Free software does not contribute any tax

[Tsuroerusu]

I found this article interesting, its an area that's I have not seen mentioned at all.
Paying tax benefits us all, if its not used by politicians for there own expensive needs.
A solution could be for projects and distros (which are not companies already )to set-up pay-pal or something similar accounts that go straight to the tax office.

This whole argument is a mountain (On the scale of Olympus Mons) of BULLSHIT!
This image ought to demonstrate quite the degree of bullshit I am referring to:

It's in the toilet!

BullShit.jpg (11.06 KiB) Viewed 2151 times

In my country we pay high taxes for the common good of the public as a whole. This is the financing of a universal healthcare system, education, eldercare, day care, unemployment support, student support, public pensions, maintenance of infrastructure and lots of other things. In Denmark we refer to all of those as "welfare". Oh, and by the way, when we have elections for government, it's something every single party needs to talk about (Even liberals, who in theory are against this sort of system), because if a government makes a reform that gives the public "less welfare" so to speak, the voters will totally slaughter them in an election.

One obviously can't say that healthcare, or any of the other things I mentioned, doesn't cost anything, because citizens pay for it through taxes, however you can say that what I mentioned above, and a bunch of other stuff, is freely available, as in everybody having free (Read: liberty, or "fri" (Danish) ) access to it, and on top of that, if you loose your job, getting economical support from the government until you get a new job, is considered (In law) a degree of a right (The condition is that you need to be active in finding a new job, but that doesn't have to be in a single month at all).
The parallel I am trying to make to free software, is on the points of "freely available", and the "degree of a right", under some reasonable circumstances, to receive something or have access to something (This part is specific to copyleft licenses, such a the GPL and CDDL license). If the Danish state sponsored the development of free software, that would be "welfare" too (In Danish terms). So from my perspective (Which is that of a social democrat), free software is welfare, because it's a, in my opinion, huge benefit to the public and the country as a whole. So yes, free software might not directly pay taxes (Although indirectly it very much does), but that "loss" as your perspective your call it, equals to an investment the government might make in the development of free software (If I had my way, the Danish government would be doing so! Instead of sending that money out of the country, that then funds big business corporatism), although, in this fashion you could say that it's the people who decides what the government should spend money on.

A friend of mine, who has voted for a very left-wing political party through 15 years or so, contributes to KDE with Danish translation (And the guy does a damn good job!), and he also works on openSUSE. So if a person in Denmark, can only manage to afford a used computer without an operating system (We do have less privileged people and organizations in Denmark), he or she does indeed have free access to software they can use, and a degree of a right (Through the GPL) to receive it (The condition being the copyleft nature of the GPL).

Just my two cents.

[allix]

In my country we pay high taxes for the common good of the public as a whole. This is the financing of a universal healthcare system, education, eldercare, day care, unemployment support, student support, public pensions, maintenance of infrastructure and lots of other things. In Denmark we refer to all of those as "welfare". Oh, and by the way, when we have elections for government, it's something every single party needs to talk about (Even liberals, who in theory are against this sort of system), because if a government makes a reform that gives the public "less welfare" so to speak, the voters will totally slaughter them in an election.

That is a explanation of your welfare system, it does not mention anything about software, free or non-free. It is a system that I think works fairly well.
Its not a end solution to eradication of poverty, its more of a temporally means until something better is implemented. In england we have a similar system however after each election more tax cuts for the middle and high classes is enacted. The poor do not benefit this at all.

One obviously can't say that healthcare, or any of the other things I mentioned, doesn't cost anything, because citizens pay for it through taxes, however you can say that what I mentioned above, and a bunch of other stuff, is freely available, as in everybody having free (Read: liberty, or "fri" (Danish) ) access to it, and on top of that, if you loose your job, getting economical support from the government until you get a new job, is considered (In law) a degree of a right (The condition is that you need to be active in finding a new job, but that doesn't have to be in a single month at all).
The parallel I am trying to make to free software, is on the points of "freely available", and the "degree of a right", under some reasonable circumstances, to receive something or have access to something (This part is specific to copyleft licenses, such a the GPL and CDDL license). If the Danish state sponsored the development of free software, that would be "welfare" too (In Danish terms). So from my perspective (Which is that of a social democrat), free software is welfare, because it's a, in my opinion, huge benefit to the public and the country as a whole. So yes, free software might not directly pay taxes (Although indirectly it very much does), but that "loss" as your perspective your call it, equals to an investment the government might make in the development of free software (If I had my way, the Danish government would be doing so! Instead of sending that money out of the country, that then funds big business corporatism), although, in this fashion you could say that it's the people who decides what the government should spend money on.

I do like the flexcurity model you have, its something brown should follow up on . Your hypotheses that if you make free software and are unemployed you should get paid by the government does not exist in any control, its just a theory. You know that having a big-ass aligence to microsoft is the main and possibly only reason that the Danish government not only won't pay the unemployed but won't use free software in their departments.
For those that have not seen ballmers optimism for Danmark should see that video you showed me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTMLfMPrUk8

A friend of mine, who has voted for a very left-wing political party through 15 years or so, contributes to KDE with Danish translation (And the guy does a damn good job!), and he also works on openSUSE. So if a person in Denmark, can only manage to afford a used computer without an operating system (We do have less privileged people and organizations in Denmark), he or she does indeed have free access to software they can use, and a degree of a right (Through the GPL) to receive it (The condition being the copyleft nature of the GPL).

