecurity.

Of course, there are a couple of good posts here. Yeah, a few.

[Johnsie]

Being from the UK, I don't care whether Mark pays extra taxes or not. As long as I have a good operating system that's free I don't care. Obviously it makes sense for any business to open shop in a place where taxes are low. That's not cheating, nor is it illega. It's called using your brain.

After reading this guys other blogs I've decided that he gets annoyed at silly things and stirs up trouble between Linux users. He's entitled to speak his mind but shouldn't be taken seriously. He's got some good information but he's a bit of a troll :-)

[Jucato]

I've read through this thread, and I just have one thing to say: Way to go, guys. Wow.

So what if you people don't agree? At least he's thinking for himself. That's more than I can say for most of the rest of you right now. I smell insecurity.

Of course, there are a couple of good posts here. Yeah, a few.

Probably not as much insecurity as defensiveness. People do that when they feel they are being attacked, insulted, or, in this case, negatively affected in some way. If the neighborhood that you belong to was suddenly featured in an article as being immoral, etc., it would only be natural to be defensive. It's a natural human/animal reaction.

Of course, it doesn't mean that we have to base our actions on animal instincts alone. That's why we have brains, right? To think before we speak.

On Beranger's defense, I respect his decision. It's his decision, not mine. It won't affect me in anyway. I think he has really thought about this decision and not just made a decision based on a "wow! I didn't know that before. I (dis)agree" sort of thinking. And I also respect his freedom to voice out his opinion on a blog. I respect him, but I don't necessarily agree with him, or I disagree, but I don't disrespect him. My earlier post might have seem a bit rash or offensive, but I certainly do not feel that way.

I think it's only natural to incur such reactions, both positive and negative, on a very public and visible place like the internet. And reactions don't always come in a form that you prefer/like. That's the price that you pay for a public image/life. :D

[Virogenesis]

Hes a worthless elitist ...... and thats me being kind, for example take a look at this blog http://www.beranger.org/index.php?article=1155
Trying not to be offensive like I usually am

[Lord Illidan]

Let's get this right? So Beranger doesn't like Ubuntu because the developer is based in an "immoral country".

So..

Some people say that America is immoral because of Bush, and the like. So basically, they should stop using Windows and Apple, too.

And Shuttleworth is not making much money out of Ubuntu, as far as I can see. His money was gotten by his sell of Thawte. Nay, some people are very envious in the Debian camp, and its a shame.

And about the Edgy Eft and Etch debacle, I think it is all bullcrap.

[fuscia]

everytime someone quits ubuntu, an angel loses its wings.

[Jucato]

He's just expressing his own opinion, and not anyone else's (aren't you glad he's not the official spokesperson of some big Linux company?). So let him express it, no matter how informed or uninformed he is. If, by your own standards/opinion, you think he is wrong, then express your dissent and try to correct him. If he refuses to see your light of truth, then let him wallow in his own truth.

It's supposed to be a free world, free to express yourself. It only becomes evil when expressing oneself involves a blatant disregard for others.

NOTE: this is not directed at Virogenesis in any matter. My post is just a reaction to the post he pointed out.

[tseliot]

He's just expressing his own opinion, and not anyone else's (aren't you glad he's not the official spokesperson of some big Linux company?). So let him express it, no matter how informed or uninformed he is. If, by your own standards/opinion, you think he is wrong, then express your dissent and try to correct him. If he refuses to see your light of truth, then let him wallow in his own truth.
You're right. And I have expressed my opinion about what he wrote.


It's supposed to be a free world, free to express yourself. It only becomes evil when expressing oneself involves a blatant disregard for others.
I think you're right again.


Alberto

[smarttaz]

This is me, the devil. "smarttaz" is an alias for "Béranger". I'd like to give some answers to some comments.


what an envious person...Indeed.


Some people hate successful people that's what this sounds like to me.Maybe. I CAN'T avoid paying taxes. YOU CAN'T avoid paying taxes. Mark CAN avoid paying taxes. This is not fair.
Don't tell me he's doing that for the poor people in Uganda.


He will pay his taxes in the Isle of Man anyway, as soon as he draws a salary or share dividends whatever.It was about corporate taxes. But all the other taxes in the Isle of Man are low.

What aren't ALL the UK companies headquartered in that isle?


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -
-- Mahatma GandhiThis was about a poor people. Canonical is not poor.
And... this is NOT YOU, the users, who will win!
It's Canonical, in the end.
So no, Mark is not Mahatma!


Every large corp. will actively seek the best place to set up factories and what not. Many set up a tax free for x number of years with a city. The city gets a large boost in employment and the company gets a tax break.Yes. If the city has a need, that's fine.
The Isle of Man is no more poor!
It's just a paradise heaven right now.


I don't think anyone would appreciate being scrutinized for their spending habits.When you're a public person you can't avoid that.


The point is that Mark made his money the same way anyone else does: hard work.From a certain level of richness beyond, I can't believe in honesty anymore.
Zillions of hard working people are not rich, and they may have the intelligence of Einstein and the inspiration of Edison.
From a certain amount of money you have to have your hands dirty to move on.


If all corporations were as benevolent as that one they might not be source of societal and environmental oppression and destruction that they are.This is a caprice of Mark, not benevolentia.
People are dying from diseases and famine, not because they lack Ubuntu CDs.


Obviously, this man wants a global Constitution.Well, Debian's one is fine :)


Ok, so some random blogger no one's ever heard of before just decided to stop using Ubuntu because they don't pay taxes to the UK....is that what all this fuss is about?Good question.


If I were the author, I would take on the government on this for allowing such a place to exist, not the ones that legally use this loophole.I'm not a UK subject, I can't oppose this to Her Majesty Gov't.


Take a small Island , with a high percentage of the population unemployed. [...] The economy grows and more and more businesses startup........ and so on...........until it became a fiscal paradise: it has no need for subsidies from tax cuts, yet it still benefits from them.


I don't see how Canonical has a huge advantage over RedHat.No other business sends free CDs to anyone!
No other Linux vendor pays zero coroporate taxes!


Mark alone knows if he has indeed done something wrong.It's not wrong by the law.
It's not wrong in Mark's eyes.
It's not wrong in your eyes.
It's definitely wrong in my eyes.
(Only God knows if it's wrong or not.)


As a British man who has friends from the isle of man i know that guy is talking complete and total crap. He has done the worst thing in any debate in my view, he has taken a few truths and combined them with a complete lack of understanding of the issues to make up a faulse impression.Now, a real Briton!


Firstly: The isle of man is a widely used tax haven, but there are better ones.Oh, so there is indeed a tax heaven! Better ones... maybe, but this is closer!


Secondly: Shuttleworth did not "make all his money not paying tax" thats total b/s.I never said all his previous business (before moving to the Isle of Man) was tax exempt!!!


Thirdly: all conical staff pay normal tax rates, so they idea that ubuntu does not pay tax is again stupid.I never said Canonical employees don't pay taxes!!
Canonical, as a business, has the profits uncut by taxes, that's all.


misunderstanding of basic govenance. They are a crown dependancy and like many other islands that the queen govens they are British islands NOT UK islands.[quote]

Am I allowed to see your Gov't is b/s?
Why are Isle of Man still having UK passports, albeit w/o E.U. rights?
And why are they outside the E.U., but paying no customs fees for doing business with the E.u.?
That's FAVORITISM your Queen should be ashamed of.

[quote]This is a simple case of someone being too retarded to understand the diffrence between Great Briton and the United Kingdom. [...] The isle of Man is British hence why we protect it for free.Oh, how generous you are! You can afford, from you own taxes, to protect the Isle of man for free!!!

Why don't you protect for free all the Commonwealth then?


Hm... if he were to stop using anything that is produced by any company that has made any immoral act, I guess he'd be better of living in the jungles.With GNU/Linux, I can choose. (I chose not to Ubuntu anymore.)

With Coca-Cola/Pepsi-Cola, I can't really.


Hes a worthless elitist ......I am an elitist.


Some people say that America is immoral because of Bush, and the like. So basically, they should stop using Windows and Apple, too.America IS NOT BUSH!

Canonical IS Mark! It's Mark's money!


And Shuttleworth is not making much money out of Ubuntu, as far as I can see.He will. In a couple of years he will have a lot of profits from Ubuntu. (Call me then and send me a beer.)


The other arguments are mostly just poor also. I mean I didn't stop using Windows because Ballmer and Gates do unethical things. I stopped using Windows because it didn't work for me.No kidding? Windows worked for me, more or less, but I hate the aggressive and monopolist and closed way they do their business (and they lie a lot).

That's why I don't use Windows at home. And, I don't want to be forced to pirate Windows, I prefer not to care of it at all.

Special thanks go to Fenyx and to Arktis.
They're great guys and extremely open-minded, if they were able to took my disapproval that easy and to be that tolerant.

Since all of you are Ubuntu fans, are you able to spot any version newer than 5.04 that is DB2-certified, and where are MySQL packages BY MYSQL (not by Ubuntu) that are MySQL-certified, as Canonical claims?

http://beranger.org/index.php?article=1080

[nocturn]

Maybe. I CAN'T avoid paying taxes. YOU CAN'T avoid paying taxes. Mark CAN avoid paying taxes. This is not fair.
Don't tell me he's doing that for the poor people in Uganda.


You're right, I can't avoid it. But if there is any legal way of paying one cent less, I do it so why would I be angry at Mark for doing the same? Just because I can't?
I would be angry at a government that supports an unfair regime though.

I'm not saying that Mark is avoiding taxes for the poor people, he is just doing what most of us would do given the chance.

You may find it immoral that he strives to pay the least amounts of taxes that the government allows him to, but I can find it only logical. Giving his money away to the goverment is foolish.

I wouldn't mind so much to pay taxes if they were used for the good only, which I don't belief.



Yes. If the city has a need, that's fine.
The Isle of Man is no more poor!
It's just a paradise heaven right now.


Good, then the government needs to step in and abolish this law because it no longer serves their purpose.
There are many of such laws that outlive their usefullness (if they ever had it), but I would still use them if I get the chance (in fact, I do so on a limited scale).



From a certain level of richness beyond, I can't believe in honesty anymore.
Zillions of hard working people are not rich, and they may have the intelligence of Einstein and the inspiration of Edison.
From a certain amount of money you have to have your hands dirty to move on.


Though this may apply to most ultra-rich people, I do not believe in generalizations like this. Even if 99.9999% of them would be corrupt, I have to give 0.0001% the benefit of doubt. I judge individuals, not groups.



No other business sends free CDs to anyone!
No other Linux vendor pays zero coroporate taxes!


Indeed they do not. That is one of the things that made Ubuntu famous.
If they really pay zero corporate taxes legally, good for them. I rather have them spend that money on development and free CD's than hand it to a goverment to fight wars.



America IS NOT BUSH!
Canonical IS Mark! It's Mark's money!


Canonical == Mark, OK
But Ubuntu != Canonical
It may have started out that way, but it grew beyond that.

[nocturn]

Since all of you are Ubuntu fans, are you able to spot any version newer than 5.04 that is DB2-certified, and where are MySQL packages BY MYSQL (not by Ubuntu) that are MySQL-certified, as Canonical claims?

http://beranger.org/index.php?article=1080

Fair enough. If this is true, it is bad, but it is in no way related to the issue with Ubuntu's location.