I presume your friend is unemployed and contributing to KDE? I am also guessing that he gets the same amount of unemployment benefit to someone who does not contribute to free software and is unemployed.? It just so happens in his/her spare time they spend time contributing to KDE.
People can do really good honourable things when they unemployed. Its just that in reality most people have to do shitty boring jobs for some corporation to feed themselves or a family. Its goes back to RMS and working with propriety software being immoral.

[Tsuroerusu]

In my country we pay high taxes for the common good of the public as a whole. This is the financing of a universal healthcare system, education, eldercare, day care, unemployment support, student support, public pensions, maintenance of infrastructure and lots of other things. In Denmark we refer to all of those as "welfare". Oh, and by the way, when we have elections for government, it's something every single party needs to talk about (Even liberals, who in theory are against this sort of system), because if a government makes a reform that gives the public "less welfare" so to speak, the voters will totally slaughter them in an election.

That is a explanation of your welfare system, it does not mention anything about software, free or non-free. It is a system that I think works fairly well.
Its not a end solution to eradication of poverty, its more of a temporally means until something better is implemented. In england we have a similar system however after each election more tax cuts for the middle and high classes is enacted. The poor do not benefit this at all.

One obviously can't say that healthcare, or any of the other things I mentioned, doesn't cost anything, because citizens pay for it through taxes, however you can say that what I mentioned above, and a bunch of other stuff, is freely available, as in everybody having free (Read: liberty, or "fri" (Danish) ) access to it, and on top of that, if you loose your job, getting economical support from the government until you get a new job, is considered (In law) a degree of a right (The condition is that you need to be active in finding a new job, but that doesn't have to be in a single month at all).
The parallel I am trying to make to free software, is on the points of "freely available", and the "degree of a right", under some reasonable circumstances, to receive something or have access to something (This part is specific to copyleft licenses, such a the GPL and CDDL license). If the Danish state sponsored the development of free software, that would be "welfare" too (In Danish terms). So from my perspective (Which is that of a social democrat), free software is welfare, because it's a, in my opinion, huge benefit to the public and the country as a whole. So yes, free software might not directly pay taxes (Although indirectly it very much does), but that "loss" as your perspective your call it, equals to an investment the government might make in the development of free software (If I had my way, the Danish government would be doing so! Instead of sending that money out of the country, that then funds big business corporatism), although, in this fashion you could say that it's the people who decides what the government should spend money on.

I do like the flexcurity model you have, its something brown should follow up on . Your hypotheses that if you make free software and are unemployed you should get paid by the government does not exist in any control, its just a theory. You know that having a big-ass aligence to microsoft is the main and possibly only reason that the Danish government not only won't pay the unemployed but won't use free software in their departments.
For those that have not seen ballmers optimism for Danmark should see that video you showed me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTMLfMPrUk8

A friend of mine, who has voted for a very left-wing political party through 15 years or so, contributes to KDE with Danish translation (And the guy does a damn good job!), and he also works on openSUSE. So if a person in Denmark, can only manage to afford a used computer without an operating system (We do have less privileged people and organizations in Denmark), he or she does indeed have free access to software they can use, and a degree of a right (Through the GPL) to receive it (The condition being the copyleft nature of the GPL).

I presume your friend is unemployed and contributing to KDE? I am also guessing that he gets the same amount of unemployment benefit to someone who does not contribute to free software and is unemployed.? It just so happens in his/her spare time they spend time contributing to KDE.
People can do really good honourable things when they unemployed. Its just that in reality most people have to do shitty boring jobs for some corporation to feed themselves or a family. Its goes back to RMS and working with propriety software being immoral.

Your whole reply is based on a misinterpretation of what I wrote. I mentioned Denmark's welfare system to make an analogy between freely available public service that cost the government money (In other words "make the government have less money for other things") and free software, which is also freely available, although here the government does not get any money in the first place, so it's the same effect although different reasons. Sure, a poor person might just get an unauthorized copy of Windows and Microsoft Office, but poor people are the folks that are likely to look around for alternatives, so I think the chance of a poor person in Denmark discovering free software, is somewhat bigger than a poor person in China.
If you go onto the Danish version of Google and search for "gratis software": http://www.google.dk/search?hl=da&q=Gra ... ning&meta=
You see the GNU project as part of the results. I could imagine a person doing this at a library or something like that.

Sure, the majority of people in the world do not use GNU/Linux or free software, but to continue my analogy, I have not seriously used the Danish healthcare system since 1992 or something like that. So as far as I am concerned, in theory it does not make any direct difference, as long as I am not sick, that we have universal healthcare. So even though it may not matter to most people out there, that there are software freely available (In other words, freely available technology) that people can use, but to the people who do use GNU/Linux, it might matter.

My whole point is that public services such as healthcare costs money. Free software does not pay taxes directly, so the state has not income from free software in the first place, so it's a level playing field.