I would not mind a public discussion about this though and I will not form an opinion on it before I have more information.

[Jucato]

Canonical == Mark, OK
But Ubuntu != Canonical
It may have started out that way, but it grew beyond that.

Nice! People seem to forget that, unlike SUSE (SLED) and Red Hat, Ubuntu is truly a community distribution, backed/funded by Canonical. Similar to SUSE and Fedora Core, except that there is no "enterprise" edition.

If one day, Mark does get some income from Ubuntu, would there be something wrong with that? I'm sure that, even with Ubuntu's current popularity, he wouldn't earn as much as what he freely gave. Besides, in the FOSS world, you only really earn through selling support, which is what Canonical is basically doing.

Now, the real issue behind this is this: is Canonical and Mark doing something completely immoral by being based on the Isle of Man? Morality is a very cloudy issue. Personally, if the taxes that I would pay were only to end up supporting a something that doesn't do anything except take and take, I would also be pissed off. But is the Isle of Man really that bad? Is it absolutely and completely evil? Has it done absolutely nothing to benefit the economy?

But even if the concept behind the Isle of Man is a bit immoral, does being located on it make you automatically immoral as well? Many places on earth are immoral (even if they are legal), but does being on it make the person automatically immoral?

There's another possibility: what if Mark really intended to put Canonical in that place, not just to ditch some tax, but also to be able to use that money (intended for tax) to benefit others. Other than that reference to the Isle of Man, I haven't seen anything yet that would ultimately prove that Mark is a money-hoarding person who masks his true intentions with a benefactor's face. The fact that he's been giving and giving to Ubuntu development for 2 years, without seeing the need to publicly defend himself from "attacks" or intrigues, goes to say a lot about the security and integrity (or insensitivity) of a man. Also, what if the money that was intended for paying those taxes which he avoids are used to benefit other people? Remember that, aside from Ubuntu, he has also other projects, like the Shuttleworth Foundation in Africa. If this was the case, he'd be taking advantage of the "immoral" Isle of Man, to do something good. But of course, if maintaining the Isle of Man truly comes at the expense of regular tax paying citizens, it can't be justified. But is that really the case? I'm not familiar with the laws over there.

[Arktis]

To tell you all the truth, I haven't made up my mind about this issue one way or the other. I can really respect some of the stuff I'm reading from people responding to this. A lot of it I can't. But at least people are THINKING about it.

What I would like to see is an authoritative addressing of the issue from an educated party/person in apparent good faith. Otherwise, I think people are just simply spinning their gears. I think that none of us are really informed enough to do anything other than engage in hypothetical supposition and analogy and/or allusion. In short: I don't believe any of the posters here are qualified enough to be able to ascribe this to one thing or the other.

Edit: If the tone of my post is missleading, I appologize. I am merely trying to be descriptive enough to contribute my perspective. I acknowledge that the value you place on that is ultimately up to you. :mrgreen:

[Lord Illidan]

The less money Canonical spends on taxes, the more money it spends on development and the like.

Also, is it wrong to make money out of Linux per se? Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, Linspire, all of these make money out of Linux. Should we boycott them too? If he makes profits out of Ubuntu, I wouldn't really mind.

However, if Ubuntu is free as in beer, how in hell is Shuttleworth going to make money, and even more, profit, when :

Ubuntu is Free Software, and available to you free of charge. It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom, but you probably knew that already! Unlike many of the other commercial distributions in the free and open source world (Libranet, Lindows, Xandros, Red Hat) the Ubuntu team really does believe that Free software should be free of software licencing charges.

Quote from the main page.

If Canonical makes money out of support, that is fine, even RMS has no issues with that, just as long as it remains free libre software.

The issue of free cds sent to anyone. I don't find anything wrong with this. It is mainly used when people do not want to download an iso from the internet when they have a dial-up connection. Also, the users get it on demand, and they distribute it if they want to, it's not like Canonical is mass mailing these CDs to all and sundry.

[Arktis]

Also, is it wrong to make money out of Linux per se? Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, Linspire, all of these make money out of Linux. Should we boycott them too? If he makes profits out of Ubuntu, I wouldn't really mind.
I don't believe it is all encompassing RULE that it is wrong to make money from FOSS. But I think that the issue here is really revolving around being an exception to the normal rules that apply to everyone else, and whether or not that is objectionable in this case, for whatever reason(s).

[Lord Illidan]

If Shuttleworth is not doing anything illegal by setting up business in the Isle of Man to benefit from less taxes, why bother?

Many companies go to china, because labour costs are much much lower. And end up exploiting the labour supply.

[smarttaz]

Well, folks, you're surely many more than I am :-) so I can't "fight" with you.

I never said it's wrong to make money from Linux.

I can't state that Mark is doing something "completely immoral" - it's only immoral TO MY standards.

That's why I personally decided I will not personally use Ubuntu, nor I would recommend it.

But when it's "self-recommended", I will gladly help a friend to configure it because, hey!, this is GNU/Linux anyway!

Like you said, it's more than Canonical.


It's true, I don't like extremely rich people, and I usually don't give them the benefit of the doubt. To me, quickly gained richness is per se immoral, as long as millions of extremely creative people don't ever get rich, while they make the actual progress of the society (technological, medical, etc.).

They are people pushing the innovation, and people pushing Wall Street. They're not the same, with extremely few exceptions.

Life is unfair, and I prefer not to think of tycoons. I also prefer companies that are not owned by a single person. I hate dictatorship.


As a consequence, I don't trust Mark Shuttleworth. This is just me.

What he does with Ubuntu is however for his personal glory in a certain degree. If it were about helping people, he were using his money not for a Linux distro, but for building cheap houses in Rio de Janeiro's favelas.

Since it's still technical (like with Thawthe), this is business, the way he likes it.

And I am free to deny his "help".

As for the community... as long as Master Shuttleworth will not bother you in any way, there is no problem. But I can't be part of a community having a "spiritual and financial leader" I disagree with.

[Arktis]

If Shuttleworth is not doing anything illegal by setting up business in the Isle of Man to benefit from less taxes, why bother?

Many companies go to china, because labour costs are much much lower. And end up exploiting the labour supply.
Legality isn't the issue at all; apparently, the loopholes inolved in being based in the so-called "Isle of Man" are completely legal. The OP was reffering to the assertions of someone who was making a moral argument, not a legal one. Morality and legality are not synonimous.

And of course, comparing tax exemption to labor issues is an apples and oranges argument, or at the very least, simply arguing in terms of degree.

[Jucato]

If Shuttleworth is not doing anything illegal by setting up business in the Isle of Man to benefit from less taxes, why bother?
I think he's real issue is not whether it's legal or illegal (it's legal), but whether it's moral or not (questionable). Not all things that are legal are moral, with which I agree.


Many companies go to china, because labour costs are much much lower. And end up exploiting the labour supply.
And many try to boycott stuff that comes from China for this reason. But then, it's the poor laborers who get affected more by this than the companies.

[nocturn]

And I am free to deny his "help".

As for the community... as long as Master Shuttleworth will not bother you in any way, there is no problem. But I can't be part of a community having a "spiritual and financial leader" I disagree with.

That is your decision and I understand that. I wish you good luck with whatever distro you will be using in the future.

For my part, I still choose to trust Mark until he gives me a good reason to change that trust.

[Arktis]

That is your decision and I understand that. I wish you good luck with whatever distro you will be using in the future.

For my part, I still choose to trust Mark until he gives me a good reason to change that trust.
But is the little fact brought up by the OP's link indicative of such a good reason? The jury is still out on that one. As I have said, I haven't made up my mind. I don't think you should yet either.

[smarttaz]

I wish you good luck with whatever distro you will be using in the future.Thank you, buit it's "in the present", not future.

Ubuntu got replaced by Debian (testing/unstable on the desktop, Sarge + backports on the laptop).

Another distro which I loved and "betrayed" me in after 10.0 (broken updates, broken YaST2, sudden change of package manager to Libzyppycrap), SuSE, was dropped (with a lot of pain, like quitting a wife), and will be replaced by either FC5, of the next FC6, or the next CentOS5, when it will be ready (after RHEL5 releases). Or by Mandriva 2007, the free edition, if the bugs will allow for it.

There are the two main lines I see:
-- the Debian and derived line;
-- the RH and derived line (SuSE was derived from RH, Mandake too).
The rest are mainly for the enthusiast.

[nocturn]

But is the little fact brought up by the OP's link indicative of such a good reason? The jury is still out on that one. As I have said, I haven't made up my mind. I don't think you should yet either.

I have made up my mind. The fact that Mark has chosen a place where his company would pay the least taxes possible legally is not a problem in my view.

As I stated before, it's up to the government to plug this hole and I rather have him spend this money on free CD's or development than have a governement fight a war with it.

There is really no more information I need to make a decision on this.

I do find the second point he brought up far more concerning (about Dapper not being certified as claimed), though I need more information to form an opinion on it.

[Stormy Eyes]

If Mark Shuttleworth can get away with paying nothing in corporate income taxes, then I say more power to him!. Taxation is theft, pure and simple. If you as an individual used the same methods to get money that the government does, you'd be a criminal.

[Jucato]

But is the little fact brought up by the OP's link indicative of such a good reason? The jury is still out on that one. As I have said, I haven't made up my mind. I don't think you should yet either.
Why shouldn't he make up his mind if he has chosen to? smarttaz has chosen not to use Ubuntu, you have chosen not to make up your mind, and nocturn (and I) have chosen to go on with our lives. Nothing wrong with it. We'll probably cross the bridge when we get there. But for us, it's a non-issue. That's our opinion. Everyone's entitled to theirs. :D

@smarttaz: is Mark one of those rich people who quickly gained wealth while disregarding other creative people? If history is to judge that, it's quite the opposite. Also, would you be so kind as to give some reference/proof that Mark really started Ubuntu for his personal fame. Aside from a few publicized appearances (notably at JavaOne), are there any events that Mark himself made the headlines or that he actually spoke to the reporter? If he's such a glory hog, wouldn't you expect much more personal publicity or appearances? And although he does appear in some conferences or grant interviews, they are not very publicized or widely distributed.

[Arktis]

I have made up my mind. The fact that Mark has chosen a place where his company would pay the least taxes possible legally is not a problem in my view.

As I stated before, it's up to the government to plug this hole and I rather have him spend this money on free CD's or development than have a governement fight a war with it.

There is really no more information I need to make a decision on this.

I do find the second point he brought up far more concerning (about Dapper not being certified as claimed), though I need more information to form an opinion on it.
I can of course, respect that, but i don't agree. A government isn't an authority because it can "plug holes", it's an authority because it has consent and recognition. This 'Isle of Man' is a haven for exceptions to the normal rules that apply to most everyone else, and that's the issue here. It still exists for a reason, because as you might know, it has existed as it is for a long time now and that's been plenty of time to "plug the hole". Is the said reason legitimate? Yes, of course... legitimacy is simpy a matter of being in compliance of the law of the establised government. But is it MORAL? I don't know. And I dare say, neither do you.

[smarttaz]

I do find the second point he brought up far more concerning (about Dapper not being certified as claimed), though I need more information to form an opinion on it.Well, let's give Canonical the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe they're certified. But then, they suck as a business, because, as a professional, I want to have FACTS, not words. And they're UNPROFESSIONAL for not being able to give a link proving their claims!

I can say that MyLinuxDistroOS is certified. Since I'm not Ubuntu, would anyone believe it without requiring me to show my credentials?

If I want to recommend to my company to switch to DB2 on Ubuntu, I can't see anything newer than 5.04 that's supported by IBM. And I can see nothing I should recommend to pay MySQL AB for support either.

Given that I have some other "question marks" (avoiding taxes; using the unfair advantage of being able to send free CDs to everyone), this certification issue is the third question.

When you have 3 question about moral integrity, you can have the right to drop the business.

An enthusiast (home user) should not bother about these issues, but I do bother.

[smarttaz]

Taxation is theft, pure and simple.Yes, but someone has to pay for your Gov't to exist.

Is it fair to pay, only you, as a regular employee? Corporations can choose not to pay, but you can't. Would you like to support your Gov't from your income taxes on your salary if no company would pay a dime?


Think over it.

[nocturn]

I can of course, respect that, but i don't agree. A government isn't an authority because it can "plug holes", it's an authority because it has consent and recognition. This 'Isle of Man' is a haven for exceptions to the normal rules that apply to most everyone else, and that's the issue here. It still exists for a reason, because as you might know, it has existed as it is for a long time now and that's been plenty of time to "plug the hole". Is that reason legitimate? Yes, of course... legitimacy is simpy a matter of being in compliance of the law of the establised government. But is it MORAL? I don't know. And I dare say, neither do you.

I can understand that, and it's not about plugging holes.
The issue here is that a government created a deliberate tax exemption for whatever reason, so it's not abnormal that people make use of it (I would too, given the chance).

The issue is not if the Isle of Man's current status is ethically justified (because I would tend to say no), the issue in question is if it's ethical to choose the place where one pays the least amount of taxes, to which I would answer yes.


t's an authority because it has consent and recognition.

That's the theory, but I stopped believing this a long time ago.
I have to vote again next october, and I will have to choose a party on the base of which one I disagree with the least. None of them represent my opinions by a long shot.

As I said, I wouldn't mind paying taxes if I knew they were only used for the common good (education etc). The sad fact is that important things like education get a fraction of the budget spent on military (killing people), I do not support that.

I think that Mark can do more good with the money not spend on taxes (free CD's, development of Free Software) then the government would do with it.

[nocturn]

Yes, but someone has to pay for your Gov't to exist.

Is it fair to pay, only you, as a regular employee? Corporations can choose not to pay, but you can't. Would you like to support your Gov't from your income taxes on your salary if no company would pay a dime?


Think over it.

No I wouldn't and I fully support that the UK reverse the special status for the Isle immediately.

If I as an employee would be excempt from taxes in a certain city however, I would also try to find employment there, so I cannot judge Canonical for using the option that is available to them.

Secondly, I think that Mark is doing good things with his money (Ubuntu, the shuttleworth foundation, schooltool), which I cannot say for any arbitrary company. I doubt that the UK government would use it for equally just causes.

[Arktis]

I can understand that, and it's not about plugging holes.
The issue here is that a government created a deliberate tax exemption for whatever reason, so it's not abnormal that people make use of it (I would too, given the chance).

The issue is not if the Isle of Man's current status is ethically justified (because I would tend to say no), the issue in question is if it's ethical to choose the place where one pays the least amount of taxes, to which I would answer yes.



That's the theory, but I stopped believing this a long time ago.
I have to vote again next october, and I will have to choose a party on the base of which one I disagree with the least. None of them represent my opinions by a long shot.

As I said, I wouldn't mind paying taxes if I knew they were only used for the common good (education etc). The sad fact is that important things like education get a fraction of the budget spent on military (killing people), I do not support that.

I think that Mark can do more good with the money not spend on taxes (free CD's, development of Free Software) then the government would do with it.

I congratulate your honesty. In fact, I admire it.

But as you might guess, I'm still undecided over this whole thing. Hahaha. ;)

By the way, Ubuntu has been and still is my exclusive OS since Hoary Hedgehog. I just felt like sharing that.

[egon spengler]

Personally I don't care that much about Shuttleworth dodging taxes but I'm quite certain that many of you leaping to his defence are only doing so because you view him in a favourable light. I'm sure if a less popular figure like Bush or Gates was shown to be dodging tax they wouldn't be let off so lightly by many of you. In fact I clearly remember people dismissing Gates' massive donations to charity because they are quite possibly tax dodges.

The "well everyone else does it" arguments are equally asinine

[Brunellus]

all of this tax-dodging/ tax haven discussion is pointless. It is NOT A CRIME to form a corporation wherever you feel that it best to do so. Different jurisdictions treat corporations differently for reasons particular to each jurisdiction.

If you have the freedom to act, why should you choose to incorporate in a place whose climate is hostile to your firm?

None of this, of course, has any real bearing on the larger Ubuntu community.

[DoctorMO]

You do what you believe in and to some Marks lack of belief in the taxation system is an insult to their belief in it (or at least jealousy over it's ability to be surmounted by Mark)

personaly I couldn't care less.

[Stormy Eyes]

Would you like to support your Gov't from your income taxes on your salary if no company would pay a dime?

I owe the government nothing. It is corrupt and tyrannical, and I do not consent to allow those swine in Washington to act in my name. I don't support the government. I pay taxes because I do not have the power to refuse with impunity, nor am I rich enough to able to seek out and take advantages of loopholes in the tax code. If I could exploit the system and avoid paying taxes, I would do so.

Since Mark Shuttleworth can, I choose to cheer him on rather than envy him just because he's rich and has more opportunities than I do. If he can tell the tyrants to bugger themselves, more power to him.

[rai4shu2]

Render unto Caesar, etc.

[smarttaz]

You do what you believe in and to some Marks lack of belief in the taxation system is an insult to their belief in it (or at least jealousy over it's ability to be surmounted by Mark)

personaly I couldn't care less.nobody believes in the taxation system. But someone has to pay. And each time a company escapes, this is YOU who's paying instead!

That's why I don't encourage companies that avoid paying.

For the time being, I'm advocating some good free ones (Debian, Fedora, CentOS - or if you are big enough to pay a lot, RHEL), but if quality will improve, I will have no problem to advocate Mandriva as well (but right now it kinda sucks).

[smarttaz]

If he can tell the tyrants to bugger themselves, more power to him.When you're rich, you tend to have an altered view of the reality. (Even if you have far less power, you can't feel the same as the lower level: think how many people stopped understanding the others as soon as they became CEO, for instance.)

Therefore, I don't expect politicians and tyrants to listen to Mark. On the contrary, the risk is that Mark will get corrupted by power.

And, like I said, instead of sending free CDs, he could have built cheap houses in Rio de Janeiro's favelas.

[rai4shu2]

There are more important things than money, you know.

[sharkboy]

Nice! People seem to forget that, unlike SUSE (SLED) and Red Hat, Ubuntu is truly a community distribution, backed/funded by Canonical. Similar to SUSE and Fedora Core, except that there is no "enterprise" edition.

If one day, Mark does get some income from Ubuntu, would there be something wrong with that? I'm sure that, even with Ubuntu's current popularity, he wouldn't earn as much as what he freely gave. Besides, in the FOSS world, you only really earn through selling support, which is what Canonical is basically doing.

The question is who makes the decisions about the distribution, and on what grounds. If you can't live with the fact that choices for ubuntu are made with a future profit in mind, then there are democratic, non-profit and 100% community driven alternatives available.

On the issue of taxes, I can't see that there is any real discussion: escaping taxes through international, legal loop-holes is ... legal, but that's all it is. Again, if you can't live with that, there are alternatives.

[Stormy Eyes]

There are more important things than money, you know.

Like power, pleasure, security, and comfort -- all of which can be bought with money.

[Stormy Eyes]

Render unto Caesar, etc.

I'm not a Christian. As far as I'm concerned, Caesar's due is a knife in the back.

[Brunellus]

Render unto Caesar, etc.
Note that someone who moves to a jurisdiction that taxes him less IS rendering unto Caesar. It just so happens that what passes for Caesar in that jurisdiction isn't asking for much to be rendered.

You're subject to the laws of the territory in which you reside; on that fundamental assumption rests the whole edifice of settled law and the law of nations. Take that away, and you have individual men subject to their respective individual masters. Is a step back to midievalism really something you want to think about?

[rai4shu2]

My point is that this issue is politics. I'm not going to change my distro of choice on something so insignificant. The philosophy of Ubuntu is comfortable, and that is all I really care about.

[bruce89]

It seems a bit odd to base what distribution you use on whether or not the "owner" pays taxes or not.

[egon spengler]

all of this tax-dodging/ tax haven discussion is pointless. It is NOT A CRIME to form a corporation wherever you feel that it best to do so. Different jurisdictions treat corporations differently for reasons particular to each jurisdiction.

If you have the freedom to act, why should you choose to incorporate in a place whose climate is hostile to your firm?

I don't believe that the guy ever accused Canonical/Shuttleworth of breaking the law so why is it that people keep bringing up the fact that this isn't illegal? He thinks that this is morally wrong and so he doesn't want to support it, by all means disagree but pointing out that it isn't illegal is basically irrelevant.

And again, it's very interesting how the goalposts get shifted for Shuttleworth, I think we've all seen Microsoft get criticised on here over actions that while perhaps morally dubious (to some) are 100% legal.


It seems a bit odd to base what distribution you use on whether or not the "owner" pays taxes or not.

No more odd a criteria than the support of libre software yet a lot of people do that

[rai4shu2]

I never said I wouldn't criticize Shuttleworth, either. :p

[Brunellus]

I don't believe that the guy ever accused Canonical/Shuttleworth of breaking the law so why is it that people keep bringing up the fact that this isn't illegal? He thinks that this is morally wrong and so he doesn't want to support it, by all means disagree but pointing out that it isn't illegal is basically irrelevant.

And again, it's very interesting how the goalposts get shifted for Shuttleworth, I think we've all seen Microsoft get criticised on here over actions that while perhaps morally dubious (to some) are 100% legal.



No more odd a criteria than the support of libre software yet a lot of people do that
The goalposts shift for Shuttleworth because he's acting (in terms of residency) on his own behalf. Nothing prevents Bill Gates from picking up sticks and moving to the Isle of Man, but he is, as far as I'm aware, still domiciled in the state of Washington.

I don't see Canonical operating in the same vein as Microsoft. Partly, this is because they don't have the same market leverage, for sure. But there's no monopoly abuse here, and no vicious intimidation or predatory pricing structure in effect. Their business model might not be entirely sound (jury still out on that), but at least Canonical are fair.

[bruce89]

No more odd a criteria than the support of libre software yet a lot of people do that
Fair enough.

[23meg]

Given the present state of the world I'd ultimately prefer a Mark Shuttleworth that doesn't pay taxes to the UK government to one that does.

Anyone can quit Ubuntu and inform us of the reason no matter how misinformed or exaggerated, it's not a biggie. This whole non-issue really didn't deserve an eight page thread.

Did anyone post a link to this thread in that blog yet? I think we should, and then just let this die.

[bruce89]

Given the present state of the world I'd ultimately prefer a Mark Shuttleworth that doesn't pay taxes to the UK government to one that does.
Especially when it would go to fund wars, ID cards, etc.

[23meg]

Especially when it would go to fund wars, ID cards, etc.
Exactly.

[curuxz]

Why is this thread still going,

He got all his facts wrong and is a nobody anyway who cares!

And for the last time, shuttleworth is not 'not paying taxes' its just he based his company somewhere that does not have corperate tax rates. Why do people keep acting like its a tax dodge its not its an ecconomic insentive because the Isle of Man needs employment!

[adam.skinner]

Boo hoo. I hate the privaleged. Especially when they give me free stuff.

[prizrak]

One thing that I would like to point out is that Canonical is an Ltd not an Inc. That means (if I remember correctly and I might not) that Canonical is in fact a sole proprietorship and it is being taxed as private income. In this case it is most likely Mark, who would actually NOT be using the loophole to avoid paying the tax.
Another thing about corporate taxes is that a corporation is that a corporation is owned by the share holders and there have been discussions for years about corporate taxes. The issue is that shareholders are taxed twice on any dividends they recieve from their shares. First corporate tax is taken out then when the money makes it to the shareholder personal taxes are taken out. Basing a corporation somewhere where there is no corporate tax is a great benefit to the shareholders (and in a case of a publicly traded corporation that's just about anyone with the money to acquire the shares). As well as the company.

[bruce89]

He probably just like the Isle of Man. (Manx cats possibly?)

[Stormy Eyes]

Boo hoo. I hate the privaleged. Especially when they give me free stuff.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! I'm so worthless and weak that I have to tear down people who are more successful than me in order to have an illusion of self-respect!

[OffHand]

less tax > more tax

and I'm not rich ](*,)

[smarttaz]

that Canonical is in fact a sole proprietorship and it is being taxed as private income. In this case it is most likely Mark, who would actually NOT be using the loophole to avoid paying the tax.No, dear newyorker.

Limited liability companies are taxed at corporate rates, and dividends to shareholders are further taxed.

In English Law, a limited liability company can be:
1. Limited by shares = Limited (Ltd.) or Incorporated (Inc.);
2. Public Limited liability companies = PLC.
3. Limited Liability Partnerchips = LLP.

Again, all Limited liability companies are taxed at corporate rates under UK law!

Under US law, things are different. Limited liability companies avoid double taxation! Their income is not taxed, but each owner is taxed separately. However, they can deduct losses on their personal tax returns.

Therefore, to avoid the corporate tax, Canonical has set its HQ in the Isle of Man.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_limited_company_by_shares
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability_company

[Virogenesis]

No, dear newyorker.

Limited liability companies are taxed at corporate rates, and dividends to shareholders are further taxed.

In English Law, a limited liability company can be:
1. Limited by shares = Limited (Ltd.) or Incorporated (Inc.);
2. Public Limited liability companies = PLC.
3. Limited Liability Partnerchips = LLP.

Again, all Limited liability companies are taxed at corporate rates under UK law!

Under US law, things are different. Limited liability companies avoid double taxation! Their income is not taxed, but each owner is taxed separately. However, they can deduct losses on their personal tax returns.

Therefore, to avoid the corporate tax, Canonical has set its HQ in the Isle of Man.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_limited_company_by_shares
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability_company
To be perfectly honest I'd rather him not pay tax, that way my gov suffers....
yes thats correct I want my gov to suffer why?
Well they are trying to introduce insane ID cards lets not forget that I'll have to BUY one and if I do NOT have it on me I will be Fined.
Now all for tax still?
You are not british so why should you care It is the brits that should care if any and as you can see we Don't.
We know our channel isles better than you I'm afraid to say and yes they do need lower tax rates for employment.
The money that Canonical makes, pays wages and those wages then get sent its like a cycle.

[smarttaz]

Well they are trying to introduce insane ID cards lets not forget that I'll have to BUY one and if I do NOT have it on me I will be Fined.C'mon. Except for you the Britons, and except for you the Americans, and some other 4-5 countries, ALL the other 170 countries ALWAYS HAD NATIONAL IDs!

Get f-ing used with this. And don't tell me the UK and the US are the only democracies of the world!

This is a paranoic debate in the UK and US about national IDs. Like I said, get f'ing used with the idea. Just because you feel this is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

OT, but however, just a word. So you say it's wrong they put you to have a national ID. Why? Because they know where you live?
-- The utilities and the phone companies know where you live and who you are;
-- Your bank knows where you live and who you are;
-- If you have a passport you're not anonymous anymore, and all the databases in the world know when you enter or exit a border.

There are many OTHER ways the Gov't can abuse of you, not this way, of having a National ID.

Let me tell you something. When I went in the States, as a tourist, a bank asked me for TWO IDs. That happens in ****ing countries not having a national ID.
How was I supposed to have TWO IDs? I had to be smarter than the f-ing clerk and to show him: "take my passport, with picture and all: this is one; then take my tourist Visa issued by your Gov't: it's secured, it has my picture and all, this is numer two; now, I want to cash my cheque, please!"

This does not happen in European countries that DO have a national ID. I do have it and this is all I need to make them know I am who I pretend I am!

Take another case: someone murdered a neighbor. What is supposed to do the British Police, to whom a good part of the population is unknown, by not having records? If someone said "I saw two bizarre guys", nobody can have a clue on who they might be, unless they already have criminal records.

Stop thinking that everything is against YOU just because Blair or Bush are now in power. Some instruments can also be beneficial to you in many situations.

But you are too conservative. I know very few liberal people in the US ("liberal" in the American meaning). And Britons are notoriously conservative.

[Virogenesis]

C'mon. Except for you the Britons, and except for you the Americans, and some other 4-5 countries, ALL the other 170 countries ALWAYS HAD NATIONAL IDs!

Get f-ing used with this. And don't tell me the UK and the US are the only democracies of the world!

This is a paranoic debate in the UK and US about national IDs. Like I said, get f'ing used with the idea. Just because you feel this is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

OT, but however, just a word. So you say it's wrong they put you to have a national ID. Why? Because they know where you live?
-- The utilities and the phone companies know where you live and who you are;
-- Your bank knows where you live and who you are;
-- If you have a passport you're not anonymous anymore, and all the databases in the world know when you enter or exit a border.

There are many OTHER ways the Gov't can abuse of you, not this way, of having a National ID.

Let me tell you something. When I went in the States, as a tourist, a bank asked me for TWO IDs. That happens in ****ing countries not having a national ID.
How was I supposed to have TWO IDs? I had to be smarter than the f-ing clerk and to show him: "take my passport, with picture and all: this is one; then take my tourist Visa issued by your Gov't: it's secured, it has my picture and all, this is numer two; now, I want to cash my cheque, please!"

This does not happen in European countries that DO have a national ID. I do have it and this is all I need to make them know I am who I pretend I am!

Take another case: someone murdered a neighbor. What is supposed to do the British Police, to whom a good part of the population is unknown, by not having records? If someone said "I saw two bizarre guys", nobody can have a clue on who they might be, unless they already have criminal records.

Stop thinking that everything is against YOU just because Blair or Bush are now in power. Some instruments can also be beneficial to you in many situations.

But you are too conservative. I know very few liberal people in the US ("liberal" in the American meaning). And Britons are notoriously conservative.

Mate, get it straight you are NOT British you do not know Britian you do NOT live here.....
We do NOT want them WE DO NOT see a need for them.
How would they help us?
Are they going to cut down the threat of terrorists are they heck.
What happens when the police ask to see ours?
Why waste billions introducing this system when it won't help?
Are you a surporter of DRM?
As for Blair being against me I understand not to trust politicians they are all basically crooks
The Brits will get fined for not having theirs on them if they get stopped by the police might I add if you lose it you'll have to pay for a new one.

[prizrak]

No, dear newyorker.

Limited liability companies are taxed at corporate rates, and dividends to shareholders are further taxed.

In English Law, a limited liability company can be:
1. Limited by shares = Limited (Ltd.) or Incorporated (Inc.);
2. Public Limited liability companies = PLC.
3. Limited Liability Partnerchips = LLP.

Again, all Limited liability companies are taxed at corporate rates under UK law!

Under US law, things are different. Limited liability companies avoid double taxation! Their income is not taxed, but each owner is taxed separately. However, they can deduct losses on their personal tax returns.

Therefore, to avoid the corporate tax, Canonical has set its HQ in the Isle of Man.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_limited_company_by_shares
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability_company
Thanks for the clarification as I said it's been a while since I had to deal with all that stuff.

Just because you feel this is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.
Pretty much what we've been trying to tell you all along :)

Some instruments can also be beneficial to you in many situations.
That is another point we have been arguing throughout the entire thread. Canonical provides a completely free Linux distribution with pretty low support costs. RedHat for instance doesn't provide a free OS Fedora is a community project and is not the same as RedHat. Basically we feel that w/e Mark doesn't pay in taxes he makes up in what he provides for us.

[Stormy Eyes]

This is a paranoic debate in the UK and US about national IDs.

I don't know about the UK, but here in the US many of us are used to viewing the government as a half-wild beast that has a bad habit of biting the hand that feeds it. Furthermore, anybody in the US who wants ID issued by the Federal government can get it by applying for a passport. I have one myself, since I've done some overseas travel.

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that a government should do as little as possible. It should not be able to grant privileges to corporations, or harass citizens who have done no harm to anybody else. Furthermore, a citizen ought to be able to walk right up to the President of the United States and say, "Mr. President, what the hell have you been smoking?"

Mind you, I grew up believing that the ideals of the founding fathers were good ideals, even if the founders themselves didn't consistently uphold them. Individualism, liberty, private property, equal justice under law -- I think these are ideals that can advance the human race. I suppose that, being a citizen of Romania, (which about 25 years ago suffered under Communist tyranny as a satellite state of the USSR) you grew up believing in different ideals.

[loell]

if Beranger could just see this thread, he "might" just be proud of himself, for he and his blog article has become a subject of an ubuntuforum topic, I now question the real intention of the thread starter...

[Virogenesis]

if Beranger could just see this thread, he "might" just be proud of himself, for he and his blog article has become a subject of an ubuntuforum topic, I now question the real intention of the thread starter...
He started on his post why.....

Beranger has seen this..... hes posted in this thread.

[nocturn]

And again, it's very interesting how the goalposts get shifted for Shuttleworth, I think we've all seen Microsoft get criticised on here over actions that while perhaps morally dubious (to some) are 100% legal.


I agree that legality is not the norm here, there are many things that are legal that are immoral and the opposite.

In this case however, I see nothing immoral to it except the existence of such a place. Although I have a great dislike for Microsoft and the like, this would be a thing I would not flame them for either (unless they lobbied the government to keep this place).

If Mark is ever caught forming a monopoly or slipping closed protocols/formats in Ubuntu to lock others out, I'll critize him just as hard as I do Mr. Gates.

Right now, I see a guy who made a lot of money without doing something unethical as far as I can judge that is now putting part of his fortune to the greater good (not only Ubuntu).